THE FOLLOWING PAPER WAS SENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION HEAD AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA).
This article is to point out the many fallacious notions and approaches to electric car designs and finally suggests an approach which, hopefully, the Department of Energy will sponsor.
To begin: electric cars which charge their batteries from the grid are highly regional in their efficacy. A car like the Tesla, for example, may make sense in Washington State or in Western New York where the energy source for the grid is predominately hydro. Also in regions where solar, wind and geothermal are available, and where nuclear power plants generate electrical energy. The latter may be significant, furnishing nineteen percent of US Power, but the other sources are insignificant. By far the greatest part of US energy is supplied by coal and natural gas burning plants (sixty-four percent). Because of the low thermal efficiency of these plants, the thermal efficiency of electric cars that draw from the grid runs less than that of most modern gasoline powered cars.This has huge negative implications.
We arrive then, at the question: “Are there other approaches to electric car designs?” We soon discover that there are two general approaches: electric cars that have a large bank of batteries and draw from the grid and electric cars that have on-board generation from various sources with a modest complement of batteries. The first approach has engendered an assortment of research and development programs to develop a lighter weight, more efficient, long life and less costly battery.
But it does nothing to reduce the electric car’s dependence on fossil fuels. A continued trend and expansion along this line has ominous log term consequences. It is because of the gradual conversion of coal burning plants to “natural gas” which occurs as both fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel....the latter in prodigious amounts, probably world-wide, yet to be uncovered. The salt brines deep under the states of Louisiana and Texas alone contain an estimated deposit of methane amounting to 150,000 quads (annual total energy consumption in the United States is 70 quads). Burning and subsequent release of all that carbon as carbon dioxide is unthinkable.
With on-board generation, one immediately comes up with either hydrogen fuel cells (as far back as 1947 Allis-Chalmers built and demonstrated a tractor that ran on methane fuel cells). But besides the question of safety and doubtfulness that
This article is to point out the many fallacious notions and approaches to electric car designs and finally suggests an approach which, hopefully, the Department of Energy will sponsor.
To begin: electric cars which charge their batteries from the grid are highly regional in their efficacy. A car like the Tesla, for example, may make sense in Washington State or in Western New York where the energy source for the grid is predominately hydro. Also in regions where solar, wind and geothermal are available, and where nuclear power plants generate electrical energy. The latter may be significant, furnishing nineteen percent of US Power, but the other sources are insignificant. By far the greatest part of US energy is supplied by coal and natural gas burning plants (sixty-four percent). Because of the low thermal efficiency of these plants, the thermal efficiency of electric cars that draw from the grid runs less than that of most modern gasoline powered cars.This has huge negative implications.
We arrive then, at the question: “Are there other approaches to electric car designs?” We soon discover that there are two general approaches: electric cars that have a large bank of batteries and draw from the grid and electric cars that have on-board generation from various sources with a modest complement of batteries. The first approach has engendered an assortment of research and development programs to develop a lighter weight, more efficient, long life and less costly battery.
But it does nothing to reduce the electric car’s dependence on fossil fuels. A continued trend and expansion along this line has ominous log term consequences. It is because of the gradual conversion of coal burning plants to “natural gas” which occurs as both fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel....the latter in prodigious amounts, probably world-wide, yet to be uncovered. The salt brines deep under the states of Louisiana and Texas alone contain an estimated deposit of methane amounting to 150,000 quads (annual total energy consumption in the United States is 70 quads). Burning and subsequent release of all that carbon as carbon dioxide is unthinkable.
With on-board generation, one immediately comes up with either hydrogen fuel cells (as far back as 1947 Allis-Chalmers built and demonstrated a tractor that ran on methane fuel cells). But besides the question of safety and doubtfulness that
insurance companies will approve the garaging of hydrogen or natural gas fuel cell
powered cars, there are other serious considerations. Where does hydrogen come
from? The standard industrial process makes it from methane, with attendant release
of the compound’s carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Another method is
electrolysis at off-peak hours in generating plants. This might be effective in hydro
plants, but doubtfully elsewhere. Meanwhile, California has inexplicably embarked
on creating a distribution of hydrogen gas stations.
With all the questions raised and doubtful gains of on-board generation with fuel cells, there is still a better way to build an electric car, with unassailable benefits. Still favoring on-board generation of power, it is a design that uses a high- performance biodiesel generator that runs at constant speed to keep a small bank of batteries charged, taking advantage of the fact that current development points to diesel efficiencies approaching fifty percent. Availability of biodiesel fuel is growing. California already has nineteen biodiesel dispensing stations.
Such an automobile could easily boast of a thousand mile range. Moreover, it has added flexibility in that short trips like to the grocery store needn’t start the diesel engine, and if on a long trip one runs out of fuel, batteries are enough to make it to the next biodiesel pump.
Creation of a demonstrator by the EPA as a model for the automotive industry would be a relatively simple engineering effort and could be done for under $100K. Strongly recommended is an RFP to do this, with appropriate funding.
With all the questions raised and doubtful gains of on-board generation with fuel cells, there is still a better way to build an electric car, with unassailable benefits. Still favoring on-board generation of power, it is a design that uses a high- performance biodiesel generator that runs at constant speed to keep a small bank of batteries charged, taking advantage of the fact that current development points to diesel efficiencies approaching fifty percent. Availability of biodiesel fuel is growing. California already has nineteen biodiesel dispensing stations.
Such an automobile could easily boast of a thousand mile range. Moreover, it has added flexibility in that short trips like to the grocery store needn’t start the diesel engine, and if on a long trip one runs out of fuel, batteries are enough to make it to the next biodiesel pump.
Creation of a demonstrator by the EPA as a model for the automotive industry would be a relatively simple engineering effort and could be done for under $100K. Strongly recommended is an RFP to do this, with appropriate funding.
