Nissan Looking At Roadbed Electrification
Bret Cahill
in an 18" diameter slotted pipe under the roadbed is best for the
freeways.
Bret Cahill
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
cars all about the same size.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
John Larkin
Imagine the added distraction of drivers worrying about that, too.
Imagine the electrical efficiency while you're at it.
The gasoline-powered IC engine is a technological wonder. It starts
instantly, has lots of power, is reliable, and can go most anywhere,
300 miles at at time between 5-minute refuels.
John
Bret Cahill
> >in an 18" diameter slotted pipe under the roadbed is best for the
> >freeways.
>
> >Bret Cahill
>
> Imagine the added distraction of drivers worrying about that, too.
Smart steering and braking would make driving much safer and easier w/
or w/o without electrification.
The only hope is to go to higher and higher technology.
> Imagine the electrical efficiency while you're at it.
That's the argument for trolley rail or wire.
Maybe the Japanese have less potholes as well as less petroleum than
the US which may be why they are considering it first.
> The gasoline-powered IC engine is a technological wonder. It starts
> instantly, has lots of power, is reliable, and can go most anywhere,
> 300 miles at at time between 5-minute refuels.
Best of all ICE only costs 2 cents/watt -- the cheapest prime mover
ever!
If they can get rid of the rare earth metals in performance electric
motors and if the price of copper doesn't soar too much then EV and
hybrid drive trains might eventually be only a few cents/watt too.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > in an 18" diameter slotted pipe under the roadbed is best for the
> > freeways.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Slotted "roadways" only work indoors sheltered from the elements for toy
> cars all about the same size.
That 40 mile bridge section of I-10 through the bayou west of New
Orleans could have the wires _under_ the bridge.
Bret Cahill
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> >in an 18" diameter slotted pipe under the roadbed is best for the
>> >freeways.
>>
>> >Bret Cahill
>>
>> Imagine the added distraction of drivers worrying about that, too.
>
> Smart steering and braking would make driving much safer and easier w/
> or w/o without electrification.
>
> The only hope is to go to higher and higher technology.
Toyota is sure doing a good job of it.
"Toyota's runaway-car worries may not stop at floor mats"
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-recall18-2009oct18,0,739395.story
>> Imagine the electrical efficiency while you're at it.
>
> That's the argument for trolley rail or wire.
>
> Maybe the Japanese have less potholes as well as less petroleum than
> the US which may be why they are considering it first.
The fast there only about 79 million total vehicles (buses, cars,
motorbikes, etc) in Japan and the US has about 251 million cars alone
has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.
Bret Cahill
> >> >in an 18" diameter slotted pipe under the roadbed is best for the
> >> >freeways.
>
> >> >Bret Cahill
>
> >> Imagine the added distraction of drivers worrying about that, too.
>
> > Smart steering and braking would make driving much safer and easier w/
> > or w/o without electrification.
>
> > The only hope is to go to higher and higher technology.
>
> Toyota is sure doing a good job of it.
>
> "Toyota's runaway-car worries may not stop at floor mats"
>
>
> >> Imagine the electrical efficiency while you're at it.
>
> > That's the argument for trolley rail or wire.
>
> > Maybe the Japanese have less potholes as well as less petroleum than
> > the US which may be why they are considering it first.
>
> The fast there only about 79 million total vehicles (buses, cars,
> motorbikes, etc) in Japan and the US has about 251 million cars alone
> has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.
Economies of scale are always important.
We need to get everyone to agree to the same system.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> > in an 18" diameter slotted pipe under the roadbed is best for the
> >> > freeways.
>
> >> > Bret Cahill
>
> >> Slotted "roadways" only work indoors sheltered from the elements for toy
> >> cars all about the same size.
>
> > That 40 mile bridge section of I-10 through the bayou west of New
> > Orleans could have the wires _under_ the bridge.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> You haven't a clue why they put freeways on bridges in Louisiana, do you?
They're afraid of gators.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> >Induction may make sense in parking lots or city streets but the wire
>> >in an 18" diameter slotted pipe under the roadbed is best for the
>> >freeways.
>>
>> >Bret Cahill
>>
>> Imagine the added distraction of drivers worrying about that, too.
>
>Smart steering and braking would make driving much safer and easier w/
>or w/o without electrification.
So sell your car and take the train.
>
>The only hope is to go to higher and higher technology.
Only hope? My car works just fine.
>
>> Imagine the electrical efficiency while you're at it.
>
>That's the argument for trolley rail or wire.
>
>Maybe the Japanese have less potholes as well as less petroleum than
>the US which may be why they are considering it first.
>
>> The gasoline-powered IC engine is a technological wonder. It starts
>> instantly, has lots of power, is reliable, and can go most anywhere,
>> 300 miles at at time between 5-minute refuels.
>
>Best of all ICE only costs 2 cents/watt -- the cheapest prime mover
>ever!
>
>If they can get rid of the rare earth metals in performance electric
>motors and if the price of copper doesn't soar too much then EV and
>hybrid drive trains might eventually be only a few cents/watt too.
Unlikely. Batteries are expensive, short-lived, heavy, toxic, and slow
to recharge. Roadbed electrification is absurd.
So, what do you drive?
John
John Larkin
We already have, and it works great.
John
Bret Cahill
> >> >in an 18" diameter slotted pipe under the roadbed is best for the
> >> >freeways.
>
> >> >Bret Cahill
>
> >> Imagine the added distraction of drivers worrying about that, too.
>
> >Smart steering and braking would make driving much safer and easier w/
> >or w/o without electrification.
> So sell your car and take the train.
Ever try to deliver red leaf lettuce with a train?
Even more on point, driving "by the seat of your pants" isn't cute.
It isn't romantic.
It's dangerous. It's a complete waste of brain cells' time.
> >The only hope is to go to higher and higher technology.
> Only hope? My car works just fine.
Even if yours does others' don't.
> >> Imagine the electrical efficiency while you're at it.
> >That's the argument for trolley rail or wire.
> >Maybe the Japanese have less potholes as well as less petroleum than
> >the US which may be why they are considering it first.
> >> The gasoline-powered IC engine is a technological wonder. It starts
> >> instantly, has lots of power, is reliable, and can go most anywhere,
> >> 300 miles at at time between 5-minute refuels.
> >Best of all ICE only costs 2 cents/watt -- the cheapest prime mover
> >ever!
> >If they can get rid of the rare earth metals in performance electric
> >motors and if the price of copper doesn't soar too much then EV and
> >hybrid drive trains might eventually be only a few cents/watt too.
> Unlikely. Batteries are expensive, short-lived, heavy, toxic, and slow
> to recharge. Roadbed electrification is absurd.
Batteries can be much smaller and/or last much longer if they are
infrequently used.
> So, what do you drive?
I just called up GEICO and told them it was in "storage." I only use
it in emergencies.
Bret Cahill
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> I just called up GEICO and told them it was in "storage." I only use
> it in emergencies.
>
That goes a long way in explaining why you appear to know little to
nothing about how vehicles and roads work in the real world.
Bret Cahill
> > it in emergencies.
> That goes a long way in explaining why you appear to know little to
> nothing about how vehicles and roads work in the real world.
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
Some German study said everyone on the plant must get down to 2.5 tons/
year.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
Stop breathing. That will help me meet my quota.
John
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
roads work in the real world?
But since fires annually generate far more CO2 than all normal human
activities, if you want to reduce CO2 levels, invest in firemen.
Bret Cahill
> >> > it in emergencies.
>
> >> That goes a long way in explaining why you appear to know little to
> >> nothing about how vehicles and roads work in the real world.
>
> >http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
>
> >Some German study said everyone on the plant must get down to 2.5 tons/
> >year.
>
> >Bret Cahill
>
> Stop breathing. That will help me meet my quota.
Renewables like food aren't included, or they are only included as far
as the energy required to grow and transport the food.
Some algae can grow in petroleum. If that were used as food then
(356 days/year)(8,000 BTU/day)/(16,000 BTU/lb) = 178 lbs carbon/year
= 650 lbs CO2/year.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> > it in emergencies.
>
> >> That goes a long way in explaining why you appear to know little to
> >> nothing about how vehicles and roads work in the real world.
>
> >http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
>
> > Some German study said everyone on the plant must get down to 2.5 tons/
> > year.
> What has this to do with your lack of knowledge about how vehicles and
> roads work in the real world?
What does your question begging have to do with anything on this
thread?
> But since fires annually generate far more CO2 than all normal human
> activities, if you want to reduce CO2 levels, invest in firemen.
That's exactly what they are trying to do: put out the fires in the
cylinders of your motor vehicle.
Bret Cahill
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> >> > it in emergencies.
>>
>> >> That goes a long way in explaining why you appear to know little to
>> >> nothing about how vehicles and roads work in the real world.
>>
>> >http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
>>
>> > Some German study said everyone on the plant must get down to 2.5 tons/
>> > year.
>
>> What has this to do with your lack of knowledge about how vehicles and
>> roads work in the real world?
>
> What does your question begging have to do with anything on this
> thread?
It goes to why your schemes to save the world are nonsense in the real
world.
>> But since fires annually generate far more CO2 than all normal human
>> activities, if you want to reduce CO2 levels, invest in firemen.
>
> That's exactly what they are trying to do: put out the fires in the
> cylinders of your motor vehicle.
The point went over your head as usual.
The amount of CO2 generated by cars compared to the amount of CO2 generated
by fires is so tiny is like an ant pissing in the Pacific Ocean.
If all the cars in the world dissapeared, you would hard pressed to be
able to measure the difference.
And then there are volcanoes...
Bret Cahill
> by fires is so tiny is like an ant pissing in the Pacific Ocean.
Forests -- including their fires -- are sustainable.
This falls under the same kind of ignorant scam argument as "but water
vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas" and "but a lot of artic ice is
refreezing right now . . ."
> If all the cars in the world dissapeared, you would hard pressed to be
> able to measure the difference.
Depends on if the cars burned fossil fuels.
> And then there are volcanoes...
More of the usual ignorant talking points of deniers.
Why didn't you try the water vapor scam?
Saving that for later?
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
You've got to catch me first, and I bet your car won't be able to
catch my car.
John
Bret Cahill
They'll just tax it at the pump. They don't need to put out all the
fire all the time.
Bret Cahill
John Fields
Bret Cahill
famous for its exposé of so-called "blood diamonds" – pointed to an
impending supply shock that could be so severe that many of the
world's poor countries would simply be shut off from the world of
energy by sky-high prices.
Two years in the preparation, Global Witness's report, Heads in the
Sand, accused governments of ignoring the fact that the world could
soon start to run short of oil. This would lead to huge consequences
in terms of price shocks and much higher levels of violence around the
world than last year's food riots.
"There is a train crash about to happen from an energy point of view.
But politicians everywhere seem to have entirely missed the scale of
the problem," said the report's author, Simon Taylor.
"We are all addicted to oil but if you look at the mathematics of the
problem, they simply don't add up in terms of future supply and
demand."
The report went through the latest figures from the oil industry and
the Paris-based International Energy Agency, which last year
drastically reduced its estimate of the available oil.
The IEA figures showed there could be a gap of 7m barrels a day
between supply and demand by 2015. That represents about 8% of the
expected world demand by then of 91m barrels a day.
The IEA expects production from existing oilfields to fall by 50%
between now and 2020 and warned the world needs to find an additional
64m barrels a day of capacity by 2030 – equivalent to six times
current Saudi Arabian production.'
John Larkin
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> >> > I just called up GEICO and told them it was in "storage." �I only use
>> >> > it in emergencies.
>>
>> >> That goes a long way in explaining why you appear to know little to
>> >> nothing about how vehicles and roads work in the real world.
>>
>> >http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
>>
>> >Some German study said everyone on the plant must get down to 2.5 tons/
>> >year.
>>
>> >Bret Cahill
>>
>> Stop breathing. That will help me meet my quota.
>
>Renewables like food aren't included, or they are only included as far
>as the energy required to grow and transport the food.
There was an ecoloonie on NPR the other day, analysing the carbon
footprint of browsing the Internet. He's concerned that clicking on a
site may move disk heads somewhere halfway around the world and cause
some power station to make more CO2. He figured that intensive web
browsing generates about 1.5x the CO2 of the person sitting there
clicking his mouse and breathing.
Think of how much more CO2 that person would generate if they got up
and walked around or (gasp) ran or (even worse) cooked dinner.
John
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
They tout all these low power consumption circuits, sleep mode etc.,
as though that's a drop in the bucket.
Maybe high efficiency is good for battery powered devices but if they
think that'll save our fannies from peak oil they are bat crap crazy.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
Peak oil seems to always be off in the future. Recent discoveries in
recovering oil and gas from shale have hugely multiplied likely
reserves. And new drilling keeps finding more oil.
Good; I just bought a 3.3 liter V6.
John
Bret Cahill
> >> >> >> > it in emergencies.
>
> >> >> >> That goes a long way in explaining why you appear to know little to
> >> >> >> nothing about how vehicles and roads work in the real world.
>
> >> >> >http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
>
> >> >> >Some German study said everyone on the plant must get down to 2.5 tons/
> >> >> >year.
>
> >> >> >Bret Cahill
>
> >> >> Stop breathing. That will help me meet my quota.
>
> >> >Renewables like food aren't included, or they are only included as far
> >> >as the energy required to grow and transport the food.
>
> >> There was an ecoloonie on NPR the other day, analysing the carbon
> >> footprint of browsing the Internet. He's concerned that clicking on a
> >> site may move disk heads somewhere halfway around the world and cause
> >> some power station to make more CO2. He figured that intensive web
> >> browsing generates about 1.5x the CO2 of the person sitting there
> >> clicking his mouse and breathing.
>
> >> Think of how much more CO2 that person would generate if they got up
> >> and walked around or (gasp) ran or (even worse) cooked dinner.
>
> >They tout all these low power consumption circuits, sleep mode etc.,
> >as though that's a drop in the bucket.
>
> >Maybe high efficiency is good for battery powered devices but if they
> >think that'll save our fannies from peak oil they are bat crap crazy.
>
> Peak oil seems to always be off in the future.
Actually it was a couple years ago.
One optimist called it "the long goodbye" but as it stands now we are
looking at "a non Hollywood ending."
> Recent discoveries in
> recovering oil and gas from shale have hugely multiplied likely
> reserves.
That'll be the end of the lower Colorado River.
> And new drilling keeps finding more oil.
The "proven reserves" are giving out much faster than expected wiping
out anything from any new discoveries.
> Good; I just bought a 3.3 liter V6.
Better than a Hummer.
Bret Cahill
Nobody
>>Maybe high efficiency is good for battery powered devices but if they
>>think that'll save our fannies from peak oil they are bat crap crazy.
>>
>
> Peak oil seems to always be off in the future.
Actually, it seems to have been about a year ago (July 2008, 74.82MBD).
Unless oil prices skyrocket, that may well turn out to be the all-time
peak.
> Recent discoveries in recovering oil and gas from shale have hugely
> multiplied likely reserves.
Er, no. If anything, those discoveries are below what has been assumed by
previous long-term predictions.
> And new drilling keeps finding more oil.
"Peak oil" doesn't mean "no more oil". It means that production
costs are on a permanent upward trend as you have to expend ever
increasing effort for a given amount of oil.
> Good; I just bought a 3.3 liter V6.
Look forward to paying $10/gallon within the vehicle's lifetime.
John Larkin
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>'A report from the non-governmental organisation Global Witness �
>famous for its expos� of so-called "blood diamonds" � pointed to an
>impending supply shock that could be so severe that many of the
>world's poor countries would simply be shut off from the world of
>energy by sky-high prices.
>
>Two years in the preparation, Global Witness's report, Heads in the
>Sand, accused governments of ignoring the fact that the world could
>soon start to run short of oil. This would lead to huge consequences
>in terms of price shocks and much higher levels of violence around the
>world than last year's food riots.
>
>"There is a train crash about to happen from an energy point of view.
>But politicians everywhere seem to have entirely missed the scale of
>the problem," said the report's author, Simon Taylor.
>
>"We are all addicted to oil but if you look at the mathematics of the
>problem, they simply don't add up in terms of future supply and
>demand."
>
>The report went through the latest figures from the oil industry and
>the Paris-based International Energy Agency, which last year
>drastically reduced its estimate of the available oil.
>
>The IEA figures showed there could be a gap of 7m barrels a day
>between supply and demand by 2015. That represents about 8% of the
>expected world demand by then of 91m barrels a day.
There's never a gap between supply and demand. There's just a price.
John
Bret Cahill
> >impending supply shock that could be so severe that many of the
> >world's poor countries would simply be shut off from the world of
> >energy by sky-high prices.
>
> >Two years in the preparation, Global Witness's report, Heads in the
> >Sand, accused governments of ignoring the fact that the world could
> >soon start to run short of oil. This would lead to huge consequences
> >in terms of price shocks and much higher levels of violence around the
> >world than last year's food riots.
>
> >"There is a train crash about to happen from an energy point of view.
> >But politicians everywhere seem to have entirely missed the scale of
> >the problem," said the report's author, Simon Taylor.
>
> >"We are all addicted to oil but if you look at the mathematics of the
> >problem, they simply don't add up in terms of future supply and
> >demand."
>
> >The report went through the latest figures from the oil industry and
> >the Paris-based International Energy Agency, which last year
> >drastically reduced its estimate of the available oil.
>
> >The IEA figures showed there could be a gap of 7m barrels a day
> >between supply and demand by 2015. That represents about 8% of the
> >expected world demand by then of 91m barrels a day.
>
> There's never a gap between supply and demand. There's just a price.
Depends on if the current is limited by a resistor and/or cap or by a
circuit breaker.
A free marketeer might want to avoid a fuse if it's at all possible.
I'm considering such a on/off solution but I'm not really happy about
it.
Bret Cahill