Car of the future, future of the automobile, quotes

[Capt_Maloche]

Bush may well be clever with his team of oil-military-industrialists ... it won't last, barely 20 or 30 years, and more ...

He doesn't care, he'll be dead by then

[Woodcutter]

Hi Christopher,

Good set of quotes; professional deformation requires, I will give the good points and bad points

Well, I'm going to strike with an ax ...

We will have to reinvent automobile pleasure (...) H2 vehicles will represent the real technological leap, but it will take 20 to 30 years to resolve the issue of energy storage.

--
Hydrogen as an energy vector is pure utopia.

A bit short as an answer, from a teacher, in a scientific subject moreover ...

If nothing is done, the transport sector will soon be the main contributor to CO2 emissions

from the EU Environment Agency, March 2008
--
FALSE, it is habitat and industry.

Bad reading!
The person cited speaks in the future, and in addition does not speak of France ... I actually think, given the trends in industry and housing, that transport as a whole will go ahead if we do not force them Very strongly.

The electric car, the only one to offer zero polluting emissions, will, over time, gain the advantage over all other alternative energies.

March 2008
--
FALSE : the electricity currently used is polluting by its modes of production.

Too generalist as an answer, just like Ghosn's statement ...
The electric car can claim to be the only one that does not emit in use polluting emissions and, moreover, electricity production is potentially relatively clean ...

It's a nice car. It is equipped with a Fuel Cell supplied with H2. She doesn't reject anything

designer of the Honda Puyo.
--
FALSE : The generation of H2 is even more polluting than that of electricity.

The same ! Abusive generalization ...

Moreover, taking into account the efficiencies in the use of electrical energy in a vehicle and in the electrical production of a fuel cell, it seems to me that even the production of H2 from light hydrocarbons presents a CO2 balance at the present time better than a heat engine.

[Remundo]

Well, lumberjack, here are ax blows well sent

I will try to answer quickly because I don't have much time.

Hydrogen as an energy vector is pure utopia, in fact, because an energy vector must be easy to store, transport and transfer, and above all, have a high density of energy volume.

However, hydrogen is zero on all its points: it is a gas, very flammable in air, of very low energy density, even compressed to 300 Bar (which wastes the compression energy in the process). Very difficult transfer (large pumps and very expensive valves), storage ditto (700 bar tank ...). It also diffuses through any metal. Series 7 tanks empty after a few weeks if not in use, like a porous inner tube ...

On the other hand, and this is my personal idea, hydrogen must be generated in situ in the automobile from electroposive metals (sodium, aluminum) and water.

It is well known that it is housing and industry that consume more than half of the world's oil. The share of transport is about 1/3. Now for the future ... it might not change that much.

The electric car can claim to be the only one that does not emit in use polluting emissions and, moreover, electricity production is potentially relatively clean ...

Come on Lumberjack, the clean electric car is a big joke. In France, it is a nuclear car, in Germany, a coal car.

The electric car only has the cleanliness of the electricity it used ...

Moreover, taking into account the efficiencies in the use of electrical energy in a vehicle and in the electrical production of a fuel cell, it seems to me that even the production of H2 from light hydrocarbons presents a CO2 balance at the present time better than a heat engine.

May be ? Anyway, the generation of H2 is done either from petroleum reforming or from nuclear electricity / coal / petroleum, and H2 in the energy chain, as that vector, generates many losses: in its formation, in its compression, in its decompression ... So the car with H2 is even more polluting than the pure electric car, and that in an obvious way.

@+

[jonule]

clean nuclear electric car?
you imply that nuclear is clean, lumberjack?
a little swim in the rhone with your kids? or do you prefer to defend the electric car?

[Woodcutter]

Hey, the two autistic people there, you know we can make electricity with a lot of stuff that doesn't ARE NOT nuke?

[...] It also diffuses through any metal. Series 7 tanks empty after a few weeks if not in use, like a porous inner tube ... [...]

Hmmm ... from what I know, it's an evaporation problem (which creates an overpressure) which forces this slow emptying of the 7h tanks ...
The tanks intended for the on-board storage of H2 are precisely not made of metal, probably to avoid this kind of problem.

[...] It is well known that it is the habitat and the industry which consume more than half of the world oil. The share of transport is about 1/3. Now for the future ... it might not change that much.

Ouaaaaah ... What are you a teacher?
If transport is 1/3, and the housing + industry sum is barely more than 1/2, we can see that indeed, transport can be, or will be, the biggest contributor ...

[...] Come on Lumberjack, the clean electric car is a big joke. In France, it is a nuclear car, in Germany, a coal car.

The electric car only has the cleanliness of the electricity it used ...

Certainly that's exactly what I'm saying ...
You can "feed" an electric car properly, and its low appetite (or its high efficiency, it is the same) is a big advantage in use.

[...] and H2 in the energy chain, as that vector, generates many losses: in its formation, in its compression, in its decompression ... So the car with H2 is even more polluting than the pure electric car, and that in an obvious way.

Always the same ! Abusive generalization ...
I hope you don't teach your students to think like this ...
Again, it all depends on how the H2 is produced.

Jonule, if I answer you, it will irritate me again, so I let it go ...

[jonule]

[friendly mode ON] and don't you know how to talk to France without getting upset? [friendly mode OFF]
no but without laughing Lumberjack for me it is supposed to be constructive, the proof:

I am not against electricity but against the way of producing it by the nuclear industry, I am sure that you understood, and that I am certainly not the only one!

i just read
"Too generalist as an answer, just like Ghosn's assertion ...
The electric car can pride itself on being the only one that does not emit for the use of polluting emissions and moreover, electricity production is potentially relatively clean...
"
a slight quack that slipped there, right? or the term "potentially relatively" is to be developed? -)

.....
well, now what bothers me: a plug connected to the mains does not guarantee that the electricity is of renewable origin!

this is where the bottom hurts, and when we see that the forcing is done at the political level so that the EPR plants are built and take the top of the renewable NRJs, there is reason to doubt not?

if green electricity means 1 wind turbine that produces and the rest is nuclear, it is really not credible, even downright hypocritical.
the growing number of electric vehicles will give rise to the pretext of nuclear power plants in + it seems obvious and disastrous from any point of view.

Unless the EPR project, at the base of 3 billion which has now doubled to 6 billion, is "wiped out"? ........

[Woodcutter]

[...] I just read
"Too generalist as an answer, just like Ghosn's assertion ...
The electric car can pride itself on being the only one that does not emit for the use of polluting emissions and moreover, electricity production is potentially relatively clean...
"
a slight quack that slipped there, right? or else the term "potentially relatively" needs to be developed? -) [...]

"Potentially", that just means that we CAN (the verb to be able) to make electricity with fairly low environmental impacts ...
Your blocking on the nuke means that as soon as we talk about electricity, all you see is that, it's sad ...

[jonule]

ok, but I understood reassure you ;-)
we must not say sorry, I find it sad that people rush to the electric car because oil is increasing, without paying attention to what it generates.

every time I see "nuke" I have to say "no, we must not popularize the dangerousness of nuclear power, and even we have to look at what this generates in terms of waste, etc ...."
it's too easy on a forum French consumers, not to pay attention to the way the NRJ is produced.

you have to understand: in a context where we are trying to reduce electricity consumption, adding a pretext is a bit disconcerting.
I insist heavily but I'm sure it will have its effect ;-)

we would have talked about a car that runs on biogas made from our sorted and monitored waste (pig slurry, cow, wastewater treatment plants) and which does not pollute the atmosphere (3000 times worse than CO2) by added activities (we are supposed to do without cow's milk and the meat must be consumed in moderation), possibly liquefied gas, then I would have said YES.

but the pretext of nuclear makes me puke, sorry.

electric car = nuclear car.

there is a difference between "we can do it" and "we do it".
The proof: the budget for the development of renewable NRJs has been cut by that of nuclear.

is enough to be green anyway, right?

[Remundo]

It is not with me that we should titillate Lumberjack.
Here, look at this, taken on the fly on the net (I don't have time to look too much ...),
http://www.science-decision.fr/cgi-bin/ ... ?sujet=ECO

In France, road transport is primarily responsible for CO2 emissions (26,4% of CO2 emissions against 25,3% for housing, 21,9% for industry, 12,9% for the production of energy, 10,5% for agriculture). In cities, they produce 90% of the CO2 present at ground level. Between 1990 and 2002, CO2 emissions from transport increased by 20% and from housing by 9%, while they decreased in all other sectors.

So in France, the share of the truck driver is less than 1/3 in the oil consumption.

But like a bunch of gas heating, in industry, and also deforestation ... that's what it looked like in 2004
http://www.manicore.com/documentation/serre/GES.html

Breakdown by activity of CO2 emissions alone in the world in 2004 (source IPCC). We note that the world's largest source is the production of electricity. We understand then that, given the levels of reduction that it would be desirable to achieve if we are serious about the phenomenon, that the fight against the greenhouse effect will be more easily won if we do not refuse. the use of nuclear power.

So transport is still a long way from being the primary source of GHGs, and as I announced, the industry emits a lot more (52% on its own)

And besides, I agree with Jonule in saying that nuclear power is not all clean, so the electric car in France either.

The only way out is to make it 100% renewable. And it is possible ...

[Remundo]

Ah, I can't help myself ...

Not too generalist as an answer?

Friendly!