Will gas cars die?

[dahermit]

How many square feet would that be?

What is the point of your question? If you are implying that there would not be a large enough area to run the car, the answer would be, it does not matter. If you read my post again, you will see that I said the solar would be used in conjunction with a hybrid engine that uses gas and electricity.

Just FYI, there are solar powered(no gas at all), experimental cars that race across the U.S. now. They however, are light-weight creations for experimenting with the requirements of solar power and are not yet practical for common use.

All technologies must evolve from impractical to useful. Few technologies start out being useful or inexpensive.

The flying machine for example. As in solar powered vehicles, the first examples were almost useless for any purpose...but they did not remain that way. So, what is the usefulness of stating that solar cars are not useful? They have to EVOLVE!

 

[Dr.Who]

What is the point of your question? If you are implying that there would not be a large enough area to run the car, the answer would be, it does not matter. If you read my post again, you will see that I said the solar would be used in conjunction with a hybrid engine that uses gas and electricity.

Just FYI, there are solar powered(no gas at all), experimental cars that race across the U.S. now. They however, are light-weight creations for experimenting with the requirements of solar power and are not yet practical for common use.

All technologies must evolve from impractical to useful. Few technologies start out being useful or inexpensive.

The flying machine for example. As in solar powered vehicles, the first examples were almost useless for any purpose...but they did not remain that way. So, what is the usefulness of stating that solar cars are not useful? They have to EVOLVE!

Unless we have some extraordinary breakthroughs in solar panels not only will they not run the car but a hybrid car would split the energy drawn from gas/solar about 99.5/.5.

Today you could barely operate more than the radio with solar and no batteries. With batteries the weight would negate any assistance the solar offered.

I am all for the evolution of solar cars. They may get there some day (though not every cool useful idea imagined in science fiction has come to pass). Until then don't speculate on their creation with taxpayer funds.

 

[dahermit]

Unless we have some extraordinary breakthroughs in solar panels not only will they not run the car but a hybrid car would split the energy drawn from gas/solar about 99.5/.5.

Today you could barely operate more than the radio with solar and no batteries. With batteries the weight would negate any assistance the solar offered.

I am all for the evolution of solar cars. They may get there some day (though not every cool useful idea imagined in science fiction has come to pass). Until then don't speculate on their creation with taxpayer funds.

Hybrid cars use much less gas than non-hybrids. What is the problem with that?

Solar paint, charging the batteries as the car sits in the parking lot.
Lead-acid batteries are heavy. New battery technology is not lead based.
Experimental solar panel cars (and at least one huge ocean-going yacht), are already demonstrating that solar powered vehicles are possible. Such vehicles are not "science fiction".

With the continued rise in the price of gasoline, we have no choice.
I would much rather see public funds used to develop solar vehicles that the continued waste of tax-payer money wasted in the form of "oil depletion allowance", to oil companies.

Perhaps you should abandon your, "...if God wanted men to fly, he would have given them wings...", mind set. Such attitudes in the early 1900's was as counter-productive and unscientific as it is relative solar powered (assisted or completely powered), vehicles today.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hybrid cars use much less gas than non-hybrids. What is the problem with that?

Solar paint, charging the batteries as the car sits in the parking lot.
Lead-acid batteries are heavy. New battery technology is not lead based.
Experimental solar panel cars (and at least one huge ocean-going yacht), are already demonstrating that solar powered vehicles are possible. Such vehicles are not "science fiction".

With the continued rise in the price of gasoline, we have no choice.
I would much rather see public funds used to develop solar vehicles that the continued waste of tax-payer money wasted in the form of "oil depletion allowance", to oil companies.

Perhaps you should abandon your, "...if God wanted men to fly, he would have given them wings...", mind set. Such attitudes in the early 1900's was as counter-productive and unscientific as it is relative solar powered (assisted or completely powered), vehicles today.

How many years do you estimate until 50% of new cars sold are hybrids?

 

[dahermit]

How many years do you estimate until 50% of new cars sold are hybrids?

How many years did it take for the airplane to go from barely able to fly to a useful weapon during WWI?

How long did it take to put a man on the moon?

If there was a focused effort, how long would it take to be able to make hybrids at least 50% of the cars sold? The only thing stopping it now is the price.

 

[Dr.Who]

How many years did it take for the airplane to go from barely able to fly to a useful weapon during WWI?

How long did it take to put a man on the moon?

If there was a focused effort, how long would it take to be able to make hybrids at least 50% of the cars sold? The only thing stopping it now is the price.

Airplane was first invented in the 15th century. It first flew in 1903. WWII started in 1939 so the answer is between 5 centuries and 16 years. Assuming the electric car is more like the Wright plane, then the best answer is 16 years (pretending that it was useful right at the start).

The rocket on the other hand was first invented in the 9th century and man first made it to the moon in 1969. So the answer is about 11 centuries.

I still say that to move electric cars from what is envisioned now to affordably capturing much of the market is science fiction.

If we wanted to devote the entire GDP to developing the electric car we could probably do it practically in 10 years. But that would be foolish. That would be a harmful example of science fiction coming to life. If we wanted to just mandate that everyone buy an electric car tomorrow we could do it by tomorrow but that would be even more foolish. The base of my queston was that 20% of the cars SOLD are hybrids. I wanted to focus on when they are sold to people who want them because that means they are practical and affordable. Mandating their use assumes they are not practical or affordable.

Market forces will do it in probably 20 years, without making any sacrifices, in fact while promoting a healthy economy. This is plenty of time for us to depend on oil whle we are waiting. A 20 year lag time between the vision and the reality is a good example of science fiction coming to life.

 

[PLC1]

If the cost of gas keeps going up, it won't be long before more than half of the cars sold are hybrids. The auto industry reacts pretty quickly to technological problems like increasing fuel efficiency.

Prior to the OPEC crisis, most American cars were getting around 10-15 mpg. I know, because I owned several of them. Now, they do much better.

Another promising new technology is the hydraulic hybrid:

Hydraulic hybrids use many of the same principles as electric hybrids, but instead of using potentially pollutive (and heavy) batteries, they use lightweight components and clean fluid to power the vehicle while it's at slow speeds.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

How many years do you estimate until 50% of new cars sold are hybrids?

I think a better question would be a MPG average...as there are also some very efficient diesel models ( diesel turbos) There are many ways to make cars more efficient, Electric, Diesel turbo, hybrid....The key is less and less cars who get 23 mpg highway...and get closer to most having 35--40--50...ext...

a bump in the average mpg of cars of like 3 gals...is more gas in a year then we would get Drilling in Anwar....Its alot easier, better overall, and productive...to focus on better use of our fule then thinking we can just drill are way to cheap gas and no imports from overseas.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think a better question would be a MPG average...as there are also some very efficient diesel models ( diesel turbos) There are many ways to make cars more efficient, Electric, Diesel turbo, hybrid....The key is less and less cars who get 23 mpg highway...and get closer to most having 35--40--50...ext...

a bump in the average mpg of cars of like 3 gals...is more gas in a year then we would get Drilling in Anwar....Its alot easier, better overall, and productive...to focus on better use of our fule then thinking we can just drill are way to cheap gas and no imports from overseas.

Excellent point!

If we are going to evaluate the state of car improvements we should not just measure whether it is electric or not but how efficient it is.

Gas efficiency, i.e. MPG is a great start. We probably need a way to measure the combined efficiency of the gas consumed and the electricity consumed, so we can compare that to the cost of purchasing and maintaining a car.

 

[dogtowner]

just switch to natural gas until a valid alternative fuel can be found (hydrogen) or we get electric so cheap and easily powered that its viable (no batteries, power delivered on the spot.

 

[PLC1]

just switch to natural gas until a valid alternative fuel can be found (hydrogen) or we get electric so cheap and easily powered that its viable (no batteries, power delivered on the spot.

Natural gas is a viable short term alternative to ME oil. So is diesel made from coal. So is anything into oil.

We don't have to depend on the Middle East for our energy, so why do we?

 

[Dr.Who]

Natural gas is a viable short term alternative to ME oil. So is diesel made from coal. So is anything into oil.

We don't have to depend on the Middle East for our energy, so why do we?

You are hot today.

Yes we do not need to depend on the ME for oil, so why do we?

 

[PLC1]

You are hot today.

Yes we do not need to depend on the ME for oil, so why do we?

Must be national masochism or something.

 

[dahermit]

You are hot today.

Yes we do not need to depend on the ME for oil, so why do we?

We do not. We depend on Mexico and Canada for most of our oil. Only a small amount comes from the Middle East.

 

[dahermit]

Airplane was first invented in the 15th century. It first flew in 1903. WWII started in 1939 so the answer is between 5 centuries and 16 years. Assuming the electric car is more like the Wright plane, then the best answer is 16 years (pretending that it was useful right at the start).

The rocket on the other hand was first invented in the 9th century and man first made it to the moon in 1969. So the answer is about 11 centuries.

I still say that to move electric cars from what is envisioned now to affordably capturing much of the market is science fiction.

If we wanted to devote the entire GDP to developing the electric car we could probably do it practically in 10 years. But that would be foolish. That would be a harmful example of science fiction coming to life. If we wanted to just mandate that everyone buy an electric car tomorrow we could do it by tomorrow but that would be even more foolish. The base of my queston was that 20% of the cars SOLD are hybrids. I wanted to focus on when they are sold to people who want them because that means they are practical and affordable. Mandating their use assumes they are not practical or affordable.

Market forces will do it in probably 20 years, without making any sacrifices, in fact while promoting a healthy economy. This is plenty of time for us to depend on oil whle we are waiting. A 20 year lag time between the vision and the reality is a good example of science fiction coming to life.

You posted your typical twisted response. Our government (and those of the allies), had no interest in developing the airplane until war made it necessary. The development was only paid for by the governments after World War One (not WWII as you were mistaken about my post...read it again), had started. Therefore, the airplane was developed into a viable item in less than 3-4 years and continual got better.

Rocket to the moon. After the famous JFK speech, the government resources of rocket science developed the science of rocketry to the point of manned flight to the moon in a few short years.

Given that central team of this thread is that the Government should or should not spend money developing electric cars, why would it take any longer to do so than it took in the two examples?

Electric cars are a fact now...Even if it does not fit into your Conservative philosophy. Hybrid electric cars are on the highway now. Gas powered only on the highway; electric powered in the city where most of the driving is done. My son and daughter-in-law drive one.