Electric Motorcycle

[Burns]

Actually my "dream list" uses existing technologies for the most part. There is no "magic" in  electrifying a road way and mag-lev trains are running something like 200 mph in several places on earth right now.   Yellowstone is a super-volcano that could be tapped for a big chunk of the needed power and the Earth is hot everywhere if you dig deep enough (need some tech to dig the hole but then its just add water.

I don't see any of that getting funded of course.

But the oil depletion allowance will sail through Congress every time.

[JPaganel]

All IMHO:  What you really need is just enough batteries to power a maximum acceleration, for whatever time it takes your bike to get from zero to "ludicrous speed."  You need just enough fuel cell power to maintain a high cruising speed, with any surplus power going into the batteries. 

Charge time. Batteries take time to charge, and after a couple of theses speed bursts you will have to wait a bit.

Fuel cells can run on hydrogen (gasp! ) which you can crack from water at home using wind or solar power. 

Two things. One: getting hydrogen from water needs a lot of power. Two: The Earth-shattering kaboom. Hydrogen is hard to handle safely in quantity. Ever head of the Hindenburg?

Fuel cells also run on Natural Gas, maybe not so well, but LNG or CNG is cheap, available, and in the USA, it's locally produced.  The bike is still an electric bike, with any level of performance that you may want, but as a hybrid, now it has range, rapid refueling (or swap in a full cylinder, as the propane industry does now), and low fuel costs.  My US$0.02 worth.

Google Corporate now runs on Natural Gas fuel cells, with no outside electrical power at all.  This solution is not Science Fiction anymore.

Cheers,
Red

Natural gas is still a fossil fuel.

[JPaganel]

There is no "magic" in  electrifying a road way

There is, if you want it to work reliably year round in all climates and not kill anything that tries to cross the road. Over here we have snow and road salt.

[Burns]

(1) re: magic
Do you know what the "E Trains" in Chicago are? They are essentially a network of electrified rights-of-way. They run quite dependably in one of the snowiest cities in the US.

(2)re: " "get to no"
you originally took the position "As soon as there is an insta-charge battery the size and weight of a gas tank that can take you as far as a gas tank does, we will all plug in. "  but when a fuel-cell alternative was raised your response was "it is still a fossil fuel" which of course is totally irrelevant. 

You always seem to get to "no" no matter what the issue.

I often count myself among the contrarians and welcome counter-point as an energizing element to a conversation, However,  in your case, I think you have simply run out of gas.

[JPaganel]

(1) re: magic
Do you know what the "E Trains" in Chicago are? They are essentially a network of electrified rights-of-way. They run quite dependably in one of the snowiest cities in the US.

Never heard of an "E train". Have been on the El. Matter of fact, have a good friend working train maintenance in NYC subway.

The Chicago elevated trains are trains. They have rails, including a third rail, like all electric subways everywhere. Nobody in their right mind crosses the tracks because the 600 volts on the third rail will fry you. You were talking about "the road itself is electrified".

Once again - electric transportation is possible, proven and real. I don't argue with that.  In the form of trains, trolleys, and trolley buses it works great the world over.   An "electrified roadway" that works in any climate and doesn't kill any living thing crossing it is science fiction.

In theory, you could use induction, but the building and maintenance costs would be insane. Also, the safety of the magnetic fields needed to power a vehicle is not certain.

(2)re: " "get to no"
you originally took the position "As soon as there is an insta-charge battery the size and weight of a gas tank that can take you as far as a gas tank does, we will all plug in. "  but when a fuel-cell alternative was raised your response was "it is still a fossil fuel" which of course is totally irrelevant. 

You always seem to get to "no" no matter what the issue.

I often count myself among the contrarians and welcome counter-point as an energizing element to a conversation, However,  in your case, I think you have simply run out of gas.

It's you who keeps talking about abandoning fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, and so does not fit with your plan. Not mine.

Fuel cells for vehicles have been "almost ready" for decades, but it never actually seems to happen. I'm guessing it's the size and weight.

[red]

All IMHO:  What you really need is just enough batteries to power a maximum acceleration, for whatever time it takes your bike to get from zero to "ludicrous speed."  You need just enough fuel cell power to maintain a high cruising speed, with any surplus power going into the batteries.  

Charge time. Batteries take time to charge, and after a couple of theses speed bursts you will have to wait a bit.

NO!  Bad plan, man!  Fuel cells can charge batteries at any time when you are not making a maximum acceleration, that is, while cruising, stopping, or idling.  That is the beauty of a good hybrid design.  Now it would be true, you could shut down the fuel cells any time you are heading for a charging station (such as home or work) when you have enough power in the batteries to get there.  A GPS app could even do that for you.

Fuel cells can run on hydrogen (gasp! ) which you can crack from water at home using wind or solar power.  

Two things. One: getting hydrogen from water needs a lot of power. Two: The Earth-shattering kaboom. Hydrogen is hard to handle safely in quantity. Ever head of the Hindenburg?

One: You can crack hydrogen from water with wind power or solar power.  Sure, cracking hydrogen using house power is a losing deal, and it would be a very stupid approach.  You would not worry about wasting water if you had a waterfall outside the house, would you?  Wind power and solar power are waterfalls of free energy that we need to stop ignoring.  Check out "Artificial Photosynthesis" if you want to see sunlight+water become hydrogen now, in one step, with no moving parts.
Two: Dirigibles flew all over the world, from the early days of World War I.  Even aeroplanes with incendiary bullets were not very successful in bringing them down in WW-I.  The Hindenburg crash was an aircraft fire, not an explosion, as is obvious in the film of the disaster.  Of the 97 souls aboard, only about one-third were killed.  In a modern airliner crash, that result would be called a miracle.  There was no Earth-shattering kaboom.  It is now believed that the Hindenburg was brought down by a bomb, not by some accident.  Gasoline (and most fuels) will explode; we just need to learn how to handle them safely.  I'd like to see anybody trying to pollute the Gulf of Mexico with hydrogen; that would be impossible.
   

Fuel cells also run on Natural Gas, maybe not so well, but LNG or CNG is cheap, available, and in the USA, it's locally produced.  The bike is still an electric bike, with any level of performance that you may want, but as a hybrid, now it has range, rapid refueling (or swap in a full cylinder, as the propane industry does now), and low fuel costs.  My US$0.02 worth.
Google Corporate now runs on Natural Gas fuel cells, with no outside electrical power at all.  This solution is not Science Fiction anymore.
Cheers,
Red

Natural gas is still a fossil fuel.

Sure, and so what?  Once people see fuel cells working cheaply on Natural Gas, they might be more willing to see them work for free, on hydrogen that was cracked by Sun or wind power.

Cheers,
Red

[red]

Fuel cells for vehicles have been "almost ready" for decades, but it never actually seems to happen. I'm guessing it's the size and weight.

Yeah, probably just a matter of size and weight.  I expect that will change soon; a commercially available fuel cell
to power your entire house is about the size of a refrigerator or washing machine now.  This works:



Cheers,
Red

[JPaganel]

NO!  Bad plan, man!  Fuel cells can charge batteries at any time when you are not making a maximum acceleration, that is, while cruising, stopping, or idling.  That is the beauty of a good hybrid design.  Now it would be true, you could shut down the fuel cells any time you are heading for a charging station (such as home or work) when you have enough power in the batteries to get there.  A GPS app could even do that for you.

Maybe. I can't say for sure how well this would work without actually crunching some numbers, and since we don't have any specs for the batteries or the fuel cells in question, it's pretty much all guesswork.

One: You can crack hydrogen from water with wind power or solar power.  Sure, cracking hydrogen using house power is a losing deal, and it would be a very stupid approach.  You would not worry about wasting water if you had a waterfall outside the house, would you?  Wind power and solar power are waterfalls of free energy that we need to stop ignoring.  Check out "Artificial Photosynthesis" if you want to sunlight+water become hydrogen in one step, with no moving parts.

I live in the city. I have no room on my property for a windmill big enough to be useful. Windmills are highly dependent on placement. Out on the open plains, or on the coast somewhere they work a lot better. 

Solar... I keep seeing myself needing to shovel the roof in addition to the shoveling I already do, and it just doesn't seem all that appealing.

Artificial photosynthesis sounds cool, but they haven't got it stable. Now, regular photosynthesis has possibilities. There is supposed to be some bacteria, or algae, that pretty much produces diesel fuel. IIRC, works in the lab, they are working on scaling it up.

Two: Dirigibles flew all over the world, from the early days of World War I.  Even aeroplanes with incendiary bullets were not very successful in bringing them down in WW-I.  The Hindenburg crash was an aircraft fire, not an explosion, as is obvious in the film of the disaster.  Of the 97 souls aboard, only about one-third were killed.  In a modern airliner crash, that result would be called a miracle.  There was no Earth-shattering kaboom.  It is now believed that the Hindenburg was brought down by a bomb, not by some accident. 

Sabotage was actually the very first proposed cause. It has been dismissed as no evidence of a bomb was ever found. The latest thinking on the subject is that it was a leak combined with an electric spark of some sort. 

Gasoline (and most fuels) will explode; we just need to learn how to handle them safely.  I'd like to see anybody trying to pollute the Gulf of Mexico with hydrogen; that would be impossible.
      

Gasoline doesn't explode. Gasoline vapor does. Fortunately, you can smell it, and minimizing vaporization is pretty easy - just cap the can tight. Hydrogen is an odorless gas, under high pressure. You expect the average schmoe who can't figure  out his turn signals to be safe with it? 

Natural gas is still a fossil fuel.

Sure, and so what? 

Ask Burns. He's the one talking about going electric to get away from fossil fuels.

[Pat Conlon]

Two: Dirigibles flew all over the world, from the early days of World War I.  Even aeroplanes with incendiary bullets were not very successful in bringing them down in WW-I.  The Hindenburg crash was an aircraft fire, not an explosion, as is obvious in the film of the disaster.  Of the 97 souls aboard, only about one-third were killed.  In a modern airliner crash, that result would be called a miracle.  There was no Earth-shattering kaboom.  It is now believed that the Hindenburg was brought down by a bomb, not by some accident. 

It is interesting to note that majority of the deaths from the Hindenburg was due to the burning diesel fuel (used for the engines) and not from the burning of the hydrogen. The hydrogen flared straight up, the diesel fuel covered the ground.

Hydrogen is the key to the future.

[red]

Artificial photosynthesis sounds cool, but they haven't got it stable.

Funny, this does not look unstable to me.  Scroll forward to 2 minutes, 57 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLGIVm-B2A#t=2m57s

Cheers,
Red

[JPaganel]

Funny, this does not look unstable to me.  Scroll forward to 2 minutes, 57 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLGIVm-B2A#t=2m57s

Cheers,
Red

That's because you are seeing a few seconds of a lab experiment. As I understand it, when it's scaled up, there are some issues with longevity of the setup.

[Burns]

" my guess is that the Rockefellers et.al  will morph over to dominate the new technology and shift their economic power base when it is most advantageous for them to do so"

My crystal ball seems to be onto something.  Check this out:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/rockefeller-climate-change-campaign/2014/09/22/id/596004/?ns_mail_uid=83726319&ns_mail_job=1587022_09222014&s=al&dkt_nbr=ebpjqhgj

[Pat Conlon]

The article was silent as to what specifically they are (soberly) putting their money into....

[Burns]

The article was silent as to what specifically they are (soberly) putting their money into....

reckon they are hedging their bets?