T Nation

Who Killed The Electric Car!

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

This looks like an interesting movie. I’m going to read more about it as I do remember this car from 10 years ago. They touted it as the beginning of the end of our massive oil dependency. Just skimmin the subject shows a great deal of underhanded doings.

It doesnt have anything to do with oil companies trying to put the car down. If the economics of it are favorable the elecric car would be made in big numbers…but that probagbly won’t happen for a while.

The current batteries , the lithium ion are expensive as holy hell , not because they just started making them and research costs must be recovered , but because lithium itself is expensive and all of these huge lithium ion batteries would jack the price up even more. Its a rare mineral. Mabey we could use something else i don’t know.

I’ve looked up the price of lithium when this hybrid craze started and it was one of the most expensive metals then, im sure that its higher now.

Use a cell phone? your battery is probably a lithium iion battery, the thing is as big as a cracker but it cost me $30. Now imagine what it would cost for an electric car… and then add on to it the huge increase in demand if electric cars catch on. Zap wuz right they just aren’t feasible.

Stonecutters. They also made Steve Guttenberg a star…

C

Maybe this will be the replacement for the electric car:

[quote]lumbernac wrote:
I’ve looked up the price of lithium when this hybrid craze started and it was one of the most expensive metals then, im sure that its higher now.

Use a cell phone? your battery is probably a lithium iion battery, the thing is as big as a cracker but it cost me $30. Now imagine what it would cost for an electric car… and then add on to it the huge increase in demand if electric cars catch on. Zap wuz right they just aren’t feasible.[/quote]

Not to mention how quickly lithium batteries degrade in quality over time. Although with a battery strong enough to power a car, I don’t know if it would break down quckly enough to lower the useable time of a car.

I dont know enough about the story to form an opinion on it. I just did a quick glance at it on the web. When I read deeper into the subject I’ll be more informed to give my opinion. I will be seeing the movie, should be interesting.

[quote]Creidem wrote:
Stonecutters. They also made Steve Guttenberg a star…

C[/quote]

Beat me to it.

The water engine is sweet-ass. I want one. No, make it three.

[quote]Jason32 wrote:
Maybe this will be the replacement for the electric car:

That is amazing!

[quote]Fonebone wrote:
Jason32 wrote:
Maybe this will be the replacement for the electric car:

That is amazing!
[/quote]

Yea, I had that same reaction.

I wonder how long this would take to get to the consumer?

Will big oil attempt to block it?

Is it really practical?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Fonebone wrote:
Jason32 wrote:
Maybe this will be the replacement for the electric car:

That is amazing!

Yea, I had that same reaction.

I wonder how long this would take to get to the consumer?

Will big oil attempt to block it?

Is it really practical?[/quote]

My guess is that the consumer will never see this. Big business will no doubt put the kibosh on this quick fast in a hurry.

In the past the process of electrolysis to break water apart always took more energy than you got back when re-combining the hydrogen and oxygen. I don’t know how he could yield a net positive energy from the two way reaction. Yet it seems to work in the video.

I suspect there’s more to it. His flame seems to be blue, and a true hydrogen flame is virtually invisible. I suspect he adds something into the mix, and that’s where the net energy comes from. It just burns very efficiently with the H2 and O.

As for the oil companies, I wouldn’t worry too much about them. They’ll still sell all the oil to make plastics and other modern compounds. It’s not just about gasoline, although that is a huge part of their profit equation.

If the oil companies were smart (and with Harvard MBAs that’s doubtful) they would realize they could jump on the new technology bandwagon and make water engines, effectively remaking their companies.

[quote]yorik wrote:
In the past the process of electrolysis to break water apart always took more energy than you got back when re-combining the hydrogen and oxygen. I don’t know how he could yield a net positive energy from the two way reaction. Yet it seems to work in the video.

I suspect there’s more to it. His flame seems to be blue, and a true hydrogen flame is virtually invisible. I suspect he adds something into the mix, and that’s where the net energy comes from. It just burns very efficiently with the H2 and O.

As for the oil companies, I wouldn’t worry too much about them. They’ll still sell all the oil to make plastics and other modern compounds. It’s not just about gasoline, although that is a huge part of their profit equation.

If the oil companies were smart (and with Harvard MBAs that’s doubtful) they would realize they could jump on the new technology bandwagon and make water engines, effectively remaking their companies.[/quote]

Yeah. But you realize how much money that would cost them?

Everyone’s got water. It’s practically free. What would they sell? Acessories for your water powered engines?

[quote]yorik wrote:
If the oil companies were smart (and with Harvard MBAs that’s doubtful) they would realize they could jump on the new technology bandwagon and make water engines, effectively remaking their companies.[/quote]

It was back around 2001, I think, where I heard an interview on the CBC with a former oil exec from BP. He was talking about how British Petroleum had, as part of their new green mandate, spent millions on refitting their oil wells to reduce energy waste and pollution. However, after doing so they discovered that the efficiency of the wells increased well beyond their projections, and they ended up recapping the cost of the refits in short order, and increasing their profit margin. They were blown away by this and, as a big PR move for BP, were ready to share this technology with other oil companies.

What confused the hell out of him, he said, and shocked everyone at the company, was that the American corporations wanted nothing to do with it. Rejected the technology out of hand.

They approached the American goverment. Surely something like this might at least be interesting from a legislative point of view? Nope. Soundly rebuffed.

There are so many issues with electric cars, etc.

Its not that the concepts don’t work, they do. But they have only been around a short time whilst normal cars have been around for about 100 yeas. If you have issues with these new cars you have to find someone who understands them, pay for parts that are very expensive, and may just end up having more problems. Whilst with normal cars parts are cheap, available and we have generally got mechanics that have seen every issues involved with them.

No one will buy electric cars because of this. Not atleast until electric cars are economically cheaper then standard cars. Once oil prices hit the roof, maybe. Until then most people would prefer to stay with their normal, minimal attention requiring car.

We will probably move to coal-powered cars as a source of energy.

Headwaters Inc has a coal-liquification technology that it uses to turn coal into diesel.

The U.S. has about 200 years worth of coal, we’re like Saudia Arabia.

Just remember you can’t generate more energy than you put in.

You can’t violate the laws of thermodynamics.

It’s funny, because you can describe it as a game which you have to play, in which there is no way out, and at best you break even.

[quote]yorik wrote:
In the past the process of electrolysis to break water apart always took more energy than you got back when re-combining the hydrogen and oxygen. I don’t know how he could yield a net positive energy from the two way reaction. Yet it seems to work in the video.

I suspect there’s more to it. His flame seems to be blue, and a true hydrogen flame is virtually invisible. I suspect he adds something into the mix, and that’s where the net energy comes from. It just burns very efficiently with the H2 and O.

As for the oil companies, I wouldn’t worry too much about them. They’ll still sell all the oil to make plastics and other modern compounds. It’s not just about gasoline, although that is a huge part of their profit equation.

If the oil companies were smart (and with Harvard MBAs that’s doubtful) they would realize they could jump on the new technology bandwagon and make water engines, effectively remaking their companies.[/quote]

I agree with your post wholeeheartedly.

I suspicion too that the H2O car will still need a battery or something to initiate electrolysis. A solar panel or even a human cranked flywheel would be “greener” though.

[quote]Beatnik wrote:
There are so many issues with electric cars, etc.

Its not that the concepts don’t work, they do. But they have only been around a short time whilst normal cars have been around for about 100 yeas. If you have issues with these new cars you have to find someone who understands them, pay for parts that are very expensive, and may just end up having more problems. Whilst with normal cars parts are cheap, available and we have generally got mechanics that have seen every issues involved with them.

No one will buy electric cars because of this. Not atleast until electric cars are economically cheaper then standard cars. Once oil prices hit the roof, maybe. Until then most people would prefer to stay with their normal, minimal attention requiring car.[/quote]

I’m very sure 100 years ago they said the same thing about cars vs. horses…

Lumbernac,

the process you’re talking about was invented by the nazi’s in world war 2.