Now if some drunk college kids can make an 11,516 mpg car, even if not practical, then engineers for car companies can do the same & have it be practical.
On Friday, just a day after breaking the 10,000 miles per gallon equivalent (mpge) barrier, the team set a new record of 11,516 mpge, although the car technically didn't use any gasoline at all. [b]Instead, it is an electric car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell which provides energy in place of a battery.[/b] The amount of hydrogen used was then converted into its gasoline equivalent using the energy density of the two fuels to make the comparison.
Now if we could just develop this technology on a broader scale.
Again if college students CAN do it, then someone with decades of experience has to INTENTIONALLY NOT be doing it.
Ding, Ding, Ding- no more calls, we have a winner.
I have to say, the vehicle they used was highly unpractical from a consumer vehicle stand point. Not sure you can hold that against the auto industry. Probably had no torque, no horse power. Can’t fit in it easily. Ultra light with high-grade, expensive materials. Not sure I can hold this against the auto industry. But 11k mmg vs 11 is a bit much. They could do better, I’m sure.
New technology costs more money and most people don’t want to spend more money on the car. That and so far power has won over efficiency. When I was in high school in 1990 a 5.0 mustang GT was puttin down HP in the mid 200s and that was a big deal. Now there are V6 4 door family sedans that put out 300+. You can complain about the car companies, but most buyers seem to choose power of MPG - at least that is how we have gotten to where we are.
My I-4 puts out 200 HP. Love my RSX!
And it gets (relatively) great gas mileage.
Ken, we have fuel cell cars. GM has a whole fleet of them. Unfortunately the technology is still too expensive to mass produce the cars.
[quote=“ChevEE, post:8, topic:23237”]Ken, we have fuel cell cars. GM has a whole fleet of them. Unfortunately the technology is still too expensive to mass produce the cars.[/quote] That’s the kind of thing we should be using our money on. Not banks and wars.
[quote=“49or bust, post:9, topic:23237”][quote=“ChevEE, post:8, topic:23237”]Ken, we have fuel cell cars. GM has a whole fleet of them. Unfortunately the technology is still too expensive to mass produce the cars.[/quote] That’s the kind of thing we should be using our money on. Not banks and wars.[/quote]I will agree with the bank side of that comment. I also think when auto manufacturers were bailed out they should have placed strict parameters on alternative fuel vehicle production. I still like the idea of Tesla and would love to see big money invested to get that operation moving quicker.
For real. There is no reason we can’t move to electric cars and still have fun electric cars too. Telsa has proven that. Just need to embrace it and fund it so we can make the transition happen faster.
Fuel cell cars are not practical. It takes more energy to separate hydrogen from water than what the hydrogen produces once separated. Also, with fuel cell technology, consumers would still be at the mercy of companies (likely still oil giants) to provide them with refueling stations.
I actually like the concept of compressed air cars. You can use your electrical outlet at home to compress the air, but it is also possible to build re-compression stations just like gas stations. Electric cars take too long to recharge, so they’re not really practical except as daily commuters unless they get the range over 300 miles. Even then, that’s still a pretty limited range for a road trip.
If we can get a man on the moon, then we can get a souped-up Hummer that is alt. energy friendly, gets over 50 mpg, & costs less than $15K so I can style & profile. 8)
[quote=“stonecoldken, post:13, topic:23237”]If we can get a man on the moon, then we can get a souped-up Hummer that is alt. energy friendly, gets over 50 mpg, & costs less than $15K so I can style & profile. 8)[/quote]If you want to bring the space program into your analogy, then don’t imply dropping sticker price on a vehicle by 60%.
Hey Tang & microwaves are cheap, & they’re from Nasa. :))
[quote=“stonecoldken, post:15, topic:23237”]Hey Tang & microwaves are cheap, & they’re from Nasa. :))[/quote] Tang is cheap?
Most of the taxis in Peru run on natural gas. Why can’t we do that here? It’s cheap as heck but cost a little to convert the cars. My father in law just got a brand new car that runs on natural gas. I took it for a spin last time I was there and it drove just fine and even had pretty good pick up.
The Ok St booster guy wants to do the NG thing. He’s a billionaire.
The best idea I’ve ever heard was converting cars to run off methane gas, which can be made sewage. That way, we solve 2 problems at once.
I’m all in favor of burning mathane from sewage and landfills to power power plants, but it’s not a great idea for cars. It smells. I for one don’t want every road in every city to smell like a porta john. If you drive by a sewage plant in Charlotte, the smell lingers for miles because they burn off the excess methane. You can see the giant flames at the Ballantyne sewage center from 485 in the winter. Failing to burn methane for power production however is a terrible mistake however. Methane releases the same amount of greenhouse gases into the air whether it is burned or released naturally through decomposition, so it’s essentially carbon neutral as an energy source.