Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Andres125sx]

Australia is a perfect example for hydrogen creation and use; there is enough potential renewable energy to be able to supply for electrical demand and create a huge hydrogen store.

I´ve just read an article stating exactly the same... about Spain. I guess both are correct, except Australia is a bit bigger so its potential is also some small factor bigger too, but only about 15x

[Big Tea]

Australia is a perfect example for hydrogen creation and use; there is enough potential renewable energy to be able to supply for electrical demand and create a huge hydrogen store.

I´ve just read an article stating exactly the same... about Spain. I guess both are correct, except Australia is a bit bigger so its potential is also some small factor bigger too, but only about 15x

Hydrogen (probably) cheaper to export than coal too, especially if the vessel is also powered by it.

Speaking of which. Spain and North Africa would be well placed to fuel ships passing in and out of the Med. ( and around the Med of course )

[djos]

Fusion Power might not be 30 years away after all!

[Greg Locock]

The whole green hydrogen (ie solar+water=hydrogen) thing is actually getting into gear. The idea is simple, but there are many complexities. In particular, once you have a H2 gas at STP you have to pressurise it, to make it dense enough to be worth transporting, or, and this gets interesting, turn it into ammonia, or methane. Either of those can be used directly in gas turbines, solving the flight problem (he says glibly) and are much easier to handle than compressed H2.

When your tanker arrives at civilisation the ammonia or CH4 can be reformulated into H2 by known processes, or the ammonia can be used to make fertiliser, currently a great source of CO2.

There are several H2 projects at industrial scale in development, although sadly a few of those are using the stupid fossil fuel approach.

This table gives 77 but some of them are non fliers

https://research.csiro.au/hyresource/pr ... acilities/

[Big Tea]

Fusion Power might not be 30 years away after all!

(youtu.be/-KEwkWjADEA)

I did see it, and really, really hope it is the real thing, but.. 'ready in 4 years' and now we just have to finish designing and building it' sounds like a bit of a conflict.
Still, fingers crossed.

Me, I still hold out hope for cold fusion, so my opinions can probably be dismissed

[Zynerji]

Fusion Power might not be 30 years away after all!

(youtu.be/-KEwkWjADEA)

I did see it, and really, really hope it is the real thing, but.. 'ready in 4 years' and now we just have to finish designing and building it' sounds like a bit of a conflict.
Still, fingers crossed.

Me, I still hold out hope for cold fusion, so my opinions can probably be dismissed

I think we're trying too big in the Fusion space. Design basketball sized one, not a stadium sized one. The forces should be exponentially easier to handle.

[gruntguru]

I am determined to maintain the characteristics of the original!

Maintaining the characteristics of the original is simply imposible I´m afraid. Well, if you´re ok with 50km range then maybe, but if not, then it will be heavier for sure.

To keep same characteristics you´d need to install batteries into the trunk to keep it balanced (assuming batteries on the front)

Stu. I assume you mean handling characteristics and not power/torque characteristics as suggested by Tonmy. You would be crazy not to take advantage of the enormous power spread of the electric motor and eliminate the mass of the gearbox (allowing more batteries). (That also moves the electric motor back for better weight distribution and lower polar moment of inertia.) Locate battery mass low and close to the CG. If you can achieve 50:50 weight distribution, lower CG and reduce polar moment from stock you will have improved handling.

[gruntguru]

I think we're trying too big in the Fusion space. Design basketball sized one, not a stadium sized one. The forces should be exponentially easier to handle.

The physics dictates the size. To go smaller you need stronger magnets.

[Zynerji]

I think we're trying too big in the Fusion space. Design basketball sized one, not a stadium sized one. The forces should be exponentially easier to handle.

The physics dictates the size. To go smaller you need stronger magnets.

Or electromagnets that get stronger as they draw power from the fusion reaction? Like a cancellation wave that self balances with the reaction?

[gruntguru]

All fusion research reactors are using the strongest magnets they can. They are pushing the maximum current through them already.

[Zynerji]

All fusion research reactors are using the strongest magnets they can. They are pushing the maximum current through them already.

aah. enter the superconductors.

[Stu]

I am determined to maintain the characteristics of the original!

Maintaining the characteristics of the original is simply imposible I´m afraid. Well, if you´re ok with 50km range then maybe, but if not, then it will be heavier for sure.

To keep same characteristics you´d need to install batteries into the trunk to keep it balanced (assuming batteries on the front)

Stu. I assume you mean handling characteristics and not power/torque characteristics as suggested by Tonmy. You would be crazy not to take advantage of the enormous power spread of the electric motor and eliminate the mass of the gearbox (allowing more batteries). (That also moves the electric motor back for better weight distribution and lower polar moment of inertia.) Locate battery mass low and close to the CG. If you can achieve 50:50 weight distribution, lower CG and reduce polar moment from stock you will have improved handling.

Thank you, that is exactly what I am looking at doing, early research is indicating that it would be possible to put quite a lot of battery within the transmission tunnel if I can get pouch-style batteries, this would allow for the inverters to be arranged under the bonnet and a decent cooling, AC and power-steering system to be included. Motor would be rear mounted in a purpose built frame, either driving the existing differential or potentially a pair of motors (one per rear wheel, but would use original driveshafts). Mass and availability would determine this. Charging would be taken care of by AC and DC systems mounted where the fuel tank currently sits.
This should leave the existing boot and interior totally stock-appearing.
A full flat floor would be incorporated for improved aerodynamics and ‘skid’ protection.

Measurements need to be taken to calculate the battery pack size to get some idea of mass and expected range. Motor requirement will be arranged around existing power/weight ratio.
As mine is an auto anyway, it does weigh more than the original 960kg, the target is still to minimise the amount of added mass. Everything removed will be weighed, everything added will be weighed!

[Tommy Cookers]

... Stu. I assume you mean handling characteristics and not power/torque characteristics as suggested by Tonmy. You would be crazy not to take advantage of the enormous power spread of the electric motor and eliminate the mass of the gearbox (allowing more batteries). (That also moves the electric motor back for better weight distribution and lower polar moment of inertia.) Locate battery mass low and close to the CG. If you can achieve 50:50 weight distribution, lower CG and reduce polar moment from stock you will have improved handling.

the power spread of the EM is essentially the same (as the ICE could be today if that's what people wanted)
EM torque is (current) capped at low rpm for thermal reasons and (voltage) capped at high rpm for energy reasons

a gearbox is fundamentally beneficial to the EM as it is to the ICE
an automatic transmission is very helpful to an EM retrofit eg in starting, accelerating, and hill climbing ....
and potentially much simplifying and improving in efficiency the electrical side
a DIY job (avoiding the 3 year waiting list)
1890s EM technology would work nicely (with the auto transmission)


yes I knew Stu meant handling ...

higher polar M of I increases the margin between heave and pitch natural frequencies - improving the ride
short wheelbase cars like the MX5 (and the 911, VW beetle, Morris Minor etc) could benefit from this (on EM retrofit)
what people often call PMI is really the relationship of PMI to 'fixing moment' (wheelbase squared)
ie so-called low PMI cars are also mostly shorter wheelbase - so aren't truly low PMI ....
but swb's increased weight transfer both in corner exit and entry is beneficial to expert drivers
truly lower PMI departs quicker even in steady cornering (without the above benefits)
and PMI is really the inertia about the PM centre not the cg
anyway low PMI is unlikely in this retrofit case

[Just_a_fan]

If you can achieve 50:50 weight distribution, lower CG and reduce polar moment from stock you will have improved handling.

Bearing mind that the mass of the required batteries will likely require stiffer springs to carry the weight, which might adversely affect handling unless care is taken in matching them and the dampers, bushes, etc. Also, the extra mass might push some suspension components closer to their limits - a 1t car will have less meat in components than a 1.5t car, obviously.

[gruntguru]

I think we are currently assuming that Stu intends to avoid a mass increase and accept whatever range penalty that involves.