Notices
Car Chat General discussion about Lexus, other auto manufacturers and automotive news.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Innova

EPA: 75mpg by 2030

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 12:28 AM
  #16  
forpinks's Avatar
forpinks
Driver School Candidate
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: NV
Default

I can't wait to have an electric supercar! Electric motors could hit 100MPH in like 2 neck snapping seconds. And run for free with a bunch of solar panels in you backyard and roof.
Reply
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 07:33 AM
  #17  
bagwell's Avatar
bagwell
Lexus Champion
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Liked
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 11,204
Likes: 11
From: The Woodlands, TX
Default

Originally Posted by forpinks
I can't wait to have an electric supercar! Electric motors could hit 100MPH in like 2 neck snapping seconds. And run for free with a bunch of solar panels in you backyard and roof.

great! another person is with me!!!

I'll wave bye-bye to you V8 ICE guys when I blow past you in my electric

Last edited by bagwell; Apr 17, 2008 at 07:40 AM.
Reply
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 08:19 AM
  #18  
Vlad_Stein's Avatar
Vlad_Stein
Lead Lap
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
From: northern ca
Default

Originally Posted by bagwell
what problem?

can you say SOLAR!?!?!?

install enough solar panels on your home's roof and you can sell power back to the grid! more than enough to charge an electric car (electric car makers can/should install panels on the hood and roof of cars to assist in the re-charge).

if that's not enough, coal is in abundance and new coal fired plants don't pollute as much as the equivalent number of ICE vehicles it replaces would.

last resort.....build more nuclear powerplants.

all of this means less foreign oil bull**** to deal with.
Well, the problem is mankind's high energy consumption. Don't forget that solar power on the roof of your home is not feasible everywhere (some places are not sunny enough, some places are very dusty). It is also expensive to buy and install and not many regular folks can afford it.

I personally like the nuclear option (provided we can bury the waste appropriately). However, don't think that it does not have its own side effects. Sure, nuclear powerplants do not produce CO2 that a lot of people are very concerned about, but they do produce a lot of (by-product) heat, so you're still contributing to global warming. Nuclear powerplants are usually located near a large body of water for secondary cooling and the water there is probably significantly warmer than if the plant was not there.

I have read that coal power plants are very cheap to build but expensive to run, while the nuclear ones are the reverse of that. Plus, to be completely fair, nuclear power plants are potential targets for terrorists. I saw a program that focused on inadequate security at these installations and their succeptibility to a coordinated terrorist attack. To beef up the security at these installations would add to costs of the energy, but I would take that over the alternative any day.
Reply
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 09:09 AM
  #19  
bagwell's Avatar
bagwell
Lexus Champion
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Liked
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 11,204
Likes: 11
From: The Woodlands, TX
Default

Originally Posted by Vlad_Stein
Don't forget that solar power on the roof of your home is not feasible everywhere (some places are not sunny enough, some places are very dusty). It is also expensive to buy and install and not many regular folks can afford it.
true, but the price of solar panels would be dramatically lower if mass produced [and sold by walmart].

...and I don't know of any place that the sun doesn't shine...except for the poles in winter...ok and Seattle
Reply
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 09:27 AM
  #20  
SilverBull's Avatar
SilverBull
Advanced
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 554
Likes: 3
From: NV
Default

To the person that thinks we should just throw up some solar panels on our roof...That won't work my friend. The energy we get from Solar is so small that you could barely run your house off of it let alone a car along with the house. Solar energy isn't being used because you need panels the size of a baseball field to generate any real power. It just isn't efficient. That is NOT the future.
Reply
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 09:54 AM
  #21  
bagwell's Avatar
bagwell
Lexus Champion
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Liked
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 11,204
Likes: 11
From: The Woodlands, TX
Default

Originally Posted by SilverBull
To the person that thinks we should just throw up some solar panels on our roof...That won't work my friend. The energy we get from Solar is so small that you could barely run your house off of it let alone a car along with the house. Solar energy isn't being used because you need panels the size of a baseball field to generate any real power. It just isn't efficient. That is NOT the future.
ok, yep you're right it won't 100% replace anything so let's just give up on
the technology.


or we can try to make the technology BETTER.....



The US Department of Energy announced on Tuesday that a project it funded had set a new world's record for solar cell efficiency. According to DOE's press release,

...with DOE funding, a concentrator solar cell produced by Boeing-Spectrolab has recently achieved a world-record conversion efficiency of 40.7 percent, establishing a new milestone in sunlight-to-electricity performance. This breakthrough may lead to systems with an installation cost of only $3 per watt, producing electricity at a cost of 8-10 cents per kilowatt/hour, making solar electricity a more cost-competitive and integral part of our nation’s energy mix.

Let's give this some context:

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Fourth Edition, concentrator solar technologies "...produce electricity at solar-to-electric efficiencies for the system of up to 30%." In the best case scenario for cells used with this technology, the Data Book reports efficiencies of 27-39%, with pre-commercial models averaging 15-24%.
A post at Slashdot points to a German site that shows where to best place solar sites for matching the world's energy consumption (2003 figures) based on an 8% efficiency rate. The Slashdot writer notes "At 40% efficiency, it looks like a square 265 miles on a side in the American southwest would do it.
While we're still a ways off from commercially-available technology with that kind of punch, this is promising news. Vinod Khosla likely feels vindicated... ::US Department of Energy via Slashdot
Reply
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 02:24 PM
  #22  
Vlad_Stein's Avatar
Vlad_Stein
Lead Lap
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
From: northern ca
Default

Originally Posted by bagwell
true, but the price of solar panels would be dramatically lower if mass produced [and sold by walmart].

...and I don't know of any place that the sun doesn't shine...except for the poles in winter...ok and Seattle
You're right - the sun shines everywhere, but it does not always get to the ground level (because of clouds, pollution, trees blocking potential installation spots on the roof, lattitude, etc.). You have to weigh the amount of electricity that you could get out of them against the cost of purchase and installation. In some places like Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, it may make sense. In others it probably won't.
I think that presently, solar panels are not a viable alternative, but hey, if they make some progress on efficiency and price, and god forbid, the government steps in with tax breaks and what not, I am all for it...
Reply
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 02:47 PM
  #23  
LexFather
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Originally Posted by bagwell
ok, yep you're right it won't 100% replace anything so let's just give up on
the technology.


or we can try to make the technology BETTER.....



The US Department of Energy announced on Tuesday that a project it funded had set a new world's record for solar cell efficiency. According to DOE's press release,

...with DOE funding, a concentrator solar cell produced by Boeing-Spectrolab has recently achieved a world-record conversion efficiency of 40.7 percent, establishing a new milestone in sunlight-to-electricity performance. This breakthrough may lead to systems with an installation cost of only $3 per watt, producing electricity at a cost of 8-10 cents per kilowatt/hour, making solar electricity a more cost-competitive and integral part of our nation’s energy mix.

Let's give this some context:

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Fourth Edition, concentrator solar technologies "...produce electricity at solar-to-electric efficiencies for the system of up to 30%." In the best case scenario for cells used with this technology, the Data Book reports efficiencies of 27-39%, with pre-commercial models averaging 15-24%.
A post at Slashdot points to a German site that shows where to best place solar sites for matching the world's energy consumption (2003 figures) based on an 8% efficiency rate. The Slashdot writer notes "At 40% efficiency, it looks like a square 265 miles on a side in the American southwest would do it.
While we're still a ways off from commercially-available technology with that kind of punch, this is promising news. Vinod Khosla likely feels vindicated... ::US Department of Energy via Slashdot

That is great work
Reply
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 05:46 PM
  #24  
Nextourer's Avatar
Nextourer
Lexus Champion
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,192
Likes: 3
From: none
Default

Originally Posted by RX_330
It just won't be the same. F/I V6 may get the same power as a V8, but you don't get the natural beefiness of a V8, you don't get the noise of a V8, it's just not the same.

I guess I better buy a warehouse and buy as many performance cars as I can.
Then you'll be friends of all who are blind . Cause the rest of us in EV sports cars are apparently a hazard to them
Reply
Old Apr 17, 2008 | 09:56 PM
  #25  
G Star's Avatar
G Star
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,973
Likes: 48
From: California
Default

Originally Posted by RX_330
It just won't be the same. F/I V6 may get the same power as a V8, but you don't get the natural beefiness of a V8, you don't get the noise of a V8

BEEFINESS?


sorry man but beefiness is what brought America to it's knees...
Reply
Old Apr 18, 2008 | 04:17 AM
  #26  
RX_330's Avatar
RX_330
Lexus Test Driver
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 9
From: Michigan
Default

Originally Posted by Xotic sC
BEEFINESS?


sorry man but beefiness is what brought America to it's knees...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eOLq07VwSE


I don't really care for American cars.
Reply
Old Apr 18, 2008 | 06:39 AM
  #27  
SLegacy99's Avatar
SLegacy99
Lead Lap
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,534
Likes: 0
From: MD
Default

Dear automakers,

I need better gas mileage now. Please give us direct injection, smaller displacements with turbos, hybrids, diesels, CVTs, active fuel management, lighter cars, etc.

Ben
Reply
Old Apr 18, 2008 | 08:00 AM
  #28  
bitkahuna's Avatar
bitkahuna
CL Community Team
iTrader: (20)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 80,472
Likes: 3,828
Default

Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX
This is getting silly. We need to look at our structering of business/homes/entertainment. If you don't HAVE to drive, you won't.

We need to look at mass transit as a serious option and build to make it easy to use.

As long as we have developers who just want to build a 4 lane road with exits all over, the problem will get worse.

I don't have the math but we have more cars on the road than ever. More cars+higher MPG=the same oil usage.
More cars comes from more prosperity, increasing population, and 'higher expectations'. By the last I mean in times past, maybe not every kid got a car IMMEDIATELY upon turning 16. Now it seems like many do, with high school parking lots FILLED to overflowing.

Also, I don't have stats to back it up but my perception is that cars have gotten SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper (when inflation is taken into account). What you can buy for $20K today for example is truly amazing compared to something of corresponding price 30 years ago.

With cheaper new cars and rapid innovation in safety and features brings downward BIG pressure on used car prices, so cars are again, much more affordable and accessible.

Let's face it, people only take the bus or subway if they're either broke, can't drive, or it really is more convenient than a car (like in DC or NYC for example).

These trends are not about to stop, so expect MORE cars on the road. In particular, increasing life expectancy and continued big population growth guarantee we're going to have big jumps in the number of vehicles on the roads. Cities will become more and more clogged because the politicians lack the courage to tackle the problem fearing the bonds or taxes now for less pain down the road will force them out of office.

It's a mess. Some bright spots: more 'information workers' will work remotely, and more high rise condos/apartments will be built in cities for people to get to work quickly and hopefully without driving. And other transportation options like Segues, scooters, electric carts and moving sidewalks will come into play.
Reply
Old Apr 18, 2008 | 08:14 AM
  #29  
Threxx's Avatar
Threxx
Lexus Champion
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,474
Likes: 2
From: Tennessee
Default

I have a feeling that 22 years from now 'mpg' isn't even going to be a commonly spoken term.
Reply
Old Apr 18, 2008 | 10:09 AM
  #30  
Nextourer's Avatar
Nextourer
Lexus Champion
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,192
Likes: 3
From: none
Default

Originally Posted by bitkahuna
Let's face it, people only take the bus or subway if they're either broke, can't drive, or it really is more convenient than a car (like in DC or NYC for example).
Or in my case, a transit authority that doesn't give a crap about customer service and services only half the region and forces university students to buy a pass then claim "ridership is up" (no shh**** cause you forced like 500,000 students to pay for it) and then can't meet the demands as students wait 7 busses before boarding. Oh.. and if there's any money problem, it isn't the fact that they spend $50,000 on glass bus stops do nothing to protect you from sun, wind or rain, but rather it's the fact they haven't gotten enough money from the taxpayers. Oh.. and the board is self-elected.

/rant
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:22 AM.