Last post on Apr 06, 2006 at 10:04 PM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
#18 of 47 Re: [robertsmx]
Jan 26, 2005 (9:45 am)
Really? How do you know?
My solar yard lights lasted a couple years. I have cheapo plugin light strings that are 5 years old and still work fine. The sun is hard on anything that is exposed to it for a long time. Why would Honda use Solar? Good PR maybe? It does make you look green even if you are not. Remember who did the most research on Solar cells, ARCO now owned by British Petroleum.
Jan 26, 2005 (1:31 pm)
If they lasted couple of years, they saved you a few bucks during the time. And out in the sun, they dealt with the same elements that those getting energy supply from electrical outlet.
Good PR is part of doing business. Name a company that doesnít rely on it. However, thatís not the end game. Cutting down costs plays a major role in the bottom line of companies. A company like Honda couldnít ignore one for the other given that it likes to diversify the knowledge base and yet end up being one of the most profitable automaker.
And it isnít just solar energy that is part of the equation. There is more! If it were all about PR, I can bet you would have heard about them.
Jan 26, 2005 (1:41 pm)
"If that were practical, Iím sure that would be the route taken. But, it is fantasy at the moment given the technology on hand."
Not really. I know several dozen people who operate their cars on pure solar. I know zero who operate H2 fuel cells.
The solar is practical and doable NOW.
The H2 won't be ready until 2030...and that's being optimistic.
#21 of 47 Re: [electrictroy]
Jan 26, 2005 (1:47 pm)
If you donít know a few people who are driving around in their fuel cell vehicles today, it doesnít mean that technology doesnít exist and is practically used every day.
And nobody is suggesting solar power isnít practical. Iíve quoted myself using it in some forms. However, in cars, we have a long way to go otherwise thatís where the automakers would have jumped in otherwise they would be blatantly ignoring the obvious. What do you think?
#22 of 47 Nuclear Power
Jan 27, 2005 (1:45 pm)
Wind energy prices have declined from 18 cents / KWH to 4 cents / KWH making it more affordable, however Solar power is still unaffordable, but it will be cheaper in the future.
However for extracting Hydrogen or supplying electricity for vehicles, it will be NUCLEAR power which will do the job efficiently as the current nuclear power plants operate for 90 % of the time in a year, whereas SOLAR, WIND, HYDEL
operate for only around 30 - 50 % of the time in a year.
Jan 31, 2005 (8:44 am)
I suspect by the year 2050, most people will be driving short-range EVs (~50 miles) with on-board engines for long-distance. Also known as "serial hybrids".
Some will have solar roofs.
Feb 17, 2005 (7:35 pm)
Here's a good, clear link showing how much solar energy the earth receives.
Technology can only work to collect the energy at the density it hits. It can and never will multiply the energy. Now since that energy is spread out and many times clouds interfere, so they'd need to be spreadout, all you'd neded to do is cover 10% of the Earth's surface with solar panels. Maybe in northern areas where the sun isn't so direct, 50% solar panel coverage would be needed.
That'll be pretty tough to do when the world's population starts moving to 20B people and the extra farm land that will be needed to feed 3X the number of people now. Say 5X the energy we use now.
Look, you seem like a nice person with good intent. But the numbers do not add up. If we don't find a powerful new energy source and it has to be nuclear for that, whether it is 100 or 200 or 300 years, population growth and energy needs will overwhelm any combination of wind, solar, and any leftover fossil fuels. It doesn't matter who's forecasts you use whether growth is a little slower or higher; the high growth is in undeveloped countries,which have proven to overwhelm any attempts to stabilize their growth and provide a decent lifestyle. The end will be the same regardless of when you get there. The future has to be new nuclear technology power.
Feb 18, 2005 (9:37 am)
Currently this is the energy mix for the World.
Oil - 37 %
Coal - 27 %
Nat-Gas - 24 %
Nuclear - 6 %
Hydro - 6 %
Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal may provide around 1/2 %.
In the future (2030), Wind & Solar may get around 5 %. That is still important. Every %age point make a difference. Since Oil & Gas prices are increasing, there is a talk about
other fuels. Its natural.
Unless something like Fusion comes, we are doomed.
Feb 18, 2005 (9:43 am)
"Maybe in northern areas where the sun isn't so direct, 50% solar panel coverage would be needed. "
That is a bit extreme! We've had Food famines in the past, but it looks like we're going to have an Energy famine in the future.
Note this wouldn't be a problem is the earth's population was only 1 million humans, instead of 6000 million.
#27 of 47 Energy famine in the future
Feb 18, 2005 (9:53 am)
Yes. Today's food consumption (rice, wheat, poulty, meat put together) is somewhere around 4 billion tons, but the fuels (coal, oil & gas) is around 10 billion tons. Definitely the alternative fuels will be needed.