Automotive Technology

Nope, Cause I don't want one.

I'm perfectly happy driving my gas guzzling Jeep wrangler for fun, and fuel sipping Honda civic for commuting. If I really want to cut back, I'll ride my 10 speed in to work (weather depending).

Agreed--I live in California--My daughter lives 350 miles a way, I have 2 boats, and I am in construction, Carpenter, and haul tools etc 25-75 miles EACH WAY, to my jobs--Leafs and the like are fine for the supermarket or New York, Santa Monica yoga classes etc., but they do nothing to help us guys, who are building your stuff, with $4.00 gas.. If you want to bail out the banks, and build unlimited solar, how about a gas credit for us in construction?? I mean , for those of us that still have jobs?? Obama just wants to tax me for trying to be productive, and help the Pelosi-ites, get their nails done , and be able to brag about their low carbon footprint...

Given the choice, would you buy an all-electric or hybrid vehicle? What is your reasoning?

Hybrid, hands down.

1. no weight of heavy batteries.

2. no dependence on grid integrity. (Hybrids keep running when storms put the grid down)

3. engine needs to be high-efficiency turbine generator running on denatured 130-proof ethanol.

4. when the grid goes down, the car will power the refrigerator so I don't lose the food.

A little more on your high efficiency turbine generator, please--Sounds interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_International

I haven't found any evidence that Magna is making progress in developing a high- efficiency turbine engine for hybrid automotive use. Do you have information to the contrary? Their work for the Ford Focus EV, which is less efficient than the GM EV1 of a decade ago, shows that they can be competent system integrators, but not that they are developing anything new.

I'd love to have a small, light, efficient, and inexpensive turbine for my hybrid project. Current turbines proposed for such use are far too expensive and inefficient to be considered. This promoter quotes 25% peak efficiency, a figure easily bested by the Prius engine (38% peak) or VW TDI engine (42% peak)

I'd love to have a small, light, efficient, and inexpensive turbine for my hybrid project.

Our primary focus is the use of a cheap, non-GMO, multi-microbe cocktail to break down the complex polysaccharides (Starch, Cellulose, Inulin, Hemicellulose, Glucomannan, etc) into their component simple sugars for fermentation witih another group of microbes into ethanol. Our goal is to replace gasoline wth denatured 130-proof ethanol as the US primary fuel, but we need to be involved with the engine developers to make it happen. We need each other, actually, to avoid the chicken/egg syndrome where the engines will not be built witihout the fuel availability and the fuel cannot be developed without the engines to burn it. As long as the petroleum complex remains the primary fuel supplier, the primary fuel emphasis will be E-10 or E-15, and there will be no serious attempt to change that. There will continue to be just enough E-85 produced to give lip service to it. There is currently one station selling E-85 in the 4-county Rio Grande Valley in South Texas.

In our marketing, we do not sell ethanol to refineries for blending. We buy gasoline (durng the transition phase) to blend E-85 for direct sale to the millions of FlexFuel vehicles that Ford, GM and Chrysler have sold to boost their "green" ticket and which are currently using gasoline. At the same time we introduce a line of "Private Label" hybrids from small 2-pasenger units to 18-wheelers and ag tractors that burn 130 proof denatured ethanol. My engine contact person is getting together a "kit" type system so we can spread out the auto manufacturing jobs around the country near our fuel facilites. The fuel does not pick up water nearly as bad as the anhydrous ethanol needed to blend with gasoline, and it does not separate. The fuel will be produced within 200 miles of the point of sale. And the species used are non-food crops (in the US) that can yield 6,500 to 8,000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year.

Thanks for the intro to your company.

I think you'd be wise to be careful with verb tense. For example, "We buy gasoline (during the transition phase) to blend E-85 for direct sale to the millions of FlexFuel vehicles that Ford, GM and Chrysler have sold to boost their "green" ticket and which are currently using gasoline." makes it sound as if you are currently doing this. Your website, however, makes it appear that you are in the pre-funding startup stage.

I gather, from reading and from speaking with an engineering friend in the cellulosic ethanol business, that the bio/chemical process is not so much an issue as is the transportation of the feed stock and (as you imply) the transportation of the finished product. The only way that production can become economically viable (even assuming a strong market for the ethanol itself -- a wildly optimistic assumption) is if there is negligible transportation of the feedstock involved. By his calculations, there would need to be many ethanol plants, each serving fields within a very small radius (just a few miles). (This reminds me of the gravel business, where gravel companies are really trucking companies: the product you put on your drive has near zero value at the loading site.) To be economically viable under the most optimistic assumptions, the feedstock must be waste, not a purpose-grown crop... at least so I am told by promoters (not detractors) of cellulosic ethanol.

Your estimate of 6500-8000 gallons per acre seems high, by a factor of more than 20. 300 gallons per acre is touted as being very good by promoters of switchgrass. See these articles:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-08-091.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html

In your response to C-Mac, who was interested in a micro-turbine, you produced a link to Magna, but the link provided no info on micro-turbines. I then asked "I haven't found any evidence that Magna is making progress in developing a high- efficiency turbine engine for hybrid automotive use. Do you have information to the contrary?" You then provided info on your ethanol dreams, but nothing about efficient micro turbines. Question #1: Do you have any hard data to suggest that the micro-turbines by established companies like Capstone (which operate at roughly piston engine efficiency*) are missing the boat, and that Magna can supply a unit that is both more efficient, and less costly?

Question #2: Why 130 proof? Energy density of ethanol is already considered "low" to "too low", even at 200 proof. If a vehicle is optimized for fuel efficiency, then having to double tankage to provide a given design range reduces efficiency: there is more volume to deal with, affecting frontal area, etc, and there is more weight in the fuel and tank.

*(but can have overall high efficiencies in cogeneration applications in which [otherwise] waste heat is a useful product of combustion)

I gather, from reading and from speaking with an engineering friend in the cellulosic ethanol business, that the bio/chemical process is not so much an issue as is the transportation of the feed stock and (as you imply) the transportation of the finished product.

That is precisely the point. The biomass crops can not be hauled more than 30 miles to a distillery, which means staging the distilleries at 60 mile intervals. And serving a 200 mile radius for customer sales reduces the inventory requirement and eliminates exposure to terrorist attacks on pipelines.

Switchgrass does not produce enough ethanol per acre to make it a viable crop. The basic cost of the biomass has to stay in the 30 - 40 cent per gallon range to keep the distillery cost of producing ethanol below $1.00 per gallon. And the farmer has to be able to net somewhere near $1,000 per acre to support his family. Cassava, Elephant Grass (Pennisetum violaceum), Syngenta's Tropical Sugar Beet, and sugar cane (when grown and harvested specifically for ethanol) can make that kind of yield. Other crops can be grown, when some of the biomass cost can be offset by "tipping fees" for receiving nuisance vegetation normally sent to landfill.

"I haven't found any evidence that Magna is making progress in developing a high- efficiency turbine engine for hybrid automotive use. Do you have information to the contrary?"

Watch Magna press releases for information on turbine engine develpments, I am not at liberty to divulge more.

Question #2: Why 130 proof? Energy density of ethanol is already considered "low" to "too low", even at 200 proof.

The presence of 35% water in the fuel gives a significantly improved "shelf life", since the tendency to absorb water from the atmosphere is significantly reduced. It also takes advantage of the 1700:1 steam kick from the water injection and provides a cooler turbine exhaust temperature. The value of a fuel can be more than just the basic BTU released on combustion, but can be enhanced by how those BTU are used. And with the 130-proof, you eliminate the expense of removing the last traces of water. A simple pot still design is suffcient. Some people measure efficiency by BTU/lb, I measure efficiency by cents/mile.

I am all for the new electric AND Hybrid vehicles, because they have the potential for being more GREEN than normal infernal combustion engines. Why potential? Because too high a per centage of our electricity comes from coal fuel right now. I expect this to be solved eventually so that we quit burning fossil fuels.

I don't own either yet, but I will buy a hybrid within 2 years. The reason for choice of Hybrid is that I feel that any electric car must have an on-board method of charging the batteries. Who wants to be stuck on a freeway in Phoenix in June with no power outlet to recharge?

Yes... I Would Buy an All Electric Plug in! ( I'm Mad At FORD, For not Being First & Best!) But I Love FORD SO MUCH, I'll wate till Ford Catches Up! { I have 6 Classic & Antique Fords.}

The first consumer deliveries of the Focus EV are (were?) expected by the end of this year. You might want to get your order in now.

Well... I goggled in Fastest Electric Cars Wow... Top 10 is awsom!!!

I don't plan on buying another vehicle for a few years. I will pick at that time depending on my needs, but want a minivan. I would consider the new larger Prius however.

The Nissan Leaf appears to be selling much better than the GM Volt. The Volt seems to be too high priced. I would consider the Leaf for a second vehicle. We have a Full size van, minivan, and sub-compact now. Most of our driving is around town, with no more than twenty miles per day. I could go three days without even plugging in. Most families have two or more vehicles. That is where the Leaf fits in well. The Volt is overpriced. Without the subsidy, the Leaf may be also. My Chevy Aveo was purchased for $10,400 new with automatic and air. Hard to beat the overall cost until you get to about 200,000 miles.

I doubt the Ford Focus EV can beat the Nissan Leaf.

Considering the limitations of today's technologies, vs. my driving needs and expectations, I'd buy a hybrid. I like EVs (and have helped build several) but factory cars like the Tesla are out of my budget and cars like the Leaf are not available for sale in my area. (Some hybrids, like the Volt, are also unavailable in my area.) I'm hoping that EV technology improves in the future, along with availability, so I can buy an EV that meets my needs. But if I had to make this choice today I'd have to buy a hybrid.