Electric Transportation

Looks like about a 20 kW array; so while at work the cars get 160 kWH among them. Not too shabby. Would cover a typical commute.

A 20 KW array only puts out 20 KW in perfect conditions (which almost never occur).

What is the charge time?

Do I need to rent a room for a couple of days, before I am at full capacity?

Go have lunch or relax at a nearby eatery and you will be done.

Sometimes what is true tomorrow is not true at all?

A "coal powered" EV may generate more pollution than an ICE powered car.

When ICE vehicles were new there were only dirt roads and they didn't run very well on grass as fuel. With wind and solar providing an ever larger percentage of our electric generation and battery technology advancing, as well as the ability to better reduce point source pollution from power plants than distributed pollution from vehicles, I believe the future favors electric vehicles. At least until fuel cell vehicles (which as you must know, are electric by the way) along with the ability to produce fuel (hydrogen) from water at home become feasible. In my case, a plug-in hybrid is charged at home with solar, allowing a 50% reduction in fossil fuel use.

Fuel cells are not "electric" any more than they are chemical. If the chemistry did not take place far upstream (to make hydrogen) there would be no fuel, then there is no chemical reaction taking place at the anode, and no electric current generated.

My question for you: Please explain why you believe distributed pollution to be greater in aggregate than point source pollution. Or is something your 7 th grade science teacher told you?

The total net fuel efficiency is still lower in the point source case, so there must be more pollution. Then you must also factor the variable fuel costs of fabrication of the electric vehicle and the ICE vehicle and arrive at some conclusion. Your claim of 50% reduction in fossil fuel is completely and totally erroneous.

Mr. Stewart, you are mistaken or you are being intentionally obtuse. Fuel cell vehicles (the point of the article) are indeed electric, at least according to the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/how-do-hydrogen-fuel-cells-work#.WcAE162ZP6A.

The power needed to produce the hydrogen can be generated by solar panels which are non-polluting (manufacturing produced pollution is covered long before the life cycle of the panels ends). The technology to produce hydrogen I believe will, in the near future, be available to local small scale users.

The point source pollution can be mitigated in a number of ways (scrubbers, carbon capture, biofuels, waste to energy etc.) none of which are feasible for vehicles.

Finally, if I charge my plug-in hybrid with solar power and my gas milage is double than that of my second otherwise identical standard hybrid vehicle, I feel I am justified in the claim of a 50% reduction in FF use.

All of this looks a certain way on paper. See you at the finish line.

Technology already exists to convert CO2 back to transportable fuels, so pretty much everything about EV's, electric cars, fuel cell cars, and that whole string of unicorns will be relegated to the dust bin in 20-30 years.

I will accept that you cannot answer my points and so must make a snarky comment about finish lines.

Then you bring up an unfamiliar point to (CO2 back to fuel) which itself must be somewhat inefficient (those pesky laws of thermodynamics again). You also seem to need to maintain the status quo of transportable fuels. Electricity would seem to be the easiest choice as the infrastructure is already mostly in place.The upgrades needed will be made over time just as my local utility did when it had to run a new feeder line for a new data center that moved into town. Your point about a string of unicorns seems to fit your own argument much better.

I begin to think that, being from Texas, you must be connected to the oil industry and afraid of technologies that threaten that industry.

Let me point some of your assumptions:

(1) "You also seem to need to maintain the status quo of transportable fuels".

I was looking into large scale renewable energy back in 1980 while still in graduate school. I was also keenly interested in "hydrogen economy" way back then. Wind energy is exceptionally high capacity in the area where I now live. There is very little that can ever approach the energy density (stored) of liquid transportable fuels. I don't care one iota if those fuels are hydrocarbons, alcohols, fatty methyl esters, or hydrosilicons (higher silanes are safe, stable, and do not spontaneously ignite). I am also being somewhat realistic when I see over the course of my life very little actual progress in converting the transportation fleet from what it now is.

(2) "being from Texas, you must be connected to the oil industry and afraid of technologies that threaten that industry"

Being from Texas, I can assure you that cotton in my area is still king. Oil is #2, and your hybrid vehicle, or EV will still need oil to make 100% of the plastics that go into its construction, also for the fuel cell membrane (assuming PEM), or the case, electric insulation, carpet, etc., etc. So no threat at all there. There will essentially never be a time that less than 50% of the overall transportation fleet is not fueled by liquid transportable hydrocarbons. I am not afraid of anyone or anything, and I was not born to be "put in my place" by the likes of you.

If you have so much passion for hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles what are you doing about it? If your passion is EV what are you doing about it?

I am also an advocate for vehicles that have "super-efficiency". INGOCAR design by a friend of mine (Ingo Valentin), is projected to reach 166 miles/gallon, on just about any fuel presented to it. It uses hydraulic motors on each wheel, regenerative braking (re-pressures the hydraulic accumulator), and the engine is an opposing piston type not seen before, with fuel injection disc at the center point. Compression injection timing is adjusted by the computer for the fuel type, so that injection always takes place at the correct (T, P). There is not conversion of the linear motion of the pistons to rotary motion within the engine, as the piston rods are actually the hydraulic pump plungers. Six gallons of fuel, 1000 miles, with snap-on bodies of various styles to suit the user, and interchangeable. Can be a luxury sedan with four doors one day, and a pickup truck the next day. Every option you have in today's top of the fleet can be added. By the way, 0-60 mph in five seconds, not bad.

Can your hydrogen fuel cell car do this? Can the EV do this? Let's not be self-deluded into thinking people are going to have these cars without giving up a lot in creature comfort, that is if they want any range past putting around in town.

That sounds cool! Any prototypes yet? Love to see one, or at least the schematics.

I don't remember what happened, but things got really quiet. Maybe Detroit bought him out.

INGOCAR valentin technologies

There are many other links if you are interested in learning more.

Valentin Technologies dates back to 1982. The website home page promises

Advanced Hydrostatic Drivetrains

In comparison with all other drive systems

Highest Power Lowest Weight Best Efficiency

for Wind turbine, Locomotive, Bike, Tracked vehicle, Helicopter

From the Torquenews Report: (dated 2012)

INGOCAR from Valentin Tech shatters the way we think about cars.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Have you actually looked at it and opened your eyes? Do you really think you are being fair? How about putting some money where your mouth is, since that is open wide.

I will ignore the comment on my personal features, which has no place in a serious discussion. Shame on you.

As to where I'm putting my money, it's on a Tesla Model S, to be delivered in the next month. FWIW the previous vehicle was a Mercedes A45.

OK, so you are rich, I get it. Good luck with that, and Merry Christmas!

BTW, I don't buy just because I want a new status symbol. I could care less about any of your body parts, or your opinions, really. I still drive a 2001 Chevy pickup. Runs great - on gasoline. Starts every time. I do have to watch for flat tires though.

'Can be done' and 'is done' in uniquely isolated conditions does not represent the factual reality of the whole of the system or industry.

That's the problem with most of the AE/RE power generation concepts people like you allude to.

As I mentioned before in a previous post, to make all of our combined transportations system electric we would need to increase our nation's power generation output, plus utility systems to distribute it, by a factor of 100 or more.

Something that on that scale is totally beyond rational ability in every aspect to implement, especially using RE/AE based power sources like wind and solar.

When considering losses from fossil fuels, also add the costs of refining, transporting, disbursing and evaporation. These compare poorly with the costs of EV replenishment. Take the gas station as an example; an EV charging station is WAY cheaper and less costly to operate. EV charging is always more efficient unless you use an old coal fired plant (emphasis on old) and lousy transmission system to charge the vehicle. Even then, it allows one to deal with point source pollution instead of in your face exhaust.

Based on that metric, you make a great case for EVs. Cost per km for EV is less than half that for ICE.

You are correct in that fuel producers costs are factored in. However, you ignore all the costs of dealing with the effects resulting from pollution and environmental damage caused by said fuels which are, for the most part, borne by taxpayers and the health system, with little if any consequence to the FF industry.

If it doesn't show up in the price at the pump it's all conjecture and not fact on your part.

I know how the liberal 'buck passing/conjectured justifications' excuses and blame game works and can play it all day.

You make a very good point, but it may be easier to control air emissions at a few sources than at each individual vehicle. It would also bring down the cost of vehicles by eliminating emission controls, which adds a lot to the cost of a vehicle. Of course the idea of an all electric future has political implications. Energy companies cannot just cut back on production to satisfy a clean air environment. Regardless of how environmentally vocal they are, the pursuit of money will always guide their actions. In other words, an all electric vehicle future will not happen any time soon IMHO.

You should research what the current administration has in store for clean air, water and the return to coal mining.

Energy companies can and do vary pricing by time of day. Baseline electric capacity is currently under utilized at night when generators are not at full load. But it is an ideal time to recharge an EV. When that begins to grow, one imagines that the use of LED streetlights will offset much of the additional EV demand. Electric vehicles have a bright future. IMHO

LED street lights produce a "Light Polllution" effect, and it is not good for homo sapiens and many form of animal land insect life. Apparently, the spectrums are the problem (Blue, primarily). Go to EMF Safety Network for more data.

The generation of, transfer of, storage of, transfer of, storage of... and final conversion of electrons as a vehicle energy source is a very low percentage deal. On-board generation is the solution:

Make something like this practical, and the world will beat a path to your door.

Oh, so true.

Everything comes with a price. $10,000.00 battery packs?

Electric vehicles probably aren't selling in Florida right now.

Tesla's Electric Cars Aren't as Green as You Might Think | WIRED

Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of ...

The Carbon Footprint Of Tesla Manufacturing - Forbes

They found that the manufacturing of a full-sized Tesla Model S rear-wheel drive car with an 85 KWH battery was equivalent to a full-sized internal combustion car except for the battery, which added 15% or one metric ton of CO2 emissions to the total manufacturing.

Then there's range anxiety to consider.

I do think EV's are here to stay.

Not always.

But his will survive a hail storm and not cost half a year's income to replace when it does wear out either.

A matter of supply...Generators , also will fill the void.

Lots of people were glad they weren't following Teslas coming out of the Keys...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/

I have been hearing about (not well documented) claims of up to 700% excess heat from submerged carbon arc (in pure water) experiments. Apparently, the experimenters have not placed a great deal of thought into experimental design, but have majored on what I call the minors. They take the water and analyze (ICP or AA) for elemental targets after the run, and seem to be finding "element soup" where the water was pure prior to start up. I have not seen much along the lines of controls of contamination, actual heat measurements by time to boiling compared to heat input, or in attempted measurement of any radiation produced.

At 700% excess heat, if that is true, I would advise new experimenters to approach this with some caution. There should be more than enough rads coming off this to make someone ill.

TCMTECH,
I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting your comment to a designer friend.
I have been trying to get him to understand cost origin, effect and gain/loss on why green is only green if you ignore the obvious and the cost origin ignores the establishment/requirement cost.
I fell you put it in a much simpler easier to understand statement.

In 2016, the shares of total primary energy consumption for the five energy-consuming sectors were:

• Electric power—39%
• Transportation—29%
• Industrial—22%
• Residential—6%
• Commercial—4%
  (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_home)
  If you assume that the global efficiency of gas combined cycle powerplant is 60%, reduced to 40% due to power transportation, loading and unloading of batteries, this is still 2 times more efficient than a gasoline powered car, you need to add 40% to the current electric power generation, not 10 000%
  Where is the dirty little secret? maybe in the fact that you comment has not its palce on an ENGINEERING FORUM.

The most obvious.

An electric car drags around one ton of battery to deliver 5 litres of petrol.
An electric car is just as inefficient as a petrol. The inefficiency is burning coal to produce electricity.
All the "clean energy" production amounts to less than 1% of total electricity production.
My electric car goes 440km, but I need to go 445km with no chargers on the way.

Your 15% refers to the US. Take the whole world and this reduces to 1%.
The introduction of the electric car is already straining the distribution networks. Street transformers are 100kVA. A full charge needs about 100kWhr. If it takes 5 hours, this is 20kW for 5 hours. 20kW is one fifth of the transformer rating. A street supply can only provide this to 5 houses at a time, but cannot supply it ON TOP of the household demand. So, as soon as you get more than one electric car per street, you will have an OVERLOAD.

You seem to take the position that no change in power supply is possible....why is that?

If you're trying to make the point that more generation capacity is needed, we all realize that...but let me just say that overcapacity exists now, and to think that the electric companies will have a problem with expanding capacity and profits along with that, well then I think you are mistaken....I'm sure that the utility companies have wet dreams about assuming big oil's position in the world....

No EV owner only charges it 5 hours a night . Your math example is therefore incorrect. Also, the Tesla models start at 60 kWH batteries. A more reasonable assumption is that the commuter gets home at 6PM and starts off at 7AM which leaves 13 hours to charge his vehicle. Plenty of time even at a reduced charge rate to commute over 70 miles each way! By the way, the transformer on the pole outside my window is 150 kW.

It's a 150kW transformer because that is what is presently needed. Each Tesla owner will want 10kW to 20kW and some have electric hot water services that come on at night (3kW) to account for the night-time delivery of electricity.
In all my developments I am only allowed 30 amps without having to pay for additional street cables. This is only 7 or 8 kW. I get 100 amp for 3 units.
I cannot imagine the cost of upgrading.

"In all my developments I am only allowed 30 amps without having to pay for additional street cables. This is only 7 or 8 kW. I get 100 amp for 3 units.

I cannot imagine the cost of upgrading."

Then why not build more of your supposed bendi generator units and use them?

Surely someone who is smart enough to build a working overunity device is also smart enough to know how to use it in affective self serving or even altruistic way in daily life.

Possibly by, perhaps. showing us some pictures or even video of how you made yours and a workable write up on how to build one ourselves being every bendin circuit and other supposed proof of concept I have aver seen online was a hoax and scam based on easy to see impossible or incomplete design information.

In the US no new home is built with less than 200A service. Not sure where you live, it seems that you are severely restricted in your access to the electric power distribution grid. Perhaps you might invest in some local PV or wind generation and then you might even be able to have air conditioning

I think it makes a lot more sense to use flow batteries Purdue University is developing.

In such a case, refill (refuel) takes no more time than a current trip to the gas station.

One hose for filling, and another for spent electrolyte discharge. Then a truck comes along, and slurps up the spent stuff (after new electrolyte drop off), and takes it back to the terminal for regeneration using off-peak electricity in a terminal appropriately scaled to do the job. No noticeable change in infrastructure is the result.

People could possibly still charge their cars by running the electrolyte past charged electrodes, i.e. power going in, but it would almost never be needed. If the cars have extra commuting capacity, they could offer to be paid for using up some electrolyte during peak demand, generating power back into the connection available in the business park (or wherever). The electrolytes have minimal to no environmental impact in the event of spillage.

Does this make people happy?

I don't even want to imagine the issues with fires surrounding the use of hydrogen as a fuel, as the fire can be practically invisible, depending on what other elements get into the mix that would make fire visible.

You are missing the whole point.
One ton of batteries is equal to 10 litres of fuel and fuel diminishes as it get used !!!

I normally carry my 40kgm safe in my back pocket to hold my two $5.00 notes.

electric vehicles are, off course more efficient than the other prime movers but the main issue till date is , long charging time, size and volume of barratries, low run per charge, non availability of charging out lets , battery life span .

may be one day the solar panel will be able to produce more power in a unit size or battery will be able to handle big amount of power in a smaller body and will be charged in minutes . or roads will be equipped with linear induction transformers to charge it while, in run. by inroad solar panels and induction transmitters .

we are having a lot of energy sources that are clean like gravity, permanent magnets, wind, waves , solar ,hydel power .

"energy sources that are clean like gravity, permanent magnets." Oh, come on, extracting motive power from gravity & magnets is a zero sum game. In fact it's worse than that, it's "under-unity" - you get out less energy than you put in.

What about the Bedini motor. It is an over-unity motor and I have one running in my garage all day and driving a generator to power my home and I have not paid any electricity bills for 7 years.

Then why aren't you famous & mega-wealthy? Why haven't entire countries using a scaled-up version used it to generate their electricity? And please - no government & oil industry conspiracy theories.

If you have found an exception to the laws of thermodynamics, you deserve a Nobel Prize. BUT extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary proof! Lots of luck with that.

You can see the Bedini motor all over the internet, chugging away. And 10% of people will believe me, because they believe in things they don't understand.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

It looks like you are running at 10% fools.

Not many intelligent people here are fans of black magic masquerading as science.

There are some others that do though.

That does not rise to extraordinary proof, more like ordinary internet spoof.

How do you know that it is an exception to the laws of thermodynamics? How do you know it is not coupling in some energy that is not accounted for (by luck? by design?) and is therefore snugly under unity, but still producing usable power?

There are some things that are not entirely subject to thermodynamics in the sense of Carnot engine cycles, because they have nothing to do with the steps of the Carnot cycle. Yet when they work, no one gets riled up as if it were "over unity". The proper term for any such device would "output above thermal input." Nuclear reactors are essentially output above thermal input, as there is no thermal input, just the utilization of the steam made by thermal coupling is seriously under unity.

BTW - we frown on those who must resort to shouting to answer their fellows.

An innovative project viz. Fuel less mass transportation system fully integrating private conveyances for meeting challenges in transport sector, for the benefits of people, at large.

Roads, Railways themselves will move (such as conveyor tracks) with aid of solar & wind power and will carry thereon persons, goods, loaded vehicles, passenger laden buses/coaches etc. Two tracks capable of running at desired speed (say 200 kilometers per hour will be laid on existing roads & railways. Primary track will move non-stop while secondary track will be stationery for fixed time interval (say 1 minute) when passengers, vehicles etc can shift between road & the secondary track; and this secondary track will then move along with and the same speed of primary track for fixed time interval (say 1 minute) when passengers, vehicles etc can shift between the secondary & primary tracks.

2. It is mentioned that

The proposed Fuel less mass transportation system fully integrating private conveyances is based on innovation and patents are duly published by Indian Patent Authority (1086/MUM/2012) as well as by World intellectual Property Organization (WO2013164848). Details are enclosed hereto.

· The system works in synergy with the existing public as well as personal transportation means to provide an enhanced public-private transport system;

· It will be efficient, quick, safe & cost effective public-private transportation system;

· There will be no need of driving individual public or private vehicles; thus, no burning of fuels; no pollution; no road accidents;

· It will save 80% cost in transport sector;

· Covering most busy road lengths will save 70% fuel; will eliminate oil import in a country;

· In addition, the system will also save huge expenditure on transport infrastructure such as wide roads & enormously huge number of vehicles.

· It may be done in phases, Crowded Roads in Cities; National Highways; then State Highways and other major roads.

· May also be done on Local railway tracks in metropolises.

· People all over world will remember executors for centuries !

3. Entire world is moving with a vision to convert all fossil fuel driven vehicles into Electric vehicles. This can, conveniently be achieved with adaption of the subject patented concept. There will be no need to change all existing vehicles themselves which may involve heavy expenditure, huge wastages & serious challenges during such change over. Instead, by modifying road & rail segments in the envisaged manner & method, all existing vehicles will also run on so modified road & rail lengths, without fuel & will run on electricity, preferably solar or wind power.

4. The system will be “Fuel less Mass transportation system fully integrating private vehicles”.

5. Yet more benefit will be that of saving huge expenditure on infrastructure in future viz. on more & wider roads, more number of railway tracks & extraordinarily huge number of vehicles etc. will be substantially reduced as a result of maximizing use of existing infrastructure (not even 10% of road, rails length can be put to use while individual conveyances are moving requiring safe distance between them). There will also no need of stations, stops as one can join or leave conveyor tracks at any point between two end destinations.

6. While I have been canvassing for such fuel less public transportation system since 2011, now I feel obliged to the world and particularly Prime Minister of India for vision of eliminating fossil fuel from the transport sector.

Leaping off at any point from a 200 Km/hr train sounds a bit more dangerous than I would like to try. Your secondary tracks that stop and start and sync with high speed rail still have to have stations. This is Maglev or is it rolling stock?

Based on the rail safety record in India, I would not place my money on this happening even with 20:1 odds in my favor. Good luck with your funding. Do you also have the pie in the sky for free? Simply walk past and pluck the pizza from the free tree?

By the way, stop posting everything in bold face, it makes it appear you are attempting to be superior by yelling louder than the next guy.

In response to #32

Right click on the figure to enlarge.⇑

I realize that patents contain a lot of "saids", and are not intended to be an exact graphic representation of the contraption they describe, and in that respect you have succeeded.

But, I don't believe that anybody on the planet can envision your "subject patented concept" as anything but a bad dream.

So far as I know, no one has ever come up with an idea that would save the world. But it takes idea guys like you to move the world closer to being saved.

Keep on dreaming. The world needs dreamers.

Namaskar ! 19.09.2017.

By next year or so, the subject concpet will be executed on patch of 50 kms of road length in Inida.

I am also canvassing for execution of the concept on local railway in Mumbai.

Any way, thanks for response.

The only things executed will be the guinea pigs when they go flying off this contraption to the ground. But certainly we wish you all the success and good luck with your free transportation system.

Over here, we will have a car that runs off beef-harts (say this word very quickly) before long if the current trend continues.

Remember also, please, that everything you come up with, mother nature has an answer for it, either to prevent it or aid it, you choose which.

I don't think we should cloud our minds with the pros and cons of different means of transportation. That only serves to prejudice against one or more means and concentrate on only one. That is not having an open mind. An open mind could come up with something revolutionary that blindfolded others failed to see.

I am fairly sure it will stay a mixed system utilizing what works best for each application just as how each of us chooses what vehicles we own now. There is not an never will be a one size fits all solution to these sort of social/infrastructure concepts.

I think that even now EV tech is moderately viable for short range urban work in various configurations. However it will not be suitable for long range and heavy haul, industrial, construction and agricultural work applications for some time.

We simply do not have either the battery technology nor the electrical supply tech to support such additional power consumption demands.

I have a question, and no better place to place it:

What is the AREA necessary,(footprint, so to speak), or a Solar Panel or array of panels, necessary to produce a certain amount of energy, however you choose to measure it?

I have read that the necessary solar panel ground cover requirements to produce enough electricity to safely remove a city from the oil/gas/nuclear grid, would be enormous. That in itself could be enough of a problem with light reaching the ground, insects and animals losing their sunlight, very large differences in temperatures in small areas, the loss of moisture reaching the ground in forms of condensation (dew etc.), rainfall patterns dispersed in areas that have low rainfall, etc. as well as habitat loss, animal migration routes disrupted (Think of the Solar Bird Incinerator outside of Las Vegas). Plus the area of infrastructure (Roads) to service and replace/ repair the panels,wash them off (takes lots of water), and the necessity of huge transmission lines to off site batteries (Tesla left us..sigh)

Maybe these are or are not considerations, but if anyone has a formula for the area needed versus the panel output, I would love to see it. Thank you for your time.

As to your question about area: At a plane in space outside Earth's atmosphere, normal to incident solar radiation, there is approximately 1 kW/m² . Depending on the relative scattering of light, opacity, and thickness of atmosphere, latitude, time of day, etc., this gets reduced to near 0 power at sunset and returns from 0 at sunrise.

Oriented solar collection is one means to attempt to get around this, but one can never achieve full illumination for the daytime hours. The plus side is that solar input matches well in many places with electrical demand (due to air conditioning demand). We can say that at 30 degree latitude, the incoming peak radiation is reduced down to about 65% (as I recall). Thus if one has a square area 1 km on a side, that is 106 m² and in space the incident would be almost 1GW/km² , and that is really a lot of power. Best conditions on earth in an arid climate (little cloud cover), we are talking about half that, maybe a little more. Does that give you a better handle on it? Remember to apply the pertinent efficiency of conversion factor to the incident power.

There are more than a few ways to harness large area solar energy:

(1) PV

(2) PV with reflections directed to CSP tower (molten salt heat storage, or thermal transfer oil, depending on temperatures and CR (focusing ratio).

(3) Direct CSP, with etc.etc.

(4) Michaud stabilized vortex - large area passive heat collector

(5) Large area (covered) greenhouse with central tower mast very tall uses smaller wind turbines than the traditional ones, but operating at higher wind speed at axis of farm (one test installation in Spain noted that vegetables grew really well in the solar absorber field, and there was more than average moisture available.

(6) solar brine ponds

others may have items to add to this list.

True there are hazards associated with high CR plants near the tower. Birds also get roasted if they hang out in offline boiler spaces, then the plant gets struck to operate. Earth has always been a dichotomy toward life. She gives life (warm and fuzzy conditions for life), then takes it away (storms, volcanoes, ice - pick your poison).

It is just that humans interact with the wild at the interface of technology that we seem to see more animal death, but really, is it statistically significant? That question is less for engineers and more for field biologists giving feedback to the engineers.

I suppose that is truly the best electric transportation available, but they "cheated".

True. It hasn't been built yet. What a swiz!