rv4-farker: Witty_Retort: Neat.Yes. It's neat. It's also something that people do thousands of times a year around the country. Not worthy of a greenlight IMHO.
p51d007: Goes faster, goes LONGER than the Chevy volt, COSTS WAY LESS...Yep, can't allow that, the government will find a way to shut him down.
neversubmit: Is Lightning Bug a spin off of Fire Fly?
Kahabut: Ironically, the original engine was more economical once you take the overall production of energy into account.
mr lawson: Much better ideaDrive on Woodhttp://driveonwood.com/
theorellior: Kahabut: Ironically, the original engine was more economical once you take the overall production of energy into account.Yeah, that gas magically appeared in the gas tank, there wasn't a global system of mining, refining, piping, shipping and trucking that fuel to his local gas station.
Kahabut: It was cheaper for the world power supply to keep the gas burning engine in the thing.
2chris2: mr lawson: Much better ideaDrive on Woodhttp://driveonwood.com/I've heard of wood gassification before, but didn't realize that the process was fast enough that you could run a car on it.These people have a big wood burning stove (more or less) in the back of a pickup truck, which is creating gas fuel that's being pumped into the engine of the car and burned. Thus, the car is actually running off wood fuel. On the downside, according to the articles I read, they go through maybe 1.5 pounds of wood per mile that the car drives. I'm guessing that most of them have a free source of wood. If you have to pay for wood, you're probably paying 10 cents a pound if you're in a rural area and buy large amounts of it. 15 cents per mile is as expensive or more expensive than what you'd typically be paying to run a car with gas.
genner: Witty_Retort: Neat.[assets.diylol.com image 480x510]
rwfan: I am pretty sure that in well to wheel studies the production of and transportation of fossil fuels is quite efficient.
MrSteve007: Kahabut: It was cheaper for the world power supply to keep the gas burning engine in the thing.Nope. Not even close.Let's compare 100 btu's of energy from a source fuel (I'm sure I'm missing a few steps, but you'll get the idea).100 btu of energy from nat gas-45% energy loss from combustion and turbine generation = 65 btu of electricity-15% energy loss from electricical distribution = 55.25 btu of electricity-8% energy loss from AC to DC conversion to battery storage = 51 btu of battery power-10% energy loss from battery to vehicle electrical motor & drivetrain = 45 btu of movement100 btu of gasoline (ignoring as theorellior states, the vast amounts of energy used to pump, refine and transport that gasoline in the first place)-83% energy loss from internal combusion = 17 btu of force-20% energy loss from standard combusion drivetrain = 14 btu of movement.So even when giving the internal combusion car a huge benefit by not counting the losses invoved with creating gasoline, it's still 1/3rd as efficienct at one of the least methods of generating electricity. For folks like me, who have rooftop solar power that feeds directly into a DC charging bank for my EV there's very little energy lost.Plus there's the little fact that ~100 btu of energy from electricity is about 1/5th the cost of 100 btu of gasoline.
rwfan: Where did you get your numbers from? How many square feet of solar do you need to charge your electric vehicle and for how long.
MrSteve007: rwfan: Where did you get your numbers from? How many square feet of solar do you need to charge your electric vehicle and for how long.I've got solar power up the yin-yang these days, powering almost every aspect of my life, so it's a little hard to breakdown the square footage required purely for my car. I can give it a try through!My home's rooftop, 3.8KW covers 100% my heating and home energy needs, it also provides all the energy required for my 25 mile drive to work:[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 719x539]My work's rooftop - 13.6 KW (not including 3.6kw awning array): Covers about 20% of the total annual energy needs of the office & all of my car charging at work.[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x481]The community array the office bought into (5% ownership), about 1.2KW: Covers an additional 5% of the office's energy use.[www.djc.com image 850x566]The rooftop at the vacation house3.8KW: Provides 3x's the energy of the home's electricity need (it does have nat gas heat and water though).[fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net image 719x539]The community array & small wind tied to the vacation house (2% ownership, about 2KW): Powers any of my trips to and from the vacation house.[wacleantech.org image 850x637]Additional small wind added at the community power array. Annual output is currently unknown, as it's quite new.[bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com image 850x574]We're thinking of buying into another 3.6KW of a new city community solar array at the office in the coming weeks. So to figure out where I get all of my car's energy needs and exactly the square footage isn't exactly a simple question.Most simply is that I drive 50 miles a day and 250 miles a week - my driving efficiency is 4 miles per kwh; meaning I use 62.5 kWh of energy a month to power my car. Between the share of the energy sources above, they generate an average of 80 kWh a day . . . or 2,480 kWh a month. I still need to roughly triple our renewable production at the office ...
rwfan: I have always said it's awesome when you show up to a thread. So are you the only one charging an ev at work? It doesn't seem like there is a wide scale adoption of charging ev's with renewable energy. Do you have an estimate or guess even what the costs are of charging your ev with solar? I agree that the roofs of the sunny part of the country should be covered with solar.
Luminiferous Aether: Lightning Bugg?/CSF.//Cool Story, Farmer.
2chris2: 1.5 pounds of wood per mile that the car drives.
Lusebagage: This is the most Ironic story I've seen all day, talk about living in a fantasy world!!!"John Watson, a 73-year-old Caroline County farmer who pretty much hand-raises Angus cattle and believes everyone needs to be driving an electric car or future generations won't have much of an environment."Really??? I wonder if he's aware of the fact that factory farming causes more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-not just carbon dioxide (CO2), but also methane and nitrous oxide, than all the trucks, automobiles, trains, and boats in the world combined!
2chris2: rv4-farker: Witty_Retort: Neat.Yes. It's neat. It's also something that people do thousands of times a year around the country. Not worthy of a greenlight IMHO.Yep, this is what's called an electric car conversion, there are a number of websites devoted to it, it's not something unique. They typically use lead-acid batteries, which means that you've got 1000 pounds of batteries in the car, which gives you a range of perhaps 50 miles. The battery weight is so high with lead acid batteries that you can't get much more of a range than that, since much of the energy stored in the batteries is being used to haul the batteries around.http://auto.howstuffworks.com/electric-car7.htm
MrSteve007: For folks like me, who have rooftop solar power that feeds directly into a DC charging bank for my EV there's very little energy lost.
JesseL: Does hand raising cattle sound like factory farming to you?
Kahabut: Replace "gas" with "electricity". What changed?
Lusebagage: JesseL: Does hand raising cattle sound like factory farming to you?I'm sure he pets them to sleep, and gives them all cute names before he sends them off to get their throats slit! Yes, "hand raising" (whatever that even means) is still factory farming. "Humane" or "Organic" meat is simply a band aid for bleeding conscience. Its not humane to steal a creatures purpose, its simply another form of violence. lets use it in a sentence, shall we. "I hand raised this slave calf, I even hand raped its mother, then I stole that babies milk with my own two hands so I could sell it, tomorrow I'm going to kill it, by hand!"
theorellior: Kahabut: Replace "gas" with "electricity". What changed?Plenty.The global infrastructure?Gas-fired powerplants using North American gas on North American powerlines with no supertankers involved and no military presence to secure the supply?The environmental devastation?Fracking sucks, but it reduces energy transportation costs, which is a net benefit. Also, burning methane has a much smaller carbon footprint than burning gasoline.The multiple forms of transmission?Mine to pipeline to powerplant to transmission lines to motor vs. well to pipeline to tanker to refinery to truck to gas station to engine. I refer to MrSteve007's post for the basic efficiencies of the electrical motor vs the ICE.Nope, all of that is still there, so... did you have a point or do you just enjoy being mocked?I enjoy mocking dumbfarks, so all that is there and more. Go home and get your shine box.
Kahabut: So basically, you just like to be wrong.
JesseL: Enjoy that then. I'll go back to enjoying my rack of ribs.
Lusebagage: JesseL: Enjoy that then. I'll go back to enjoying my rack of ribs.Oh, I see you have been programmed like all the other meat eating robots to not only think its sustainable, and your choices are not somehow directly responsible for global climate change. I guess its since you share that guilt with the rest of society. What I find most Ironic is how carnists actually believe that people who refrain from eating mutilated animal corpses are somehow "crazy"! Enjoy your heart disease, and shallow empathy, I'm sure it will take you far in life.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 24 2017 10:10:53
Runtime: 0.373 sec (373 ms)