150 mpg?

[kittay]

Loremo: The 'Low Resistance Mobile' - MSN Autos

0-60 in ten sec.. Pretty impressive and it actually looks good

 

[Sinner]

That's a daily driver that I would buy as long as our government doesn't screw it up and add a bazillion regulations to it to and make the price go up and make it unattainable by those who would "ACTUALLY" want it.

 

[kittay]

Yuh.. Like the smart car, that's just scary with how small it is. They have surprisingly well crash testing, but I'd be scared to drive it.
The hybrids are ugly as crap!! Lol..
But if the govt wants to "help" the environment, you would think they'd set them reasonably priced.

I haven't really looked at new car pricing, but does anyone know price-wise how the hybrids compare to similar cars?

 

[sleeper98GST]

This type of technology is nothing new. The government will squash it soon.

 

[kittay]

It was kinda interesting, on the news it shows how they are making a bio-diesel out of swap scum.

 

[tsibryan]

Yuh.. Like the smart car, that's just scary with how small it is. They have surprisingly well crash testing, but I'd be scared to drive it.
The hybrids are ugly as crap!! Lol..
But if the govt wants to "help" the environment, you would think they'd set them reasonably priced.

I haven't really looked at new car pricing, but does anyone know price-wise how the hybrids compare to similar cars?

Hybrids are generally more expensive. A base Civic starts at $15,000, whereas a base Civic Hybrid starts at $22,000. A $7,000 increase for about 9 more miles per gallon.

That said, I would totally buy this 'Loremo' were it to go on sale in the US. It's pretty much my idea of where car manufacturers should be going in the economy car market. Back to the basics. Small turbodiesel instead of heavy and expensive hybrid-electric. Light weight. Aerodynamic.

"Cars need to be downsized. Why do we need two tons of steel to bring a 180-pound human from one place to another? That must change."

Running the Loremo on biodiesel (a vegetable-based diesel substitute) is an attractive option, but Heilmaier insists that efficiency comes before all else

"The first step must be to reduce the amount of energy you need. The second step is to choose which energy it is. Even electric vehicles are not zero emission. Think of where the electricity is coming from."

 

[KGB Pilot125]

it was either puegot or opel that just built 2 diesels that got around 100 mpg while averaging over 120mph over a 24 hour period.

here is a sweet diesel I would drive Green Car Congress: Peugeot Diesel 407 Delivers 68 mpg US in Trans-Australian Drive

 

[Sinner]

I have seriously been looking into the technology behind steam power, I think it wouldn't be hard to come up with a more modern version of a steam powered car, and the only emission they would put out is water.

 

[Defiant]

Um..... where do you plan on getting this steam from? You'll need a source of heat, which is a source of energy, which has to be generated somewhere. Electric cars, hybrid cars- need batteries. Where's the pollution equation on making, charging and disposing of those?
The "government" isn't who'll quash little, efficient cars- the bigger concern is insurance companies starting with product liability for the manufacturer and going on through the chain down to the drivers and their families.

Some of us are still anxiously awaiting the Puma SS to get here.

As for this Loremo thing, "The Loremo is likely to dazzle drivers not with its acceleration, but with its ability to drive from New York to L.A. with only three stops at the pump" -well, let's just say "The Loremo is likely to dazzle drivers not".
Things are going to change for drivers, maybe. Whether it's done on the consumer's end or if we let those idiots making the laws do it (who've already brought us ABS, crash bumpers, face bombs, and all the other weight-adding "safety" features, and economy-destroying emissions crap), we may not be driving 12-passenger troop transports back and forth to work five days a week because for two hours on Saturday "we need the space".

Oh, and as for steam, read what the Doble brothers used to build. External combustion has a lot going for it, but could your mom manage it?

 

[Sinner]

I don't want to delve to much into what i am working on as i am more into the planning stages, but yes Defiant I know steam power is kind of difficult for the average joe and I have been trying to figure out a way of making it easy and safe for the average person to use. I also have been looking into sources to heat the water that are simple but not like the days of old where people used coal or a fire to produce the needed heat as that would just be replacing one resource with another.
There are lots of things that need to be researched and thought out in order to make steam a reliable and "wanted" source of energy and any info that you can give me would help me greatly. One of the biggest things I have been trying to figure out is how to make steam an instant power source as opposed to the turn of the century automobiles that you would have to wait for the water to heat up before you could drive the car, also I have been thinking about a computer control unit that monitors the pressure instead of having an engineer do it for you. I do believe that with todays technology that steam is an easy and obtainable method of travel but nobody is putting an research into it for whatever reasons.

 

[dsmfa9nutter]

I'd drive it.

 

[welfle18]

Its all in the hydrogen people. Its everywhere in the water we drink. Your talking little to no emissions. In an European country ( I forget which one) has developed a way to use hydrogen to mix with oxygen to power an electric motor. The only emission of this vehicle is water hmmmm. And they even use solar power to create the hydrogen. I think that this the way of the future. In this same program they used compressed air to power a different vehicle. They are currently making a device to install on it that runs on compressed air to re-compress the air in the tanks. So therefore you have no emissions, no refuels, and well an ever running car. Sounds cool huh!

 

[KGB Pilot125]

BMW is investing in hydrogen fuels instead of hybrid electricity. only byproduct is water. in the last issue of pop. mechanics there is a small article written by jay leno who spent a week driving it.

 

[Defiant]

There are lots of things that need to be researched and thought out in order to make steam a reliable and "wanted" source of energy

Well, it's not a "source" of energy, it's just another method of moving energy around in order to make a car move.

Its all in the hydrogen people. Its everywhere in the water we drink. Your talking little to no emissions.

Unfortunately, it's rather "stuck" in the water, and in order to free it into a re-convertible state, the energy required to make it so isn't less than what it yields in being "burned". You still have to wrench the hydrogen atoms clear of whatever else they're bonded to, and how do you suggest doing so? Electricity? And how do you generate the electricity?

 

[russgvrs]

The future is well the future. It depends on how soon in the future we speak. In the near future between now and 2012 we will see an increase in small cars like the 5,000 dollar China cars that will be pouring in any day now. We will also see a huge jump in domestic diesels and high effenciency turbo diesels in smaller cars. Biodiesel and alcohol based fuels have the same problem where to produce them when the explodeing populations need those same farms to produce food. In the farther off future hydrogen and electric may be more viable but by then newer technologies may take over. At this pace though the poor will not be able to afford cars. The goverment will increase the cost and diffuculty of getting registrations to remove older polluting vehicles off the road . They will use global warming as there excuse but it will be more for them to protect whats left of the fossil fuels for themselves. In 20 years the states will look like china did 20 years ago with over half the population riding bikes or vespa's. Of course this is just my opinion so take it how you want.

 

[cs82685]

Anyone else want one to mod?

 

[welfle18]

Unfortunately, it's rather "stuck" in the water, and in order to free it into a re-convertible state, the energy required to make it so isn't less than what it yields in being "burned". You still have to wrench the hydrogen atoms clear of whatever else they're bonded to, and how do you suggest doing so? Electricity? And how do you generate the electricity?

I know and initially that is what I thought when I was watching this program. But they were using solar power to efficiently convert the water into hydrogen. And the plant in whatever European country this was that was mass producing its hydrogen, was using wind to generate it. So there is other alternatives in creating electricity other than burning fossil fuels.

 

[eclipsh]

Here, check this out if you're interested in this subject.

Winning the Oil Endgame-Homepage

The basic argument is that synergistic technologies are the way of the future, ie. ultra-light carbon fiber cars combined with plug-in hybrid bio-fuel-burning engines to maximize efficiency.

Also consider one other issue. The average home uses enough coal powered electricity that switching to wind power will take the equivalent of one car's worth of emissions out of the air and reduces the need for fossil fuels. Many electricity providers offer the service. In my area it costs less than $6 extra per month to switch the whole house over.

 

[Droptop Spyda]

One of us would try to shoe horn a 4G63 motor in it...

 

[EvolvingGST]

Well, it's not a "source" of energy, it's just another method of moving energy around in order to make a car move.


Unfortunately, it's rather "stuck" in the water, and in order to free it into a re-convertible state, the energy required to make it so isn't less than what it yields in being "burned". You still have to wrench the hydrogen atoms clear of whatever else they're bonded to, and how do you suggest doing so? Electricity? And how do you generate the electricity?

I dont know too much about them but my friend audits a company who makes hydrogen fuel cells and i guess its pretty costly to make one and something about the cleanliness of it. BUt he says the major buyers are still govt right now and some car manufacturers.

Lets see if it takes off, but i wonder how you can maintain in a every day use environment the cells are uncontaminated

 

[leet]

I know and initially that is what I thought when I was watching this program. But they were using solar power to efficiently convert the water into hydrogen. And the plant in whatever European country this was that was mass producing its hydrogen, was using wind to generate it. So there is other alternatives in creating electricity other than burning fossil fuels.

The only problems there are the solar cells and wind turbines are rather expensive to manufacture and install.

As for liberating Hydrogen from water, what do you suppose will break the molecular bonds of H2O? That's right, energy. You need energy to make energy. That's 'relative.' (Some science geek will get that )

If they keep working at these technologies the efficiency levels will come up. It's only a matter of time. Of course, we will have to contend with the all-encompassing giant of Big Oil and their habit of buying out and burying contesting technologies.

I've worked in more than a few natural gas power generation facilities, which are a more traditional style of power. They burned pretty clean, our emissions limits were something like 115 PPM of CO and 15 PPM of NOx. We were able to hold within these limits even with tired engines. It's not a matter of emissions per se with these type facilities, the cows around here pollute more than that (ironically, our local APCD wants to tax dairies for that )

Of course, doing so required the use of 50,000 dollar catalytic convertors (one for each unit). Dual bed systems, each bed cost around 7K IIRC.

But if the govt wants to "help" the environment, you would think they'd set them reasonably priced.

From what I've observed, the Government will only willingly 'help' the environment when they can make money off doing so. Taxes, emissions permits and such. None of which are reasonably priced. Hell, to even APPLY for an emissions permit costs money.

Besides, why should we rely on them? I fear for us if we are incapable of regulating ourselves, as was intended.

 

[Defiant]

I know and initially that is what I thought when I was watching this program. But they were using solar power to efficiently convert the water into hydrogen.

Oh. So, you just set a jug of water out in the sun and come back and scoop off the hydrogen? No, there's a bit more to it. Making solar cells. From what? At what cost? At what environmental threat?

And the plant in whatever European country this was that was mass producing its hydrogen, was using wind to generate it.

Ah. So, you put a pan of water out in the wind, and the hydrogen gets pushed off by the breeze into the hydrogen buckets? No? What's involved in building the generators? Copper wiring? Ferro-magnetic or rare-earth magnets, blades, stalks, circuitry.... all made from what? You have to do the entire equation. Once doing so, you'll see why we use simple batteries instead of solar cells, and why we don't have more wind farms- most that are in place are there because they used to be a good tax dodge, not because they make nice energy.

So there is other alternatives in creating electricity other than burning fossil fuels.

Well, we had all those submarines running around the planet using tidy little nuclear [NOT NUCULAR] reactors, each one of which would easily power much of your city for a decade with virtually no bother. Oh, but there's the waste, a nice little wad of nasty junk that'd fit into an orange juice can.... unlike the smokestack uptakes going straight into the atmosphere and your lungs from burning something.
Hydroelectric is a terrific solution, if you can get permission to put up a reservoir to supply it, and if your customers will pay for the infrastructure instead of asking you to just burn something cheap.
There are solutions, and there are good solutions, and there are good, cheap, easy solutions. But for now -and, likely for beyond the rest of the lifespan of all the members here- petroleum is cheaper and easier.

I was told in '68 that we'd be out of oil by 1990. Keep your own notes about what they tell you. You'll find they're all a lot of lying hounds.

 

[welfle18]

Oh. So, you just set a jug of water out in the sun and come back and scoop off the hydrogen? .

No they had this device about the size a refrigerator along the side of the road and you put water into it and it went through like a 3 step process where 1 it would purify the water 2 would go through an electrolysis to separate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules and 3 would be ready put that in a fuel cell. Something like that. I saw it on the Discovery channel a few nights ago.

Ah. So, you put a pan of water out in the wind, and the hydrogen gets pushed off by the breeze into the hydrogen buckets.

And no smart @ss the wind is used so that this plant that generated hydrogen used wind power to convert hydrogen from oxygen also using electrolysis.

I am not saying that there is no money/risk involved in all of this and personally I love my internal combustion car but there might be another solution out there and if it happens in my lifetime or not well we will just have to see!

 

[MrBoxx]

Guy, what I think Chad is getting at is that, even though those solar panels and wind turbines do cost money to produce, they require NO further input of FUEL to keep running. A gas or coal generator in contrast needs fuel to be put into it constantly. If you stop, no more power. But you can't stop the wind from blowing or the sun from shining.

In other words, a single solar panel may cost ten times what a comparable fossil-fueled generator costs to initially build, but eventually that solar panel is going to pay for itself when you figure in the cost of running a generator on whatever fuel it runs on. Thinking long-term, these natural energy sources work out just fine. It's a long-term investment that may take a while to show dividends, but it'll get there eventually.

 

[Defiant]

Guy, what I think Chad is getting at is that, even though those solar panels and wind turbines do cost money to produce, they require NO further input of FUEL to keep running. A gas or coal generator in contrast needs fuel to be put into it constantly. If you stop, no more power. But you can't stop the wind from blowing or the sun from shining.

So long as it's not night time, cloudy, or a calm day.

In other words, a single solar panel may cost ten times what a comparable fossil-fueled generator costs to initially build, but eventually that solar panel is going to pay for itself when you figure in the cost of running a generator on whatever fuel it runs on. Thinking long-term, these natural energy sources work out just fine. It's a long-term investment that may take a while to show dividends, but it'll get there eventually.

So, how long is the lifespan of solar cells? What do you do with the energy you aren't using now? Batteries? Gaseous hydrogen?
They're showing a Modern Marvels about ecological devices as I'm typing this. They just showed a car that runs on compressed air, a whole 150 miles. But what compresses the air? What's the waste of power to use it to compress air instead of just burning the fuel in a car's engine?
There are huge leaps in the near future- LED bulbs alone may save the raggedy, frayed-shoestring of a power grid we have in this country. But the solution to our power demands, particularly in the case of personal transport as we've come to know it, may remain very far ahead from now.