Electric Car Manufacturing Companies Are Out to Lunch Expecting Car Owners to Have to Recharge with a Plug in Every 100 Miles

Buyers of rechargeable electric cars beware. The built in battery may not last as long as advertised. Successive recharging or leaving plugged into recharge is probably going to result in battery charge retention time declining just as happens with the most advanced batteries found in cell phones and lap tops. Automobiles become rather inconvenient when they after one already compromises passenger comfort size when the automobile is limited to from 35 to 100 miles of travel per charge. The Telsa car battery takes 4 plus hours to recharge and the Chevy Volt gasoline hybrid gets only 35 miles on a charge without using gasoline with a recharge that takes 10 plus hours. The obvious solution is something we all know about called the interchangeable battery. Instead of charging the battery every time it runs down the driver heads into a service station removes the uncharged battery and has a battery that has already been recharged put in the car to take it's place. Interchangeable batteries ultimately means that the electric car manufacturing companies or the re charging services stations should retain ownership of all of the electric batteries in every car because then as batteries degrade in terms of the charge they are able to retain the car companies acting as a utility test the batteries and replace them with new ones when required for the entire fleet on the road. It should add to the expense of buying an electric car because it means that for every car there will be one or two extra batteries always being recharged at service stations or at the driver's home. Unfortunately these batteries tend to be heavy so it might take a machine designed to lift and reinstall the battery or a redesign such that the battery can be horizontally inserted into the body of the car sort of the way a disk goes into a disk drive on a computer. A horizontal plug in would require a pretty simply machines that might not even need to be electric but manual because it would be sort of like a forklift at the proper level. Interchangeable battery design can possibly be avoided by just using hydrogen fuel as a battery or a compressed air canister according to the Jules Verne prediction. The problem with hydrogen is that it takes added energy to liquefy it by cooling. Compressed air like batteries tends to be heavy to load and reload when it comes in interchangeable tank form.

Another solution is simply to introduce a sort of third rail on limited access roads like freeways where automobiles can access 12 volt power from exposed copper or gold clad strips in the road bed. It works the same way that electric bumper cars at carnivals work or the same way the third rail on the New York subway does except the voltage is lower. There is no reason that in a city with electric trolleys that cars cannot have individual attachments that allow them to connect to that power source to recharge in motion. Still that may not be the best way to extend the life of the battery and keep the charge longer. There is the possibility of running automobiles on water only using a kind of aluminum catalyst or a nano aluminum oxide catalyst that causes electrolysis of water yielding hydrogen and oxygen for combustion purposes, Cars running on water have already been shown to be a possibility. Some run on a battery charge that first have to fill a pressure chamber to feed the pistons with the hydrogen gas produced. Again the battery needs recharging or the aluminum additive needs replacing unless a very stable catalyst can be produced. The physical law conservation of energy constrains what can be done to use electricity to keep a water engine going. Certainly water needs to be added after a tank of it is used up. Aluminum oxide water cells could be interchangeable but the water probably would need to be added to the tank regularly.

The best long term solution might be to switch to a passive nuclear battery that recharges the secondary battery in the car and converts water to hydrogen gas on a regular basis for use in the pistons. The nuclear battery might actually make a full size 6 ton car electric car possible especially if it could be combined with the efficiency of an aluminum oxide nano conversion module that needs less of a charge to keep the electrolysis reaction going. It gets kind of complicated because hydrogen production might not be as efficient as running an electric engine the way gasoline hybrids work and the safest nuclear batteries will be passive ones encased in protective metal and ceramic casings that have to be crash proof and heavy enough with metal to reduce radiation exposure. That is why the most efficient solution maybe just running less than a 12 volt charge constantly to keep the aluminum oxide catalyst system running. If the cars go back to pistons and not some kind of hydrogen interface exchanger fuel cell then there is the possibility of having larger nuclear batteries generating hydrogen gas at service stations and in private garages. These more stationary systems can be a lot heavier with protective ceramic and lead layers to limit radiation exposure to safe levels. Of course the next phase is to have the same type of nuclear reactors found on Military submarines and aircraft carriers do the trick. These are probably an inevitable part of our energy future. They are small closet size reactors that are built to be a sort of nuclear battery with a defined life span. burring them at a safe distance underground they can keep a constant charge going to produce hydrogen fuel and cool it and also supply the local power grid. When the nuclear fuel is spent the whole thing is dug up out of the ground and replaced with a new nuclear module.

The present electric cars with the exceptions of the gasoline hybrids are probably just a novelty. Once people realize they don't have sufficient battery life or battery power to get the full expected savings over the expected life of the vehicle. Electric automobile manufacturers should really start considering popularizing the idea of a nuclear future for battery powered cars because hydrogen is just a sort of battery reserve power conversion once you see the energy needs involved to produce contain , cool and transport it if necessary. The miracle of infinite mobile electric power is that found on a nuclear submarine. The technology has been in use for quite some time. When you realize a nuclear submarine can generate enough power to stay under water for weeks and even months or longer and are able to maintain life support of recycling water and breathable air for the passengers it is completely absurd that we are wasting time on rinky dinky designs for electric cars that cannot compete with the efficiency of gasoline. The key to the nuclear battery and mini nuclear remote power plants is containing the radiation. The newest designs do not require major water cooling water flow and can actually be buried or encased in protective radiation shielding. Boron based ceramics shells that can stop bullets can also slow down some nuclear radiation and contain neutrons. Lead is still readily available to use in electric batteries but can also be used to absorb radiation which is why when you get xrays at your dentists offices they often use a lead shield material over the patient. Lead has to be really think to be totally effective but burring the thing a sufficient distance in a drill hole underground can serve the same purpose with out any long term pollution effects if removed from the underground area after the nuclear module is spent. residual radiation makes it possible to locate these if ever lost. use of non corrosive materials like the boron based shielding can also contain any harmful radioactive material leaks due to corrosion.. If not underground the simple solution is to put distance and berms around a miniature nuclear power plant and fence it off at sufficient distance that the radiation is more diffuse at a distance. berms can be 10-20 ft thick and work better than distance. The development of breeder reactors in the US will make fuel for nuclear power plants practically infinite . If you really believe that burning gasoline and diesel and coal is something that should be obsolete then realistically you should be reading up on how passive nuclear batteries work and how small nuclear fission power plants on nuclear submarines and huge aircraft carriers work and why we maybe wasting our time with just pretend electric car designs. France has successfully developed and runs breeder nuclear power plants. There are problems with nuclear power in that it may not be as inexpensive to use as the so called fossil fuels but the reliability is worth a lot compared to having to recharge cars every 100 miles and to have to design uncomfortable ultra light cars to down size the engine so the battery will work. Eventually maybe batteries improve significantly . Even so the power grid may have to be fed by traditional sources of energy especially when the need arises for more electricity when hundreds of millions of electric vehicles need charging and recharging should that become the case. Then what happens automatically is that coal , oil and natural gas might need to be burned in central power plants to keep the system running. The numbers to look at , if published is the efficiency and costs of running the power plant on a nuclear power plant to see the cost per kilowatt and to see if any economy of scale will show improvement in these numbers with the proliferation of these small sized nuclear reactors put into service.. After that the idea interchangeability has to be considered and that may just be nano aluminum oxide catalyst water reactors some of which might just be batteries in disguise if the aluminum is used up in the reaction at some defined rate of being spent or of having hydrogen that can be pumped into car tanks for refueling as a form of a rechargeable battery that it really is. It is definitely not time to become too excited by the electric vehicles because they are a sort of unfinished experiment in progress which have excessive price tags that probably don't pencil out as longer term energy savings. The present electric vehicles on the market, even the hybrids may require more energy input in manufacturing than gasoline powered ones require which has to be added into the total energy equation.

The initial expense of a vehicle is essentially an energy consideration too because if an owner has to drive a car to work 2 or 3 times as often to be able to afford it then there is a hidden energy cost that the sellers of these vehicles fashionably leave out of the total consequence calculations. If you have to work 1/2 of a year to be able to afford an electric car as opposed to 1/4 of a year to buy a gasoline powered car you maybe spending more energy up front than you realize which significantly lowers the efficiency of the car you buy. This is not an unrealistic manner of calculation because if you have an entire population of hundreds of millions or billions of people who have to pay with more work effort for less while putting additional drain on the power grid in todays modern electrified power grid economy then it washes out significant calculated total energy savings,. When the government proposes evil plans to make gasoline prices skyrocket in price by devaluing the US dollar or by switching to some other currency for international oil transaction than our own dollar we risk major consequences that include vastly higher food prices since it is a fact that high production yield farm land can use up to 400 gallons of gasoline per acre to grow and harvest. This gasoline load is one reason the ethanol solution is a total fraud. It takes significant amounts of gasoline to yield the ethanol and the ethanol produced maybe as little as 25% more fuel than originally expensed which is hugely inefficient and a crime that environmental kooks ever supported that as an alternative energy solution. Right now the electric car game is going down the same pathway until real electric generation is factored into the solution such that the amount of energy on the grid is substantially more than already in use with out many electric plug in vehicles. Buying an electric car now is mostly a novelty unless you can get one at a substantially low enough price that it pencils out not having to work harder for it in wages than a more traditional gas burning car. The electric vehicle companies have to know they also have to be selling a system for the long term and not just a car. This is the reason why companies like Exxon can confidently say they probably will be fueling electric cars in the future.. Right now the best longer term "alternative' to gasoline , diesel and coal solution there is for the broader electric vehicle system is probably a combustion of passive and active nuclear batteries/ power plants and probably hydrogen as the intermediary battery. Some nano technology that turns aluminum compounds into stable reusable catalysts could be yet another viable future for automotive energy needs with hydrogen as the intermediary but so far it also seems there is some hidden energy load in processing.

.