Neil Young Converting Car To Run On Electric Battery

yahamita

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/06/02/young.electric.car.ap/index.html

jeffbr

Cool stuff.

This guy is driving an electric conversion he did...

http://voltrunner.com/default.aspx

I saw it in the parking lot at a soccer game and got his card. I love seeing these individuals innovate.

polaris

i've been wanting to do this as a side project for years

LONGRD

Who would have thought, Neil Young watches Pimp My Ride

stickfig13

Very cool!

I'd like to know the projected strain on the energy resources. Does it plug in?

Pacomc79

60's Lincoln Continental right? holy balls. That's going to be a heavy beast to get rolling too.

Urban Hiker

I want to give him props, but I'm feeling like a party pooper.

Electricity to run has to come from somewhere. If his comes from a wind farm or solar panels, then "Yay, Neil!"

If it comes from coal or nuclear then I give two thumbs down. :(

********

Green technology isn't always very green
by Andrew Kantor

If I see one more article about how wonderful alternative energy is compared to oil, I'm gonna flip. Alternative energy sources can be good — very good in fact. And it's pretty obvious that we're going to need them, and that our dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise) is a Bad Thing.

But accepting that does not mean accepting that any kind of alternative energy is by default a good thing.

To be a good thing, it has to have three properties: 1) It has to help reduce our dependence on oil, 2) It has to be no worse for the environment, and 3) It has to be economically practical.

Many of the things touted meet one or even two of those criteria. Solar panels, for example. They can reduce our need for oil, at least in certain regions, and they're certainly not bad for the environment. But they're prohibitively expensive. If you spend the money to make your home solar-powered, you probably won't recoup your costs for at least 15 years, which approaches the lifespan of the panels.

I realize that these days, taking a moderate position on anything makes you the enemy of everyone who has an extreme view. But green isn't always good, and oil isn't always bad.

Certainly we need to clean up our act big time and find viable sources of alternative energy. Depending on the Saudis — and oil — for our energy needs is stupid.

But we also have to keep in mind that every one of these alternative-energy sources comes at a cost, which is something people seem to forget. They hear the phrase "alternative energy" and automatically assume it's got to be good.

And this makes them no better than the people who hear it and think it's a waste of time.

It's not easy being green

Two seemingly "green" technologies that pop up again and again are ethanol and electric cars. Both are touted by well-meaning people as good for the environment and a way to reduce our oil dependence, especially as oil prices continue to rise.

I've written in detail about ethanol before, but it deserves a rehash. The Senate, you see, is considering a bill that would require a doubling of the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline at the pump.

They say it's about oil dependence and the environment, but it's not. It's about buying votes from farmers by artificially creating demand for crops — ethanol coming, in large part, from corn.

But there are a bunch of problems with ethanol. First, it doesn't have as much energy as gasoline, which means it takes about 1.5 gallons of ethanol to get you as far as one gallon of gas.

Ethanol also requires a lot to produce it — 26 pounds of corn to get a gallon, in fact. And growing corn requires lots of water and fertilizer and pesticide, not to mention the energy required to distill it into ethanol.

And by-products of that distillation include (according to the EPA) acetic acid, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and methanol, all of which are pumped into the air. Yum.

It boils down to this: Ethanol sounds good, but the energy required to produce it, and the pollutants it generates, mean it's arguably worse for the environment than gasoline, especially considering the cleanliness of today's engines.

On the other hand, even with the acreage, water, fertilizer, and pesticide, ethanol has one big thing going for it: It's not produced by the Saudis.

It's electric

Hearing the un-researched praises heaped on ethanol sets my teeth on edge, but hearing the supposed ecological wonders of electric cars makes me want to bang my head against the desk. (I'm talking about true electric vehicles, not hybrids.)

Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be more dirty than their gasoline-powered cousins.

People in California love to talk about "zero-emissions vehicles," but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. How else can you explain a state that uses more and more of it while not allowing new power plants to be built?

Quoth Schoolhouse Rock: "Power plants most all use fire to make it: electricity, electricity/Burnin' fuel and usin' steam, they generate electricity — electricity."

Aside from the few folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators. Generators are fueled by something — usually a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, diesel) but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. (There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity by burning something.)

In other words, those "zero-emissions" cars are likely coal-burning cars. It's just the coal is burned somewhere else so it looks clean.

It isn't. It's as if the California Greens are covering their eyes — "If I can't see it, it's not happening."

But it's worse than that. Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you take that gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice chunk of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat — at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.

In other words, a gallon of gas may propel your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won't get you nearly as far — so electric cars burn more fuel than gas-powered ones.

If our electricity came mostly from nukes, or geothermal, or hydro, or solar, or wind, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don't use much of those energy sources. We should, but we don't — that means those electric cars have a dirty past.

Furthermore, today's cars are very, very clean. I'd be willing to bet they're a lot cleaner than coal-burning power plants. And that's not even getting into whatever toxic niceties are in those electric cars' batteries — stuff that will eventually end up in a landfill.

And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it's a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.

Being green is good. We've squandered our space program on things like the International Space Money Pit, so we won't be leaving the planet very soon. It's what we've got and we should do better at taking care of it.

But that doesn't mean we should jump on any technology labeled "green" anymore than investors should have jumped on any stock labeled "tech" in the 1990s. We know what happened there.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-06-24-green-tech_x.htm

Urban Hiker

*sheepishly raises hand* Uh, me????

Seriously, does anybody have thoughts they'd like to share on the pros and cons of electric cars?

polaris

Urban Hiker wrote:

*sheepishly raises hand* Uh, me????

Seriously, does anybody have thoughts they'd like to share on the pros and cons of electric cars?

electric is the way to go assuming you can power it thru renewable sources ... most cars would charge at night so, they would be using electricity at off peak hours ...

electric motors would also last longer - the only issue would be the life span of the battery ... definite reduction in air pollution and reduction in greenhouse gases and they would last waaaaay longer ...

the cons are essentially tied to where the electricity comes from ...

Clarice

I love this man, his music and his mind.
You can find a lot of problems with this project, but he can improve the discussion about our needs of a alternative energie for cars.

And he has a 59 Lincoln Continental? Uau. Love, love..

MrBrian

Urban Hiker wrote:

*sheepishly raises hand* Uh, me????

Seriously, does anybody have thoughts they'd like to share on the pros and cons of electric cars?

the cons as they stand now, they are slow,don't handle well and sound really bad.

the pros? none at this time.

polaris

MrBrian wrote:

the cons as they stand now, they are slow,don't handle well and sound really bad.

the pros? none at this time.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

how is that slow?

most electric cars would be faster off the line then conventional gas cars

MrBrian

Yeah I saw a few things on that car when it came out.

It's about performance and feel, not just 0-60, can you even imagine an electric Ferrari? It's unnatural.

I think for the most part, Hydrogen is the best bet. It's still in it's early forms as far as producing and moving it around goes. But hydrogen is the future of travel.

Maybe solar energy will control trains and buses...cell phones, I see things like that, but cars, jets, planes will run on hydrogen.

So yeah perhaps (depending on how you get the electric) electric will have a place to play.

polaris

MrBrian wrote:

Yeah I saw a few things on that car when it came out.

It's about performance and feel, not just 0-60, can you even imagine an electric Ferrari? It's unnatural.

I think for the most part, Hydrogen is the best bet. It's still in it's early forms as far as producing and moving it around goes. But hydrogen is the future of travel.

Maybe solar energy will control trains and buses...cell phones, I see things like that, but cars, jets, planes will run on hydrogen.

So yeah perhaps (depending on how you get the electric) electric will have a place to play.

well ... that's just vehicular snobbery ... ... there are lots of pros for electric ...

MrBrian

yep,Here yeah go,

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/efficient_dynamics/phase_2/clean_energy/bmw_hydrogen_7.html

Pacomc79

http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_html_home.htm

This should probably be in this discussion along with the Tesla Roadster, but yeah I too Mr. B am intrigued by hydrogen.

yahamita

Urban Hiker wrote:

I want to give him props, but I'm feeling like a party pooper.

Electricity to run has to come from somewhere. If his comes from a wind farm or solar panels, then "Yay, Neil!"

If it comes from coal or nuclear then I give two thumbs down. :(

********

Green technology isn't always very green
by Andrew Kantor

If I see one more article about how wonderful alternative energy is compared to oil, I'm gonna flip. Alternative energy sources can be good — very good in fact. And it's pretty obvious that we're going to need them, and that our dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise) is a Bad Thing.

But accepting that does not mean accepting that any kind of alternative energy is by default a good thing.

To be a good thing, it has to have three properties: 1) It has to help reduce our dependence on oil, 2) It has to be no worse for the environment, and 3) It has to be economically practical.

Many of the things touted meet one or even two of those criteria. Solar panels, for example. They can reduce our need for oil, at least in certain regions, and they're certainly not bad for the environment. But they're prohibitively expensive. If you spend the money to make your home solar-powered, you probably won't recoup your costs for at least 15 years, which approaches the lifespan of the panels.

I realize that these days, taking a moderate position on anything makes you the enemy of everyone who has an extreme view. But green isn't always good, and oil isn't always bad.

Certainly we need to clean up our act big time and find viable sources of alternative energy. Depending on the Saudis — and oil — for our energy needs is stupid.

But we also have to keep in mind that every one of these alternative-energy sources comes at a cost, which is something people seem to forget. They hear the phrase "alternative energy" and automatically assume it's got to be good.

And this makes them no better than the people who hear it and think it's a waste of time.

It's not easy being green

Two seemingly "green" technologies that pop up again and again are ethanol and electric cars. Both are touted by well-meaning people as good for the environment and a way to reduce our oil dependence, especially as oil prices continue to rise.

I've written in detail about ethanol before, but it deserves a rehash. The Senate, you see, is considering a bill that would require a doubling of the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline at the pump.

They say it's about oil dependence and the environment, but it's not. It's about buying votes from farmers by artificially creating demand for crops — ethanol coming, in large part, from corn.

But there are a bunch of problems with ethanol. First, it doesn't have as much energy as gasoline, which means it takes about 1.5 gallons of ethanol to get you as far as one gallon of gas.

Ethanol also requires a lot to produce it — 26 pounds of corn to get a gallon, in fact. And growing corn requires lots of water and fertilizer and pesticide, not to mention the energy required to distill it into ethanol.

And by-products of that distillation include (according to the EPA) acetic acid, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and methanol, all of which are pumped into the air. Yum.

It boils down to this: Ethanol sounds good, but the energy required to produce it, and the pollutants it generates, mean it's arguably worse for the environment than gasoline, especially considering the cleanliness of today's engines.

On the other hand, even with the acreage, water, fertilizer, and pesticide, ethanol has one big thing going for it: It's not produced by the Saudis.

It's electric

Hearing the un-researched praises heaped on ethanol sets my teeth on edge, but hearing the supposed ecological wonders of electric cars makes me want to bang my head against the desk. (I'm talking about true electric vehicles, not hybrids.)

Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be more dirty than their gasoline-powered cousins.

People in California love to talk about "zero-emissions vehicles," but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. How else can you explain a state that uses more and more of it while not allowing new power plants to be built?

Quoth Schoolhouse Rock: "Power plants most all use fire to make it: electricity, electricity/Burnin' fuel and usin' steam, they generate electricity — electricity."

Aside from the few folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators. Generators are fueled by something — usually a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, diesel) but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. (There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity by burning something.)

In other words, those "zero-emissions" cars are likely coal-burning cars. It's just the coal is burned somewhere else so it looks clean.

It isn't. It's as if the California Greens are covering their eyes — "If I can't see it, it's not happening."

But it's worse than that. Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you take that gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice chunk of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat — at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.

In other words, a gallon of gas may propel your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won't get you nearly as far — so electric cars burn more fuel than gas-powered ones.

If our electricity came mostly from nukes, or geothermal, or hydro, or solar, or wind, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don't use much of those energy sources. We should, but we don't — that means those electric cars have a dirty past.

Furthermore, today's cars are very, very clean. I'd be willing to bet they're a lot cleaner than coal-burning power plants. And that's not even getting into whatever toxic niceties are in those electric cars' batteries — stuff that will eventually end up in a landfill.

And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it's a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.

Being green is good. We've squandered our space program on things like the International Space Money Pit, so we won't be leaving the planet very soon. It's what we've got and we should do better at taking care of it.

But that doesn't mean we should jump on any technology labeled "green" anymore than investors should have jumped on any stock labeled "tech" in the 1990s. We know what happened there.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-06-24-green-tech_x.htm

Excellent read, thanks for sharing