>From what I've seen on this topic, no one has suggested putting a high efficiency battery (comparable to the one in your vehicle) or other storage device in your garage and charging it with a rooftop solar panel, windmill (this was done down on the farm in the 1930s), waste heat device, then charge your vehicle from it while you are on rest mode. Then there are piped-in-hydrogen fuel cells on the horizon also.
The Eiffel Tower could sport a windmill on top, Michel. :-) Fred Michel Jullian wrote. > > > I agree, progress in this field can't be incremental. The main issue with > electrochemical batteries (lithium or whatever they might come up with in > the future) is cost in the long run due to limited life (in number of > recharges). A dry parallel plate type capacitor such as the EEstor device if > it really works would last for ages (millions of recharges vs hundreds). > > We shouldn't get too excited though, people have been known to make > extraordinary claims only intended for investors, I am not saying this is > the case for EEstor and I certainly hope it isn't :) > > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Zell, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:34 PM > Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline > > > >I have feared that, perhaps, we have encountered fundamental problems > > with trying to squeeze more energy density and low cost efficiency out > > of an > > electrochemical process such as batteries depend on. Where can we go > > beyond lithium? > > > > That's why the ultracap approach is so exciting - it's a whole new way > > to fix the energy storage problem. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:07 PM > > To: vortex-L@eskimo.com > > Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline > > > > Zell, Chris wrote: > > > >>This lack of additional generating capacity need is partly why a Really > > > >>Good Battery would have such a dramatic effect on society. You create > >>electric cars that run much cheaper per mile without much need for > >>additional fossil fuel generator use. Indeed, I think that such a > >>device would encourage an explosion of alternative development that > >>would quickly challenge utilities fossil fuel use. > > > > Don't forget, Chris: it works the other way too. Sometimes superior > > technology creates the opportunity, and sometimes opportunity gives rise > > to superior technology. This is what is happening now with batteries. We > > do not have Really Good Batteries but we do have Considerably Improved > > Batteries, such as the latest generation that are going into hybrid cars > > and the upcoming plug-in hybrid cars. > > Hundreds of thousands of hybrid cars have been manufactured and this has > > created a large market for improved batteries, and a flood of R&D > > funding. This, in turn, may eventually give rise to radically improved > > versions and the Holy Grail you speak of: the Really Good Battery. > > > > Batteries also improved over the last 20 years thanks to the demand for > > cell phones and portable computers. > > > > Persistent demand and a flood of R&D funding will not produce a radical > > breakthrough such as cold fusion. That sort of thing only comes along > > once every century or so, and it is the product of genius with no > > connection to the quotidian world of money and business. > > (Believe me, CF researchers live in a mental space light years away from > > what usually passes for reality.) But R&D funding will produce > > incremental improvements, and that may be enough to produce the Really > > Good Battery. Incremental improvements brought us microprocessors with > > 100 million components and 20 GB hard disks that fit into your pocket. > > Such things would have seemed utterly incredible 30 years ago -- to me, > > anyway. Yet they did not require any fundamental or surprising > > discoveries, just persistent slogging and one small improvement after > > another. > > > > - Jed > > > >
