The Professor: GM's new old engine tech, moon mirrors, the dangers of space war debris

The Professor rounds up a handful of interesting and informative gadget-related science stories from the week and presents them in an easily digestible liquid form.

Having trouble keeping your fingers, thumbs, or eyeballs on the pulse of modern science? Do you find yourself in the throes of panic due to misunderstandings in molecular goings-on? Did the latest aircar, split atom, or robotic insectoid go buzzing over your head before you had time to ready a response? Don't worry friends, The Professor is here to help. Though not an actual scientist, professor, or even a college graduate, he can help guide you through the cascading, complicated, and spasmodic visionary vistas of human invention and achievement as smoothly as a hot knife descending into softened butter.

GM scientists have revived a lab-dream from the 1970's, "homogeneous charge-compression ignition" (or HCCI), and are now touting the technology as a possible alternative to hybrid engines. The system works much more efficiently than traditional spark or compression ignition motors, burning fuel at temperatures too low for nitrous oxide production, and utilizing a lower air-to-fuel mixture (more of the former, less of the latter) for 25- to 30-percent better performance in fuel economy and a big reduction in greenhouse gases -- all with a little help from recent advances in sensors and microprocessors. Let the HCCI vs. hybrid wars begin!

Read - In Efficiency Lab, GM Rethinks the Old-School Engine

Of course, no special fuel treatment will be necessary for a project researchers from Pennsylvania State University have proposed. Shawn Domagal-Goldman and Jacob Haqq-Misra suggest covering half the moon in mirrors in order to catch the eye of possible alien astronomers. Angled to reflect the Sun's rays, the panels could be programmed to flash prime number sequences as a sign of intelligence. In addition, the mirrors could also be lined with photovoltaic cells, which might be used to beam electricity back to Earth, thus solving our energy problems once and for all. We can only hope that the panels will end world hunger, promote peace between nations, and make sure everyone has a comfortable mattress as well.

Read - Mirrors on the Moon could catch alien eyes

Once those aliens arrive, however, and the inevitable space war ensues, scientists say we'll have to worry about space debris interfering with our satellites... provided human life still exists! Apparently, bits of blown apart alien battleships in our atmosphere could trigger a cascade of satellite break ups, thus seriously messing with our plans to watch C-SPAN, the Discovery Channel, and the Super Bowl in 2034.

Read - Space war would leave destructive legacy

[Tim @ May 4th 2008 6:15PM]

thanks for the update! that was necessary . . .
and why pit hcci against hybrids here? better fuel efficiency is good, getting off petroleum is better; electric cars are the future, man.

[Mike @ May 4th 2008 8:06PM]

Do you realize where that electricity comes from?

In the US, over 77% comes from fossil fuels including coal, natural gas, petroleum, and others. Plug-in cars are a fad that do more damage than gasoline.

Another fad is bio-ethanol, which is less efficient than gasoline (by far), is nearing the same cost/gallon as gasoline as its demand increases, and is contributing (at least in part) to rising food prices worldwide.

The real answer is hydrogen-powered fuel cells, but they require a MASSIVE overhaul to our infrastructure, which we cannot afford to do all at once, so it will take a very long time to accomplish. Until then, gasoline-hybrid or HCCI are the best answers we have.

Maybe even someday we'll one-up hydrogen fuel cells with small form-factor hydrogen fusion reactors or even proton-antiproton annihilation (antimatter), but those are far-fetched fantasies for at least the next several decades.

[thethirdmoose @ May 4th 2008 8:17PM]

And whenceforth comes the energy to split water into H2 and O2?

[Mike @ May 4th 2008 8:22PM]

Wow....read up on hydrogen fuel-cells.

They don't split H2 or 02. They TAKE hydrogen (from a fuel-pump) and oxygen (from the air). They then combine the 2 together (in a chemical process with heat and some catalyst such as platinum. The result is water (H2O) and energy. The water is pure. The only other waste is the catalyst, which is akin to a chemical battery and can last quite a while before needing to be replaced (recycled).

[Mike @ May 4th 2008 8:26PM]

And if you are referring to the hydrogen you get from the pump (as in it presumably comes from water before it gets there), then check this out:

http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/media/images/fueling/honda_solarFS.jpg

Notice the background of the image.

[Mike10010100 @ May 4th 2008 8:40PM]

Wow, Mike. You are a pompous idiot.

Hydrogen is extraordinarily tedious to process and takes a lot of energy to split from regular water. It would probably be better for those solar panels to be sending the electricity they get directly to the power grid, rather than waste it converting water into hydrogen.

What you've got there is a bundle of inefficiency. Inefficient solar panels powering inefficient hydrogen processing facilities. Lovely.

I thought we got rid of you, why are you back?

[Tim @ May 4th 2008 8:41PM]

@ Mike
The sources you list are many of the sources electricity CAN come from. Where I live, I have the option of solar, wind hydro, etc. But if one can only get electricity from fossil fuels, power plants still generate the power more efficiently and greener than an ICE burns petroleum products.
Where do you think the hydrogen, which you speak of coming out of a pump, comes from? Hydrogen is plentiful in our world, but its ALWAYS connected to something else! Hydrogen is a terrible "solution" as currently implemented, as the easiest way to get it is from the petroleum in the first place.

If you spent the time writing your replies looking into alternative fuels, You'd be much better off. Check out autobloggreen, a sister site to engadget, they have many great articles covering a large spectrum of alternative transportation.

with any luck the intelligence that powers your current thoughts on hydrogen will earn you a darwin award, so the rest of us don't ave to deal with your BS.

[Mike @ May 4th 2008 9:09PM]

Um....that picture is a WORKING hydrogen fueling station that is 100% self-powered, and has been in operation for several years now. It takes in ordinary city-water, distills it, and then splits the hydrogen from the oxygen, all on those solar panels. Is the overall process as efficient as gasoline? No, but it is much CLEANER and much MORE ABUNDANT than gasoline. Furthermore, once the hydrogen is separated and in your car's fuel storage tank, it IS more efficient than gasoline, by quite a bit, meaning you can go much further on one tank. The drawback at the moment is the infrastructure, which, as I stated, is too costly to do all at once and would have to be phased in over several years, if not decades.

As far as extracting hydrogen from water being tedious, any high-school idiot can do it in a tabletop experiment. It ain't that hard.

Why send that energy to the grid first, then send it right back to the fueling station? Have you ever studied transmission line theory? Power loss occurs in ALL transmission of electricity. The further it is transmitted, the larger the losses.


@Tim:

No, the sources I listed are the many sources electricity DOES come from. Go look it up yourself. Slightly over 77% comes from fossil fuels in one form or another in the US. Sure, there are other forms of production out there, but don't kid yourself thinking you have any choice in the matter as to which source powers your home. You get it from where it comes from, and that is the total US power grid, not your local windfarm (it is all connected). Therefore, roughly 77% of the electricity you use at home is obtained through combustion of fossil fuels.

As for calling me names, exactly how do you know what level my intelligence is at? In fact, I do pretty damn good in a very tough school as an electrical engineering major (3.84 gpa with 1 year to go), am praised by all of my professors, am sought by my classmates constantly for help with concepts. I also do my own thinking, and don't follow every dumbass fad that the media throws at the public. My math skills are excellent, and so are my problem-solving skills.

So far you have not even addressed what I've said other than with misdirection and a display of misunderstanding of the issue on your part.


I repeat, gasoline is more efficient than distillation/dehydration, but hydrogen fuel is more efficient than gasoline. You want the hydrogen fuel in your car, not the distillation/dehydration plant. Since it does consume a good deal of energy to get the hydrogen, local solar power is the best way to go (and is proven to work at an actual operational fuel station) from an environmental point of view. If you prefer, use wind turbines, although solar is way better in many ways (not just energy efficiency) with the recent advancements.

Oh, and don't make this an argument of the TOTAL process of getting hydrogen from water to the fuel cell versus just the process of gasoline going from your gas tank to the cylinder. Gasoline follows a much lengthier process (from the Middle East, typically, onto a tanker, across the atlantic, to a refinery, into another tanker, across the US highway system, and then pumped via electricity).

I don't see how you can think that's much more efficient than 10-20 square meters of solar cells right next to the pump.

Are there better choices NOW? Yes, more efficient gas engines. 10 years from now, though...I hope to see fuel cells becoming much more predominant. They are cleaner and provide much greater ON-VEHICLE efficiency than gasoline, and hydrogen will be around for a very long time.

[spacegravity4me @ May 4th 2008 9:27PM]

ok, I don't wanna argue with anybody right now so i'll just say this. You gotta start somewhere, ok? And then once everything is different than it is now and the infrastructure is different and hydrogen is mainstream making the stuff won't be a problem cause you'd be using hydrogen powered crap to make hydrogen to power the crap that uses hydrogen to make hydrogen and so on. Then you also have a bunch of other yet to be discovered substances that we can use to replace petroleum so we could cross that one off the list as well. It's all about future innovation and being positive. It's a vicious cycle at first but eventually it'll even out. Other than that, I don't care because I have a final tomorrow. Now go ahead and disagree with me or argue amongst yourselves. I'm just saying that we are dependent on oil now but it doesn't have to be that way and while it may take some time, I believe that once it's achieved we can almost completely eliminate oil from the cycle and use hydrogen to make hydrogen.

[Tim @ May 4th 2008 9:42PM]

@ mike
I agree with almost everything you're saying, and I'm sorry I name-called.
BUT If you think for one second that a hydrogen infrastructure is going to have the hydrogen produced by solar panels, you're the one who's kidding himself. And in the Berkshires, I can guarantee that my energy comes from green sources. And yes, I know how the grid works, and that if my power is "green" all that means is that my grid has the capacity for mine to be green, not that i have a direct line to a wind turbine. however, the loss of power by transmission on high voltage ac lines is less than the gross inefficiencies of ICE's (obviously apples and oranges, but joules to joules, this much is true).

But back to what you have RIGHT: hydrogen, this very second, is often the best option for a number of applications. And absolutely, hydrogen COULD be a great option ten years from now, in that it avoids the weight of battery packs, replacement costs, range, and the other issues that plague hybrids/ electric cars. I read through your post again, and you hinted on this; I should have picked up on that.

The point i want to stretch is that if people just say hydrogen fuel cell, and nothing else, a green infrastructure will not be made - it would be easier to take it from petroleum than solar, or electrolysis. People need to know that what really is best would be systems such as the proven station you mentioned.

However, from your posts, some people might just read "hydrogen is the answer." People need to know that there is more to it than that, and furthermore, that when bush pushes hydrogen as the future, what you talk about is certainly not what he is.

I sincerely hope that people read all the way down to here, and learn why hydrogen could be the future, and not just assume that fuel cells will pull exxon-mobile out of the food-chain.
I'm sorry this turned into a fanboy-esque arguement, but i think we're actually both in agreement - i just didn't tell my whole story, and was to dull to pick u on yours.
Big Hug?

[Mike10010100 @ May 4th 2008 10:11PM]

@Tim and Mike

That's what I'm saying, Tim. I hate it when people get all, "OMG! Like, Hydrogen and crap is going to come in and save us all!"

Hydrogen is good for cars, nothing else. Maybe we're all in agreement with this. I'm sorry for being hasty (and a bit mean), but I hate it when people don't know all the facts. (Even myself, as I'm currently putting a hot coal on my forehead for being wrong about the pricing differences, see below)

Sorry that I was a bit enigmatic about my using the word "tedious" to mean "inefficient."

[Jimbo @ May 4th 2008 10:22PM]

Why not just use the electricity from the solar cells (or whatever the source) to charge up a battery or ultracapacitor? Cut out the middle man. Battery and capacitor technology is rapidly evolving, cutting down recharge times, increasing battery life, and increasing range. The technology is evolving much faster than hydrogen technology.

[Tim @ May 4th 2008 10:54PM]

@ jimbo
When you say "cut out the middleman" is where alot of people get confused.
Gas is an energy source that uses an ICE to move a car
Batteries (in this sense) are an energy source that use an electric motor to move a car
Hydrogen is an energy source that uses fuel cells to power an electric motor to move a car.
so there are two sides to this from here:
first, fuel to car (not from the pump; from the ground or the air or plutonium or whatever), and second fuel to road:
Of the 3:
Gas has the most developed infrastructure and reliability in cars.
electricity and hydrogen can be produced cleanly but aren't yet, at least on a grand scale.
electric cars and ICE's can be run on a variety of "fuels" ( everything that can produce electricity can charge a battery) and an ICE can run on any form of petroleum, be it produced from crude, natural gas, corn, algae, even wood.
The powertrains of electric cars are very heavy from batteries, etc., ICE's can be heavy depending on the model, hydrogen would likely be the least.

Look, there are a ton of pros and cons, but I think the key is that the future is not one kind of car, but many. I personally dont want another oil monopoly. But also keep in mind that some people dont like oil because of the cost, some because of the environmental aspect. But don't be so sure that hydrogen technology is going nowhere, compared to batteries. And when you weigh the benefits of a particular vehicle, consider also the source of the fuel. Theres a long story for every electron that comes out of the wall of your garage and into you electric car. think about where it comes from.

[Coleman Foley @ May 4th 2008 11:12PM]

we could just generate electricity with nuclear power

[Jimbo @ May 4th 2008 11:27PM]

@ Tim, I guess what I was getting at with "cut out the middle man" is that you need electricity to make the hydrogen and pump it into storage tanks on vehicles. The vehicles then use the hydrogen to make electricity to drive electric motors. You could burn it in an ICE but that is less efficient.

It would be more efficient to send the electricity to an ultracapacitor or battery. So far all hydrogen storage systems weigh as much or more than batteries. And while the gas distribution network is well established, it is not adequate for hydrogen since it is such a small molecule and can readily escape.

And let's not forget that the byproduct of hydrogen is water vapor, which is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, nature would balance everything out by condensing it out of the atmosphere in some form of precipitation. But if hydrogen were used on a large scale, that would put a lot more water vapor in the air than normal, leading to more and powerful storms as it condenses out.

[alan @ May 4th 2008 11:41PM]

@mike:

about rising food prices: time to learn some economy. as a reference, just think about how only about 30 cents of corn is in that 3 dollar box of corn flakes, etc etc

you want to be mad at someone about rising food prices? blame market speculators who make their living from it

[Saad Rabia @ May 5th 2008 12:05AM]

Aaannnndddd, I'm lost. :)

[Abuzar @ May 5th 2008 12:51AM]

What ever, I just carry around a fusion reactor in my trunk.

[andy @ May 5th 2008 2:07PM]

@Mike
I myself have recently graduated with a EE degree. I understand that you are a very smart student in the top of your class. You will soon learn (as all of us do) of the great power of money. As most things go, the options that make perfectly good engineering sense do not make perfectly good financial sense. You have to realize that the general public is generally....well, not engineers. They don't care about how efficient a car is, or what the parts are made of or where the power comes from or even how it even works. All they care about is $$. If it costs less (or comes with a huge tax incentive) then that is what they get. This is the real world, you're gonna have to get used to this. For now, sit back, drink a beer and enjoy your last year of college before you get to live in a cubicle for the rest of your working days.

My two cents:

I personally am not a proponent of hydrogen because it does not make sense in the real world, yet.

As it stands, we do not have batteries (or super-capacitors), electric motors, control electronics and fuel cells that are mass-producible, mass-produced, super efficient, lightweight, AND financially competitive with an ICE system. Our current gasoline-based infrastructure is immense in size and cost. It is just too expensive to toss out in short time span.

What is suggest is that instead of throwing all of these systems into one super-expensive car and ditching gasoline, lets throw half of the systems into a medium-priced car and keep using gasoline. I think we need to keep on the path we are on and keep developing hybrid cars. Hybrid cars are the perfect way to infuse tons of money into the development of cheap and efficient battery, motor and motor control technologies. On top of that, the general public is comfortable with gasoline and they won't be forced to change immediately (ever try to teach a grandparent how to use a computer?) Once these technologies come around, then we can scale up our battery systems, go fully electric, and ditch oil all together. I think that once we reach this point hydrogen may become affordable.

I would like to point out the following:
-how many hydrogen cars are made anyway? I'm assuming it is just enough to make GM/whoever look like a "green" company so they can keep on making SUVs. Don't mistake a PR stunt as the solution to all of your problems.
-What is the capacity of a solar powered fueling station? It's gonna have to be like 100-500 cars a day to be any good. Good luck with 30% efficient solar cells.
-Keep in mind that efficiency increases as size increases. By burning petroleum products at a large power plant we can keep efficiency high while tightly controlling emissions. Of course the efficiency doesn't count much if transmission losses are too high...
-Hydrogen is not very dense at all and it is hard to store. In the liquid form, it is just 4.23 lb/ft3. This is why LH & LOx rockets are so big. Hydrogen burns invisibly unless contaminated by some other substance. Imagine how much you are going to have to pay a mechanic to work on this system!

That is all.

[NOS @ May 5th 2008 2:28AM]

why have we cut out bio-ethanol out of this convo?
bio-ethanol is a very interesting topic at this moment, and it has alot of potential.

"Another fad is bio-ethanol, which is less efficient than gasoline (by far), is nearing the same cost/gallon as gasoline as its demand increases, and is contributing (at least in part) to rising food prices worldwide."

u know why it is so expensive? go compare how it is being produced in US and Brazil.

[JLTate @ May 5th 2008 4:55AM]

Water vapor is not bad, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.

Here we go!

BMW said 2 years ago that they could get a car to go 125 miles (200 km) on 17.6 pounds (8 kg) of hydrogen. Converting that to kilometers per kilogram, that'd be ~25 km/kg of fuel. ( http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/ )

Now, if we assume that there are 300 million cars in America being driven 25,000 kilometers in a given year, that'd be 7.5 trillion kilometers driven in a year. (Usual estimate is 15,000 miles per car, so converted to kilometers is a little less than 25,000)

If all of them were suddenly converted to be hydrogen powered, and if we divided the 7.5 trillion kilometers by the 25km/kg figure we gave before, that'd be 300 billion kilograms of hydrogen consumed in a year.

If a gram of hydrogen atoms converts to 9 grams of water (1 mol/gram to 18 mol/gram, with 2 hydrogen required per oxygen), then it'd be 2.7 trillion kilograms of water vapor produced, or 2.7 billion cubic meters of water vapor (1 cubic meter of water vapor weighs 1000 kilograms).

Geographically the US has 665,000 square kilometers of water, or 665 billion square meters. If there's 1 meter of evaporation in a year, then 665 billion cubic meters of water vapor will be evaporated into the atmosphere from natural sources. (Lake Mead in Nevada evaporates over 2 meters each year, so I think 1 meter might be a good national average)

Conclusion? The people suggesting that the less than 1/2 of one percent increase in annual water vapor production might contribute to a major variation in climate patterns are one of the following:

a) getting paid more by making wild predictions than by making accurate ones
b) politicians
c) uninformed
d) all of the above

[redo @ May 5th 2008 6:01AM]

Though your calculations are impressive but you dont take local weather pattterns into account. I mean some areas get more rainfall and others get less. For e.g. all the cars in Las Vegas pump too much water vapour in the micro climate and the desert soil which cant handle so much rain will receive more rain leading to further desertification of the area....

Havnt read anything related to this really, dunno if this makes sense, but it just came across my mind.

[Mike10010100 @ May 5th 2008 6:06AM]

Yeah, Jimbo, that's another thing that i was trying to say.

If we can use hydrogen to make cars run from the generated
electricity, why can't we just use batteries or capacitors to just
run it off of the electricity itself generated to produce the
hydrogen?

Let's assume a 100% output of energy from the sun. The solar panels
have about a 45% efficiency (I don't know for sure, I'm
guesstimating). Then, instead of taking that 45% electricity being
harvested and use it, we decide to make hydrogen, which has about a
25%(?) efficiency rate. We now have a lot less energy than what would
be from just using the energy from the solar panels.

From:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn13344-solar-cell-speeds-hydrogen-production.html

"Mallouk admits that so far the cell is very inefficient, as only
around 1% of the light energy falling on it goes into splitting
water, but he says that with some optimisation of the geometry and
the molecules the efficiency could rise to 10% per cent [going into
splitting water]. 'Because we understand the relationship between
intermolecular distances and electron transfer rates, we can in
principle improve our system by changing the linking groups between
molecules.'"

1%? That's pretty inefficient vs. the new improvements being made in the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity.

[blizz419 @ May 5th 2008 7:32AM]

Why pit HCCI vs. hybrid and just build a HCCI Hybrid car, even more efficient!

[Ken @ May 5th 2008 9:37AM]

I don't understand the hippie love of hydrogen. You'd think someone had figured out how to efficiently store it or something. I'm sorry put keeping a substantial amount of an explosive gas stored at 4 ksi in a vehicle operated by an everyday person is not an answer.

I'm still trying to figure out why ammonia hasn't been mentioned as the fuel of choice. It's safer than gas, biodegradable, bio-producable (can actually produce a negative carbon footprint), more easily stored than hydrogen, and already has the worldwide infrastructure in place. Its waste product is water and nitrogen (N2).

[Mike @ May 5th 2008 11:24AM]

@Ken

I am far from a hippie. In fact I'm pretty damn conservative, and if you read my other posts, you would see that I really hate environmentalists who don't know shit about science. I remember standing on the USS Enterprise (a nuclear carrier) in the bay off Cannes, France, while Greenpeace protesters were surrounding us in their little boats with signs against nuclear power. I'd look at them with black smoke spewing out of their boats like there's no tomorrow, then look at our ship, which was releasing NOTHING, and just shake my head. Morons.

I trumpet hydrogen because it has the highest energy density of any other substance and is the most abundant substance in the universe. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out it is the answer, eventually, even if not right now.

It has been figured out how to efficiently store it. They're working on improving that efficiency, but that is par for the course. As far as the explosiveness goes, it is safe. It's been in use for quite some time and it is safe! In fact, hydrogen does NOT readily explode, contrary to popular belief. I credit that myth to the Hindenburg, which actually was caused from a fuel-fire, which then caused the hydrogen to explode. Otherwise the hydrogen would have just leaked out. How many gas tanks explode these days (not counting movies)? Don't be afraid of hydrogen....but don't light it with a match either (same goes for gasoline).


@andy

I'm not your typical 21 year old undergrad. I've spent time in the military, lived out there in that real world you speak of, and even have a wife. I understand economics thoroughly, as my father is a CPA and has brought me up on it. I have not said that we need to switch to hydrogen immediately. In fact, I've stated the opposite, that we need to continue to improve upon ICE efficiency for the near-term. Hydrogen infrastructure isn't in place and won't be any time soon, DUE TO economic factors. As far as the actual H-fuel cell tech goes, I give it about 5 years before it's economically competitive with gasoline ICEs. The infrastructure is another issue....depending more on politics than actual technology. Somebody's gotta pay for it or it won't happen.

I agree we should keep on the path we're on, though I'm not at all sold on hybrids. I fully believe they're an intermmediate step that is a waste of time. Economically it doesn't make sense, and before hybrids really catch on, there will be a much better option. It's a waste of time and money IMO.


To the guys that keep talking about bio-fuels.....damn. Nobody is discussing them because they're useless. Get over it or find a way to make them better. As it stands, they're a bigger publicity stunt than anything Paris Hilton ever did....well maybe not. They're not very efficient. That's the end-all be-all of it. We have more efficient fuel at a very similar price with the infrastructure already in place. We're not converting to a corn-fueled economy. You better either drastically improve the price or the efficiency (actually probably both) if you want to see it in widespread use.

Comparing prices in the US and Brazil means nothing. Everything is cheaper in Brazil, just like everything is more expensive in Japan. Look at the timeline of gasoline prices versus ethanol prices. Ethanol is catching up quickly, even as fast as gasoline is rising!

[MarcC @ May 5th 2008 2:07PM]

@ mike, do you realize that you comment on where electricity comes from is ridiculous. Do you really think that power plants, no matter what they burn are not more efficient then cars. The internal combustion engine is one of the least efficient way to create energy. Do you not realize the drastic POSITIVE effect we would have on this planet if everyone drove electric car, even if all those cars were powered by electricity from "dirty" power plants. Do your research first.

[Student Driver @ May 5th 2008 4:56PM]

Ugh. E85 (ethanol) is fine if used with greater compression. The reason why it's less efficient in typical gasoline engines is because those engines aren't really designed for that fuel (or rather, that octane level even if they can flow the stuff). If an engine were made smaller, and used higher compression then you could get back the fuel efficiency that's lost in the typical engine while still hitting the same HP/torque specs (and the engine will probably be lighter because of the smaller size, and stronger due to beefed-up internals). This is already being done by Saab to some extent, with one of their cars that will increase the boost when running E85 and deliver an increase of 40-50hp. However, if you create a motor specifically designed to run on E85 (like Saleen's S5S concept) then you will require that high octane and may not be able to run high octane gasoline in its place; or it will just be stupid expensive to.

Oh, and there's a set of buses made by Daimler that ticked over their 2 millionth kilometer:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/05/daimler-fuel-cell-buses-turn-over-2-millionth-kilometer/

So, hydrogen is obviously doable, just not cheap (yet).

[Geekpulp @ May 7th 2008 4:17AM]

I agree getting of gas is the best idea. the cost of an infrusture upgrade to support a better system is nothing compared to the cost of displaying 100's of millions of people.

Stop thinking dollars and start thinking sense!

[Scott Thatcher @ May 4th 2008 6:19PM]

So why note mate an HCCI as the gas engine in a hybrid?

[stefan @ May 4th 2008 6:42PM]

Because todays Hybrids are crap. Replacing the batteries in a Prius (yes, they break) costs between 8000 and 12000 USD depending on your country of residence. Furthermore total lifetime polution, ownership costs and energy requirements are still subject to vivid debates.

As of now, "hybrid" is probably more of a buzzword than anything else.

I too belive, that very-low-consumption fuel engines are the way to go. Look at the Volkswagen "Blue Motion" cars for inspiring examples (Polo gets 74.3mpg on a combined cycle)

[Sam Zebian @ May 4th 2008 6:52PM]

oh... crap, my mom's got a highlander hybrid from '06...

[mac404 @ May 4th 2008 7:20PM]

@stefan

So, let me get this straight- A more efficient engine shouldn't be used with a hybrid because you determine that hybrids are not helpful. This would be some great logic if you were a dictator or could control minds, but it seems like people are still buying hybrid cars. Why not try to make them more efficient, if people are going to use them anyways?

[Mike @ May 4th 2008 8:14PM]

@mac404

So, let me get this straight- A more efficient engine shouldn't be used with a hybrid because you determine that hybrids are not helpful. This would be some great logic if you were a dictator or could control minds, but it seems like people are still buying hybrid cars. Why not try to make them more efficient, if people are going to use them anyways?


How about: A more efficient engine should be used INSTEAD of an unproven and controversial method that has already proven to cost an absurd amount (when compared to conventional methods).

If you replace a battery ONCE on a hybrid, it's total cost, not counting regular maintenance which is assumed equal among hybrid and gasoline engines, goes up about $10 on average. On top of that, the cost of the car brand new is about $5000 more than the gasoline version. This now brings the price difference to $15000! On a very nice $30k car, that's a 50% increase! Most people can only afford a car that's sub-$20k, meaning this hybrid crap nearly doubles the price of the car, if not more.

No matter how pro-anything you are, if it isn't economical, it's a bad idea. If you try to force it, you'll just break the system that we need to use to come up with a better idea.

Invest the research money in something that is much more feasible and more effective rather than ride the idiot (environmentalist) bandwagon. Science + math > morons dancing in a moonlit meadow. Remember that, unless you just really like those morons. Science and math can (and will) come up with a solution that works for everyone while keeping costs reasonable.

[Mike @ May 4th 2008 8:16PM]

If you replace a battery ONCE on a hybrid, it's total cost, not counting regular maintenance which is assumed equal among hybrid and gasoline engines, goes up about $10 on average.


Make that $10 = $10000.

[Mike10010100 @ May 4th 2008 8:52PM]

Just where are you quoting your prices from?

I just went onto the Honda website, and from what i can tell, the price is only differing by a manageable $2000.

It goes from 20,000 to 22,000. Big whoop. For a lot better gas mileage.

And the last time i checked, Honda is offering an 8 year or 80,000 mile warranty on the batteries in the hybrid. The rest of the vehicle has the standard 3 year or 36,000 miles warranty.

Combine the two new technologies!

Arm yourself with knowledge!

[Mike @ May 4th 2008 9:36PM]

Actually, you're comparing the wrong cars. Compare the Honda Civic Hybrid Sedan to the Honda Civic Sedan instead of the Honda Civic SI Sedan.

Prices:
Hybrid: $22,600
SI Sedan: $21,310
Sedan: $15,010

MPG (Average):
Hybrid: 42
SI Sedan: 24
Sedan: 29

Price Ratios:
Hybrid/SI: 1.0605
Hybrid/Sedan: 1.5057

MPG Ratios:
Hybrid/SI: 1.75
Hybrid/Sedan: 1.4483


As you can see, if you compare the price and efficiency of the Hybrid with the SI, then your argument works. Trouble is the Hybrid is not a hybrid version of the SI, but a hybrid version of the Sedan. In that case, it is not cost effective, although it is getting there.

This could be extended to show fuel savings versus investing the initial cost savings if you'd like. In the end, it matters more if you drive a LOT, or not. If you drive over 20k miles/year, it might actually be worth it, assuming the technology is stable enough for heavy use (still unproven, since it hasn't been around long enough to get long-term statistics, but I give it a good shot at being nearly as stable as gas engines).

[lowbot @ May 5th 2008 1:09AM]

>Trouble is the Hybrid is not a hybrid version of the SI, but a hybrid version of the Sedan. In that case, it is not cost effective, although it is getting there.

Its the same car. The SI is pricey because of that expensive VTEC engine. This is classic apples vs oranges. A hybrid at this price and with this mileage and with this warranty is really a sweet spot.

[Mike @ May 5th 2008 7:53AM]

Wrong. The SI has MANY extra options. The SI is NOT the same car as the Hybrid. The 350-Watt 6.1 stereo system alone adds a considerable chunk to the price. Also the SI has a Twin-Ring Motegi track-tuned suspension, aerodynamic body styling and a performance exhaust system developed by Mugen. That's something not even mentioned for the Hybrid. Furthermore, the SI has high performance tires with alloy wheels. How can you say they're the same car? Just because they look SIMILAR on the outside, doesn't mean shit. Go look again. The Hybrid is the hybrid version of the Sedan, not the SI.

[Dharun @ May 4th 2008 6:18PM]

That mirror idea is incredibly interesting but I doubt it will ever be implemented.

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 4th 2008 7:21PM]

I perfer the moon remain COVERED with giant meteor craters to the moon covered with giant shards of mirrors broken by meteors.

Next headline: "Rain of Hyperspeed Anvils Boosts Production at Glass Factory."

[Jimbo @ May 4th 2008 11:41PM]

I think they stole the idea from that Absolut vodka ad where they cover the moon with mirrors and turn it into a giant disco ball.

[LondonConsultant @ May 5th 2008 3:25AM]

But if it does, prepare to be kept as a pet...

[Jonny2hats @ May 4th 2008 6:55PM]

now if only we could use the moon mirrors to focus the light in a giant beam to destroy the enemies of the west...hahahahahahahahaha!

[aMac @ May 4th 2008 6:56PM]

Bloody hell. Glancing at the article before reading any text, I thought good old Mr Hawking had died or something!

[andres @ May 4th 2008 7:07PM]

dont jinx it

[CL @ May 4th 2008 7:55PM]

that's what i thought for a sec too, i mean..really, that b&w photo had me screaming "NOOOOOOOO!!!!!" for a min....

[DeoWulf @ May 4th 2008 9:10PM]

Yeah, same. I was pretty worried for a second there.

[low tech @ May 4th 2008 10:11PM]

Yeah thats the same picture from the wiki article, but only I am a big enough geek to know that >.

[Michael LaFramboise @ May 4th 2008 7:03PM]

Bigass mirrors on the moon and they wanna use them for flashing at aliens? come on... you can use those mirrors to have day 23 hours a day :/...