So is RED going to Design a CAR anytime soon??? solar powered of course.

[BigLu]

I know its off topic a little bit.
But HAS RED talked about designing a Solar Powered CAR?
Or something that does not run on BLOOD.

WTF why not no one thought they would make a 4K camera so fast complete and working under 30k.


If you are I have my deposit ready.

[g3nov3s3]

I want some of that stuff you're smoking....

[Andrew Walker]

I know its off topic a little bit.
But HAS RED talked about designing a Solar Powered CAR?
Or something that does not run on BLOOD.

WTF why not no one thought they would make a 4K camera so fast complete and working under 30k.


If you are I have my deposit ready.

I don't know what your talking about. My car runs on body parts...an arm here a legs there.

[Clint Johnson]

I know its off topic a little bit.
But HAS RED talked about designing a Solar Powered CAR?
Or something that does not run on BLOOD.

WTF why not no one thought they would make a 4K camera so fast complete and working under 30k.


If you are I have my deposit ready.

There is not enough energy in sunlight to move anything more than an aerodynamically enclosed tricycle. The equivalent of the most anemic gas sipper would need tens of square meters of solar panels even at 100% efficiency.

[Joseph Ward]

What about a Red Drag Race Car?

[Petr Dvorak]

Dude Jim did long time development on the other side - gas guzzlers - drasgters he he :clown2:

[Tom Lowe]

I would buy one.

As soon as an all-electric Jeep or 4x4 hits the market I will buy one. I don't care if it costs a lot more. I'd rather pay the loot up front then continually getting raped at the gas pump every week.

[James T Mather]

wow - what gas station are you going to? I just get a wax at mine.

[Tom Lowe]

Hehe.

[Dominic Cochran]

There is not enough energy in sunlight

Are you 100% sure this is a sunlight issue and not a cell development issue? I don't know a lot about solar tech but last time I checked our whole planet pretty much runs on sunlight.

[jimhare]

I'd buy one. Or at least a fully electric car with hybrid petrol used only for longer trips when you need to go more than 80 miles.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Clint is right. There just isn't enough energy in sunlight to directly power a real car, or at least not in relation to the surface areas needed. OTOH, voltaic cells make perfect sense for the outer skin of an electric vehicle. Even if they can input 5 to 10 percent of the energy needed, that takes a load off and increases mileage. There could be huge advantages to this in commuter vehicles in situations of high density traffic - stop n' go driving, etc. Besides, wouldn't it be cool if you could drive your car to work and that may drain your charge by 25%, but the car would be fully charged again when you leave to drive home?

Solar cells right now are getting very efficient. There are many cell products for residential and commercial construction where the cell panels are actually thin sheets that incorporate directly with asphalt and composite roofing surfaces or others that are individual tiles that blend seamlessly with concrete roof tiles. Costs are coming down and it's possible in many cases for these panels to generate enough electricity that they would pay off their installation cost within 3 to 5 years and after that will help reduce the homeowner's utility bill. All the while, reducing their load on the power grid.

I think we're going to start seeing many products like this not only become standard over the next few years, but actually required for new construction.

[Petr Dvorak]

nanotech will help alot - and there is some development that solar panels can create electricity even at night :wink:

[Dominic Cochran]

Solar cells right now are getting very efficient. There are many cell products for residential and commercial construction where the cell panels are actually thin sheets that incorporate directly with asphalt and composite roofing surfaces or others that are individual tiles that blend seamlessly with concrete roof tiles. Costs are coming down and it's possible in many cases for these panels to generate enough electricity that they would pay off their installation cost within 3 to 5 years and after that will help reduce the homeowner's utility bill. All the while, reducing their load on the power grid.

I think we're going to start seeing many products like this not only become standard over the next few years, but actually required for new construction.

Still looks like a tech problem to me, not a sun problem. Unless you see the progress reflected in the first sentence of yours I quoted stopping for some reason. History tells me that's extremely likely.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Well the problem is that there is only so much energy in sunlight that hits the earth's surface in a square meter in a certain amount of time (or whatever measurement you wish to use). I don't recall how many Joules/s/m^2 it is off the top of my head. So no matter how technically advanced solar voltaic cells become, there is no way to transfer more energy into a system (like a solar powered car) than what they receive via sunlight hitting their surface. Right now, good voltaics are 82-85% efficient. That number will increase with better materials and design, but a true 100% voltaic cell would practically defy the laws of physics and energy transfer. This is why many of the larger solar farms use large mirrors and / or lenses to concentrate more sunlight onto banks of solar panels. I think current solar cells could get a 20 to 30 % boost in power input and output of the current flat surface designs were augmented with a way to re-focus the incoming sunlight. I've seen one concept like this where the surface of the solar panel looked as if it was covered with glass beads about 1/2" in diameter that acted like little magnifying glasses. The company showing this was claiming a 15% boost in power I/O over their standard flat-surface panel. They were claiming something like 93% efficiency. But ultimately, a solar panel can not take in any more energy than what is able to strike its surface.

Obviously, to go beyond 100% of the energy striking it's surface would require some sort of reactive panel and there is research happening in that area too with some test concepts that have popped up over the years. These are voltaic cells that employ various types of organic films or chemical combinations that when stimulated by sunlight or the right type of energy, they react and produce much greater energy output. The problem with this is they don't last very long. Most concepts literally only last minutes to a few hours before the reactive substances have used themselves up in their reactions.

So on that note, it can be a tech problem... But sunlight alone isn't going to produce enough power on the spot to move anything but the lightest cars -- as has been done thus far. Sunlight isn't going to power the family station wagon with 6 people and 500lbs of luggage in the back.

But if a hybrid solution of sunlight and a reactive power generation method could theoretically get it done.

I see solar on vehicles as a supplementary power system or part of the whole, not the primary source of power. Solar would be great for continuous recharging of electric vehicles or as the power-input necessary to drive certain types of fuel cells.

[Dominic Cochran]

I think current solar cells could get a 20 to 30 % boost in power input and output of the current flat surface designs were augmented with a way to re-focus the incoming sunlight. I've seen one concept like this where the surface of the solar panel looked as if it was covered with glass beads about 1/2" in diameter that acted like little magnifying glasses. The company showing this was claiming a 15% boost in power I/O over their standard flat-surface panel. They were claiming something like 93% efficiency. But ultimately, a solar panel can not take in any more energy than what is able to strike its surface.

Obviously, to go beyond 100% of the energy striking it's surface would require some sort of reactive panel and there is research happening in that area too with some test concepts that have popped up over the years. These are voltaic cells that employ various types of organic films or chemical combinations that when stimulated by sunlight or the right type of energy, they react and produce much greater energy output. The problem with this is they don't last very long. Most concepts literally only last minutes to a few hours before the reactive substances have used themselves up in their reactions.



Sounds like a great first step would be getting these ultra-efficient focusing panels in homes to charge (better)batteries in the vehicles.

And yes, I've read about the reactive, organic panels you mentioned and that's absolutely what I was thinking of when I said this is theoretically possible. Don't forget that this research at it's most efficient should be running concurrently with developments in lighter construction materials, road-surface advances, and battery development as well. I'm just saying it should be possible with no timeframe speculations as of yet.

[Matthew Greene]

Black Silicon tech will probably change the game... of course the all powerful oil companies and goverments don't really want solar powered cars taking over their business. In the meanwhile Hybrid technology is the compromise everyone seems happy with.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Black Silicon tech will probably change the game... of course the all powerful oil companies and goverments don't really want solar powered cars taking over their business. In the meanwhile Hybrid technology is the compromise everyone seems happy with.

Black Silicon may play a role, as could other similar developments. But as for producing much more power output needed from solar cells... That's not what it does. The so called "Black Silicon" is a silicon composite (they are not releasing further details until patent issues are resolved). In situations where it is being used for sensitivity response, like image sensors, it shows promise. It can produce readings that are 5 to 6 times more sensitive than conventional silicon composites used in that sort of application. Or capable of indicating a state of change with lower amounts of stimulation. Voltaic cells are about energy conversion and energy transfer. How to get electromagnetic energy in the form of visible light, low and near UV and IR and heat converted into electric current. Black Silicon or similar composites may help to increase further sensitivity and efficiency of voltaic panels, further approaching that holy grail of 100% energy conversion.

Right now, voltaics are about 84% efficient on the good end. Most of the remaining 16% is lost as deflected heat, some is lost within the internal transition to electric current. I see better materials reducing the internal conversions. Better materials will retain more of the solar energy and emit less heat. Most good solar cells these days will produce power on overcast days and at night. Moonlight and IR still hit the panels at night, other factors come into play too like ambient temperature.

The all powerful oil companies want this too... Remember, most "oil companies" are actually "energy companies" and they have their fingers in this pot too.. As well as fuel cells, geothermal, hydro-electric, hydrogen, etc..

[Meryem Ersoz]

The all powerful oil companies want this too... Remember, most "oil companies" are actually "energy companies" and they have their fingers in this pot too.. As well as fuel cells, geothermal, hydro-electric, hydrogen, etc..

That's a highly optimistic characterization, Jeff. The oil companies are only marginally invested in these technologies, at best -- more so than in the past, but the totality of their investment in alternatives to oil represent less than a drop in the bucket.

The reason that GM is in the toilet is their marriage to the oil companies that shitcanned any of their efforts at innovation. GM's EV-1 electric car could have been the salvation of this company and a road map for future innovations. Instead, they were all destroyed. The same can be said of all major car companies (Honda is the possible exception, they have actually pushed their hydrogen fuel cell technology forward, slowly, granted), including Toyota which killed their electric RAV and cratered to a bigger car re-design on the Prius over the increaded fuel efficiency of their 2nd gen hybrid technology.

The leaders in alternative energy have been smaller, nimbler companies with no vested interest in oil. They are leading. The oil companies are only now following along in the wake of the public's disgust at their willingness to propogate America's oil addiction and and sell the country off to foreign oil interests, piece by piece.

[Patrick Tresch]

Well the problem is that there is only so much energy in sunlight that hits the earth's surface in a square meter in a certain amount of time (or whatever measurement you wish to use).

RED would prove different : Jim hires Greame to find a compression scheme where they could have better use for solar light!

Do you think prority for early RED adopters would also apply for the RED CAR?

I would like to by one now as my car has allready 233000km and eats 10liters/100km... I'm in a hurry... Hope Brent will give us some delivery update!!!

:clown2:

Patrick

[Jeff Kilgroe]

That's a highly optimistic characterization, Jeff. The oil companies are only marginally invested in these technologies, at best -- more so than in the past, but the totality of their investment in alternatives to oil represent less than a drop in the bucket.

That is true. But we also have to consider that the majority of hydrogen fuel and fuel cell technology patents are held by these oil companies. Sadly, even as Honda is the current world leader (supposedly) in commercial fuel cell technology, they have licensed much of their base technology from other sources. Exxon corp was recently granted several patents for flexible organic film batteries and electrical conductors -- they even like to run TV commercials that talk about their battery tech that's targeted at hybrid vehicles.

My point is that as evil and controlling as the big oil companies may be, they are not stupid. They know the oil supply is finite and have been setting measures in place for years for when the day comes that wells dry up, they are already on top of the next big thing. This goes back many, years... Off the top of my head, at least as far back as 1935 when oil companies and automakers alike clamored to buy Charles Garrett's patent on a water-fueled carburetor design. The patent was purchased from Garrett, by Ford Motor Co., I believe, but at a fraction of initial speculations after Garrett could never actually duplicate the engine supposedly working.


The reason that GM is in the toilet is their marriage to the oil companies that shitcanned any of their efforts at innovation. GM's EV-1 electric car could have been the salvation of this company and a road map for future innovations. Instead, they were all destroyed.

Hmmm... I disagree. The EV-1 (Chevy Impact) was scrapped in favor of newer designs and promising new technology. The EV-1 had so many things wrong with it that there was little to justify a lease of one (they could not be purchased). The EV-1 only had a range of 60~75 miles with a single passenger and no cargo and a 13-hour average full recharge time. That was 12 years ago and much has changed in terms of business, technology and political climate.


The leaders in alternative energy have been smaller, nimbler companies with no vested interest in oil. They are leading. The oil companies are only now following along in the wake of the public's disgust at their willingness to propogate America's oil addiction and and sell the country off to foreign oil interests, piece by piece.

Smaller, nimbler companies are always faster to adapt, in any industry. But I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. Oil companies are slow to follow and are doing so unwillingly... My point is that, even to oil companies, alternative energy has now become a lucrative investment. Until the recent high gas prices, alternative energy sources have just not been cost effective to develop and implement. At least not from a big-business point of view. This has changed and you can bet that the oil companies are throwing their financial muscle around as much as they can. They are going to milk the current oil supplies (and what can be tapped in the future) for all it's worth, no disputing that, but they are also going to do everything they can to corner other energy technologies on the market. Several of these smaller, nimbler companies you have mentioned have already been bought up by the giants in the oil industry in an effort to control intellectual property and hedge their bets on which future technology will dominate in place of gasoline.

[Joseph Ward]

Oil companies want hydrogen, biofuels, natural gas that way they still have a role but not batteries, capacitors, solar, or any real energy savers for electric vehicles!

[Meryem Ersoz]

Hmmm... I disagree. The EV-1 (Chevy Impact) was scrapped in favor of newer designs and promising new technology. The EV-1 had so many things wrong with it that there was little to justify a lease of one (they could not be purchased). The EV-1 only had a range of 60~75 miles with a single passenger and no cargo and a 13-hour average full recharge time. That was 12 years ago and much has changed in terms of business, technology and political climate.



agree with a lot of what you wrote but this!! You've got to be kidding me. So where are these "newer designs and promising new technology."?? It was introduced in 1996 - that was 12 years ago!~

...replaced by a hydrogen car boondoggle that they sold to a willing George Bush, who mouthpieced for it the minute he set foot in office, and of course, nothing every materialized. It was an excuse to do nothing!

Very predictable. And eight years have passed since that very moment, and now we are being told by this very same car company (if the patient, now on life support and government hand-outs lives...), that alternatives are currently 10 years out.

Had they re-introduced this technology when the Prius caught fire (speaking of an under-developed technology...), they could have sold a bundle of these instead of losing market share to a foreign company. It wasn't just the Prius that Toyota was selling, it was a perception in the public marketplace. And GM refused to react to that perception, focusing instead of building bigger trucks at exactly the wrong moment. That is exactly why they are in the mess that they are in.

I mean, people in our neck of the woods are willing to shell out $30K for SmartCars, and you are calling the EV-1 dated technology? That doesn't make sense. The market totally would have supported this initiative.

It was canned from the top down, because of oil interests, not because the market wasn't ready. Quite the opposite, it was a perceived threat *because* it would have succeeded.

And now it may be too late to turn the Titanic around, unless they buy themselves some time by buying Chrysler's pile of cash. That, and government hand-outs, is the totality of their survival strategy. Not innovation. Lame. Un-American, really.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

they should make a bigass satellite which captures solar energy (24/7) and then beems it down radio frequency/wireless.. and we can have have receivers here/on cars....

[Jeff Kilgroe]

agree with a lot of what you wrote but this!! You've got to be kidding me. So where are these "newer designs and promising new technology."?? It was introduced in 1996 - that was 12 years ago!~

More promising technology that never emerged. Sad to say it, but battery technology has gone essentially nowhere in the last 12 years. It has on the consumer side of things, as in various technologies getting to be more plentiful and cheaper to manufacture. But the latest and greates Li-ion batteries are still made of the same materials that were used in the EV-1 12 years ago. In fact, the battery system in the new Chevy Volt is nearly identical to the design used in the EV-1. :sad:


...replaced by a hydrogen car boondoggle that they sold to a willing George Bush, who mouthpieced for it the minute he set foot in office, and of course, nothing every materialized. It was an excuse to do nothing!

I'm not sure what the deal was with all that... I think the announcement was premature, there's nothing to show for it it. I have family members who are actively involved in hydrogen fuel research. I think hydrogen will play a role in future vehicles, however the technology just isn't here yet. The engines are possible, been done, and it's even possible to convert many of the latest composite ceramic and aluminum engines from gasoline to hydrogen! Burning hydrogen is highly corrosive to iron / steel. The problem with hydrogen is effective storage without liquifying it. As of right now, hydrogen actually has a much higher power to mass ratio out of fuel cells than trying to store and combust gaseous hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is highly corrosive and volatile and would prove difficult to transport in massive quantities. It also would take too much resources to generate liquid hydrogen on site at filling stations all over the place. The missing link technology is the storage containers and it's only a matter of time until someone finds the right solution. At that point, it's up to automakers to thumb their noses at the oil companies and run with it. IMO, I'm really surprised that car makers are not jumping on hydrogen now for small cars. Even gaseous hydrogen is still good enough to drive a car the size of a Toyota Prius 100 miles on the equivalent of five SCUBA tanks with metal hydride buffers and 3000psi H2 gas.

IMO, hydrogen is also the only real solution so far that has presented itself for replacing fossil fuels / diesel in larger commercial vehicles and heavy equipment.


I mean, people in our neck of the woods are willing to shell out $30K for SmartCars, and you are calling the EV-1 dated technology? That doesn't make sense. The market totally would have supported this initiative.

People will buy anything, I guess. The only thing smart about the SmartCar is the name and marketing. Speaking of which, I saw the aftermath of a SmartCar vs. deer accident just the other day off 6th Ave. While the deer didn't survive, it definitely won the fight. I'm not so sure the SmartCar driver lived either -- all I could see in the back of the ambulance was their feet with paramedics frantically working over the top of the poor guy. I've read that SmartCars are supposedly good in accidents... Obviously, they're not so good at 60mph in a collision with 550lbs of Bambi.


And now it may be too late to turn the Titanic around, unless they buy themselves some time by buying Chrysler's pile of cash. That, and government hand-outs, is the totality of their survival strategy. Not innovation. Lame. Un-American, really.

We'll see... Electric cars are already on the market from other makers like Tesla. IMO, they have the best electric right now and initial reviews are mixed. It's sporty looking and quite fast. But a lot of early adopters are wishing they had read the fine print, some even feel lied to. Range isn't as good as claimed and is impacted drastically at speeds over 40mph or with lots of stop n' go driving. But it's still a viable concept and as the price comes down, will be an attractive option to a larger audience. If I could buy one for $35K rather than $100K, I'd probably do it. The writing is on the wall, the gas combustion engine has numbered days. However, I think there's still a good chance that alternative fuel production could be a stop-gap solution. Tech like genetically engineered e-coli, yeast or algae could start producing enough ethanol or biodiesel to quench the thirst for foreign oil.

If GM moves too slowly and falters, then that's their problem, I won't shed a tear for them. As a taxpayer, I don't want to spend a dime to bail out a company that can't keep up with its own market. I'd sympathize with the workers who would lose their jobs, but I see a lot of new jobs coming our way, regardless of who the new president becomes. Our country and our world is at the threshold of a big change. I only hope we all make it a good change.

[Meryem Ersoz]

The window for auto innovation is slammed fairly shut right now, anyway--dropping oil prices and frozen credit markets aren't favorable conditions for developing new auto ideas, anyway.

The big problem with GM failing is the dig into employees' pension programs, one of the largest in the country. Not an issue that is discussed much, but some of these old-school pension plans failing could be a(nother) huge breakpoint to the overall economy. It's a race against the clock, and time is not on GM's side, not while they are burning through $1 billion/month in cash reserves, with no end in sight.

Just this morning, a news announcement was made that GM and Chrysler weren't able to put a deal together because they couldn't find the money to put it together, no lenders could be found to make it happen. No one believes that buying an extra year's worth of cash from Chrysler's stockpile will save GM.

They announced that they were going to try to put together another deal which forms a third company and sells a stake in it to the US government. The government will soon own the banks, the auto makers, and a whole lot of empty houses.

Fare thee well, capitalism. Hello, socialism.

How ironic that socialized medicine has been such a topic of debate among ideologues for the past 16 years...what a red herring that proved to be, hm? We can't afford that, let's put the money towards socializing our entire capital market system instead. Brilliant!

Maybe Jim does need to build that solar car, after all. Something, anything to save us from ourselves!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

How ironic that socialized medicine has been such a topic of debate among ideologues for the past 16 years...what a red herring that proved to be, hm? We can't afford that, let's put the money towards socializing our entire capital market system instead. Brilliant!

This is what has me more worried than anything. Combine this with what we see on the state and county level in terms of property taxes, property use restrictions and further use taxes. I'm convinced that federal and state governments have been working for the last 100+ years to regain ownership of all the land in this country. Soon we will be no different than many other places in the world where it's impossible to own property -- there is no such thing as a "property owner", only those who lease it from the government.

At the rate we're going, everything is going to be socialized except for healthcare.

Fair point about the pension plans though. Although, that is (IMO) a system that is bound to fail and has to break at some point. I have family members who are in a similar situation -- pension plans, retirement benefits, issued by large companies. Everything is hunky-dory until you read the fine print. No way to roll most of those benefits over into something private that you can control. No guarantee that they will be there if the company falters or even if the administrative powers and/ or labor unions involved agree to terminate those benefits. I think these pension and benefit funds are going to be seriously tested over the next couple years too with all the economic changes, combined with the increasing number of retiring baby-boomers.

I know several people who have been dumping their money by investing in retirement communities and assisted living businesses and related properties. This country is about to have the largest number of elderly in need of assistance ever and it will come in a massive surge over a few short years.