You are here:
Green Car News >
Lists? Yeah, electric vehicles get on lists. Hopeful, hopeful lists

Lists? Yeah, electric vehicles get on lists. Hopeful, hopeful lists

Posted Oct 19th 2009 5:01PM

CommentsAdd

Tesla Roadster – Click above for high-res image gallery

Here are five technologies that "could change everything":

Advanced car batteries
Carbon capture and storage
Space-based solar power
Utility storage
Next-generation biofuels

This is the list culled by the Wall Street Journal, and we note that plug-in vehicles benefit/are tied to four of those five items. All five if you include things like the E85-capable range extender in the plug-in Chevy Volt.

Meanwhile, over at the Seattle Times, Tesla was named one of eight companies that are changing the world. Other companies on the list are working on technical, gadget-y advances (laser broadband streaming data at 1.25 gigabytes a second) and eco-advances (green building materials) and more.

What we take away from these lists is that people have a lot of hope that technology will save us. Somehow, someday. Just wait until a better widget comes along, then all will be well.

[Source: Seattle Times, Wall Street Journal]

Add a Comment

Sign in »

26 Comments

Filter by:

canadaguy

Space based solar power is an unrealistic solution. Not just because of the complexity and funding, but because so much energy and resources are required, compared to what you get back. We also need solutions today, not 20-50 years in the future. By then, there won't be much of a world left.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/09/space-based-solar-power.html

November 04 2009 at 11:38 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Stan Peterson

FYI. All solar PV power systems alter the albedo over the area of the solar collector. In that area they increase the global warming by approaching 31% or several hundred watts per sq meter. So called evil GHGs by contrast, are supposedly warming the planet by hundreths to thousandths of a single watt per square meter. And they are cumulative . Every single PV cell adds to the albedo altering area that now exceeds several hundred sq kilometers worlwide and growing fast.

So only the genuine uneducated foolish green thinks solar is "not polluting". It is a truly massive global warmer.

October 20 2009 at 6:06 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

2 replies to Stan Peterson's comment

skierpage

@Stan Peterson,

Solar is a "truly massive global warmer"? What a thin veneer of physics covering a crock of utter horseshit. Yes, the albedo of solar panels is higher than what was there before. When we have covered about 1/36th of the earth's surface with solar panels, they will indeed be affecting the climate. But to supply the 15 Terawatts of energy we currently use, we only need about 400 square kilometers. My math is probably off, but yours is stuck in fantasy land.

I don't believe there are currently three hundred sq kilometers of solar PV, but if there were, 300,000 vs earth's total area of 510,000,000 square kilometers is 0.006%.

October 20 2009 at 7:10 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

skierpage

Aghhh, getting my thousands and kms addled. http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127 computes 500,000 square km of solar panels to power the world in 2030, or 0.10% of the earth's area, or a tiny fraction of the Sahara desert, or the amount of forestland we destroy in three years. Interesting reading.

October 20 2009 at 7:17 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

3PeaceSweet

Batteries, fast charge, long life, high energy density.

Carbon capture, nope use energy efficiency, build wind, solar and nukes so we can leave the coal in the ground until we find a way to turn it into diamonds / carbon nanotubes.

Space based solar power? How about earth based solar power?!
Passive solar houses have been built since the 70's with super low energy requirements which they can meet themselves with solar power.

Utility storage, advances in transport batteries will provide a second generation of cheaper but much larger batteries which will be ideal for storage on a larger scale.

Advanced biofuels, biomass will never convert sunlight to energy at more than a couple of % efficiency. Solar thermal and solar electric are a much better option, but if we are going to use biofuels, burning them at 20% efficiency in a transport ICE is mad. Much better option is to go for gas to power combined cycle or CHP (could be SOFC)

Simple energy efficiency in vehicle and building design can cut energy requirements in half compared to todays average, most with a few years payback at most.

The big one they missed is HVDC & high speed rail, both mature technologies ready to go.

October 20 2009 at 5:27 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Randy

If the Wall Street Journal new anything about making money, they wouldn't be in the newspaper business.

Although I'll give them a few marks for that car battery thingy idea, that's not bad.

October 20 2009 at 4:50 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Chris

paul westerberg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell

This is GM's hope. They are major owners of Coskata who are building a prototype facility that supposedly can make cellulosic ethanol for $1/gallon, and GM is hoping to combine this technology with these ethanol fuel cells which would make them at 2-3 times as efficient as combustion. The ethanol fuel cell has already been demonstrated, and it does not use precious metals. If either of those pan out, we've got a serious game changer on our hands. Unsurprisingly to most of us who hate the money being spent (wasted) on hydrogen research. The ethanol fuel cell research is being put on the back burner for hydrogen R&D. I am sure Chu has fingernail marks in the palms of his hands by now watching this charade.

October 19 2009 at 11:52 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

3n1gma

What about water power and super-advanced electric motors? Oh yea they don't like anything "fringe" they can't make money off of.

October 19 2009 at 9:55 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

2 replies to 3n1gma's comment

We do have water power, but the best hydroelectric sites have already been tapped, and the remaining potential sites have white-water rafting enthusiasts protecting them. Oh, well, there are still a few tidal and ocean current sites to be tapped.

As for "super advanced electric motors", the average electric motor is over 90% efficient, the best are getting near 98% efficient. So we've already got those, we've had them for years.

October 20 2009 at 2:56 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

lne937s

"Only 3 percent of the 80,000 dams in the United States are used to generate power"

If we retrofit existing dams, there is a huge untapped resource for electric power- without any added environmental impact...

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/retrofitting-non-electctric-dams-for-power/

There are also a lot of other opportunities to collect power without damming. Micro hydro projects also offer potential anywhere there is water and a drop in elevation.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/rivers-looking-attractive-for-energy-again/

October 20 2009 at 10:09 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Paul

Scratch that WSJ list for credibility! Space based power is even less technically feasible than 'clean coal'!! LOL

They say COST is the biggest obstacle, more like PHYSICS. The radio waves they want to transmit the power to earth with suffer from something called the Inverse square law. The only successful test to date has been over 1 mile at 85% efficiency...

The results over 22,000 miles from geostationary orbit will be just 1/500 Millionth or less than 0.0000002% of the energy transmitted will reach the receiver... might set a world record for energy inefficiency!

October 19 2009 at 8:53 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

4 replies to Paul's comment

Boyprodigy1

Its not that electric vehicles "Might" Change everything, but that they "WILL" change everything. I've been watching battery advancements accelerate over the past year and i am in college right now watching people basically dedicate their lives to it. Trust me, its happening.

October 19 2009 at 6:19 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

1 reply to Boyprodigy1's comment

paulwesterberg

And the technology is viable now. Future improvements that increase efficiency will just be icing on the cake.

October 19 2009 at 6:36 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

rbtp

I worry a little when energy, transportation, and the resulting climate implications are main problems we focus on. Even if we had infinite free clean energy, we'd still face other resource limits due to an expanding population. Sometimes I think that finding a miracle cure to energy/transportation is the worst thing that could happen. We'd all be lulled back to sleep and fall off some other resource cliff like soil depletion or water shortages. Every discussion needs to include sustainability and population control. Finding a way to change the way we think about how we inhabit the planet, that's the game changer.

October 19 2009 at 6:02 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

1 reply to rbtp's comment

Laurens

You're the one making sense. It is not pollution sec, but the sheer number of people creating it. We're running out of everything. Maybe space is the solution :-)

October 20 2009 at 1:13 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Win39

Despite their protestations, solar cells in outer space is science fiction. And logically why have a middle man. Just do solar cells here and tie the power grids around the world together. That is technology that is available now.

The stupidest is their example of pumping CO2 underground. It is still here folks and less ably sequestered than the CO2 and methane that is being released by the currently melting permafrost. It ignores all the other, many problems of burning coal.

These are just as silly as the old Popular Science fly your jet pack to work stories of the last 50 years. They have the added stupidity is that if you want to take them seriously they are so far in the future they will be too late. It is just a distraction to keep anyone from doing the real work of solving the problems now.

Maybe the aliens will save us from ourselves. :-)

October 19 2009 at 6:00 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply