[Dan1909]

(Original post by walterwhite123)
I love your thinking. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll. Brilliant.

No, you, who refuses to read what I've written, and constantly spouts the same load of bile, is a troll. It's really not that hard to understand, but you seem to be having issues understanding most of the things being posted in this thread, so that's hardly a surprise

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by Dan1909)
Like I already said, if you'd bothered to read it, I don't know or claim to know much about the suitability of electric planes, so I've not commented on them much. However, there are already some in production, small scale aircraft, but they exist. How easy it would be to scale that up, I don't know.

Your "point" about the crop with a 10 day harvest time, are you actually claiming that as a feasible idea? Because it really isn't. Year 6 science project idea maybe, actual idea, not a chance.

You've still yet to provide me with any evidence that any of those have any actual consideration to be put into practice, so, on you trot troll

Oh go on then, as you've asked so nicely.
"The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map"
"As algae have a harvesting cycle of 1–10 days, it permits several harvests in a very short time frame, a strategy differing from yearly crops (Chisti 2007). Algae can also be grown on land that is not suitable for other established crops, for instance, arid land, land with excessively saline soil, and drought-stricken land. This minimizes the issue of taking away pieces of land from the cultivation of food crops (Schenk et al. 2008). Algae can grow 20 to 30 times faster than food crops"
"Darpa's research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon"
and from the same article "The projects, run by private firms SAIC and General Atomics, expected to yield 1,000 gallons of oil per acre from the algal farm."

So that's three sources - coincidentally three more than you've provided for your 'facts'!

[Dan1909]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
Oh go on then, as you've asked so nicely.
"The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map"
"As algae have a harvesting cycle of 1–10 days, it permits several harvests in a very short time frame, a strategy differing from yearly crops (Chisti 2007). Algae can also be grown on land that is not suitable for other established crops, for instance, arid land, land with excessively saline soil, and drought-stricken land. This minimizes the issue of taking away pieces of land from the cultivation of food crops (Schenk et al. 2008). Algae can grow 20 to 30 times faster than food crops"
"Darpa's research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon"
and from the same article "The projects, run by private firms SAIC and General Atomics, expected to yield 1,000 gallons of oil per acre from the algal farm."

So that's three sources - coincidentally three more than you've provided for your 'facts'!

Well done, 3 links talking about the possible potential of an idea. Why if they're so good, are all the car manufacturers still pouring so much money into R&D on EVs. Why, if they're so good, are the government and energy group roadmaps all pushing targets for EV development and deployment.

There's any number of different solutions for producing fuels, energy, you name it, but EVs are the technology that's currently being pushed as the one to replace ICEs.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by Dan1909)

There's any number of different solutions for producing fuels, energy, you name it

I wholeheartedly agree with you. It was, after all, the point I made in my first reply to you. It was you that said "In one form or another, EVs will be the next major step in transport. That's not opinion, it's pure fact." and "EVs are a certainty". You then tried to tell me bio fuels aren't feasible when they clearly are - otherwise, to paraphrase one of your arguments, why would major companies be pouring so much R&D money into them? The timescale on them also looks to be rather shorter.

[Dan1909]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
I wholeheartedly agree with you. It was, after all, the point I made in my first reply to you. It was you that said "In one form or another, EVs will be the next major step in transport. That's not opinion, it's pure fact." and "EVs are a certainty". You then tried to tell me bio fuels aren't feasible when they clearly are - otherwise, to paraphrase one of your arguments, why would major companies be pouring so much R&D money into them? The timescale on them also looks to be rather shorter.

Yes, and that quote still stands. It's the entire point I was making, and is completely true. EVs are where the funding is, they're where the policy is, and they're where the main bulk of the R&D time is being focused. For some reason you still seem to have trouble accepting that.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by Dan1909)
Yes, and that quote still stands. It's the entire point I was making, and is completely true. EVs are where the funding is, they're where the policy is, and they're where the main bulk of the R&D time is being focused. For some reason you still seem to have trouble accepting that.

The issue I have, had and will continue to have, is your assertion that EVs will inevitably be the only answer. There's shed loads of R&D on alternatives, and frankly if algal fuels can be perfected why would you want an EV? It would be carbon neutral and avoid a lot of the issues with EVs. It would also be suitable for all the other applications which hydrocarbon fuels are currently used for, which have a whole host of much greater issues which would have to be solved before they could run on batteries (if they ever could). It wouldn't require any alteration to existing infrastructure or even existing vehicles. It can even be used for carbon capture to reduce CO2 already in the atmosphere. It's got loads of advantages over an electric vehicle. It might hit a brick wall, but then so could battery development. You've been more than happy to write off alternatives (and before you protest that, it's the only way your statements make any sense - otherwise you're just stating electric vehicles will exist, and as they already do, that's hardly prescient) and that's just dumb.

[Dan1909]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
The issue I have, had and will continue to have, is your assertion that EVs will inevitably be the only answer. There's shed loads of R&D on alternatives, and frankly if algal fuels can be perfected why would you want an EV? It would be carbon neutral and avoid a lot of the issues with EVs. It would also be suitable for all the other applications which hydrocarbon fuels are currently used for, which have a whole host of much greater issues which would have to be solved before they could run on batteries (if they ever could). It wouldn't require any alteration to existing infrastructure or even existing vehicles. It can even be used for carbon capture to reduce CO2 already in the atmosphere. It's got loads of advantages over an electric vehicle. It might hit a brick wall, but then so could battery development. You've been more than happy to write off alternatives (and before you protest that, it's the only way your statements make any sense - otherwise you're just stating electric vehicles will exist, and as they already do, that's hardly prescient) and that's just dumb.

Let me take my point to the very basics. This contains no opinion of my own, either on my predictions, or my opinion of what I want to see.

At the moment, the main focus by governments, independent committees, and most major car OEMs (the ones that are doing research in future fuels areas, at least), is on EVs. The timelines are set out, the targets have been laid down. So, going by the current state of play, EVs are what we will have.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by Dan1909)
Let me take my point to the very basics. This contains no opinion of my own, either on my predictions, or my opinion of what I want to see.

At the moment, the main focus by governments, independent committees, and most major car OEMs (the ones that are doing research in future fuels areas, at least), is on EVs. The timelines are set out, the targets have been laid down. So, going by the current state of play, EVs are what we will have.

So the fact that you're trying to set out is there's lots of research into EVs. I've never disputed that. You've already shown you don't know a lot about biofuels (you may recall you said biofuels would require 1/3rd the area of the US to meet America's fuel needs, whereas the DoE estimate 0.42% of land area would be needed to fulfil petrol needs) so why go on saying EVs are inevitable? Manufacturers are simply keeping their options open - the solution to transport energy requirements is not clear yet. If it were, why would any money be spent on R&D on other alternatives?
Anyway, I give up (again). I don't have a crystal ball to see what future the holds, for energy or anything else, and I don't think anyone else does either. By all means give your educated, or otherwise, opinion on how you think things will go (though you may want to give some evidence if you then ask others to back their statements up) but don't tell other people they're wrong to suggest other credible alternatives.

[Dan1909]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
So the fact that you're trying to set out is there's lots of research into EVs. I've never disputed that. You've already shown you don't know a lot about biofuels (you may recall you said biofuels would require 1/3rd the area of the US to meet America's fuel needs, whereas the DoE estimate 0.42% of land area would be needed to fulfil petrol needs) so why go on saying EVs are inevitable? Manufacturers are simply keeping their options open - the solution to transport energy requirements is not clear yet. If it were, why would any money be spent on R&D on other alternatives?
Anyway, I give up (again). I don't have a crystal ball to see what future the holds, for energy or anything else, and I don't think anyone else does either. By all means give your educated, or otherwise, opinion on how you think things will go (though you may want to give some evidence if you then ask others to back their statements up) but don't tell other people they're wrong to suggest other credible alternatives.

I seriously think you're missing the point of what I am saying here. I'm saying that as things are now, the plan is for EVs, not biofuels. Reading into it more than that is silly, as what I've posted is exactly what I mean, nothing more.

With regards to biofuels, I know a fair bit, but I specifcally said I don't consider myself an expert in it, but you seem to have decided to miss out the part of my post where I specifically said I couldn't remember exact numbers, and it's not the area I've done work in, but hey, that doesn't matter does it? Plus, the land mass area is relating to energy cane, which was what we were discussing at the time, before you brought up algae, so obviously the numbers will be different, so there's little point comparing them.

[M4LLY]

I beleive that its mainly a cost thing. at present the technologies that can acheive ultra-high MPG's are ultra-expensive. The cost of them ould greatly outweigh the fuel saved.

[RisinBlood]

Thought this link might be interesting

http://cars.uk.msn.com/features/gree...conomical-cars

[konvictz0007]

it is certainly possible to have very very high mpg in cars, we are talking in the 1000's. If you consider how they use energy in NASA space projects and the sort, our cars are very very inefficiently.

The reason is of course greed. Manufacturers are not allowed to manufacture such high mpg cars yet, it is a process which is controlled so that the maintenance can be taxed and revenue can be generated from it.

To think all the scientists in the world 'only' improved mpg by a little bit in the last 20 years is insulting.

[Dan1909]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
it is certainly possible to have very very high mpg in cars, we are talking in the 1000's. If you consider how they use energy in NASA space projects and the sort, our cars are very very inefficiently.

The reason is of course greed. Manufacturers are not allowed to manufacture such high mpg cars yet, it is a process which is controlled so that the maintenance can be taxed and revenue can be generated from it.

To think all the scientists in the world 'only' improved mpg by a little bit in the last 20 years is insulting.

I'm sorry, but absolutely none of that is true. Complete and utter tosh. How does NASA blasting rockets into space have ANY relation, at all, on cars?!