now Chevy just needs to get Citizen Cope to do the new Volt commercial and it will be a COMPLETE rip-off of Acura. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w_GcKb2qV9U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w_GcKb2qV9U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Some countries didn't have the same mix of natural resources and had to work with what they had. Fischer-Tropsch process <I> History Since the invention of the original process by the German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, working at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the 1920s, many refinements and adjustments have been made, and the term "Fischer-Tropsch" now applies to a wide variety of similar processes (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or Fischer-Tropsch chemistry). Fischer and Tropsch filed a number of patents, e.g. US patent no. 1,746,464, applied 1926, published 1930. The process was invented in petroleum-poor but coal-rich Germany in the 1920s, to produce liquid fuels. It was used by Germany and Japan during World War II to produce ersatz fuels. Germany's synthetic fuel production reached more than 124,000 barrels per day (19,700 m³/d) from 25 plants ~ 6.5 million tons in 1944. After the war, captured German scientists recruited in Operation Paperclip continued to work on synthetic fuels in the United States in a United States Bureau of Mines program initiated by the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act. In Britain, Alfred August Aicher obtained several patents for improvements to the process in the 1930s and 1940s, e.g. British patent no. 573,982, applied 1941, published 1945 [5]. Aicher's company was named Synthetic Oils Ltd. (There is no connection with the Canadian company of the same name.)</I> <hr> The Fischer-Tropsch process is still an inspiration to some current energy research projects. Natural Gas to Gasoline <I> A Texas company says that it has developed a cheaper and cleaner way to convert natural gas into gasoline and other liquid fuels, making it economical to tap natural-gas reserves that in the past have been too small or remote to develop. The company behind the technology, Dallas-based Synfuels International, says that the process uses fewer steps and is far more efficient than more established techniques based on the Fischer-Tropsch process. This process converts natural gas into syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide; a catalyst then causes the carbon and hydrogen to reconnect in new compounds, such as alcohols and fuels. Nazi Germany used the Fischer-Tropsch process to convert coal and coal-bed methane into diesel during World War II. A Synfuels gas-to-liquids (GTL) refinery goes through several steps to convert natural gas into gasoline but claims to do so with better overall efficiency. First, natural gas is broken down, or "cracked," under high temperatures into acetylene, a simpler hydrocarbon. A separate liquid-phase step involving a proprietary catalyst then converts 98 percent of the acetylene into ethylene, a more complex hydrocarbon. This ethylene can then easily be converted into a number of fuel products, including high-octane gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. And the end product is free of sulfur. "We're able to produce a barrel of gasoline for much cheaper than Fischer-Tropsch can," says Kenneth Hall, coinventor of the process and former head of Texas A&M University's department of chemical engineering. Hall says that a Fischer-Tropsch plant is lucky to produce a barrel of gasoline for $35 but that a much smaller Synfuels refinery could produce the same barrel for $25. Under current fuel prices, such a plant could pay for itself in as little as four years, the company says. Texas A&M University licensed its approach to Synfuels and partly owns the company, which has been operating a $50 million demonstration plant in Texas since 2005 and says that it is close to signing a deal for its first commercial refinery near Kuwait City. Synfuels president Tom Rolfe says that the company has developed some proprietary components and catalysts, but he adds that much of the approach is based on off-the-shelf technologies. He says that Synfuels' main advantage is the efficiency by which it breaks down and reassembles hydrocarbon molecules. "Nobody has achieved as high a conversion rate of natural gas into acetylene as we have," Rolfe says. Ali Mansoori, a professor of chemical engineering and physics at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says that the process seems far less complicated than those found in a Fischer-Tropsch plant. "The numbers reported for conversion efficiency and selectivity look quite promising," he adds. But Synfuels isn't alone in trying to make GTL more economical. Gas Reaction Technologies, a spinoff from the University of California, Santa Barbara, has developed a process that converts natural gas into bromine-based compounds that are later converted into liquid fuels.</I>
Installed windpower capacity (MW)[39][40][41] Rank Nation 2005 2006 2007 1 Germany 18,415 20,622 22,247 2 United States 9,149 11,603 16,818 3 Spain 10,028 11,615 15,145 4 India 4,430 6,270 8,000 5 China 1,260 2,604 6,050 6 Denmark 3,136 3,140 3,129 7 Italy 1,718 2,123 2,726 8 France 757 1,567 2,454 9 United Kingdom 1,332 1,963 2,389 Considering Germany and Spain are much smaller than us and use less energy, we are behind. Have you ever been in Europe? You seldom see 8 or even 6 cylinder cars in Europe. You have full size cars over there with 4 cylinder cars like the BMW 520. We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in over 20 years.
quite impressive. by 2015 if prices go down and a few other issues are sorted out i would def look into getting something like this. the amount of money you could save on gas would be niiiice
You'll be able to buy a possibly 55-70 mpg (it's still not certain as far as I know) 2010 Honda Insight for under $19k.
True, but most people drive less than 40 miles a day and if you did that you use no gas on the volt. That is appealing to a lot of people. DD
im looking forward to that one... it looks really nice compared to the first attempt at the insight lol.
What's appealing to a lot of people is not having to spend $40k on a small car. Those that the car appeals to based upon gas savings cost are the same people that jumped on the hybrid bandwagon initially "to save money". Go ahead and do the calcuations on how long you'd have to own the car to recoup the $20-$25k difference in price between it and something like a Honda Insight... FYI : The batteries cost about $10k, too, from what I remember reading. Figure that into your calculations as well.
Great post. Once people come to their senses they will realize this isn't a great car for the price and what it offers.
nice...i was going to say something similar. dada needs to take off his goggles and see the reality here. a $40k hybrid isn't going to fly with the average consumer. it's a great concept, but if the battery lifespan is similar to the current ones, you're not really saving much if any money at all. you're probably losing money just to be green. $40k hybrid plus battery change every 5-6 years at $10k a pop.....
Rip off of Acura? Which Acura exactly? The TL? DD and few others at least have the mindset this country needs in having some pride for a product that is American and is miles ahead of any other import. That interior is nicer than any car it will be competing with. It's a breakthrough in engineering and the first real electric car that can be bought by the *average* consumer. People are shelling out 28k for a Prius right now, 4k more will get you something like this which uses almost no gas at all. It's a first iteration, but in a few years after this car is released the technology will have aged a bit and the price won't be as high. Reason other car companies (read: Toyota) didn't try this is because they didn't think that they'd have the ability and time to accurately test batteries of this magnitude and range while maintaing their quality. GM has one upped them (finally) and has really left them nervous. And yes this will be in Transformers 2.
Yes, I have been to Europe. Yes, they do drive smaller cars and conserve more. But the are not ahead of us technologically.
No reason to be overly critical about the price point. Once these cars ramp production, BOM costs will start going down. Not only that, but R&D and GNA costs are being partially subsidized by the $40k price point as well. It's a step in the right direction, and within 5 years these vehicles will sell for $25k.
No link. GM warranties this thing for 150k miles and cant remember how many years. Dude who said they have to replace them every 5 years hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
