sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:
Economists would argue that by maximizing economic activity and growth now, we will be able to better afford the changes needed... and geoengineering technology would likely advance faster.
VS slower economics making changes harder... and the technologies meant to increase... actually end up worse off.
|
I would just like to point out the auto industry and oil companies. When you have two industries that work hand in hand together then technological advancements in areas such as gas mileage become very slow. There were cars back in the 40s/50s that weigh almost as much as the Hummer that could go 100+ miles per gallon (with technologies such as water vapor injection carburetor and during the 70s the fuel-vapor engine). The technology has been there but has been suppressed by mainly the oil companies. The oil companies have clearly stated that they are working with auto industry to develop new engines. I wonder why these engines can't even compare to technology that has been suppressed for 50+ years. Sometimes industries don't care to improve efficiency especially when they are in control of finite resources.
|
Actually, i did a lot of research on those engines.
Truth is, they just don't work today because their acceleration rates are far to low.
|
I did a little research also. Took me about a few seconds typing into Google and I came up with a few examples that show good acceleration.
A Fiero that gets 51 mpg and goes 0-60 in 6 secs. Sounds like good enough acceleration to me.
http://www.legendarycollectorcars.com/featured-vehicles/other-feature-cars/smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-fiero-51-mpg-and-0-60-in-less-than-6-seconds-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/
This prototype goes 0-60 in 5 seconds. "With a 10 gallon gas tank found on most vehicles, the “alé” can travel from Vancouver BC to San Francisco CA on one tank. Over 15 hours of driving without filling up."
http://www.fuelvaporcar.com/html/the_car.html
http://www.carpictures.com/Fuel-Vapor-Technologies/Ale-92-mpg-and-0-60-in-under-5-seconds-2007-07EFB272705932
"With the increased fuel efficiency, there is a corresponding increase of power and torque. We have not conducted engine bench tests, but provide the results of 0-60 acceleration tests on a 1.4 litre Citroen BX RE:
0-60 in Seconds
Normal with carburetor with Carb Enh. with
Enhancer & Water Inj. vaporizer
12 11 10.5 ~9
Another 0-60 test, this time with a 1989 Volkswagen Passat, 1.8 litre (1781cc), Single Point Fuel Injection (Bosch Multi-Jetronic):"
Normal with 1 with 2
vaporizer vaporizers
13.8 10.5 10
http://www.lawbright.com/energy/vapor.htm
|
To point out the obvious, simply because something has been demonstrated in a prototype form does not mean that it is practical for widespread production ...
Look at the continuously variable transmission, it was first available in the late 1950s but due to a wide variety of issues never saw wide use; only recently, when technology has advanced enough to overcome most of these issues, has the CVT demonstrated significant value to the industry. Similarly, GM abandoned the EV1 because it cost nearly $90,000 to manufacture and GM realized that people were only willing to pay around $15,000 to $20,000 for it; and even its "successor" the Chevy Volt is remarkably unpopular even though it is about as low as GM can afford to sell it for.
Now, I don't know what the problem holding back this technology is and it could be anything from price, reliability, complexity or logistics; but if it was a viable approach, with the price of gas today you would see several car companies releasing cars using it or (if they were conspiring against you) you would see a cottage industry of modification kits from small companies.
