- 12 Sep 2023 09:46
#15286563
I have been thinking about how electric cars are just not going to cut it, and how they have drawbacks.
I came up with a proposed technological solution that could mitigate these drawbacks. All of the technology for this already exists. My idea would be to combine three separate systems together, in a sort of hybrid.
First there would be the electric battery, where the car would run as an electric vehicle. This battery would not be too big or expensive, and would be intended only for local commuting, at low speeds, and with very limited range capability.
Next there would be an internal combustion engine. This combustion engine would be designed to easily be able to switch between running on liquid fuel (petrol, gasoline) and being able to run on compressed natural gas. It is not difficult for an engine to be able to run on either, if a few very small modifications are made. (Liquid fuel usually gets dispersed into a vapor in engine anyway before it is combusted)
The car would be intended to run mainly on natural gas, but could be able to run on conventional liquid fuel in an emergency. The advantage of natural gas is that it is actually less expensive than liquid fuel, and its combustion produces about 30 percent less carbon dioxide than liquid fuel. It's also cleaner burning. A disadvantage is that compressed natural gas has an energy density about 6 to 8 times lower than liquid fuel, meaning it's more difficult to carry as much of it. But its energy density is still very much higher than electric batteries.
The engine would not need to be very big or powerful, because the electric motors will be able to do part of the work. One of the complexities in such a hybrid design is to be able to properly combine both the force from the electric motors and the engine to make them compatible. The engine could be just powerful enough to barely be able to go the minimum speed required to be on the road. The car could still have excellent acceleration because electric motors are very fast responding.
The option for the engine to be able to switch to running on normal liquid fuel would be useful for long trips, where extra range is needed, or for unfamiliar areas where both natural gas and electric charging stations are not available. In the event of a power outages, there would be no worry that the car might be stranded. I do not think the tank would even need to be designed to hold very much liquid fuel. Maybe it could hold half the capacity that a normal car can.
The third element in the system would involve another technology. After the engine has time to warm up, some of the natural gas could be directed into a heated catalytic converter, which converts the natural gas into hydrogen onboard the car. This hydrogen would then be sent into a fuel cell. The fuel cell is able to combine hydrogen with oxygen from the air, producing water, to directly produce electric power. This has several advantages. It can result in a total 40% higher efficiency than directly burning the gas in an internal combustion engine. The electric power could also be used to recharge the battery if a charging station was not available. Fuel cells need hydrogen and hydrogen is very difficult to be able to store in a car in large amounts. The conversion of natural gas to hydrogen onboard the vehicle circumvents this problem. The major disadvantage of a fuel cell is their cost. But because this car can rely on two other systems, the fuel cell does not need to be very big. I am imagining the fuel cell in this car could supply only 15% of the drive. That would help increase efficiency and range without being too expensive. And if the fuel cell or catalytic converter system temporarily stopped functioning due to maintenance issues, it would not be a big problem. The catalytic converter also needs about 12 minutes to heat up before it becomes functional, but that is not an issue since the car has a small internal combustion engine.
I think these three systems combined could result in more optimal performance, kind of giving the best of multiple different options.
From an environmental point of view, it makes sense because the majority of the time the car is not going to be requiring maximum power, so the internal combustion engine will not need to be constantly burning fuel. But the car is not being forced to entirely rely on the expensive electric system, so it could reduce costs. More power and extra range will be available during the times it is needed.
First the car draws on electric power from the batteries.
Then it can add some additional electric power from the fuel cell, coming from the conversion of natural gas.
Then if more power and range is needed, the car can burn natural gas in the engine.
And finally, if the natural gas runs out, the engine has the ability to burn normal liquid fuel.
I think this type of design could result in practical and economic cars. The combined system would be more efficient and less polluting, but at the same time less expensive and more pragmatic than a 100% electric vehicle.
To save even more money, the car could be built with a modular design so the fuel cell and catalytic converter is optional, and could always be upgraded onto the car later, if the owner was willing to spend more money to slightly improve the vehicle performance.
I think with this type of car, it could run on a battery bank that has only 35 or 40% of the capacity and size of a standard electric vehicle. Just that would represent a 7500 USD cost savings. Not to mention required charging time would be reduced. The engine might end up costing around 2500 USD, because it is a smaller size. The engine would probably be located in the front of the car and the batteries in the back with the compressed natural gas tank, probably with some sort of separator compartment so that if the tank were to ever leak it would not leak directly into the battery area.
There's one last little trick as well. It has been discovered that if only 2% (by volume) hydrogen is added to natural gas, it can improve the combustion efficiency by 15%. This could conveniently be done since a small amount of hydrogen is being generated onboard by the catalytic converter.
I came up with a proposed technological solution that could mitigate these drawbacks. All of the technology for this already exists. My idea would be to combine three separate systems together, in a sort of hybrid.
First there would be the electric battery, where the car would run as an electric vehicle. This battery would not be too big or expensive, and would be intended only for local commuting, at low speeds, and with very limited range capability.
Next there would be an internal combustion engine. This combustion engine would be designed to easily be able to switch between running on liquid fuel (petrol, gasoline) and being able to run on compressed natural gas. It is not difficult for an engine to be able to run on either, if a few very small modifications are made. (Liquid fuel usually gets dispersed into a vapor in engine anyway before it is combusted)
The car would be intended to run mainly on natural gas, but could be able to run on conventional liquid fuel in an emergency. The advantage of natural gas is that it is actually less expensive than liquid fuel, and its combustion produces about 30 percent less carbon dioxide than liquid fuel. It's also cleaner burning. A disadvantage is that compressed natural gas has an energy density about 6 to 8 times lower than liquid fuel, meaning it's more difficult to carry as much of it. But its energy density is still very much higher than electric batteries.
The engine would not need to be very big or powerful, because the electric motors will be able to do part of the work. One of the complexities in such a hybrid design is to be able to properly combine both the force from the electric motors and the engine to make them compatible. The engine could be just powerful enough to barely be able to go the minimum speed required to be on the road. The car could still have excellent acceleration because electric motors are very fast responding.
The option for the engine to be able to switch to running on normal liquid fuel would be useful for long trips, where extra range is needed, or for unfamiliar areas where both natural gas and electric charging stations are not available. In the event of a power outages, there would be no worry that the car might be stranded. I do not think the tank would even need to be designed to hold very much liquid fuel. Maybe it could hold half the capacity that a normal car can.
The third element in the system would involve another technology. After the engine has time to warm up, some of the natural gas could be directed into a heated catalytic converter, which converts the natural gas into hydrogen onboard the car. This hydrogen would then be sent into a fuel cell. The fuel cell is able to combine hydrogen with oxygen from the air, producing water, to directly produce electric power. This has several advantages. It can result in a total 40% higher efficiency than directly burning the gas in an internal combustion engine. The electric power could also be used to recharge the battery if a charging station was not available. Fuel cells need hydrogen and hydrogen is very difficult to be able to store in a car in large amounts. The conversion of natural gas to hydrogen onboard the vehicle circumvents this problem. The major disadvantage of a fuel cell is their cost. But because this car can rely on two other systems, the fuel cell does not need to be very big. I am imagining the fuel cell in this car could supply only 15% of the drive. That would help increase efficiency and range without being too expensive. And if the fuel cell or catalytic converter system temporarily stopped functioning due to maintenance issues, it would not be a big problem. The catalytic converter also needs about 12 minutes to heat up before it becomes functional, but that is not an issue since the car has a small internal combustion engine.
I think these three systems combined could result in more optimal performance, kind of giving the best of multiple different options.
From an environmental point of view, it makes sense because the majority of the time the car is not going to be requiring maximum power, so the internal combustion engine will not need to be constantly burning fuel. But the car is not being forced to entirely rely on the expensive electric system, so it could reduce costs. More power and extra range will be available during the times it is needed.
First the car draws on electric power from the batteries.
Then it can add some additional electric power from the fuel cell, coming from the conversion of natural gas.
Then if more power and range is needed, the car can burn natural gas in the engine.
And finally, if the natural gas runs out, the engine has the ability to burn normal liquid fuel.
I think this type of design could result in practical and economic cars. The combined system would be more efficient and less polluting, but at the same time less expensive and more pragmatic than a 100% electric vehicle.
To save even more money, the car could be built with a modular design so the fuel cell and catalytic converter is optional, and could always be upgraded onto the car later, if the owner was willing to spend more money to slightly improve the vehicle performance.
I think with this type of car, it could run on a battery bank that has only 35 or 40% of the capacity and size of a standard electric vehicle. Just that would represent a 7500 USD cost savings. Not to mention required charging time would be reduced. The engine might end up costing around 2500 USD, because it is a smaller size. The engine would probably be located in the front of the car and the batteries in the back with the compressed natural gas tank, probably with some sort of separator compartment so that if the tank were to ever leak it would not leak directly into the battery area.
There's one last little trick as well. It has been discovered that if only 2% (by volume) hydrogen is added to natural gas, it can improve the combustion efficiency by 15%. This could conveniently be done since a small amount of hydrogen is being generated onboard by the catalytic converter.
- By wat0n
- By Tainari88
- By Skynet