Brad Ideas - Stirling Engine based hybrid car - Comments

Stirling Engine based hybrid car

Kwazai — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:09:06 -0800

I personally would like to see a biomass powered stirling hybrid. size the batteries for commuters (less than 125 miles or so per charge). use biomass fuel (gasifiers?) hooked up to a small stirling (1hp or less) to recharge the batteries while its parked at work. I would guess an enclosed bicycle type vehicle would probably work. (I've calculated my average speed to work at 35mph- even though a large part is 65mph speed limit- damn traffic...). My assumption here is that 10 to 30lbs of sawdust (corn, garbage, etc...-dry biomass...) would sufficiently recharge the batteries for commuting. The gasifier and stirling would need to be electronically controlled(charging cycle), because burning biomass is typically considered a stationary rather than mobile task. a 1hp stirling is still rather large... anyway my .02$.
L8r
Mike

Re: Good luck getting a stirling

Nefarious Wheel — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:20:07 -0800

You don't directly turn the wheels with one. Torque is immaterial - you run the armature of a generator at the speed where you get maximum rpm. The generator either drives electric motors directly (you want torque?) or charges batteries that drive electric motors. You don't whack a clutch on it and drive it like a conventional car.

Stirling Engines and narrowboats

Nefarious Wheel — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:06:49 -0800

It is about the most efficient engine on the planet, yes. But the size of the piston isn't the only determinant. The actual temperature differential that you're mining has a large part to play. The rest is basically plumbing.

Stirling Engines and narrowboats

Nefarious Wheel — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:02:24 -0800

I believe WhisperTech is a New Zealand firm, not Australian (much as I'd love to claim them). Their main product is branded Whispergen. And I can easily see them used in that application - they're small, and you could (depending on the draft of your narrowboat) potentially run them with the cold sink in the water and the hot side exchanger plumbed above a small, cozy peat fire.

The major advantage of Stirlings is not their size:output ratio so much as the fact that their fuel is essentially free. Often the simple thermal differential between a body of water and the air above is enough to keep them spinning. Might be enough for your application - Narrowboats aren't exactly the sort you'd use for water skiing. Zero carbon footprint, very easy on the operating budget.

We need everything.

AdamAlt.Energy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:48:52 -0700

Ok after reading about 2/3 of these comments, I wanted to add my own. I am currently working for a solar testing lab where we test and certify modules to US(UL) and international (IEC) standards. I also graduated with a degree in Alternative Energy.
Nuclear power is useful. It has issues, but it is cleaner than coal and oil powerplants. Just as hybrid vehicles are a stepping stone to society driving cleaner vehicles, nuclear cannot be overlooked as an important stepping stone.

Solar plants are feasible. Solar plants running sterling engines can be feasible. The biggest problem is energy storage. Energy storage and distribution is viable, but that is the weakest point of solar currently, that power demand doesn't meet power production with solar energy. Sterling engines paired with concentrated solar modules create a very efficient power source.

Wind power is a huge success story, for alternative energy. The biggest problem with wind power is it's random availability. Putting up wind farms will not destroy the environment by slowing down winds...they do slow down wind, but keep it in perspective. Buildings, trees, anything that raises above ground level will block the wind. Wind is created by the solar irradiation that strikes the earth, and wind won't run out. The noise...well I've worked around wind farms and the noise was not oppressive if the turbines are maintained. And as far as the life of birds...well how many animals have died by being hit by cars? How detrimental is the air and water pollution to every living being? Any moving object will have the possibility of killing living beings. I have never heard that people should stop driving or should only drive at 15 miles an hour to save the countless animals that are killed on our roadways.

Tidal can be completely predictable, and is no more dangerous than the countless boats that are used everywhere...I don't see us stopping to use prop driven boats and they kill marine life at a level that isn't even close to what creatures will die to turbines running off of wave power.

As far as electric motors and electric powered vehicles...they are better than gasoline and diesel engines purely do to the fact that they offset the carbon imprint to concentrated areas. Instead of pollution everywhere in a city, it is localized to power plants. Those power plants are much cleaner than the exhaust from vehicles, and always will be. And it is capable of making the exhaust from these plants even cleaner. And electric motors can be much more efficient. Electric motors can be placed in wheel wells to run the axle directly. They would also be closer to brakes for a regenerative breaking system...as current regenerative braking systems are very inefficient due to how large the cables would have to be made to handle the amount of power we can reclaim. I don't have the exact percentages unfortunately at hand. And also don't neglect the added cost of keeping gas stations everywhere...the cost of delivering fuel to remote gas stations everywhere, the cost of materials to make these storage areas. Gas stations and fuel delivery and storage must be included in these costs.

One final note, fuel cells are still not currently the answer. The problems they have had in the past are the same problems they still have. How do you store hydrogen? How do you "create" hydrogen? Current hydrogen production sources still use fossil fuels to create them, unless you use electrolysis which is only viable if paired with a renewable such as solar or wind. And the materials current fuel cells use are rare. Current calculations if all cars were switch to using a PEM fuel cell, there wouldn't even be enough platinum in the world to replace all of the cars in Los Angeles. And switching to a hydrogen economy means that we would have to completely swap out the current fossil fuel distribution system for a hydrogen distribution system...there is no economic viability for this to happen in the next fifty years.

solar stirling

niranjan ramesh — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:06:42 -0700

Is t really possible to power stirling engine driven car by solar heat and wat r d really prob arises

your lack of appreciation

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:11:28 -0700

your lack of appreciation for sarcasm is hilarious!

Question the method, not Mode

Blogalong Crisby — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:53:26 -0700

Nuclear energy is about Chemistry, as in putting two or more substances together in a way that make energy that people can use. The nuclear plants that the U.S. has are largely an offshoot of the weapons development program from WWII.
There are other ways to use uranium and other radioactive elements to create electricity which can be less dangerous or waste-producing if they were developed with the same vigor as weapons grade stuff. Most ideas stays on the blackboard because the nuclear age literally started with a bang and the fear factor among much of those inexperienced in nuclear chemistry is high. Canada has an active plant now that uses straight out-of-the-ground uranium and Deuterium Oxide (Sometimes Called "Heavy Water") to make heat to run Turbines. This is actually one of the earliest, Pre-KaBoom designs. Uranium decays to lead eventually. One that I hope is being developed re-uses the present waste until it is inert.

lol

yamis — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:59:02 -0800

lol these are the people who are against nuclear power. I dont have a long enough attention span to read all the other comments so i hope im not restating something but probably am.
1. heres full lifecycle: mine the uranium - purify it - get energy from it - store the waste
nope i dont see any bad stuff in there (or more accuratly worse then other power plants itd be great if all but get energy were gone)
2. i have no clue what you mean decommisioning cost i dont intend to be decommissioning my shiny new nuclear plant any time soon
3. no ones covering anything up about nuclear power plants with millions of you conspiracy dudes watching them constantly then making crap up when you cant find stuff their covering up.
4. OH CRAP THEY USE WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS!!!!! thats what id be saying if that were REMOTELY true in reality stuff used in nuclear reactors 1% pure weapons grade is about 97% pure. Infact i heard somewhere we are thinking of selling off the some of the stuff or other so other countries can use it.
5. wth? sounds like you think the building of the plant is gonna make people more money then the energy from the plant.
6. solar wind and wave are great but ever seen one of them? they in great huge fields and they dont produce as much (dont know the ratio sry) as nuclear plants do. im not so much worried about cars in this cause cars wont be running on nuclear in my lifetime and will be running on electric in a good while(im hopefull for soon but reality isnt so) so they wont be running off nuclear indirectly either. plus there was some deally about if we ran off biofuels wed have to use every crop made in the US and still wouldnt have close to enough.
7. so you wanna go the lazy route and conserve for a coupla years and let the later generations deal with the problem huh?

Here's the link you requested, but...

BODHPS — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:54:25 -0800

http://www.endtimesreport.com/home_bred.html

I have researched this thouroughly with the A6 compressor and in my oppinion it's not practicle. All the reed valves have to be completely re-designed and there exists a mechanical disadvantage on the swash plate working in reverse.

realworlio.com

Please keep your ignorance

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:24:16 -0800

Please keep your ignorance to yourself. Your invasion for cheap oil costs this country billions. In no way can it be justified morally, ethically, or financially. Your a moron and your parents were morons. Hug a tree, so your children have an Earth to grow up on, or better yet self sterilization would be best for society.

I agree with most of

Rudy — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:00:51 -0800

I agree with most of this

I'd just like to note that these horrible cities are actually the most efficient way for humans to inhabit the world. It is the rural folks (like me) that have the biggest footprint.

There is no technological

Rudy — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:56:56 -0800

There is no technological challenge with producing AC from a DC current. DC/AC inverters are widely available, and getting cheaper all the time as magnetics and switching technologies improve and we move to higher switching frequencies. Cheap small inverters are 80% efficient and everywhere. Big ones are 90 or 95% easily.

Once evidence of the improvement of the inverters is the switch to electronically commutated motors (ECM), which run on DC supply, and convert to AC for the motor. With the increased materials costs of copper and steel (for transformers) these high-tech motors are often cheaper than traditional AC induction motors -- the little cooling fan in your computer likely uses this technology (I hope!) ECM cooling fans are often half the price of comperable AC induction fans, and much more efficient.

Diesel vs Hybrid is a non arguent

Russell — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:13:36 -0800

See here for two diesel hybrids.
Hybrids fundamentally make sense, and diesel hybrids make even more sense.
So reiterating what others have already stated.

Petrol vs diesel is a valid comparison.
Hybrid vs non hybrid also.
But Hybrid vs diesel doesn't make sense when you can have diesel hybrids.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/volkswagen_to_i.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/dieselhybrid_pi.php

Now a reality

James — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:04:01 -0800

Apparently this is not all that far fetched. I caught this article posted on Slashdot. It describes a prototype Stirling hybrid electric car.

Stirling Engine based hybrid car

brad — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:58:35 -0700

I'm not the only one to have thought of this, but as yet no real work has been done. How about a hybrid car powered with a Stirling Engine? (Not spelled Sterling, btw.)

The Stirling is more efficient than the internal combustion or diesel engine, and it's also a lot quieter. Sounds great, but it's not good for cars because it can't rev up quickly and it takes about 5 minutes to get the engine hot enough to run well. We want our cars to start the minute we put the key in.

A hybrid design (with enough batteries for 10-20 miles) solves this. You can get all the acceleration you need from the electric motors, and you can start driving right away, while heating up the Stirling "boiler". Then it kicks in to provide the power to run the car for the long haul. If you know the trip is short, no need to fire up the Stirling until the battery gets low.

The Stirling can burn anything. Gasoline, kerosene, diesel, vegetable oil, hydrogen, even wood! Yes, you could, in theory, be stuck by the side of the road out of gas, then go out with an axe to chop trees and refuel your car.

Well, almost. You want high-temperature burning for the best efficiency, and this would pollute and probably dirty your nice clean boiler. Right now the engines are expensive to machine but I suspect that could change.