Jeff wrote:
> "SFTVratings" <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1171905743.968300.141520@k78g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> <...>
>
> > I'm curious how such an animal would work, if it existed. I imagine
> > it would have the same flaw as a Steam Engine or a Hydrogen Fuel Cell:
> >
> > - long warmup time.
> >
> > If you hop into a hydrogen fuel cell car, you have to wait 20-30
> > minutes for the cell to "warm up" and develop enough power to move the
> > car. I imagine a nuclear-powered car, being essentially a steam
> > engine, would have the exact same flaw.
>
> You can use batteries to store electricity from
> the fuel cell while it is warming


Yes I know, but the early fuel-celled cars didn't have that. It's
only been a few years that companies thought to create Hydrogen-
Electric hybrids.



> Nuclear generators don't have to use steam. They can use thermoelectric
> generators like they do in spacecraft

Yeah that would probably work. Except as you point out:

> produce around 300 W each. You would have to use batteries store this
> energy, becaues using even ten of these units (3 kW) is nowhere near enough
> to power a car (3 kW is about 4 HP). .....

So it's not a useful source of energy for a mobile car.



> Quite frankly, it make more sense to me to use more commonly used
> ways to convert radient energy to electricity (i.e., solar panels) in the
> electrical grid, and use the electrical grid to charge cars.

Agreed. Or solar-powered liquid fuel like Ethanol or Biodiesel, and
just continue using the already-available engines.

 

> The problem with using aluminum is that it requires a higher
> temperature to become malleable, and therefore costs more to produce.
> That's why Honda discontinued its Aluminum insight, and VW
> discontinued its Aluminum 90mpg Lupo. It was just too costly.

Aluminum has a rather low melting point (~1200 degrees F). It can't
possibly be the reason aluminum parts are more costly to produce then
steel (?). There are complications in getting castings done right I'm
told. It's also a rarer element I guess, and that contributes to the
cost.

 

Chris <chrism3667@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The problem with using aluminum is that it requires a higher
>> temperature to become malleable, and therefore costs more to produce.
>> That's why Honda discontinued its Aluminum insight, and VW
>> discontinued its Aluminum 90mpg Lupo. It was just too costly.
>
> Aluminum has a rather low melting point (~1200 degrees F). It can't
>possibly be the reason aluminum parts are more costly to produce then
>steel (?). There are complications in getting castings done right I'm
>told. It's also a rarer element I guess, and that contributes to the
>cost.

1. LOTS of electricity is required to refine bauxite. This is why
it's so cost-effective to recycle.

2. It oxidizes if you look at it. You can't just forge it in open air.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

> 1. LOTS of electricity is required to refine bauxite. This is why
> it's so cost-effective to recycle.

Then the cost has more to do with refining the material from it's raw
state then casting ingot or what have you. Lots of electricity is
required to melt anything, but the least of these is aluminum. Copper
melts at about 2000 degrees, and steel is up around 2800. Loads more
would be required to refine/melt those elements/alloys.

 

Refining aluminum is a process of electrolysis, hence the requirement
for large amounts of
electricity. The process was invented/discovered in Oberlin, Ohio by a
Mr. Hall who was,
I believe, a recent graduate of Oberlin College at the time of the
invention.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>Chris <chrism3667@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>The problem with using aluminum is that it requires a higher
>>>temperature to become malleable, and therefore costs more to produce.
>>>That's why Honda discontinued its Aluminum insight, and VW
>>>discontinued its Aluminum 90mpg Lupo. It was just too costly.
>>>
>>>
>>Aluminum has a rather low melting point (~1200 degrees F). It can't
>>possibly be the reason aluminum parts are more costly to produce then
>>steel (?). There are complications in getting castings done right I'm
>>told. It's also a rarer element I guess, and that contributes to the
>>cost.
>>
>>
>
>1. LOTS of electricity is required to refine bauxite. This is why
> it's so cost-effective to recycle.
>
>2. It oxidizes if you look at it. You can't just forge it in open air.
>--scott
>
>
>