Seems like something they could build into the next generation of Hybrids but I don't see it doing a whole lot to keep the cost of those vehicles down.

I'd love to buy a Hybrid by 2010 but I'd love it even more if the cost was comparable to a regular engine.

They'd be better off getting away from combustion engines. It's like figuring out what to do with all the plastic packaging that is tossed in land fill. Just stop using it. In this case, stop developing combustion engines, use what you got, and spend development dollars on cleaner propulsion.

What kind of energy and resources does carbon fiber manufacturing consume? Anyone know? I know it can be energy intensive, but I don't know to what degree..

"What kind of energy and resources does carbon fiber manufacturing consume? Anyone know? I know it can be energy intensive, but I don't know to what degree.."

That's a good question. An even better one, IMO, is how does it compare to the current amount of energy used for metals.

It is possible that carbon fiber is more energy-intensive, but if it saves lots of energy once it's on the road (because it's so much lighter), that might still be a net benefit.

RMI thinks that carmakers don't use more carbon fibers in part because they have multi-billion $ investments into machinery to work with metals.

Carbon fiber might be more expensive per volume, but you can save a lot on machinery, paint shops and floor space since you can simply use molds.

A while back (several years) people were working on gasoline fuel cells, which IMHO has MORE of the advantages of a hydrogen fuel cell. High efficiency, readily available fuel, and the fuel doesn't slowly leak out.

What happened to this research and goal? still in progress? hit a roadblock?

The military has recently made a JP-8 ("essentially" kerosene) fuel cell for use in tanks, to power the electronics and other equipment without idling the main turbine (which reduces the heat and noise signature)

If you can use JP-8, you could in theory use kerosene, diesel, and possibly bio-diesel.

fuel cell efficiency theoretical max is like ~80%
an internal combustion engine is like ~40%

@JC

In theory, you could use gasoline, the problem lies in sorting out the impurities (still lots of those). You'd probably be better off having separate fuel cells onboard: one for carbon and one for hydrogen. Fuel could be reformed onboard into those constituents.

In practice, fuel cells top out at 60% efficiency, but even that is rare. SOFCs can achieve 75% electrical efficiency, but that's in a stationary application and using a rankine cycle turbine to recover some of the heat lost by the SOFC.

Don't let that 3.8% number fool you, it's actually a pretty big gain. A gasoline ICE operates at about 30% TE, so 33.8% TE is like a 12% gain in fuel economy.

About Carbon Fiber:

I don't have any numbers to share, but I can assure you that the EROEI on carbon fiber is positive. The downside is that CF cannot be recycled (as far as I know) because it is a thermoset plastic.

It might make more sense to invest into aluminum as it achieves a 40% weight reduction over steel and it is easily recycled.

In terms of investments in efficiency, the greatest gains to be had are in aerodynamics (cp Aptera). Both car companies and the public really need to recognize that. There is no reason to have any car on the road with a Cd of more than .20 considering the technology we've had for the past couple decades (cheap wind tunnels, advanced CAD, pressure-water metal forming)

I work in a chemical plant which makes Acrylonitrile, which is shipped to another site to make carbon fibers. We get our feedstock propylene from a refinery, which is reacted with ammonia (produced from natural gas), and oxygen. So there you go, oil and natural gas go into making the product that makes the carbon fiber. Not sure whether it's energy positive or whatever, but I'm sure along the way, a lot of energy is used to refine the propylene, acrylo, shipping, waste, etc.

Thanks GreenPlease! One of the issues the military had to overcome was removing the sulfur from the fuel.

Second all of your comments on aero, a Toyota Prius gets good highway mileage, and any car could be shaped like the Prius even without the hybird technology and be better off mileage wise than most cars.

"RMI thinks that carmakers don't use more carbon fibers in part because they have multi-billion $ investments into machinery to work with metals. "

And they would have to invest billions more to move to Carbon Fiber.

"Carbon fiber might be more expensive per volume, but you can save a lot on machinery, paint shops and floor space since you can simply use molds."

I don't think there would be much if any such savings there. The machinery now used to handle slit, shear, etc. steel would have to be replaced with machinery to handle, slit, shear, etc. the CF fabric, and the steel forming dies would have to be replaced by molds, but unlike dies that are only occupied for a few seconds per part, the CF parts have to remain in the molds until cured, so they may need hundreds of each mold to replace each die to sustain high volume.

There could be a reduction in painting since non-visible parts would not need paint to prevent corrosion, but the visible CF parts would need to be painted unless the color is molded in, in which case you need may need color specific molds or some additional mold cleaning process to prevent color contamination from part to part.

CF manufacture may require even more floor space, since they would have to store thousands of curing parts in-mold vs. their current nearly just in time manufacture of steel parts which requires very little storage of parts, not to mention all of the thousands of molds for parts that aren't being made that day.

Structural parts may also require additional investment in equipment for heated, vacuum or autoclave curing to prevent strength robbing bubble formation in the resin, which would also require more energy input.

Supply may be an issue. I doubt there is anywhere near the required capacity to make CF to keep up with the demand if it were used in such a high volume product as automobiles, the demand for which would also increase the cost for the raw material.

Finally, as someone already mentioned, it is more difficult to recycle. CF can't be melted down and molded into another car again and again. At most it can be ground and used as filler or reinforcement for lower stregth plastics.

Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine is a better idea in my opinion.

I'm sure Treehugger had a post on CF recycling a while ago, I think there's a comany in Birmingham (UK) that came up with a method. Removing the binder and chopping up the fibres??

What's the expected life in service of carbon fibre? Maybe if you could make the parts last 200 years it would be a good move :)

First off, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this blog entry since it imposes such an interesting fact: "only about 1% of the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline moves the driver of a car" and looks beyond to find a meaningful solution to such an outstanding problem. This fact leaves one dumb-founded because where does the rest of the energy go? As for someone who may be not be as science savvy as the rest, I was thoroughly shocked to read that the rest of the energy is lost as heat through the exhaust. At the same time, it is not surprising that the motor vehicle company Honda is eager to implement changes (although the technology is not yet perfect) given that they made the first vehicle to comply with the Clean Air Act of 1970. This blog is further thought provoking because you beg to ask the question: should we remain content with updating the old combustion engine as oil prices virtually rise every day?

In this situation, as it is the with the general consent of most of the readers, it would seemingly be more profitable for the sake of environmental preservation and protection to get rid of this great polluter, this so-called combustion engine. Even if combustion engines were to be able to utilize more per gallon of gas, they are still a big polluter and a major problem for the environment. The only obvious solution would be to invest more in eco-friendly (alternative energy) to fuel our vehicles. In the future, all our vehicles will surely be hybrid and electric vehicles, so why not cut our dependence on foreign oil sooner?

An additional step, on top of making hybrid and electric vehicles, is to use less plastic packaging that constantly fill up landfills; "America generates more waste every year, growing from a 247 million tons of non-hazardous waste in 1990, to 409 million tons in 2001." The equation is complex; one would have to consider the amount of energy used in metals in modern-day vehicles, to the amount of energy that will be saved as combustion engines become more eco-friendly, to the amount of energy used in hybrid/electric vehicles. Whatever the outcomes, Honda automakers are setting the standard as they symbolize a forward-moving and progressive comapny. One only hopes that American automakers will be inclined to produce more eco-friendly vehicles in the future so that they may at least stand a fighting chance compared to their Japanese competitor.

Im not sure why they arent working on heat recovery from the radiator. I thought that was the primary heat sink in an ICE. Pump that heat to a sterling engine and direct its output directly to the crank shaft or an electric generator.

Honda said it looked at the sterling engine route but decided against it. Probably a cost/weight thing..

"m not sure why they arent working on heat recovery from the radiator. I thought that was the primary heat sink in an ICE. Pump that heat to a sterling engine and direct its output directly to the crank shaft or an electric generator."

The radiator is roughly 180-220 or so, the exhaust gas temperature something like 600. The more heat, the bigger the differential to ambient temperature, and the easier it is to extract energy, and achieve higher efficiency. this is way overgeneralized, but sort of the reality of it.

I seem to remember there was a company that was working on a ceramic engine for cars. The engine didn't require oil to lube or water to cool. So what ever happen to that design? Couldn't we use some of that research to figure a better way to build a more efficient car motor.

I'm all for designing electric cars. One that uses solar, wind (for co-generation) and possible using some sort of gas engine that could be used when I go on longer trips. I don't think that plug-in electric cars buy us anything as they hide what the electric company does to the environment. Also, would you want to be beholding to your local electric provider when they are the only game in town for fuel to get you to work, You really think they're any better than thee Oil companies?

Just my 2 cents .....

We're developing a small-scale organic Rankine cycle for both homes and diesel engine waste heat recovery. Large over-the-road trucks have a larger potential to use this technology, since up to 26 percent of the coolant and exhaust waste heat could be converted back into producing kilowatts of power. For a typical large truck with a Cat diesel, this might amount to up to 26 kWe per hour of power.

That electricity could be used to power the refrigeration unit (reefer van or refrigeration container) in the back. This alone saves lots of diesel, without any major change to the engine compartment.

A bigger equally big impact would be that they would not need to run the engine-driven fan radiator unit on the front of the engine for engine coolant. This saves an additional 8 percent of the engine HP.

http://www.infinityturbine.com