01-14-2013, 05:08 PM
Will the economy simulator take into account the high popularity of battery electric vehicles until the invention of the electric starter?
Speaking of the electric starter. Can I influence and manipulate (bribe and slander) the adoption of new technologies; you know, Edison style (though he was not too successful at using such tactics)? Non-fossil fuel vehicles would have more of a chance if they could stick around long enough to be made easier to use.
No steam? The last production steam car was in 1931 iirc, though this was long past steam car popularity, also iirc (Model T, 1908). The Stanley Steamer was a better car than the Model T. Quiet and Smooth. The Doble Detroit was just plain modern The auto industry didn't give up hope on steam entirely. During times of high gas prices, steam powered designs have resurfaced.
Chevrolet Steam Chevelle SE 101
Steam Powered Pontiac Grand Prix. T (never left paper?)
Saab ULF. Compressed Air-Steam hybrid. The air power was for cold starting and instant take off while the 160hp steam engine built enough pressure to power the car. Once the SE was going the CA system was topped off (powered by the SE) and shutdown until the next cold start.
Pelland Steamer, Steamer Mk II, Mk III, and Mk IV (this one had enough success to see a additional models and is still in ?production)
Volkswagen Enginion AG ZEE Powered by an oilless flameless steam engine.
Also Compressed air, hydrogen IC, Fuel cell (Hydrogen, Methanol, Molten Carbonate, Phosphoric Acid, Solid Oxide, etc...), propane, wind powered, Ethanol/Methenal, One of those alternatives touted by Oil interests because it leads to increased fossil fuel use (E85 etc...), liquid nitrogen, and nuclear.
Just how much can I diverge from the simulation? Can I hire George Washington Carver and run all my cars of corn, soy, and peanut oil? Knowing what we know now, I'd have no problem devoting %50 of my profit to his lab. Maybe even make a go at the Soybean Car?
Nuclear powered automobiles. The barrier in the simulator for powering engines with radioactive fuels seems at first to be a governmental issue. One that may not be possible overcome within the confines of suspension of disbelief. There may be some plausible ways to include nuclear cars within the confines of the simulation. First, the least plausible and most impracticable. There was a short period in history where our government sent soldiers close to ground-zero sites thinking 'that level of radiation is probably harmless' and city counsels of large cities passed resolutions to use nuclear bombs to enlarge valleys for city growth. Ford designed a nuclear car during this era. There's also the possibility of rouge states needing a legitimate excuse like zero emission autos to develop nukes. But, no government has every actually done this to the best of my knowledge. The most plausible is re-purposing current real world technology for automotive propulsion. I'm not referring to critical nuclear reactors of the type found in large electrical power plants, but less volatile and smaller ways of making heat and/or electricity from radioactive materials. Like a radioisotope generators. This last option is not an insurmountable government issue. There's about 90 people walking around out there in the real world with plutonium powered pacemakers in their chest. Good fuel candidates for nuclear automobile power plants include Plutonium-238, Strontium-90, and Polonium-210 (this last one requires frequent replacement, thus a profitable market for refueling). The technology of this last option dates from 1913 when someone made a working tritium battery. It hits industry circles in 1954 when RCA (who else) began researching how to turn nuclear radiation into electricity. Many ways have been discovered. Possible the most interesting one is the Stirling Radioisotope Generator. In the 1970s NASA began making workable Stirling Engines intended to make electricity for satellites. Sometime around 1992 they added nuclear fuel to the mix, greatly increasing the impracticality of a Stirling powered design. A 3.5 square foot 1500 pound Stirling Radioisotope Generator array would power a Tesla Roadster for 14 years (Range is unlimited). Note the current Tesla battery weighs only 990 but needs frequent recharging. Or an SRG array could power a large slow moving commercial vehicle.
Looking at it from a economic (not engineering) prospective. All the above technologies have niche market profit potential. Wind powered recreational land sailing vehicles for instance. And I personally think that the auto industry has really missed the boat by not developing steam-hybrid big rigs.
Speaking of the electric starter. Can I influence and manipulate (bribe and slander) the adoption of new technologies; you know, Edison style (though he was not too successful at using such tactics)? Non-fossil fuel vehicles would have more of a chance if they could stick around long enough to be made easier to use.
No steam? The last production steam car was in 1931 iirc, though this was long past steam car popularity, also iirc (Model T, 1908). The Stanley Steamer was a better car than the Model T. Quiet and Smooth. The Doble Detroit was just plain modern The auto industry didn't give up hope on steam entirely. During times of high gas prices, steam powered designs have resurfaced.
Chevrolet Steam Chevelle SE 101
Steam Powered Pontiac Grand Prix. T (never left paper?)
Saab ULF. Compressed Air-Steam hybrid. The air power was for cold starting and instant take off while the 160hp steam engine built enough pressure to power the car. Once the SE was going the CA system was topped off (powered by the SE) and shutdown until the next cold start.
Pelland Steamer, Steamer Mk II, Mk III, and Mk IV (this one had enough success to see a additional models and is still in ?production)
Volkswagen Enginion AG ZEE Powered by an oilless flameless steam engine.
Also Compressed air, hydrogen IC, Fuel cell (Hydrogen, Methanol, Molten Carbonate, Phosphoric Acid, Solid Oxide, etc...), propane, wind powered, Ethanol/Methenal, One of those alternatives touted by Oil interests because it leads to increased fossil fuel use (E85 etc...), liquid nitrogen, and nuclear.
Just how much can I diverge from the simulation? Can I hire George Washington Carver and run all my cars of corn, soy, and peanut oil? Knowing what we know now, I'd have no problem devoting %50 of my profit to his lab. Maybe even make a go at the Soybean Car?
Nuclear powered automobiles. The barrier in the simulator for powering engines with radioactive fuels seems at first to be a governmental issue. One that may not be possible overcome within the confines of suspension of disbelief. There may be some plausible ways to include nuclear cars within the confines of the simulation. First, the least plausible and most impracticable. There was a short period in history where our government sent soldiers close to ground-zero sites thinking 'that level of radiation is probably harmless' and city counsels of large cities passed resolutions to use nuclear bombs to enlarge valleys for city growth. Ford designed a nuclear car during this era. There's also the possibility of rouge states needing a legitimate excuse like zero emission autos to develop nukes. But, no government has every actually done this to the best of my knowledge. The most plausible is re-purposing current real world technology for automotive propulsion. I'm not referring to critical nuclear reactors of the type found in large electrical power plants, but less volatile and smaller ways of making heat and/or electricity from radioactive materials. Like a radioisotope generators. This last option is not an insurmountable government issue. There's about 90 people walking around out there in the real world with plutonium powered pacemakers in their chest. Good fuel candidates for nuclear automobile power plants include Plutonium-238, Strontium-90, and Polonium-210 (this last one requires frequent replacement, thus a profitable market for refueling). The technology of this last option dates from 1913 when someone made a working tritium battery. It hits industry circles in 1954 when RCA (who else) began researching how to turn nuclear radiation into electricity. Many ways have been discovered. Possible the most interesting one is the Stirling Radioisotope Generator. In the 1970s NASA began making workable Stirling Engines intended to make electricity for satellites. Sometime around 1992 they added nuclear fuel to the mix, greatly increasing the impracticality of a Stirling powered design. A 3.5 square foot 1500 pound Stirling Radioisotope Generator array would power a Tesla Roadster for 14 years (Range is unlimited). Note the current Tesla battery weighs only 990 but needs frequent recharging. Or an SRG array could power a large slow moving commercial vehicle.
Looking at it from a economic (not engineering) prospective. All the above technologies have niche market profit potential. Wind powered recreational land sailing vehicles for instance. And I personally think that the auto industry has really missed the boat by not developing steam-hybrid big rigs.