EV Zero emmisions? Is electricity a clean energy source: ARTICLE

[Xist]

I have often thought that if you could pressurize roadways, you could run a lower pressure with more oxygen. I could not imagine that 3 PSI of straight O2 could ever be safe, but we always take about making vehicles more aerodynamic...

[Astro]

I agree that a staged development would have more chance of success.

I think the big problem is that the solutions with the best long term benefits do not benefit the politicians currently in power and therefore have no hope of being attempted.
Politicians want short term benefits that the general public can see so that they get the credit for the achievement and that is then reflected in the next vote.

I do like the tunnel idea.
Get the roadway down below the frost line and say goodbye to snow and ice issues.
No rain to make the roads slippery and to reduce driver vision.
No danger to livestock or wildlife.
Complete separation of traffic directions. No more oncoming traffic with their high beams left on.
All traffic going the same direction in each tunnel so they all contribute to air movement within the tunnel so everyone gets reduced air resistance as they always have a tail wind.
Solar panels on the roof of the tunnel to supply power to the roadway for lighting etc.
Integrate periodic sensors along the roadway to detect traffic and control which sections of the tunnel are lit.

For the construction, let the mining industry take on the build when falling ore prices make ore mining less profitable. They have loads of heavy equipment designed to move the maximum amount of dirt for the least cost per tonne.
So instead of selling more ore for less money to maintain profit when ore prices drop they could swap over to roadway construction and then go back to ore mining when ore prices rose again.

If you also integrated the electrical grid distribution into the tunnel design then there would be benefits there also. The grid would not be exposed to the elements. It would be readily accessible for maintenance. Any power requirements on the roadway would be easily accommodated.
Ha, i just had a funny vision of an electrified roof and everyone driving around in amusement park bumper cars.

[UltArc]

I would only do one tunnel, though. Both directions opposite, so only one construction. The center aisle way (above the cement divider) would be a series of turbines. All the air flow, in opposite directions, would keep those babies spinning. Even more energy :thumb:

[PaleMelanesian]

Tunnels aren't a perfect solution.

1. Construction cost is MUCH higher than above-ground.
2. Water. In low areas like Houston, anything deeper than 8 ft or so requires full-time pumps to keep it dry. That's not free.
3. Driver sanity. I would go insane driving underground for more than a few miles.

Building a solar-collecting roof over the road would still be cheaper than tunneling, and provide some of the same benefits - power generation and cool road surface.

[backpacker3]

I'm waiting for hydrogen powered flying cars. No roads needed and a few solar panels or a wind turbine or two at home and you can make all the fuel you need completely off grid.

And we all know that will happen after all they've been saying since like the 50s that we should have flying cars by now I'm sure it will happen any day now. Lol

[UltArc]

I wouldn't want to DIG tunnels, rather enclose the road. And I'd need windows and other things to keep me sane, too.

I've always heard flying cars exist and are easy to make and run, the issue is on the ground at 35 mph with clearly marked roads we can't stop banging into each other. At such speed, in the air, with no guidance, what would happen? Text messaging and flying in NY would be a lot worse than text messaging and driving, same with any big city. Heck, basically anywhere.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by UltArc

I've always heard flying cars exist and are easy to make and run, the issue is on the ground at 35 mph with clearly marked roads we can't stop banging into each other. At such speed, in the air, with no guidance, what would happen? Text messaging and flying in NY would be a lot worse than text messaging and driving, same with any big city. Heck, basically anywhere.

Autopilot

[Astro]

Originally Posted by UltArc

I've always heard flying cars exist and are easy to make and run, the issue is on the ground at 35 mph with clearly marked roads we can't stop banging into each other. At such speed, in the air, with no guidance, what would happen? Text messaging and flying in NY would be a lot worse than text messaging and driving, same with any big city. Heck, basically anywhere.

From what i have read the FAA will still require the drivers to have pilot licences so the makers of the flying cars are attempting to get a computer pilot certified. So then the driver will think he is flying but all he is doing is feeding suggestions to the computer pilot who will then attempt to comply as long as it doesn't break any rules or cause a dangerous situation. So the flying cars would automatically avoid each other. Even a drunk could fly them as the computer pilot would not comply with any directives that caused any sort of danger.
I am sure some "clever" people may be able to trick the computer into doing something dangerous but in general it would be safer than letting the driver make the judgement calls on what was safe. After listening to several drivers saying things like, "Driving at double the speed limit is safe cos i am such good driver", i actually look forward to some sort of computer sanity checking.
Obviously there would be heaps of fail safes required before a computer would be accepted as a certified pilot not just an auto pilot. Multiple computers, redundancy, cross-checking, etc.

[markweatherill]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Thats why electric cars are really coal powered cars.

Don't forget the considerable amounts of electricity needed in refining fossil fuels. 'Therefore' a gasoline car is really a gasoline / coal hybrid.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by UltArc

I've always heard flying cars exist and are easy to make and run...

Don't believe everything you hear :-)

Think about it: if you're going to make a flying car, it either has to have wings like a conventional plane, or rotors like a helicopter. The winged version is going to need some sort of runway to take off and land, so you can't just land wherever you're going. To drive around on the highways, you need to fold the wings somehow, plus you're carrying around the extra weight of wings & prop when driving. You also need a drivetrain & steering, which is going to be parasitic weight when flying. You've got a machine that needs to do two very different jobs, which means it will do neither of them well.

Helicopter-like? Well, consider the drawbacks of helicopters now: high fuel consumption, blades spinning at high speeds, &c. Now make those blades stowable, and add the weight of transmission & steering...