(except in the US)
for neighborhood electric generation.

how about making those things better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_bus



Exhaust=water

No pistons, fuel injection, radiator, oil changes, spark plugs etc.

No moving parts (except for the electric motors, which aren't part of the fuel cell)

this is interesting:

Edit to add: Is it possible that Chu doesn't know that hydrogen gas can be produced with solar energy, as Honda has done? I'm guessing that yes it is possible.

Honda Introduces Solar Hydrogen Station on Saitama Prefectural Office Grounds
http://world.honda.com/news/2012/4120327Solar-Hydrogen-Station/index.html

http://www.unica.com.br/news/38990375920328579439/unica-and-scania-pitch-ethanol-powered-bus-as-urban-transport-solution-for-sao-paulo-state/




http://www.scania.com/media/pressreleases/n07063en.aspx


NOte: running the buses on corn based ethanol would yield GHG emissions reduction of 87% on a per mile driven basis.


Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use - Argonne National Laboratory
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/045905/article

if you are interested in feasibility - effectiveness, affordability, currently availability (i.e. don't have to wait 20 yrs to be developed into a financially viable option) - biofueled vehicles - buses, trucks or cars are the only real option currently available and affordable.

Trust me, they don't take fuel economy lightly.

We told the drivers what roads to drive on and what truck stops to fill up at, and they would lose their bonuses if they did not comply. Our fleet averaged 7.2 mpg. There were two big facts that everyone was aware of:

1) A drop in 0.1 mpg would result in the consumption of an extra 15 million gallons of fuel a year.
2) We had a network of preferred fuel vendors who we negotiated diesel prices with. For every penny we shaved off the price of diesel fuel, we delivered $7.5 million a year to the company's bottom line.

Tokyo's population was and is bad. When Hybrid was first proposed the thrust was to address this issue, by making the first hybrids trucks for deliveries in Tokyo. This did not go far, as far as I can tell it was just talk, then Honda came out with its Hybrid and then Toyota came out with the Prius.

Now, I have read reports that the increase cost of the Prius more then off sets the savings in fuel costs. It appears that the trucking industry also saw this was the situation and killed off any attempt to make a hybrid truck (Small trucks, including American 1/2 ton trucks could go hybrid but not anything bigger).

Now, when it comes to fuel usage, "Commuting vehicles" cars, Lights Trucks and SUVs, use just over 61% of all oil used in the US. Large Tractor Trailers use 25%. The trucks in between, the so call "medium duty trucks" use the least fuel, for their are driven the least. This was reported in the 2012 Department of Energy. "Transportation Energy Data Book", the on line copy is as follows:

http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub37730.pdf

On page 1-19 of the chart is chart 1-15 (on the PDF page number 49). The Chart includes every year between 1970 and 2010, but I reduced it to just those two years: (All numbers are in thousands barrels of oil a day):

Year.....Cars.....Light... ...Light ....Motorcycles...Buses....Class....Class....Heavy.... Highway....Total
........................Trucks...vehicle........................................3-6........7-8......Trucks.....Subtotal....Transportation
..................................subtotal.......................................Trucks...Trucks

1970..4,424......803.......5,227..........4..................62........140........598......738........6,031............7,333
2010..4,395...4,193.......8,588........28..................90.........557....2,375...2,933.....11,639..........13,548

Year........Air......Water........Pipeline.....Rail.........Nonhighway.....Total
............................................................................subtotal.........Transportation
1970.....625........381...............43.........253........1,302................7,333
2010..1,040........626................3..........240.........1,909.............13,548

Thus 61% of oil usage in the US is in cars and light trucks, which basically means personal transportation to and from work, school and other activities. 17.5% of all oil used in Transportation is used by the heaviest trucks. "Medium Size Trucks" use just over 4% of all oil used in transportation.

The "Classes" of trucks are basically set by the Federal Government, but technically are set by each
state. Here is a break down of each "Class"L
CLASS.................Weight range............Typical Type of Vehicle in that Class:
CLASS ONE........6,000 lbs. or less, ......1/2 ton or smaller Pickup...Mini Pickup...Minivan..SUV.,Utility Van
CLASS TWO.......6,001 to 10,000 lbs....3/4 ton Pickup Full Size Pickup...Mini Bus...Minivan...Step Van
CLASS THREE...10,001 to 14,000 lbs....1 ton Pickup,....City Delivery....Mini Bus Walk In.. Hummers
CLASS FOUR....14,001 to 16,000 lbs....."Medium Size Truck....City Delivery....Conventional Van...Plow truck
CLASS FIVE.......16,001 to 19,500 lbs......Bucket....City Delivery.....Large Walk In
CLASS SIX.........19,501 to 26,000 lbs..... Beverage Rack....School Bus.....Single Axle Van.... Stake Body

You need a CDL license for the following classes of vehicles:

CLASS SEVEN.....26,001 to 33,000 lbs.....City Transit Bus.....Furniture.....Refuse...... Heavy Tow Truck
CLASS EIGHT......33,001 lbs. & over.........Cement Mixer....Dump.....Semi Sleeper....Tour Bus....Fire Truck.. Fuel Heavy....Semi Tractor

http://www.goodyear.ca/truck/pdf/radialretserv/Retread_S15_V.pdf

Farmers, local delivery service, Construction people tend to use Classes 2-6, they need something more then a light duty pickup (The difference between a 1/2 and 3/4 ton pickup is the undercarriage. 1/2 ton pickups tend to use modified large sedan undercarriage, 3/4 ton pickups tend to have the same body as the 1/2 but a true truck undercarriage. For this reason it was recommend that you use a 3/4 ton or larger pickup for snow plowing). Gas economy regulations only applied to Class one and two, i.e. 1/2 and 3/4 ton pickups, but NOT most one ton pickups. Hummers were class three.

Ford called its 1/2 pickups F-150s, Chevrolet called their C-1500. Ford f-250 and Chevy C-2500 were Class 2 and F-350s and C-3500 were class 3. All of the Fords and Chevrolet tended to use the same bodies, but the undercarriage was different and thus the difference in categories. In simple terms ignore anything after the first number, for that indicates the class of the Truck. The rest of the numbers were for marketing purposes (The F-150 was a "Better" Truck then the F-100, when the only real difference was the number).

I bring this up, for it shows that the biggest user of oil are "light vehicles", the second largest are the heaviest trucks, with the Mid size truck the least used. At first this sounds odd, but when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. If you have to make a delivery, you want to do it at the least cost so you do it with the biggest truck filled to the gills OR you use the smallest vehicles to haul the item to where you want them (and that may be someone's personal car or even of bicycle).

I bring this up for it is the BIGGEST making trucks more efficient. The Average American Car is driven about 12-15000 miles a year. The Heaviest trucks can go 200,000 or more miles a year. The Trucks in between average less then 10,000 miles a year (They are driven less then most automobiles). It was this low usage rate that makes converting to hybrid unappealing to the users of mid size trucks, these trucks are NOT driven enough to justify the savings in fuel given how much more expensive hybrids are over conventional trucks.

You only need a CDL license for class 7 and 8. The reason for this is that most businesses and local governments objected to having to have their employees required to have a special license to operate a vehicle that is used less then most people's automobiles.

On the other hand you work you way up to the big trucks, Automatic Transmissions were unheard of in most mid size trucks till the 1990s, then do mostly to the US Army refusing to train people on how to drive standard transmissions, you saw a switch to automatic transmission among such mid size trucks. In the 1970s when I worked with UPS, all of their delivery trucks were manual transmissions, today they are all automatics (I suspect for the same reason the US Army has converted to Automatic Transmissions, they do NOT want to train people in how to drive a manual transmission).

Now, in Civilian use, most business and Governmental units do not keep vehicles 20 or more years (Through many do, especially if they are only used once or twice a week, but are needed to be available, the classic situation is a snow plow or other mid size truck to haul items for high way repair or similar ground maintenance). On the other hand such owners do tend to keep them 10-20 years. Such trucks are a huge investment that such owners do not want to make to frequently, but will do so when it is what is needed.

Hybrids and overhead wires:

After discussing the above, I finally get to my point. Hybrids are best done in a vehicle which is used a lot. That EXCLUDES MOST TRUCKS, but not the largest or smallest trucks on the highway. Any conversion will have to concentrate on the trucks that are used the most, and that is the heavy trucks. You have more Mid Size trucks then Heavy Trucks, but it is the heavy trucks that do the most hauling by tonnage (Followed by Light trucks). You make more deliveries with the mid size trucks, but overall less by tonnage.

Thus to save fuel in the truck fleet, we have to look at the heaviest trucks first. One way to improve fuel usage is to demand that all large trucks be Hybrids. This would improve their fuel economy in itself (through at an increase in cost of the truck) but it can lead to other improvements. For example if the Federal Government would require any truck that crosses a state line to be a hybrid, the Feds could also demand that such trucks be able to charge their batteries from overhead wires.

Overhead wires have been used in the past to provide power to trucks that ran where "Trolley-buses" ran. This permitted such trucks to move without the use of oil. Such trucks have also been used in certain open pit mines for electrical power can provide more power to wheels then even a non-synchronized manual transmission (Which in turn beats out a synchronized manual transmission, which ties with an automated manual transmission, which beats out a conventional automatic transmission which beat out a continuous transmission. Please note I am discussing power, in terms of fuel economy the continuous transmission actually beats the rest except for a Hybrid but at the cost of lack of flexibility as to range of speed).

Others have mentioned installing electrical lines over the Mountains of the west so that such trucks could access such power and use such power to go over those mountains. One of the reasons Trolley buses have survived in most of the cities their still operate in, in the USA, is that such electricity driven buses can pull on more power from the transmission lines and thus maintain a faster speed going up an incline then a diesel bus. The same with electrically driven trucks, if they can pull from an electrical line more power, you would see less trucks crawling up such inclines in the mountains. In Pennsylvania, on the turnpike, such trucks just slow down and slowly crawl up the inclines (and is the main reason the Trucking industry has opposed bypassing Allegheny Tunnel on the Turnpike, the trucking industry had lobbied for an even lower tunnel for exclusive truck use, for it would save the trucking industry a huge amount of fuel.

Allegheny Mountain is a molehill compared to the mountains out west, but such a system would work out west, if any of the Interstates get anywhere near the truck traffic of the PA turnpike.

The advantage of such a system is that it could be installed slowly. The Federal Government could designate one route to be electrified and concentrate on the mountains first (When the Railroad converted from Steam to Diesel, Diesel were first used on the routes going over the Western Mountains, those diesel, which are diesel generators powering electric motors, could provide extra power, but use only one set of crew running all of the Diesels on that train, as oppose to a crew on each steam locomotive, and you had to add engines to get over those mountains).

Like the Railroads as their converted to Diesel-Electric, the new hybrid trucks would need and thus use the extra power provided on an overhead wire to get over those mountains and to a degree, generative braking can convert some of the power used to climb the mountain to electricity as the truck goes down those same mountains. You would get no where near 100% recovery, but you would get some.

Local lines

Presently we have electric trucks that can go about 80 miles in a day. That would cover most use by local deliveries. The report does NOT mention hills or winter (cold weather has bad affect on most battery's ability to hold a charge). While 80 miles is no where near what the large truckers need, it would fit most businesses and governments except in terms of snow removal (Snow Removal would be affected not only by the affect of cold on electrical storage devices but the need for the Snow Plow to PLOW for hours at a time. That requires additional energy and often runs into hundreds of mile, often going over the same section of road over and over again).

On the other hand, summer cleanups, road maintenance is while within the range limits of 80 miles.

For more on such electric trucks:

http://www.boulderev.com/

http://www.smithelectric.com/

Smith Closed down production in April 2014:

http://www.boulderev.com/



http://www.viamotors.com/lineup/

http://www.pluginamerica.org/vehicles

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/03/13-electric-vehicles-coming-market-2014/

I like the concept of Hybrids as transitional vehicles. Electrical drive will replace diesel and gasoline driven vehicles (Through how to produce Electricity for such vehicles is no where near what would be needed). Hybrids permit the use of overhead wires, or even chargers at every stop, for example as used on buses in Korea:

http://www.wired.com/2013/08/induction-charged-buses/

http://blogs.rgj.com/renorebirth/2014/04/09/renos-new-electric-buses-will-recharge-in-minutes/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capa_vehicle

AS you can see, people tend to address mid size trucks, but those trucks use the least amount of oil. The Largest trucks use the most oil of any truck (but are way less then Commuter vehicles). If you want to see any real drop in oil usage, you have to address those two areas, but most people are avoiding those two areas for their are the hardest to charge QUICKLY.

The Better option may be to force such truck loads to be hauled by train (which can be electrified) and then only use their diesel engines for the last mile of movement. In effect tell the trucking industry it MUST work with the rail industry when in comes to anything other then local transport.

And think about this, the big item, the one no one wants to really address, is that most oil is used by people going to and from work. How do you reduce THAT demand? 80 mile range would do it, but how about cold weather? Remember batteries lose power in Cold Weather. Worse, most people who do low income jobs also tend to need a car to get to their jobs, but tend to buy ten year old cars. Thus how do we get such low income people into electrical cars, when all they can afford is something 10 years old? No one wants to address that issue either.

The more I look up the requirements of the truck fleet, I see the bigger problem is the Automobile/Light Truck/SUV fleet as being much more important area to address. The Chevrolet Volt was expected to sell about 30,000 cars a year, its stable mate, the Cruze, both use the same body and engine, but different transmission, is expected to sell 300,000. For every Volt, Chevrolet expects to sell 10 Cruzes. That reduces oil for the Cruze Eco gets 42 mpg with a manual transmission, but that is still oil being burned.

I hate to say this, no one will come close to what is needed till Gasoline is $10 a gallon and maybe not even then. At $10 a gallon, people on minimum wage can NOT pay their rent, pay for food AND pay for gasoline to get to and from their work. Given most jobs are in Suburbia and that requires a car, that means they have to quit their jobs, or starve (or be evicted). That would lead to unrest and then the Government may finally do something. Until then I do not expect anything, but more talk about the need to do something.

It's sort of like a trolly in that it uses overhead booms to power the electric motors except rather than continuous wires you have an occasional recharge station to spin up the flywheel energy storage system. Gyrobus was developed with early 50's technology, I'm sure something considerably superior could be engineered today around the same concept. I used to ride the electric trolley buses back in the day and they were quiet and powerful, better in many ways than the diesel buses of today, their main disadvantage being it was not possible to reroute them without running new overhead wires and a gyrobus would eliminate that disadvantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus

Buses today tend to be used where Streetcars were used pre-WWI. The reasons for the switch were as follows:

1. Buses were cheaper up front. Over the life of the Vehicle Streetcars were cheaper, for electrical engines were cheaper to replace, they also lasted longer. Thus cheaper to operate over time, but more expensive up front.

2. The old Streetcar lines not only had to maintain the Streetcars and any of their own private right of way, but also any part of the street their streetcars ran on. With buses the transit system could transfer the maintenance of such streets back to the city.

3. The price of Oil reached it lowest level in the 1950s, reducing the cost advantage electrical drive had over diesel drive.

Now, it is often claim that Buses were more "Flexible" then streetcars, but that turned out to be false. While buses could switch to another street (something Streetcars could not do), their passengers stayed at their old stops (and those stops that were moved, would required just a slight rebuilt of the Streetcar rails, barely more then normal maintenance). The reason for this is simple, you have to go where the people are, that is where the Streetcars did, and when buses replaced Streetcars that is where the buses went. Thus almost every old non-interurban streetcar line, was replaced by a bus going on the same route (interurbans streetcars lines connected cities, thus their name and were more competitors to passenger train service then anyone else, Interurban lines peaked in 1918 and went into rapid decline in the 1920s as the rural area embraced the Automobile, even as inner city streetcars saw increase usage).

I bring this up, for over head wires, intermediate charging stops etc, are best used on routes with high passenger volume, mostly the old Streetcar routes of the 1930s. Many Suburban bus routes have evolved similar characteristics (i.e. high passenger volume). It is on such routes that overhead wires or recharging stations work. Once you get away from such routes, the cost efficiency of such recharging methods drop immensely (Mostly do to lack of volume).

When it comes to snow plowing, snow plows operate up to 24 hours at a time (The drivers do need a break) AND not only on routes with high passenger density, but on back streets with much lower population density. Worse, the plows are carrying a plow which they are PUSHING along the road bed, thus you have increase resistance and thus need more power. Thus mos snow plows use more power then anything else on the street and often the furthest away from any charger set up for high passenger density areas.

In fact in the days of Streetcars, the Streetcars were designed to push excess snow off their part of the road. Mere operation of the Streetcars kept the road open (That part of the road beside the Streetcar maintain section was often snow covered for the local government just refused to pay for snow plowing until the Streetcars were replaced by buses). The undercarriage of the Streetcar could push through all by the heaviest snows, and the frequency of service prevented such a heavy snow to build up (on the less used interurban lines, snow plows on the Streetcar lines were used, but that was do to the fact these routes had only one streetcar every hour or so, not one every five minutes).

Thus it is the NATURE of snow plowing and that snow plowing would take such snow plows far away from any recharging station that makes such charging stations not a reasonable option for snow plows. In theory on routes where such charging stations exist, electric snow plows would work. The problem is that would NOT on 90% or more of the roads snow plows operate on. Furthermore, given the amount of power needed by such snow plows, energy consumption would be high, which in turn would require more frequent charging.

I hate to say it, once you understand the requirements of snow plowing AND where most recharging stops would be, you quickly see they are NOT compatible. In the areas where charging stations would exist, the mere volume of traffic will keep most of the road clear. In other areas, the lack of volume of traffic would lead to more energy usage as the plow moved away from the charging stations. Thus unlike most mid size trucks, I do not see snow plows going all electric, but it would be a good niche for bio-fuel trucks and hybrids.

The Gyrobus is less efficient then even Acid Lead batteries when it comes to energy storage. Quicker to recharge and thus used in Korea, but less efficient.


http://www.wired.com/2013/08/induction-charged-buses/

http://blogs.rgj.com/renorebirth/2014/04/09/renos-new-electric-buses-will-recharge-in-minutes/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capa_vehicle

An EV with an on board electricity generator

Range, 4 minute "charging" and no half ton of lithium to drag around with the bus

Chris Hostetter, group vice president of strategic planning for Toyota Motor Sales, believes the automotive industry will change more in the next 10 years than the last 100 years. Hostetter spoke to BBC Future at the Aspen Ideas Festival
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140327-hydrogen-cars-ready-for-roads

Fuel cells are only 50% efficient, i.e.for every watt you put into a fuel cell, you get only 1/2 of a watt out of it. Fly Wheels are 90% efficient, for every watt you put in, you get .9 wall out. Lead Acid Batteries are only 25% efficient. Lithium batteries are more efficient, but the real issue is how much more efficient? I have read as high a a electric Fly wheel, but I have NOT been able to confirm that from a reputable cite.

Gas turbines are the most efficient internal combustion engine, but have two speeds, fast and off. Given most vehicles do NOT need all of the power of their engines all of the time, and conventional gasoline and diesel engines are idle at slow speeds, in the real world conventional gasoline and diesel engines are more efficient.

The combination of fly wheel and their huge efficiency AND gas turbine with their high fuel economy when in full use, when used together off set their bad sides. i.e. any excess power of the gas turbine is saved in the fly wheel, which in turns provides most of the power needed till it has to be recharged by the gas turbine. Once recharged the gas turbine is turned off till it is needed.

A gas turbine with a fly wheel with the ability to pull power from overhead wires would be the most efficient use of fuel in any vehicle. When you have access to over head wires (or other electrical generation, for example the induction chargers of Korea), just do not operate the gas turbine. In areas without access to electricity while on the move (most roads) when the charge falls to an unacceptable level, you turn on the gas turbine to charge up the batteries.

This sub thread started with Snow plowing. And a gas turbine, fly wheel as an electrical storage device, with the ability to be charged while on the move from whatever road based electrical supply system available would be the most fuel efficient when plowing snow. In those areas with external road base electrical system, the plows batteries can be charged by the external charger, in areas without such an external charger, the turbine could do the job.

My point do not get hung up on one form of energy or one form of electrical charging. I foresee a lot of different methods being tried before one wins out over the rest.

For comparison look at electrical railroads. In Europe, 25 Kilowatt is slowly becoming the dominate system.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_system

25 Kilowatts tends to be the winning electrical system among rail systems, even in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak%27s_60_Hz_Traction_Power_System

Through most LRV systems (and older Streetcar systems) used a 600, 650 or 750 Volt Systems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_systems_for_electric_rail_traction#600_V_DC

Overhead electrical systems are old technology that is reliable and well known when it comes to charging well the vehicle is in actual use. The various other methods to recharge or run electrical vehicles are NOT as well developed. Stationary charging places are as old and well known as overhead wires, but were designed around the vehicle NOT being is use when being charged. Given the energy batteries or other electricity storage devices can hold, using such chargers for vehicles in use 10-12 hours a day (typical bus or other similar vehicles) is not practical. Some sort of in motion charging OR direct connection with an electrical supply is needed. Overhead wiring provides that power through its electrical system and thus is preferred when it comes to Streetcars, trolley buses, Light Rail Vehicles, and Railroads.

The other systems, that permit recharging while is use, has very limited applications, mostly on bus routes with many stops, but stops not that far apart. Thus the Korea system.

On the other hand, in areas with low population density (including most suburbs), none of the direct recharging system work. The buses stops tend to be to far apart. Thus the Gas Turbine/Fly wheel system would be the most efficient in such situations.

Also remember, different population density and geography will have to be considered when picking out how to move people around. In high population areas, LRV and/or Streetcars are the most efficient (and the cheapest to retrofit to such an area if the plan is to keep mass transit away from auto traffic). In lower level of population density, the bus slowly becomes the best option. In rural areas the only real choice.

People movers can be built like Light Rail Vehicles in high population density areas, but only if kept separate from all other traffic. Light Rail Vehicles are best when they are on their own Right of Way, but can operate on public roads when that is needed (That option is missing when it comes to people movers). People movers, Light Rail Vehicles and Streetcars all can handle heavier loads of passengers then buses. On the other hand buses can go anywhere where they is a paved road.

Each mode of transportation has its own advantages and disadvantages (Steel wheel on Steel Rail is the most efficient when it comes to energy usage, but rubber tires on concrete provides more traction. On most rail lines the rail line is built to emphasis its efficiency as to energy, while Trolley-buses often are used in hilly terrain do to their superior traction). People movers are often used when people are willing to spend the money to move mass transit off the streets, so that mass transit vehicles can move freely. Light Rail Vehicles (and Streetcars) are more energy efficient and work best on their own right of way, but being driven by a driver capable of going on roads mixed with other traffic.

I once envision a system where you had people movers moving people around a Downtown area and to areas around that downtown. Then I had LRVs going on their own right of ways to other regional centers (mostly local malls) and connecting the LRVs with the malls with other people movers. I extended the LRVs to the next counties seat and beyond doing the same. At the end I had places where local bus routes could drop off and pick up passengers (along with park and rides stations). It was a complex system, but it covered most of the metro area with very fast mass transit by using each method of mass transit in that area where it was most efficient.

The same with other means of transport, as the cost of energy goes up, we will have to devise a system that moves people and goods more efficiently. To do so we have to understand the good and bad points of all systems and pick the one that does the best job in the area where it is to go. Buses in inner cities make no sense, except they are cheap up front. People movers that travel over streets when you also have to stop every few blocks, make the most sense in such situations, but cost the most. LRV are the best at longer distance then a few blocks at a time.

Any theory of why the Federal Government ordered the termination of Chrysler's turbine car program as a condition of the 1980 bailout?

One theory is that they came under pressure from oil companies seeking to protect one of their key markets. But whatever the reason, their stance consigned the turbine car to a footnote in motoring history
http://www.albawaba.com/chryslers-turbine-experiment-could-have-changed-car-industry-409832

This was one amazing car. Here's an old video of a cross country trip by the engineers involved in the program:



This turbine powered car would run on unleaded gasoline, kerosene, JP-4 jet fuel, vegetable oil,. peanut oil, French perfume, brandy and even tequila!!

The engine would run on virtually anything with combustible properties and "Chrysler claimed the turbine could gulp everything from peanut oil to Chanel No. 5



No air/fuel adjustments were required to switch from one fuel type to another and the only evidence of which fuel was used was the odor of the exhaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

From the reading I've done on it, the major drawbacks were the spool up time and the fact that it only ran at one speed- fast.

Today's battery tech should be able to solve both problems. And we'd have a car that ran on fuel we could produce in the US!

Chrysler was running both the Lima Tank factory AND the Detroit Tank Plant to make the M1 tank at that time period. Both plants were owned by the US Government owned, but operated by whoever holds the Government Contract. In the case of the M1 tank that was Chrysler (Till Chrysler sold off its defense division to General Dynamics in 1982).

Lima Tank Factory no longer makes M1 tank, and its present name is officially the "Joint Systems Manufacturing Center (JSMC)", for it is making other military tracks vehicles at the present time AND maintenance on the M1 tanks presently in use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lima_Army_Tank_Plant

From 1941 to 1996 tanks were also made at the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Arsenal_Tank_Plant

Now, since these are GOVERNMENT owned plants, but run by Chrysler till 1982, the Government did not want Chrysler to do anything to risk its making of the M1 tank. Since Chrysler was in financial difficulties at that time, the Government told Chrysler to set up a separate subsidy to manager the tanks production and also told Chrysler to concentrate its research and development on things that would be put into production within five years. The Turbine was a long term goal and by the 1980s the primary limitations of turbines were well known (they ate fuel for they have no true idle speed).

Some of the first work on Hybrids started at that time period, and the combination of a Turbine and electrical batteries was already being discussed, but they were looking at lead times of 10-15 years. Given the desire to only look for things that would be in production within five years (Standard Business time period for "Long time&quot the gas turbine developmental time exceeded standard business long term plans, and thus the Government told Chrysler to cut it out.

Once Chrysler paid off its government loans, Chrysler had to right to re-start that program, but preferred to buy AMC from Renault (in 1987).