Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/14/2005 5:42:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 5:46:51 AM EDT by Win_88]





Experimental Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 Mpg


Email this Story

Aug 13, 9:16 PM (ET)

By TIM MOLLOY




CORTE MADERA, Calif. (AP) - Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.

It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret - a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.

Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.

Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb - all for about a quarter.

He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg.

They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.

And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too.

So far, DaimlerChrysler AG (DCX) is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. (TM) officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them.

"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy."

The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg.

"The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference."

Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power.

Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price.

But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids - and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones.

Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message.

Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former CIA director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence.

Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.

"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.

DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available.

Others are modifying hybrids, too.

Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said.

University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban.

Frank has spent $150,000 to $250,000 in research costs on each car, but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag.

Instead, Frank said, automakers promise hydrogen-powered vehicles hailed by President Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though hydrogen's backers acknowledge the cars won't be widely available for years and would require a vast infrastructure of new fueling stations.

"They'd rather work on something that won't be in their lifetime, and that's this hydrogen economy stuff," Frank said. "They pick this kind of target to get the public off their back, essentially."

---


Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:45:56 AM EDT
They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:47:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 5:48:58 AM EDT by AssaultRifler]
by cheating. Basically it's a golf cart until the batteries charged by an outside source runs out of juice, then it goes into hybrid mode, once it goes into hybrid mode it'll get less mpg than a standard hybrid because all the extra weight of the batteries lowers the power to weight ratio of the vehicle.

Ask yourself how much mpg does a golf cart get? Trick question cause it doesn't use gas.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:51:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By falaholic1:
They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.






That second half..

WTF,,,, and they say I'm whacked..
OMG...Talk about the mother of all conspirecies...


When does the space aliens get involved.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:58:02 AM EDT
Doesn't oil come from terrorist countries
(I'm not a hippie, i just wish we didn't have to give terrorist countries our money)

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:06:55 AM EDT
And are we re-charging these batteries with electricity generated from nukes, clean coal tech, or legacy coal plants?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:08:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:12:13 AM EDT
Simple way to reduce dependency on foreign oil: Biodiesel.
We may still need some petroleum for lubrication and what not, but that can be rectified by using fully synthetic oils. Group IV/V PAO synthetic oils can be synthesized with little or no petroleum base stock/additives/carrier oil.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:24:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Since weight and balance isn't a real big deal in cars, how much unnecesary stuff could you strip out of a Prius?



Other than the back seat,rear interior trimming and spare tire.
If you leave the wive behind . You wont be draining the batteries as fast.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:34:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 6:36:00 AM EDT by Gaelic_Warrior]

Originally Posted By Ben70:
And are we re-charging these batteries with electricity generated from nukes, clean coal tech, or legacy coal plants?




There's a video clip from MSNBC (I think it's from them) titled "Winds could power entire nation". Just go to MSN.com, click on the Video Highlights title (center of the web page). Then click on News - Weather and then finally click on Weather to see a small collection of weather videos. Look for "Winds power entire nation".

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:46:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gaelic_Warrior:

There's a video clip from MSNBC (I think it's from them) titled "Winds could power entire nation". Just go to MSN.com, click on the Video Highlights title (center of the web page). Then click on News - Weather and then finally click on Weather to see a small collection of weather videos. Look for "Winds power entire nation".




If we put wind generators over all the stae capitols and the US capitol we should generate enough energy to take care of 25% of our needs.
If you melt all the lard from M.Moore, Ted Kenedy.Hilliary, Billiary, and other Dems. We could fuel the country for a day...
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:01:27 AM EDT
Sounds good until you see them struggling to go uphill like we do here in hilly Kaliphfornia. Now, if everybody crawled around slowly, that would be no problem. But if it's an occasional car, you're going to have some backup.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:01:52 AM EDT
no free lunch. The electrical bill will be high and the air will be dirtier because of the coal plants trying to keep up with the added load.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:16:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Win_88:

Originally Posted By Gaelic_Warrior:

There's a video clip from MSNBC (I think it's from them) titled "Winds could power entire nation". Just go to MSN.com, click on the Video Highlights title (center of the web page). Then click on News - Weather and then finally click on Weather to see a small collection of weather videos. Look for "Winds power entire nation".




If we put wind generators over all the stae capitols and the US capitol we should generate enough energy to take care of 25% of our needs.
If you melt all the lard from M.Moore, Ted Kenedy.Hilliary, Billiary, and other Dems. We could fuel the country for a day...




The video news report focuses on the Great Plains and the Great Lakes as optimal places for wind power since those places have average wind speeds of 15-20 mph.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:50:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 7:51:12 AM EDT by billclo]
It's a promising idea. However, having lots of these vehicles around will put an additional load on the electrical grid. The only way I see to make the idea work well is to install enough wind powered electrical generation capacity to offset the increased load on the grid during peak useage times. If we had more nuke plants or renewable sources to generate the additional electricity, it'd be a decrease in overall pollution, I'd suspect. As I recall, it's still less polluting to use grid power to recharge the batteries than use the gasoline motor to do so.

And it uses much less oil to do so, since nearly all of the grid uses coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, or some wind power.

Now if people simply recharged the vehicles at night, when the overall grid load is down, then I think it would probably not require new generation capacity to be built. It's when the vehicles are charged during the peak times that it'd be a problem.

Having the ability to drive around on batteries for 60-100 miles a would work fine for me. I don't normally drive more than that in a day, and if I did need to make a longer trip, the regular hybrid mode kicks in, and it's still cheaper than a regular hybrid, let alone most conventional cars.

The biggest obstacle I can see is the grossly higher battery cost. If the price of the additional batteries can be brought down to near what regular hybrids cost now, I bet people would buy them. It may require waiting for the next generation of hybrids to achieve though.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:51:32 AM EDT
odd, I keep seeing wind power popping up. since when was that a cost effective alternative to nuke?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:55:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
odd, I keep seeing wind power popping up. since when was that a cost effective alternative to nuke?



When was the last new nuke plant built in the US?

Clean coal. We've got as much coal in PA/KY as Saudi Arabia has oil.
This is not an exaggeration.

Coal isn't dangerous to transport, even if it spills.
It's not difficult to mine.
It has an image problem, though...
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:03:07 AM EDT
Whop de-doo. Electric cars have been around for decades - the get an INFINITE number of miles per gallon, because you never have to put gas in them. The whole POINT of the hybrid was that it doesn't need to be plugged in to an outlet or charging station, and performs almost comparably to a regular car - and that's the reason it's so much more successful than a regular run-of-the-mill electric car.

As an aside, I just did some quick "back of the napkin" calculations, and anyone who pays $12000 to get 200+ mpg is a COMPLETE RETARD !!!

Here's why:

Suppose you go about 12000 miles in one year. With an unmodified Prius, you can do that with 200 gallons of gas (assuming 60 mpg). With a modified Prius, you can do that with about 50-60 gallons of gas (assuming 200 mpg - since the article says "as much as 250 mpg" - not 250 absolutely).

So the difference in a year is about 140 gallons - which translates to $420 (at $3 per gallon).


Who wants to pay $12000 up front in order to save $400-$500 a year? That modification would NEVER pay for itself. Without taking into account the NPV (and interest rates), you'd have to drive that car about 25 to 30 years before you even broke even (and with the NPV/interest rates calculation, you'd probably never break even).

Morons.


... and like others have pointed out, unless their precious electricity is coming from wind power or geothermal sources, it's most likely coming from coal - so it's delusional to think they are "saving" the environment any more than they are saving money


(Please correct my math in case I'm wrong, anyone)
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:05:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:19:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 8:21:45 AM EDT by billclo]

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
odd, I keep seeing wind power popping up. since when was that a cost effective alternative to nuke?



Wind power has come down in price greatly since the '80s (when it was definitely non-competitive with other electrical sources). Here's an excerpt from a GAO document, available here: www.gao.gov/new.items/d04756.pdf, page 25



The cost of wind power production in relationship to fossil fuels.
According to AWEA, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind power
projects was as high as 30 cents per kWh in the 1980s, far greater than
the cost of electricity from alternative technologies using fossil fuels to
generate power.21 Various state and federal incentives helped overcome
wind power's cost disadvantage in many locations, as did dramatic cost
reductions due to improvements in wind turbine technology. At present,
DOE estimates the cost of generating electricity from wind power
ranges from 3 to 6 cents per kWh. Cost reductions also occurred in
fossil-fuel power generation technologies, but recent increases in
natural gas fuel costs may result in further market penetration by wind
power. For example, if natural gas prices continue to be substantially
higher than average levels in the 1990s, wind power is likely to be
competitive in parts of the country with good wind resources and
transmission access. However, wind power will continue to be too
expensive to compete with fossil-fuel generation in parts of the country
with poor wind resources. Although cost reductions due to
technological improvements affect all segments of the electric industry,
they tend to be particularly important for newer power generation
technologies such as wind power in comparison to fossil-fuel generation
technologies. Furthermore, continued federal and state actions that
promote renewable energy power generation or raise the cost of
emissions from fossil-fuel technologies could also play a significant role
in improving the competitiveness of wind power.

Another document, concerning costs with various power generation types: www.bwea.com/ref/econ.html

Looks to me like onshore wind power, in areas that are suitable, is about half the cost of power from a nuclear plant...3 to 6 cents/kwh.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:26:28 AM EDT
I believe that story like I believe the Fish Carburator BS 100 MPG story that is still floating around 40 years later. You don't get something for free. Period. Most posers who claim huge milage increases for cheap $$$ can't prove their work scientifically and "something" always goes wrong when they try to.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:28:45 AM EDT
IIRC those batteries cost several 1000 dollars.

And it take energy to make batteries BTW.

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:31:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
odd, I keep seeing wind power popping up. since when was that a cost effective alternative to nuke?



Nuke power cars would be COOL!!!!!!!!

Sgatr15
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:32:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By Ben70:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
odd, I keep seeing wind power popping up. since when was that a cost effective alternative to nuke?



When was the last new nuke plant built in the US?

Clean coal. We've got as much coal in PA/KY as Saudi Arabia has oil.
This is not an exaggeration.

Coal isn't dangerous to transport, even if it spills.
It's not difficult to mine.
It has an image problem, though...

What does the waste product consist of, when coal is burned?



trick question there since you're requiring people to think

coal from the western US is very low in sulfur and, therefore, very clean burning

My question is, "If WWII Germany could run off of coal oil, why cannot the US? There isn't a fleet of B19s trying to bomb them out of existence. So, why not?" Oh, I forgot about the eco-idiots. They're more destructive that the AAF.

wganz

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:44:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:48:42 AM EDT
If the sheeple would stop shitting their pant over nuclear power we could make efforts to sever our dependance on fossil fuels. Until that day it' ain't gonna happen.

On the home front, I'm looking for a home in tx built w/ solar/wind generators.

When the sun ain't shining, the wind is blowing here.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:57:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metroplex:
Simple way to reduce dependency on foreign oil: Biodiesel.
We may still need some petroleum for lubrication and what not, but that can be rectified by using fully synthetic oils. Group IV/V PAO synthetic oils can be synthesized with little or no petroleum base stock/additives/carrier oil.



We should all be running diesel anyway, using biodiesel would solve a lot of problems. We'd quit having to pay farmers to NOT grow stuff on their land (CRP program), we'd reduce reliance on foreign oil causing demand to drop and the price to fall and it's emission is cleaner.

I want a veggie fuel Land Cruiser Diesel but the bungholes in DOT have made it hard to get a diesel toyota in the states. Stoopid.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:59:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
That's actually kind of disappointing, as I had in mind capturing the waste products and using them for something else. What that something else would be would depend upon the waste products.



I don't have all my old papers handy from that class, but in some clean coal scrubbers, the leftovers were used to make wallboard.

There is some sulfur released. Higher quality coal can reduce this to an extent.
There are a few nasty trace impurities that get kicked off. Still, less than when fractioning crude oil.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:00:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
odd, I keep seeing wind power popping up. since when was that a cost effective alternative to nuke?



Nuke power cars would be COOL!!!!!!!!

Sgatr15




I want mine with an afterburner!

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:07:17 AM EDT
This Hybrid thing is BS....



For starts it does not do jack for the environment like the libs say (and some are actually out publicly demanding that normal cars be banned and everyone be forced to buy $50,000 golf carts like them, for the environment ofcourse....) that eletricity has to come from some where we don't just pull it out of thin air it has to be generated, and that means, eighther Coal, Gas, or OIL and all the politicly incorrect polution that comes with it, and since theres more power required, more has to be generated, so more polution, so there politicly correct golf carts are infact generateing just as much if not more polution than the politicly incorrect gas cars, you just don't see it, and in Liberal logic if you don't see it it must be cleaner.... Also these hybrids don't have much performence unless you like going 2 miles an hour, and barely being able to climb hills, as for saveing money as I mentioned the electricity has to be generated, so power will cost more, and assumeing everyone switched to hybrids imidietly, and there were no gas cars on the road, the figures show that within 7 years gas prices will be right back were they are now, and ofcourse switching everyone to hybrids would mean that electricity also costs the same as gasoline, the only way to make hybrids actually polute less, and be cost effective we would have to build more nuclear plants, but the environmentalists won't allow that....

As for biodiesal assumeing we planted every square inch of farmland in the country with corn, and used it for nothing but biodiesal we still wouldn't have enough, and no food eighther, as for wind energy that works fine as long as it's windy, alternative power sources are proven to be unrealiable....
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:07:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
odd, I keep seeing wind power popping up. since when was that a cost effective alternative to nuke?



Nuke power cars would be COOL!!!!!!!!

Sgatr15




I want mine with an afterburner!




Back to the Future II

Doc had on powering the Delorian
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:12:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 9:20:10 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By 9245:
This Hybrid thing is BS....



For starts it does not do jack for the environment like the libs say (and some are actually out publicly demanding that normal cars be banned and everyone be forced to buy $50,000 golf carts like them, for the environment ofcourse....) that eletricity has to come from some where we don't just pull it out of thin air it has to be generated, and that means, eighther Coal, Gas, or OIL and all the politicly incorrect polution that comes with it, and since theres more power required, more has to be generated, so more polution, so there politicly correct golf carts are infact generateing just as much if not more polution than the politicly incorrect gas cars, you just don't see it, and in Liberal logic if you don't see it it must be cleaner.... Also these hybrids don't have much performence unless you like going 2 miles an hour, and barely being able to climb hills, as for saveing money as I mentioned the electricity has to be generated, so power will cost more, and assumeing everyone switched to hybrids imidietly, and there were no gas cars on the road, the figures show that within 7 years gas prices will be right back were they are now, and ofcourse switching everyone to hybrids would mean that electricity also costs the same as gasoline, the only way to make hybrids actually polute less, and be cost effective we would have to build more nuclear plants, but the environmentalists won't allow that....

As for biodiesal assumeing we planted every square inch of farmland in the country with corn, and used it for nothing but biodiesal we still wouldn't have enough, and no food eighther, as for wind energy that works fine as long as it's windy, alternative power sources are proven to be unrealiable....





Translation - you don't actually know what a "hybrid" car is. A hybrid is a GASOLINE-POWERED car, that charges its own internal battery when using the gasoline engine for high mileage driving (like highways) and then uses an electric engine for city driving (i.e. the driving that normally gets low mileage). The effect of the combination CAN be much higher gas mileage (like 60 mpg in the Prius - but some hybrids like GMs suck). They do not need to ever be plugged in or charged, and their performance is comparable to a regular car (and the swichover from gas to electric is smooth).

I completely agree with you 100% on ELECTRIC CARS - but nobody is really pushing those right now. I also agree with you on the need for more nuke power.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:26:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Win_88:

Originally Posted By falaholic1:
They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.






That second half..

WTF,,,, and they say I'm whacked..
OMG...Talk about the mother of all conspirecies...


When does the space aliens get involved.



The United States buys large amounts of oil from nations that support international terrorism. Do you not believe that some of that money trickles down to the terrorist organizations?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:32:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:39:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
What's the waste product of wallboard fabrication?



Fillipino, Gautemalan, and other wall hangers with bad knees and backs.

Do you have a point that I missed, or is this the Monty Python argument sketch?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:45:58 AM EDT
imagine a 5000 year halflife RTG powered car. Primary motive power would be an electric motor which provides virtually instant power and torque. The only 3 problems I see are: 1. that dreaded N word (nuke), 2. car wrecks 3. some dumbass pilfering the source material for nefarious purposes

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:48:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:49:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 9:58:41 AM EDT by billclo]

Originally Posted By 9245:
This Hybrid thing is BS....



For starts it does not do jack for the environment like the libs say (and some are actually out publicly demanding that normal cars be banned and everyone be forced to buy $50,000 golf carts like them, for the environment ofcourse....) that eletricity has to come from some where we don't just pull it out of thin air it has to be generated, and that means, eighther Coal, Gas, or OIL and all the politicly incorrect polution that comes with it, and since theres more power required, more has to be generated, so more polution, so there politicly correct golf carts are infact generateing just as much if not more polution than the politicly incorrect gas cars, you just don't see it, and in Liberal logic if you don't see it it must be cleaner.... Also these hybrids don't have much performence unless you like going 2 miles an hour, and barely being able to climb hills, as for saveing money as I mentioned the electricity has to be generated, so power will cost more, and assumeing everyone switched to hybrids imidietly, and there were no gas cars on the road, the figures show that within 7 years gas prices will be right back were they are now, and ofcourse switching everyone to hybrids would mean that electricity also costs the same as gasoline, the only way to make hybrids actually polute less, and be cost effective we would have to build more nuclear plants, but the environmentalists won't allow that....

As for biodiesal assumeing we planted every square inch of farmland in the country with corn, and used it for nothing but biodiesal we still wouldn't have enough, and no food eighther, as for wind energy that works fine as long as it's windy, alternative power sources are proven to be unrealiable....



I see several fallacies in your statement. It IS cleaner to use nuke, hydroelectric, wind, or even coal, to recharge the batteies than to burn the extra gas. Even a modern coal plant is less polluting than using a gas engine to recharge the batteries. It does reduce petroleum consumption overall, since the other means of generating grid electrical power use minimal amounts of petroleum in generation.

As for performance, 0 to 60mph is comparable with other small conventional powered cars I've owned. 12-13 seconds, as I recall. With my Civic Hybrid I certainly have not had trouble climbing hills here in the East, nor trouble passing at highway speeds. Mountains in the West may be a different animal; I have no experience there.

I don't get your statement that says that if everyone switched to these vehicles, that electricity would cost the same as gasoline. Can you show us where you got those figures? I'd appreciate it, for sure.

If we'd get off our collective butts and get more wind power generation capabilities built, this issue of rechargine the batteries would be an non-issue. The cost of wind power in areas that are suited to it is reasonably competive with nuclear and Hydroelectric nowadays. So there's no real reason why we shouldn't be doing it. Other than politics. This makes for some interesting reading: www.ewea.org/documents/0304-Global%20Wind%20Energy%20Markets%20-%20FINAL.pdf

This also makes interesting reading: www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/37147.pdf There's a LOT of potential generation capability that could be utilized at a somewhat reasonable cost.

You are probably right in that Biodiesel isn't a good solution as long as we insist upon using petroleum planting the crops to be harvested, and then turned into Biodiesel. I recall that it achieved energy-input breakeven, but not very much more. However, there has been work on producing biodiesel with waste products and plant material, not prime food crops.

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:54:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By Ben70:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
That's actually kind of disappointing, as I had in mind capturing the waste products and using them for something else. What that something else would be would depend upon the waste products.



I don't have all my old papers handy from that class, but in some clean coal scrubbers, the leftovers were used to make wallboard.

There is some sulfur released. Higher quality coal can reduce this to an extent.
There are a few nasty trace impurities that get kicked off. Still, less than when fractioning crude oil.

What's the waste product of wallboard fabrication?



Grits?



Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:02:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:04:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By Ben70:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
That's actually kind of disappointing, as I had in mind capturing the waste products and using them for something else. What that something else would be would depend upon the waste products.



I don't have all my old papers handy from that class, but in some clean coal scrubbers, the leftovers were used to make wallboard.

There is some sulfur released. Higher quality coal can reduce this to an extent.
There are a few nasty trace impurities that get kicked off. Still, less than when fractioning crude oil.

What's the waste product of wallboard fabrication?



Grits?




photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadBioPic.asp?sAccountUnq=739



LOL. Actually I like grits.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:06:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
odd, I keep seeing wind power popping up. since when was that a cost effective alternative to nuke?





In the south of Alberta we do it, it works well enough, and generates lots of electricity, so long as it does not become becalmed.....


Even if one went to Wind power (alot of europe is doing this) you still ahve to have other power generating sources to take up th eslak if the fans get damaged, becalmed, or just if the draw on the grid gets too high....



Personally, I think wind and Nuke wil be the ways in the future......



Solar is a pipe dream after you figure how much energy it takes to make the panels (though there is a company that has made a nano photocell that can be painted on whatever to make the solar panels, much thinner and lighter...... much more expensive as of now, though the reports I read said that it should be faster and cheaper to make once in production, I still don't know how much energy they take to make)
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:28:57 AM EDT
Another thing with batteries you may have noticed if you have a laptop, you can only charge and discharge them so many times before they no longer work, I've had a few laptap batteries go from 4 hour charges to 4 seconds, and as was mentioned those batteries are expensive, if you think your saveing money with a hybrid think again, not to mention they cost more than standard cars anyway, as for not knowing what a hybrid is I know perfectly well what they are, my first comment was directed specificly at the car in the artical, and only generaly to hybrids, now as for the electricity thing think about it it takes X amount of energy to run a car, and X costs Y amount of money, The Power Grid only produces A amount of energy at a cost of B, so in order for the power grid to fuel electric cars you would have to add A+X, so the cost would be Y+B=C C=more $$$$....
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:59:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Yes, and yes.
Somebody has thought of it before, as you showed earlier in this thread. I was wondering how feasible it would be to capture and recycle the waste products from the various processes around, such as using the waste from coalburning for wallboards. I was simply going to follow the "coal>>wallboards>>??" line to its logical end.
And now, for something completely different...




Electricity, as the desired output
Waste heat
CO2
CO
NO
Sulfur
Coal miners
what else....

www.netl.doe.gov/cctc/
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:18:19 AM EDT
I'm seeing a lot of negativity here in a few forms:

"won't save you enough money on gas to pay for itself"
"most power comes from burning coal"
"expensive batteries"

and the like....

To address them a little... As for number one, simply saving money on gas is not the point. Or at least not the ENTIRE point. Giving foreign oil sources the finger is a big reason. Promoting new technology is another big reason. Remember back in the 70s and 80s when computers cost $2000+ and they didn't really do much, but now, you can buy a kick ass computer for less than half of that. Once the technology is widely adopted (everyone here has at least one computer, right?), cost will come down.

No one has posted any real statistics on where our power comes from, which can vary vastly from region to region. Some regions rely on hydroelectric, some on old nuke plants, and some on coal or oil burning facilities. Why can't we use something else? If we start relying on an electric grid for more stuff, don't you think it will grow, upgrade, or change with the times?

Battery technology has been around for a while, and hasn't had too much demand on it, as powering flashlights and portable radios isn't much of a big deal. Now with more demands and more devices running on portable power, the technology will improve.


So all in all, is technological progress so bad? Should we stay in the stone age of internal combustion engines only?


The way I see it, in the next couple decades, I'd like to see several things in a vehicle lineup.

Traditional gasonline and deisel vehicles. These would be the least expensive compared to their more advanced counterparts.

Hybrid versions, which run as traditional hybrids. (don't plug in)

Plug in hybrids which run more heavily on their electrical systems, and get much greater overall fuel efficiency, but can have range like a regular hybrid.

Diesel versions of the above hybrids for a little more fuel efficiency

Fuel cell and hydrogen. These will likely be simple commuter vehicles with limited range until an infrastructure is in place to support more range.

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:25:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 11:26:50 AM EDT by billclo]


Solar is a pipe dream after you figure how much energy it takes to make the panels (though there is a company that has made a nano photocell that can be painted on whatever to make the solar panels, much thinner and lighter...... much more expensive as of now, though the reports I read said that it should be faster and cheaper to make once in production, I still don't know how much energy they take to make)



The panels do achieve payback in terms of energy/resources used to make them in 3-4 years, depending on type. Read here: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

However, the payback time for the $ spent on the cells/racks, cabing, etc, is a loooong time. While I have a small solar rig to power my well, household water, and a couple small appliances, I don't think solar cells per se are cost effective. That being said, I would have liked a grid-tie system on a new home. A roof full of panels, feeding extra power into the grid when I'm not using it. But I can't afford one (sigh).

Now, in the right areas, solar concentrators make alot more sense.

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:21:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By billclo:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
odd, I keep seeing wind power popping up. since when was that a cost effective alternative to nuke?



Wind power has come down in price greatly since the '80s (when it was definitely non-competitive with other electrical sources). Here's an excerpt from a GAO document, available here: www.gao.gov/new.items/d04756.pdf, page 25






Even if windpower is as cheap and easy to produce, how do you stop the envirnmentalists from shutting them down due to bird strikes? This REALLY HAS HAPPENED, and was posted on ARFCOM a month or two ago.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:49:12 PM EDT


Even if windpower is as cheap and easy to produce, how do you stop the envirnmentalists from shutting them down due to bird strikes? This REALLY HAS HAPPENED, and was posted on ARFCOM a month or two ago.


There are other designs for wind turbines that might be bird friendly. There are helical designed wind turbines that can catch wind from any direction. The helical turbine blade is made up of carbon fiber which is a very strong and light material. When the plans for the new Jets Stadium in New York City first came out, they included forty feet tall helical wind turbines on the top of the building.

Plus, there is an experimental design called the solar tower which uses a combination of solar and wind energy. Check out the website; www.solarmissiontechnologies.com
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 1:47:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gaspain:
no free lunch. The electrical bill will be high and the air will be dirtier because of the coal plants trying to keep up with the added load.

I like that idea because I live in TX. We have an independent electricity grid and we are net producers of electricity. I won't mind it one bit when Kalifornians pay Texans for electricity to charge their cars.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:57:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 9245:
Another thing with batteries you may have noticed if you have a laptop, you can only charge and discharge them so many times before they no longer work, I've had a few laptap batteries go from 4 hour charges to 4 seconds, and as was mentioned those batteries are expensive, if you think your saveing money with a hybrid think again, not to mention they cost more than standard cars anyway, as for not knowing what a hybrid is I know perfectly well what they are, my first comment was directed specificly at the car in the artical, and only generaly to hybrids, now as for the electricity thing think about it it takes X amount of energy to run a car, and X costs Y amount of money, The Power Grid only produces A amount of energy at a cost of B, so in order for the power grid to fuel electric cars you would have to add A+X, so the cost would be Y+B=C C=more $$$$....




I figured that you got enough of a beating with your other post. Then you posted this. You must be a gluton for punishment....

If your having problems with your batteries as you discribed you just don't understand them. You see todays hitech car, and laptop( these for the last ten years) batteries are smart batteries.. They send feedback to your computer. Infact the cartridge batteries have a built in computer that checks them while in storage on a warehouse shelf. Your laptop batteries are like a capacitor, it needs to be fully charged and fully discharged. If you are always charging your batteries rather than running them down they will not hold their charge.

You completely missed the point of the article on the conversions.... Toyota could have done this to their car. They didn't... Why????

Maybe its because they have some really dumb engineers.
Maybe they figured the technology was years away.
Maybe they thought that they coul not do it without a government grant.

Hello.. Its because they can sell you a new car years from now.. DUHHHHHHH...

It takes the family mechanic, the local inventor, or the poor smuck down the street to show us the truth. These guys are like Joe hot rodder that wants to tweek the other hot rodder down the street.. I can go faster than you. In this case its further than you.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:02:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gaelic_Warrior:

Originally Posted By Ben70:
And are we re-charging these batteries with electricity generated from nukes, clean coal tech, or legacy coal plants?




There's a video clip from MSNBC (I think it's from them) titled "Winds could power entire nation". Just go to MSN.com, click on the Video Highlights title (center of the web page). Then click on News - Weather and then finally click on Weather to see a small collection of weather videos. Look for "Winds power entire nation".




You mean those same wind-powered generators that the enviromentalists are tring to have shut down for killing some birds?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top