Hybrid/electric vehicle not eco-friendly

Message boards : Politics : Hybrid/electric vehicle not eco-friendly
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 941384 - Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 17:06:13 UTC - in response to Message 941299.  
Last modified: 19 Oct 2009, 17:17:51 UTC

A key difference between electric automobile engines and their fossil fueled counterparts, is efficiency. After allowing for the inefficiencies of power generation at source on the grid, electric automobile engines are still more fuel efficient than the internal combustion engine. Thus use of electricity to power cars is a "greener" alternative.


It is true that the hybrids are more efficient. The problem is source of fuel. The very vast majority of power in the US is supplied by burning coal. A switch to "green" vehicles puts massive strain on the grid. Perhaps when comparing the units of energy required to operate the vehicle the hybrids are more efficient. But then you have to contend with a dirtier fuel source which has more environmental impact than burning petrol.

It hardly matters if an ounce of coal can produce more energy than a gallon of gas (just a wild comparison there) if that ounce has a heavier environmental impact. But for certain; burning coal to produce energy is far more damaging than burning gasoline, even if the hybrid is more energy efficient. It isn't efficient enough to make up for the environmental damage of the coal. Oh and don't forget that electricity costs will skyrocket.

The other thing to remember is that coal is a major export commodity for the US. So much so, that it is at time used in place of currency with various trading partners. Increased demand here will invariably raise the price, and with less available for export, the cost of imported goods will go up. We raise the value of coal - they raise the costs for products. It works the same way with inflation. This is precisely why in Mexico for example when I was there in 1991, that even though it was 2,400 pesos to the dollar, a candy bar was 1,200 pesos. Now it's like 6 pesos because the trade off is 11 pesos to the dollar. In other words, we cannot expect to put higher and higher values on our exports and expect to receive more and more product for the same volume of trade on our end. If every day you buy a soda from my store and the cost is a dollar, you can't come in one day with a dollar and tell me it's worth two. Well, you could but then I'd tell you that that's just great because now sodas cost two dollars.

All in all, if you want to advocate hybrids from the standpoint of evolution of alternative energy, or to reduce dependence upon foreign oil, or to stimulate the economy through new car sales of a fad design; then you'd be correct to do so. From an environmental standpoint, until we get the vast majority of the country on nuclear energy, hybrids are a lateral move at best.
ID: 941384 · Report as offensive
Nick

Send message
Joined: 16 Oct 09
Posts: 81
Credit: 112,909
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 941416 - Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 19:37:24 UTC - in response to Message 941384.  


All in all, if you want to advocate hybrids from the standpoint of evolution of alternative energy, or to reduce dependence upon foreign oil, or to stimulate the economy through new car sales of a fad design; then you'd be correct to do so. From an environmental standpoint, until we get the vast majority of the country on nuclear energy, hybrids are a lateral move at best.


Excellent post! Re your last paragraph above:

Although more than 100 nuclear power plants were operating in the United States at the beginning of the 80s, after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, safety concerns and economic factors have blocked any growth in the nuclear power sector. No orders for nuclear plants have been placed in the United States since 1978 despite our population increase of 27% since then! In the mid 90s, about 22 percent of the electric power generated in the US came from nuclear power plants. In contrast, Ontario, Canada generates over 50% and France almost 75% of the electricity they consume from nuclear power plants.

The future looks bleak in this country for nuclear power generation. I think we're screwed unless some genii come up with a kick-ass solar panel and condensor for commuter cars...

ID: 941416 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 941419 - Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 19:57:36 UTC - in response to Message 941299.  

Smart cars are to cars what The right to work law is to employment and No child left behind is to education. all 3 suffer from a false label. A smart car is certain death if you are hit by anything bigger than a bicycle. I pulled up next to one in my ION and the total car length was about the size of my cabin. BTW for such a tiny car it gets fairly crappy gas mileage.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 941419 · Report as offensive
Nick

Send message
Joined: 16 Oct 09
Posts: 81
Credit: 112,909
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 941422 - Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 20:13:25 UTC - in response to Message 941419.  
Last modified: 19 Oct 2009, 20:57:12 UTC

Smart cars are to cars what The right to work law is to employment and No child left behind is to education. all 3 suffer from a false label. A smart car is certain death if you are hit by anything bigger than a bicycle. I pulled up next to one in my ION and the total car length was about the size of my cabin. BTW for such a tiny car it gets fairly crappy gas mileage.


Yeah, the mileage really blows.

Check out this crash test video of the Smart car. I don't know how this thing got certified for sale in the US. When it hits the barrier, or a car, it richochets off to the side 10-15' which would easily take out a bus shelter of commuters since a lot of these shelters are at intersections where many accidents take place.

This thing is scary...
ID: 941422 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 941423 - Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 20:26:42 UTC - in response to Message 941419.  
Last modified: 19 Oct 2009, 20:27:59 UTC

BTW for such a tiny car it gets fairly crappy gas mileage.


For real. What I think is funny is that some smaller gasoline only cars are getting mileage as good or better than many hybrids. Heck, the Geo Metro was getting upwards of 50mpg and that car came out in the US in 1989.

As for today, the Rio is getting around 34 mpg and the Prius is around 48mpg. But, that's not counting the cost to keep the thing charged and the fuel consumed for that process.

As for me, I ride a Honda Shadow 700 motorcycle and get 55mpg. My wife's is a Suzuki GZ250 getting 81mpg. Yep, 81 mpg I swear it.
ID: 941423 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 942133 - Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 4:21:27 UTC - in response to Message 940397.  

the discussion mentioned giving up weight in engine to batteries.

Not exactly. A 2010 Prius weighs in at 3000 pounds curb weight. thats about 500 pounds heavier than my much larger saturn Ion 2.

When you sit in the Prius you note that the interior is sparse and cabin itself is a bit unprotected. I know it meets the minimal crash testing laws but it sure doesnt look to be very protective. Obviously they had to shave weight from the cabin to allow for the large battery pack under the back seat

Yes, but the Prius has a full sized engine in it, it has to as the engine can do all of the work if it needs to.

I was thinking more in line of the Range Extended Electric Vehicles. All electric drive with a carefully matched motor and generator that supply just a little more energy than that required to cruise on the highway. In this case, the weight is much closer to the same.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 942133 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 942135 - Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 4:26:50 UTC - in response to Message 941423.  

BTW for such a tiny car it gets fairly crappy gas mileage.


For real. What I think is funny is that some smaller gasoline only cars are getting mileage as good or better than many hybrids. Heck, the Geo Metro was getting upwards of 50mpg and that car came out in the US in 1989.

As for today, the Rio is getting around 34 mpg and the Prius is around 48mpg. But, that's not counting the cost to keep the thing charged and the fuel consumed for that process.

As for me, I ride a Honda Shadow 700 motorcycle and get 55mpg. My wife's is a Suzuki GZ250 getting 81mpg. Yep, 81 mpg I swear it.

Since the Prius is not a plug in, it DOES count the fuel used to charge the batteries when needed.

You are comparing a 1989 vehicle with the emmissions allowed in 1989 with a more recent vehicle that has to meet much more stringent emissions controls. The emissions controls suck fuel.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 942135 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 942136 - Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 4:30:43 UTC - in response to Message 940375.  

... There are several reasons:

1) Fuel is not taxed as heavily and is therefore less expensive most of the time.
2) The drives are longer - comfort is more important than mileage.
3) Diesel cars have had a very hard time meeting emissions standards with the diesel fuel available here.
4) The auto manufactures have emphasized power and speed over mileage.
5) The emissions controls required here dramatically reduce mileage.


I strongly suspect the dominant driving factor there is option "4" pushed by malevolent Marketing pushing "Bigger Numbers" to hype up their product. Option "1" permits the marketing conditions to allow "4" to dominate.

The other items there are just excuses. The simple technology for that is in use in Europe now.

My wish list for my next vehicle:
1) Seats 5.
2) Station wagon (lots of room in back).
3) 60 miles on batteries. (apparently not going to get this one)
4) 80+ MPG.

That is easily possible now, and no batteries needed.


Regards,
Martin

I can't get 60 miles from the grid, which is cheaper, and greener than burning gasoline, diesel, or most bio fuels in the car. Some of the grid energy comes from coal, but used more efficiently than burning fuel in the car. Some energy from the grid (and an ever increasing amount) comes from solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, and other less carbon intensive sources.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 942136 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 942171 - Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 8:19:54 UTC
Last modified: 23 Oct 2009, 8:32:00 UTC

Thoughts on the subject. Electricity is now 50%from coal--scrubbers used on much of this but will create inreasing danger to ground water contamination due to high percentage of sludge generated from each ton of coal burned. We really should get on to Nuclear. We do need a night time rate for Electric cars --say 5 cents per Kwh or less.

I claim that hybrid cars would get better HIWAY mileage without the electric stuff. A small turbo diesel (1300 cc or so) in a smallish frontal area car with good aerodynamics (coefficient of drag--say-- less than .30) should be good for 70 MPG or so at a steady 70 Mph.

All-electric cars will fail --plug-in electrics with a range of 60-100 miles and a small turbo diesel to take over will be a winning combination --but not at $40,000 US. I predict the chevy Volt will fail--too little range and too much cost. We definitely need lower cost Litium-ion battery technology and manufacturing efficiency.

National initiative needed here. Tax Break, Building code for a standard electric recharing outlet in each new garage or carport. Dollars for battery research and Manufacturing cost reduction. Standard plug types for same. Nighttime rates--or simply register the acquisition of an electric car with the power company and let the increased usage delta have a lower rate of say 5 cents per Kwh.

National will to drill our oil reserves and to break ground on 100 new multi-reactor Nuclear sites NOW should have already been put forth.

If we don't do these things then we will just be waiting for someone to kick our proffered butts.

Daddio
ID: 942171 · Report as offensive
Iona
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 790
Credit: 22,438,118
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 942274 - Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 17:02:40 UTC - in response to Message 941423.  

BTW for such a tiny car it gets fairly crappy gas mileage.


For real. What I think is funny is that some smaller gasoline only cars are getting mileage as good or better than many hybrids. Heck, the Geo Metro was getting upwards of 50mpg and that car came out in the US in 1989.

As for today, the Rio is getting around 34 mpg and the Prius is around 48mpg. But, that's not counting the cost to keep the thing charged and the fuel consumed for that process.

As for me, I ride a Honda Shadow 700 motorcycle and get 55mpg. My wife's is a Suzuki GZ250 getting 81mpg. Yep, 81 mpg I swear it.




I have to agree. My little Rover 216 Tomcat, returned around 45 mpg on a 205 mile trip, back from a visit to my mother. I picked-up the car while I was down there and didn't know what to expect, from a 16 year-old car, but I was pleasantly surprised. However, on the same journey, my 'odd' 1988 Honda Legend 2.7 V6 (manual box) regularly returned 37 mpg, cruising at 75 mph, rather than the 65 mph in the 1.6 Rover! Considering the size, weight and power differences between the two cars, the Legend did an amazing job. For those not in the know, this particular Rover, is one of many models of Rover that used Honda engines. I also used a Rover 820 on that same trip and it returned much the same figures as the Legend and it was only a 2.0 litre, but, perhaps crucially, the engine was a Rover designed engine and having nowhere near the torque of the Honda 2.7, meant I had to change gear alot more.....an awful lot more.

Motor-cycles are something else.... Over 30 years ago, I took a 1957 BSA C12 to the Isle of Man TT races (to watch, of course!) and on the way back from Liverpool, it performed an act of economy that I will never better - about 140 mpg!!! The engine had been fully rebuilt - rebored, new rings, piston, pin, new big-end/rod assembly (balanced), new cam-shaft, valves, valve guides, main bearings and cam-shaft bearings. It was basically, restored to original. Back in those days, it was common practice for the ferry operator to drain the fuel tanks (they probably made a fortune selling it afterwards) on the IOM Steam Packet Co run. Not a problem on the way there, but after being there a week, I'd spent a little more than I should have - in fact the whole group did! All the others had enough cash left to buy 5 or 6 gallons....I had enough for 2 gallons. So, tank drained in Douglas, got off at Liverpool and set off. It stopped after 4 miles....they'd fully drained the tank and 230 miles to go! Pushed it to a filling station and put 2 gallons in. I think we may have maxed at 60 mph, typically, we did 50 mph, but for the last 50 miles, I was waiting for that engine to splutter. It didn't. A few of the group stopped for fuel and we carried on and the bike carried on, much to everyone's amazement - especially mine. Got back home, and there was still fuel in it. The next day, a couple of the guys came over and we drained the tank and there were just under 3 pints left. The bottom line was, 140 mpg! A 1957 250cc motor-cycle. Thats progress!!! I still own the bike and I've also still got a 1978 Suzuki GS750EN, that gave me 57 mpg on a 400 mile trip to Tyneside, after I'd done a few mods to it - before that, I was lucky to get 40 mpg.



Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!
ID: 942274 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 942372 - Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 20:57:49 UTC - in response to Message 942171.  

Thoughts on the subject. Electricity is now 50%from coal--scrubbers used on much of this but will create inreasing danger to ground water contamination due to high percentage of sludge generated from each ton of coal burned. We really should get on to Nuclear. We do need a night time rate for Electric cars --say 5 cents per Kwh or less.

I claim that hybrid cars would get better HIWAY mileage without the electric stuff. A small turbo diesel (1300 cc or so) in a smallish frontal area car with good aerodynamics (coefficient of drag--say-- less than .30) should be good for 70 MPG or so at a steady 70 Mph.

All-electric cars will fail --plug-in electrics with a range of 60-100 miles and a small turbo diesel to take over will be a winning combination --but not at $40,000 US. I predict the chevy Volt will fail--too little range and too much cost. We definitely need lower cost Litium-ion battery technology and manufacturing efficiency.

National initiative needed here. Tax Break, Building code for a standard electric recharing outlet in each new garage or carport. Dollars for battery research and Manufacturing cost reduction. Standard plug types for same. Nighttime rates--or simply register the acquisition of an electric car with the power company and let the increased usage delta have a lower rate of say 5 cents per Kwh.

National will to drill our oil reserves and to break ground on 100 new multi-reactor Nuclear sites NOW should have already been put forth.

If we don't do these things then we will just be waiting for someone to kick our proffered butts.

Daddio

Well, yes, but, without an electric motor, the gasoline engine has to be large enough to accelerate the car to highway speeds in the length of the ramp (from the ramp meter at a dead stand still to 65 MPH at the end of the ramp. Just about 500 feet around here. If you are not going highway speeds at that point, you WILL BE rear ended as you attempt to enter the highway.

9 seconds for 0 to 60 is the absolute longest it can take - and that is scary.

Now for many of us, a 2 seat vehicle is not an option. I have to get 3 people in the car almost every day, and about once a week it is 5.

Drilling for the oil we have remaining is not a long term solution. The oil we could extract would reduce our dependence by about 5% for a few years. We have to decrease the amount of oil we burn.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 942372 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 943022 - Posted: 26 Oct 2009, 23:57:14 UTC - in response to Message 942372.  

You are comparing a 1989 vehicle with the emmissions allowed in 1989 with a more recent vehicle that has to meet much more stringent emissions controls. The emissions controls suck fuel.


Actually, the 89 Geo meets emission standards of today. Heck, my gas guzzling 1993 BMW 740i passed emissions testing last month. Emission standards force designers to make lower powered vehicles. This is precisely why (using a motorcycle example that I know of) the 1985 Shadow has 65 hp and gets 55mpg, while the 2009 has 34 hp and gets 49mpg. Less power, and less economy with the newer model. When you look at it over the life of the bike, even with a lower emission rating the newer model is going to pollute more from raw fuel consumption alone.

But point taken about the Prius not being a plug in.

I can't get 60 miles from the grid, which is cheaper, and greener than burning gasoline, diesel, or most bio fuels in the car. Some of the grid energy comes from coal, but used more efficiently than burning fuel in the car. Some energy from the grid (and an ever increasing amount) comes from solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, and other less carbon intensive sources.


The very vast amount of energy to the grid is supplied by fossil fuel burning; 80% Nuclear energy is close to 20%, with everything else taking up a fraction. Talking about wind and solar when discussing power supply to the grid is like describing a circus by talking about the funnel cakes at the concession stand. Burning coal to supply energy is much less efficient and much more wasteful than burning gasoline. Gasoline is used in a sealed and controlled environment with the emissions being filtered and converted. The filtering of coal and the utilization of energy from it is far less precise than the burning of gasoline. A lot of waste and pollution. You must always address the source of energy and the advantages/disadvantages of each. Simply changing the source does not fix the problem from an environmental perspective. It does however free us up from dependence upon foreign oil.

National initiative needed here. Tax Break, Building code for a standard electric recharing outlet in each new garage or carport. Dollars for battery research and Manufacturing cost reduction. Standard plug types for same. Nighttime rates--or simply register the acquisition of an electric car with the power company and let the increased usage delta have a lower rate of say 5 cents per Kwh.


I agree 100%. I feel a bit overlooked though. I bought 2 motorcycles last year that get better gas mileage than any hybrid. No incentive, no money back, nothing. If you can get people in major metropolitan areas on little 250cc bikes getting 80+MPG (where practical of course), the benefit is much better than some of these newer cars that really aren't getting much better mileage.

Motor-cycles are something else.... Over 30 years ago, I took a 1957 BSA C12 to the Isle of Man TT races (to watch, of course!) and on the way back from Liverpool, it performed an act of economy that I will never better - about 140 mpg!!! The engine had been fully rebuilt - rebored, new rings, piston, pin, new big-end/rod assembly (balanced), new cam-shaft, valves, valve guides, main bearings and cam-shaft bearings. It was basically, restored to original. Back in those days, it was common practice for the ferry operator to drain the fuel tanks (they probably made a fortune selling it afterwards) on the IOM Steam Packet Co run. Not a problem on the way there, but after being there a week, I'd spent a little more than I should have - in fact the whole group did! All the others had enough cash left to buy 5 or 6 gallons....I had enough for 2 gallons. So, tank drained in Douglas, got off at Liverpool and set off. It stopped after 4 miles....they'd fully drained the tank and 230 miles to go! Pushed it to a filling station and put 2 gallons in. I think we may have maxed at 60 mph, typically, we did 50 mph, but for the last 50 miles, I was waiting for that engine to splutter. It didn't. A few of the group stopped for fuel and we carried on and the bike carried on, much to everyone's amazement - especially mine. Got back home, and there was still fuel in it. The next day, a couple of the guys came over and we drained the tank and there were just under 3 pints left. The bottom line was, 140 mpg! A 1957 250cc motor-cycle. Thats progress!!! I still own the bike and I've also still got a 1978 Suzuki GS750EN, that gave me 57 mpg on a 400 mile trip to Tyneside, after I'd done a few mods to it - before that, I was lucky to get 40 mpg.


Wow, awesome! I'd love to go there. That's some seriously nice efficiency too; 140mpg. Just wow.









ID: 943022 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 943505 - Posted: 29 Oct 2009, 1:45:56 UTC - in response to Message 943022.  

You are comparing a 1989 vehicle with the emmissions allowed in 1989 with a more recent vehicle that has to meet much more stringent emissions controls. The emissions controls suck fuel.


Actually, the 89 Geo meets emission standards of today. Heck, my gas guzzling 1993 BMW 740i passed emissions testing last month. Emission standards force designers to make lower powered vehicles. This is precisely why (using a motorcycle example that I know of) the 1985 Shadow has 65 hp and gets 55mpg, while the 2009 has 34 hp and gets 49mpg. Less power, and less economy with the newer model. When you look at it over the life of the bike, even with a lower emission rating the newer model is going to pollute more from raw fuel consumption alone.

But point taken about the Prius not being a plug in.

I can't get 60 miles from the grid, which is cheaper, and greener than burning gasoline, diesel, or most bio fuels in the car. Some of the grid energy comes from coal, but used more efficiently than burning fuel in the car. Some energy from the grid (and an ever increasing amount) comes from solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, and other less carbon intensive sources.


The very vast amount of energy to the grid is supplied by fossil fuel burning; 80% Nuclear energy is close to 20%, with everything else taking up a fraction. Talking about wind and solar when discussing power supply to the grid is like describing a circus by talking about the funnel cakes at the concession stand. Burning coal to supply energy is much less efficient and much more wasteful than burning gasoline. Gasoline is used in a sealed and controlled environment with the emissions being filtered and converted. The filtering of coal and the utilization of energy from it is far less precise than the burning of gasoline. A lot of waste and pollution. You must always address the source of energy and the advantages/disadvantages of each. Simply changing the source does not fix the problem from an environmental perspective. It does however free us up from dependence upon foreign oil.

National initiative needed here. Tax Break, Building code for a standard electric recharing outlet in each new garage or carport. Dollars for battery research and Manufacturing cost reduction. Standard plug types for same. Nighttime rates--or simply register the acquisition of an electric car with the power company and let the increased usage delta have a lower rate of say 5 cents per Kwh.


I agree 100%. I feel a bit overlooked though. I bought 2 motorcycles last year that get better gas mileage than any hybrid. No incentive, no money back, nothing. If you can get people in major metropolitan areas on little 250cc bikes getting 80+MPG (where practical of course), the benefit is much better than some of these newer cars that really aren't getting much better mileage.

Motor-cycles are something else.... Over 30 years ago, I took a 1957 BSA C12 to the Isle of Man TT races (to watch, of course!) and on the way back from Liverpool, it performed an act of economy that I will never better - about 140 mpg!!! The engine had been fully rebuilt - rebored, new rings, piston, pin, new big-end/rod assembly (balanced), new cam-shaft, valves, valve guides, main bearings and cam-shaft bearings. It was basically, restored to original. Back in those days, it was common practice for the ferry operator to drain the fuel tanks (they probably made a fortune selling it afterwards) on the IOM Steam Packet Co run. Not a problem on the way there, but after being there a week, I'd spent a little more than I should have - in fact the whole group did! All the others had enough cash left to buy 5 or 6 gallons....I had enough for 2 gallons. So, tank drained in Douglas, got off at Liverpool and set off. It stopped after 4 miles....they'd fully drained the tank and 230 miles to go! Pushed it to a filling station and put 2 gallons in. I think we may have maxed at 60 mph, typically, we did 50 mph, but for the last 50 miles, I was waiting for that engine to splutter. It didn't. A few of the group stopped for fuel and we carried on and the bike carried on, much to everyone's amazement - especially mine. Got back home, and there was still fuel in it. The next day, a couple of the guys came over and we drained the tank and there were just under 3 pints left. The bottom line was, 140 mpg! A 1957 250cc motor-cycle. Thats progress!!! I still own the bike and I've also still got a 1978 Suzuki GS750EN, that gave me 57 mpg on a 400 mile trip to Tyneside, after I'd done a few mods to it - before that, I was lucky to get 40 mpg.


Wow, awesome! I'd love to go there. That's some seriously nice efficiency too; 140mpg. Just wow.










Emissions testing is calibrated for the emissions requirements for the year in which the car was produced. (This is true in the US, it is not this way in some other places in the world). So your 1989 car was passing the emissions testing for --- 1989.

Yes, the grid is 80% Coal today. This % is gradually decreasing as more wind, solar, and other non-fossil fuel energy sources come on line. Most of the electricity used in the US is used during daylight hours (air conditioners, office lighting, on demand computing, ...). Most of the Plug in Hybrids will be plugged in after business hours, when the energy sources on the grid (OK, not solar) are idling.

I have gone one trip in a Hybrid (not a plugin) where we got about 200MPG on one direction on the trip. Admittedly, that direction was mostly downhill, but in that vehicle, the engine turns off when it can, and such things as power steering, and climate are all electrical, and not run from the engine. The trip that direction was about 200 miles, and the estimate based on where the fuel gauge was at the end of the trip was fuel usage of around a gallon. The fuel mileage on the trip back up was not that great, but no worse than a similar vehicle that is not hybrid. (Yes, the vehicle was an SUV). Hybrids really are more efficient.

I drove a motorcycle for a while - until I landed in the hospital after coming within inches of being killed. (Not my fault, and no place to go to avoid the collision). Also I have yet to see a motorcycle that seats 5.

Some of the plugin-hybrids are talking about fuel mileage after the battery runs out, on the order of 100 MPG. I have not yet seen a motorcycle that can do that and keep up with traffic on the interstate. Yes, I know, these numbers may not be right, and the cars are not available yet, but if they are even close, it is worth a look.




BOINC WIKI
ID: 943505 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 944716 - Posted: 2 Nov 2009, 22:19:17 UTC - in response to Message 943505.  
Last modified: 2 Nov 2009, 22:21:39 UTC

Emissions testing is calibrated for the emissions requirements for the year in which the car was produced. (This is true in the US, it is not this way in some other places in the world). So your 1989 car was passing the emissions testing for --- 1989.


That's not entirely accurate. There are two sets of emissions standards; those by which new cars are manufactured, and those by which all vehicles operate. The 89 Geo exceeds both.

Yes, the grid is 80% Coal today. This % is gradually decreasing as more wind, solar, and other non-fossil fuel energy sources come on line. Most of the electricity used in the US is used during daylight hours (air conditioners, office lighting, on demand computing, ...). Most of the Plug in Hybrids will be plugged in after business hours, when the energy sources on the grid (OK, not solar) are idling.


You're not looking at this the right way. A nation of hundreds of millions and a world of billions does not constitute insignificant demand on the grid. Once we get to plug in hybrids, another solution is necessary.

I have gone one trip in a Hybrid (not a plugin) where we got about 200MPG on one direction on the trip.


You might make a youtube video of that, send it to the auto manufacturer, and then sell them the video for millions of dollars because what you're claiming is far beyond anything they claim or are capable of. Please let us know which hybrid you got 200mpg out of (non-plugin at that) so that I can show you dozens of people struggling to get what the manufacturer states as the fuel efficiency for the vehicle which is probably 40ish mpg.

I drove a motorcycle for a while - until I landed in the hospital after coming within inches of being killed. (Not my fault, and no place to go to avoid the collision). Also I have yet to see a motorcycle that seats 5.


Most cars on the road aren't carrying 5 people. I see the carpool lane here with nobody in it, and SUV after pickup truck with one person. That's why I say, "where appropriate" in regard to motorcycles. As far as accidents, the very vast majority of people that die on the highway are in automobiles.

Some of the plugin-hybrids are talking about fuel mileage after the battery runs out, on the order of 100 MPG.


Almost none claim anything close to this.
Prius: 48
Fusion: 36
Milan: 36
Civic: 45
Insight: 43
250H: 34

etc.

Some hybrids are getting low 20s, the BMW X6 is getting 19mpg.

You can talk about downhill. You can talk about plugin. You can talk about optimal conditions, but the brass tacks are that every day use in every day conditions mean that hybrids are hardly better than fuel efficient sub-compacts that do seat 5 people.
ID: 944716 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 944886 - Posted: 3 Nov 2009, 22:17:38 UTC - in response to Message 944716.  

Emissions testing is calibrated for the emissions requirements for the year in which the car was produced. (This is true in the US, it is not this way in some other places in the world). So your 1989 car was passing the emissions testing for --- 1989.


That's not entirely accurate. There are two sets of emissions standards; those by which new cars are manufactured, and those by which all vehicles operate. The 89 Geo exceeds both.

The 89 Geo is only being tested against the 89 standard, NOT the 2009 standard


Yes, the grid is 80% Coal today. This % is gradually decreasing as more wind, solar, and other non-fossil fuel energy sources come on line. Most of the electricity used in the US is used during daylight hours (air conditioners, office lighting, on demand computing, ...). Most of the Plug in Hybrids will be plugged in after business hours, when the energy sources on the grid (OK, not solar) are idling.


You're not looking at this the right way. A nation of hundreds of millions and a world of billions does not constitute insignificant demand on the grid. Once we get to plug in hybrids, another solution is necessary.


Some solution that does not involve burning as much petroleum has to be found. PHEV is clearly an interim solution till we do something better. Doing nothing is also clearly wrong. Diesel is NOT a long term solution either. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy storage medium - as is electricity in a bettery.


I have gone one trip in a Hybrid (not a plugin) where we got about 200MPG on one direction on the trip.


You might make a youtube video of that, send it to the auto manufacturer, and then sell them the video for millions of dollars because what you're claiming is far beyond anything they claim or are capable of. Please let us know which hybrid you got 200mpg out of (non-plugin at that) so that I can show you dozens of people struggling to get what the manufacturer states as the fuel efficiency for the vehicle which is probably 40ish mpg.

For the round trip, the fuel mileage was much closer to advertised fuel economy.


I drove a motorcycle for a while - until I landed in the hospital after coming within inches of being killed. (Not my fault, and no place to go to avoid the collision). Also I have yet to see a motorcycle that seats 5.


Most cars on the road aren't carrying 5 people. I see the carpool lane here with nobody in it, and SUV after pickup truck with one person. That's why I say, "where appropriate" in regard to motorcycles. As far as accidents, the very vast majority of people that die on the highway are in automobiles.

Motorcycles are dangerous in an era when drivers are texting while driving. Yes, most SUVs are only driven with only one person, and this is far from ideal, but forcing a family of 5 into a sub compact for a couple of hours is also far from ideal.

I do drive with 5 people in the car on a weekly basis. For long enough that a sub compact is completely out of the question.


Some of the plugin-hybrids are talking about fuel mileage after the battery runs out, on the order of 100 MPG.


Almost none claim anything close to this.
Prius: 48
Fusion: 36
Milan: 36
Civic: 45
Insight: 43
250H: 34

etc.

Some hybrids are getting low 20s, the BMW X6 is getting 19mpg.

You can talk about downhill. You can talk about plugin. You can talk about optimal conditions, but the brass tacks are that every day use in every day conditions mean that hybrids are hardly better than fuel efficient sub-compacts that do seat 5 people.

Not a single one of those is a plug in

Sub compacts do not seat 5 people. I cannot fit in the backseat of any sub compact.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 944886 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 944888 - Posted: 3 Nov 2009, 22:23:39 UTC - in response to Message 944886.  

the prius Seems to have a lot more leg room than my Saturn. Though I don't normally voluntarily ride in the backseat of any car. 6'5" has its prvileges unless you ride with my brothers


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 944888 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 945394 - Posted: 6 Nov 2009, 7:40:35 UTC - in response to Message 944888.  
Last modified: 6 Nov 2009, 7:49:35 UTC

The 89 Geo is only being tested against the 89 standard, NOT the 2009 standard


The 89 Geo exceeds the standard set forth for 2009 where I live. I know because we have emissions testing that does give us back the hard data on a printout. I don't care what it's tested against. A properly running one meets the 09 standard. It's also worth mention that some states have different standards and different tests. The EPA can set a standard, a state can tighten it even more if they like. No one size fits all. My point however is that we've had the capability for low emissions for two decades.

Some solution that does not involve burning as much petroleum has to be found. PHEV is clearly an interim solution till we do something better. Doing nothing is also clearly wrong. Diesel is NOT a long term solution either. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy storage medium - as is electricity in a bettery.


I don't know how many times I'm supposed to say this, but I'll try once more; I've never said, "do nothing", I've never stated that burning less petroleum is bad. What I'm saying is, from an ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, hybrids aren't going to work out.

For the round trip, the fuel mileage was much closer to advertised fuel economy.


And that's my point and like I said; "the brass tacks are that every day use in every day conditions mean that hybrids are hardly better than fuel efficient sub-compacts that do seat 5 people."
I can get 30mpg under optimal conditions and driving in an 8 cyl. 1993 BMW 740i. The fact that this can be done is not call to use the number as a point in a discussion about the efficiency of the car.

Motorcycles are dangerous in an era when drivers are texting while driving.


Not a valid argument. The total number of fatal accidents have gone DOWN by almost 10% in the US since 1994. In some years, there are more pedestrian accidents and deaths than those experienced by motorcyclists. If the argument is that riding a motorcycle is too dangerous to be practical, then so is walking.

Yes, most SUVs are only driven with only one person, and this is far from ideal, but forcing a family of 5 into a sub compact for a couple of hours is also far from ideal.


Third time now that I'll mention, "WHERE APPROPRIATE" in regard to motorcycles and sub-compact cars. Don't forget, my remarks about bikes were in regard to giving those that buy motorcycles a tax incentive, and sub-compacts to reveal that fuel efficiency without hybrids has been possible for years. I don't see a family of 5 ditching the car and getting the bike for a good trade in value on their vehicle or a tax cut, nor am I saying that every single person should be on a motorcycle.

Not a single one of those is a plug in


That's EXACTLY why I used them as examples. You said you got 200mpg from a vehicle that was not a plug in, so I used examples of cars that were not plugins and said that you should make a video of it because no manufacturer is claiming anywhere near that.

Anyway, real world performance of plugins is abyssmal for what the are, and this is precisely why they're still on the drawing board. The average gets 38mpg, the better ones get 51mpg. Here's an interesting write up on that.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2008771363_danny22.html

Sub compacts do not seat 5 people. I cannot fit in the backseat of any sub compact.


Why is everything to the extreme? I mention tax cuts for people that buy bikes and you try to explain that everyone can't be on a bike. I mention that hybrids aren't ecologically friendly and you respond as if I'm saying to "do nothing". I mention that there exists manufacturing technology to produce cars with better efficiency than today's cars and you're summarily dismissing the entire concept by citing one situation where their use is impractical.

Some people need big vehicles. Some big vehicles are even more fuel efficient when carrying at full capacity. One size does not fit all. What I am saying is that the hybrid fad is overblown, ineffectual from an environmental standpoint, and lackluster in the performance considering the overall energy used by them.

Let me be clear; from an ecological standpoint, hybrids are a total failure. But that doesn't stop manufacturers from advertising or people from buying them as the "green" thing to do.
ID: 945394 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 945444 - Posted: 6 Nov 2009, 15:58:09 UTC - in response to Message 945394.  

I recall the emission standards for each car are year specific and model specific. So no your car doesnt pass 2009 stnadards since their isnt a 2009 geo metro. the computer they use knows what the minimum requirements for your car are. they measure against that.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 945444 · Report as offensive
Steve

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 94
Credit: 68,888
RAC: 0
United States
Message 945459 - Posted: 6 Nov 2009, 17:09:52 UTC - in response to Message 945394.  

Let me be clear; from an ecological standpoint, hybrids are a total failure. But that doesn't stop manufacturers from advertising or people from buying them as the "green" thing to do.


I do not see them as total failures from an ecological standpoint, rather as a shift in ecological impacts - hybrids offer lower direct emissions, better fuel economy, lower noise when running on batteries than the non-hybrid counterparts.

Ecologically-exclusive counterpoints have validity too, tho - (mining, manufacturing processes, maintenance, end-of-life residuals, "new emissions")

Ecologically, hybrids hold some potential to "buy time", perhaps "shift time" is a better way to say it - and IMO, they're not currently designed to buy much ecological time.

I still admire them for other reasons.

BOINC is a hybrid supercomputer - wonder what our carbon footprint is, how many crunches per kw/h? :)
ID: 945459 · Report as offensive
Profile I C U Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 07
Posts: 5
Credit: 277,443
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 945502 - Posted: 6 Nov 2009, 21:53:20 UTC - in response to Message 945459.  

Let me be clear; from an ecological standpoint, hybrids are a total failure. But that doesn't stop manufacturers from advertising or people from buying them as the "green" thing to do.


GM went all-out creating an electric, then dropped it like a hot potato. Toyota did a hybrid as an incremental improvement. Gm has to start from scratch again, meanwhile, Toyota has a couple years of knowledge and experience now.

The problem with going electric is holding energy in a useful form. Power density is something like 1/10th, so you've got to carry around large batteries to get some distance of 20, 40, or 60 miles per charge depending on how you drive, so electrics are confined to local driving.

The great things about going electric is that it's worth about 15cents a gallon if you like thinking in those terms, so the trips mentioned above are less than $1....if you are okay with short trips.

If electrics could travel 200 to 500 miles per trip (equal to a tank of gas), there would certainly be a crossover to electrics.

BOINC is a hybrid supercomputer - wonder what our carbon footprint is, how many crunches per kw/h? :)


This depends on how it's used.

If you take earlier versions of BOINC running on windows waiting 3 minutes for no keyboard/mouse activity, then you aren't really making use of spare CPU cycles if a user shuts down after using their computer. The footprint is worthwhile if you count all those business computers burning power during the night.

If you take a computer that has a nice command like in linux, unix, or MAC so that boinc has very low priority and run boinc 100%, then you make use of all otherwise wasted power (including inbetween keystrokes and mouse movements), then you are doing a great job of not wasting power.

Then you have users who are "all about the credits" and go purchase a dozen CUDA boards to build up their credits. If they're doing it to warm the house in winter, great, otherwise, seems like a waste of power, but it's their money and they pay for their power to use it as they please.
ID: 945502 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Hybrid/electric vehicle not eco-friendly


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.