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

AuthorMessage
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 945514 - Posted: 6 Nov 2009, 22:52:06 UTC - in response to Message 945502.  

GM isn't helping itself when it has a Chinese company making the batteries for the new electric car. which means those batteries are being shipped across the Pacific to be installed in a factory here in America. That isn't to ecofriendly.

I heard a story on NPR about how foolish it is to import food such as cookies and chocolate. It's much cheaper to bring the recipe to a local production plant and make it there then to ship all that food. there is so much more to being eco friendly than just a silly car.

Heck the japanese and German car companies are smart enough to build most of the cars for sale in the US right here. This eliminates a massive amount of wasted energy used to ship all those cars. It all comes down to locality. Heck live closer to work. Or cities having convenient mass transit. not just how efficient a little hybrid car is.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 945514 · 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 945698 - Posted: 7 Nov 2009, 17:23:06 UTC - in response to Message 945394.  

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.

The mere fact that it passed the emissions test tells you nothing about whether it meets 2009 requirements. The targets printed on the sheet returned to you are the 1989 targets, not the 2009 targets.


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.

Hybrids are the ONLY short term solution that have any chance of exceeding 100MPG for a 5 seat passenger car.

What you are saying makes very little sense. Yes, there are some slight increases in ecological costs at the beginning and end of life. The batteries are RECYCLABLE, so you should not get to count the full cost of landfilling them. Yes, there is an increase in mining costs - mostly offset by the reduced mining costs for the engine (if the hybrid was done correctly with a smaller ICE). Most of the parts from most vehicles come from places scattered around the world. Local suppliers would of course reduce the ecological impact of transport, but increase the ecological impact by reducing economies of scale.

Current hybrids do about 50% better on fuel economy (10 gallons used instead of 15 for the same trip). Please figure in the decreased fuel usage over the lifetime of the car (300,000 miles would save about 5,000 gallons of gasoline - 30 rather than 20 MPG). I just do not see how the mining and recycling costs for a couple of hundred pounds of batteries can equal or exceed even 2,000 gallons of gasoline that would be saved aver 120,000 miles.


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.

Advertised for the Hybrid version - which is 50% better than for the non-hybrid version of that vehicle.


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.

And the number of motorcycle miles traveled had done what? The perception that motorcycles are substantially less safe than a car is indeed a valid argument. I know that I see fewer motorcycles on the local roads than I did a decade ago.


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.

We agree that appropriate vehicle choice should be strongly encouraged. Around here, those that do not want to wear seat belts buy pickup trucks - because these are exempt from seat belt requirements (stupidly in my opinion). Many SUVs do most of their driving with a single driver (far from ideal).

You DID offer up a sub compact as an alternative for better fuel mileage - I would like to improve fuel economy for the entire fleet of vehicles with out requiring people to buy vehicles so small that they are inappropriate for their needs.


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

I have no idea why this would be the case. Experimental plug in hybrids 20 years ago were getting in excess of 100MPG. Note that ones that do the best are all electric drive, and the differences in tooling for manufacturing are probably holding those back. There is also the perception problem, where the manufactures believe that people do not want to have to plug in their cars - this is why Toyota has not yet produced a plug in - at least according to the last article I read from them.

The 2010 Milan Sedan (No, I don't know how many it seats) is not a plug in, and it supposedly gets about 45 mpg - around 70% better mileage than the non hybrid counterpart. It uses a Atkinson cycle engine which is different from the standard Otto cycle engine that current gasoline only cars use. This is one of the keys to improving gas mileage - along with substantially reducing the displacement of the gasoline engine. The Atkinson cycle engine does very well in a very narrow band of RPM and load, and very poorly outside of that band. If the gasoline engine is either on and in this narrow band, or completely off, it can do better on emissions and fuel mileage than an Otto cycle engine of the same size. You can only do this if there is some other motor that is capable of either storing the excess provided, or supplying the excess needed.


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.

I really want to see you numbers on how even the CURRENT hybrids spend more than 2,000 gallons of gasoline equivalent on extra start of life and end of life issues - 2,000 gallons of fuel would be the fuel savings in just over 100,000 miles of use - FAR below the typical lifespan of a modern car. The Hybrid we own - which is not the best technology for hybrids still gets 50% better mileage than the exact same vehicle that is not a hybrid.

Are the current hybrids ideal? No. Are they total ecological failures? No. The reduced emissions in CO2, particulates, and Oxides of Nitrogen all favor the Hybrid. The reduced fuel usage over gasoline powered vehicles of the same size favors the Hybrid. The reduced Sulfur emissions and particulates over Diesels favors the Hybrid as Diesel fuel has less stringent sulfur content requirements than does gasoline (at least in the US), and diesels will always produce more particulates than a gasoline powered vehicle. Hybrid technology should allow manufacturers to develop different ICE engines by removing the constraint that the ICE has to work well over wide range of power settings and RPMs.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 945698 · Report as offensive
Iona
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 790
Credit: 22,438,118
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 946240 - Posted: 9 Nov 2009, 23:59:12 UTC

I've been reading the various posts here about the pros and cons of hybrids and ICE only and that little bell in my head, keeps going off. For example, in the UK, I am regularly entertained by a TV programme called, Top Gear...now, they took a Prius and raced it around their circuit at Dunsfold, flat out and got a figure of about 19 mpg (!!!). Yes, it shocked them, too. They then took a BMW M5 and did the same and got about 20 mpg. The differences between the two cars are huge, yet their consumption of fuel, was very similar. If anything, such situations actually make the rather 'beefy' BMW, a better bet than the Prius, but, only if you want to travel really quickly, perhaps. Is the real 'trick', having a more sophisticated transmission, better suited to the engine characteristics? Would it not be better to have a similar set-up, as there is, in a railway locomotive? An ICE running within fixed parameters, driving an alternator, which then provides power to 'traction motors', rather than an ICE being assisted by 'traction motors', powered by batteries which are charged by the ICE. Why not have an ICE running at an optimum setting, coupled to CVT/IVT or a refined Hydraulic transmission?



Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!
ID: 946240 · 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 946243 - Posted: 10 Nov 2009, 0:17:11 UTC - in response to Message 946240.  

I've been reading the various posts here about the pros and cons of hybrids and ICE only and that little bell in my head, keeps going off. For example, in the UK, I am regularly entertained by a TV programme called, Top Gear...now, they took a Prius and raced it around their circuit at Dunsfold, flat out and got a figure of about 19 mpg (!!!). Yes, it shocked them, too. They then took a BMW M5 and did the same and got about 20 mpg. The differences between the two cars are huge, yet their consumption of fuel, was very similar. If anything, such situations actually make the rather 'beefy' BMW, a better bet than the Prius, but, only if you want to travel really quickly, perhaps. Is the real 'trick', having a more sophisticated transmission, better suited to the engine characteristics? Would it not be better to have a similar set-up, as there is, in a railway locomotive? An ICE running within fixed parameters, driving an alternator, which then provides power to 'traction motors', rather than an ICE being assisted by 'traction motors', powered by batteries which are charged by the ICE. Why not have an ICE running at an optimum setting, coupled to CVT/IVT or a refined Hydraulic transmission?



The real trick is that Hybrids do much better at normal driving than ICE only. Especially stop and go (lots of stop lights or bumper to bumper on the interstate). Flat out, they have to burn as much fuel as ICE only as the battery is quickly drained, and does not get a recharge opportunity.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 946243 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29432
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 946285 - Posted: 10 Nov 2009, 2:32:04 UTC - in response to Message 946243.  

[quoteThe real trick is that Hybrids do much better at normal driving than ICE only. Especially stop and go (lots of stop lights or bumper to bumper on the interstate). Flat out, they have to burn as much fuel as ICE only as the battery is quickly drained, and does not get a recharge opportunity.[/quote]
No they get worse flat out as they have the haul the weight of the battery around.

ID: 946285 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16670
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 946375 - Posted: 10 Nov 2009, 12:54:39 UTC - in response to Message 946285.  

[Hybrids...] No they get worse flat out as they have the haul the weight of the battery around.

I agree.

I think the lightweight high speed flywheels now used in F1 racing cars are a much better bet for taking advantage of regenerative braking in stop-start traffic.

However, best of all is still not to have stop-start traffic in the first place!

Perhaps far better overall would be to beef up the networks infrastructure so that fewer people needed to do long commutes.


Cheers,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 946375 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 946391 - Posted: 10 Nov 2009, 15:40:30 UTC - in response to Message 946375.  

However it always seems to have been an american tradition to live far from work


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 946391 · 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 946474 - Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 4:32:48 UTC - in response to Message 946391.  

However it always seems to have been an american tradition to live far from work

If the house near work costs $1,000,000 and the house 30 miles away costs $50,000, and the job only pays $30,000, what are the choices? Much of the long drives are simple economics - houses near the city center are unaffordable for the majority of the workers. Rents are also higher on rental properties. So, you drive.

Two income households also have a problem. In our case we live near my wife's work, and I get to drive (the houses in the middle would have cost 4X as much). So I drive. No, public transportation is not a real option around here. It would take 5 busses and 2 trains and a 2 mile walk at each end. In all it would take about 4 hours to take public transportation each way where it takes about 1/2 hour or so driving on a good day. Even on a bad day I can use my GPS that shows where the traffic problems are to drive around them so it only takes about an hour each way.




BOINC WIKI
ID: 946474 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 946574 - Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 19:54:16 UTC - in response to Message 946474.  

Actually its just the opposite. Prices are cheap near the city center so the people living there are generally very low income and the crime rate is very high. Moving further from a city center typically gives one less crime. that is unless you live in metroplex like dallas fort worth. the cities have all mingled together so there really isnt a distinct line for low income and high income so much anymore.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 946574 · 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 946613 - Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 23:57:58 UTC - in response to Message 946574.  

Actually its just the opposite. Prices are cheap near the city center so the people living there are generally very low income and the crime rate is very high. Moving further from a city center typically gives one less crime. that is unless you live in metroplex like dallas fort worth. the cities have all mingled together so there really isnt a distinct line for low income and high income so much anymore.

OK. Here, it is a little different. The exact center of the city has almost no dwellings of any sort. Just north of there is very expensive, and just south of there is very poor and very high crime. If you want to avoid both, you drive 10 miles or miles or more. If you live further than just a few miles out, you drive as there is no subway line that far.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 946613 · Report as offensive
danq
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 00
Posts: 9
Credit: 3,078,490
RAC: 0
United States
Message 946764 - Posted: 12 Nov 2009, 21:15:16 UTC - in response to Message 931717.  

"In any case, the demand placed upon fossil fuel plants to supply juice for all of these vehicles becomes enormous, which entails burning more fossil fuels either through plant expansion or new plant construction. More pollution, more global warming."

But pollution will be more fixed around the power plants rather than distributed throughout the roads, right? That's *a little* better :)
-Dan Q

danq.co

ID: 946764 · 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 946787 - Posted: 12 Nov 2009, 23:07:58 UTC - in response to Message 946764.  

"In any case, the demand placed upon fossil fuel plants to supply juice for all of these vehicles becomes enormous, which entails burning more fossil fuels either through plant expansion or new plant construction. More pollution, more global warming."

But pollution will be more fixed around the power plants rather than distributed throughout the roads, right? That's *a little* better :)

The power plants also use less carbon / mile than the cars burn. Besides, there is always the option to grow the electrical supply by using non-carbon forms of generation.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 946787 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51464
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 946906 - Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 9:56:06 UTC - in response to Message 946240.  

I've been reading the various posts here about the pros and cons of hybrids and ICE only and that little bell in my head, keeps going off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Oo-BjKzCE


Iona......I luv ya.

The same little bell keeps going off in my head.......who is gonna profit from this.........

Not the startups......who really have something to offer.

It's the 'big boyz' who already have paid for their ticket at the box office.
And you know who is in charge of the box office.

Technologies existed years ago that might have wrested us from our current energy dependence on the middle east.

And even if you could try to divorce our world actions from our posed reasons for doing so......it would still remain........

Our world politics have long been directed by our elected politicians desire for greed and gold. I am not proud of my own government's record in that respect.

I should go now........otherwise things shall get nasty.

Meow.

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 946906 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

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.