 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Focus / March 2005Focus Hybrid: Petrol/Electric version
I know theres a hydrogen fuel powered ford in the pipe some way off, but is ther any news of a petrol/electric hybrid much like the Toyota Prius chhers > I know theres a hydrogen fuel powered ford in the pipe some way off, The hydrogen powered car will never be here. It's 20 years off and always will be. > but is > ther any news of a petrol/electric hybrid much like the Toyota Prius I haven't heard anything about a Focus hydrid. Here's hoping that they do come up with one in the near future. >>I know theres a hydrogen fuel powered ford in the pipe some way off, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > do > come up with one in the near future. I don't know why everyones so up on hydrogen power, it's a net energy loser. it takes more to make hydrogen then you will ever get back out of it. http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf *i'm not related to the site at all* In message <cv55as02mr7@enews1.newsguy.com>, Me <Me@privacy.net> wrote >>>I know theres a hydrogen fuel powered ford in the pipe some way off, >> The hydrogen powered car will never be here. It's 20 years off and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >loser. >it takes more to make hydrogen then you will ever get back out of it. I'm not sure why people believe electric cars are non-poluting.  SignatureAlan mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk > I'm not sure why people believe electric cars are non-poluting. Well they are in the sense that they concentrate the pollution away from the car. (Unless you happen to be driving past a power station ;P) LJ >> I'm not sure why people believe electric cars are non-poluting. > > Well they are in the sense that they concentrate the pollution away from > the car. (Unless you happen to be driving past a power station ;P) > > LJ Ford of Canada have a hybrid SUV on the road right now. I test drove one, very nice. They are just introducing a second version http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6939701/ Geoff I think you need to think a little more outside the normal consumer/economic envelope to get my question. As you can see its based on nuclear. Nuclear power has major amounts of bad press and public opinion is now against it. So the big hurdle is resetting public perception. Greenpeace are struggling with this already as they know its true, but their story for the past 20 years has been on the contrary. They will be in a lot of trouble with the world community...I'd say in the next 5 years or so. So Nuclear power is safer than Fossil for the environment - net effect Nuclear power on a large scale creates the hydrogen from water Nuclear power means no or little CO2 Nuclear power is the only power source able to limit the global warming spike > >>I know theres a hydrogen fuel powered ford in the pipe some way off, > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > *i'm not related to the site at all* In alt.autos.ford.focus Robin Smith <robin@noaddress.com>: >> >>I know theres a hydrogen fuel powered ford in the pipe some way off, >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> *i'm not related to the site at all* > I think you need to think a little more outside the normal consumer/economic > envelope to get my question. As you can see its based on nuclear. Nuclear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > years has been on the contrary. They will be in a lot of trouble with the > world community...I'd say in the next 5 years or so. So The amount of usable nuclear material on our planet is limited, it might reach longer then gas/oil, but we'll have used it all one day. If you think of the perhaps about 2*10^9 people in India + China, it won't take that long, once they start using as much energy as people in western countries since decades. > Nuclear power is safer than Fossil for the environment - net effect > Nuclear power on a large scale creates the hydrogen from water > Nuclear power means no or little CO2 Leaving us with the problem, how to ensure that we can safely store the hazardous garbage, for a few ten thousand years, we can't. > Nuclear power is the only power source able to limit the global warming > spike Questionable, our sun delivers much more energy to our planet on any day then we need, with a reliability beyond our imagination and looking at our lifetime we can safely assume it's endless available. With a solar constant of 1.35 kw/h per m^2, minus a little loss through our atmosphere. Just a matter of using it where it's most effective (deserts) making hydrogen out of it and transport it (pipeline/ships) where people need it. The only real problem global energy company face, this damn nuclear fusion reactor doesn't send any bills.;) IMHO before we can get to this point we need firstly fix our completely broken financial system, based on interest/ compound interest. This can't work out, since we are trying to work against an exponential function and need permanent exponential grow to keep up. But there's no such thing as exponential grow in nature, only for short time, ending with death, sure you know which cancer is meant. SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' #bofh excuse 35: working as designed >Leaving us with the problem, how to ensure that we can safely >store the hazardous garbage, for a few ten thousand years, we >can't. This is the problem with nuclear. It isn't safe in the long run and who are we to create such a dangerous problem for civilization in the future? We are talking THOUSANDS of years. (I suppose the same argument can be made about global warming and such if you want to believe man is causing significant harm, but I think the scale of the problem is much larger with nuclear.) Find a way to neutralize the waste, and I will support nuclear 100%. Matt Focus owner It may be a good idea to quantify the scale of danger between: * nuclear waste * polar ice cap melts(7-15m rise in MSL) The latter will put 75% of the worlds major cities under water. Remember what that tiny Tsunami did not long ago! I guess we could move billions of people to higher ground if we have the time, resources and economy for it. Not sure the economy is even an issue under these circumstances though This thread sounds like scare mongering...but there are some very credible scientists talking seriously about it, there are other opinions of course, I believe the nuclear soltution after having looked at the data. Fision technology may also give us enough time to develop efficient Fusion power too rgds > >Leaving us with the problem, how to ensure that we can safely > >store the hazardous garbage, for a few ten thousand years, we [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Matt > Focus owner >It may be a good idea to quantify the scale of danger between: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >rgds Sorry, I'm not buying into the notion that man is significantly speeding up what is a natural occurance. The planet has been in a state of change since the beginning of time. When it comes to "global warming", we can't stop it. We just have to adjust for it. But why add nuclear waste storage issues to the problems future generations? Matt Focus owner In alt.autos.ford.focus Matt Mead <mdmead@deletethischarter.net>: >>It may be a good idea to quantify the scale of danger between: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >>rgds > Sorry, I'm not buying into the notion that man is significantly > speeding up what is a natural occurance. The planet has been in a > state of change since the beginning of time. When it comes to "global > warming", we can't stop it. We just have to adjust for it. The problem, from measuring weather we just have usable data for 150 years or so, this isn't a reliable base. Take a look at geologic available climate date, which is available for million of years, earth is in a permanent change. There was a theory, that even if we would burn all oil/gas left on earth at once, we couldn't influence the system. We are just lucky to live in a short suitable period between some ice-age.;-) > But why add nuclear waste storage issues to the problems future > generations? Curious why people don't buy into we could easily, without losing comfort, get most of our energy out of the sun, without there would be zero live on this planet and zero oil, which is nothing more then captured solar energy. BTW If only I could get my hands on a circuit diagram, to try out reseting wiper-washer to acceptable mode. SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' #bofh excuse 223: The lines are all busy (busied out, that is -- why let them in to begin with?). > Curious why people don't buy into we could easily, without > losing comfort, get most of our energy out of the sun, without > there would be zero live on this planet and zero oil, which is > nothing more then captured solar energy. Sorry, Mike, but naive and poorly informed. Solar remains far more expensive. More expensive means less resource which ultimately means lots of people die, far more, repeat, far more than any conceivable environmentalist scare-mongering scenario based on pollution or what-have-you. I too love Star Trek and "The Day After" but don't get them confused with hard facts. In alt.autos.ford.focus Atlas Bugged <atlasbugged@gmail.com>: >> Curious why people don't buy into we could easily, without >> losing comfort, get most of our energy out of the sun, without >> there would be zero live on this planet and zero oil, which is >> nothing more then captured solar energy. > Sorry, Mike, but naive and poorly informed. Sure, just that your "arguments" are so thin, you resort to cheap insulting. [..] SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' #bofh excuse 305: IRQ-problems with the Un-Interruptible-Power-Supply > In alt.autos.ford.focus Atlas Bugged <atlasbugged@gmail.com>: >> Sorry, Mike, but naive and poorly informed. > Sure, just that your "arguments" are so thin, you resort to cheap > insulting. Well, I *did* say I was sorry, and there *were* arguments, not thin, but overwhelming. I again apologize for your hurt feelings, but the bottom line on fossil fuels is that they cause undeniable net *gains* in human happiness and prosperity, and even lives. Why did you think the world hasn't gone solar or wind? Because they're all stupid? Global corporate conspiracy? It's infinitely more mundane. The cost of energy (including any cleanup necessitated by by-products such as pollution) pretty much sets the agenda for what type of stuff gets used. The real issues surrounding pollution are actually "theft" issues, in the sense that the energy producer sells the product artificially cheap by getting others to unjustly do the cleanup, which should be part of the energy cost in the first place. Of course, getting back on topic, we Focus owners have pretty efficient economical and clean-burning vehicles. And pretty fun to drive, too. A wonderful auto. My sole concern/regret: I'm nearing 36K/3 years and I don't feel the confidence in future reliability that I used to have with former Hondas and Toyotas. In alt.autos.ford.focus Atlas Bugged <atlasbugged@gmail.com>: [..] > Why did you think the world hasn't gone solar or wind? Because they're all > stupid? Global corporate conspiracy? Energy density of petrol is very high, it's pretty easy to store and has been cheap enough until now and perhaps a few more years. In addition as mankind started with cars there had been lots of electric cars, but they weren't sold that much, men thought they couldn't impress women with them at all.;) The real problem, oil/gas won't last forever, it's captured solar energy from million of years, we burn in only 100 years. Think about the 2*10^9 people in India + China, once they start wasting as much oil per habitant as we do today, it won't take very long and we'll have burned almost any oil. So we have to research alternatives or walk one day....;) [..] SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' #bofh excuse 190: Proprietary Information. > Of course, getting back on topic, we Focus owners have pretty efficient > economical and clean-burning vehicles. And pretty fun to drive, too. A > wonderful auto. Indeed > My sole concern/regret: I'm nearing 36K/3 years and I don't feel the > confidence in future reliability that I used to have with former Hondas and > Toyotas. I don't have a crystal ball for you, but I'll tell you my experience. My 2001 is nearing 4 years with almost 91,000 miles on it. I have a number of issues in the first 36K that were taken careof under warrenty. After that, it's been pretty smooth sailing. > I don't have a crystal ball for you, but I'll tell you my experience. > My 2001 is nearing 4 years with almost 91,000 miles on it. I have a > number of issues in the first 36K that were taken careof under > warrenty. After that, it's been pretty smooth sailing. Thanks for that, it does help a bit to allay my fears. I'm still concerned however, basically because of the mixed data coming from places like Consumers Union and the like. (Mine's 2002, BTW.) I've actually spent years now agonizing over whether to do the extended warranty. (I have just a few months and a few thousand miles left on my new-car warranty.) It's definitely a close call because such warranties are well-known "profit-centers" for companies that sell them The Focus warranty will cost me at least 12 to 15 hundred dollars, a serious bit of change. As always, comments and advice are welcome. > I've actually spent years now agonizing over whether to do the extended > warranty. (I have just a few months and a few thousand miles left on my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > me at least 12 to 15 hundred dollars, a serious bit of change. As always, > comments and advice are welcome. My feeling is the unless you have a trans or engine replaced under the warranty, you'll lose money. Wait, don't the 2002 have extended warranties on the drive train? I'm not sure. Anyway, the Zetec engines seem to be pretty durable. I'd plan on replacing the rotors with the EBC grooved rotors and Greenstuff brake pads. Big difference and probably cheaper than the Ford parts. I got mine from tirerack.com but you can find them all over the net. >>I don't have a crystal ball for you, but I'll tell you my experience. >>My 2001 is nearing 4 years with almost 91,000 miles on it. I have a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > me at least 12 to 15 hundred dollars, a serious bit of change. As always, > comments and advice are welcome. My '00 ZX3 5 speed,has 125K miles on it, very few problems. IIRC the most expensive thing has been new tires and alignment all around. Dont be sorry, first check out the graph at the botton of this page : http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm Its not absolute proof but compelling enough to explore further if you have an open mind Also pollution from fossil is already way worse than the waste issues we might face with nuclear rgds > >It may be a good idea to quantify the scale of danger between: > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Matt > Focus owner Hardly an "independent" view point regarding the graph. Even if it is true, I'd be hard pressed to call nuclear power the solution. I don't want that waste around me and I can't imagine my children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and etc (How many generations do we have to go out here? I can't count that high!!!) want to be dealing with waste created during MY lifetime. If you want to push for a clean environment, great. Just concentrate on something like wind, solar or wave powered. Something that can actually minimize our impact on the environment, not increas it. Matt Focus owner (to balance the V-10 Super Duty sitting in the other half of the driveway) >Dont be sorry, first check out the graph at the botton of this page : >http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> Matt >> Focus owner Matt, I feel we are going around in circles here: Radioactivity is around us already, its what heats the earth Fossil is expected to exacerbate ice cap melt, so your offspring will be seeing the results of your nice liefstyle in about 200 years. That aint nice Wind and Solar, too late I would welcome nuclear, its less of a risk than fossil when you look at the big picture The web site is an NGO so yes it has its own opinion, but backed up by great scientists, some of whom discovered the extent if the ozone/CFC and how much pollution talk is largely green propaganda. I feel you are a victim of this if you dont mind me saying rgds > Hardly an "independent" view point regarding the graph. > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > >> Matt > >> Focus owner >Matt, I feel we are going around in circles here: Well, I suppose that is true. You are of the belief that it is OK to create deadly nuclear waste, a whole lot more than has already been created, that is going to be a problem for our civiliation THOUSANDS of years from now. You don't seem concerned that we have yet to come up with a containment system that can last a fraction of the time the waste is dangerous. >Radioactivity is around us already, its what heats the earth This is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. (Unless you are trying to say that the nuclear waste is going increase global warming too!) >Fossil is expected to exacerbate ice cap melt, so your offspring will be >seeing the results of your nice liefstyle in about 200 years. That aint nice >Wind and Solar, too late >I would welcome nuclear, its less of a risk than fossil when you look at the >big picture The problem is the best scientists disagree on global warming and its actual cause. Yes, a lot of them like to blame the buring of fossil fuels, but our studies of environmental effects is in its infancy. We don't know what kind of cylces are natural to the earth. We don't know how long they last, how extreme they are, and what the frequency is. And then you have natural effects like volcanos spewing ungodly amounts of pollutants into the air. But what we know for sure is nuclear waste is dangerous for THOUSANDS of years. And technology has come along way, and can go a lot farther, in making the use of fossil fuels eco-friendly. You seem awfully quick to dismiss solar and wind. If we invested the billions you seem willing to spend on nuclear into solar and wind, we could accomplish quite a bit. And once the equipment is build and installed, it is CLEAN. Cleaner than Nuclear. (And it doesn't leave problems for our civilizations THOUSANDS of years in the future.) >The web site is an NGO so yes it has its own opinion, but backed up by great >scientists, some of whom discovered the extent if the ozone/CFC and how much >pollution talk is largely green propaganda. I feel you are a victim of this >if you dont mind me saying If you don't mind me saying? Gee that sounds a bit condescending.... Hey, you are entitled to your own opinion on nuclear power. But I don't think you are disputing the fact that nuclear waste is going to be a problem to be dealt with for THOUSANDS of years. And I can't imagine you will dispute that global warming problems (over and above what is occurring naturally - I'm talking attributed to fossil fuels) is just a scientific theory at this point. Matt Focus owner Matt, its pretty clear your argument is an emotional one, so I'll not go any further discussing the logic of the issue on this forum and how it relates to Cars. I cant really agree with most of what you say in terms of logic, but feel free to email me, I'd like to listen to you and understand your case better rgds > >Matt, I feel we are going around in circles here: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Matt > Focus owner >Matt, its pretty clear your argument is an emotional one, so I'll not go any >further discussing the logic of the issue on this forum and how it relates [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >rgds Emotional? Yeah, whatever. Bottom line is you can't dispute the fact that nuclear waste is going to be a problem for THOUSANDS of years. When you have an answer for dealing with it, (a way to neutralize or a containment system that can last thousands of years), we can continue the discussion. Oh, and when you want to discuss this further, lose the condescending tone. It's not appreciated and weakens your credibility. Matt Focus owner > Emotional? Yeah, whatever. Bottom line is you can't dispute the fact > that nuclear waste is going to be a problem for THOUSANDS of years. Sure you can. Why is it a fact? I previously provided links about the Oklo natural reactors. I'll repeat one quote from my previous post: "Remarkably, despite abundant groundwater, the plutonium and fission fragments drifted through the rock less than 10 meters over the next 1.7 billion years." It wasn't stored in any way, it was in porous rock with groundwater drifting through it. And it moved about 30 feet in 1.7 billion years. We can do better than just digging a hole iun the ground and tossing the stuff in there. I don't recommend it. But that would probably enough all by itself. > When you have an answer for dealing with it, (a way to neutralize or a > containment system that can last thousands of years), we can continue > the discussion. Okay, dig a hole in the ground in soil similar to Gabon, Africa and toss the stuff there. Proven solution. > Oh, and when you want to discuss this further, lose the condescending > tone. It's not appreciated and weakens your credibility. Et tu? Well goodbye from this forum Matt, even if you dont want to open up yet, please drop me an email off thread. I'd be delighted to continue there BTW, I used to hold your exact opinion on the topic... since then I've read a lot, researched a lot and tried to form a balanced opinion from all angles. The result is my current position which I feel quite secure about. I can only suggest you think about that rgds > >Matt, its pretty clear your argument is an emotional one, so I'll not go any > >further discussing the logic of the issue on this forum and how it relates [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Matt > Focus owner >Well goodbye from this forum Matt, even if you dont want to open up yet, >please drop me an email off thread. I'd be delighted to continue there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >rgds Take care and have a nice life. Matt Focus owner >If you want to push for a clean environment, great. Just concentrate >on something like wind, solar or wave powered. Something that can >actually minimize our impact on the environment, not increas it. There is now growing evidence that wind power isn't the green solution. When it only accounts for a small proportion of a countries energy needs conventional power stations can cope for the times when it isn't windy. When greater proportion is supplied by wind power what do you need for the times when there is no wind? The majority of people want electricity when it suites them and not when the weather says they can have it. How much of the countryside do you have to pollute with a forest of noisy windmills to provide electricity for a small village? SignatureAlan mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk > In alt.autos.ford.focus Robin Smith <robin@noaddress.com>: > > Nuclear power is safer than Fossil for the environment - net effect > > Nuclear power on a large scale creates the hydrogen from water > > Nuclear power means no or little CO2 > Leaving us with the problem, how to ensure that we can safely > store the hazardous garbage, for a few ten thousand years, we > can't. Why? It's been succesfully done for thousands of millions of years. The naturally occuring Oklo breeder reactors ran for about one million years. The reactors created Plutonium and U-235. This sat in in porous rock with water flowing through it. After two billion years, we are able to see that most of it has been retained on site. http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/Why/Periodic.gif Main page for above is at: http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/ >From another source: "Remarkably, despite abundant groundwater, the plutonium and fission fragments drifted through the rock less than 10 meters over the next 1.7 billion years." http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/chapters_Jan_2005/Chapter05.htm In alt.autos.ford.focus Tony Wesley <tonywesley@gmail.com>: >> In alt.autos.ford.focus Robin Smith <robin@noaddress.com>: >> > Nuclear power is safer than Fossil for the environment - net effect >> > Nuclear power on a large scale creates the hydrogen from water >> > Nuclear power means no or little CO2 >> Leaving us with the problem, how to ensure that we can safely >> store the hazardous garbage, for a few ten thousand years, we >> can't. > Why? It's been succesfully done for thousands of millions of years. Yeah from nature, mankind doesn't seem to be this clever with the technique until now. Sure this is something we need to investigate further, energy savings is another great area. But sadly we'll go nowhere until we fix our broken monetary system. [..] SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' #bofh excuse 252: Our ISP is having {switching,routing,SMDS,frame relay} problems I disagree but appreciate your comments. I believe most of them are the public perception I speak of, no offence intended: Limited fissile material - true but I believe we have a few hundred years from currently known stock. By the way do you know where nearly all the energy that fuels plate techtonics and the heat in the earth comes from, yep its radioactive decay in the crust and mantle. So there is plenty of it somewhere Storage - We can store it more safely than the public perception has been led to believe and we would get better if we did more of it. But the key here is the relative comparison of global warming effects with nuclear accidents/storage leaks. The latter will be limited and to a large extent under our control. Sea level will not. Nuclear waste issues will be "Tiny" compared to what global warming is expected to bring in terms of loss of environment, ecosystem and life of nearly all types Solar energy - Granted I would prefer to use this too, but its too little, too late. tell me how we harness that 2Kg/s of suns pure energy falling on the earth. Technology does not exist yet, cheaply enough. Not the case with Nuclear. Ditto for wind. We could develop it but how long would that take. I'd take a look here for some pretty compelling reading, its much easier than explaining http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm Rgds > In alt.autos.ford.focus Robin Smith <robin@noaddress.com>: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' > #bofh excuse 35: working as designed In Sweden they sell a Focus Flexifuel for methanol and/or petrol in any mixed proportions: http://www.ford.se/ie/focus/flexifuel/foc_flexi/-/-/-/- It has been on the market for some years now, and because of some tax reductions it has become quite popular. The engine drives exactly like the petrol cars. It was only available with the 1.6 litre engine, but the new model will have the 1.8 which is more powerful. Volvo is also planning to introduce the same Flexifuel engines in the S40/V50 series for Sweden. /per >I know theres a hydrogen fuel powered ford in the pipe some way off, but is > ther any news of a petrol/electric hybrid much like the Toyota Prius > > chhers |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.