 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Prius / February 2008AFS Trinity to announce 250 mpg Extreme Hybrid car on Jan 13th.
More at http://Muvy.org > More athttp://Muvy.org Why do you endorse these fraudulentt claims? Range with part of the energy coming from an initial charge does not have anything to do with MPG. Yes it does. It all counts towards getting the most empg out of of whatever fossil or synfuel, and thereby contributing the least per mile CO2 and NOx into our badly polluted environment. It's a win-win, not half bad looking and affordable. - Brad Guth MadDog...@yahoo.com wrote: > > More athttp://Muvy.org > > Why do you endorse these fraudulentt claims? > Range with part of the energy coming from an initial charge > does not have anything to do with MPG. You should see the car I'm designing. It will get 3,750 MPG and deliver over 500 horsepower. It it self-cleaning and the Limited Edition will cook dinner for you. Concept pictures coming soon. These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid Electric (PHEV), and Toyota is currently road testing a production version. The MPG claims are not as straight-forward as with other cars, because actual mileage will differ drastically based on driving habits. If someone did a daily commute within the electric-only range, then they'd never use gas, and the MPG would be infinite. Though if you took a cross-country trip without plugging in during the trip, the MPG would be the same as a conventional hybrid. No doubt the marketing folks used a scenario of a 'typical' driver to come up with the 250 MPG number, but it doesn't make it unrealistic, nor does it mean these cars aren't a significant step forward. In article <17b1abf0-c483-4035-88e4-75336b7638c7 @j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, zwestfall@gmail.com says... > You should see the car I'm designing. It will get 3,750 MPG and > deliver over 500 horsepower. It it self-cleaning and the Limited > Edition will cook dinner for you. Concept pictures coming soon. > These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number > of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > someone did a daily commute within the electric-only range, then they'd > never use gas, and the MPG would be infinite. Yet, the electricity that they use requires the burning of fossil fuels, unless it came from renewable resources, like solar power. So effectively, the lower gas mileage does a lot to make people feel good, but doesn't really reduce greenhouse gases. Does the zero gas mileage take into account the amount of fossil fuels needed to make the batteries, not to mention the tires, engine and rest of the car? Jeff >> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number >> of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >needed to make the batteries, not to mention the tires, engine and rest >of the car? Does the mileage estimate for a conventional car include the energy required to make it? The hybrid batteries don't require any extraordinary amount of energy to manufacture. Electrical generation and transmission is much more efficient than an automotive ICE. And it can be practically be generated from renewable sources like wind and solar. The major problem with plug-ins (whether hybrids or pure electric) is the batteries. In a conventional hybrid, the batteries are never charged or discharged outside of a relatively narrow range, say 50 to 80% of capacity. Used in this manner, the batteries last a long time - maybe the life of the car. If a plug-in is to achieve maximum efficiency, it will be charged up to 100%, then discharged to near zero. Such use greatly decreases the life expectancy of these batteries. When you add in the fact that a plug-in is likely to carry a lot more battery capacity than a conventional hybrid, the battery cost over the life of the vehicle may not be economically viable. >>> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number >>> of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > required to make it? The hybrid batteries don't require any > extraordinary amount of energy to manufacture. Of course the MPG figures don't include the energy to make the cars. But it still takes energy. But they also require the materials be mined, the batteries made, etc. It is still energy. > Electrical generation and transmission is much more efficient than an > automotive ICE. And it can be practically be generated from renewable > sources like wind and solar. Unless the energy comes directly from a solar panel, a wind turbine, etc., and the energy would not have been fed into the electric grid, then, electricity use to run the car results in more fossil fuels being used. > The major problem with plug-ins (whether hybrids or pure electric) is > the batteries. In a conventional hybrid, the batteries are never [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a lot more battery capacity than a conventional hybrid, the battery > cost over the life of the vehicle may not be economically viable. True. But battery technology is constantly improving. IIRC, the engineers have studied using batteries outside the narrow range and have found that using batteries with a wider range doesn't damage the batteries. In addition, there are better batteries under development, like the ones that Chevy would like to put into its volt (but they won't ready for at least a few years). Jeff > > These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number > > of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid <snip!> > Yet, the electricity that they use requires the burning of fossil fuels, > unless it came from renewable resources, like solar power. Where is it dictated that the electricity they use would be REQUIRED to come from fossil fuels? That is the beauty of powering them with electricity: that energy can be generated by any means. So besides fossil fuels, it could be hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, nuclear, etc. And it doesn't require a single-point source; it can come from any combination of those. And as new technology to generate electricity is developed, these cars will work just the same. > So effectively, the lower gas mileage does a lot to make people feel > good, but doesn't really reduce greenhouse gases. Even for the power that's coming from coal, recent developments have made it possible to burn coal *much* more cleanly than before. And it's much easier to clean-up several hundred generation plants than to try and retrofit millions of vehicles. Another strong point for electric is that the distribution infrastructure is already in place. If, for example, they ever get hydrogen fuel cells to market, which is still years away, how much $$$$ (and resources) will it take to set up hydrogen fueling stations that even come close to what we have now with gasoline stations? And since most of the electric cars would be charging at night, when electrical demand for lights, appliances, A/C, etc. is very low, the existing grid can handle a lot of plug-ins charging. In fact, it would help the utilities, since dealing with the huge drop in demand at night is a big problem for them, since you don't just switch-off power stations like so many light switches. > Does the zero gas mileage take into account the amount of fossil fuels > needed to make the batteries, not to mention the tires, engine and rest > of the car? Huh? Are you comparing it to a car that requires no tires, engine, body, etc? Is a car that's kept in a garage less fuel efficient because of the resources used to build the garage? I think that is taking the argument WAY far afield. >>> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number >>> of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fossil fuels, it could be hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, > nuclear, etc. Yet, all the energy sources you mention decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned. So if you're using the energy to charge a car, you can't use the energy to decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned. So using electricity to power a car increases the amount of fossil fuel used. However, using electricity to power a car may result in less fossil fuel burned compared with a gasoline or diesel powered car. > And it doesn't require a single-point source; it can come > from any combination of those. And as new technology to generate > electricity is developed, these cars will work just the same. And not as much electricity from those sources will be used to decrease fossil fuel burning. >> So effectively, the lower gas mileage does a lot to make people feel >> good, but doesn't really reduce greenhouse gases. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > much easier to clean-up several hundred generation plants than to try > and retrofit millions of vehicles. Yet, people are not talking about retrofitting gasoline cars with batteries and electric motors. > Another strong point for electric is that the distribution > infrastructure is already in place. If, for example, they ever get > hydrogen fuel cells to market, which is still years away, how much $$$$ > (and resources) will it take to set up hydrogen fueling stations that > even come close to what we have now with gasoline stations? And where does the hydrogen come from? Methane, which is then converted to CO2. > And since > most of the electric cars would be charging at night, when electrical > demand for lights, appliances, A/C, etc. is very low, the existing grid > can handle a lot of plug-ins charging. And the car can also supply electricity back to the grid from the car's battery, decreasing the extent to which inefficient generators are used (and just charging the cars with the more efficient generators at night) or alternatively, even run the motors, which may be more efficient than some of the generators which would have to be started to keep up with demand. > In fact, it would help the > utilities, since dealing with the huge drop in demand at night is a big [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the resources used to build the garage? I think that is taking the > argument WAY far afield. I think it is also important to remember that there are also other energy costs than just the fuel used to run the cars, whether or not they are conventional cars or electric cars or some combination of the two. Personally, I think the plug-in hybrids are going to be a great thing. But, we must remember when the energy comes from electricity, ethanol or hydrogen, there is still a lot of fossil fuel used to make the final energy form and build the cars. Jeff > Yet, all the energy sources you mention decrease the amount of fossil > fuels burned. So if you're using the energy to charge a car, you can't > use the energy to decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned. > > So using electricity to power a car increases the amount of fossil fuel > used. So you're saying we should continue burning fossil fuels in cars, because if we used energy from another source, it would just take away from not burning fossil fuels somewhere else? My head is spinning trying to follow the circular logic. If it were an immutable law that a certain percent of electricity had to come from fossil fuels, then there might be a core of truth to that (though it's still more efficient to burn fossil fuels in power plants instead of millions of ICEs). But the reality is, as more alternative methods are developed, and the existing ones expanded, it's possible to move towards having electric power on the grid with little or no reliance on fossil fuel. > > Another strong point for electric is that the distribution > > infrastructure is already in place. If, for example, they ever get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And where does the hydrogen come from? Methane, which is then converted > to CO2. I think you missed my point... I was making an argument *against* hydrogen fuel cells, due to distribution issues (not to mention technology issues in building the fuel cells and generating the hydrogen, which currently takes *many* times more energy than the resulting fuel delivers.) Hey, Ali-G. How'd that SELF abuse thing work out for ya? Moron. ROFLMAO >> Yet, all the energy sources you mention decrease the amount of fossil >> fuels burned. So if you're using the energy to charge a car, you can't [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >hydrogen, which currently takes *many* times more energy than the >resulting fuel delivers.) >Yet, people are not talking about retrofitting gasoline cars with >batteries and electric motors. Actually, many are, just double click http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=electric+vehicle+garage* >And the car can also supply electricity back to the grid from the car's >battery, decreasing the extent to which inefficient generators are used >(and just charging the cars with the more efficient generators at night) >or alternatively, even run the motors, which may be more efficient than >some of the generators which would have to be started to keep up with >demand. Don't even bother to think such a thing with today's batteries, maybe in 10 years something like that could be tried, but on a local neighborhood basis. >Personally, I think the plug-in hybrids are going to be a great thing. >But, we must remember when the energy comes from electricity, ethanol or >hydrogen, there is still a lot of fossil fuel used to make the final >energy form and build the cars. >Jeff There better be more nuclear capacity built than plugin demand, else a lot of people will have to move south, or freeze, many people can't afford to run a central heating system to heat the whole house, and zoned electric heat is a way to reduce space heating costs where rates are less than 10 cents per kilowatt hour. >> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number >> of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > needed to make the batteries, not to mention the tires, engine and rest > of the car? MPG is worthless in this context. How about miles per *carbon credit*? And as for "infinity," what about a car which uses the energy it gains from going downhill, or downwind, to take water and carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and make gasoline out of them? Its MPG would hop from positive infinity to negative infinity, and then go up with increasing efficiency! (And of course, the heavier and less streamlined the car, the better!)  SignatureMarshall Price of Miami Known to Yahoo as d021317c >>> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a >>> number of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > (And of course, the heavier and less streamlined the car, the better!) What goes down must come up! Remember that converting fossil fuels to electricity, shipping it over the grid, storing and retrieving it and converting it to mechanical power is generally less efficient than shipping the fossil fuel direct and burning it in the car. It only makes any ecological sense if the electricity comes from renewables in the first place. The only advantage is the tax break, and how long before our governments start taxing electricity when used as a road fuel. I like the idea of converting regenerator power to gasoline. The best I can come up with is to generate electricity and use it to power a fluorescent light to grow some algae which you can refine into fuel. But it takes a lot of care to make sure you grow the right sort of algae, if your culture gets infested with the starchy sort like pond scum, you've lost the lot, unless you use that to feed carp, and run on fish oil as a biodiesel. Sorry, getting carried away. Tim Jackson (one of two - the www.tim-jackson.co.uk one) > And as for "infinity," what about a car which uses the energy it gains > from going downhill, or downwind, to take water and carbon dioxide out > of the atmosphere and make gasoline out of them? Its MPG would hop from > positive infinity to negative infinity, and then go up with increasing > efficiency! If it was possible to generate gasoline, or any fuel, out of thin air we wouldn't even know what OPEC was. We might as well have a discussion of the benefits of powering cars on happy thoughts. It could flash images of puppies and kittens in front of the driver when it needed an extra boost for going uphill. > >> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number > >> of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >And as for "infinity," what about a car which uses the energy it gains >from going downhill, or downwind, to take water and carbon dioxide out >>of the atmosphere and make gasoline out of them? Its MPG would hop from >positive infinity to negative infinity, and then go up with increasing >efficiency! Funny. I propose a car that plugs into the driver/passenger adipose tissue and makes fuel from that. . >In article <17b1abf0-c483-4035-88e4-75336b7638c7 >@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, zwestfall@gmail.com says... >> You should see the car I'm designing. It will get 3,750 MPG and >> deliver over 500 horsepower. It it self-cleaning and the Limited >> Edition will cook dinner for you. Concept pictures coming soon. AKA wife with saddle attachment > .. >> In article <17b1abf0-c483-4035-88e4-75336b7638c7 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > AKA wife with saddle attachment I never got that much horsepower out of mine.... > > .. > >> In article <17b1abf0-c483-4035-88e4-75336b7638c7 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I never got that much horsepower out of mine.... You could try getting the head skimmed ;-) > Yes it does. It all counts towards getting the most empg out of of > whatever fossil or synfuel, and thereby contributing the least per [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Range with part of the energy coming from an initial charge >> does not have anything to do with MPG. Over the road travel the Generator will use 1- 1.5gal of fuel per hour.... at 60 mph thats still only ~60 mpg... on a 10 hour trip you only get the first 30 miles or so on the over night charge. >> Yes it does. It all counts towards getting the most empg out of of >> whatever fossil or synfuel, and thereby contributing the least per [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >hour.... at 60 mph thats still only ~60 mpg... on a 10 hour trip you >only get the first 30 miles or so on the over night charge. True, although 60 mpg isn't bad. The big savings comes from the fact that most cars are driven only 30 to 40 miles per day starting at and returning to home where they could be charged overnight. If most of your driving is 10 hour trips, a plug-in probably isn't a good choice. > > Yes it does. It all counts towards getting the most empg out of of > > whatever fossil or synfuel, and thereby contributing the least per [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > hour.... at 60 mph thats still only ~60 mpg... on a 10 hour trip you > only get the first 30 miles or so on the over night charge. That's only because these hybrids are not using h2o2 plus fossil/ synfuel, and/or h2o2/aluminum as their fuel-cell/battery. - Brad Guth >Yes it does. It all counts towards getting the most empg out of of >whatever fossil or synfuel, and thereby contributing the least per >mile CO2 and NOx I agree 100 percent, any way to reduce oil imports (to any country) is the most important economical situation ever to face the world. >into our badly polluted environment. It's a win-win, >not half bad looking and affordable. >- Brad Guth The environment is not badly polluted, but certain cities or areas are, and those places are where Electric Vehicles should be the only kind sold. Even with an emergency generator on the back to use if batteries get low enough to damage them would be ok, the fact that any Electric Vehicle gets at least double the mileage the old clunkers get is reason enough for places like Los Angeles County in California to pass legislation to that effect. > >Yes it does. It all counts towards getting the most empg out of of > >whatever fossil or synfuel, and thereby contributing the least per [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > or areas are, and those places are where Electric Vehicles should > be the only kind sold. You obviously haven't spoken to a diatom as of lately. They don't exactly thrive on NOx. > Even with an emergency generator on the back to use > if batteries get low enough to damage them would be ok, the > fact that any Electric Vehicle gets at least double the mileage > the old clunkers get is reason enough for places like Los Angeles > County in California to pass legislation to that effect. There are great improvements in batteries or fuel-cell energy density capability, and h2o2 + fossil/synfuel is offering another terrific do- everything solution of zero NOx. - Brad Guth |
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.