Hybrid or Diesel

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AK G-Dog
Here is one thing I will NEVER understand, maybe the more environmentally savvy will know.

I always see emissions measured in pounds. Thousands of pounds in reference to the Excursion. So you mean to tell me, if you left an Excursion running in a vacuum for 1 year, at the end of that year there would be a gigantic pile of emissions sitting there? By these estimates shouldn't the roads have piles upon piles of emissions lining their sides? I mean, I see a lot of SUVs on the roads these days.

Another thing, how many miles should you expect to get out of a hybrid before it needs to be replaced? Diesel engines get 100s of thousands of miles out of them and keep on ticking. I doubt it is safe to assume a hybrid will get those kinds of results.

What about used oil? The newer diesels require the oil to be changed once a year (Cummins recommends 15,000 miles). That would be 3 gallons of used oil per year. A hybrid would require more frequent oil changes resulting in about 5 gallons of oil per year (5 quarts 4 times a year). That is 60% more oil per year, by my calculations.

---

First: emissions measured in pounds.

See the yellow haze on the skyline? That pollution (gas) has weight, measured in barometric pressure. Think how much 7000 pounds of Carbon Dioxide actually is (Air weighs 1.184 grams/liter in normal conditions).

Second: hybrid tech is still new in autos. It's not going to last as long as a soild disel. (side note: Don't buy first generation ford technology. EVER. Too many horror stories)

Third: Compare apples to apples man. A hybrid motor is tiny, new, and would require oil to be changed just as often as and other new tiny motor car (7,000 miles or so), and it proably only takes around 3 quarts (even if you did change every 3k, they're equal)

And as for everything else in here, don't get me started. I've spent too much time researching this shit. Some highlights:

• Biodiesel is fucking terrible for the environment, think about all the farm pollution (and everything else associated with that) required to make one gallon of fuel, then nod your heads
• Electric cars (battery) will suck until we figure out something better then Lithium
• America needs to get r/d behind diesel emissions and clean up diesel #2. The rest of the world already has.
• Hybrids are a good first step, they would benefit from a diesel. The new prius looks sweet, and don't knock them until you've driven in one.
• Fuel cells are closer than everyone thinks. Start investing in hydrogen people.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Plakespear
Really? I see a lot more Hummers on the roads than hybrids, and the only reason people outside the military started to buy them was because Shwarzenegger and Bruce Wills were driving them around. And unless you live in the West Bank or Kabul, I can't think of any real legitimite reason to buy one.

---

like I said, if you have money to burn then you buy these kinds of cars. Some buy the hybrids, some buy the hummers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Plakespear
Really? I see a lot more Hummers on the roads than hybrids, and the only reason people outside the military started to buy them was because Shwarzenegger and Bruce Wills were driving them around. And unless you live in the West Bank or Kabul, I can't think of any real legitimite reason to buy one.

---

Toyota forecasts to sell more Prius's this year (47,000) than GM does Hummers (24,000)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096191/
But then, at $20k the Prius is fairly practical (after all it's only several $k more than a comparable small car), whereas at $50k the Hummer is all about showing off.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Greydon Clark
Diesel. You can righteously apply a "Bio-Diesel: No War Needed" bumper sticker to your vehicle.

I drive a VW Golf TDI and get 50 MPG. The car has a reasonable amount of power.

---

You can add an Upsolte chhip to it and get about 40% more hp/torque and increase your mileage at te same time.

BTW: a Lupo as talked about earlier is not availible in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by midget
You can add an Upsolte chhip to it and get about 40% more hp/torque and increase your mileage at te same time.

BTW: a Lupo as talked about earlier is not availible in the US.

---

WTF is a lupo?

lupo

Another point for those waiting for fuel cell technology - while fuel cells are cleaner on the roadway, don't forget that a fuel cell is essentially a hydrogen battery. The hydrogen is produced by electricity, which comes from coal, hydroelectric or nuclear in most cases; with all the resulting problems.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by grrrr
Another point for those waiting for fuel cell technology - while fuel cells are cleaner on the roadway, don't forget that a fuel cell is essentially a hydrogen battery. The hydrogen is produced by electricity, which comes from coal, hydroelectric or nuclear in most cases; with all the resulting problems.

---

Excellent point, but the whole efficiency scheme from power generation down to end use of hydrogen in the vehicle is about equal to the amount of pollution generated by a new internal combustion motor (I forgot if this stat was based on a modern coal or natural gas fired plant). This will obviously improve as we improve our hydrogen capturing technology and continue to clean up power generation and/or use renewable energy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DJSapp
Excellent point, but the whole efficiency scheme from power generation down to end use of hydrogen in the vehicle is about equal to the amount of pollution generated by a new internal combustion motor (I forgot if this stat was based on a modern coal or natural gas fired plant). This will obviously improve as we improve our hydrogen capturing technology and continue to clean up power generation and/or use renewable energy.

---

Sorry, I think hydrogen fuel cells are a non-starter and will never reach production. Hydrogen isn't an energy source on Earth because it has to be manufactured. So hydrogen is a way to store and transport energy and the energy you expend to make it exceeds what you get back (by quite a bit). Batteries still do a better job of storing and releasing energy and until fuels cells have a clear advantage they'll stay in the lab.

Bio-diesel will happen before fuel cells since the engines and manufacturing processes already exist. In some place you can buy 100% bio-diesel and, depending on the manufacturer and time of year it can be cheaper than oil-diesel. The first diesel ran on peanut oil.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cj001f
Toyota forecasts to sell more Prius's this year (47,000) than GM does Hummers (24,000)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096191/
But then, at $20k the Prius is fairly practical (after all it's only several $k more than a comparable small car), whereas at $50k the Hummer is all about showing off.

---

I think there's also a good possibility that people notice Hummers more than any little hybrid car, so perceptions of the ratio may be off.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snow Dog
Sorry, I think hydrogen fuel cells are a non-starter and will never reach production. Hydrogen isn't an energy source on Earth because it has to be manufactured. So hydrogen is a way to store and transport energy and the energy you expend to make it exceeds what you get back (by quite a bit).

---

Just wondering how much energy is required to produce, refine, and transport a gallon of gasoline. I mean, you can't just pull your Dodge Dart up to a Kuwaiti oil well and fill up your tank with unleaded.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Plakespear
Just wondering how much energy is required to produce, refine, and transport a gallon of gasoline. I mean, you can't just pull your Dodge Dart up to a Kuwaiti oil well and fill up your tank with unleaded.

---

True enough but oil has a lot of latent energy -- enough to "pay" for refining and transporting and still have energy to burn.

I don't know about bio-diesel but with alcohol the energy used to plant, grow, harvest, ferment, and refine the alcohol exceeds the energy you get back.

Snow dog - Hydrogen is released from water by passing an electrical current through it. The amount of energy required to break the hydrogen-oxygen bond is exactly the same amount of energy that is generated when the hydrogen is oxidized. The inefficiencies exist in the vehicle power plant and in the production, distribution and transmission of the electricity.

A fuel cell vehicle is more efficient than a hydrogen fueled vehicle, because it is a hybrid design - using the hydrogen to produce electricty, rather than "burning" the hydrogen to produce thrust, the basic principle behind the internal combustion engine. Gasoline engines are far less efficient because a) they burn fuel even when the vehicle is stopped, and b) because they do not burn the fuel completely. This also means the release of fractional hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, which are pollutants.

The inefficiencies of electricity production are something we need to solve regardless of the use of fuel cell vehicles.

In reagards to the "latent energy" of oil, if you were to take the energy required to grow the plants, compost them, squeeze them under the ground for millions of years, then the energy used to produce the oil is far far greater than the chemical energy stored in the gasoline. Yes, the energy is already expended, but the supply is limited, and it is not a clean energy source.

Fuel cell cars are not a "non starter". They are already in limited production, with the first car Honda fuel cell vehicle in this country delivered to the City of LA. They are already being sold in other countries where the price of fuel is higher.

Hydrogen and nuke or wind powder go together rather well as you could produce hydrogen during grid off peak hours so you could run your nuke at 100% 24/7.

Though right now hydrogen production on an industrial scale uses natural gas rather than elec. I'm not sure if its do to capital or operating costs. Could be that natual gas used to be cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snow Dog
Sorry, I think hydrogen fuel cells are a non-starter and will never reach production. Hydrogen isn't an energy source on Earth because it has to be manufactured. So hydrogen is a way to store and transport energy and the energy you expend to make it exceeds what you get back (by quite a bit). Batteries still do a better job of storing and releasing energy and until fuels cells have a clear advantage they'll stay in the lab.

Bio-diesel will happen before fuel cells since the engines and manufacturing processes already exist. In some place you can buy 100% bio-diesel and, depending on the manufacturer and time of year it can be cheaper than oil-diesel. The first diesel ran on peanut oil.

---

Snowdog, the fact that hydrogen isn't an energy source is the exact reason why it will be sucessful. Plans for hydrogen pipeline and distribution networks are already being thought up. It IS more efficient than batteries due to HIGHER energy recovery rate (up to 70% with superhigh temp fuel cells, 30-40% with temp operating range ok for vehicles) and easier than oil since a local hydrogen supply can be built anywhere there is water (i.e. hydrogen factories). No more war over energy. No 2-8 hour recharges for 45 minutes of driving. Everything we love about gas with less pollution and without war.

grrr-- The amount of energy put into water does not equal the energy you recover from hydrogen. I can't find my source right now, but I believe it's closer to 75%. There are problems and inefficiencies with the recovery in the reaction chamber. Also, fuel cell vehicles are fully electric vehicles. No internal combustion engine at all. Just the fuel cell as an electricity supply. ICE's are limited due to the Carnot efficiency (take a thermodynamics class, I'm not going to explain) and at best can get around 50% of energy back.

DougW-- Running the plants at peak 24/7 is exactly right. The best efficiency, all the time.

And for the last time everyone please eradicate bio-diesel from your thought process. If you want to save the environment, run your car off of a coal fired engine. IT WILL BE CLEANER THAN RUNNING OFF OF BIO DIESEL. American farming practices are so fucking destructive to the soil, water and air, and everyone looks over it when they say "Hey, all this corn can run my car? And it's a little cleaner than normal diesel? Awesome!" The politics of American farming are equally as bad as the pollution they put out. Corn is a nightmare.

I've spent way too long taking energy classes and doing research to even listen to ignorant people sing the 'praises' of bio-diesel.

DJ is right on the BIO. All it is, is a way to further subsidize farmers. if that's possible.

The way I look at it is that hydrogen and electricity are both energy conduits as opposed to fossil fuels, wind , hydro, nuke, coal, solar etc which are sources. The question is the economy of the future going to be elec/hydrogen or strictly electrical in 50 years. Its to me strictly an technology question of what works out best.

Power density from whatever storage device you have is the key for transportation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DJSapp
American farming practices are so fucking destructive to the soil, water and air

---

Stupid question...don't some biodiesel producers/co-ops use leftovers from restaurants, etc.?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 365wp
Stupid question...don't some biodiesel producers/co-ops use leftovers from restaurants, etc.?

---

Some definitely do, in which case it's like "free" energy. No ideas on a percentage scale. There was an article in Car & Driver a few months back about a kit to convert your diesel to run on the oil McD's and such throw out of the deep fryer. Had to heat it up, do some filtering (!), but one guy had 100k+ miles w/ no problems.

I saw a post on a diesel forum where a guy was running used fryer oil in his F350. He started & stopped his truck with regular diesel fuel but once it was warmed up a bit he flipped to the fryer tank. The reason he started on diesel was because the fryer oil doesn't burn worth a shit if it is cold. He ran on diesel for a couple minutes to purge the system so his next start would be easier. He said it ran just as well on fryer oil as it did on diesel.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DJSapp
grrr-- The amount of energy put into water does not equal the energy you recover from hydrogen. I can't find my source right now, but I believe it's closer to 75%.

---

I was specifically referring to the efficiency of the chemical process. The amount of energy it takes to seperate hydrogen from water is the same as the energy released when it burns. Yes, there is inefficiency in the fuel cell, just as in any other process, where fuel is lost to the environment, or converted to waste heat, etc.

Overall, the concept is still among the best out there. The real concern is still the energy going into the hydrogen production. Obviously, the sooner we can move toward solar or wind electric powered seperation plants, the sooner we move toward a 100% clean transportation system. In the meantime, coal, hydroelectric and nuclear all have major drawbacks.

Now how much fryer oil is left over? Won't it make sense to tap an even bigger source of free energy that will probably never be used. Fat people! Just have a large scale fat sucking operation at all McDonalds. Just have the fat people sit in chairs that sucks the fat out of them and send it to the Fat Station next door where it is processed and available at the pumps. "I'll take 20 gal of hi test fat chick please"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Beaver
I saw a post on a diesel forum where a guy was running used fryer oil in his F350.

---

So the new bumper stickers will read "Eat McDonalds and be green"?

I wonder if it smelled like fries behind his truck.

I think it is eat McDonalds and be soylent green

:D :D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DJSapp
Snowdog, the fact that hydrogen isn't an energy source is the exact reason why it will be sucessful. Plans for hydrogen pipeline and distribution networks are already being thought up. It IS more efficient than batteries due to HIGHER energy recovery rate (up to 70% with superhigh temp fuel cells, 30-40% with temp operating range ok for vehicles) and easier than oil since a local hydrogen supply can be built anywhere there is water (i.e. hydrogen factories). No more war over energy. No 2-8 hour recharges for 45 minutes of driving. Everything we love about gas with less pollution and without war.

grrr-- The amount of energy put into water does not equal the energy you recover from hydrogen. I can't find my source right now, but I believe it's closer to 75%. There are problems and inefficiencies with the recovery in the reaction chamber. Also, fuel cell vehicles are fully electric vehicles. No internal combustion engine at all. Just the fuel cell as an electricity supply. ICE's are limited due to the Carnot efficiency (take a thermodynamics class, I'm not going to explain) and at best can get around 50% of energy back.

DougW-- Running the plants at peak 24/7 is exactly right. The best efficiency, all the time.

And for the last time everyone please eradicate bio-diesel from your thought process. If you want to save the environment, run your car off of a coal fired engine. IT WILL BE CLEANER THAN RUNNING OFF OF BIO DIESEL. American farming practices are so fucking destructive to the soil, water and air, and everyone looks over it when they say "Hey, all this corn can run my car? And it's a little cleaner than normal diesel? Awesome!" The politics of American farming are equally as bad as the pollution they put out. Corn is a nightmare.

I've spent way too long taking energy classes and doing research to even listen to ignorant people sing the 'praises' of bio-diesel.

---

The whole idea of hydrogen fuel cells is way cool but I still think it's overrated. They've had "hydrogen fuel cell" busss in my neighbourhood (Vancouver) for 10-15 years. In reality it uses natural gas and refactors it into hydrogen for the fuel cell. I found this report (because everything you read on the Internet is true) about the efficiencies of some technologies from the European Fuel Cell Forum.
In summary:
The power plant to wheel efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle operates on compressed gaseous hydrogen is 22%.

The power plant to wheel efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle operates on liquid hydrogen is 17%.

The power plant to wheel efficiency of an advanced Diesel is 25%.

The power plant to wheel efficiency of a hybrid solid oxide fuel cell-Dielsel is 33%.

The power plant to wheel efficiency of an electric vehicle is 66%.

Electric commuter car for those who work and Diesel for road trips. Plus bio-Diesel smells like popcorn (really).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dipstik

these cars produce less polluction, but not that much less. A regular gas guzzling honda civic puts out 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide for every 12,500 miles it drives. The hybrid honda civic puts out 5,000. Say you only drive 12,500 miles a year, and say both cars have an expected life of 10 years. After these 10 years, the regular car will have put out 70,000 pounds of carbon dioxcide, and the hyrbid will have put out 50,000. Sure it's a lot less, but like I said before, not that much less.

---

You are not educated enough on this topic to say that 20,000 lbs of CO2 is not significant. Just a hint 20,000 pounds of CO2 x number of cars in the world = ?

Good job comparing one car to thousands of plane trips a day. I really got a laugh out of that one.

Well, after reading all of this thread, I'm just going to quote Buster.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
The magnions should offer a "hot air" powered car.

---