Hybrid or Diesel

Dipstik- that I can get behind. It just threw me cause again, there already are more efficient designs out there for some things.

Another similar angle to consider is that while a hybrid car is arguably better for the environment (agian, they still don't get theat incredible a mileage), they are by no means "good" for the environment. Each one of those things represents a massive committment to consumption on one's part. Now, I know you have to live life on a continuum and all but I see hybrids as just marginally better than other tech.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is cool that they're doing it and I know it makes people "feel good" but I am pissed at how they're doing it. Again, IMHO they'd be already turning out 100+mpg hybrid cars if they were using diesel for the genset.

[trivia: one of the prime drivers behind diesel/electric in locomotives is that putting god knows how many pony's to the rails through a conventional engine/tranny would tear the tranny right the hell apart.]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dipstik
My point is that it's pretty worthless, right now , to go and blow $20,000 on a hybrid car. The impact you make on the environment would be so minor. There needs to be global acceptance of these hybrid cars for them to have any effect on air pollution, and as I see it, that's not going to happen for awhile.

The few tree huggers that buy these things are not going to save the world, there needs to be major acceptance everywhere. I figure you need at least a 1/4 of the world to be driving these things before you see any satisfactory difference in air quality.

---

Let me get this straight. No one should buy a hybrid vehicle unless they can go to the dealership with 1.25 billion friends and all buy them at once?

By that argument, I might as well continue to drive my gross polluter 5 miles to work instead of taking public transportation or riding a bike, since everyone else in LA is also driving. Or for that matter why should we bother to try to reduce emissions from American factories since factories in third world countries are belching smoke 24/7.

Your agument is idiotic. Change DOES start with a small number of people. I never would have considered buying an electric car, since I never saw them out on the roads. However, I see a couple of Priuses (what's the plural of Prius?) everyday on the way to work. The people driving them are cruising along at regular freeway speeds and don't seem to have issues merging. Because of this, I've started to think of the Prius as a reasonable car for everyday commuting. I don't know how many of the hybrids are out on the LA freeways, but it was enough to change my mind about their usefulness. I would assume that other people are also having their minds changed, since there is a 3 - 6 month waiting list for the Prius (of course this is LA, and lots of people are buying them just because it's the latest "trendy" car).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AntiSoCalSkier
Let me get this straight. No one should buy a hybrid vehicle unless they can go to the dealership with 1.25 billion friends and all buy them at once?

By that argument, I might as well continue to drive my gross polluter 5 miles to work instead of taking public transportation or riding a bike, since everyone else in LA is also driving. Or for that matter why should we bother to try to reduce emissions from American factories since factories in third world countries are belching smoke 24/7.

Your agument is idiotic. Change DOES start with a small number of people. I never would have considered buying an electric car, since I never saw them out on the roads. However, I see a couple of Priuses (what's the plural of Prius?) everyday on the way to work. The people driving them are cruising along at regular freeway speeds and don't seem to have issues merging. Because of this, I've started to think of the Prius as a reasonable car for everyday commuting. I don't know how many of the hybrids are out on the LA freeways, but it was enough to change my mind about their usefulness. I would assume that other people are also having their minds changed, since there is a 3 - 6 month waiting list for the Prius (of course this is LA, and lots of people are buying them just because it's the latest "trendy" car).

---

The point was that if you have $20,000 to blow on a hybrid then go for it, and feel good about it. (you should) What I'm saying though is that it is going to take a lot more than a hollywood trend to get people driving these things. You could have every celebrity wanker in the world driving these but the effect would be so minimal that it would not make a difference. We need better than hybrid, because as I stated before the hybrids are better, but not that much better. Don't let the word hybrid fool you, the things still run on gasoline.

If your ultimate goal is to reduce air pollution you need to get these cars out to a mass of people, not just a few. For every person that I can name that has the cash to go out and buy one of these new cars, I can name 5 that don't. Also, as I stated before, you need more efficient engines in planes too, because planes are a big contributor to air pollution.

edit: yes change does start with a small number of people, but how many nature loving anti-global warming (for purposes of snow) maggots do you know that own a hybrid? One? Maybe two?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dipstik
What I'm saying though is that it is going to take a lot more than a hollywood trend to get people driving these things.

---

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.

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.