 |
|
« Overhauling an Ancient Subway System | Main | Mixer Maker Puts the Fix in the Mix »
April 12, 2005
Hybrid Cars Get "Green-Tuned"
The no-plug-in-needed feature of the new gas-electric cars is supposed to be a good thing. But many enthusiasts are "rewiring" their cars claiming to get up to 180 mpg. How are automakers responding to such remodeling?
The concept of plug-in gas-electric cars has already gained the support of diverse groups, from conservatives and environmentalists, who look to fuel efficiency as a central issue in bolstering national security and preventing climate change, to utilities, who are eager to oust oil in favor of electricity. Plugging in a hybrid overnight--at any electrical outlet--would allow users to consume dramatically less gas by running on battery power alone for long stretches. Additionally, car owners wouldn't have to plug them in unless they want to, unlike purely electric cars that require frequent, time-consuming recharging. And since most of the charging up would occur off-hours, power plant efficiency would actually increase since plants can't just shut down at night when demand takes a nosedive.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) are especially promising because many contend they may be able to stem the growth of oil imports and even put a dent on consumption. In comparison, conventional hybrid electric cars, while gas-saving, are expected to ease the growth rate of oil imports only slightly, at best, given the growth projections for oil consumption.
For the potential to truly curb oil imports and fuel consumption, automakers have long looked to hydrogen-fuel-cell powered cars. But they face many roadblocks, including infrastructure issues, and may not be prepared to take the road for decades. In contrast, plug-in proponents point out that PHEV technology is available now. In fact, enthusiasts are already building such cars in their garages by adding more batteries and a plug to conventional hybrids. (Be warned that tinkering with your Prius will likely void Toyota's warranty).
"I've gotten anywhere from 65 to over 100 miles per gallon," Ron Gremban, an engineer at CalCars, a small nonprofit group based in Palo Alto, California, tells The New York Times. In comparison, Gremban gets 40 to 45 miles per gallon on his unmodified Toyota Prius. Meanwhile, EnergyCS, a small company that has worked with CalCars, has converted another Prius, installing more sophisticated batteries. They say they get an astounding 180 miles per gallon and can go for more than 30 miles on battery power alone.
In fact, these plug-in hybrids can travel about 20-60 miles on electric power. That means that many people could stay away from the filling station for months, given that most Americans drive fewer than 30 miles a day. "The only time you would have to gas up is when you go out of town," says Felix Kramer, CalCars founder. And if you use a blend of gasoline and biofuels such as ethanol for the internal combustion engine, you could be nearly eliminating oil products. "That changes the world," says Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy.
Some companies are already working to capitalize on PHEV technology. EnergyCS, who "green-tuned" the Prius by replacing its 1.3-kilowatt-hour nickel metal hydride battery with an advanced 9-kWh lithium ion battery pack, would like to market conversion kits, weighing about 170 lbs., to Prius owners. Additionally, large companies are exploring plug-in technology. DaimlerChrysler, for instance, is crafting a fleet of up to 40 PHEV delivery vans--a project sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute, several utilities, government agencies and the carmaker itself. The vans will start undergoing tests this year.
But Prius manufacturer Toyota Motor Corp. isn't too keen on the idea--yet. "We keep looking at the concept, and at some point it might be feasible, but it isn't there yet," David Hermance, Toyota's executive engineer for environmental engineering, tells BusinessWeek. Even DaimlerChrysler is not exactly rushing into plug-ins, saying that its first hybrid models will be conventional--with plug-ins as possible options down the line.
Hybrid tinkerers like Andrew A. Frank, a University of California at Davis professor who has built a number of plug-in cars, are frustrated by automakers stalling on plug-ins. "The simple answer is that they don't want to change what they are making," he tells BusinessWeek. Another roadblock--it remains uncertain how much extra people are willing to pay for the cars. Hybrids already add $2,000 to $5,000 more to production costs, and the larger batteries for plug-ins would mean several thousands of dollars on top of that. These more advanced batteries also take up more space and add several hundred pounds.
Advocates point out that costs will go down with high-volume production, but the investment necessary for mass production represents a huge risk, especially with the availability of other higher fuel efficiency systems, including advanced diesels and upgraded gasoline or hydrogen engines. "All these technologies are great. But there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty," says David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research. For instance, it's not known if gas prices will increase enough to stimulate demand for high-mileage cars.
Still, plug-ins are winning support from high levels. For instance, the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy made plug-ins a key component of its energy strategy last December. And the Set America Free coalition, a group of conservatives and environmentalists, is lobbying for $2 billion in incentives, asserting that "if all cars on the road are hybrids and half are plug-in hybrid vehicles, U.S. oil imports would drop by 8 million barrels per day."
Sources:
Giving Hybrids A Real Jolt
John Carey
BusinessWeek, April 11, 2005
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_15/b3928103.htm
Hybrid-Car Tinkerers Scoff at No-Plug-In Rule
Danny Hakim
The New York Times, April 2, 2005
www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/business/02plug.html?incamp=article_popular_5
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
87 CommentsPHEV transportation is all well and good. However, one must look to the source of the electricity. If the power comes from a hydo dam or a coal fueled power plant what is into environmental costs? Just because the car does not have to go to the pump or emitting hydrocarbon, does not mean that it is clean transportation. The fact is that Work involves the use of Energy and to generate the power there is a cost. Until we stop trying to change or fix the existing problems with transportation and shift totally to a new paradigm, we are only perpetuating the problems. Efficiency and cooperative source generation is perhaps a good start. But lets not delude ourselves in to thinking or believing that this "problem" is solved. I suggest that we start thinking about the entire energy net and how we allocate and manage the use of it.
A good place to get some ideas is to watch Death of Suburbia….
Excellent article with a lot of info and hope for efficiency in the car industry. I hope car manufacturers pay attention and get the USA free from oil inmports. The Usa would excell in every technological endeavor.
April 12, 2005 3:13 PMWhat about a vehicle that not only is a plug in hybrid, but is modified to double as a emergency or portable generator?
April 12, 2005 3:39 PMI would like to see an analysis of the total cost of vehicle operation with the plug-in option. How much electricity is needed to charge the batteries? Surely the power companies are more efficient at generating electricity than a gasoline hybrid engine, but then there's transportation cost, transformer efficiencies, etc. that affect the total dollars and total energy usage. Which is truly more efficient, powering the vehicle with a plug in the wall or from the gas pump?
This is obviously not a "solution" to the problem of using a finite resource - oil - but it is a step in the direction we must be moving, toward a society less dependent on oil.
April 12, 2005 4:02 PMWhy must it be all or nothing? Plug in the existing hybrid's batteries just as they are. When they are fully charged so be it. Whether one gets 30 miles before the gas engine kicks in with extra large batteries installed or only 10 miles from the stock sized batteries surely it all helps toward the final goal of fueling up at the pump less frequently.
April 12, 2005 4:17 PMI think that the real solution is the hydrogen fuel cell. There are no residual polutants.
Everyone is forgetting that the electrical utility company uses fossil fuels to generate the electricity and nuclear fuel is a serious ecological hazard.
Early gasoline engine automobiles were quite inefficient compared to todays standards. We as a nation didn't say "well maybe this isn't the technology of the future" "Maybe we shouldn't ""risk"" the capital to fund such an industry" Look where we'd be today. Fuel injection was a breakthrough from the advancement of these engines. Now it's over shadowed. But look what happened with dedication to advancement. The other new technologies are going to have to endure the same thing!!!
The real problem today is too many really smart people are too smart to take that risk anymore!!! I fear for my children's future "really". I don't worry about mine.
We need to find the best and quickest potential path around gasoline and get it on the road. Conservative or Liberal aside!!
The first place to start the road testing is fleet vehicles. Vehicles that start up in the morning, leave a terminal and run all day. Like UPS & Fedex delivery vans, etc... Mandate these vehicles to prototype the technology. They will log countless test miles and save pollution/energy right away. How does that go "there's power in numbers".
I can about gaurantee that if it's not the true answer. It will at least be a valuable tool that did something good. And it may lead the way to a more reliable way of transportation from the attention given. If they leave it in the garage and leave the cost high then it's already failing.
If electric is ready and "safe"! Put it to work!!!
This may prompt the hydrogen technology to %$#( or get off the pot (figuratively speaking) :-)
What's wrong with a little competition. It built this Nation!!!!
Sincerely,
Randall T. Eddy
April 12, 2005 4:24 PMAny college freshman or sophmore technology student understands the concept of work in the physical sense. PHEV, fuels cells etc.are not cost free technologies. The true cost is defined in the output/input energy expense ratio.
Although many of these stated or "hot button" technologies have great PR appeal in the world of media speak, any thoughtful person will understand that designs based on the laws of physics are not "free" and each technology will have to stand on its own merits.
April 12, 2005 4:36 PM"I think that the real solution is the hydrogen fuel cell. There are no residual polutants.
Everyone is forgetting that the electrical utility company uses fossil fuels to generate the electricity and nuclear fuel is a serious ecological hazard."
It is irresponsible comments like this that destroys our nation and keeps parroting the "ecological hazard" lunacy! All products of nuclear reactors can be reduced to harmless substgances with the technology we have today! Yet idiots still come to the discussion table learning diabled as ever and thus the real solution can never be implemented. Yes we need all sorts of ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but there is only one that can do the job in the best way known to this world, and that is nuclear power. Then when you charge your hybrid, there is no polution of the air period. Whether you like it or not, this is a fact. Learning disabilities abound in this nation and the few of us who understand this have already taken steps to cut fuel to an absolute minimum. Meantime anyone who doesn't want nuclear power has no need to post here!
April 12, 2005 5:13 PMI wonder how many of the people entering comments own SUV's?
April 12, 2005 5:26 PMIntersting idea. Need to do analysis to see where gas / electric utilities / bigger battery packs cross lines economically. Even if costs were slightly higher it could be justified by keeping that money in US.
Perhaps ultilities could be encouraged to discount power to auto folks recharging between 7:00 PM and 7:00AM. and on weekends. Sort like the cell phone folks do
April 12, 2005 5:45 PMVery interesting topic and comments. Is the Battery market ready to support the future needs?
April 12, 2005 6:18 PMIf the state of California got all of its agencies and political sub-divisions (cities, counties, special districts, school districts, higher education) to determine how many fleet vehicles are needed and replaced each year, we could probably get a Prius assembly plant built in the state to satisfy the (guananteed) demand. These are tax dollars being spent anyway as all of these agencies have fleet cars for transportation of personnel. The state could start by requiring the plug option. If we were to require the gasoline engine be replaced with a small efficient diesel, we could then convert to biodiesel. Biodiesel could be subsidized by petrodiesel sales until the quantities sold equalize. Biodiesel will just cycle the carbon load between states using the sun to regenerate the fuel when the economy reaches a steady state. More jobs for farmers, instate refinery jobs will help the local economy.
April 12, 2005 6:19 PMInteresting article. I have a comment for Ed, who seems to be intent on attacking other people's suggestions. Nuclear power is clean in the short term, but it carries many other obvious risks that cannot be ignored.
Back to topic...a stationary hydrogen fuel cell can supply the needed electricity to small communities, which is in line with our current model of building in America. Subdevelopments, and municipalities can install fuel cell with a reasonable distribution system for the hydrogen and power their homes, businesses and gas-electric hybrid cars. Hydrogen extraction can be coal, CNG, hydro or nuclear driven at the plant level. Coupled with other technolgies (solar, etc.) we can become much less dependant on oil as a primary source of consumable fuel.
April 12, 2005 6:43 PMDig the bicycle out of the garage, most of you don't live far enough away from your job to justify driving and that my friend takes only a carrot a day. You get wet and cold at times, but that only makes you appreciate the fact that you have a warm dry place to go. At 65 I do it every day rain or shine, and year round I do take the bus on icy days, that is if they run. JK
April 12, 2005 8:58 PMSeeing that we have hev's already and there is going to be a wait for hydrogen we should develop
phev's to thier fullest.
We also need to keep developing all our technoligies.
My hats off to all the smart people trying to make this better
As some of previous people mentioned, when converting one form of energy to another some of the energy is lost. So your not paying at the pump and you can plug it in; wait until you get your electric bill. Wait until you have to reclaim the batteries. The other day I was driving an old military truck that is governed at 55 mph down the interstate and I passed a Toyota Prius. The small size, lack of performance and cost will keep me from rushing to the dealership to buy one. And, I'm a guy who is totally convinced that we need to end our dependance on foreign oil. We need to stop wasting time developing something that is ultimately going to rely on a hydocarbon. Push the issue of developing a hydrogen powered vehicle. The infrastructure you say? Before the automobile the infrastructure was suited to horses. Entreprenuers like Rockefeller pushed the development of an oil based infrastructure. And doggone him, he made a killing and controlled a monopoly. Its nothing that anti-trust legislation didn't fix. Once the basis was set, competition eventually moved in. Sounds like a good investment opportunity if someone is willing to say "This is what I want". Heck, I'd do it if I had a little money to back me. But, I'm just a poor rural boy. Maybe, if the right individual steps up and seizes the opportunity, the five big oil companies will have to re-evaluate their stance in the paradigm they have us stuck in. If you can provide an alternative with enough power to move the military, I'm sure the government will jump on board.
April 12, 2005 10:45 PMWhat about plugging into a solar cell and letting the sun pay for some of this energy and mileage instead of getting a larger electric bill each month and still using fossil fuels as much as we did?
April 12, 2005 11:16 PMHybrids will be a reality, are environmentally clean not by comparison! But let us not forget the reality about the environment we live in today; is it fair, one should ask, to think in terms of percentages of how much hydrocarbons gets into homes, in cars, in computers, in almost every thing? what does it take to clean it all up? perhaps science will - as recycling does not -and to be more precise, genetic engineering. just give it time: it helps.
April 12, 2005 11:22 PMCorn energy cost less than coal and is clean.
Corn ethanol cleans up gasolene at 90/10.
Soybean methanol cleans up diesel as biodiesel 80/20.
Coal generates electricity and can be clean as at Tenn Eastman, Kingsport. There is a known 500+ yr supply of coal in America.
Why are we even having this discussion?
About 10 years ago, Germany was touting the fly wheel. They had a bus that could complete its 18 mile route on one rev-up of the flywheel. Is this technology dead, or does it cost as much to bring the wheel up to speed as it does to put a diesel engine in?
April 13, 2005 10:17 AMReplacing gasoline will not be an easy task. the alternatives often rely on oil anyway. Hydrogen fuel cells sound good, but they need to get the hydrogen from somewhere. Oil is the only cheap source of that hydrogen. Nuclear is not clean. The flap over Yucca Mountain ought to dispel the myth about easily dealing with nuclear waste. Bio sources are probably the best, but have a host of problems on their own. I would have to say that plug in hybrids at least can use electricity that is otherwise going to waste, if you plug them in at night. I currently ride my bicycle whenever I can. It is easier than you might think.
April 13, 2005 10:44 AMRunning automobiles on ethanol alcohol is the fastest and least expensive solution. This can easily replace gasoline. As for diesels, vegetable oil.
April 13, 2005 12:26 PMSome of the commentors were asking about the cost of electric operation:
Assuming 45 mpg on gas, 200 Watthours per mile on electric, $2.50 per gallon gas, and 10 cents per KWhr. Cost works out to 5.5 cents per mile on gas, and 2 cents per mile on electicity.
Electricity is less than half the cost. Savings would be even higher for trading in a gas guzzler for a pluggable hybrid.
So, unless you have absurdly cheap gas and rediculously expensive electricity, the Pluggable Hybrid option will save money, as well as petroleum.
April 13, 2005 3:49 PMI find it interesting that when a simple soloution is in clear sight the GREED in the manufacturing sector goes into overdrive. Like the drug companies keeping us on drugs forever to keep their pockets full the auto industry will likewise keep us driving what they want us to drive. In order for their profits to be what they want they will drag their feet until there is no more oil to exploit.
If OUR government got off its A%# it would simply legislate that as of 2010 any vehicle produced will run on hydrogen or biodiesel. The technology exists today to do it now. The big holdup is that everyone wants to go to a more expensive system of fuel cell production which will take a little more time, but all fossil fuel vehicles can be converted to hydrogen today as you read this.
So the answer really is simple, convert this nation back to one that can do instead of compromising all the time and keeping those who want us dead richer than they deserve.
April 13, 2005 5:40 PMWhy can't we be working on straight alcohol burning cars. The conversion would be doable on any existing automobile. Alcohol can be made from any furmentable vegtable and it burns very clean. During the old oil embargo, I ran a "63 Corvette on fifty, fifty alcohol, gasoline with no ill effects without making any alterations to the car.
April 13, 2005 6:02 PMThe options:
Fossil fuels: Dirty and we don't have an endless supply, Arabs are already way to arrogant.
Electric: Batteries don't last forever, they must be re-charged and dragging extension cords on the highways is impractical even if someone made one long enough.
Nuclear: Too dangerous and impractical to put a nuclear reactor in every trunk would be suicide, besides someone would figure how to make a bomb out of it.
Hydrogen: Hindenburgh-itis, we could all go down in flames.
So... bicycles it is then!
April 13, 2005 7:13 PMWith hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines already on the roads, doesn't it make a little sense to convert as many of them as possible to run on hydrogen? I've worked with several different engines, from one to four cylinders, running on pure H2. Exhaust is cleaner than ambient air and if direct injection can be perfected, power is at least as much, if not more, than on gasoline. Very little cost or work to convert and no oil changes. (Have a Dodge P/U w/ 175,000 miles amd no changes. Just the filter.)
Supplies of H2 are the problem and will take a major effort and expense such as was done to build the highway system - but we must do it; we cannot leave our destiny in the hands of people who don't like us and have proved it!
There's a lot of hype pushing for hydrogen power, and we may end up that way. Unfortunately you need to get H2 from somewhere. Hydrogens "dirty little secret" is that is takes roughly the same amount of energy (fossil fuels burned) to extract the H2 as it is capable of yielding. Extract it from gasoline? Extract it from alcohol? Now your exhaust isn't as "clean" as you thought.
Don't even get me started on the impact of spent (nuclear) fuel rods.
I agree we need to find a renewable energy source. We shouldn't rush headlong in one direction (to the exclusion of other promising technologies) until we understand the total cost. Hydrogen isn't there yet.
April 14, 2005 8:16 AMIf the electricity used is generated from fossil fuels or nuclear, plugging in your hybrid only shifts the pollution to somewhere else. I have read quite a bit about hybrids like the Prius but have never seen any discussion about what happens when the car is eight to ten years old and the batteries are worn out: Are you forced then to buy a new car, even though everything else is OK? How much will a battery replacement cost? Will a battery replacement even be available (to the average motorist, not an engineering professor)? How much will the "environmental disposal" or "recycling" cost be to dispose of your used-up hybrid? What will be the environmental impact of millions of spent batteries? Will batteries be piled up in junk yards like tires are now? I'm concerned that many in our society are embracing a technology that is not fully-developed, nor completely thought out. Toyota and the others only want to make a buck now and hang the future.
April 14, 2005 12:10 PMMost electric generating stations have excess capacity at night for charging batteries. Many already offer discounts to customers who can utilize electricity during these hours instead of daylight hours.
Nuclear is an extremely efficient and clean way of generating electricity for re-charging batteries, especially when compared to fossile fuel plants which each contribute to dozens of respiratory deaths per year. Breeder reactors could re-process spent fuel rods for re-use if polititians and special interest groups would allow them to be built.
Of course, the simple solution would be to reduce the size of engines and mass of vehicles. Does that 8000 pound rolling Rockefeller Center with one occupant really need to accellerate to 15 miles over the speed limit before even being off the entrance ramp?
April 14, 2005 1:38 PMBe careful of what you wish for. If everybody is using plug in vehicles and getting the majority of there energy from the home outlet you give the Federal and State governments the opportunity to open the tax department to recoup for sales, use and road taxes that fund our highway systems being tacked onto every home owner's utility bill.
It takes a certain amount of money to feed each of the agencies that get a piece of the tax's associated with fuel. Big brother will be looking for it from somewhere. If you double the miles per gallon the tax base goes down ½ and is going to be made up somewhere.
Gasoline even at $2,50 per gallon is still cheap if you take away all of the taxes associated with its production, and distribution. I could almost guarantee that the taxes when levied on your electrical meter would be disproportionate to the actual amount of energy used to power the Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (this is known as creative financing). One of the items that killed the methanol program and compressed natural gas was the final cost of fuel after taxes were added back into the retail price.
Look at the cost of gasoline at $2.50 per gallon and compare it to what every one of us pays to by a bottle of water, $2.50 for gas versus $1.25 Quart or $5.00 per Gal. for water. Gasoline is pumped out of the ground in a foreign county, partially refined, loaded on a ship transported around the world, unloaded into the refinery storage, refined, distributed through a underground pipeline into to a terminal, loaded into trucks, delivered into a retail facility and distributed through over regulated equipment (vapor recovery & underground storage tank laws) to the public. Every entity that handles the product is making a margin of profit and paying for highly regulated and expensive equipment for production and delivery of product. Compare this to bottled water and see weather the bargain is gasoline or water.
Government does not get smaller. It will find a way to make the American public replace all of the proceeds tacked onto the fueling industries and as the curve goes towards an alternative source of power the higher the price of gasoline will become to support that same infrastructure.
The obvious: it takes a certain amount of horsepower (or kilowatts) to move a vehicle. We get that from gas, diesel, hydrogen, electric. If we have electric powered vehicles, we work on more ways - cleaner, better ways - to generate electricity. If we have gas or diesel, we work on more ways - cleaner? better? - to make gasoline or diesel. I think we have a better shot at electricity than at hydrocarbon fuels. ('course I'm an ELECTRICAL engineer! :o)
April 15, 2005 5:26 PMA lesser dependance on foreign oil always seems to
gravitate to automobiles and ways to convert the dreaded internal combustion engine...if we would place all that developmental energy on static users of foreign oil other than the auto and look to reductions there, perhaps the usage by autos would be manageable in the short run. The band wagon for hydrogen is totally misplaced as an auto solution, the infrastructure to provide both development of the auto/engine configuration and the readly available fueling stations will consume more energy than the change will save over MANY YEARS. Picture if you will the numbers of trucks
and pieces of mileage unregulated equipment at the
corner gas station retrofitting it to handle both
gasoline and hydrogen! This does not even look at the energy consumed in the development of delivery
equipment and the manufacturer of the base hydrogen isolating equipment. It is another gas
from bio-mass fraud; the cost to refine the corn, soy or other forms of gas-gas additive use far more oil based energy than they provide, not to mention the farmer welfare payments to provide the
bio-crops. We need to look to nuclear energy for
electricity...big cost up front...long term production at low, per watt costs over time. The regulation of internal combustions engines to fixed standards of fuel economy and rewards for
those who will use hybrids that require no change in qusi-public infrastructure. The regulation of the internal combustion can not have exceptions,
like city busses, farm equipment, commercial trucks, construction equipment and the others who have "bribed" congress the let them off the hook to improve. These actions would give us time in the short run to look to real solutions to our problems as oppossed to a band-aid for a wound that we really do not know the location nor nature
of!
04-24-05
I remember reading about a "weed" that grows wild in,I think it was NM. that could be refinded into "crude-oil" But, talk about a "catch-22" problem.
The farmers would not plant and grow/harvest it with out a place to sell it. The oil compancies would not build a refinery without assureance of a supply.
Maybe,just maybe someone will get off of the pot now.
We appreciate all the thoughtful comments. I urge you to read our 3-page Fact Sheet, found in PDF form at http://www.priusplus.org and in text form at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news
For a quick response to that big issue: why an electric car is cleaner than a gasoline car even on the dirty national (50% coal) grid see section 4 of http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html
And to keep things lively, we added a link to this blog at http://www.calcars.org/kudos.html
by Felix Kramer, founder, California Cars Initiative http://www.calcars.org and the PRIUS+ campaign http://www.priusplus.org
I have a 1993 suzuki intruder 800cc engine and am getting 48 mpg- any questions?
September 21, 2005 11:05 PMThe soy-oil can be an alternative to the petroleum products but it is sure less efficient than the petroleum. However the future researches can lead to sole-soy cars. The option of inventing efficient electric charge retainers must always be the front priority.
Nuclear power-run automobles can be promising if thinner, lighter and strong uranium holders are brought into use. Consumers will always like the plant-based energy for all-round use, and for sustainably less harmful sources of energy.
Hey, whats up everyone? Im a college student doing a report on the hybrid technology and so far I've found the best on the market is the 2005 Toyota Prius. I keep reading articles about these futuristic hydrogen cars however, Does anyone know when the hell hydrogen fuel cell cars will hit the consumer market?
November 3, 2005 12:43 PMHi, everyone:) I'm a college student doing research on the hybrid cars and got not much info, any advice where to get info on hybrid market size and trends of the market?
This makes alot of sense and should be put into action. The only thing is, are the hybrid cars easier or harder for mechanics to work on or fix?
May 17, 2006 11:19 AMLots of interesting opinions, some well thought out and some others, poorly informed. It seems to me that the "solution" depends to a large degree on the "objective." Since there seem to be a number of different objectives, we are seeing different solutions offered.
I see the hierarchy of threats as:
#1- Lack of control of a strategic resource, oil.
#2- Due to #1, we have no control over the price, we will be paying for products refined from oil. In a few years $3.00/gal will look cheap as China and India ramp up consumption and the OPEC suppliers continue their political and economic squeeze on the US.
#3- Environmental impact is the VERY least of the problems that we face. Nevertheless, alternative energy options available to us will also mimimize the impact on the environment.
The most readily available solution today is a plug-in hybrid with a high efficiency turbo-diesel engine in lieu of a gasoline engine.
- The technology is available.
- The components are available
- The fuel (diesel or biodiesel) is available
- The fueling infrastructure is available
Such a vehicle could readily achieve in excess of 100 miles per equiv. gasoline gallon. Over a 10 year life, compared to an typical 25 mpg gasoline auto, the average driver should save more than 4000 gals of gasoline or about $13,200 if it stays at $3.30/gal. That should be enough to pay for the hybrid premium plus a reserve for battery module replacement if needed.
If 10 million vehicles were replaced with a plug-in TDI-E hybrid, the US could reduce over-the-road gasoline consumption by 4 billion gallons annually or roughly 100 million barrels, or about 15% of US consumption.
Imagine the message that that would send to OPEC.
And it's all doable right now.
May 23, 2006 6:14 PMIt would be great if car companies made PLUGGABLE HYBRID BIO-DIESEL (with 10% ethanol) and every residential roof had solar panels that recharge a car in the garage overnight for little or no cost.
Keywords:
1) Pluggable
2) Hybrid
3) Bio-Diesel
4) Solar panels on every roof
Outcome:
0) Pay one-time fixed cost (car + solar panels)
1) Little emission (until hydrogen fuel-cell)
2) Almost free (by recharging via solar panels)
3) No dependency on import oil
4) Free-falling gas price (which will lower
costs for all other industries, especially
airlines)
5) Every pluggable hybrid will then be
a) portable power generator
b) able to sell excess electricity back
to grid to lower overall power plant costs.
Extra energy generated (from solar) may be used
to trap excess C02 from atmosphere into
underground. i.e. reverse global warming effect
What a dream!!!
June 17, 2007 12:41 AMso we say that we worry about our childrens future....but these cars still take up energy...so how can we be sure that these cars will help somewhat prevent climate change (a.k.a. global warming)?
December 13, 2007 2:39 PMWho cares what produces the electricity for charging the PHEV as long as we reduce our dependency from unfriendly sources and their OPEC controlled prices.
Keep our fuel costs in the USA while we work on finding cleaner, alternate sources!!
Alternate fuel sources ARE DOABLE, TODAY. Hydrogen fuel cells put a man on the moon in 1969. Apparently, we don't have the will to switch.
March 21, 2008 2:17 PM
