Jason wrote:

> In article <pglte1d97d6pctk7gl7ativu2b1ogt1ct1@4ax.com>,
> gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon McGrew) wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bebop wrote:
>>>
>>>><hunkman7@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of
>>>>>traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will
>>>>>eventually go to hydrogen systems, but never electric.
>>>>
>>>>The hybrid is not true electric, thus the word "hybrid".
>>>
>>>Actually, they're true gasoline since that's their *only* power source.
>>>"Hybrid" is a spin that gets people to purchase something they otherwise
>>>wouldn't.
>>
>>Hmmm. I am as skeptical of "marketing" as anyone but I really don't
>>think that people are buying the word, 'hybrid.' Some buyers like the
>>high milage/green benefits. Others like the technology. I don't
>>think anyone is buying because they like the word.
>
>
> Hello,
> I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since they
> love to tell their friends and almost anyone else that they talk to that
> they have a "hybrid".

And you know this how?

 

In article <_-udnfKjdavGsW3fRVn-gg@speakeasy.net>, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>true, but from what i can see, a complete cessation of co2 production is
>unnecessary. parallel that with things like addressing deforestation
>and erosion, things that harm natural co2 absorbtion, and we have a more
>sustainable system.

I agree we won't fully cease serious CO2 production, and do not need
to. But consider that the number of car owners is going to
radically escalate as China, India, and pretty much the rest of the
world continues to grow economically. Say we have 2x the miles
driven in 2030...

[gasoline FC's]
>when federal tax benefits & grants stopped, yes. what are the technical
>problems? you're probably going to have a butane fuel cell in your
>laptop before long.

Gasoline FC's require a fuel processor to break the HC into H2 +
CO2 and CO, then the CO gets "water gas shifted" to H2+CO2. The
first process req's about 700-800C temperature. The latter about
200-300C and is a big reactor. Getting these up to T requires a lot
of time and fuel energy (efficiency hit), not practical for room T
starting a car in seconds. Any sulfur poisons these reactors, so
likely require a sulfur trap (another invention). You'll always
have breakthrough impurities that poison the delicate FC catalyst.
Can mitigate that at extra cost with a performance hit. You have a
very dilute (~40%) H2 stream going to the FC which impacts
performance and requires extremely careful flow control to maintain
efficiency. Controlling this whole process through typical driving
transients is seriously difficult. A big hybrid battery is
required. But batteries also aren't very good from freeze
conditions, nor cost and weight.

Doing a durable, cost-effect FC vehicle working with the ideal fuel
H2, is hard enough. The above complicates it so much that this
solution, once considered an interim, would probably take many more
years to solve than the H2 FC. It isn't impossible, just extremely
challenging.


>> Hydrogen fuel

>because that's where the federal tax credits are. doesn't mean the
>decision to subsidize hydrogen research is based on good science.

I'm unsure what you mean by "tax credits". I do not think the auto
makers are getting any tax credits. And the recently enacted one
for end-users is really just a show of support which will not ever
amount to any real $ (in the 5 years at least).


>> Note that is corporate
>> money, not tax payer (though the DOE budget over the next 5
>> years is slated at a combined $1.7B or so).
>
>but again, that is eligible for 100% write-off is it not? whether the
>subsidy comes from a direct payout or from 100% write-off, doesn't it
>amount to the same thing?

Again, I do not know to what you refer. I do not think the
automakers get to write-off any of this R&D. Most of the above
$1.7B goes to Nat'l Labs, universities, and specific company
research proposals. This doesn't include the huge budgets that the
auto companies are expending on their proprietary R&D.


>sure, hydrogen fuel cells work, and the by-product is water, but let's
>address the practical reality: hydrogen is, per kilogram, not as energy
>dense as gasoline, and somewhat more hazardous in both transportation &
>storage. what use is hydrogen if you can't safely transport or store
>it? the space shuttle, which uses liquid hydrogen, has to be fueled as
>closely as possible before launch to reduce risk & losses.

Per kg, it is actually the best. It's the per volume where it, uh,
has issues :-)

As to safety, many safety certifying agencies (German TUV, both US
and Japan DOT, etc) have certified the new 10Kpsi tanks. Liq H2 has
a boil-off issue which is more about loss of the fuel (which quickly
dissipates) than about safety. I'd be more afraid of the
Shuttles liq O2! Yes, H2 has a low ignition E, wide flammability
limits, and permeates through most anything. Actually its high
diffusivity can help as it dissipates very quickly as opposed to
gasoline vapors which can collect making a very dangerous situation.
I'm confident we can engineer safe H2 systems. The real Q is can
we store enough, *cheaply* to satisfy customer range req't. I think
H2 concerns are more myth ("Hindenburg") and the devil we don't
know. Not to say there aren't issues. But if one proposed gasoline
today, it would never happen. Just 100 years of engineering, and
user experience (thus comfort), makes it palatable.

 

"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote
> jim beam wrote:
> > commute traffic affording known recharge schedules. the current
> > electric car model [such as it is] is not so great because burning
> > fossil fuels to generate electricity that charges batteries is only
> > marginally more efficient than burning the fuel in the car.
>
> youd think burning the fuel directly in the car would be the most
efficient

Electric motors are high efficiency, typically well over 80%. Commercial
power plant efficiencies can run as high as 40 or 45%. The typical car
engine is operating at about 30% efficiency.

I would expect strictly electric cars (using power from commercial plants)
to lower energy consumption enough to make them a viable alternative. As you
probably know, they do have other, operational shortcomings, though.

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml is just one site that
discusses the efficiency differences.

There is also the advantage of being able to use nuclear power plants (among
other non-fossil fueled plant options) to provide power for charging
electric vehicle batteries. This would reduce dependence on foreign oil.

I happen to favor Jim's suggestion IIRC of legislating smaller engines to at
least some extent. It is a good quick fix. Meanwhile, legislate incentives
to come up with alternatives for smaller engines.

 

Dave <dm@nospam.com> wrote:
> Yup. And you had a good summary of Yates' biased spin (to be

I was thinking about it later, and I thought I would just list the words
that would not be in a balanced article. They are purely flame bait.

dark side It's in a headline, so attention-grabbing is okay.
voila
palpitate
greenies
Rube Goldberg
flunkies
flinty-eyed
discover perpetual motion and cure the common cold
one of the most respected [unnamed] high-powered engineering executives
know-it-alls
gasbags
elitist

Some of these are perfectly good words, but they are an inordinantly high
percentage of the article. Nothing new is said, there is just some swagger
and bravado attached so that the arguments carry more weight.

Where was Brock when Car and Driver did their review of the Escape?
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8777

His full page article in the December 2004 edition (as opposed to the
Hybrid few paragraphs), has "liberal bed-wetters" in the second paragraph.
Oh, wait! There is a statement that is helpful in relation to his bias
against hybrids. "we remain devoted to a sybaritic celebration of
essentially useless, antisocial, high-speed, gas,-guzzling, overpowered
automobiles."

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

Dave <dm@nospam.com> wrote:
> (to be honest, Friedman and Zakaria have their own biases). F & Z in
> their liberal bent do not completely disclose the other primary energy
> sources (including fossil fuel) consumed in their "500 mpg" soundbite.
> Though one may argue that at least the majority of those other energy
> sources do not necessarily have to be imported.

I think that the lack of importation is the most important point for
Fareed. I admit that I had never read one of his columns, although I do
look forward to his visits to "The Daily Show". I think he presents a good
view of the world stage. The only reason for "Fareed Zakaria, Editor,
Newsweek International" to speak about the 500mpg car would be in relation
to its effect on US imports.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> it's not necessary or practical to go to a wholly alternative fuel
> model. but i'd go pure electric /if/ the power source was nuclear or
> wind/solar/geothermal, etc. but that would only be practical for local
> commute traffic affording known recharge schedules. the current
> electric car model [such as it is] is not so great because burning
> fossil fuels to generate electricity that charges batteries is only
> marginally more efficient than burning the fuel in the car.

Several of the owners of electric cars that I know are using solar power to
charge car. This makes the most sense, and gives you essentially a solar
powered car. Those that don't have solar are required (I think) to use
time-of-day metering, enticing them to recharge at night, when rates are
lower because there is excess capacity available. The off peak charging
increases the true efficiency of the vehicles.

A plug-in hybrid would solve the range problem.

As I was driving down the road yesterday at about 3pm (desired peak for
on-grid solar production), I was struck by the number of empty roofs that
were pointed directly at the sun, not taking advantage of the solar power.

If you have enough roof space, a solar system can be installed with a
pre-arranged loan where the payments equal your current electric bill.
Next year, when electric rates go up, you are ahead of the game.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

<dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com> wrote
> Several of the owners of electric cars that I know are using solar power
to
> charge car. This makes the most sense, and gives you essentially a solar
> powered car. Those that don't have solar are required (I think) to use
> time-of-day metering, enticing them to recharge at night, when rates are
> lower because there is excess capacity available. The off peak charging
> increases the true efficiency of the vehicles.

The off-peak charging has no effect on the thermodynamic efficiency or the
consumption of fuel used ultimately to provide the car's power. Just to be
anal and keep the vocab straight.

If what you mean is that one can save more dollars on fuel (powering the
electric plant that provides the electricity to one's home) by being able to
charge electric car batteries at the optimal time, then I agree.

 

Sid Schweiger wrote:
> BZZZZZZT! Wrong...but thanks for playing.

No reason to be a schmuck, Sid. If you had taken the time to read the
thread before shooting off your mouth you would have seen Casey's note
and my response, and you wouldn't have wasted anyone's time.

 

Abeness wrote:
> That leaves some sort of fuel
> that can be delivered safely and stored, unless we have a tremendous
> breakthrough in solar power conversion, and even so the sun doesnt
> always shine...

Oh, I forgot: microwave power transmission! Just in case your brain
wasn't already fried enough by your cell phone...

 

jim beam wrote:
> it's not necessary or practical to go to a wholly alternative fuel
> model. but i'd go pure electric /if/ the power source was nuclear or
> wind/solar/geothermal, etc. but that would only be practical for local
> commute traffic affording known recharge schedules.

Right. The trouble is that the power itself has to be generated somehow.
Oil supplies are finite, even if they're not going to run out anytime
soon (I don't know whose projections I'd trust, frankly), and the
emissions from gasoline engines can't be great for our air/atmosphere.

To make long trips viable there needs to be a model similar to that of
gasoline engines/gas stations as they are now. Obviously one can't wait
around for batteries to charge up again at an electric "filling
station", and I kinda doubt a battery-swapping plan could be made
workable. I also doubt we'll have mini-nuclear reactors in cars anytime
soon. Al Qaeda would have a field day. That leaves some sort of fuel
that can be delivered safely and stored, unless we have a tremendous
breakthrough in solar power conversion, and even so the sun doesnt
always shine...

> imo, the best most practical solution that meets the needs of urban,
> suburban and country dwellers is to encourage the use of smaller more
> efficient vehicles, strongly discourage the use of ridiculous gas
> guzzlers, and actually deploy known technology that increases
> thermodynamic efficiency. and all the folk that drive huge vehicles
> because they "need" them should go to europe for a few minutes to get
> some perspective.

Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example, should
be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care about gas
guzzling and its effect on the rest of the world because those
controlling this stuff have no sense of history and continuity. Oh well,
to hell in a handbasket we go.

 

<dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com> wrote
> Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> > <dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com> wrote
> >> The off peak charging increases the true efficiency of the vehicles.
>
> > The off-peak charging has no effect on the thermodynamic efficiency or
the
> > consumption of fuel used ultimately to provide the car's power. Just to
be
> > anal and keep the vocab straight.
>
> Does PG&E promote time-of-use metering for some other reason?

I was thinking you were getting at time-of-use metering designed to
preclude, say, brownouts in summer.

> In California, there is substantial off-peak capacity that is available,
> quite a bit of it from non-fueled sources, such as geothermal and
> hydro-electric. I believe that the use of off-peak power is more
efficient
> than peak power. The thermodynamic efficiency might be improved merely by
> the difference in ambient temperature of various generating and delivery
> infrastructure elements.

Oh, I see your point. Okay.

 

Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> <dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com> wrote
>> The off peak charging increases the true efficiency of the vehicles.

> The off-peak charging has no effect on the thermodynamic efficiency or the
> consumption of fuel used ultimately to provide the car's power. Just to be
> anal and keep the vocab straight.

Does PG&E promote time-of-use metering for some other reason?

In California, there is substantial off-peak capacity that is available,
quite a bit of it from non-fueled sources, such as geothermal and
hydro-electric. I believe that the use of off-peak power is more efficient
than peak power. The thermodynamic efficiency might be improved merely by
the difference in ambient temperature of various generating and delivery
infrastructure elements. The possibility that one more fossil fuel power
plant might not have to come on line to meet daytime demand is not
insignificant.

I have a hard time deciphering two of the words in your sentence, but I
think I picked up the intent.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> <dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com> wrote

>> Does PG&E promote time-of-use metering for some other reason?

> I was thinking you were getting at time-of-use metering designed to
> preclude, say, brownouts in summer.

Same idea. We don't want to add generating capacity on an already hot day,
which in turn generates a little more daytime heat. (Tokyo supposedly has
a higher core city temperature and humidity because of the air conditioner
exhaust that results in measurably higher usage of air conditioning.)

The summer rates are .29 day and .086 night. I classify anything that PG&E
does to be for economic reasons, but in addition to that, I can see benefit
from spreading the load, and use the PG&E numbers as a guide to how
worthwhile they think it is to spread the load. The winter numbers are .11
and .089.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:23:34 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
>> In article <pglte1d97d6pctk7gl7ativu2b1ogt1ct1@4ax.com>,
>> gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon McGrew) wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bebop wrote:
>>>>> <hunkman7@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of
>>>>>> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry
>>>>>> will eventually go to hydrogen systems, but never electric.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hybrid is not true electric, thus the word "hybrid".
>>>>
>>>> Actually, they're true gasoline since that's their *only* power
>>>> source. "Hybrid" is a spin that gets people to purchase something
>>>> they otherwise wouldn't.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I am as skeptical of "marketing" as anyone but I really don't
>>> think that people are buying the word, 'hybrid.' Some buyers like
>>> the high milage/green benefits. Others like the technology. I
>>> don't think anyone is buying because they like the word.
>>
>> Hello,
>> I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since
>> they love to tell their friends and almost anyone else that they
>> talk to that they have a "hybrid". They also like it when fellow
>> greenies see the word "hybrid" on the back of their cars." It's not
>> the actual word that they love--it's the thought behind the word. An
>> example is the word "diamond". It's the thought behind the word that
>> is important when it comes to "hybrid" or "diamond".
>
>> Jason
>
> Well it may be a matter of semantics but the way I see it, they are
> bragging the technology and benefits of the hybrid, not the word
> itself. I think most of them understand the technology reasonably
> well. It would be a different story if they had no real clue what
> 'hybrid' meant, or if hybrid technology didn't really do anything.
> Think Fahrfurnugen or Cab-Forward design. Got a Hemi in that thing?

I was talking with a proud Prius owner just the other day. She was very
pleased with her new car just as I am when I have a new vehicle. She showed
me all the screens and even cranked on the A/C pointing out that it worked
even when the car wasn't started. Very nice lady and a friend but in my
experience, a typical hybrid owner. The point is that her A/C isn't working
just because the heat-exchanger fan motor is running and, most importantly,
her car is entirely powered by gasoline - just like mine. Sure her car is a
bit more efficient using techniques such as regenerative braking but these
could be put to use on my car too. The real reason her car is more efficient
than mine has nothing to do with batteries or electric motors but is the
direct result of the computer control system and an advanced gasoline
engine. Naturally, both could be used on my car too. So, when you think
current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, Cab-Forward design or hemi.
You might also throw in extra profits & CAFE.

 

Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote:
> To make long trips viable there needs to be a model similar to that of
> gasoline engines/gas stations as they are now. Obviously one can't wait
> around for batteries to charge up again at an electric "filling

I prefer to charge my own batteries, after last night's solar system
charge-up has been depleted. Plug-in hybrid solves that. No change at all
to the existing infrastructure, except to encourage more home installations
of solar, not a necessary component.


--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> imo, the best most practical solution that meets the needs of urban,
> suburban and country dwellers is to encourage the use of smaller more
> efficient vehicles.

There was another thread about the excitement over the introduction of the
Honda Fit to the US, a high mileage vehicle without the hybrid do-dads.
What's wrong with a non-hybrid version of the Insight? I don't know, but
that doesn't seem to be marketable. What about a hybrid Fit? Instead of
60mpg, maybe it could get 90mpg.

I agree that a big part of the solution is getting into right-sized
vehicles. My Ford Escape replaces a Dodge Durango. Sometimes I miss the
extra room, but not often. I don't really miss the power.
Adding Hybrid to the Escape bumps the mpg in this area from 19 to 29.
If I could plug it in ...

---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sure her car is a bit more efficient using techniques such as
> regenerative braking but these could be put to use on my car too.

I'm not sure what you would do with all of the braking regenerative power.
You've said that before, ignoring that it is a lot of power, more than is
going to fit in your standard 12v battery, and more than you will consume
in playing the radio and starting the car in between braking.

> The real reason her car is more efficient than mine has nothing to do
> with batteries or electric motors but is the direct result of the
> computer control system and an advanced gasoline engine. Naturally, both
> could be used on my car too.

Why, then, is there no Honda Insight without the hybrid option?
That should be a very high mileage vehicle in its own right.
Maybe it would be too underpowered to be acceptable in the US.

> So, when you think current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen,
> Cab-Forward design or hemi. You might also throw in extra profits &
> CAFE.

I thought you said the hybrids were a loss for the manufacturers, not a
source of extra profits. And if CAFE is the goal, why aren't these
non-hybrid improvements applied across the board?

The Honda Civic HX seems to have some of the Civic Hybrid features, minus
the hybrid and the regen braking, and it falls a little short in the mpg
department.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
> Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote:
>
>>To make long trips viable there needs to be a model similar to that of
>>gasoline engines/gas stations as they are now. Obviously one can't wait
>>around for batteries to charge up again at an electric "filling
>
>
> I prefer to charge my own batteries, after last night's solar system
> charge-up has been depleted. Plug-in hybrid solves that. No change at all
> to the existing infrastructure, except to encourage more home installations
> of solar, not a necessary component.

You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not viable
for long trips.

 

Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote:
> You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not viable
> for long trips.

I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile stops
for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels would be
more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I
would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional
infrastructure.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

In article <dcrimt$i0i$1@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:

>I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile stops
>for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels would be
>more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I
>would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional
>infrastructure.

Plug-in hybrids seem to make sense. Though you'll need a bigger
battery (at added cost, mass, volume or reduced cargo capacity) to
make it viable. Bigger battery and greater range of discharge is
needed to use it effectively. Battery life is adversely affected
with greater range of discharge. Present hybrids get around this by
keeping the state-of-charge in a narrow band (say +/- 10%).

I'm not saying it is not doable. In fact, I think it could well
play a significant role. But just off the top of my head, it will
incur some significant costs and tradeoffs.