Slashdot Mirror
Hybrid Powertrains and Hydrogen Fuel Cells
An Anonymous Coward writes "Nice article from cars.com detailing a panel dicussion with reps from Chrysler Group, Ford, General Motors and American Honda agreeing that hybrid powertrains and hydrogen fuel cells are the future of automotive propulsion, and discussing their companies' different approaches in both areas."
Despite folks who see hydrogen as free, current process require significant amounts of energy to get at hydrogen.
So you are in some senses shifting pollution to a different location (and hopefully reducing it through scale). The advant of a clean and cheap way to get massive amounts of hydrogen is I understand a ways off.
Love to get links / info to the contrary.
- August
Proton Energy in Conneticut (NASDAQ: PRTN) makes hydrogen filling station conversion equipment. However, their CEO touts the low cost of coal-generated electricity to make his electrolysis systems practical.
[Refering to what includes Hydrogen] Examples include petroleum, natural gas and biomass -- a nice way of saying plant and animal waste.
Finally! I can power my DeLorean off a rotting banana peal, coffee grounds, and a quarter can of malt beer.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Please oh please, whatever you do just don't make them like this
Starsucks
Both Toyota and Honda currently have Hybrids on the market avaliable now. The toyota Prius has a growing online community based around some sites such as This one [priusonline.com]
When do we get the flying cars? I can't wait to see a hovering Delorean. LOL.
It may be interesting to some of you that Honda is releasing (for its 2003 model year) a hydrid version of its Honda Civic, named Honda Civic Hybrid. It is a four-door sedan with gas mileage in the upper-40s / lower-50s.
This proves that electric hydrids are not only available technologically-speaking, but that they are commercially viable. Now imagine what would happen if a tax break (perhaps coinciding with George W. Bush's huge breaks) were offered for electric hybrid vehicles. It would stimulate the economy _and_ lower taxes. Of course, the oil industry wouldn't be too happy because of lower profits. Boo-hoo. Gas mileage has been going _down_ since 1986, when it peaked in the upper-20s (about 29).
BTW, you might want to read a review of the Honda Civic.
don't name the first model the "Hyndenburg"
The sad thing is, that there are too many "vested interests" in holding back the electric car. Remember the Simpsons episode, where the stone cutters sang "who holds back the electric car? We do... We do..."
Alternatative power supplies are to be found all around, and some of then rival hydrogen cells, but won't make you as much money.
The only way forward is to have "combination" vehicles. Ones that switch over to alternative fuel , say when , you don't need to go that fast, and then automatically, go back to gas when you do.
Also, This will get people used to the idea slowly. This is actually the unspoken problem in alternative fuel design: It's too much for most people to get something that doesn't need a gas station attendant . "What would people say.." etc. etc.. You have to think of your folks for things like, this, as we're not all as technically saavy as the posters on this webiste.
BUT SERIUOSLY: Speaking of parents, and people on this website, I think that most of your fathers must have had alternative fuel chubby cocks.
Okay I would totally buy one of these hybrid vehicles but why the hell do they make them look so GD ugly?!?! Its like the automakers try to turn off the public so they can go "welp we tried ot make them but no one was willing to go for it." Honda is about the closest to making hybrid cars (although these are gas/electric hybrids) look semi normal now that they have released a gas/electric Honda Civic (gets high 50's in mpg). Even that company produces the Insight is not my taste either. Comon automakers, put some of that money into some nice designs that people like. I am sure by doing that, you will attract a bigger consumer base who is too damn embarrased to drive a hybrid that LOOKS like a hybrid.
Of course. The only way things like this happen is the government gives the currently rich people enough more money for them to agree to the new technology. Essentially you have to buy them off.
Ford, Chrysler, and GM will NOT endorse electric cars now. BUt of course the biggest problem is the greedy American. Do you think you will ever see an electric SUV?? didn't think so. When we stop driving tanks, electrifying our vehicles will be more feasible.
Not to meantion(though I am mentioning it) the middle East. Imagine what would happen to them if we simply stopped buying their oil. Now their will be MORE poverty over there and more people will blame the US. Sure lots of it is our fault, but our oil purchases keep the governments happy.
Popular Science had a recent article on a Honda sports car hybrid. Unfortunately the name of the car escapes me. Anyone know?
--Metrollica
Of course, the energy density of hydrogen sucks. You could go with cryogenics, but I see a real problem with letting morons close to cryogenics liquids. Hydrogen's a bad fuel.
Heh. This mildly amusing, and mildy insulting, bit of spin-doctoring aside, it's good to see that the American auto makers aren't actually light-years behind their Japanese counterparts anymore. They've closed the gap to just a few generations. :-)
*This* is an engine... "last of the v-8 Interceptors". "Supercharged", mate! 500 horsepower!
Honda just demo'd a fuel powered car this week, in Japan.
Thanks for that insight, director of technology strategy development!
The Automakers could increase the pace that they develop alternative technologies simply by using them in a racing environment. Take a look at formula for example.
Companies like Bridgestone and Honda love to mention that mention in their ads that the same technology that is used in the formula series is also available on 'your car'. But the continuously variable transmission, one of the greatest improvements in the drivetrain in recent memory, is banned from formula 1!. McLaren tested it out a few years ago but the FIA banned it after about 3 races because it 'took' away from the racing experience.
Another good example are computer assisted braking/automatic transmission. They were only legally re-introduced to formula 1 last year after the FIA admitted they couldn't regulate teams from cheating and using them anyways. Indeed many of the creative aerodynamic improvements that teams are adding to the cars are being rules illegal because they 'spoil' the look of the cars.
I grant that making a whole new racing series for alternative technologies might not be viable, but there are already enough racing series that alternative vehicles could race in. A good example is the LeMans race. In fact LeMans saw a 'non traditional' engine win once. Mazda has the privaledge of being the only automaker to win the overall race with a rotary engine (in addition to being the only japanese automaker to ever win Lemans, something Toyota is very pissed about). Unfortunately, the trend with automakers is to concentrate their factory efforts on increasingly fewer racing series. BMW has all but left leMans after winning it hands down a few years ago.
-?-
I'm no expert, but if we get our hydrogen from rocks beneath the earths crust and burn them in hydrogen fuelled cars . . . will we start using up the free oxygen in the atmosphere and push up the water content.
I know the atmosphere is a huge entity, but oil has taken it's toll over it's lifetime.
Would mined hydrogen take it's toll too in the future?
What are the estimates for the cost per mile of running off of hydrogen?
Right now, hybrid automobiles cost more per mile because the initial price of the vehicle is more expensive.
So when we factor in the costs of making hydrogen powered vehicles, and making hydrogen (probably most cheaply from hydrocarbons -- fossil fuels), what will be the final cost per mile? Has anybody seen good figures?
Toyota is releasing the Rav4 EV, electric SUV, in california and have setup 200 filling stations across the state. I think it's going to be out next month.
http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/
Even if we do change over, where are we going to get the energy to liberate the hydrogen from where is is sitting now? Fossil Fuels, maybe?
T( H)GSB Apr 21-27
___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
Sure, everyone's in a love fest for H2, which will be fantastic when its viable, but no one in America wants to talk about passenger diesels. My Golf TDI gets 40MPG even under my lead foot, will outperform any gas/electic hybrid, has much more cargo space (and passenger space). As far as emmissions go, the hybrids are much greener, but the modern passenger diesel emits less greenhouse gasses then the average gas car. Sure it emits more NOX, but with better fuel and better pollution control systems coming in 2006, this will become a non issue.
On Tuesday I bought a Toyota Prius, mentioned in the article. Very nice car for the dollar. Hybrid gas/electric car, uses the gas engine only when needed. In fact, I still haven't gotten used to the fact that the onboard computer will actually turn off the engine while driving, when it is not needed.
Gas mileage on the sticker is very impressive. 52 city, 45 highway. No, that is not a typo. It actually performs better in traffic, mostly because slow acceleration is almost exclusively under electric power. Coasting and deceleration use regenerative braking to recharge the battery, meaning you never have to plug the car into an external power source.
This car is the perfect geek toy -- many functions are performed via the touchscreen LCD screen, and all the other displays are 100% digital. Sound system is very good for a stock system, and you gotta love the static cling sticker on the back: Eat my voltage.
Sticker price was about $21k, and from my experience, has been worth it. I'm currently getting about 42MPG according to the consumption display. More pics are located here.
Is DSL & Cable modem!
Most of us don't need to go to work.
Therefore cars are not important.
Therefore DSL & cable modems are the future.
No fuel cell necessary.
as much promise as hybrid cars hold in terms of fuel economy and reduced emissions, current technology is better. The volkswagen Lupo gets well over 50mpg, has superior acceleration over its hybrid cousins and runs on diesel, though its desulfered and only available in europe.
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
The byproduct of fuel cells is water, which would be spat back out into the atmosphere, which would increase local humidity, which would increase cloud formation, which would increase the planet's albedo, which would cause the surface to cool and a new ice age to start.
And we ain't got no woolly mammoths left to eat round the campfire.
From what I gather, using Hydrogen would be equivalent to having batteries. We could then make hydrogen from all sorts of fuels, such as coal, gas, nuclear, wind, ethanol, corn or even solar? If this is ineed true, then we should jump on this technology like a hot potato. This may give us the energy *flexibility* we will need in 10-15 years. It may be in 20 years "microwave" power from the sun or some other strange technology may power our vehicles... without requiring a huge retooling of our consumption and distribution system.
Is what I think you're looking for. I saw the same article-- now THAT is a hybrid that would sell in the states. 400hp at 42mpg!!!
:)
Now, cut it in half and make me one that gets 200hp at 84mpg and I'm sold.
While I like these ideas, projects like this make me think that we haven't even approached the limits of efficiency in fossil fuel engines. This thing might be a concept, but VW made it now, it runs on normal diesel fuel, and gets nearly 240 MPG. This is the kind of thing that we need to explore in the near-term. While I think that pie-in-the-sky exotics are sexy, I also think that they won't be ready for production or have a working support infrastructure for years - here is something we could do now to cut our fuel usage.
http://www.edmunds.com/news/conceptcarspotlight/ar ticles/48694/article.html
He's talking about the nuclear plants, you genius. You know that cute buildings that produce poison to your grandsons and make them have three eyes.
A friend of mine who is a big F1 fan told me that hybrids were actually tested by several teams, but have already been banned from the rules. The system was a little different from that of consumer cars-- a tiny battery and a beefed-up alternator that could provide a short boost to the car's power. A system like this would provide a fantastic way to convert braking power into a useable kick when accelerating out of a slow turn.
Anybody know if there's any truth to this?
Isn't it funny how the same percentage of people think Microsoft's products are technically superior and Japanese autos are technically superior.
I wonder when the last time a Slashdotter has read a mechanical engineering trade publication?
Only in America do people worship monopolistic corps like the Japanese keritsus and Wintel, Corp.
From your "hail mary" photo here you can probably expect a speeding ticket in the mail. 28MPH in a 15MPH zone -- egad man, that's the equivalent of speeding through a school zone.
Fuel cells and alternate energies... The best way to deal with uppity Middle Eastern countries without resorting to military action. Make it all easily availible and watch the oil market tumble, and with it, these terrorist sympathizing weeniers influence.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
This one company I have been keeping my eye on called Millennium Cell has a technology called Hydrogen on Demand that seems pretty cool. They invented a way to store hydrogen in a borax solution and extract it only when needed to generate energy. The cool thing about Millennium Cell's technology is that they figured out a lot of other issues competing fuel cell companies have not. For example, they can retrofit an internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen, and it's exhaust would be 100% free of carbon monoxide. They also even worked in gas stations into the equation and have figured out how to retrofit them to "refill" the hydrogen fuel cells. Also of note is that their fuel cells have a range similar to that of a full tank of gas, and takes up slightly smaller area of space. Definitely some cool R&D going on out there...
--Jon
Chrysler had a working gas turbine engine system. See here: http://www.turbinecar.com/turbine.htm
:) So, it would seem to be a natural stopgap for hydrogen. One could easily construct a pumping system that could use gas or hydrogen (or just have dual pumping systems feeding injectors at the same location.) In either case, you have a car that is perfectly capable of running on gasoline or hydrogen.
Now, this thing could run on anything that burned... even tequila
Works for me.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Any half-intelligently designed pure electric or fuel-cell electric car is going to do exactly the same thing, and therefore your in-practice efficiency is going to go up - I'd hazard a guess to the point where the energy-efficiency is about the same.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The main reason is that turbines don't rev like normal engines do. They're designed to be kept at a constant speed for long amounts of time.
They also accelerate to a higher speed slower, as well as decelerate slower (an innate characteristic of turbines)
Recent advances of CVT's (continously variable transmissions) can help ease the inherent problem with turbines, but its hardly worth taking time and research away from the hybrid and fuel cell cars, which are truly the future of automobiles (electric motors are vastly more efficient and powerful than combustions), to go back to something that was tried and failed already.
-
heh... Actually it was a 35MPH zone, heading toward a 15MPH curve.
Who makes hybrid gas/electric cars right now? Toyota and Honda.
.
Who showed hydrogen concept cars early this year? Ford and GM. When do they expect to be ready for market? 10 years.
Which technology is really better? They're comparable
What did President Bush decide to do? End support for hybrids and spend money on fuel cells instead.
Connect the dots?
At the current state of the art, gasoline automotive engines are cleaner than most power plants. The exceptions are natural gas fired power plants. California has mostly natural gas and some nuclear electricity, so electric and/or hydrogen cars would make sense there. But the rest of the country runs on coal (or hydro, but that has its own problems). State of the art coal plants are pretty clean, but not as clean as gasoline motors. And most coal plants are nowhere near state of the art.
Hydrogen is a medium to transport energy that is renuable and used in certain ways much more effecent than a clem cell. It is not an energy source. And need a way to make it that is cheep and easy to do.
;)
There are a ton's of very inefficient device that put a load on the power grid that even if the hydrogen FC was only 10~15% would save a ton of energy and time. Charging a clem cell is inefficient, non renuable and are reaching there limits on energy densenty.
For example look at the latest Honda ad. It show a { real } robot going outside. It has a life of around 30 minutes and not effency due to its limited battries. If they had a power source with more KW per pound would be a boost to it.
Look at some of the camera. If they use AA cells the recharging one are getting up to 2amp! Very dangerious if you short them out. And they are getting near how much max energy you can squeeze in a certain size add up to a major problem shortly for portable electric devices. A small FC would allow quick recharge and long running time.
Ok I just want the bot that can run for a day of work.
The new hybrid Civic is like a 4-door Insight. I believe the main difference in the drivetrain is that it uses a 4 cylinder motor instead of a 3. It has a CVT transmission, and I assume a manual too. You can read more about it at www.evworld.com.
"Hydrogen can neither be mined nor found through exploration.": Wrong.
Recently NASA discovered that large concentrations of hydrogen gas exist in the earth's rocky crust (as much as several hundred pounds of hydrogen in a cubic meter of rock). It can be mined, and as NASA has proven HAS been found through exploration. Mind you, not the same variety as "Lets blow a hole in the ground and see what comes up", but still far more available than previously believed. Essentially left over gasses from the formation of the solar system.
Mining can still be environmentally damaging if not inefficient, but still can be much more economical than existing means of hydrogen extraction.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Specifically in this very article: http://slashdot.org/science/02/04/15/1628207.shtml ?tid=134
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
I'm amazed no one linked to this press release of VW's 1 liter car, the L1. It's a carbon fiber two seater (one behind the other like a motorcycle) with a mild hybrid drivetrain comprised of an electric motor and a 0.3-liter, 1-cylinder diesel engine. BTW, to all non-Euros (like me), am x liter car means x liters per 100km. A 1 L car is the equivalent of 239mpg (US gallons).
Sweet commuter. Where do I send my check?
We should think of hydrogen not as an energy source, but as an energy storage medium, like a battery. But batteries are too bulky and heavy, and don't have the capacity we need (low energy density). They're expensive, with a short service life, and present a huge disposal problem. Flywheels are very expensive to build, with delicate moving parts, and a dangerous failure mode. So in comparison, hydrogen looks pretty good. Plus, it comes closest to matching our existing infrastructure- vehicles, filling stations, pipelines- and producers. The trick is convincing Big Oil to become Big Hydrogen.
If you want to see a variety of hybrids check out
http://www/futuretruck.org 15 universities building hybrid SUV's The first 2 years we worked on suburbans and now ford explorers. Some of the results have been impressive. The reason for SUV's is they have room for improvement and are about the only vehical you can turn into a HEV without hacking up a vehical and basicly having to build a whole new vehical body. Hybrids have more components to fit in the vehical and cars don't alow for this very much.
Plus the fact SUV's are a much more practical vehical and people much rather drive an exporler over some small car. Small cars are for most part stupid. 1 SUV can carry 6 people around. it would take at least 2 small cars to do this and 3 insights. most emissions come from start up. The 1 suv would put out less than the multiple cars. Also there is a comfort issue for long trips. It's common that when you go on a trip the same people that hail small cars and hate suv's push to take the suv cause they don't want to be crammed in a tiny car for 10 hours. Also small cars that are very loaded get poor milage. That goes to the next point, if you own a small car what do you do when you need to move some stuff. You have to barrow some truck or worse rent one. A big get no milage ryder truck!. The bigger issue is emissions, milage doesn't matter very much. That only cost the person that owns the car. Emissions effect everyone.
The future of vehicals are hybrids in the form of minivan/ small SUV's / fullsize cars. The fall into the fine ballance, of practical, comfort, utility, efficency, usefulness.
The Prius is a good car but was held of from US production for a few years cause it couldn't pass a crash test. They had to build the echo that could pass a crash test and then say the prius is a option version of the echo when it is a completly different car.
The insight is a stupid hybrid. Being hybrid is not why it gets the milage it does. It gets high milage because of it's insanly low weight and drag. if they had made it a conventional drivetrain of similar power it probly would get better milage (do to the lower weight of no battery pack or electic motor. plus they give you the feeling of a death trap sitting in one. Very crapily built.
Brad
Enviromentalists: fossil fuel/electric combo
American Consumer: F*ck off tree hugger
Marketing people: Hybrid Powertrain
American Consumer:oh oh Hybrid Powertrain gimme
Flying Cars? look right here
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/cornish.htm
:)
(not my site, just the first mirror I could find)
I'm sure some of you have seen this, but most of you haven't. It's a device which uses aluminum as the 'storage medium' for energy. It was patented back in 1988 in Cornish, England. The original website (layo.com) no longer exists, but you can find many mirrors to the pages.
At first glance, you'll think the process is straight hydrolysis, but it's not. Pure aluminum wire (abundant in supply as welding wire today) is fed against a spinning aluminum drum. An 18Kv differential is maintained across the interface between the wire and the drum. The entire apparatus is immersed in plain old H2O.
From my admittedly lacking understanding chemically, the aluminum and the O2 bind, liberating H2 as a gas. Here's the formula they give at the websites:
2al+3h2o ---- A12 + 3H2
I know the numbers don't add up, and I know the oxygen seems to disappear, but I'm sure it's a typo. Certainly there's some slashdot expert out there can correct it.
The apparatus was supposedly test by none other than BMW back in 1981 with positive results:
"The unit as present assembled in a 2000cc car produced sufficient gas to power the engine continuously.
The aluminum consumption averaged out at 180 cm per minute over a 70 minute test run."
This device may solve the energy storage problem with excellent safety aspects, since only a small amount of H2 gas is maintained in the device at any time. The world is very experienced at taking refining aluminum, so it could easily be recycled back into the process at fueling time. Basically, you would put a wire canister and some water in your car to 'fuel up'.
I've tried for a while to find a way to develop this as a product, but I simply don't have the time. Therefore I urge the slashdot community to develop this, OPEN SOURCE even.
Zondar
Too bad there isn't a cost effective way to convert older cars (pre 1970's) to a fuel cell/hybrid engine. Although my car passes emissions with flying colors, it would be nice
keep it around when gas starts to become scarce.
I just want to see one blow up ^__^ Think the Gremlin of Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars. (yes, I know most don't work that way)
And my previous (deleted) topic about fuel cell technology (or any alternate energy for that matter) bankrupting Middle Eastern terrorist sponsers was a valid topic, not racist you sad little editor, whomever you are.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Just curious.
Several people have pointed out that electric cars simply shift the point where pollution is generated from the car to the power plant. But there's a big difference between electric and hydrogen in this regard: Hydrogen can be shipped.
With wall-powered electric cars, the power generation has to occur relatively nearby - say, within a few hundred miles. With hydrogen, the power generation can occur anywhere in the world. Hydrogen canisters can be transported via container shipping.
What this means is that if the U.S. were to convert to hydrogen power, it would allow all the power generation (and therefore pollution) to be moved offshore. In essence, all the pollution from the U.S. automotive fleet could be shipped to the Third World, in exchange for hard currency - which is the traditional method used for getting rid of the rest of the "not in my backyard" unpleasant underside of the affluent U.S. (and for that matter Western European) lifestyle.
Economically, it's a win all round - though of course environmentalists will probably disagree.
-Graham
There are numerous other technical difficulties with putting turbine engines in mass-produced automobiles. There simply isnt enough reward into researching how to make it work. The best bet right now is electric motors. You do not need a transmission when you have those. If you use an entirely electrical car, you have very few moving parts anywhere.
Of course the trick is, how to generate the electricity for it...
-
So far, its the most impressive car i've seen in a long time. All the other hybrids like the insight and prius are hardly even usable and just make interesting conversation pieces. But the civic hybrid is a REAL car.
On the downside though is its $4000 added cost. When you consider the current price of gas or so, you'd have to drive it nearly 200,000 miles to get any kind of savings based on its high gas mileage.
-
I'll sure be among the firsts to own an electric car. ;-)
Electric cars can be very performant. Some can beat Ferraries on 1/4 miles runs. Imagine having independent motors at each wheel, be able to control them as you wish, by computer. You hate steering? Well, drive your car with a joystick!
I would finally be able to have a decent sound system in my car that would be supplied with all the amps it desires!!
Imagine quietly driving next to a Tommy Hilfiger outfitted rice-boy driving it's neon-covered dance-music-playing Honda, and earing his car screem and complain in agony while you see him disappear in your mirror.... what a nice image
That said, the problem with electric cars today is definitely not performance, it is autonomy. With fuel cells, this autonomy problem may disappear. It would be possible to refuel those cars as we do now. I hope they can use non-dangerous substance to get Hydrogen from because I don't like the idea of carrying tanks of compressed hydrogen under my seat (zepplin anyone?)
delete free(system.gc);
hehe... blackout from 21-27th of april, and first thing in the morning on the 21st you make a post?
Glenn
The Smrt way to trade CFDs on the ASX
bunch of greenies who never set foot outside your front door.
/. high horse and start your CARB like greenie jibborish and rumblings.
first of all, hydrogen can be extracted with the least expense (for the purpouse of fuel cell applications) from patrolium, the existing/dominant energy source. The point is, with fuel cells you'd need less gasoline to go the same distance.
secondly, the average age on here must be ~16 years old because it mirrors those idialistic highschool years I so well remember (because they are not too far off, I'm 23). just wait until you get out of highschool and discover that choices in EVERYTHING indluding automobiles is a good thing.
you want to clean up pollution/CO2 production??? why don't we stop letting in mexicans, because they are largely filthy poor and can't afford newer cars, that are less than 7 years old, which actually porduce less than 20% off all pollution which comes from automobiles today, AND THERE ARE ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES MORE OF THEM ON THE STREETS THAN THERE ARE MEXICANS IN KLUNKERS. Give major incentives and tax breaks to everyone else who still drives their old klunker because they can't replace it for a newer car (even a friggen SUV is 1000 times better than a 15+ yearold CAR). But of course stopping mexicans from running the borders and driving POS cars is politicly incorrect and giving incentives and tax breaks on older car trade ins means that money has to come out of SOMEONE's poket, (mainly us the US taxpayer) so instead we push, through bitching and legislation, the world's car makers on a technological crusade of diminishing returs. ACE.
you guys should stick to COMPUTER TECH discussions and leave the auto secter alone. or at the very least read some material or do some research before you get on your
Yes, there have been many high mileage cars in the past. My Rabbit diesel got 45mpg city, 50mpg hwy, and as much as 70mpg when driven at a steady 45-50mph (on a long interstate trip in a snowstorm). The 80s' CRX HF did well over 50mpg too. But both of these cars weighed barely 2000lb. They wouldn't even come close to meeting modern crash standards. They were cheaply and lightly built, lacked modern amenities like decent seats, nice stereos, and AC that works, weren't very reliable, and were slow, slow, slow. The Rabbit took 18 seconds to go 0-60, while the CRX was practically a screamer at 14. The cheapest Korean POS sold now would beat the pants off either of these cars in any category, including cost per mile.
The Insight, Prius, and now Civic are high quality, very sophisticated cars- probably the most sophisticated vehicles ever produced. They are indeed very efficient for what they are- good performing, comfortable, well-equipped, refined, smooth, quiet, and safe. And though only time will tell, probably very reliable too.
I know gasohol turned everyone off of it, but alcohol is the best fuel to use. You can use anything to make it (think corn! We've got tons of excess of that). It also takes only minor modifications to current engines. Whats more, the only exhaust is water along with the unavoidable carbon that any type of combustion will produce.
My point is, alcohol is cheaper than gasoline, will be even cheaper when demand rises and supply more than matches. Would be a better solution for excess produce, and we can get rid of all the environmental rules (No more smog checks, fuel taxes, or smog pumps).
So, why isn't anyone doing it now? I guess there's just too much vested interest in petrolium to introduce a cheap, reliable, renewable fuel that would also make the machines more reliable as well.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
It would be a great deal, if Americans used well proved motors like we have them in Europe. Why is "diesel" still a kind of foreign word in the US. I was really shocked at my holiday in the States, when I realized that my lend car (Chevrolet quite a new one) took about 17 litres for 100 kilometres. For example my own car needs about 5 litres and performs even better. (Audi A4 110 PS) ;-)
Fuel cells are a wonderful development, but there are still huge problems. We have cars that need about 3 litres on average I think that it would reduce CO2 emissions a lot.
It is also common, that there is up to 15% diesel added, that is made out of raps oil. The reduction of emissions is enormous.
I am looking forward into a future with fuel cell powered cars, but I can't imagine that such a technology will make a break through, if not even thrift motors can do that in the US.
(sorry for my English
Where did you get this number? Do you really think that 60% of the current powering the cooling fan on your cpu goes into making heat ?
80% efficiency for an electric motor is commonplace. Just yesterday I stumbled across a new motor design that achieves 95%-98% percent efficiency.
The article doesn't even mention the word safety.
However, my LPG car is not even allowed in parking garages in many countries. Just imagine how they would treat an hydrogen car
If they have all these technologies for
enhanced fuel economy, then why are they
all such fucking pussies when it comes to
federally mandated raises in the CAFE
standards?
Answer: because in the short term applying
gas/electric hybrid technology across their
fleets would put a dent in profits. Fuck
'em. GM had over $1 billion in revenue last
year, they can afford it. So can the rest.
When the ocean levels rise and the coasts
drown, sign me up for the class action lawsuit
against these idiots.
Incidentally, Acura demoed a concept car,
a gas electric hybrid that does 42 mpg. And
the powertrain develops 400 hp!
Hydrogen fuel cells are all the rage. But can you buy one of the shelf today? Biodiesel is here now. Not only that, you can make it yourself! Biodiesel should be included as a bridge technology as well as hybrids...better yet a biodiesel hybrid!!!
check these out:
http://www.biodiesel.org/default2.htm
http://www.veggievan.org/
- http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/prius/id
e x.html, Toyota Prius, currently available
- http://civichybrid.honda.com/, Honda Civic Hybrid, due out RSN, starting to be available for test drives
- http://www.hondacars.com/models/insight/index.htm
l , Honda Insight, currently available
- http://rav4ev.toyota.com/, Toyota RAV4 EV (it's not a hybrid, sorry), only available in CA currently
- http://uktoyotaestimasite.tripod.com/, Toyota Estima, hybrid minivan. Not currently scheduled for release in the US
- http://hybridford.com/, Ford Escape, SUV, planned to be available in 2003. Ford licensed the Toyota HEV system for this
There's a good amount of information available about clean vehicles at:The thing is though, as you continue adding weight (people, cargo, air conditioning and other amenities) the mpg curve decreases in a non-linear fashion.
So yeah, 240 mpg sounds nice, but put that motor in a real usable car and it wont get anywhere near it. It's just a showoff thing.
-
These just won't fly until they can get power levels up. Right now I've got a nice compact powerplant downstairs under my hood that cranks out 272 kilowatts of power.
Until they have hybrid sources or fuel cells that can crank out that kind of power levels, I'm just not interested. Environment, fuel costs, everything else be damned. Thats what I care about. When I push down on the pedal, I want gobs of power available at my command to deliver to the ground.
Alcohol from corn was a subsidy program for Archer/Daniels/Midland. There was a huge subsidy program for this for years. Overall, the energy required to grow the corn, make alcohol from it, and get rid of the huge amount of waste produced seems to be about equal to the energy obtained. Some people claim the process loses energy. It definitely loses money.
...and until you can beat my three Formula Atlantic track records, don't tell me about performance.
You're forgetting the horsepower of the electric motor. I don't know what the actual rating is, but keep in mind that electric motors have a perfectly flat torque curve, with max torque available from zero rpm to redline. In the real world, horsepower should be veiwed as area under the curve rather than peak or instantaneous (ie, at a certain rpm). With this in mind, the hybrid meets or exceeds the output of its predecessor, just as Honda intended. And if you drove the hybrid, you'd see that this is true.
This is not true in practice. The Hybrid Civic's electric motor generates 13.4 horsepower @ 4000 RPM. The 1.3 L VTEC engine generates 85 @ 5700 RPM. If you were getting maximum output from both sources at once, you'd have 98 hp. This is significantly less of the 117 output by the gasoline-only Civic (with a 1.7 L VTEC-e) in my comparison. Honda doesn't even claim 98 hp, however, rather they claim 93 net hp. Perhaps the horsepower doesn't add linearly, or there's other loss.
In any case, you're wrong - this vehicle does not come close to exceeding the power of the predecessor (although non-Hybrid Civics don't seem to be going anywhere).
I'm not a smorgasbord.
How exactly will Fuel Cells/Hybrids make a better car? Even though the technology has the promise of making us Energy Independent, increasing human freedoms, and making a "cool" car it will actually fail to do so don't get too excited.
Shoot for a solar car on 10 year rechargables; the other solutions keep their power structuure and monopolies in place.
GM, Ford, the Federal Transportation Board (or some other monopoly) will control what, where, and how fast you drive (even more so than now), The Governments and Insurance companies will tax you heavily to "register" yearly (as they do now) and insure based upon the auto's dollar cost at some obscene rate (as they do now). They can and will make it illegal to modify or customize (ala DMCA). Their control bureaucracies (and costs) will grow even larger, not get smaller. Even though most of the systems will be solid state and should be quieter and much more reliable, they will make sure their dealerships get PLENTY of service business. And, this actually makes the cars closer to becoming fly-by-wire, so you will have no control of the machine at all including speed at some (near) point in the future.
Wow, now there is something I'll get up every mornin' and spend much of my American Dream, disposable income on. Time to look for a new pasttime.
Don't kid yourself; there will be NO real benefit to consumers, and I am not sure that it will benefit the Enviroment in the least as nature abhors a vacuum. "Hmm, let's see, new cars emit less, so who cares if emits more? (similar to "Credits" as in previous environmental policies) Or, if other countries decide they don't like the rules and decide that fossil fuels are OK! for their masses; too bad Environment.
The state or federal taxing authorities have an interest in keeping costs up (How much do you pay in taxes per gallon now?) and they would keep the cost near fossil fuels, or even more. Solar or home fuel cells/hydrogen production would allow you to bypass their control and produce as much as you need or want.
There are tax breaks for hybrids. Take a look at the federal Clean Fuel Vehicle deduction. up to 10% of the purchase price of the car, not to exceed $2000, IIRC. (I took a $2000 deduction off of both my US Federal and Massachusetts state income taxes for the purchase of my 2001 Toyota Prius.)
Read chapter 12 of IRS publication 535 (and yes, you can use the Clean Fuel Vehicle deduction or Electric Vehicle Credit if you are not a business): http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf
-mrv
No, it doesn't add linearly, which is why I said it's the area under the curve that matters, not the peak.
Don't forget the hybrid has a CVT too, which allows peak torque or horsepower to be applied over a much wider range of road speeds.
The net result is that the hybrid meets or exceeds the performance of the Civic HX, while delivering better fuel economy.
Don't forget the hybrid has a CVT too, which allows peak torque or horsepower to be applied over a much wider range of road speeds.
As I said, the Civic HX has a CVT as well. No advantage here. The hybrid continues to fall short of the performance of the HX.
I'm not a smorgasbord.
Never mind turbines, I'd rather be wankeling my hydrogen!
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
Wow... um good point on the clunkers but we can do without the racist, isolationsist retoric. Those same immigrants work very hard (on average) in jobs no one else wants.
My wife's family immigrated from a borderline second world country and worked harder than you can imagine. Now they are fabulously weathy while so many LAZY americans bitch and moan about the lack of opportunity.
As for the clunker agruement. I TOTALLY AGREE. Diesel semi trucks and old cars are the WORST pollutors on the street. In some high pollution areas the Honda (gas burning) LEVs actually CLEAN the air. What's better than that?
Simple calculations will show that the best hydrogen infrastructure would produce more atmospheric carbon and cost more energy than the current crummy 20% efficiency we are getting on the highways today. To move to hydrogen implies a well developed hybrid production. So, if you have sold America on hybrids, why not constant velocity ICE power sources, or better yet, methane feed SOFC hybrids. This technology would be three to four times more efficient than is possible with hydrogen in short order. Pushing hydrogen is a sham as long as we produce electricity with fossil fuels. Best, Dan.
Even if they were located at the equator, solar power would still cost a lot. Same with wind. Solar and wind power are not serious contenders to solve our energy woes. They cost too much.
I would qualify this by saying that solar is not a SHORT term contender. But, long term could handle much of the power needs.
As I recall, photovoltaic efficiency right now is somewhere around 15% (at best) of total solar energy hitting the cell. Pushing that towards 30-40% at near current cost would eliminate the cost issue. Or, inversely reducing cost of the cell at current efficiencies would get the same effect.
Another interesting item is the time factor. Currently, home photovoltaics panels are warrantied for 20 years. At that lifetime the cost is around 15-20 cents/kwh at retail, but do we really have the data to say that 20 years is the limit. Due to the lack of moving parts 40 years may be realistic. With that lifetime you again halve the cost per kwh.
Basically, all this says is that short term, solar doesn't cut it for mass production of power. Long term through reducing manufacturing costs, increasing efficiency, and improving durability, solar could supply long term energy needs.
A much bigger problem is where the hell do we get enough energy to feed 10 billion people?
There are a few good examples on FutureEnergies.com
Murdock! Shud up wit da jibber jabber you crazy foo!
Don't mod me, bro'!!!!