 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions....
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: gnu Date: 10 May 09 - 08:08 PM I am curious. Not just about how they "work", as not all are created the same, but, how the warranties apply, what kind of maintenance.. well, so MANY questions. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this new technology can start us off on a meaningful discussion. The Toyata and Ford advetisements during the hockey game tonight looked great... so does the advert for XXX Pizza, and you get a free Pepsi... Are there really any free rides and free lunches with the hybrids? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Amos Date: 10 May 09 - 09:00 PM Well, BBW's Pruis gets some ridiculous mileage, around 45 I think per gallon. It ain't free, but its a lot more affordable than my Rav4 wtih her 22 mpg. The Prius has a wonderful electronic display which shows you when energy is being generated into the electrical system by braking, for example, or coasting, and when it is drawing on the battery and when it is drawing on the engine, It constantly displays your current MPG moment by moment so it becomes a great game to driver so as to maximize the MPG figure. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Peace Date: 11 May 09 - 12:15 AM Owners of Hybrids should check this out. Serious. Let the people trained to fix your vehicle fix your vehicle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: GUEST Date: 11 May 09 - 12:19 AM Gnu, from what I read, I'm in two minds about hybrid vehicles. They are much more greedy of natural resources to build, they merely move pollution from the roads they are on to a power station somewhere(most of the time,) They are less versatile, in that you wouldn't want to go on a long trip in them. Normal vehicles do not care how long the trip is, but hybrids quickly run out of battery and have to go into fuel mode AND drag along the extra weight of the batteries and electric motors. It takes hours to recharge the batteries. Having said that, hybrids are cheaper for go-to-work runs, if you ignore the extra purchase price. They are likely to be the fore-runners of what we'll all be driving one day. Hope someone invents better batteries.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Dave the Gnome Date: 11 May 09 - 12:56 AM Depends on what type of hybrid. I have had many cars that have been more than half useless... :D (eG) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Gurney Date: 11 May 09 - 01:59 AM The Case of the Mysterious Cookie, Joe. Two distros, two browsers on each. Fixed for the moment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: mandotim Date: 11 May 09 - 03:09 AM Amos; in what way is 45 to the gallon ridiculous? We have two cars in our family (mine and my daughters) that both do better than 60 to the gallon, and one of them gets better than 70 on a run. All of this without the help of hybrid technology, just an efficient small, turbocharged diesel engine, driven economically. Both cars are capable of more than 100 mph, seat 4 in comfort, and have enough acceleration to overtake where necessary. Hybrids, in my view, are not the answer, just a fashion statement until true electric cars are efficient and light enough to make sense. Even that doesn't make global sense until a much greater proportion of electricity comes from renewable sources. What would make sense in the USA would be to increase the refining capacity for diesel fuel, and sell more diesel vehicles. The old argument about particulate emissions no longer holds up, as filtration has improved and combustion (particularly when cold) is more efficient in modern common-rail diesels. Tim (in the UK) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Gurney Date: 11 May 09 - 04:22 AM Mandotim, years ago, the story I heard was that when they broke down crude, there was a proportion that could be turned into petrol/gasoline, some that could be lubricating oil, and some that could be diesel. They couldn't turn the crude oil into any one of anything, so they needed to sell a balance of the fuels. I don't know if advances have changed that. The story is 30 years old. If it is still the same, we can't ALL use diesels. Diesels will burn lots of different oils, of course, but all the others are more expensive to produce, or need special conditions of storage, or grow bugs, or are more polluting, or suchlike problems. When we last visited the UK, we did about 1000mls in a borrowed diesel Peugeot. Impressive and frugal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: mandotim Date: 11 May 09 - 04:48 AM Hi Gurney, good point; the need to sell a balance of fuels still exists, but the USA uses a much smaller proportion of diesel fuel than European markets. I'm not 'USA bashing' here; fuel consumption per mile is almost double the European figure in the US, and it would help the US economy if this was addressed (not to mention the environmental issue). A further issue is the globally decreasing availability of 'light sweet crude', which has a higher fraction of petroleum to heavier oils. Refining less 'sweet' crudes means more diesel is available, but the bias towards petroleum in the States means it is not economically viable to extract these heavier crudes for the American market. We can't all use diesels, that's true; but there is huge scope for increasing the ratio between diesel and petrol. Biofuels are problematic, as there is potential to distort food production if this idea goes too far, but it's much easier to make biodiesel than it is to make biopetrol. You can also run diesels on used, filtered cooking oil; my local fish and chip shop does just that! (You can always tell when his car has gone past though...mmmm, haddock and chips!) Tim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Jack Campin Date: 11 May 09 - 05:40 AM Half the energy any car uses during its life is what it takes to make it. A hybrid car, like any other, is an environmental disaster before it ever starts its engine. Selfish destructive waste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: JohnInKansas Date: 11 May 09 - 06:14 AM The limitations on refining of crude stocks into multiple kinds of products is still true, but with some additional factors to be considered. Both the construction of the refinery and the composition of the feed stock affect how much fuel of a given density can be separated out as a specific kind of fuel. In the earliest refineries, the more volatile components of the crude oil were simply boiled off and condensed as "gasoline" (and a few other "useful" chemicals) and the rest was separated in the same way into diesel and road tar. The ratio between gasoline and diesel (volatile fuels and heavy fuels) was pretty much fixed by how much of each kind of molecule was in the crude stock. The discovery of catalysts that would "split" the larger molecules into smaller ones permitted an increase in the fraction of the crude that came out of the pipe as "gasoline" by "cracking" diesel into lighter components. Some of the diesel components reduced by cracking into gasoline were replaced by cracking heavier (road tar) into diesel, but the cracking is less efficient as the molecules get bigger so the overall the ratio of gasoline to diesel was greatly increased. In that time period when "cat-cracked gasoline" was being developed, gasoline power for vehicles had several advantages over diesel. Compression ratios of 6:1 to about 8.5:1 permitted much lighter construction of the engines for gasoline, while the 18:1 - 22:1 compression ratios required for ignition of diesel required much heavier construction. For "standard construction" engines, the lower flame propagation speed for burning diesel also limited max RPMs. Spark ignition in Otto cycle (gasoline) engines also allowed a much wider RPM range, with a higher ratio between Max Torque RPM / Max HP RPM, with reasonably good efficiency (for the time). The "wider engine speed ratio meant fewer gear ranges were required for useful transmissions. Diesels of that era had a relatively narrow RPM range, and the ratio of Max HP RPM to Max Torque RPM was much smaller than for Otto cycle engines, so useful "highway speeds" required "many gears" (15 speed transmission are now common in diesel trucks, and 22 or even 27 speed are not rare) and good efficiency was only obtainable if the vehicle could run for long periods at relatively constant RPM and load. This difference largely dictated the preference for Otto cycle (gasoline) engines for stop-and-go applications typical of "civilian drivers" and Diesel cycle engines for "truckers." (Marine engines, and heavy equipment machines also commonly used Diesels. The load range and load variation requirements would have made Diesels a "logical" choice for aircraft, but the lower air density - and much lower ambient temperatures - made it almost impossible to achieve reliable compression ignition there, and reciprocating Diesels of the era had much lower power/weight ratios which made them unsuited for flight applications.) New refineries built around the time that catalytic cracking became feasible were designed to produce a ratio between "gasoline" and "diesel" that was appropriate to the existing and expected future use. The predictions then all favored getting the maximum amount of gasoline, and selling off the diesel as a "semi-waste" product where possible. In the US, vehicles were developed to take advantage of the greater availability of "light fuels" that the refineries were designed to produce, and diesel fuel was sold fairly cheaply to the few industries that used it. Virtually NO NEW REFINERIES have been built in the US since the ratio between volatiles and nonvolatiles was set by refinery designers of 40 to 60 years ago. New environmental rules make it difficult to get the permits to build a new refinery, largely due to the extensive time required for the permitting process; but the NIMBY factor is probably the most significant barrier to new construction. The need for new refinery designs to produce a higher percent of low volatility fuels is clear in the current US price differential between gasoline and diesel fuel. Diesel that once (within my memory) cost 30% to 60% as much as gasoline (in $/gallon) is now 30% more than for gasoline in the US (not including the additional "road taxes" imposed on the main highway users of diesel here). Because all existing refineries produce a low "diesel fraction," any increased demand for diesel would likely produce a much more drastic increase in fuel price ("demand penalty") than the same percentage increase in demand for gasoline. Existing refineries cannot be modified to change the gasoline/diesel ratio by much, in any economically feasible ways. Largely due to NIMBY, all "our" new refineries are, and likely will continue to be, "off shore." John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: mandotim Date: 11 May 09 - 09:28 AM Good analysis, John. Tim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: kendall Date: 11 May 09 - 10:04 AM If we all go to cars that get 50 to 60 mpg, what do you think the oil companies will do? They will simply raise the price of gasoline to compensate and we will all be riding in those upholstered roller skates and paying just as much for fuel as we do now. How about these cars that run on compressed air? Is there a future there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Dave Swan Date: 11 May 09 - 11:47 AM Well, Kendall, if there is, Catspaw will be the new Stirling Moss, Mario Andretti and Richard Petty all in one. D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Amos Date: 11 May 09 - 11:57 AM Compressing air takes energy. IF you use renewable sources (solar. wind power, etc.) to power the compressors, there's a gain and benefit to the system. It moves the problem one step down the food chain. But there's no inherent advantage I can see to the method as such otherwise, any more than wind-up clockwork VWs would have. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: mandotim Date: 11 May 09 - 12:26 PM Hi Kendall! As gasoline runs out, the price will go up astronomically anyway. Supply and demand, and all that. Reducing demand is more likely to reduce the price, not increase it. Make no mistake, oil is running out. Even the USA is now using its strategic reserves. What happens when the reserves are gone (in less than 50 years at current consumption rates)? Oil companies run purely for profit may not be the best people to husband resources in the long run; inevitably, governments will have to step in, as happened in previous oil crises. 'Upholstered Roller Skates' are the future, I'm afraid, not irresponsible gas-guzzlers. (That principle applies in Europe just as much as it does in the US, by the way.) I'm nobodies idea of an environmentalist, either; I enjoy cars as much as the next person, and I've owned some exotic and very thirsty machinery; but I can read figures, and the future doesn't look good at all for petrolheads. Tim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: jonm Date: 11 May 09 - 12:48 PM I was wondering how you could get as little as 45mpg from a Prius on shortish, low speed runs, but I suspect it's 45 miles per US gallon, which would be around 60mpg per UK gallon. Hybrids require much more in terms of scarce resources to make them and will also use more fuel than the equivalent petrol car at speed over a long distance, since they will exhaust the battery support and the little engine will struggle with the load. I would have thought that small city cars would be better bets than large saloons for hybrids, however, the percentage weight increase and space lost to batteries would be more obvious. Someone undertook a study of the cradle-to-grave cost of various new vehicles over 100k miles and apparently the basic Jeep is the most environmentally friendly, since it uses cheap, low-grade steels and other materials and has no air conditioning or exotic electronics. The extra fuel used is far outwwighed by all accounts by the environmental cost of extracting all those heavy metals for the Prius batteries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: kendall Date: 11 May 09 - 01:10 PM I'm driving a 2001 Hyundai that gets up to 32 mpg. So far, it has cost me almost nothing in repairs. I remain unconvinced when it comes to hybrids. Does anyone know how much those batteries cost to replace? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: gnu Date: 11 May 09 - 01:59 PM usg/impg = 83% "...basic Jeep is the most environmentally friendly," Hehehee... not the way the lads up Kent County drive em. Great info, great discussion! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 May 09 - 02:37 PM Oil company control of prices is myth. The price is controlled largely by the producing countries, demand and taxes. The producers profit, after costs and shareholder dividends, will be low this year because of lower demand. Expensive exploration projects, and sources which would be costly to produce and unprofitable (offshore, etc.), have been put on hold. ------------------------------ Mileage and cost Comparisons- (These figures from US Govt., based on US $2.02/gallon gas). Toyota Prius city-48 hwy-45 US$677/15000 mi. mixed use Toyoya Corolla -27 -35 US$1039/15000 mi. Toyota Camry Hybrid -33 -34 US$917/" Toyota Camry 4 cyl. -21 -31 US$1248/" Toyota Camry 6 cyl. -19 -28 US$1357/" A couple of taxi companies in Calgary use Toyota Prius. It is not popular here because original comparative cost is high, and it is poor for the long highway distances travelled in Alberta. OK for the city. The Toyota Camry is comfortable and popular here. Chev. Avro city -35 Hwy -34 US$1114/15000mi. mixed use Chev Cobalt -24 -33 US$1154/" Malibu -22 -33 US$1202/" Malibu hybrid -26 -34 US$1076/" Impala -19 -29 US$1357/" Popular SUVs in Alberta Jeep Gr. Cherokee 4wd -15 -20 US$1835 Toyota 4Runner 4wd -16 -20 US$1835 Hyundai Santa Fe 4wd -17 -23 US$1641 Hyundai Vera Cruz 4wd -15 -22 US$1735 Nissan Pathfinder 4wd -14 -20 US$2166 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm (Small city-type cars not popular in Alberta). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: gnu Date: 11 May 09 - 03:05 PM I imagine they suck for moose and bison too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: astro Date: 11 May 09 - 04:34 PM I have a prius and though these cars do have reasonable gallon/mile of roughly 40 mpg, (the new ones are up to 45 mpg), there is reduction of pollutants out of the tailpipe. These type of cars are not the solution to the pollution and use of finite resources problems. It now is down to about $3000 to replace the battery (I have 125,000 miles on my battery) which is a lot less then a new car. I do like the electric motor torque for get up and go... The seats really suck for any long distance drives on these cars, and the GPS/Stereo/Blue tooth/car status readouts is very nice... I have found a new hybrid - me - I plan to start riding my bike to school this summer which might take off my spare tire and reduce my fuel footprint (it is about 19 miles here and there and back again)... astro in Los Angeles.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: JohnInKansas Date: 11 May 09 - 10:25 PM It constantly displays your current MPG moment by moment... This has been a "standard" feature on quite a few US cars for at least a decade or two. It's been found most on "high end" cars, so I wasn't aware of it until I got a Cadillac rental on a business trip sometime around 1988 or so. (The rental agencies were using mostly hatchbacks then, and when I complained that there was no place to put my golf clubs where they weren't visible - which might lead someone to bust a window - I got a free "courtesy upgrade" to the Caddy.) John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 May 09 - 11:05 PM I got one of those upgrade rental Caddies with the mpg display. It was a long trip in California. I played sort of a game with it, seeing what was coming up in a mile or two and adjusting my pressure on the gas pedal. I believe it actually helped to save gas. There is plenty of gasoline for the next 30 years. Add liquified gas technology and there is lots more. Reserves in continental US are down, but worldwide reserves are up. Some (oil sands, deep offshore, Arctic, etc.) costs much to produce, so price will be high for that. The US problem is increasing self-sufficiency and cutting down on imported oil. For that, alternative energy sources must be developed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Peace Date: 12 May 09 - 02:37 AM And alternative energy sources must be found so our children, grand children and ggc's have a world they can live in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: kendall Date: 12 May 09 - 06:31 AM When they come up with a car that will put EXXON out of business I'll buy one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: MaineDog Date: 12 May 09 - 08:22 AM We don't really need hybrid vehicles in the near term! I used to have a 1992 Honda Civic VX which got 50-60 mpg, using mostly mechanical technology. It had 3 valves per cylinder, with a main- and a pre- combustion chamber in each cylinder. It also shut off one of four cylinders whenever it could. Some people didn't like the slight hesitation or surge that this mode change would sometimes produce, so the car is no longer made. BTW, it drove nicely, carried my four-person family and enough luggage to go camping, with only slightly reduced mileage. I had to get rid of it in 2002 when Massachusetts made them illegal.. another story. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: kendall Date: 12 May 09 - 07:30 PM The best mileage I ever got was in a VW rabbit diesel. 51 mpg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Ref Date: 12 May 09 - 09:17 PM Some posters above don't seem to understand how the Prius works. You don't "use up the battery" on a long drive as you are constantly recharging the battery by braking and gliding WHILE you (or at least I) are getting 50 plus MPG. In cold months (35degrees Fht or lower) mileage may drop to 45 MPG or so. These aren't plug-in vehicles yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: gnu Date: 13 May 09 - 01:08 PM Right. No hybrid for me until the "next time". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Ebbie Date: 13 May 09 - 11:54 PM Two friends of mine in Juneau, Alaska, each bought a Ford Escape. One of them was thoroughly disgruntled when he discovered that he was actually getting worse mileage than he had gotten from his old 'standard' pickup truck- about 16 miles to the gallon. After frequent visits to the dealer, the dealer finally confessed that the Escape was not designed for Juneau's driving conditions where virtually no one racks up the miles; few people live even 10 miles from where they work. The dealer said that if one drives 30 miles at one time every day it is cost effective. My friend, however, owns a pawnshop and rarely drives longer than 10 minutes at a time. They finally took it back in a trade for a regular truck that he is very happy with. The other friend - a musician - tried to get rid of his Escape on the basis of his experience with it early on. He was in Canada on tour when he had a flat tire and had to replace all four tires (I believe that's what happened). Also he had to replace all the batteries for some kind of reason. He did get good mileage out of it on tour though. When he got back home, his wife fell in love with the car and it is hers now. He would not buy another though, he says. One thing I frequently noticed last winter- this friend would pick me up to go to music; the car - without 4-wheel drive - sailed silently up the steepest snowy and icy hilly streets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Barry Finn Date: 14 May 09 - 02:45 AM Well we've had our Prius for about 2 yrs now & it's got well over 150,000 miles. Almost none of it city driving where it gets better milage. I get about 44-48 mpg but I've got a heavy foot, my wife keeps to the speed limit & she avrages around 51-55 mph driving back & forth to work, about 80 miles round trip all highway miles. When we go on long trips it's usually 55+. I'm pretty hard on the car. The battery's never been down, I do the usual 5000 mile check ups & we've never had cause to bring it in for any trouble. Oh we've had flats, never heard of having to replace any other tires just because one got a flat. I found it to handle very well in our all seaon New England weather, rain & snow doesn't bother the car or me at all it does better than most small vechicles I've driven but I'm used to bad winter driving. Asked if I'd get another? I'd trade for a new model in a minute if I could get a good price, a good interest rate & if I could cough up the money for a down payment & find a company to give me credit. I'd get one for my daughter too. With what we've gotten back on tax rebates & saved on gas I pretty sure we've saved close to half the price on the car At 150,000 mile & say at an avrage of 50 miles to the gallon& my old Matrix got an average of 30 miles to the gallon, so at 150,000 miles I saved almost half of what I used to get. A difference of 2000 gallons, at a price of, say 3 $3 per gallon (gas in now just over $2pg down from when it was $4)that's somewhere's about $6000 in gas then with the tax brakes & credits that's close to half of what we paid for it.Oh the battery's warrantied for 10 yrs, so at this rate if I have it for 10yrs it'll have 750,000 miles on it, I'll have saved over it's 10 yr life span $30,000 in fuel but the way I drive even my slant 6's didn't last over 250,000 miles. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Ebbie Date: 14 May 09 - 12:33 PM Good for you, Barry. St. George, in Canada's Alberta (?) province has a taxi fleet made up of Prius. One question, though: When you are travelling, where do you put your suitcases? In the trunk of the Prius I saw, the space was mostly taken up by a cylinder of some kind of fuel. About having to replace all four tires on the Ford Escape, I understand it is what the manufacturer requires, having to do with balance or some such. I should do some research on it, but since I no longer own a car it is not of great moment to me at this point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Dennis the Elder Date: 14 May 09 - 01:17 PM Just a few questions from a confused motoriist, regarding basic logic. How efficient is any power station producing electricity? Lets say 50%, it depends on which fuel is used in the first place. How efficient is the electricity from the plug in charging the battery, I do not know!, but certainly it wont be 100%, some will be lost. How efficient is the battery running the car, again I doubt 100%. Good previous point about carrying the weight of the batteries, so some will be lost. All this lost energy has created CO2 and the like, which is what, I believe is the reason for all these deliberations. How efficient is the Petrol or the diesel engine? I believe this is above 50%, please correct me if I am wrong. Why, therefore, do we appear to be trying hard and travelling backwards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Barry Finn Date: 14 May 09 - 01:57 PM Hi Ebbie I don't know about any cylinders. The trunk of our car has a bit more room than our Matrix had, though not as high in the way back. Then back seats fold down for more trunk space if needded but we seldom need it unless I haven't hit the dump in while. We have fit enough suitcases in the back for 3 of us to fly to San Francisco & to stay there for 2 weeks. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 May 09 - 02:46 PM One company in Calgary, Alberta, has a part fleet of Prius taxis (There is no city called St. George). Use of heater and air conditioning reduce gas mileage. Hot coolant is circulated for heating. The cold winter nights here require garage storage when 20-30 below zero when not in use; no problems in warmer months. Block heaters are available and in use here, but efficiency has been questioned. The car runs on the gas engine during warm-up. This from an owner I know here in Calgary. Our electricity comes from a grid tied to U. S. as well as Canada, (remember the last big brown-out), mostly coal-fired generation. Proposed vehicles requiring battery-recharge will, of course, increase coal-fired generation of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Ebbie Date: 14 May 09 - 06:27 PM Cut me a little slack, OK, Q? I'm not a Canadian. My guess is that you know full well that I was referring to PRINCE George. My bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 May 09 - 07:38 PM Not a Canadian? Pity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Ebbie Date: 14 May 09 - 11:38 PM If I were Canadian I would be nicer. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Gurney Date: 15 May 09 - 02:22 AM Dennis the Elder, you are possibly right that vehicles that are basically electrically-powered are of debatable efficiency overall, that is my guess, too, but there are points to consider: Petrol/gasoline vehicles were once very inefficient. They got better because buyers demanded it over the last 100years. We are in the hands of the oil cartel. I'd like to get out. There are ways of generating electricity that are both non-polluting and becoming more widely accepted. Batteries are becoming better. They certainly need to. Then there is fuel-cell technology coming along. We (here I go, speaking for everyone on Earth!) will likely need alternatives to petrol/diesel power in our children's lifetime. It might be a good idea to start developing them now. They won't get developed without sales. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hybrid vehicles... questions.... From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler Date: 15 May 09 - 07:22 AM I seem to remember from a comparison when the railways were putting an end to steam that a diesel powered locomotive is about 37% efficient maximum and that petrol came at about 25%. I think electric was 40% but I'm not sure on that one. Coal fired steam locos could be as low as 7%. Cars are less efficient because of the scale effect. |
