May 28, 2008 at 10:08 am
leads me to wonder whether your scepticism stems from your not being willing to make any of those sacrifices?
No, my skepticism stems solely from looking at the facts, and the lack thereof for AGCC. I have made sacrifices before when necessary, and am willing to do so when it is again necessary.
I don't make a very good sheep.
May 28, 2008 at 10:09 am
Interesting debates and thanks for the comments. It's one of the reasons I do these updates as a break from the db stuff.
If you want to debate the personal liberty thing, please, someone start a thread in the "Anything Not about SQL" forum. I'm sure it would be interesting. Let's keep this one to cars.
On the Jetta, I personally don't like the cars (look or drive). Just personal preference. My wife made me drive one, as well as a Passat, but didn't like them. Not very rational, but it's what I think. I do like the Rabbits and Beetles thought 🙂
The cost of the hybrid over and above what I might have paid, in my mind, is about $4500. So with the tax credit, I'm about even now. The "savings" go against that $4500 and so my break even is about 14 months. I was expecting a 2 year savings, but the price of oil has helped speed that up.
There could be some issues with the multiple parts, however I have a 3rd generation Prius and Toyota has done a lot to make them better. I have an extended warranty on parts, added into that $4500, because there is a lot of non-standard technology and parts on the car. I admit I'm concerned about the start/stop of the engine, which isn't something that normally happens in cars. I'm not sure we have enough knowledge on the effects of this over time to know if this is good or bad. So far I'm betting that it doesn't significantly change the cost of the car.
Of course, one car isn't a good statistical sample.
I'll leave some of the energy stuff until next month, but I will say that electric cars are getting better and better. 300miles a tank is typical in many cars. Often gas tanks are smaller in smaller cars, larger in larger cars, to get to the 300-400 miles a tank, depending on how you drive, conditions, etc.
There are a few electric cars getting this on a charge, but I think if we can get to the 200mile range, a comfortable drive with some pad in case you don't charge at every stop, then I think lots of people would consider them. While charging a battery is much less power than lots of appliances, especially AC, quick charging and a lot of charging will make a difference.
There are ways around this, solar charging, perhaps panels placed on the roofs of buildings and garages, small windmills, etc. can make a difference. But we need a tipping point. Enough people starting to use cars and there will be reason to invest in this stuff. This might even be a perk by some employers at some point.
Diesels do pollute, but they've gotten much better. You buy them, they will get still more efficient over time.
May 28, 2008 at 10:20 am
You seem to recognize only two power centers--government and corporate--and you seem to believe they're diametrically opposed. In other words, you have bought into the free market dogma that all government is bad, that all regulation is bad, and the worst fallacy of all, that what's good for big business is good for you and me. Reality is far more complicated than that.
You really didn't get my posts. Our Founders knew that government was a necessary evil. That is why the Constitution intentionally limits its power. There was no "free market" under King George - his throne was in authority. The power center, in a free society, is the voting population. We get the government we vote for, and instead of blaming Congress or Bush, we should take responsibility for the goofballs we elect.
As for corporations exerting too great a power over citizens - that can only happen when government fails to do its Constitutional duty, and in fact, becomes an enabler for corporate rights (for which there is no direct Constitutional protection) over individual rights.
The vast majority of companies (and in the total number of jobs) in the US are small to medium sized businesses, not the corporate giants you seem to distrust. A huge corporation is just as likely to become oppressive as a huge government is. Only a truly free market can balance things.
May 28, 2008 at 10:57 am
Sorry, Steve. The topic has gotten out of bounds and I'm a chief culprit. I will take up my idealogical topics elsewhere.
msbassinger:
Regarding the relative efficiency of internal combustion cars vs electric cars, , I thought thermodynamic efficiency was the only game in town when you're talking about energy. Can you define "chemical efficiency" and/or explain how it is more valid than thermodynamic efficiency for comparing electric v gasoline cars?
May 28, 2008 at 11:15 am
Can you define "chemical efficiency" and/or explain how it is more valid than thermodynamic efficiency for comparing electric v gasoline cars?
I should stay on topic. That question is something you can easily lookup for yourself.
As to hybrids being a plus or minus financially, try this compact analysis:
This is not a technical observation, but a personal one: When government subsidizes our hybrids, do we consider what right we have to the money the government took - on threat of force - from someone else so we can drive our hybrid cars cheaper? The same question can be asked concerning government subsidies of ethanol production, since up to 10% of gasoline is ethanol.
Also, does anyone have anything definitive on how "green" the hybrid manufacturing process is? With the electric engine & battery part of this, wouldn't more heavy metals and acids mean more pollution from waste materials, or at least a higher cost to safely process the toxic waste?
May 28, 2008 at 11:39 am
Can you define "chemical efficiency" and/or explain how it is more valid than thermodynamic efficiency for comparing electric v gasoline cars?
...
...
I should stay on topic. That is something you can easily lookup for yourself.
Actually, I found no definitions searching Google or Wikipedia for "chemical efficiency," and certainly no arguments for why it would be a useful measure in this context. That tells me that practically nobody knows what it means. Thermal efficiency is the coin of the realm in energy discussions. If you're claiming an efficiency "far greater" than 50% for internal combustion engines, I think the burden's on you to explain how that's calculated.
May 28, 2008 at 11:50 am
there have been quite a few debates on the "green-ness" of hybrids. I think the jury's still out on whether they are better or worse for the environment overall.
May 28, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Ian Massi (5/28/2008)
Making moonshine in your driveway to power a car looks interesting, although it may be tough to keep it from being consumed by people. Great update, I hope my next car is electric. Especially since I drive 10 minutes to and from work every day, and that's about it. My father drives his V8 pickup an hour each way but has noticed that as the price of gas has gone up, there are less cars on the road. I guess the demand for gasoline is at least somewhat elastic.
Actually, the demand is INELASTIC. The percentage by which the price increases is greater than the percentage effect on the quantity demanded but, at least it's not "perfectly inelastic"!
(taking MicroEconomics right now) 🙂
Luis
May 28, 2008 at 12:43 pm
miles per tank is such a misnomer. I get 600 but have a 14 gallon tank and i have never put over 13 in it. Another guy at work only fills up once a month... but it costs him 115 bucks. That is why earlier i put cents\mile including oil etc.
As far as the earlier statement of diesel being a horrible poluter. Check again. Part of VW's slow to market new jetta diesel is that they are trying to meet requirements from the us gov. They have two cat converters as well as a multitude of other stuff to bring down emissions. The other thing to remember with emissions and diesels is you can't base it off of semi's. Compare apples to apples of well performing vehicles. Thre is also a cost of end of lifing a vehicle. Scrap iron sits somewhere. A diesel engine by nature fo being heavier will last longer. There are a ton of diesel cars in the million mile club. When have you heard of a gasser there. As i will be over 100K miles within 4 years of purchase i am excited about the prospect of a million miles as i intend to drive my tdi till it is dead.
I love the moonshine in the driveway concept. I agree as well that food sources area horrible fuel source. Biodeisel however removes the oil leaving a higher protien content food source for cattle. There are a lot of farms producing their own feed adn fuel to power their opperation. Waste veg oil is also useful for biodiesel. I can't speak to the ethanol side. I intend to get a small biodeisel setup in the next year or two. First i must do a full analysis though to ensure it is best bang for my buck.
May 28, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Actually, I found no definitions searching Google or Wikipedia for "chemical efficiency," and certainly no arguments for why it would be a useful measure in this context. ... I think the burden's on you to explain how that's calculated.
When you measure efficiency between an electric car vs a gasoline car, you have to look at more than just the conversion of the battery's stored energy-to-work and the gas tank's stored energy-to-work. Those are valid parts, but not complete.
The actual measure is the amount of energy that goes into producing the output of, say driving 1 mile in a given size car. For the electric car, that starts with the total energy needed to produce the energy stored in the battery. About 50% of the energy in fossil fuel or nuclear plants is sent into the condenser as waste heat that is unrecoverable (entropy). So for every KWH of energy stored in your battery, it took 2 KWH of energy to produce it.
As for gasoline, almost all of the hydrocarbons are converted to CO, CO2, and H2O. That is where the thermodynamic efficiency takes over, limiting it to 20-37% of the available yield.
My point was that many people assume electric cars are nearly 100% efficient - a false assumption since they don't consider how much energy is wasted in creating electricity. The same Carnot cycle that limits total efficiency in a gasoline or diesel engine also limits efficiency in the generation of electricity from fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Sauce for the goose.
Now, whether you agree, disagree, or don't care - I have explained my point, and let's stick to the topic.
May 28, 2008 at 2:10 pm
You have good points on efficiency, and those items do matter when you compare cars. That's one good thing about the Xprize. They "charge" for electricity so that there's a carbon footprint for the electricity generation.
Don't forget that electrical storage efficiency changes with temperature as well. You can have issues with batteries or even charging in cold temperatures.
May 28, 2008 at 5:36 pm
About 50% of the energy in fossil fuel or nuclear plants is sent into the condenser as waste heat that is unrecoverable (entropy). So for every KWH of energy stored in your battery, it took 2 KWH of energy to produce it.
As for gasoline, almost all of the hydrocarbons are converted to CO, CO2, and H2O. That is where the thermodynamic efficiency takes over, limiting it to 20-37% of the available yield.
My point was that many people assume electric cars are nearly 100% efficient - a false assumption since they don't consider how much energy is wasted in creating electricity. The same Carnot cycle that limits total efficiency in a gasoline or diesel engine also limits efficiency in the generation of electricity from fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Sauce for the goose.
Now, whether you agree, disagree, or don't care - I have explained my point, and let's stick to the topic.
The topic is how we will drive in the future and how our cars will best use available energy. Nothing could be more on-topic than knowing the true efficiencies of competing technologies. The point we're debating is your claim that "a typical modern car engine is much more efficient" than fossil fuel power plants (and by implication, electric cars), which waste 50% of available energy.
That sort of misinformation has to be challenged and corrected if we hope to solve our energy problems. According to your own numbers, a gas engine is in the range of 20-37% efficient, which means 63-80% of the energy in your gas tank ends up as waste heat. So even if electric cars are only 90% efficient in getting energy from the battery to the road, factoring in the inefficiency at the powerplant, they are still 45% efficient overall in using fossil energy, significantly better than gas cars. Electric cars can be easily made to use regenerative braking, they can have more efficient drive trains, and they waste far less fuel when coasting or stopped, all of which can give them additional efficiency gains compared to internal combustion.
That doesn't mean I want to drive one, or that I think they will be practical or desirable in the near future, but let's argue that based on facts rather than unsupported claims.
June 5, 2008 at 6:33 am
Someguy (5/28/2008)
We could solve the problem by building more nuclear plants like France has. That would give us both the power for electric cars and hydrogen for fuel cells (a good use of nuclear stations during non-peak hours would be producing hydrogen). Unfortunately, we then get a whole new group of frightened activists.
And with some justification. In the UK nuclear was first sold as being too cheap to meter. Lately it has been promoted as 'non-polluting'. Unfortunately there is still no facility for safe disposal of the waste and the budget for decommissioning the existing obsolete plant has just had to be doubled. Of course, if waste disposal was sorted out, there would still be opposition but the scale would be diminished.
The question of carbon emissions from the uranium mining, processing etc and the building and decommissioning of the plant is often overlooked. Some have questioned whether nuclear energy is in fact a net carbon producer.
June 5, 2008 at 9:41 am
Hey, nuclear powered diggers!
That's a good point, and all the extra work that goes into building a nuclear plant as well affects carbon emmissions.
But nuclear runs a long time, and with new plants and more modern procedures, the waste reduction is amazing. They can get down to much, much less waste byproducts from running the plant, so much less to store.
Recently the US submitted their disposal facility permit for Yucca Mountain, so we'll see how that works.
June 5, 2008 at 10:07 am
Folks,
Here is the link I mentioned about the electric car I saw a magazine sales advertisement for that has a 10 minute charge. I'm not crazy about the SUT or SUV form factor, but I'm impressed with a 10-minute charge for 100 miles. That's very reasonable and removes many barriers to adoption.
I'm not saying that this is the best or the only one, but they do seem to be at the forefront of what I think will and should be the future of vehicles to come (all-electric vehicles).
________________
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php
Phoenix Motorcars manufactures zero-emission, freeway-speed, all-electric vehicles. It is an early leader in the mass production of full-function, green electric trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) for commercial fleet and consumer use. Based in Ontario, California, Phoenix Motorcars uses the revolutionary lithium titanate battery solution, a non-toxic, all-battery pack that eliminates noise and toxic vehicle emissions that contribute to air pollution.
Introducing the all-new sport utility truck (SUT) from Phoenix Motorcars. The four-passenger, advanced battery electric, zero-emission SUT that can travel at freeway speed. Equipped with a revolutionary lithium titanate battery, this SUT will travel over 100 miles on a single 10-minute charge.* Designed with a sophisticated chassis and regenerative braking, this fully electric vehicle is not only powerful, it’s practical and really cool.
* Off-Board High-Power 250kW Charger required for 10-minute charge.
Phoenix SUT Specifications
Production Vehicle Preliminary Specifications
Dimensions & Weights
Overall Length 195.5 inches / 4,965 mm
Overall Width 74.8 inches / 1,900 mm
Overall Height 69 inches / 1,755 mm
Wheelbase 120.5 inches / 3,060 mm
Gross Vehicle Weight 5,820 lbs. / 2,639.9 kg
Curb Vehicle Weight 4,820 lbs. / 2,186.2 kg
Payload 1,000 lbs. / 453.6 kg
Chassis
Front Suspension: Independent torsion bar and double wishbone
Front Brakes: Ventilated disc
Rear Suspension: Rigid axle and 5-link coil springs
Rear Brakes: Disc
Steering: Rack & pinion
Battery Pack
Battery Type (Power Rating): Lithium Titanate Battery (35 kWh)
Performance:
0-60 m.p.h.: Less than 10 seconds
Factory Set Top Speed: 95 m.p.h.
Braking: 60 to 0 m.p.h. in an estimated 150 feet
Range
Urban (UDDS): 100+ miles per charge
Highway (HFEDS): 100+ miles per charge
Charging Time
On-Board Vehicle 6.6KW Charger: 5 to 6 hours
Off-Board High-Power 250KW Charger: Under 10 min. to 95% SOC
________________
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 48 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply