Experimental hybrid cars get up to 250 mpg

[meganmonkey]

CORTE MADERA, Calif. -- Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.

It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret - a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.

Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.

Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb - all for about a quarter.

more...


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700&slug=Hybrid%20Tinkerers

[jeff30997]

1. The Bushits and other oil pirates won't be happy.

:evilgrin:

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Yes, they will. They are gouging us for oil and then later will gouge

us for the solar panels whose market they are now cornering.

But don't worry, it;s worth lining their pockets because in the end it'll help the earth. Let them roll in their piles of money. We'll have a healthier world to roll in instead.

[Trillo]

30. They already are gouging for solar panels.

The cost of manufacturing was massively reduced with the introduction of the laser 20 years ago. Panels have been priced so that few will be able to afford to adopt the technology.

The government is not serious about energy independence.

[Canuckistanian]

73. They're betting on Hydrogen...

I heard there's lot of investment in the Bush family for hydrogen power companies and ventures...

[TheFarseer]

2. That's great news

why isn't that part of the energy bill? oh yeah, because it's really the "let's divert money to my friends" bill

[lectrobyte]

3. Cool. I want one.

[geomon666]

4. Fuel up for a quarter?

Dayum!

[DS1]

5. Cars should have solar panels instead of paint

It's just that simple. Countless times I've sat myself in a car that's been in the sun, baking my freaking ass off, and thought to myself "if this car could harness all the energy it took to heat its insides to 140 degrees, it would use about 1/3 of its current fuel consumption"

...or words to that effect

[Coastie for Truth]

6. I have a solar "trickle charger"

and with a PV cell that is "windshield + sunroof" size - you won't get enough watts to move a car. You might get enough for the "parasitic accessories" (radio, clock, interior lights, trickle charge) - rule of thumb is that one square foot gives you about 1 KWHR/month.

[DS1]

8. today yes. but what with nanotechnology who's to say what will be next?

Remember when Compaq's idea of a laptop computer weighed 30 pounds?

[Coastie for Truth]

11. No doubt.

With nanotechnology (especially nanolayers of compound semiconductors making up the nano-photodiode layers) you could certainly capture much more of the spectrum.

Research is moving in that area.

[DS1]

12. Which is why we need to give tax breaks to the oil industry

Record profits are hurting because of taxes :eyes:

[kestrel91316]

48. Again, Google "nanosolar"

[Syncronaut Seven]

18. A pair of 2' x 4' 100w Panels on the roof of your car =33-50 Kwh/month

Assuming an overall 30% loss in charging/discharging the batteries you should be able to pull 1.1 KWH in an 8 hour work day, or roughly 1.5 horsepower hours. If your cruising at 10 horsepower @ 60Mph solar might give you an extra daily drive time of 8 minutes, or 7 miles give or take.

a 100w panel given 12 hours a day, 7 days a week should actually give you 36 Kwh a month or 4.5 Kwh per square foot per month.

Your thumb may be small.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. I was using the numbers for amorphous Si

[Syncronaut Seven]

29. True solar snobs prefer polycrystaline ;o)

Let no photon escape alive!!!!! :crazy:

[Coastie for Truth]

39. But my cubicle was across the hall

from an amorphous silicon PV dep line.

[TahitiNut]

20. I look to the day when the 'paint' IS a 'solar panel'.

At some point, a solar panel will be almost indistingushable from a painted surface, I believe. The same goes for an illumination source.

[kestrel91316]

49. Can we say "nanosolar"? (and no I don't hold stock in them!)

[kestrel91316]

46. Now your'e thinking! Google "nanosolar"

[KansDem]

79. What about the air conditioning?

I've wondered the same thing about solar panels on cars and whether they could power the A.C. The benefits would be two-fold: 1) If the A.C. were run from solar power, then the car engine would run more efficiently since it would be free from powering the A.C. (and one supposes the only time you would need A.C. is when the sun is out--car could harness all the energy it took to heat its insides to 140 degrees). 2) You could run the A.C. all the time in summer--even when the car is parked. Then, the car would already be cooled down when you went to get in to go somewhere. This would also prevent energy loss from cranking the A.C. on "high" until the interior cooled down to a comfortable level.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. The "magic" is

1. Fiddling around (for want of a better term) with the memory that has the code for the microprocessor (shift points between electric and IC, transmission shift points, air conditioner/heater "smarts", etc.) - I would expect that to be a user programmable option in the near future.

2. "Plug In" capability

[pimpbot]

9. How much oil/coal was used to generate the power when its plugged in?

Just saying, that electricity comes from somewhere! (hopefully wind/solar/water)

[TahitiNut]

19. The article said 25 cents worth. That's about 1/10th of a gallon, now.

:shrug:

[Mairead]

31. I bet that 25c doesn't include the cost of the batteries

and their eventual disposal/recycling.

[Gregorian]

40. Glad somebody's thinking. Thank you.

People are easily fooled.

Here's the bottom line, folks. And I'm not joking- get out and push your car around the block. Now find one of these new cars and push it around the block. Takes just about the same exact amount of energy. Doesn't it?

Don't be fooled. If I tell you my electric car gets infinity miles per gallon, you wouldn't be fooled.

edit- I mean they have conveniently left off the very important fact that they are grabbing energy from the wall socket.

It's all going in the right direction though. And that's good.

[Dover]

10. Plugging into electrical outlets is obviously not the answer, but

getting more mileage due to a better battery system sounds promising.

As long as our electrical utilities run on fossil fuels, coal,or nuclear energy, the 'plug in' solution is not really doing that much to improve the situation, imo.

[buddysmellgood]

13. It would do a great deal in that, dirty or not, we can make the energy

here.

[jayctravis]

24. True, but if we burn less fuel in our cars, it gives more resources

to producing electricity.

I know it's probably different because electrical plants I don't believe run on gasoline...but this is the stepping stone until we invent cold fusion or teleportation. :)

[buddysmellgood]

14. Make the plug-in hybrid with a quick charge battery and you have a

vehicle that is more convenient than dealing with messy gas. A person wouldn't even have to get out of the car. All this hand wringing over oil is bull. We can start switching over tomorrow.

-snip-the latest developments from the tech giant Toshiba Corporation might result in a total transformation of this industry. Their latest announcement is about a new lithium-ion battery, which could make long recharge times of the batteries a thing of the past. Impressively, these new batteries attain a charge of around 80% capacity after just 1 minute of recharging.

http://news.techwhack.com/1068/30032005-toshibas-new-nanobattery-might-lead-to-a-revolution/

[sakabatou]

15. It's good news but...

Grumban will most likely find his car gone someday, taken by the feds.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. ha-ha! That's what happened to American ingenuity.

Once we stopped relying on corporate R&D, we find ingenuity in the garage and basements of real Americans. Welcome back!

[0007]

17. junior and the neocons won't like this news.

[Sgent]

22. Don't forget

that "dirty" plugin feul holds two major advantages.

1) We can make it here
2) Pollution is centralized at a plant, instead of upteen million cars. In theory, it should make it much easier to control.

[GaYellowDawg]

76. That's a good "point."

Pun intended. The fewer pollution point sources, the easier it is to effect changes.

[Strelnikov_]

23. A Less Aggressive Implementation Would Be Useful

That is, a 20 mi. EV range at 35 mph.

From EDrive Systems FAQ:

Q:What is the EV driving range?
A: If you were to limit your speed to 34mph or less, the gas engine may not come on for up to 35miles.

And from the following article:

Take This Car And PLUG IT
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/jul05/0705ncar.html

Researchers have shown that battery packs offering an effective electric range of 32 km (20 mi) will yield up to a 50 Percent reduction in petroleum consumption.

A car driven 12,000 mi/yr, 80% daily utilization, is approx. 40 mi./dy., as the article notes. Considering that the Prius gets 50 mpg in HEV mode (urban), assuming a 20 mi. EV range a PHEV Prius average fuel consumption of 100 mpg seems reasonable.

EV range per day could be stretched even further by supplemental charging during the day. For example, recharging at your workplace after a 20 mi. commute would yield a 40 mi. EV range, or a 40 mi. daily commute without liquid fuels.

Seems to me to be the best of both worlds. A 35 mph EV with a per charge range of 20 mi., or a conventional HEV that can be driven over the hills and across the dale to Grandma's house when required.

Considering the current personal vehicle efficiency is 20.8 mpg, I consider 100 mpg, in a real car, and all with today's technology, a major improvement. Think what can be done with further improvements with an eye to efficiency (weight, size, lower top speed).

As to cost, a Prius is, what, $21,000 as currently configured. Say the 20 mi. EV option adds $5,000, still less than what most SUV's cost. And why not develop lower cost, economy, PHEV's? Do we really need all the bells and whistles to get from point A to B?

At 100 mpg, we would be within the capability of providing fuel for this fleet through biomass sources, again with today's technology. Considering that 42% of current petroleum consumption is used in the 20.8 mpg fleet, this would take a big bite out of the expected petroleum depletion rate.

No, a PHEV Prius is not THE answer. But it is a start in the bridge from the current to the future energy reality. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense than nearly all the programs in the recent 'energy' bill.

When can I buy one, Toyota?

[NEOBuckeye]

26. F*ck what the NeoCons want. WE THE PEOPLE demand solutions!

And we demand to not be gauged at the pump just so that Bush and Big Oil boys can live like kings.

[buddysmellgood]

27. If we coat the hybrids with this nanomaterial, they actually clean the air

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/07/ap/ap_072705.asp

[Vogon_Glory]

28. Cheaper Than A War. Good Luck Mr Gremban!

I wish Mr. Gremban the best of luck in developing this technology and hope that some automaker will take his ideas and use them wisely. Unfortunately, given Mr. Dropwrench and F___'s recent behavior, I suspect that the auto company that does probably won't be American-owned.

Fleets of this sort of hybrid looks to considerably cheaper than wars in the Middle East.

[newswolf56]

32. Sorry but hybrids change nothing; they perpetuate the status quo both...

economically and environmentally. The basic problem is that transportation in the United States is increasingly unaffordable to the very people who need it most: working families. Hybrids -- now or ever -- cannot possibly alleviate the problem.

This is because only the rich can afford hybrids. The typical hybrid sells for about $30,000 -- which is more than the U.S. worker (at an average of $13 per hour) makes in a year. This means the typical American worker is still stuck trying to feed a gas-guzzler on ever more expensive fuel -- still abandoned by the politicians to fend for himself/herself in coping with the industrial world's worst, least efficient, most expensive and most savagely discriminatory transportation system.

Once again, I am astounded how otherwise intelligent people who claim to be Leftists are intellectually crippled by a hopelessly bourgeois, hopelessly PollyAnna ignorance of class-struggle and its ever more vicious economic realities. This ignorance is THE underlying reason we lost the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Given the always-malevolent reality of capitalism, the cost of hybrid cars will only go UP as fuel prices skyrocket. (Remember how the prices of fuel-efficient cars soared during the 1970s?) Meanwhile -- because what is really happening this time is the total and permanent collapse of the U.S. economy -- wages will continue to decline and employment will continue to dwindle. The hybrids will therefore remain forever beyond the reach of the very people who need them the most.

The fair, just and environmentally sustainable solution would be to build genuine mass transit -- transit that's powered by electricity and runs on rails. But that will never happen -- precisely because it IS the fair, just and ecologically sane solution: fairness, justice and ecological sanity is an absolute impossibility in any economic system based on principles derived from Yehvehistic religion. Note how -- even though the federal government set aside huge sums for mass transit construction during the 1960s and 1970s -- nothing was built. The funds were instead ignored and obstructed (and sometimes even stolen) by state and local politicians, then siphoned off by Congress to finance the gargantuan military buildup gleefully undertaken by the leaping-chimp Reaganoids. The money was never restored during the '90s: Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council peerage were as opposed to mass transport as Reagan was. And because of today's federal deficit -- also because both parties remain equally hostile to mass transit -- those sums will never, ever be available again. (Because of skyrocketing land costs -- a true yardstick of the growing worthlessness of the U.S. dollar -- no such system could ever again be built even if the desire to build it were there, even if the DemoPublican politicians were willing to stop subsidizing the Oil Barons and the Automotive Lords.)

So instead of building public transport, obscene sums of money will be spent on status-quo baubles: hybrids -- vehicles only the rich and super-rich can afford, exceptionalist projects that make a big public relations splash ("see how technology is going to rescue us once again"), brightly colored possessions to wax and polish and flash like grotesquely oversized finger-jewels, perks that benefit only plutocrats, helping the oligarchy consolidate even more of its stolen wealth.

What is essential -- that is, if we are going to survive the oncoming collapse -- is not a new product but a new paradigm.



Edit: minor correction I thought I had made before posting.

[kostya]

37. You castrate your argument right from the first...

by claiming "typical" hybrid costs $30K. I spent $20K for mine, net $18K after tax breaks, and of course there are used hybrids on the market. When someone relies on hyperbole to make their point, I tune them out. - K

[newswolf56]

41. Price for a hybrid in my area (Puget Sound) typically runs around...

$30,000, tax and license included. The lowest prices I've seen are around $26,000. Not hyperbole: fact. The demand is high and growing -- we are second only to California with the highest gas prices in America -- which means the dealers can charge whatever they choose, no negotiation allowed. It also means the price will continue to soar.

I don't know a single person -- anyone still in the workforce or retired -- who can afford to pay $26,000 for an automobile, much less $30,000. Not that such prices matter to me in any case: at my income level, all new cars are forever beyond my reach -- forever because, at my age, my income can only dwindle.

As for you "tun(ing) out," it's obviously no loss: your elitist let-them-eat-cake sneering not only proves your absolute ignorance of working-class reality, it also demonstrates incontrovertibly that you're part of the problem -- exactly why America is still shackled to the privately owned automobile.

[msongs]

44. civc hybrids widely available yer area for $20-23K --->

not sure if this link will give you the info but using google to yahoo search honda+civic+hybrid I found nearly 18 hybrids within 100 miles of seattle for $20-23K

http://used-cars.autos.yahoo.com/usedcars/search.html?make=HONDA&model=CIVIC&cl_y=&ch_y=&cl_price=&ch_price=&cl_mi=&ch_mi=&ck=hybrid&gur=100&csz=Seattle%2C+Washington&vtype=autos&mk=Honda&mo=Civic

Msongs
Riverside Ca
civic hybrid owner - mine is for sale wanna buy it?

edit for number correction

[newswolf56]

58. Average new vehicle price for a hybrid -- I calculated it out --

is $25,868 nationally: http://www.edmunds.com/new/market/hybrid/all/index.html

Add to that the state/local sales tax of approximately 9 percent (it varies with the locale), and you've got an additional $2328.12. Add $30 more for license plates and your price tag is $28,226.12. Add the "dealer transportation and prep" charges with which the auto-snakes always inflate their sticker prices and you're easily at the $30,000 sum I specified. Moreover, with a high-demand automobile there is NEVER any negotiation possible: you pay what the dealer demands or you don't get the car.

Yes I know there are cheaper hybrids -- in fact earlier this evening and out of curiosity I spoke with someone who has auto-industry connections and we discussed this very question -- but in my area the cheaper hybrids (though advertised) are always mysteriously "unavailable," and you can't get the more expensive ones without (1) a substantial cash deposit (typically 25 percent, which means you've got to have the kind of ready cash only the wealthy can come up with) and (2) a waiting time of about six months during which your $7500 cash (based on the above average $30,000 price) is earning interest for somebody else. There are no more 2005 model hybrids available at any price levels; orders are now being taken for 2006, with the back-order time as noted.

Thanks for the link, but no thank you. As to buying a used hybrid -- please take no offense -- when dealing with technology that new, it's going to be full of expensive bugs, which means you absolutely need the protection of new-car warranties. Hence I wouldn't touch a used hybrid even if I could afford one, which I can't.

[SoCalDem]

59. Would LOVE to, but we, like many others cannot afford

to spend a bunch on a car..new or used.. We DO buy used, and the last time we did so, we paid 12,900 for an Accord EX . a '91 that we bought in 93.. We still have it and will probably never part with it.. To replace it would cost more than we can afford, and it's all we really need now.

[cornermouse]

38. Mass transit requires dense population in small areas.

This country has large areas that are not densely populated. Mass transit is simply not practical in those areas.

[newswolf56]

42. Not true; Europe has many areas of relatively sparse...

population, but is still served by more-than-adequate nationwide mass transit systems: truly adequate -- that is, in the sense they make automobile ownership optional -- not mandatory as in the U.S.

There is even better evidence in the mass transit history here at home: before Big Oil and Big Automotive began their (politician-assisted) conspiracy to destroy public transport in the United States, even smaller cities had extensive electric trolley systems, and small towns and the countryside were connected by a vast railroad network. Here on Puget Sound, the Interurban -- an electric railway of the sort that today would be called "light rail" -- connected all the coastal towns from Seattle to Bellingham, with rail links north to Vancouver and southward through Tacoma and Olympia to Portland, Oregon. Apart from the cities proper, this area was then deep country: as rural as rural can be.

Ernest Hemingway's magnificent two-part short story "Big Two Hearted River" takes place in the Upper Mighigan wilderness (which happens to be my most favorite land in all the world) and recalls the time in U.S. history when you could access even the wildest back country by train for hunting and fishing -- and arrange with the train crew to drop you off and pick you up at the same spot a few days later. A few such trains still ran in my boyhood: they were called Anglers' Specials or Hunters' Specials, and on the latter trains, the passengers were openly armed. There were also special trains for skiiers -- as I believe there still are in Europe.

Surely you don't imagine we Americans are so stupid we voluntarily embraced the expense and hassle of the automobile as our sole means of transport? We had no choice. After World War II, a brazen Big Oil/Big Automotive/Big-Pig Politician conspiracy methodically destroyed the entire U.S. public transport system everywhere save in a few boldly resistant cities like New York.

The Truman Administration conducted a major investigation into the conspiracy, and Congress held hearings. Both concluded the conspiracy was real, that it was indeed destroying mass transport in America, and that there was no legal basis for acting against it -- all the more so since Congress refused to pass the laws required to protect the public interest. Sometimes freedom really is slavery.

Alas, there are no links I can offer, and as far as I know, nearly all the proof that this happened has vanished down the Orwellian memory-hole: the last working columnist to write about the conspiracy was Jack Anderson (this in the context of examining the underlying causes of the '70s petroleum crisis). And Anderson himself complained about the scarcity of documentation nearly 30 years ago. Apparently even then most of the associated Congressional records had either been destroyed or were deliberately filed in maximum obscurity -- so that only someone with detailed and intimate knowledge of the investigation would know the key words by which to find the material.

[Mairead]

63. "Mass transit requires dense population in small areas."

I don't think that's quite true, though higher density does help.

Look up the history of the early-19th-c. interurban rail. They were basically streetcars, and before Detroit and the oil companies bought enough politicians to kill them, a person could travel halfway across the nation on them.

At that time, the US was still in the throes of industrialisation. There were some large cities such as NY and Chicago, but a large percentage of the population still lived in lo-density environments.

Streetcars and interurbans, with their thick webs of lines, frequent schedules, and low cost of operation compared to conventional railroads, were a great solution to mixed-density public trans.

[LostinVA]

47. Wrong. I just made a deal for a Civic Hybrid today for invoice

$19,700, in Virginia. Priuses are going for sticker (23-25k). And, I am not some rich, ivory tower elitist.

[RummyTheDummy]

61. You're right...I don't know where people are getting these prices

1. Hybrids are not perfect, they don't solve the long term problem, but it's about the best the mass market can do right now.

2. I don't know where in the fuck these people are getting the 30k prices. The Accord Hybrid is about 30k, but the Civic is under 20k and even less if you get a stick. The Insight is 19k, but it's not easy on the eyes. Toyota will be adding several new models to their lines as well including a hybrid Camry. I've heard a Corolla will be added by '08 as well.

[Porcupine]

56. We neglect the fuel cost of building the vehicle.

Every vehicle built uses about as much energy to build it as it will use in fuel. If we dispose of the 200+ million working vehicles and replace every single one with hybrids fuel use will increase.

We also neglect that we absolutely cannot replace any significant portion of our vehicle fleet before peak oil pricing renders the argument moot and trashes our economy.

For the majority, the personal car will be a thing of the past by 2010. Get used to it.

[Voltaire99]

60. Superb post.

Thanks for one of the best posts on these boards in ages.

[newswolf56]

66. Thank you, and a salute (with an uplifted fist) to your understanding.

[Chemical Bill]

33. I average 350 miles per gallon of petro...

since I burn biodiesel in my (diesel) car. All summer long I don't put petro-diesel into my tank at all, and in the winter I mix about 50-50 to keep the biodiesel from freezing. In two years I've gone 35,000 miles and burned 100 gallons of petrodiesel.

This stuff isn't in the future folks, it's in the present.

Bill

[LostinVA]

65. I have some questions about the biodiesel

I made deals today for both a Civic Hybrid and a Golf TDI... and made my decision to go with the TDI. However, the nearest biodiesel place is two hours away. I can get a 55-gallon barrel delivered for $174 (B100), but have no idea how to transfer the stuff from the barrel to my car! Any ideas? And, do you get more mpg from the biodiesel than petrodiesel?

Sorry -- tried to PM you, but your profile is blocked to PMs. Thanks!

[DoYouEverWonder]

67. You can buy a hand pump

It has a tube that you stick in the drum and a longer tube that goes to the tank with a hand pump in between.

You can probably find such a thing as an industrial supply or chemical supply company. The people who you are buying the 55-gallon barrels of bio-diesel can probably supply you with a pump.

[4dsc]

34. a "Prius" snuck up on me the other day

I thought I heard something coming down the road behind me but it didn't make much noise. As I turned, it went around the corner and down the street with nary a sound.. Neat.. Is that our future??

[goforit]

35. Now this is what I call a Revolution!!!...No more $$$ for Bush/Cheney!!!

Yeeeeh Haw!!!

[Placebo]

36. Bring it on!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[niallmac]

43. Consumers have a big problem with this?

"Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message."

[phylny]

45. Sounds pretty cool. I have a general question about hybrids:

I live in a partly rural, partly suburban area (Orange County). My current car averages about 19 mpg. I drive from home to home for my job, and while part of my route takes me from one stoplight to another, other parts of my route are rural and I can zip along at 55 mph.

How do you make a decision whether or not a hybrid makes sense? Is it only effective for so-called "city" driving?

Thanks for the help :)

[cornermouse]

64. A website you can go look at.

http://www.hybridcars.com/mileage.html

Very informative. I consulted it before I went out and bought mine. :)

[salcero]

71. Very informative website...

Thanks for that link. I've been looking for a website that could help show me the true cost of fuel savings with a hybrid. It's not as good as it might appear.

I've been comparing a Honda Civic HX and Toyota Prius.

According to Edmunds.com the invoice prices for those 2 vehicles are:

$19,314 for the Toyota Prius
$12,764 for the Honda Civic HX

$6,550 price difference

According to the website you provided, these are the average MPG's for those vehicles.

56 mpg for the Toyota Prius
39 mpg for the Honda Civic HX

I average about 15,000 miles per year on my vehicles. Right now the price of gas near my apartment in Seattle is about $2.60 a gallon. With those figures, the website says that in a year I will spend on gas:

$994.70 in the Honda Civic HX
$701.62 in the Toyota Prius

That is a savings of $293.08 per year.

With that savings it appears that it would take approximately 22 years, or 335,000 miles before I would recoup the initial costs of purchasing the vehicle.

Even going from my current vehicle which is a Hyundai Elantra which gets 30 mpg to the best hybrid, the Honda Insight, which gets 57 mpg, it would take me just over 10 years to recoup my costs. And that's if I bought each of those brand new right now. My Hyundai is 3 years old and paid for.

If people want to make the argument about lower emissions I think that is valid. However if you're looking to buy a hybrid to save money on gas you might be in for a real shock on how little the savings really are. Try out that website for yourself and see.

[R Hickey]

50. You can get 1000 mpg of Bush/Saudi oil by diluting it with ethanol

There's no reason to only get gas with ten percent ethanol, cars can run on seventy five precent ethanol, Brazil does something like that.
We should be designing cars to boycott OPEC, so we can break the Bush/Saudi oil/energy strangle hold.

[Chemical Bill]

51. "Flex-fuel" cars can run on 85% ethanol.

That's only specific gasoline engines. Most other cars you have to muck with the computer somehow, as the engine needs more ethanol than gasoline to run the same. Moot point for me, as last time I looked, you couldn't buy ethanol east of Iowa. BTW, isn't it "funny" that the one alternative fuel we could be running gas powered cars on is heavily taxed and we can't make it it home?

Bill

[buddysmellgood]

52. Unfortunatley, you have to put as much energy into making ethanol

as you get out.

[rfkrfk]

57. every process looses energy

the benefit of ethanol is,
the process is a big net producer of trasportation-friendly
liquid fuel.

[buddysmellgood]

72. No, the problem with ethanol is that it does not net any energy. At best,

it produces 1.1 units of energy for every unit put into the process. This is the best case scenario. When you factor in the damage to the environment, it's a looser. Ethanol production requires large amounts of energy in order boil away water. There are other, more efficient processes that get much more energy from plants.

[rfkrfk]

74. nothing 'nets' energy

this 'return on investment' concept, is rubbish.

If it is positive, some input is being ignored.

Renewable energy, you have to start somewhere,
Ethanol is certainely better than silly fuel cells.

[buddysmellgood]

78. I guess that depends on what you are investing. If your investment is

energy, as in you put energy in to convert corn to ethanol, then the energy content of the ethanol had better be greater than the amount of energy you put in. It's not. It's profitable because of tax subsidies. It's bad for the environment.
I don't know why you think fuel cells are silly, but if you take the whole corn plant and use water-based phase reformation process, you can generate much more energy from the corn in the form of hydrogen. The hydrogen can be burned in a "silly" fuel cell.

[rfkrfk]

84. my response

first of all, subsidies are debateable, with that said...

the ethanol supplement to gasoline, has become a
partisan political issue

I assume you are thinking about the Cornell study by
-forget the guy's name, starts with P - ,
that study has been challenged several times,
believe whatever you want, I guess

My opinion...

ethanol from sugarcane, good

ethanol from corn, tricky issue, at least it is a start,
perhaps subsidies should be reduced, as the current
arrangement is mature

ethanol from cellulose, hopeful


I call fuel cells 'silly' for these reasons,
fuel cells for vehicles, has been a sought after goal,
for many decades, I don't see change there.
fuel cells for stationary use, might have some niche, but who cares.
20 Honda FCX fuel cell cars were built {what a fraud}
83 percent efficiency of fuel cells is misleading,
{sorta like saying} I get 82 percent efficiency if I listen
to the radio in my car, but I get 40 percent efficency when I drive.

{related scam, sometimes they list 'warm water' as useful}

My V8 Mustang engine is 100 percent efficient, I guess, if you
add up,,, useful output, wasted heat, noise, and smoke.

[buddysmellgood]

85. Read this. This is part of our energy future.

http://www.engr.wisc.edu/alumni/perspective/29.1/Article14_hydrogen.html
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/headlines/2003/Jun30.html
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/headlines/2005/Jun02.html

[Daftly]

53. It's about freaking time! N/T

[The_Casual_Observer]

54. This sounds like bullshit to me.

That kind of horsepower/efficiency isn't physically possible from that set-up

[DoYouEverWonder]

68. The headline is very misleading

So far the guy can't go more then 20 miles before the car switches back to normal operation. So how can it get 250 MPG, when the car runs out of steam within 20 miles?

Second, I would question his .25 to recharge the car with electric. That seems a bit low to me.

[Doremus]

55. Return on energy invested (ROEI)

Re any alternate fuel, the ROEI reveals whether it's a net saver or a net waster of energy.

Batteries consume fuel both during manufacture and use, when they're recharged.

What is the ROEI of these hybrids? My hunch is that it's quite low, if not into negative numbers, i.e. net energy losers.

[NJCher]

62. comments on newswolf's argument, open source code approach

With all due respect, newswolf, your argument seems to be unnecessarily rigid. You are very much in the here and now. Your argument ignores the fact that prices come down once a certain mass is achieved. Throughout this process, technological improvements are innovated and finessed, many of which might solve some of the problems you survey.

One could use any number of products as examples, from cell phones to plasma screen televisions. I was astonished at the price drop on the latter and if there was anything worth watching, might even buy one. The fact is, however, that there is nothing worth watching so why bother.

Once the hybrid production engine gets rolling, any number of people will be looking for ways to sell this to different segments of the market, including lower income segments. When it comes to a potential sale, no one discriminates.

Regardless of my perception of your rigidity, your posts are very interesting and I hope to read more from you.

On another note, I love the "open source code" approach taken by Gremban. This should be encouraged and it appears that some automakers are getting a sense of how valuable this might be.


Cher

[newswolf56]

69. Thank you. What you describe as "rigidity" is in fact my recognition...

of the probability (based half on the "Peak Oil" hypothesis, half on its absolute relevance to the Marxian analysis of class struggle) that all previous capitalist economic theory is no longer valid: that this time and in this crisis there will be no reduction of prices "once a certain mass is achieved." I think we are already seeing this -- what I have implicitly named, in an earlier post on another thread, "the apocalypse factor" -- this in the steadily increasing prices of American real estate, prices undiminished by the escalating incidence of desperation sales, prices that will continue to increase even as skyrocketing interest rates force even more such sales, prices that are ultimately a reflection of the deteriorating value of the U.S. dollar -- and the forthcoming total collapse of the U.S. economy in general.

I should stress that I am neither a theoretical economist nor an academic of any sort. I am what my DU profile says I am: a writer, mostly a journalist with long years of experience covering public affairs. Though it is not obvious in that profile, I am also an avowed bohemian whose nonconformities have mandated a substantial tenure doing skilled and unskilled labor in the blue-collar world. My analysis is based entirely on a generalist's knowledge of history bolstered by the principles of class struggle. Many other alternative analyses are of course possible. But -- sadly and horrifically -- I believe that mine is the correct answer to the riddle of what obtains beyond the hurly burly of today's chaotic events. Thank you again for your expression of interest; please feel free to PM me if you are so inclined.

[jmowreader]

70. And they've been making batteries for HOW long?

The products you named have three similarities:

1) they have very high R&D costs
2) they require all-new factories
3) and they don't contain large quantities of raw materials.

Once you've paid down the R&D and the factory, to maintain the exact same profit margin on the item as you had when the bills were still coming in you NEED to drop prices unless you're doing something with all of the excess money, like investing it in developing the thing that's going to replace the thing you make now. (Which explains why a PlayStation 2 isn't $99.95 right now--they've spent all the excess money on designing the PlayStation 3. But by spending only some of the money on R&D and the rest on lowering prices, the price-cutting effect in high-tech you see now takes place.)

Now go pick up a big battery. Hefty little bugger, ain't it? I've got a 14.4v hammer drill, and the battery weighs more than the drill. And the battery in a hybrid car weighs more than the battery for a drill. Big batteries contain huge amounts of metals, and metals don't get cheaper because people are using more of them. In fact, they seem to get more expensive. There is a finite supply.

I don't think hybrid cars are going to be $5000 any time soon because (1) the expensive part of the hybrid package--the motors, generators and batteries--rely on technology that's costed down about as far as it's gonna go, and (2) the rest of the thing is still a car--and cars get more expensive, not less. Yes, the super high tech part of the hybrid car will go down. No, the super high tech part of the hybrid car is not the expensive part.

[Blue_Tires]

75. it will be interesting to see what happens n/t

[roguevalley]

77. I want one damnit.

[stepnw1f]

80. Hit The Oil Industry in the Pockets... GOOD!

We Progressives should start investing into alternative energy resources.

[FryLock3000]

81. I'm considering getting a hybrid....

If enough people bought these, car manufacturers would concentrate more R&D towards hybrids. That would mean even MORE efficient rides.

[Gary Boatwright]

82. No thanks, not for me!

These cars go too damn slow and I like to get to places in a hurry. When they make a 300 hp hybrid then I'll think about it. Fill 'er up!

[Beaverhausen]

87. I suggest that you test drive a Prius- you may change your mind

they are very peppy and powerful.

[Digit]

83. My concern is the resale value of my car if I hold onto it....

I think I goofed. After my escapades with a Dodge Caravan (new engine, 2 new transmissions), I bought a used 1992 Honda Accord back in 1995.
Well, it flunked inspection recently, and has alot of age on it, so I gave in and decided to buy a brand new car. The used cars on the lot were expensive and the warranty was only 90 days. Being the distrustful soul I am in regards to buying used cars and since this damned dark cloud over my head will NOT go away, I gave into temptation.
The new Honda Accords had horrible gas mileage...(I was shocked).
Then I remembered this damn dip at the bottom of my long driveway which scrapes the bottom of many a car. I realized that any car I purchased had to get into the damned driveway! So...I measured the clearance of my 92 Accord and the new Civic and Accord were much lower. So, I bought a Honda CRV which gets 22/27 and has only 4 cylinders.
It drives nice and I feel quite safe. Being only 4'11", I can now see over traffic!
My concern is that it will drop in price like a rock.
Then again, the city driving that I do is not that good with many vehicles out there.
To complicate matters, I am older and handicapped...so don't expect to see me on some damned scooter put-puttering to the pharmancy for my blood pressure meds!

[speedingbullet]

86. Hybrid Conversion?

I realize that hybrids are probably not the final answer to our energy woes. They do look like one of the better things happening right now. I'm wondering if someone will start offering some sort of retrofit kit to convert a current gas burner to some type of hybrid. If it could be done at a reasonable cost I think it would sell like crazy to those of us wanting a hybrid but not ready to buy a new car.