Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: CannonFodder on October 26, 2006, 05:15:35 PM
-
A friend of mine just bought a Toyota Prius (http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14137-1113588,00.html?CMP=KNC-IX7429721604&HBX_OU=50&q=toyota+prius) and it averages around 50Mpg. Very economical.
Was wonderin if anyone else has any expereince of them?
This review (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=135) is fo a newer model than his but the concetp is the same fo both
-
CannonFodder wrote:
A friend of mine just bought a Toyota Prius (http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14137-1113588,00.html?CMP=KNC-IX7429721604&HBX_OU=50&q=toyota+prius) and it averages around 50Mpg. Very economical.
Was wonderin if anyone else has any expereince of them?
Gas has to reach at least $7.50 a gallon, to be cost effective through the battery change in 4 years, which is the big issue at the moment. I actually like the Honda better, we designed (and now manufacture at a different plant) the electric car chargers, one of the guys at work has his honda hybrid running off of batteries pretty much only so he gases up every couple of months and just plugs the car to the charger at night. Once the battery replacement issue is solved, I'll be interested in one, but till then the cost of driving one for 4 years and two months is a little two expensive.
-Tig
-
I just bought a Honda Civic Hybrid here in Belgium, I will need to wait till December for delivery though. It included 8 years of guarantee on the battery and the electric circuit. So if it has to be replaced after 4 years it will cost Honda money.
Staf.
-
Talk about synchronicity, I recently had a lift in the exact same model. It was spookily quiet when the engine was not in use. Even empty milk floats make noise :-D
-
Obligatory South Park linkage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMcB8uWG44E), don't get smug :-).
-
Sometimes I wish that I had kept my Opel GT and done the Mother Earth hybrid conversion,(circa 1981?)!
Battery life is the issue.
Now how many here have any form of alternative energy source?
-
Would riding a mule count?
-
Do you own one? :) a mule that is
-
Karlos wrote:
Talk about synchronicity, I recently had a lift in the exact same model. It was spookily quiet when the engine was not in use. Even empty milk floats make noise :-D
yes, i had the same spookie feeling when I drove somebodies electric car. feels like a "normal" car but makes NO noise. ooOOOooOoooOooOOo weird!
-
nadoom wrote:
Do you own one? :) a mule that is
No, but it could be construed as driving a hybrid in some pastoral society :-D
-
Don't you ride mules? =)
-
Don't you ride mules? =)
my wife has a pair...
-
Battery life is the issue.
Now how many here have any form of alternative energy source?
hydrogen fuel cells, or hydrogen internal combustion engines.
for storage, Sodium Borohydride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_borohydride_fuel_cell) looks promising:
NaBH4(s) + 2H20(l) -> NaBO2(s) + 4H2(g)
then feed the hydrogen into the fuel cell / cylinder.
-
One likely problem with that reaction is that it isn't easy to reverse. You'd end up with a lot of sodium borate (jagshemash!) that would be difficult to reprocess back into sodium borohydride. Ideally you don't want by products from you fuel cell other than water. Anything else is dead weight you are carrying around.
Production of the borohydride in the first place requires a considerable amount of energy. Overall, it's cheaper to use liquified hydrogen. However, that's also extremely dangerous.
-
No, but it could be construed as driving a hybrid in some pastoral society
They still emit green house gases though.
My question is this...
It takes energy to charge these fuel cells, which means a power station somewhere has to burn something, so do these hybrids really impact the cost to the environment?
If they can stick one of these hybrid engines into a Mitsubishi L200 ill be happy!
-
That's the rub. Any rechargeable system that ultimately requires recharging from a mains supply will result in increased load on electricity supplies and subsequent increases in emissions from there. However, not all electricty is provided by burning fossil fuels and it's a lot easier to establish 'greener' sources at that level and making greater use of electricity than it is designing 'greener' consumers of energy.
Note that hybrids tend to be based on the idea of converting surplus engine power into electrical charge that you can reuse later, as well as reclaiming kinetic energy during breaking or downhill driving etc. They essentially give you better overall conversion of your fuel by storing the surplus energy as electrical charge that would otherwise be wasted.
-
CannonFodder wrote:
A friend of mine just bought a Toyota Prius (http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14137-1113588,00.html?CMP=KNC-IX7429721604&HBX_OU=50&q=toyota+prius) and it averages around 50MPG . Very economical.
I was wondering if anyone else has any experience of them?
This review (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=135) is for a newer model than his but the concept is the same for both
Puts hand up in the air. :banana:
I have an old (2002) model that still averages around 55MPG on the motorway (Highway) and around 48MPG around town. The motor assisted 1.5cc petrol Engine does between 450 and 500 miles from a single fill up of unleaded (currently costing me £35) was something of an eye opener for me at first.
BTW, the battery does not need to be plugged in to charge, it uses kinetic energy for continuous charging and has a regenerative braking system that also keeps it topped up.
Additional savings I have made are the exemption from the £8 per day London Congestion charge and the lowest Road tax ever (only £30 Per Annum). The extremely low emissions put it in a class of its own.
I would recommend a Test Drive (http://john1701a.com/prius/prius-video_hybridrevolution.htm) to anyone. (Nope I don’t work for Toyota :-P )
Hybrid cars, Its the future of motoring.... I've seen it! :-D
-
Tigger wrote:
Gas has to reach at least $7.50 a gallon, to be cost effective through the battery change in 4 years, which is the big issue at the moment. I actually like the Honda better, we designed (and now manufacture at a different plant) the electric car chargers, one of the guys at work has his honda hybrid running off of batteries pretty much only so he gases up every couple of months and just plugs the car to the charger at night. Once the battery replacement issue is solved, I'll be interested in one, but till then the cost of driving one for 4 years and two months is a little two expensive.
-Tig
I don't know where you got that silly idea from. What battery replacement issue :-? You must have been reading the FUD from the Anti-hybrid brigade.
The HSD components (Electric Motor & Battery) are under warranty from Toyota for 8 years but are expected to last even longer.
AFAIK the Honda is a different kind of hybrid (but still quite good) as opposed to the Prius where the petrol (Gas) engine can be switched off completely when not needed and the car can
run on Electricity only (http://john1701a.com/prius/prius-stealth.htm) . Unless you have modified the car the decision is made by the onboard computer for the best efficiency.
I suggest reading up on How it works (http://john1701a.com/prius/prius-how.htm)
Battery technology (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20061026005107&newsLang=en) has evolved now and both the charge capacity and logevity has increased so it won't be long before most auto manufacturers will be using them.
Hmm.... if only I could afford a Tesla (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/tesla-roadster-electric-060-in-four-seconds-188565.php) :-D
-
Karlos wrote:
Talk about synchronicity, I recently had a lift in the exact same model. It was spookily quiet when the engine was not in use. Even empty milk floats make noise :-D
It does freak people out when they see it reverse up my driveway completely siliently. A friend of mine walked over and said "There was something wrong with what I've just seen but I just can't place my finger on it" :lol:
If I wasn't such a considerate person I would use it to sneak up on people and thn blast the horn to give them a real shock :shocked: :-o
;-)
-
nadoom wrote:
Do you own one? :) a mule that is
You mean not everybody has one in your area like we do here in Manchester :-?
btw it is stricly used as a form of transport here I must point out. Not for recreational purposes like in some parts of the world :-P
-
cecilia wrote:
Karlos wrote:
Talk about synchronicity, I recently had a lift in the exact same model. It was spookily quiet when the engine was not in use. Even empty milk floats make noise :-D
yes, i had the same spookie feeling when I drove somebodies electric car. feels like a "normal" car but makes NO noise. ooOOOooOoooOooOOo weird!
It took me a while to get used to it myself. Now if I drive any other car I am annoyed by the noise and by the fact that the engine keeps running when stopped at lights.
Hybrids spoil you :-D
-
nadoom wrote:
No, but it could be construed as driving a hybrid in some pastoral society
They still emit green house gases though.
My question is this...
It takes energy to charge these fuel cells, which means a power station somewhere has to burn something, so do these hybrids really impact the cost to the environment?
If they can stick one of these hybrid engines into a Mitsubishi L200 ill be happy!
The standard Prius does not need plugging in. As Karl pointed out it conserves energy that would otherwise be wasted and keeps the battery topped up.
There have been people who have modded their cars to plug them in overnight but currently such a conversion is expensive. Over 100MPG has been made possible in this way though :-o .
See Here (http://w10.eleven2.com/~plugin/index.htm)
and HERE (http://www.edrivesystems.com/)
-
The standard Prius does not need plugging in. As Karl pointed out it conserves energy that would otherwise be wasted and keeps the battery topped up.
There have been people who have modded their cars to plug them in overnight but currently such a conversion is expensive. Over 100MPG has been made possible in this way though .
See Here
and HERE
Woah, ok im sold. I want one. But i would feel like a put of a dork if i bought a prius (sorry prius owners :-P ), cant the put the technology in something with a little more... va va voom? ( i dont mean a renault clio ;) )
-
nadoom wrote:
Woah, ok im sold. I want one. But i would feel like a put of a dork if i bought a prius (sorry prius owners :-P ), cant the put the technology in something with a little more... va va voom? ( i dont mean a renault clio ;) )
Pride is the fuel of the fire, akhi ;-)
-
nadoom wrote:
Woah, ok im sold. I want one. But i would feel like a put of a dork if i bought a prius (sorry prius owners :-P ), cant the put the technology in something with a little more... va va voom? ( i dont mean a renault clio ;) )
In that case you will have to choose a Plug-in:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Assembled in the UK btw
Components and subsystems for the car come from a variety of sources all over the world. Final assembly for the Tesla Roadster is in the UK.
-
A pure plug in might make you feel more smug about emissions on the road, but at the end of the day, more carbon is being emitted by the power station. Quite what it does to your electricity bill at the moment is another issue. Energy prices are going up and up at the moment.
I think hybrids are the sensible middle ground for the present time. Fully electric cars require that we solve our energy production problems first.
-
The key is total system efficiency,which many fail to note.
Consideration needs to be given to manufacturing costs,fuel origin and delivery,emissions,disposal costs.
Too many do forget the power plants when speaking of pure electrics.
Currently gasoline or diesel have the highest enery density of any fuel we know how to routinely handle,so economically converting that to our travel is the sensible course.
People demands on a car are higher than in the past,look at how basic the VW bug was;now it is rare that a car be sold without an entertainment package,air conditioning,etc.Plus mandated air bags and literally dozens of computers which can fail silently leaving you(it did me) in the middle of the road!
A Prius wouldn't serve my needs well;something like a hybrid Isuzu Trooper would though!
Perhaps 15 years ago one of the popular mechanical magazines featured a new electric motor that envisioned using one motor mounted to each of a car's four wheels therby giving 4WD,regenerative braking,lowering the car's center of gravity,inproving overall weight distribution and perhaps other pluses.
Haven't seen such a car yet;I suspect the government regulations actually hamper new transportation development.
-
recidivist wrote:
Perhaps 15 years ago one of the popular mechanical magazines featured a new electric motor that envisioned using one motor mounted to each of a car's four wheels therby giving 4WD,regenerative braking,lowering the car's center of gravity,inproving overall weight distribution and perhaps other pluses.
Haven't seen such a car yet;I suspect the government regulations actually hamper new transportation development.
Like This Mini (http://www.answers.com/topic/pml-mini-qed) ?
Or This Mitsubishi (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060109/AUTO04/601090415/1364) ?
-
Double post ..duh!
-
Fats wrote:
I just bought a Honda Civic Hybrid here in Belgium, I will need to wait till December for delivery though. It included 8 years of guarantee on the battery and the electric circuit. So if it has to be replaced after 4 years it will cost Honda money.
Staf.
Keep us updated on your purchase then. I am interested to read a real world "review" of Honda's version of the technology. :-)
-
GadgetMaster wrote:
nadoom wrote:
Do you own one? :) a mule that is
You mean not everybody has one in your area like we do here in Manchester :-?
btw it is stricly used as a form of transport here I must point out. Not for recreational purposes like in some parts of the world :-P
My sister has a mule. And to conveniently fit with the thread, it *is* a hybrid (between a horse and donkey) :-D
-
Cyberus wrote:
And to conveniently fit with the thread, it *is* a hybrid (between a horse and donkey) :-D
That was the original implication ;-)
-
GadgetMaster wrote:
Keep us updated on your purchase then. I am interested to read a real world "review" of Honda's version of the technology. :-)
I actually did a test drive with the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic IMA and have choosen for the Honda for several reasons:
- cost: although we get a refund from the Belgium government of 15% on the Prius and 3% on the Honda the Honda is still cheaper. The prius should be a little bit more fuel efficient though.
Also for the Prius the test drive was with a car with extra options like parking assistence and the sales people did everything to promote these extra featres.
The Honda was the standard equipment (for Belgium) except for leader seats, and the salesguy did not seem to puch the extra options that much. Standard options on Honda: CVT transmission, cruise control, heating in the front seats, car stereo with 6 CD, VSA (Vehicle Stability Assist).
- technique: I am impressed more with the technique of the Honda IMA motor (an eletrical part and conventional part joined into one motor block) then the Toyota one (two separate motors). I admit this preference is subjective. I was also impressed by the CVT transmission of the Honda; but the Prius also has this feature.
- look: Although it is not important to me I liked the external look of the Honda more the the Prius. Also the internal look of the Honda is more sportive (rpm display of the motor) then the Prius (which is quite boring).
All-in-all I don't think I am a good reviewer and that both cars are good vehicles. I probably did make my decision more on feeling then on reasoning.
greets,
Staf.
-
It's true. With the styling of the Prius they chose to make it look just like an average Corolla or something.
The CVT (Continuous Variable Transmission) is quite good. At first you tend to find it starange that there is no groaning of the engine or lurch that is produced on normal cars as they shift gear. Overall it is a much smoother drive.
Park assist etc are just gimmicks. Tell the salesman "I am perfectly capable of parking between two cars thank you very much!"
:-P
-
Fats wrote:
All-in-all I don't think I am a good reviewer and that both cars are good vehicles. I probably did make my decision more on feeling then on reasoning.
greets,
Staf.
But posting a few fuel consumption figures would be helpful.
-
@Gadget
How was it on the Notts run just now?
-
It managed an average of 52mpg. I'm quite happy with that.
The last time I filled up was on Eid and two round trips to Liverpool and a weeks worth of commuting plus todays round trip to nottingham isn't bad for a tankful costing just £35.
Best choice I have ever made in all my years of driving :-D
-
Karlos wrote:
One likely problem with that reaction is that it isn't easy to reverse. You'd end up with a lot of sodium borate (jagshemash!) that would be difficult to reprocess back into sodium borohydride. Ideally you don't want by products from you fuel cell other than water. Anything else is dead weight you are carrying around.
well, I only know about this from wikipedia you understand: I havent really looked into it much further than that.
Production of the borohydride in the first place requires a considerable amount of energy. Overall, it's cheaper to use liquified hydrogen. However, that's also extremely dangerous.
see, theres the tradeoff that needs to be made:
safety vs. efficiency vs storability.
you could also use methanol fuel cell, but you still need to remove the hydrogen to be able to use it in a fuel cell, and what to do with the carbon ?
besides, its all a question of where the energy conversion to electricity takes place: way off at some generator somewhere, or locally with an alternator linked to an engine ?
it is also worth bearing in mind the efficiency of electric motors compared with petrol: a good petrol engine in a car will get about 25% useful work out of the petrol.
a good electric motor will get 90-95% useful work from an electrical fuel source.
a hydrogen fuel cell will get about 80% of the available energy converted to electricity.
the thing about borax (sodium borate) is that it is solid, and could be taken away and recycled in bulk - probably at a service station type thing.
also, if one is forced to burn hydrocarbon fuels to produce the hydrogen/sodium borohydride, the powerplant will only be doing ONE THING, and can be made that much more efficient meaning less carbon is released, and potentially use biofuels instead of mineral fuel.
just a train of thought (geddit!), no structure whatsoever, apologies! I'm now gonna read the rest of the thread, suffice to say, I'd heard that Priuses (Prii ?) are still deceptively expensive to run...
-
That was the original implication
well *I* got it.
I see nobody got my mule joke...or are you all just ignoring it ? :-P
-
Agafaster wrote:
Don't you ride mules? =)
my wife has a pair...
Never heard them called that before :lol:
-
A Prius wouldn't serve my needs well
me neither - I currently drive a Laguna Estate. theres no WAY I could get me, my wife and three kids in a prius! (dont forget to include boosters for the two over-5's and a rear facing carseat for the babby...and room for the morrisons haul of course!!
-
GadgetMaster wrote:
But posting a few fuel consumption figures would be helpful.
I have only the official numbers according to some Europian test procedure. They are also in litres/100km as is the common metric here:
(City/countrysite/combined)
Prius: 5.0/4.2/4.3
Honda: 5.2/4.3/4.6
greets,
Staf.
-
Agafaster wrote:
A Prius wouldn't serve my needs well
me neither - I currently drive a Laguna Estate. theres no WAY I could get me, my wife and three kids in a prius! (dont forget to include boosters for the two over-5's and a rear facing carseat for the babby...and room for the morrisons haul of course!!
Maybe this THIS (http://www.channel4.com/4car/gallery/gallery.jsp?id=953&page=5)
Would suit you better then. :-)
-
Karlos wrote:
That's the rub. Any rechargeable system that ultimately requires recharging from a mains supply will result in increased load on electricity supplies and subsequent increases in emissions from there.
Not necessarily.
Back in 1971 (when I was 14) our teacher performed an experiment about the electrolysis of water in a chemistry lesson that produced detonating gas. Finally he ignited the gas and it blew the test tube into pieces with a loud bang.
Our teacher then said thet the reaction of hydrogen and oxyde is much more fierce, produces much more energie than the reaction of e.g. petrol and air and produces zero air pollution, as the result of this reaction is steam.
At the very same moment my finger went up and I asked my teacher:
"So why do all the cars still use petrol or diesel?"
His answer was:
"If this was possible they would have done so long before!"
Later - in the course of my training as a machinist at KHD (Magirus Deutz) - I asked the same question to my foreman at KHD's engine research centre.
He answered basically the same as my teacher before, but he became more precise:
"If hydrogen and oxygen react, it results in a very high firing temperature, which would make the intake- and exhaust-valves melt."
These answers did not satify me and so I decided to make an experiment on my own.
My hobby was flying RC model aircrafts at that time and from that I had a spare 0.33 cm^3 petrol model engine.
With my limited resources I "electrolysed" me some cm^3 of detonating gas (took me two weeks with a 12V transformer and an old aquarium), slightly modified the model engine by taking off its tank and carburetteur and supplying the detonating gas instead of petrol.
Then I started the engine and - woooohooo! - it ran!
It ran for about 30 seconds until the detonating gas was empty.
Later I re-mounted tank and carburetteur and it ran flawlessly with petrol again.
So I had my proof that it worked.
Later - while studiyng engineering - I learned about constructive measures to avoid the melting of metal at such temperatures. After all the engines of the Space Shuttle (which burn hydrogen and oxygen as well) don't melt either...
But from my own experiment I knew how time-consuming the production of hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis of water would be - and so started to look for a more efficient way to do this. After some years of research I had an idea how I could produce H & O much faster and at an lower energie footprint - I still have to prove with an experiment that it works.
But nevertheless electricity is still reqired for this process. And if we're talking about operating all combustion engines worldwide with H&O, then we're talking about a fair amount of electricity that's needed for the H&O production.
Then a next idea began to shape out.
If I want to reduce the emissions of the cars to save the environment by using H&O, then we can't use "dirty" electricity for that.
I thought about the way it is now:
We drill holes into the earth and pump up what's left of the sunshine from some million years ago (oil, result from ancient forests) and burn this in order to be mobile, while at the same time the sun still sends us a comparable amount of energy like millions of years ago.
So today we end up with the energy of the daily sunshine PLUS the energy of the daily sunshine from some million years ago that made the ancient forests grow from which the oil stems we burn when we drive by car, sail by ship or fly by plane.
So I thought that if we today "dig out the sunshine of the past" to be mobile and want to change that, we must reduce the daily sunshine that hits the ground here on this planet by exactly that amount we are burning "sunshine of the past" to be mobile.
When thinking about possible solutions, a sunshade sprang to my mind.
What, if we built a huge solar cell platform in the orbit that works as an jalousie, collects the electricity of all solar cells, transfoms it to rays and sends it down to earth wireless?
(I recently read about an technique for wireless energy transmission and it works already on distances up to 30km - I'm confident that with goal-oriented research 300km and more are no problem at all)
If the orbit is calculated accordingly, so that this platform can throw a big enough shadow on desert areas, I would expect low (air) pressure in this areas as a consequence.
As normally rain comes with low pressure, such an desert area might start to grow green again, which would improve our air quality and climate significantly.
That's why I said "Not necessarily" in the beginning...
But I'm afraid such a project is far too big for one nation - and if I look at the current political conditions worldwide I have not much hope that this could be realized anytime soon.
(Sorry for my long posting)
-
GadgetMaster wrote:
Maybe this THIS (http://www.channel4.com/4car/gallery/gallery.jsp?id=953&page=5)
Would suit you better then. :-)
YYYuck! that is one Pig-ugly motor!
The Koleo looks better, but its nearly a bl00dy 4x4...
-
Dandy: That was the most wonderful post I have read on Amiga.org or anywhere.
:-)
Funnily, mel_zoom was concerned about a satellite-based energy platform when I commented about it on another thread (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=26453)...
:-D
Anyway, from glorious Deutschland: home of the blinkenlights(!) I have just bought a book on how to convert old Diesel engines to run on chip oil.
Herr Diesel was a genius and rumours prevail that he or someone inspired by him 100 years ago tried peanut oil succesfully in a Diesel engine.
The guy I bought the book from reccommends old Volkswagen and Mercedes vans before TDI came into being. They have whirlchambers ideal for the burning of chip oil.
People are doing this near me and have informed the government so they can pay excise duty. It works out at 40p/Litre instead of 98p/Litre for mineral diesel (40p = 70 Euro cents?)
There is also a Diesel SMART car coming with 75MPG (30Km/Litre) and still the old SMART cars do 50-60MPG.
Here's a good link: http://www.gogreenfuel.com/
This details how trucks can use a water-based system to extract hydrogen+oxygen to improve the combustion in their engines to increase fuel effiency and reduce monoxide.
by GadgetMaster:
Hmm.... if only I could afford a Tesla
Yeah, that thing was on Top Gear. James Bond (Roger Moore) drove one in Monte Carlo and it was silent and got off traffic lights almost instantaneously! The Mitsubishi though is not as impressive as the 6-Wheel electric Honda thing that hit 200MPH!
The advantages of electric cars are:
· Quiet - no noise pollution, no lack of concentration, greater awareness of hazards like children or trucks
· No immediate emissions - a power station's fuel effiency with flywheels is far greater than a single car.
· The lack of a ½-tonne engine block means you could survive a crash as a result of better breaking and less impact energy
· The advent of magnetic bearings could soon mean even better energy transfer - hey you could even brake by reversing (negative as opposed to neutral inertia?)
· Electric as seen in GadgetMaster's 'Tesla' link means no more brain power wasted on gears, clutch etc.
-
Interesting thread. Don't have much to add, don't drive an hybrid car nor I own a normal car, for reasons ranging from not wanting to add even more pollution to this world to the costs involved in owning and driving a car here in Italy (it would cost me up to 4000 EUR per year, if not more).
But I'm keeping an eye on the development of the technology in this area, and I've got a link to share with you all: http://www.autobloggreen.com/.
Hope that's of interest. :-)
-
Electric cars or hybrids are brilliant in theory, but the environmental damage caused by a vehicle isn't just caused by emissions alone - we need to take into account the construction and recycling costs of such a car.
Although battery technology has come a very long way in a short space of time, their life is still finite and they're still costly to manufacture/recycle, not to mention the fact that they'll add weight to any vehicle which already has an internal combustion engine installed.
I believe that ambient temperature is also a huge factor in the efficiency of a battery also.
However, the reduction in greenhouse emissions from a hybrid car is more of a moot point when you consider how many tonnes of carbon are pumped out by the fast growing air travel industry....
-
25% of the United States' emissions are domestic cars. Think about a few thousand people using airliners and maybe 150 million US car drivers all going out in the 'driving season'.
I think Arnie is taking a stronger stance on this in California. I think in big cities the SMART car is not only going to reduce stress on the driver (easy parking 2x SMART cars sideways in the footprint of a family car) but it will also reduce health problems and congestion.
There is also a car/bike thing being made in the UK where the passenger sits behind the driver like in a jet fighter. The trike is ridden like a motorcycle but has a hydraulic articulated section in the middle which means the rear 2x wheels stay in contact with the road and the front can corner like a bike. Can't remember the name of this thing but it looks way cool, looks something like this -->
(http://www.maxmatic.com/Graphics/TTW/carver.jpg)
And then there's the Hydrogen ENV motorbike showcased in London a year or two back. Costing £4,500 GBP and having a top speed of 80Km/h (49.7MPH) with a range of 160Km (99.4 Miles) this motorcycle is completely silent and non-polluting. A bit cooler than those rasping 50cc scooters you see 16yr olds teetering about on these days.
(http://i.treehugger.com/files/TH_ENV2_031705.jpg)
:-D
Oh, and look at these!
A trike for mel_zoom (http://www.vwtrike.net/odds1.JPG)
A car for Karlos (http://www.vwtrike.net/odds7.JPG)
A bike for GadgetMaster (http://www.vwtrike.net/images/aamen1.JPG)
:laughing:
-
I'm sorry but a lot of bollocks has been written about the level of pollution emitted by private cars.
For example, in the UK emissions from commercial haulage and indeed rail transport are included in 'official' carbon emission statistics from private cars (source: Dept of Transport). On a BBC web forum I challenged the then junior minister of transport to add substance to his statistics, citing the example I'll shortly give about air travel.
Make no mistake, the private motorist is the scapegoat for the sins of industry and the British government in particular aren't even bothering to mask their cynicism. I've watched with interest for fifteen years as fuel taxation has been steadily hiked, with next to zero additional investment in public transport. We're being bent over and royally stiffed folks, saving the Earth is being used as a cynical excuse for the actions of a cash strapped treasury.
I'm NOT saying I want to continue sticking two fingers up and driving my 2.5 litre V6 in defiance - far from it - but I need a viable alternative. My local rail company has hiked fares by 7% in the past few weeks, with no improvement in services yet seen. I'll switch to an electric car if necessary, provided congestion is eased with new roads and buyers incentive schemes. Where are they?
So how much carbon does my 2.5 litre Alfa Romeo emit? Put it this way, it'll take 120 years of motoring for me to emit as much CO2 as a 747 flying from London to Washington DC, which is a distance my car can cover in 3 months of average motoring - with four passengers on board.
In short, I want to do my bit, but not as an unwilling cash cow for a greedy politician.
-
I'm a huge car fan and love all kinds of vehicles but after the Iraq war and watching Fahrenheit 9/11 my childhood posters came off the wall.
I won't feel embarassed to drive a SMART car any more. If Dubya can admit that "America is addicted to oil" then I sure as hell won't stand in the way of battery cars.
Too many places like out-of-town shopping centres are built with car access in mind, people are becoming psychologically maimed by the car culture.
A small vehicle, even a battery powered bike (or a Segway if you're mildly insane) is so much more liberating.
I think future cities will be 'park and ride' for the Subaru drivers and free congestion charges for electric cars and scooters.
Internal combustion has had it's day and I will continue to boycott Top Gear until Clarkson cuts the 'Fluffy Kittens' crap towards environmentalists.
EDIT:
Virigin Atlantic has talked of a new way to reduce aviation pollution by 21%. They will be towing their planes to the runway for takeoff as a tremendous amount of fuel is burnt simply taxying to the correct lanes.
Oh, and read once that Dave Haynie drives a hybrid. You cannot argue with 'Da Man'!
-
@PMC: is that 2.5l V6 a petrol engine ? :-o
makes me feel way less guilty about my 1.8l straight-four !
although I doubt you'd be able to actually drive your Alfa to Washington - although you could drive it back about halfway ! ;-)
The ones that really p!ss me off are the Warriors/Navaras/Dodge Rams of this world. they just look like they're intended to be driven by b#stards with no concern for others. alleged safety being the main selling point - safety for the occupants is the only one I can see.
-
@Hyperspeed:
Once they do electric vehicles that perform like the bugatti Veyrons or Ferrari 355s of this world, Top Gear will start to cover them. besides, they have a point about the Lexus Hybrid 4x4 - its performance is actually worse than the equivalent non-hybrid, which kinda makes a mockery of the London congestion charge policy.
you do have a point about their knee-jerk reaction to environmentalists though - although anythings possible: even David Attenborough a noted climate change sceptic of yore has been convinced. hope for Clarkson and the boys yet ?
also, the stunts they pull are worth their weight in gold - take the one last week where James May and Richard Hammond had a Robin Reliant transformed into a Space Shuttle lookalike - absolutely priceless!
-
Agafaster wrote:
@PMC: is that 2.5l V6 a petrol engine ? :-o
makes me feel way less guilty about my 1.8l straight-four !
although I doubt you'd be able to actually drive your Alfa to Washington - although you could drive it back about halfway ! ;-)
Yeah, it's a petrol... Roughly 2500 miles to the breakdown ;-)
However, I cycle to work 4 out of 5 days per week and use public transport wherever possible so I'd say I'm pretty eco-friendly all told.
I just hate the political hypocrisy, it's all very well for the general public to give up our cars so that HM Govt can crow all they like about "economic growth" (which relies on the expaning air travel industry), but I'll take my responsibilities seriously once I see Blair/Brown et al turning up for work in a Ford Focus instead of a Jaguar V8.
That my friends, is politicians at their most cynical - Cameron's bike ride to work with his Lexus following with his briefcase is another example of why we need to force the issue right up the political agenda.
-
by Agafaster:
Once they do electric vehicles that perform like the bugatti Veyrons or Ferrari 355s of this world, Top Gear will start to cover them.
I don't remember them doing an article on the Honda 6-wheel drive electric prototype that topped 200MPH - think that was on 5th Gear on Channel 5. 5th Gear was the one that showed the Tesla electric sports car too.
I used to enjoy Top Gear but it is essentialy a very 'lads mag' type of show. It's very similar in pyshcology to the British soldiers that strapped an Iraqi to a forklift truck and then posed thumbs-up - something that Secondary School kids and American FPS players indulge in.
There was a good nature program on the other day and it showed BBC's Kate Humble testing a methanol car. It was good to see a nature lover in the driver's seat as opposed to a verbal-engineer.
Anyone remember 'Johnny Lightning Hover Conversions' from Back To The Future? Turning old Cadillacs into fying machines... bring on OEM fuel cells we can just plug into existing cars, replacing the combustion engine.
The biggest finger of shame should be pointed at companies like BMW, Mercedes, Ford and Fiat. They have done jack sh¡t for environmentally friendly cars.
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
The biggest finger of shame should be pointed at companies like BMW, Mercedes, Ford and Fiat. They have done jack sh¡t for environmentally friendly cars.
Erm, not sure... BMW is investing heavily in hydrogen power (See 7 series concept car)
Mercedes? Pioneered practical diesel power and actively researching biofuels with A class test vehicles.
Ford? Owns Volvo, who are again sponsoring biofuel research. Also patented a radiator grille which converts Ozone (O3) to Oxygen (O2). Ozone is great in the Stratosphere, but at sea level it is often a major cause of childhood asthma and is a by product of heavy industry. Better known as "smog" in LA.
Fiat? Okay, I hate Fiat. Not because of their environmental credentials but because the damn things break down more often than Britney Spears. However, the majority of their cars are small engined, economy sized vehicles. Alfa Romeo can be credited with releasing the first performance diesel in 1997 with the 156 JTD. 150 horsepower and 45mpg? Was seem here first...
The Japanese brands (especially Honda) seem to understand the importance of lowering emissions.
If you're looking for an environmental menace try at GM - with brands like Cadillac, Chevrolet and Pontiac, they've sold more V8 engines than anyone else. Also, GM owned Du-Pont was responsible for lead additives in petrol, plus GM's promising Impact electric car of the early 1990s amounted to nought, despite early promotional films showing an Impact beating a Nissan 200sx to sixty from a standing start. They could have made eco-friendly sexy a decade ago.
Electric cars do have potential to be sexy - an electric motor produces 100% of it's torque from the get go, unlike a petrol engine (my old Golf 1.8 16v needed 4,100 rpm before delivering max pulling power). Not only that but once the problems of battery weight are solved, an electric motor is small enough to be incorporated into a hub and combined with the braking system to generate power. Want four wheel drive in a compact hatchback? Can be done, once the power storage issue is resolved.
However, we need to solve the very non-eco friendly issues involved with producing and disposing of a new generation of electric cars.
-
Why's it harder to dispose of a bettery car than a petrol car? Surely it is the oil, coolant, transmission fluids or whatever that are hard to recycle?
A Li-ion battery can be charged thousands of times and you HAVE to recycle those due to EU landfill regulations.
Due to the lighter weight I envisage the next generation of battery cars will have I doubt they'll be piling up in the scrapyard due to crashes or becoming obsolete. A car that's in a zero-tax bracket will become highly desirable especially when oil hits $100 (after the Iran/Venezuela war).
;-)
Oh and where are teh Segways!?
(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/graphics/cheney_020607.jpg)
-
Another hybrid some of you might be interested in is the VentureOne (http://www.flytheroad.com/), a three-wheeled, two seats vehicle which gets classified as a motorcycle but with all the benefits and safety of a car, a mileage of 100Mpg and a way of driving it which promises to be a helluva lotta fun! :-)
-
PMC wrote:
...
Ford? Owns Volvo, who are again sponsoring biofuel research. Also patented a radiator grille which converts Ozone (O3) to Oxygen (O2). Ozone is great in the Stratosphere, but at sea level it is often a major cause of childhood asthma and is a by product of heavy industry. Better known as "smog" in LA.
...
Ford & Fuel Cell (http://www.ford.com/en/support/Search_Results?referrer=home&search=%22fuel+cell%22&searchend=end)
Ford & Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines (http://www.fordcomsearch.ford.com/cs.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia%2Eford%2Ecom%2Fnewsroom%2Ffeature%5Fdisplay%2Ecfm%3Frelease%3D23477&qt=&col=ford&col=fordveh&col=volvo&col=mazda&col=lincoln&col=mercury&col=jaguar&col=aston&col=rover&col=qc&col=credit&col=rental&col=race&col=mccol1)
-
Modern petrochemical companies and their partners (the major car companies) have no idea what environmental responsibility is.
As long as they can pay dividends to their share holders and the government of their country is prosperous then they will continue to advertise 'new research' and ultimately buy all the patents and bury them.
Shell and BP are prime examples. Neither have sought to capitalise on the 100yr old Diesel engine's capacity for burning vegetable oil.
As for 'bio-diesel' that is 95% mineral diesel, 5% actual vegetable oil.
The solution is to think different, rebel against the defacto and discover your own alternative fuel.
EDIT:
The Evil SMART car (http://www.jpberlin.de/j.kowal/photos/other/smart.forfun2.500.jpg)
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Modern petrochemical companies and their partners (the major car companies) have no idea what environmental responsibility is.
As long as they can pay dividends to their share holders and the government of their country is prosperous then they will continue to advertise 'new research' and ultimately buy all the patents and bury them.
As I work for Ford, I can assure you that Ford's environmental efforts are real.
Maybe Ford could do more - but fact is that those things they do are real. No bought and buried patents here...
Personally I already drove both at our research centre in Aachen (Germany): the hydrogene internal combustion engine vehicle as well as the fuel cell vehicle.
Both actually exist and work fine. Now it's up to the politicians to create an an legal environment where this new technique can prosper...
Hyperspeed wrote:
...
The solution is to think different, rebel against the defacto and discover your own alternative fuel.
...
Fully agreed - as long as it is not just "alternative", but really releases the environment...
-
Dandy wrote:
[...]
Both actually exist and work fine. Now it's up to the politicians to create an an legal environment where this new technique can prosper...
The hydrogen economy is a flawed economy. To extract hydrogen you need energy, typically electricity, but if you've got electricity in the first place then you can use it directly. Battery technology has improved a lot and continues to do so.
Moreover, hydrogen is quite a dangerous gas, it needs to be stored properly, transported properly, and needs very costly infrastructures. You don't want an hydrogen car to pick fire.
Why an hydrogen economy doesn't make sense (http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html).
-
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
[...]
Both actually exist and work fine. Now it's up to the politicians to create an an legal environment where this new technique can prosper...
The hydrogen economy is a flawed economy.
Not sure why you think that.
falemagn wrote:
To extract hydrogen you need energy, typically electricity, but if you've got electricity in the first place then you can use it directly.
Of course.
Did you reads my first postimg in this thread on page 3, Posted on: 2007/1/13 11:42 ?
There I described my idea/concept to satisfy the needs of energy.
Of course you can use the electricity directly, wherever it makes sense!
falemagn wrote:
Battery technology has improved a lot and continues to do so.
...but involves a lot of substances hazardous to health and environment, once released - maybe by an crash.
Furthermore current batteries (which actually are accumulators) mean a lot of additional weight, which results in less payload or less operating range.
falemagn wrote:
Moreover, hydrogen is quite a dangerous gas, it needs to be stored properly, transported properly, and needs very costly infrastructures.
While it`s not so dangerous as you may think, you are of course right - "it needs to be stored properly, transported properly, and needs very costly infrastructures".
But this is valid for all other fuels as well, especially, if you include the costs for damages to the environment.
If hydrogene gas leaks out of a tank, it immediately rises rises up to the sky, as hydrogene is the lightest element.
So in case of an accident where a hydrogene tank is penetrated, the "dangerous fuel" immediately rises up in the air (in contrary to a case where a gasoline tank is penetrated) where it either peacefully burns or is diluted until the concentration is beyond fammability.
If on the other hand a cars gasoline tank gets penetrated by an accident, the gasoline pours down on the ground and possibly flows underneath the car, where the injured passengers are locked in...
:flame: :angel:
falemagn wrote:
You don't want an hydrogen car to pick fire.
You don`t want any car to pick fire, do you?
falemagn wrote:
Why an hydrogen economy doesn't make sense (http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html).
I still have to read this link...
-
If hydrogene gas leaks out of a tank, it immediately rises rises up to the sky, as hydrogene is the lightest element.
That never helped the Hindenburg. Air/Hydrogen mixtures are explosively combustible over a very wide range of partial pressure and temperature. You rupture a pressurised / liquidised source of hydrogen in any normal atmospheric conditions and very little energy is required to ignite it.
-
falemagn wrote:
...
Why an hydrogen economy doesn't make sense (http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html).
Hmmmmmmm - yes, hydrogene is a wasteful technologie, compared to direct use of electricity.
But you can`t use electricity directly all the time:
Aeroplanes?
Cars?
For both (currently) the power/weight ratio when powered with hydrogene is better compared to battery powered.
But what if you generated the electricity needed for hydrogene production (and not only for that - I`d say electricity in general) in the orbit and reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the earths surface by exactly the equivalent to the amount of electricity you are generating?
Up in the orbit the sun shines 24 hours per day - for free!
This might help to put the "wasteful" of the hydrogene technologie into perspective...
-
Karlos wrote:
If hydrogene gas leaks out of a tank, it immediately rises rises up to the sky, as hydrogene is the lightest element.
That never helped the Hindenburg. Air/Hydrogen mixtures are explosively combustible over a very wide range of partial pressure and temperature. You rupture a pressurised / liquidised source of hydrogen in any normal atmospheric conditions and very little energy is required to ignite it.
Yes - but please take into account the huge amount of hydrogene that burned there - and nevertheless so many passengers survived - despite the huge fireball above them...
Imagine the the significantly smaller amount of hydrogene in a H-powered car - and you will easily recognize that a comparison with the Hindenburg is not appropriate.
Have you never noticed hydrgene transporters on the highway?
There had been an accident with one of them nere nearby Cologne on the highway ring - one of the huge cylinders was penetrated.
The gas ignited and a flame of perhaps 10m rose into the sky, while the cylinder itself was freezing by the expanding gas inside.
Was no hard job for the fire brigades, as the local newspapers reported...
If transporting/storing hydrogene was as dangerous as you imply, there should have been a catastrophe.
Although hydrogene becomes really dangerous when mixed with pure oxygene (-> space shuttle Challenger)...
-
Dandy wrote:
Of course you can use the electricity directly, wherever it makes sense!
It makes sense anywhere except, perhaps, in some quite exceptional situations. For sure it makes sense in cars!
falemagn wrote:
Battery technology has improved a lot and continues to do so.
...but involves a lot of substances hazardous to health and environment, once released - maybe by an crash.
We're not in the times of lead-acid batteries anymore, these are the times of lithium ions batteries mixed with certain kind of nanomaterials that boost their performances and make them viable alternatives to fuel.
Have a look at AltairNano (http://www.altairnano.com/markets_amps.html) and A123 (http://www.a123systems.com/html/technology.html), for instance.
Furthermore current batteries (which actually are accumulators) mean a lot of additional weight, which results in less payload or less operating range.
Accumulator is a broader term than "battery". A rechargeable battery is an accumulator, but an accumulator isn't necessarily a battery. As for weight, what matters is power density, which measures how much energy can be stored in a unit of volume, and certain batteries have power density higher than standard fuel which makes them more viable than fuel. Add to that that electric motors are less complicated and much lighter than ICE's, and you get the right picture.
Here's some real world examples, cars you can buy right now: the Tesla Motors' (http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1) sport car and the Phoenix Motors' (http://www.greenoptions.com/blog/2007/03/02/executive_ramblings_phoenix_motors_unveils_all_electric_freeway_ready_sport_utility_truck) SUT.
Head to http://www.autobloggreen.com/ to see what this is all about.
falemagn wrote:
Moreover, hydrogen is quite a dangerous gas, it needs to be stored properly, transported properly, and needs very costly infrastructures.
While it`s not so dangerous as you may think, you are of course right - "it needs to be stored properly, transported properly, and needs very costly infrastructures".
But this is valid for all other fuels as well, especially, if you include the costs for damages to the environment.
It's not valid for electricity: we do have transport infrastructures for it already in place and battery technology has improved to a point where environmental concerns are just out of place: lithium isn't environmentally hazardous and it can be recycled.
If hydrogene gas leaks out of a tank, it immediately rises rises up to the sky, as hydrogene is the lightest element.
Yes, and it might react with the oxygen in the air, explosively so, or go up to the higher atmosphere where it's likely to cause damages to the ozone layer (http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=7157&channel=0).
So in case of an accident where a hydrogene tank is penetrated, the "dangerous fuel" immediately rises up in the air (in contrary to a case where a gasoline tank is penetrated) where it either peacefully burns or is diluted until the concentration is beyond fammability.
You forget that to store hydrogen you need very high pressures, which means that if you manage to break an hydrogen tank you need to be prepared to some of the most disastrous explosions both for the flammability of the gas and the pressure it's stored at.
Regardless, there are economical reasons for which hydrogen just doesn't make sense for cars, as explained by the page I gave you a link to.
-
Dandy wrote:
falemagn wrote:
...
Why an hydrogen economy doesn't make sense (http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html).
Hmmmmmmm - yes, hydrogene is a wasteful technologie, compared to direct use of electricity.
But you can`t use electricity directly all the time:
Aeroplanes?
Cars?
Bumpercars!
:lol:
All roads would need to be metal with a metal ceiling though.
Don't know about the planes though, but if everyone drove bumpercars, I'm sure the gas used in planes wouldn't be an issue.
-
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
Of course you can use the electricity directly, wherever it makes sense!
It makes sense anywhere except, perhaps, in some quite exceptional situations. For sure it makes sense in cars!
Well, my concept offers the possibility to generate all worldwide needed electricity outside the earths atmosphere in the orbit and to balance the the enegy level in the atmosphere.
I'd say use this electricity directly whereever it makes sense - and use it to generate hydrogene and oxygene for those application areas, where using electricity directly does make little sense (e.g. in aeroplanes).
Of course it already makes sense to use electricity directly in cars. We're doing this as well here at Ford.
But the problem is that people hesitate to make up their minds for electric cars with one of their strongest arguments being that they're missing the (combustion) engines sound.
So what can we do against this subjective perception?
There already have been ideas to use the car's HiFi equipment to generate (sythesise) the sound they're used to in dependance to the actual manner of driving...
If there wasn't the sound problem, I could as well think of an weight and energy saving "hybrid" concept:
Remove the combustion engine, the gearbox and so on, and replace it with a small turbine (preferrably operated with hydrogene and oxygene) that drives an small generator.
The generator produces the needed electricity to run the four electric engines which are integrated into the wheels.
This would significantly reduce the mass of the vehicle in general and so reduce the reqired amount of fuel (no matter which). Such vehicles could be used for application areas where no electricity is available to recharge the accu/battery.
Hydrogene and oxygene operated turbines could replace the ones operated with kerosene in all sorts of aircrafts.
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
falemagn wrote:
Battery technology has improved a lot and continues to do so.
...but involves a lot of substances hazardous to health and environment, once released - maybe by an crash.
We're not in the times of lead-acid batteries anymore, these are the times of lithium ions batteries mixed with certain kind of nanomaterials that boost their performances and make them viable alternatives to fuel.
Have a look at AltairNano (http://www.altairnano.com/markets_amps.html) and A123 (http://www.a123systems.com/html/technology.html), for instance.
Yeah, nice things - and as I said, use them where it makes sense.
(Unfortunately it doesn't make sense everywhere...)
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
Furthermore current batteries (which actually are accumulators) mean a lot of additional weight, which results in less payload or less operating range.
Accumulator is a broader term than "battery". A rechargeable battery is an accumulator, but an accumulator isn't necessarily a battery.
Hmmmmm - in the German language the term "battery" means at least two (connected) galvanic cells. In the common language it is also wrongly used for single cells.
"Accumulator" in German means a rechargable battery (short: Akku).
I thought it would be similar in the english language - but obviously I was wrong...
falemagn wrote:
As for weight, what matters is power density, which measures how much energy can be stored in a unit of volume, and certain batteries have power density higher than standard fuel which makes them more viable than fuel. Add to that that electric motors are less complicated and much lighter than ICE's, and you get the right picture.
Here's some real world examples, cars you can buy right now: the Tesla Motors' (http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1) sport car and the Phoenix Motors' (http://www.greenoptions.com/blog/2007/03/02/executive_ramblings_phoenix_motors_unveils_all_electric_freeway_ready_sport_utility_truck) SUT.
Head to http://www.autobloggreen.com/ to see what this is all about.
Yeah - you might want to add these as well:
electric Ford "Ranger" (http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=9249)
"Think!" in Canada (http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=3620)
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
falemagn wrote:
Moreover, hydrogen is quite a dangerous gas, it needs to be stored properly, transported properly, and needs very costly infrastructures.
While it`s not so dangerous as you may think, you are of course right - "it needs to be stored properly, transported properly, and needs very costly infrastructures".
But this is valid for all other fuels as well, especially, if you include the costs for damages to the environment.
It's not valid for electricity: we do have transport infrastructures for it already in place and battery technology has improved to a point where environmental concerns are just out of place: lithium isn't environmentally hazardous and it can be recycled.
Basically you're right - just that I (maybe as a result of being a native German speaker) I never thought of "electricity" when talking about "fuel" up to now.
In the German language "fuel" generally is liquid, best gaseous (fuel = Treibstoff = "driving stuff"; while e.g. "coal" = Kohle is a so called "Brennstoff", which means something along the lines of "firing stuff").
Furthermore we have enough wide, wide areas on this planet where no sign of electric infrastructure exists (yet). If you want to explore those areas with electric vehicles only, you might not be able to recharge your accus.
If hydrogene gas leaks out of a tank, it immediately rises rises up to the sky, as hydrogene is the lightest element.
Yes, and it might react with the oxygen in the air, explosively so, or go up to the higher atmosphere where it's likely to cause damages to the ozone layer (http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=7157&channel=0).
The danger of explosions is only given, if you mix hydrogene with pure oxygene.
"Air" doesn't contain enough oxygene to create an "explosion".
Hydrogene (under normal conditions) just "burns" in air...
As to "damages to the ozone layer" - do you think there would be much left of the ozone layer to damage, given the amount of years it would take to realize an hydrogene economie?
I'm afraid we've to think of/to invent an arteficial replacrement for it anyway...
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
So in case of an accident where a hydrogene tank is penetrated, the "dangerous fuel" immediately rises up in the air (in contrary to a case where a gasoline tank is penetrated) where it either peacefully burns or is diluted until the concentration is beyond fammability.
You forget that to store hydrogen you need very high pressures, which means that if you manage to break an hydrogen tank you need to be prepared to some of the most disastrous explosions both for the flammability of the gas and the pressure it's stored at.
Regardless, there are economical reasons for which hydrogen just doesn't make sense for cars, as explained by the page I gave you a link to.
There are several different ways to store hydrogene:
1) as compressed gas (that's what you're referring to)
2) liquid at a very low temperature (still explosive->Challenger)
3) Solid-State Hydrogen Storage based on reversible metal hydrides (relatively safe, as far as I know)
As to "economical reasons" - haven't it been "economical reasons" combined with "human/consumer needs" that drove our environment into the mess it is currently in?
Shouldn't we start to base our thinking on "ecological reasons"?
:-o
Just an idea...
-
Dandy: Do you realise your last post was 12 screens high...
:-D
I hear about Lithium Ion batteries being used but what about Li-Po?
Also, what happens to a standard diesel tank when it is penetrated or shot at? Does it explode like a petrol tank?
I read some link here on Amiga.org some time ago about combustion being improved with silver crystals or something. It was very similar to the way the human body digests food and greatly increased fuel effiency. Can anyone remember the technology here?
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Dandy: Do you realise your last post was 12 screens high...
:-D
Oooooops!
No, I didn't realise - sorry for the long posting.
Things like this can happen when I'm really hooked...
Hyperspeed wrote:
Also, what happens to a standard diesel tank when it is ... shot at?
It gets penetrated...
Hyperspeed wrote:
Also, what happens to a standard diesel tank when it is penetrated...?
The diesel will run out...
Hyperspeed wrote:
Does it explode like a petrol tank?
That might depend on what kind of bullet/missile you use...
:-D
Hyperspeed wrote:
I read some link here on Amiga.org some time ago about combustion being improved with silver crystals or something. It was very similar to the way the human body digests food and greatly increased fuel effiency. Can anyone remember the technology here?
Are you sure that it was to improve combustion?
I seem to remember a method where silver iodide was applied to the clouds from a plane to make it rain...
-
by Dandy:
Are you sure that it was to improve combustion?
I seem to remember a method where silver iodide was applied to the clouds from a plane to make it rain...
Yeah, it wasn't the rain thing.
Something like a catalyst, I seem to have it in my head there were latices or strands of some crystal or metal that improved the combustion process. It was said to be highly efficient and is currently in the testing phase. I remember someone commenting, maybe Karlos, about how the effiency was very purely calculated but it looked neat.
Back to Hybrids - any of these Honda Civic hybdrids available or those tilting bikes? It's about time us enlightened Amiga.org beings showed the lemming-like public the path of the future...
:-D
-
Back to Hybrids - any of these Honda Civic hybdrids available or those tilting bikes? It's about time us enlightened Amiga.org beings showed the lemming-like public the path of the future...
I'm now driving my Honda Civic Hybrid for almost two months and I really like the it (especially the CVT). The mileage is not very spectacular though (a little bit above 6l/100km) but I think is good for a car this size.
The trajectory I drive every day is also not ideal:
- uphill/downhill
- only 30km (with a cold motor the mileage is higher and the average mileage is still dropping when I arrive at my work/home)
- a lot of stop and go with regular traffic jams.
On other routes I have got better mileage.
greets,
Staf.
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
...
It's about time us enlightened Amiga.org beings showed the lemming-like public the path of the future...
:-D
Yes - two years ago I sold my car and ever since then use my own two feet, ride my bycicle, go by train, tram or bus.
:-o
-
by Fats:
I'm now driving my Honda Civic Hybrid for almost two months and I really like the it (especially the CVT). The mileage is not very spectacular though (a little bit above 6l/100km) but I think is good for a car this size.
Is that 6 Litres per 100km? If so I'm making that 46 miles per UK gallon. That's not bad at all, especially as you can use electric as well!
I've heard of a lot of talk that Ford are researching a 60mpg Focus but I can't see how they can do that with such a heavy car. The SMART does 60-75mpg I believe.
Where did you buy the Civic Hybrid, how much was it (cars are generally 30% more in the UK) and what does it look like?
:-)
by Dandy:
Yes - two years ago I sold my car and ever since then use my own two feet, ride my bycicle, go by train, tram or bus.
I do the same but an environmentally friendly car would be a useful thing to have as a backup!
:-D
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Is that 6 Litres per 100km? If so I'm making that 46 miles per UK gallon. That's not bad at all, especially as you can use electric as well!
Yes it is. I'm still below 2000 miles and I've read on the net the the mileage improves during 'break-in' period even upto 10000 miles. My experience upto now seems to confirm that. Also during summer mileage should be better.
Where did you buy the Civic Hybrid, how much was it (cars are generally 30% more in the UK)
A local Honda dealer (in Belgium almost all cars are sold by brand specific garages). The list price is 22900EUR here in Belgium plus a few hundred EUR for metallic color. I got 6 or 7% off and from the Belgian state I will receive 3% more because of the low CO2 emission of the car. For a Toyota Prius you would get 15% but then it would still be more expensive and I like the Honda more.
This price includes several options:
- air conditioning
- MP3 car stereo with 6 CD loader
- front seat heating
- cruise control
- traction control
- CVT
I'm sure you can find a good picture on the net :)
greets,
Staf.