Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles

>>I don't have the source of the picture/caption I have (probably from
something like Popular Science), but the sucker is complete with a large
steering wheel (yes, a steering wheel), lots of analog gauges covering a
whole wall (yes, gauges!), and a maybe 18" teletype tractor feed printer.
It's also got a large TV mounted high on a wall.<<

BZZZZZZT! Wrong...but thanks for playing.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

Dave wrote:
> In article >, jim beam > wrote:
>
> Jim, overall you make some good points. And I do agree that we
> should be working on the 10-20-30% improvements that can be had by
> conservation, downsizing, hybridizing, etc. But that still puts out
> a lot of CO2 and consumes lots of gasoline. So I think it slows
> down the looming crisis (if you subscribe to the evidence), but
> doesn't halt them.

true, but from what i can see, a complete cessation of co2 production is
unnecessary. parallel that with things like addressing deforestation
and erosion, things that harm natural co2 absorbtion, and we have a more
sustainable system.

>
>
>>i'd also consider fuel cells. better conversion efficiency, and the
>>fuel supply system is already in place.
>
>
> Gasoline-based fuel cell research has been all-but abandoned. I
> could go into the issues, but they are numerous.

when federal tax benefits & grants stopped, yes. what are the technical
problems? you're probably going to have a butane fuel cell in your
laptop before long.

> Hydrogen fuel
> cells are what all the auto companies are spending their R&D
> effort on, to the tune of over $1B.

because that's where the federal tax credits are. doesn't mean the
decision to subsidize hydrogen research is based on good science.

> Note that is corporate
> money, not tax payer (though the DOE budget over the next 5
> years is slated at a combined $1.7B or so).

but again, that is eligible for 100% write-off is it not? whether the
subsidy comes from a direct payout or from 100% write-off, doesn't it
amount to the same thing?

> Direct methanol may
> have small portable application. Large stationary may be natural
> gas based.
>
> Link:
> http://www.eere.energy.
> gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/committee_report.pdf

sure, hydrogen fuel cells work, and the by-product is water, but let's
address the practical reality: hydrogen is, per kilogram, not as energy
dense as gasoline, and somewhat more hazardous in both transportation &
storage. what use is hydrogen if you can't safely transport or store
it? the space shuttle, which uses liquid hydrogen, has to be fueled as
closely as possible before launch to reduce risk & losses.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:35:27 -0700, (Jason) wrote:

>
>The current edition of "Car and Driver" (magazine) has an
>interesting article about the dark side of the hybrids on page 26.
>The date on the cover is September 2005.
>
>If you own a hybrid vehicle or plan to buy a hybrid vehicle,
>I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article.

OK I read it. Reminds me of why I usually skip Yates' editorials.

Other than raising the red herring of battery disposal and drawing
meaningless comparisons to electric cars, the "dark side" is entirely
based on the well known and widely reported fact that these vehicles
will not pay for themselves in fuel savings. According to Wards'
analysis, gas would have to be $10/gal for a Prius to pay for it's
higher cost compared to a Corolla.

So what? Why must a hybrid be justified only on economic grounds?
Why compare a Prius with a Corolla? Why not compare an Insight with a
Corvette? Both have similar passenger and luggage capacity. In many,
perhaps most circumstances the Insight will even be as fast as the
Corvette. So how long will it take for the much more expensive
Corvette to pay for itself?

For now at least, hybrid buyers are not buying based on economics any
more than Corvette buyers are. They like high milage bragging rights,
environmental conservation and the message their car sends. However,
to move into the mainstream, the cars will have to make economic
sense. Economies of scale should bring down the cost. Or gas may go
to $10.

Hydrogen is a pipe dream. It might be a reality some day but we are
going to conserve our oil if we are going to make it there.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:23:34 -0700, (Jason) wrote:

>In article >,
(Gordon McGrew) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "FanJet" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bebop wrote:
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of
>> >>> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will
>> >>> eventually go to hydrogen systems, but never electric.
>> >>
>> >> The hybrid is not true electric, thus the word "hybrid".
>> >
>> >Actually, they're true gasoline since that's their *only* power source.
>> >"Hybrid" is a spin that gets people to purchase something they otherwise
>> >wouldn't.
>>
>> Hmmm. I am as skeptical of "marketing" as anyone but I really don't
>> think that people are buying the word, 'hybrid.' Some buyers like the
>> high milage/green benefits. Others like the technology. I don't
>> think anyone is buying because they like the word.
>
>Hello,
>I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since they
>love to tell their friends and almost anyone else that they talk to that
>they have a "hybrid". They also like it when fellow greenies see the word
>"hybrid" on the back of their cars." It's not the actual word that they
>love--it's the thought behind the word. An example is the word "diamond".
>It's the thought behind the word that is important when it comes to
>"hybrid" or "diamond".

>Jason

Well it may be a matter of semantics but the way I see it, they are
bragging the technology and benefits of the hybrid, not the word
itself. I think most of them understand the technology reasonably
well. It would be a different story if they had no real clue what
'hybrid' meant, or if hybrid technology didn't really do anything.
Think Fahrfurnugen or Cab-Forward design. Got a Hemi in that thing?

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:46:57 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>
>I think plug-in hybrids are the way to go. My Ford Escape Hybrid would
>run the gas engine for the required few minutes every day, but would run
>electric-only every workday, plugging in to my home solar power system for
>recharging at night. The ICE would still be there for needed additional
>power, or for long trips. I could easily get 500mpg of gasoline with no
>other energy source but the sun. The upfront cost might be high, but I
>personally don't care about that. I will amortize today's purchase price
>over a period of many years to eliminate my need for foreign oil.

Thanks for the summaries. The 500 mpg of gasoline is a little
contrived in that one could easily run the car on 100% methanol and no
gasoline at all. The only problem is that recent analysis indicates
that these bio fuels consume more fossil fuel than they replace.

The plug-in hybrid is a good idea and will hasten the arrival of the
day when hybrids do make economic sense.

jim beam wrote:
> commute traffic affording known recharge schedules. the current
> electric car model [such as it is] is not so great because burning
> fossil fuels to generate electricity that charges batteries is only
> marginally more efficient than burning the fuel in the car.

youd think burning the fuel directly in the car would be the most efficient

SoCalMike wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> commute traffic affording known recharge schedules. the current
>> electric car model [such as it is] is not so great because burning
>> fossil fuels to generate electricity that charges batteries is only
>> marginally more efficient than burning the fuel in the car.
>
>
> youd think burning the fuel directly in the car would be the most efficient

not thermodynamically. or at least, not currently. formula 1 engines
are pretty good because they run at real high combustion temps, the key
to best yield, but to do that reliably for the mileage of the average
family sedan requires expensive and/or different materials. i recall
reading some stuff on ceramics in diesel engines, and they allowed both
higher combustion temperature [with accompanying increase in efficiency]
and a significant increase in service life. but as you may imagine,
manufacturers did not show any interest in the last of these two. and
to be fair, production cost at that time was very high. but if they had
production runs in the millions, that situation would change pretty quick...

wrote:

> You forgot to mention, he's also a lawyer.

Who, Nate Fisher?

Jason wrote:

> In article >,
> (Gordon McGrew) wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "FanJet" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bebop wrote:
>>>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of
>>>>>traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will
>>>>>eventually go to hydrogen systems, but never electric.
>>>>
>>>>The hybrid is not true electric, thus the word "hybrid".
>>>
>>>Actually, they're true gasoline since that's their *only* power source.
>>>"Hybrid" is a spin that gets people to purchase something they otherwise
>>>wouldn't.
>>
>>Hmmm. I am as skeptical of "marketing" as anyone but I really don't
>>think that people are buying the word, 'hybrid.' Some buyers like the
>>high milage/green benefits. Others like the technology. I don't
>>think anyone is buying because they like the word.
>
>
> Hello,
> I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since they
> love to tell their friends and almost anyone else that they talk to that
> they have a "hybrid".

And you know this how?

In article >, jim beam > wrote:

>true, but from what i can see, a complete cessation of co2 production is
>unnecessary. parallel that with things like addressing deforestation
>and erosion, things that harm natural co2 absorbtion, and we have a more
>sustainable system.

I agree we won't fully cease serious CO2 production, and do not need
to. But consider that the number of car owners is going to
radically escalate as China, India, and pretty much the rest of the
world continues to grow economically. Say we have 2x the miles
driven in 2030...

[gasoline FC's]
>when federal tax benefits & grants stopped, yes. what are the technical
>problems? you're probably going to have a butane fuel cell in your
>laptop before long.

Gasoline FC's require a fuel processor to break the HC into H2 +
CO2 and CO, then the CO gets "water gas shifted" to H2+CO2. The
first process req's about 700-800C temperature. The latter about
200-300C and is a big reactor. Getting these up to T requires a lot
of time and fuel energy (efficiency hit), not practical for room T
starting a car in seconds. Any sulfur poisons these reactors, so
likely require a sulfur trap (another invention). You'll always
have breakthrough impurities that poison the delicate FC catalyst.
Can mitigate that at extra cost with a performance hit. You have a
very dilute (~40%) H2 stream going to the FC which impacts
performance and requires extremely careful flow control to maintain
efficiency. Controlling this whole process through typical driving
transients is seriously difficult. A big hybrid battery is
required. But batteries also aren't very good from freeze
conditions, nor cost and weight.

Doing a durable, cost-effect FC vehicle working with the ideal fuel
H2, is hard enough. The above complicates it so much that this
solution, once considered an interim, would probably take many more
years to solve than the H2 FC. It isn't impossible, just extremely
challenging.


>> Hydrogen fuel

>because that's where the federal tax credits are. doesn't mean the
>decision to subsidize hydrogen research is based on good science.

I'm unsure what you mean by "tax credits". I do not think the auto
makers are getting any tax credits. And the recently enacted one
for end-users is really just a show of support which will not ever
amount to any real $ (in the 5 years at least).


>> Note that is corporate
>> money, not tax payer (though the DOE budget over the next 5
>> years is slated at a combined $1.7B or so).
>
>but again, that is eligible for 100% write-off is it not? whether the
>subsidy comes from a direct payout or from 100% write-off, doesn't it
>amount to the same thing?

Again, I do not know to what you refer. I do not think the
automakers get to write-off any of this R&D. Most of the above
$1.7B goes to Nat'l Labs, universities, and specific company
research proposals. This doesn't include the huge budgets that the
auto companies are expending on their proprietary R&D.


>sure, hydrogen fuel cells work, and the by-product is water, but let's
>address the practical reality: hydrogen is, per kilogram, not as energy
>dense as gasoline, and somewhat more hazardous in both transportation &
>storage. what use is hydrogen if you can't safely transport or store
>it? the space shuttle, which uses liquid hydrogen, has to be fueled as
>closely as possible before launch to reduce risk & losses.

Per kg, it is actually the best. It's the per volume where it, uh,
has issues :-)

As to safety, many safety certifying agencies (German TUV, both US
and Japan DOT, etc) have certified the new 10Kpsi tanks. Liq H2 has
a boil-off issue which is more about loss of the fuel (which quickly
dissipates) than about safety. I'd be more afraid of the
Shuttles liq O2! Yes, H2 has a low ignition E, wide flammability
limits, and permeates through most anything. Actually its high
diffusivity can help as it dissipates very quickly as opposed to
gasoline vapors which can collect making a very dangerous situation.
I'm confident we can engineer safe H2 systems. The real Q is can
we store enough, *cheaply* to satisfy customer range req't. I think
H2 concerns are more myth ("Hindenburg") and the devil we don't
know. Not to say there aren't issues. But if one proposed gasoline
today, it would never happen. Just 100 years of engineering, and
user experience (thus comfort), makes it palatable.