Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles

"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

Electric motors are high efficiency, typically well over 80%. Commercial
power plant efficiencies can run as high as 40 or 45%. The typical car
engine is operating at about 30% efficiency.

I would expect strictly electric cars (using power from commercial plants)
to lower energy consumption enough to make them a viable alternative. As you
probably know, they do have other, operational shortcomings, though.

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml is just one site that
discusses the efficiency differences.

There is also the advantage of being able to use nuclear power plants (among
other non-fossil fueled plant options) to provide power for charging
electric vehicle batteries. This would reduce dependence on foreign oil.

I happen to favor Jim's suggestion IIRC of legislating smaller engines to at
least some extent. It is a good quick fix. Meanwhile, legislate incentives
to come up with alternatives for smaller engines.

Dave > wrote:
> Yup. And you had a good summary of Yates' biased spin (to be

I was thinking about it later, and I thought I would just list the words
that would not be in a balanced article. They are purely flame bait.

dark side It's in a headline, so attention-grabbing is okay.
voila
palpitate
greenies
Rube Goldberg
flunkies
flinty-eyed
discover perpetual motion and cure the common cold
one of the most respected [unnamed] high-powered engineering executives
know-it-alls
gasbags
elitist

Some of these are perfectly good words, but they are an inordinantly high
percentage of the article. Nothing new is said, there is just some swagger
and bravado attached so that the arguments carry more weight.

Where was Brock when Car and Driver did their review of the Escape?
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8777

His full page article in the December 2004 edition (as opposed to the
Hybrid few paragraphs), has "liberal bed-wetters" in the second paragraph.
Oh, wait! There is a statement that is helpful in relation to his bias
against hybrids. "we remain devoted to a sybaritic celebration of
essentially useless, antisocial, high-speed, gas,-guzzling, overpowered
automobiles."

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Dave > wrote:
> (to be honest, Friedman and Zakaria have their own biases). F & Z in
> their liberal bent do not completely disclose the other primary energy
> sources (including fossil fuel) consumed in their "500 mpg" soundbite.
> Though one may argue that at least the majority of those other energy
> sources do not necessarily have to be imported.

I think that the lack of importation is the most important point for
Fareed. I admit that I had never read one of his columns, although I do
look forward to his visits to "The Daily Show". I think he presents a good
view of the world stage. The only reason for "Fareed Zakaria, Editor,
Newsweek International" to speak about the 500mpg car would be in relation
to its effect on US imports.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

jim beam > wrote:
> it's not necessary or practical to go to a wholly alternative fuel
> model. but i'd go pure electric /if/ the power source was nuclear or
> wind/solar/geothermal, etc. but that would only be practical for local
> 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.

Several of the owners of electric cars that I know are using solar power to
charge car. This makes the most sense, and gives you essentially a solar
powered car. Those that don't have solar are required (I think) to use
time-of-day metering, enticing them to recharge at night, when rates are
lower because there is excess capacity available. The off peak charging
increases the true efficiency of the vehicles.

A plug-in hybrid would solve the range problem.

As I was driving down the road yesterday at about 3pm (desired peak for
on-grid solar production), I was struck by the number of empty roofs that
were pointed directly at the sun, not taking advantage of the solar power.

If you have enough roof space, a solar system can be installed with a
pre-arranged loan where the payments equal your current electric bill.
Next year, when electric rates go up, you are ahead of the game.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

> wrote
> Several of the owners of electric cars that I know are using solar power
to
> charge car. This makes the most sense, and gives you essentially a solar
> powered car. Those that don't have solar are required (I think) to use
> time-of-day metering, enticing them to recharge at night, when rates are
> lower because there is excess capacity available. The off peak charging
> increases the true efficiency of the vehicles.

The off-peak charging has no effect on the thermodynamic efficiency or the
consumption of fuel used ultimately to provide the car's power. Just to be
anal and keep the vocab straight.

If what you mean is that one can save more dollars on fuel (powering the
electric plant that provides the electricity to one's home) by being able to
charge electric car batteries at the optimal time, then I agree.

Elle > wrote:
> > wrote
>> The off peak charging increases the true efficiency of the vehicles.

> The off-peak charging has no effect on the thermodynamic efficiency or the
> consumption of fuel used ultimately to provide the car's power. Just to be
> anal and keep the vocab straight.

Does PG&E promote time-of-use metering for some other reason?

In California, there is substantial off-peak capacity that is available,
quite a bit of it from non-fueled sources, such as geothermal and
hydro-electric. I believe that the use of off-peak power is more efficient
than peak power. The thermodynamic efficiency might be improved merely by
the difference in ambient temperature of various generating and delivery
infrastructure elements. The possibility that one more fossil fuel power
plant might not have to come on line to meet daytime demand is not
insignificant.

I have a hard time deciphering two of the words in your sentence, but I
think I picked up the intent.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

> wrote
> Elle > wrote:
> > > wrote
> >> The off peak charging increases the true efficiency of the vehicles.
>
> > The off-peak charging has no effect on the thermodynamic efficiency or
the
> > consumption of fuel used ultimately to provide the car's power. Just to
be
> > anal and keep the vocab straight.
>
> Does PG&E promote time-of-use metering for some other reason?

I was thinking you were getting at time-of-use metering designed to
preclude, say, brownouts in summer.

> In California, there is substantial off-peak capacity that is available,
> quite a bit of it from non-fueled sources, such as geothermal and
> hydro-electric. I believe that the use of off-peak power is more
efficient
> than peak power. The thermodynamic efficiency might be improved merely by
> the difference in ambient temperature of various generating and delivery
> infrastructure elements.

Oh, I see your point. Okay.

jim beam wrote:
> it's not necessary or practical to go to a wholly alternative fuel
> model. but i'd go pure electric /if/ the power source was nuclear or
> wind/solar/geothermal, etc. but that would only be practical for local
> commute traffic affording known recharge schedules.

Right. The trouble is that the power itself has to be generated somehow.
Oil supplies are finite, even if they're not going to run out anytime
soon (I don't know whose projections I'd trust, frankly), and the
emissions from gasoline engines can't be great for our air/atmosphere.

To make long trips viable there needs to be a model similar to that of
gasoline engines/gas stations as they are now. Obviously one can't wait
around for batteries to charge up again at an electric "filling
station", and I kinda doubt a battery-swapping plan could be made
workable. I also doubt we'll have mini-nuclear reactors in cars anytime
soon. Al Qaeda would have a field day. That leaves some sort of fuel
that can be delivered safely and stored, unless we have a tremendous
breakthrough in solar power conversion, and even so the sun doesnt
always shine...

> imo, the best most practical solution that meets the needs of urban,
> suburban and country dwellers is to encourage the use of smaller more
> efficient vehicles, strongly discourage the use of ridiculous gas
> guzzlers, and actually deploy known technology that increases
> thermodynamic efficiency. and all the folk that drive huge vehicles
> because they "need" them should go to europe for a few minutes to get
> some perspective.

Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example, should
be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care about gas
guzzling and its effect on the rest of the world because those
controlling this stuff have no sense of history and continuity. Oh well,
to hell in a handbasket we go.

Sid Schweiger wrote:
> BZZZZZZT! Wrong...but thanks for playing.

No reason to be a schmuck, Sid. If you had taken the time to read the
thread before shooting off your mouth you would have seen Casey's note
and my response, and you wouldn't have wasted anyone's time.

Abeness wrote:
> That leaves some sort of fuel
> that can be delivered safely and stored, unless we have a tremendous
> breakthrough in solar power conversion, and even so the sun doesnt
> always shine...

Oh, I forgot: microwave power transmission! Just in case your brain
wasn't already fried enough by your cell phone...