German Hybrid Vehicles ??

> As an engineer, I'm all for new technology, but lets make sure its
> good, not just sexy.
>

Hi David:

The hybrid concept is not a matter of sexy looks and it is not a fad - as
the future will prove. As another engineer, I also like new technology, but
even more, I like new technology that protects the planet we live on.
Hybrids help do this, all-fossil fuel vehicles do not.

Regards.

Papa wrote:

> While it is true that electricity costs energy to produce, the cost of using
> today's modern batteries is much less than the cost of fossil fuel,
> including diesel, and a whole lot more environmentally friendly. Check it

But sir, the modern batteries do not produce the elecricity themselves.
You still need to charge them. And you are likely to burn the fossil
fuel when doing it. No?

> The "Lupo" is not sold in the USA, where I live. Even if it were, I wouldn't
> buy it because from the reports I have read, it is an uncomfortable, cheaply
> made, noisy piece of junk.

No, it is just a small car, with a comfort of a small car. The
interrior is OK.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:36:52 GMT, "Papa" > wrote:

>
>> As an engineer, I'm all for new technology, but lets make sure its
>> good, not just sexy.
>>
>
>Hi David:
>
>The hybrid concept is not a matter of sexy looks and it is not a fad - as
>the future will prove. As another engineer, I also like new technology, but
>even more, I like new technology that protects the planet we live on.
>Hybrids help do this, all-fossil fuel vehicles do not.
>
>Regards.
>

I hear you, but have to be fully convinced about the merit of the
package. There is that not so little issue of the batteries, and all
of the heavy metals involved. Of course, from a simple conservation of
energy approach, the idea of capturing the energy wasted during
braking makes sense. The question is "is currently proposed hybrid
technology the best method of doing so?"

Of couse, what about a diesel/electric hybrid. It has been done that
way for some time with monster construction equipment and locomotives.
Diesel to power a generator, driving motors directly at each wheel,
and regenerative braking. Simplifies the drivetrain tremendously.

David Glos

"DLG" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:36:52 GMT, "Papa" > wrote:
>
>>
>>> As an engineer, I'm all for new technology, but lets make sure its
>>> good, not just sexy.
>>>
>>
>>Hi David:
>>
>>The hybrid concept is not a matter of sexy looks and it is not a fad - as
>>the future will prove. As another engineer, I also like new technology,
>>but
>>even more, I like new technology that protects the planet we live on.
>>Hybrids help do this, all-fossil fuel vehicles do not.
>>
>>Regards.
>>
>
> I hear you, but have to be fully convinced about the merit of the
> package. There is that not so little issue of the batteries, and all
> of the heavy metals involved. Of course, from a simple conservation of
> energy approach, the idea of capturing the energy wasted during
> braking makes sense. The question is "is currently proposed hybrid
> technology the best method of doing so?"
>
> Of couse, what about a diesel/electric hybrid. It has been done that
> way for some time with monster construction equipment and locomotives.
> Diesel to power a generator, driving motors directly at each wheel,
> and regenerative braking. Simplifies the drivetrain tremendously.
>
> David Glos

Diesel/hybrids are a great concept, of course, and the drives-at-each-wheel
is another great idea. Gasoline hybrids (without the driven wheel concept)
are here now, and it is not a major change to add PHEV capability to the
FULL hybrids such as the Toyota Prius and the Ford Escape. Toyota and Ford
could do that next year if they wanted to (private individuals are already
doing it, at least with the Prius).

Regards.

> Electricity costs energy to produce

True, but emission controls at power plants are going to do much more
cost-effective job than what gets put on a passenger vehicle. Put it this
way, electric created at a plant for a thousand vehicles, versus a thousand
diesel engine cars; which one will make less pollution?

> If you really care, fund public transportation and encourage
> them to use more fuel efficient/environmentally efficient substitutes.

Like centrally generated electric.

> But sir, the modern batteries do not produce the elecricity themselves.
> You still need to charge them. And you are likely to burn the fossil
> fuel when doing it. No?

Or hydroelectric, solar and wind power. Even with oil, coal or gas they're
much less likely to pollute AS MUCH as the passenger vehicles.

> Was looking at an Autoweek at a friends house this weekend. It had a
> little blurb on the break even points for 3 hybrids and a diesal
> Beetle. With their assumptions, the Beetle would be pay for the
> premium in acquisition cost in a little less than 3 years. All of the
> hybrids (Civic, Prius, and one other which I forgot) took at least 7
> years to reach the break even point.

You neglect to mention that even while they might cost more they end up
using a lot less fossil fuel in the process. The point here is to reduce
fuel consumption, not justify doing nothing.

> And the hybrids carry
> around huge batteries, which have limited life and are highly toxic.

Properly recycled they're not an issue. And given the 8 year/100k mile
warranties on them they're not a service issue either.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:25:45 -0400, "wkearney99"
> wrote:

>> Electricity costs energy to produce
>
>True, but emission controls at power plants are going to do much more
>cost-effective job than what gets put on a passenger vehicle. Put it this
>way, electric created at a plant for a thousand vehicles, versus a thousand
>diesel engine cars; which one will make less pollution?

I don't think that answer is nearly so clear cut. Where I live in
Southern Ontario our electric power comes mostly from nuclear and
coal. And not "new clean" coal. Old dirty coal. Creating more
electric load means that the dirty coal plants have to run more.

So with the hybrids, what we have in effect are nuclear and coal
powered cars. Great!

Here's a link to an article on the Nanticoke coal fired plant about 60
miles from he

http://www.therecord.com/links/links_04100484814.html

The government (which indirectly owns the plant) has pledged to shut
it down, but doesn't have anything to replace the capacity.

>> If you really care, fund public transportation and encourage
>> them to use more fuel efficient/environmentally efficient substitutes.
>
>Like centrally generated electric.

I had a friend from Toronto tell me once that electric busses and
subways produced no polution at all... I asked him about the nuclear
plants in the suburbs that generate the power for the busses. "Oh
yeah" was his answer.

Central generation just shifts the problem to somebody else's back
yard. It doesn't make it go away.

--
Remove preceding and trailing X from username for replies
(Sorry, but I'm SICK of spam...)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:32:38 -0400, "wkearney99"
> wrote:

>> And the hybrids carry
>> around huge batteries, which have limited life and are highly toxic.
>
>Properly recycled they're not an issue. And given the 8 year/100k mile
>warranties on them they're not a service issue either.

We won't know if there are service issues until we get there. I
suspect that there will be serious disposal and recyling issues with
today's hybrids 10 years down the road. Only time will tell.

--
Remove preceding and trailing X from username for replies
(Sorry, but I'm SICK of spam...)