German Hybrid Vehicles ??

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:29:42 -0400, "wkearney99"
> wrote:

>> 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.

While a valid theoretical point, that is not something you can sell
the general public. There has to be a net economic payoff, in a
reasonable period of time, to get the average joe consumer to buy. If
it takes 8+ years for the economic savings from lower fuel costs to
pay for the increased purchase cost of the vehicle, then it doesn't
quite make sense yet.

I only drive 8,000 or so miles per year, and for a Prius the payoff
was going to take even longer than that for me. I also tend to keep
cars for 10-12 years, which means I would also have to factor in the
cost of replacement batteries towards the tail-end of the ownership
period. For me, a smaller, gasoline powered vehicle made the most
sense. What I ended up with is about 30% more fuel efficient than the
94 VR6 Passat it replaced. I would have considered a 5spd TDI Jetta
Wagon, but there were none available when I went looking 5 weeks ago.

There is no question that increased economies of scale, and maturation
of the technology will lead to a better cost benefit curve for
hybrids. If you can get the payoff period to around 4 years (lets say
assuming $3.00/gallon fuel and 12,000 miles/year) most would buy in.

David Glos

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.

I am not convinced.
100k mile is not much nowadays and could be easily reached in ~3-4
years. If you drive less, then you will not save much anyways. Another
problem is, that batteries are known to gradually loose the capacity.
Where is the limit between "alive" and "dead"? You say - it does not
feel good, and toyota says - everything is working, go away, no
warranty for you. And how much % of capacity could you expect in say 5
years?

Then, there is not so easy question about the TCO. That warranty is
interesting only if you drive the car for 8 years/100k mi and then
scrap it. What happends if you want to sell the car in say 5 years with
100k miles? There is no warranty anymore. And the replacement batteries
will cost a lot of money (thousands of $), as (if anything happends)
you are likely needing the complete replacement. So, you will need to
find a very naive person to buy the car for the "usual" price, say 60%
from new (at least in europe). More likely, you will get much less. So,
you need to put more money upfront, and you get less afterwards. So,
the car costs you more.
And if you mainly drive not in a city traffic, then you will have a
very hard time to save up that premium the car will be costing you,
because such a hybrid has an advantage only if you do a lot of
start-stops. And only after this you will start saving money.
So, everyone can do it's own calculations.

And somehow I am not so sure, if recycling of those batteries really is
so unproblematic.

Btw, there is one more thing: the production of the car and the
recycling of it are not pollution free too. And it is not
insignificant.

wkearney99 wrote:
> > 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.

It is not so clear. Hydroelectric - maybe, but wind and solar are
definitely not an option, if you look at the whole picture. They cost
pollution to produce, and are very expensive to recycle. For example,
the wind generators have a lot of epoxy and carbon fiber in them, live
maybe 30 years and are _royal_ PITA to recycle. And they produce too
little power for the purpose.

Ok, the usual car has maybe some 20-30% of energetic efficiency. How
efficient will be the electric car when charged from the wall plug,
when you add together the loses at the power plant, then couple of
hundred miles of wires and a charger device, the batteries, power
"regulator" and the engine?

And I doubt very much, if the usual power plant would have a better
catalytic converters as the usual car has.

Now, let's calculate. Say, your car needs some 30kW of power just to
keep moving at 60mph. Let's assume, that, charger, batteries, the
engine and power "regulator" all together have a fantastically good
effciency of 60%.
So, in order to drive 60 miles you will need some 50kWh of power, which
will cost you in something like 5$, given the price of say 10ct/kWh.
And if you take a TDI and drive steady at 60mph, then you will probably
reach the same 60mpg, an a gallon of diesel will currently cost much
less than 5$.

And oh, if everybody starts to charge the car overnight, then the usual
demand of electricity will go up 10-20 times, which mean, that the
current power grid infrastructure is not capabale to supply it.

> It is not so clear. Hydroelectric - maybe, but wind and solar are
> definitely not an option, if you look at the whole picture. They cost
> pollution to produce, and are very expensive to recycle. For example,
> the wind generators have a lot of epoxy and carbon fiber in them, live
> maybe 30 years and are _royal_ PITA to recycle. And they produce too
> little power for the purpose.

You require that the production of cars create no pollution whatsoever?
And that they be inexpensive to recycle? Tell you what -- if the
German auto industry adopts the same negative attitude that you seem to
have, you are handing the future of the automotive industry to the East
Asians. Y'all need some "can do" spirit.

> 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.

Al, no offense, but your defeatist attitude seems to suggest that there
is no solution, and that technology cannot progress and address these
problems.

Brian Running wrote:
> > It is not so clear. Hydroelectric - maybe, but wind and solar are
> > definitely not an option, if you look at the whole picture. They cost
> > pollution to produce, and are very expensive to recycle. For example,
> > the wind generators have a lot of epoxy and carbon fiber in them, live
> > maybe 30 years and are _royal_ PITA to recycle. And they produce too
> > little power for the purpose.
>
> You require that the production of cars create no pollution whatsoever?

I do not require anything, it is just the way it is.
And if you shift the pollution from the cars to the power plants, it
will be no use. Someting like "let's keep our yard clean - drop all the
garbage 2 miles further". But the garbage is still there, and in case
of prius probably more of it.

> And that they be inexpensive to recycle? Tell you what -- if the

Would it not be reasonable?

> German auto industry adopts the same negative attitude that you seem to
> have, you are handing the future of the automotive industry to the East
> Asians. Y'all need some "can do" spirit.

Just because it is currently hyped? I don't know. If the hype will last
long enough to pay for the whole thing - maybe. Otherwise - not.

And there are lots of another ways to build clean autos. For example, a
lot of german car makers are experimenting with hydrogen fuel cells. In
my opinion, it is much more feasible as just a bunch of NiMH cells. You
can have a "clean" car and you do not need to wait all night to charge
your auto for the next 100 miles.

The next thing, I suppose european manufacturers are waiting for, is
the transition from 12V to 42V board network. It is not so easy as it
sounds, as everything down to the connectors should be reworked, tested
etc. But it is due anyway, because there there is a growing consumption
of electricity.
This will bring the crank-shaft mounted alternators which in turn will
give the hybrid capabilities almost "for free".

There is no question that a HUGE improvement in the health of our
environment would occur if hybrid Electrics and all electrics would come
into mainstream use. Not only that, but the dependence on foreign oil would
diminish significantly. An article posted on the internet and written by
Doug Korthof , a retiree living in California, discusses this very well. The
article mentions the once mass-produced EVs of just a few years ago, such as
the 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV. Other mass-produced EVs included the GM EV-1, the
Honda EV+, the Ford Ranger EV, and more. Most of these vehicles were
available only on leases, and were called back from their leases in the
2002-2003 time period, cut up, or otherwise destroyed. Leasees were given
very few offers to buy out those leases, so most are gone forever. What a
surrender to the oil interests! Wonder what our leaders will do when the
world actually runs out of oil? That event WILL occur if mankind survives
long enough.

Anyway, here is a link to Doug's article:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2005/083005Korthof.shtml

Regards.

They only use less fossil fuel during low speed city driving while on battery power, not during highway driving. During highway
driving they use more fossil fuel than my diesel Jetta.

"wkearney99" > wrote in message ...
>> 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.
>

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:48:24 GMT, Brian Running
> wrote:

>> Central generation just shifts the problem to somebody else's back
>> yard. It doesn't make it go away.
>
>Al, no offense, but your defeatist attitude seems to suggest that there
>is no solution, and that technology cannot progress and address these
>problems.

It's not a defeatist attitude. I've been driving diesels since 1978.
The progress in diesel technology from by 48HP 1978 Rabbit to the
2.0TDI in my Passat is amazing. I already have the solution. I just
think hybrids and electrics aren't much of an alternative.

And I think VW should stick with what they know.

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

What's better, starting down the road of saving petroleum or doing nothing
at all? You're adovacting the excuse that's it's not worth the expense.
True, by today's cost for fuel there is a price to be paid to save it. But
as availability decreases, and it is decreasing, the prices will continue to
go up. Without efforts to conserve how much is consumed the economic
effects will be quite problematic. As in, penny-wise, pound-foolish.

But hey, you cling to your ideals. Meanwhile some folks will do their part
to plan around them.