Honestly I dont drive a hybrid and havent done the research --Iknow its not all that helppful but friends who own Prius' ,all seem verry satisied and I have heard no complaints.
A few I know have preordered the "Smart Car". which I am looking forward to seeing and driving in when they are released here iun the fall.....they are tiny two passenger vehicles about half the size of a VW Bug with a 3 cylinder engine. I think they have an electric model but Im not quite sure about that. They appear to be very well made and to me its an interesting concept---how it plays out in the real world will be interesting to watch--they seem to be doing well in Europe and around the world----If you dont need a ton of space they may be agood deal..
My friend bought a Prius and loves it. She said that she would not recommend it for a person that only drives around town since the higher gas mileage (somewhere in the range of 50 mpg) comes from the electric assist on the engine and that only happens in freeway driving.
She noted that there are a lot of non-hybrid cars that get the around town gas mileage that her Prius gets - at a lower sticker price.
Two of my clients have the Prius, and both of them love it.
I've heard that when it comes time to replace the batteries that the love affair may diminish some, but that's a ways off for a new car.
The Smart Car is cute, and I've admired it since I first saw one in Japan 6 or 8 years ago. They're made by Mercedes, and are very well appointed. But they are extremely small, and - as of my most recent research - only get 35 miles to the gallon. Not all that impressive given it's tiny size.
Around where I live most of the cars out on the road are trucks and SUV"s, I've been driving a small economy car and am tired of feeling dwarfed by the other vehicles. Most of them also drive 75 mph or more on the highways and it's quite humbling to have a big truck filling up your line of sight in front of you or trying to swallow you from behind...so I'm looking for something larger than a Prius.
I've driven a Ford Escape Hybrid, I took it to Yosemite, pretty loaded, it had somewhat of a strugle at 10,000 ft doing the stop and go at the East enterance to the park. Since it has only 4 cyl I wasn't greatly impressed, and my mileage on the highway wasn't that impressive since it works the opposite of the Prius where, the electronic engine only kicks in under 15 mph I think. I do some long trips with gear, and a good part of city driving, but I don't know if there's a happy medium out there in the hybrid world. The extra $5,000 or so to buy a hybrid edition only pays off after 5-7 years or more of driving, I don't know if I can justify that extra expense.
I have very limited knowledge of alternative fuels, if there was a way they would be accessable and affordable I would love that.
Just traded in my 99 yukon and hubby's 01 Siverado chevy pickyup truck last month.
Got 'n 03 Honda Hybrid - getting 43-45 mpg so far
got n 05 Scion (Xa) - son is driving this...getting 30-32. mpg
also cot a used 03 Cadillac CTS - getting 20 -22 mpg on that one!
with all the changes the gas changes and insurance, payments etc. I am only spending 800 a month on cars now (for 3) and was spending 940 before.
We got 14000 for our trade ins. I will say this, if you trade in gas hogs do it sooner than later and do it under 100,000 miles. We have a number of friends in the "biz" and they tell us this..I do not buy from them because I don't mix friends and money.
the yukon had 94000 - a mommymobile ---
any how hope that helps
The smart car has not got the best crash test ratings.
Use fueleconomy.gov for real MPG comparisons on models and makes.
Also the Prius was goin to be 2x the insurance that the Honda or 1.5 times of the Scion...check all your numbers
Actually - Dooj it is the other way around...hybrids are best at 45- mph -- fast urban driving I guess you could say
there are several hybrid sites, and teh major independent automotive sites explain it as well.
In my experience, I drive 18 miles 1 way to work -- 9 down hill (35-45mph) through lights etc...7 on the highway at about 70 mph (rush hour) and another 3 or so on a flat road with lights Hybrids along with a lot of the newer better cars telling you your mPG as you drive. my best MPG is down that 9 miles because there are more opportunity for the battery to work and the gas not to be used.
Hybrids loose mpg on acceleration because they require the gasoline to accelerate while the battery can maintain better.
Ethanol delivers less energy per gallon than gasoline. So, the higher the percentage of ethanol in your mix, the lower mileage you get. This should be considered in any evaluation of the possibly lower price per gallon of ethanol or ethanol/gas mixtures. I won't spend a lot of time on the "actual" cost of ethanol (higher food prices, etc.); but I will mention that special gas tanks and fuel lines are required for ethanol concentrations above about 50%. And, because ethanol absorbs moisture from the air, it really can't be piped the way gasoline can, so transporting it to refineries, etc., must be done by rail car or truck (much more expensive than pipeline).
Biodiesel sounds wonderful, but it has one problem like ethanol: diversion of food crops to produce fuel. When I was involved in a biodiesel project at work, it was noted that biodiesel would only be competitive (without a fat government subsidy) when oil hit $100/barrel. (At the time, oil was about $45/bbl.) So is it competitive now? NO, because the price of seed oils has also doubled! And then there's all that by-product glycerine to deal with. (A car that would run well on glycerine might be helpful here...) Biodiesel from animal fat MIGHT be a solution.
Hydrogen sounds lovely also (none of that "evil" carbon dioxide produced, doncha know); but presently there is no cost-effective way to make hydrogen that doesn't involve CO2 as a by-product. Some day, solar cells may generate enough electricity for cost-effective water-splitting, but it hasn't happened yet. And high-density storage of hydrogen (so you don't need an immense fuel tank) hasn't happened yet, either. And something the eco-nuts haven't told you: water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
I think hydrogen-powered cars will become viable as soon as we repeal those pesky laws of thermodynamics (who passed those laws anyway, musta been those damned Democrats)...
At my husband's auto repair shop, they have installed 3 of the hydrogen sets on their vehicles. Tech # 1 was getting 17 mpg, now 40 mpg. Tech # 2 is still tweaking his so no definite info yet, Hubby's Explorer was getting 18 mpg, before any tweaking, he is getting 25 mpg. Today, they will be doing some tweaking to it. They had just installed it Friday afternoon before closing. (Before the installation, he fueled up, drove 25 miles on the parkway, took an exit and returned for a total of 50 miles round trip, fueled up at the same pump, drove the same exact route, mph, slowed down at the same spots, etc, refueled and had gotten 25 mpg.)
They will be installing one on my Jag this week, I hope.
There is maintenance involved on this so it is not for the person who just gets in their car and drives and never checks fluids, etc.
That is about all I know on the subject.
Ask me about my 11 1/2 month old great nephew and I can talk for days!!!!!!!!!!
Ethanol delivers less energy per gallon than gasoline. So, the higher the percentage of ethanol in your mix, the lower mileage you get. This should be considered in any evaluation of the possibly lower price per gallon of ethanol or ethanol/gas mixtures. I won't spend a lot of time on the "actual" cost of ethanol (higher food prices, etc.); but I will mention that special gas tanks and fuel lines are required for ethanol concentrations above about 50%. And, because ethanol absorbs moisture from the air, it really can't be piped the way gasoline can, so transporting it to refineries, etc., must be done by rail car or truck (much more expensive than pipeline).
I agree with this completely. Everything I've heard about ethanol is bad news. We could produce higher quality ethanol from other plants, but the feedstock corn used to produce it right now is worthless, in my opinion. It also pollutes more, so there's really no advantage to it. It's just a fad the government is forcing on us.
Biodiesel sounds wonderful, but it has one problem like ethanol: diversion of food crops to produce fuel. When I was involved in a biodiesel project at work, it was noted that biodiesel would only be competitive (without a fat government subsidy) when oil hit $100/barrel. (At the time, oil was about $45/bbl.) So is it competitive now? NO, because the price of seed oils has also doubled! And then there's all that by-product glycerine to deal with. (A car that would run well on glycerine might be helpful here...) Biodiesel from animal fat MIGHT be a solution.
Actually, the corn used to produce ethanol is not something meant for human consumption. It is used to feed cows, but it's harmful for the cows too. The real problem, which is worse than just diverting foods, is that food crops are not being planted, and the corn used to produce ethanol is instead. That corn is also subsidized heavily, by the way.
Additionally though, diesel engines are much better and more efficient. I don't mean to tell people to go out and get a big truck and drive around, but rather to get one of the VW or BMW diesels. Those things get great gas mileage and if you live somewhere like Texas, you can get biodiesel made from fast food grease (I've been told the Chinese restaurants have the best grease, although I think it probably doesn't matter.) If you want the best diesel cars, though, you have to get them from Europe and bring them over here.
Hydrogen sounds lovely also (none of that "evil" carbon dioxide produced, doncha know); but presently there is no cost-effective way to make hydrogen that doesn't involve CO2 as a by-product. Some day, solar cells may generate enough electricity for cost-effective water-splitting, but it hasn't happened yet. And high-density storage of hydrogen (so you don't need an immense fuel tank) hasn't happened yet, either. And something the eco-nuts haven't told you: water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
I think hydrogen is too far out there to even discuss. Plus, water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long, so it's debatable what would happen if we switched over.
Give me a fuel-efficient gasoline engine.
I agree. My wife's Corolla gets great mileage and can compete with the hybrids. It gets close to the same mileage at a significantly lower price.
I thought I read that hybrids are more useful in Japan ... because they have more stop and go traffic. My understanding is that batteries are charged by braking ... so stop and go situations make the hybrids more efficient, whereas highway driving runs the batteries down quickly.
An advantage of corn to ethanol is it keeps money in the country ... and does a little to reduce oil usage. But corn is not the best plant, at least not yet. But is it unethical to price poor countries out of corn, but it is OK to price them out of energy? Corn has gone from $2.25 to $6.00 while oil has gone from $15 to $126.
China and India need to import more and more of our grain ... are we obligated to lower the price for them? I think we are better with corn and soybean prices high ... it will help restore our trade balance.
As a component of the food-versus-fuel debate, there is an economic principle known as "elasticity." Simply defined, this means as incomes move up, food consumption and expenditures change. This is why small increases in income in heavily populated nations like India and China can have major impacts on commodity markets, especially those tied to protein.
So we can blame the Chinese ... if they would just stick with their traditional diet, they would not need so much corn and soybeans. I'm not sure the US is responsible to offer the world cheap food, while we are strangled with a ten fold increase in oil prices, and competed against with dollar a day workers in China.
We need a lot of nuke reactors, a lot of coal usage, open exploration, develop shale oil technologies ... and maybe better batteries for the places where electric can be used. And quit wasting energy trying to reduce CO2 ...
Some sort of solar siding or roofing for home winter heat might make sense one day. Sun to make heat can be much cheaper than sun to make electricity.
In all this we still have to be concerned about the US economy ... if we collapse, we may have to deal with the Chinese or russian military ... both of which are using their trade money to build their military. They may be first and foremost concerned about being mean, not green.
It sure seems we should have a good clean 55 mpg small car by now. I have an E85 truck that gets about 21 on the highway, but I have never put E85 in it ... they say that might reduce mileage by 20%. It is 8 cylinder, but 4 can cut out when not needed.
An advantage of corn to ethanol is it keeps money in the country ... and does a little to reduce oil usage. But corn is not the best plant, at least not yet. But is it unethical to price poor countries out of corn, but it is OK to price them out of energy? Corn has gone from $2.25 to $6.00 while oil has gone from $15 to $126.
That's what people would like to think, however, the market is heavily invested in by foreign companies, particularly Saudis and other wealthy middle easterners. We make them rich by buying their oil, which sometimes goes to fund terrorists. We also make them rich by letting them and their surrogates invest in our stock market and make money there. Look at the bin Ladens, for example. Some members of that family were involved with (and probably still are) our defense industry prior to 9/11. They are all heavily involved with our energy companies.
Also, you can't really compare oil to corn that easily. Both are used for a variety of things, and there's some ratio that shows how much money you can get from a certain amount of each. From what I've read, about 1/3 of our corn goes to ethanol now, with about another 1/3 going to feed cattle, with the remaining third going to other things like food for humans, primarily through heavy processing (such as HFCS.) Oil goes into producing a lot of plastics too, where corn is just beginning to be used for that more. Also, the process of refining each is different, so it is a very complex comparison to make.
China and India need to import more and more of our grain ... are we obligated to lower the price for them? I think we are better with corn and soybean prices high ... it will help restore our trade balance..
I think we should pass the expense on to them in exchange for them passing on all their cheap lead-painted plastic crap to us. However, we should let China and India bear the brunt of the cost increase on behalf of third world nations that are struggling because of our higher prices.
So we can blame the Chinese ... if they would just stick with their traditional diet, they would not need so much corn and soybeans. I'm not sure the US is responsible to offer the world cheap food, while we are strangled with a ten fold increase in oil prices, and competed against with dollar a day workers in China.
They're holding back rice now as well. I don't know if you've seen it there, but here in Houston we are seeing some rice shortages. Even with the limits, Sam's Club and Costco have been out of rice entirely lately. You can still find minute rice in some places, but not the normal kind as easily.
We need a lot of nuke reactors, a lot of coal usage, open exploration, develop shale oil technologies ... and maybe better batteries for the places where electric can be used. And quit wasting energy trying to reduce CO2 ...
I don't see how reducing CO^2 is a waste of energy, but rather should be part of a conservation effort. In my opinion, it's time for us to live more like our grandparents and great grandparents who lived within their means and more independently. My grandparents were always into gardening. The reason is that my grandfather was a kid during the great depression, and my grandmother grew up in a third world country. Both were involved with World War II, where people had to learn to conserve. They also lived in a time were debt wasn't something you got into lightly. I think conservation and responsibility are what our nation needs more than finding ways to keep living outside of our means.
Some sort of solar siding or roofing for home winter heat might make sense one day. Sun to make heat can be much cheaper than sun to make electricity.
I thought about putting solar panels on my roof, and I can afford it. Unfortunately, my homeowners association prohibits them within sight, as well as windmills. I suspect a lot of other people have similar problems. They also prohibit you from growing food in your front yard (although fruit trees can be ok, providing you don't allow fruit to sit on your grass. The technology is there, but our society places a lower importance on it than on superficial appearances. My in-laws in Mexico have been using a solar hot water heater for decades now. My uncle in Ireland has had instant hot water in their house for so long that it has a pull chain to turn it on (I don't know how old it is, but it is old.) Coming up with the technology is not the problem, because I think most of what we need is in reach soon if it's not already available. We are missing the will to change as a society, and we are missing self-control.
In all this we still have to be concerned about the US economy ... if we collapse, we may have to deal with the Chinese or russian military ... both of which are using their trade money to build their military. They may be first and foremost concerned about being mean, not green.
The funny thing is, at least in the case of China, our collapse would result in their collapse too. They, the Saudis, and a few other nations are propping our economy up, and became interdependent with us. They are trying to broaden their investments now and you always hear rumblings about them dropping the dollar and whatnot, but the truth is, if they did it anytime soon, they'd cause their own downfall. Granted, mankind has always been self-destructive and it is possible, but it would be dumb. As far as Russia is concerned, they're almost all bark and very little bite. They have a huge national ego and may be pining for the days of the U.S.S.R., but those days are long gone. They're just another third world nation with a corrupt government. We only take them a little bit seriously because they have nukes that can reach our soil.
It sure seems we should have a good clean 55 mpg small car by now. I have an E85 truck that gets about 21 on the highway, but I have never put E85 in it ... they say that might reduce mileage by 20%. It is 8 cylinder, but 4 can cut out when not needed.
We probably could have, but it hasn't been a priority. I think we will at some point, but we'll also probably see all cars being hybrids in the future. It seems like all the hybrid is boils down to a fancy alternator and bigger battery with an electric motor. There's nothing super amazing about it. It just needs some refinement and one day all vehicles will have it.
An advantage of corn to ethanol is it keeps money in the country ... and does a little to reduce oil usage. But corn is not the best plant, at least not yet. But is it unethical to price poor countries out of corn, but it is OK to price them out of energy? Corn has gone from $2.25 to $6.00 while oil has gone from $15 to $126.
That's what people would like to think, however, the market is heavily invested in by foreign companies, particularly Saudis and other wealthy middle easterners. We make them rich by buying their oil, which sometimes goes to fund terrorists. We also make them rich by letting them and their surrogates invest in our stock market and make money there. Look at the bin Ladens, for example. Some members of that family were involved with (and probably still are) our defense industry prior to 9/11. They are all heavily involved with our energy companies.
I'm not sure what you are saying ... what is what people would like to think?
Yes, it is aggravating that malicious incapable nations that have oil can gain world power from their natural resourse that we enable them to develop, then get more money by investing in capitalism, with the (possible) goal of using those gains to destroy freedom/capitalism ...
I think we should pass the expense on to them in exchange for them passing on all their cheap lead-painted plastic crap to us. However, we should let China and India bear the brunt of the cost increase on behalf of third world nations that are struggling because of our higher prices.
How would we do that?
I don't see how reducing CO^2 is a waste of energy, but rather should be part of a conservation effort.
I haven't researched it ... but I don't think there is good cause to invest (as we are) in ways to "scrub" CO2. CO2 may actually be helpful. But it is the cause de jour (or of the decade) for the democrats, much like DDT was so wrong but still determined elections and policy. I think we waste billions on CO2 fears that are not helping us be more efficient.
In my opinion, it's time for us to live more like our grandparents and great grandparents who lived within their means and more independently.
There are efficiencies of scale ... no reason we have to give that up ... but consumerism is not good either ... much of current society seems addicted to unhealthy, unproductive things ... we've been conned ... I exemplify "simple is good" :)
I thought about putting solar panels on my roof, and I can afford it. Unfortunately, my homeowners association prohibits them within sight, as well as windmills.
I'm not sure you get what I meant ... solar panel for direct heat ... sun heating air or water that is used to heat the house ... can be done cheaply and efficiently. But I guess you got it .. solar hot water ... yeah, but heating the house is very feasible as well, even in the cloudier Midwest.
The funny thing is, at least in the case of China, our collapse would result in their collapse too. They, the Saudis, and a few other nations are propping our economy up, and became interdependent with us.
Yeah, they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs ... and there is some concern over that in those countries ... but it would appear there are those that don't mind pushing to the limits ... and they don't understand how close they may be ... some say it is already too late.
Recommended Posts
mstar1
Honestly I dont drive a hybrid and havent done the research --Iknow its not all that helppful but friends who own Prius' ,all seem verry satisied and I have heard no complaints.
A few I know have preordered the "Smart Car". which I am looking forward to seeing and driving in when they are released here iun the fall.....they are tiny two passenger vehicles about half the size of a VW Bug with a 3 cylinder engine. I think they have an electric model but Im not quite sure about that. They appear to be very well made and to me its an interesting concept---how it plays out in the real world will be interesting to watch--they seem to be doing well in Europe and around the world----If you dont need a ton of space they may be agood deal..
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
I, too, have heard good things about the Prius. I know 3 people that have owned them for a few years,
and all of them love their Prius. Probably more so now that gas is trending toward 4 bucks a gallon.
I was considering buying a hybrid Ford Escape, and the salesperson told me that hybrids weren't that
efficient for short trips around town, which is the bulk of my driving. I don't know if that's true or not,
but it might be one thing you want to check on.
I would steer clear of any car that relies on bio-fuels - at least until they find a bio source that is not food.
Using food, such as corn, for fuel can not be sustained in the long term.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
My friend bought a Prius and loves it. She said that she would not recommend it for a person that only drives around town since the higher gas mileage (somewhere in the range of 50 mpg) comes from the electric assist on the engine and that only happens in freeway driving.
She noted that there are a lot of non-hybrid cars that get the around town gas mileage that her Prius gets - at a lower sticker price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Two of my clients have the Prius, and both of them love it.
I've heard that when it comes time to replace the batteries that the love affair may diminish some, but that's a ways off for a new car.
The Smart Car is cute, and I've admired it since I first saw one in Japan 6 or 8 years ago. They're made by Mercedes, and are very well appointed. But they are extremely small, and - as of my most recent research - only get 35 miles to the gallon. Not all that impressive given it's tiny size.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Around where I live most of the cars out on the road are trucks and SUV"s, I've been driving a small economy car and am tired of feeling dwarfed by the other vehicles. Most of them also drive 75 mph or more on the highways and it's quite humbling to have a big truck filling up your line of sight in front of you or trying to swallow you from behind...so I'm looking for something larger than a Prius.
I've driven a Ford Escape Hybrid, I took it to Yosemite, pretty loaded, it had somewhat of a strugle at 10,000 ft doing the stop and go at the East enterance to the park. Since it has only 4 cyl I wasn't greatly impressed, and my mileage on the highway wasn't that impressive since it works the opposite of the Prius where, the electronic engine only kicks in under 15 mph I think. I do some long trips with gear, and a good part of city driving, but I don't know if there's a happy medium out there in the hybrid world. The extra $5,000 or so to buy a hybrid edition only pays off after 5-7 years or more of driving, I don't know if I can justify that extra expense.
I have very limited knowledge of alternative fuels, if there was a way they would be accessable and affordable I would love that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washn'wear
Just traded in my 99 yukon and hubby's 01 Siverado chevy pickyup truck last month.
Got 'n 03 Honda Hybrid - getting 43-45 mpg so far
got n 05 Scion (Xa) - son is driving this...getting 30-32. mpg
also cot a used 03 Cadillac CTS - getting 20 -22 mpg on that one!
with all the changes the gas changes and insurance, payments etc. I am only spending 800 a month on cars now (for 3) and was spending 940 before.
We got 14000 for our trade ins. I will say this, if you trade in gas hogs do it sooner than later and do it under 100,000 miles. We have a number of friends in the "biz" and they tell us this..I do not buy from them because I don't mix friends and money.
the yukon had 94000 - a mommymobile ---
any how hope that helps
The smart car has not got the best crash test ratings.
Use fueleconomy.gov for real MPG comparisons on models and makes.
Also the Prius was goin to be 2x the insurance that the Honda or 1.5 times of the Scion...check all your numbers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washn'wear
Actually - Dooj it is the other way around...hybrids are best at 45- mph -- fast urban driving I guess you could say
there are several hybrid sites, and teh major independent automotive sites explain it as well.
In my experience, I drive 18 miles 1 way to work -- 9 down hill (35-45mph) through lights etc...7 on the highway at about 70 mph (rush hour) and another 3 or so on a flat road with lights Hybrids along with a lot of the newer better cars telling you your mPG as you drive. my best MPG is down that 9 miles because there are more opportunity for the battery to work and the gas not to be used.
Hybrids loose mpg on acceleration because they require the gasoline to accelerate while the battery can maintain better.
check this site:
http://www.hybridcars.com/
many cars here in New Mexico are trucks and SUVs as were ours. But more and more your are seeing a shift.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washn'wear
We were spending over 400 a month on gas - now we are spending 150? ish
http://www.hybridcars.com/calculator/
this will give you some $$ amounts regarding gas (not insurance however)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Methinks I will be the first one on line for a hydrogen fueled vehicle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
I fact checked and found that the Ford Escape Hybrid electric motor kicks in under 25mph, except upon excelleration then the gas engine takes over.
The Hinda Civic Hybrid has better mpg and have higher mph hybrid uses.
The gas milage is stellar, but I'm still looking for larger vehicle....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Re: alternative fuels
Ethanol delivers less energy per gallon than gasoline. So, the higher the percentage of ethanol in your mix, the lower mileage you get. This should be considered in any evaluation of the possibly lower price per gallon of ethanol or ethanol/gas mixtures. I won't spend a lot of time on the "actual" cost of ethanol (higher food prices, etc.); but I will mention that special gas tanks and fuel lines are required for ethanol concentrations above about 50%. And, because ethanol absorbs moisture from the air, it really can't be piped the way gasoline can, so transporting it to refineries, etc., must be done by rail car or truck (much more expensive than pipeline).
Biodiesel sounds wonderful, but it has one problem like ethanol: diversion of food crops to produce fuel. When I was involved in a biodiesel project at work, it was noted that biodiesel would only be competitive (without a fat government subsidy) when oil hit $100/barrel. (At the time, oil was about $45/bbl.) So is it competitive now? NO, because the price of seed oils has also doubled! And then there's all that by-product glycerine to deal with. (A car that would run well on glycerine might be helpful here...) Biodiesel from animal fat MIGHT be a solution.
Hydrogen sounds lovely also (none of that "evil" carbon dioxide produced, doncha know); but presently there is no cost-effective way to make hydrogen that doesn't involve CO2 as a by-product. Some day, solar cells may generate enough electricity for cost-effective water-splitting, but it hasn't happened yet. And high-density storage of hydrogen (so you don't need an immense fuel tank) hasn't happened yet, either. And something the eco-nuts haven't told you: water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Give me a fuel-efficient gasoline engine.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yaba Daba Doo!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I think hydrogen-powered cars will become viable as soon as we repeal those pesky laws of thermodynamics (who passed those laws anyway, musta been those damned Democrats)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
act2
At my husband's auto repair shop, they have installed 3 of the hydrogen sets on their vehicles. Tech # 1 was getting 17 mpg, now 40 mpg. Tech # 2 is still tweaking his so no definite info yet, Hubby's Explorer was getting 18 mpg, before any tweaking, he is getting 25 mpg. Today, they will be doing some tweaking to it. They had just installed it Friday afternoon before closing. (Before the installation, he fueled up, drove 25 miles on the parkway, took an exit and returned for a total of 50 miles round trip, fueled up at the same pump, drove the same exact route, mph, slowed down at the same spots, etc, refueled and had gotten 25 mpg.)
They will be installing one on my Jag this week, I hope.
There is maintenance involved on this so it is not for the person who just gets in their car and drives and never checks fluids, etc.
That is about all I know on the subject.
Ask me about my 11 1/2 month old great nephew and I can talk for days!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I agree with this completely. Everything I've heard about ethanol is bad news. We could produce higher quality ethanol from other plants, but the feedstock corn used to produce it right now is worthless, in my opinion. It also pollutes more, so there's really no advantage to it. It's just a fad the government is forcing on us.
Actually, the corn used to produce ethanol is not something meant for human consumption. It is used to feed cows, but it's harmful for the cows too. The real problem, which is worse than just diverting foods, is that food crops are not being planted, and the corn used to produce ethanol is instead. That corn is also subsidized heavily, by the way.
Additionally though, diesel engines are much better and more efficient. I don't mean to tell people to go out and get a big truck and drive around, but rather to get one of the VW or BMW diesels. Those things get great gas mileage and if you live somewhere like Texas, you can get biodiesel made from fast food grease (I've been told the Chinese restaurants have the best grease, although I think it probably doesn't matter.) If you want the best diesel cars, though, you have to get them from Europe and bring them over here.
I think hydrogen is too far out there to even discuss. Plus, water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long, so it's debatable what would happen if we switched over.
I agree. My wife's Corolla gets great mileage and can compete with the hybrids. It gets close to the same mileage at a significantly lower price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I thought I read that hybrids are more useful in Japan ... because they have more stop and go traffic. My understanding is that batteries are charged by braking ... so stop and go situations make the hybrids more efficient, whereas highway driving runs the batteries down quickly.
An advantage of corn to ethanol is it keeps money in the country ... and does a little to reduce oil usage. But corn is not the best plant, at least not yet. But is it unethical to price poor countries out of corn, but it is OK to price them out of energy? Corn has gone from $2.25 to $6.00 while oil has gone from $15 to $126.
China and India need to import more and more of our grain ... are we obligated to lower the price for them? I think we are better with corn and soybean prices high ... it will help restore our trade balance.
Here is an interesting point ...
So we can blame the Chinese ... if they would just stick with their traditional diet, they would not need so much corn and soybeans. I'm not sure the US is responsible to offer the world cheap food, while we are strangled with a ten fold increase in oil prices, and competed against with dollar a day workers in China.
We need a lot of nuke reactors, a lot of coal usage, open exploration, develop shale oil technologies ... and maybe better batteries for the places where electric can be used. And quit wasting energy trying to reduce CO2 ...
Some sort of solar siding or roofing for home winter heat might make sense one day. Sun to make heat can be much cheaper than sun to make electricity.
In all this we still have to be concerned about the US economy ... if we collapse, we may have to deal with the Chinese or russian military ... both of which are using their trade money to build their military. They may be first and foremost concerned about being mean, not green.
It sure seems we should have a good clean 55 mpg small car by now. I have an E85 truck that gets about 21 on the highway, but I have never put E85 in it ... they say that might reduce mileage by 20%. It is 8 cylinder, but 4 can cut out when not needed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
That's what people would like to think, however, the market is heavily invested in by foreign companies, particularly Saudis and other wealthy middle easterners. We make them rich by buying their oil, which sometimes goes to fund terrorists. We also make them rich by letting them and their surrogates invest in our stock market and make money there. Look at the bin Ladens, for example. Some members of that family were involved with (and probably still are) our defense industry prior to 9/11. They are all heavily involved with our energy companies.
Also, you can't really compare oil to corn that easily. Both are used for a variety of things, and there's some ratio that shows how much money you can get from a certain amount of each. From what I've read, about 1/3 of our corn goes to ethanol now, with about another 1/3 going to feed cattle, with the remaining third going to other things like food for humans, primarily through heavy processing (such as HFCS.) Oil goes into producing a lot of plastics too, where corn is just beginning to be used for that more. Also, the process of refining each is different, so it is a very complex comparison to make.
I think we should pass the expense on to them in exchange for them passing on all their cheap lead-painted plastic crap to us. However, we should let China and India bear the brunt of the cost increase on behalf of third world nations that are struggling because of our higher prices.
They're holding back rice now as well. I don't know if you've seen it there, but here in Houston we are seeing some rice shortages. Even with the limits, Sam's Club and Costco have been out of rice entirely lately. You can still find minute rice in some places, but not the normal kind as easily.
I don't see how reducing CO^2 is a waste of energy, but rather should be part of a conservation effort. In my opinion, it's time for us to live more like our grandparents and great grandparents who lived within their means and more independently. My grandparents were always into gardening. The reason is that my grandfather was a kid during the great depression, and my grandmother grew up in a third world country. Both were involved with World War II, where people had to learn to conserve. They also lived in a time were debt wasn't something you got into lightly. I think conservation and responsibility are what our nation needs more than finding ways to keep living outside of our means.
I thought about putting solar panels on my roof, and I can afford it. Unfortunately, my homeowners association prohibits them within sight, as well as windmills. I suspect a lot of other people have similar problems. They also prohibit you from growing food in your front yard (although fruit trees can be ok, providing you don't allow fruit to sit on your grass. The technology is there, but our society places a lower importance on it than on superficial appearances. My in-laws in Mexico have been using a solar hot water heater for decades now. My uncle in Ireland has had instant hot water in their house for so long that it has a pull chain to turn it on (I don't know how old it is, but it is old.) Coming up with the technology is not the problem, because I think most of what we need is in reach soon if it's not already available. We are missing the will to change as a society, and we are missing self-control.
The funny thing is, at least in the case of China, our collapse would result in their collapse too. They, the Saudis, and a few other nations are propping our economy up, and became interdependent with us. They are trying to broaden their investments now and you always hear rumblings about them dropping the dollar and whatnot, but the truth is, if they did it anytime soon, they'd cause their own downfall. Granted, mankind has always been self-destructive and it is possible, but it would be dumb. As far as Russia is concerned, they're almost all bark and very little bite. They have a huge national ego and may be pining for the days of the U.S.S.R., but those days are long gone. They're just another third world nation with a corrupt government. We only take them a little bit seriously because they have nukes that can reach our soil.
We probably could have, but it hasn't been a priority. I think we will at some point, but we'll also probably see all cars being hybrids in the future. It seems like all the hybrid is boils down to a fancy alternator and bigger battery with an electric motor. There's nothing super amazing about it. It just needs some refinement and one day all vehicles will have it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I'm not sure what you are saying ... what is what people would like to think?
Yes, it is aggravating that malicious incapable nations that have oil can gain world power from their natural resourse that we enable them to develop, then get more money by investing in capitalism, with the (possible) goal of using those gains to destroy freedom/capitalism ...
How would we do that?
I haven't researched it ... but I don't think there is good cause to invest (as we are) in ways to "scrub" CO2. CO2 may actually be helpful. But it is the cause de jour (or of the decade) for the democrats, much like DDT was so wrong but still determined elections and policy. I think we waste billions on CO2 fears that are not helping us be more efficient.There are efficiencies of scale ... no reason we have to give that up ... but consumerism is not good either ... much of current society seems addicted to unhealthy, unproductive things ... we've been conned ... I exemplify "simple is good" :)
I'm not sure you get what I meant ... solar panel for direct heat ... sun heating air or water that is used to heat the house ... can be done cheaply and efficiently. But I guess you got it .. solar hot water ... yeah, but heating the house is very feasible as well, even in the cloudier Midwest.Yeah, they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs ... and there is some concern over that in those countries ... but it would appear there are those that don't mind pushing to the limits ... and they don't understand how close they may be ... some say it is already too late.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.