It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apparently, Hybrids arent as good as you thought

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I just read this article:


Study: a hybrid consumes more energy in lifetime than a Hummer

As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions. But many of those choices aren’t actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck, according to a report by CNW Marketing Research. The firm spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a “dollars per lifetime mile” figure. The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents. While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles.

For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the “Dust to Dust” lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.

One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.

And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced.

For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.

“If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high- fuel-economy vehicles,” says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. “But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.

“We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer’s selection of transportation,” says Spinella. “Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue.”

“We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions,” Spinella said. “We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world.”


I got it from this website:
www.leftlanenews.com...


So, we arent quite ready for hybrids yet, it seems.




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Good job on posting this. This will make more people realize that Hybrids are not as good as they are cracked up to be.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I bet it is mostly baloney. The energy cost for manufacturing and planning is already priced into the vehicle's sales price.

The problem is not 'energy cost' but petroleum cost---it is a good idea to substitute renewable or less-polluting energy sources for petroleum.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Well this study seems rather sensationalist so I'm gonna take their results with a huge grain of salt.

They don't talk about how they tabulated the results for the energy consumed per mile. They do say some of the factors, but no where presant is the actual equation they used for other people to confirm it. How convienient. I was half expecting to see a "This reports brought to you in part by the Big Three Automakers."

With that said, there are problems with Hybrids right now that need to be addressed. The batteries is the most urgent and is the primary subject of most R&D projects directed to improve this technology.

Also they didn't, not once, mention any plug-in style hybrids which can increase the MPG by 3 fold in some cases, though those types cost even more than regular hybrids.

The technology isn't perfect, but that's what happens when we use only one type transportation for a century.

People are gonna have to get used to the fact that there will not be a "One size fits all" solution. We're gonna have to cobble it together until we have to technology to support a fully electric drive powered infrastructure.


Originally posted by mbkennel

I bet it is mostly baloney. The energy cost for manufacturing and planning is already priced into the vehicle's sales price.

The problem is not 'energy cost' but petroleum cost---it is a good idea to substitute renewable or less-polluting energy sources for petroleum.


This is true. Different engery sources have different environmental costs at different magnitudes.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
hybrids are only good instop and go traffic, such as found in large cities like la, ny, seattle, san francisco, etc. they would be really good for cab's and delivery trucks like ups where they are always stopping or sitting for a while



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigx01
hybrids are only good instop and go traffic, such as found in large cities like la, ny, seattle, san francisco, etc. they would be really good for cab's and delivery trucks like ups where they are always stopping or sitting for a while

This is why there is such interest in devices known as "ultra/hyper-capacitors." Hypercapacitors were used in the vehicle below.


en.wikipedia.org...

Who would drive this car?



The Eliica (or the Electric Lithium-Ion battery Car) is an electric car prototype, or concept car designed by a team at Keio University in Tokyo, led by Professor Hiroshi Shimizu. The 5.1 metre (200 inch) car runs on a lithium-ion battery and can accelerate from 0-100 km/h (60 mph) in four seconds (faster than the Porsche 911 Turbo). In 2004, the Eliica reached a speed of 370 km/h (230 mph) on Italy's Nardo High Speed Track. The team's goal is to exceed 400 km/h (250 mph), breaking the record set by today's gasoline-powered vehicles.


Nah scratch that, it only uses Li batteries. With ultracapacitors, the acceleration would probably be much greater.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Eliica


This reminds me of a Citreon DS 21.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Eliica


This reminds me of a Citreon DS 21.


It's japanese I think. The question is though, would you drive it?




designed by a team at Keio University in Tokyo, led by Professor Hiroshi Shimizu.


Sounds Japanese to me


[edit on 3-4-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
It is japanese, and it has a top speed over 200MPH, but I would still feel like a tool driving it. aha h



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
that's great about the speed. but how far can it go and how long does it take to recharge. to be competitive with hydrocarbon fuel (either gas or diesel) it will have to have a 450 mile range and be able to be recharged in about 15 minutes.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
bigx01
dont forget Ethanol, id say thats our true next fuel.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   

posted by acura_el2000: “I read this article: Study Concludes: Hybrids consume more energy in lifetime than a Hummer! Americans are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy . . many of those choices aren’t the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage says a report by CNW Marketing Research. [Edited by Don W]


I wonder for who or is it, for whom, CNW Marketing works? Could this be a branch of the J D Powers Assoc agency who offers any result you will pay for?


CNW spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrap. To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a “dollars per lifetime mile” figure. The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Toyota’s Scion xB at $0.48 cents.


No harm done here to the Japanese. Maybach is a revival name from pre War 2, by Mercedes. A competitor to BMW’s newly acquired line, the Rolls Royce.


” . . the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Over the lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.


These calculations are admitted to have been based on the cost to conceive plan and put into production. Further, we are not given the number of miles on which the calculations are based. And etc. Much of this information is likely to be proprietary and not easily available to a pollster.


“One reason hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package . . the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all current hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile . . Says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc.”


Googling Mr. Spinella shows he is involved in a variety of analyses of the automotive industry. Again, he seems to me to be a competitor of J D Powers Assoc which produces mostly advertising copy - i.e., cattle dung.

This is a shock value type story. An attempt to get more publicity than its contents merit. Too many unstated premises. I must discount this report as hype, an attempt by Mr. Spinella to break into what must be a very lucrative niche of the advertising game which is totally unregulated.

[edit on 4/4/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The cost of a hybrid maybe more than a Hummer at this point energy wise if that website is right. But when the cost of the technology gets cheaper and and gets better mileage, I bet it will change the other way. And with Toyota ramping up the production across the line, it seems quite feasible. Then the people that buy hummers to go the mall will look like the weenies.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigx01
that's great about the speed. but how far can it go and how long does it take to recharge. to be competitive with hydrocarbon fuel (either gas or diesel) it will have to have a 450 mile range and be able to be recharged in about 15 minutes.


I didn't post it because it was competitive. I posted that picture to highlight just where our transport sector is .ed, the HyBrid rout, will do more to get us there than H2, Gasoline, or Diesel.

ALSO LET ME REPEAT WHAT I STATED ABOVE AS PEOPLE SEEM TO BE IGNORING IT.



People are gonna have to get used to the fact that there will not be a "One size fits all" solution. We're gonna have to cobble it together until we have the technology to support a fully electric drive powered infrastructure.


[edit on 4-4-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by acura_el2000
bigx01
dont forget Ethanol, id say thats our true next fuel.


i didn't forget. ethanol is a hydrocarbon that has an oxygen atom. that's also why it has less power.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

posted by bigx01

posted by acura_el2000: bigx01, don’t forget Ethanol, I'd say that's our true next fuel.
I didn't forget. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon that has an oxygen atom. That's also why it has less power.


I believe ethanol contains about 70% the BTUs of gasoline. I have read it takes more BTUs to plant, grow and harvest than it produces. Were it not for the symbiotic relationship between ADM and Senator Dole, we would not be having this conversation



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I agree with sardion2000 that a solution will come out during the transitional cobble-up stage that may make the plug-in route the way to go... I also agree that any refined alcohol will require more energy to produce than it can yield... Bio-diesel has promise but may require more energy in than energy out... I almost got punched at a bar when I suggested the Air-car was less efficient than internal combustion.

I'd like a 40 HP DC electric bus motor, AWD, room for 5 and the ability to plug it in to the grid to "fuel" it. It should have some sort of adapter thingie to allow flexible charging inputs from a variety of common sockets and voltages.

Too bad there weren't some easy and free way using hybrid tech to change water into H and O2 as needed and inject those as fuel and oxidzer into some sort of a ceramic piston or wankel motor... a motor with some torque and driveability. I can't drive 55 but don't mind seeing all the developments that we should've had long ago come to motoring.

At 15 my first car was a truck - I bought it cash - my own cash, $3430. Brand new 1975 3/4 ton 454 big block, as they say "nicely-equipped" - CDN farmers spec (no PC junk). 15 MPG highway at 80MPH. 44 cents per Imperial gallon - pink gas. Fastest thing in the high school parking lot (even without the shaved .s and the paradichloro-benzene). My daughter has that truck and it still hauls ***and hay out in Manitoba.

Yep, them days are gone - good thing too.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Also one other thing I forgot to mention. Flexi-Fuel hybrids should be the most desirable for governments wishing to promote this technology to reduce Oil consumption. It gives the customer the flexibility to burn multiple fuels. Mazda's newest Rotary reportedly can burn anything from pure H2 to biodiesel and everything inbetween(gas, diesel, etc). All the previously expensive adjustments are made by an onboard computer or the engine might just not care(not really a Car buff so I could be wrong to the specifics, will try to find links to back it up). Man I wish Mazda would licence that technology...


Originally posted by donwhite

posted by bigx01

posted by acura_el2000: bigx01, don’t forget Ethanol, I'd say that's our true next fuel.
I didn't forget. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon that has an oxygen atom. That's also why it has less power.


I believe ethanol contains about 70% the BTUs of gasoline. I have read it takes more BTUs to plant, grow and harvest than it produces. Were it not for the symbiotic relationship between ADM and Senator Dole, we would not be having this conversation


Check out this technology out... not sure if you've seen it before, but I've posted it around ats quite a few times...

www.wired.com...

This may become more desirable as higher Oil prices keep dogging us.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite


I believe ethanol contains about 70% the BTUs of gasoline.


that is because


ethanol is CH3CH2OH, to convert to complete combustion you would

1 CH3CH2OH + 3 O2 = 2 CO2 + 3 H2O

and ethane is C2H6 and convert to complete combustion

1 C2H6 + 3 1/2 O2 = 2 CO2 + 3 H2O

as you can see it is already partially burned ( in a manner of speaking ) and you don't get the extra energy from the combustion. ( you need 7 oxygen to combust ethane but only 6 for ethanol as one has already been introduced before combustion)

basicly speaking

[edit on 29-4-2006 by bigx01]


XL5

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
One thing I wonder about is why they haven't made ultra/hyper capacitors common place yet. They use safe elements that we have alot of and are now nearing the energy storage of lead acid batteries. The newest ones use carbon areo-gels and are sort of cheap!

They are lighter then lead and can be discharged fully with no damage, last alot longer and don't heat up as much and lose energy when charging and discharging like batteries do.

I also wonder why O3 is not used in IC engines that have EFI and can automatically very the air/fuel ratio. Is the exhust alot more harmful if O3 is used?

But back on topic, I think that article is all "spin".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join