PDA

View Full Version : Hybrid cars saving the world?... or not?



Whoaness
01-13-2009, 05:54 PM
So the Detroit Motor Show came along and started showing off a load of hybrids. I've seen 3 separate news channels showcasing the Motor Show and praising the Prius and hybrid cars, but why?

First of all, hybrid cars still use gas engines. So that throws out the point of trying to stop the world's draining oil resource. To even get anywhere, you have to use the gas engine. The electric motor is completely relied on, without the gas engine, on very, very low speeds. Sure, the electric motor is great for stop and start traffic jams, but the fact is that the gas is being used to charge the batteries. If you run out of battery juice, the car will rely completely on the gas engine until the battery is charged up.

Secondly, there's the cost. People may think "Oh, I'm not using gas all the time so I'm saving money on gas usage." Uh oh, it's too bad that hybrid vehicles cost so much more than their non-hybrid counterparts that a hybrid owner would have to drive twenty thousand kilometres a year for 5-10 years, depending on the cost difference, to make up the savings on initial cost. It's very impractical.

Third, there is the issue of speed. If you're not in constant congested roads, maybe you drive quite a lot on the highways or live in cities that don't have that much traffic, you're wasting more gas than the non-hybrid counterparts. The reason is the weight. It's common knowledge that more fuel is needed to drive faster, and you need to drive faster to achieve the same speed if you were carrying more weight. Taking a normal Camry versus a hybrid Camry, the hybrid has 161 more kilograms because of its hybrid engine and build. All that weight consumes more fuel to achieve the same amount of speed.

As a joke test, Top Gear ran a test with a Prius against a BMW M3. The Prius was driven at its top speed of SNORE (99 mph) with a 1.5 litre 4 cylinder engine. The M3 has a 414bhp 4 litre V8 engine. The result was that the Prius did 17.2 mpg (miles per gallon) while the M3 did 19.4 mpg. So not only is the Prius slow, but its gas engine is terribly made that the M3 can get more power from less fuel with its engine.

The conclusion is that hybrids are terrible.

But the one thing that bothers me the most is that all those news glanced over the car that will save the world.

The Honda FCX Clarity runs on compressed hydrogen and uses no gas. Hydrogen is abundant and there are hydrogen filling stations in California where they are testing hydrogen fuel cars. The only emission that comes out of the FCX Clarity is water, so why are the hybrids in the headlines and this car isn't? Sure, it's not available everywhere just yet, but if the world smartens up and demand and invest into hydrogen vehicles, we'd see them much sooner around the world.

solarenemy
01-13-2009, 06:21 PM
You answered your question about the clarity in your first statements. Hybrids still use fuel. That means oil companies are still needed. Our economy is based on oil consumption. If we remove a large part of that consumption then the oil companies who support many other corporate entities will loose large amounts of money and thus unable to support those other companies.

many companies have had Hydrogen only cars ready for years. But the governments will not allow them into full production because of the impact it would have on the oil industry. So they stalemate by allowing a small amount in various markets for testing.

Until they can find another raw material to base economy on or we run out of oil, you will not see vehicles that do not consume fuel in large numbers on the road.

Whoaness
01-13-2009, 07:21 PM
That's all high and mighty conspiracy talk.

Demolishing the oil industry only worries the Middle East. The economy would be saved by not relying on oil. In fact, oil is the driving force of making everything damn expensive.

Eufonius
01-13-2009, 07:34 PM
oil does not only affect the middle east...

canada provides 30% of american oil more than what the middle east provides combined also we get most of our oil from venezuela and some south american countries then again I read this last year so it prob changed especially with canada cuz im sure their cutting back on selling oil

russia, china, norway, brazil and some more im too tired to think rely alot on selling oil

Whoaness
01-13-2009, 07:54 PM
Oh yeah Canada.

Actually, only Alberta benefits from it. They get free health care and get to spend a bit more on whatever celebrations they get, but the Canadian government has to spend billions on reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions. If oil was gone, every Canadian would get free health care, and it doesn't stop there. House heating, airplane travel, transportation, manufacturing, everything needs fuel. Right now, compressed hydrogen cost a bit less than gas in California, where it is available. If the production of purified hydrogen increases, the price of the fuel would be slashed down to nothing, saving people thousands of dollars that they can spend into the economy on other products that make living better for them.

The problem is really the availability of fossil fuel and where it comes from. Hydrogen is everywhere, dinosaurs aren't.

Eufonius
01-13-2009, 07:57 PM
isnt hydrogen limited just like fossil fuels?

im not into science so iono :p

animedoll
01-13-2009, 07:59 PM
i liked this post...and i agree...

specially about the hydrogen car but sadly, it's all about money.

...though i do intend on buying a hydrogen car and it's not gonna be because i want to go green.

bobuild01
01-13-2009, 08:02 PM
Might it be that solarenemy was pointing out that it isn't only autos that we rely on oil for? Food and feed production, some electric power generation, clothing, housewares like carpet, roofing and man made building materials, the nice $100 tennis shoes, glues and solvents, plastics, along with many more are all industries that highly depend on petroleum distilates. We are moving in the right direction but it will take time to incorporate the new technology into our lives. Then we still need to find alternative production processes/materials to most of the man made stuff we all want or need.
Certain alge produces a product very similar to oil which can be distiled to produce a lot of what we use oil for but that is still being developed.
The oil and related industries is where a lot of the research funding comes from. They won't disappear, just move on to other materials to make money from as they become available.

solarenemy
01-13-2009, 08:08 PM
The problem with Hydrogen production right now is the way it is most often prodoced. That is with electrolysis. Where the expose water to an electric charge to seperate the oxygen and hydrogen atoms. This actually requires for more electricity to produce a small amout of hydrogen. Right now there is not an economical way to extract enough hydrogen from the air and water to go full scale. Furthermore unless we switch over to all Nyclear power then we will still need a form of fossil fuel to run the power plants that supply the electricity to produce the hydrogen. They gave some small stations like the ones in Cali that use solar power. However that is not sufficient enough to support the volume that the station would get if all cars where hydrogen powered. Right now they can only get about a 1 to 4 part yield of hydrogen. For every unit of hydrogen they get it requires 4 times that unit of electric power to produce it.

The problem is that hydrogen does not exist by its self in nature. It readily bond with oxygen where ever it is to form water. So it is always bonded to oxygen in it's natural state. Now not sure what you know about chemistry or physics, but when you have to chemicals that are bonded by their electrons, it takes a lot of energy to break those bonds.

All the porn you fab to would not exist either since there would be no media to effectively distribute it. Your PS3, Wii, 360 would all be none existant. In fact you would be doing everything by candlelight at night and the winter you'd be buried under covers as you would have no central heat. Just imagine what life would be like for you in the Prairie Settler days and you can thank all you have now to oil.

I'm not for it's use either, I just know we could not exist without it at our current time.

I'm sure if they can come up with a more economical and safe way to produce hydrogen then yes we will see more cars. Another thing to note is hydrogen by its self is extremely explosive so there is a storage hazard for vehicles as well as stations that deal with compressed hydrogen. The alternative is to produce a highly efficient fuel cell that will break down water and produce hydrogen and oxygen right in the car. Plus the storage need will be limited as the car will consume the hydrogen as it is produced.


Might it be that solarenemy was pointing out that it isn't only autos that we rely on oil for? Food and feed production, some electric power generation, clothing, housewares like carpet, roofing and man made building materials, the nice $100 tennis shoes, glues and solvents, plastics, along with many more are all industries that highly depend on petroleum distilates. We are moving in the right direction but it will take time to incorporate the new technology into our lives. Then we still need to find alternative production processes/materials to most of the man made stuff we all want or need.
Certain alge produces a product very similar to oil which can be distiled to produce a lot of what we use oil for but that is still being developed.
This was going to be my next point. Everything synthetic that you own is produced from oil or it's derivatives. Your PC you are own now would not exist without oil by products. Your clothes would not exist. Your furniture your TV would not exist.

Electronics would be nonexistent without oil. There is a reason everything you see today was not available before oil was discovered. If it was not for oil, we would all be living on and episode of Little House on the Prairie. Even things we take for granted like water and sewer pumping stations would not exist without oil. The rely on rubber seals and electricity or gas to operate. So no running water or sewer disposal without oil. Everything that makes your life livable, even air condition would be gone if we dumped oil. Your very life and existnace depends on oil. So it is impossible to just stop using oil and convert to hydrogen.

Whoaness
01-13-2009, 08:16 PM
isnt hydrogen limited just like fossil fuels?

im not into science so iono :p
You probably produced more hydrogen by peeing than you used gas.


Might it be that solarenemy was pointing out that it isn't only autos that we rely on oil for? Food and feed production, some electric power generation, clothing, housewares like carpet, roofing and man made building materials, the nice $100 tennis shoes, glues and solvents, plastics, along with many more are all industries that highly depend on petroleum distilates. We are moving in the right direction but it will take time to incorporate the new technology into our lives. Then we still need to find alternative production processes/materials to most of the man made stuff we all want or need.
Certain alge produces a product very similar to oil which can be distiled to produce a lot of what we use oil for but that is still being developed.
Most of what you're talking about is dependent on fuel, not specifically oil. The only one that is dependent on fossil fuel is plastic and half of the rubbers. Everything else is just powered by a fuel source.

It's only a matter of time when plastic and rubber finds its way out and new replacement materials go into production.

solarenemy
01-13-2009, 08:25 PM
You probably produced more hydrogen by peeing than you used gas.


Most of what you're talking about is dependent on fuel, not specifically oil. The only one that is dependent on fossil fuel is plastic and half of the rubbers. Everything else is just powered by a fuel source.

It's only a matter of time when plastic and rubber finds its way out and new replacement materials go into production.

Your wrong. ALL synthetics that we use are derived from oil. Also the chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing is also derived from oil. Many of a drugs that keep us healthy and alive now are derived from oil by products. Our lives are so intertwined with and dependent on oil and its by products now, we would not exist without it. It will be many lifetimes from now before we can be completely weened from oil and even then we may bot be able to forget it completely. Unless everything you own is composed of ALL natural materials which I doubt, then you are probably about 50% or more dependent on oil for your daily life and existence. Like I said, without oil we would all be living in the old west days.

As far as your peeing comment. Again it will require for more energy to extract the little bit of hydrogen from a bladders worth of pee then the yield of hydrogen you would get with current available extraction methods.

Hydrogen and oxygen will not just give each other up without applying a lot of force. They probably share one of the strongest electron bonds of all the elements on the periodic table. They are so compatible and ready to bond with each other that they literally seek out each other to bond to.

I am all for dumping the need for oil. But we as a species are not ready to do so nor will we be able to for many more generations. Hopefully the world will hold up that long. I have a feeling it's going to require a near global catastrophe related to oil before man realizes he needs to do away with it.

Whoaness
01-13-2009, 08:42 PM
The problem with Hydrogen production right now is the way it is most often prodoced. That is with electrolysis. Where the expose water to an electric charge to seperate the oxygen and hydrogen atoms. This actually requires for more electricity to produce a small amout of hydrogen. Right now there is not an economical way to extract enough hydrogen from the air and water to go full scale. Furthermore unless we switch over to all Nyclear power then we will still need a form of fossil fuel to run the power plants that supply the electricity to produce the hydrogen. They gave some small stations like the ones in Cali that use solar power. However that is not sufficient enough to support the volume that the station would get if all cars where hydrogen powered. Right now they can only get about a 1 to 4 part yield of hydrogen. For every unit of hydrogen they get it requires 4 times that unit of electric power to produce it.

The problem is that hydrogen does not exist by its self in nature. It readily bond with oxygen where ever it is to form water. So it is always bonded to oxygen in it's natural state. Now not sure what you know about chemistry or physics, but when you have to chemicals that are bonded by their electrons, it takes a lot of energy to break those bonds.

All the porn you fab to would not exist either since there would be no media to effectively distribute it. Your PS3, Wii, 360 would all be none existant. In fact you would be doing everything by candlelight at night and the winter you'd be buried under covers as you would have no central heat. Just imagine what life would be like for you in the Prairie Settler days and you can thank all you have now to oil.

I'm not for it's use either, I just know we could not exist without it at our current time.

I'm sure if they can come up with a more economical and safe way to produce hydrogen then yes we will see more cars. Another thing to note is hydrogen by its self is extremely explosive so there is a storage hazard for vehicles as well as stations that deal with compressed hydrogen. The alternative is to produce a highly efficient fuel cell that will break down water and produce hydrogen and oxygen right in the car. Plus the storage need will be limited as the car will consume the hydrogen as it is produced.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Sorry mate. There are dozens Hydrogen filling stations in California right now and near hundred FCX Clarity cars being used. It's safe. The FCX Clarity can do 280 miles on its tank of compressed hydrogen.

And the electrolysis method you're talking about is old. New methods produce electricity at a greater rate than it is being used. It is a renewable source of fuel.

It's like you have no idea how much less dependent the world can be if we move from oil to hydrogen fuel. Anything electrical and all transportation uses far more oil than the production of synthetic products. And synthetic products are recyclable; burning fuel is not. So, please, remove that mentality of an oil tycoon idiot who thinks oil is everything. You just have no idea what you're talking about, and that's why the world is too afraid to invest in the restructuring of the oil based economy because of people like you.

Mutsakman1
01-13-2009, 08:53 PM
I dislike Hyrbrids, they sound like the type of vehicle I would drive if I lived in, oh I don't know. Say San Fransisco? Say "Hello Sailor" alot, get what I'm saying?? As pointed out earlier in this thread, the Prius is less economical than an M3 at the Prius' top speed but that is to be expected. Supposedly, at slower speeds, the Hybrid is greater because it's advantage is stop-start traffic, so it was designed for cities.

But the one thing that I hate the most is that according to a recent study, to make a Hybrid Engine, it does more ecological damage than a Land Rover Discovery will in it's life-time. This is because they mine the Nickel from a mine in Canada. It's then loaded onto a cargo-ship to get transported to Europe where it's refined, then it's sent to China where it is transformed into a foam and then onto Japan to be put into the batteries. How ridiculously complicated is that??

It's a fairly stupid concept to begin with, but then again, the first car was nothing to drop your pants for either. They will become greater and in-time, they will eventually reach the point of power that we are today but for this entire idea to work, they have to start at the very beginning of car technology, and work the power up again.

solarenemy
01-13-2009, 08:57 PM
So your saying if we ban the use of oil for ANYTHING at this very moment then tomorrow morning they can build you a PC or PS3 or TV that works. Your saying That if we ban oil this very moment that tomorrow morning you can still cook your breakfast. Your saying that if we ban oil right now, how long do you think we can produce clothes and fabrics out of cotton and plant fiber? Based on the worlds population versus agriculture. Not sure if you noticed but agriculture is already seeing a food crop shortage guess what happens when clothing starts hitting that crop as well? Also DON'T EVER accuse me of being a fuking oil tycoon. I despise it's use but i am a rational thinker and not an idealist or dreamer like yourself. I know what the stuff I wear and use and live on and in is made of. I KNOW WHERE I WOULD BE WITHOUT OIL. I don't need some dreamer to accuse me of promoting it when i am doing just the opposite. I would love to stop using but I KNOW we CAN'T. Your Elitist I'm better then you attitude can burn in hell as far as I am concerned. Dreamers don't make things happen. It's doers that achieve goals. So if you think we can exist without oil now then i challenge you to remove anything from your home that is synthetic, plastic of any kind, rubber, vinyl, anything printed, all current ink is derived from oil. Then once all that is removed from your house see how well you live and see what you can purchase that is not packaged in one of those materials. Oh and guess what even the ink on your money is oil based. There is almost nothing that you own or posses that does not have oil in it's chemical make up.

The world is not ready and not able to go oil free.

xenointhedesert
01-13-2009, 09:47 PM
i think full electric cars are the way of the future. i remember at the chicago auto show like 3 pure electric cars were introduced. with electric cars you dont need gasoline, hydrogen,or ethanol; all which have major drawbacks.

hydrogen is difficult to extract presently, and fairly expensive. with ethanol, farmers shift their crops so that they can cash in, raising food prices and decreasing availability.

with Electricity though, you could use power from solar, wind and various other environmentally friendly sources. the tesla roadster showed that electric cars dont have to be lame.

TSR
01-13-2009, 11:04 PM
Er, how many times do you drive 99 MPH straight until you've burned an entire tank of gas? Hybids are for city driving and that is where they excel in comparison. Take your BMW and try driving at 15 MPH with a thirty second stop at every intersection and please let me know how far you get on the same tank of gas. Yeah, hybrids are a gimmick. But they are not a bad one, so long as they are used the way they are meant to be. Saving the world and ridiculous statements like that are, indeed, just stupid hype. But don't let that blind you to the realities.

And solarenemy is mostly correct in what he says, though he is overstating his position to some degree. There are a lot more available alternatives than he seems willing to admit. The real problem with implementing a lot of them tends to be economical. In many cases, the fatcats who control things will lose their cash cows in the event of change, so they use their influence to prevent this from happening during their lifetimes. But in many other cases, the simple expenditure of changing over is more than can be borne during the process. Sort of like if you are working a crappy, low paying job with no benefits, but you could get a great, high paying job with awesome benefits, if only you quit your crappy job and went to an expensive training school for a few years. You simply can't do those years with money going out and none coming in, when you have no savings because your previous job sucked, despite the fact that if you keep that job, you will still eventually not be able to afford to live, anyway. This is the reality of our world. Change is needed in a big way, but everybody is digging in and resisting it like a herd of blind mules.

Hydrogen is a pretty good alternative. Less powerful as a fuel, but cleaner and renewable. However, don't overlook the potential problems that may appear if we begin extracting enough of it to run our entire civilization. Such as the amount of heat generated producing and consuming it. And what about all that extra free oxygen in between? Or other unforseen problems? Doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea to change over. But you have to make sure you aren't just digging yourself a different hole that might be deeper and slipperier while you are at it.

ja ne

firzenex
01-13-2009, 11:42 PM
Hybrids actually leave a bigger carbon foot print on the planet than traditional cars. The irony is in the product statement "building cars to save the future". If only there were such a method of converting waste into bio-degradable future, than we'd be talking. However, the process to create one of these cars is more strenuous to the planet than it is to simply manufacture and drive a traditional automobile. The nickel and cadmium is mined from the earth, using large machinery, than hauled off to a processing plant to be reduced and produced into batteries, than shipped off to a facility to be tested and optimized, than shipped off once more to their manufacturing plant to be placed into the cars.

A long process which in the end, does little but, further the deterioration of the planet. Now, don't get me wrong...one might ask "what about in the long run, won't these vehicles pay off for themselves?" ...well, what about? if this on going process is to keep forwarding, than that means all we would be doing is walking a circle; kill 2 trees to plant 1.

So, essentially...hybrids don't necessarily do much for the environment as we like to think. Therefore, no...hybrids are not saving the world. They however, maybe slowing the dying process by diverting already toxic materials from one source to another, but quintessentially we're doing more harm.

Maverick007
01-13-2009, 11:50 PM
Even with these newer technologies it will take years, and not to mention billions of dollars, to establish the infrastructure (like pumping/charging stations for the new cars) needed in order to switch over. You want to know how many hydrogen pumping stations are in California?? I'll tell you... 25... (I live right by one here in SoCal)

solarenemy is also right with his numbers actually... When it comes to the electrolysis process in fact the station here in SoCal is actually having trouble producing enough hydrogen for the current flow of hydrogen vehicles here...

You can never really get rid of the need for oil either... Remember that "asphalt" which is used to pave roads and build the infrastructure is still a petrol (oil) based product.

What you need to do to "reduce the need for oil" is to.....

Wait a second guys... Didn't we discuss this stuff before??... Hmmm... http://www.hongfire.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89789

^-^ MASS TRANSIT FTW!!

6531597
01-14-2009, 04:00 AM
...^-^ MASS TRANSIT FTW!!
Yes, let's all get on a bus where there may be a high chance of annoying assholes who plays their shitty music too loud or farts on you. Oh, and the crazy psycho who might just decapitate you and or other passengers + driver.

bobuild01
01-14-2009, 08:04 AM
Unbonded hydrogen exists only in one venue, the vast reaches of intersteallar space and we sure don't have the technology to mine/gather it yet, or in the forseeable future.
Our oil is the decayed compressed planktons, pre alge and other similar life that existed millions of years before any land based life when our planet was mostly covered by shallow seas, not dead dinosaurs.
Some industries are actually doing something about alternative processes, but they are still in their infancy and not so cost effective yet. Landfill methane is being used for some applications, like paper and cloth, to lower the use of natural gas, another petroleum product. This same methane can be used for home heating, ect, but it is actually more polluting than oil burning. Alge is being used as a CO2 scrubber by a electric company in Texas and looks promising. This same alge is producing oxygen that is compressed and bottled for the medical and steel production industries. It also provides a source of fertilizer and animal feed.
There are many very good ideas but the cost of implimenting them is still prohibitive and most of them still require the use of oil products just to produce the physical materials needed to switch over to them. Wind power requires a vast amount of copper just to build the generators and transmission services thereby still using petroleum products. Carbon fiber, the choice of high strength material, is derived from coal and oil, and the extraction is very expensive and polluting. So far we can not just eliminate the use of what we call oil without destroying civilization as we know it....

thebigbadwolf
01-14-2009, 09:27 AM
Blah blah blah blah blah. Sorry mate. There are dozens Hydrogen filling stations in California right now and near hundred FCX Clarity cars being used. It's safe. The FCX Clarity can do 280 miles on its tank of compressed hydrogen.

And the electrolysis method you're talking about is old. New methods produce electricity at a greater rate than it is being used. It is a renewable source of fuel.

It's like you have no idea how much less dependent the world can be if we move from oil to hydrogen fuel. Anything electrical and all transportation uses far more oil than the production of synthetic products. And synthetic products are recyclable; burning fuel is not. So, please, remove that mentality of an oil tycoon idiot who thinks oil is everything. You just have no idea what you're talking about, and that's why the world is too afraid to invest in the restructuring of the oil based economy because of people like you.

Enegry in, energy out. There is no energy for free.

Several dozen hydrogen filling stations in densely populated L.A are a far cry from hydrogen availability in the endless nothingness of Nevada, Arizona, and the great plains. 280 miles on a tank will barely get me roundtrip to the next city of significance in my state.
As far as safe, I'd say Hindenburg right now if I was playing up the fear and panic, but gasoline explodes too, so I won't.

Energy in, energy out. It comes from somewhere, goes somewhere and never for free. Comercial generating options at this time are: burn oil, burn natural gas, burn coal, nuclear, wind, and solar. Unless you live in Iceland, no, geothermal doesn't count. The size of the wind farms or solar arrays required to power much of anything are pretty unreasonable still, but I will leave them in. Otherwise, the efficiency of the turbine generators we use is a whopping 40% on a good day. There hasn't been much advancement in this realm since Tesla invented his brushless motor. If you are talking ITER and fusion power, that still has a long way to go.

Electricity from a plant(lose energy) creates hydrogen fuel(lose energy) and powers your car down the road(lose energy). The consumption load merely shifts from gasoline to the power plants. Which fossil fuel would you like to burn? Wind and Solar don't count for this one, unless the whole state of Nevada becomes a solar plant.

Sythetic material creation is an intensely electrical process, so which fuel would you like to burn at the plant?
Recycling products requires more energy than mining and refining new ones. Which fuel would you like to burn at the plant?

I am all for the development of hydrogen fuel cars and alternate sources of energy, but don't go thinking that we live in a magical world that runs on hope and lollipops.

As a side note, I can say that for myself at least, 105 Mph is a reasonable cruising speed on the interstate.

Aes Sedai
01-14-2009, 11:59 AM
No they cannot, they still rely on fossil fuel. They are merely a very small step in the right direction and a cheap way for people to feel good about themselves for "saving the planet"

Aes Sedai
01-14-2009, 12:01 PM
Enegry in, energy out. There is no energy for free.


I'd call Solar and Wind energy free (or as free as you can get)

solarenemy
01-14-2009, 12:30 PM
I'd call Solar and Wind energy free (or as free as you can get)

Neither Solar or Wind are free when you account for the copper wire used for transmitting that power. It also required fuel to place the towers that carry those copper wires. The fuel used in the manufacturing process of the wind turbines and the solar cells also offset the so called free energy. Yes the labor or force used to generate the power is free but to transfer that power to be used is not free. The only way to truly make it free would be if every entity that needed power had it's own wind turbine or solar array so the energy could be consumed as it is generated and mot need to be transfer over many miles.

oh and please use the edit button to add to your first post. Do not double post.

Maverick007
01-14-2009, 12:41 PM
I'd call Solar and Wind energy free (or as free as you can get)

^-^ Technically yeah... The energy is free... But it's energy we cannot use.

The "conversion" of this energy to something we can actually use cost money.

EDIT ADDED: Dammit I had a feeling that solarenemy would be me to the punch.


Yes, let's all get on a bus where there may be a high chance of annoying assholes who plays their shitty music too loud or farts on you. Oh, and the crazy psycho who might just decapitate you and or other passengers + driver.

^-^ Never had any experiences like that in any mass transit system here in Cali (Nor and So), New York, Chicago, or every large metropolitan area I went to... (When I head over to Tokyo I'll see if the trend keeps up.)

But there was some things I see often when driving in all those areas. Drunk drivers, people on cellphones/iPods, ricers, and road rage assholes all causing car accidents...

Mutsakman1
01-14-2009, 02:32 PM
Yes, let's all get on a bus where there may be a high chance of annoying assholes who plays their shitty music too loud or farts on you. Oh, and the crazy psycho who might just decapitate you and or other passengers + driver.
I don't get buses. The are foul, disgusting, black-smoke shooting piles of junk that don't really make much difference. To use a carpark and have a safe journey or have to think "Is this guy staring at me, this guys weird, that girl looks nice, oh that guy is still staring at me..." I also don't get the idea of Bus-Lanes. I mean, come on. They all talk about congested highways, and then they take up 1 lane, and give it to the slowest moving vehicles in the world. So to finish off this off-topic section of my rant, I quote Jeremy Clarkson: "I don't get bus lanes. Why do poor people have to get to places faster than me??"

Now, Wind-Farms, although very impressive to look at, don't do much in my opinion. They just sort of, get a bunch of those carnival fans, you know. The ones that when you run they spin? Well, they add some copper wire and magnets to them, and charge you a million dollars for it. To power a car on this, wouldn't be impossible though. There are already 2 Air-powered engines in the world today, and they run on nothing but air. This is due to a compression system however, the system isn't really optimized for mass-production for automobiles yet so for now, they will remain in service at shipping docks and such.

Did someone mention that full-electric cars are the way of the future?? Well, the Tesla Roadster was a great start. Right until the part when they said we are not going to produce this for several years. For now, we have the most stupid thing on the entire planet, the Gee-Wiz. Wow, why does the bloody thing even have rear seats?? You can't fit even a 2 year-old in the back. Then there is the power. You cannot use the radio, because that removes 20 minutes from the battery's run-time. The EU doesn't even call it "A car," they class it as a "Quadrocycle" because it is banned from freeways because it cannot get fast enough and if it runs out of power, there will be a seriously hideous crash.

So in-closing, for now, Electric Cars are crap. They are ugly, small and make you look like, you work on the 13th floor of a government agency, only it's the EPA, the one no one cares about.

PS: Oh, and someone sort of repeated exactly what I said about the production of the Hybrids. Shows how much people really read.

TSR
01-14-2009, 11:18 PM
There is a serious limit to how much wind power can be harnessed before you start messing up your ecology. There isn't enough to make much of a dent in our total energy needs. For enough solar power to really work, we need orbital arrays and a reliable method to move that energy to the surface. We are sadly lacking in orbital infrastructure to do anything much besides spy on each other and accomodate our communication network. We needed to get busy building up a space based economy twenty five years ago, but it would be our children who reaped the benefits, and who cares about them? Nuclear fission is a pretty good source for the interim while other things are being developed and implemented, but it has a bad reputation, despite being safer and cleaner than most of our current choices for serious energy production. And we wouldn't really want to use it for too long, because the waste products are too hard to get rid of. Still, for a few decades, it could be one of our best bets to tide us over, so long as some sort of long term solution is in the works.

Anyway, as for the topic at hand, hybrids are certainly overhyped, but really don't make a big difference one way or the other. They have their pluses and minuses and which is more important is highly contextual. Sure, you can sit there and only point out their weaknesses or strengths, but all you are really doing is declaring your personal bias. They are essentially a placebo to calm the general public. If you are really all that worried about our ecology, the best thing for it is a massive collapse of our civilization and a huge die off for our species. I'd rather worry about finding a better compromise, personally. Problem is, those mostly require hard work and some personal sacrifices to our life styles, which don't seem to be popular subjects with most of the folks posting here.

ja ne

Deranged Skillet
01-14-2009, 11:32 PM
^
The disagreeable answer is the correct answer, as always.

Unless we can manage to find that elusive zero point energy..
Though I'm sure the highestup's would kill us all first.

upgrademe
01-14-2009, 11:52 PM
Hybrid cars are good but way to expensive.

Aes Sedai
01-15-2009, 04:31 AM
Hybrid cars are good but way to expensive.

Too bad they look like a shit on wheels most em

neokai
01-15-2009, 06:54 AM
There is a serious limit to how much wind power can be harnessed before you start messing up your ecology. There isn't enough to make much of a dent in our total energy needs. For enough solar power to really work, we need orbital arrays and a reliable method to move that energy to the surface. We are sadly lacking in orbital infrastructure to do anything much besides spy on each other and accomodate our communication network. We needed to get busy building up a space based economy twenty five years ago, but it would be our children who reaped the benefits, and who cares about them? Nuclear fission is a pretty good source for the interim while other things are being developed and implemented, but it has a bad reputation, despite being safer and cleaner than most of our current choices for serious energy production. And we wouldn't really want to use it for too long, because the waste products are too hard to get rid of. Still, for a few decades, it could be one of our best bets to tide us over, so long as some sort of long term solution is in the works.

Of course, this is based on current technology. And of course, each of the alternatives listed above was meant to relieve dependence on fossil fuels, not replace it entirely.

The biggest problem is scalability imo. There's not enough land to build wind farms, nor enough land and sunny days to build solar farms, unless you look above the atmosphere and the clouds in it. Nuclear plants are clean and relatively cheap and scale pretty well.... till you start to handle the waste. Half life of U-235 is about 704 million years i believe....


Anyway, as for the topic at hand, hybrids are certainly overhyped, but really don't make a big difference one way or the other. They have their pluses and minuses and which is more important is highly contextual. Sure, you can sit there and only point out their weaknesses or strengths, but all you are really doing is declaring your personal bias. They are essentially a placebo to calm the general public. If you are really all that worried about our ecology, the best thing for it is a massive collapse of our civilization and a huge die off for our species. I'd rather worry about finding a better compromise, personally. Problem is, those mostly require hard work and some personal sacrifices to our life styles, which don't seem to be popular subjects with most of the folks posting here.

ja ne

Hybrid cars serve 2 main functions: to prove that it is possible to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and as a foundation to build up our knowledge base; the original car was nothing more than a horse carriage with a mechanical device strapped to it.


Too bad they look like a shit on wheels most em

Some of hybrids actually look pretty good, if you favor small cars like i do. They are cute! =)

P.S. Heil, fellow WoT fan.

DK3411
01-15-2009, 08:21 AM
Hybrid cars? I own one (a civic hybrid), it has a 4-cylinder 1.3 L engine and a small motor. I'm averaging 19.2 km/ litre of petrol. It suits my style of driving perfectly as I'm often gentle on the accelerator. It does have decent acceleration when you need it. It's not the greatest or most powerful car I've driven (I've driven my uncle's Carrera GT), but it certainly has redeeming qualities. Quiet, fuel-efficient are the top 2 of the list.

I agree in most part that hybrid vehicles are over-hyped. They will not save the world, but neither will the hydrogen car, not when you think of all the carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide we've spewed into the air from powerplants to power electrolysis which is how we get hydrogen from water anyway. Conservation of energy holds no matter what (at least in our macro physical world).

In terms of efficiency, nuclear power is arguably the most efficient when you consider that a single kilogram of uranium, if completely converted into energy, could power your car for maybe a couple of years. The only trouble you'd have after that is that your car glows in the dark and maybe you will too.

M4ster Inc0gnit0
02-08-2009, 11:22 AM
I think any change on the status quo is a statement that people want change. I agree that food should not be used for fuel, is extremly dangerous to have more dependancy on food this way, however oil has been stomping any advances on possible fields that could one day replace their vapiric hold on the world. I think electric cars will be the most likely to succed. i been traking the technology for batteries and there is some quemical charge based cells coming to the market in a decade. for small devices like cell phones and computers, these would mean going with out recharge for weeks and recharging the battery by simple adding more fuel to it (very small qty).

anyhow if money is invested in solving this problem am sure a solution we will find.

p.s. We should amke a hongmobile! Anime Powered!

:smoke: