The Future of Hybrid Technology

robertsmx · February 2005

I agree that it is highl unlikely that hydrogen or fuel-cells will ever become a practical means of automotive power.

Practical they already are. Honda FCX is currently available for lease, and will shortly be made available to individuals. It was CARB/EPA certified for production couple of years ago and is being driven around as we speak. That addresses practicality of the hydrogen/fuel cell technology.

I assume you meant practicality from refueling point of view (infrastructure etc), and to address diverse weather conditions (most fuel cells cannot function in sub-freezing temperatures, Hondas can go up to -4 degree F, no less).

Any new technology didnt always exist as it does now (your mention of Li-ion polymer batteries included) or else it would be new. It evolves.

In the ideal world (almost as ideal as your hypothetical power train), solar energy could be used to extract hydrogen from water and refuel a fuel cell equipped vehicle for next 800 miles. Youve got a ZEV with relatively freer source of energy.

larsb · February 2005

quote robertsmx-"Practical they already are. Honda FCX is currently available for lease, and will shortly be made available to individuals."-end quote

I have seen nothing to indicate that FCXes will be available to the general public. Las Vegas is leasing two FCXes for about $14,000 a year total. It is to be a test of how they hold up in the HOT desert summer.

But the FCX cars cost about one million US Dollars each to build, according to available figures.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/01/las_vegas_lease.html

So I doubt they will be "fleeted" anytime soon !!

robertsmx · February 2005

Actually, each FCX is said to cost Honda about $300K. That can be considered a fraction of the cost of a few exotics though. ;-)

There are reasons for it to cost as much as it does. BUT to say it isnt practical is a misrepresentation. Las Vegas just leased two FCX from Honda at $500/month each. Honda is absorbing much of the cost as a part of its development and awareness program, in a way, investing into the future if it heads this way. As for making it available to individual customers, Hondas CEO Takeo Fukui announced it last month:

Honda also announced its plans to place a fuel cell vehicle with an individual customer

larsb · February 2005

I stand corrected then. Less than a million each and Honda soliciting an individual to lease one....

PICK ME PICK ME PICK ME !!!

yerth10 · February 2005

The Fuel Cell vehicles will also have a battery to capture the re-generative energy. It may have a bigger battery that can be plugged-in. Infact both GM-Sequel & Toyota-Kluger vehicles are Fuel Cell Hybrid vehicles.

When we drive in a highway, we can pull our vehicle to Hydrogen station or Charging station or both. So its the best of both World's.

Plugin hybrids will come first, since we already have an excellent Electricity Grid system.

gagrice · February 2005

Less than a million each and Honda soliciting an individual to lease one...

I think it is Mitsubishi builds a small nuclear reactor power plant that they can put in the car. It would be about the same price. If you are under 30 you may see the day the fuel cells become available to the average citizen. Not in the next 15 years I'd bet. It is all a "Pie in the Sky" corporate welfare program.

kernick · February 2005

before we start running short on fossil fuels. A couple of hundred years at least. We still have 30-50 years of readily available oil, natural gas, and then a couple of hundred years of coal which can be converted.

The solar energy that hits the Earth would probably be sufficient to power things but clouds reduce the amount, and then there's the problem of collecting it with maybe a million square miles of panels needed on each side of the Earth and on each hemisphere to power the other hemisphere in winter. And unless you have superconducivity a lot of power would be lost in transmitting that energy.

Well past our lifetime, when fossil fuels start becoming scarce relative to our increasing energy needs/usage, nuclear power will have to be used. Now I doubt it will be of the type we have now, anymore than we can imagine using whale-oil.

In fact science and technological progress are increasing exponentially. If you don't think so compare the 1st Iraq war - Desert Storm and the difference effect of the difference in a few years technology between the armies.

The vehicles of the future will be electric power, which is produced by nuclear means.

robertsmx · February 2005

Honda FCX is motivated by Hondas 107 HP electric motor (this is the same AC motor that debuted with Honda EV-Plus but back then it had only 68 HP). The electric motor primarily gets energy from Fuel Cell stack. In addition, FCX also has Hondas homegrown Ultra Capacitor pack which stores energy recouped via regenerative braking. The energy from UC pack is also used by the electric motor whenever needed.

But, Honda does not call its FCX, a hybrid, although the components involved are similar to a hybrid. UC pack also has a potential in ICE-hybrid applications (Honda has already used it in prototypes), and unlike battery packs, does not require replacement. It also has a superior charge/discharge characteristic to batteries. And one of its major drawbacks, energy density, has recently increased to match batteries as well!

We may see a more widespread use of it in future hybrids (ICE or Fuel Cell) or non-hybrids that could use it (like FCX/EV vehicles).

larsb · February 2005

Technically speaking (ha ha) a "hybrid" car has traditionally been used to describe a vehicle which uses more than one means of propulsion.

For example, in the current hybrids, the wheels are turned EITHER by the gas engine or by the electric portion of the drivetrain.

Does the FCX use more than one method of propulsion?

yerth10 · February 2005

"before we start running short on fossil fuels. A couple of hundred years at least."

Indonesia, OPEC member for 4 decades has become a Net Oil Importer last year, so its only a "couple of decades at least".

"The vehicles of the future will be electric power, which is produced by nuclear means. "

That makes sense. That is why Hybrids are pursued as a transition phase.

yerth10 · February 2005

So there are 4 means of Hybrid

* Battery

* Ultra-Capacitor

* Hydraulic Pump

* Steam.

A 4-in-1 Hybrid will be the ultimate.

electrictroy · February 2005

A hybrid is any car that has two sources of power (typically gasoline + electric). That means if you hook up your pet gerbil's wheel to your wheels, you've created a hybrid.

troy

kernick · February 2005

Fossil fuels would include - oil , natural gas , and coal; leaving wood out as it is not likely to be used in great quantities.

Whe considering fossil fuels do you believe:

1) that all the oil and natural gas in the world has been found? I know for instance Russia is just beginning to explore Siberia.

2) that new technology and recovery techniques won't be able to reopen older wells. remember that we only recover about 40% of the oil in any oil-field.

3) that as the supply decreases, prices go higher, that it doesn't become economical to reopen older wells and apply technology.

4) that when "push comes to shove" such that the lights would start going out, that people won't support drilling in the wildlife refuges, or off the coast if there's oil there?

5) And as fossil fuels will become more expensive people will conserve more, change their lifestyles, we'll use more wind, nuclear and solar energy.

From the DOE website "Coal is one of the true measures of the energy strength of the United States. One quarter of the worlds coal reserves are found within the United States, and the energy content of the nations coal resources exceeds that of all the worlds known recoverable oil." THAT'S IN THE U.S. ALONE.

That coal can either be used directly as is, produce electricity, or be converted to gas.

The long-term solution will have to be nuclear; the argument of how long we have with fossil fuels is only a short-term argument/discussion.

Once they are gone in 100 or 200 or X Years we'll be on nuclear. Population growth and hopefully better lifestyles will see to it that solar and wind will never be sufficient. Nuclear has the energy producing density we'll need.

Hybrids will not solve an energy or pollution issue. Those issues are much larger and involve population growth, and overall lifestyle issues, where the majority of energy is used and will go to. At best, 100% conversion to hybrid vehicles, which get 50% better mpg, in developed nations, could extend the world's fossil fuel supplies maybe 5%. So 100 year supply would go to 105 years.

Since the Earth has been around for 4 billion years, the era of fossil fuel usage is but a fraction of a fraction of time. I would hope humanity is around for many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to come. In this perspective it seems to make little difference. Fossil fuel usage itself is nothing more than lighting a match, until you find the light-switch.

electrictroy · February 2005

"Hybrids will not solve an energy or pollution issue."

Use of hybrids & eventual migration to tiny 200 mpg commuter cars won't solve the problem. But they will conserve what's left & give us more time to find a solution.

troy

yerth10 · February 2005

kernick

Oil & Gas are running out atleast in importing countries and that is why the cost of both fuels have double in the last 3-4 years.

Yes : Coal we have plenty (for centuries), but you cannot use it in Automobile directly. It can be used only through electricity. So to move to Battery Electric Vehicles, we need Hybrid Electric Vehicles in transition.

Nuclear may come later.

electrictroy · February 2005

Actually, liquified coal can be used in diesels. Or peanut oil. Or soybean oil. Diesels are tough & will eat just about anything.

troy

yerth10 · February 2005

Peanut or Soybean oil will become more economical. But what percentage of fuel they may supply in a big question.

Coal based Diesel is very dirty and is also expensive. Coal-Electricity based BEV will become more economical in the near future.

If we can make the automobile run on electricity, we have lot of sources like Coal, Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, etc.

For this HEV should succeed.

Kirstie_H · February 2005

Don't forget tonight's member-to-member chat - it's open mic night, so come and discuss whatever's on your mind.

http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/townhallchat.html

6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!

stevedebi · February 2005

"For example, in the current hybrids, the wheels are turned EITHER by the gas engine or by the electric portion of the drivetrain. "

Ummm, hate to be nit-pickey, but both the Prius and HCH will run on BOTH the gas engine and electric at the same time, and the Honda won't run on pure electric.

However, we still have the problem that the Prius won't start without a main battery pack above 20%. So I'm not sure we can say the Prius will run on ICE alone.

larsb · February 2005

quote larsb-""For example, in the current hybrids, the wheels are turned EITHER by the gas engine or by the electric portion of the drivetrain."-end quote

Yep, should have said this:

"For example, in the current hybrids, the wheels are turned EITHER by the gas engine or by the electric portion of the drivetrain, or both simultaneously. But they are capable of more than one method, defining them as Hybrids."

kernick · February 2005

I really haven't bought into the concept that higher mpg really saves that much fuel. Sure that's true if the only factor was comparing the same driving.

I had a Honda CRX a few years back and really racked up the miles, as the money I paid for gas was not significant relative to what I found acceptable. Now that I have some thirstier vehicles, I do put off a lot of optional driving. I have a fixed amount of driving I do to get to work, but I have a lot of optional driving, that I do or don't do based on the cost. Give me even a 60 mpg car and I'll be in it all the time, taking road trips.

But my other point is that most of my fuel usage occurs in heating my house (about 250 gal oil/month) fuel the electirc company burns for me, any vacations (jet fuel), all the plastic consumer goods I use (plastic is from oil-stocks), etc. This is probably true for many people. Changing to a fuel efficient vehicle doesn't help much, if on the other hand you go buy a boat or RV and burn a 100 gallons of gas on the weekend. The problem of energy usage is overall lifestyle, not just getting some more mpg.

I don't really blame people either for spending their money, as it does keep the economy humming. The increasing energy usage is an effect of our productivity, growing economy and growing population. All of which we and our government encourage.

jprice · February 2005

< Whe considering fossil fuels do you believe: 1) that all the oil and natural gas in the world has been found?>

You should read "Out of gas - the End of the Age of Oil" by David Goodstein, professor of physics and applied physics at Caltech.

According to Goodstein, world oil production may *peak* as early as the end of THIS decade. Allowing for a fair sized error bar, the oil crunch is certainly not likely to wait until the middle of this century. He further projects that even using coal and natural gas, we start to run out of all fossil fuels by the end of this century. Even ordinary nuclear fuels won't last very much longer than that; only fusion power is likely to solve the problem in the long-term. But (quote Dr. Goodstein) "In 1950, fusion was twenty-five years away - and it still is..."

jprice

kernick · February 2005

That may or may not be true, as experts 30 years ago predicted we'd be out of oil by now. But when we run out of oil and then other fossil fuels is dependent on our economic and population growth. The more we are successful as a species in procreating, extending lifetimes, and raising living standards of the poor the sooner that day comes. And all those facts are nothing but projections.

And if peak oil production is in 10 years, that does not mean there aren't many many more billions of barrels left to pump. It means oil gets mor eexpensive that's all. At about $90 a barrel in today's dollars, you can start converting coal into diesel fuel. So I see that as a supply-demand-cost equilibrium point.

My point was that at the rate hybrids are becoming part of the 230+ million vehicle fleet, they won't have an impact for many years. And when they do become numerous it still doesn't have much of an impact because world energy demand is increasing year after year, for the reasons I've previously mentioned.

Maybe my analogy of bailing water on the Titantic should have stated that an ICE vehicle is like a 1 gallon pail, and a hybrid is like using a 2 gallon pail. The bigger pail buys you slightly extra time.

robertsmx · February 2005

My point was that at the rate hybrids are becoming part of the 230+ million vehicle fleet, they won't have an impact for many years.

And thats fine! Over night proliferation isnt going to happen. Investment today is about getting dividends in the future.

yerth10 · February 2005

In the beginning of 2000, we had just 32,000 hybrid vehicles, today at the end of 2004, we had 400,000 vehicles. If this continue at this pace, we must have 5000,000 vehicles by end of 2009. Atleast 100 million by 2020. But by then, we must have added another 150 million vehicles. So the net increase in ICE will be 50 million. Something is better than Nothing.

If Oil continues to increase at this rate, most of the SUV's (Truck Chassis) will become CUV's (Car Chassis). That may also reduce Oil consumption.

A project to convert Natural-Gas to Diesel is starting in Qatar. Coal may be next.
Before Dirty Coal comes in, we should move to Plug-in hybrids, so that the electricity needed also comes from other sources like Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, etc.

Its a race against time.

kernick · February 2005

Investment today is about getting dividends in the future.

me: not quite - a dividend is a "gain"; whereas any sort of fuel usage (if we assume fossil fuels of oil, natural gas, and coal are fixed) whether ICE or hybrid is a "decrease". Keep bailing though, that's the spirit. ;-) As yerth just pointed out with his quote the water's rising faster than hybrids can bail.

In the short-term scheme of things, even though this article is over 2-1/2 yr. old, you can see that projects to convert coal to diesel are occurring and technologically viable. I might have been a little high in my cost, though I'm sure the cost of the plants depend on the land, labor, and equipment, which are probably less in China. Enjoy.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_15_6/ai_899244- - 77

stevedebi · February 2005

" If this continue at this pace, we must have 5000,000 vehicles by end of 2009. Atleast 100 million by 2020."

Big if. Five million by 2009 may even be a stretch. I think it highly likely that another fuel source will be used before 2020, probably hydrogen in some form or other. The longevity of the hybrid is an issue; a pure electric fuel cell vehicle would be far better environmentally.

But one never knows, BMW is enamored with converting ICE engines to run on hydrogen. Such a setup would leave room for a hybrid.

yerth10 · February 2005

"pure electric fuel cell vehicle would be far better environmentally. "

Do you mean a fuel cell vehicle without battery.
Its easier to employ a hybrid system in a fuel cell vehicle, since there is already a motor. Also with hydrogen being expensive (atleast initially), a hybrid system will be used to reduce the overall fuel cost. A hybrid system adds roughly 110 (50 kg) - 220 pounds (100 kg), but in the vehicles lifetime, it reduces atleast 1200 gallons of fuel and that may weigh atleast 3.5 tons which is more than the vehicle's weight.

"5 Million"

If Toyota makes and sells Prius in China as promised. That will be attainable.

Just like 2004 was a breakthrough year when hybrid sales doubled, 2005 will be even greater year. At the end of this year, we will know the trend.

robertsmx · February 2005

You gain in terms of time, to give way to alternative fuels using hybrid technology or not. Hybrid technology isnt exclusive to gasoline or diesel as fuel but it could continue to be implemented with the next fuel which could be hydrogen, nuclear, solar or whatever. Technology requires time to evolve. To repeat myself, there is nothing like overnight success. You cannot sit and wait for an automatic improvement. Effort is the key.

As for bailing out, besides water continues to rise approach approach, you could look at an effort to decrease the rate of rising water.

stevedebi · February 2005

" Do you mean a fuel cell vehicle without battery.
Its easier to employ a hybrid system in a fuel cell vehicle, since there is already a motor."

My understanding of a "full fuel cell" vehicle is that it has no internal combustion at all. The vehicle is driven by electric motors, and the motor systems being used for hybrids could probably be utilized in this new form. I think that capacitor technology might replace batteries.

yerth10 · February 2005

"full fuel cell vehicle is that it has no internal combustion at all"
Thats true.

"I think that capacitor technology might replace batteries. "
Its not going to replace. In some vehicle it will be used in place of batteries. But it is also possible to have both capacitor (for short quick charge) and battery (for long slow charge) in a same vehicle. The ultimate objective of a hybrid is to use as much energy from re-generation. Today's Prius / Escape does not capture all the lost energy. As I mentioned in one of the posts, we can also use steam to capture the heat in the tail-pipes.

electrictroy · February 2005

(1) Fuel Cell = Fuel Cell + Motor

(2) Fuel Cell Hybrid = Fuel Cell + Battery + Motor

The reason why (1) is not practical, is because there's a 5-10 minute warmup time before you can drive it, and also because it's slow to respond to demand (0-to-60 acceleration).

(2) fixes those flaws.

troy

kernick · February 2005

"I think it highly likely that another fuel source will be used before 2020, probably hydrogen in some form or other."

me: I'll take it that you mean that hydrogen can is a form of fuel that a vehicle could use. But you do understand that naturally occurring H2 is rare? and that the only way to create the H2 fuel is by using electricity. So you use fossil fuel or solar/wind, or nuclear to generate your H2. Whether you burn fossil fuels directly, make electircity and charge batteries or electrolysis to create H2 you would be using fossil fuels, which are limited.

stevedebi · February 2005

"me: I'll take it that you mean that hydrogen can is a form of fuel that a vehicle could use. But you do understand that naturally occurring H2 is rare? and that the only way to create the H2 fuel is by using electricity. So you use fossil fuel or solar/wind, or nuclear to generate your H2. Whether you burn fossil fuels directly, make electircity and charge batteries or electrolysis to create H2 you would be using fossil fuels, which are limited."

Well, there are a lot of ideas, the most recent being using the tides to create electricity. But yes, the energy has to come from some where. And no, that somewhere doesn't have to be fossel fuels for those with imagination.

stevedebi · February 2005

"(1) Fuel Cell = Fuel Cell + Motor

(2) Fuel Cell Hybrid = Fuel Cell + Battery + Motor

The reason why (1) is not practical, is because there's a 5-10 minute warmup time before you can drive it, and also because it's slow to respond to demand (0-to-60 acceleration).

(2) fixes those flaws. "

The Japanese are working on new capacitors which show promise of being more efficient than batteries, at a lighter weight. But I don't doubt that there will be some energy capturing mechanism, to recoup the energy loss during braking.

However, I consider a "hybrid" to be two different propulsion options in one platform. Your (2) is still only one propulsion - electricity routed to an electric motor.

kernick · February 2005

"As for bailing out, besides water continues to rise approach approach, you could look at an effort to decrease the rate of rising water."

me: no I wouldn't be a bailer. I would help the guys breaking up the decking and building a raft.

Here's some friendly questions for you all:
1) Think about what I have said, and answer how much longer do you think hybrids will stretch our conventional energy supplies?
2) Since energy usage and growth go up every year, and since solar and wind is such a small part of our energy now, do you ever think they'll provide our needs, after fossil fuels are gone?

I'm not trying to be pessimistic. I'm a firm believer that there are Start Trek type energy sources that we'll tap into in the next 100 years. I think if you look back through history, I think people of every generation thought they were advanced and at the pinnacle of knowledge. Surely the Greek philosophers did. And I bet they could never seriously envision a world more advanced. And yet we sit here and look back and say all those generations were quaint and ignorant of energy sources all around them.

And here we sit today, and I hear a bunch of people around here who are worried about energy. For some reason I don't think we have discovered everything and understand how everything works. The last time I checked no one really understood what caused gravity for instance, or could find the 90% of matter that the universe has.

So I don't think it's worth fretting over energy conservation in the long-run. Either we're smart enough to find the next energy source, or a few years one way or the other aren't going to matter. And as I said before good luck trying to get the populations of the earth to work together when people and nations are desperate for better lives.

robertsmx · February 2005

The Japanese are working on new capacitors which show promise of being more efficient than batteries, at a lighter weight.

Honda is using its home grown ultra capacitor (in FCX) that is competing with batteries for energy density and beating them with the benefits of an ultra-capacitor (charge/discharge characteristics and longetivity).

I consider a "hybrid" to be two different propulsion options in one platform.

Ford has demonstrated variations of its FCV program, and one of them is dubbed hybrid. Im not sure of the exact differences between the two, however.

In case of Honda FCX, electric motor gets energy primarily from Fuel Cell stack, but assist when needed from energy stored in Ultra Capacitor pack. UC gets it only from regenerative braking.

robertsmx · February 2005

But you do understand that naturally occurring H2 is rare? and that the only way to create the H2 fuel is by using electricity. So you use fossil fuel or solar/wind, or nuclear to generate your H2.

With current technology, you would be partially correct. It is being demonstrated, however, that solar energy alone can be (and is being) used to extract hydrogen from water. Honda has a facility doing just that. The capacity is going to improve over time as it always has.

No I wouldn't be a bailer. I would help the guys breaking up the decking and building a raft.

Somebody has got to do the dirty work though, to buy you time.

1) Think about what I have said, and answer how much longer do you think hybrids will stretch our conventional energy supplies?

I couldnt predict. But, we can definitely talk more about it in a few years from now especially if gasoline prices go up, and they will.

2) Since energy usage and growth go up every year, and since solar and wind is such a small part of our energy now, do you ever think they'll provide our needs, after fossil fuels are gone?

Im sure they will. Ive already mentioned use of solar energy in fuel extraction (hydrogen). But, the technology on hand isnt mature enough yet. Thats another area being explored, obviously.

kernick · February 2005

I couldnt predict. But, we can definitely talk more about it in a few years from now especially if gasoline prices go up, and they will.

me: I did a little research yesterday, and saw that the dollar has lost 50% of its value vs. the Euro in the last 3 years, and pretty close to that with other major currencies. Basically 50% of the price increase from $25/barrel to around $50/barrel isn't due to demand but our currency loss. It means oil did increase so much in the rest of the world, and therefore their economies and population's incomes budgets basically can "outbid" us.

And I agree, oil and gasoline will increase in price, because all the oil that can be produced at certain price levels, and which economies demand and can bear the cost, will use 100% of the oil produced. It is a global economy, and simply put if U.S. cars do not use the oil, any extra supply or cost decrease, will cause a shift towards oil in other areas such as Chinese factories, or power plants switching off coal. Most electrical powerplants can switch daily what fuel they will burn based on which is the lower price. The hose is basically on-full, and we will continue to draw at that "full" rate because of growth, until empty. The annual trend is 100, 105, 110 ,115 ...% demand for energy. Knocking a few percent off with the existence of hybrids, does not change the fact of that trend increasing and that the hose will still be at 100%.

electrictroy · February 2005

However, I consider a "hybrid" to be two different propulsion options in one platform. Your (2) is still only one propulsion - electricity routed to an electric motor.

.
So Hydrogen--> electric --> motor is not a hybrid? By that logic, a serial hybrid (gasoline--> electric --> motor) is not a hybrid either.

See the flaw in your reasoning?

.
Gasoline--->battery/cap--->motor AND hydrogen fuel cell--->battery/cap--->motor are BOTH serial Hybrids. The only difference is the 1st step.

troy

larsb · February 2005

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050218/sff030_1.html

yerth10 · February 2005

Is it possible to store energy from household grid to capacitor that powers the vehicle for 20 miles (32 km). Any idea as how much will it cost.

lucas · February 2005

For many reasons, I doubt that Hydrogen will ever become a valid use of transport energy. Nor do I think fuel cells will be.

There is still a lot of fossil fuels in the ground. It will cost more - but just look at all the coal we have and Canada has three trillion barrels of crude locked up in it's tar sands.

People are hooked on their little portable eggs and will pay almost anything to keep them

stevewa · February 2005

The issue with global warming is not about the temperature where you live. It's about the affect of higher temperatures on the polar icecaps. Ice melts, sea level rises, all the sudden there's a lot less land. More water surface area, more evaporation, more clouds, more storms, bingo, ice age.

kernick · February 2005

... bingo, ice age.

me: And since ice ages have happened before, either global warming has occurred before without human cause, or ice ages occur even without global warming.
By the way I don't understand how "more storms" leads to ice age - it sure doesn't in the Amazon or Hawaii. I think you need to have colder weather, and not warming.

and since Alaska has large amounts of oil from organic decay, I would bet that it was probably warm in Alaska at some point.

And I don't want to alarm you and others, but change is normal. Do some reading on how all the continents once were together, or how the U.S. was once covered by a great inland sea. Is there some reason you think these geological and atmospheric changes have all of a sudden become constant?

railroadjames · February 2005

WE, feable mortals, are on this planet for a mere blink of an eye individualy. As to mankind its not much different either. Say a sneeze in the span of earth's existance. I doubt if any of our concerns, or for that matter, our harmful negligence really are the sole cause of what is happening or will be happening to mother earth.
When it comes to contributing to "THE CAUSE" lets start by driving a hybrid, mass transit, or how about all of us that are carrying a few too many extra pounds, ride a bicycle, to contribute to conserving our resources.
Culliganman(hybrids today)

stevewa · February 2005

More clouds means less sun getting through to the surface.

Certainly the planet is a living breathing thing and it continues to change. However we seem to be on a path to greatly accelerate that change...which could lead to wild oscillations in global climate...

railroadjames · February 2005

To the nay sayers not much can be said to get them off their negitive perspectives. I, on the other hand, like others see a bright future for hybrids and especially the improvements here AND coming of the batteries that compliment the hybrid systems. Are the current hybrids the answer to all things for all car buyers? No! Why do so many critics fail to see that, "what is new and improved today is tomarrow's 8 track tape." We just adapt and improve. I kinda like that. Of course we all know what happened to our 35 MM cameras....Digital.
When the first Honda Insight came to the market it was an attention getter but not for all people. When the Prius came along and the Civic Hybrid hit the market suddenly a hybrid was more things to more people. The batteries of the current hybrids are showing that they too can meet the demands of these cars.
It seems that this technology is moving rapidly and it scares some nay sayers. Heck, it scares all of us but thats the price you pay if you want to "get on board." Look at the mode of communication we're on to talk to one another. This is where we are and there is no going back. In ten years we will all be debating something else I'm sure. Won't you?
Culliganman(This train is move'n on)

kernick · February 2005

you: ... lets start by driving a hybrid, mass transit, or how about all of us that are carrying a few too many extra pounds, ride a bicycle, to contribute to conserving our resources.

me: I agree with you that that would be better and preferable. It's about as obvious as telling people to eat less and exercise more to lose weight and be healthy. No one's arguing what we should do. It is idealistic though, and thus I just question why you state the obvious but idealistic. It is no more useful then just saying "No to Drugs", or telling people don't commit crimes, lie, or act unethical.

I'm talking about what will happen based on human psychological and thus desires. And also the practical, current reality that we have 230M ICE vehicles people have invested in, and an infrastructure, community zoning, weather, and other factors that make that solution impractical and totally undesireable for the majority of people.

kernick · February 2005

I'm all for that wild oscillation in global climate if it makes the Earth warmer. Right now in the middle of the day its 22F; I prefer 65 - 95F.

I get the feeling that many people think that climate change is bad; thus you must think the climate is optimal right now? or that it should be colder? I know that for months on end, my area of the country burns huge amounts of fossil fuel to heat millions of homes, the very thing many are against, because the Earth is too cold.

The Future of Hybrid Technology

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles