The Future of Hybrid Technology

yerth10 · March 2005

"We can each have our own star system in the Milky Way at least."

Can you lease 1 Oil field in that star to me.

Come on friend, this is the latest news.
* Australia, Brazil increase the price of Iron-Ore to their Chinese, Canadian customers respectively.
* Oil Prices are hovering around $53 for a week.
* GM stocks have been reduced to lower status.

We can go only one step at a time. Let us find a solution to the Fuel problem first. We can go to space using Electricity / Hydrogen as a fuel and not Gasoline / Diesel. Hybrids are a very good start.

gagrice · March 2005

A hybrid weighs 100 kg (220 lb) more and it reduces gas consumption by 1,500 gallons

It has nothing to do with the added weight. It is the batteries, motors & added electronics that add a lot of extra pollution in the manufacturing. I would like to see a Life Cycle Analysis between a Honda Civic Hybrid and Civic non-hybrid PZEV car. I would bet the end results are so close that you would not be able to know for sure. It would depend on the driving habits of the two owners. Same with the TCO. Toyota did it on the first Prius, where is Honda in this equation?

I only see about 900 gallons difference between the Civic hybrid and non-hybrid, both PZEV, over 100,000 miles.

yerth10 · March 2005

"I only see about 900 gallons difference between the Civic hybrid and non-hybrid"

900 gallons for 100,000 miles means 1,350 gallons for 150,000 miles which is not much different from 1,500 gallons which I wrote.

Anyway 1,350 gallons will weigh atleast 4,500 kg.

As for the Life cycle analysis, a part of Oil also comes from places 10,000 km (6200 miles) away and it will also add up. And its that part which is becoming bigger day by day as North American reserves are drying.

End result will never be close between 100 kg and 4,500 kg.

Latest sales data for Jan-Feb 2005 shows that Big SUV's have taken a beating while Prius continues its forward march.
http://www.aicautosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp

gagrice · March 2005

Latest sales data for Jan-Feb 2005 shows that Big SUV's have taken a beating while Prius continues its forward march.

Looks to me like all vehicle sales are down across the board, including the Prius. They are off their projected 100k units by about 25% so far. The other hybrids are really taking a beating.

a part of Oil also comes from places 10,000 km (6200 miles) away and it will also add up.

I agree, which makes more of a case for buying a diesel vehicle and burning homegrown biodiesel.

larsb · March 2005

Gary, how is this "DOWN" : ???

Prius Jan 2005: 5566
Prius Feb 2005: 7078

That's not "down"

You can't be "down" from a "projected sales number"

The "other hybrids" are not taking a beating, other than the Civic Hybrid, which suffered a little because of the news that the 2006 will be "more efficient" than the existing version. That ALWAYS puts a damper on sales of ANY CAR, Hybrid or not, when the next version is introduced. Check history.....

Not EVERY ONE was down in Feb:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nb20050303a3.htm

But Ford and GM were down on "SUV sales slump"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1428849,00.html

Here's a helpful chart that visually indicates the upswing of US Hybrid sales for anyone who is better with visuals:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/images/hybrid_sales_jan05_2.png

gagrice · March 2005

Gary, how is this "DOWN" : ???

They projected 100,000 units this year. At that rate they will sell 75,000 units. Nine of the ten top sedans was down so far this year. Only one was ahead the Corolla....

xcel · March 2005

Hi Gagrice:

In the case of the Civic, the HCH is the only PZEV available. In the case of the AH, it is a ULEV-II vs. the PZEV I4. The I4 based non-hybrid PZEV based Accord is far cleaner

Good Luck

Wayne R. Gerdes

larsb · March 2005

Right, they are "down" from a "fantasy projected 12-month sales number" but

ACTUAL SALES ARE UP.....

As far as "projected sales" go, if they keep up the 22% increase they had from Jan to Feb, they will sell

260,105

in 2005 in the USA......

gagrice · March 2005

As far as "projected sales" go, if they keep up the 22% increase they had from Jan to Feb, they will sell 260,105

Ya gotta love statistics. You can make em say what you want. My question is where are the other 7000 Prius that Toyota promised the US market? They said 10,000 per month for the USA. I know you had 8 or so stashed in Tempe, AZ. Some dealer in South Georgia supposedly has 40 ready to go with no wait list. Where's the rest of the Prii? I know in a bank in Beverly Hills in somebody else's name......

stevewa · March 2005

You: It's a big universe man! We can each have our own star system in the Milky Way at least. ;-)

Me: I'm sure you'll be very popular with any inhabitants of those star systems...

You: I'd rather have a couple hundred pounds of high strength steel on the sides than get an extra 1 mpg.

Me: I don't see a lot of value in being able to survive a crash if I can't breathe the atmosphere, or if my city is under water due to global warming.

yerth10 · March 2005

If Toyota promises 100,000, it does not mean that they will sell 8,333 vehicles for all the 12 months. Instead it will be like
5,000 in 1st month
6,000 in 2nd month
and so on with a gradual increase.
Toyota already planned to close Celica, Spyder and Echo is also not selling well. I would expect them to make more Prius in the place of those 3 cars.

We will take stock at the end of the year.

kernick · March 2005

It would be pretty naieve to think that even if we (in the U.S.) started driving the most efficient hybrid today, that that changes the fact that humans will use all the fossil fuels we can recover. The only thing that would change is that the date when they would be exhausted would be a few years later.

Save oil here in the U.S. by driving a hybrid, simply allows that oil to be used by all the new and hopeful drivers in China, India, and elsewhere around the world. Or it cgoes into a factory. Population and economic growth drive energy usage. As proof you can check how vehicle mpg has increased since 1973, and general conservation around the home and industries; but yet overall energy usage continues to increase.

Global warming has and will occur without our help. For all that oil to be in Alaska, it must have once been covered with lush plant and animal-life.

electrictroy · March 2005

Perhaps if we learn to conserve (hybrids, diesels, tiny cars), we can gradually transition from Dino-Fuels to Plant Fuels like soybean, corn, peanut oils.

troy

larsb · March 2005

Hybrid sales thru Feb 28th in the USA are 18,855, which is already 21% of the 2004 total. That also makes for 29,296 sold in the last 3 months counting December 2004.

"Sales Numbers and Forecasts for Hybrid Vehicles"

Hybrid car sales have risen consistently in the U.S., since the Honda Insight debuted in the American market in 1999. In that year, only a couple of hundred Insights were sold. U.S. hybrid sales have generally doubled every year:

9,350 in 2000
20,287 in 2001
35,000 in 2002
47,525 in 2003
88,000 in 2004

As we enter 2005, there are five hybrid vehicles available (with varying waiting list durations) in American showrooms. What are the market research firms predicting for the rest of the decade? Some are more optimistic than others, but all see a dramatic and consistent increase over the next several years:

By 2006, sales of hybrid vehicles will account for 10 percent of the 2 million midsize vehicles sold annually in the United States (ABI Research)
By 2007, at least 20 new hybrid models will appear in America (CSM Worldwide)
By 2007, over 400,000 hybrid vehicles will be sold in the USA (J.D. Power)
By 2008, 1.2 million hybrids will be sold in the U.S. market (Oak Ridge Labs)
By 2008, car buyers will have a choice of 35 hybrids (J.D. Power)
By 2010, 5 - 6% of all cars sold in America will be hybrids, assuming current petrol prices persist (ABI Research & Automotive Technology Research Group).
By 2011, about 35 hybrid models will be on the market , with that number exceeding 50 in 2012 (J.D. Power).

from:

http://www.hybridcars.com/sales-numbers.html

kernick · March 2005

But unless you convince farmers to use oxen and draft-horses, and no chemicals, then you are going to have to invest considerable energy to grow those crops. Tractors, transport of the plants, processing, then transport of the fuel around the country. I don't know how much energy you would actually net. I would guess we would need several hundred million acres of new crops to do this. Do some research on the water shortages many areas have, and you'll see this would not be very feasible.

It would actually be more efficient to simply collect and use solar energy. Plants are just a form of stored solar energy, but require energy to groww, harvest and process.

Anyway the population keeps growing and thus energy usage goes up, and land gets used for housing. There is no fossil or renewable fuel source capable of supplying the increasing population and lifestyle here on Earth. When the Earth's population doubles, then triples ..., and there are 5 - 10 times the number of vehicles on the roads around the world.

kernick · March 2005

you: By 2010, 5 - 6% of all cars sold in America will be hybrids, assuming current petrol prices persist (ABI Research & Automotive Technology Research Group)

me: but that ignores the fact that the number of vehicles sold will also grow. So if 17M vehicles will be sold this year, and that grows to 19M in 2010, that means 19M x 6% = 1.14M hybrids. But the number of non-hybrids is the remainder = 17.86M.

So the number of non-hybrids has grown. This means if nothing else changes, fuel usage goes UP, not even counting the hybrids. If the hybrids use 0 gas, gas usage goes up. Is this what you think is a great success? I don't. Do some research on how fast factories can be setup and converted from 1 product to the other. Read about how whole factories were moved in Russia in WWII, or about how the U.S. converted their production. Read about the Yorktown (aircraft carrier) that was nearly sunk at the Battle of Coral Sea, towed to Pearl, and was back to sea and battle-ready for Midway, in 24 hr.

It doesn't 5 years if auto manufacturers want to make hybrids, or their batteries. If there's a market and money in it, they'd be 50% of the market by now.

larsb · March 2005

Mark Phelan, famous disliker of Hybrids, seems to LOVE the Honda FCX:

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal- /NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,5656,00.html

kernick · March 2005

Yes but hydrogen is usually produced from hydrolysis, with the rare exception of soem chemical reactions. So you need electricity to produce hydrogen. And currently for various technical and/or economic reasons to produce the amount of electicity, and to ensure their's electricity on windless, cloudy days, electricity is produced from fossil fuels which do emit CO2 and pollutants, and nuclear.

electrictroy · March 2005

"But unless you convince farmers to use oxen and draft-horses, and no chemicals, then you are going to have to invest considerable energy to grow those crops. "

.

Both ethanol.org and biodiesel.org say they collect more energy (from the sun), then they use in the farming.

You mentioned solar panels, but you forgot they cost energy to build too. Seems to me, it's better to use the organic solar provided by nature (plants).

troy

larsb · March 2005

I read recently that most USA cars are driven less than 20 miles per day. This is what we need:

A (OPTIONALLY) plug-in full hybrid that will run on ELECTRIC ONLY for somewhere between 20 and 40 miles before the gas engine kicks in.

What I mean by the "optionally plug in" description is that if you drive it more than 40 miles and the gas engine kicks in, the gas engine will help charge the onboard battery, as will regen braking ALL THE TIME, even in electric mode. So it does not necessarily REQUIRE that you plug it in at night.

That would give MOST of the people in the USA a car that would commute them pollution-free virtually every day and probably achieve up to 200 MPG.

I do think someone is working on a car like this...it would help IMMENSELY in the "foreign oil reduction" problems.

mirth · March 2005

...basically what GM's EV1 was? I believe it could go 140 miles on a charge (granted it HAD to be plugged in every night). What went wrong there?

misterme · March 2005

I've heard of this idea before and think it is a great one.

I drive 100 miles a day and if I could drive EV even half of that I'd go for it.

larsb · March 2005

quote mirth-"...basically what GM's EV1 was? I believe it could go 140 miles on a charge (granted it HAD to be plugged in every night). What went wrong there?"-end quote

There are people around here more qualified than I am to describe to you all the multitude of reasons why the EV1 failed ( OIL COMPANY CONSPIRACY!! ) but this is different from the EV1, which was a little 2 seater bullet like the Insight. No offense AT ALL to the Insight, but it only meets the needs of a small portion of society due to it's miniaturization.

This full hybrid car I mentioned earlier could be a midsize like the Prius, or be built into an SUV or wagon or whatever. It would just need enough battery space and capacity for the long electric capability.

kernick · March 2005

you: Both ethanol.org and biodiesel.org say they collect more energy (from the sun), then they use in the farming.

me: yes I have heard that. I said you have to put a lot of energy into the production. I believe the number thrown out is a 30% net. If you want to be practical figure out how much energy you net from an acre, how much oil that 1 acre replaces, and how many acres you'd need to plant to say reduce our gasoline consumption 50%. Then figure out how many acres of good farmland aren't being planted, have the necessary water and climate, without cutting down large amounts of forest, and let us know if feasible.

It is easy to say let's use wind, solar, bio-fuel, and such but when you start crunching the numbers, I haven't seen any that meet our energy needs.

you: You mentioned solar panels, but you forgot they cost energy to build too.

me: I didn't forget they require energy. I'm an engineer and I've taken at least 3 course in thermodynamics, and doing energy balances on systems. A solar panel requires a 1-time investment in energy, and once delivered requires no transportation. It is a relatively low investment in energy. A field requires fertilizers (oil-based), tractors, harvesters, trains, trucks, a refinery, and then truck delivery to the service stations, and this energy investment is year after year.

gagrice · March 2005

It is easy to say let's use wind, solar, bio-fuel, and such but when you start crunching the numbers, I haven't seen any that meet our energy needs.

I think this is the plan you are looking for to replace fossil fuel with biofuel.

The more efficient a particular plant is at converting that solar energy into chemical energy, the better it is from a biofuels perspective. Among the most photosynthetically efficient plants are various types of algaes.

In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.

http://www.energybulletin.net/2364.html

kernick · March 2005

you: No offense AT ALL to the Insight, but it only meets the needs of a small portion of society due to it's miniaturization.

me: It would meet my needs about 90% of the time, if one of my needs wasn't to survive a crash with the typical other vehicle of much greater weight. It doesn't matter if you get 30mpg, 60mpg, or 500mpg if you're crippled or dead.
Another problem with electric vehicles that has been ignored that I've heard many times during the summer that states like CA are very, very short on electricity. Since they're asking people to shutoff TV's and such to save energy, there is no capacity for electric cars (I'm not talking about 20, but about millions).

Here's an idea that might be expensive, but definitely something that would save fuel and be practical. Why can't a vehicle be designed in 2 parts with 3 axles? A front section with 2 rows of seats and 2 axles (maybe 140" long, 2500lb) 4cyl, for commuting and errands, and a rear section with axle (60" 2000lb) and another 4-cyl engine that latches on. When the sections are joined, it could open up like an Avalanche to have 3-row seating, be an SUV. Or the rear section could be like a standard trunk.

The idea is to have 1 vehicle that can either be a small commuter, or when needed a full-sized vehicle. Make it a diesel to get 30% better mpg.

stevedebi · March 2005

"The idea is to have 1 vehicle that can either be a small commuter, or when needed a full-sized vehicle. Make it a diesel to get 30% better mpg."

And sell it in Europe, because you can't sell diesels in CARB states, where many of the hybrid enthusiasts reside.

kernick · March 2005

http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/biomass_feedstocks.html

"The ability to cost-effectively collect, store, and transport biomass feedstocks presents many challenges. A biobased industry will require a safe and sustainable supply system."

"Biomass Program analysts estimate that 512 million dry tons of biomass equivalent to 8.09 quads of primary energy could initially be available at less than $50/dry ton delivered"

No offense on your link and info, but I don't know who the heck they are. The above is linked from the U.S. DOE. Usaully the government doesn't have a bias.

Or a link from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory - http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/resource_estimates.html
"Quantities could potentially be increased to 800 million dry tons (about 12.4 Quads) in the next two decades. Increases will require additional research, coordinating agricultural and energy policies, and dialog with the environmental community and other stakeholder groups.

I believe this already includes the many power plants that already burn wood and byproducts, and personal wood-burners like myself.

kernick · March 2005

you: because you can't sell diesels in CARB states,

me: that can be changed with the stroke of a pen. I live next to MA, which is a CARB state, and it makes very little sense especially with better diesel on the way. A semi or school bus burns diesel at 10X the amount/mile. They allow construction equipment, charcoal grills, and woodstoves.

There is nothing wrong with liking hybrids. I'm sure its an indication of being a caring person. However I do like to point out that you should have no illusions that your individual effort will amount to anything in a world of 6 billion people that hopefully has thousands and thousands of years of a future. You are not going to "hurt or pollute" the Earth; you or humanity is not more powerful (harmful) than the natural disasters that have occurred over the eons.

gagrice · March 2005

No offense on your link and info, but I don't know who the heck they are.

It was originally from this University of New Hampshire study...

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

kernick · March 2005

So probably a few students and maybe a professor or two, who have an interest in this particular specialty, when they're not studying or teaching.

Maybe it is some, new unthought of way to make large quantities of inexpensive fuel. I tend to believe that if someone in this group at UNH, had a viable plan from location / irrigation process thru the distribution process, they wouldn't be sitting at UNH. They'd be a multi- multimillionaire, having sold this idea and technology to a large corp. such as Exxon/Mobil.

And the proof that it was viable would be that Exxon-Mobil would be investing the billions $ to make this happen. Actions speak louder than words.

stevedebi · March 2005

"you: because you can't sell diesels in CARB states,

me: that can be changed with the stroke of a pen. "

Man, it's obviouis you don't live in California. The Federal Government has no power over CARB; it is determined entirely by California.

To be fair, with two large metropolitan areas, and with LA in particular having geographic problems (it's a big bowl that traps emissions), there is some reason for the CARB to be more strict than, say, New Mexico or Arizona.

kernick · March 2005

you: The Federal Government has no power over CARB; it is determined entirely by California.

me: I didn't mention anything about the Fed. government. Where did you see that in the post? I'm sure Arnie and the legislature have pens. ;-)

you: LA in particular having geographic problems (it's a big bowl that traps emissions),

me: I was doing a paper on Logisitcs last year and ran across how the port near LA is the major source of pollution. No restrictions on diesel there either from the cranes, or waiting ships? Anyway diesel cars are much cleaner than years ago, and the new diesel fuel will certainly help.

stevedebi · March 2005

"you: The Federal Government has no power over CARB; it is determined entirely by California.

me: I didn't mention anything about the Fed. government. Where did you see that in the post? I'm sure Arnie and the legislature have pens. ;-)

you: LA in particular having geographic problems (it's a big bowl that traps emissions),

me: I was doing a paper on Logisitcs last year and ran across how the port near LA is the major source of pollution. No restrictions on diesel there either from the cranes, or waiting ships? Anyway diesel cars are much cleaner than years ago, and the new diesel fuel will certainly help."

The state will not cut CARB; there are too many environmentalists out here.

I also saw the figures on the port, but believe me, it is the cars (and industry) that put out the pollution. One problem is that there are so many clunker cars on the road, putting out more pollution. The modern cars are cleaner.

kernick · March 2005

you: The state will not cut CARB; there are too many environmentalists out here.

me: I've heard. I was simply stating all that was holding back was someone changing the law. There is no technological or economical hurdle to overcome.

you: One problem is that there are so many clunker cars on the road, putting out more pollution. The modern cars are cleaner.

me: I agree. And the problem with our society is that we don't want to address the original problem or law-breakers, so we have to go after the decent people and make them be extra clean, so as not to exacerbate the situation.
If semis had better pollution control, something was done at the port of LA, and the clunkers were confiscated and crushed, then regular drivers would be allowed to drive modern clean diesels that get the mileage of hybrids.

I would guess that since there are many illegal aliens in CA, that don't earn much, and are concerned with larger issues of being caught and deported, aren't too concerned whether their vehicle has a catalytic conveter on it?

Sylvia · March 2005

OK - some drift to CARB is fine. However, seems like we are going from that to immigration laws so let's get back on track to the Future of Hybrids.

Will they dominate the industry in years to come?

PF_Flyer · March 2005

Are the current hybrid offerings and technology something along the line of betamax? And will there be a VHS that comes along and dominates the market?

kernick · March 2005

The Prius+ link raises some questions to me:

1) I would guess modifying the hybrid or changing the sequence and utilization of the batteries and ICE, would void the warranties on those parts?

2) If there is no affect on battery longevity or other electrical, software, or mechanical systems, why wouldn't the Toyota engineers have done this "+" originally? Or is it cost? I didn't read that far.

stevewa · March 2005

1. Most certainly this kind of thing will void any warranty on the parts, and probably also void any state or federal emissions warranty, as the hybrid systems are considered emissions equipment.

2. Car making is an art of compromise. Engineers, marketers, manufacturing specialists, all have to work together to come up with a design that (a) works, (b) can be manufactured, and (c) can be sold at a price point that will attract buyers without bankrupting the company. This leads to decisions that make the final product more palatable (some might call this "bland") to a wide audience. There are exceptions, of course, like the Ford GT which are limited-production cars where the manufacturer is not looking for big sales numbers.

Some reasons I can think of that would preclude the kind of upgrades proposed in the Prius + design:

1. cost of additional hardware
2. added weight, resulting in lower payload capacity
3. added complexity for the owner/driver, remember Prius is intended to drive/act like a "regular car" as much as possible.

felixkramer · March 2005

Kernick's comments: It is likely that our conversions, and kits we may provide (with our for-profit partners), will void some or all of the hybrid system's warranty. We would expect to provide a secondary warranty, and customers are likely to be people who can afford the risk.
Toyota and other car companies think there's no market for these cars. That and the warranty Q get to the larger strategic/political issues: what if lots of people started saying, "we want our cars to be better," and we want it from Toyota-- or, perhaps, Toyota Racing Development, which provides aftermarket products for Toyota and has modified Priuses.
The California Cars Initiative and others (such as a major editorial in the March 7 Newsweek) focus on encouraging automakers to produce these cars for reasons of energy security (reduce use of imported gasoline) and global warming (cut CO2 emissions and move to biofueled hybrids).

As for Steve's comments:
1. cost of additional hardware is mainly additional batteries (we estimate Toyota could do it for $3K over current hybrid cost, which would be worth doing at high gasoline prices).
2. Added weight is about 1 passenger, which has little negative impact on MPG, and in Prius there's room under the hatchback deck.
3. There need be NO complexity to the owner: drive just like a Prius. Recharging is as simple as what people do with their phones, a 110 plug in garage, and if you forget, you're back to using your efficient gasoline-only hybrid.
Felix
P.S. By the way, my original post was removed because it pointed to other URLs, which isn't allowed; those who want to learn more about "gas-optional hybrids (GO-HEVs) and "plug-in hybrids" (PHEVs) can search for those terms or CalCars.

gagrice · March 2005

Most certainly this kind of thing will void any warranty on the parts

I would think you would want to buy a used Prius with over 100k miles to do your experimenting. It would be good for an autoshop class project.

gagrice · March 2005

How will the Prius compete with the larger Avensis? They come in many configurations and engine choices including 3 diesel engines. Four gas engines, 2dr, 4dr, 5dr & wagons.

The new 2.2 D-4D Clean Power engine uses the revolutionary Toyota D-CAT system, which renders the high-performance engine the cleanest diesel power unit in the world in terms of combined nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions.

D-CAT features a Diesel Particulate NOx Reduction (DPNR) four-way catalyst, the only system in the world which simultaneously reduces NOx and PM via the combination of a NOx-reduction catalyst and a particulate filter.

http://www.carpages.co.uk/toyota/toyota-avensis-part-1-02-03-05.asp

If we had those choices I don't believe you would see the hybrids around for long.

kernick · March 2005

you: what if lots of people started saying, "we want our cars to be better,"

me: I think Honda and especially Toyota have listened to a lot of consumers and made better vehicles; but probably not the "better" you mean. Look at all the SUV and truck models they've come out with.
Now "better" to me means it would have more power, be amphibious, and maybe takeoff and fly like a Harrier.

you: produce these cars for reasons of energy security (reduce use of imported gasoline)

me: gasoline usage is dependent on 230M cars in this country, and an evergrowing global fleet. Hybrids will only slow the growth of gasoline usage, not reverse it. Countries which are wealthy enough to drive ICE vehicles, but not wealthy enough to afford hybrids, would surely use it. And if oil isn't converted to gasoline, it could be used in the electric generating plants to charge those Priuses.

you: Recharging is as simple as what people do with their phones, a 110 plug in garage.

me: which isn't very feasible, if many people did so. Areas of the country have electricity shortages at manytimes of the year.

you: global warming (cut CO2 emissions and move to biofueled hybrids).

me: first you assume that global warming is a negative. Since the Earth is just coming out of an Ice Age, I am all for it. The average temp. of the Earth is only about 60F, a temp. that cause us to use energy to heat our homes.

you: move to biofueled hybrids).

me: you do know know that anything "bio" has carbon in it? And if CO2 isn't produced from burning biofuels, what would you like to see the carbon bonded to in the exhaust?

kernick · March 2005

If you want to understand where a lot of your air pollution comes from, read this report. Hybrids won't aggravate the problem, but they do not necessarily make it better. Hybrids won't stop energy usage from increasing or pollution or CO2 from going higher, on their own. Our lifestyle is the main issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm

yerth10 · March 2005

May be if we go to Europe/Africa, we can find an article which says that pollution from USA comes to their cities. No use in blaming others when USA has the maximum pollution per capita.

When USA moved to Automobile / Airplane based lifestyle, everyone followed, similarly if this country moves to cleaner fuels like Nat-gas, Ethanol, Bio-Diesel, etc, again everyone will follow.

yerth10 · March 2005

www.capstoneturbine.com
This company is selling a micro turbine which generates 30 KW of power using different type of fuel like Nat-gas, propane, Diesel, Kerosene, etc.

Is it possible to run the vehicles using this turbine. Similarly is it possible to extract the waste heat from automotive exhaust and feed into an even smaller turbine like 1-2 KW for a hybrid vehicle to feed the battery.

yerth10 · March 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4513243/

"aiming to sell 100,000 eco-friendly, gasoline-electric Camrys a year

Analysts said that Toyota, Japan's largest auto maker, would probably be able to reduce costs by 2006 and sell a hybrid Camry at a price attractive to consumers."

Hopefully they will introduce a V4 Camry or even ideally a V3 camry with Motor doing the job of 1 Cylinder.

misterme · March 2005

You're right, USA has proved itself the leader in almost all technologies and the invention of products. No wonder we pollute so much.
But also, no other country than US have spent so much time and energy trying to curb pollution.

Our West coast routinely recieves pollution from China drifting across "the pond", and is right on our heels in this regards:

"Ten most polluted cities in the world, seven can be found in China"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html

The U.S. is also assisting Asian countries in their pollution problems:
http://www.chinacp.com/eng/cpdonors/cp_usaid.html

"second place in world pollution after the US"
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/12/14/2003215052

I'm not surpised that China signed on to the Kyoto treaty while it does almost nothing to clean its own problems...under Kyoto blessings?

And some say the U.S. is the bad guy?
It's always easy & popular to dump on the U.S. but let's look at what else is going on around us.

The U.S. Army is also getting hybrid vehicles:
http://www.wisinfo.com/northwestern/news/business/stories/biz_19996232.shtml

Well, maybe the Army is not doing this in the name of preventing pollution, but if hybrids are good enough for the military it's good enough for me!

yerth10 · March 2005

More than a year ago, I read an article in Popular Science about a Hybrid Armored Vehicle for US Army. It has 6 wheels with motor in each wheel. Seems their fuel costs $ 15 / gallon in the battlefield, since it has to be transported in shielded tankers.

Fixing motor in a wheel and removing transmission is getting popular and Toyota has 1 such model with 4 motors in 4 wheels.

kernick · March 2005

We generate a lot of trash, which we do a fairly good controlling via landfills and such. And we certainly generate a lot of CO2.

But if you want to consider polluted areas, the U.S. is not even close to being near the top. Read up on what 45 years of Soviet rule did to Russia and Eastern Europe. Read up on what the typical Chinese's lifestyle is - maybe recycling (smelting metals) off of disposed circuit boards in a make-shift factory in a village. Go to countries outside of Europe, Japan, Canada, and such, and see what sort of emissions equipment they have on their vehicles.

The Future of Hybrid Technology

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles