To Darell-80 mpg diesel hybrid-real or not?

Candle Power Flashlight Forum

Help Support CPF:

RX7 rotaries are super efficient? On what planet? Thats always been a very large criticism of them. How much of a gas guzzler they are. The first generation RX7 competed directly against the Porsche 924 and one area where the 924 dominated is in gas mileage. A little less embellishing of the past, please.

Lifetime of Corolla engines is probably around 300k. So you're saying that this heavily subsidized Prius's engine will last 600k? And Corolla transmissions go out at 150-200k? Uh...no. CVTs do NOT have a good track record. How many new cars do you see with them? Still very few because as the idea has been around for a long time, the designs have never been all that practical. It wasn't until very recently that Audi developed a CVT that is capable of handling somewhat decent torque. They still aren't anywhere NEAR being as durable as a manual transmission.

Its easy to look at the Prius as being an oh so great option when your purchase is heavily subsidized by my tax dollars. A quick google search shows that Toyota loses about 17k on every Prius it sells. I'm all for new technology and I'm all for efficiency, but making it sound like the Prius is economical is LAUGHABLE. You may not be paying for it, but WE are paying for it.

Mark
 
[ QUOTE ]
kenny said:

The problem isn't getting better gas mileage AND less pollution, generally the more efficient the engine is the easier to get the pollutopn under control. There are already many very low emmision ICE's available (the Prius uses an ICE).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assume because of context, that the term efficient applies to producing maximum power for the amount of fuel used.

Unfortunately, just the opposite is true. A very efficient engine produces lots of by-products because of the presence of nitrogen and other impurities in the air. As the fuel burns at very high temperatures with the oxygen+nitrogen mixture you end up with strange (for me) chemical reactions. Lower the temperatures and you get less power but fewer NOX compounds.

The Prius ICE is only moderately efficient power wise, but very low pollution. The horse power is only in the 70s. Even the Corolla has more power /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif The mariage of the electric motor to the low torque/low power engine make the whole package more efficient and drivable than either alone.

[ QUOTE ]
Cars weight too much and follow too many 'conventional' configurations presently for super-mileage but as gas goes through the roof people will start to come around. The cars people will be driving 20 years from now may be VERY different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked the idea of the 155pmg car. Well, except that it's only for commuting, only for one person, does not appear to have any cargo space for a trip to the store, and is too low for me to get out of it...... There is a reason that the standard car is 4 wheels and 2 or 4 door as well as a height that's easy to get into.

I can transport 5 people in my Prius getting 55 mpg at 55 MPH. That's 275 passenger miles per gallon, 2/3 better than the 155mpg "car". A Greyhound bus probably does much better than that.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Kenny said that the Prius is expensive to maintain. I'm not sure where he got this idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it stems from the fact that the vast number of service centers in this country are only tooled and trained for ICEs.

I don't think the long-term costs/benefits of hybrid technology, other than fuel, are really known yet.

[ QUOTE ]

It sounds like the Prius is just not right for people like Kenny. That's too bad. Kenny appears to be vocal about his opinion and will probably convince a few people (for whom a hybrid is a good choice) that hybrids are a bad choice based on his understanding of the technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not personally buy a Prius. I don't have anything against hybrids, but I need something with AWD/4WD for the winter months here. A RAV4 hybrid or CR-V hybrid would be appealing though, money permitting.
 
Gadget, you make the Prius sound DAMN good.

If I were in a position to go buy a new $20K automobile, I would look very hard at one.

However the next vehicle I will need to buy is a replacement for the Beast. As y'all will recall, the beast is a 1990 F350 Crew Cab Single rear wheel truck with a Knapheide Service Body and a Tommy Lift that weighs right around #8000 before I get in it.

I can't have any less room in the back (4x8 flat load space) room for tools and parts (3 outward opening and 1 top opening door per side) Or much less interior room (need to carry 3 besides myself on occasion).

NOTHING Hybrid or EV can do what I need. At least not for the kind of money I'll be able to spend.

A roughly '00 or '01 Dodge with a Cummins is my next vehicle.

I would dearly love to be as green as Darell. But alas, I will continue to be much less so.
 
Gaget lover certainly got the common sense part of that Kelly blue book right. It make NO sense.

My corrolla is a manual, and they are virtually indestructable an will certainly last the life of the car. My brother regularly puts over 250,000 on his Honda Accords with the original auto tranny, so replacement tranny is no certainty (nor is a CVT replacment either -- we just don't know because they haven't been around that long -- here anyway). What I'm referring to is additional generator and system stuff that regulates power from the ICE to the electric motor(s) in a hybrid. You have an extra electric motor (some concepts use motors at each wheel) -- and it will be interesting to see how long the 100 Lb battery pack last and how much it cost to replace.

Hey I'm not trying to rain on anybodies parade, just trying to say at $7-8K I can buy a LOT of gas!

I will admit that the batterypack is not as toxic as I was thinking because I assumed it was more like a regular electric, which still, IMO suck. AS an engineer though, I can't let the emissions and the efficiency comment go without a little data. Even conventional wisdom would suggest that the more efficient the combustion process the less pollution one gets. Modern fuel-injected engines compared to older carborated one for instance. The Prius uses an ICE and therefore still generates combustion byproducts -- so what? It requires x amount of horsepower to get down the road (overcoming frictiona and air resistance). Unless you reduce either, the friction (low rolling resistent tires, bearing etc, have less frontal area (VW 3 liter, or Impact for that matter), or make the vehicle more aerodynamic, the only thing you will gain is a small efficiency of being able to run the Prius motor at the same RPM. The amount of horsepower hasn't changed. Honda did this by putting the cute little wheel pants on the rear, reducing the frontal area, and decreasing the rolling resistance. Instead of running the gererator full-time (as I believe the Toyota does) uses an electic assist, with the little ICE running the car around most of the time. Still the Honda has additiona electric motors and battery packs and electronic systems that are more complex that a conventiona auto (not unlike the Prius).

So the bottom line is that the technology is still not worth the money it costs -- hey I KNOW it just MY opinion, but I'm not ignernt either. Plus, I'm money ahead and that means MORE FLASHLIGHTS!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Minjin said:
RX7 rotaries are super efficient? On what planet? Thats always been a very large criticism of them. How much of a gas guzzler they are. The first generation RX7 competed directly against the Porsche 924 and one area where the 924 dominated is in gas mileage. A little less embellishing of the past, please.

Lifetime of Corolla engines is probably around 300k. So you're saying that this heavily subsidized Prius's engine will last 600k? And Corolla transmissions go out at 150-200k? Uh...no. CVTs do NOT have a good track record. How many new cars do you see with them? Still very few because as the idea has been around for a long time, the designs have never been all that practical. It wasn't until very recently that Audi developed a CVT that is capable of handling somewhat decent torque. They still aren't anywhere NEAR being as durable as a manual transmission.

Its easy to look at the Prius as being an oh so great option when your purchase is heavily subsidized by my tax dollars. A quick google search shows that Toyota loses about 17k on every Prius it sells. I'm all for new technology and I'm all for efficiency, but making it sound like the Prius is economical is LAUGHABLE. You may not be paying for it, but WE are paying for it.

Mark

[/ QUOTE ]


With all due respect, you misunderstood my point about wankel engine and have been badly misled about the rest of your facts.

1) The wankel can produce wonderful amounts of power per amount of fuel. They suffer from the fact that to do so requires that they run very lean at super high temperatures. The engines were detuned to reduce pollution and preserve the apex seals. The end result is that the RX7 sucked in comparison to the mazda coupes of the early 70's.


2) Yup, if the Corolla is good for 300K the Prius should be good for 600K. My son's Tercel tranny went out at 110K, and I've yet to have a car that did not eventually need tranny work. I can only assume that the corolla is the same as the rest. Clutch replacement if it's manual, torque converter if auto.

The Prius has a CVT that is different from any other. You should look into it. The gears are meshed 100% of the time. There are no sliding arms or shifting forks. There are no slipping belts. There's no torque converter and no clutch. It's truely a marvel. It's only found in the Toyota because Toyota has patented it. You are correct, the Subaru justy and the Volvo have had less than stellar success with CVT. Toyota has done it right.

See http://www.wind.sannet.ne.jp/m_matsu/prius/ThsSimu/index_i18n.html for a neat demo of how the toyota CVT works

3) A quick google search shows that elvis is alive too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Reputable sources (Ny Times, Auto World among others) have quoted Toyota Execs as saying that their investment was paid off by mid 2002 and that they were making a profit on every Prius that was sold.

Your tax dollars are not subsidising anything I have or get. The gov kept over $75,000 of mine in taxes last year. How much of yours did they keep?

But seriously, the only tax break we got was a one time $3000 deduction. You get more of a break when your wife gets pregnant.

4) YOu say it's not economical. If I sell my Prius right now I can get about $19,000 for it with 25,000 miles on the odo. I bought it for $22,000 out the door. That's $1,500 per year plus gas, total cost. The quarterly service was gratis. I used 555 gallons in the prius where I would have used 1000 in my Camry. That saved me about a thousand dollars.

So my total cost of ownership, including depreciaition and operating cost is only $4000 for two years and 25000 miles. That's 16 cents a mile.

That seems pretty economical to me. Had I bought a Corolla for $14000 out the door and sold it for $8,000 I'd have lost $6000 and spent an extra 500 dollars on gas plus I would have had to pay for my quarterly service.


Sorry about the rant. I hate it when people are given false "facts". I hope this information helps.

Daniel
 
[ QUOTE ]
Minjin said:
when your purchase is heavily subsidized by my tax dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd much rather subsidize fuel efficient cars and alternative energy than subsidize the gasoline that this country consumes. Through MY taxes, I pay for the gasoline used by others in their cars. Neat. I also pay taxes that subsidize the heaviest, least fuel-efficient vehicles on the road today - "passenger" SUVs and trucks that weigh over 6,000 GVW.


Yeah, we all pay taxes that end up going places we don't want them to go. That some of those taxes go toward the energy solution isn't something I'm going to cry about. Lots of folks want to make this about the surface costs. The cost of the car and the cost of the gas. But it goes much deeper than that. Who pays for the health costs? The military costs? The cleanup costs? We're voting with our wallets - but often we didn't even know there was an election.
 
[ QUOTE ]
jtr1962 said:
I think with mass-produced cheaper batteries BEVs could actually sell for less that ICE vehicles. After all, an ICE and a multi-gear mechanical transmission are built to very fine tolerances. By comparison, a battery and control circuitry are child's play.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is really little question that a BEV would be cheaper than an ICE vehicle in the same quantities. Several thousand moving, high-tolerance parts in an ICE. One in a BEV.

I like to ask folks how much they think a Honda Civic would cost if it was the only one made, if ICE tech and product supply lines hadn't been evolving over the past 100 years, and it was hand-built from parts that don't yet exist.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Minjin said:
Those battery packs are still way too expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course they are. The patents are held by the oil companies (not making that up!) and the packs are all hand-matched and hand-assembled.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll believe those lifetime estimates when I see them.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much documentation would you like? So. Cal Edison has over a million miles on their fleet of Rav4EVs. They have unserviced Ravs with over 150k miles on them. Want the 110 page PDF? Yours for the asking.

[ QUOTE ]
Mileage isn't everything. Batteries wear out with charging cycles not miles. I want to see them last years.

[/ QUOTE ]These Ravs with over 150k miles on them are now nine years old, with no capacity degredation.

[ QUOTE ]
And comparing range is somewhat silly. If a car has a 200 mile range, you can pull into a gas station and fill up in less than 5 mins. How many hours would it take to charge your battery pack from empty?

[/ QUOTE ]It can be done in about 15 minutes. And I don't have to go the fueling station normally. Typically we charge in the garage at home - no trips out of our way to stand around in the cold.

[ QUOTE ]
Until current battery technology gets much cheaper and allows RAPID charging, an all electric car isn't really that great of an option.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right! That's why we need to educate folks about the current state of affairs. It all IS available. They just aren't being made.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially after you take away the subsidies and incentives that the car makers receive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess we don't need to go there again. Let's take away the gasoline subsidy, and see how the level playing field looks, shall we?
 
[ QUOTE ]
rodfran said:
Another theoretical question for Darryl!!Large numbers switch from gas cars to BEV. Everyone charging their cars at night - what happens to the grid? I work with someone who is seriously pro-nuclear power and he is always throwing this one at me! Now, I understand you have the grid intertie PV. However, as a whole, most people do not have solar arrays on their rooftops. Would we have brown outs-rolling blackouts-the end of modern civilization as we know it??!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
I've got this covered in my FAQ: http://www.darelldd.com/ev/ev_faq.htm
Let me know if I need to add anything! Switching from gas cars to BEVs would make our grid more efficient, and the cost of power should (in theory, of the power compaines weren't greedy or anything) go down! Please read the second entry in the FAQ about pollution... and my other similar answer on this thread.

Have your nuke guy talk to me if he doesn't believe you. If we stopped using so much electricity to produce our gasoline, we'd all win.

Wow, I'm having a hell of a time keeping up with this one!
 
Daniel,
Elvis died?

You can do math, just not the kind I do. Who sells a car after two years? I have a problem with fuzzy math as well. Like I said I paid 12K for mine, I I'll never sell it, if someone else pays 22K for their's there is 10K difference, it doesn't matter if you are perpetually trading in cars or not. Generally, you drive them off the lot and you take it in the shorts. I suspect the temporary depreciation situation to be a bit of a fluke based on suply (hype) and demand. Once those straighten out it will drop just like any other car.

I don't compare it to a Camry because... it ain't a Camry.

The Mazda has great power to weight, but lousy specific fuel consumption. The mpg figures irrespective of the engine size were bad.

If you are still driving that Prius at 600 K I'll buy you lunch!

Your initial $3K tax break still cost us a grand!
 
Facts?

EPA Estimates for RX7s
1985 17/22, 16/23
1986 17/24
1987 17/23, 17/24
1988 17/23, 17/24
1989 17/23, 17/25, 16/24
1990 17/23, 17/25, 16/24
1991 17/23, 17/25, 16/24
1992 17/24, 16/25

Those are all non turbo models and can use regular.

1993 18/24, 17/25
1994 18/24, 17/25
1995 17/24, 17/25

Those last are, of course, the final generation sold in this country, which are all turbocharged and require premium. Sure, rotaries are an interesting design. Fuel efficient? Hell no. Incredibly dirty emissions? Very. Even the Corvette with an engine thats approximately 5 times its size and significantly heavier managed similar in town mileage and BETTER highway mileage.

Next fact.

Your son's transmission went out at 110k. So? Since when is anecdotal evidence indicative of all transmissions? Thats a logical fallacy. The truth is that on average, conventional Toyota engines and transmission are fairly bulletproof. You want anecdotes? Here are a couple:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_prius.html

The Prius simply hasn't been around long enough to know that the transmission won't blow up after 5 years. It hasn't stood the test of time. Until then, claiming that its more reliable than other Toyotas is foolhardy.

Next fact.

Subsidies.

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/112_0405_hybrid/index4.html

"In fact, we'd guess the new Prius, starting at $20,510, is the most heavily subsidized car on the market today."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-21-01.html


In fact, just about every page I've read about the Prius has 'heavily subsidized' somewhere on it.

Next.

Are we comparing bank rolls now? You make more money so you're right? Wow. I didn't think CPF had come to that.

You win.

Mark
 
From your FAQ:

[ QUOTE ]
A: Ours certainly do not. Our vehicles are charged from the solar array on the roof, so our cars truly are clean to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for a few things:
- solar cells take resources to manufacture
- most people can't afford them
- many people do not own homes etc where they could even install them
- if most of the charging happens at night, solar cells aren't useful

[ QUOTE ]
But even cars that use grid power for charging are far cleaner than an ICE can ever hope to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Between effeciency of generation and transmission loss, I'd bet coal power is less effecient than a typical ICE.

[ QUOTE ]
EV charging typically happens at night during off-peak hours, using electricity that is otherwise wasted since the generators have to be idling on stand-by. EV charging can actually help power plants be more efficient in this way, and there is very little - if any - negative effect on the "grid." One of the largest electric utilities in CA has estimated that there is enough "waste" electricity generated at night to fuel a million EVs for their daily commute.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, but a million is hardly a dent in the national vehicle usage for a day. More electricity would have to be generated, and it would be primarily coal power.

[ QUOTE ]
And a final point that I always enjoy making is that the oil industry is the single largest electricity consumer in the USA. It takes huge amounts of electricity to make and distribute gasoline. Yes, every gallon of gasoline you pour into your ICE vehicle accounts for a significant amount of electricity. Surprise!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is very true, but the same is also true for any source of energy.

[ QUOTE ]
EVs can be 100% clean to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

That can never happen. Name a primary source of power generation that is 100% clean? There is none. There is coal and nuclear fission.

[ QUOTE ]
A gasoline vehicle can never be "clean." When comparing pollution of ICE vehicles to EVs, the upstream emissions of EVs are always considered (power generation) while the upstream emissions of the ICE vehicles (fuel extraction, refining, distribution) is ignored in favor of ONLY discussing the tailpipe emissions. That's not a fair fight, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not, but neither is pumping an EV full of electricity generated by coal power, and claiming zero emissions.
 
Frangible - I'm not gonna go there.

You are free to believe what you want to believe. If you really care about this stuff, I'd be happy to offer up the logical corrections to your assumptions and exceptions. I'm not sure that's what you're looking for here, though. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

Frangible - I'm not gonna go there.

You are free to believe what you want to believe. If you really care about this stuff, I'd be happy to offer up the logical corrections to your assumptions and exceptions. I'm not sure that's what you're looking for here, though.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I didn't care, why would I post, or bother to read your page? Do you assume I'm purposefully ignorant because we share a difference of opinion on an issue?
 
[ QUOTE ]

"In fact, we'd guess the new Prius, starting at $20,510, is the most heavily subsidized car on the market today."



[/ QUOTE ]

Motortrend's guess != fact.


From cato:

[ QUOTE ]

Last spring, the Washington Post estimated Toyota is losing even more—$17,000 per copy—on each Prius.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, estimate != fact.


Besides, why does it matter? Companies do that all the time. New technology products are A) always loss products for the first X years, and B) always subsidized by profits from other places in the business. Taking a loss on a product is completely necessary when you're introducing a product that requires a lot of R&D. It's not something that only Toyota does. It's a standard business practice. The only reason to look down on it would be if the company hasn't properly planned for the losses. Taking a loss on a new product is a standard, acceptable, and smart business practice. Otherwise, you never lead in the market, you always follow behind, waiting to adopt technology until it is "easy" and "cheap".
 
[ QUOTE ]
Frangible said:
If I didn't care, why would I post, or bother to read your page?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no way of knowing, but I have my guesses. And that probably isn't fair.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you assume I'm purposefully ignorant because we share a difference of opinion on an issue?

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think you're purposefully ignorant in the least.

OK...

[ QUOTE ]
Frangible said:
From your FAQ:

[ QUOTE ]
A: Ours certainly do not. Our vehicles are charged from the solar array on the roof, so our cars truly are clean to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for a few things:
- solar cells take resources to manufacture
- most people can't afford them
- many people do not own homes etc where they could even install them
- if most of the charging happens at night, solar cells aren't useful

[/ QUOTE ]
Please read the sentenecs that you quoted from my FAQ again. Our cars don't pollute. My PV system may have - but far less than any other source of energy I could have used to power a full-featured automobile. Just because some (most, you say?) can't afford PV, does that mean I'm not using them? Some folks can't afford a car or gas either. And yes, some folks can't install them. But I did. And again - the only point of the sentence is that *I* have. And power from PV can be stored for use at night. Which again, is what happens here. So I'm not sure why that list of exceptions if relevant to the sentences of mine that you quoted.

[ QUOTE ]
But even cars that use grid power for charging are far cleaner than an ICE can ever hope to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Between effeciency of generation and transmission loss, I'd bet coal power is less effecient than a typical ICE.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd take that bet... and win. This has been proven over and over again. Maybe Brock will chime in again, since he knows more about this aspect than I do.

[ QUOTE ]
EV charging typically happens at night during off-peak hours, using electricity that is otherwise wasted since the generators have to be idling on stand-by. EV charging can actually help power plants be more efficient in this way, and there is very little - if any - negative effect on the "grid." One of the largest electric utilities in CA has estimated that there is enough "waste" electricity generated at night to fuel a million EVs for their daily commute.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, but a million is hardly a dent in the national vehicle usage for a day. More electricity would have to be generated, and it would be primarily coal power.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a million in one state. That's a million charged only on the waste energy. The coal plants run 24/7 anyway - even if we don't use the power. So the pollution exists around the clock. We might as well get some benefit from it and charge up some cars.

[ QUOTE ]
And a final point that I always enjoy making is that the oil industry is the single largest electricity consumer in the USA. It takes huge amounts of electricity to make and distribute gasoline. Yes, every gallon of gasoline you pour into your ICE vehicle accounts for a significant amount of electricity. Surprise!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is very true, but the same is also true for any source of energy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is not true of any other source of energy. My point is that the oil industry uses THE MOST electricity of any other industry. Other sources use electricity to - but none of them as much as oil.

[ QUOTE ]
EVs can be 100% clean to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

That can never happen. Name a primary source of power generation that is 100% clean? There is none. There is coal and nuclear fission.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clean to operate. Driving down the road. Idling in my garage. No emissions. 100% clean. Now that my PV panels are built, and all that pollution is behind us (one time deal here - unlike constantly creating gasoline) my power is 100% clean as well.

[ QUOTE ]
A gasoline vehicle can never be "clean." When comparing pollution of ICE vehicles to EVs, the upstream emissions of EVs are always considered (power generation) while the upstream emissions of the ICE vehicles (fuel extraction, refining, distribution) is ignored in favor of ONLY discussing the tailpipe emissions. That's not a fair fight, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not, but neither is pumping an EV full of electricity generated by coal power, and claiming zero emissions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't hear anybody claiming that, so what's the point? There are upstream emissions for most electicity generation, of course. But they pale in comparison to the upstream emissions of making gasoline. And that's before the gasoline is even burned!

So, after all that, what *is* the point of this? That I'm wrong? That gasoline is the cleaner, better fuel to use than PV and an EV?

** bah, the formatting is all messed up. sorry.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Please read the sentenecs that you quoted from my FAQ again. Our cars don't pollute. My PV system may have - but far less than any other source of energy I could have used to power a full-featured automobile. Just because some (most, you say?) can't afford PV, does that mean I'm not using them? Some folks can't afford a car or gas either. And yes, some folks can't install them. But I did. And again - the only point of the sentence is that *I* have. And power from PV can be stored for use at night. Which again, is what happens here. So I'm not sure why that list of exceptions if relevant to the sentences of mine that you quoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know *your* cars are clean, and that's great, don't get me wrong, but the point I was trying to make is that can't be a solution for everyone, as effective as it may be for some.

[ QUOTE ]

I'd take that bet... and win. This has been proven over and over again. Maybe Brock will chime in again, since he knows more about this aspect than I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately I was unable to locate statistics on the efficiency of coal plants with Google.

[ QUOTE ]

No, it is not true of any other source of energy. My point is that the oil industry uses THE MOST electricity of any other industry. Other sources use electricity to - but none of them as much as oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, it does, but it's also the principle source of energy, and is used for other things such as plastics. Does it use the most energy in processing per KWH of processed fuel burned? I think that would be a better comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
Clean to operate. Driving down the road. Idling in my garage. No emissions. 100% clean. Now that my PV panels are built, and all that pollution is behind us (one time deal here - unlike constantly creating gasoline) my power is 100% clean as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not questioning that yours is clean or not-- I'm merely questioning if EVs, as a national solution with our current power generation technology and effeciency, would be clean for everyone.

[ QUOTE ]
But they pale in comparison to the upstream emissions of making gasoline. And that's before the gasoline is even burned!

[/ QUOTE ]

By how much does it differ?

[ QUOTE ]

So, after all that, what *is* the point of this? That I'm wrong? That gasoline is the cleaner, better fuel to use than PV and an EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if it is or not. But here's what I do know-- the US's primary source of power is coal, and thus my thoughts on EVs have always been that they are a wash, since you'd just be burning coal and storing the energy in batteries, instead of burning gasoline on the fly. Thus I've thought gasoline was a necessarily evil given our current technology level, if that makes sense, and that hybrids were probably the best short-term improvement we could make.

Now, I have not heard the arguments for some things you mentioned, including the wasted power on the grid at night, or the effeciency of coal power vs. an ICE. I'll have to do some more digging on those, as they sound pretty compelling. (yeah, I'm an eternal skeptic)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top