These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number
of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid
Electric (PHEV), and Toyota is currently road testing a production
version.

The MPG claims are not as straight-forward as with other cars, because
actual mileage will differ drastically based on driving habits. If
someone did a daily commute within the electric-only range, then they'd
never use gas, and the MPG would be infinite. Though if you took a
cross-country trip without plugging in during the trip, the MPG would be
the same as a conventional hybrid. No doubt the marketing folks used a
scenario of a 'typical' driver to come up with the 250 MPG number, but
it doesn't make it unrealistic, nor does it mean these cars aren't a
significant step forward.

In article <17b1abf0-c483-4035-88e4-75336b7638c7
@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, zwestfall@gmail.com says...
> You should see the car I'm designing. It will get 3,750 MPG and
> deliver over 500 horsepower. It it self-cleaning and the Limited
> Edition will cook dinner for you. Concept pictures coming soon.
>
>

 

Mr. G wrote:
> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number
> of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid
> Electric (PHEV), and Toyota is currently road testing a production
> version.
>
> The MPG claims are not as straight-forward as with other cars, because
> actual mileage will differ drastically based on driving habits. If
> someone did a daily commute within the electric-only range, then they'd
> never use gas, and the MPG would be infinite.

Yet, the electricity that they use requires the burning of fossil fuels,
unless it came from renewable resources, like solar power.

So effectively, the lower gas mileage does a lot to make people feel
good, but doesn't really reduce greenhouse gases.

Does the zero gas mileage take into account the amount of fossil fuels
needed to make the batteries, not to mention the tires, engine and rest
of the car?

Jeff

 

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:18:31 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Mr. G wrote:
>> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number
>> of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid
>> Electric (PHEV), and Toyota is currently road testing a production
>> version.
>>
>> The MPG claims are not as straight-forward as with other cars, because
>> actual mileage will differ drastically based on driving habits. If
>> someone did a daily commute within the electric-only range, then they'd
>> never use gas, and the MPG would be infinite.
>
>Yet, the electricity that they use requires the burning of fossil fuels,
>unless it came from renewable resources, like solar power.
>
>So effectively, the lower gas mileage does a lot to make people feel
>good, but doesn't really reduce greenhouse gases.
>
>Does the zero gas mileage take into account the amount of fossil fuels
>needed to make the batteries, not to mention the tires, engine and rest
>of the car?

Does the mileage estimate for a conventional car include the energy
required to make it? The hybrid batteries don't require any
extraordinary amount of energy to manufacture.

Electrical generation and transmission is much more efficient than an
automotive ICE. And it can be practically be generated from renewable
sources like wind and solar.

The major problem with plug-ins (whether hybrids or pure electric) is
the batteries. In a conventional hybrid, the batteries are never
charged or discharged outside of a relatively narrow range, say 50 to
80% of capacity. Used in this manner, the batteries last a long time
- maybe the life of the car. If a plug-in is to achieve maximum
efficiency, it will be charged up to 100%, then discharged to near
zero. Such use greatly decreases the life expectancy of these
batteries. When you add in the fact that a plug-in is likely to carry
a lot more battery capacity than a conventional hybrid, the battery
cost over the life of the vehicle may not be economically viable.

 

In article <X_3ij.1939$Ue3.1226@trnddc07>, kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
says...
> Mr. G wrote:
> > These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number
> > of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid
<snip!>
>
> Yet, the electricity that they use requires the burning of fossil fuels,
> unless it came from renewable resources, like solar power.

Where is it dictated that the electricity they use would be REQUIRED to
come from fossil fuels? That is the beauty of powering them with
electricity: that energy can be generated by any means. So besides
fossil fuels, it could be hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal,
nuclear, etc. And it doesn't require a single-point source; it can come
from any combination of those. And as new technology to generate
electricity is developed, these cars will work just the same.

> So effectively, the lower gas mileage does a lot to make people feel
> good, but doesn't really reduce greenhouse gases.

Even for the power that's coming from coal, recent developments have
made it possible to burn coal *much* more cleanly than before. And it's
much easier to clean-up several hundred generation plants than to try
and retrofit millions of vehicles.

Another strong point for electric is that the distribution
infrastructure is already in place. If, for example, they ever get
hydrogen fuel cells to market, which is still years away, how much $$$$
(and resources) will it take to set up hydrogen fueling stations that
even come close to what we have now with gasoline stations? And since
most of the electric cars would be charging at night, when electrical
demand for lights, appliances, A/C, etc. is very low, the existing grid
can handle a lot of plug-ins charging. In fact, it would help the
utilities, since dealing with the huge drop in demand at night is a big
problem for them, since you don't just switch-off power stations like so
many light switches.

>
> Does the zero gas mileage take into account the amount of fossil fuels
> needed to make the batteries, not to mention the tires, engine and rest
> of the car?

Huh? Are you comparing it to a car that requires no tires, engine, body,
etc? Is a car that's kept in a garage less fuel efficient because of
the resources used to build the garage? I think that is taking the
argument WAY far afield.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:18:31 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mr. G wrote:
>>> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number
>>> of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid
>>> Electric (PHEV), and Toyota is currently road testing a production
>>> version.
>>>
>>> The MPG claims are not as straight-forward as with other cars, because
>>> actual mileage will differ drastically based on driving habits. If
>>> someone did a daily commute within the electric-only range, then they'd
>>> never use gas, and the MPG would be infinite.
>> Yet, the electricity that they use requires the burning of fossil fuels,
>> unless it came from renewable resources, like solar power.
>>
>> So effectively, the lower gas mileage does a lot to make people feel
>> good, but doesn't really reduce greenhouse gases.
>>
>> Does the zero gas mileage take into account the amount of fossil fuels
>> needed to make the batteries, not to mention the tires, engine and rest
>> of the car?
>
> Does the mileage estimate for a conventional car include the energy
> required to make it? The hybrid batteries don't require any
> extraordinary amount of energy to manufacture.

Of course the MPG figures don't include the energy to make the cars.
But it still takes energy.

But they also require the materials be mined, the batteries made, etc.
It is still energy.

> Electrical generation and transmission is much more efficient than an
> automotive ICE. And it can be practically be generated from renewable
> sources like wind and solar.

Unless the energy comes directly from a solar panel, a wind turbine,
etc., and the energy would not have been fed into the electric grid,
then, electricity use to run the car results in more fossil fuels being
used.

> The major problem with plug-ins (whether hybrids or pure electric) is
> the batteries. In a conventional hybrid, the batteries are never
> charged or discharged outside of a relatively narrow range, say 50 to
> 80% of capacity. Used in this manner, the batteries last a long time
> - maybe the life of the car. If a plug-in is to achieve maximum
> efficiency, it will be charged up to 100%, then discharged to near
> zero. Such use greatly decreases the life expectancy of these
> batteries. When you add in the fact that a plug-in is likely to carry
> a lot more battery capacity than a conventional hybrid, the battery
> cost over the life of the vehicle may not be economically viable.

True. But battery technology is constantly improving. IIRC, the
engineers have studied using batteries outside the narrow range and have
found that using batteries with a wider range doesn't damage the batteries.

In addition, there are better batteries under development, like the ones
that Chevy would like to put into its volt (but they won't ready for at
least a few years).

Jeff

 

Mr. G wrote:
> In article <X_3ij.1939$Ue3.1226@trnddc07>, kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
> says...
>> Mr. G wrote:
>>> These vehicles aren't fantasy pipe-dreams. There are already a number
>>> of companies and individuals who will convert a Prius to Plug-in Hybrid
> <snip!>
>> Yet, the electricity that they use requires the burning of fossil fuels,
>> unless it came from renewable resources, like solar power.
>
> Where is it dictated that the electricity they use would be REQUIRED to
> come from fossil fuels? That is the beauty of powering them with
> electricity: that energy can be generated by any means. So besides
> fossil fuels, it could be hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal,
> nuclear, etc.

Yet, all the energy sources you mention decrease the amount of fossil
fuels burned. So if you're using the energy to charge a car, you can't
use the energy to decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned.

So using electricity to power a car increases the amount of fossil fuel
used.

However, using electricity to power a car may result in less fossil fuel
burned compared with a gasoline or diesel powered car.

> And it doesn't require a single-point source; it can come
> from any combination of those. And as new technology to generate
> electricity is developed, these cars will work just the same.

And not as much electricity from those sources will be used to decrease
fossil fuel burning.

>> So effectively, the lower gas mileage does a lot to make people feel
>> good, but doesn't really reduce greenhouse gases.
>
> Even for the power that's coming from coal, recent developments have
> made it possible to burn coal *much* more cleanly than before. And it's
> much easier to clean-up several hundred generation plants than to try
> and retrofit millions of vehicles.

Yet, people are not talking about retrofitting gasoline cars with
batteries and electric motors.

> Another strong point for electric is that the distribution
> infrastructure is already in place. If, for example, they ever get
> hydrogen fuel cells to market, which is still years away, how much $$$$
> (and resources) will it take to set up hydrogen fueling stations that
> even come close to what we have now with gasoline stations?

And where does the hydrogen come from? Methane, which is then converted
to CO2.

> And since
> most of the electric cars would be charging at night, when electrical
> demand for lights, appliances, A/C, etc. is very low, the existing grid
> can handle a lot of plug-ins charging.

And the car can also supply electricity back to the grid from the car's
battery, decreasing the extent to which inefficient generators are used
(and just charging the cars with the more efficient generators at night)
or alternatively, even run the motors, which may be more efficient than
some of the generators which would have to be started to keep up with
demand.

> In fact, it would help the
> utilities, since dealing with the huge drop in demand at night is a big
> problem for them, since you don't just switch-off power stations like so
> many light switches.
>
>> Does the zero gas mileage take into account the amount of fossil fuels
>> needed to make the batteries, not to mention the tires, engine and rest
>> of the car?
>
> Huh? Are you comparing it to a car that requires no tires, engine, body,
> etc? Is a car that's kept in a garage less fuel efficient because of
> the resources used to build the garage? I think that is taking the
> argument WAY far afield.

I think it is also important to remember that there are also other
energy costs than just the fuel used to run the cars, whether or not
they are conventional cars or electric cars or some combination of the two.

Personally, I think the plug-in hybrids are going to be a great thing.
But, we must remember when the energy comes from electricity, ethanol or
hydrogen, there is still a lot of fossil fuel used to make the final
energy form and build the cars.

Jeff

 

In article <mObij.2000$Ue3.851@trnddc07>, kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
says...
>
> Yet, all the energy sources you mention decrease the amount of fossil
> fuels burned. So if you're using the energy to charge a car, you can't
> use the energy to decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned.
>
> So using electricity to power a car increases the amount of fossil fuel
> used.

So you're saying we should continue burning fossil fuels in cars,
because if we used energy from another source, it would just take away
from not burning fossil fuels somewhere else? My head is spinning
trying to follow the circular logic.

If it were an immutable law that a certain percent of electricity had to
come from fossil fuels, then there might be a core of truth to that
(though it's still more efficient to burn fossil fuels in power plants
instead of millions of ICEs). But the reality is, as more alternative
methods are developed, and the existing ones expanded, it's possible to
move towards having electric power on the grid with little or no
reliance on fossil fuel.

> > Another strong point for electric is that the distribution
> > infrastructure is already in place. If, for example, they ever get
> > hydrogen fuel cells to market, which is still years away, how much $$$$
> > (and resources) will it take to set up hydrogen fueling stations that
> > even come close to what we have now with gasoline stations?
>
> And where does the hydrogen come from? Methane, which is then converted
> to CO2.

I think you missed my point... I was making an argument *against*
hydrogen fuel cells, due to distribution issues (not to mention
technology issues in building the fuel cells and generating the
hydrogen, which currently takes *many* times more energy than the
resulting fuel delivers.)

 

Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Yet, people are not talking about retrofitting gasoline cars with
>batteries and electric motors.

Actually, many are, just double click

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ehicle+garage*

>And the car can also supply electricity back to the grid from the car's
>battery, decreasing the extent to which inefficient generators are used
>(and just charging the cars with the more efficient generators at night)
>or alternatively, even run the motors, which may be more efficient than
>some of the generators which would have to be started to keep up with
>demand.

Don't even bother to think such a thing with today's batteries,
maybe in 10 years something like that could be tried, but on a local
neighborhood basis.

>Personally, I think the plug-in hybrids are going to be a great thing.
>But, we must remember when the energy comes from electricity, ethanol or
>hydrogen, there is still a lot of fossil fuel used to make the final
>energy form and build the cars.
>Jeff

There better be more nuclear capacity built than plugin demand,
else a lot of people will have to move south, or freeze, many people
can't afford to run a central heating system to heat the whole house,
and zoned electric heat is a way to reduce space heating costs where
rates are less than 10 cents per kilowatt hour.

 

Hey, Ali-G. How'd that SELF abuse thing work out for ya? Moron.
ROFLMAO

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:42:40 -0500, Mr. G <mrg@aol.com> wrote:

>In article <mObij.2000$Ue3.851@trnddc07>, kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
>says...
>>
>> Yet, all the energy sources you mention decrease the amount of fossil
>> fuels burned. So if you're using the energy to charge a car, you can't
>> use the energy to decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned.
>>
>> So using electricity to power a car increases the amount of fossil fuel
>> used.
>
>So you're saying we should continue burning fossil fuels in cars,
>because if we used energy from another source, it would just take away
>from not burning fossil fuels somewhere else? My head is spinning
>trying to follow the circular logic.
>
>If it were an immutable law that a certain percent of electricity had to
>come from fossil fuels, then there might be a core of truth to that
>(though it's still more efficient to burn fossil fuels in power plants
>instead of millions of ICEs). But the reality is, as more alternative
>methods are developed, and the existing ones expanded, it's possible to
>move towards having electric power on the grid with little or no
>reliance on fossil fuel.
>
>> > Another strong point for electric is that the distribution
>> > infrastructure is already in place. If, for example, they ever get
>> > hydrogen fuel cells to market, which is still years away, how much $$$$
>> > (and resources) will it take to set up hydrogen fueling stations that
>> > even come close to what we have now with gasoline stations?
>>
>> And where does the hydrogen come from? Methane, which is then converted
>> to CO2.
>
>I think you missed my point... I was making an argument *against*
>hydrogen fuel cells, due to distribution issues (not to mention
>technology issues in building the fuel cells and generating the
>hydrogen, which currently takes *many* times more energy than the
>resulting fuel delivers.)

 

..
>
>In article <17b1abf0-c483-4035-88e4-75336b7638c7
>@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, zwestfall@gmail.com says...
>> You should see the car I'm designing. It will get 3,750 MPG and
>> deliver over 500 horsepower. It it self-cleaning and the Limited
>> Edition will cook dinner for you. Concept pictures coming soon.


AKA wife with saddle attachment
>>
>>

 

kbrichard wrote:
> ..
>> In article <17b1abf0-c483-4035-88e4-75336b7638c7
>> @j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, zwestfall@gmail.com says...
>>> You should see the car I'm designing. It will get 3,750 MPG and
>>> deliver over 500 horsepower. It it self-cleaning and the Limited
>>> Edition will cook dinner for you. Concept pictures coming soon.
>
>
> AKA wife with saddle attachment

I never got that much horsepower out of mine....


>>>
>