NationStates Jolt Archive

The 2008 Toyota Prius will use lithium-ion batteries and Toyota is aiming for a94 miles to the gallon. That's about 40 kilometers to the liter. More than twice the milage of a current Prius which sells for about U.S. $21-22,000. So, who wants to buy one in 2008?

No thanks. Hybrids are white elephants, not long term solutions.

The 2008 Toyota Prius will use lithium-ion batteries and Toyota is aiming for a94 miles to the gallon. That's about 40 kilometers to the liter. More than twice the milage of a current Prius which sells for about U.S. $21-22,000. So, who wants to buy one in 2008?
94 mpg? Christ. Won't have to pay any road tax on that over here then. I'm not intending on buying a car that soon, but in around 2012 when I'll probably need one, I could get one of those babies dirt cheap. I already like the current Prius, so if they don't fuck with the design too much...
Got any pictures?

No thanks. Hybrids are white elephants, not long term solutions.
A white elephant? Something expensive that does no good? Please explain so we won't get sucked in by Toyota's marketing.

A white elephant? Something expensive that does no good? Please explain so we won't get sucked in by Toyota's marketing.
So you're doing 94 miles to the gallon instead of 50? Or even 80-100, as some modern, small diesel cars can do?

How is this going to save the planet?

All it does it make people pat themselves on the back, convinced they've just saved the exotic white wingo bat of South Asia, and ignore the real issue; we need to find a totally different method of generating power, not simply make the oil reserves last as long as possible.

So you're doing 94 miles to the gallon instead of 50? Or even 80-100, as some modern, small diesel cars can do?

How is this going to save the planet?

All it does it make people pat themselves on the back, convinced they've just saved the exotic white wingo bat of South Asia, and ignore the real issue; we need to find a totally different method of generating power, not simply make the oil reserves last as long as possible.

At least Toyota are doing something unlike other car manufacturers. Hopefully hydrogen cars will turn up or even ethanol cars (already used in Brazil). We have to do something in the interim.

I'd probably go with a Civic. They get good mileage even as a nonhybrid and are inexpensive, so they're the better buy especially if you plan to lease rather than buy.

Hybrids are going to get less expensive in a few years, but for now fuel-efficent gasoline cars are a better buy.

So you're doing 94 miles to the gallon instead of 50? Or even 80-100, as some modern, small diesel cars can do?

How is this going to save the planet?

All it does it make people pat themselves on the back, convinced they've just saved the exotic white wingo bat of South Asia, and ignore the real issue; we need to find a totally different method of generating power, not simply make the oil reserves last as long as possible.

Well, obviously the best thing to do is walk everywhere. But, if you were going to buy a car anyway, wouldn't it be best to buy the most fuel efficent one on the market. That way you might only emit 1/4 the amount of carbon dioxide that you would with a standard internal combustion engine. It might not save the planet but it will reduce the rate at which it is screwed up. A slower rate of global warming may allow more time for the exotic white wingo bat to adapt to a changing climate.

So you're doing 94 miles to the gallon instead of 50? Or even 80-100, as some modern, small diesel cars can do?

How is this going to save the planet?

All it does it make people pat themselves on the back, convinced they've just saved the exotic white wingo bat of South Asia, and ignore the real issue; we need to find a totally different method of generating power, not simply make the oil reserves last as long as possible.
Whatever about the bat it will save the euro in my arse pocket.;)

At least Toyota are doing something unlike other car manufacturers. Hopefully hydrogem cars will turn up or even ethanol cars (already used in Brazil).
Toyota are going down one particular route. It's only seen as a massive leap forwards America because diesels in cars are so rare; the current generation Prius doesn't do anything more spectacular than an average European diesel.

i wonder if it can go faster than 40 mph

All it does it make people pat themselves on the back, convinced they've just saved the exotic white wingo bat of South Asia, and ignore the real issue; we need to find a totally different method of generating power, not simply make the oil reserves last as long as possible.

Hybrids are the stepping stone to fully electric cars; they're expensive like any new technology but will become cheapere and will eventually be competitive with gasoline cars of the same model.

Hybrids are the stepping stone to fully electric cars; they're expensive like any new technology but will become cheapere and will eventually be competitive with gasoline cars of the same model.
I wouldn't bet on that.

Besides, electric cars are dangerous, because you can't hear them coming. And you always need something to charge the electrics, which requires...power generation. You're simply moving from a petrol engine to a coal power station.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think that Toyota ever said that their hybrids were the solution but that they just acted as a bridge to newer technologies that hadn't fully developed yet.
Also anything that can get people to lower their greenhouse gas emissions without any other horrible effects is at least a step in the right direction.

At least Toyota are doing something unlike other car manufacturers. Hopefully hydrogen cars will turn up or even ethanol cars (already used in Brazil). We have to do something in the interim.
I don't understand this whole 'hydrogen fuel will save the planet' thing. How do you think we get the hydrogen in the first place? You have to extract it from something else (usually water)...and the extraction process creates just as much in the way of harmful emissions as a normal petrol car does. It's not saving the environment, it's just displacing the emissions.

Right. Well, obviously, the answer is NOT to take any steps at all but rather muddle on the way we've been because THAT will save the planet. :rolleyes:

One thing prospective buyers should know is that current hybrid battery packs are only good for 8-10 years. Less in hot countries. Currently a replacment battery pack for a Prius costs $3,000 Australian. That would be about $2,200 U.S. But I don't know how the long lithium-ion batteries in the 2008 Prius will be good for.

Right. Well, obviously, the answer is NOT to take any steps at all but rather muddle on the way we've been because THAT will save the planet. :rolleyes:
No, steps are a good thing, it's just this one is a non-step; it costs a fortune, does nothing that special at all and will convince people they're saving the planet by buying one, so they simply go on being environmentally unfriendly in every other way. Look at all the Hollywood stars who have bought one because it's 'cool'; doesn't stop them having a garage full of Ferrari's that come out the rest of the time.

I wouldn't bet on that.

The car, airplane, computer, DVD player television, telephone, Internet and pretty much every major invention or discovery of the last century (even petroleum itself) was not immediately economically feasible but became so as the technology was developed and advanced. The same will happen with hybrids as long as companies continue to work on them.

Besides, electric cars are dangerous, because you can't hear them coming. And you always need something to charge the electrics, which requires...power generation. You're simply moving from a petrol engine to a coal power station.

Electric cars aren't going to be much more dangerous than ordinary cars. You're supposed to look to see if they're coming, and if you can't look someone should probably be doing so for you anyway.

They could be powered solar, wind, geothermal, or any kind of renewable energy. Or, they could be powered by natural gas or nuclear, both of which are clean sources of energy (nuclear waste can be reprocessed in to new fuel leaving almost no radioactive waste).

i wonder if it can go faster than 40 mph
Definitely. And the greater output of the Litium-ion batteries means the 0 to sixty time of the 2008 model will be reduced by one second, which is quite a bit.

No, steps are a good thing, it's just this one is a non-step; it costs a fortune, does nothing that special at all and will convince people they're saving the planet by buying one, so they simply go on being environmentally unfriendly in every other way.
About half of a families CO2 emissions come from their car(s). If a family uses this hybrid it will reduce their CO2 emissions by 40% even if they do nothing else. That would be a good thing.
Look at all the Hollywood stars who have bought one because it's 'cool'; doesn't stop them having a garage full of Ferrari's that come out the rest of the time.
I promise that if I ever buy a hybrid I will sell all my Ferraris.

No, steps are a good thing, it's just this one is a non-step; it costs a fortune, does nothing that special at all and will convince people they're saving the planet by buying one, so they simply go on being environmentally unfriendly in every other way. Look at all the Hollywood stars who have bought one because it's 'cool'; doesn't stop them having a garage full of Ferrari's that come out the rest of the time.


Look at Ahnold Conspicuous Consumption Schwartzeneggar, the reason we are afflicted with civilian HumVees and I'd agree.

Look at Ed Begley, Jr. who's driven an electric car for the past 20 years and I am not so inclined to agree.

Besides -- none of us are Hollywood stars. We do what we can with the budget we have -- and it's not like these cars are cheaper than the completely gas-consuming ones. Most of us don't get to buy but one if we're lucky, and trust me, I outgrew "cool factor" a long time ago.

You're awfully cynical to think people who would WANT to buy this car (more expensive than a conventional) are being "environmentally unfriendly in every other way".

No, steps are a good thing, it's just this one is a non-step; it costs a fortune, does nothing that special at all and will convince people they're saving the planet by buying one, so they simply go on being environmentally unfriendly in every other way. Look at all the Hollywood stars who have bought one because it's 'cool'; doesn't stop them having a garage full of Ferrari's that come out the rest of the time.

It's only an interim technology which will lead to a better solution. At the moment, they may seem expensive toys but the technology will get better. You have test what you have now first before making it better.

About half of a families CO2 emissions come from their car(s). If a family uses this hybrid it will reduce their CO2 emissions by 40% even if they do nothing else. That would be a good thing.
Again, I would say that this is a US-centric viewpoint, where the V8 is king and no one walks anywhere. That's a stereotypical view, I know, but I have no figures to hand and I don't think it's that unreasonable.

I promise that if I ever buy a hybrid I will sell all my Ferraris.
Careful there; a politician in the UK promised that he'd sell his beloved Jaguar if he was elected party leader, and then had to do it when he actually was. :p

Besides -- none of us are Hollywood stars. We do what we can with the budget we have -- and it's not like these cars are cheaper than the completely gas-consuming ones. Most of us don't get to buy but one if we're lucky, and trust me, I outgrew "cool factor" a long time ago.

You're awfully cynical to think people who would WANT to buy this car (more expensive than a conventional) are being "environmentally unfriendly in every other way".
Indeed, I exagerate the point; unfortunately, I'm not exagerating that much. Hybrids will undoubtably become the next 'mother-mobile' now that 4x4s/SUVs are going out of fashion; this does not mean that people are becoming more environmentally friendly, just that they're trying to keep up with trends.

I promise that if I ever buy a hybrid I will sell all my Ferraris.

:D

Why is this such a problem? I don't see Toyota claiming that their car will save the planet, just that it will make things just that much better until even better technologies come out. Are we supposed to continue to buy gas guzzling SUV's or something because it is better than buying a hybrid car which leads us into a false sense of security where the enviornment is concerned? Only our government leaders and the automobile industry can do anything significant so until something better comes I'd love to have that hybrid car. I certainly don't need anything flashy but getting 94 miles to the gallon is damn good.

Actually 94 mpg will piss off the oil tycoons ALOT. Everyone is going to be driving these, I've said it before on here, that we CAN make ones that go 100 mpg but we DON'T cause of the lobbyists in the government. Go TOYOTA

I promise that if I ever buy a hybrid I will sell all my Ferraris.

Not selling your Lamborginis then? :p

I certainly don't need anything flashy but getting 94 miles to the gallon is damn good.
This is my point about them being white elephants; the new Citroen C1 diesel will do 83mpg already. We can mass produce fuel efficient cars cheaply and easily without 'hybrids' which seem to be becoming more of a fashion statement than a step in the right direction.

Not selling your Lamborginis then? :p

LOL! I seriously wonder what this will do for the hot car industry. :O

Not selling your Lamborginis then? :p

Mazeratis. Wouldn't seel them. ;)

http://maserati.autoextra.com/vehicledetail/adid-27293222

This is my point about them being white elephants; the new Citroen C1 diesel will do 83mpg already. We can mass produce fuel efficient cars cheaply and easily without 'hybrids' which seem to be becoming more of a fashion statement than a step in the right direction.

Its 11.7% more fuel efficent then that though! This is amazing, also since diesel is more expensive here, regular gas is a better option for us at the moment, large buses and other vehicles need diesel and our systems are not prepared for about 10 million MORE cars being converted into diesel users.

This is a blessing.

Again, I would say that this is a US-centric viewpoint, where the V8 is king and no one walks anywhere. That's a stereotypical view, I know, but I have no figures to hand and I don't think it's that unreasonable.

Actually, that is an unreasonable view. At least by buying a hybird they are helping, in a small part, to limit Global Warming.

Actually, that is an unreasonable view. At least by buying a hybird they are helping, in a small part, to limit Global Warming.

Well....at least the human accerlation part of it. :)

who cares about good milage what really needs to happen is for them to get rid of the tax on petrol and diesel, encourage more driving, people spend the money that would go on tax on other luxuries, everyone gets richer that way. and as for the enviroment the closer we get to anhilating it the more scientist and reseachers are going to look for a solution to the problem

who cares about good milage what really needs to happen is for them to get rid of the tax on petrol and diesel, encourage more driving, people spend the money that would go on tax on other luxuries, everyone gets richer that way. and as for the enviroment the closer we get to anhilating it the more scientist and reseachers are going to look for a solution to the problem

Scientists have already found a solution. It's called the hybrid car, see?

Scientists have already found a solution. It's called the hybrid car, see?

Here here! Also don't forget the hydrogen fuel cells which are also a good option when we build Solar Towers or use nuclear engines to make fuel cells for people.

Here here! Also don't forget the hydrogen fuel cells which are also a good option when we build Solar Towers or use nuclear engines to make fuel cells for people.

And use solar and wind energy to manufacture the solar towers and nuclear plants, and use biodiesel powered vehicles and fuel-cell trains to ship them to where they are needed. The entire alternative energy chain is taking shape with each passing day...it's an exciting time for energy.

Here here! Also don't forget the hydrogen fuel cells which are also a good option when we build Solar Towers or use nuclear engines to make fuel cells for people.

Cool! I'd like to have a fuel cell. Then I wouldn't have to eat.

I would be curious to know if those are EPA estimates Toyota is using, or real world numbers. A while back, I was seening articels about complaining that the Prius was only getting about 37-40 mpg, same with the Honda version. Not good when you consider that a Honda Civic gets 45mpg on a regualr basis. Hell, even my 96 Neon gets 34-35 on average.

If my calculations are correct, that's around 40 kilometres per litre in proper measurements.

I guess that's impressive.

US gallons, I take it?

who cares about good milage what really needs to happen is for them to get rid of the tax on petrol and diesel, encourage more driving, people spend the money that would go on tax on other luxuries, everyone gets richer that way. and as for the enviroment the closer we get to anhilating it the more scientist and reseachers are going to look for a solution to the problem
The guy's a genius! Give him a medal! Why have none of us seen such an obvious solution to the whole problem?!

US gallons, I take it?

When I went to convert, I chose "US gallons liquid." There were "US gallons dry," and "UK gallons." It's so silly.

US gallons, I take it? It's 94 miles per gallon in little gallons and 113 miles per gallon in big gallons. I just can't remember which country has big gallons and which has small. For Krishna's sake, please go metric!

One of the great testaments of the French Revolution and Napleon: These (http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/dictunit.htm) are spiffy.
US gallons, I take it?
One would think so, but ther OP comes to us from Australia, advertising a Japanese car, and giving us info in gallons, which could mean British or American. Australia probably is most likely still clinging to the British one, but they could have made their own by now.

When I went to convert, I chose "US gallons liquid." There were "US gallons dry," and "UK gallons." It's so silly.
Yeah, it is a (logically) silly system, but when it's what you're brought up with it and it's what you know, there isn't really any pressing need to change it.

The guy's a genius! Give him a medal! Why have none of us seen such an obvious solution to the whole problem?!
I guess our thinking is just too sophisticated.

Well, with approx. 40km/l, it's US gallons.

It's 94 miles per gallon in little gallons and 113 miles per gallon in big gallons. I just can't remember which country has big gallons and which has small. For Krishna's sake, please go metric!

US gallons make it 40km/l then.

So you're doing 94 miles to the gallon instead of 50? Or even 80-100, as some modern, small diesel cars can do?

How is this going to save the planet?

All it does it make people pat themselves on the back, convinced they've just saved the exotic white wingo bat of South Asia, and ignore the real issue; we need to find a totally different method of generating power, not simply make the oil reserves last as long as possible.

It's not at self centered as you want to think. Me I drive a Honda Insight, not because I think I'm "saving" anything but mony that I would normally be spending on gas. That's all. Wouldn't you rather spend your money on something other than fuel for your car? Especially when you consider that gas is rapidly approaching $3.00+ per gallom nation wide. Hell, it's almost $3.50 where I live right now.

It's not at self centered as you want to think. Me I drive a Honda Insight, not because I think I'm "saving" anything but mony that I would normally be spending on gas. That's all. Wouldn't you rather spend your money on something other than fuel for your car? Especially when you consider that gas is rapidly approaching $3.00+ per gallom nation wide. Hell, it's almost $3.50 where I live right now.
I assure you that complaining about American petrol prices to a Brit will fall on very deaf ears indeed. :p

(You pay about a quarter of what we pay per gallon)

If my calculations are correct, that's around 40 kilometres per litre in proper measurements.

I guess that's impressive.
My car gets fourty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I like it.

It's not at self centered as you want to think. Me I drive a Honda Insight, not because I think I'm "saving" anything but mony that I would normally be spending on gas. That's all. Wouldn't you rather spend your money on something other than fuel for your car? Especially when you consider that gas is rapidly approaching $3.00+ per gallom nation wide. Hell, it's almost $3.50 where I live right now.

Good lord. Is that all? It's just about teetering on the £1/l mark here. That equates to about $6.60 (US) gallon.

It's not at self centered as you want to think. Me I drive a Honda Insight, not because I think I'm "saving" anything but mony that I would normally be spending on gas. That's all. Wouldn't you rather spend your money on something other than fuel for your car? Especially when you consider that gas is rapidly approaching $3.00+ per gallom nation wide. Hell, it's almost $3.50 where I live right now.
You think that's bad? In the UK, we've been warned it could hit £1/litre. That's about £4.50 for a British gallon. Which is approximately $7.50-$8.

1 UK gallon = 1.2 US gallons. So our petrol is about twice as expensive as yours.

You think that's bad? In the UK, we've been warned it could hit £1/litre. That's about £4.50 for a British gallon. Which is approximately $7.50-$8.

1 UK gallon = 1.2 US gallons. So our petrol is about twice as expensive as yours.

See above.

You think that's bad? In the UK, we've been warned it could hit £1/litre. That's about £4.50 for a British gallon. Which is approximately $7.50-$8.

1 UK gallon = 1.2 US gallons. So our petrol is about twice as expensive as yours.
Yeah, but your country is the size of one of our states, where you gonna drive to that much anyway?






No, I'm not serious...

You think that's bad? In the UK, we've been warned it could hit £1/litre.
Its always over a Euro a litre here... so thats... 0.69 GBP (http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi)... 1.21 US (http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi).
That's about £4.50 for a British gallon. Which is approximately $7.50-$8.
The quid is almost always stronger (http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi)than the dollar. Are you sure on that, or do I have to do math?
1 UK gallon = 1.2 US gallons. So our petrol is about twice as expensive as yours.
That is most likely correct. However, you're price quoting is in British gallons, correct?

My car gets fourty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I like it.

For that Simpsons reference, you get a kiss on the crotch.

Yeah, but your country is the size of one of our states, where you gonna drive to that much anyway?






No, I'm not serious...

It's a shame really; America is the perfect country for extensive railway use. Alas.

For that Simpsons reference, you get a kiss on the crotch.

I must use Simpsons references. :)

For that Simpsons reference, you get a kiss on the crotch.
Did I misread or did Fass just praise an element of US culture? :eek:

Did I misread or did Fass just praise an element of US culture? :eek:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10757172&postcount=212 ;)

Did I misread or did Fass just praise an element of US culture? :eek:

Did I misread, or did Philosopy for some reason seem to think that I would never do such a thing?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10757172&postcount=212 ;)
Heh! Should he be worrying that he's got himself a cyber-stalker? ;)

Heh! Should he be worrying that he's got himself a cyber-stalker? ;)

No...erm... :S... I remember words such as "vernacular".

So, to actually contribute for second instead of make Simpsons quotes and size jokes, the argument seems to be the same old same old-

You can't do it all so you shouldn't do anything. Classic.

I've championed diesel here in the states, in my area many people have snatched up old Mercedes and VW diesels and some even run on bio-deisel and straight vegetable oil.

But the simple truth of the matter is that diesel fuel is not as readily available here in the states and only one manufacturer offers diesels in any capacity other than giant truck. Diesel cars are sold at roughly the same premium as a hybird and the hybrid uses the cheaper fuel. They get roughly equivelent mileage and roughly equivilant exhaust output (without the effects that apparantly they're finding about diesels that someone mentioned in my diesel thread a while back.)

If the number of people who buy these cars cut half thier emmisions in half as well as thier consumption that has a significant effect in the possitive. Is it a magic wand that will fix all our woes? No, it's stupid to expect it to be. It's also important to remember that diesel is no more of a magic wand.

Believe it or not, we took baby steps to get this far and like it our not it's going to take baby steps to get back. The hybrid is one of those baby steps. If you're holding out for the perfect sollution you haven't been paying attention to how the world functions. If no one bought Commador 64s we wouldn't be yammering to each other right now.

Did I misread, or did Philosopy for some reason seem to think that I would never do such a thing?
Oh no, I'm always knocked for six by your constant and undying praise for everything American. The thought of you saying anything remotely against the US is beyond my comprehension. :p

Meh, Hybrids are nothing more than a well-engineered Con.

Which is approximately $7.50-$8.
Close, it would be exactly 6.62 US dollars / US gallon.
Unless, you were using this, which is: 7.95 US dollars / UK gallon.
Sorry I doubted you.

Close, it would be exactly 6.62 US dollars / US gallon.
Unless, you were using this, which is: 7.95 US dollars / UK gallon.
Sorry I doubted you.
I was using UK gallon, and according to www.xe.com it's $7.88, although I was estimating.

Close, it would be exactly 6.62 US dollars / US gallon.
Unless, you were using this, which is: 7.95 US dollars / UK gallon.
Sorry I doubted you.

I refer you to my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10772006&postcount=54), which preceded I V Stalin's.

Meh, Hybrids are nothing more than a well-engineered Con.
Please state why you think hybrids are nothing more than a well-engineered con so we can all start banging away on our keyboards why we think you are right/wrong and much fun will be had by all.

See above.
You posted while I was typing...

Close, it would be exactly 6.62 US dollars / US gallon.
Unless, you were using this, which is: 7.95 US dollars / UK gallon.
Sorry I doubted you.
Hey, you doubted me yesterday with the cold, shiny shit. I'm getting used to it now. :p

You posted while I was typing...

I know :p .

I refer you to my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10772006&postcount=54), which preceded I V Stalin's.
I'm sorry, but I didn't notice.

I'm not going to believe quotes on prices of gasoline in the United Kindgom by strangers on the internet. Also, I don't like estimates. I must know the exact price, otherwise, I might not be able to pay the tax on my drive through lunch. I feel that if I get into the habit of estimating, I'm going to land a job where the margin of error is 1/100. That's not a whole lot of breathing room.
I was using UK gallon, and according to www.xe.com it's $7.88, although I was estimating.
I used the same bloody site! *shakes fist angrily*
Oh, wait, I rounded the exchange rates at the get-go. You do that? I shouldn't have done that.
Hey, you doubted me yesterday with the cold, shiny shit. I'm getting used to it now.
Well - uh - yeah, you got me there... *mutters*

You think that's bad? In the UK, we've been warned it could hit £1/litre. That's about £4.50 for a British gallon. Which is approximately $7.50-$8.

1 UK gallon = 1.2 US gallons. So our petrol is about twice as expensive as yours.

I fail to see why the price of gas is some kind of pissing contest. You are only making my point. Would you rather spend more or less money on gasoline?

I fail to see why the price of gas is some kind of pissing contest. You are only making my point. Would you rather spend more or less money on gasoline?
Yeah, but how long would it take the average person to reclaim the higher start up costs of a hybrid through savings at the pump?

If it's longer than the length of time they'll have the car, then it's a false economy.

What if we just design a car that runs purely on electricity, but charges on the move? Say we put some kinetic generators in the wheels... which constantly charge the battery as long as they're turning. That way no matter what speed you're going, the battery will be recharged at a rate proportional to the wheels' RPM. You'd never have to recharge the battery since it's always charged...Or, at the very least, you'd get way more range than the electric cars currently available, and no gas is consumed at all. Just a random thought.

I'm not going to believe quotes on prices of gasoline in the United Kindgom by strangers on the internet. Also, I don't like estimates. I must know the exact price, otherwise, I might not be able to pay the tax on my drive through lunch. I feel that if I get into the habit of estimating, I'm going to land a job where the margin of error is 1/100. That's not a whole lot of breathing room.

Yes, but my "estimates" are actually exact figures, but rounded. Consider that the difference between 6.62 and 6.6 is 0.02; this is makes the margin of "error" 1/331.

What if we just design a car that runs purely on electricity, but charges on the move? Say we put some kinetic generators in the wheels... which constantly charge the battery as long as they're turning. That way no matter what speed you're going, the battery will be recharged at a rate proportional to the wheels' RPM. You'd never have to recharge the battery since it's always charged...Or, at the very least, you'd get way more range than the electric cars currently available, and no gas is consumed at all. Just a random thought.

The problem with that is physics. Until we find a "perfect" conductor, you will always expend more energy than you generate.

I'm sorry, but I didn't notice.

I'm not going to believe quotes on prices of gasoline in the United Kindgom by strangers on the internet. Also, I don't like estimates. I must know the exact price, otherwise, I might not be able to pay the tax on my drive through lunch. I feel that if I get into the habit of estimating, I'm going to land a job where the margin of error is 1/100. That's not a whole lot of breathing room.
Ok, last I saw (which was about 6 hours ago), the price of unleaded petrol at the nearest petrol station to me was 95.9 pence per litre. Don't remember the price for diesel.

I used the same bloody site! *shakes fist angrily*
Fluctuations in the market. :)

Well - uh - yeah, you got me there... *mutters*
Aha!

The problem with that is physics. Until we find a "perfect" conductor, you will always expend more energy than you generate.

Personally, I found his idea risible.

Yeah, but how long would it take the average person to reclaim the higher start up costs of a hybrid through savings at the pump?

If it's longer than the length of time they'll have the car, then it's a false economy.

I traded a then two year old car for mine, they were roughly the same price... actually the "old" car was slightly more expensive, and much less fuel efficient. So, I now have a slightly smaller car payment, and a drastically smaller gasoline tab.

Personally, I found his idea risible.
It would work as long as you had at least one person pushing it.

Personally, I found his idea risible.
It was comparable to "I know how to solve world hunger; if starving people just ate their own excrement..."

What if we just design a car that runs purely on electricity, but charges on the move? Well solar is one way to do that. Currently solar could only supply a fraction of the power a four seater car would need, but if it becomes possible to one day mas produce these wonderous 50% efficent solar cells nano enthusists have promised us, then it might be possible to run your car entirely off solar if you don't drive too far each day. (Maybe not in England though.)

It was comparable to "I know how to solve world hunger; if starving people just ate their own excrement..."
Actually, it wasn't that far fetched an idea at all, and is one of the things that the Prius already does to a limited extent. It collects battery charge from several areas; the engine being one, but the energy from braking being another. At present, there is no way to generate the power exclusively from non-engine sources, but his idea that it might happen one day isn't that unreasonable.

Well solar is one way to do that. Currently solar could only supply a fraction of the power a four seater car would need, but if it becomes possible to one day mas produce these wonderous 50% efficent solar cells nano enthusists have promised us, then it might be possible to run your car entirely off solar if you don't drive too far each day. (Maybe not in England though.)
Ford was on its way to accomidating everyone's pet step by making a car that's a hybrid and a diesel and had solar panels (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10788292/).

But since Ford is dedicated to making cars that suck, it'll likely end up in the basement...

Yes, but my "estimates" are actually exact figures, but rounded. Consider that the difference between 6.62 and 6.6 is 0.02; this is makes the margin of "error" 1/331.
Give the measurements of the pipes that run to your toilet as rounded exact figures and see what happens. You'll end up purchasing a new pipe. Consider a wood plank going to a wall, windows, the length of electic cabel, list goes on and on. That's why I don't ever round, especially down. I transfered this idea to currency, where it doesn't work in quite the same way.
Ok, last I saw (which was about 6 hours ago), the price of unleaded petrol at the nearest petrol station to me was 95.9 pence per litre. Don't remember the price for diesel.
At the particular station I V Stalin looked at about six hours ago, the price of unleaded gasoline is:
4.36 GBP / UK gallon
6.36 USD / US gallon
I'm not sure on the math, I'm feeling tired.

Solar powered cars? Right. That'd work in the summers here, but in the winters, we'd be screwed. Let's find a more reliable alternative.

diesels in cars are so rareYEAH RIGHT!
I've seen so many of them in my area! I'm talking about VW TDIs and SmartCars.

BTW, we don't have a Toyota dealership in town. Even the next one 140km from here don't sell Prius.

Actually, it wasn't that far fetched an idea at all, and is one of the things that the Prius already does to a limited extent. It collects battery charge from several areas; the engine being one, but the energy from braking being another. At present, there is no way to generate the power exclusively from non-engine sources, but his idea that it might happen one day isn't that unreasonable.
If you developed a machine that expened less energy to push than it generates, wouldn't that be a perpetual motion machine? At that point, screw cars, we should be using that to light cities...

If you developed a machine that expened less energy to push than it generates, wouldn't that be a perpetual motion machine? At that point, screw cars, we should be using that to light cities...
I didn't say it was possible, just that his idea wasn't as absurd as it was made out to be. At least that's what I was trying to say.

I wouldn't bet on that.

Besides, electric cars are dangerous, because you can't hear them coming. And you always need something to charge the electrics, which requires...power generation. You're simply moving from a petrol engine to a coal power station.
*gasp* danger! Oh no! I'm sure that's the only reason they aren't all around the world today! I mean, it's not like people could look both ways or something. :rolleyes:

*gasp* danger! Oh no! I'm sure that's the only reason they aren't all around the world today! I mean, it's not like people could look both ways or something. :rolleyes:

Nice, pick one thing out of his/her argument and ignore the emphasis.

*gasp* danger! Oh no! I'm sure that's the only reason they aren't all around the world today! I mean, it's not like people could look both ways or something. :rolleyes:
Yes, tell that to the children who are the victims of car crashes. Because we all know that children always do the sensible thing.

Give the measurements of the pipes that run to your toilet as rounded exact figures and see what happens. You'll end up purchasing a new pipe. Consider a wood plank going to a wall, windows, the length of electic cabel, list goes on and on. That's why I don't ever round, especially down. I transfered this idea to currency, where it doesn't work in quite the same way.

Yes, but considering that the prices and exchange rates are continuously changing...you seem to have already pointed out that the first part of your post is irrelevant.

Yes, tell that to the children who are the victims of car crashes. Because we all know that children always do the sensible thing.

I'm sure that a car can't play sounds to alert children to its presence :rolleyes:. To be quite honest, I think I'd rather that Little Jonathan gets mown down by the evil electric car than the planet is destroyed.

All electric cars will come with patten recognition sensors that will detect pedestrians and cause a loudspeaker to scream, "GET OUT OF THE WAY OR YOU'LL BECOME A BLOODY BIG HOOD ORNAMENT, YOU WANKER!"

Yes, tell that to the children who are the victims of car crashes. Because we all know that children always do the sensible thing.
Lets ban motorized transportation all together then, and horses to, they run over people.

The "they're too quiet" argument ignores that we are adaptable relatively smart creatures. The car itself was dangerous (you used to be required to stop and get out of the car to check before going around corners), we adapted. Cars today are actually pretty damn quiet, this is not a resonable argument.

What if we just design a car that runs purely on electricity, but charges on the move? Say we put some kinetic generators in the wheels... which constantly charge the battery as long as they're turning. That way no matter what speed you're going, the battery will be recharged at a rate proportional to the wheels' RPM. You'd never have to recharge the battery since it's always charged...Or, at the very least, you'd get way more range than the electric cars currently available, and no gas is consumed at all. Just a random thought.


I asked a car expert about that idea not to long ago, he basically told me that it wouldn't work because the generators would actually degrade performance by slowing the wheels down, you'd have to produce even more power to move the car forwards which would shorten battery life even more. Remember, with current tech, batteries can only be recharged so often......

Yes, but considering that the prices and exchange rates are continuously changing...you seem to have already pointed out that the first part of your post is irrelevant.
Not "irrelevant" as you say it based on the reasons you gave. I have a much simpler answer. Since we don't have one-thousanth pieces of any currency, it kind of makes being precise pointless when dealing with smaller sums, doesn't it? It doesn't stop this site (http://www.xe.com/ucc/) for example from quoting exchange rates with over five decimals.

The "they're too quiet" argument ignores that we are adaptable relatively smart creatures. The car itself was dangerous (you used to be required to stop and get out of the car to check before going around corners), we adapted. Cars today are actually pretty damn quiet, this is not a resonable argument.
Well, it wasn't actually a central one at all, and while I don't disagree with anything you've said, I do still think that there are issues concerning the safety of a two tonne high speed silent object.

I'm sure that a car can't play sounds to alert children to its presence :rolleyes:. To be quite honest, I think I'd rather that Little Jonathan gets mown down by the evil electric car than the planet is destroyed.
Then I hope my children never live anywhere near you.

Then I hope my children never live anywhere near you.

You only need to worry if your child's called Little Jonathan. :)

You only need to worry if your child's called Little Jonathan. :)
I shall make a mental note never to call any of them that. :p

I wouldn't bet on that.

Besides, electric cars are dangerous, because you can't hear them coming. Kinda true though. But newer petro-based vehicles (minus pick-ups and Hummers®) are pretty darn quiet too. The sound produced by tires rolling on the road (gravel, paved, wet) are pretty much louder than the gas engine itself. So that means electric car are NOT dangerous.
And you always need something to charge the electrics, which requires...power generation. You're simply moving from a petrol engine to a coal power station.I doubt it. Ballard hydrogen powered vehicles are the way to go. :p

No, you can't expend less energy than is generated, but with 4 different generators, you'd get 4x the energy generated. And even if it didn't perfectly recycle all energy, it'd still increase the range of the electric car exponentially, to the point where it's much more than a fossil-fuel car.

Well, it wasn't actually a central one at all, and while I don't disagree with anything you've said, I do still think that there are issues concerning the safety of a two tonne high speed silent object.
Rubber on pavement still makes noise, more the faster you go.

Rubber on pavement still makes noise, more the faster you go.
Yes, but most children get killed in low speed crashes in residential areas.

There's a much easier solution to the problem, which is why I only mentioned it as a side issue (I don't think it has to be an issue): just fit the cars with loudspeaker thingy that produces an engine noise.

There's a much easier solution to the problem, which is why I only mentioned it as a side issue (I don't think it has to be an issue): just fit the cars with loudspeaker thingy that produces an engine noise.
That's being worked on. I don't know if cars are making noises right now or not, but it goes for the moped cars and the other quieter ones as well.

And you always need something to charge the electrics, which requires...power generation. You're simply moving from a petrol engine to a coal power station.
Which is good. Internal combustion engines are very inefficent at turning fuel into motive power compared to electric engines. If we burned petrol in power stations and used to power electrical cars and trucks we would require less than half the petrol we now use, which would be a huge saving in power use. This is why hybrids are so economical. They use petrol to generate electricity and then use that for motive power. To change every vechile to electric would require the U.S. to increase it's power generating capacity by about one fifth.

Yes, but most children get killed in low speed crashes in residential areas.That's why there's:

http://www.gov.chilliwack.bc.ca/main/pageimages/803/school-zone.gif

and

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/7674/signchanges59mx.gif

What? Drivers are stupid? They do look out for kids.

BTW, both signs mean (minus speed limits) "look out for children".

I don't understand this whole 'hydrogen fuel will save the planet' thing. How do you think we get the hydrogen in the first place? You have to extract it from something else (usually water)...and the extraction process creates just as much in the way of harmful emissions as a normal petrol car does. It's not saving the environment, it's just displacing the emissions.

And also, the problem is that it costs far more energy to extract hydrogen from water than what the hydrogen extracted will produce. Which leads into further, rather obvious, problems.

Or there is another way, but that's from oil. Which leads us to our original problem...

And also, the problem is that it costs far more energy to extract hydrogen from water than what the hydrogen extracted will produce. Which leads into further, rather obvious, problems.

Or there is another way, but that's from oil. Which leads us to our original problem...

We can create ethanol from sugar, or we can use that novel extraction process I showed I V Stalin yesterday. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/laser_hydrogen_020109-1.html

We can create ethanol from sugar, or we can use that novel extraction process I showed I V Stalin yesterday. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/laser_hydrogen_020109-1.html

Ah, but ethanol has less of an energy output when compared to oil. It helps, but it in the long run, it's not going to fix anything completely. Also, there is the need for vast farm country needed to grow enough ethanol for even a portion of our energy needs.

As for the space: That is just damn cool. Damn cool. Kudos.

Ah, but ethanol has less of an energy output when compared to oil. It helps, but it in the long run, it's not going to fix anything completely. Also, there is the need for vast farm country needed to grow enough ethanol for even a portion of our energy needs.

Compared to oil, yes. However, compared to gasoline, ethanol is more energy efficient; it has a positive EROEI of 1.6 for corn based and an EROEI of 8-10 for cellulosic/sugar based. Gasoline is around 0.78, which means it requires more energy to make it than it provides; ethanol is the better choice, both in terms of energy returned and environmental benefits.

Also, ethanol production generates other products that could be used in place of another manufacturing facility, resulting in marginal savings of
energy. There's some 36 million acres of previously farmed but now fallow land given to the USDA in exchange for subsidies; if ethanol drives up the price of corn, you can be sure the farmers will be working it again. Either that or they'll use it for cellulosic ethanol crops.

Once cellulosic ethanol is ramped up, we're set for a while. Not only does it require less land, but a lot of it can be grown on land that is currently useless for corn or other crops.

The methods of making ethanol are more complex then gas.

We can create ethanol from sugar, or we can use that novel extraction process I showed I V Stalin yesterday. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/laser_hydrogen_020109-1.html
Because that wouldn't have massive energy or cash overheads in the first place, would it? :p
It's possibly the least efficient form of energy production ever dreamt up.

The methods of making ethanol are more complex then gas.

More complexity isn't a problem if the process requires less energy; also, ethanol is relatively new in terms of large scale production so it has a lot of room for improvement. However, right now ethanol is an energy-positive process despite its complexity.

In addition, it's easier to build an ethanol plant because it produces less pollution and little or no waste; the waste it does produce can be used for other purpose or as a feedstock for more ethanol. As the technology progresses, ethanol will become an even better alternative to gasoline, in particular cellulosic ethanol.

All electric cars will come with patten recognition sensors that will detect pedestrians and cause a loudspeaker to scream, "GET OUT OF THE WAY OR YOU'LL BECOME A BLOODY BIG HOOD ORNAMENT, YOU WANKER!"
It could be because I've been drinking that I find this highly amusing, but I'm sigging this bastard.

I want a car that runs on NationStates posts. :)

More complexity isn't a problem if the process requires less energy; also, ethanol is relatively new in terms of large scale production so it has a lot of room for improvement. However, right now ethanol is an energy-positive process despite its complexity.

In addition, it's easier to build an ethanol plant because it produces less pollution and little or no waste; the waste it does produce can be used for other purpose or as a feedstock for more ethanol. As the technology progresses, ethanol will become an even better alternative to gasoline, in particular cellulosic ethanol.

It takes more energy actually then gas to do. >.>

I want a car that runs on NationStates posts. :)
Drive into the middle of the Sahara Desert...and we'll stop posting.

Drive into the middle of the Sahara Desert...and we'll stop posting.
That's a bit harsh. Where would the humour be in this forum without LG?

It takes more energy actually. >.>

No, actually ethanol is energy positive while gasoline is energy negative. 1.6 to 1 for ethanol and 0.74 to 1 for gasoline; if it's cellulosic that number is more like 8 or 10 to 1 for ethanol.

In Brazil, for example, the entire production process is self-sustaining, with no additional fossil fuel energy required; the sugar bagasse is used both to produce more ethanol and to power the plant, and ethanol is used to transport it to markets.

That's what will happen in the US, eventually, especially with the simultaneous rise of biodiesel and clean coal. Petroleum is already technologically obsolete, and it's rapidly losing its economic supremacy over alternatives.

No thanks. Hybrids are white elephants, not long term solutions.

Unless your going to live 200 years its a long term solution.

I looked this up and it's not as cool as it sounds, it's still cool, but just not as earthshattering-
Honda is currently winning the hybrid image war in Japan with the tiny Insight coupe, which manages 102 mpg in Japan's standard fuel cycle. The Prius is just a whisker behind at 99 mpg (35 km/l). But now comes news that Toyota is determined to hit 40 km/l (113 mpg) with the next Prius. Of course, these are Japanese fuel-economy figures, which will not translate directly to real-world driving conditions in the U.S.

Since the EPA rates the Insight (last I checked) at around 70 mpg, and in real life the little bugger I believe is getting closer to 50 or less, it'll be more likely that the new Prius will be in the 40s or 50s and not 100. But the keen part is here:
Toyota was rocked when news seeped out that Honda was planning a low price Fit hybrid for 2008, with the price differential just 200,000 yen (some $1,700) more than the regular gasoline version. So work on the next Prius has redoubled to slash R&D costs and halve Toyota's current hybrid differential of 500,000 yen (some $4,240) to compete.
The premium is coming down, which anyone who pays attention knew was going to happen.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=109981

Toyota are going down one particular route. It's only seen as a massive leap forwards America because diesels in cars are so rare; the current generation Prius doesn't do anything more spectacular than an average European diesel.

Hmmm, I wonder how good a hybrid biodiesel would function?

Hmmm, I wonder how good a hybrid biodiesel would function?
No one reads my posts. You're all bastards.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10772453&postcount=90

I think people spend a bit too much time argueing over EROEI. There is a simpler method. Does it make money? Does ethanol from sugar cane make money? Aparently yes. Brazil is selling ethanol from sugar cane overseas without subsidies from the government. Would ethanol from corn be made without subsides from the government. Not now. Maybe in the future with higher oil prices or cheaper production methods. The same for other alternative energy sources. What makes/saves money? Wind does. Solar hot water does. Photovoltaics don't at the moment. The second question to ask is could it easily make/save money in the future. For electric cars and advanced hybrids the answer seems pretty clearly yes. The hydrogen it's not so clear - where can I buy hydrogen in my neighborhood? Easier to use electricity.

I think people spend a bit too much time argueing over EROEI. There is a simpler method. Does it make money? Does ethanol from sugar cane make money? Aparently yes. Brazil is selling ethanol from sugar cane overseas without subsidies from the government. Would ethanol from corn be made without subsides from the government. Not now. .

You pretty much hit the nail on the head; firstly, EROEI doesn't really matter if the energy is coming from renewable sources or even coal. Secondly, all that matters is that the stuff is profitable to produce; ethanol and the other alternative fuels/energy are, so they will be produced.

Corn based ethanol isn't quite cost competitive with gasoline yet, but within a few years it will be since there are now guaranteed markets for the product and there's a huge push behind it from the public. Definitely by 2010, maybe earlier depending on market conditions.

IIRC, biodiesel is already competitive without subsidies as is cellulosic ethanol. Once large-scale cellulosic ethanol is up and running, we're set for our gasoline needs since the process is both extremely energy efficient and quite likely self-sustaining.

Couple of points about the thread.

First, there was something about a car's MPG being less than advertised. MPG will be reduced if people don't take care of their cars. Happens for anything, fuel efficient or not. Normal wear and tear applies.

That issue about cars generating the same amount of energy that they use -- physics says no. Every action uses energy, and everytime energy changes forms, heat is given off. The goal of energy is entropy, which is, more or less, the accumulation of heat. Energy, as far as I know does not return from heat. A car engine that is 35% efficient (which is to say, that 65% of the energy produced is dissipated as heat) is a good engine, as far as today's standards go. In order for a car to move, it has to change potential energy into kinetic energy, and that releases heat. As soon as one thing happens, the energy used has already gone out into heat. When braking (which is how a car's alternator already recharges the battery in a gasoline engine), some friction converts to electric charge, and helps recharge the battery. But once again, heat is created. There's just no way, regardless of the number of generators used, that the amount of energy from a car's motion could match the amount of energy that was needed to put it in motion.

The only perpetual energy things I know of involve the use of gravity. Such a a marble powered clock in the Boston Museum of Science.

As far as I know, diesel engines are no where near as clean burning as hybrids. I haven't researched this, but I know they smell much more potent at the tail pipe end.

I worry about the term "renewable energy sources." Put enough wind plants around, and the wind won't blow as hard, resulting in a climate change (sure, it'd take a LOT of wind plants, but it would happen). Enough solar panels and the earth will cool (since the energy from the sun is being used for other things than heating). Anything we do will have some effect that is likely undesirable.

The solution... People need to either invest in condoms (since I'm sure restricted breeding would not be easy to encourage [no one wants to stop doing the deed]), or the death rate needs to climb. Too many people using too much energy.

It's a shame really; America is the perfect country for extensive railway use. Alas.

THATS WHAT I ALWAYS SAY!

WTF are all these lumbering fraters (sp) trucks doing on the roads with everyone else? Have you ever driven between two at the same time? Scary. I don't want to share the road with star destroyers anymore.

THATS WHAT I ALWAYS SAY!

WTF are all these lumbering fraters (sp) trucks doing on the roads with everyone else? Have you ever driven between two at the same time? Scary. I don't want to share the road with star destroyers anymore.

Well, I've never been to America. I'm glad you agree with me.

I worry about the term "renewable energy sources." Put enough wind plants around, and the wind won't blow as hard, resulting in a climate change (sure, it'd take a LOT of wind plants, but it would happen). Enough solar panels and the earth will cool (since the energy from the sun is being used for other things than heating). Anything we do will have some effect that is likely undesirable.

Every single day, the Earth recieves more solar energy than has been produced by all of the buring of fossil fuels in human history. To put it in perspective, that's 146,000 years of fossil fuel consumption each and every year (400 years times 365, dating from 1600 or so as the beginning of large-scale industrial/residential/commercial fossil fuel use)

As long as the Earth is not evenly heated, there will be wind. The only way to stop it is to literally seal off the atmosphere and keep it at a constant temperature. By the time we're even close to using all of the available energy on Earth, we'll be able to build a Dyson sphere, mine asteroids, settle Mars and pursue interstellar travel...at the least.

Chicago's rail system is actually getting a huge renovation, since people are reverting to rail shipping. I think Noam Chomsky said it as well, the future mass transportation vessel = trains.

I know I was almost late for my flight home from LA because of a bloody mile long freight train stopped on the tracks right in front of me on Alameda... Damn trains are being used, that's for damn sure.

No one reads my posts. You're all bastards.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10772453&postcount=90

Holy hell. That thing would be able to drive cross-country style, through ALL major cities, AND you never would need to plug it in. You could live in it. All on the gasoline cost of a Big-mac with medium fries(Okay, maybe exageration, but still, it'd get nice gas mileage).

Of course, Ford has been sucking in the past few years, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon.

THATS WHAT I ALWAYS SAY!

WTF are all these lumbering fraters (sp) trucks doing on the roads with everyone else? Have you ever driven between two at the same time? Scary. I don't want to share the road with star destroyers anymore.

LOL Star destroyers. They will own you if they flip, but rails aren't popular like they used to be.

WTF are all these lumbering fraters (sp) trucks doing on the roads with everyone else? Have you ever driven between two at the same time? Scary. I don't want to share the road with star destroyers anymore.

Oh yeah; when I go down to Columbus there's a stretch of highway that's just like that. That's really a harrowing experience, especially in an Accord that's about 1/10 their size.

Every single day, the Earth recieves more solar energy than has been produced by all of the buring of fossil fuels in human history. To put it in perspective, that's 146,000 years of fossil fuel consumption each and every year (400 years times 365, dating from 1600 or so as the beginning of large-scale industrial/residential/commercial fossil fuel use)

As long as the Earth is not evenly heated, there will be wind. The only way to stop it is to literally seal off the atmosphere and keep it at a constant temperature. By the time we're even close to using all of the available energy on Earth, we'll be able to build a Dyson sphere, mine asteroids, settle Mars and pursue interstellar travel...at the least.


Yeah, but if you had like, a super solar panel... With mini-solar ninjas trapping the solar energy... THEN it'd be cold.

See, I was referring to super ninja infested solar panels.

With hippos as their pack animals.

Well, I've never been to America. I'm glad you agree with me.

Oh, it's great fun driving by them. You get to a point where their body is blocking all the wind, and you have a nice-turbulence free driving zone. Then, as soon as you get to the front of them, wind hits you from the side and front at the same time, almost jarring your car off the road. If you're going 60+ mph, you better hold on tight, it's going to be one hell of an interesting ride if you're not careful.

It was comparable to "I know how to solve world hunger; if starving people just ate their own excrement..."

I nearly spit out my coke, lol. And as for what the other person was saying about "a perfect conductor" thats like saying we need a perfect digestive system that doesn't digest, so the food will be good the second time round. The thing is the generated energy is used to do work, so as long as work is being done you will never brake even. However, this system would recapture wasted kinesthetic energy, and promote efficiency. I believe it is already in place in some cars however, recharging batteries, so no need to rush to the patent office.

LOL Star destroyers. They will own you if they flip, but rails aren't popular like they used to be.

Railways are going to be making a comeback. The waaaaave of the future! -moves hands like reading a banner-

Yeah, but if you had like, a super solar panel... With mini-solar ninjas trapping the solar energy... THEN it'd be cold.

See, I was referring to super ninja infested solar panels.
With hippos as their pack animals.

A Dyson sphere is a giant solar panel...built around the sun. :p

I was thinking more of Civilization 2, where you could nuke and pollute the planet to all hell and then magically fix global warming by building a bunch of solar plants.

I don't understand this whole 'hydrogen fuel will save the planet' thing. How do you think we get the hydrogen in the first place? You have to extract it from something else (usually water)...and the extraction process creates just as much in the way of harmful emissions as a normal petrol car does. It's not saving the environment, it's just displacing the emissions.

Really? Strange. I thought I learned in chemistry class that water was made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I don't particularly see any lethal emmissions there. Unless, of course, you see more oxygen in the atmosphere as a BAD thing. And before you say that the "refinement process" or whatever adds dangerous chemicals to the mix, I ask you to view this:

Only steam comes out of the tailpipe of a hydrogen combustion engine or fuel cell, steam that rejoins the planetary water cycle—there is no pollution and no net loss of resources. (http://www.ecotecture.com/library_eco/energy/hydrogen1b.html)

I don't see what all the bitching is about. Hybrid cars are a good thing. They are a step towards weening ourselves off the fossil fuel teet. No, they are not a solution. Far from it. But I would think you'd rather see more efficient cars being used then just sticking with the 3 mpg Hummers. And that argument that they are "too quiet" is a bunch of bullshit. If you don't look before you cross the road, your Forrest Gump ass deserves to be hit.

Fear the H2s x-x

I was thinking more of Civilization 2, where you could nuke and pollute the planet to all hell and then magically fix global warming by building a bunch of solar plants.
Still a great game though. Mind you, you were a bit buggered if you allowed global warming to happen and half your landscape turned to jungle.

Holy hell. That thing would be able to drive cross-country style, through ALL major cities, AND you never would need to plug it in. You could live in it. All on the gasoline cost of a Big-mac with medium fries(Okay, maybe exageration, but still, it'd get nice gas mileage).

Of course, Ford has been sucking in the past few years, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
Yeah, suck is job 1 for them-look at the last line of the article-
“We will wait until after the auto show to see what the customer reaction is, see how it resonates at the auto show,” said J Mays, Ford’s chief creative officer. “At that point, it will either find it’s way into a product development discussion or it’ll be put in the basement.”
I looked this car up and got the same article I got in January when I ran across it the first time. I believe it's quietly sitting in a basement now. I didn't see it on the list of alt fuel cars at the New York show.

Bastards, imagine after that thing is converted to straight veggie oil...

Railways are going to be making a comeback. The waaaaave of the future! -moves hands like reading a banner-

Ethanol plants are going to drive the building...they always choose sites with rail access (for obvious reasons). Hell, if you've got some money you might consider investing in some railroad and ethanol stocks.

No one reads my posts. You're all bastards.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10772453&postcount=90

For 65 mpg?

Really? Strange. I thought I learned in chemistry class that water was made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I don't particularly see any lethal emmissions there. Unless, of course, you see more oxygen in the atmosphere as a BAD thing. And before you say that the "refinement process" or whatever adds dangerous chemicals to the mix, I ask you to view this:

Only steam comes out of the tailpipe of a hydrogen combustion engine or fuel cell, steam that rejoins the planetary water cycle—there is no pollution and no net loss of resources. (http://www.ecotecture.com/library_eco/energy/hydrogen1b.html)

I don't see what all the bitching is about. Hybrid cars are a good thing. They are a step towards weening ourselves off the fossil fuel teet. No, they are not a solution. Far from it. But I would think you'd rather see more efficient cars being used then just sticking with the 3 mpg Hummers. And that argument that they are "too quiet" is a bunch of bullshit. If you don't look before you cross the road, your Forrest Gump ass deserves to be hit.
No, the point was that to create the hydrogen fuel cells you need to use extraction processes that create harmful emissions. You don't just point at the water and say 'Split, ya little fuckers! Split!'

Really? Strange. I thought I learned in chemistry class that water was made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I don't particularly see any lethal emmissions there. Unless, of course, you see more oxygen in the atmosphere as a BAD thing. And before you say that the "refinement process" or whatever adds dangerous chemicals to the mix, I ask you to view this:

Only steam comes out of the tailpipe of a hydrogen combustion engine or fuel cell, steam that rejoins the planetary water cycle—there is no pollution and no net loss of resources. (http://www.ecotecture.com/library_eco/energy/hydrogen1b.html)

I don't see what all the bitching is about. Hybrid cars are a good thing. They are a step towards weening ourselves off the fossil fuel teet. No, they are not a solution. Far from it. But I would think you'd rather see more efficient cars being used then just sticking with the 3 mpg Hummers. And that argument that they are "too quiet" is a bunch of bullshit. If you don't look before you cross the road, your Forrest Gump ass deserves to be hit.


He means to get the electricity to make the battery to produce the hydrogen cell to use in the cars. The energy is still fossil fuel or some other source at heart.

You don't just point at the water and say 'Split, ya little fuckers! Split!'
I always wondered what I was doing wrong.

I always wondered what I was doing wrong.
I'm glad I've demonstrated NS General to be an educational resource.

For 65 mpg?
That's around the EPA esteemations, so it goes right up there with the tiny Insight which is rated at 70mpg, and this thing is bigger and faster.

Though you'd think with diesel and solar they could have done better, but now it looks like they'll do nothing at all...

That's around the EPA esteemations, so it goes right up there with the tiny Insight which is rated at 70mpg, and this thing is bigger and faster.

Though you'd think with diesel and solar they could have done better, but now it looks like they'll do nothing at all...

Solar is not good for cars. Unreliable.

Solar is not good for cars. Unreliable.
Well, that's why it's one of three sources of power on the car we're talking about...
To catch up, this is the article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10788292/) that was in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10772453&postcount=90).

Solar is not good for cars. Unreliable.

Solar power will be one of several power sources for the car, and will also probably be stored in flow batteries for plug in hybrids when they become large scale.

Solar power will be one of several power sources for the car, and will also probably be stored in flow batteries for plug in hybrids when they become large scale.

I don't think we will ever see that day though.

I don't think we will ever see that day though.

"Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition." Dennis Gabor

"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible." - Simon Newcomb

If there's one thing human history has taught us, it's never to dismiss an idea as impossible.

Drive into the middle of the Sahara Desert...and we'll stop posting.

Hah! You can't stop posting! :p

That's a bit harsh. Where would the humour be in this forum without LG?

It's a hollow threat. The posts will flow longer and more reliably than the Nile River.

It's the most reliable source of renewable energy we have. The Sun is a close second. ;)

"Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition." Dennis Gabor

"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible." - Simon Newcomb

If there's one thing human history has taught us, it's never to dismiss an idea as impossible.

Apples and oranges.

Thing is we KNOW solar power is limited by LIGHT there is not enough energy in light to power a computer and everything in our car or even our car itself. Its a known fact.

Apples and oranges.

Thing is we KNOW solar power is limited by LIGHT there is not enough energy in light to power a computer and everything in our car or even our car itself. Its a known fact.
First thing, you're not recognizing solar's role as an assist in what we where talking about and not a primary source.

Second, this guy disagrees with you, from last page:
Every single day, the Earth recieves more solar energy than has been produced by all of the buring of fossil fuels in human history. To put it in perspective, that's 146,000 years of fossil fuel consumption each and every year (400 years times 365, dating from 1600 or so as the beginning of large-scale industrial/residential/commercial fossil fuel use)

Apples and oranges.

I could supply similar statements about power sources.

Thing is we KNOW solar power is limited by LIGHT there is not enough energy in light to power a computer and everything in our car or even our car itself. Its a known fact.

A workstation PC consumes no more than 174W per hour at full operation and only 35W when it is in sleep mode. There are plenty of solar panels that can do that task provided the surplus energy is stored for periods of less sunlight.

The only drawback is their cost, and that is going to fall rapidly as thin film solar panels begin to be adapted. Cars can be powered partially by solar as an alternative to plug ins or braking generated electricity; if you were to park in the sun they could charge while sedentary.

Solar power will primarily be used to generate electricity to charge things through conventional outlets.

Thing is we KNOW solar power is limited by LIGHT there is not enough energy in light to power a computer and everything in our car or even our car itself. Its a known fact.

Well, one of the biggest problems with putting solar cells on cars is making them different colours. I mean face it, a lot of car owners are pretty vain. They aren't going to want a car with the same coloured solar panels as everyone else.

And yeah, I know solar power is only likely to contribute to power. However if there was a miracle and 50% efficent cells became available, I could park my car in the Australian sun and charge it up and use it for short trips with no other power source. And yes the car would have to be completely covered with solar cells. Even the windows could be slightly photovoltaic.

First thing, you're not recognizing solar's role as an assist in what we where talking about and not a primary source.

Second, this guy disagrees with you, from last page:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Solar_land_area.png

Solar power systems installed in the areas defined by the dark disks could provide a little more than the world's current total primary energy demand (assuming a conversion efficiency of 8%). That is, all energy currently consumed, including heat, electricity, fossil fuels, etc., would be produced in the form of electricity by solar cells. The colors in the map show the local solar irradiance averaged over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites.



Sorry the photo is such a large file. I'm too lazy to convert it to jpg. :p

Well...that's nice, but the means of collecting all the solar energy is just not practical, even for an assist. Why not just use a direct heat-to-energy system?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Solar_land_area.png

Solar power systems installed in the areas defined by the dark disks could provide a little more than the world's current total primary energy demand (assuming a conversion efficiency of 8%). That is, all energy currently consumed, including heat, electricity, fossil fuels, etc., would be produced in the form of electricity by solar cells. The colors in the map show the local solar irradiance averaged over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites.



Sorry the photo is such a large file. I'm too lazy to convert it to jpg. :p
Damn...

Well...that's nice, but the means of collecting all the solar energy is just not practical, even for an assist. Why not just use a direct heat-to-energy system?
Okay okay-stop. Have you read the article about the car we where talking about? Please go to the start...

Okay okay-stop. Have you read the article about the car we where talking about? Please go to the start...

Uh yes. I was Post #27 on the first page to about the car. Though I'm not one for touting Solar around when it clearly would be more problematic up here then anything else.

Damn...

That's with current technology. Imagine if that were 20% efficiency. Or 40%!

:)

Well...that's nice, but the means of collecting all the solar energy is just not practical, even for an assist. Why not just use a direct heat-to-energy system?
Because heat-to-energy is fuckloads more time-consuming and ineffecient than solar?

Solar power systems installed in the areas defined by the dark disks could provide a little more than the world's current total primary energy demand

Looking at the map I think I'm going to need a loooooooonnnnng extension cord.

Because heat-to-energy is fuckloads more time-consuming and ineffecient than solar?

Its very efficent and is not time consuming.

http://www.autoblog.com/2005/12/09/bmw-turbosteamer-gets-hot-and-goes

It gives a 15% boost in efficency. I think that beats the solar outright. You could also put a system on the entire outside of the car and use the heat to get more energy from the photoelectric cells. Just like when you brake some cars charge the electric battery from it.

Looking at the map I think I'm going to need a loooooooonnnnng extension cord.

Actually at 20% efficiency, all we would need is every roof on Earth. :)

Which it really isn't too high. That's why I am against it for a better method that is much more powerful and is already being produced. ^-^

Uh yes. I was Post #27 on the first page to about the car. Though I'm not one for touting Solar around when it clearly would be more problematic up here then anything else.

No. Wrong post, wrong car.

No. Wrong post, wrong car.

The other car? Uh ya....read it. Direct heat-to-energy > solar.

I wish we had a good passenger train system in America. It make going places a lot easier and cheaper.

The other car? Uh ya....read it. Direct heat-to-energy > solar.
Alright, we'll start all over, just for you.

This is the car (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10788292/) and article.
Which is about this:
Taking concept cars to a new level — one that combines a diesel engine, electric motor and solar panels — Ford unveiled its Reflex sportscar this week at the North American Auto Show in Detroit.
There, now you're all caught up...

No, the point was that to create the hydrogen fuel cells you need to use extraction processes that create harmful emissions. You don't just point at the water and say 'Split, ya little fuckers! Split!'

Yes, and if you would have followed the link, and read the article, you would have discovered the wonderful concept of electrolysis, in which no emissions are created, except for oxygen. Basically you send a manmade lightning bolt through water, and presto! Hydrogen. With the unfortunate by-product of oxygen.


He means to get the electricity to make the battery to produce the hydrogen cell to use in the cars. The energy is still fossil fuel or some other source at heart.

Just as in the electricity needed to perform the electrolysis process, you do not have to use coal or another fossil fuel. Nuclear energy, or any of the "liberal treehugger" technologies such as hydroelectric, geologic, wind, and solar power can be used. I understand your point, since electrolysis does take a bit of energy with current technology, but (depending on your country), nuclear power is replacing your coal burning plants. Have you ever seen a coal plant? I haven't. I've seen several nuclear plants, a few hydroelectric plants, but no wood burning/coal/fossil fuel plants. (I live in Florida)

Alright, we'll start all over, just for you.

This is the car (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10788292/) and article.
Which is about this:

There, now you're all caught up...

Just shut up. I knew okay. Why else you think I was saying I want a direct heat to energy system. CAUSE IT IS BETTER THEN SOLAR.

Just as in the electricity needed to perform the electrolysis process, you do not have to use coal or another fossil fuel. Nuclear energy, or any of the "liberal treehugger" technologies such as hydroelectric, geologic, wind, and solar power can be used. I understand your point, since electrolysis does take a bit of energy with current technology, but (depending on your country), nuclear power is replacing your coal burning plants. Have you ever seen a coal plant? I haven't. I've seen several nuclear plants, a few hydroelectric plants, but no wood burning/coal/fossil fuel plants. (I live in Florida)

The point was that it still takes a source of energy and since most of our power comes from coal and gas, it will still pollute that amount and take that extra energy in the first place. That is why hybrids are not the solution to total problems as one member thought. (Which is why I backed up another post about this)

Peoples ineptness is just shocking.

Peoples ineptness is just shocking.

People being jackasses however, no longer shocks me. At least in General.


And as I already said, ANY attempt to ease/gradually stop our dependance on fossil fuels is a good thing. You act as if anyone who doesn't swear to NEVER use electricity at all and only walks everywhere is the exact same as... the guy washing the Hummer at 3 in the afternoon during summer while burning coal to power his AC (with the door open of course) and pouring old motor oil into the river.

The elitism and self-righteousness of the current environmentalist movement would make old school hippies cry.

I wish we had a good passenger train system in America. It make going places a lot easier and cheaper.

I think we'll see a lot more light-rail (you know, suburbs to city type/intracity) projects in the near future and perhaps a revitalization of some kind of streetcars...definitely expanded subways.

Alas, however, I think the costs of building a large-scale intercity passenger train system are still too much for the near future. I'd love it; it would be great to have a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati bullet train.

I think we'll see a lot more light-rail (you know, suburbs to city type/intracity) projects in the near future and perhaps a revitalization of some kind of streetcars...definitely expanded subways.

Alas, however, I think the costs of building a large-scale intercity passenger train system are still too much for the near future. I'd love it; it would be great to have a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati bullet train.

It would be great, though at a price tag of $340 million or more?

Just shut up. I knew okay. Why else you think I was saying I want a direct heat to energy system. CAUSE IT IS BETTER THEN SOLAR.
Yeah, that made total sense, the way you critisized solar as if it was a primary source instead of just a assisting charging system that you knew...and that suggestion-why it plays directly in as that would be just as easy as puting some solar panels on top of a car to assist charging even when the car isn't running. Gosh, why would I think you wheren't talking about the same car or topic?

But, ask and ye shall recieve (http://www.autoblog.com/2005/12/09/bmw-turbosteamer-gets-hot-and-goes/).

Seriously.....its a much better source then the solar when improving efficency. What is so hard to grasp about that?

Seriously.....its a much better source then the solar when improving efficency. What is so hard to grasp about that?
Lets start with-
The turbo-steamer is years away from being ready for production and I can buy solar panels at the store down the street...

Lets start with-
The turbo-steamer is years away from being ready for production and I can buy solar panels at the store down the street...

Why not just slap solar panels on your roof and charge the battery to your car via a cable?

Why not just slap solar panels on your roof and charge the battery to your car via a cable?
I'd only need to use the dashboard (http://www.siliconsolar.com/shop/catalog/Solar-Car-Battery-Charger-p-139.html).

I'd only need to use the dashboard (http://www.siliconsolar.com/shop/catalog/Solar-Car-Battery-Charger-p-139.html).

X-X......So we talking a few volts....that it?

X-X......So we talking a few volts....that it?
To charge my battery, yes. Which is what you asked.

To charge my battery, yes. Which is what you asked.

That's so little though, but whatever. What amount does it increase efficency by?

That's so little though, but whatever. What amount does it increase efficency by?
...

You really don't pay attention. Or read completely, or something. Maybe you're just a contrarian. Who knows. It's like having a conversation with someone who's on the phone.

Either way, it's too damn hard to draw you the map to keep up with the conversation.

...

You really don't pay attention. Or read completely, or something. Maybe you're just a contrarian. Who knows. It's like having a conversation with someone who's on the phone.

Either way, it's too damn hard to draw you the map to keep up with the conversation.

I don't mean to flame, but I think you don't know what you are even talking about. Solar panels on cars are pathetic, espically on the dashboard! I am the only one replying now and you are so inept you can't even read a stupid site to realize that we already have better systems out and that solar power shouldn't be the 3rd form of power on this car because it only provides minimal power.

I don't mean to flame, but I think you don't know what you are even talking about. Solar panels on cars are pathetic, espically on the dashboard! I am the only one replying now and you are so inept you can't even read a stupid site to realize that we already have better systems out and that solar power shouldn't be the 3rd form of power on this car because it only provides minimal power.
Okay man, I don't have the energy to track it all back for you or answer the non-sequitors or try to relate your comments to what's actually being talked about.

Okay man, I don't have the energy to track it all back for you or answer the non-sequitors or try to relate your comments to what's actually being talked about.

*sigh*

You know for the car how it utilizes solar power? Why not just use excess energy and heat from the engine to provide extra power and 20% more efficency. Solar cells are cars have been proven to provide only minimal power and if they are on the dashboard most will be covered by people with whatever they hold up there.

Now if you placed them on the side of the car the reflective properties from the photovoltic cells would blind other drivers. If you put them on the roof the same thing occurs, even putting them on the dash board means you have to angle them AWAY from the driver and make sure they don't give an annoying glare into the car infront of you?

It just isn't a smart idea on many cars.

I don't understand this whole 'hydrogen fuel will save the planet' thing. How do you think we get the hydrogen in the first place? You have to extract it from something else (usually water)...and the extraction process creates just as much in the way of harmful emissions as a normal petrol car does. It's not saving the environment, it's just displacing the emissions.
Sorry, but the point isn’t to save the planet, it’s to create another fuel source.

Sorry, but the point isn’t to save the planet, it’s to create another fuel source.

Hehe true. :)

So you're doing 94 miles to the gallon instead of 50? Or even 80-100, as some modern, small diesel cars can do?

How is this going to save the planet?

All it does it make people pat themselves on the back, convinced they've just saved the exotic white wingo bat of South Asia, and ignore the real issue; we need to find a totally different method of generating power, not simply make the oil reserves last as long as possible.It's a bridge technology, not a white elephant, and considering the time lag between technologies historically, it'll be around long enough to pay it off and then some is my guess.

*sigh*

You know for the car how it utilizes solar power? Why not just use excess energy and heat from the engine to provide extra power and 20% more efficency. Solar cells are cars have been proven to provide only minimal power and if they are on the dashboard most will be covered by people with whatever they hold up there.

Now if you placed them on the side of the car the reflective properties from the photovoltic cells would blind other drivers. If you put them on the roof the same thing occurs, even putting them on the dash board means you have to angle them AWAY from the driver and make sure they don't give an annoying glare into the car infront of you?

It just isn't a smart idea on many cars.
Because, as one of the links I gave you, that is years away. The solar cells on the Ford only exist to assist in charging the batteries, which they will do even when the car isn't running. As such, it doesn't need to generate a great deal, it's only a charge boost. You may just as well be critisizing the regenative braking for not being able to power the car. Also, what's to say that they couldn't be combined, which seems to be the excersize of that particular car.

If you had followed the link or read the article you'd know the role and placement of the cells on the Ford. If you read the other link you'd know what the dashboard charger is for.

Now I can try and defend your created situations but I'd rather spend time responding to posts that actually look into whats being said. Panels on the sides of cars? I mean, c'mon...