NationStates Jolt Archive

I hate hybrid cars. Well, not really… I really hate what they symbolize. Hybrids are a pacifier, something the auto and oil industries have fed us to quell any attempt at real change. Hybrid cars are a lie. Auto makers, and the lawmakers they’ve bought with the help of the oil industry, give them designations like ‘Partial Zero Emission Vehicles’. WTF? Partial? Either it’s zero emission or it’s not! The truth is Hybrids pollute just as bad as any other new car if you figure it honestly, which is by volume of fuel burned vs. volume of harmful emissions. The only reason they can argue Hybrids are cleaner is they burn less fuel per mile.
Now I’m not saying scrap the Hybrid idea. It’s long overdue. It’s about time the auto industry finally used technology that’s been around for half a century to help maximize fuel efficiency. The railroads have been using it since they phased out steam engines. What I hate is how Hybrids are being used as an excuse to cancel programs of real change. All the major automakers have pretty much killed or put on indefinite hold production of pure electric vehicles. (Spare me the ‘electricity comes from fossil fuels anyways’ argument, where I live virtually all of our electric power comes from hydroelectric or wind generators, electric cars around here would be truly off the fossil fuel teat.) We expand our highways, adding HOV (carpool) lanes, instead of improving public transportation. Then we give HOV exemptions to Hybrid cars, allowing those who buy into the program to continue driving alone with impunity. What genius thought of that? Aren’t we supposed to be trying to get cars off the road? The schmuck alone in his Prius is actually burning more fuel per person (and thus emitting more greenhouse gases per person) than a couple of guys in almost any small car on the road today. But he gets to use the HOV lane when he drives alone because he drives a ‘Partial Zero Emission Vehicle’. Newsflash, all the energy in a hybrid vehicle originates from fossil fuel, from the gasoline engine, there is no ‘zero emissions’, partial or otherwise. They just have a more efficient system of managing that energy.
Hybrids are just enough to keep us sucking on the oil industry teat. They give us the illusion of change, of improvement, while perpetuating the dependence on fossil fuels.

It's a step forward.

I sometimes drive one for work. Nice car. Good economy around town.

It's a step forward.

I sometimes drive one for work. Nice car. Good economy around town.It's another step forward down a path we should be stepping off of.

It's another step forward down a path we should be stepping off of.

Well said:cool:

*sniip*
What I hate is how Hybrids are being used as an excuse to cancel programs of real change. All the major automakers have pretty much killed or put on indefinite hold production of pure electric vehicles. (Spare me the ‘electricity comes from fossil fuels anyways’ argument, where I live virtually all of our electric power comes from hydroelectric or wind generators, electric cars around here would be truly off the fossil fuel teat.)


Well good for you and your country.

Now, look at this graph for sources of world electricity generation. I found it on WikiPedia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Electricity_production_in_the_World.PNG

I hate hybrid cars too. Not for what they are, but for what they symbolise.

Of course, it is slightly different from whatever conspiracy theory the OP has come up with: "Look at me, I've got a hybrid. I'm holier than thou!"

Come up with a plan to stop China from building two new coal powerstations every week, and we can start talking about cars. Until then, talk to the hand, cuz the face ain't listening.

You are forgetting the whole purpose of hybrid vehicles.
Just like the vast majority of all 'environmentally friendly' programs, it is not about any actual effect on the planet, but about making people feel good and say that they are contributing.

Nobody cares about actually doing anything good, they just want to feel better about themselves. Hybrids are a way of doing that - total lifecycle of a hybrid is just as damaging to the planet (if not more so due to the toxicity of the batteries), but it makes people feel better and allows them to smugly think they are better than someone else.

It's another step forward down a path we should be stepping off of.

Realistically, though, what other path is there? The technology simply hasn't been in place until around 10 years ago, and it's only been in the past 5 or so that there has been any economic impetus to really reduce oil consumption.

nothing is good enough for you Huh hippie ???

doesnt sound like you will be happy until we are biking to work.

Realistically, though, what other path is there? The technology simply hasn't been in place until around 10 years ago, and it's only been in the past 5 or so that there has been any economic impetus to really reduce oil consumption.

Who killed the electric car?

Who holds back the electric car?

Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?

WE DO! WE DO! (http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=V8uCl-OuJF4&feature=related)
Yeah, just stop listening after 45 seconds

Well good for you and your country.

Now, look at this graph for sources of world electricity generation. I found it on WikiPedia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Electricity_production_in_the_World.PNG

But hydro is renewable. and what is thermal? Geothermal? that is also renewable.

Yeah, just stop listening after 45 seconds

That is essentially what I did.

Who Killed the Electric Car? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8)

It is obviously biased towards the electric cars, but the technology was there then and is much better now. If only we could make the vehicles affordable we could limit one of the larger polluters and oil guzzlers. Not that I really know much about the subject.

Who killed the electric car?

Economics.

Economics.

Reflected-Sound-of-Underground-Spirits?

All I know is that sedans with less than 200 bhp should be banned from the passing lane. Also, SUVs and trucks.

Well good for you and your country.

Now, look at this graph for sources of world electricity generation. I found it on WikiPedia:
snip

I question the validity of this graph. It looks like some dolt drew it in MS paint using the freehand pencil tool.

I question the validity of this graph. It looks like some dolt drew it in MS paint using the freehand pencil tool.
Well then, find something that refutes it. Just because you don't like the tools doesn't mean the data is flawed.

As far as alternatives to hybrids, I'm still excited about ultracapacitors as a means of storing energy. The fuel cell is still viable, with Honda introducing a passenger car powered by a fuel cell.

I question the validity of this graph. It looks like some dolt drew it in MS paint using the freehand pencil tool.

It's fundamentally accurate. However, it's a linear graph rather than a logarithmic one, which means the relative growth of smaller sources of energy appear minor even though they might have a far higher rate of growth (especially renewables, which have literally exploded upwards in terms of capacity over the past few years). A logarithmic graph would better display the relative growth in different sectors.

Well then, find something that refutes it. Just because you don't like the tools doesn't mean the data is flawed.

As far as alternatives to hybrids, I'm still excited about ultracapacitors as a means of storing energy. The fuel cell is still viable, with Honda introducing a passenger car powered by a fuel cell.

I'm really excited about the whole fuel cell thing. It seems an ideal alternative in that performance will not have to be sacrificed.

I'm really excited about the whole fuel cell thing. It seems an ideal alternative in that performance will not have to be sacrificed.

I personally feel it will go hybrids-electric-fuel cells, because the electric car infrastructure will be ideal for the construction of a hydrogen infrastructure to support the technically-superior fuel cells. So, we'd probably see commercial fuel cell technology in another decade or so depending on market conditions (obviously, if oil prices fall the demand for alternatives will be correspondingly reduced).

I personally feel it will go hybrids-electric-fuel cells, because the electric car infrastructure will be ideal for the construction of a hydrogen infrastructure to support the technically-superior fuel cells. So, we'd probably see commercial fuel cell technology in another decade or so depending on market conditions (obviously, if oil prices fall the demand for alternatives will be correspondingly reduced).

Probably, though I can't say I've been overwhelmed by what electric cars can offer in terms of range/performance. That tesla car looks quite nice, but it doesn't have the sort of endurance I need.

I also heard that there are problems with respect to recharging electric cars using the current power grid. How true that is I don't know. But if it is the case, it seems to me that we should just go all in on building a hydrogen infrastructure, rather than upgrading the electric grid and then putting the hydrogen capacity. Especially if the current system is already capable of being adapted to hydrogen in the first place.

It's fundamentally accurate. However, it's a linear graph rather than a logarithmic one, which means the relative growth of smaller sources of energy appear minor even though they might have a far higher rate of growth (especially renewables, which have literally exploded upwards in terms of capacity over the past few years). A logarithmic graph would better display the relative growth in different sectors.

Yes. Plus, the type of fuel currently used in cars is 100% fossil fuel. If everyone in the world switched to electric cars there would still be less burning of fossil fuel even though not all electricity comes from a renewable resource.

Yes. Plus, the type of fuel currently used in cars is 100% fossil fuel. If everyone in the world switched to electric cars there would still be less burning of fossil fuel even though not all electricity comes from a renewable resource.
That's a big maybe. All that extra electricity needs to come from somewhere. The easiest way I can think of to boost the generation of electricity is to pour on the 'coal' at a traditional gas, oil, coal fired plant.

That's a big maybe. All that extra electricity needs to come from somewhere. The easiest way I can think of to boost the generation of electricity is to pour on the 'coal' at a traditional gas, oil, coal fired plant.

However, the main benefit of this would be that it is a point source pollution instead of spread all over. This makes it easier to clean, filter, and regulate.
Also, the power doesn't have to be generated by fossil fuels, whereas cars right now can otherwise only be feasibly run on oil.

However, the main benefit of this would be that it is a point source pollution instead of spread all over. This makes it easier to clean, filter, and regulate.
Also, the power doesn't have to be generated by fossil fuels, whereas cars right now can otherwise only be feasibly run on oil.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying it's going to be a bad thing if we were to switch to electric/hydrogen vehicles. I just think we need to remember that energy doesn't come from nowhere. It's that whole damn conservation thing.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying it's going to be a bad thing if we were to switch to electric/hydrogen vehicles. I just think we need to remember that energy doesn't come from nowhere. It's that whole damn conservation thing.

Yea. Which is the main issue with hydrogen. Takes more energy to get it out of the water and such.(or so I hear)

I'm not saying it's going to be a bad thing if we were to switch to electric/hydrogen vehicles.
I am.

People talk about the Tesla Roadster as if it hadn't been tried before. The concept doesn't work: 100% torque from stand-still is only good for one thing, and that's burning rubber. So what you get is electronics to try and restore a bit of traction.

But a sports car isn't supposed to be about electronics, it's supposed to be about driving. In effect a computer drives the Tesla and you're a passenger.

If people want an electric car to just get from A to B, good on them. It'll probably work out cheaper for them. I on the other hand want more than that, and I prefer that there be no legal barriers put in my way.

Yea. Which is the main issue with hydrogen. Takes more energy to get it out of the water and such.(or so I hear)
When we hit on burning hydrocarbons as a way to provide energy, we really hit the jackpot in terms of BTUs per unit mass. Is there anything that is as cheap?

Of course, it does take energy to produce hydrocarbon products, too. We'll just have to suck it up and pay the extra if we're serious about switching to different fuel sources.

Right now, I'm going to buy some 55 gallon drums of corn oil and cut my diesel with it. I might get the next 25 gallon fill-up down to $80, instead of the current $105, or so.

I am.

People talk about the Tesla Roadster as if it hadn't been tried before. The concept doesn't work: 100% torque from stand-still is only good for one thing, and that's burning rubber. So what you get is electronics to try and restore a bit of traction.

But a sports car isn't supposed to be about electronics, it's supposed to be about driving. In effect a computer drives the Tesla and you're a passenger.

If people want an electric car to just get from A to B, good on them. It'll probably work out cheaper for them. I on the other hand want more than that, and I prefer that there be no legal barriers put in my way.
I would never support a law that made gas burning engines illegal. I've got too many fond memories (see Nostalgia thread) of tinkering with my car, just to shave a few tenths off of a quarter mile time. Filling up the Charger with 20 gallons of gas at a quarter a gallon was great. Driving the thing on the local 'dragstrip' was even better.

But a sports car isn't supposed to be about electronics, it's supposed to be about driving. In effect a computer drives the Tesla and you're a passenger.

How exactly?

If people want an electric car to just get from A to B, good on them. It'll probably work out cheaper for them. I on the other hand want more than that, and I prefer that there be no legal barriers put in my way.
What more do you get out of a transportation vehicle?

I am.

People talk about the Tesla Roadster as if it hadn't been tried before. The concept doesn't work: 100% torque from stand-still is only good for one thing, and that's burning rubber. So what you get is electronics to try and restore a bit of traction.

But a sports car isn't supposed to be about electronics, it's supposed to be about driving. In effect a computer drives the Tesla and you're a passenger.

Not really. Rather, as you describe it, the computer is used to make the traction simulate that of a combustion engine. Surely, once the driver has gotten used to the interference, they still have complete control over how much to accelerate or decelerate, what speed to drive, and the steering of the car.

For your nightmare scenario, read on ...

If people want an electric car to just get from A to B, good on them. It'll probably work out cheaper for them. I on the other hand want more than that, and I prefer that there be no legal barriers put in my way.

The vast majority of driving is to get from A to B. When cars are automated enough to steer, control power and navigate, there will be a transition period with a heated debate between traditionalists ("drivers") and A-to-Bers. Drivers will want roads like they are now, while everyone else will see utility in cars driving faster, closer together, and under network control.

Then it will become apparent that automated cars are safer, and that the greatest risk posed to anyone riding a car are human drivers. The saving of human lives will win that one, then "sports" cars, cars under the control of a human, will be banned from the public roads.

Sorry to paint such a depressing picture, but on the bright side I see the debate phase being about ten years from now, and the banning of human-driven cars about twenty-five. And you'll still be able to go "sports" driving on private property.

People talk about the Tesla Roadster as if it hadn't been tried before. The concept doesn't work: 100% torque from stand-still is only good for one thing, and that's burning rubber. So what you get is electronics to try and restore a bit of traction.


That's not quite true. It's just an extremely flat torque curve compared to an internal combustion engine is all.

Granted, if you enjoy changing gears, it's a bit of a bummer, but it doesn't make it fail as a vehicle.

If people want an electric car to just get from A to B, good on them. It'll probably work out cheaper for them. I on the other hand want more than that, and I prefer that there be no legal barriers put in my way.

Realistically, I'd say 99% of the gasoline and diesel consumed in LDVs is entirely for that purpose. The amounts used in performance vehicles are comparatively negligible; I doubt it's even significant enough to impact demand were all of th

Realistically, I'd say 99% of the gasoline and diesel consumed in LDVs is entirely for that purpose. The amounts used in performance vehicles are comparatively negligible; I doubt it's even significant enough to impact demand were all of th

Oh no! Vetalia was silenced by government agents!

*flees*

But hydro is renewable. and what is thermal? Geothermal? that is also renewable.

Geothermal is included in the green line at the bottom. What surprised me was how much power comes from nuclear, I thought it was only a few percent globally.

Thermal is coal and gas. I mentioned, didn't I, that the graph came from an article in WikiPedia? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation)

===========

I question the validity of this graph. It looks like some dolt drew it in MS paint using the freehand pencil tool.

It shows quite clearly that (a) electricity demand is going up more than linearly even without transferring oil usage to the electric grid, (b) most of that increase in gross terms is from burning fossil fuels, and (c) that Sustainables, while growing fast, are coming off a virtually zero base.

The graph just seemed like the simplest way to make the point. According to WikiPedia, the info comes from here, the US DOE. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electricitygeneration.html)

===========

Yes. Plus, the type of fuel currently used in cars is 100% fossil fuel. If everyone in the world switched to electric cars there would still be less burning of fossil fuel even though not all electricity comes from a renewable resource.

Well, electricity transmission (let alone storage) is not 100% efficient. But nor is the energy from petrol. I'm guessing that whether it's an improvement or not probably varies from country to country but I'll look at it more closely now.