THE Hybrid Transportation Thread (merged)

JayHMorrison

It looks like Toyota is already planning the next generation of Hybrid that are even more efficient. You plug it in at night and it runs on the battery MOST of the time.
link

JayHMorrison · Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:42 pm Post subject:

It looks like DaimlerChrysler also has one in the works.
lin

MattSavinar · Elite Joined: May 09, 2004 Posts: 1990

It will do a lot of good as the natural gas crisis hits.

Matt

JayHMorrison · Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:16 pm Post subject:

slick50 · Tar Sands Joined: May 05, 2004 Posts: 85

Matt's point about natural gas is a good point, North America is in a severe natural gas crisis that is not about to go away. link, has lots of presentations over the years detailing the critical nature of oil and natural gas depletion.

Energy is a complex issue, but understandably given enough time for research. I have noticed that some who profess expertise in one area, can show their ignorance in another area. For instance I have read very good articles describing oil depletion and its seriousness, but in the same breath hydrogen will be offered as the solution to the problem. Joseph Romm's book, The Hype about Hydrogen, shows how the cost of hydrogen is $10-20/gallon. And there are many techical hurdles to overcome. 2 years ago when President Bush mentioned hydrogen in his State of the Union address I was impressed, until I investigated the facts.

Hybrids seem to be a great change, but they will only delay the inevitable of life without oil.

JayHMorrison · Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:52 pm Post subject:

slick50 · Tar Sands Joined: May 05, 2004 Posts: 85

Here's some date on Wind Power, currently wind supplies .3% of the United States electrical needs. No more than 6% by 2020 according to the American Wind Energy Association. Houston Chronicle, Jeff Donn AP, 061904.

MattSavinar · Elite Joined: May 09, 2004 Posts: 1990

One thing to keep in mind as far as the six percent from wind stat is the source: the Wind Association.

That's not to say it isn't necessarily accurate. But we need to look at
"Big Wind" with the same critical eye we look at "Big Oil" with.

In other words, I suspect that the six percent figure is highly optimistic.

Matt

JayHMorrison · Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:23 am Post subject:

dwenergyman · Tar Sands Joined: May 06, 2004 Posts: 52

EVs, PHEVs, Hybrids, and the Future of Driving
California has abolished its requirement that automakers develop Zero Emission Vehicles, and that could mean the end of the electric car. But not everybody wants to drive a gas-guzzling SUV, as confirmed by the rapidly growing market for hybrids, and people who leased EV-1s from General Motors and Rav-4s from Toyota are up in arms because their non-polluting vehicles are being taken away, scrapped or recycled. Is hydrogen power in your future? What about a plug-in hybrid that gets 67 miles to the gallon and goes to the gas station three or four times a year? Warren Olney speaks with a mechanical engineer about what's next in engine design, and with an angry EV driver, whose car is being taken away. link Mr. Green

Aaron · Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 8:39 am Post subject:

How would this technology, or similar methods, address industrial and military applications?

It's one thing to move an econobox 67 miles on a gallon of some exotic fuel, and quite another to move tons of goods.

Another point not spoken to is the safety factor. Ever seen one of these hybrids after a serious accident? A large portion of the economy of these vehicles is achieved through reductions in mass & aerodynamics. This mass reduction comes at the cost of overall structural integrity.

I have read that SUV's are the most deadly vehicle, per capita, on the road when involved in an accident... for the other driver. So how would millions of these lighter smaller cars fair, competing for road space with larger commercial vehicles?

What about the massive military use of oil? Are we going to ask our tank commanders to "plug in" their Tank at night to charge the battery? What about shipping? Or aviation? Or trains? Even assuming we can advance a combination of alternative technologies for some of these applications, what's the time table for accomplishing a significant portion of this task?

Timing is everything...

Rate World HC depletion + Rate World Growth - Rate Alternative Deployment = Human Misery Index
_________________
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.

Praise HawkMan

JayHMorrison · Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:04 am Post subject:

clv101 · Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:13 am Post subject:

Aaron · Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:45 am Post subject:

Excellent Points, I suppose the thrust of my post was to question just how "limited" of a solution we are looking at, and more important, how long? I would imagine it would be very difficult to accurately project a time line for replacing some percentage of personal transportation.

What about countries which lack the infrastructure to take advantage of these new solutions? Particularly countries which subsidize their fuel markets internally, like India for example. Do we expect new Chinese drivers to begin purchasing these new vehicles? These batteries are made from some pretty special materials. It's not like I can build one in my garage. Do we understand the material limitations of building MILLIONS of these?

I would also point out that my questions about the possible limits for supplying industrial & military needs are because if we are successful in reducing consumer demand through more efficient cars, won't the price of oil come down? And won't we therefore be making oil even more attractive for use in activities for which alternatives do not exist? Point being the more wee succeed in reducing our dependence on oil, the cheaper oil gets encouraging more use through expansion of activities which still rely on oil.

There is where timing comes in... Can we shift enough to alternatives quickly enough to prevent meltdowns in economies around the world? Switching from oil to alternates will be the first time we have gone from our current energy source, to a more expensive method. Every other switch has historically been because we discovered a cheaper way to do things.

Doctor Doom · Guest

The oil supply won't go to zero even 100 years from now. So I think a patchwork solution where we shift away from oil use piece-by-piece is probably what's going to happen.

Personal cars are a luxury and responsible for 40% of oil use in the US, so they will be the first things to go. If you assume global oil production is shrinking at 3% per year, and you make autos take the entire hit, that's about 6 years to reduce driving distances by 50%, or to increase average mpg from 20 to 40 mpg, or both.

Air travel is also a luxury; it probably can't get more efficient so we'll do less of it. Use of electronic telepresence will rise. Increasingly, long distance travel will be by train.

Home heating in the northeast will have to switch to more use of gas or electric power. Also, people may start to move to warmer climates, accellerating population declines in the northeast.

Long-distance freight will move from trucks to trains (they still use oil, but they're more energy-efficient).

Eventually certain agricultural or industrial uses will begin using biodiesel, or liquid fuels derived from coal.

Electric power generation will drop gas in favor of wind, nuclear, and coal. Increased use of solar in homes for generating electric power (PV) and water heating, as well as improving efficiency of appliances, will start to cut electric demand as the price rises.

And so on and so on. In 50 years, at 3% decline per year, we'll have to run on 20% of today's oil production. What oil is still being produced will be going exclusively to essential needs, including the military.