Posted on 10/19/2004 12:51:28 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
WildTurkey, it is my understanding that electric motors provide higher torque at lower RPMs, making them well-suited to start/stop, low speed and inclement weather driving.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Unfortunately, the screwball Kommie-Libs won't allow this either. They put the whole problem in a box and won't allow any way out.
This hydrogen 'plan' is neither simple nor fool-proof.
But, lucky for us, John Kerry probably has a plan...
Yes the difference in price in let's say a Toyota Prius vs. Toyoto Echo is almost double....but so is the MPG.
Gas cars don't get the MPG's touted either...so that's a wash.
Your point about buying a used Hybrid is well taken.
In Toyota's case, The original Prius battery has in excess of a 180,000 mile shelf life. In reality, who keeps a car 180,000 miles ?
So far, Toyota hasn't repalced a single battery pack because of wear & tear.
The cost of battery technology has already been reduce 36%since the Prius hit the market. and it will continue to go down.
Trading an Echo for Prius doesn't make much sense, but
trading my 2003 Escape for a Prius, purely based on cost to operate, makes a whole lot of sense.
Since we probably will see $3.00 a gallon before we see $1.50 a gallon, these Hybrid's are starting to look better to me all the time.
Thanx for getting me to thinking
BTW, I understand ethanol is another net energy loser (i.e., it takes more energy to produce a unit of ethanol than the ethanol itself contains).
Today, with minor modification, cars can be made to run on propane, so making them run on hydrogen should not be that difficult. The problem, as I understand it, is that carrying around a tank of hydrogen is like toting a bomb. Gas stations would be real big bombs.
Here's a little experiment for you. Take a cup and fill it with gas. Light a match. Throw match into cup. Watch match go out. Happens every time.
Odd that whenever the weenies start harping on 'we need alternate energy sources' nuclear is off the table. Unless of course it's France, then the weenies look the other way.
Nuclear holds more promise than the other technologies combined. Heck even Iran wants to convert to nuclear energy. You don't hear the weenies complaining about that, now do you?
People bring up the efficiency argument all the time. The problem is, it's irrelevant. Hydrogen separation can be performed using a variety of energy sources, including clean, renewable sources. As long as we're not constrained by capacity or pollution issues, it doesn't matter if it's inefficient.
Now I know that's a big "as long as". But that's where the research comes in. For example, there has been considerable development in harnessing solar energy to directly drive the electrolysis process (as opposed to converting it to electricity first).
For about the ninetieth time, hybrid cars are not the same thing are electric cars. Hybrid cars get their power from the same place as all others - gasoline.
Oh, the humanity !
If/when the net cost of ownerhsip and operation of the alternatives to the petroleum powered internal combustion vehicle are lower than conventional vehicles this will happen with or without government's help. Tax incentives are only a poorly hidden cost and do not diminish net costs in the long run.
See post 49. Furthermore, you can't discount the distribution aspect. In other words, even if there is a net cost in the creation of ethanol or hydrogen, what you've produced has value because it can be transported to customers who want it.
I'm sure it requires more energy to create petroleum than we get by burning it as well. We don't see that difference, though, because the energy was supplied via natural processes. The only difference with ethanol and hydrogen is that the energy source is man-made (or man-harnessed).
If you must have a Hybrid, LEASE ONE!
It's not so much the combustibility that's the problem, it's the pressure. The pressure required to condense enough hydrogen to drive to the grocery store and back (and yet fit in the truck of your car) is enormous.
Combine the energy required to compress the hydrogen along with the initial energy required to separate it from whatever it's bonded to, and H2 is a big, big loser.
It would be cheaper (in dollars and lives lost) to just invade Iran.
Your understanding on the torque curve is correct. However, in inclement weather (wet, snowy or icy roads) torque is NOT your friend. Before traction control and particularly with manual transmissions, it was recommended to NOT use first gear inorder to minimize torque and wheelspin.
Thanks for the correction!
True. But they are not the same as gasoline cars, either. They use the torque characteristics of the electric engine for low speed, stop and go driving advantage, shut off the gas engine when not needed and regeneration from coasting and braking to assist (mainly urban driving) mileage.
In actual, not EPA rated use, hybrids are significantly less fuel efficient than advertised. A friend of mine bought a Civic Hybrid shortly after I bought my Volkswagen TDI. He told me his actual mileage with his Hybrid is approximately 38 mpg. My turbo diesel gets actual 47 (46 when using AC) and the diesel engine has a significantly longer life span than the hybrid (diesel vs. gas).
I researched this when making my last purchase. The Hybrids may become as good as their hype some time, but currently the biggest advantage is that you can feel just like Robin Williams, and pay more for a less fuel efficient vehicle. The primary advantage of the Hybrid is it's use of a subcompact car frame and the light weight. A similar vehicle with a gas or diesel engine will be less complex, perform better and have a longer life span.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.