Posted on 08/14/2005 2:26:28 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
CORTE MADERA, Calif. - Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.
It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80 miles-per-gallon secret a stack of 18 brick-size batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.
Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.
Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb all for about a quarter.
He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg.
They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign-policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.
And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too.
So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them.
"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy."
The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg.
"The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference."
Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power.
Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price.
But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones.
Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message.
Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former CIA Director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence.
Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.
"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.
DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available.
Oh! You also seem to own 228 of these cheap little batteries, not 150. $4,000 sounds like a good replacement cost to me.
Yes. NMH cells. Fry's.
And you may have looked up the 2006 Prius, not the 2003.
I couldn't tell you. I suppose it depends on the type of battery. What I do know, though, is the additional weight of those extra batteries (regardless of the type) will make the car use more joules per mile regardless of whether or not those joules come from the pump or the plug.
IMHO all the fuel problems we have are man made obstacles.
Not all of them. A lot of the economic problems for sure, but not all. Some problems are simply systemic to our choices in fuels. It's difficult to see how eliminating restrictions on refineries and such will reduce pollution from burning fossil fuels.
On the other hand, any alternative fuel that expends more energy to produce than the fuel it provides is destined to fail.
Naturally. However, not all "alternative" fuels lose energy. Many produce a lot more energy than they consume to produce them. But again, many alternative fuels also suffer from artificially imposed restrictions.
Every fuel has advantages and disadvantages. There is no perfect energy source.
"Nearly 500 Australians had bought the hybrid sedan by September 2003"
I say the article can't be 2 years old, but I couldn't find an exact date.
Yes, I was using the current model.
But not everyone lives near enough to a source of hydro-electricity. And we don't have enough hydro capacity to power the electric needs of this country, especially if large numbers of people start using electricity to power their cars. Even if we had enough suitable sites to build more dams, what about the environmental and economic impact of building them. Hydroelectric dams are not a free ride. There is no perfect energy source.
The beauty of electricity is that we don't HAVE to burn fossil fuels to get it.
And the ugliness of electricity is that it's very difficult and inefficient to store. It's not a very good energy source for powering a vehicle. There are better alternative renewable vehicle fuels.
building more nuclear reactors and freeing ourselves from consumable dependancy
Nuclear reactors consume fuel and produce waste too. They produce a lot of energy for the amount of fuel they use and waste they generate, but that waste is particularly nasty and unpleasant. Again, there is no perfect energy source.
Just curious, what alternative fuels produce far more energy? Hydrogen fuel still relies on coal and petroleum due to their high concentration of hydrogen. Water is not a viable source. The hydrogen isn't dense enough. Solar and wind take up vast amounts of land space and cause other environment problems. Ethanol uses more fuel to produce than it generates. Nuclear is the only option I can think of and I've been thinking about non-petroleum related energy since the 1970's.
If a person could figure out a cheap, efficient, small footprint, powerful fuel resource they would make trillions of dollars. I want to be that guy. Unfortunately the best I could come up with it rigging exercise equipment up to the power grid. I had an idea for perpetual motion once. That is until I worked the math. Personal nuke stations have tickled my fancy from time to time. Too much sci-fi I guess.
Don't think I'm too far out of touch, here's today's price:
1-19.05000
10-17.14500
100-15.24000
500-11.43000
1500-10.13460
4800-9.71550
Manufacturer Part Number HHR-650DA08
Description BATTERY NIMH 1.2V 6500MAH W/TAB
Fuel is not the biggest expense in owning a car, just the most prominent. Also the lighter a car the more life threatening the injuries can be in a crash. At some point higher mpg results in higher total cost.
Hey, where did you go to school? I think we may be class mates ;)
Well, I would if it made sense. I don't accept your premise that its more efficient, nor necessarily cleaner (depending on the source of creating electricity).
But what can't be disputed is this, getting energy from a different source and adding it to the energy required doesn't increase the mpg. Why not just call a wrecker and have himself towed to work? Then he would be getting even better mileage, right?
Thanks for the breakdown. Do you think a Sterling engine in a car would be better, as they convert less of the energy into wasted heat?
Well said!
And the Ethanol corrupts the gasoline it's added to so that each gallon produces poorer mileage than pure gasoline.
These people don't factor in the obvious!
Thank you! I was afraid I was spinning my wheels!
John
True story: In 1988, I bought my first new car - a Honda CFX-HF (stick shift). I CONSISTENTLY got 60 mpg on the highway - made a killing on business milage (well, not counting wear and tear on the vehicle). I traded it in 3 years later on a larger vehicle, but I kid you not I got gas milage like that.
I know that emission control systems are what decrease the milage these days, but it seems to me that the drop in milage is probably not worth the decreased emissions. Just my uneducate opinion, however...
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.