Post by: Silver Bullet on August 18, 2005, 05:41:21 PM
To summarize the writers knocks:
1) A Prius owner would have to drive at least 66,500 miles annually for five straight years ... to equal the costs of operating a cheaper, conventional Corolla.
2) Battery pack replacements for Toyota hybrids are $5300; for the Ford Excape hybird, $7200.
3) Nobody has figured out how and where the dead batteries will be disposed. They are in fact self-contained toxic waste dumps.
4) A number of EMT and fire crews have announced that they will refuse to rescue victims trapped in such vehicles fearing electrocution or acid burns.
5) There is no real advantage to owning a hybrid in terms of fuel mileage when the extra cost of the vehicle is added in. Period. Do the math, according to a dealer of several brands of hybrids.
6) The truth is, although the Prius is selling like mad, hybrid Honda Accords and Civics are backed up on dealer lots. Why ? Because they look like conventional Hondas, whereas the Prius has unique styling. It has an iconic status among the Greenies. Meaning, the greenies are more concerned with appearing green than actually being green.
Your mileage may vary.
Post by: garyk/nm on August 18, 2005, 05:47:23 PM
Quote
Your mileage may vary.
Absolutely, positively, the best use of this term in the history of the world!!!
Post by: brimic on August 18, 2005, 05:48:02 PM
The car says "I'm socially and environmentally conscious, but I have no brain"
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 18, 2005, 05:55:18 PM
Quote
Absolutely, positively, the best use of this term in the history of the world!!!
Thank you. That was me, not the columnist. 
Post by: Ben on August 18, 2005, 05:58:11 PM
Quote
Meaning, the greenies are more concerned with appearing green than actually being green.
All too true. If someone wants to buy a hybrid because it's cool technology, or just looks cool to them, or whatever -- more power to them, whatever floats your boat, etc., etc. But please don't try and convince me you're doing it to "save the Earth." Too many enviros have no idea where different forms of energy come from. They can't see or smell the electricity from the batteries, so batteries must be good. Nevermind the toxic chemical and heavy metal byproducts involved in manufacture and disposal. Hybrid owners will simply end up making nice little concentrated pollution packages in the swapped out battery packs versus smaller, constant amounts of pollution created by fossil fuels (which hybrids are still creating when the gasoline engine kicks in). But hey, as long as those toxic batteries get shipped to Nevada, who cares, right? NIMBY.
Post by: griz on August 18, 2005, 06:05:29 PM
Post by: jefnvk on August 18, 2005, 07:52:56 PM
Quote
I was figuring gas at $2.50 (cut me some slack, it was a few months ago and that sounded high at the time)
Whaddya mean? Gas just broke $2.50 here.My Cavalier ran just over $10,000 brand new. Gets 35+ city, 45 or so highway (depending how many police are out
). Honestly, I can't see much money savings by going to the environut car.If anything, I'd go to the VW diesel.
Post by: DigMe on August 18, 2005, 08:15:25 PM
Quote
A number of EMT and fire crews have announced that they will refuse to rescue victims trapped in such vehicles fearing electrocution or acid burns.
I agree with all the other points and I've heard some of them before but I'd like to see a source on that one. Sounds dubious to me. In fact it sounds just downright ridiculous. "have announced that they will refuse to rescue victims?!" Doubtful.brad cook
Post by: Preacherman on August 18, 2005, 08:34:20 PM
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 19, 2005, 02:21:10 AM
Quote from: DigMe
Quote
A number of EMT and fire crews have announced that they will refuse to rescue victims trapped in such vehicles fearing electrocution or acid burns.
I agree with all the other points and I've heard some of them before but I'd like to see a source on that one. Sounds dubious to me. In fact it sounds just downright ridiculous. "have announced that they will refuse to rescue victims?!" Doubtful.brad cook
My source for the article is Car and Driver , September 2005, page 26, "Brock Yates. Hybrid issues and a rising star at Indy," column 2, next-to-last paragraph.
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 19, 2005, 02:46:36 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on August 19, 2005, 03:00:21 AM
Quote from: DigMe
Quote
A number of EMT and fire crews have announced that they will refuse to rescue victims trapped in such vehicles fearing electrocution or acid burns.
I agree with all the other points and I've heard some of them before but I'd like to see a source on that one. Sounds dubious to me. In fact it sounds just downright ridiculous. "have announced that they will refuse to rescue victims?!" Doubtful.brad cook
Chris
Post by: Guest on August 19, 2005, 03:38:34 AM
(hideous HIDEOUS car though)
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 19, 2005, 03:44:02 AM
You couldnt beat the economics, though. Under $5000 new, and 55MPG on the highway.
Quote
First responders were getting electricuted when hybrids first hit the road.
By "electrocuted", you mean dead, or just buzzed ? Jeez, I never heard about that. What kind of voltage are these cars developing ?
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 19, 2005, 03:51:12 AM
However, one of the drawbacks was also a safety factor. In the event of a crash, you wouldnt want 100 pound wheel spinning at 10,000 RPM (just making up numbers) running around wild. It would be something like the Tasmanian Devil on the loose.
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 19, 2005, 04:06:51 AM
Quote
You couldnt beat the economics, though. Under $5000 new, and 55MPG on the highway.
Actually, you can beat the economics if youre willing to think outside the box and get a scooter.
Post by: Zundfolge on August 19, 2005, 04:29:34 AM
Hydrogen baby, Hydrogen.
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
Post by: Iain on August 19, 2005, 04:34:35 AM
How much more expensive is that new hybrid Lexus?
Post by: mtnbkr on August 19, 2005, 04:51:26 AM
Quote
By "electrocuted", you mean dead, or just buzzed ?
I don't recall. I remember it being a significant safety issue. I'll see them this weekend, if I think about it, I'll ask them.Chris
Post by: mfree on August 19, 2005, 04:57:38 AM
Post by: Nathaniel Firethorn on August 19, 2005, 05:13:32 AM
As a side benefit, if more people were able to walk to more of the places they need to go, there would probably be less obesity.
- NF
Post by: Sindawe on August 19, 2005, 05:14:20 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 19, 2005, 06:11:24 AM
And that's not including the HUGE additional market it would create for for domestic grain.
Brad
p.s. - and the sound of a big 'ol V8 muscling its way down the road is just a TEENSY bit more gratifying than the Electrolux-style swooosh of an electric.
Post by: mtnbkr on August 19, 2005, 06:35:49 AM
Quote from: Brad Johnson
I've said it before, I'll say it again. A well designed internal combustion engine running on ethanol is a much better solution. It uses current technoloy, makes little to NO difference in the price vs. current vehicles, and uses a clean-burning, perpetually renewable fuel source.
And that's not including the HUGE additional market it would create for for domestic grain.
Doesn't ethanol require more energy to produce than it delivers as fuel? I think the ratio was 1.29:1 or something like that.And that's not including the HUGE additional market it would create for for domestic grain.
Chris
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 19, 2005, 06:41:52 AM
Quote
Doesn't ethanol require more energy to produce than it delivers as fuel? I think the ratio was 1.29:1 or something like that.
Dunno, never looked into it. Something to research.....Brad
Post by: DigMe on August 19, 2005, 06:44:32 AM
I've never met a self-respecting first responder who wouldn't attempt to save someone in danger for any reason.
brad cook
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 19, 2005, 07:03:33 AM
A link to the Nat'l Corn Growers Assoc. site where they are quoted numbers from a recent USDA study. It shows ethanol's net energy content to be significantly positive.
http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2004/june/060904a.htm
It also stands to reason that a huge new market would create a lot of incentive for research into even more optimized base products (ethanol-optimized corn) and more efficient production methods.
Brad
Post by: Sindawe on August 19, 2005, 07:27:07 AM
Quote
I've said it before, I'll say it again. A well designed internal combustion engine running on ethanol is a much better solution. It uses current technoloy, makes little to NO difference in the price vs. current vehicles, and uses a clean-burning, perpetually renewable fuel source.
Does not Brazil use EtOH as a motor fuel for a good portion of their transportation needs?Hmmm...I wonder if there is a way to feed the fermentation/distilation remains into the systems (plastics/pharmacueticals/fertilizers) that now use oil and other fossil fuels.
Any numbers on the cost of denatured EtOH per gallon? (no way I wanna pay liquor tax on fuel) How pure does it have to be to burn well over wide ranging conditions?
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 19, 2005, 07:38:43 AM
Quote
Anybody care to speculate if a big expensive battery would be a plus or a minus on a seven year old vehicle?
I, myself, would consider it a minus; me, personally. 
When I buy a used car, if it has an automatic transmission Im leery of the cost of overhauling it. If the car has over 100K miles (depending on the car) and the tranny hasnt been redone, I factor that into the cost of the car. And were talking way less than the $5300 for a battery pack.
Post by: Art Eatman on August 19, 2005, 09:05:23 AM
Prickly-pear cactus is also a potential feedstock, which would please a few million or so acres' worth of south Texas ranchers.
, Art
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 19, 2005, 09:15:31 AM
Post by: Paddy on August 19, 2005, 09:15:44 AM
When my (former) job relocated my work 50 miles from home, I sold my Ford and bought a Toyota Echo. $12k and consistently gets 40mpg, even at the 80mph commute.
I think I got the better deal.
Post by: JAlexander on August 19, 2005, 09:24:53 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
Prickly-pear cactus is also a potential feedstock, which would please a few million or so acres' worth of south Texas ranchers.
, Art
My grandfather used to tell me stories about burning prickly pear in the '20s. Evidently when the cattle heard the roar of the pear burner, they'd come running. Somewhere or other I have a picture of one of the ranch hands carrying the rig around with all the cattle standing nearby. Those were harder people and harder times. I wouldn't want to carry five gallons of kerosene on my back with a huge open flame out in front of me., ArtTo get back on topic, though, Lockhart used to have an ethanol pump at one of the stations on 183, but it's gone now.
James
Post by: Harold Tuttle on August 19, 2005, 10:42:45 AM
BY BROCK YATES
June 2005
While the greenies and their flunkies in the so-called major media palpitate over the future of the hybrid, the flinty-eyed analysts at California's J.D. Power and Associates have survey data that indicate a less than twinkling future for this complex and expensive alternative to the hated internal-combustion engine of the elites. The J.D. Power folks, who are usually right on the money in their forecasting, predict that 2006 sales among the proposed 17 hybrid models (cars and light trucks) are expected to total about 260,000 units, or roughly 1.5 percent of the domestic market. J.D. Power claims hybrids will grow to 38 models, both cars and trucks, by 2011 and will peak at a three-percent share. Toyota will hold its lead, with Honda in the hunt and Chevrolet, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler playing relatively minor roles.
Three percent of the total market? Wait a minute! The pundits tell us that hybrids are the futureat least until the fuel cell arrives (at about the same time they discover perpetual motion and cure the common cold).
But one of the most respected, high-powered engineering executives in the industry, speaking off the record, recently told me, "J.D. Power is probably right, although maybe a bit optimistic. Everybody in the hybrid market is losing money. The current units, which are very complex, cost about $5000 more than a normal IC engine. The buyer is paying about a $3000 premium, which means the manufacturer is upside down for about $2000. That, plus the fact that fuel-economy gains are less than people think, what with winter when the heater and defroster are used and summer when the A/C is in operation. Yes, there is a small improvement in city mpg, but it's negligible on the open road. Couple that with the still-undetermined cost of maintenance of the Rube Goldberg power units and the unknown life cycle of the battery packs, and the economic advantages become hazy at best.
"A great deal depends on the future price of gasoline or if the government radically increases fuel-mileage standards. But as it stands now, the average customer is going to stay with a conventional automobile because the mpg cost factor makes obvious economic sense.
"The price of fuel and lower-cost technology will govern the market, and the role hybrids will play remains doubtful at best."
Of course, the know-it-alls in the big media have instant solutions. Example: Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria recently touted some supremely woozy technology using "plug in" hybrids with flexible fuel (15-percent petroleum, 85-percent methanol or ethanol) andvoilà ! 500 mpg! Zakaria ignores the wallet-busting cost of producing, refining, and distributing methanol, ethanol, hydrogen, and other alternative fuelsa concept that has long since been hooted down by people who understand the harsh realities of energy production. If only these gasbags in the elitist press would do their homework.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on August 19, 2005, 10:44:23 AM
BY BROCK YATES
September 2005
I'm not exactly a betting man, but I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that if you're reading this nonsense you are not a hybrid-car owner. That's probably a good wager, considering that the new miracle vehicles are stuck at about a one-half-percent market share of the roughly 17 million annual new car and light-truck domestic sales and that you are vastly more likely to tear up the asphalt in a gas-swilling, earth-choking, mega-speed road rocket like the rest of us motorized Neanderthals.
Of course, if we pay attention to the Cassandra-like fulminations of the liberal media, we might be led to believe that hybrid vehicles are our only hope to save us all from ozone asphyxiation and indentured slavery to the Arab oil barons. To ignore their PC incantations and to continue our binge buying of conventional internal-combustion engines will, according to these all-knowing scribes and electronic chatterers, doom civilization to a dark age embroiled in a heat-soaked Sahara.
Yeah, maybe. Then again, maybe not. Yes, we understand the feds are giving a one-time $2000 tax credit to hybrid owners, and 16 states are offering come-on tax breaks ($1500 in Oregon, $4173 in Colorado), inspection exemptions, and single-driver use of HOV lanes as incentives.
Moreover, the hybrids being sold by Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Ford, and, soon, Chevrolet are all reasonably priced. Example: The hot-selling Toyota Priuswith a three-month waiting list in most marketscan be purchased for under $22,000 loaded (although most experts estimate that Toyota is taking a $2000 hit on each sale). The PiousoopsPrius costs about $5000 more to manufacture than a conventional Corolla and retails for about three-grand extra.
Now let's jump ugly about the whole situation and talk a little reality. The guys at Edmunds.com, who run hard numbers about the car business as well as anyone, estimate that a Prius owner would have to drive at least 66,500 miles annually for five straight years, or gasoline would have to soar to 10 bucks a gallon, to equal the cost of operating a cheaper, conventional Corolla.
Then we have the battery pack, that heavy lump of nickel-metal hydride juice boxes that presumably improve fuel efficiency (but not that much, according to our road tests). Although the warranties are for eight years or 100,000 miles, battery replacement will cost $5300 for the Toyota and Lexus hybrids, and the Ford Escape replacements run a whopping $7200.
Moreover, the industry types aren't talking about total battery life. Will they actually last 100,000 miles? How will this affect resale value? Will the systems stay at full efficiency, or will they slowly drain power as they age or operate under heavy use? These are questions that remain to be answered, understanding that storage batteries, be they dry cells in your flashlight or exotic Ni-MHs, all have finite lives and store less power with age.
And now comes word that the computer brain inside the gas-electric grids in some Priuses is tending to go nuts. This causes instant blackout stalling at either 35 mph or 65 mphthe latter possibly in the fast lane of an interstate where 50-ton semis running 90 mph can crush compacts like beer cans.
This brings up an undiscussed issue: At some point, all these hybrid batteries will die and have to be disposed of somewhere, somehow. These are hardly biodegradable items like spoiled vegetables. They are in fact self-contained toxic waste dumps. How and where millions of these poisonous boxes will be deposited in the new hybrid nirvana has yet to be considered, much less resolved.
And speaking of the environmental component (the glamour issue centered on the brave new world of hybrids), a number of EMT and fire crews have announced that they will refuse to rescue victims trapped in such vehicles, openly fearing electrocution or fatal acid burns.
As with the now-defunct electric-car miracle, where it was quickly realized that the national power grid could not energize millions of vehicles without massive expansion of horrorsnuclear generationthe dark side of the hybrid miracle is now beginning to surface.
Says a dealer friend whose immense franchise network includes several brands offering hybrids: "There is no advantage to owning a hybrid in terms of fuel mileage when the extra cost of the vehicle is added in. Period. Do the math. This is a feel-good purchase. Hybrids are a statement about the environment, and they simply do not square with economic reality.
"The truth is, although the Prius is selling like mad, hybrid Honda Accords and Civics are backed up on dealer lots. Why? Because they look like conventional Hondas, whereas the Prius has unique styling. It has an iconic status among the Greenies. Like it or not, that's real life."
Until hybrids become economically feasible in terms of cost, reliability, and valid fuel savings and make real sense regarding performance and disposability, we're going to be driving conventional internal-combustion-powered vehicleseither gas or diesel until rogue asteroids clean us all out.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on August 19, 2005, 10:47:26 AM
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=15328&discussionID=431016
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on August 19, 2005, 11:14:30 AM
It does put a lot of money in ADM's pockets, though...and remember, the more ethanol you produce means the higher corn and grain prices go, and the more expensive beef and chicken are. But ADM has more money.
When burned in say, a 2005 multifuel Ford Explorer, which gets 18 mpg on 87 octane unleaded at highway conditions, will produce 11 to 14 mpg on that same gallon of ethanol.
I used to think ethanol was a good idea 25 years ago. I changed my mind since then.
Fuel cell technology might be the way to go, unless you end up using gasoline or another refined aromatic hydrocarbon as your hydrogen source. Then it gets stupid. Straight hydrogen or even catalyzed water is the most efficient source for fuel cells, unless you have a gas well in your backyard that *you personally own*. (Actually, I've known folks who did own their own production.)
Enough of my rant. I need a nap now.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: grampster on August 19, 2005, 11:27:35 AM
Actually, I am amazed at this thread because I didn't think that there were so many people that actually understood what a stupid idea they are. A friend and I did the math and considered the battery situation some time back, and we have been laughing ever since. Sigh...I'm getting too cynical in my old age.
On the other hand, this is APS and there is an elevated intelectual level here. Must be the Hoppes, gunpowder and appreciation for fine beverages.
Post by: Sindawe on August 19, 2005, 12:36:20 PM
Quote
Well, there are left wing emotional idealogues. So, why wouldn't there be people who would buy hybrids?
Well, my boss's family bought a hybrid. Why? I have no idea.I think the EtOH burning ICE would be a great transitional step toward a fuel cell based mode of transportation, with a H2 burning ICE as the intermediate step while the H2 distribution system gets build out. EtOH is a liquid fuel, and we are already set up to handle that.
Post by: Justin on August 19, 2005, 03:12:48 PM
Quote
Doesn't ethanol require more energy to produce than it delivers as fuel?
What form of energy doesn't?
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on August 19, 2005, 06:28:36 PM
Wood-fired gas generators; common in South America and other places where gasoline was largely unavailable during the rationing days of the 1940's. Wood gases powered internal combustion engines by means of a gas generation device (which looked like a Rube Goldberg invention) hanging off the rear bumper.
Of course, it helps to live next to a forest.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: brimic on August 19, 2005, 11:37:30 PM
1: less BTUs per gallon of ethanol than gasoline means you need to burn an awful lot more of it to get from point A to point B
2. It requires petrochemicals in the form of pesticides and herbicides to grow corn.
3. It takes a large amount of energy input to purify ethanol, ie getting the water out of it.
4. It would take a lot more agricultural land to grow enough corn to even make a dent in the amount of gasoline consumed.
5. As it stands, it costs about $27 dollars in taxes to produce a proof gallon of ethanol. Yes, a company can go through a process of paperwork to reclaim the money or the government can repeal or reform the Tax, but we all know how quick and agile the Federal government is when it comes to repealing taxes or reducing paperwork.
6. Points 2,3,4 will have environmentalists squealing like stuck pigs once they connect the dots if they ever do, but it might be worth it just for that reason alone.
Post by: Guest on August 20, 2005, 01:48:49 AM
Here is where this Hybrid fad starts costing everyone money. The greenies pressured the city of Seattle to purchase hybrid buses for city transit.
The problem is that when you drive a hybrid bus up a hill, the motor is having to turn the electrical chargind system along with pushing the bus, which is heavier than a normal bus due to all the extra crap. Seattle has a *lot* of hills. End result? The hybrid buses got significantly worse mileage than the regular Desiels that they replaced. Oh, and they cost 10 times the price of a regular bus, and we are going to be paying for them for a long time.
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 20, 2005, 05:54:22 AM
Quote from: c_yeager
Oh i cant believe that I forgot to mention this.
Here is where this Hybrid fad starts costing everyone money. The greenies pressured the city of Seattle to purchase hybrid buses for city transit.
The problem is that when you drive a hybrid bus up a hill, the motor is having to turn the electrical chargind system along with pushing the bus, which is heavier than a normal bus due to all the extra crap. Seattle has a *lot* of hills. End result? The hybrid buses got significantly worse mileage than the regular Desiels that they replaced. Oh, and they cost 10 times the price of a regular bus, and we are going to be paying for them for a long time.
That's what you get when unqualified people are calling the shots. A preview of socialism: the "elite" (with no qualifications other than their own delusions of omnipotence) would be making the decisions and the productive worker bees would be doing all the work.
Here is where this Hybrid fad starts costing everyone money. The greenies pressured the city of Seattle to purchase hybrid buses for city transit.
The problem is that when you drive a hybrid bus up a hill, the motor is having to turn the electrical chargind system along with pushing the bus, which is heavier than a normal bus due to all the extra crap. Seattle has a *lot* of hills. End result? The hybrid buses got significantly worse mileage than the regular Desiels that they replaced. Oh, and they cost 10 times the price of a regular bus, and we are going to be paying for them for a long time.
Post by: Art Eatman on August 20, 2005, 06:36:32 AM
One big problem is that as a society we're rather unwise as to our investments in transportation. I'm not interested in laws about this, but common sense says that one's manly prowess in horizontal recreation is not enhanced by driving a 4WD gas hog.
Art
Post by: Paddy on August 20, 2005, 06:45:49 AM
Oh yeah, she insisted our Prius have side airbags, too. Supposedly they will protect you in a t-bone crash, the kind that are so prevalent at intersections.
Post by: Waitone on August 20, 2005, 06:57:21 AM
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on August 20, 2005, 08:11:28 AM
Great idea, questionable implementation as far as regulations surrounding them.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 20, 2005, 08:13:59 AM
Quote
The problems with ethanol are numerous:
1: less BTUs per gallon of ethanol than gasoline means you need to burn an awful lot more of it to get from point A to point B
Correct. About twice as much. So when gasoline hits $5 a gallon and ethanol is at $2.25-$2.50 it all evens out. That's presuming a relatively similar state of engine tune. Also consider that ethanol, at 115 octane, permits a state of tune that is far more efficient at power extraction than is available for 86-92 octane gasoline.1: less BTUs per gallon of ethanol than gasoline means you need to burn an awful lot more of it to get from point A to point B
Quote
2. It requires petrochemicals in the form of pesticides and herbicides to grow corn.
Yep, and it requires several gallons of highly toxic crude oil to produce a single gallon of gasoline. And there are new bio-based pesticides and herbicides being developed as we speak.Quote
3. It takes a large amount of energy input to purify ethanol, ie getting the water out of it.
It's called distillation, which requires heat. And gasoline takes no energy to produce? Go to a local refinery and check out the HUGE electrical substation feeding it.Quote
4. It would take a lot more agricultural land to grow enough corn to even make a dent in the amount of gasoline consumed.
Also correct. And the land is already in production. American farmers are wonderfully efficient. So efficient, in fact, that it is cheaper for the govt to pay them to put land into CRP (non-production standby) than it is for the govt to figure out what to do with the surplus commodities that just sit around and spoil. And that's AFTER we've shipped a couple hundred million tons overseas for sale and for humanitarian relief efforts. All we would be doing, in the beginning, is capitalizing on a surplus we already have. And the HUGE new market would drive up the costs of grain to a point where the small mom-and-pop farm would again become finacially possible.
Quote
5. As it stands, it costs about $27 dollars in taxes to produce a proof gallon of ethanol. Yes, a company can go through a process of paperwork to reclaim the money or the government can repeal or reform the Tax, but we all know how quick and agile the Federal government is when it comes to repealing taxes or reducing paperwork.
Nice figure. Source, please.Quote
6. Points 2,3,4 will have environmentalists squealing like stuck pigs once they connect the dots if they ever do, but it might be worth it just for that reason alone.
AGREED!! They need a little reality check every now and then.Brad
Post by: Justin on August 20, 2005, 08:39:44 AM
Quote
I wish people would pay more attention to the life cycle energy usage of a concept before getting doe-eyed over a product. In my ideal world we would promote the lowest energy lifecycle first. Years ago 40% of the lifetime energy usage of a car sits in the junkyard. Might be different now but not by much.
Waitone, could you expound on this a some?
Post by: roo_ster on August 20, 2005, 09:51:33 AM
Ethanol & methanol are not the answer, except as transitional technologies (at best). They only become viable transition technologies when nuke power has blanketed the power grid and small commercial reactors can be directly harnessed to help produce the alcohols. Even then, it still might make more sense to extract the plant oils and burn them in a deisel engine.
Let's face it, unitil Mr. Fusion is found in every auto, petrolium-based fuels are the best bang for he buck, dollar-wise and energy per unit volume or mass-wise.
Post by: brimic on August 20, 2005, 05:56:36 PM
Quote
5. As it stands, it costs about $27 dollars in taxes to produce a proof gallon of ethanol. Yes, a company can go through a process of paperwork to reclaim the money or the government can repeal or reform the Tax, but we all know how quick and agile the Federal government is when it comes to repealing taxes or reducing paperwork.
Nice figure. Source, please.
I did a little checking and I had my terms mixed up. Ethanol is $13.50 per proof gallon which comes out to $27/gallon of pure ethanol. I've filled out plenty of forms where I work to document our ehtanol usage in order to reclaim ethanol taxes from the BATFE. http://www.pharmco-prod.com/pages/alcoholintro.html
Nice figure. Source, please.
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 21, 2005, 11:43:29 AM
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on August 21, 2005, 02:33:25 PM
Unfortunately, there has been a thriving vegetable oil recycling business in place for years around here. Makes it difficult for fast-food operators to give away or sell their waste oil to Joe Homediesel since the chain operators have contracts to honor, contrary to what biodiesel proponents say. If you can get Mickey D's to sell it to you, it's going to cost you what they're accustomed to getting from their recyclers, which kind of takes the incentive out of it.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 21, 2005, 03:15:09 PM
I was curious after watching this snippett from CNN today:
http://dynamic.cnn.com/apps/tp/video/us/2005/08/21/grease.car.natpkg.cnn/video.ws.asx?NGUserID=aa54a11-26874-1123880951-1&adDEmas=deReg%3AR00%26deBand%3Ahi%26deDom%3Arr.com%26deSic%3D73%26deCoun%3Ausa%26deDMA%3A534%26deZip%3A32801%26deGMT%3A-4
Talking to a couple of restaurant owners around here, including my favorite raw oyster/buffalo wing bar, they're more than happy to give me their waste fry oil. Appears they're paying the county to haul it away.
Now if I just had an older Mercedes 240D to modify and run the stuff...
Post by: Guest on August 22, 2005, 05:25:59 AM
Post by: Sindawe on August 22, 2005, 06:16:09 AM
That got me to poking around on the Web last night, looking for more info on H2 vehicles and the like. One site (http://www.ovonic.com/) had a PR video for a Prius they'd converted to run on H2 instead of gasoline in the engine. One passage that struck me in the PR video is that they are working to meet the U.S. Dept. of Energies goal of H2 at the pump for a price of $3.00/kg IIRC.
Tin-foil hat time: I wonder if the rise in oil/gas prices is part of a plan to ratchet up the cost of gasoline beyond $3.00/gallon, then introduce H2 for ICEs (Ford and BMW already have cars for this) at a price below that of gasoline, giving the end consumer the appearance of a price relief in fuel and kick starting a move from oil derivatives as a motor fuel.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on August 22, 2005, 06:42:54 AM
But then, if I had a home fuel cell from G.E....who incidentally announced 3 YEARS ago they were making one...I could already be making my own electricity at home from the sun. SWMBO and I decided that we're going off the grid when we build out at the farm anyway. A fuel cell/H2 generation system would allow us to make more electricity and probably cheaper than an array of PV's/wind generation system with a battery bank.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Sindawe on August 22, 2005, 08:01:56 AM
Post by: Guest on August 22, 2005, 08:58:47 AM
Post by: thorn on August 22, 2005, 09:56:23 AM
you guys jsut dont get it. it isnt about money to the enivronmentalist. it is about burning less fuel.
now the batteries are another story. to some degree they can be recycled contrary to the report.
regular car batteries are recycled all the time.
Post by: brimic on August 22, 2005, 11:46:54 AM
Quote
ou guys jsut dont get it. it isnt about money to the enivronmentalist. it is about burning less fuel.
What kind of fuel is that? The gasoline it burns? The coal burned to run the generators needed to produce the electricity to manufacture the car? How about the fuel used to run the foundries to make the steel parts of the car? What about the oil consumed to make the several hundred pounds of plastic on a vehicle?If driver 'A' buys a Ford Taurus and drives it 180,000 miles before it become economically unviable to keep it running and junks it and you have Driver 'B' who buys a Prius, drives it for 100,000 miles and junks it because its more expensive than its worth to fix, which is actually better for the environment?
Post by: thorn on August 22, 2005, 01:27:26 PM
If driver 'A' buys a Ford Taurus and drives it 180,000 miles before it become economically unviable to keep it running and junks it and you have Driver 'B' who buys a Prius, drives it for 100,000 miles and junks it because its more expensive than its worth to fix, which is actually better for the environment?"
good point.
they need to get them to last for sure..
the one thing i will point out- yes, fuel will be burned to generate the electricity, but the idea is you centralize the burnng to one highly efficient location, minimizing the smog in the city, keep it at the power plant which is hopefully out in a canyon somewhere. yes yes there are all kinds of probs associated with this but any improvement helps.
what's more efficient ? 100's of tiny generators or one giant one?
for now, the tech still needs work, but is moving in the right direction
Post by: Paddy on August 22, 2005, 01:55:39 PM
The Prius (and I'm not touting the Prius, it's her car not mine) charges its batteries 3 ways- when braking, when going downhill and while the gasoline engine is running. I don't remember what the warranty on the batteries is...7 years seems to come to mind. In any event, I don't think the car will be ready for the junkyard anytime soon.
Post by: mordrid52 on September 08, 2005, 06:31:24 AM
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 08, 2005, 07:14:00 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 08, 2005, 07:50:07 AM
We need to harness cow farts.
Post by: Pebcac on September 08, 2005, 12:38:40 PM
Post by: bountyhunter on September 08, 2005, 01:09:35 PM
It is true the "hybrid cost adder" means you will not save enough money in gas to offset the cost. Everybody knows that, but some choose to screw the oil companies and OPEC and will pay for that priviledge.
God bless them.
Post by: bountyhunter on September 08, 2005, 01:11:04 PM
Quote from: mordrid52
A good way to increase fuel efficiency would be to improve the quality of US diesel fuels and bring over some of the smaller diesels they have in Europe.
Talk about toxic waste.... their emission standards are just shy of "instantly lethal to passing wildlife".
Post by: Azrael256 on September 08, 2005, 02:19:58 PM
Quote
We need to harness cow farts.
2lbs. per day of methane, last I heard. I really don't want to be the guy who has to measure that.I'm no physicist, and I haven't taken chemistry since the 10th grade, but I don't buy this "ethanol is too expensive/inefficient/dangerous/etc." argument. While the energy put into making X number of engine horsepower may be higher than gasoline (or may not, as the case may be), that is still based on present techniques of doing everything. What about progress? How about genetically engineered corn that produces more ethanol per acre? How about specialized farming practices that do the same? How about something more efficient than a standard reciprocating piston engine?
There is WAY too much that remains undone to make a definitive statement as to the effectiveness of fuel X. The only thing we do know for certain is that fossil fuels are not going to be practical forever.
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 09, 2005, 07:48:44 AM
Back in the 80s, certain manufacturers weren't doing as good a job with their diesels as other manufacturers. I remember that when I was driving on a highway, if the vehicle a quarter mile ahead of me was making it tough to breathe back where I was, the vehicle ahead had the following two insignia on the rear of the car about 80% of the time: "diesel" and "Oldsmobile."
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 10, 2005, 07:31:08 AM
Quote
you guys jsut dont get it. it isnt about money to the enivronmentalist. it is about burning less fuel.
Quote
I don't see the point in a hybrid, either, but I sure miss my efficient little Echo and its 40MPG.
I owned a 1983 Nissan Pulsar that got 44 mpg when I drove like an idiot (maniac?) and 50 mpg when I tried to be good.It was inexpensive, pretty darn peppy, and comfortable. I don't see the hybrids outperforming it enough to make it worth the extra cost and hassle.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 10, 2005, 01:22:37 PM
Quote from: RileyMc
I don't know that a Ford Taurus (or any Ford for that matter) will go 180,000 miles without some major work. I've owned 5 Fords, and they all needed several thousand dollars worth of repairs before 125k. Toyotas, if maintained, will go 300,000 miles before they're scrap.
So my Dad was right! He despises Fords and Dodges and owns only Buicks and Chevrolets. Right now he's rebuilding an engine for my '89 GMC full-size pickup. Well after 300,000 miles, the head cracked. At the same time, my wife's '95 Escort quit, so we got her into a '93 Century. Dad's so proud!
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 10, 2005, 01:25:11 PM
Quote
you guys jsut dont get it. it isnt about money to the enivronmentalist. it is about burning less fuel.
No, it is about money. If your more ecological alternative is more expensive, it's not going to be adopted; at least not voluntarily.
Post by: roo_ster on September 10, 2005, 03:32:14 PM
Yep, Hondas last longer than Toyotas (studies show that Honda buyers generally take better care of their autos than Toyota owners).
Toyotas last longer than Fords (studies show that Toyota buyers generally take better care of their autos than Ford owners).
Fords last longer than...well you probably detect the pattern here.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 10, 2005, 06:25:28 PM
Quote from: jfruser
These days the differences in longevity between the major auto manufacturers (major: not Korean, French, Italian, or Slobovian) is not worth worrying about.
I'm inclined to remove Korean from that list. Kia and Hyundai are both putting out some very solid offerings, at or near the quality of Nissan, Toyota and others. Also, their warranties are both stellar.They both started out selling cheap junk, sorta like the Toyotas of the early/mid '70's, and like Toyota, have both come a loooong way since they entered the US market.
Post by: brimic on September 11, 2005, 07:10:06 PM
Quote
I don't know that a Ford Taurus (or any Ford for that matter) will go 180,000 miles without some major work. I've owned 5 Fords, and they all needed several thousand dollars worth of repairs before 125k. Toyotas, if maintained, will go 300,000 miles before they're scrap.
Well ok you got me there. My Bil has a taurus with over 200,000 miles, but it might be more of a fluke than an accurate representation of the model. I just picked Ford Taurus' because they are ubiquitous. The last ford I owned and ever will own seized up with 110,000 miles on it.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on September 12, 2005, 06:49:05 PM
Maintenance is the key.
Of course, it also means my Scot roots are showing. I really like having no car payment, too.
The lowest mileage vehicle I own is a 1969 Ford pickup with a mere 75,000 miles. I'm still working on the details to convert the Burb to a diesel-electric direct drive if it ever harfs the engine.
...and yes, they all pass the tough Dallas county annual emissions testing. Maintenance pays off.
Post by: cfabe on September 12, 2005, 07:37:32 PM
My dad drove a 97 ford taurus, which has a notoriouslly crappy transmission, to 150k miles before it started slipping and needed a rebuild. He had the fluid and filter changed every 30k and power flushed every 60k. We also had a 91 Escort that just got regular oil changes and timing belts that ultimatly met its demise by a poorly placed fire hydrant at 160k miles, just after it's first clutch replacement. The engine was just starting to get a little tired and have a tinge of oil smoke on hard acceleration. Also a 93 Chevy Lumina APV van that did 180k on the stock transmission, with only one fluid/filter changes in there around 150; a testament to GM's automatic transmissions.
It really is all in the maintainence. And on newer cars, there's really not even much to do in terms of maintainence any more. Regular oil changes, auto trans service, fuel filters occasionally to keep the fuel pump from dying, and spark plugs and ignition wires at 60-100k depending on vehicle.
Post by: mfree on September 13, 2005, 04:55:20 AM
1. 1978 Lincoln Mk V. 278,000 miles when sacrificed to: mold. The interior was becoming uninhabitable. After that it sat in the driveway for 4 years becoming even more uninhabitable. When my cousing took it away, it needed: A capful of gas down the carb and a jump start. During it's service life it needed: A valve job and a set of rear calipers.
2. 1984 Thunderbird V6. offered for sacrifice at 192,000 miles. Failures: My own, for not realizing it was badly, badly abused when I bought it. Engine toasted at 95,000 miles and was *full* of coke. Not sludge, but hard-packed crispy oil coke. Apparently it never had an oil change in the first 60,000 miles. Tranny bought it shortly thereafter (110,000), again, factory fluid. $1000 engine and $800 transmission, btw. After that, no real issues until the $800 transmission chewed up a bearing or five, and I parked it. Was just too expensive to upkeep on a collegelife salary... 22mpg and pricey tires on my aftermarket wheels.
3. 1991 dodge shadow. Still have it @ 140,000 or so, odo's broken. This is the car that won't QUIT. The grand sum total of parts required to actually keep it running amount to a $10 head gasket and a $20 water pump, and if you count such things a $20 engine mount set. It's still on the factory clutch despite the last 50,000 miles of it's life being served as a runabout/thrasher/rallycross car. Popped the headgasket at 90K again due to previous owner abuse, made it 70m home, changed the gasket myself and no engine damage noted. Just a simple workhorse of a car. Downside: 24mpg, due to some inventive emission controls work after an engine fire. Again, my fault.
4. 2001 Daewoo Leganza. 96,000 miles, gone to the big wrecking yard in the sky. Ran like brand new, too. 30mpg on a bad day, 32mpg if I worked at it. Work history: required a $35 sensor at 50K, and a $400 trip to the dealer for an oil seal and a set of parking brake shoes. (uhm, don't play with the lever at speed, the parking brake really *can't* take it). Took a 65mph pirouette into the I-40 center divider and totalled. Only major defect was the home company's management and GM's involvement, it seems.
So yeah, a little elbow grease and smart repairs and anything will last a while, as long as you also toss in preventative maintenance and scheduled fluid changes.
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 13, 2005, 05:35:51 AM
Quote
(uhm, don't play with the lever at speed, the parking brake really *can't* take it). Took a 65mph pirouette into the I-40 center divider and totalled.
Have you been watching Rockford Files ?
Post by: grampster on September 13, 2005, 05:57:57 AM
If Nissan would produce this truck in a turbo diesel, I'd go on the hook for the cost.
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2005, 06:00:35 AM
I have high expectations for my vehicles. They need to function 100% all the time. I won't put up with crap that isn't reliable.
Some of the best cars I've owned have been foreign. 1965 VW Bug, 1973 Opel Manta, 1980 Toyota Corolla, 1983 Toyota pickup, 1985 Chev Sprint (Isuzu, I think. 3 cylinder 5 speed). I even had a Fiat Bianchini in high school. For some reason, I developed a prejudice against foreign cars and began buying Fords beginning in 1988 with a Ford Tempo. I still have a 2003 Ford Ranger 4x4. In only 25k miles, it has needed a transaxle seal, a fuel pump replacement (leaking) and new tires. The a/c still stinks even though the dealer 'cleaned' it under warranty. I wonder if some auto worder left his sandwich in there.
Every one of the Fords needed some major work before 100k. Everything from oil leaks to water pumps. One Contour needed a new trans at 96k. I sold the last Contour and bought a 2005 Toyota Echo, which reliably gets 40+ mpg. I'm 59 now, so I don't plan on ever buying another car. There should be enough miles left between the Ranger and the Echo to take me to the point where I quit driving in 15 or so years.
Post by: mfree on September 13, 2005, 09:22:41 AM
I popped a tire in standing water going down the highway... if there's ever an unrecoverable spin I'd say it's that one.
And FWIW, the Sprints/Metros are Suzuki Swifts. GM's had a really odd lot of foreign marques marching through the ranks and deals with everyone... Isuzu, Suzuki, Toyota for the Geo Prizm for the longest time, then you've got the purchase of Daewoo and the divvying of vehicles up amongst divisions (the Chevy Aveo and Canadian Chevy Epica, and Suzukis Verona, Forenza, and Reno are all 100% Daewoo)... Opel and Holden engines finding their ways around, the Holden chassis for the Pontiac GTO (technically pure GM though, divisions those)... let's see. Ah, right, Honda's V6 sitting in a few Saturn VUEs. Don't forget Honda borrowing Isuzu's Rodeo to use as the Passport. GM had used Daewoo in the past too, the Pontiac Lemans was a Daewoo Racer in goat's clothing, that one was still sold up till recently in the Caribbean region.
The lines are truly blurred, gentlemen. Ford did it too, in fact, the escort and ZX2's really aren't that much Ford as Mazda, Contours/Mystique/late Cougar sourced from europe, and wow, what engines are in * Rovers now, BMW, Volvo, BME, or Ford? The new 500 is a Volvo platform, isn't it?
Mitsubishi engines everywhere, too, particularly in Chryslers and old Hyundais... that wonderful Hyundai Excel everyone likes to bluster about as well as anything up to about 1996 had motors made by Mitsubishi in Mitsu plants (and the excel was actually the Mitsu Precis anyways). Chrysler's 2.6 fours and the 3.0 V6 were Mitsu engines. Chrysler liked to outsource motors too, don't forget that the omni was (in strange coincidence, since everyone thinks it was modelled after the golf when in actuality the Omni came first in France under the Talbot marque) fitted with VW 1.7 engines and later PEUGEOT 1.6 liters. Peugeot! Jeep got lots of switchers too, AMC 2.5 and 4.0/4.2's as well as GM's 2.5 and the 2.8 V6.
there's never a clearcut case of "X sucks" anymore because you could very well be talking about some other manufacturer's part failing. Transmissions by Aisin, Getrag, etc.; electronics by Lucas or Denso.... companies involved that don't make anything else.
Post by: Paddy on September 13, 2005, 01:05:42 PM
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 13, 2005, 01:20:08 PM
Quote
there's never a clearcut case of "X sucks" anymore because you could very well be talking about some other manufacturer's part failing
I'll still blame the manufacturer that sold the car to me. They're responsible for a quality vehicle made up of quality parts, regardless of whether they manufacture it themselves or oursource it.
Post by: atek3 on September 18, 2005, 01:39:14 PM
Quote from: Brad
Also correct. And the land is already in production. American farmers are wonderfully efficient. So efficient, in fact, that it is cheaper for the govt to pay them to put land into CRP (non-production standby) than it is for the govt to figure out what to do with the surplus commodities that just sit around and spoil. And that's AFTER we've shipped a couple hundred million tons overseas for sale and for humanitarian relief efforts.
All we would be doing, in the beginning, is capitalizing on a surplus we already have. And the HUGE new market would drive up the costs of grain to a point where the small mom-and-pop farm would again become finacially possible.
That is totally crazy. If American farmers are "wonderfully efficient", we wouldn't need a roughly ~16 billion agriculture subsidy program. Our farm system is 'so efficient' we throw money away paying farmers NOT to grow? The only time you have 'surplus commodities' is when the government sets a price floor above what people are willing to pay. Then the "surplus commodities" have to be foisted onto people with WIC, public school lunches, food stamps, and 'humanitarian aid'. All we would be doing, in the beginning, is capitalizing on a surplus we already have. And the HUGE new market would drive up the costs of grain to a point where the small mom-and-pop farm would again become finacially possible.
Quote
All we would be doing, in the beginning, is capitalizing on a surplus we already have. And the HUGE new market would drive up the costs of grain to a point where the small mom-and-pop farm would again become finacially possible.
'Mom and pop farm'? What century are you living in? Maybe we should go back to "mom and pop automobile manufacturing" or "mom and pop oil refining". Farming is another productive task that has strong economies of scale, trying to go back to 'mom and pop' is optimistic at best.atek3
Post by: roo_ster on September 18, 2005, 05:29:07 PM
Quote from: "atek3"
That is totally crazy. If American farmers are "wonderfully efficient", we wouldn't need a roughly ~16 billion agriculture subsidy program. Our farm system is 'so efficient' we throw money away paying farmers NOT to grow?
That is totally politics. Yep, our agriculture sector is crazy-productive. For political reasons, we limit our farmers' production. If we didn't, there'd be so dang much produced, we'd pay a whole lot less for food and the ag sectors of virtually every other country would be wiped out or their gov't's would enact even more barriers to our ag goods.
Post by: atek3 on September 18, 2005, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: jfruser
That is totally politics. Yep, our agriculture sector is crazy-productive. For political reasons, we limit our farmers' production. If we didn't, there'd be so dang much produced, we'd pay a whole lot less for food and the ag sectors of virtually every other country would be wiped out or their gov't's would enact even more barriers to our ag goods.
Now apply that logic to any other sector. Do we limit the production of cars to stop car surpluses or coal to stop coal surpluses? What makes agriculture so special if we don't apply government power to "rein it in" it would just wipe itself out. That's the silliest argument I've heard all week. If American farmers are SO productive why do we ban or heavily tax foreign produce? After all if we're SOproductive they obviously couldn't compete on price. Quote
we'd pay a whole lot less for food
you say that like it's a bad thing.If we allowed the market to work in agriculture, AS IT DOES IN EVERY OTHER SECTOR, prices would fall, inefficient producers would go out of business, and the consumer would win. Unfortunately, the consumer doesn't have a lobbying arm as strong as the farmers. Hence we get a 1.5 billion dollar farm subsidy package that totally soaks taxpayers and rewards the biggest agribusinesses.
atek3
Post by: brimic on September 18, 2005, 10:40:59 PM
Quote
1984 Thunderbird V6. offered for sacrifice at 192,000 miles. Failures: My own, for not realizing it was badly, badly abused when I bought it. Engine toasted at 95,000 miles and was *full* of coke
My bad ford experience was with a '86 t-bird. 3.8 l v-6. bought it with 12,000 miles on it. Maintained it very religeously, never went more than 3000 miles without an oil change, air filter changed every 15,, etc, etc. At 60,000 miles it started burning oil real bad. Took it to a ford garage, where they ran compression and cylinder leakdown tests. Mechanic told me that there was 24% difference between the best and worst cylinder. He told me that 10-15% tolerance from the factory at that time was typical, and I probably had sticking rings making the problem worse. It ran another 50,000 miles and burned countless quarts of oil- about a quart every 500 miles.One cold january day, I tried starting it, it turned over about halfway and never ran again. Took it to the shop and they told me it was seized up tight with a worn out crank bearing.At the same time, my dad had a '84 Bronco full sized, 302, C4 tranny. The truck never really ran right. It was very difficult to start, after a year it seemed t lack power. Dad took it in to the Ford Garage and they found that a intake manifold bolt had not been installed at the factory. They replaced the intake manifold as the rest of the bolts weren't properly torqued either and the manifold was warped/not sealing correctly.It was a real nice looking truck but Dad sold it right after that episode and hasn't bought anything but Chevy trucks since.
This was after I had previously owned a '76 oldsmobile Cutass that had 100,000 miles on it and I ran it another 150,000 miles with the only repairs being a rebuilt tranny, brakes and tires. A girl I went to school with had a '73 that was pushing 300,000 miles, Oldsmobile used to build a bulletproof and very smooth V-8.
Current vehicle a nissan pickup, bought it used with 9,000 miles, currently has 170,000+ miles on it and still runs strong.
I have no urge whatsoever to ever consider buying another Ford.