If I only drove downhill, I wouldn't need an engine, but I would have to change the brakes frequently.
While going downhill, my hybrid can use the energy that would have been burned off as heat to replace the battery energy that I used going uphill. I see this every day in my Honda, which has a battery level gauge. The battery level decreases going uphill, and recovers going downhill. At some point the batteries are full, and braking is conventional. The difference is noticeable.
Unfortunately, transportation costs in the societies in most developed countries today are pretty fixed. Taxing them is going to have unwanted side effects. For example let's say that we raise the price of fuel in the US to $4.00 a gallon tomorrow via tax. That isn't going to curtail the "necessary" driving such as commuting to work, and buying groceries. Instead it's going to kill the recreational driving for vacations, and other non-essential driving. So while the economies of the cities aren't going to take it in the shorts, just about every small town in the country that makes it's primary income off tourism is going to tank. So you end up throwing a lot of seasonal people out of work, and a lot of others that depend on them out of work. Thus income tax and sales tax revenue go down, and the net result is that you obtain no more tax money than before, and you have restructured the economy so that people end up spending their vacations at home in their backyards and that small town economies become mostly unviable, migrating all those people to the cities, which have to expand to accomodate them, which consumes fuel, and you end up no better off than before.
The other problem is that a lot of oil consumed in the US isn't used to make gasoline. It's used to make heating fuel, it's used to fuel electric generating plants, it's used to make plastics.
At any rate, we already know what we need to do to the economy to reduce dependence on foreign oil. We need to migrate the economy to renewable power sources. And there are not many of them. Wind power is really one of the few available that has enough energy to run the economy. Nuclear is another if you can accept the waste problem (most people can't) The rest of them, such as damming rivers, direct photovoltiac conversion, geothermal, biofuel and so forth, either have unwanted side effects (fish kills) or are too terribly inefficient, or there aren't enough of them, to provide sufficient energy.
And once we get all that wind generating capacity online, we then need to phase out all the fossil fuel uses. That means no more liquid fueled ground transporatation, also we convert everyone to electric furnaces, and pretty much elimination of interstate trucking in favor of rail. And of course all railways will have to be converted over to be electric. Your talking a huge additional power distribution network.
Such a thing can happen but it's going to be gradual. For example a fuel tax on home heating oil could be easily enacted that would make it cheaper to run electric or natural gas heat, thus people would replace oil furnaces But, they aren't going to do it until the existing oil furnace wears out.
Ted
Or much more simply - you make the vehicle lighter. Which means making it smaller.
But we are getting away from the topic of discussion. The issue wasn't whether hybrids are better or not. The issue is that the tax credit was originally intended to encourage the development and sale of the next generation of economy cars with the assumption that the only way the market would accept an economy car again was by doing a hybrid. Giving the tax credit to non-economy cars that just happen to have a hybrid design is contrary to the original intent of the credit, and is a loophole, and should not be allowed.
Ted
That might be OK if what was happening is that everyone who would normally be buying a V8 bought a V6 hybrid. But because of the way that they are positioning these cars in the market, what is happening is that people that would normally be buying a V6 are looking at a V6 Hybrid so they can have more power. Then when they get the more power they are of course going to use it, so they end up consuming just as much fuel with a V6 hybrid as if they got the V6 non-hybrid.
When I see the Corvette shipping with a hybrid V6 instead of the V8 then I'll buy your argument.
Ted
Why not just put really long springs and struts on the rear to raise the rear of the car up about a foot. That way, the car would always be going down hill. 8^)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Plus, we're suppose to trust that *all* the extra taxes collected will be put to the intended use by the **same** politicians that take my money out of my paycheck for my Social Security and divert it off to other unrelated purposes, the **same** politicians that get lottery programs voted in by the public on the promise that the profits will be used for parks and schools and fire stations and then after it is voted in by the people they say "Hey - look at all the extra money that these parks and schools and fire stations are getting from the lottery - we can reduce the amount provided by the general funds to those things by that much!" and then effectively the lottery profits end up getting spend on the usual waste! Those are the **same** politicians that I am supposed to trust with spending for the intended and promised purposes the extra money taken out of my pocket in the form of gas taxes!!!!!!!!!!???????????
Just yesterday i heard a report of a "study" (out of Cornell or something) that said that it takes *much* more energy to process biomass into biofuels - and I'm thinking "Well - they are reporting what everyone already knows, but at least they are reporting it", but *then* the same report ends up saying the same study recommends diverting the money being spend on biofuel development over to "better" programs like hydrogen fuels!! - which of course have the same problem of requiring more energy in than that gotten out!! What a shell game. Makes me beloeve in conspiracies by those spending our research dollars!!
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Did anyone hear the report I heard the other day on the radio about some research being done (somewhere in S.A. I think) into using compressed air to power a vehicle. They are getting something like 300 miles on a "charge", and the cost of compressing the air is miniscule and works out to a few cents per mile? Any laws of physics being violated there (to get that kind of economy)? Can anybody here do the energy conversion math on that one?
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Actually, an answer is already slated to be available in Canada:
It's real simple. In a gasoline powered car the energy used to accelerate a vehicle to whatever speed it achieves is basically lost forever, as when the vehicle coasts down or brakes the kinetic energy is converted into heat. With regenerative braking, some of it (theoretically all, but minus various losses and inefficiencies) gets converted back into electricity and stored in the batteries. Not a perfect system, but better efficiency-wise than a pure gasoline engine. In fact, it's city driving where hybrids can really shine. In steady state highway driving, it's a wash, with a slight advantage to the pure gasmotor due to lighter weight.
nate
It's not really all that simple and that is the basis for my gripe with the manufacturers. For example, you ignore the inefficiencies involved with converting the DC derived from the batteries to the AC required by the electric motor. Then additional inefficiencies when the AC is converted to mechanical energy by the electric motor. These inefficiencies generate heat which is wasted. Then there's the viable possibility of using a less expensive version of regenerative braking on a gasoline engine only powered car. Equipped with an ECU controlled alternator clutch, regenerative braking could be used to charge the car's battery. Using relatively simple technology, heat from the brakes could be used to assist in heating the passenger space too. There are many possibilities and some far less expensive than those used by current hybrids. However you look at it, none are as simplistic, clean, or effective as the manufacturers would have us believe.
Bill Putney wrote in part:
Depends on the size of the car, its speed, etc.
Yes.
-- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote in part:
But none of those approaches has a chance while oil is cheap. So, yeah, we know what we need to do.
-- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
It's here.
High mileage conventional cars have been here before. My daughter has a Chevy Metro, 3 cyl, 1100 cc, 5 speed. She gets 40+mpg overall, but my Civic Hybrid has more power, more space, A/C, Power Steering and Automatic.
Would that be the Honda Civic HX compared to the Honda Civic Hybrid? E-VTEC engine, CVT transmission, lighter car. HX 30/34mpg, 9/9 Emissions. Hybrid 47/48mpg, 9/10 Emissions.
Or would it be the Escape 4cyl verses Escape Hybrid? Standard 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:6, 19/22mpg, Greenhouse:4 Hybrid 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:9.5, 33/29mpg, Greenhouse:8
There are manufacturers squeezing whatever they can out of conventional engines, and they've done a remarkable job compared to cars 30 years ago. Hybrid is the tool for today that's available to the masses. I think a plug in hybrid is the next step.
The smart car is entirely different. At least the Canadian model. It has very smart ABS, A/C, a decent heater and all the other things North American users might want. Certainly not a Metro and, if you're hauling 2 people, much better and cheaper than a Civic hybrid. BTW, there are plenty of Metros around with PS, A/C and automatic transmissions.
Manufacturers could do a lot more but there's no financial incentive from anywhere to do so, so they don't. It's really that simple. Pushing improvements of this sort is one of the areas we pay the Federal government. Too bad they've been bought and paid for.
If they were available at equivalent prices. For now, hybrids are expensive gadgets.
A Metro with A/C, P/S, and automatic transmission is not going to get anywhere near the same mileage. For 1998, the 5 speed is 44/49, the automatic is 30/34. No mention of A/C.
Granted, the smart car might be a nicer car than the Metro, and that remains to be seen, but it is smaller still. Why is there no high mileage Mini, instead of a Cooper-S model?
You think a Smartcar will be better than a Honda Civic Hybrid for hauling two people? By some definitions, maybe, but I can't believe it will be better overall. What about a Honda Insight? Higher mileage, two passengers.
What is the smartcar mileage with two people? My Civic remains unchanged with one or two people, and I'm not sure I notice with three. Passenger miles per gallon might be important.
I won't be able to argue with FanJet anymore. The fix is obviously in.
The real Metro problem is that it, unlike your Honda, was designed to be cheap not fuel efficient.
That's like asking why there isn't a high mileage Miata. The Mini isn't designed to be economical. It's designed to be a two seat, fun to drive, convertible roadster. For me, they didn't succeed. Others seem to like it.
To each... but I'd be willing to purchase a Smart Car if I could.
True and I haven't seen any figures like this for SC. OTH, your Civic obviously uses more fuel as the load increases.
But the energy to recharge the batteries still comes from gasoline. It takes gasoline to get to the top of the hill so that you can regeneratively charge the batteries on the way down. Yes, recapturing this energy that would otherwise be lost to heat via the brakes is a good thing, but it isn't a perpertual motion machine.
Matt
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.