American cars/engines are tuned to bias their torque lower down the
rev range. Makes it more compatable with the ubiquitus slush-box
americans love. Result is the calculated peak power is the same,
although its a bigger engine, ANd a more inefficient engine results.
I don't do homework for my own grandchildren what make you think I would do
yours? Research the EPA fuel economy guide for the facts on fuel mileage.
Search the bible of the auto industry, automtivenews.com, for sales figures.
wrote in message
That's funny. Some guys in the Ford NG tell me to go back to the GM NG when
I point out GM outsells Ford. Some guys Honda NG tell me to go back to the
Toyota NG when I point out Toyota outsells Honda They don't like to be
presented with facts that disputes their personal biases and opinions either
it seems ;)
wrote in message
hybrids don't just work by capturing braking energy.
They run a more fuel efficient cycle with a longer expansion stroke.
The Miller/Atkinson cycle. They can do this because acceleration is
supplemented by the battery. They also have a smaller engine b/c it
can use batteries to accelerate.
By using the Miller cycle they get a higher % of energy out of the gas
and into the drivetrain.
It's very ingenious.
Hydrogen is probably never going to "be here". You need a fuel source
to get hydrogen. Hydrogen is very hard to transport (harder than
natural gas which is difficult enough) and there are no cheap "fuel
cells". The advantages of a liquid fuel are great.
I think the next step is using a smaller gas engine and a
larger/cheaper battery that you can plug in. You could plug it in for
an hour a night and that would take you maybe 30-40 miles. On longer
trips and under acceleration the gas engine would turn on. That way
you'd be replacing gas with electricity, which can come from
How do you figure? You need a power source, not a fuel souce. The
power is electrical. It can be generated from wind power and solar
power. The current hydrogen research being subsidized by the Bush
administration is indeed planning on the oil industry being the
primary source of this "fuel" you mention. Otherwise they wouldn't be
subsidizing it. That's one of the main reasons hydrogen has been put
on the back burner for 30 years. Anyone with a windmill, the
production equipment, and a storage tank can produce hydrogen. No
Hydrogen can be pressurized and stored just like propane. It is no
more dangerous than gasoline. In fact, in some ways it's safer. After
gasoline's initial explosion, the liquid gas remains and burns
furiously. Once hydrogen explodes, that's it. It's all gone. Fuel
cells are unnecessary. Hydrogen will burn in reciprocating combustion
engines just like other flammable gas (natural, propane). All this
was known 30 years ago. The boogie-man scare tactics and
disinformation are all oil industry bullshit.
Hydrogen is less dense than propane or natural and takes alot more
energy to pressurize it (and higher pressures). Because of the higher
pressures, hydrogen tanks on a car would have to have very heavy and
As for burning hydrogen in a car, it would be negate the benefits of
hydrogen. The point of a fuel cell is the high efficiency. Burning it
in an engine would negate that.
You could make a case for combining hydrogen with coal to make diesel
fuel. The ease of transport alone would make it worthwhile.
A gallon of gas has about 36 kwh of heat energy. Generating that much
heat energy from wind would cost about $2.00 at a minimum. Converting
it to hydrogen at 50% efficiency would make it $4 a gallon equivalent.
And that's not counting the capital equipment to make the conversion.
Then you have the pressurization and transport losses. Oil companies
have no fear of "hydrogen". If anything they would encourage the gov't
to fund it. It's pie in the sky. What they would fear is coal to oil
technologies and conservation.
Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
monopolize for their own gain.
This also for storage. Alloys and synthetics have replaced steel in
storage containers. Hydrogen tanker trucks ply our freeways daily
with no cavalcade of security/safety vehicles. It's all bunk. So
what if efficiency is less? Early gas engines were inefficient, too.
It's the pollution that's important.
Four decades ago a four function calculator cost $600. Today they're
in a kid's wristwatch you get free in a box of breakfast cereal. This
kind of technological advancement could have been applied to hydrogen
technology and we'd all be driving hydrogen cars today. But, there's
no incentive in exploring it and it has advanced little. You are
throwing up the same arguments the naysayers did 30 years ago. This
doesn't mean these problems are not solvable, it means no one has done
a damn thing in 30 years.
Oil is also free. It is the harvesting of these things that costs money.
Wind turbines are still fairly expensive to buy and maintain, and the land
is rarely free. The electric company I work for has an 86 KW solar site on a
couple million dollars worth of land... go figure.
The storage problems may be solvable, but not yet. At a recent alternative
energy fair I saw a 3/4 ton pickup with 150 mile range, courtesy of the
three large hydrogen tanks that overfilled the bed.
I canna change the laws of physics. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium,
and as it stands is one of the least efficient of the front-runners. Methane
from hydrates is a more viable alternative to petro fuels, but its time has
not come, either.
Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to be,
that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total, is
available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace gasoline and
certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude oil. Except for the
one that is currently being used, more and more throughout the world as a
major source of energy with the notable exception of the US, but suggest
using more of THAT energy source drives the environuts well........nuts.
That clean, safe, low cost, unlimited and yes even renewable energy source
is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce electricity in countries
like Japan, China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has been
holding down an even greater increase in demand for other less
environmentally friendly fuels. ;)
I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right :).
The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
isn't handled yet. Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time
employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious
movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers
and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!
well, /we/ haven't handled it yet. all we do is stick used rods into
tanks and leave them there. we make no attempt to reprocess, and
frankly, all the money we're spending on storage is a /RIDICULOUS/ waste
if we have no intention of reprocessing!
others reprocess very successfully; they recover the useful stuff and
transform the non-useful stuff into a form that is /much/ safer for long
term storage. again, simply storing unprocessed unmaterial is the worst
possible thing to do, but we're seemingly too paralysed by mass fear and
mass ignorance and gross misinformation to actually do anything
A broken clock is right twice a day - Mike isn't right even that regularly.
And it's hardly a trivial problem. But it does come down to relative risk.
we recognize the risks inherent in burning fossil fuel, the nuclear option
looks more attractive even to some envrionmentalists. And some - I'm one -
have favored it for many years. The reason it's not more popular than it
is: it's going to be brought to you by the same people that ran Enron and
similar operations. We should trust them? I'd be much happier if you gave
the business over to the US Navy. They have an impressive safety record
that hasn't been compromised by greed or politics.
The "Environmental Lobby" hasn't a tenth the cash available to the "Oil/Gas
Lobby." The only reason the Enviros have as much support and visibility as
they do is that the science is generally on their side. Oily cash can only
go so far. Contrary to what most people believe, there's a fair amount of
consensus among climatologists and atmospheric scientists that rising
levels of CO2 are attributed to man's activities (deforestation and fossil
fuel use) and that this will lead to SOME change.
We're gambling for very high stakes. Covering our bets, by slowing the
rates of human-induced change would make sense to me. The fossil fuel
industries won't give up their short-term profits, so they put up cash to
fight the science.
It's a matter of priorities. I certainly don't want people freezing to
death to save a trivial amount of oil but our priorities for the last 20
years have been to build bigger cars and houses, not to find ways to reduce,
reuse and recycle. That attitude is going to bite us in the ass.
And there's an economic reason to be out in front on environmental issues -
the country that builds the next generation of solar cells (or other energy
source) will have an economic advantage. We can be that country but it
takes investment to do it. US Corporations would rather puff up executive
salaries than hire engineers and chemists. A recent post said that India's
graduating 350,000 engineers/year to our 70,000. I believe it. And their
science is the same as ours, they can make the same advances that we can but
they're more likely to do it because they're able to put more people on it.
Toyota on its third generation of hybrid? Because it's a short-term money
maker? Hardly, they think they can own the hybrid market further down the
road. They're going for strategic advantage.
Don't limt yourself to thinking about the energy industry, either. Where
was the last big story on advances in cloning? South Korea. By the way,
they didn't achieve that by insisting Intelligent Design be taught in high
Come to think of it, there's a second economic reason to be out in front on
environmental issues - reducing oil imports would reduce our balance of
trade problem. We're $66 billion in the hole this month and a projected
$700 billion for the year. To put that in perspective, that's like the
mortgage on 3 million reaonably-priced houses. Except we're probably going
to mortgage another 3 million houses next year and it's trending worse. If
we start exporting whatever alternative energy products we develop, that
will also help fix the balance of trade problem.
Nuclear waste disposal is NOT a scientific problem throughout the world, it
is only a political problem in the US. Environuts are opposed to the dispose
of it in the ground from which it came, as they do in other counties. We
now store it less safely under six feet of water at the sites.
Wind is free, but steel in a wind tower isn't. Generators isn't free.
The photovoltaic cells aren't close to free.
There's actually been a lot of research in wind and solar over the
years, billions of dollars worth. Countless physicists and engineers
have devoted their lives to research and development. So I don't think
it's fair to say they haven't done anything in 30 years.
The price of electricity from wind has fallen alot. I think 30 years
ago it would have been 30-40 cents per kwh, instead now its 5,
supposedly. Electronics are cheaper due to miniaturization. I don't
think the same thing is true for wind machines. They are more
efficient not and bigger but technology can only go so far.
There's alot of research in it, if it were easy to make money doing it,
it would be here.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.