Prius Mod?

This one?

Interesting looking system, but. . .

$12,000 installation cost means you'll need to drive (~roughly~) 200,000 miles to break even!

($12,000 at the high end of current prices is 4,000 gallons of gas, which, at 50 mpg equates to 200,000. And that doesn't even factor in the electricity costs for charging).

That's all true.

Neil was look> Interesting looking system, but. . .

True enough, but nobody buys a new car to save money. They buy new cars, and modify cars, to satisfy other interests. Making a car largely free of petroleum and pollution is a worthy goal even if it is not directly economical.

Even if it's imaginary? Hint number one: A vast amount of petroleum goes into the manufacture of a new car, even a Prius. Hint number two: Very, very few places in North America produce electricity in ways that even remotely approach freedom from pollution.

Hint number two: Very,

Mobile sources are far less efficient at capturing the energy in fossil fuels than fixed sources. Among other reasons, that's the case because there's no need to move the mass of a fixed source so there's more freedom to engineer better heat recover/use technologies.

Also, going to all electric vehicles opens up the options as to fixed source energy technology. You can't do solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc, power generation in a mobile source, so burning fuel for mobile source means pretty much hydrocarbon gases or liquids.

JazzMan

Sure, ace. C'mon up here to Toronto, where they're dumb enough to burn dirt ("coal") to make electricity. Stand outside at the height of summer or winter demand, try to breathe without coughing like a 3-pack-a-day smoker, and *THEN* maybe we'll talk about reality's tendency to poke holes in your theoretical niceties.

Geothermal and hydro are out, but I guess you'd better let a great many militaries know their nuclear submarines are either not nuclear or not mobile, and I can think of a lot of solar car engineers and racers who'll be most amused to know they aren't really doing solar power generation in a mobile source.

Nice insulting tone, that's not like you Daniel. I'll assume your account has been hijacked and give you the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I didn't mention coal, and mobile sources haven't used coal in almost a century. Fixed source power generation using coal cleanly is possible, but expensive, so don't condemn coal just because it's coal, condemn it because the power companies would rather pollute to make more profit than spend to be socially responsible. And BTW, though coal comes from the ground, it is far from being "dirt".

What are you trying to say here? I can't parse a meaning from the kludge of words. By mobile source, I and referring to cars and trucks, you know, people transportation. I have yet to see a nuclear bus or plane, though a B52 did fly once with a nuclear reactor aboard. As to the solar racers, I got to talk to the race team personnel for the GM Sunraycer when it came through my town many years ago. Yes, they are "mobile" sources that are solar powered, but it was in no way practical to use in day to day transportation. Your second paragraph is a classic case of an reductio ad absurdum arcument:

JazzMan

Not only do you apparently not know me well, but you also have a thin skin. I was taking a shit on Ontario and Toronto's halfassed air quality control efforts, and not on you.

You have a flair for the dramatic. Nope, it was I.

Awright, I'll simplify for you:

Solar cars exist. They are mobile, and they get their power from the sun.

Nuclear submarines exist. They are mobile, and they get their power from nuclear reactions.

Therefore, it is not correct to say that you can't do nuclear or solar mobile power generation.

Good. I was on the UM Solar Car Team.

There you are, then.

True. That wasn't the question, though.

That was the context, though, a fact that you evidentally overlooked.

JazzMan