I appreciate the difference from current hybrids, but the fact is that
this is a plug-in series hybrid. Afterthought or not, the engine is
critical to making it viable in the marketplace. And remember, this
car is totally unproven at this point. Last I heard GM doesn't even
have a battery supplier yet. At best this thing will go 40 miles
under optimum conditions. Without the engine, no one would trust the
car for more than 30 miles and even that much trust might not be
Perhaps we don't mean the same thing by stress. What I mean is
draining the batteries down low and then fully charging them back up.
"A lithium-ion battery provides 300-500 discharge/charge cycles. The
battery prefers a partial rather than a full discharge. Frequent full
discharges should be avoided when possible. Instead, charge the
battery more often or use a larger battery."
"Fully discharging your Lithium battery frequently can actually be
quite harmful to your batterys health, possibly rendering it
completely unusable if energy levels go too low."
Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or
nickel-cadmium designs, and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated.
They may explode if overheated or if charged to an excessively high
voltage. Furthermore, they may be irreversibly damaged if discharged
below a certain voltage. To reduce these risks, li-ion batteries
generally contain a small circuit that shuts down the battery when
discharged below a certain threshold (typically 3 V) or charged above
a certain limit (typically 4.2 V).
I understand the principle, I just don't think that pure electric cars
will have any measurable impact on our energy needs for at lest 10 -
15 years. That will only come when they are economically viable and
they aren't even close now.
The first step to treating it with respect is to never consider it
They are until they aren't. And then they are very bad.
Nuclear energy and military force should both be treated with great
respect. That could explain why we have had a major nuclear accident
and France hasn't (yet).
I know you've only been independent for about 200 years, but a child
learns to spell in primary school (4to11 to you), when will you learn to
spell and then not talk rubbish about "Processing" against dry storage?
You've a lovely country, it's a shame that your brains don't match up.
One Chernobyl destroys your city.
That is the problem with the hazards of nuclear energy; they are very
granular. The plant at Chernobyl ran for nineteen years without
harming anyone. Then one day it destroyed a city.
Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak
oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their
reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40
years left at current use.
And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those computer
chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know that
keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? Okay,
there are some things we won't miss.
With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear
protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often
does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need"
one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work
(guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous.
- dillon I am not invalid
Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being discovered?
Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL the drillable oil
fields yet,or began producing from them.
All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery
capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or diesel.
That requires a scientific breakthrough.
Used oil can be used for making plastics.
Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make them.
"Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight the
trend and continue making the same stuff.
AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd world
nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of bettering
their people's lives,and cost US more in security.
Most oil producing countries have already peaked. The US peaked
almost 40 years ago. Yes, they find new oil fields every year but
they aren't enough to replace what we suck out in a year. And the
fields they develop are getting harder and harder to extract.
Leadership can help us stretch what oil we have. The best thing we
have right now is conservation. Building mass transit and replacing
SUVs with subcompacts do not require scientific breakthroughs.
Most "used oil" is CO2 in the atmosphere. And most plastic products
(unlike packaging) can't be recycled as a practical matter.
Only at a far higher price than petroleum.
If we had just paid for Iraq with increased gas tax, we would be
driving Priuses and bicycles now.
Of course,the DemocRATs were the ones who stopped US domestic oil
production,and currently are holding up any new drilling and refinery
BTW,oil tankers are the biggest risk and have done the most damage to the
environment,from oil production.
Nonsense. There's oil off the California coast,and some of it NATURALLY
bubbles up from the sea floor. There's oil in coastal ANWR.
There's oil off the coast of South America,and oil in the South China Sea(a
there's still enough places we haven't even explored yet,too.
our main problem now is the environuts/socialists who hinder our drilling
and refining,and cost us economically and strategically by making us
dependent on foreign oil.
with -today's- processes.
The use of some of those might even be inhibited by the environuts who want
us to do without oil.
Even if you were right and these is actually plenty of oil (you aren't
but let's just assume), you think it's ok to keep burning it at the
rate we do? It's all just a plot of the environnut socialists to keep
the poor capitalists from enjoying life? Global warming and the threat
of huge damage to the earth is just another plot, right?
There certainly are untapped oil deposits, but they aren't as big as
you think. If ANWR came on line next year, it might take US
production levels back to 1999, but nowhere near our 1970 peak. The
reality of the development process is that, by the earliest time the
undeveloped US capacity could come on line, we will be lucky if it
would bring us back up to today's production level.
There is no magic recovery process. You can't do it with a microchip.
It is very slow, very dirty and very expensive.
Peak oil like "human caused" climate change is a joke at best and giant
scam at the worst. There's plenty of fossil fuels left but the point is
the liquid form is controlled by unstable and often unfriendly nations.
It's akin to economic blackmail which in turn should provide the
incentive to replace what we don't have with alternative existing
technology, (nuclear power), and new technologies.
(BTW, your comment above was not to any of my statements)
And that's what leadership can bring about. Battery technology is
advancing very rapidly at the present time. My guess is that most urban
tasks could be done with plug-in cars within five years.
I don't think that vegetable oil should be considered unless you want to
see price spikes like the ones that occurred with ethanol from corn
products. Any cartel that can grab you by the short hairs will wring
your wallet dry if the guv'ment doesn't do so first.
And caused foreign manufacturers to also create mostrous SUVs. Ever
follow a CRV? It ain't the Honda that I fondly remember...
Not all of it.The US has known reserves we refuse to produce.
Nuclear is not going to power automobiles.Not without a decent battery.
well,the other folks are ones I killfiled.
sorry,but leadership does NOT bring about scientific breakthroughs.
Not all vegetable oils come from farming.
They're working on algae that produce oil.also oils from weeds and other
And I wouldn't use them for the high volume auto transportation
application,but for plastics feedstocks.
CRVs are small compared to most domestic SUVs on the roads today,and have
better fuel economy,I suspect.
Granted,Toyota,Honda and Nissan all make monster SUVs/PU trucks,too.
There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
but one can not escape the laws of physics!
The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best design
features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision rather
than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment
is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the
safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would
you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding in
a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
or allow my family members to do so.
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.