Automobile Environmentalism: Hybrid vs. Combustion

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

makken

Golden Member
Aug 28, 2004
1,476
0
76
Originally posted by: SickBeast
The way I see it, energy is energy. It cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, by simply driving anything, we are damaging the environment. The greater the mass of the vehicle, the greater the damage.

I don't see where you're making the connection that energy usage = damaging to the environment.

Yes, our current methods of energy generation are environmentally damaging, but that's not to say that we won't be able to find an environmentally friendly way of generating energy in the future.

The one thing that the hybrid has going for it is the elimination of emissions at idle, which is a great thing for urban air quality.

The con to the hybrid is the hazardous production and disposal of the batteries (and perhaps their explosion à la Sony!).

AFAIK, a car uses very very little fuel to keep the engine at idle. Most of the efficiency in hybrids comes from recovering "lost" energy as stated before, and in its design (aerodynamics, gearing, engine tuning, etc.)

I suppose option #3 is some kind of chemically engineered fuel that is incredibly clean burning and can run in current combusion engines. I've heard something about Canola, but perhaps someone here will have further insight.

FYI, you can run an ICE on hydrogen, BMW has been doing it for some time now. Sure, the power output is rather poor (owing to the low energy released per unit of hydrogen combusted when compared to heptane/octane), last I heard was around 180ish horsepower out of their 6.0L V12 several years ago (vs 400+ out of the gasoline version)

Personally, I love the ICE. I love the sound, the response, the power surge; I would be downright bored if I was forced to drive any other type of car. So I'm definately hoping for a future with it in some shape or form.

interesting sidenote: I had an extremely hard time finding information on the CleanEnergy program on the BMW USA site... i wonder why

 

pm

Elite Member Mobile Devices
Jan 25, 2000
7,419
22
81
Personally, I love the ICE. I love the sound, the response, the power surge; I would be downright bored if I was forced to drive any other type of car. So I'm definately hoping for a future with it in some shape or form.
I'm completely the opposite. I love driving electrics (I have been building my own custom electric vehicles for a while). Incredible torque and almost no noise at all... it's almost like magic.
 

imported_inspire

Senior member
Jun 29, 2006
986
0
0
@LSD Pulsar - The premise that 'You lose energy when you change it's form from fossil fuel into electricity to power the motors, rather than using it directly.' certainly seems plausible, but I wouldn't take it at face value. ICE's hit 25% efficiency on gas and motors can hit 80%. What is assumed in your arguement is that regular driving doesn't drop the overall efficiency of an ICE more than 20% of its optimum efficiency (the loss you'd experience in conversion).

Given that regenerative braking gives around +10% overall efficiency, there's got to be efficiency gains coming from somewhere else. My ECHO probably weighs about the same as an Insight, and is probably just as small, but the Insight will average 55 mpg to my 37 mpg (I don't idle much). Just seems to me that there's more going on there than aerodynamics and fancy brakes...

@Geniere - To dismiss the arguement of scarcity as ancillary endows humanity with a sense of morality that is actually quite uncommon. That's why economics and scarcity are used as arguements - the pocketbook is the soul of the 21st century.

I never said anything about a shortage of oil, I mentioned that once exploration peaks, so should production - and if demand continues to climb when that happens, the price of oil will rise dramatically.

@Calin - I was under the impression that the logarithmic decline in NOx emissions was due to the chemical structure of E85 more than anything else.
 

Qriz

Member
Sep 26, 2006
30
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The point of hybrid cars is very much to save energy. By recovering some of the energy that would otherwise be lost as friction, the net efficiency of the car is improved. If the batteries were charged using a wall outlet (which I don't believe they can be), then the net efficiency would still be improved, as electricity production at power plants occurs at large scales and higher efficiencies than in an automobile engine. Any time emissions are reduced, efficiency must also go up as the two are causally related.

The roughly 10% increase in efficiency (in optimal conditions, a maximum of 30% but my dealer said around 10%) from regenerative breaking, though an extreme plus to the hybrid and one of the reasons I bought it, does not make the sole purpose of a hybrid to save energy. You'll notice that ads etc for hybrids are mostly focused towards the reduced emissions. This is not to say the increased efficiency of hybrids due to the braking isn't worth mentioning- it's obviously quite the opposite. But I was saying that the reduced emissions and increased efficiency due to the car's computers balancing use of both the engine and motor is the sole purpose of the hybrid. The regenerative braking is only a great add-on that contributes to this efficiency, that couldn't be there without there being an emission-reducing electric motor.

As you can see here the reasons people say they bought their hybrid are pretty much the environmental part or the increased mpg. The increased mpg is due to the electrical motor working alongside the combustion. The regenerative braking is fully mentionable, but certainly not the sole reason buy a hybrid.

By the way, I'm pretty sure you can't plug a hybrid into an electrical socket. At least, I never have, and such a thing was never mentioned to me.

There are numerous recent studies (here's one) that would beg to differ with your conclusions. It even lists the Highlander as one that will eventually pay the difference between the hybrid and non-hybrid, though its payback period is relatively long.

My Highlander is a 2006 Toyota Highlander Limited 4dr SUV w/3rd Row and I drive about 25k miles per year, as they used for their estimates. It's been constantly pointed out to me that because of how new this technology is, hybrid cars were only around (mass-produced instead of indvidually) after Bill Clinton's Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles and in my opinion there is too little actual data to support most claims about how long the batteries will last, etc. Then there's the fact that gas prices have been unstable. Estimates as to the financial soundness of purchasing a hybrid change quite a bit: look here.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Qriz
The roughly 10% increase in efficiency (in optimal conditions, a maximum of 30% but my dealer said around 10%) from regenerative breaking, though an extreme plus to the hybrid and one of the reasons I bought it, does not make the sole purpose of a hybrid to save energy. You'll notice that ads etc for hybrids are mostly focused towards the reduced emissions. This is not to say the increased efficiency of hybrids due to the braking isn't worth mentioning- it's obviously quite the opposite. But I was saying that the reduced emissions and increased efficiency due to the car's computers balancing use of both the engine and motor is the sole purpose of the hybrid. The regenerative braking is only a great add-on that contributes to this efficiency, that couldn't be there without there being an emission-reducing electric motor.
/backpedal. You previously said:
The point of hybrid cars isn't that it saves energy, because yes, the electricity in the batteries came from fossil fuels as well. It's mostly the reduced emissions, and the regenerative braking is great too (and it sounds pretty sweet, if you've heard it before.) Also, the computers that control weather a hybrid uses the electric or gas motor are meant to maximize efficiency and minimize emissions, depending on the conditions (speeds, highway or city, etc.) You can't do that with a combustion car, which only has one option: pump that fuel!
You simply can't separate lower emissions from better efficiency. As I said before, they're causally related - a package deal. And I still don't think you get the big picture. Regenerative braking is how these things work. To my knowledge, you can't plug a Prius into the wall to charge the battery. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that electricity is generated onboard using regenerative braking (plus, I assume, the standard alternator system found in any other car). Since you later agreed that you can't plug a hybrid into the wall, I'm curious where you think the additional energy for driving the electric motor comes from, if not solely from regenerative braking. Are you suggesting that it's powered by the alternator directly?
My Highlander is a 2006 Toyota Highlander Limited 4dr SUV w/3rd Row and I drive about 25k miles per year, as they used for their estimates. It's been constantly pointed out to me that because of how new this technology is, hybrid cars were only around (mass-produced instead of indvidually) after Bill Clinton's Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles and in my opinion there is too little actual data to support most claims about how long the batteries will last, etc. Then there's the fact that gas prices have been unstable. Estimates as to the financial soundness of purchasing a hybrid change quite a bit: look here.
But the bottom line is that not many people (yourself excluded) seem to think that they're making a long-term financial sacrifice by buying a hybrid. All studies indicate that they will pay for the difference over some poorly-defined payback period. The only thing they're quibbling about is how long the payback period is, not whether it exists.
 

Calin

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2001
3,112
0
0
Originally posted by: inspire

@Calin - I was under the impression that the logarithmic decline in NOx emissions was due to the chemical structure of E85 more than anything else.

It very well might be - but as far as I know, E85 is just a blend of gasoline and alcohol. Gasoline is mostly C and H, with little or no nitrogen compounds in it. If so, the only place you could get NOx from would be burning of athmospheric nitrogen in air.

(and I don't know the flame temperature of alcohol compared to the average flame temperature of gasoline, in order to settle this point).

EDIT: if I would take this page as correct, gasoline burns just a bit hotter than ethanol (the other component of E85):
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ezekoye/rsch.dir/firesite/science_thermodynamics.html

Seems I was wrong
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
To my knowledge, you can't plug a Prius into the wall to charge the battery. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that electricity is generated onboard using regenerative braking (plus, I assume, the standard alternator system found in any other car).

For the record, some fools have modified them so that they can be plugged into the wall as an 'electric'. Toyota, and rightly so, says don't do it. It is not your laptop we are dealing with. Considering how this would probably shorten the life of the batteries, the cost could hit them soon enough. Wonder if Sony makes those batteries too

Also (not for CW), as posted, efficiency = lower emissions. The less you need to burn, the less exhaust. It is a direct benefit.

On alcohol... One of the cool things about methynol and ethynol is the fuel to air ratio. Gasoline has a very tight ratio around 1:15. If I remember my ME class, Meth is 1:6 to 1:22 (it was freaking 25 years ago - so if it is wrong...). And the more you stuff in a cylinder, the more power (you can also 'cool' it by adding more alcohol). That is part of why CART was sticking with it. Too fun to get rid of. Think of the potential of a straight alcohol engine. It could have an economy, sport, and race setting in the ECU and have very different performance if a turbo is also applied. Gas has less bandwidth.

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Calin
Originally posted by: inspire

@Calin - I was under the impression that the logarithmic decline in NOx emissions was due to the chemical structure of E85 more than anything else.

It very well might be - but as far as I know, E85 is just a blend of gasoline and alcohol. Gasoline is mostly C and H, with little or no nitrogen compounds in it. If so, the only place you could get NOx from would be burning of athmospheric nitrogen in air.

(and I don't know the flame temperature of alcohol compared to the average flame temperature of gasoline, in order to settle this point).

EDIT: if I would take this page as correct, gasoline burns just a bit hotter than ethanol (the other component of E85):
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ezekoye/rsch.dir/firesite/science_thermodynamics.html

Seems I was wrong
The source of N2 in gasoline is the air. The higher the temperature, the more oxidation of nitrogen will occur, as the activation energy for such reactions is extremely high.
 

pm

Elite Member Mobile Devices
Jan 25, 2000
7,419
22
81
For the record, some fools have modified them so that they can be plugged into the wall as an 'electric'. Toyota, and rightly so, says don't do it. It is not your laptop we are dealing with. Considering how this would probably shorten the life of the batteries, the cost could hit them soon enough. Wonder if Sony makes those batteries too.
It's a bit of a gross generalization to call anyone who modifies their hybrid cars with an electric-only option to improve the short-range driving mileage "fools". The modifications are not particularly difficult (expensive, yes, but difficult, no) and are not particularly dangerous (either physically, or likely to damage the car). Several of the kits in development are targetting a 4 hour install time. In a nutshell, you just add more batteries to the car, add a wall outlet battery charger and manipulate the state-of-charge settings in the car. It's more complex than this in reality, but this is the general principle.

It shouldn't shorten the life of the batteries - where did you read that?

I personally don't think that anyone who modifies their Prius to enable an electric-only plug-in functionality is a fool. To my mind it's a form of inventing and should be encouraged.

The Prius Plug-in hybrid conversion wiki: http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Prius_PHEV
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: pm
For the record, some fools have modified them so that they can be plugged into the wall as an 'electric'. Toyota, and rightly so, says don't do it. It is not your laptop we are dealing with. Considering how this would probably shorten the life of the batteries, the cost could hit them soon enough. Wonder if Sony makes those batteries too.
It's a bit of a gross generalization to call anyone who modifies their hybrid cars with an electric-only option to improve the short-range driving mileage "fools". The modifications are not particularly difficult (expensive, yes, but difficult, no) and are not particularly dangerous (either physically, or likely to damage the car). Several of the kits in development are targetting a 4 hour install time. In a nutshell, you just add more batteries to the car, add a wall outlet battery charger and manipulate the state-of-charge settings in the car. It's more complex than this in reality, but this is the general principle.

It shouldn't shorten the life of the batteries - where did you read that?

I personally don't think that anyone who modifies their Prius to enable an electric-only plug-in functionality is a fool. To my mind it's a form of inventing and should be encouraged.

The Prius Plug-in hybrid conversion wiki: http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Prius_PHEV
I still think they are fools. They can void the warranty. In so doing, they have now removed themselves from any future recourse on actions that are now underway to extend the protection of battery replacements. And Li Ion batteries have a charge/discharge lifecycle just like other batteries, but not as sensitive as NiMHd, etc. Increase the usage and deepen the cycle, shorten the life span. Also, just running battery will increase the thermal ranges the batteries experience. Add to that, improper charging of any Li battery is a risk. Smart circuits are part of the kits and should mitigate it, but you do not know everything Toyota tested. You would assume that if they work well on the battery only, Toyota would have extended the battery only operations cycle.

There is a basic axiom that covers this. There are liars, damn liars, and battery engineers (source unknown - Autoweek in the 80's) The other axiom is a fool and his money are soon parted. If they want to spend more on getting a new car sooner because they ran it as an all-electric, it is their money.



 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: pm
It's a bit of a gross generalization to call anyone who modifies their hybrid cars with an electric-only option to improve the short-range driving mileage "fools". The modifications are not particularly difficult (expensive, yes, but difficult, no) and are not particularly dangerous (either physically, or likely to damage the car). Several of the kits in development are targetting a 4 hour install time. In a nutshell, you just add more batteries to the car, add a wall outlet battery charger and manipulate the state-of-charge settings in the car. It's more complex than this in reality, but this is the general principle.

It shouldn't shorten the life of the batteries - where did you read that?

I personally don't think that anyone who modifies their Prius to enable an electric-only plug-in functionality is a fool. To my mind it's a form of inventing and should be encouraged.

The Prius Plug-in hybrid conversion wiki: http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Prius_PHEV
If I were designing a hybrid, I would include this functionality. It will always decrease net pollution, since power plants are more efficient than cars, and decrease the cost to the end user, since (hopefully, and almost surely) the distance-per-dollar ratio is greater than gas.

And to think... I almost went to grad school in Ft. Collins! I could have been your first customer and maybe even helped build one of these cars. Maybe in a couple years I can buy one off you.
 

kpb

Senior member
Oct 18, 2001
252
0
0
Originally posted by: pm
It shouldn't shorten the life of the batteries - where did you read that?

I has to shorten battery life. All batteries have a limited number of charge cycles and more frequent charging and discharging caused by using it as PHEV and likely deeper discharges will wear the batteries faster and there's no way to avoid it. It might not be too bad if they do a good job of balancing the wear accross the additional batteries added but if they do a poor job you could easily substantially shorten the life of your batteries.
 

pm

Elite Member Mobile Devices
Jan 25, 2000
7,419
22
81
Originally posted by: gsellis
I still think they are fools. They can void the warranty. In so doing, they have now removed themselves from any future recourse on actions that are now underway to extend the protection of battery replacements.
This is a good point.

And Li Ion batteries have a charge/discharge lifecycle just like other batteries, but not as sensitive as NiMHd, etc. Increase the usage and deepen the cycle, shorten the life span.
You don't have to deepen the cycle to increase the usage - you just add more batteries and keep the cycling the same.
Also, just running battery will increase the thermal ranges the batteries experience.
I'm not following you here - are you saying that the batteries will heat up from more frequent usage? The thermal range of the batteries in use is much smaller than the batteries experience from just enviornmental exposure (ie. drive it through Death Valley in summer, driving it through Michigan in the winter will be a much wider range than driving it around Chicago and using the batteries more frequently). At least when they are being actively used they are being thermally managed.
Add to that, improper charging of any Li battery is a risk.
There are several different types of lithium rechargeable batteries which are not prone to Dell laptop/Sony battery lithium ion explosions... they are just expensive. A123 lithium ion batteries are one example of a lithium-based rechargeable which is considered as safe as nickel-based batteries.

Smart circuits are part of the kits and should mitigate it, but you do not know everything Toyota tested. You would assume that if they work well on the battery only, Toyota would have extended the battery only operations cycle.
On the contrary, rather than my assuming that they found an engineering problem with a plug-in hybrid, my assumption is that they found an economic problem with them. The Prius battery right now is a 38-cell 7.2V NiMH 6.5Ah battery pack. This would be a ~1.7kWh battery but to ensure longevity Toyota decreases the total cycle range to something close to a 0.6Kwh battery (something like "max charge is 70% of theoretical capacity, and minimum charge is about 30% of minum charge") This is capable of driving the car for approximately 2 miles on battery power alone. Something like the Hymotion L5 increases the battery capacity to approximately 5kWh and costs about $15k more increases the battery-only range to about 20 miles (30 miles according to www.hymotion.com... but their math doesn't make sense to me... my calculations are for about 20 miles... maybe they are driving around at a point where wind resistance doesn't matter... I can't figure it out... but 20 seems about right to me). The reason why I don't think there's a plug-in Prius... it increases the car cost from $22k (base) to $37k (base).

From an engineering perspective, electric cars were one of the first types of cars to be invented. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car - there's a photo of Edison and Ford in front of an electric car. There's no engineering reason that I can think against electric cars. The problem today is the same problem that they had back in the early 20th century: cost.

There is a basic axiom that covers this. There are liars, damn liars, and battery engineers (source unknown - Autoweek in the 80's).
Perhaps it's my Spock-like nature, but... I don't get it. You are saying that battery engineers are completely untrustworthy? I've seen some specifications that seem pretty far from reality, but still... batteries do work... add more to a Prius and it will go farther on electric power. Plug it in at night, and they will charge. I don't understand how any of this could be considered lying.

The other axiom is a fool and his money are soon parted. If they want to spend more on getting a new car sooner because they ran it as an all-electric, it is their money.
This, like your comment about warranties, is, IMO, a good point. Hybrid cars are expensive and plug-in hybrids are even more expensive. Batteries cost a lot of money and don't last forever.

And to think... I almost went to grad school in Ft. Collins! I could have been your first customer and maybe even helped build one of these cars. Maybe in a couple years I can buy one off you.
I don't have a hybrid or plug-in hybrid car and I've never worked on a conversion kit. As my evening hobby, I build, design, and wind my own electric motors and I have an electric... bicycle (although I'm not sure that you can call a vehicle with a 35mph top-speed and a range of about 40 miles a bicycle anymore... perhaps a "pedal-assist scooter") that I commute to work in on nicer days. The rest of the time I drive my Honda Civic (non-hybrid). I just keep up with the whole plug-in hybrid news because I'm interested and a bunch of the mailing lists that I subscribe to are more Prius-focused.
I has to shorten battery life. All batteries have a limited number of charge cycles and more frequent charging and discharging caused by using it as PHEV and likely deeper discharges will wear the batteries faster and there's no way to avoid it. It might not be too bad if they do a good job of balancing the wear accross the additional batteries added but if they do a poor job you could easily substantially shorten the life of your batteries.
I agree that if you do a poor job, then you could screw things up. But if you have battery with a life expectancy of 15 years and then you add in 10 more of these same batteries to increase the range (while keeping everything else the same) then the battery life should stay the same... 15 years.
 

Qriz

Member
Sep 26, 2006
30
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You simply can't separate lower emissions from better efficiency. As I said before, they're causally related - a package deal. And I still don't think you get the big picture. Regenerative braking is how these things work. To my knowledge, you can't plug a Prius into the wall to charge the battery. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that electricity is generated onboard using regenerative braking (plus, I assume, the standard alternator system found in any other car). Since you later agreed that you can't plug a hybrid into the wall, I'm curious where you think the additional energy for driving the electric motor comes from, if not solely from regenerative braking. Are you suggesting that it's powered by the alternator directly?

You've missed an extremely simple, but important aspect here. "Modern mass-produced hybrids, prolong the charge on their batteries by capturing kinetic energy via regenerative braking." The battery starts out with a charge, just like with a combustion-only vehicle (but of course they don't use the battery for propulsion, just lights and stuff.) The regenerative breaking, as I pointed out, is an add-on: an added bonus that makes the battery last longer. If you aren't sure about your knowledge, simply checking out Wikipedia is a good way to get the basics down. This is all in the first paragraph of the "Hybrid Vehicle" article.

So the additional energy to drive the electric motor comes mostly from the energy already in the battery, and also from the combustion engine (only sometimes, mostly at highway cruising speeds,) and a smaller amount from regenerative breaking. But the concept of a Hybrid is hardly based on the regenerative breaking part of it. Well, actually, it isn't at all. It's just another way to increase efficiency that can only be done with a car that has an electric motor.

But the bottom line is that not many people (yourself excluded) seem to think that they're making a long-term financial sacrifice by buying a hybrid. All studies indicate that they will pay for the difference over some poorly-defined payback period. The only thing they're quibbling about is how long the payback period is, not whether it exists.

You can search yourself, but I did a quick google for "hybrid vehicle worth the money" and the first hit was this. Scroll down to "Conclusion," and you'll see that buying a hybrid for purely the hope that they'll make up for themselves in price wouldn't be too great an idea...if you want more sources, there are tons if you google the same phrase that support that view. But let's put it this way: I didn't buy my Highlander in the hopes that it would pay for itself, and even the dealer admitted that it probably wouldn't. It was the reduced emissions and other benefits. One of the biggest setbacks of a hybrid is that you're basically paying for your gas ahead of time with the hope that the car will last long enough for it to be worth it.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Qriz
You've missed an extremely simple, but important aspect here. "Modern mass-produced hybrids, prolong the charge on their batteries by capturing kinetic energy via regenerative braking." The battery starts out with a charge, just like with a combustion-only vehicle (but of course they don't use the battery for propulsion, just lights and stuff.) The regenerative breaking, as I pointed out, is an add-on: an added bonus that makes the battery last longer. If you aren't sure about your knowledge, simply checking out Wikipedia is a good way to get the basics down. This is all in the first paragraph of the "Hybrid Vehicle" article.
I'm not sure where I contradicted that, but feel free to point it out. Obviously they're not going to put a dead battery in your car when you buy it. Obviously it soon would be dead without regenerative braking. This is the part that you seem to be missing in your next paragraph:
So the additional energy to drive the electric motor comes mostly from the energy already in the battery, and also from the combustion engine (only sometimes, mostly at highway cruising speeds,) and a smaller amount from regenerative breaking. But the concept of a Hybrid is hardly based on the regenerative breaking part of it. Well, actually, it isn't at all. It's just another way to increase efficiency that can only be done with a car that has an electric motor.
Assuming energy is conserved, which is generally a good assumption, the battery would deplete with driving time, since its energy is used as a supplement to the combustion reaction. Thus, the only way to regenerate it is with braking. The energy in the battery wouldn't be worth much at all if it wasn't regenerative.
You can search yourself, but I did a quick google for "hybrid vehicle worth the money" and the first hit was this. Scroll down to "Conclusion," and you'll see that buying a hybrid for purely the hope that they'll make up for themselves in price wouldn't be too great an idea...if you want more sources, there are tons if you google the same phrase that support that view. But let's put it this way: I didn't buy my Highlander in the hopes that it would pay for itself, and even the dealer admitted that it probably wouldn't. It was the reduced emissions and other benefits. One of the biggest setbacks of a hybrid is that you're basically paying for your gas ahead of time with the hope that the car will last long enough for it to be worth it.
The link you provided didn't say why he made this claim, other than citing this link, which states "Don?t buy a hybrid because you want to make back an investment. That will take between five and twenty years, depending on gas prices, the amount you drive, and how good of a deal you got on the car." Of course, if gas prices continue to rise (which I'll speculate they will) and one assumes that the simple model that he uses to generate this figure is correct, then the payback period will be very short*. Thus, unless your vehicle turnaround time is less than or equal to the payback period, you have a financial incentive to buy a hybrid, regardless of your lesson in Wikiality.

*Note that the payback period will decrease as gasoline prices increase.
 

pm

Elite Member Mobile Devices
Jan 25, 2000
7,419
22
81
Assuming energy is conserved, which is generally a good assumption, the battery would deplete with driving time, since its energy is used as a supplement to the combustion reaction. Thus, the only way to regenerate it is with braking. The energy in the battery wouldn't be worth much at all if it wasn't regenerative.
The Toyota "Hybrid Synergy Drive" uses both a series/parallel drive scheme. The battery is charged by braking and by the internal generator.

Quoting from http://www.hybridsynergydrive.com/pdf/en/140/HYBRID_SYNERGY_DRIVE.pdf:
"The system runs the car on power from the electric motors only, or by using both the gas/petrol engine and the electric motors together, depending on the driving conditions. Since the generator is integrated into the system, the battery can be charged while the car is running."
and then later:
"The power split device transfers art of the power produced by the gas/petrol engine to drive the wheels, and the rest to the generator to either provide electric power for the electric motor or to recharge the battery."


It makes sense charging the battery from the motor at speeds where the gas engine operates at a more efficient point on the rpm power curve, and then using the electric motor at speeds where the the gas engine would be less efficient. That was the whole concept of the series hybrid motor - where the gas motor operated continuously at it's most efficient operating point to charge the battery that drove the electric motor.
 

Calin

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2001
3,112
0
0
As I remember, the first hybrids used a continously running internal combustion engine. Its power was supplemented by an electric motor. While the engine had some 50HP and the electric motor some 7HP (maximum), at low rpm (800-1000 or some), the torque the electric engine exceeded the torque of the engine.
This way, the hybrid offered performance at low speeds/low rpm (running the electric motor only when needed) similar to the performance of a bigger engine (sub-1 liter engine on the hybrid I think, and a 1.6 or so on the simple car).
 

Qriz

Member
Sep 26, 2006
30
0
0
Yes. The regenerative breaking is another source (a pretty good source) of extra energy for the electric motor, other than the gas motor supplying the electric motor when efficiency allows the process to be worth it. Regenerative braking came in after the first hybrids were being produced, as was pointed out.

And Cyclowizard: Like I said, when you pay that extra chunk of cash for a hybrid, you're basically hoping that the savings in gas prices will make up for that chunk, hopefully more. If it weren't for other obvious benefits, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to buy one, because you aren't sure if the car will last that long. But in retrospect, it probably will. Or at least, I hope so.
 

Calin

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2001
3,112
0
0
Seems there are other kind of reasons to buy a hybrid now (at least in some places): use of the High Occupancy Vehicles line (which usually is less crowded by cars), free parking in some cities, financial help from government at purchase, and so on.
But these might be eliminated in the years to come, so the main reason would still be fuel economy
 

Qriz

Member
Sep 26, 2006
30
0
0
Yeah, the benefits are a-many. The reason the government and other organizations are providing these added benefits to hybrid drivers is to promote an incentive to clean up the environment. I can't wait for Boston to approve free parking for hybrids! Then I don't have to worry about those $50/day lots they have that are close to everything.

The cheapest hybrids are not more than $2000 higher in price than their non-hybrid versions, and if you drive 1,000 miles a month and your current car averages 20 miles per gallon, driving a hybrid could save $700 or more a year at the pump. Even if we go down to $500 savings a year, you'd still pay it off within 4 years. Consider this with the other benefits, I'd say that a a hybrid vehicle is an excellent choice for anyone looking to buy a new car even if you don't have the money for the more expensive ones.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
current hybrids just dont seem to have enough of an andvantage to be worth it. Sure you save some energy, but it requires you to buy more parts. I would have to wonder how much energy is requied to produce these part from mining the metal to milling it down and shipping them etc... I would image if you look into the total life-cycle emmisions of a hybrid car they would only be a few % lower than a normal car, so really the help to the enviroment is minimal, and the same is likely true fo makign your money back. The biggest advantage to hybrids is likely the government subsidies and the feeling like your doing something good.
 

JeepinEd

Senior member
Dec 12, 2005
869
63
91
Just some real world stats from a 1st generation Prius owner:

On a daily commute of approx 140 highway miles per day, I am averaging 48 MPG.
This is about the same average I had when I purchased the Prius in 2001, so there has been no noticeable decrease in MPG. My commute takes me from sea level, to 3500 feet, so it's not all flat ground. Weather conditions vary from 35 F in the winter, to 110 F in the summer.
I currently have over 170K miles, with the original batteries and original brakes, thanks to the regenerative braking.

As far as costs, the only thing that never gets mentioned are the low rolling resistance tires that the Prius comes with. I keep them at the recommended pressure and rotate them regularly, yet they only last about 30K miles. I solved this by purchasing different tires, that last much longer and only took about .5 MPG off my average.

While I have recouped my investment, I don't think very many people will.
Not being familiar with Diesel technology, I wonder why they can't make a Diesel powered hybrid?
 

Qriz

Member
Sep 26, 2006
30
0
0
That's pretty interesting. That's probably the oldest data we can get, since the Prius was pretty much the first widely manufactured hybrid. It's nice to see that it has lasted five years w/o any problems. My Highlander is a 2006 (almost a year old,) and it's driven mostly on backroads in New Hampshire (relatively flat.) I usually get around 35 mpg, which has been pretty constant. Over the summer I drove it up to Canada and back- my trip totaled about 2000 miles, obviously mostly highway, and my average mileage was about 30 mpg. I'd say it'll take a lot longer than a Prius to appreciate, but I'm still hopeful.

Diesel hybrids are on the way: GM and Ford have already released prototypes of such a system (a few years back) with mileage around 70-80. The reason they aren't on the market is US diesel fuel is heavy with sulfer, which increases bad emissions significantly. Once biodeisel and other "clean diesal" fuels are produced more widely, we should be seeing hybrid diesels (well, any other kind of diesel) cars a lot more.
 

Calin

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2001
3,112
0
0
Originally posted by: BrownTown
current hybrids just dont seem to have enough of an andvantage to be worth it. Sure you save some energy, but it requires you to buy more parts. I would have to wonder how much energy is requied to produce these part from mining the metal to milling it down and shipping them etc... I would image if you look into the total life-cycle emmisions of a hybrid car they would only be a few % lower than a normal car, so really the help to the enviroment is minimal, and the same is likely true fo makign your money back. The biggest advantage to hybrids is likely the government subsidies and the feeling like your doing something good.

All that cost is reflected pretty well in the recommended price (MSRP).
 

Calin

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2001
3,112
0
0
Originally posted by: JeepinEd

While I have recouped my investment, I don't think very many people will.
Not being familiar with Diesel technology, I wonder why they can't make a Diesel powered hybrid?

Diesel engines are more efficient (per gallon) than gasoline engines. Also, current turbodiesels have great torque and power curves.
However, most turbodiesels are built for european market, which uses a different diesel fuel (much lower sulphur I think). The higher sulphur from american diesel fuel is bad for those engines.
Also, while current turbodiesel engines have better torque characteristics than gasoline engines, higher price but lower maximum power.

And yes, they can make a diesel powered hybrid. Why don't they do it? I don't know for sure
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |