Automobile Environmentalism: Hybrid vs. Combustion

[Qriz]

I did explain that in my post above Calin

 

[Vikendios]

 

[Vikendios]

Lets face it : If CO2 emissions are not acceptable, the only fuel available in the future will be Hydrogen (unless someone comes up with really compact batteries devoid of nasty heavy metals when disposed of), emitting harmless H2O.

Whereas the Hydrogen engine will be of the cell-type or internal combustion will depend on technological development. Cell-type will probably be initially less efficient, internal combustion require lubricants and careful handling of potentially explosive Hydrogen. Both will require on-board hydrogen storage that is not yet a done deal.

The obvious crux is how to mass-produce hydrogen without emitting further CO2, and when every river is dammed and every acceptable wind farm operating, the only answer will be nice clean nuclear power, and lots of it. The only further use of fossil fuel will be to power the rockets needed to ship off the radioactive waste to Mars.

 

[Vee]

Turning fossil coal or hydrocarbones into CO2 additions to our atmosphere is not acceptable.
But CO2 emissions are perfectly acceptable if you take the same amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere when you manufacture the fuel.

Hybrid cars is a dead end. The various issues that batteries bring don't look to be ever possible to address satisfactorily. Also it doesn't solve the fundamental problem - getting rid of fossil fuels.

The bonus of hydrogen as fuel - energy storage - is the ease and energy economy of manufacturing it. And how well suited it is for fuel cells. We still need an energy source though.
And against this we have the inefficiency, risks and huge costs associated with a hydrogen distribution infrastructure. No thanks.

IMO alcohols are far more attractive. In particular buthanol. Keep the combustion engine. Replace the fuel. Concentrate on how to manufacture enough alcohol.

 

[bryanl]

How much energy does it take to build 1 car?

How much pollution is created in the production of that car?

In other words, if I buy a car that puts out X% less pollution and uses Y% less gasoline than my previous one, how much does it have to be driven before it becomes a net improvement to the environment?

 

[frostedflakes]

I believe ULS (ultra low sulfur) diesel fuel either recently or will very soon be required in the US, so I'd imagine more diesel cars will begin to show up in the US.

I do not think hybrids are the answer, though. IMO we should be focusing on biofuels, i.e. biodiesel and ethanol. Diesels are very efficient, and according to what I've read, spark ignition engines designed for alcohols (that can take advantage of their higher octane rating, lower latent heat of vaporization, etc.) can achieve efficiencies similar to diesel.

Hydrogen is pointless at this juncture. The people that hype it up only tell part of the story. Sure it is clean, but currently there is no practical and efficient way to produce it. For now we are better off producing the energy directly in an engine, as opposed to burning fuel to produce electricity to produce hydrogen through hydrolysis to produce power through combustion. Just too many steps, very inefficient. Plus it would require replacing all our current infrastructure, whereas the move to biodiesel or ethanol would require little/no retooling for pumping stations, transportation, etc.