"PRIUS OUTDOES HUMMER IN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE!!"
theloner...@aol.com
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society
so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium
to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their
ultimate 'green car' is the source of some of the worst pollution in
North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than
a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first
understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular
hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76
horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a
battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping
295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially,
the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car
from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of
gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more
energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is
recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline
engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great
energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?
You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates,
which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city
and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the
government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which
consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only
3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a
much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and
acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius's EPA down
by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within
spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then
half what the Prius costs.
However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn't be
writing this article. It gets much worse.
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer
that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already
noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel.
The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This
plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding
environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to
test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for
miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius' battery
and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the
plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario,
becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.
"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants
and the soil slid down off the hillside," said Canadian Greenpeace
energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a
British-based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey
to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this
disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest
nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China
to produce 'nickel foam.' From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the
completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the
around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are
these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and
more like a farce?
Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and
build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes
almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius's arch
nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total
combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel,
transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other
factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an
average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -
the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to
put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means
the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less
combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead,
buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The
Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you
are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that
lead foot.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium
price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any
money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses."
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188
davee
date ooooo yeah!
Roger Coppock
of a Prius and a Hummer. I am very very skeptical
of this 100,000 an 300,000 mile lifetimes cited in
this article.
Chris Nelson
> "March 7, 2007
> Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
> By Chris Demorro
> Staff Writer
>
> The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76
> horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a
It's difficult to take seriously a scientific analysis from someone
who doesn't know that engines use chemical fuel and motors are driven
by electricity; "battery-powered engine" is a contradiction.
Frogwatch
Even I think this is a piece of BS. A Hummer going 300,000 miles, get
real. I've never seen an American designed car that could do that
(although my old Nissan truck has done it) whereas you can bet that a
Toyota will.
R.H. Allen
>
> Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total
> combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel,
> transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other
> factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an
> average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -
> the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
>
> The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to
> put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means
> the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less
> combined energy doing it.
Well, if you look at their study they do make the point that these costs
are not the out-of-pocket costs borne by the original owner. Yahoo Autos
pegs the cost-to-own of a 2007 Toyota Prius at $0.45/mile and that of a
2007 Hummer H2 at $1.09/mile. That's based on 5 years of ownership at
15,000 miles/year.
I'd have to take a closer look at their study to decide what I think of
their conclusions. I do find it rather difficult to believe that the
original owner of a Prius is picking up only 14% of the ultimate cost of
the vehicle, though I certainly don't find it impossible to believe.
Given that the report is 458 pages long and it's non-technical, I doubt
I'll be getting to it anytime soon....
Eeyore
> theloner...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total
> > combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel,
> > transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other
> > factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an
> > average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -
> > the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
> >
> > The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to
> > put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means
> > the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less
> > combined energy doing it.
Making comparisons over different mileages is ridiculous. That's going to favour
the Hummer by making it over 300,000 mi !
Graham
bill
wrote:
Well, the logic behind it is that you need to buy 3 prii to go
300k miles. So comparing at 300k miles is not totally stupid, as long
as you take into account all costs over that distance.
I believe the prius as a whole is designed for 200k miles with a
battery replacement at 100k, and I doubt the hummer will make 300k,
but my scepticism of the numbers used is not an indictment of the
methodology.
Joe Fischer
The miles are not the problem, many cars
being built now have motors that will go that long,
it is the moronic lifetime dollars per mile that show
the author is both biased and a moron, does he
really think a salesman that drives 50,000 miles
per year will pay $325,000 too drive the Prius?
Writers should at least be able to do a
little math and see when something is so stupid
that it is impossible.
And he is wrong about the Prius, I think
it has two electric motors and one internal
combustion engine, and will get the good
mileage in the city, where it counts most
and where most people put all the miles
on a car.
Maybe there are auto engineers that
are embarrassed because an electric vehicle
hybrid gets better mileage than a one engine
ICE, but they need to get over it and design
cars with more than one motor, and a small
motor in addition to more than one large
motor so that the fossil fuel burner gets
better efficiency, regardless if GW or AGW
turn out to exist or not, there is a very
limited amount of fuel, and the pension
funds and other big investors are pushing
the price sky high buying futures.
It is time governments realized that
there is going to be a fuel crisis that can
cause all world economies to melt down
if the price stays high.
Joe Fischer
Frogwatch
Very few American designed cars can make it to 200,000 miles while
many japanese designed ones such as the Prius will certainly go to
300,000. My 1985 Nissan truck has over 305,000 while even the best
American designed truck would barely get to 200,000. A Hummer, with
its poor reliability record, forget it. Consumer Reports rates
Hummers as one of the most unreliable vehicles.
Arnold Walker
"bill" <ford_pr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173893520.5...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
( an unusual occurances these days)
You would see commerical vehicle style warranties Frieghtliner has 700,000
mile warranty and they roll on to about 1,000,000 miles.
Same story for the other heavy truck manufacturers......
Most of your diesel duallies will roll 700,000 miles, if you care for the
light truck.
That is also reflected in the resale value of a diesel over gasoline.
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Arnold Walker
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:11738980...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
efficient.
Otherwise they would installed a diesel electric instead of a gas electric
drive.
But you looked at the chasis on that thing even if the milage did go higher
on reliable operation.
What would it be driving 200,000 + miles from now.......sturdy vehicle or a
bucket of bolts.
For the money spent it needs to be sturdy vehicle.
Part of what is hammering cars in general....the SUV will be sturdy compared
to car at 300,000miles.
The engine may be blown,but you still a vehicle worth a refit....look at
Honda,Toyota,or anything car and
it will be ready for the junkyard ,even with a good motor at times.
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
We have a paid General Motors commercial pushing tow GM products
disguised as a post disguised as a news article. Since neither Prius
nor Hummer have been on the road long enough to know their lifespan,
every claim that the Hummer gets 3 times the life is bald-faced lie.
Secondly, the Prius is only disadvantaged at 80 miles per hour seeds,
and at most of the miles travelled is exceptionally better than the
worst case.
Thirdly, price per mile is not an environmental cost. There is no
environmental damage done in passing money from one hand to another.
Mixing apples and oranges to prove something about GM Lemons is not
anything to do with environmental.
Fourth, the Nickle mining is not due to Prius and is long-standing
before Prius. Nickel is used all over the place, not just in Prius
batteries -- so who else gets blame? Chrome-Nickel-Steel is the most
common stainless steel and appears on every vehicle made by General
Motors and most of you have dinnerware and cookware made of stainless
steel. Lead batteries also have their environmental damages, and every
drop of acid in those batteries was once made in chrome-nickel-
stainless steel vessels. How much is Toyota's share of the world
nickle market? I might point out than INCO, the Canadian source for
much of the world's nickel supply, has a documented history of
supplying the Nazis in WWII through diverted transshipments through
Sweden, and has been American controlled then and now.
The greens pioneered recycling over the constant protests of the brown
shits, and every pound of nickel recycled is one less pound of mined
polluting nickel. The Hummer driver is guaranteed to not be concerned
about resource recycling or conservation.
Every gallon of gasoline burned produces 20 pounds of CO2. The Hummer
produces 60 extra pounds of CO2 above what the Prius uses to travel
the exact same distance that one gallon of gasoline moves the Prius.
The Hummer weighs three times the mass of a Prius and that extra two
cars worth of metals and plastics is not without mining and refining
impacts.
Toyota is fake green, making cars that warranty is void if you convert
them to Plug-in Electric Hybrid Vehicles, while building a new Tundra
Truck factory in Texas and a new SUV factory in Mississippi. This is a
turf-war over piggy car-makers, and not an objective look at works,
what works better, what doesn't work so good and what doesn't work at
all.
It's nothing but a diaper load of fresh steaming stinking shit. Take
it back and don't do this again.
Frogwatch
wrote:
> "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwal...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
>
> news:11738980...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
>
>
> > "bill" <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
For the money, I'd buy a Toyota every time. American cars and SUV in
particular are built so poorly that thye will fall apart in less than
200,000 miles whereas the Jap car will still be going strong at
300,000.. It isnt just the motor, it is the general engineering, fit
and finish. American cars are simply poorly designed. This past year
I rented two SUVs for long trips, a Kia and a GM product. The Kia was
very good, the GM was garbage. If I compare my old Toyota Corolla or
my old Nissan truck to any American SUV, there is no comparison in
quality of design, the japanese is simply superior. Consumer reports
says to avoid Hummers due to them having so many problems.
bill
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
> For the money, I'd buy a Toyota every time. American cars and SUV in
> particular are built so poorly that thye will fall apart in less than
> 200,000 miles whereas the Jap car will still be going strong at
> 300,000.. It isnt just the motor, it is the general engineering, fit
> and finish. American cars are simply poorly designed. This past year
> I rented two SUVs for long trips, a Kia and a GM product. The Kia was
> very good, the GM was garbage. If I compare my old Toyota Corolla or
> my old Nissan truck to any American SUV, there is no comparison in
> quality of design, the japanese is simply superior. Consumer reports
> says to avoid Hummers due to them having so many problems.
can't really disagree that he japanese cars are better, however,
the fact is, very few cars by any manufacturer make 300k. Basically,
that's only german diesels. 200k is about par for both American and
japanese life expectancy, hondas around 230, ford tempos around 170k,
looking at the statistics instead of the anecdotes. I dislike the
feel of the american cars, they handle poorly, get poor fuel economy,
are less reliable, and more expensive to keep running. However, in
terms of total vehicle life-span, not all that different.
Joe Fischer
I said the motors will go that long, a car is
usually not scrapped unless it is wrecked bad or
the motor is bad.
Surely you can see that nobody is going
to pay $3.25 cents per mile for 100,000 miles,
the only people that pay more than a dollar
a mile are the ones who buy a new car and
only drive it few thousand miles.
Joe Fischer
bill
Ummm..... no. cars get scrapped all the time that still have
years of perfectly good driving in them. trade in any 85 car (other
than a jag or a mercedes) and I guarantee you it'll never be
registered again. it'll be crushed. most people do not replace their
car when it's no longer serviceable, they replace it when it starts to
rattle a little, that's LONG before the motors go.
Frogwatch
I am a believer in the cult of automotive immortality. Whenever
anybody asks me when I am going to buy a new truck it makes me want to
keep my 305,000 mile Nissan (2.4 liter Z24 engine) longer. I am on my
4th AutoZone "free lifetime repalcement" alternator and they get
confused every time i go in there and cant figure out why there have
been 4 (crappy chinese rebuilds and my def of lifetime is diff from
theirs). Finally, after all these years, all the plastic parts are
depolymerizing in the Florida sun and the interior is disintegrating
in front of my eyes.
I tell my kids that when the odometer says 333,333, I'll park it and
never drive it again. However, there is a place near here that is old
truck paradise. Dog Island is a barrier Island off the coast here
with no bridge. There are no paved roads there and no way to buy
anything there. Vehicles are taken over on a WW2 landing craft along
with 5 gal jerry cans of fuel and left with the keys in for use by
whoever has fuel. Most sit rotting in the salt air occasionally
having parts replaced with plywood or whatever is available. One I
saw last week had an old Evinrude fuel tank on the passenger seat with
a squeeze bulb going to it as a fuel pump. Eventually vines cover
them and dunes drifft over the hulks. I'll take my faithful old truck
there and park it so it can tell old truck tales to all its buddies.
I'll rig up a solar powered recording of "Long May You Run" by Neil
Young that plays randomely. Otherwise, entropy will slowly take its
toll to the tune of the wind in the pines.
bill
I am a believer in the same cult, I drive mine until something
REALLY fatal goes on it. I have had the wheels *fall OFF* a 258k mile
saab 900 and *that constituted a mild inconvenience. I do not believe
that an interior is a requirement for a functional car and tend to
replace any interior parts that go with duct tape. I swap out cars
when a) I can't get it inspected, or b) the parts to fix it would
cost more than a replacement car (average for my cars $300) My current
beemer (85 325e) was destined for the crusher due to a lifter noise
and a faulty MAF. $100 on ebay. 6 months later, it's giving me some
irritation, but still getting me to B. The last vehicle I loved I
euthanized when it was time, rather than putting it in a home, I ran
it over with a scraper. It was a quick death. I've never had a
vehicle that broke 275k except a 83 mercedes 200 diesel. that one I
sold at 300k and still running fine.
Joe Fischer
> Ummm..... no. cars get scrapped all the time that still have
>years of perfectly good driving in them. trade in any 85 car (other
>than a jag or a mercedes) and I guarantee you it'll never be
>registered again. it'll be crushed. most people do not replace their
>car when it's no longer serviceable, they replace it when it starts to
>rattle a little, that's LONG before the motors go.
People that drive 1985 cars are not likely to
trade them in on a new car, the reason they drive
1985 cars is they can't afford a new car.
But you are right, it seems like cars have
become a throwaway item if it needs repairs and
is a few years old, partly because there are few
garages, and the labor charges are much higher
the guy driving the car makes.
And the fact that most people cannot afford
a new car is really going to slow efforts to get cars
that get better mileage on the road.
But the number of people buying SUVs and
pickups is really scary, just because the automakers
can make utility vehicles with less CAFE problems
seems to defeat the purpose of the CAFE laws.
I went to pay the new tax on a car I sold a
week ago and I was the only one driving a car in
a half mile stretch of road.
Joe Fischer
john fernbach
driving EITHER car, and ride public transit instead. Or by yourself
a bicycle. Or car-pool, if you really have to drive.
If you live in a city with a decent transportation system, riding
public transit isn't hard. And it saves
you money on car insurance, gasoline, oil changes, repairs, and
parking fees.
So maybe you should sell your Prius and walk. Though it sounds to me
like some PR specialist for Detroit has spent a lot of money trying to
trash the reputation of the Prius.
I'll believe the claims here when I see them confirmed by the EPA or
by some
environmental group with an attitude about climate change.
For now, this sounds like an "expert" from the tobacco companies
testifying
that smoking is actually healthier than non-smoking.
bill
> On 14 Mar 2007 "bill" <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ummm..... no. cars get scrapped all the time that still have
> >years of perfectly good driving in them. trade in any 85 car (other
> >than a jag or a mercedes) and I guarantee you it'll never be
> >registered again. it'll be crushed. most people do not replace their
> >car when it's no longer serviceable, they replace it when it starts to
> >rattle a little, that's LONG before the motors go.
>
> People that drive 1985 cars are not likely to
> trade them in on a new car, the reason they drive
> 1985 cars is they can't afford a new car.
no, but they trade in their '85 car that they've been driving for
7 years on a "new" '92. Average fleet age for a car in the us is 10
years.
> But you are right, it seems like cars have
> become a throwaway item if it needs repairs and
> is a few years old, partly because there are few
> garages, and the labor charges are much higher
> the guy driving the car makes.
> And the fact that most people cannot afford
> a new car is really going to slow efforts to get cars
> that get better mileage on the road.
Actually, the 80s cars get better mileage than most of the 90s.
The 80s were still recovering from the 70s oil shocks, so the economy-
car was the rule, the 90s were prime suv days, so the average economy
is worse in there. My 85 Beemer gets 35 mpg highway at 70 mph
(checked in actual), nothing to sneeze at, even stacked next to a
HEV.
> But the number of people buying SUVs and
> pickups is really scary, just because the automakers
> can make utility vehicles with less CAFE problems
> seems to defeat the purpose of the CAFE laws.
> I went to pay the new tax on a car I sold a
> week ago and I was the only one driving a car in
> a half mile stretch of road.
> Joe Fischer
sucks doesn't it? Funny how people will find a way to screw up
even the best laid plan. it's the old saying, "it doesn't matter how
good the intentions of the people who wrote the law were, what matters
is what bad intentioned people can do with the law"
User
>Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total
>combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel,
>transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other
>factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an
>average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -
>the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
$325,000.00 for 100,000 miles!?!?!? What a load of horsesh**!
Figure $30,000 sticker, 10 years of insurance at $1500/year. 10 years
of maintenance at $500/year, maybe $200/year in fees/taxes, and
$3.00/gallon and 30 miles/gallon. You're only up to $62,000. That
comes to 62 cents/mile.
Where the hell does this $325,000 come from?
>The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to
>put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means
>the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less
>combined energy doing it.
$1.95/mile still sounds a bit high.
Methinks the authors of that study have an agenda. And if you're
going to claim that the big money is in the manufacturing, why doesn't
the sticker price reflect it?
Some more reasonable figures:
Yahoo! 5-year cost to own a Prius: $35,310 $0.47/mile.
http://autos.yahoo.com/toyota_prius_touring-price/;_ylt=Ajv3EDX7ML6NbCS_1Jx0QSEUjdEF
Yahoo! 5-year cost to own a Hummer: $78,892 $1.05/mile.
http://autos.yahoo.com/hummer_h2_sut_sport_utility-price/;_ylt=Ajv3EDX7ML6NbCS_1Jx0QSGJyMgF
raylopez99
I think the article is accurate. But it depends on how you value
local pollution at the nickel plant and the energy to build it versus
the energy exhausted by the Prius over its lifetime. Probably the
global pollution is >> local pollution.
That is, the energy to build the car is probably (just guessing, I'd
have to take out my tea kettle to compute it) just a tiny fraction of
the energy used by the car to propell it over its 100k or 300k
lifespan.
So in this regard the Prius is much cleaner for the atmosphere than
the Hummer, but perhaps more damaging to the local environment.
Also the article makes the sensible recommendation of buying a sub-
compact rather than a Hummer, which is also a good idea for those that
can't afford an expensive Prion.
Me? I don't even own a car anymore. Public transport is pretty good
here in Euroland and you can always hire a taxi for elsewhere.
RL
Alex Terrell
> The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius' battery
> and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually.
< The nickel produced by this
> disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest
> nickel refinery in Europe.
Why does a mere 1,000 tons of nickel (over how many cars?) need to go
in massive container ships.
> Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total
> combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel,
> transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other
> factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an
> average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -
> the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
>
> The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to
> put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means
> the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less
> combined energy doing it.
Not clear about this but it implies that a Prius 325,000 dollars of
energy over its lifetime, and a hummer costs $585,000.
How much does the fuel for a Prius cost, say over 100,000 miles. Lets
accept the revised figure of 45 mpg. Over 100,000 miles, that's 2,200
gallons. What do Americans pay for fuel? $2.50? So the Prius consumes
$5,000 of fuel over its life.
The Prius also costs about $25,000 - I don't know for sure - but Car
cost plus fuel cost = about $30,000.
So when a study shows that energy costs are $325,000 then it implies
either that the study is bullshit, or that its been grossly
misinterpreted.
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Average annual American car usage is estimated at fleet average (200
million cars and light trucks) to be 12,000 miles. The mileage given
then assumes an 8.3 year lifespan for a Toyota. This is hardly
realistic. Toyotas have more old used cars for sale than any other
brand -- check your newspaper ads.
At 54 mpg (the dismal number given in the hit piece of propaganda) the
Toyota gets $5,555. If the people who by an economical car drive it
economically, assuming they bought it to save gas in the first place,
then the gas cost is 4,167, more than $1,000 less.
Apart from the perpetually refurbished classic car Chevy '55 and '56,
you are not going to find a lot of old GM cars still on the road after
15 or 20 years, but you will see lots of Toyotas older than that. I
bought a 20 year old Toyota in Washington state, drove it the
westcoast-southern route to Florida and the midwest-northern route
back the next year without undue concern about it's reliability.
Henry Ford sent out teams of engineers to visit junkyards all over the
country and report what was the cause of eventual failures. When all
was done they reported back that the failures occurred in every part
and every system expect the kingpin, which seemed never to have
failed. Ford told his engineering department that the kingpin was
overbuilt and to reduce the quality in it.
The "problem" with Toyotas and other asian vehicles now is that they
make improvements mid-year and don't wait for the next model year to
roll around to install improvements. That means that replacement parts
for cars requires the specific VIN number so that you can buy the
correct master cylinder for the brakes because they used four
different kinds in that model in that year.
The Toyota production system requires them to be customer-pull driven,
rather than inventory-push driven. Without a lot of excess inventory
sitting around in lots hoping customers will come in, they are not
stuck with a less-good concept through the whole model year. When you
can make improvements every 3 months or 6 months, the entire product
line improves twice or four times as fast as companies that only
upgrade annually. It has a distinct name: "Kaizen", which means
continuous improvement. Toyota already ate Ford's lunch and Chrysler
is just a fading memory these days.
The DERANGED LONER who started this thread typifies why GM is
hemorrhaging money for year after year. They want to get customers by
hook or by crook instead of giving them what they paid for, and
instead of being decent corporate citizens. This filthy piece of crap
lasted less than an hour before it was debunked.
MadD...@yahoo.com
I wonder if the study took into account that if a Hummer ever went
300K. Mi.
it would have been substantially rebuilt 3 times?
I don't denegrate the 'dust to dust` analysis.
If done fairly it makes a lot of sense. If not , it does not.
beavith
<Energy....@HydrogenFREEDOM.info> wrote:
>On Mar 14, 1:09 am, theloneranger...@aol.com wrote:
>
>We have a paid General Motors commercial pushing tow GM products
>disguised as a post disguised as a news article. Since neither Prius
>nor Hummer have been on the road long enough to know their lifespan,
>every claim that the Hummer gets 3 times the life is bald-faced lie.
>
>Secondly, the Prius is only disadvantaged at 80 miles per hour seeds,
>and at most of the miles travelled is exceptionally better than the
>worst case.
>
>Thirdly, price per mile is not an environmental cost. There is no
>environmental damage done in passing money from one hand to another.
>Mixing apples and oranges to prove something about GM Lemons is not
>anything to do with environmental.
and everything to do with "economical." a payback period of 5 years
based on fuel use for a car that doesn't last much longer is
nonsensical. nor does this take into account the battery lifetime and
battery replacement cost.
i'd drive another geo metro for 8 years if they were still available.
priuses are pointless.
>
>Fourth, the Nickle mining is not due to Prius and is long-standing
>before Prius. Nickel is used all over the place, not just in Prius
>batteries -- so who else gets blame? Chrome-Nickel-Steel is the most
>common stainless steel and appears on every vehicle made by General
>Motors and most of you have dinnerware and cookware made of stainless
>steel. Lead batteries also have their environmental damages, and every
>drop of acid in those batteries was once made in chrome-nickel-
>stainless steel vessels. How much is Toyota's share of the world
>nickle market? I might point out than INCO, the Canadian source for
>much of the world's nickel supply, has a documented history of
>supplying the Nazis in WWII through diverted transshipments through
>Sweden, and has been American controlled then and now.
ummm. its nicKEL.
Inco is one of the world's major supplier. Norilsk is just as big.
also big laterite deposits in Guinea and Australia
>
>The greens pioneered recycling over the constant protests of the brown
>shits, and every pound of nickel recycled is one less pound of mined
>polluting nickel. The Hummer driver is guaranteed to not be concerned
>about resource recycling or conservation.
it's a valuable material that is extensively mined. wherever its
found.
>
>Every gallon of gasoline burned produces 20 pounds of CO2. The Hummer
>produces 60 extra pounds of CO2 above what the Prius uses to travel
>the exact same distance that one gallon of gasoline moves the Prius.
>
>The Hummer weighs three times the mass of a Prius and that extra two
>cars worth of metals and plastics is not without mining and refining
>impacts.
>
>Toyota is fake green, making cars that warranty is void if you convert
>them to Plug-in Electric Hybrid Vehicles, while building a new Tundra
>Truck factory in Texas and a new SUV factory in Mississippi. This is a
>turf-war over piggy car-makers, and not an objective look at works,
>what works better, what doesn't work so good and what doesn't work at
>all.
i will agree that the Hummer brand is stupid, but only because I think
Madison Ave is senseless. toyota's prius is just the other end of the
spectrum.
Jack
There is no study.
The Lone Ranger made it all up just to get your goat guys.
<MadD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173922770.6...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
theloner...@aol.com
> So what "study" is being referred to.
> There is no study.
> The Lone Ranger made it all up just to get your goat guys.
Perhaps if you weren't such an Ignorant Oaf and would take the time to
read the Original Post, you'd see I posted an article from a Newspaper
with NO COMMENT, Dork...........Now go Pick Your Nose somewhere else,
Clown.......
theloner...@aol.com
> There is no study.
> The Lone Ranger made it all up just to get your goat guys.
Perhaps if you weren't such an Ignorant Oaf and would take the time
eff...@f-m.fm
my Bugatti Veyron burns 100 litres of petrol in only 12
minutes!
Jack
Prius article is his one and only journalistic endeavor -- EVER!!
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-23,GGLR:en&q=Chris+Demorro
You don't have to be very bright to deduce that the article is complete and
utter BS.
$3.25 / mile is completely credible to you is it ???
How many people do you know who have spent $325,000 on the purchase and
operation of their 8 year old car.
The Nickel mine in Sudbury, Ontario was closed in 1958; somewhat before the
introduction of the Prius.
http://www.rtdf.org/PUBLIC/permbarr/prbsumms/profile.cfm?mid=41
Please take a little time to think about what you're posting before you
contaminate this group any further.
<theloner...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173939298.8...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
I bet I could burn your Bugatti with just 10 liters of Petrol.
Jack
<theloner...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173863389.6...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total
> combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel,
> transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other
> factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an
> average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -
> the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
>
> The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to
> put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means
> the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less
> combined energy doing it.
>
theloner...@aol.com
> So according to Google your Chris Demorro is a cell phone salesman and this
> Prius article is his one and only journalistic endeavor -- EVER!!
That's nice, Dork........I didn't write it, I just thought it was a
Topic for Discussion and Posted It...........So go Pick Your Nose and
Eat It Elsewhere.........DumbAss...........
Niel Humphreys
<theloner...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173946796....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Huh? What did I do to you?
davee
I will let you into a secret, when I am walking around I give way to
everything.
when I ride my push bike, I give way to everything.
I dont own a car but I have a license and drive cars, I turn into a
road hog.
But when I drive Trains, you all give way to me TeeheeTee.
For that little petrol motor to charge and provide extra charge plus
the extra weight
of the batteries and electric drive only Toyota seems to have cracked
that nut.
But hey get out of my way when Im on those rails boy!
Tony Wesley
> The Nickel mine in Sudbury, Ontario was closed in 1958; somewhat before the
> introduction of the Prius.http://www.rtdf.org/PUBLIC/permbarr/prbsumms/profile.cfm?mid=41
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco_Superstack
"The Inco Superstack in Greater Sudbury, Ontario ...sits atop the
largest nickel smelting operation in the world at Inco's Copper Cliff
processing facility in the city of Greater Sudbury."
Or http://www.rtdf.org/PUBLIC/permbarr/prbsumms/profile.cfm?mid=41
"Today the Sudbury basin is circled with the world's largest
concentration of nickel mines"
> Please take a little time to think about what you're posting before you
> contaminate this group any further.
Please do.
z
> On 14 Mar 2007 "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd like to see population figures on the lifetimes
> >of a Prius and a Hummer. I am very very skeptical
> >of this 100,000 an 300,000 mile lifetimes cited in
> >this article.
>
The basic truth behind a hybrid, is that the torque characteristics of
an internal combustion motor are very unfortunate for starting and
stopping, compared to electric motors, turbines, even steam engines.
This necessitates a larger motor to get moving than you need to keep
moving, which ends up with a lot of inefficiency due to pumping
losses. Unless you have a diesel.
The second basic truth behind a hybrid, however, is that at this point
in technology, it's more efficient to produce electricity by carrying
a generator, a gasoline engine to drive it, and a tank of gas than it
is to have the equivalent size and weight of batteries.
Seems to me, the second problem is more likely to be solved before the
first, but you never know.
Jack
'moonscape' reputation was earned 30 years ago, long before anyone even
thought of making a Prius.
http://www.sudburysoilsstudy.com/EN/overview/background.asp
I was just trying to show the 'lone ranger' that he should look before he
leaps.
"Tony Wesley" <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173959595.8...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
bill
More energy efficient, yes, more environmentally sound..... with
the current power grid makeup, also yes, however, there's hope that
future killowatt hours will come from nuclear, wind, and other "clean"
sources. The difficulty with the pure EV is that batteries take too
long to recharge to do it on the fly, so looking at PHEVs seems like
the better plan to me. use the batteries for primary drive and the
gasoline engine/generator combination for range extension only.
Joe Fischer
>"The Inco Superstack in Greater Sudbury, Ontario ...sits atop the
>largest nickel smelting operation in the world at Inco's Copper Cliff
>processing facility in the city of Greater Sudbury."
>
>Or http://www.rtdf.org/PUBLIC/permbarr/prbsumms/profile.cfm?mid=41
>
>"Today the Sudbury basin is circled with the world's largest
>concentration of nickel mines"
Did I get a different link than you, that says the mine
was closed in 1958, and that a barrier has been placed to
remove contaminants from the old tailings, and the link
appeared to be from the company that built the barrier.
Joe Fischer
R.H. Allen
> So according to Google your Chris Demorro is a cell phone salesman and this
> Prius article is his one and only journalistic endeavor -- EVER!!
I agree that the numbers in the article seem rather suspect, but you
really ought to take the time to comprehend what you're reading before
you jerk your knee. The author of the piece neither claims to have
performed the study himself nor claims to be a journalist. He merely
wrote an editorial commenting on the study (and that implies opinion,
not journalism). If you google the title of the study and the name of
the company that produced it you'll rather easily find a copy that you
can download and read for yourself if you like.
Tony Wesley
> On 15 Mar 2007 "Tony Wesley" <tonywes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"Today the Sudbury basin is circled with the world's largest
> >concentration of nickel mines"
Notice: nickel *mines*
> Did I get a different link than you, that says the mine
> was closed in 1958,
Notice: the *mine*
Sure, that *mine* is closed. There are many more.
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
> Jack wrote:
> > So according to Google your Chris Demorro is a cell phone salesman and this
> > Prius article is his one and only journalistic endeavor -- EVER!!
>
> I agree that the numbers in the article seem rather suspect, but you
> really ought to take the time to comprehend what you're reading before
> you jerk your knee.
Crackpot, ignore
Joe Fischer
>The basic truth behind a hybrid, is that the torque characteristics of
>an internal combustion motor are very unfortunate for starting and
>stopping, compared to electric motors, turbines, even steam engines.
>This necessitates a larger motor to get moving than you need to keep
>moving, which ends up with a lot of inefficiency due to pumping
>losses. Unless you have a diesel.
>
>The second basic truth behind a hybrid, however, is that at this point
>in technology, it's more efficient to produce electricity by carrying
>a generator, a gasoline engine to drive it, and a tank of gas than it
>is to have the equivalent size and weight of batteries.
>
>Seems to me, the second problem is more likely to be solved before the
>first, but you never know.
Regardless, the hybrid provides a huge advantage
in mileage, more important for reducing oil use.
While flex fuel vehicles provide a base of vehicles
that could be used even if no imported oil was available,
hybrid electrics could provide a base of vehicles that
could be used if there was a shortage of liquid or gaseous
fuels, any electric vehicle could be upgraded to a plugin
hybrid electric vehicle.
The Prius is only a sample of what is possible,
the mileage of the ideal hybrid is more like 100 MPG,
but changes in brakes will need to happen, it seems
the mindset now is that the engine connected to the
wheels all the time is a safety issue, as if every car
is a heavy truck with brakes that are not able to
stop the truck on hills.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
> More energy efficient, yes, more environmentally sound..... with
>the current power grid makeup, also yes, however, there's hope that
>future killowatt hours will come from nuclear, wind, and other "clean"
>sources. The difficulty with the pure EV is that batteries take too
>long to recharge to do it on the fly, so looking at PHEVs seems like
>the better plan to me. use the batteries for primary drive and the
>gasoline engine/generator combination for range extension only.
Several new battery technologies offer very fast
recharge times, and more energy storage, and that is
the best chance of making a really big difference in
automobile emissions.
Firefly energy battery, 123Systems, and
Maxwell Ultracapacitors are some of them.
Joe Fischer
bill
Aware of that, however, have you looked at the wire gauge that's
required to move that much power in that much time? it's HUGE!
at .67 kwh/mile, you'd need 67 kwh to go 100 miles.
67 kwh delivered at 100 volts in 5 minutes is 8000 amps.
this would require a 3.5" diameter copper conductor.
NOT a trivial engineering feat to design something that'll
service that load and be operable by people other than pro wrestlers.
theloner...@aol.com
> Yes Yes -- I know there's still lots of mining activity in Sudbury. But the
> 'moonscape' reputation was earned 30 years ago, long before anyone even
>
> I was just trying to show the 'lone ranger' that he should look before he
> leaps.
No, you were just trying to be a Smart-Assed DORK and you wound up
looking like an ASS.........This has been a GOOD discussion
Topic...........
Joe Fischer
> Aware of that, however, have you looked at the wire gauge that's
>required to move that much power in that much time? it's HUGE!
> at .67 kwh/mile, you'd need 67 kwh to go 100 miles.
> 67 kwh delivered at 100 volts in 5 minutes is 8000 amps.
> this would require a 3.5" diameter copper conductor.
> NOT a trivial engineering feat to design something that'll
>service that load and be operable by people other than pro wrestlers.
The pure EV would not be designed to be
charged as quick as a gas tank is filled, it would
be charged at home, but it would be good to be
able to get a full charge in 30 minutes if on a trip,
maybe while having something to eat.
And that would not require wire any bigger
than 12 volt battery cables.
And 67KWH at $0.10 would only be $6.70,
pretty good for 100 miles, gasoline is running about
3 times that now.
Joe Fischer
bill
30 minutes would still be one thousand three hundred amps. Or a
1" diameter feedline.
To charge that in 6 hours would be 111 amps @ 100 volts, 60amps @
240 volt, or roughly the equivalent of the entire draw from an average
non-air conditioned home. Not a trivial wire at all.
That's why I am and have been saying that a plug-in HYBRID is the
way to go. Top off all night with a 30 amp x240 volt feed line and it
should just about get you to work and back on a decently long
suburbanite commute, and if you want to go longer, no need to stop and
recharge, the 50cc engine will keep you rolling at decent highway
speeds almost indefinitely if you activate it at half battery.
Either way, it'll involve a SHITLOAD of baseload plant
construction, and power grid upgrades, since people will not be so
polite as to synchronize their charging only with low load times.
Bill Ward
They might if the price was right.
Joe Fischer
> 30 minutes would still be one thousand three hundred amps. Or a
>1" diameter feedline.
Apparently they plan chargers which handle high
amps, but at probably 300 volts.
> To charge that in 6 hours would be 111 amps @ 100 volts, 60amps @
>240 volt, or roughly the equivalent of the entire draw from an average
>non-air conditioned home. Not a trivial wire at all.
> That's why I am and have been saying that a plug-in HYBRID is the
>way to go.
I agree, except that I would prefer a pure electric
vehicle, with a removable gasoline generator.
Actually I would prefer two small generators,
for redundancy.
But that would be a PHEV.
>Top off all night with a 30 amp x240 volt feed line and it
>should just about get you to work and back on a decently long
>suburbanite commute, and if you want to go longer, no need to stop and
>recharge, the 50cc engine will keep you rolling at decent highway
>speeds almost indefinitely if you activate it at half battery.
Chances are it will be a long time before battery
production is adequate to supply any one who wants one,
it looks like the military is getting first choice, but maybe
that will actually speed up getting into production.
> Either way, it'll involve a SHITLOAD of baseload plant
>construction, and power grid upgrades, since people will not be so
>polite as to synchronize their charging only with low load times.
Power companies are already offering free
timers and synced sequencers. They offered me
a free water heater switch, which I think was just
a random time sequencer, but it was only available
to central air users, so I don't qualify.
Maybe timed demand meters will be forced
on anybody with a demand over 100 amps, making
charging at times other than after 11 PM expensive.
But the electric car is the only way to really
reduce oil use, and at the moment, that is the one
thing that helps both the oil import caused trade
deficit, and the carbon emission problem.
Even without a warming problem, I wonder
how much all that carbon raises the barometric
pressure? :-)
Joe Fischer
Carbon Criminal Polluters
Flow Batteries. Instant recharge. Recharge the spent liquid all day by
PVs. The new "service stations" do a drain & fill in almost the same
time as a gas refill.
bill
Needs development, but might well be the way to go. at current,
the energy density of the flow batteries is too low to make it work.
first sensible thing you've ever said.
bill
> >1" diameter feedline.
> Apparently they plan chargers which handle high
> amps, but at probably 300 volts.
If I were designing it, I would make the recharging site a "dock"
instead of a loose wire arrangement, mandate a relationship in the
location of the recharging contacts to the right front wheel and build
a wheel funnel like in an automated car wash. I'd also suggest that
homes and service stations have a battery string at home that
recharges steadily to reduce the shock loading on the grid. that way
you could recharge the car in a relative hurry and still not have to
run a 3000 amp service to your house.
> > To charge that in 6 hours would be 111 amps @ 100 volts, 60amps @
> >240 volt, or roughly the equivalent of the entire draw from an average
> >non-air conditioned home. Not a trivial wire at all.
> > That's why I am and have been saying that a plug-in HYBRID is the
> >way to go.
>
> I agree, except that I would prefer a pure electric
> vehicle, with a removable gasoline generator.
> Actually I would prefer two small generators,
> for redundancy.
> But that would be a PHEV.
ya know. a pure electric vehicla plus a 1kw gas generator from
wal-mart = a PHEV. that generator is a $200 item.
minimal. It's in the tenths of a percent.
The biggest single source of co2 is coal power plants, not oil,
so going nuclear instead of coal would be a better bang for the
buck.
however, I absolutely agree that reducing oil demand is a
priority for that and many other reasons, and the EVs are really the
only way to go.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
> The biggest single source of co2 is coal power plants,
You mean man-made CO2.
>so going nuclear instead of coal would be a better bang for the
>buck.
Indeed. So why don't we have it now? France does.
The answer lies in the eco-terrorism of the 1970s. The Club of Rome
terrorized the eco-freaks and they had the courts shut down nuclear
power plant construction. TMI didn't help either.
Now we have another instance of eco-terrorism, this time in reaction
to the last one having gone bad.
> however, I absolutely agree that reducing oil demand is a
>priority for that and many other reasons, and the EVs are really the
>only way to go.
If you have a small gasoline backup, I fully agree. My daughter has
one and she loves it.
--
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
Primary Cause of Global Warming!
The DHMO Institute
Houston, Texas
bill
> On 16 Mar 2007 06:15:13 -0700, "bill" <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The biggest single source of co2 is coal power plants,
>
> You mean man-made CO2.
>
> >so going nuclear instead of coal would be a better bang for the
> >buck.
>
> Indeed. So why don't we have it now? France does.
>
> The answer lies in the eco-terrorism of the 1970s. The Club of Rome
> terrorized the eco-freaks and they had the courts shut down nuclear
> power plant construction. TMI didn't help either.
>
> Now we have another instance of eco-terrorism, this time in reaction
> to the last one having gone bad.
kinda funny isn't it? the current envronmental boogeyman of
global warming wouldn't have come to pass if the environmentalists
hadn't put a stop to nuclear power. in putting a stop to a fake
problem, they created a real one.
> > however, I absolutely agree that reducing oil demand is a
> >priority for that and many other reasons, and the EVs are really the
> >only way to go.
>
> If you have a small gasoline backup, I fully agree. My daughter has
> one and she loves it.
where'd she get one? I didn't realize there was a mass market ev
or phev.
> Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
> Primary Cause of Global Warming!
I always thought the primary cause of global warming was Hydrogen
Hydroxide.
hanson
::K:: "I cherish my anonymity... living in that basement in a secure,
::K:: undisclosed Location... as Lion Kuntz , Retired with walker, in
::K:: Santa Rosa, Sonoma Co., California, USA ",... said that he is
is a "Carbon Criminal Polluter" and an <Exxon-Turd> and wrote
>
> Flow Batteries. Instant recharge.
>
[hanson]
... ahahaha..."Instant"?!.... ahahaha...
Crackpot Kuntz ignore him..... ahahahahaha....
z
Really good battery technology would change everything, from
flashlights on up.
z
But... the electrical grid is already brought to its knees regularly
in the summer daytime by the AC loads. (My electrical company last
year invested a lot of money in hardware and in "financial incentives"
to convince people to install a gadget on their home central ACs which
allows the utility to shut down the compressors for 14-30 minutes on a
rolling basis during workdays only. Given how many houses, like mine,
don't actually have the AC on during workdays, there has to be a real
large payoff for the small actual reduction in load to make it worth
their while to shell out that much cash.) You just can't add to the
grid the load of recharging your car during those periods. Who's going
to sell the American public on the notion that you can't drive your
car on vacation during the summer further than one "tankful" per day?
z
<Carbon.Criminal.Pollut...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
Or, just have the batteries on some kind of easily/quickly switchable
pallet. Not quite as convenient as just pumping in the electrons, mind
you.
bill
> > >the current power grid makeup, also yes, however, there's hope that
> > >future killowatt hours will come from nuclear, wind, and other "clean"
> > >sources. The difficulty with the pure EV is that batteries take too
> > >long to recharge to do it on the fly, so looking at PHEVs seems like
> > >the better plan to me. use the batteries for primary drive and the
> > >gasoline engine/generator combination for range extension only.
>
> > Several new battery technologies offer very fast
> > recharge times, and more energy storage, and that is
> > the best chance of making a really big difference in
> > automobile emissions.
>
> > Firefly energy battery, 123Systems, and
> > Maxwell Ultracapacitors are some of them.
>
> > Joe Fischer
>
> Really good battery technology would change everything, from
> flashlights on up.
lithium ion batteries are "really good batteries" the energy
density is more than adequate for transportation needs, the charge
cycles are well within the acceptable range, as is their tolerance for
full discharging and their recharge time. the only difficulties with
them are a) price, and b) how to dump that much power into them safely
in a reasonable time frame. That's just engineering :)
bill
it'll involve a grid upgrade, no question. you live in
california don't you? the problems with the grid there are purely due
to environmental stupidity.
The bulk of the power grid is in pretty good shape, it's
basically intact everywhere except california. putting that much
additional demand online *will* necessitate approx 100 nuclear power
plants to pick up the slack however. and it'll probably move peak
demand to a later hour of the day, when everyone is recharging their
car rather than when the day is hottest.
bill
won't work. we're talking about several hundred pounds of batteries
here.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>> Now we have another instance of eco-terrorism, this time in reaction
>> to the last one having gone bad.
> kinda funny isn't it? the current envronmental boogeyman of
>global warming wouldn't have come to pass if the environmentalists
>hadn't put a stop to nuclear power. in putting a stop to a fake
>problem, they created a real one.
This is not a real problem. It is as much a hoax as the last one - and
for the same basic reasons: junk science, junk computer programs,
eco-freaks, govt grants, gullible public.
To give you an idea how crazy the public is when it comes to
technology, the day after the first Moon landing a survey was
conducted in which 2/3 of the respondents claimed that the event was
staged in the Arizona desert. The day after that the figure went down
to 1/3.
>> If you have a small gasoline backup, I fully agree. My daughter has
>> one and she loves it.
> where'd she get one? I didn't realize there was a mass market ev
>or phev.
Her husband is a manager at the one of the largest vehicle dealerships
on the Gulf Coast. They also got tax credits.
>> Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
>> Primary Cause of Global Warming!
> I always thought the primary cause of global warming was Hydrogen
>Hydroxide.
Yeah, you mean H-OH, made out of a proton and a hydroxyl group.
That's pretty nasty shit too. When it dissociates, the proton makes
acid and the hydroxyl makes alkali.
--
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
Primary Cause of Global Warming!
The DHMO Institute
Houston, Texas
Citizen Bob
>Really good battery technology would change everything, from
>flashlights on up.
I thought fuel cells were pollution-free.
Of course, they do make Dihydrogen Monoxide which is the primary
source of greenhouse gases.
Joe Fischer
>On Mar 16, 10:29 am, s...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
>> If you have a small gasoline backup, I fully agree. My daughter has
>> one and she loves it.
>
> where'd she get one? I didn't realize there was a mass market ev
>or phev.
Here is a long list of electric vehicle conversion parts,
AGWers and GWers can put their money where their mouth
is and maybe even start a conversion garage and make some
money doing something useful instead of being bitter politicos;
http://labshelf.com/electric-car-conversion-list.html
I have no connection, and have no idea how
good or bad the parts are, but I want an electric car
even if I have to convert one.
Joe Fischer
Citizen Bob
>But... the electrical grid is already brought to its knees regularly
>in the summer daytime by the AC loads. (My electrical company last
>year invested a lot of money in hardware and in "financial incentives"
>to convince people to install a gadget on their home central ACs which
>allows the utility to shut down the compressors for 14-30 minutes on a
>rolling basis during workdays only.
That's called Energy Management. They use SCADA systems to operate it.
The concern is to lower the ACE (Area Control Error) on the electric
generation grid.
>Given how many houses, like mine,
>don't actually have the AC on during workdays, there has to be a real
>large payoff for the small actual reduction in load to make it worth
>their while to shell out that much cash.)
We did an experiment once where we compared the electric usage under
two conditions: total shutdown during the day and higher thermostat
setting during the day. If you set the thermostat high enough you will
save more than if you shut the unit off. The problem is in the
recovery phase from a full hot condition, more energy is expended than
if you maintained a less than full hot condition.
Remember that most of the energy that an air conditioner consumes is
used to lower the dewpoint - that is, to remove excess humidity.
Temperature is one thing, but relative humidity is another.
I got a so-called "thermidistat" made by Carrier. Prior to installing
it I used an electronic thermostat that I had optimized as best I
could. I optimized the thermidistat to maintain a relatively stable
dew point instead of regulating solely on temperature. The house was
hotter but it was comfortable because I kept the dew point in the
comfort zone.
I found that I saved 2 hours runtime per day by regulating on relative
humidity and temperature rather than on temperature alone. With
temperature regulation alone, the runtime was 8 hours per day. IOW the
a/c ran 20 minutes each hour on the average. With the thermidistat the
runtime dropped to 6 hours per day. IOW the a/c ran 15 minutes each
hour on the average.
Indeed the temperature was higher by about 3 degrees F, so people who
were used to living in a meat locker claimed it was "too hot". But
after a while they got used to it and agreed that the house was
comfortable.
I have a very scientific method of determining comfort. I wear a plain
white t-shirt and if it gets the slightest bit damp, I declare that
uncomfortable. Once the thermidistat was optimized, there were very
few instances when the t-shirt got even the slightest bit damp.
At between 11 and 13 cents per KW-hr, every little bit adds up over
the hot season, which in Houston is from May to October.
Seasons in Houston:
Spring: April
Summer: May, June, July, August, September, October
Autumn: November
Winter: December, January, February, March
That's based on air conditioner runtime. April and November see
limited a/c usage - about 50% of summer. So there are actually 7
months of full a/c runtime each year.
Joe Fischer
>But... the electrical grid is already brought to its knees regularly
>in the summer daytime by the AC loads. (My electrical company last
>year invested a lot of money in hardware and in "financial incentives"
>to convince people to install a gadget on their home central ACs which
>allows the utility to shut down the compressors for 14-30 minutes on a
>rolling basis during workdays only. Given how many houses, like mine,
>don't actually have the AC on during workdays, there has to be a real
>large payoff for the small actual reduction in load to make it worth
>their while to shell out that much cash.) You just can't add to the
>grid the load of recharging your car during those periods. Who's going
>to sell the American public on the notion that you can't drive your
>car on vacation during the summer further than one "tankful" per day?
I think 5KW gasoline generators are about
US $900, which is what I prefer rather than the
complex arrangement is most HEVs.
But I would install a real good muffler system.
Note that a lot/few Chevy S-10s and some
other brands were built with electric motors and
conversion kits are available, so it isn't like electric
vehicles are not available, and the emergency
generators have a place to plug in a charger.
Joe Fischer
Citizen Bob
>Or, just have the batteries on some kind of easily/quickly switchable
>pallet. Not quite as convenient as just pumping in the electrons, mind
>you.
It would go a long way if employers provided free electric hookups for
employees. They could claim a tax credit to pay for it. This is
especially valuable for people who work in large metro areas with long
commutes - like Houston.
The only question is when are they going to get started on this.
Bill Ward
<snip>
>
> Flow Batteries. Instant recharge. Recharge the spent liquid all day by
> PVs. The new "service stations" do a drain & fill in almost the same
> time as a gas refill.
Energy density. Instant discharge. Sparky needs to pay attention - this
has already been discussed.
bill
> > PVs. The new "service stations" do a drain & fill in almost the same
> > time as a gas refill.
>
> Energy density. Instant discharge. Sparky needs to pay attention - this
> has already been discussed.
I missed that discussion. energy density is obviously an HUGE
issue with flow batteries, it's less than half what it needs to be.
swapping out the electrolyte is possible with some types of flow
batteries. sparky doesn't listen, even after unequivocal proofs are
presented in rigorous detail to him, he persists in holding his former
stupid position.
Bill Ward
It was back a few months. If you google "vanadium" in sci.energy, you
should find this embedded in a post:
<begin quote>
A key advantage is that the vanadium redox battery has the lowest
ecological impact of all energy storage technologies and doesn't rely on
toxic substances such as lead, zinc or cadmium. The storage system at
Castle Valley is rated at ± 250kW and ± 250kVAR with eight hours of
storage at peak loads. Electrolyte storage capacity is 140,000 litres and
the system footprint is 200m2. Voltage response is less than 5ms and the
operating temperature ranges from 5°C to 40°C.
<end quote>
If you run the numbers, you find about 15Wh/liter. The reactants are
heavy so Wh/kg are even worse. Plus you don't want grandma dealing with
V2O5 in concentrated H2SO4. Plausible for fixed applications, maybe.
And yeah, Sparky's a piece of work, alright. He's not even an effective
troll. More like a skunk at a lawn party.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Hanson Cyberstalker Shit Flinger
Crackpot Bill Ward, Ignore.
hanson
"Hanson Cyberstalker Shit Flinger" <Hanson.Cy...@Exxon-Turds.info>
& w/i news:1174096809.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Crackpot Bill Ward, Ignore.
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA....Now, after Lion-Lodo Kuntz, the Dunce
aka "Awe Shit" had guzzled down another bottle of his Nightrain and felt
the hour-of-power come over him... he was shapeshifting into...ahahaha...
"Hanson Cyberstalker Shit Flinger" or as his emergency alternative into
<Hanson.Cy...@Exxon-Turds.info> after he used unsuccessfully
"http://Hanson-Turd.Exxon-Turds.info" &'cuz of his anilingual yearning
into <Fecal.Fascin...@Exxon-Turds.info> .... ahahahaha....
and so with his new, improved ethanol level in his, "Awe Shit"-brain
he asked the cyber world to
--------------- Re: Crackpot Bil Ward, Ignore. -------------
because he, Lion Kuntz, the Dunce of "Awe Shit" no longer had enough
power to ignore Bill Ward... ahahaha... --- No takers, Leon, huh?... awe!
>
So, Awe Shit, first things first. Do no ignore Bill Ward, because Bill Ward
is a hit but you are just "Awe Shit".. See It even rhymes... ahahaha...
>
Now, Leon, say "Awe Shit" again.. and prepare your own eulogy with
the data you have provided below:
Lodo-Lion Kuntz, the Dunce, aka "Awe Shit", the Crackpot, posted
::K:: "I cherish my anonymity... living in that basement in a secure,
::K:: undisclosed Location... as Lion Kuntz , Retired with walker, in
::K:: Santa Rosa, Sonoma Co., California, USA ",... and said now
as him being a "Carbon Criminal Polluters" & an anilingual fecalist
aka <Carbon.Crimi...@Exxon-Turds.info> shapeshifted
aka <Fecal.Fascin...@Exxon-Turds.info> shapeshifted
aka "http://Hanson-Turd.Exxon-Turds.info" shapeshifted
aka "Hanson Cyberstalker Shit Flinger" shapeshifted
aka <Hanson.Cy...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in message
with premonitions:
>
["Awe Shit" to James]
> The have personal sized underground parks at Forest Lawn.
> You should get one.
>
[hanson to "Awe Shit"-Kuntz]
ahahaha... So you, "Awe Shit", must have already checked that out
for yourself then. Is your time for RIP that near?. Well go and guzzle
another bottle of Nightrain while you still can. You can't take it with
you.... ahahaha... Thanks for all the laughs, Lodo. I will miss you!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Lodo, is your redirecting your tripe to "alt.fuck" a nu FU to "Awe Shit"?
ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs and guzzle another bottle of Nightrain.
ahahahaha... ahahaha... and further more "Awe Shit"... just because
you get out of your basement to piss into the snow with the urge to eat
it, does not mean that other people should learn that too, you silly old
drunkard.... ahahaha... ahahanson
Exxon Creams on Death-Rag
Citizen Bob
wrote:
> The bulk of the power grid is in pretty good shape
The grid in Texas is great!
That's because the Texas grid is exclusively in Texas and does not
extend beyond the borders of the state.
We are energy self-sufficient.
Citizen Bob
<j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> Here is a long list of electric vehicle conversion parts,
>AGWers and GWers can put their money where their mouth
>is and maybe even start a conversion garage and make some
>money doing something useful instead of being bitter politicos;
>http://labshelf.com/electric-car-conversion-list.html
> I have no connection, and have no idea how
>good or bad the parts are, but I want an electric car
>even if I have to convert one.
I wonder if you could use one of those kit cars?
You might want to check the Interlibrary Loan Department at your
public library for books. Get the names and ISBNs from amazon.com
--
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
Primary Cause of Global Warming!
The DHMO Institute
Houston, Texas
Bill Ward
> Lodo-Lion Kuntz, the Dunce, aka "Awe Shit", the Crackpot, postedas "Hanson
> Cyberstalker Shit Flinger" <Hanson.Cy...@Exxon-Turds.info> & w/i
> news:1174096809.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... On Mar 16,
> 5:44 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> And yeah, Sparky's a piece of work, alright. He's not even an effective
>> troll. More like a skunk at a lawn party. Regards,
>> Bill Ward
>>
> [Sparky-"Awe Shit"]
> Crackpot Bill Ward, Ignore.
>>
> [hanson]
> AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA....Now, after Lion-Lodo Kuntz,
I hate to say it, but I think Lyin'-Lodo might be a more appropriate
spelling. He's beginning to lose his charm.
Joe Fischer
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:08:05 -0500, Joe Fischer
><j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>> Here is a long list of electric vehicle conversion parts,
>>AGWers and GWers can put their money where their mouth
>>is and maybe even start a conversion garage and make some
>>money doing something useful instead of being bitter politicos;
>
>>http://labshelf.com/electric-car-conversion-list.html
>
>> I have no connection, and have no idea how
>>good or bad the parts are, but I want an electric car
>>even if I have to convert one.
>
>I wonder if you could use one of those kit cars?
They are not "kit cars", they are any existing car
with a different motor.
>You might want to check the Interlibrary Loan Department at your
>public library for books. Get the names and ISBNs from amazon.com
For what? While I could get by with only
driving 25 miles once a week, I like to drive about
22 miles per day on average, and it is easy to
convert a Chevy S-10 pickup truck with one of
the listed motors and a motor controller, and
20 or 30 ordinary car batteries would give me
the 22 miles per day until the new battery
technology becomes available.
This is an example of what any of those
worrying about global warming could do, but
the world is full of people who talk and do
nothing.
Joe Fischer
Citizen Bob
<j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>>I wonder if you could use one of those kit cars?
> They are not "kit cars", they are any existing car
>with a different motor.
Do you know what a kit car is?
Citizen Bob
<j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> For what? While I could get by with only
>driving 25 miles once a week, I like to drive about
>22 miles per day on average, and it is easy to
>convert a Chevy S-10 pickup truck with one of
>the listed motors and a motor controller, and
>20 or 30 ordinary car batteries would give me
>the 22 miles per day until the new battery
>technology becomes available.
I have not studied any of this - it's all new to me. So maybe someone
can clue me in.
As I understand what you just said, I could buy a small truck and take
out the engine and replace it with an electric motor.
Do you take out the transmission too and connect the electric motor
directly to the driveshaft?
What about front-wheel drive trucks?
I assume you put the 20 or 30 lead acid batteries in the pickup bed
and cover them.
I assume you run welding cable to the motor.
What is typically used for motor control?
What size gasoline powered emergency generator would be necessary for
the 25 mile range you state?
How much does a typical installation cost: electric motor, motor
control, batteries, generator, electric cables, mounts and other
hardware, etc.?
Based on the cost of the installation and the operating costs per
mile, how many miles would it take compared to using a gasoline engine
to break even?
Jack
Subject: Re: "PRIUS OUTDOES HUMMER IN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE!!"
Curiosity prevailed and I have reviewed the article by CNW Marketing
Research, Inc.
The article contains a huge amount of data concerning the energy related
costs of virtually every automobile available in the U.S. Since the
headlines were all about the comparison between the Prius and the Hummer H1
I have extracted the data for these vehicles for your review and
consideration.
Many different aspects of energy cost are presented in the article. I have
included only the ones that have a significant effect on the conclusion of
the article, i.e. that the Prius has higher overall energy costs than a
Hummer H1. The data presented herein is exactly as extracted from the
spreadsheets in the CNW article plus I have added the 'cost per mile' column
calculation based on the values from the CNW article.
The first category addressed is the purchase price and useable life of the
vehicles. The data from the article is:
New Est.Life- Usage Years of
New Cost
Division Model Cost Miles* Miles/Yr Service Per
Mile
Toyota Prius $23,142 109,000 9,146 11.92 $0.21
Hummer H1 $136,552 379,000 10,841 34.96 $0.36
It should be pointed out that the values in the sheet purported to be
survey data are the 'Years of Service' and the 'Usage - Miles/Year'. The
'Estimated Life - Miles' is calculated from the above values. The survey
data are stated to be the average values obtained from actual owners of
these vehicles but it is somewhat difficult to understand how that could
possibly be the case when the average service life of the Prius is presented
as 11.92 years and the car was only introduced 6 years ago. Likewise the
average service life of the Hummer is presented as 34.96 years but the car
was only introduced 15 years ago and withdrawn last year.
The article contains rationale for the low estimated life of the Prius.
The major points are that products based on new technology become obsolete
very quickly because improved versions of these products become available
that make it uneconomical to retain the older models.
I quote
"First, and foremost, many of the hybrid models - such as the Insight and
Prius - are early renditions of the technology that are being or soon will
be replaced by more efficient and less complicated versions effectively
making the current versions obsolete within a few short years.
Second, early-generation new technology loses maintenance support quicker
than old technology and makes repair financially unacceptable. In-home laser
printers are a good example of this. It is currently nonsensical to perform
significant repairs on a Minolta QMS laser printer since the replacement
cost would likely be less than the repair cost."
The article does not contain any rationale for the estimated life of the
Hummer.
Except for the category of fuel usage these values of the calculated
estimated life of these vehicles will dominate every aspect of the following
analysis. The new cost per mile values do not seem to have any direct
correlation to energy cost so it is not clear if these values are included
in the energy cost total summarized at the end of the article.
Next comes fuel usage.
Lifetime Gallons TTl E Cost
Per Mile
Division Model Blend FE Used Fuel $3/ga Fuel Cost
Toyota Prius 40.12 2,716.78 $8,150.34 $0.07
Hummer H1 12.04 31,490.05 $94,470.16 $0.25
These values do not seem unreasonable. The article states that the Prius
takes a little hit here because it's used for short trips of less than 5
miles more than 65% of the time while the Hummer is usually used for longer
trips. It is interesting that the article contains this trip length usage
data for all of the 308 different automobiles models represented in the
article. The article states that data from over 6500 individual owners is
included so that could mean about 20 owners per model. A massive amount of
data apparently obtained from individual drivers. If anyone reading this
was interviewed for this article I would appreciate hearing from you.
Another interesting observation about this aspect of the article is that
in the fuel usage data it is universally true that every model of automobile
represented suffered a degradation of fuel economy of approximately 2.5% per
year. That is to say that although the Prius may get 45 mpg when new that
it will be down to 35 mpg when it's 10 years old. That would put the Hummer
at less than 5 mpg at the end of it's 35 year life but that fact has eluded
the author. I have been tracking the fuel usage of my vehicles for 40 years
and have not experienced this phenomenon.
Next is general maintenance.
E Cost General Lifetime
Repair/ R/M Share
Per Mile Per Year
Division Model Maintenance Of Trans Prc R/M Costs
R/M Costs
Toyota Prius $22,430.86 169.44% $0.21
$1,881.78
Hummer H1 $19,170.81 134.24% $0.05
$548.36
This is extracted exactly from the article. The item labeled Lifetime R/M
Share of Transaction Cost is not explained.
The value of having a vehicle that can go for 379,000 miles without
requiring major maintenance is apparent. The high cost of maintenance on
the Prius is attributed to the rarity of mechanics qualified to work on it
and the uniqueness of most of its parts although it is not clear what this
has to do with the energy cost of maintenance. The Hummer on the other hand
is completely assembled from parts from other GM autos which all mechanics
know how to fix and besides, it never breaks down anyway.
Accident Repair
Lifetime Lifetime Accident
Accident
Accident Accident Repair as
Repair
Division Model Repair Repair % Tran Prc Per
Mile
Toyota Prius $15,192.48 4.29% 65.65% $0.14
Hummer H1 $24,973.44 1.88% 18.29% $0.07
What this seem to indicated is that in the 11 year average life of the
Prius that the total cost of accident repairs will exceed the average value
of the vehicle. This high cost of repairs is again attributed to the
advanced technology of the Prius and the subsequent lack of people qualified
to work on it.
We will need a whole new breed of Phd mechanics to replace fenders and
bumpers on these cars. Their training will cost a fortune.
I can only surmise that this means that all of the Prius' will be totalled
by insurance companies long before they reach the ripe old age of 11 years.
Energy Cost of Design Development
Energy Cost
Design
DD Cost
Division Model Development D/D % per Mile
Toyota Prius $29,889.18 8.44% $0.27
Hummer H1 $28,241.24 2.13% $0.07
The article states that the energy cost of the engineering for the Prius is
much higher because there are so few of them to amortize the development
costs over while the large number of Hummers sold brings down the
development costs for it.
Energy Cost of Manufacturing
Manufacturing Energy Cost
Veh Cost Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Division Model Share Tran Prc Share Tran Prc Per Mile
Toyota Prius $13,238 57.20%
$0.12
Hummer H1 $14,281 10.46%
$0.04
These numbers are extracted exactly from the article. I don't know what to
say about them except those people at GM were pretty foolish to discontinue
making the Hummer if they were making $122,000 profit on every one sold.
Now up to this point the total energy cost of either the Prius or the Hummer
is but a small fraction of the total cost quoted at the conclusion of the
article. The next three items account for more than 75% of the total and
they all involve the disposal of the vehicle at the end of it's useful
life.
Recycling
Energy Cost
Recyclables Recyclables
Recyc/Dispos
Division Model Disposal Disposal Per Mile
Toyota Prius $147,391.88 41.62% $1.35
Hummer H1 $289,851.26 21.82% $0.76
I am completely at a loss to comment on these numbers so I will quote from
the article.
"How can a vehicle costing $30,000 generate $140,000 in recyclables?
Remember that we are discussing energy usage, not the cost of the vehicle.
Over time, for instance, the vehicle will sell on average of five times in
its lifetime, each time at a portion of its original cost but generally
bringing the lifetime expenditure for the vehicle into the two to four times
original cost range depending on desirability and demand.
We are also discussing energy consumption, not costs. That $140,000 in
recyclable energy costs will generate $160,000 to $220,000 in net revenue to
recyclers. Additionally, the support industries to recyclers expend
significant energy for the production and maintenance of necessary recycling
equipment. Government agencies and those who remanufacture recycled material
into other products similarly expend significant quantities of energy in
support of the recycling of a single car."
Disposing of Non-Recyclables
Non Non
Energy Cost
Recyclable Recyclables Disposal
Division Model Disposal Disposal Per Mile
Toyota Prius $131,082.41 37.01% $1.20
Hummer H1 $873,659.90 65.77% $2.31
Now I thought that disposing of non-recyclables meant taking things to the
dump. Apparently not.
Again I quote.
"About half of all new vehicles have components which cannot be recycled
into secondary materials and/or cannot be put back into the marketplace as
replacement or repair parts. Such material includes leather seats, fluids,
worn out drive train components, brake lining, hoses, lighting system,
electronics, worn trim panels, etc."
It is difficult to imagine how the disposal of such items could possibly
approach 6 figures.
Disposing of Reusable Components
Energy Cost
Reusable Reusable Reuse
Dispose
Division Model Disposal Disposal Per Mile
Toyota Prius $47,656.57 21.37% $0.44
Hummer H1 $56,434.10 12.41% $0.15
It is not clear why this would be an additional expense. I quote from the
article.
"The share of new vehicles that can be reused to support repair and
long-term maintenance of vehicles represents the smallest of the disposal
segment of the energy research. Generally the share of a new vehicle that
can be stripped from a scrapped vehicle and set aside for future repair
depends in large part on the used-vehicle marketplace and those vehicles
that have a longer life as a mainstream means of transportation.
....................
Hybrids, on the other hand, have a relatively high reusable rate because
current versions will have in our estimation long-term core interest among
restoration and repair/maintenance owners. The electronics alone will be a
valuable asset for these folks."
So when you add up all these things you get, according to CNW Marketing
Research, the total energy cost of the Prius and the Hummer.
Energy $ Energy $
Energy $ Sum of the
Total Minimum Total Medium Total Max.
Above
Division Model Per Mile Per Mile Per Mile
Components
Toyota Prius $3.25 $3.53 $4.08
$4.02/mile
Hummer H1 $3.51 $3.60 $3.85
$4.06/mile
The last column is my summation of the items detailed above. It doesn't
quite match CNW's values but it is the sum of the above items.
My thanks to R.H. Allen for prodding me into reading this article.
If you are interested in reading the full article it is available online.
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
I leave it to each of you to assess the credibility of this work.
The last column is my summation of the items detailed above. It doesn't
quite match CNW's values but it is the sum of the above items.
My thanks to R.H. Allen for prodding me into reading this article.
If you are interested in reading the full article it is available online.
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
I leave it to each of you to assess the credibility of this work.
"R.H. Allen" <kka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ifSdnWqt7NX252TY...@giganews.com...
> Jack wrote:
>> So according to Google your Chris Demorro is a cell phone salesman and
>> this Prius article is his one and only journalistic endeavor -- EVER!!
>
> I agree that the numbers in the article seem rather suspect, but you
> really ought to take the time to comprehend what you're reading before you
> jerk your knee. The author of the piece neither claims to have performed
> the study himself nor claims to be a journalist. He merely wrote an
> editorial commenting on the study (and that implies opinion, not
> journalism). If you google the title of the study and the name of the
> company that produced it you'll rather easily find a copy that you can
> download and read for yourself if you like.
davee
charge the batteries it still equates to comsuming resources and
production of heat and pollution.
Joe Fischer
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 05:45:02 -0500, Joe Fischer
><j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>>>I wonder if you could use one of those kit cars?
>>
>> They are not "kit cars", they are any existing car
>>with a different motor.
>
>Do you know what a kit car is?
Do you know what a kit car is?
Many kit cars have been sold, they are usually
fiberglass replicas of classic hot rod bodies, and there
are a few small electric vehicle kits that definitely do not
qualify as an automobile.
There are many garages that specialize in electric
conversions, and there will be more and more of them
until the auto industry gets scared of losing revenue,
then they will start building the electric cars people want.
And I want to mention, the original article
of this thread is the dumbest example of efficient
expert hallucinations ever written.
I worked as a mechanic on heavy electric
delivery vehicles in 1944, held an A&E and Engine
Specialist MOS in 1947, was a GM dealer mechanic,
and have gone to technical schools for transmissions
and all kinds of electronic devices from radios to
garage door openers.
There are too many people that think they are
worth $80 an hour, and too many people that make
$50 an hour, most are not worth that much, especially
the computer nerds turned efficiency experts and
climate statisticians.
It is difficult to do any harm to the environment
today because the EPA has everybody's hands tied,
and the news media has everybody dumbed down
to believe all the stuff written by people right out of
college.
The average person in the US drives a vehicle
that cost less than $3000 used, and that is part of
the reason they use so much gasoline.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 05:45:02 -0500, Joe Fischer
><j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>> For what? While I could get by with only
>>driving 25 miles once a week, I like to drive about
>>22 miles per day on average, and it is easy to
>>convert a Chevy S-10 pickup truck with one of
>>the listed motors and a motor controller, and
>>20 or 30 ordinary car batteries would give me
>>the 22 miles per day until the new battery
>>technology becomes available.
>
>I have not studied any of this - it's all new to me. So maybe someone
>can clue me in.
>
>As I understand what you just said, I could buy a small truck and take
>out the engine and replace it with an electric motor.
It depends on the vehicle, there is a conversion plate
available for the Chevy S-10 (at least some years) that
bolts to the bell housing of the transmission.
Before jumping into it, it would be good to have
somebody who has changed motors and worked on
transmissions to at least help after both parties study
what has been done before, and many people have
posted a detailed description of the steps involved.
>Do you take out the transmission too and connect the electric motor
>directly to the driveshaft?
It depends on the motor and motor controller, with
existing vehicles it is best to keep the original transmission
for easier acceleration and safety, but at a reduced MPG
possibly.
I think some of the newer motor types have two
shafts for use with front wheel drive.
>What about front-wheel drive trucks?
Motor controllers are not sophisticated enough
to run two separate motors yet at an affordable price,
but if tires squealing a little is not a problem, more
leeway can be taken.
>I assume you put the 20 or 30 lead acid batteries in the pickup bed
>and cover them.
There is a big problem with safety from shock
for systems of more than 60 volts.
So some interlock system is needed to make
sure electrical shock is avoided, DC has a different
effect than AC current..
>I assume you run welding cable to the motor.
Depending on voltage and motor size, it
might be better to use wiring from the same source
as the motor and motor controller, welding cable
may not be good enough for some amperage
systems.
>What is typically used for motor control?
A motor controller, a good one costs almost
as much as the motor.
>What size gasoline powered emergency generator would be necessary for
>the 25 mile range you state?
For all city driving, 9KW should do, but for highway
trips, maybe two of them. It takes about 15 or 20 horsepower
for highway cruising depending mostly on streamlining and
length of hills, the long hills in California might be a problem,
just like big trucks take an hour or so on one in low gear at
low speed.
>How much does a typical installation cost: electric motor, motor
>control, batteries, generator, electric cables, mounts and other
>hardware, etc.?
Search google for electric vehicle garage, the people
who have converted vehicles are doing something rather
than being bitter, and only talking pessimistically.
>Based on the cost of the installation and the operating costs per
>mile, how many miles would it take compared to using a gasoline engine
>to break even?
If the oil supply is cut off, it won't matter, will it?
If good control of State Of Discharge of the batteries
is managed, then the equivalent fuel cost is less than gas,
maybe about the same if the cost of batteries is considered.
It is hard to imagine how the auto industry will be
able to make the difference needed in the unlikely event
that anthropogenic global warming is substantial.
And a person living in a garage less apartment,
should not consider a PHEV or EV, and it should not
be attempted except as a second car for obvious
reasons, there will be a learning curve.
http://www.marinij.com/marin/ci_4901466
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=electric+conversion+garage
Over 1000000 hits, maybe a third or less relevant.
If interested, maybe finding a conversion garage
and visiting it is a good idea, it can be a lot of work, and
an experience person can be a big help.
It isn't cheap unless you find a good deal on
a used motor that has the internal air circulation
for continuous duty.
Joe Fischer
Citizen Bob
Since I will never do this project, the best I can do is fantasize
about it - do the project as research.
I imagine that I begin with a cheap auto from a junk yard without a
motor or transmission. Then I put a kit on it to make it look classy.
From there the electric components are installed. I assume there is
enough space in the rear of the vehicle to put the batteries.
This would be a commute vehicle - a few miles per day to go to work
and the store. No highways trips. It is kept in a garage overnight.
I wonder how much such a vehicle would cost under favorable
circumstances? $10K?
You can't buy used crap that is 5 years old for $10K anymore.
Joe Fischer
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:20:21 -0500, Joe Fischer
><j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>> It isn't cheap unless you find a good deal on
>>a used motor that has the internal air circulation
>>for continuous duty.
>
>Since I will never do this project, the best I can do is fantasize
>about it - do the project as research.
I think the research can be fun, and maybe helpful
if something happens to gasoline supplies or prices.
>I imagine that I begin with a cheap auto from a junk yard without a
>motor or transmission. Then I put a kit on it to make it look classy.
>From there the electric components are installed. I assume there is
>enough space in the rear of the vehicle to put the batteries.
A few need to go under the hood to replace the
weight of the motor, otherwise the front springs will
extend way up, and steering will be poor.
>This would be a commute vehicle - a few miles per day to go to work
>and the store. No highways trips. It is kept in a garage overnight.
>
>I wonder how much such a vehicle would cost under favorable
>circumstances? $10K?
Probably in that range. I have seen some good
prices on big DC motors on ebay, but unless for sale near
the buyer, may be risky.
>You can't buy used crap that is 5 years old for $10K anymore.
With a blown motor, maybe. But many older
vehicles are not rusted and have good upholstery, those
are the things that count.
My main contention is that on level ground
and with good regenerative braking, weight is not
an issue at all, streamlining and overinflated tires
reduce KWH per mile.
Why anybody would list the Prius and Hummer
in the same article, I don't know, the Prius is an excellent
improvement in drive train technology, but too complicated
to suit me, I feel the pure EV with beefed up brakes and
true free wheel coasting, and two different size motors
will double the mileage to 100 MPG.
That is the number to shoot for, it will be within
range with rational driving within 5 years, and it may
actually become economical to buy a new car instead
of an old gas guzzler.
I have been driving my 1982 Fleetwood Brougham
HT4100 fuel injection, and the instant readout is right
at 30 MPG or above most of the time.
After I expand the envelope in testing after it
has been sitting out for 6 years (I took the computer
out and stored it in the house), I will be able to get
an accurate measured miles per gallon.
I have another one (only it has De Elegance trim)
that I may not be able to get the motor running as good
as I would like, and I might want to put an electric motor
in it, even a smaller motor that would not accelerate fast,
or go over 50, people pass me constantly any way,
I observe speed limits.
Joe Fischer
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> > PVs. The new "service stations" do a drain & fill in almost the same
> > time as a gas refill.
>
> the energy density of the flow batteries is too low to make it work.
> first sensible thing you've ever said.
Smarten up Bill. The flowbattery is the way to transfer the energy to
the onboard battery in a hurry. It is not the onboard battery. Instead
of wrist-thick copper water-cooled copper cables, you pump a liquid
through a two-connection plumbing hookup, run the pumps until the
battery says charged, and disconnect. It's as fast gasoline pumping
and there's no 1000 amp power connections to muddle with.
I might patent the idea since I WAS THE FIRST ONE TO THINK OF IT ON
RECORD.
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> [hanson]
> ... ahahaha..."Instant"?!.... ahahaha...
Crackpot Hanson. Ignore.
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
> Primary Cause of Global Warming!
>
> The DHMO Institute
> Houston, Texas
Water vapor is not the prime mover on Global Warming -- it's a
follower, feedback, Crackpot Bob. Change your sig.
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> Lodo, is your redirecting your tripe to "alt.fuck" a nu FU to "Awe Shit"?
> ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs and guzzle another bottle of Nightrain.
> drunkard.... ahahaha... ahahanson
Crackpot Hanson. Ignore.
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> I hate to say it, but I think Lyin'-Lodo might be a more appropriate
> spelling. He's beginning to lose his charm.
Crackpot Bill Ward, Ignore.
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> On 16 Mar 2007 09:21:22 -0700, "bill" <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The bulk of the power grid is in pretty good shape
>
> The grid in Texas is great!
>
> That's because the Texas grid is exclusively in Texas and does not
> extend beyond the borders of the state.
>
> We are energy self-sufficient.
Texans pay the highest rates for 1,000 miles around because they can't
get imported power. The grid stops at the state borders to prevent
federal rules from permitting 20% cheaper rates to come in-state.
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> wrote:
>
> > The bulk of the power grid is in pretty good shape
>
> The grid in Texas is great!
>
> That's because the Texas grid is exclusively in Texas and does not
> extend beyond the borders of the state.
>
> We are energy self-sufficient.
Which is why you wanted 11 TXU coal plants on the fast track that the
judge called illegal? By the way, in 2004 TXU took off and mothballed
8 natural gas plants, than in 2005 took offline several coal plants in
the hot season to constrain load so they hollar we need expansion,
then in 2006 planned 11 plants, then in 2007 sold for 45 billion
dollars and discovered they had 8 totally usable natural gas plants
that could go online again, soi dropped 8 of the proposed coal plants.
They have a new name now, but it's the same old RJ Reynolds tobacco
company behind the buyers -- you expecting clean lungs from the new
owners?
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> On 16 Mar 2007 08:50:11 -0700, "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>
> >Really good battery technology would change everything, from
> >flashlights on up.
>
> I thought fuel cells were pollution-free.
>
> Of course, they do make Dihydrogen Monoxide which is the primary
> source of greenhouse gases.
Crack-smoking Citizen Bob, Ignore.
Water Vapor is a follower, not a prime mover. It is not cause, but
effect of other causes.
Lay off the crack for none hour before posting. And change your sig.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> well this has been fun boys,(pc, insert people) well done!
> I will let you into a secret, when I am walking around I give way to
> everything.
> when I ride my push bike, I give way to everything.
> I dont own a car but I have a license and drive cars, I turn into a
> road hog.
> But when I drive Trains, you all give way to me TeeheeTee.
> For that little petrol motor to charge and provide extra charge plus
> the extra weight
> of the batteries and electric drive only Toyota seems to have cracked
> that nut.
> But hey get out of my way when Im on those rails boy!
There may be some reduction in CO2 emissions from more efficient use
of fuel. This can never result in very much actual reduction of
emissions. What about actual CO2 abatement?
The real point here is what would be the fuel efficiency of a vehicle
that was designed to burn fossil fuels and not emit CO2? With these
designs, one would have to get used to fuel milage far less than any
Hummer. 2 - 5 miles per gallon? Electricity in the US is 90% from
fossil fuels.
Anyway you look at it, control of emissions will only mean industry
will go elswhere, and only the rich will be able to afford energy.
Self strangulation to prevent the catastrophe of AGW predicted by
those keepers of the visions of cooler climates, and those that dream
of living in the Garden of Eden on Algore island, in harmony with
nature, running naked through the trees and without the need for
energy or industrialization or CO2.
KD
Exxon Liars & Thieves
> designs, one would have to get used to fuel milage far less than any
> will go elswhere, and only the rich will be able to afford energy.
>
> KD
Crackpot Death-Rag, Ignore.