Hybrid cars should be banned

[_xxx_]

If you really care so much about the enviroment kill all cows. All the farts of 1 cow in 1 day pollute more than your SUV does in 1 year.

Even if that wasn't a myth - should we get rid of all cows? Is that an excuse to pump even more CO/CO2 into the atmosphere? Strange reasoning you have there.

First, hybrids DO save fuel. Less fuel used = less polution, it's really that simple. the manufacturing is no different that for any normal car quality-wise. I'm not sure about the batteries, but I think these can be recycled at least to a certain degree. Also old batteries don't just get dumped with the usual waste anyway.

If anything, the electric engine will help that Ferrari to gain speed faster on launch, so from that POV it's actually a very good thing.

'And: ALL manufacturers without exception are working on hybrids, even for the Formula 1 (you'll see hybrids in F1 some 3-4 years down the road).

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

So you think time and money invested in hybrid technology is a waste?

Which part? The control systems and electronics that give us the regenerative braking technology which we can apply almost everywhere? The research into optimizing fuel efficiency of the engines that drive hybrids? The search for better battery technology that is useful in countless areas of society?

I think its a waste of money in the sense that IMO it doesnt have a viable future because its to limited. As I said (but nobody seemed to have read) its also possible to get fuel from recycling materials that otherwise cant be recycled because they containt toxic materials that come free when you burn them. Creating the fuel is clean as far as I remember and the fuel produced is also not very polluting and you can use it in current engines with a few small modifications. This kind of tech will also be usefull for plains and ships while hybrids are pretty much limited to cars.

I don't think the government would subsidize some of the cost if it didn't end up reducing the total amount of fuel usage. also, consider that a lot of commuters go in stop & go traffic everyday and that's what the prius is the best for.

You do know that governemts (atleast the dutch one) actually doesnt want you to use less fuel at all? Why do you think all sorts of green tech here are more expensive? public transport is expensive too, why? because they earn a shitload on fueltaxes around here.

First, hybrids DO save fuel. Less fuel used = less polution, it's really that simple. the manufacturing is no different that for any normal car quality-wise. I'm not sure about the batteries, but I think these can be recycled at least to a certain degree. Also old batteries don't just get dumped with the usual waste anyway.

If people care so much about their enviroment they wouldnt have a car at all and just go to work with public transport or their bycicle. I think its just a hype. I dont think there ever will be that much hybrids, so I rather have people create cleaner petrol and cleaner combustion engines, something everybody can use right away.

 

[_xxx_]

Well yeah, but considering the comparison with the _same_ car as a non-hybrid, they do save fuel considerably. And since people usually are after a certain model, they will buy what's there. So in the end, it's still an improvement however small it may be.

 

[chavvdarrr]

I believe cars like this:

running on hydrogen are the future. ATM so called hybrids are just "test-machines" to test in real world the technology.

 

[_xxx_]

hydrogen is far away from being anything. Manufacturing it is a big issue, the tank/storage is also the source of many troubles.

I wouldn't bet on hydrogen anytime soon. I think we rather need some other (new) alternatives, hybrids are only a partial solution.

 

[chavvdarrr]

well, not now, but in 10 years... technologies like http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9278 can solve the problem of manufacturing hydrogen, as for storage, I recently read that there are tests of technologies which can increase space/storage ration easily by a factor of 2-3x

near term - LPG&CNG , maybe even diesel hybrids? I happily drive my Honda on LPG, its price is ~0.50e vs 1e for 95 octane

 

[Gerry]

near term - LPG&CNG , maybe even diesel hybrids? I happily drive my Honda on LPG, its price is ~0.50e vs 1e for 95 octane

Are there any reasons why there aren't any diesel hybrids at the moment?

 

[Arwin]

Are there any reasons why there aren't any diesel hybrids at the moment?

Yes. Diesel isn't as common. It's extremely popular in Europe, but not so much in the rest of the world - if I remember correctly, in the Japan and the US you can't even get it everywhere. Also, until the last two-three years, Diesels weren't that good for the environment. Only now are they starting to get acceptable fine dust and co2 levels (sometimes better than acceptable, the cleaner engines with the better filters are within 30% of Prius levels in fact).

 

[Mariner]

A small on board powerplant with a turbine engine powering it, that would be a nice alternative until fuel cells becomes a commodity. It would make better use of the fuel even if it was only feed normal gasoline.
With a small buffer battery it could also have fast very startup and a way to store break energy.

I agree with you here. It's always stuck in my mind that the blurb about the Mini electric concept car which was announced the other year claims their small on-board motor allows 80mpg when used to charge the battery.

Incidentally, the company who built that car has apparently signed a deal with Volvo for their new concept car - electric motors/generators in each wheel seem to be a good idea to me.

 

[Sxotty]

He's spewed a lot of nonsense in this thread, but it's true that hybrids aren't going to do much for pollution. I did some calculations in another thread, and if half of all cars sold are hybrids from now until 2020, we're looking at under 3% reduction in GHG for the US in 2020, and far less in the short term.

(I actually got a figure of 1.2%, because I don't believe 30% is reasonable in an equal performance, life-cycle comparison, but I'll use your assumption anyway.)

Real CO2 reduction can only happen through non-hydrocarbon electricity generation. Then we can use that in electric cars and/or plug-in hybrids.

It is true that they are not the panacea people make them out to be. Still I think you are a bit pessimistic. There are other pollutants as wll and cars like the Prius are way better at NOx emissions, SOx, and PM as well. And yes PHEVs are the way to go undoubtedly.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/cmu_plugin_hybr.html
Well to wheels Greenhouse emissions
Gasoline 344
PHEV current electricity) 265

Further you can capture CO2 emissions at Coal plants and you aren't going to on cars. Only people with agendas and an understanding of the issues don't see the huge benefits that PHEVs can make in the near term. You can do all sorts of pollution control on coal plants much more economically than on cars, it doesn't matter how big it is or how much it weighs when it is on a coal plant instead of a car that needs to drive around. It is much easier to change our electricity generating structure than to change the fleet of vehicles we drive as well.

 

[Sxotty]

Yes. Diesel isn't as common. It's extremely popular in Europe, but not so much in the rest of the world - if I remember correctly, in the Japan and the US you can't even get it everywhere. Also, until the last two-three years, Diesels weren't that good for the environment. Only now are they starting to get acceptable fine dust and co2 levels (sometimes better than acceptable, the cleaner engines with the better filters are within 30% of Prius levels in fact).

That is not really true. In the US you could get diesel, but until very recently it was the cheaper high sulfur kind so it was very polluting. Now they have ultra-low sulfur diesel and the high sulfur one as well. Once they phase out high sulfur diesel then it should be fairly clean although you do have more PM with it (new filters pioneered by corning can capture most of this though).

Now let me show my ignorance.

I was under the impression that in Europe taxes on diesel was lower in the past which sped its adoption in small cars. Is that correct? I figure you folks over there should know.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

In Holland diesel is cheaper as gas/petrol or whatever you call it in english but prices have been going up more than petrol/gas recently. Its still cheaper but you also have to pay more road taxes for a diesel car so it depends on how much you drive a year whether or not a diesel car is cheaper.

I dont know if the lower price made the adoption faster, maybe because diesel has always (atleast as far as i remember, though im somewhat young compared to other members here so I might be wrong) been available for trucks and lorry's it wasnt a big deal for car makers to introduce diesels next to gas/petrol engines.

 

[_xxx_]

Was This year it caught up, just yesterday we had the first time ever that diesel was 2 cents more expensive than super. A year ago diesel was about 20% cheaper.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Now let me show my ignorance.

I was under the impression that in Europe taxes on diesel was lower in the past which sped its adoption in small cars. Is that correct? I figure you folks over there should know.

That was correct for a while in the UK, but has since been reversed when diesel was painted as the devil's fuel thanks to it's particulate emissions (despite the fact you get twice the miles per gallon compared to petrol).

The truth is that the reduced tax on diesel, combined with hugely better mileage meant the government lost out on a lot of tax (the UK has ridiculous levels of tax on car fuel) as people were encouraged to switch. The government then jacked taxes up again on diesel, despite cleaner diesel fuels to claw that money back, but diesel is still seen as viable for both small and large cars for both manufacturers and drivers. So the diesel owner pays a little more for fuel, but gets massively more miles per tankful.

Today's diesel cars with cleaner fuels, fuel injection, turbos and ECUs give a very good driving experience, and a lot of the issues people quote against diesels are now past problems.

 

[Sxotty]

Allright, thanks guys that was good to confirm.

In the US ULS diesel is more expensive.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm

Just a bit more than the most expensive gasoline. It has never really been significantly cheaper then gasoline though (except short periods due to refinery snafus). BTW if you wonder about diesel hybrids, well look no further than locomotives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric They have been around forever because they are better. Oh tongue they are on ships too already .

I am really fond of PHEVs though personally because I think that the research (despite what tongue said ) will not be a waste.

If we go to fuel cells all the research will be applicable besides batteries and regenerative braking.

If we go to electric all the research will be applicable.

Pretty much whatever we decide to do I think a large portion of the investment and research will have a good payback.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

BTW if you wonder about diesel hybrids, well look no further than locomotives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric They have been around forever because they are better. Oh tongue they are on ships too already .

I know about the trains, most trains in europe are running on electricity alone for quite some time now. I knew about ships too using a normal engine to generate power for the engines, for example those things that can turn under the ship so you cant have a normal drive shaft running to them. But they arnt really hybrids in the sence they are more fuel efficient (did you know that ships actually pollute more than the airplane industry? still ships hardly get targeted while we have to pay fortunes in enviromental taxes on our plane ticket) they just use the diesel to generate electricity because they cant reach the engines otherwise, or because it works better having a electric engine. Maybe you are talking about something different though, dont know much about ships.

What kind of fuel could be used for airplane engines btw? I suppose you got to have something that works very similair to kerosine?

 

[hoho]

did you know that ships actually pollute more than the airplane industry?

That depends on what you count. For moving stuff from place to place I don't think planes can compete with ships in anything but speed.

 

[Frank]

well, not now, but in 10 years... technologies like http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9278 can solve the problem of manufacturing hydrogen, as for storage, I recently read that there are tests of technologies which can increase space/storage ration easily by a factor of 2-3x

Nice!

 

[Mariner]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that part of the reason for the increase in cost of Diesel is that the US, who traditionally don't use it all that much, are now using more of it themselves. In the past, Europe would have Diesel shipped across from US refineries but this supply has dwindled and therefore cost has risen. Note that I just remember reading this - I can't confirm its veracity!

This was just one factor in the increase in Diesel costs in addition to increased demand due to the improvement of Diesel engines in recent years.

 

[Frank]

CO2 production is a hot topic ATM. You can reduce it by using a power plant that is more efficient, like a diesel engine, or a turbine or hybrid that preferrably only uses the electric motor(s) for driving the car. But none of them would be really Green, or CO2 neutral.

Efficiency is not as easy to determine, because you could claim that a car that burns biofuel is CO2 neutral, no matter the mileage it gets. Although I would be hard pressed to agree that biofuel is CO2 neurtal or enviromental friendly.

Hydrogen most likely has the worst efficiency of all, but it can be truly CO2 neutral, and definitely has the least hazardous residues over the lifecycle of the car. But the energy storage is about as big and heavy as a pack of NiMH batteries, and has the same associated problems.

If we want maximum efficiency and the lowest running costs with the lowest CO2 emissions, nothing beats electricity. And if you love blazing accelleration, nothing beats an electric motor. That Tesla Roadster will give you a bigger kick than that Mucielangelo. Mostly because it has that maximum torque available right away. There is really no reason ever to use the first gear of that Tesla unless you want to burn some serious rubber. Because you probably won't ever meet a car you cannot pull out at the traffic light from second gear.

And with an all-electric car being almost solid state and having no nasty fuels and other chemical stuff, it should last as long as the battery does. The main downside would be, that the government will find a way to jack up the taxes big time if many people buy one, because they don't like you to have almost zero running costs.