60 to 80 mpg car but cant drive it here in the US

[sdowney717]

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/09/0916_great_cars_not_available_in_states/17.htm

it is a good car. There are many good cars the US government wont let in here. the reasons you have to find yourself.
Cars with even GREAT MPG.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/5349094246_51653436d9_b.jpg

[3Miro]

I can get 60 mpg on my Prius here in the USA. The "conspiracy" isn't what you think it is.

Europeans can get huge mpg on the diesel, but diesel cannot be use as a "solution" here in the US. EU uses trains and ships to move goods around, USA uses large trucks. Large trucks run on diesel, small cars run on gasoline and there is a balance. If USA gets a bunch of diesel cars, it will increase the need for oil and there will be all that gasoline that cannot be used for anything. In Europe, diesel is often times much cheaper than gasoline, in USA it is the other way around.

When I see a European company get a hybrid-diesel, then we can talk about huge savings.

[sdowney717]

with hybrids though, you run into the cost issue!
too much cost for the benefit. although I think that is slowly improving , hybrids will always cost more.
for example, time has not made much difference today over a few years ago.


True, the 2007 Civic Hybrid is rated by the EPA at 49 mpg in city driving and 51 mpg on the highway, for a combined 50 mpg. This is 30 percent better than the combined rating of 33 mpg for the gasoline-powered, 2007 LX model.

But even if a driver maximizes his or her fuel savings and gets the full 17-mpg benefit in the Hybrid, he or she would need more than a dozen years of 15,000-mile annual travel before the gasoline savings—calculated with gasoline at approximately $2.40 a gallon—would recoup the $4,800 extra paid for the Hybrid over the traditional Civic LX.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435228

[3Miro]

with hybrids though, you run into the cost issue!
too much cost for the benefit. although I think that is slowly improving , hybrids will always cost more.
for example, time has not made much difference today over a few years ago.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435228

Most of those surveys don't take into account other extras. When I was getting the Prius, a base Prius had almost all the extras (power locks, power windows, mp3 player ...) as the highest model of Corolla. If you strip down the extras, the price difference isn't much at all. Also, the gas prices vary greatly, when one summer gas here got to over 4 dollars per gallon, it really made a difference.

Furthermore, you get other economic factors involved. In USA Hybrids are cheaper than European cars, the reason: import taxes. At the time that I got my car, I also checked the price for a Prius in Bulgaria (at the time, already part of the EU). The price with all the taxes was two times higher. USA and Japan run together in terms of Car industry, EU countries run separate. EU cars are more cost effective in the EU, US and Japanese cars are more cost effective in the USA.

[samalex]

The price of hybrid cars is the biggest downside... yeah it'd be nice to have a 50+mpg car, but is it worth the extra $$$ per month on the car note? Even the standard Prius is over $23K, but I don't know if the cost would be recouped in gas savings or not.

Here's a site with more info comparing the cars.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs.shtml

[mips]

Europeans can get huge mpg on the diesel, but diesel cannot be use as a "solution" here in the US. EU uses trains and ships to move goods around, USA uses large trucks. Large trucks run on diesel, small cars run on gasoline and there is a balance. If USA gets a bunch of diesel cars, it will increase the need for oil and there will be all that gasoline that cannot be used for anything. In Europe, diesel is often times much cheaper than gasoline, in USA it is the other way around.


:-k

Diesel is maid from the same oil that they use to make petrol/gasoline with. (There's also biodiesel)

The process of refining diesel is simpler than the process for refining petrol/gasoline.

I'm not quite following your logic.

[sdowney717]

yes, so the point is you can get extremely good mileage with a pure turbo diesel or just a small diesel and you do not have to engineer a hybrid to get extremely good mileage.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm
here is one that gets 65 mpg
Americans dont like diesel cars


Ford's 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here's the catch: Despite the car's potential to transform Ford's image and help it compete with Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe. "We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields. "But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S." The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

[3Miro]

:-k

Diesel is maid from the same oil that they use to make petrol/gasoline with. (There's also biodiesel)

The process of refining diesel is simpler than the process for refining petrol/gasoline.

I'm not quite following your logic.

The process of refining actually doesn't allow to make only diesel or only gasoline, you always make both. You always end up with kerosene (jet fuel), gasoline (in US this goes mostly for cars), diesel (commercial trucks) and propane (probably home heating/cooking, but I am not sure). Many cars in Europe run on propane (or have a switch between gasoline and propane).

[donkyhotay]

:-k

Diesel is maid from the same oil that they use to make petrol/gasoline with. (There's also biodiesel)

The process of refining diesel is simpler than the process for refining petrol/gasoline.

I'm not quite following your logic.

I don't know the reasons for it myself but diesel *is* more expensive here then regular gasoline.

[sdowney717]

too bad this 75 mpg car is not available here in the US.
You really think people would not buy these cars?
http://www.reallynatural.com/pictures/050310peu.jpg

http://www.reallynatural.com/archives/technology/peugeot_diesel_gets_75_mpg_acr.php


Over the course of the two-day, 622-mile drive, the competitors put up some pretty impressive numbers. The top overall result came in a C-segment 308 hatchback with an overall average of 74.9 miles per gallon (U.S.). Next up was the smaller 207 HDi 90 with 72.5 mpg. Particularly impressive were the 5008 MPV with 70.6 mpg and the new 3008 crossover with 65.9 mpg. Part of the competition included a prescribed time window based on the speed limits along the route to make sure that drivers didn't simply drive at excessively slow speeds.

Too bad these efficient models are not available in the US. As Peugeot states, "This is a great reminder that, in this dynamic and technology-obsessed industry, genuine environmentally friendly motoring is available for the masses right now."

[3Miro]

The price of hybrid cars is the biggest downside... yeah it'd be nice to have a 50+mpg car, but is it worth the extra $$$ per month on the car note? Even the standard Prius is over $23K, but I don't know if the cost would be recouped in gas savings or not.

Here's a site with more info comparing the cars.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs.shtml

Again, compare the extras not just the fuel price. Standard Prius comes with a backup camera for example, how much more is it to have that on a regular car. Also, this depends on how much you drive. From July 2007 to July 2010, we got 120,000 miles on our Prius, it does pay off.

If you compare cost and you don't drive much, in the US for example, it is much better to get a very cheap gasoline Ford or Hyundai, than anything European. Americans don't like diesel for a reason.

[sdowney717]

plenty of diesel here in the US, price is skewed slightly against diesel simply because mored demand for gasoline. half the crude oil is refined into gasoline.
Americans dont like diesel because they are not educated into thinking diesel is good for a car. back in the 1980's really bad GM diesel cars got them thinking all diesels in cars are bad. Americans do like diesel trucks, diesel boats, diesel trains, diesel generators, diesel heaters.

[3Miro]

half the crude oil is refined into gasoline.

Too many people cross posting here. Read my earlier post that explains how you cannot make diesel without also making gasoline. You get both and you have to find a way to use both.

[mips]

The process of refining actually doesn't allow to make only diesel or only gasoline, you always make both. You always end up with kerosene (jet fuel), gasoline (in US this goes mostly for cars), diesel (commercial trucks) and propane (probably home heating/cooking, but I am not sure). Many cars in Europe run on propane (or have a switch between gasoline and propane).

That's what I said. You can get whatever you want out of the oil.



I don't know the reasons for it myself but diesel *is* more expensive here then regular gasoline.

The process of removing sulphur diesel to create low sulpher diesel adds to the cost of diesel but I don't know if it pushes that cost up beyond that of petrol/gasoline.

Over here diesel used to be cheaper than petrol and when more diesel cars became available on the market the government increased taxes so it's now more expensive than petrol.

[3Miro]

That's what I said. You can get whatever you want out of the oil.

No you don't get to pick what you want. You get everything out of the crude oil, so you have to either use it or waste it.

[sdowney717]

refiners have learned how to 'crack' more gasoline out of crude than what used to be possible.
yes, you can custom make what you wish from raw crude stocks. some easier than others.

shoot, they can take algae oil and make it into diesel, jet fuel or gasoline.
they can take raw wood and cellulose and make gasoline

http://www.anellotech.com/press10.html

these people have something really good. green gasoline and they say they can produce at a cost of $10 to $30 per barrel oil equivalence. going commercial around 2017.

[daverich]

I run a turbo diesel VW sharan 1.9 tdi.

It's the best car i've ever owned, and also one of the most economical.

I can't imagine why anyone would prefer a petrol over this (except for maybe pure performance - although this car is no slouch)

An american once told me that it was because of the very cold weather they needed 6 litre 4x4s..... hehe.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

[sdowney717]

it is called 'cracking'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_%28chemistry%29


Oil refinery cracking processes allow the production of "light" products such as liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and gasoline from heavier crude oil distillation fractions such as gas oils and residues. Fluid catalytic cracking produces a high yield of gasoline and LPG, while hydrocracking is a major source of jet fuel, diesel, naphtha, and LPG.

Thermal cracking is currently used to "upgrade" very heavy fractions ("upgrading", "visbreaking"), or to produce light fractions or distillates, burner fuel and/or petroleum coke. Two extremes of the thermal cracking in terms of product range are represented by the high-temperature process called "steam cracking" or pyrolysis (ca. 750 °C to 900 °C or more) which produces valuable ethylene and other feedstocks for the petrochemical industry, and the milder-temperature delayed coking (ca. 500 °C) which can produce, under the right conditions, valuable needle coke, a highly crystalline petroleum coke used in the production of electrodes for the steel and aluminium industries.

[3Miro]

An american once told me that it was because of the very cold weather they needed 6 litre 4x4s..... hehe.


4x4 is a common myth around here. Except for some remote locations, you don't need a 4x4 (and you never need 6 liter).

People in the US do need to be more gas mileage cautious, but the Euro-diesels cannot help here. Over here, your diesel would probably cost more than my Prius (a WV Jeta did cost more at the time). This doesn't even include maintenance and parts, depending on whee you live, it may be even hard to find a mechanic and/or parts for a European car.

[cascade9]

Europeans can get huge mpg on the diesel, but diesel cannot be use as a "solution" here in the US. EU uses trains and ships to move goods around, USA uses large trucks. Large trucks run on diesel, small cars run on gasoline and there is a balance. If USA gets a bunch of diesel cars, it will increase the need for oil and there will be all that gasoline that cannot be used for anything. In Europe, diesel is often times much cheaper than gasoline, in USA it is the other way around.

AFAIK thats a myth. A large % of petrol is cracked longer hydrocarbons, and moving to diesel would not create more demand for oil.


The process of refining actually doesn't allow to make only diesel or only gasoline, you always make both. You always end up with kerosene (jet fuel), gasoline (in US this goes mostly for cars), diesel (commercial trucks) and propane (probably home heating/cooking, but I am not sure). Many cars in Europe run on propane (or have a switch between gasoline and propane).

Yes, for X amount of crude oil you will always get 'A' amount of petrol, 'B' amount of kero, 'C' amount of diesel....but that is forgetting the 'D' amount of naptha/asphalt/etc (which is a large proportion of the original crude)

Its not like they just pour some crude into a fractional distation unit and thats it. Naptha/fuel oil/etc grade stuff is the source of a lot of 'gasoline', after its been through cracking, and it would be easier to make diesel from that grade material. Its also possible to recombine petrol in diesel as well.

As for why diesel isnt so popular in the US, this is worth a look (though IMO it seriously downplays the marketing aspect)-

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/diesel/4330313

For diesel to be as popular in the US as it is in Europe, either car prices or fuel prices have to go up a fairly large amount.

[Evil-Ernie]

I use pie, pasty and ale as fuel for my vehicle ;)

[Paqman]

EU uses trains and ships to move goods around, USA uses large trucks. Large trucks run on diesel

What do you think freight trains and ships run on?

The only reason diesel cars aren't on the market in the US is because there's a perception amongst Americans that driving a diesel car is like driving a tractor.

[3Miro]

What do you think freight trains and ships run on?

The only reason diesel cars aren't on the market in the US is because there's a perception amongst Americans that driving a diesel car is like driving a tractor.

Trains run on electricity (coal, nuclear and/or natural gas), it wasn't until I came to the US that I saw a diesel train. Ships run on diesel, but they are far more efficient in terms of fuel spend per amount of goods transported.

[sdowney717]

Yes, for X amount of crude oil you will always get 'A' amount of petrol, 'B' amount of kero, 'C' amount of diesel....but that is forgetting the 'D' amount of naptha/asphalt/etc (which is a large proportion of the original crude)

it is called cracking.
Caraackinggg takes HEAVY oil fractions and turns it into light fractions like benzenes and even LPG, a gas.


Fluid catalytic cracking produces a high yield of gasoline and LPG, while hydrocracking is a major source of jet fuel, diesel, naphtha, and LPG.

you can make what you want up to a point.

[mips]

...it wasn't until I came to the US that I saw a diesel train.

If you don't mind me asking which country did you come from?

[3Miro]

If you don't mind me asking which country did you come from?

Bulgaria. I had read in a textbook that in some remote parts of the country there were still some diesel trains, but I had never seen one (those would be much smaller than the American ones anyway).

[mips]

Bulgaria. I had read in a textbook that in some remote parts of the country there were still some diesel trains, but I had never seen one (those would be much smaller than the American ones anyway).

There are quite a few diesel or diesel-electric locomotives in europe. The diesel electric ones could be mistaken for electric locomotives seeing the can run on both sources. If I had seen a diesel electric loco I would think it's a electric loco :)

[cascade9]

What do you think freight trains and ships run on?

The only reason diesel cars aren't on the market in the US is because there's a perception amongst Americans that driving a diesel car is like driving a tractor.

That, and the extre expense of diesel is harder to recoup in the US market, thanks to much cheaper fuel prices and generally diesel is more expensive than petrol in the US.


Trains run on electricity (coal, nuclear and/or natural gas), it wasn't until I came to the US that I saw a diesel train. Ships run on diesel, but they are far more efficient in terms of fuel spend per amount of goods transported.

I cant speak for all of europe (I'm not enough of an anarok) but I've heard that the most used freight train in the UK is diesel/electric (class 66). There is a lot of diesel/electric or diesel/hydraulic freight trains in europe, though I have no idea if they are the majority of freight trains in europe like they are in the UK.

[3Miro]

There are quite a few diesel or diesel-electric locomotives in europe. The diesel electric ones could be mistaken for electric locomotives seeing the can run on both sources. If I had seen a diesel electric loco I would think it's a electric loco :)

Diesel trains are way more efficient than diesel trucks. That alone would lead to a smaller demand for diesel. Diesel-electric would ask for even less diesel.

In Bulgaria only a handful of remote locations would run on diesel, anything petroleum is way too expensive (Bulgaria has absolutely no oil). Europe can vary greatly from one country to another (I am not even including Russia here, just EU), but overall the strong preference is for electricity. Very few countries have oil or can get it cheap enough to justify sticking with diesel.

[cascade9]

If there is a preference for electric in europe, its to do with electical generation, avaibility and pricing vs oil (and gas, etc). Nothing to do with diesel/pretol producion ratios ;)


There are quite a few diesel or diesel-electric locomotives in europe. The diesel electric ones could be mistaken for electric locomotives seeing the can run on both sources. If I had seen a diesel electric loco I would think it's a electric loco :)

Technicaly, a dual source (diesel and electric) train is a electro-diesel.

[mips]

Technicaly, a dual source (diesel and electric) train is a electro-diesel.

Was not aware of the correct terminology so I just made up my own to describe the same thing.

[mips]

Technicaly, a dual source (diesel and electric) train is a electro-diesel.

Was not aware of the correct terminology so I just made up my own to describe the same thing.

[mips]

Technicaly, a dual source (diesel and electric) train is a electro-diesel.

Was not aware of the correct terminology so I just made up my own to describe the same thing.

[3Miro]

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/statistics/statistics_en.htm

Check the PDF with Transport Part, section 3.5.3. In 2008, UK is the exception of only 32.8% electrifies lines. Most countries have more than 50% electric (which is still lower than what I expected).

[SuperFreak]

I think a bicycle will get an almost infinite mpg and is preferable to any car. I had 2 trucks for about 13 years of my life and regret those years. Bicycles are a healthy alternative to cars, don't pollute and use a tiny fraction of the resources and infrastructure of cars. I am 50 and live in a small community 60 miles from the nearest city and I live in an area where winter means slush and snow for 3 months. I do not believe the majority of people need cars; they are toys that are causing great damage to the natural and human world.

[3Miro]

I think a bicycle will get an almost infinite mpg and is preferable to any car. I had 2 trucks for about 13 years of my life and regret those years. Bicycles are a healthy alternative to cars, don't pollute and use a tiny fraction of the resources and infrastructure of cars. I am 50 and live in a small community 60 miles from the nearest city and I live in an area where winter means slush and snow for 3 months. I do not believe the majority of people need cars; they are toys that are causing great damage to the natural and human world.

How long do you have to bike to work and/or store, you don't bike 60 miles every day, right? I live 30 minutes walk from work and I do that every day for the past 7 years (snow, sleet or Florida heat). However, when we got the Prius, my wife had to drive 60 miles every day (one way) to go to school, you cannot bike that.

When I was in Europe, I didn't need a car and most people didn't need one either. In USA, you cannot live without one.

[SuperFreak]

I am past my cycling prime but I recall reading about a man who commuted 50 miles each way to work in Southern California.I know this is beyond most people, but it is surprising what one can do. When I lived in Toronto years ago I cycled 12 miles each way to school and when I got home I ran a 7 mile course in the evening. Bicycles and running and walking have kept me in much better shape than I would be using a car. Yes you have to make sacrifices with your choice of work or school but it is certainly possible for most urban dwellers. Perhaps in the same way many of us have rethought the way we use computers and have adopted Ubuntu we should also look at the way we think about transportation. Our ancestors got around without cars for thousands of years.

[3Miro]

I jog about 2 a day and I am in a better shape than I ever was (or ever will be). 12 miles cycling is something I could do, depending on the road. It is one thing to cycle on flat and completely different to have up/down hills of the Appalachia Mountains. 7 miles is huge, this would be almost as bad as my suggesting that everyone should use Gentoo, since I can set it up and use it.

We could definitely use with less waste of energy, but our modern industry and economy depends on transportation. People in the past did go without cars, but also didn't go very far or very long. If I were born in times before modern medicine, I wouldn't have lived pass the age of five, so I am not giving up on civilization.

[KiwiNZ]

I can get 60 mpg on my Prius here in the USA. The "conspiracy" isn't what you think it is.

Europeans can get huge mpg on the diesel, but diesel cannot be use as a "solution" here in the US. EU uses trains and ships to move goods around, USA uses large trucks. Large trucks run on diesel, small cars run on gasoline and there is a balance. If USA gets a bunch of diesel cars, it will increase the need for oil and there will be all that gasoline that cannot be used for anything. In Europe, diesel is often times much cheaper than gasoline, in USA it is the other way around.

When I see a European company get a hybrid-diesel, then we can talk about huge savings.

Have had to replace the batteries yet? when you do it will hurt and knock a huge hole in your bottom line running cost savings.

[cariboo]

Much of the reason we don't see high mileage European cars here in North America, Is because of the modifications needed to meet safety and emissions standards. Many manufacturers don't think it is worth the extra expense. We're still waiting for the Smart Roadster here in Canada.

[uRock]

I will not drive another mini-car until SUVs are regulated. I have seen what happens when a miniature gets caught between an SUV and another object.

When you are going 70mph on the freeway and being tailgated by someone driving an F350 dually with 20 inch lift kit, you'll know fear.

[KiwiNZ]

Much of the reason we don't see high mileage European cars here in North America, Is because of the modifications needed to meet safety and emissions standards. Many manufacturers don't think it is worth the extra expense. We're still waiting for the Smart Roadster here in Canada.

European safety standards and emissions standards are very high i think it is more to do with local industry protection regulations.

[KiwiNZ]

I will not drive another mini-car until SUVs are regulated. I have seen what happens when a miniature gets caught between an SUV and another object.

When you are going 70mph on the freeway and being tailgated by someone driving an F350 dually with 20 inch lift kit, you'll know fear.

I drive a SUV , mainly to two the boat and off roading etc and I hate those rude tailgating neanderthals. What I usually do if there is not a line of cars so it does not affect others is slow down further and further until the "driver" learns. It usually takes a while to sink in.

[cariboo]

I will not drive another mini-car until SUVs are regulated. I have seen what happens when a miniature gets caught between an SUV and another object.

When you are going 70mph on the freeway and being tailgated by someone driving an F350 dually with 20 inch lift kit, you'll know fear.

I drive a Honda Civic, I have felt the fear. :)

[3Miro]

Have had to replace the batteries yet? when you do it will hurt and knock a huge hole in your bottom line running cost savings.

That may have been the case for early models, but currently it is a myth.

Warranty on the batteries is 100K miles and the car is at 150K right now. We don't need new batteries (although the millage dropped to about 50mpg). If you take 200K to be the expected lifespan of a car, you wouldn't expect to change the batteries more than once. Compared to the sum-total of maintenance expense, it wouldn't amount to much.

If you want, you can add the savings from not needing new breaks nearly as often, since you stop on the electric generator most of the time.

[3Miro]

I drive a SUV , mainly to two the boat and off roading etc and I hate those rude tailgating neanderthals. What I usually do if there is not a line of cars so it does not affect others is slow down further and further until the "driver" learns. It usually takes a while to sink in.

The other common myth is that Priuses are small. They are not big (certainly nowhere near an SUV), but they are bigger than any sub-compact (have more power too).

Having those SUV tailgating you sux, but then depending on where you drive, you may get the 18-wheelers. Now that is scary.

[uRock]

I drive a SUV , mainly to two the boat and off roading etc and I hate those rude tailgating neanderthals. What I usually do if there is not a line of cars so it does not affect others is slow down further and further until the "driver" learns. It usually takes a while to sink in.
I do that when tail gated, too. I have nothing against people owning SUVs, but I think they should require a separate license and have heavier penalties for violations, because of the shear weight of the vehicles. It is mostly the heavy duty vehicles that I think should be restricted, such as F250, Chevy and Dodge's 2500 series trucks, Suburbans, Expeditions, Sequoias, and the H2s. Freedom is free, but it is costing everyone with safety and fuel waste issues.

People here(in the USA, not UF) complain about the price of gas, yet the number of V8 high performance cars and trucks on the road are still increasing. It is a lost cause until the price of gas breaks $5 a gallon.

[uRock]

Having those SUV tailgating you sux, but then depending on where you drive, you may get the 18-wheelers. Now that is scary.
That is scary, but doesn't happen as much where I live. I used to live on a route that was heavily traveled by 18 wheelers taking lumber to the paper mill and those guys were dangerous. A rule of thumb on those rural routes was to speed up or get out of the way, because the rigs were usually building speed to climb the next hill.

I am not sure which is more aggravating, being tailgated at the bottom of the hill or being stuck behind a rig with a heavy load going 10-15mph trying to climb the hill.

[sprocket10]

As cariboo said earlier, another reason light diesel trucks aren't in America in force is because of strict US emission standards. Which is ironic because of how relatively crappy our fuel economy ratings are. I know one example of such emissions standards is the BlueTec engines in certain vehicles like the Jeep Liberty. It was available in the US for only a short time - maybe a year or two. IIRC, the BlueTec diesels were no longer offered because of the extra emissions expense.

I'd love to see more light diesel trucks here in the US that can handle biodiesel well (without having to change fuel filters 10x as often). I'm also hoping for more plug-in electric vehicles, though there will need to be MUCH more infrastructure.

There have been proposals for more railways, but many get shot down because the initial expense is too great. Initial expense scares many of us away from cleaner-tech vehicles. When the price of an electric vehicle like the Prius drops by half or more, I'd consider buying one
:D

[KiwiNZ]

I do that when tail gated, too. I have nothing against people owning SUVs, but I think they should require a separate license and have heavier penalties for violations, because of the shear weight of the vehicles. It is mostly the heavy duty vehicles that I think should be restricted, such as F250, Chevy and Dodge's 2500 series trucks, Suburbans, Expeditions, Sequoias, and the H2s. Freedom is free, but it is costing everyone with safety and fuel waste issues.

People here(in the USA, not UF) complain about the price of gas, yet the number of V8 high performance cars and trucks on the road are still increasing. It is a lost cause until the price of gas breaks $5 a gallon.

I have a Class 2 and Class 3 licence and a Defensive Driving Qual and Off Road Qual gained in the Military

"Class 2 and 2L - Medium rigid vehicles
Class 3 and 3L - Medium combination vehicles
Class 4 and 4L - Heavy rigid vehicles
Class 5 and 5L - Heavy combination vehicles."

I used to have 4 and 5 as well as special vehicle such as tracked and dangerous goods but dropped them. I retained the others dues to my volunteer rescue work and my need to drive 4WD rescue vehicles etc. So I can more than handle SUV's very safely.

The big issue with Urban SUV's is folks who buy them and drive them like cars expecting them to corner , brake accelerate, decelerate, handle wind etc like a sedan.

I believe that in order to own and drive a SUV the driver should be required to have a heavy vehicle licence .

[CraigPaleo]

As cariboo said earlier, another reason light diesel trucks aren't in America in force is because of strict US emission standards. Which is ironic because of how relatively crappy our fuel economy ratings are. I know one example of such emissions standards is the BlueTec engines in certain vehicles like the Jeep Liberty. It was available in the US for only a short time - maybe a year or two. IIRC, the BlueTec diesels were no longer offered because of the extra emissions expense.
:D

That is ironic. California, New York, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont prohibit the sale of diesels due to emission restrictions but I'm sure they allow the sales of 15 MPG gasoline SUVs.

Diesel does take 25% more oil to make, so the oil saved by using diesel isn't as great as it first seems.

[Paqman]

Trains run on electricity (coal, nuclear and/or natural gas), it wasn't until I came to the US that I saw a diesel train.

Here in the UK passenger trains are almost all electric, but freight is almost all diesel. Intercity passenger trains are about 50/50, some routes are electrified, and some aren't.

I don't know that much about locos, I work for a passenger service TOC, but I know an electric loco is a pretty rare animal.


Have had to replace the batteries yet? when you do it will hurt and knock a huge hole in your bottom line running cost savings.

Virtually nobody would have had to pay to replace a battery on a Prius yet. The majority of them on the road are still well within the 8-year battery warranty. I've got a 2006 Prius, I might offload it before the battery warranty runs out in 2014. Until then, i'm really not going to worry.


As cariboo said earlier, another reason light diesel trucks aren't in America in force is because of strict US emission standards.

European standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards) are pretty punishing too. Not being willing to conform to an emission standard would be a lame reason not to bring a design to market. If the demand was there, the technology to meet the standards is available.

[CraigPaleo]

European standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards) are pretty punishing too. Not being willing to conform to an emission standard would be a lame reason not to bring a design to market. If the demand was there, the technology to meet the standards is available.

Not too strict with CO2. The cost of getting the CO2 emissions down is probably not cost effective in the U.S.


Relative CO2 emissions from transport have risen rapidly in recent years, from 21% of the total in 1990 to 28% in 2004,[1][2][3] but currently there are no standards for limits on CO2 emissions from vehicles.

[mips]

Have had to replace the batteries yet? when you do it will hurt and knock a huge hole in your bottom line running cost savings.

Not to mention how bad they are to the environment when it comes to disposal.

[uRock]

Not to mention how bad they are to the environment when it comes to disposal.
They are supposed to be recycled, but we know that there are people who will dump them on the side of the road because they don't care to do things the right way.

[mips]

I drive a Honda Civic, I have felt the fear. :)

My one Honda Civic sounded like beer can being squashed from a side impact with a Toyota. But the roads are full of idiots.

[sprocket10]

I have heard in passing discussion of a battery swapping system as a possible solution for hybrids. But that would mean standardizing battery specs, and I doubt that'd ever happen here in the US (unfortunately)

Edit: by "solution", I mean to the infrastructure problem of riding in electric vehicles for long trips and such where you'd otherwise have to stop and wait to charge up

[Paqman]

Not too strict with CO2. The cost of getting the CO2 emissions down is probably not cost effective in the U.S.

Individual governments have brought in CO2-based pricing, over and above what the standards might require. Here in the UK your road tax will cost you between zero and £435 depending on what comes out the back. For new vehicles it could be as high as £950.

So it's a carrot approach to CO2, rather than a stick. Seems a bit inconsistent though.

[Paqman]

Not to mention how bad they are to the environment when it comes to disposal.

Not at all, they're easy to recycle.

[cariboo]

Not at all, they're easy to recycle.

Batteries may be easy to recycle, but where I live the closest battery recycling depot is over 225 Km away, so it isn't very cost effective. There are literally tons of batteries stacked up in junk yards around here.

[uRock]

Batteries may be easy to recycle, but where I live the closest battery recycling depot is over 225 Km away, so it isn't very cost effective. There are literally tons of batteries stacked up in junk yards around here.
Ouch! Most autoparts stores in the states have a core charge when you buy parts that you have to pay, then when you return the old part they give the charge back. That way the parts can be refurbished/recycled.

Edit: I am not sure if that applies to the batteries in the hybrids, but I hope it is.

[CraigPaleo]

I just came across this (http://www.ehow.com/how_7405594_recycle-prius-batteries.html). Toyota will supposedly pay a $200 "bounty" for the batteries. So, yes. It sounds like a core refund.

[3Miro]

I have heard in passing discussion of a battery swapping system as a possible solution for hybrids. But that would mean standardizing battery specs, and I doubt that'd ever happen here in the US (unfortunately)

Edit: by "solution", I mean to the infrastructure problem of riding in electric vehicles for long trips and such where you'd otherwise have to stop and wait to charge up

Hybrid is not electric. All the power of the hybrid comes from burning gasoline, like all other cars. The advantage comes from several of situations:

- In a regular car, when you accelerate, you burn gas to get energy. When you break, you convert that energy into heat from your breaks (wearing the breaks and wasting the energy). In a hybrid, the kinetic energy is converted into electric and later used to accelerate again. The cost of driving drops to air-drag (most hybrids have good aerodynamics), friction in the tires (there are ways to reduce that too) and inefficiency of the energy -> battery -> energy conversion, which is the main waste of energy in the hybrid. If we can improve that last one, the efficiency of the hybrid will skyrocket.

- The second scenario is that the gasoline engine always produces at least a minimum amount of energy. If you are cruising on a parking lot, you don't need all the power that your engine is producing. A hybrid will turn off the gasoline engine and will run off of electricity, using just as much as it needs. This also counts for stopping at red lights and such.

- The third scenario (which doesn't hold for all hybrids), is that continuous transmissions are more fuel efficient overall. Gasoline engines have peak power at high RPM and zero power at zero RPM. That is why regular cars need gears and clutch, so the engine can run at high RPM while the car not moving (or moving very slowly). The electric engine is the other way around. A Prius, for example, having two engines, will continuously distribute the trust between electric and gasoline so that you get both running as optimally as possible. You don't get the rapid ups/downs of the engine RPM in shifting gears. Also, the Prius is rather agile at low speed.

Note that the second and third scenario don't hold for all hybrids. All of them, however, will have number one.

Also, note that there is nothing to prevent us from making a diesel-hybrid getting "the best of both worlds."

Back to the original note, what you describe is an electric car, which runs off electricity alone. As such, you need to recharge or replace the batteries constantly.

[Paqman]

Batteries may be easy to recycle, but where I live the closest battery recycling depot is over 225 Km away, so it isn't very cost effective. There are literally tons of batteries stacked up in junk yards around here.

If you're a Toyota repair shop, you'll have a system for disposing of or recycling parts. It's not the end-users problem. An HV traction battery is a different animal from a 12V aux/starter battery. It's a major component, not something you change at home.

[witeshark17]

There's some more info to consider. Hybrids and electrics have a serious battery recycling/replacement issue. Consider that the energy used to produce and install new batteries and recycle the used ones should really be factored into any energy savings the cars offer.

The fact that the Prius is fitted with batteries containing nickel that comes from messy mines in Canada and is shipped through Germany and China before final refinement and fitting in Japan, and then the completed cars are shipped back the the American continent poses its own irony.

Hybrid cars, being fitted with 2 engines are rather heavy. Mass is the first enemy of car efficiency, and there is the lost interior space to consider.

Small displacement turbo diesel cars make for a vastly better solution to efficiency. :popcorn:

[3Miro]

There's some more info to consider. Hybrids and electrics have a serious battery recycling/replacement issue. Consider that the energy used to produce and install new batteries and recycle the used ones should really be factored into any energy savings the cars offer.

The fact that the Prius is fitted with batteries containing nickel that comes from messy mines in Canada and is shipped through Germany and China before final refinement and fitting in Japan, and then the completed cars are shipped back the the American continent poses its own irony.

Hybrid cars, being fitted with 2 engines are rather heavy. Mass is the first enemy of car efficiency, and there is the lost interior space to consider.

Small displacement turbo diesel cars make for a vastly better solution to efficiency. :popcorn:

I read a huge article about this, which was a huge FUD. The amounts of nickel that get shipped are minuscule if considered per vehicle. Think about the Oil the doesn't get produced in the US either, that has to be shipped from somewhere else. Canada is not a third worlds country either, they will not let anyone devastate their environment like they described in the article.

Shipment of the car itself is the same if it were build in Germany and then shipped to the USA (or any single country to any other country).

A Prius is more spacious inside then most cars that I have seen. We once fit 6 suitcases, two girls, a 6 ft 3 in guy and a 7 ft 1 in guy in the car. You don't really lose interior space, only a few inches from the trunk behind the back seat.

Also, the car is mostly plastic so it is not heavy at all and with the hybrid breaking, weight is not nearly as much of an issue. In comparison, a regular car wastes 100 percent energy on breaking. :popcorn:

[Paqman]

Consider that the energy used to produce and install new batteries and recycle the used ones should really be factored into any energy savings the cars offer.


True, i'd like to see the figures from Toyota to back up their claims for favourable life-cycle emissions, but they haven't been forthcoming.



Hybrid cars, being fitted with 2 engines are rather heavy. Mass is the first enemy of car efficiency, and there is the lost interior space to consider.

A hybrid drivetrain will still burn less fuel than a conventional engine, even lugging it's own extra baggage. Lost space isn't an issue. I can't say I miss the space behind the bottom of the back seat a lot. The Prius is designed as a family car, it's got plenty of room inside.



Small displacement turbo diesel cars make for a vastly better solution to efficiency. :popcorn:

In the short term, they're definitely part of the solution. Long term we want to be using electric traction hooked up to fusion reactors :)

[smellyman]

Problem is too many people LOVE their cars...

However, it is the worst purchase you can make in life. It is just a mony loser.

Me, I want the cheapest, most reliable car to get me from point a to b. I could care less what it looks like

Living in Hong Kong allows me to not have a car. It is a huge expense and burden that I no longer bear. It is very freeing and a huge relief.

[CraigPaleo]

I just read a giant piece of FUD. Due to manufacturing, from birth to death, the Prius will cost an average of $3.25 per mile in energy.

Even if it only lasts 180,000 miles, that's $585,000. Toyota's taking a huge loss if it cost that much in energy to produce! :)

Edit: I just found a paper by Toyota debunking this. http://www.toyota.com/html/dyncon/2007/september/hummervprius.html

[uRock]

On a good note, my city has been working on separate paved routes throughout town for bicyclers. There used to be bike lanes on the main roads, but too many bicyclers were being hit by drivers who think laws are only recommendations.

[CraigPaleo]

On a good note, my city has been working on separate paved routes throughout town for bicyclers. There used to be bike lanes on the main roads, but too many bicyclers were being hit by drivers who think laws are only recommendations.

It's the same here and because of that I'd prefer to ride AGAINST the flow of traffic so I could see a texting driver coming at me!

[uRock]

It's the same here and because of that I'd prefer to ride AGAINST the flow of traffic so I could see a texting driver coming at me!
I used to hear gripes from people as I past them multiple times at traffic lights. I could make the 15 mile commute from work to home faster on my bike than I could when fighting traffic.

[sprocket10]

Hybrid is not electric. All the power of the hybrid comes from burning gasoline, like all other cars. The advantage comes from several of situations:

- In a regular car, when you accelerate, you burn gas to get energy. When you break, you convert that energy into heat from your breaks (wearing the breaks and wasting the energy). In a hybrid, the kinetic energy is converted into electric and later used to accelerate again. The cost of driving drops to air-drag (most hybrids have good aerodynamics), friction in the tires (there are ways to reduce that too) and inefficiency of the energy -> battery -> energy conversion, which is the main waste of energy in the hybrid. If we can improve that last one, the efficiency of the hybrid will skyrocket.

- The second scenario is that the gasoline engine always produces at least a minimum amount of energy. If you are cruising on a parking lot, you don't need all the power that your engine is producing. A hybrid will turn off the gasoline engine and will run off of electricity, using just as much as it needs. This also counts for stopping at red lights and such.

- The third scenario (which doesn't hold for all hybrids), is that continuous transmissions are more fuel efficient overall. Gasoline engines have peak power at high RPM and zero power at zero RPM. That is why regular cars need gears and clutch, so the engine can run at high RPM while the car not moving (or moving very slowly). The electric engine is the other way around. A Prius, for example, having two engines, will continuously distribute the trust between electric and gasoline so that you get both running as optimally as possible. You don't get the rapid ups/downs of the engine RPM in shifting gears. Also, the Prius is rather agile at low speed.

Note that the second and third scenario don't hold for all hybrids. All of them, however, will have number one.

Also, note that there is nothing to prevent us from making a diesel-hybrid getting "the best of both worlds."

Back to the original note, what you describe is an electric car, which runs off electricity alone. As such, you need to recharge or replace the batteries constantly.


Yep, I had a typo but not enough time to correct it :P

[Evil-Ernie]

This is the future of motoring I think: http://www.teslamotors.com/
Energy efficient cars are currently marketed to enviromentally aware, which is correct to do but it is preaching to the converted.

To make a big difference and for low carbon vechicles to become the norm you have to win over the 'petrolheads' who want a car to be fast, pretty and cool. The Tesla Roadster is a step in that direction in making a performance electric car.

There is a really good interview with the guy from Tesla, Diarmuid O'Connell on a TV show we have in the UK called Carpool (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jJXjRj9fc). Normally Robert Llewllyn drives his interviewees around in a Prius, but for that one he uses the rather sexy Tesla Roadster.

[piquat]

To make a big difference and for low carbon vechicles to become the norm you have to win over the 'petrolheads' who want a car to be fast, pretty and cool. The Tesla Roadster is a step in that direction in making a performance electric car.

Sooooo, just where do we mine electricity from? Think about that for a second.

There is no such thing as an electric car.

Electricity is a transport medium. Saying electricity powers a car is akin to saying the copper wires in your house light the lamps in the rooms. The wires don't power the lights and neither does the electricity in the grand scheme of things. In the US, those would draw the majority of their energy from coal. The rest is split between nat. gas/nuclear/hydroelectric. If you live in an area serviced by a clean source of energy then you can say the electric car is better for the environment. Where I live we have a large coal powered plant at the edge of town and we produce a surplus most of the time so we sell our dirty coal generated electricity to other municipalities that might be on cleaner sources. My Tesla Roadster would be coal powered.

You can pretty much lump hydrogen in there too. Most efficient way we have of producing that in large scale is electrolysis IIRC. The name alone tells you that requires electricity which, once again, will come from coal/nat. gas/nuclear or, hopefully, hydroelectric. Hydrogen.... also just a transport medium.

I think we're burning the wrong end of the candle here. Want me to buy an electric car? Build an infrastructure capable of supporting it cleanly and COST EFFECTIVELY FIRST. Then companies will create products to use it, marketing them to me by saying things like "this will SAVE you money, on the front end and the back". Not "here, buy a $35K prius, this table will tell you when you've got your savings back". Most people are selfish and don't care about the environment, just like you proposed. Knowing that, you have to make it work for the pocket book on both ends.

Substituting a transport medium for an energy source in the media only helps to keep people ill informed.

Edit: I would, however, support electric vehicles on one front.... it pushes off foreign energy sources (oil). That adds some independence, never a bad thing.

[Evil-Ernie]

Sooooo, just where do we mine electricity from? Think about that for a second.


Note for future reference, patronising people doesn't make people listen to your views more ;)



There is no such thing as an electric car.


On that logic then a home lighblub isn't electric, agree or disagree?



If you live in an area serviced by a clean source of energy then you can say the electric car is better for the environment. Where I live we have a large coal powered plant at the edge of town and we produce a surplus most of the time so we sell our dirty coal generated electricity to other municipalities that might be on cleaner sources. My Tesla Roadster would be coal powered.


You have to take the grid as a whole, anyway even the worst coal burning generating plant is far more effiecent than an internal combustion engine.

Emissions per 100k miles diesel ICE = 835lb
Emissions per 100k miles petrol ICE = 3008lb
Emissions per 100k miles powerplant electric EV = 75lb!
Source (http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml)



I think we're burning the wrong end of the candle here. Want me to buy an electric car? Build an infrastructure capable of supporting it cleanly and COST EFFECTIVELY FIRST.


Not going to happen, have you ever heard of economies of scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale)?

Unless people start buying into EVs will the price come down and industry will then start to invest in a wider infrastructure.



Substituting a transport medium for an energy source in the media only helps to keep people ill informed.


Are you for real? Seriously! If you believe people dont understand that electric in itself has to come from somewhere then you must have little faith in human intelligence.

[Paqman]

In the US, those would draw the majority of their energy from coal. The rest is split between nat. gas/nuclear/hydroelectric. If you live in an area serviced by a clean source of energy then you can say the electric car is better for the environment.

Most electric cars do (and will continue to do for the foreseeable future) the vast majority of their charging at home. I'd be surprised if someone who'd splashed out on a fancy Tesla roadster also hadn't switched their home supply to green electricity.

[uRock]

Most electric cars do (and will continue to do for the foreseeable future) the vast majority of their charging at home. I'd be surprised if someone who'd splashed out on a fancy Tesla roadster also hadn't switched their home supply to green electricity.
Hard to do unless they have a creek for hydroelectric or a windmill on their land.

Nuclear is clean energy. The cells can be recycled and the waste can be stored in a manner as to not ever be a harm to humans. Ronald Reagan did everything in his power to stop the states from building any more nuclear plants, hence the reason we are building more and more coal plants.

[Paqman]

Hard to do unless they have a creek for hydroelectric or a windmill on their land.


Where I live there are electricity suppliers that will provide you with 100% renewable power. Probably where you live too.

[uRock]

Where I live there are electricity suppliers that will provide you with 100% renewable power. Probably where you live too.

I get my power from hydroelectric and solar. Neither are good for ecology.

[alexfish]

Build you own Electric what ever (Just make sure it has wheel or wheels )

then Add This Touch of Magic (a little bit of power to get Free Power).......:confused:

http://www.rexresearch.com/christie/christie.htm

http://www.lutec.com.au/how.htm

PS if you get it working ( send plans and details to alexfish C/O ubuntu forums ) and get new title " Super Electrifiying Frothy Creamy Ubuntu"

[SuperFreak]

http://www.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/a-whale-of-a-tale-on-energy-10961?FIELD9=2

[psusi]

I have a few points after reading this thread:

1) Diesel is easier to refine and cheaper to produce than gasoline

2) A gallon of Diesel contains more potential energy than a gallon of gasoline

3) The reason it is more expensive in the US is because it is taxed at a much higher rate than gasoline

4) I live in Florida and we get 50% of our electricity from nuclear, and they are trying to build a new plant if the NRC would let them.

5) I'm saving up to buy the Tesla model S when it comes out, and seriously considering throwing some PV solar panels up on the roof to power it. There was a state subsidy on them that made it an absolute no brainer, but the funding ran out before I heard about it.

[alexfish]

I have a few points after reading this thread:

1) Diesel is easier to refine and cheaper to produce than gasoline

2) A gallon of Diesel contains more potential energy than a gallon of gasoline

3) The reason it is more expensive in the US is because it is taxed at a much higher rate than gasoline

4) I live in Florida and we get 50% of our electricity from nuclear, and they are trying to build a new plant if the NRC would let them.

5) I'm saving up to buy the Tesla model S when it comes out, and seriously considering throwing some PV solar panels up on the roof to power it. There was a state subsidy on them that made it an absolute no brainer, but the funding ran out before I heard about it.

there is one sure thing in life, if every thing was free there will be a mechanism in place to take
99.99% of your surplus, I am a loss as to what to spend the last .01% on........;)

[zer010]

I think a bicycle will get an almost infinite mpg and is preferable to any car. I had 2 trucks for about 13 years of my life and regret those years. Bicycles are a healthy alternative to cars, don't pollute and use a tiny fraction of the resources and infrastructure of cars. I am 50 and live in a small community 60 miles from the nearest city and I live in an area where winter means slush and snow for 3 months. I do not believe the majority of people need cars; they are toys that are causing great damage to the natural and human world.
For a large part of Americans, this is just not feasible. Many that make policies live in urban areas while those that these policies effect live in rural areas or even further. As someone pointed out, riding a bike on flat ground for many miles is not bad, but when you get into some areas that are one huge hill after another, it's just not something people are going to do. For a lot of people, trying to take your advice would mean never really sleeping as most of their time away from work would be used in traveling, and in harsh weather/terrain to boot.

;Yes you have to make sacrifices with your choice of work or school but it is certainly possible for most urban dwellers.
In these times a lot of people do not have the choices in jobs that there used to be. Besides, who would, after an expensive education, choose to flip burgers just because it is closer? It might be possible for urban dwellers, but as urban dwellers often forget, there is a different world outside of those city limits.

[uRock]

For a large part of Americans, this is just not feasible. Many that make policies live in urban areas while those that these policies effect live in rural areas or even further. As someone pointed out, riding a bike on flat ground for many miles is not bad, but when you get into some areas that are one huge hill after another, it's just not something people are going to do. For a lot of people, trying to take your advice would mean never really sleeping as most of their time away from work would be used in traveling, and in harsh weather/terrain to boot.

In these times a lot of people do not have the choices in jobs that there used to be. Besides, who would, after an expensive education, choose to flip burgers just because it is closer? It might be possible for urban dwellers, but as urban dwellers often forget, there is a different world outside of those city limits.
No doubt, I would never expect to see someone commuting in West Virginia on a bicycle. Personally, I do not mind hills, but mountains are a different story.

Forcing people to use cycles in the city areas would help with our country's obesity and health care problems. People would be much healthier.

[CraigPaleo]

Diesel is only taxed 1.4 cents per gallon more than gasoline in Florida but it costs about 40 cents more per gallon.

Once I started filtering out older data, I found out that diesel really is cleaner these days and the government is aware of it. (http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/827459-4bJPky/native/)

The problem is that if more people started buying diesels the price of diesel would go up and the price of gas would go down. We're already at a place where diesel is more expensive so I don't see it happening on a large scale unless they adjusted taxes to make diesel much cheaper. And since crude oil is fractionated into diesel and gasoline, what would we do with the extra gas?

The problem I'd have with an all electric car would be range and the time it'd take to recharge. It'd be super for a second car if I could afford it. I think I'd rather have something like a Prius.

[SuperFreak]

For better or worse America reached peak oil in it's own supplies in the early 70's (Hubbert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory) and and world reserves of oil are declining with the rate of discovery also declining. By some estimates world estimates of oil show we have already peaked in production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) and will now be getting marginal returns of oil from harder to reach, more dangerous and dirtier sources. If your children (I have none) expect to have anything left for the most basic needs such as cooking and home heating then America, China and the rest of the world will need to substantially reduce the use of the private auto. I believe if you look at the actual efficiency of electric cars you will see that as the electricity is mainly derived from burning coal the solution presented by electric cars is just as mythical as the fabled ethanol vehicle that the Bush administration promoted. Hills or no hills in 100 years it is more likely that your descendents will be walking, pedalling or canoeing to their destinations which will be closer than now. If America is truly the innovator it claims it could lead the way to a healthier more eco friendly world by reorganizing the way work-school-home are integrated and structured.

[CraigPaleo]

I sincerely doubt that we will still be using petroleum in 100 years. We will have made the transition to renewable energy by then.






__________________
Pardus at Distrowatch (http://distrowatch.com/pardus)

[SuperFreak]

The efficiencies of solar and wind are miniscule compared to oil. When oil runs out the car show is over.

Recommended reading How to Live Well Without Owning a Car: Save Money, Breathe Easier, and Get More Mileage Out of Life by Chris Balish. Available at your local bookstore library or http://www.amazon.com/How-Live-Well-Without-Owning/dp/1580087574

[3Miro]

Most of the oil is not burned by private vehicles, most of the oil is burned by the commercial ones. If we exhauster the oil, the world industry and economy will virtually stop and we will go back to a 17 - 18 century situations (without coal, we will not be even there, try 16 century). The majority of people in the world will simply die and the rest will be rather miserable.

Most of the electricity in the world is produced by coal, but some countries have already moved to nuclear. Fission can replace coal, however, we have a better alternative. There are already experimental fusion reactors, in 100 years, we can feasibly move to 100% fusion electricity with oil and coal being used for plastics and other such things.

[psusi]

I believe if you look at the actual efficiency of electric cars you will see that as the electricity is mainly derived from burning coal the solution presented by electric cars is just as mythical as the fabled ethanol vehicle that the Bush administration promoted.

No. Electric cars get 3-4 miles per kWh. Here in Florida, a kWh of electric costs about $0.12, and 50% of it is generated from nuclear. That puts the current price of fuel at between 3 and 4 cents per mile. Compare that to my prius getting 50-60 mpg at $3 per gallon of gas, you get 5-6 cents per mile.

In terms of percentage, 100% of the prius fuel is dirty, but only 50% of the all electric is. On top of that, even power coming from burning coal or oil gets higher efficiency from a power plant than an internal combustion engine, so you burn less fuel overall. Now add more clean sources of electricity to the grid and you're even better off.


The efficiencies of solar and wind are miniscule compared to oil. When oil runs out the car show is over.


Wrong again. If I do the installation myself, I can put a 4kw solar array on my roof for about $10k. That will produce 7,300+ kWh a year. At $0.12 per kWh, that is a savings of $876, and should last 20+ years. Assuming the price of grid electric remains constant then it takes under 12 years to pay back the investment. I drive about 10,000 miles a year, which would use 2,500 to 3,333 kWh of electricity, or less than half of what the array would produce. The rest would go towards lowering my electric bill.

Today's solar panels are costly and not very efficient. As they see more widespread use, costs will come down and advancements will increase the efficiency which will make it even more attractive.

[Paqman]

I drive about 10,000 miles a year, which would use 2,500 to 3,333 kWh of electricity, or less than half of what the array would produce.

Assuming you charge your car overnight, your PV arrays are going to need some pretty hefty storage to be charging a car.

Realistically you're going to be running your house off the PVs during the day, and charging your car off the mains.

[SuperFreak]

3Miro

That outcome of people using oil for plastics, medicine etc is contingent on people not burning all the available oil, gas and coal to fuel their cars. As I said in an earlier post the future populations are dependent on our generation not to waste these resources; they will need them for basic survival -cooking and heating (and food distribution).
I am very skeptical that solar, wind or geothermal will ever make up the difference to fuel electric cars in the future. The progress made on fusion is disappointing and science has not yet produced a commercial system system and struggles to reach a break even result.
The need for commercial vehicles is dependent on consumption not a real need at all. Beyond food production and basic medicine and maintenance of housing most commecial vehicles are wasted on military and consumer goods that are of very limited necessity.
I would hate to be in the position of future political leaders when they tell their populations that there just isn't enough resources to go around ( look at recent riots in Greece), but that day is coming .
If we don't prepare for this eventuality then the myoptic dreaming about electric cars with power windows and doors will come to a screaming halt.
Just my opinion.

[SuperFreak]

3Miro

That outcome of people using oil for plastics, medicine etc is contingent on people not burning all the available oil, gas and coal to fuel their cars. As I said in an earlier post the future populations are dependent on our generation not to waste these resources; they will need them for basic survival -cooking and heating (and food distribution).
I am very skeptical that solar, wind or geothermal will ever make up the difference to fuel electric cars in the future. The progress made on fusion is disappointing and science has not yet produced a commercial system system and struggles to reach a break even result.
The need for commercial vehicles is dependent on consumption not a real need at all. Beyond food production and basic medicine and maintenance of housing most commecial vehicles are wasted on military and consumer goods that are of very limited necessity.
I would hate to be in the position of future political leaders when they tell their populations that there just isn't enough resources to go around ( look at recent riots in Greece), but that day is coming .
If we don't prepare for this eventuality then the myoptic dreaming about electric cars with power windows and doors will come to a screaming halt.


edit:I think there may be some confusion between efficiency and economic feasibility.
In the UK( Taken from http://www.gaiadiscovery.com/travel-transportation/2010/11/23/energy-efficiency-of-fossil-fuel-and-electricity-powered-car.html) which has similar fossil fuel use to the US
"The idea of using electric motors that are 90% efficient may sound good, until the issue of generating electricity and distributing it is considered. In the UK, it’s estimated that by the time electricity arrives at your home, it is 33% efficient. In other words, 67% of the original fuel energy has been lost. So even if you assume battery charging is 90% efficient, and the electric motor is 90% efficient, the overall energy efficiency suddenly drops to 26.73%, only 0.73% better than internal combustion engines (see detailed explanation at end of article)."
Just my opinion.

[3Miro]

Electric cars get 3-4 miles per kWh.

100 years is along time, if we improve the battery technology, we would be able to increase that number dramatically. Gravity is conservative, meaning if you leave your house go to work and come back home, you should only have waste of energy in tire and air friction, the rest of the expense is inefficient battery (for electric or hybrid) and wasteful combustion engines.

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[SuperFreak]

I think there may be some confusion between efficiency and economic feasibility.
In the UK( Taken from http://www.gaiadiscovery.com/travel-transportation/2010/11/23/energy-efficiency-of-fossil-fuel-and-electricity-powered-car.html) which has similar fiossil fuel use to the US
The idea of using electric motors that are 90% efficient may sound good, until the issue of generating electricity and distributing it is considered. In the UK, it’s estimated that by the time electricity arrives at your home, it is 33% efficient. In other words, 67% of the original fuel energy has been lost. So even if you assume battery charging is 90% efficient, and the electric motor is 90% efficient, the overall energy efficiency suddenly drops to 26.73%, only 0.73% better than internal combustion engines (see detailed explanation at end of article).

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[SuperFreak]

I think there may be some confusion between efficiency and economic feasibility.
In the UK( Taken from http://www.gaiadiscovery.com/travel-transportation/2010/11/23/energy-efficiency-of-fossil-fuel-and-electricity-powered-car.html) which has similar fiossil fuel use to the US
The idea of using electric motors that are 90% efficient may sound good, until the issue of generating electricity and distributing it is considered. In the UK, it’s estimated that by the time electricity arrives at your home, it is 33% efficient. In other words, 67% of the original fuel energy has been lost. So even if you assume battery charging is 90% efficient, and the electric motor is 90% efficient, the overall energy efficiency suddenly drops to 26.73%, only 0.73% better than internal combustion engines (see detailed explanation at end of article).

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[SuperFreak]

I think there may be some confusion between efficiency and economic feasibility.
In the UK( Taken from http://www.gaiadiscovery.com/travel-transportation/2010/11/23/energy-efficiency-of-fossil-fuel-and-electricity-powered-car.html) which has similar fiossil fuel use to the US
The idea of using electric motors that are 90% efficient may sound good, until the issue of generating electricity and distributing it is considered. In the UK, it’s estimated that by the time electricity arrives at your home, it is 33% efficient. In other words, 67% of the original fuel energy has been lost. So even if you assume battery charging is 90% efficient, and the electric motor is 90% efficient, the overall energy efficiency suddenly drops to 26.73%, only 0.73% better than internal combustion engines (see detailed explanation at end of article).

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[psusi]

Assuming you charge your car overnight, your PV arrays are going to need some pretty hefty storage to be charging a car.

Realistically you're going to be running your house off the PVs during the day, and charging your car off the mains.

Exactly. I hear areas like California actually charge more for electric during the day, and less at night, which works out perfectly since you get a higher price selling them your unused electric in the day, then buying it back to recharge the car at night for a lower price. That makes solar even more of a win.

I knew that power plants were more efficient than car engines, but not how much, so I looked it up on wikipedia. Turns out that car engines approach only 20% thermodynamic efficiency. Combined cycle power plants approach 60%, or 300% better!

So just by using an electric car and leaving the burning of the oil to the power plant will nearly triple your fuel efficiency, reducing fuel needs and pollution by 1/3.

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[sdowney717]

China claims to have perfected the breeder reactor so they have enough nuclear fuel to last over 3000 years, instead of 50 years. You know only a tiny amount of the uranium that is burned in a conventional reactor is used up, the rest is simply considered waste as the cost to reprocess is more than the cost to dig it out of the ground.
There is also Thorium reactors, and there is a lot more thorium around than uranium. And you never hear about it.
IMO, solar, wind, tidal, these are all nice ideas, but dont scale up as well as nuclear power.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

Some new small reactor designs have come out that are entirely self contained. They are powerful enough to run small cities and modular enough to be replaced with new ones when needing refueled.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/china-claims-new-nuclear-technology

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meet 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meet 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meet 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meet 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meet 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meet 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[sdowney717]

regarding electric cars and the grid

China claims to have perfected the breeder reactor so they have enough nuclear fuel to last over 3000 years, instead of 50 years. You know only a tiny amount of the uranium that is burned in a conventional reactor is used up, the rest is simply considered waste as the cost to reprocess is more than the cost to dig it out of the ground.
There is also Thorium reactors, and there is a lot more thorium around than uranium. And you never hear about it.
IMO, solar, wind, tidal, these are all nice ideas, but dont scale up as well as nuclear power.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

Some new small reactor designs have come out that are entirely self contained. They are powerful enough to run small cities and modular enough to be replaced with new ones when needing refueled.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/china-claims-new-nuclear-technology

[CraigPaleo]

There are already homes that are so efficient they are actually giving energy back to the grid.

I also live pretty close to a photovoltaic power plant. It powers 3,000 homes now but is expected to eventually meat 10% of Florida's energy requirements. We already get half our energy from nuclear power plants so 4 more solar plants would satisfy our needs without petroleum and we haven't even begun to tap into tidal power. When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.

(I can't seem to post. This forum is waiting..waiting..waiting..)

[sdowney717]

When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.
the uranium does not need to run out, we simply throw it away with 99% of the energy still inside.


A nuclear expert on fast reactors told this blog today "the French "MOX-in-LWR " does NOT close the fuel cycle."

He added, “The best it can do is to increase the uranium utilization by about 20%-40% still leaving unused about 99% of the energy in the mined uranium.”

http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/49291/china-s-spent-fuel-reprocessing-plan


According to the AP report;

"Wang Junfeng, project director for the state-run China National Nuclear Corporation, told CCTV the Chinese scientists had employed a chemical process that was effective and safe. CCTV said the country now had enough fuel to last up to 70 years and the new technology could yield enough to last for 3,000 years."

[3Miro]

I think there may be some confusion between efficiency and economic feasibility.
In the UK( Taken from http://www.gaiadiscovery.com/travel-transportation/2010/11/23/energy-efficiency-of-fossil-fuel-and-electricity-powered-car.html) which has similar fiossil fuel use to the US
The idea of using electric motors that are 90% efficient may sound good, until the issue of generating electricity and distributing it is considered. In the UK, it’s estimated that by the time electricity arrives at your home, it is 33% efficient. In other words, 67% of the original fuel energy has been lost. So even if you assume battery charging is 90% efficient, and the electric motor is 90% efficient, the overall energy efficiency suddenly drops to 26.73%, only 0.73% better than internal combustion engines (see detailed explanation at end of article).

In a combustion engine, 27% of the energy in the fuel is converted into kinetic energy (of motion). Then that energy is wasted.

In an electric or a hybrid, with 90% efficient electric motor and 90% efficient battery (current batteries are not there yet), 81% of that energy will be recycled. Effectively, you will only need 20% of the energy that you currently use. Even if electric power generation is just as efficient as combustion engine power (and we ignore alternatives such as nuclear power), this still means that an electric car will require only 1/5 of the energy of a gasoline or diesel one.

[sdowney717]

When the uranium runs out, we'll still have wind and tides as options.
the uranium does not need to run out, we simply throw it away with 99% of the energy still inside.


A nuclear expert on fast reactors told this blog today "the French "MOX-in-LWR " does NOT close the fuel cycle."

He added, “The best it can do is to increase the uranium utilization by about 20%-40% still leaving unused about 99% of the energy in the mined uranium.”

http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/49291/china-s-spent-fuel-reprocessing-plan


According to the AP report;

"Wang Junfeng, project director for the state-run China National Nuclear Corporation, told CCTV the Chinese scientists had employed a chemical process that was effective and safe. CCTV said the country now had enough fuel to last up to 70 years and the new technology could yield enough to last for 3,000 years."

[psusi]

Assuming you charge your car overnight, your PV arrays are going to need some pretty hefty storage to be charging a car.

Realistically you're going to be running your house off the PVs during the day, and charging your car off the mains.

Exactly. Some areas like California charge more for power during the day, which is when you will be selling back most of your excess, and less at night, when you will be buying it back to charge your car. That further amplifies the benefits of solar.


In a combustion engine, 27% of the energy in the fuel is converted into kinetic energy (of motion). Then that energy is wasted.

In an electric or a hybrid, with 90% efficient electric motor and 90% efficient battery (current batteries are not there yet), 81% of that energy will be recycled. Effectively, you will only need 20% of the energy that you currently use. Even if electric power generation is just as efficient as combustion engine power (and we ignore alternatives such as nuclear power), this still means that an electric car will require only 1/5 of the energy of a gasoline or diesel one.

I had composed a similar reply before the forums went wonky. According to wikipedia though, internal combustion engines are only 18-20% efficient, not 27%, and a combined cycle gas power plant is as high as 60%, or three times more efficient.

I have a good understanding of electricity and how the power grid works, and I have a hard time believing that more than 10% is lost in transmission ( if it is, you aren't using high enough voltage ). If another 10% is lost in the motor, you are still 243% better off.

[Paqman]

Exactly. Some areas like California charge more for power during the day, which is when you will be selling back most of your excess, and less at night, when you will be buying it back to charge your car. That further amplifies the benefits of solar.


That sort of depends on the rate the power company offers to buy your power back at. My power company only pay 10p/kWh you export back to them, but their standard rate works out about 13p/kWh.

However, at least they are starting to pay folks for microgeneration at all. They didn't used to, but the government leaned on the big power companies and made it compulsory.

[SuperFreak]

Interesting stat: ".....energy used per passenger-mile (calories), they found that a bicycle needed only 35 calories, whereas a car expended a whopping 1,860. Bus and trains fell about midway between, and walking still took 3 times as many calories as riding a bike the same distance."

see http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/world_most_ener.php

[ubun2geek]

I drive a SUV , mainly to two the boat and off roading etc and I hate those rude tailgating neanderthals. What I usually do if there is not a line of cars so it does not affect others is slow down further and further until the "driver" learns. It usually takes a while to sink in.

That is a great plan that I never thought of before. :)
+1

[legodude3301]

And I already thought that the government was bad enough...