$37K!!! Should I do it? - Page 2

mk · April 6th, 2005, 09:48 PM

Very interesting discussion -- lots of useful info and perspectives here. Since moving to Austin almost two years ago, I've become dependent on a car in a way I hadn't been for the past ten years or more (living in Boston on Beacon Hill, in Madison WI right next to the campus where I worked and went to school, and in Chicago where I commuted on a bike). I've been thinking about hybrids, too, but am mostly just using my 25mpg '95 S-10 pickup (and my gf's '95 Civic). Not great mileage, but ok compared to the behemoths around me -- and I only drive 6-8K per year. A hybrid is tempting for all the reasons listed above -- not least of which is helping to prime the market for the technology. But there's still that inescapable energy cost issue -- it takes tons of petroleum to produce just one hybrid car, and if I can be thrifty with what I've got, it's probably a wash.

We're going to have to deal with this issue, and soon. Unfortunately, there's no free lunch with any of this, and peak oil is going to catch us sooner or later. Kind of amazing that we haven't substantially improved on the mileage of the econo-boxes of ten years ago -- lots more features now (safety and performance), but no better fuel efficiency. And that's not even mentioning the Canyoneros....

reverbbb · April 6th, 2005, 10:32 PM

The big problem with all gas combustion engines working from a piston, is all the friction, heat and unburned gas losses in the process. It is estimated that the average well tuned gasoline engine only uses 18~19% of the potential energy from the process. Back in 1980 when I was studying energy, the best conversion that was ever accomplished in a ideal laboratory setting was 25%. Just imagine if the human race still had 80% of it's oil reserves left from a 100% conversion (impossible). But what is a better process had yeilded a 50% conversion? Then, over the past 110 years of the automobile, we would have used 50% less oil.

There was some research by an investor that wanted to acheive 50% or better conversion through the use of a turbine and flywheel arrangement. The principle inventor was the same guy that revolutionized satilite usage when he perfected the gyro that is used in geosyncronization. But the money ran out, and they were unable to commercialize the project. They were never able to convince a single automaker that their vehicles could be easily and safely retrofitted.

Too bad, too sad. In the circle of failed (uncommercialized) inventions, one can here the bitter words of "NEXT!". Sort of like the group of 5 men trying to start the run down gas mower, when one has given all he's got, then the next guy gives it a try.

But we must realize the old saying, "You cannot keep doing the same thing and expect different results". One of those 5 guys needs to try a different process to start the mower.

Joe-Bob · April 7th, 2005, 03:26 PM

We have to remember that an internal combustion engine is just an air pump....a really bad air pump. Anything that increases efficiency has the byproduct of horsepower. That seems like the best of both worlds. That's why turbos and superchargers make so much difference. Also, I can't imagine the power efficiency rating is as low as Reverb says. New cars (cars, not SUVs) get way too good fuel milage for those numbers.

Alcohol has significantly less energy stored than gasoline, (Diesel has much more than gas), so the conventional practice of adding alcohol to gasoline to reduce emissions is junk science. Modern urban fuel recipies reduce fuel milage by 10 to 20 percent, and make your car idle rough. They are said to reduce emissions, BUT... if you use more fuel to go less distance, then total emissions are still increased, or at least the same, no better. SUVs may have very similar emissions standards than cars, (the really heavy ones don't), but the volume of emissions is 2 to 4 times as high.

SUVs could get much better fuel milage than they now do, but the main obstacle is the American car companies themselves. They have resisted the mileage levels at every step of the way. First of all, most SUVs are based on pick-up truck chassis, which are great for work-use pick-up trucks, but very poor for passenger cars. They are cheap to build, however, and the profits on a Suburban can be as high as $15,000 each. They are also insanely heavy. If the gas-guzzler taxes were applied to SUVs, (Like they rightfully should be, because those are designed, intended, built, marketed, and used as passenger cars from the outset.), then millions more people would be in more frugal cars and station wagons instead of rolling SUV deathtraps. (People die in SUV roll-overs, not because of the fact that the vehicle rolled, but because of the fact that the roof caves in like a paper bag. This is because trucks do not have to meet car safety standards, even if they are designed, built, marketed, sold, and used as passenger cars. For proof, just look at the long list of photos of Ford Explorers that have rolled, and people have died, you will notice a disturbing common pattern of crushed roofs. Not to mention that SUVs cause much more severe injuries in smaller cars.)

If the car manufacturers would apply long-available and proven technology to SUVs, then they could all get the same 27-32 mpg just like cars do. But that means the companies would have to invest in significantly raising the quality standard of their products. The current "quick and dirty" approach/attitude to design and manufacturing of cars does not allow for the refinements that would have to be an integral part of conceptualizing, designing, and manufacturing a 3000 pound SUV that is the same size as a Suburban, and gets 30 mpg. The current iron-block Chevy V-8 engine is a 60 year old design. GM has much better engine currently available, but does not put them in to universal use, because they don't have to.

Hybrid technology is also merely a passing fad. The battery packs can never replace, much less exceed, the energy it takes to make them, neither can solar cells. Fuel savings from these vehicles is unlikely to ever recoup the added investment, especially when multiple battery pack replacements are taken into consideration. The same is true of fully electric cars. Even though they are thought of as "zero emissions vehicles", the fact is that the emission is simply relocated from the vehicle to a coal-burning power plant located in the next county. Perhaps the most troubling emission from hybrid and electric cars is the vast quantities toxic metals left over from their soon-to-be useless batteries.

So what is the answer? I don't know, but as long as almost no one is working on it, we aren't likely to find it soon. What is clear is that we, and the rest of the planet, are going to have to change our attitudes toward energy use and production. At the same time, we have to allow for the growth and health of economies. Developing nations must be in the forefront of energy technology as they build their infrastructures, rather than reassembling the decrepit relics that have been exported from developed nations because they were to old, dirty, or inefficient. (Old oil refineries are just one example.) US oil companies have just in the past two or three years begun producing low sulphur or sulphur free gasoline...something the Europeans have been doing for a quarter century. If it's not in the gas, it's not going out the tailpipe either. New transportation and energy methods have to replace the current ones for us all to succeed. --For those of you who got this far, thanks for listening.

ashtray · April 7th, 2005, 05:32 PM

Wow - you guys are right on track with this discussion. But let's just remember, some of the most obvious solutions are found when we abandon typical thinking.

Solar power has a lot of potential, and it's free for example. I park my car outside all day while at work, so it would certainly get a charge then. (available electric plug to charge vehicle from home/office, and regenerative braking to charge batteries while driving on a cloudy day)

I think the biggest problem today is the SIZE of everyone's vehicles. You look on the roadways, and there is usually 1 person with no stuff in a big SUV (or car). Come on, there should be a better way.

What if we ALL drove small vehicles about the size of a motorcycle, but with a full frame/cage? Make them 1 or 2 seaters (tight in the back), and able to link up to one another through electro-magnets or whatever.

Think of how open the roadways would be! You'd fit 8 of those things in the space of 3 cars. But we need to carry stuff too sometimes - ok, so make different lanes for the 18 wheelers and "normal" passenger cars to use. Ok - that creates a problem - well, a challenge - to design the roadways to accomodate for this. Shouldn't be too tough to design highways with 2 sets of lanes though. City streets would be another issue.

You could always buy "shell" vehicles that contained no engine/motor, or other mechanical components to tow behind one of the small vehicles.

Wind resistance is what kills us on gas mileage - so making this type of vehicle very streamlined would solve in that dept (I think a vehicle designed like this already exists - in 2 wheel form, with side wheels that deploy at low speeds - well, it's a start, but not quite my "idea" above).

Bottom line - until Americans learn to drive smaller, fuel efficient cars, and leave their huge SUVs at home, there will always be a gas problem. I wonder what people would do if gas went up to $10/gallon say in 5 years from now?

Joe-Bob · April 7th, 2005, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashtray

Solar power has a lot of potential, and it's free for example.

Like I mentioned before, modern solar cells can never replace the energy it took to manufacture them. It would have to run 24 hours a day for 15 years...the problem is that the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and solar cells usually don't last 15 years.

reverbbb · April 8th, 2005, 07:10 AM

Solar cells are only 12~18% efficient at energy conversion. There is some research trying to push them to 22%.

The other problem with solar cells is that they are made from a low grade silicon. Just like all semiconductors, this substrate material has to be made by melting down this silicon (sand) into a molten that is recrystalized into a "single crystal" or "morpheous" state. And yes, it takes an extreme amount of energy to melt sand in the conventional sense.

I worked on a research team that was developing a new method for achieving single crystal state with only 1500W of power. Simply incredible. The professors at Vanderbilt University told our team that it could never be done. Our team of scientists were able to prove them wrong. We melted silicon with 1500W repeatedly for months and months after we discovered the secrets of how to do so. The only problem, we ran out of money for commercialization. We sold the technology to Kyrocera in Japan. I have been out side the loop for 4 years, so I have no idea where the technology stands today.

The another bad element of all semiconductors (solar cells thru flat screen monitors), is the huge amount of toxic waste involved (very toxic). In the US, we have means of dealing with the waste, but we still make a lot of it at our semiconductor plants. In the other parts of the world, there is no telling how careful these manufacturers are being with their waste programs. Perhaps it is better than the US, or perhaps not. But all this flat-screen technology is great, until you discover the amount of energy and toxic waste that it consumes to make them.

I like Ashtray's thinking about accommodating the highways for various modes of transportation. However, I have already encountered huge resistance when I presented some ideas to a city official. One of my suggestions was to drop the speed limits from 40 mph to 35 mph so that it is safer for bicyclists and legally allows the use of NEVs (Neighborhood Electric Vehicles - fancy golf carts). The city official himself was real nice and thought it was a good idea. But he referred me to some bureaucratic agency that the cities rely on for urban planning.

This is where I hit a brick wall. I hit it hard too. I got into an email shouting match with this top ranking official that had a very narrow vision of the world (and an agenda of his own). Basically he said that 'we need to rethink the way we develop our cities in the future'. This is where I did not get where he was coming from. He did not have any suggestions about what to do with our existing 4 million miles of urban streets in the US. It seemed that he was suggesting to build all new cities and abandon the old problematic ones. He completely rejected my suggestion and kept citing that safety was a big concern for dropping the speed limit by 5 mph.

I did not get it. There are many streets that already exist that are only 30 or 35 mph. The streets that surround me are still 40 mph and we still have hundreds of bicyclers using them everyday and zero NEVs.

I had high hopes of the NEVs. I realize that there are toxic battery issues, and many other concerns and economics involved with NEVs. But my thought was that it is a step in the direction of changing the way we view transportation. If it were accepted by the masses, then commercialization would shift towards new ideas in that area. They have about a 90% conversion of energy at the vehicle level. The power plants are somewhere around 80% I believe. Making NEVs yeild more like a 60% conversion over all considerations. In China, they have a huge ratio of population riding motorized bicycles - their energy yeild is much higher.

FWIW, all my figures are generalizations and not actual numbers. They are based on my feeble memory of what I learned in college, work experience, reading and documentary programs. Use a 20% error factor in some cases. But the combustion engine is horribly wasteful of the energy potential due to the huge amount of friction and heat.

Note to Paul Green:

I hope that you don't kill this thread. So far, there has not been any heated differences of opinions. I believe that there is a lot of good discussion going around. Perhaps, these ideas will spark some new innovations on somebody reading this. I will try to continue to stay away from making this a heated topic. If it does get out of hand, then by all means shut it down.

Joe-Bob · April 8th, 2005, 01:08 PM

Clearly what's needed is not simply an improvement on current technology, but entirely new stuff using forward-reaching technology.

April 6th, 2005, 10:32 PM	#42 (permalink)
reverbbb Friend of Leo's Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Just Plano, Texas Age: 49 Posts: 3,606 33 Photos	The big problem with all gas combustion engines working from a piston, is all the friction, heat and unburned gas losses in the process. It is estimated that the average well tuned gasoline engine only uses 18~19% of the potential energy from the process. Back in 1980 when I was studying energy, the best conversion that was ever accomplished in a ideal laboratory setting was 25%. Just imagine if the human race still had 80% of it's oil reserves left from a 100% conversion (impossible). But what is a better process had yeilded a 50% conversion? Then, over the past 110 years of the automobile, we would have used 50% less oil. There was some research by an investor that wanted to acheive 50% or better conversion through the use of a turbine and flywheel arrangement. The principle inventor was the same guy that revolutionized satilite usage when he perfected the gyro that is used in geosyncronization. But the money ran out, and they were unable to commercialize the project. They were never able to convince a single automaker that their vehicles could be easily and safely retrofitted. Too bad, too sad. In the circle of failed (uncommercialized) inventions, one can here the bitter words of "NEXT!". Sort of like the group of 5 men trying to start the run down gas mower, when one has given all he's got, then the next guy gives it a try. But we must realize the old saying, "You cannot keep doing the same thing and expect different results". One of those 5 guys needs to try a different process to start the mower. __________________ "I come here to reflect a little."™ http://www.myspace.com/reverbbb2 Guitarist Praise & Worship Forum

April 7th, 2005, 03:26 PM	#43 (permalink)
Joe-Bob Friend of Leo's Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 3,694	We have to remember that an internal combustion engine is just an air pump....a really bad air pump. Anything that increases efficiency has the byproduct of horsepower. That seems like the best of both worlds. That's why turbos and superchargers make so much difference. Also, I can't imagine the power efficiency rating is as low as Reverb says. New cars (cars, not SUVs) get way too good fuel milage for those numbers. Alcohol has significantly less energy stored than gasoline, (Diesel has much more than gas), so the conventional practice of adding alcohol to gasoline to reduce emissions is junk science. Modern urban fuel recipies reduce fuel milage by 10 to 20 percent, and make your car idle rough. They are said to reduce emissions, BUT... if you use more fuel to go less distance, then total emissions are still increased, or at least the same, no better. SUVs may have very similar emissions standards than cars, (the really heavy ones don't), but the volume of emissions is 2 to 4 times as high. SUVs could get much better fuel milage than they now do, but the main obstacle is the American car companies themselves. They have resisted the mileage levels at every step of the way. First of all, most SUVs are based on pick-up truck chassis, which are great for work-use pick-up trucks, but very poor for passenger cars. They are cheap to build, however, and the profits on a Suburban can be as high as $15,000 each. They are also insanely heavy. If the gas-guzzler taxes were applied to SUVs, (Like they rightfully should be, because those are designed, intended, built, marketed, and used as passenger cars from the outset.), then millions more people would be in more frugal cars and station wagons instead of rolling SUV deathtraps. (People die in SUV roll-overs, not because of the fact that the vehicle rolled, but because of the fact that the roof caves in like a paper bag. This is because trucks do not have to meet car safety standards, even if they are designed, built, marketed, sold, and used as passenger cars. For proof, just look at the long list of photos of Ford Explorers that have rolled, and people have died, you will notice a disturbing common pattern of crushed roofs. Not to mention that SUVs cause much more severe injuries in smaller cars.) If the car manufacturers would apply long-available and proven technology to SUVs, then they could all get the same 27-32 mpg just like cars do. But that means the companies would have to invest in significantly raising the quality standard of their products. The current "quick and dirty" approach/attitude to design and manufacturing of cars does not allow for the refinements that would have to be an integral part of conceptualizing, designing, and manufacturing a 3000 pound SUV that is the same size as a Suburban, and gets 30 mpg. The current iron-block Chevy V-8 engine is a 60 year old design. GM has much better engine currently available, but does not put them in to universal use, because they don't have to. Hybrid technology is also merely a passing fad. The battery packs can never replace, much less exceed, the energy it takes to make them, neither can solar cells. Fuel savings from these vehicles is unlikely to ever recoup the added investment, especially when multiple battery pack replacements are taken into consideration. The same is true of fully electric cars. Even though they are thought of as "zero emissions vehicles", the fact is that the emission is simply relocated from the vehicle to a coal-burning power plant located in the next county. Perhaps the most troubling emission from hybrid and electric cars is the vast quantities toxic metals left over from their soon-to-be useless batteries. So what is the answer? I don't know, but as long as almost no one is working on it, we aren't likely to find it soon. What is clear is that we, and the rest of the planet, are going to have to change our attitudes toward energy use and production. At the same time, we have to allow for the growth and health of economies. Developing nations must be in the forefront of energy technology as they build their infrastructures, rather than reassembling the decrepit relics that have been exported from developed nations because they were to old, dirty, or inefficient. (Old oil refineries are just one example.) US oil companies have just in the past two or three years begun producing low sulphur or sulphur free gasoline...something the Europeans have been doing for a quarter century. If it's not in the gas, it's not going out the tailpipe either. New transportation and energy methods have to replace the current ones for us all to succeed. --For those of you who got this far, thanks for listening. __________________ "Smart like Fox, Strong like Bull!"

April 7th, 2005, 05:32 PM	#44 (permalink)
ashtray Tele-Holic Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ventura County, CA Posts: 683 4 Photos	Wow - you guys are right on track with this discussion. But let's just remember, some of the most obvious solutions are found when we abandon typical thinking. Solar power has a lot of potential, and it's free for example. I park my car outside all day while at work, so it would certainly get a charge then. (available electric plug to charge vehicle from home/office, and regenerative braking to charge batteries while driving on a cloudy day) I think the biggest problem today is the SIZE of everyone's vehicles. You look on the roadways, and there is usually 1 person with no stuff in a big SUV (or car). Come on, there should be a better way. What if we ALL drove small vehicles about the size of a motorcycle, but with a full frame/cage? Make them 1 or 2 seaters (tight in the back), and able to link up to one another through electro-magnets or whatever. Think of how open the roadways would be! You'd fit 8 of those things in the space of 3 cars. But we need to carry stuff too sometimes - ok, so make different lanes for the 18 wheelers and "normal" passenger cars to use. Ok - that creates a problem - well, a challenge - to design the roadways to accomodate for this. Shouldn't be too tough to design highways with 2 sets of lanes though. City streets would be another issue. You could always buy "shell" vehicles that contained no engine/motor, or other mechanical components to tow behind one of the small vehicles. Wind resistance is what kills us on gas mileage - so making this type of vehicle very streamlined would solve in that dept (I think a vehicle designed like this already exists - in 2 wheel form, with side wheels that deploy at low speeds - well, it's a start, but not quite my "idea" above). Bottom line - until Americans learn to drive smaller, fuel efficient cars, and leave their huge SUVs at home, there will always be a gas problem. I wonder what people would do if gas went up to $10/gallon say in 5 years from now? __________________ "I need another Tele like I need another hole in my wallet."

April 8th, 2005, 07:10 AM	#46 (permalink)
reverbbb Friend of Leo's Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Just Plano, Texas Age: 49 Posts: 3,606 33 Photos	Solar cells are only 12~18% efficient at energy conversion. There is some research trying to push them to 22%. The other problem with solar cells is that they are made from a low grade silicon. Just like all semiconductors, this substrate material has to be made by melting down this silicon (sand) into a molten that is recrystalized into a "single crystal" or "morpheous" state. And yes, it takes an extreme amount of energy to melt sand in the conventional sense. I worked on a research team that was developing a new method for achieving single crystal state with only 1500W of power. Simply incredible. The professors at Vanderbilt University told our team that it could never be done. Our team of scientists were able to prove them wrong. We melted silicon with 1500W repeatedly for months and months after we discovered the secrets of how to do so. The only problem, we ran out of money for commercialization. We sold the technology to Kyrocera in Japan. I have been out side the loop for 4 years, so I have no idea where the technology stands today. The another bad element of all semiconductors (solar cells thru flat screen monitors), is the huge amount of toxic waste involved (very toxic). In the US, we have means of dealing with the waste, but we still make a lot of it at our semiconductor plants. In the other parts of the world, there is no telling how careful these manufacturers are being with their waste programs. Perhaps it is better than the US, or perhaps not. But all this flat-screen technology is great, until you discover the amount of energy and toxic waste that it consumes to make them. I like Ashtray's thinking about accommodating the highways for various modes of transportation. However, I have already encountered huge resistance when I presented some ideas to a city official. One of my suggestions was to drop the speed limits from 40 mph to 35 mph so that it is safer for bicyclists and legally allows the use of NEVs (Neighborhood Electric Vehicles - fancy golf carts). The city official himself was real nice and thought it was a good idea. But he referred me to some bureaucratic agency that the cities rely on for urban planning. This is where I hit a brick wall. I hit it hard too. I got into an email shouting match with this top ranking official that had a very narrow vision of the world (and an agenda of his own). Basically he said that 'we need to rethink the way we develop our cities in the future'. This is where I did not get where he was coming from. He did not have any suggestions about what to do with our existing 4 million miles of urban streets in the US. It seemed that he was suggesting to build all new cities and abandon the old problematic ones. He completely rejected my suggestion and kept citing that safety was a big concern for dropping the speed limit by 5 mph. I did not get it. There are many streets that already exist that are only 30 or 35 mph. The streets that surround me are still 40 mph and we still have hundreds of bicyclers using them everyday and zero NEVs. I had high hopes of the NEVs. I realize that there are toxic battery issues, and many other concerns and economics involved with NEVs. But my thought was that it is a step in the direction of changing the way we view transportation. If it were accepted by the masses, then commercialization would shift towards new ideas in that area. They have about a 90% conversion of energy at the vehicle level. The power plants are somewhere around 80% I believe. Making NEVs yeild more like a 60% conversion over all considerations. In China, they have a huge ratio of population riding motorized bicycles - their energy yeild is much higher. FWIW, all my figures are generalizations and not actual numbers. They are based on my feeble memory of what I learned in college, work experience, reading and documentary programs. Use a 20% error factor in some cases. But the combustion engine is horribly wasteful of the energy potential due to the huge amount of friction and heat. Note to Paul Green: I hope that you don't kill this thread. So far, there has not been any heated differences of opinions. I believe that there is a lot of good discussion going around. Perhaps, these ideas will spark some new innovations on somebody reading this. I will try to continue to stay away from making this a heated topic. If it does get out of hand, then by all means shut it down. __________________ "I come here to reflect a little."™ http://www.myspace.com/reverbbb2 Guitarist Praise & Worship Forum

April 8th, 2005, 01:08 PM	#47 (permalink)
Joe-Bob Friend of Leo's Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 3,694	Clearly what's needed is not simply an improvement on current technology, but entirely new stuff using forward-reaching technology. __________________ "Smart like Fox, Strong like Bull!"

April 6th, 2005, 09:48 PM	#41 (permalink)
mk Tele-Meister Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 253	Very interesting discussion -- lots of useful info and perspectives here. Since moving to Austin almost two years ago, I've become dependent on a car in a way I hadn't been for the past ten years or more (living in Boston on Beacon Hill, in Madison WI right next to the campus where I worked and went to school, and in Chicago where I commuted on a bike). I've been thinking about hybrids, too, but am mostly just using my 25mpg '95 S-10 pickup (and my gf's '95 Civic). Not great mileage, but ok compared to the behemoths around me -- and I only drive 6-8K per year. A hybrid is tempting for all the reasons listed above -- not least of which is helping to prime the market for the technology. But there's still that inescapable energy cost issue -- it takes tons of petroleum to produce just one hybrid car, and if I can be thrifty with what I've got, it's probably a wash. We're going to have to deal with this issue, and soon. Unfortunately, there's no free lunch with any of this, and peak oil is going to catch us sooner or later. Kind of amazing that we haven't substantially improved on the mileage of the econo-boxes of ten years ago -- lots more features now (safety and performance), but no better fuel efficiency. And that's not even mentioning the Canyoneros....