Why I won't be buying a Hybrid car

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The heavy pull of things like hot tubs and EVs are why we will need a combination of energy producers to get off fossil fuels. Biometh combined with a solar hot water system is a much better idea for heating a hot tub than solar cells. Wind is much better for recharging auto batteries (wind setups generally have to have a way to run energy literally into the ground to keep from frying batteries (for an off-grid system), so having something that is almost an electric sink means not wasting it) than solar cells. Actually one of the better uses for solar cells is for electrolysis of water to get hydrogen for vehicle and fuel-cell fuel.

[Doug]

Biometh combined with a solar hot water system is a much better idea for heating a hot tub than solar cells.

DOUG
Yes, meth labs are already popular.

Wind is much better for recharging auto batteries (wind setups generally have to have a way to run energy literally into the ground to keep from frying batteries (for an off-grid system), so having something that is almost an electric sink means not wasting it) than solar cells. Actually one of the better uses for solar cells is for electrolysis of water to get hydrogen for vehicle and fuel-cell fuel.

DOUG
I think we might eventually end up using several kinds of alternative power sources. Right now wind power is too noisy, usually.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Awright - biomethane (like what's leaking into the air from all agribiz factory feeding facilities and also from landfills) as opposed to the fossil fuel "natural" gas (which is actually a combination of methane, ethane, propane, and butane - and sometimes pentane, if it's warm enough to keep pentane from gasifying).

I can't verify this, because I've never been that close to one, but I have read that wind turbines are not that noisy if on their own support - what gets noisy is if you attach them to a building. The vibration is only noisy when attached to something solid to vibrate against.

[Dardedar]

...I have read that wind turbines are not that noisy if on their own support - what gets noisy is if you attach them to a building. The vibration is only noisy when attached to something solid to vibrate against.

DAR
There is noise from the wind rushing by the blades, or the blades slicing through the air. I have seen the one in Praire Grove and it's not too bad. I don't think I would mind one like that if it was 100 feet away.

D.
.

.
.

[Dardedar]

Lust:

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

DAR - since the wind tower is best at 100 ft tall, I don't think the wind rushing through the blades would be a problem. That is probably why they recommend min 1/2 acre properties before going that route - up and away from the house, as it were. I'd love to have a wind turbine, but not only can I not afford one, a slightly under 1/4 acre city lot might be too small - and that's if I could get city permission to put one in.

The little car isn't bad, but that trailer gives me claustrophobia just looking at it.

[Dardedar]

DAR - since the wind tower is best at 100 ft tall,

DAR
I bet the vast majority of privately owned (somewhat affordable) wind towers are well under 100 feet tall. Probably less than half that. A forty footer is big bucks. It costs a lot of money (several hundred thousand) to make a structure that tall and also strong enough to take blasts of wind. I would estimate the Praire Grove windmill to be 40 feet tall or so (not counting propeller tips) and they bought it used. I have never been able to find out how much it cost (a newspaper article and KAUF interview didn't reveal this) but I bet it was over $100,000 (installed).
Plus, if you go to the trouble to make a 100 foot tower, you are going to put some big blades on that baby, which are going to make more noise. Some windmills have blades over 200 feet across.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

You can't have 200 ft blades on a 100 ft tower - they'd hit the ground on every pass (probably catch your kids (human and goat), too). I don't know about the Prairie Grove one, but isn't it a commercial site? Most of my windmill information comes from either Real Goods catalog or the American Wind Association web site - the 100 ft tower may have been for commercial sites, but I was thinking when I read it that would put the blades well above most of the trees around here. As for a big system, so much the better, since we have legal intertie in Arkansas (AEP would have to roll back the meter, even to the point of paying retail price, for anything over what the household uses) - you balance the payback in more than just personal household savings.

[Dardedar]

You can't have 200 ft blades on a 100 ft tower - they'd hit the ground on every pass (probably catch your kids (human and goat), too).

DAR
Then you can get your plowing done at the same time. Obviously those towers must be huge monsters.
Tall strong towers are very expensive. Plus there is the problem of mounting all of that stuff real high up in the air. And maintaining it.
There is some kind of workshop being driving by the Praire Grove windmill but I forget what they do. I'll be out their next week. If I have time I'll stop by and found out what I can. I could snap a picture and post it too. When I drive by it is almost always spinning good.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The modern designs start generating electricity at windspeeds of 5 mph and enough to actually run things at about 9 mph. If a flag is waving there's enough wind to generate electricity. If that honkin' big flag at Landers Auto Park is waving, there's enough wind to power the city of Fayetteville (if we had a wind farm online).

[Dardedar]

DAR
I am not a fan of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell for cars after I read an article in Scientific American absolutely roasting the idea. This seems to support that conclusion:

***

From the report 'Fuel Cell Vehicles: Solution or shell game?'

(BEV=Battery Electric Vehicle, FCV=Fuel-Cell Vehicle)

A BEV has a much higher efficiency and is much more economic when compared with a FCV.


A comparison between BEV and FCV is important since our nation has made a recent change in policy for widespread adoption of fuel-cell vehicles, while all but abandoning its efforts on battery electric vehicles.

Since the BEV and FCV are the only two zeroemission candidates, elementary risk analysis would require overwhelming evidence indicating that FCV’s are vastly superior to BEVs in order to justify investing in only one of the technologies. We were unable to find such overwhelming evidence in government studies, and our conclusions are confirmed by published data on introductory vehicles.

The results show that in a future economy based on renewable energy, the FCV requires production of between 2.4 and 2.6 times more energy than the BEV. The FCV propulsion system weighs 43% more, consumes three times more space onboard the vehicle for the same power output, and costs approximately 46% more than the BEV system.

Further, the refueling cost of a FCV is nearly three times greater, even if we do not consider the substantial cost of building and maintaining the hydrogen infrastructure on which the FCV would depend.

Finally, when we relax the renewable energy assumption, the BEV is still more efficient, cleaner, and vastly less expensive in terms of refueling and infrastructure investment. As indicated above, at the very least, this indicates that the development effort on battery electric vehicles should continue, particularly if the objective is to maximize the use of renewable energy resources.

http://www.evuk.co.uk/EAVES_BEV_VS_FCV%20040703.pdf

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Absolutely the FCV is more misdirection - FCs would be good for running a house or building - currently the H2 it uses comes from natural gas, but it uses a lot less of it than the traditional gas-fired power plant, and produces much less environmentally damaging results, since the gas isn't actually burned - but not vehicles - they're too heavey and take up too much space (current working FCs are about the size of a dishwasher - no problem in a house, but in a car...). We don't actually have a functional FCV beyond a few inefficient prototypes, and we already have a number of functioning BEVs - as postings of them in various threads plainly indicate. Actually - anything that is supposed to depend on a H2 fuel source is a bad idea - while it is the cleanest burning fuel out there (our society has gotten really hung up on burnables to power our society), the source is potable water. We are already running short of potable water and global warming is going to exerbate that problem.

[Dardedar]

DAR
They can't use sea water to extract H2? That's a shame. We are going to have a whole lot of extra sea water soon.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Well sort of - there's a very expensive process that extracts H2 - it's also used to get "heavy" hydrogen for fusion experiments - but it's even more expensive than basic electrolysis, which is still so expensive as to not be viable using our current sources of electricity. Again, solar and wind are out best bets - once the equipment is in place, there are only negligible maintenance costs, the fuel is free - even for obtaining H2.

[Dardedar]

Students in England show off CLEVER car
Posted 4/25/2006 8:59 PM ET

The CLEVER (Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport) vehicle.

By Suevon Lee, The Associated Press

BATH, England — It has two seats, three wheels and so far has cost $2.9 million. Students at the University of Bath in western England, who on Monday unveiled the prototype of the CLEVER (Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport), hope that it represents a greener future for transport.

The prototype, a skeletal speedster which had safety netting in place of body panels, exhibited the general design and technology of the vehicle rather than its actual, finished appearance.

It has the compactness of a motorcycle but the safety of a car, and cornering is smoothed by a tilting technology developed by mechanical engineering students Matt Barker, 29, Ben Drew, 27 and their instructors.

Equipped to handle both city streets and long-distance highway driving, the vehicle runs on compressed natural gas, is capable of 80 mph speeds.

"The goal was to produce a lower-emission vehicle and to combine the efficiency of a motorcycle with the comfort and safety of a car," said Drew, who demonstrated the ease of steering with several laps around the lot.

The concept vehicle is the fruit of a three-year project funded by the European Union, drawing on the expertise of German, French and Austrian organizations— including BMW — along with the Bath team.

Other partners included the Technische Universitaet Berlin, the Institut Francais Du Petrole in Vernaison near Lyon, and the Institut Fuer Verkehrswesen Universitaet Fuer Bodenkultur in Vienna.

The French team developed the 218cc engine, based on the Rotax engine used in the BMW C1 scooter.

Limiting pollution was a big push for the project, according to the project's coordinators. And with rising fuel costs a rising concern for drivers in Europe, the car's use of natural gas emissions is one of its sterling points, according to the Bath design team.

"As fuel prices go up and up, people will look at how else they can get around," said Geraint Owen, a lecturer at the university who helped lead the team project.

Running on compressed natural gas, its fuel consumption is equivalent to 108 miles per gallon.

A commercial version could be a decade away, assuming a manufacturer is interested, Owen said. He said it would be priced in the micro-car bracket of around $8,500-$17,000.

"The idea of a narrow vehicle that is light has its significant advantages," he said. "It's less dangerous than a motorcycle."

The CLEVER car is fun to drive, according to Drew. The Bath team worked on design, suspension, steering, and transmission for their part of the collaboration, he said.

"It's been full-time for 40 months," he said of the project, which also served as his and Barker's dissertations.

"It's quite fun and very stable," he said. "It doesn't feel out of balance. You steer it like a car."

Matthew Butler, 20, a French and politics major who watched the demonstration, said fuel economy was a big attraction.

Butler said he pays about $62 every three weeks to fill his 13.2 gallon tank, at a time when gas is about $6.70 per gallon.
***
LINK
.
.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Wonder if they're working on replacing the engine with a battery pack. With a vehicle that light, a pack of multiple high efficiency batteries of approximately the same volume as the engine might be able to get similar speed and range with zilch emissions. Looking at how they've set up the engine (over the back wheels as a separate unit), it might be possible to do that with 2 (or more) battery packs, so you've always got one charging while the other is in use & just swap out, as needed.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Hopefully Bush is right and there are some awesome new battery technologies just around the corner.

Regarding the E-max:

***
17 April 2006

With this statement from Mr. Gruebel (CEO of E-MAX GMBH):

"... the company has 3,000 and 4,000 watt motors in long-term development, as well as plans to use new Italian-made controllers on future models, along with offering new 50 amp hour lithium-ion batteries in the Classic and 90 amp hour ones on the "Comfort" model..."

Electric motor-scooters will now totally replace current 50-150cc ICE scooters. The range and power of 90amp hour lithium batteries combined with 3,000 and 4,000 watt motors should forever end the age of the noisy, expensive to maintain, and pollution spewing (but fun!!) ubiquitous European motor-scooter.

NtB/DC
***

It's a shame they are going to take another ten years to get this CLEVER going. This vehicle would be a prime candidate for electrification with nice light Lithium Ion batteries.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

CLEVER EVs could solve (or at least reduce) urban transport problems. If most of the population is going to refuse (and apparently they are) to go to carpooling or mass transit, putting them in a small, light, easy-to-park, less space to park, non-petroleum using, non-polluting vehicles would certainly help. Probably wouldn't do much for rush hour(s) traffic, though. You have to reduce the number of vehicles on the road to do that, not just make them smaller.