Save the earth, buy a scooter

[HYPERR]

I don't know if hybrid (gas/electric) motors are necessarily a farce.

Farce is actually a kind word. Bullsh!t is a more fitting description of this flawed attempt at a band aid cure. First of all they do not get anything close to the MPGs that they assert. The Prius Hybrid does not come close to the 60 MPG, but actually gets in the mid 30s. The SUVs fare much worse. The Toyota Highlander Hybrid actually only gets about 22 MPG.

The bigger the vehicle and the bigger the engine, the less the MPG benefit. Honda, the greatest engine builder in the world bar none (If you dispute this, ask any Indy driver) fully realizes this and that is why they do not build a Hybrid SUVs. They even stopped making Hybrid Accords, and only have the Hybrid option on the tiny Civics and the ultra tiny Fit. Honda has always been the most green out of all the automakers on the planet. Their cars have been LEV (Low Emmission Vehicle) & ULEV (Ultra Low Emmision Vehicle) as long as those certification were available. The fact that the leader in ULEVs chose not to use this flawed technology should tell you something. The big difference between Honda and Toyota is that Honda is run by PhDs in Mechanical Engineering while Toyota is run by MBAs in Finance. This explains why Toyota/Lexus is so big on Hybrids and Honda/Acura is not.

Hybrids also cost significantly more. Even at the advertised ultra optimistic gas mileage, it will take the owner several years at least to break even. At the actual true gas mileage, the owner will probably never break even. Not only that the Hybrid has a very poor resale value. Also they are not as reliable and you will eventually have to cough up several thousand dollars to replace the battery.

The production process used to manufacture Hybrids cause severe pollution. Also what are we going to do with this monster battery when it is no longer good? Are we going to bury it in terra firma or dump it in the ocean?

[storysunfolding]

The enviromental cost of a prius from construction and operation outweighs that of a hummer. I am looking forward to the carbon nanotube battery tech being experimented on at MIT

[koji52]

I don't know if hybrid (gas/electric) motors are necessarily a farce. Certainly, when you put any thought in to it - hybrids are a technology mostly involved in increasing fuel economy of an existing infrastructure based on gas. So, we could all be riding Prius class cars, but if gas costs $10 a gallon, we are still pretty screwed. And we are also still pretty screwed if gas runs out.

Hybrid cars have all the problems (lessened) that gas cars have and all the problems electric cars have (batteries).

The major problem with electric cars is of course the batteries and scaling up production of something that involves scarce materials (some of which even more scarce than gas). If every car was en electric - we'd complain about why the car price and the battery price got separated and why the batteries cost 2 times as much as the car.

Hydrogen fueled cars also have a major issue as well. It takes energy to split the water H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. Then it produces energy basically when you put them back together. (if I understand the process correctly) So, the net energy from these processes is zero. We have to put energy in to get energy out.

-We have very little hydrogen found naturally. So, we have to split water to get hydrogen and this takes energy. If the energy that generates the hydrogen comes from wind, ,geothermal, water (currents) or solar sources then we have a net gain - we don't produce pollution and we are able to move our cars, trucks, motorcycles and scooters with little impact to the environment. If the source of energy is coal, natural gas or even nuclear - we are producing wastes in order to produce our movement.

Granted, solar energy using solar cells involves wasteful and poisonous chemicals; however, solar farms that involve focusing the light at a water tank and heating the tank to generate energy (and possibly to generate hydrogen directly) would be pretty efficient.

The net of splitting the water molecule and then having water be the result of running a vehicle can be good, but we need an infrastructure that can support these processes.

Or, we can all start living in high-efficiency designed cities - where we live close to where we work - and suburban sprawl will be a thing only for the super rich. No matter what it takes a specific amount of energy to move an object (such as a vehicle and our rotund behinds) and the less you have to move it - the less energy you need.

Well said RhadamYgg (how the heck am I supposed to say that anyway?)

I like it when people put practical thought in to energy discussion, when there seems to be so much rhetoric out there every where else you look. You hit the H2 issue dead on, yet there are still people out there pushing for this pipe dream (Gov. Arnie for one) In my area there is a huge push for wind energy and the marketing people are pushing more expensive green contracts. What they fail to mention however is that the wind only blows about 30% of the time, and to make up the difference, new simple cycle gas turbines are in place to make up the balance at an extremely low efficiency. There is no silver bullet with the answer, however if battery technology ever get's to where it needs to be I believe that a smart grid could really make the most out of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Charge your batteries at home while the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

Agreed...Though, battery technology is only one side of the coin. Solar technology itself isn't efficient enough for widespread usage. And given current technologies and trends in the industry, I do not believe that solar will ever be cost effective relative to other renewables. Overall efficiencies under optimal conditions are low in light to energy conversion (optimal conditions, mind you, are not 90 degrees but closer to 70). It's still much cheaper to burn fossil fuels than to install and use a solar system. The only thing keeping solar afloat is government incentives. The industry will live and die based on what governments are willing to subsidize.

Aside from that, there's massive amounts of downward pricing pressure due to the amount of product being pushed from China. Eventually no one will be able to continue in the business of making solar-powered energy systems. Just my opinion...

[storysunfolding]

I don't think you're taking into account the advances in solar technology. Solar panels pay off their cost within 6 months and power towers have incredibly low start up and maintenance costs compared to a comparable coal facility.


Power tower. Fun to say. Reminds me of my college days and the power shower at beach week. Seeing how many beers you can pound in the morning during a 5 minute shower.

[RhadamYgg]

I don't know if hybrid (gas/electric) motors are necessarily a farce.

Farce is actually a kind word. Bullsh!t is a more fitting description of this flawed attempt at a band aid cure. First of all they do not get anything close to the MPGs that they assert. The Prius Hybrid does not come close to the 60 MPG, but actually gets in the mid 30s. The SUVs fare much worse. The Toyota Highlander Hybrid actually only gets about 22 MPG.

The bigger the vehicle and the bigger the engine, the less the MPG benefit. Honda, the greatest engine builder in the world bar none (If you dispute this, ask any Indy driver) fully realizes this and that is why they do not build a Hybrid SUVs. They even stopped making Hybrid Accords, and only have the Hybrid option on the tiny Civics and the ultra tiny Fit. Honda has always been the most green out of all the automakers on the planet. Their cars have been LEV (Low Emmission Vehicle) & ULEV (Ultra Low Emmision Vehicle) as long as those certification were available. The fact that the leader in ULEVs chose not to use this flawed technology should tell you something. The big difference between Honda and Toyota is that Honda is run by PhDs in Mechanical Engineering while Toyota is run by MBAs in Finance. This explains why Toyota/Lexus is so big on Hybrids and Honda/Acura is not.

Hybrids also cost significantly more. Even at the advertised ultra optimistic gas mileage, it will take the owner several years at least to break even. At the actual true gas mileage, the owner will probably never break even. Not only that the Hybrid has a very poor resale value. Also they are not as reliable and you will eventually have to cough up several thousand dollars to replace the battery.

The production process used to manufacture Hybrids cause severe pollution. Also what are we going to do with this monster battery when it is no longer good? Are we going to bury it in terra firma or dump it in the ocean?

Oddly enough I pretty much agree with everything you said. I love Honda And I've owned them exclusively since 1992.

Hybrids are definitely a band-aid - involving esoteric materials to gain mpg. I think all hybrids (Honda, Toyota or any other manufacturers) heavily subsidize the hybrid cars. Not a long term business plan and also indicates that the costs of hybrids will go up with acceptance rather than go down.

It is a wonder that cars get as poor gas mileage that they do. My 1992 Honda Civic got 40 mpg pretty much whatever I did to it, yet the Honda Fit current year - a smaller car - gets worse mpg.

Break even and cost of vehicle are things that many people don't even consider. A lot of these Prius cost up to 30K with all the options. I'd rather get a VW diesel and use all the money I saved buying a new bike.

Battery disposal presents problems (for cars). Realistically, there should be laws in place that mandate they be reprocessed for their core chemistry and then recycled in to new batteries, but I doubt if that is going to happen. More than likely when a Prius is totaled it'll end up in a junk yard for years and hopefully one day it is dealt with properly or if not these most likely poisonous substances will end up in the ground.

Battery replacement, on the other hand reminds me of replacing transmissions on cars. It will most likely create a glut of rolling Prius chassis that are great, but no battery, no working car. So, people will have to get rid of them at fire-sale prices and someone else will get the batteries and resell the cars - unless there are hidden warranties in Toyota or Honda that will replace the batteries if they don't last 100,000 miles. But honestly, 100,000 miles wouldn't be enough. The last two vehicles I've owned I've put over 200,000 miles on and my current car recently crossed the 100,000 miles mark - and I have no plans on getting rid of it.

Ideally, people who commute to work and have lots of family members would be best served by owning two vehicles. 1) a single passenger vehicle that is specifically designed to get high mpg - small, incredibly high-mileage vehicles... like a motorcycle but better, and to serve a broader audience they would have to be more stable. 2) a vehicle to transport the family.

I base this premise on space program and space vehicle design. The lunar missions involved three very different vehicles that served three very different purposes. If they had designed one vehicle to perform all the tasks, then it would have been very heavy and probably impossible to work for leaving the moon and the return trip. This is a basic design followed by Arthur C Clarke as well.

And in the end this is sort of what I've followed. I have a motorcycle, which gets pretty good mpg (but not ultimately what I'd want), a coupe that gets 26 mpg (not where I'd want it to be either, and a minivan for when we have the entire crew which is my wife's primary vehicle.

The ultra-high mpg motorcycle that I linked to earlier in this thread would be the ultimate commuter for me. If I had the cash I'd do it in a second (and if it made long-term sense). I mean, I'm already ok with looking like a dork, why not go all the way. My understanding is that up to 90% of a vehicles energy usage goes toward displacing the air in front of it. So, the lower the coefficient of drag the more efficient the vehicle.

In the end though, the savings I gain from high mpg vehicles on my 62 mile one way commute is nothing compared to what would be gained - if I didn't commute at all. And I did work from home for the most part for 5 years. Even though I got a bump in salary when I got to my current job - it doesn't really make up for the gas, tolls and wear and tear on me on this current commute.

I don't want to deride every idea that comes up to solve the crisis in our future. Fuel (in whatever form) is a scarce resource. What I do suspect is that the solutions people have come up with so far - don't actually go far enough or consider the end to end life of prospective replacements to our current paradigm.

[RhadamYgg]

I don't think you're taking into account the advances in solar technology. Solar panels pay off their cost within 6 months and power towers have incredibly low start up and maintenance costs compared to a comparable coal facility.


Power tower. Fun to say. Reminds me of my college days and the power shower at beach week. Seeing how many beers you can pound in the morning during a 5 minute shower.

Solar panels may be coming in to their own, but the production costs and the esoteric materials may be their downfall. Now the "Power tower" if it is what I think it is - doesn't really require any of that. It is basically superheating water with a network of reflective panels controlled by a computer to track the sun (which I believe has been around for a while, but has been gaining installations recently).

Most of the solar panels for homes take years to pay themselves off and don't really last that much longer than gaining return on energy savings. Unless things have changed that much in recent time. I have considered heat pumps that use the back yard, but last I checked in to it, nobody was doing it around here, and the costs would have been horrendous.

[koji52]

I don't think you're taking into account the advances in solar technology. Solar panels pay off their cost within 6 months and power towers have incredibly low start up and maintenance costs compared to a comparable coal facility.


Power tower. Fun to say. Reminds me of my college days and the power shower at beach week. Seeing how many beers you can pound in the morning during a 5 minute shower.

I used to think that as well. But after speaking with some execs in the industry (my job allows me that), I get the idea that advances in solar technology are not moving fast enough to keep up with pricing pressures and other renewable technologies. Solar technology takes years and years to develop. Thin film tech is relatively new, as well as light absorbing wiring. There's nothing significant currently in the pipeline that's compatible with current technology. "Paying off costs"...yes, eventually. But unless you live somewhere that gets constant sun but temperatures don't exceed 80 degrees, it won't be six months but more like many years. And this is also under the assumption that the government continues to subsidize your solar investment. From a business standpoint, it's typically not worth the time and money.

Power towers do exist. Check out Spain and it's "solar grid." What's left of it anyway. 2008 saw a massive run up in the solar market in Spain. Thousands of solar plants were popping up at the beginning of the year due to the incentives set up by the Spanish gov't. Then, later in 2008, the gov't pulled it's incentives and thousands closed up. I do know that there's at least a couple thermal/solar towers out there still functioning. But I think the rise and fall of that market is good proof that solar is still iffy technology at best.

[RhadamYgg]

I think the problem with any of the replacement technologies is that they are all more expensive than gas is at present. The net result is that when it comes time to shift to another energy source we will have a shift - downward in quality of living.

So, as gas prices go up and then stay up, people will move closer to work and as a large percentage of work is located in cities people will move to cities - causing the cost of housing in cities to go up. In turn goods that require transportation will go up in price. Also, prices of homes away from the city will cost less as demand for homes where the costs of commuting would be prohibitive goes down. People who want to move from the suburbs to the city will have less buying dollars to move in to the city, but will constantly lose more money through gas costs eventually causing bankruptcy. Potentially, as at present for some people, selling their home doesn't cover the remaining debts they owe on the house.

We can prepare for this shift by making more energy efficient cities, planned cities adjacent to existing cities or we won't and we'll basically be uncontrolled in our migration to the cities.

The only way to avoid this is to produce an energy alternative that is actually cheaper than gas - and cheaper than gas when scaled up to being the source of power for nearly all vehicles.

If such an alternate energy source were found then market forces would mandate the replacement of gasoline/benzine by the cheaper source of power. That would preserve our current standard of living.

Of course, we should question if the present way we live is necessarily a good thing. I drive 62 miles each way to work. It takes on a weekday in traffic a minimum of 1.5 hours each way and sometimes 2 or more (in particular on the way home). This I suspect isn't a really good thing for me personally and I do wonder how long I'll last like this. Of course, the average commuter only commutes 20 miles each way and I imagine 1/3 as much time.

The low price of gas has enabled suburban sprawl. In the 1950s there developed this version of heaven that we have detached homes with cars, garages and white picket fences and that is what we (generalized) want now. I don't think it required any manipulation by the oil companies. It is the American (TM?) dream to go to college, get hitched, move out to the suburbs and have a bunch of rugrats. Levittown was created with the cookie cutter developments - enabling lower costs to advance the cause of suburban sprawl. The oil companies are simply in a position to take advantage of the situation. Oh, they certainly worked against the government with higher mpg requirements/CAFE, but it doesn't change the basic paradigm we are working.

We travel a huge number of miles just going to and coming home from work every day. We choose safety over mpg so that it is part of our legal structure except for the so-called outlaw motorcycles. So the average person rides in something that amounts to a light armored car. Motorcycles typically carry too much horsepower to be very fuel efficient. Even if you don't use it, a motors hp capacity carries a cost.

How much hp does a small egg-shaped single passenger vehicle need to transport me to work and home - say with a max speed of 85 mph? Has anyone really done a need/want list for vehicles to get to work?

I'm rambling, but maybe I'll get at least one concrete thought out of something like this.

[sunshine229]

One of my buddies visits Italy and I was all excited to find out about what bikes he saw there - and he said he didn't see hardly any motorcycles, they were all scooters.

Yep, it's true. Scooters EVERWHERE. We saw 2 Ducati's and about 2,486 scooters while in Rome for a long weekend.

[sunshine229]

The low price of gas has enabled suburban sprawl. In the 1950s there developed this version of heaven that we have detached homes with cars, garages and white picket fences and that is what we (generalized) want now. I don't think it required any manipulation by the oil companies. It is the American (TM?) dream to go to college, get hitched, move out to the suburbs and have a bunch of rugrats.

GM "built" the first suburb in a ploy to get working families out of the city, therefore forcing them to have to drive to get to work.

People in first world countries love the freedom and power that comes with owning a big house in the suburbs and a big beautiful car (SUV?) to go with it. There is no way that these people are going to give up their lifestyle. Companies will keep trying to develop new technologies to replace oil, but in the meantime there is too much money in the petroleum industry for the industry or government to let it go just yet.