| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2007 05:18:33 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by yanko:
[sarcasm on]
Sure. Capitalism is what makes individuals selfish and stop caring about the world around them. [/sarcasm off] |
Yup...everyone knows that China and Russia both came up with 100mpg vehicles with zero emissions.
In fact, I imagine if you took the top 50 most fuel-efficient cars they'd all be from communist nations. They'd never all come from capitalist countries like the U.S.A, Japan or S. Korea....no never. |
I was referring to greed/selfishness in general. I didn't realize communist countries eliminated that human trait. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:26:54 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
Woah, hit a raw nerve!! Got shares in BP and Shell??
It's all there if you really need to know. I don't, I drive what gets me from A to B. Not really a big issue. But have a look around. |
No, you didn't hit a raw nerve. I'm laughing :) I just hate to see people spread misinformation.
You made it sound like there's only ONE PLAN for a hydrogen engine and "Omigosh, SHELL BOUGHT IT!"
EVERY company on Earth wants the same thing. A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. If GM, Ford, Toyota could build a car that buyers would want AND it saved you 10 mpg, they'd do it in a heartbeat. If they could figure out how to make a car run on hydrogen affordably and practically, they'd do it in a heartbeat. The fact of the matter is that there are still some huge hurdles between us and freedom form big oil. But there ARE companies out there that have a LOT invested in succeeding. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:51:42 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by "cutter":
I have a weird knowledge of economics and finance, and quite frankly, price of gasoline for example has not increased ONE PENNY, relative to Per Capita Income. So it absolutely kills me when people argue that Oil companies are robbing us blind, when in fact they have not increased their "effective" price at all over 50 years... |
I had a similar shocking revelation a few years back when I saw the values of such. But the comparison I saw dealt with like the 20/30's 50's and present.
What I found interesting was that overall the relationships had remained. Actually improved a bit. But basically it equated to like a house costing $3,000 > $30,000 > $300,000 But the other things like income, car, etc stayed relational. With annual salary and a new car being approx. the same.
Originally posted by "formerlee":
Corn |
Corn powered be it oil/ethanol is:
a) not a clean means of production
b) requires immense overhead and land-usage (heavy environmental impact)
It does free from foriegn dependency. All of GM's new cars I believe are now E85 capable (85% ethanol) dual-use.
Say good-bye to BIG OIL and hello to BIG FOOD!!!
Originally posted by "formerlee":
Woah, hit a raw nerve!! Got shares in BP and Shell?? |
Check your retirement fund bro. Most everyone with a retirement fund has shares in BIG OIL. In fact, I remember reading an article about how more shares of oil are now owned by retirement funds than any other groups.
Originally posted by "yanko":
I was referring to greed/selfishness in general. I didn't realize communist countries eliminated that human trait. |
No one has, but capitalism does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with not caring. Many companies have been for profit, but run with the intent of benefiting it's customers, employees, society, etc.
What I really think killed the heart of capitalism. Incorporation and CEOs. We made everything about shares. We all want interest on our retirement funds. Company management is about the short-term dollar.
It used to be that CEOs/Presidents owned the companies, because they founded them. Entities like Hershey Chocolate made fortunes and became dominant megoliths. But the visionary aspects of their founders led those companies to have immense hearts. They gave back to the community in ways and levels the government didn't even touch.
I think we've lost part of that element. But not completely. I mean, sure Bill Gates is the richest man and Microsoft has made it's billions. But look how much money has gone to charity from Microsoft profits. (Albeit, I still think their the devil's IT consultant.) |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:56:27 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Originally posted by formerlee:
Woah, hit a raw nerve!! Got shares in BP and Shell??
It's all there if you really need to know. I don't, I drive what gets me from A to B. Not really a big issue. But have a look around. |
No, you didn't hit a raw nerve. I'm laughing :) I just hate to see people spread misinformation.
You made it sound like there's only ONE PLAN for a hydrogen engine and "Omigosh, SHELL BOUGHT IT!"
EVERY company on Earth wants the same thing. A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. If GM, Ford, Toyota could build a car that buyers would want AND it saved you 10 mpg, they'd do it in a heartbeat. If they could figure out how to make a car run on hydrogen affordably and practically, they'd do it in a heartbeat. The fact of the matter is that there are still some huge hurdles between us and freedom form big oil. But there ARE companies out there that have a LOT invested in succeeding. |
Agreed, but when will the US come into line with everyone else? How many Americans drive gas guzzlers and claim it is their right?
I never stated SHELL BOUGHT IT! I simply stated a fact that the oil companies have bought up any new invention for alternative fuel. If I am wrong so be it. Your argument that companies would build a car in heartbeat is true, mainly cos they can see an end to oil based engines. America is one of the biggest consumers of oil, that is a fact! Just check out the Kyoto agreement, which America didn't sign up to. Look at any website that deals with Global Warming, America is right up there with the growing menace of China, who have just discovered Capitalism! Perhaps I am completely wrong that US drivers have big cars, big engines and low tax. BMW and other European car makers do have big engines as well, but there is a difference in fuel efficiency.
Slag me off for not providing links as much as you like, but the facts are so plain they will smack you in the face. Justify US consumption of oil and I will defer to your argument. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:13:56 PM · #55 |
Anyone here ever actually drive an EV-1?
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:17:48 PM · #56 |
A word about theoretical engine efficiencies: Rankine cycle engines (external combustion) have a maximum theoretical efficiency of about 36% while OTTO cycle engines (internal combustion) have theoretical efficiencies in the neighhborhood of 54%. However, none of these engines ever achieve the maximum theoretical efficiencies because of practical limitations, such as; fuel burning efficiency; heat losses; friction losses, etc. For example, the typical internal combustion (IC) engine has a very low burning efficiency, using only about 20% of the fuel to produce heat in the cylinder. The rest of the fuel is either burned in the exhaust system or expelled unburned to the atmosphere. These burning efficiencies have improved dramatically over the past 50 years but still have a long way to go.
As for pollutants produced: the air is about 70% nitrogen, 23% oxygen, and the rest assorted gases. The IC engine produces an enormous amount of nitrogen compound pollutants which are responsible for yellow/brown haze seen in most large cities. Even the 'clean burning' alcohol or hydrogen fueled engine will still produce the nitrogen compounds!
There ain't no free lunch. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:23:07 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
Slag me off for not providing links as much as you like, but the facts are so plain they will smack you in the face. Justify US consumption of oil and I will defer to your argument. |
WHAT????
YOU SAID: "For years, oil companies have been buying up inventions for alternative fuelled cars. The hydrogen engine, the corn oil engine etc have all been bought out by the big oil companies."
I asked for sources because this is a bunch of BS.
Americans DO drive gas hogs, we DO use too much of the Earth's resources, we DO produce too much greenhouse gas, we ARE incredibly wasteful, but that has nothing to do with your outlandish claim that you can't back up. :) :) :) :) :) |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:25:22 PM · #58 |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:28:25 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
 |
You realize people could be powering their cars with that popcorn you're eating? SWINE!!!
:) |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:32:15 PM · #60 |
| I get 35-37mpg highway :-D |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:32:41 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Originally posted by doctornick:
|
You realize people could be powering their cars with that popcorn you're eating? SWINE!!!
:) |
LOL, actually you can run a diesel engine on McDonald's discarded frying oil...They showed that on Mythbusters recently. Filled a Dielsel Mercedes car with just filtered frying oil discarded from a burger place and they got the same mileage as regular diesel...
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:32:50 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Originally posted by doctornick:
|
You realize people could be powering their cars with that popcorn you're eating? SWINE!!!
:) |
LOL by pushing them!!! |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:37:41 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Originally posted by doctornick:
|
You realize people could be powering their cars with that popcorn you're eating? SWINE!!!
:) |
Speaking of swine, we should use all that surplus lard from pork producers to fuel cars! :>] |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:42:25 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
LOL, actually you can run a diesel engine on McDonald's discarded frying oil...They showed that on Mythbusters recently. Filled a Dielsel Mercedes car with just filtered frying oil discarded from a burger place and they got the same mileage as regular diesel... |
Yeah, it works! At one time (they might still have it) U of Colorado had a bus that ran on used cooking oil collected from residence halls and other kitchens on campus. Their exhaust supposedly smells like Mickey D's fries. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 08:52:58 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What I'd like to see is a hybrid that uses a small turbine engine as a generator, for an electric drive car. |
I found the orginal article...
//www.motherearthnews.com/green-transportation/1980_January_February/Update__David_Arthur_s_Hybrid_Electric_car
1979
Dave Arthurs of Springdale, Arkansas, spent $1,500 turning a standard Opel GT into a hybrid car that could get 75 miles per gallon, using a six-horsepower lawnmower engine, a four-hundred-amp electric motor, and an array of six-volt batteries. Mother Earth News used the Arthurs plan to build their own hybrid, which averaged 83.6 miles per gallon. Sixty thousand Mother Earth News readers wrote in for the plans, when the magazine published their results.
from //www.hybridcars.com/history/history-of-hybrid-vehicles.html
The idea is the gas engine runs a generator that keeps the batteries charged. It's been nearly 30 years and we've gotten no farther.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 20:54:21.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 08:54:46 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
How often do you burn a whole tank of gas in one day? |
I don't own a car, so perhaps I'm not the best one to ask ;-)
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 09:18:30 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What I'd like to see is a hybrid that uses a small turbine engine as a generator, for an electric drive car. |
I found the orginal article...
//www.motherearthnews.com/green-transportation/1980_January_February/Update__David_Arthur_s_Hybrid_Electric_car
1979
Dave Arthurs of Springdale, Arkansas, spent $1,500 turning a standard Opel GT into a hybrid car that could get 75 miles per gallon, using a six-horsepower lawnmower engine, a four-hundred-amp electric motor, and an array of six-volt batteries. Mother Earth News used the Arthurs plan to build their own hybrid, which averaged 83.6 miles per gallon. Sixty thousand Mother Earth News readers wrote in for the plans, when the magazine published their results.
from //www.hybridcars.com/history/history-of-hybrid-vehicles.html
The idea is the gas engine runs a generator that keeps the batteries charged. It's been nearly 30 years and we've gotten no farther. |
A two stroke engine creates a tremendous amount of pollution. Mowing the yard with a push mower creates more pollution than driving a car 350 miles, so, Mr. Arthur's idea is not the cleanest concept. Nor is it necessarily unique, the concept is the same as a modern locomotive's drive as well.
I don't think the lead-acid batteries of the time would make it very practical during a northern winter either. That was also one of the shortcomings of the EV-1. Cold weather would drop the range by 50%.
The idea is to couple a highly efficient turbine (that will be able to burn jet fuel, gasoline, diesel, vegetable oil) with a high capacity battery pack and a efficient driveline then package that into a practical, reliable vehicle suitable for the masses.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:06:50 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"The purpose of the EV1 program was, in part, to satisfy California's Zero-emissions vehicle mandate initiated in 1990. The ZEV program specified that by 1998, 2% of all new cars sold by the seven major auto manufacturers in the state of California were to meet 'zero emission' standards as defined by the California Air Resources Board. While other manufacturers developed plans to address this mandate, the General Motors EV1 was the only vehicle which made it to the production phase."
WRONG! There was a [Ford Ranger EV, Th!nk, Rav 4 EV.
-----------------------------------------------
"When canceling the program, GM also cited a lack of demand for the two seater, particularly in light of its limited range and its suitability to "warm weather" states only. GM's internal research showed very clearly that the EV1's already perilously low range would be reduced by as much as 50% for use in cold-weather states."
Right, because if you have a car that works best in warm weather, then it's obviously a dud EVERYWHERE because people in warm weather won't buy them. Do you know how many people live in an area where it's warm?
--------------------------------------
Of particular concern to the company was the likelihood that each leased car's battery packs would require replacement at 25-35,000 mile intervals, and that the very low volumes involved would necessitate the corporation's subsidy of spare parts to private owners, perhaps on an indefinite basis. (As an example, the wholesale, or in house, cost of the battery pack to GM was still in the $2-3,000 dollar region during the production phase of the EV1 program. Including delivery and installation, GM thought it unlikely an EV1 could be repowered for less than $6-7000 per unit)
Again, there's the whole thing that if you only make 4 cars a day, it WILL be expensive. If you mass produce something, the price goes down.
-----------------------------------------------
GM believes that the electric car venture was not a failure, and that the EV1 was doomed when the expected breakthrough in battery technology did not take place.
Complete BS. New batteries were available for at the time of the EV1 production. GM decided to put in low-grade batteries.
-----------------------------------------------
In fact, The NiMH battery packs (or Ovonic Battery) that were expected to dramatically improve range came with their own set of problems; GM had to use a less-efficient charging algorithm (lengthening charge times) and waste power on air conditioning to prevent the battery packs from overheating.
Right, because you have to worry about how long it takes your car to charge while you are sleeping.
-----------------------------------------------
One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about $80,000, including research, development and other associated costs.
*NOTE* - Consider GM spent approx $500 million of their own money and produced approx. 1,000 cars that would place the vehicle at a cost of $500,000/vehicle. I am skeptical that the above incorporates all research and associated costs and is more likely represents what the vehicle would have cost if made into a production vehicle.
$80,000 for a non-sporty car with limited range and a $3,000-$5,000 periodic battery replacement cost puts it WELL beyond the average consumer. Heck, I think you can get a Porsche Cayenne for about that price. Those who leased an EV-1 were only able to do so because GM used a pseudo-price. Albeit, I am sure Mel Gibson, Danny DeVito and others could have bought one. But to say it was a feasible consumer car would be highly inaccurate. Most of us can't afford what Mel can...
Again, they made ONE THOUSAND CARS!!! How the hell do you expect prices to go down if they only made ONE THOUSAND CARS????
-----------------------------------------------
The Gen 1 cars got 55-to-75 miles (90-to-120 km) per charge with the Delco-manufactured lead-acid batteries, 75-to-100 miles (120-to-160 km) with the Gen 2 Panasonic lead-acid batteries, and 75-to-150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge with Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. Recharging took as much as eight hours for a full charge (although one could get an 80% charge in two to three hours).
Go to //www.pluginamerica.com and scroll down until you see the graph that says that 80% of people drive 50 miles or less.
-----------------------------------------------
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV-1
*********************************************************
Volt (hopefully available around 2010 for about $20,000-$25,000)
General Motors states that battery technology available as of 2007 is not sufficient to store the 16 kilowatt-hours of energy required for the vehicle, at least not without significant cost. GM has plans for a vehicle platform due in 2009 which will be compatible with an E-Flex drivetrain.[6] However, the company believes that a suitable battery technology will not exist until 2010 or 2012. If the Chevrolet Volt becomes a production vehicle, those would probably be the earliest dates it would be available. It would have to be price-competitive with other compact cars, and GM is targeting a range of $17,000 to $18,000, not including the price premium for the batteries and other components.[7] At the time of the Volt concept's unveiling, GM's estimates for the battery pack's cost using existing technology ranged as high as $20,000. GM stated they likely wouldn't consider producing the vehicle until the cost was reduced to $4,000 or $5,000.[8]
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt |
Funny, I found this quote: "New lithium-ion battery-equipped EVs provide 250-300 miles (400-500 km) of range per charge" HERE
Hmmmmm, seems it's very possible to have a battery powered car that fits the needs of at least 80% of the population; and have a battery pack that can give you almost 300 miles per charge.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:10:48 PM · #69 |
Just found this at the wiki EV1 site:
"The car was very popular with its lessees, but it is not known if anyone would have purchased the vehicle had it been offered for sale even at a "break even" price of $35-40,000 USD."
PURE EFFIN' CRAP!!! As GM was shipping out the the last 78 EV1's, over 80 people signed up [over two days] and offered to buy the last 78 EV1's.
A CHECK WORTH ALMOST 2 MILLION DOLLARS WAS OFFERED TO GM TO BUY THOSE LAST 78 EV1's.
How can you tell me there was nobody willing to buy them.
You have got to be kidding me. Anyone who denies the fact that electric cars are a very real possibility, hampered only by the efforts of Big Oil and the car companies, is obviously ignoring the facts.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 22:12:28.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:20:35 PM · #70 |
| Wow, I missed some of this thread. Looks like it is getting good. Did I mention that I would be happy to buy a $25,000 electric car instead of my $25,000 subaru. In fact I would love it. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:25:01 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Funny, I found this quote: "New lithium-ion battery-equipped EVs provide 250-300 miles (400-500 km) of range per charge" HERE
Hmmmmm, seems it's very possible to have a battery powered car that fits the needs of at least 80% of the population; and have a battery pack that can give you almost 300 miles per charge. |
Yeah, the new battery technology is very exciting. I'm sure it won't be long before they're really practical.
You can just rent a regular car for trips to Grandma's, always take the bus to the airport (I doubt it would have much juice left after sitting out for a week), and pray that the batteries aren't $10,000 when you need to replace one. :) They're close to getting it right, but I'm sticking with ICE for now. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:28:43 PM · #72 |
I would settle for 100 miles a charge. I could do 90% of my driving with that. I really want to drive and electric car. And I am a right winged conservative nut who doesn't think global warming exists. I still want an electric car. So there.
I also want cars to fly though... |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:28:57 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
...Go to //www.pluginamerica.com and scroll down until you see the graph that says that 80% of people drive 50 miles or less. ...Hmmmmm, seems it's very possible to have a battery powered car that fits the needs of at least 80% of the population; and have a battery pack that can give you almost 300 miles per charge. |
Playing Devil's advocate here... I usually drive within the 50 miles per day but even if the car got 300 miles per charge I still wouldn't buy one. They would have to double that for me to truly consider buying one and I tend to think that many Californian's feel the same way.
My main reason is I want a vehicle that will satisfy 100% of my driving not 98%. The daily driving would be fine but when I visit friends and family I drive. I don't want to fly or take some other form of mass transit. Visiting relatives outside Sacramento involves a round trip of ~260. I would simply be uncomfortable with a vehicle that only got 300 miles per charge and would require a lengthy recharge. Visiting relatives in Los Angeles on the other hand requires a one way drive of 450 miles. Breaking this drive up into four days is just a deal breaker. If the cars were dirt cheap though I'd consider an all electric for around town and a gasoline powered vehicle for the long trips. That just hasn't been the case though. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:31:44 PM · #74 |
Electric cars are not going to look like this are they? I might change my mind about wanting one. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 10:33:14 PM · #75 |
You can still buy Honda Insights used. 60 miles to the gallon. A two-seater just like the GM. A lot easier to get parts for too ;)
Why does everyone think there's a conspiracy when there are PLENTY of existing options for a very-cheap-to-fuel car? |
|
