Is my Rangie more environmentally proper than a Prius?

[Sydr]

After 15 years' sterling service, my Rangie is being treated to a generous refurbishment. Some of the tatty stuff (sagging rooflining, cracked door trim) is being replaced, and the engine, which had suffered a heat incident and loose liners, is being replaced with a heavily worked stage 3 unit.

Over the years, a good mate has suggested that he is doing the right thing, environmentally. He bought a Prius, boasted of its fuel consumption (or lack of it) and by inference, suggested I was being rude to the environment with my love of, and use of, my Rangie.

About a year ago, he replaced his Prius. With another one, would you believe. So, in the 15 years that I've trundled around in my P38, he has had 3 cars; the one he started with plus 2 Priuses. And I'm still happy as Larry with my aging but refurbed Range Rover. I'm sitting more comfortably, can see over most of Sydney's congested traffic, can take appropriate action sooner, feel more secure, can go off road, can tow my trailer etc etc etc.

There's talk about the fact that the massive manufacturing footprint of modern cars might negate some of their fuel efficiencies. Looking at the Prius, with its battery intensive technology, I wonder whether there is accuracy in what we are being 'sold' as an environmental solution. What is the truth about all of those battery cells? What does it cost in pollution, manufacturing miles and recycling costs?

In my case, - quite content to pay more money, buy what I perceive to be good quality, repair it and re-use it and so buy better but fewer, I wonder whether I'm on the right side of the environmental ledger, or my mate is.

What does this forum think?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The production of batteries for the prius have a huge environmental cost having circled the globe from mining of the minerals, through manufacture of the batteries to supply to Toyota for installation into the Prius, before it is shipped to the customer. The NRMA man down the road has suggested that he has seen numerous Prius less than 6 years old that needed replacement battery packs, in spite of the warranty period from Toyota. While it may not cost the owner to replace the pack, it does cost the environment.

In peak hour bumper to bumper traffic the Prius is significantly more environmentally friendly than your P38a, but once travelling over 75KPH any number of modern conventionally (petrol) powered vehicles of similar size to the Prius are more enviro friendly than the Prius. The Prius in the fleet of cars for the Child Health Network at Dubbo had the worst fuel economy of all the vehicles (Corollas and Ford Focus') and had less performance at the highway speeds the vehicles travelled on trips as far away as Broken Hill and Bourke.

Yes your P38a will outlast the Prius and have a lesser footprint over the vehicle lifespan, (dust to dust) but not while you sit in the daily traffic jam.

Diana

[101RRS]

The Prius works well in the environment it was designed for but extremely poorly outside it. If it had a small turbo diesel engine rather than its pidley petrol engine it would be even more efficient - unfortunately its main market is the US where diesels in cars are frowned upon so the petrol stays.

The environmental damage in building older cars has already happened so there is a lot of value in retaining them - maybe with improvements to engine efficiency - building new cars pollute now.

Garry

[tonic]

With you 100%. Did you see the top gear episode where they did a comparison with a pre and m3 on fuel. M3 v8 won when driven normally. Pre are too heavy so they do not work. Yes, all those batteries.

[akelly]

I think you're right - at the moment. The mistake often made is to think of todays hybrid as the end-point. Certainly at this point they are less than ideal for anything other than inner-city stop, start driving.

If you think of the current crop of hybrids like the first model Rangie, imagine what the L322 of hybrids could be - 30 years of development using real world testing by real world users. The L322 would never have been (nor, arguably would any coil sprung constant 4x4 luxury off road machine) without 30 years of refinement.

I like to imagine we are on the crest of a new wave of vehicles - some will tumble down the face and be lost, others will make it to the shore and leave a high-water mark.

On a related note, although the batteries are environmentally unfriendly (undisputed), the issue that hybrids and other alternative power vehicles do address is Peak Oil.

Enjoy your reborn Rangie, it sounds like a beaut! I'm going to keep enjoying my old Landies too, as long as I can (then the IIA is getting a leccy motor!)...

Cheers,

Adam

[mike 90 RR]

He bought a Prius, boasted of its fuel consumption

What does this forum think?


Yea ...right .... "have a ride in me Prius" ....

... Real chick magnet there .. :wasntme:



At least he'll be popular at the shopping centre for Jump starts :D

[Sydr]

The production of batteries for the prius have a huge environmental cost having circled the globe from mining of the minerals, through manufacture of the batteries to supply to Toyota for installation into the Prius, before it is shipped to the customer. The NRMA man down the road has suggested that he has seen numerous Prius less than 6 years old that needed replacement battery packs, in spite of the warranty period from Toyota. While it may not cost the owner to replace the pack, it does cost the environment.

In peak hour bumper to bumper traffic the Prius is significantly more environmentally friendly than your P38a, but once travelling over 75KPH any number of modern conventionally (petrol) powered vehicles of similar size to the Prius are more enviro friendly than the Prius. The Prius in the fleet of cars for the Child Health Network at Dubbo had the worst fuel economy of all the vehicles (Corollas and Ford Focus') and had less performance at the highway speeds the vehicles travelled on trips as far away as Broken Hill and Bourke.

Yes your P38a will outlast the Prius and have a lesser footprint over the vehicle lifespan, (dust to dust) but not while you sit in the daily traffic jam.

Diana

Well, my gut feel is that despite my car's thirst, given its life cycle and the fact that it is worth recycling it (to me, a personal view admittedly), then over its entire life cycle there is a case to argue that despite its thirst, its overall impact may be less than the footprint of 1 conventional vehicle plus two hybrids. Or am I out with the fairies?

And surely the overall dust to dust impact is what we should be concerned about, not the fact that while it is idling or in traffic, for that instant it is a poorer option.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Well, my gut feel is that despite my car's thirst, given its life cycle and the fact that it is worth recycling it (to me, a personal view admittedly), then over its entire life cycle there is a case to argue that despite its thirst, its overall impact may be less than the footprint of 1 conventional vehicle plus two hybrids. Or am I out with the fairies?

And surely the overall dust to dust impact is what we should be concerned about, not the fact that while it is idling or in traffic, for that instant it is a poorer option.Yes the dust to dust is where our vehicles come out ahead, but to more time our vehicles spend in stop start traffic, the longer they need to survive before they have a lower impact than more modern efficient vehicles. (Like my new D4 SDV6 )

By the way, I absolutely agree with you, I generally despise Prius, but in very limited car congested environments they have their place. I reduce my RRc's greenhouse impact by LPG and starting work after the morning peak and finishing after the afternoon peak. At 27 years in my possession, my RRc must have a very small footprint considering others will have had 8 cars in the same timeframe.

[rick130]

Well, my gut feel is that despite my car's thirst, given its life cycle and the fact that it is worth recycling it (to me, a personal view admittedly), then over its entire life cycle there is a case to argue that despite its thirst, its overall impact may be less than the footprint of 1 conventional vehicle plus two hybrids. Or am I out with the fairies?

And surely the overall dust to dust impact is what we should be concerned about, not the fact that while it is idling or in traffic, for that instant it is a poorer option.


Yes the dust to dust is where our vehicles come out ahead,
[snip]


My gut says the same, particularly when development and tooling costs are taken into account.

This is why I have no qualms driving a Defender, and I'm considered a yoga practising, chick pea munching hippy in these parts :D

[blitz]

short of a write off I fully expect my 19 year old disco to last for at least another 20 years and well beyond. it's dual fuel so I'm being ecologically responsible as well.

so even if it only lasted another 20 years and we round it off to 40 years of service, can it be possible to believe a primus will come close to the same service life??


I dont think so

[Jitterbug]

I used to work as an automotive engineer for a big european truck manufacturer in the UK. Whilst there we built a trial fleet of hybrid diesel/electric 7.5 tonne trucks to send out to about 20 big customer, royal mail etc.
In the official trials the hybrid actually returned LOWER fuel economy than the standard turbo diesel version. It was only by fitting aero aids and special tyres that they managed to get the consumption lower than the official figures for the standard truck (that isnt even considering the whole of life environmental cost of the batteries).
Of course there was no mention of the other modifications in the press release and the fuel savings where attributed to the diesel/electric hybrid!

I wonder how much of the economy of a prius can be attributed to low drag coefficient of the aerodynamic body and the low rolling resistace of the skinny tyres?

[Blknight.aus]

The prius is a step in the right direction tho....

imagine if you will its technology as drop in conversions for your vehicle.

available in 3 primary flavors in 4 primary configurations

The flavors being;

Country Long Range- a more powerful engine and generator with a smaller battery pack. not intended to be externally chargable (so maintenance charging rates only) and capable of very short EV trips (less than 25KM)
City Stop Start- A less powerful engine but with a higher capacity battery (may also be a higher density battery technology) and intended to be able to operate as a pure EV for moderate (say 75 KM) durations and then charge from external sources
Urban- The normal sized engine with a normal size battery retaining the ability to take external power and operate for short durations as an EV (maybe 50K)


The configurations being

Large N/S- Replaces the donk in large vehicles like our landies and some small trucks, basically anything large and rear wheel drive.
Small N/S replaces the donk in traditional setup vehicles of medium size such as the holden commodores and small vans

Large E/W replaces the EW mounted engine in the medium size FWD cars
Small E/W replaces the EW mounted engine in small FWD cars.



say your old engine blows up.

you go an buy the new drop-in hybrid unit (in the case I put forwards for this a small aircooled turbodiesel generation unit ), pull out your existing engine and gearbox, scrap it (possibly modding you gearbox as the primary input) and install the drop in hybrid tech.

The key concept difference is that instead of applying power like the prius by coupling the Engine and the Electric motor/generator to the gear box is that the drive line is based off of a diesel electric loco.

[Jitterbug]

A guy i used to work with now works for a company building a hybrid for a military contract.
The vehicle effectivly a diesel generator and 4 electric motors, one at each wheel.
Big advantages for 4wds, no diff clearence to worry about, zero turning circle, no need for differentials or lockers.
I suppose a decent % of the losses in converting roation into electirical back into rotational energy would be offset by not having gearbox, props, diffs, cvs etc sapping power.

[isuzurover]

A guy i used to work with now works for a company building a hybrid for a military contract.
The vehicle effectivly a diesel generator and 4 electric motors, one at each wheel.
Big advantages for 4wds, no diff clearence to worry about, zero turning circle, no need for differentials or lockers.
I suppose a decent % of the losses in converting roation into electirical back into rotational energy would be offset by not having gearbox, props, diffs, cvs etc sapping power.


Yes - most military vehicles are diesel/electric or diesel/hydraulic. As you have said, lots of advantages, and lots of redundancy, for a military vehicle (or any 4x4).

In an 8x8 you would need 8 wheel motors to fail before you are immobile!

The prius gets a bad rap for the batteries, however a lot of it is unfounded. Solar panels also get a bad rap for the energy needed to produce them, however it has been proven that a solar panel manufactured OS then shipped to AU has a worst-case payback period of 1.3 years (TAS) to recover the manufacturing footprint.

The manufacturing component of a hybrid's footprint has been estimated at ~5% more than a normal vehicle (based on 150k km life cycle for both).
If you were commuting in heavy traffic, the prius would be using <5l/100 vs the RR's 20L/100 (or close to). Plus the newer prius engine and emissions controls would be better...

However for mainly long distance travel the RR may well come out in front.

As I have posted on here before, I spoke to a taxi driver in cairns who changed from a camry on gas to a prius. He said he was saving a large amount of money with the prius and repliability was good.

It comes down to horses for courses. The prius has been optimised for commuting.

Personally I walk/ride to work and keep the landies for fun ;)

[uninformed]

would a pushie or a prius pull my trailer ;)

[Blknight.aus]

yep, just not far, fast or economically.... and the command brakes would want to be up to scratch for the pushie or the tail's likely to wag the dog there.

[jakeslouw]

IMHO, an EV is the stupidest idea ever, based on current (no pun intended) generating methods for the public grid.

So I have an EV, battery is flat, I plug it into the public power supply and some time later it's charged.

Magic, you say! Except WHERE does the electricity come from?

Most power stations are FOSSIL FUEL consumers! Either coal or oil!

So what are the options? NONE of the "free" energy sources (wind, solar, water) are being effectively used due to "cost". Show me the vast tracts of useless desert covered with solar panels? IT ISN'T HAPPENING!
Show me those vast wind turbine farms or tidal generator farms? Ditto.

So our powers-that-be keep on pushing for fossil fuel or nuclear power stations. Because SOMEBODY is making sure certain technologies stay expensive. Where is the economy of scale?

So the greenie-beanies that think they're doing a good thing buying a new EV (with all the negative impacts so far mentioned including the raping of the earth for rare minerals and metals) are actually contributing to a FASTER deterioration in our global environment. I say stick with your 30-year-old Defender, because replacing it is a HUGELY negative impact.

Rant over.

[PAT303]

Personaly I think hybrids are a load of crap as well as small cars,I love it when someone takes out finance for a new car and then tells me how much they are saving,they are paying $300 a week in repayments but are saving money because they are spending $50 a week less in fuel?.Priuses are for dumb movie stars who want to look responsible for todays enviroment and nothing more,they have a very poor safety record also. Pat

[vnx205]

The prius is a step in the right direction tho....

I was under the impression that the Prius was never really intended to be the final solution to the problem. I thought that it was just intended to be a research platform. I thought it was just intended to provide the motivation, the interest and maybe some finance to develop some of the technology that may ultimately be part of the solution.

I think it is wrong to see the Prius as the end goal. It is just supposed to be a step towards finding a solution.
... .... ..

you go an buy the new drop-in hybrid unit (in the case I put forwards for this a small aircooled turbodiesel generation unit ), pull out your existing engine and gearbox, scrap it (possibly modding you gearbox as the primary input) and install the drop in hybrid tech.

The key concept difference is that instead of applying power like the prius by coupling the Engine and the Electric motor/generator to the gear box is that the drive line is based off of a diesel electric loco.

I have no idea if the technology is practical, but I read something a while back about an attempt to develop the system you describe, but using a turbine instead of the small diesel. My understanding was that the attempts in the 60s (I think) to use turbines to power cars didn't work because of the slow response to throttle changes.

I think the idea was that the turbine would run at a constant speed to drive a generator because that is the way turbines like to operate and are quite efficient when run that way.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

... My understanding was that the attempts in the 60s (I think) to use turbines to power cars didn't work because of the slow response to throttle changes.
... Just hijacking the thread, but my understanding of the problem with tubines in the p4/p5 Rovers were as much the lack of throttle response as well as the unnacceptable level of external noise of the turbines.

IIRC along with rising fuel costs it was part of the reason that killed off turboshaft-electric railway locomotives (GTEL) in the US.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/03/1030.jpg

[Blknight.aus]

IMHO, an EV is the stupidest idea ever, based on current (no pun intended) generating methods for the public grid.

So I have an EV, battery is flat, I plug it into the public power supply and some time later it's charged.

Magic, you say! Except WHERE does the electricity come from?

Most power stations are FOSSIL FUEL consumers! Either coal or oil!

So what are the options? NONE of the "free" energy sources (wind, solar, water) are being effectively used due to "cost". Show me the vast tracts of useless desert covered with solar panels? IT ISN'T HAPPENING!
Show me those vast wind turbine farms or tidal generator farms? Ditto.

So our powers-that-be keep on pushing for fossil fuel or nuclear power stations. Because SOMEBODY is making sure certain technologies stay expensive. Where is the economy of scale?

So the greenie-beanies that think they're doing a good thing buying a new EV (with all the negative impacts so far mentioned including the raping of the earth for rare minerals and metals) are actually contributing to a FASTER deterioration in our global environment. I say stick with your 30-year-old Defender, because replacing it is a HUGELY negative impact.

Rant over.


not in the application I provided... it was intended to give you the ability to do a short run without using the ICE and that the ICE would be the primary charging system your external charge could come from a water wheel, a WVO burning generator, solar, windfarm, thermovent or off peak grid.

say you do the long drive home and the battery is fully topped up you jump in, turn the K backwards to ignition option B which is primary electric for a 2 k run to the shops. when you go to leave for work the next day you
run it in ignition option A, hybrid and as you're driving along the system charges as and where it can (regen braking/idling)

[bee utey]

The Prius may not be the answer to the world's energy problems but as the first mass produced electric drive passenger car it got a generation of tech people used to the idea. Newer hybrids and EV's will build on this groundwork. A mate of mine bought one for his wife and was quite impressed with its economy in local hills and city driving. They kept it for 5 years, no real problems. Sadly I didn't get to gas convert it, that would have been fun.:eek::D

[Sydr]

IMHO, an EV is the stupidest idea ever, based on current (no pun intended) generating methods for the public grid.

So I have an EV, battery is flat, I plug it into the public power supply and some time later it's charged.

Magic, you say! Except WHERE does the electricity come from?

Most power stations are FOSSIL FUEL consumers! Either coal or oil!

So what are the options? NONE of the "free" energy sources (wind, solar, water) are being effectively used due to "cost". Show me the vast tracts of useless desert covered with solar panels? IT ISN'T HAPPENING!
Show me those vast wind turbine farms or tidal generator farms? Ditto.

So our powers-that-be keep on pushing for fossil fuel or nuclear power stations. Because SOMEBODY is making sure certain technologies stay expensive. Where is the economy of scale?

So the greenie-beanies that think they're doing a good thing buying a new EV (with all the negative impacts so far mentioned including the raping of the earth for rare minerals and metals) are actually contributing to a FASTER deterioration in our global environment. I say stick with your 30-year-old Defender, because replacing it is a HUGELY negative impact.

Rant over.

NOT a rant, IMO, you are quite right. I can't figure out why anyone would be pleased or excited to utilise a technology that moves the emissions from the zorst pipe to the smoke stack. Who are they kidding?

The only one that floats my boat is hydrogen, where the emissions are, I believe, oxygen and water. I'm told that it is no good 'cos it needs an infrastructure, much like petrol stations, but for hydrogen, and that's too hard.

[sheerluck]

Personally I think that there are better solutions than the Prius. The technology exists to make existing engines increasingly fuel efficient without digging semi toxic metals out of the ground to make batteries out of. The most recent releases of the Ford "ECOnetic" and VW "Bluemotion" engines are testament to that, with <4l/100km consumption and no vast battery arrays making the vehicle weigh so much more.

I own a Golf Bluemotion 1.6l turbo diesel, and it weighs 1200kg or so. The Prius weighs 1420kg, so ~200kg of batteries and electric motors to lug around compared with a tweaked and very tecchie turbo diesel. Not to mention that


the official fuel consumption of the Golf is better than the Prius
the tiny, tiny boot on the Prius
the Golf still takes off like a scalded cat with heavy use of the pedal on the right (77kw versus 73kw for the petrol Prius :o)
The Golf's a darn sight cheaper too ($35 - $45k for a battery powered toy??)

[justinc]

I am resurrecting my 27yo EX V8 110 with an engine transplant, real A/C, upgraded later brakes etc etc, as it was destined to rot away in a paddock I am convinced (even though it is a dirty 4BD1t) I am helping rather than hindering by recycling.

Many of my customers have done similar, most vehicles can be updated and re cycled, with good economy too if LPG or turbo diesel converted.

A recycyled P38a even with some large $$$ spent on it is still cheaper and better for the cradle to grave environment impact than disposing of it and buying another, 80K to 100K+ vehicle.

If anyone is truly serious about helping the environment, they wouldn't own a vehicle at all.

JC

[PAT303]

Your right,the Greens want us to live within riding distance from work so we don't need cars,who wants to live like that?.I work to live,not live to work. Pat

[blitz]

the electric motors in these can have a operational voltage of between 120 and 400VDC. in a crash situation that is an awfully high amount of potential energy = spark not to mention if it shorts out electrocution.

[Dougal]

I wonder how much of the economy of a prius can be attributed to low drag coefficient of the aerodynamic body and the low rolling resistace of the skinny tyres?

Most of it. But we won't know exactly how much until they put a corolla transaxle in and put it on a track followed by a corolla.

If you put a VW TDi in it, you'd have ludicrous fuel economy. But that won't go down as well at the country club.

The biggest problem (as already mentioned) is the more complex a device gets, the shorter it's lifespan becomes. Look at cellphones that get turfed every 2 years max compared to house phones that worked for 30 years.

[akelly]

For the guys complaining about moving from one fossil fuel (oil) to another (coal) - perhaps you could consider a timeline longer a few years.

Peak oil is real and will happen, perhaps in our lifetimes. Oil will become more expensive than gold (that's an exaggeration, of course). We could keep digging coal out of the Hunter for the next 1000 years (another exaggeration). Nuke will happen, sooner the better. Wind is becoming viable, as is tidal power (I know they don't do baseload).

We need to have technologies ready to deal with the next oil shock/peak oil. For my money, hybrids and EVs are the wave of the future. By the time my son is ready to take the keys of my IIA it will be electric I reckon, maybe hybrid, perhaps even hydrogen powered!

And anyway, no one is forcing you to buy a Prius or EV. The idea of keeping your current car is a good one - keeping it in good knick and using alternative transport where suits are good ways to prolong the vehicle's life, protect the environment and save some cash. All good.

[akelly]

IMHO, an EV is the stupidest idea ever, based on current (no pun intended) generating methods for the public grid.

So I have an EV, battery is flat, I plug it into the public power supply and some time later it's charged.

Magic, you say! Except WHERE does the electricity come from?

Most power stations are FOSSIL FUEL consumers! Either coal or oil!

So what are the options? NONE of the "free" energy sources (wind, solar, water) are being effectively used due to "cost". Show me the vast tracts of useless desert covered with solar panels? IT ISN'T HAPPENING!
Show me those vast wind turbine farms or tidal generator farms? Ditto.

So our powers-that-be keep on pushing for fossil fuel or nuclear power stations. Because SOMEBODY is making sure certain technologies stay expensive. Where is the economy of scale?

So the greenie-beanies that think they're doing a good thing buying a new EV (with all the negative impacts so far mentioned including the raping of the earth for rare minerals and metals) are actually contributing to a FASTER deterioration in our global environment. I say stick with your 30-year-old Defender, because replacing it is a HUGELY negative impact.

Rant over.

Good news mate - the carbon price is going to be the first step in fixing most of these issues! You must be pleased.

Care to expand on how EVs are 'contributing to a FASTER deterioration in our global environment'?

[Dougal]

We need to have technologies ready to deal with the next oil shock/peak oil. For my money, hybrids and EVs are the wave of the future. By the time my son is ready to take the keys of my IIA it will be electric I reckon, maybe hybrid, perhaps even hydrogen powered!

Where are you going to get this hydrogen from?

[bee utey]

Where are you going to get this hydrogen from?

1. From cracking methane (natural gas) and burying the carbon

2. From wind, solar and wave power, as a means of storing power for slack times. Somewhere I read about potential desert sites for producing solar power which would be connected to population centres by superconducting DC cables. The cooling would be provided by liquid H2 which can be used at the other end as well as the electricity.

Probably not all going to happen tomorrow but I believe demonstration superconducting HVDC cables are being trialled in the US.

[akelly]

Where are you going to get this hydrogen from?

The hydrogen shop... that's where we'll all get our hydrogen from 16 years from now.

If British engineers thought like some forum members we'd be posting on AUJO.com, because Land Rovers would never have been invented - 'no need, there's already a perfectly good Jeep available!'

People need to stop thinking about what exists right now and start thinking about what will be possible in 10 years, then in 20 years. The current crop are just rolling testbeds for the next generation of vehicles.

20 years ago I was learning about the fancy new fuel injection system fitted to EA falcons. Now kids are building far more advanced systems than that in their backyard. Times change, you can either change with them or get swept aside.

Cheers,

Adam

[isuzurover]

Where are you going to get this hydrogen from?

Hydrogen production from algae - The Science Show - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/hydrogen-production-from-algae/3270290)

[Dougal]

1. From cracking methane (natural gas) and burying the carbon

2. From wind, solar and wave power, as a means of storing power for slack times. Somewhere I read about potential desert sites for producing solar power which would be connected to population centres by superconducting DC cables. The cooling would be provided by liquid H2 which can be used at the other end as well as the electricity.

Probably not all going to happen tomorrow but I believe demonstration superconducting HVDC cables are being trialled in the US.

I'm not convinced using hydrogen as a battery (splitting it from water using power) and then oxidising it to create power has any advantage over currently available batterie for efficiency, energy density and storage losses. At least current batteries don't diffuse out of their steel tanks so easily.

Why not just burn the natural gas and find a way to trap the carbon from the exhaust?

Superconducting cables may be nice, but economically I know many countries don't have enough plain old conductors already. Forcing more current down old lines than ideal and creating big losses. We can make some big efficiency improvements in the grid with current practices, we just need the money and reasons to do it.

BTW, my next car will be another tdi wagon (likely VW) using around 5 litres per 100km. I'll be "upgrading" a current vehicle from di to tdi and raising the gearing with the intent of saving up to 25% of it's fuel bill and putting it around 5-6 litres/100km on the open road too.
I asked a honda sales guy if they had anything to compete. They tried to sell me an insight hybrid which will use the same amount of fuel, offer no driving pleasure, no interior space and can't tow a garden trailer.

[akelly]

I'm not convinced using hydrogen as a battery (splitting it from water using power) and then oxidising it to create power has any advantage over currently available batterie for efficiency, energy density and storage losses. At least current batteries don't diffuse out of their steel tanks so easily.

Why not just burn the natural gas and find a way to trap the carbon from the exhaust?

Superconducting cables may be nice, but economically I know many countries don't have enough plain old conductors already. Forcing more current down old lines than ideal and creating big losses. We can make some big efficiency improvements in the grid with current practices, we just need the money and reasons to do it.

BTW, my next car will be another tdi wagon (likely VW) using around 5 litres per 100km. I'll be "upgrading" a current vehicle from di to tdi and raising the gearing with the intent of saving up to 25% of it's fuel bill and putting it around 5-6 litres/100km on the open road too.
I asked a honda sales guy if they had anything to compete. They tried to sell me an insight hybrid which will use the same amount of fuel, offer no driving pleasure, no interior space and can't tow a garden trailer.

You're right of course. We should stick to current technology - this new fangled stuff will never work...

[Dougal]

You're right of course. We should stick to current technology - this new fangled stuff will never work...

More that we should stick to solutions with reality on their side. Not pander to political ideals with limited application. Like hydrogen.

If losses in the grid are a current problem, then we have the technology to fix that (more condutors) or bypass that (decentralised generation) right now.

We just need to address the reasons why it isn't happening.

Problem -> apply best current solution -> problem solved.
Not
Problem -> Dream Solution ->Doesn't work -> still not done generations down the track.

[akelly]

More that we should stick to solutions with reality on their side. Not pander to political ideals with limited application. Like hydrogen.

If losses in the grid are a current problem, then we have the technology to fix that (more condutors) or bypass that (decentralised generation) right now.

We just need to address the reasons why it isn't happening.

Problem -> apply best current solution -> problem solved.
Not
Problem -> Dream Solution ->Doesn't work -> still not done generations down the track.

Right again. Those crazy engineers... will they ever learn?

2011 Mercedes Benz B-Class F-Cell Review - Fuel Cell Car Test Drive - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/cells/2011-mercedes-benz-b-class-f-cell-test-drive)

[Dougal]

Right again. Those crazy engineers... will they ever learn?

2011 Mercedes Benz B-Class F-Cell Review - Fuel Cell Car Test Drive - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/cells/2011-mercedes-benz-b-class-f-cell-test-drive)

Did you read that article?

It's an experimental run of 200 cars, they have a bank of lithium ion batteries, weigh 2 tons and there is no mention of range or refuelling.

BMW has hydrogen experimental cars too (govt grants probably too good to pass up). The half-life of your hydrogen fill is one day. Whether you use it or not, tomorrow you'll have half a tank left.

Lets crunch some numbers. 3 tanks each holding 8 pounds of hydrogen. That's 10,890g.
Each kg of hydrogen has 142MJ of energy available: Source here: Energy Density of Hydrogen (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleFung.shtml)

The total energy stored in the hydrogen tanks is 1546 MJ
This is equivalent to 39 litres of diesel.

39 litres of diesel in a modern vehicle the same size will get you over 800km. It will also sit there for years and not evaporate.
The range of the F-cell is 240miles (390km) in optimal conditions according to these journalists who ran out: How the Mercedes-Benz F-Cell left us both stranded and impressed (http://green.autoblog.com/2011/03/04/how-the-mercedes-benz-f-cell-left-us-both-stranded-and-impressed/)

Total efficiency, around half of a conventional diesel car.

Of course there are conflicting details in those articles. One claims 8lb of fuel total, the other 8lb in each of 3 tanks.

[akelly]

Did you read that article?

It's an experimental run of 200 cars, they have a bank of lithium ion batteries, weigh 2 tons and there is no mention of range or refuelling.

BMW has hydrogen experimental cars too (govt grants probably too good to pass up). The half-life of your hydrogen fill is one day. Whether you use it or not, tomorrow you'll have half a tank left.

Lets crunch some numbers. 3 tanks each holding 8 pounds of hydrogen. That's 10,890g.
Each kg of hydrogen has 142MJ of energy available: Source here: Energy Density of Hydrogen (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleFung.shtml)

The total energy stored in the hydrogen tanks is 1546 MJ
This is equivalent to 39 litres of diesel.

39 litres of diesel in a modern vehicle the same size will get you over 800km. It will also sit there for years and not evaporate.
The range of the F-cell is 240miles (390km) in optimal conditions according to these journalists who ran out: How the Mercedes-Benz F-Cell left us both stranded and impressed (http://green.autoblog.com/2011/03/04/how-the-mercedes-benz-f-cell-left-us-both-stranded-and-impressed/)

Total efficiency, around half of a conventional diesel car.

Of course there are conflicting details in those articles. One claims 8lb of fuel total, the other 8lb in each of 3 tanks.

Yep, you're right again. Why are those crazy companies bothering mucking around with such a stupid idea? Must be the HUGE government grants, I'm sure those grants are all that's keeping that project afloat... and the injection of government cash makes a big difference to the bottom line at Merc. They should read this forum and learn a thing or two about how to run the worlds oldest car company...

I found you an Avatar...

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/03/860.jpg

[nobbyclrk]

Dougal

Automobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or the horse.

[bee utey]

Well! You should all know that engine evolution reached its peak in 1980-odd with the 3.9 Isuzu and all subsequent engines are worse, much worse. So engineers had better stop fussing around with electrons and stuff and just concentrate on finding more fossil fuel to turn into Isuzu smoke.;););)

[Blknight.aus]

why? the suzi runs fine on vege oil, cooking oil, canola oil, peanut oil, hell it'd probably run on whale oil...

heres a thought....

if we can run an engine on vege oil, and vege oil comes from vegetables.. can we start abusing the vegetarians and vegans for eating the next tank of fuel...

alternatively...

if vege oil comes from vegetables, can we cripple all the vegetarians which will make them vegetables ripe for the crushing into the next tank of fuel...

I'm not seeing any downsides from this end.

[nobbyclrk]

why the suzi runs fine on vege oil, cooking oil, canola oil, peanut oil, hell it'd probably run on whale oil...

heres a thought....

if we can run an engine on vege oil, and vege oil comes from vegetables.. can we start abusing the vegetarians and vegans for eating the next tank of fuel...

alternatively...

if vege oil comes from vegetables, can we cripple all the vegetarians which will make them vegetables ripe for the crushing into the next tank of fuel...

I'm not seeing any downsides from this end.

Oh, my world with less tofu. Yes please!

[Lotz-A-Landies]

If carbon dioxide is the problem, when are we going to put a carbon tax on Coca-Cola?

[jakeslouw]

Good news mate - the carbon price is going to be the first step in fixing most of these issues! You must be pleased.

Care to expand on how EVs are 'contributing to a FASTER deterioration in our global environment'?

Do you have any idea what goes into a hybrid or EV? Do a Google on RARE EARTH MINERALS. Google the uses for platinum and other metals.

Then come and have a look at my farm where foreign (AUSTRALIAN) mining companies are raping the bush not 1000m from my house for minerals.

Go and have a look at countries like Zimbabwe and the Congo where unchecked mining is destroying the ecology.

Catch a wake-up, mate.:mad:

[jakeslouw]

I can see NO error in Black Knight's logic!

[Lotz-A-Landies]

...Then come and have a look at my farm where foreign (AUSTRALIAN) mining companies are raping the bush not 1000m from my house for minerals. ...Would that be BHP Biliton? The Biliton is South African and is a merger with the Australian BHP which makes it a transnational with a joint listing on the London SE and the Australian SE.

We don't need to see what they are doing at your place, they are also tearing up our own bush and farmland, and Canada's bush and America's etc etc!

[jakeslouw]

Attached is a GE image of the strip mining near my farm.

Note that the image is almost 6 months old, they've caused more damage since then.

This is less than 60kms from the Pretoria CBD.

[jakeslouw]

Would that be BHP Biliton? The Biliton is South African and is a merger with the Australian BHP which makes it a transnational.

No. Xstrata. And BHP started as an Australian venture, just like Anglo started as a South African venture. Makes no difference what they call themselves now.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

No. Xstrata. And BHP started as an Australian venture, just like Anglo started as a South African venture. Makes no difference what they call themselves now.Absolutely it makes no difference because the investers come from everywhere these days.

But just like BHP started mining at Broken Hill, Biliton started independently in South Africa.

[jakeslouw]

Absolutely it makes no difference because the investers come from everywhere these days.

But just like BHP started mining at Broken Hill, Biliton started independently in South Africa.

Don't think I agree: BHP Billiton here is completely controlled by head office in Australia, down to their IT strategy and purchasing.

I have access to the Group policy documents on IT procurement: come from Australia.

But it's a moot point: the point is that more and more minerals and metals are needed to feed this technology race, and while there are nice pie-in-the-sky sentiments by greenies, the fact is that the new technology will destroy the planet's resources much more than us keeping our old Landies mobile.

I think the best departure point is to pour more money into renewable FREE energy source research (wind, water, sun) than what is being poured into a futile search for a perpetual motion machine........

[rick130]

Xstrata are Swiss, aren't they ?

Anyway, we have the buggers (BHP, et al) back here trying to tear up the countries best farmland for bloody coal and trying to destroy the aquifers we all rely on for coal seam gas.

[clubagreenie]

Did you read that article?

It's an experimental run of 200 cars, they have a bank of lithium ion batteries, weigh 2 tons and there is no mention of range or refuelling.

BMW has hydrogen experimental cars too (govt grants probably too good to pass up). The half-life of your hydrogen fill is one day. Whether you use it or not, tomorrow you'll have half a tank left.

Lets crunch some numbers. 3 tanks each holding 8 pounds of hydrogen. That's 10,890g.
Each kg of hydrogen has 142MJ of energy available: Source here: Energy Density of Hydrogen (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleFung.shtml)

The total energy stored in the hydrogen tanks is 1546 MJ
This is equivalent to 39 litres of diesel.

39 litres of diesel in a modern vehicle the same size will get you over 800km. It will also sit there for years and not evaporate.
The range of the F-cell is 240miles (390km) in optimal conditions according to these journalists who ran out: How the Mercedes-Benz F-Cell left us both stranded and impressed (http://green.autoblog.com/2011/03/04/how-the-mercedes-benz-f-cell-left-us-both-stranded-and-impressed/)

Total efficiency, around half of a conventional diesel car.

Of course there are conflicting details in those articles. One claims 8lb of fuel total, the other 8lb in each of 3 tanks.

Funny this topic comes to my attention tonight.

I can confirm that it's 8lb per tank after my discussions and readings earlier.

Met up with a fellow visiting a friend from the states who works for BMW and was part of the test team for the H2 fuel vehicles in the US. Saw pics of a complete hydrogen plant that was built in the middle of the desert for the 2 year test time to run the cars. The tanks were an exchange system so it was planned that there would be no need for the soccer moms to have to fill. The "fuel station" would have tanks full, stored under refrigeration and you just swap out the tanks. You could run one or for longer trips there was a manifold system that allowed multiple tanks to be plugged in via a hose that was part of the tanks and just plugged in.

So there...

[jakeslouw]

Look, I don't want to be negative, but driving with a bomb in my car is safer:

Hydrogen safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sydr]

So,
Battery/petrol alternatives are too heavy, too rare earth intensive, have a big "mileage" footprint during manufacture and potential issues with recycling
Hydrogen may be dangerous and even though it has a nice, clean zorst with water and heat coming out of the zorst pipe, making it seems to be another case of moving the emission from the zorst to the smoke stack
Battery power also just moves the emission from the zorst to the smoke stack
Maybe I will try my bike? Uh oh, too dangerous in Sydney, too hot in summer, and I'm too old for the hills
So its public transport then? Nah, doesn't work, too sporadic, unreliable and slow even if though I get subsidised concession rate @$2.50 for all day rides on ferry, bus and train.

That proves it doesn't it? I'll stick with my Landy. So should you. Maybe we should start a movement "flip the bird to every Pious that we see"? After all, we know the truth.

[akelly]

Do you have any idea what goes into a hybrid or EV? Do a Google on RARE EARTH MINERALS. Google the uses for platinum and other metals.

Then come and have a look at my farm where foreign (AUSTRALIAN) mining companies are raping the bush not 1000m from my house for minerals.

Go and have a look at countries like Zimbabwe and the Congo where unchecked mining is destroying the ecology.

Catch a wake-up, mate.:mad:

How much of that rare earth is being used in hybrid cars and how much in mobile phones and other battery powered devices?

You may be gilding the lily a little mate.

I'm no fan of mining, I do some work in that industry and I agree 100% that they are destroying some very nice tracts of land. To suggest that this is all due to hybrid cars is a bit silly though, don't you think?

The rape of the planet is exactly the reason we need to invest in these technologies, they will lead to a reduced demand for coal, oil, gas etc... At the moment its all about rare earth, but something will replace that technology, especially if the chinese keep ****ing the US off.

BTW - I don't need to google search for every piece of information I need, I still have books and journals (some are online) you know!

Cheers,

Adam

[akelly]

Look, I don't want to be negative, but driving with a bomb in my car is safer:

Hydrogen safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety)

No it isn't. Please don't drive with a bomb in your car.

[Dougal]

Can we all agree that hydrogen isn't a fuel, only an energy storage medium?

[Blknight.aus]

nope because thats the basic definition of a fuel...

if you want to go that way then LPG, LNG, diesel, ULP, premium, ethanol, av gas, avtur, jet a1-5, jp 5 jp8, and a whole stack of others are no longer fuel they are just an energy storage medium... just like batteries, capacitors, dams, compressed air tanks, the sun......

[foz.in.oz]

Back in the day before the Prius existed, the American motor firms were faced with a problem, Californian polititians wanting to make the cars of the future low emisions. Not to save fuel mind, it was mainly due to the horrible smog that engulfed Los Angeles. One answer to this was the hybrid, drive on fuel (the real stuff like petrol) when in the suburbs, and then when you entered the city you run on your zero emissions electric motor. No more smog, everbodies happy. Unfortunately for the Septic Tanks the Japs beat them to it produced the Prius.
Now to make electrons you need generator, in the Prius case the same engine that drags its sorry arse along the road in the burbs, or you can plug it in to one of those highly ineffiecient power distribution grids. Pound for pound burning fuel close to the wheels is always going to be more efficeint than pumping it 100s of kilometers down electric string.
Unfortunately, the hybrid design scenario has been peverted by the press and car salespeople into trying to get you to beleive they are an overall environmental gain when they are clearly not. Selling cars makes money. If you want to use less fuel, get a light small car with a modern diesel. If you want to do all the things normal people do light off road driving and towing get a Land Rover.

[akelly]

Back in the day before the Prius existed, the American motor firms were faced with a problem, Californian polititians wanting to make the cars of the future low emisions. Not to save fuel mind, it was mainly due to the horrible smog that engulfed Los Angeles. One answer to this was the hybrid, drive on fuel (the real stuff like petrol) when in the suburbs, and then when you entered the city you run on your zero emissions electric motor. No more smog, everbodies happy. Unfortunately for the Septic Tanks the Japs beat them to it produced the Prius.
Now to make electrons you need generator, in the Prius case the same engine that drags its sorry arse along the road in the burbs, or you can plug it in to one of those highly ineffiecient power distribution grids. Pound for pound burning fuel close to the wheels is always going to be more efficeint than pumping it 100s of kilometers down electric string.
Unfortunately, the hybrid design scenario has been peverted by the press and car salespeople into trying to get you to beleive they are an overall environmental gain when they are clearly not. Selling cars makes money. If you want to use less fuel, get a light small car with a modern diesel. If you want to do all the things normal people do light off road driving and towing get a Land Rover.

I agree with you Foz; my point is that eventually we will need to find something other than dino-juice to power our cars. It might not be electricity, it might not be hydrogen, it might be something new... Either way, oil is going to be too expensive to burn in a car some day - hard to say when...

It would be nice to know that the hard-yards of research, development and real world testing had been done on the options BEFORE we hit peak oil.

For me the primary issue is one of energy security. I'm not keen to be part of the generation that forced the planet into conflict based on finding, winning and holding energy resources.

Cheers,

Adam

[Dougal]

nope because thats the basic definition of a fuel...

if you want to go that way then LPG, LNG, diesel, ULP, premium, ethanol, av gas, avtur, jet a1-5, jp 5 jp8, and a whole stack of others are no longer fuel they are just an energy storage medium... just like batteries, capacitors, dams, compressed air tanks, the sun......

Shorten the time-frame of energy storage to our lifetimes and get back to us.;)

[jakeslouw]

I'm not keen to be part of the generation that forced the planet into conflict based on finding, winning and holding energy resources.

Cheers,

Adam

It will happen anyway, whether for oil, food or water.

Resources have been the primary reason behind every single conflict over the past 100 years, and if you look at history, it's usually the desire for resources that fuels EVERY war. Very seldom do you get a war started for purely altruistic motives.

[Dougal]

It will happen anyway, whether for oil, food or water.

Resources have been the primary reason behind every single conflict over the past 100 years, and if you look at history, it's usually the desire for resources that fuels EVERY war. Very seldom do you get a war started for purely altruistic motives.

Well said.

Every war (including the current ones) are about resources.

[Dougal]

<snip>
Now to make electrons you need generator, in the Prius case the same engine that drags its sorry arse along the road in the burbs, or you can plug it in to one of those highly ineffiecient power distribution grids.

The Prius is not a plug in vehicle. Every joule of power burned comes from petrol.
You might know this already, but it isn't clear from the way you have worded your post.

[Blknight.aus]

The Prius is not a plug in vehicle. Every joule of power burned comes from petrol.
You might know this already, but it isn't clear from the way you have worded your post.

Or regen braking...

I thought the second gen prius had a plug in "battery care" unit... not intended as a primary recharge source but still little more than a glorified lightweight battery charger.

[akelly]

It will happen anyway, whether for oil, food or water.

Resources have been the primary reason behind every single conflict over the past 100 years, and if you look at history, it's usually the desire for resources that fuels EVERY war. Very seldom do you get a war started for purely altruistic motives.

Where did you learn history? The idea that a single issue is responsible for all wars is utter claptrap.

Let me prove you wrong with one example - Afghanistan. What resource drove the US and it's coalition there? ****ed dirt that grows nothing but opium? Raggedy goats? High quality hand-made rugs?

You may want to recheck your google history search mate.

[akelly]

Well said.

Every war (including the current ones) are about resources.

Afghanistan. Again.

Where are you blokes learning history?

[akelly]

Shorten the time-frame of energy storage to our lifetimes and get back to us.;)

That wasn't what you asked of everyone. You wanted us to concede that hydrogen is not a fuel - the implication being that a fuel and an energy storing medium are different things. They are not.

Keep googling though, you'll get there... champ.

;)

[jakeslouw]

Where did you learn history? The idea that a single issue is responsible for all wars is utter claptrap.

Let me prove you wrong with one example - Afghanistan. What resource drove the US and it's coalition there? ****ed dirt that grows nothing but opium? Raggedy goats? High quality hand-made rugs?

You may want to recheck your google history search mate.

WHAT part of "very seldom" didn't you understand?

And Afghanistan isn't a war in the traditional sense, it's a CIVIL WAR with the US taking sides to try and eliminate the Taliban. This is directly applicable to their stance after 9/11.

War is when both sides declare a conflict.

[101RRS]

And Afghanistan isn't a war in the traditional sense, it's a CIVIL WAR with the US taking sides to try and eliminate the Taliban.

Well not quite - like it or not the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan and the country was invaded by the US - very shortly after, handed over to Nato.

Nato forces have then set up a puppet government that has since been legitimised through dodgy elections (they probably did not need to be dodgy). Really in many aspects not dissimilar to the background politics of the Vietnam conflict.

However while all this is all and good - it really does not have a lot to do with the actual topic of whether a old banger RR is more environmentally proper than a Prius.

Garry

[Sydr]

Well not quite - like it or not the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan and the country was invaded by the US - very shortly after, handed over to Nato.

Nato forces have then set up a puppet government that has since been legitimised through dodgy elections (they probably did not need to be dodgy). Really in many aspects not dissimilar to the background politics of the Vietnam conflict.

However while all this is all and good - it really does not have a lot to do with the actual topic of whether a old banger RR is more environmentally proper than a Prius.

Garry

Thank you for getting the thread drift back on line. Now, it was a Kulchoor shock to think of my Rangie as "an OLD BANGER".

I thought a banger was a pork sausage?

[akelly]

WHAT part of "very seldom" didn't you understand?

And Afghanistan isn't a war in the traditional sense, it's a CIVIL WAR with the US taking sides to try and eliminate the Taliban. This is directly applicable to their stance after 9/11.

War is when both sides declare a conflict.

I didn't understand the part where you said 'it's usually the desire for resources that fuels EVERY war' - make up your mind, is it every war or just some? Perhaps you could list the wars that have been fought over energy resources and we can compare to the ones that have not?

And BTW - if you want to claim Afghanistan is not a war, you better back that up. Lots of US, Brit and Aussie soldiers will argue pretty convincingly that you have no ****ing idea.

[bee utey]

Where did you learn history? The idea that a single issue is responsible for all wars is utter claptrap.

Let me prove you wrong with one example - Afghanistan. What resource drove the US and it's coalition there? ****ed dirt that grows nothing but opium? Raggedy goats? High quality hand-made rugs?

You may want to recheck your google history search mate.

Rare minerals is indeed one of the reasons the US stays in Afghanistan, China controls too much of the supply, the US want to build more defence and battery technology.

Google search:

Mining in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USGS Projects in Afghanistan (http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov/minerals)


The assessment revealed that Afghanistan has abundant non-fuel mineral resources, including both known and potential deposits of a wide variety of minerals ranging from copper, iron, and sulfur to bauxite, lithium, and rare-earth elements.

[JDNSW]

A few comments on this thread.

Firstly, the lifetime footprint of any vehicle is very dependent on the assumptions you make on all sorts of factors - length of life, recycling, type of use etc, to the extent that by picking the right figures you can get any answer you want.

While the Prius sounds good on the face of it, as noted by several above, once you get out of city traffic, many vehicles give better fuel economy at a much lower initial cost. And most of the current crop of small diesel cars give better economy in all conditions at around half the cost, while providing as much room and carrying capacity.

The problem with hybrid cars is not only the extra weight carried, but that the charge/discharge efficiency of any practical battery is little better than 80% (and often lower). To some extent this is balanced by the ability to use regenerative braking, but in the end, the gains from a hybrid system are very small, except in very bad stop/start traffic. And even here, automatically stopping and restarting the engine, as is coming into use in some cars with conventional transmission, is nearly as good.

Pure electric cars have been around for well over 100 years, and still suffer the same problems - cost, range, performance, energy efficiency and recharge times - as they did then. While battery technology has improved, it has not come close to advancing as much as have expectations for performance. And electric cars recharged off the grid as it exists today probably have as high a footprint as a conventional car - power generation in Australia is almost all from fossil fuel, using a generator that is about as efficient as a modern diesel at best - factor in the losses in the power distribution network losses and the charge/discharge efficiency of the EV, and the only reason that the footprint of the electric vehicle looks good is the extreme design measures that had to be used to get halfway acceptable performance and range (which if implemented in a conventional vehicle would greatly improve economy). Despite this, I think electric vehicles could well have a future as city cars, but for their success, the fixed costs of ownership need to be reduced to encourage the ownership of special purpose vehicles. It should also be noted that one of the advantages of EVs is long life (except batteries) and low maintenance (except batteries).

The problem with hydrogen fuel, as noted, is that it has to be produced somehow, and then distributed. If produced from a primary energy source, such as electricity from wind/solar, there is a significant loss (and using it in an EV would be more efficient), and if produced from a fossil fuel, this loss is greater, and using the fossil fuel directly would be more efficient. The only advantage of hydrogen as a fuel is zero emissions at point of use. The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it is very hard (read = expensive) to handle. Almost everything is permeable to it if it is under pressure (and if not it its energy density is very low), so it almost always leaks to some extent. This loses efficiency, but worse, it is flammable over a very wide range of concentrations. Liquefying it is suggested as a way of avoiding these problems - but it boils about twenty degrees above absolute zero, and operating at these temperatures brings a whole range of new problems, apart from the loss of efficiency. And it still leaks through almost everything.

And on the subject of "do the research now while we have time". While this seems to be an admirable objective, unfortunately the economic reality is that doing research before it can be economically used is very difficult to justify, especially in a high interest environment. It is all very well to say the government should fund this, but perhaps the funds could be better used elsewhere, for example in improving public transport.

John

[Dougal]

That wasn't what you asked of everyone. You wanted us to concede that hydrogen is not a fuel - the implication being that a fuel and an energy storing medium are different things. They are not.

Keep googling though, you'll get there... champ.

;)

A fuel already has energy stored in it, ready to be released.
An energy storage medium (like a battery) needs energy added to it first, a decent chunk of that energy is lost, we cannot extract all of it.

Hydrogen does not exist as a fuel. We make it primarily by using electrical energy to split it from water. When it is finally consumed (be it fuel cell or fire) you get back a lot less energy than it took to produce.
Hence it is an energy storage medium.

In contrast oil and coal are fuels, we dig them up and they burn

Yes Afghanistan is also about resources. But also stabilising a region with other resources.

[Dougal]

Or regen braking...

I thought the second gen prius had a plug in "battery care" unit... not intended as a primary recharge source but still little more than a glorified lightweight battery charger.

The energy recaptured in regenerative braking, came from the fuel tank. There are aftermarket plug-in conversions for the prius, they fit a much bigger battery to go with it.

If anyone wants to build an electric vehicle, I know some people currently scrapping 3 electric forklifts. Hydraulics are spoken for, steel will be cashed out for scrap, electrics still need a home.

[akelly]

Rare minerals is indeed one of the reasons the US stays in Afghanistan, China controls too much of the supply, the US want to build more defence and battery technology.

Google search:

Mining in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan)

USGS Projects in Afghanistan (http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov/minerals)

This still doesn't prove your point. You claimed all wars were about resources. The US (and others) did not go into Afghanistan (or Vietnam) because of resources - this is a fact. Unless you're going to post up something that supports what you actually typed, either admit you got it wrong (you can do that without posting) or at the very least read a book. I'm well sick of wiki-research nonsense.

[vnx205]

... .... ...
And even here, automatically stopping and restarting the engine, as is coming into use in some cars with conventional transmission, is nearly as good.



I realise that there are benefits in not having the engine running while the car is sitting still, but I have often wondered how significant the disadvantages are.

How long does it take for the power drained from the battery on each start to be replaced?

How much extra fuel is used because the alternator is working hard more often?

How likely is that that someone whose regular driving involves a lot of stop/start driving early in the trip before the engine warms up will have to replace the battery much sooner?

Has there been a significant increase in the number of drivers stranded at the traffic lights with a flat battery?

Perhaps all those things are so insignificant that they can be ignored, but I haven't seen them discussed elsewhere.

[akelly]

Yes Afghanistan is also about resources. But also stabilising a region with other resources.

NO IT ISN'T! It's about the refusal of the Taliban Govt to hand over UBL and Co. Where are you getting your info?

[Dougal]

I realise that there are benefits in not having the engine running while the car is sitting still, but I have often wondered how significant the disadvantages are.

It can be a decent saving on a petrol, because the engine is throttled, pumping losses at idle are quite high (several kw) and fuel consumption is quite high as a result. An idling diesel however uses very little fuel.

2.0tdi idling, around 1 litre per hour.
4.0L falcon idling, around 4 litres per hour.

[bee utey]

This still doesn't prove your point. You claimed all wars were about resources. The US (and others) did not go into Afghanistan (or Vietnam) because of resources - this is a fact. Unless you're going to post up something that supports what you actually typed, either admit you got it wrong (you can do that without posting) or at the very least read a book. I'm well sick of wiki-research nonsense.

Beg pardon for claiming anything? It's not me claiming reasons for going to war. Wiki research nonsense? USGS is not wiki. Calm down lad and read the link.

[JDNSW]

I realise that there are benefits in not having the engine running while the car is sitting still, but I have often wondered how significant the disadvantages are.

How long does it take for the power drained from the battery on each start to be replaced?

How much extra fuel is used because the alternator is working hard more often?

How likely is that that someone whose regular driving involves a lot of stop/start driving early in the trip before the engine warms up will have to replace the battery much sooner?

Has there been a significant increase in the number of drivers stranded at the traffic lights with a flat battery?

Perhaps all those things are so insignificant that they can be ignored, but I haven't seen them discussed elsewhere.

I have seen nothing on this either, but I suspect the problems are largely resolved by having an intelligent controller that does not switch the engine off until it is warm, nor if the battery voltage has not recovered.

The starting energy once warm, for a small modern engine, either petrol or diesel, will not be very great, as they will start, for a diesel, on the first compression, and for a petrol engine almost as fast. Particularly with the modern tendency to fit very large alternators because of high loads, recharging will be pretty quick. I would not be surprised if vehicles that have this feature use a larger battery, not so much for the starting, but for all the other junk that is draining the battery while the engine is stopped (computer, lights, entertainment system, seat heater, demisters, fans, window winders, door locks, security system, etc, etc!).

John

[vnx205]

... .... ....
I would not be surprised if vehicles that have this feature use a larger battery, not so much for the starting, but for all the other junk that is draining the battery while the engine is stopped (computer, lights, entertainment system, seat heater, demisters, fans, window winders, door locks, security system, etc, etc!).

John

I hadn't thought about all the extra demands on the battery in modern vehicles. I suppose the sort of vehicles that would have the stop/start technology would also have LED lights. I would expect that would save an enormous amount of power.

[akelly]

<snip>
And on the subject of "do the research now while we have time". While this seems to be an admirable objective, unfortunately the economic reality is that doing research before it can be economically used is very difficult to justify, especially in a high interest environment. It is all very well to say the government should fund this, but perhaps the funds could be better used elsewhere, for example in improving public transport.

John

Hi John,

The beauty of a commercially available research platform (like the current hybrids and EVs) is that the government is not paying for the research - consumers are. That's why we should be encouraging new vehicle sales towards alternative energy sources but using economic enticements. Thats where the 'cash for clunkers' concept failed - although getting old ****heaps off the road is a great idea, people could still use that programme to buy giant V6 sedans. Perhaps a similar scheme but pushing towards low emission TD and hybrid vehicles would be a better idea. The problem with that, of course, is the local auto industry are addicted to giant ****boxes no one wants (hence why they are going broke).

I agree with your points re: the current performance of EVs and hybrids, that has been my position all along. My point is that we have to start somewhere - it could argued that by releasing the Prius, toyota has spurred on other manufacturers to produce much lower emission vehicles like the small diesels from VW etc... It could also be argued that this would have happended anyway - rising fuel prices will push technology improvements etc...

The guts of my argument is that without someone to lead the way we would still be driving giant V8 and straight six sedans with rubber floor mats in this country. Any attempt to push our energy use away from oil and onto more sustainable options has to be worth some effort.

I did make the point much earlier that I agree keeping your current car, maintaining it and trying to keep the miles down to a practical minimum is a great way to behave.

I'm surprised how unpopular my viewpoint is with some forum members. Most seem like rational people but seem to reject rational behaviour when it comes to technology and vehicles. Perhaps evidence that Australia is actually on its way to becoming the 'poor white trash of Asia'?

I'm enjoying the debate though. Thanks everyone!

Cheers,

Adam

[bee utey]

A step towards the "greening" of the Prius, recycling the batteries.:

Recycling rare earth metals from batteries | Australian Battery Recycling Initiative (http://www.batteryrecycling.org.au/recycling-rare-earth-metals-from-batteries)

Toyota Announces Recycling Facilities For Hybrid NiMH Batteries | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World (http://inhabitat.com/toyota-announces-recycling-facilities-for-hybrid-nimh-batteries/)

http://www.toyota.com/upcoming-vehicles/prius-plug-in/technology.html

[vnx205]

The beauty of a commercially available research platform (like the current hybrids and EVs) is that the government is not paying for the research - consumers are.
I believe that in the case of the Prius, the cost is being shared between Toyota and consumers. I think the first Prius model was sold for less than the cost of production and I think that is still the case. The idea was to get a few out there to generate interest and demand.
That's why we should be encouraging new vehicle sales towards alternative energy sources but using economic enticements. Thats where the 'cash for clunkers' concept failed - although getting old ****heaps off the road is a great idea, people could still use that programme to buy giant V6 sedans. Perhaps a similar scheme but pushing towards low emission TD and hybrid vehicles would be a better idea. The problem with that, of course, is the local auto industry are addicted to giant ****boxes no one wants (hence why they are going broke).
I thought that a more important reason that "cash for clunkers" won't work is that most people who drive clunkers do so because they can't afford anything newer. The gap between the cash subsidy and the new car price is far too great for most "clunker" owners.

I'm enjoying the debate though. Thanks everyone!

Cheers,

Adam

I think I agree with a great deal of your argument. I know I am in the minority in arguing, as I have done, that the Prius has largely served the purpose for which it was originally built. As I have said, it was not intended to be the final solution. It was designed to be a type of research platform. I believe it has been successful in that role.

[JDNSW]

Hi John,

The beauty of a commercially available research platform (like the current hybrids and EVs) is that the government is not paying for the research - consumers are. That's why we should be encouraging new vehicle sales towards alternative energy sources but using economic enticements. Thats where the 'cash for clunkers' concept failed - although getting old ****heaps off the road is a great idea, people could still use that programme to buy giant V6 sedans. Perhaps a similar scheme but pushing towards low emission TD and hybrid vehicles would be a better idea. The problem with that, of course, is the local auto industry are addicted to giant ****boxes no one wants (hence why they are going broke).

I agree with your points re: the current performance of EVs and hybrids, that has been my position all along. My point is that we have to start somewhere - it could argued that by releasing the Prius, toyota has spurred on other manufacturers to produce much lower emission vehicles like the small diesels from VW etc... It could also be argued that this would have happended anyway - rising fuel prices will push technology improvements etc...

Fuel economy, particularly in the small diesels, is driven primarily by the price of fuel, especially in Europe. And it is quite clear that rising fuel prices, no matter how politically unpopular, are quite clearly the most effective driver of technology for fuel economy.




The guts of my argument is that without someone to lead the way we would still be driving giant V8 and straight six sedans with rubber floor mats in this country. Any attempt to push our energy use away from oil and onto more sustainable options has to be worth some effort.

Perhaps I should point out that I have never owned a six or a V8 (nor have most of my family, for that matter) in over fifty years of ownership. And there is a lot to be said for rubber floor mats, especially when you have to paddle through the mud to open the gates on the way home! I have to seriously question the worth of efforts to push energy use away from oil beyond the increase in price as demand exceeds supply. Such efforts are likely to be futile and expensive. Since most of Australia's emissions come from burning coal and exporting coal, it seems to me that this is a much more useful target for efforts and funds.


I did make the point much earlier that I agree keeping your current car, maintaining it and trying to keep the miles down to a practical minimum is a great way to behave.

I'm surprised how unpopular my viewpoint is with some forum members. Most seem like rational people but seem to reject rational behaviour when it comes to technology and vehicles. Perhaps evidence that Australia is actually on its way to becoming the 'poor white trash of Asia'?

I'm enjoying the debate though. Thanks everyone!

Cheers,

Adam

What you need to realise, is that a lot of forum members either live or travel extensively away from the major cities. And unless you live in a major city, and restrict your travel to close to these or a few major highways, most recent automotive technology has little to offer, while becoming unmaintainable and unrepairable in the absence of a nearby dealer. (An example is the information supplied by Diana pointing out that in this area the Prius gave worse fuel economy than any of the other cars in the fleet.) Almost all current automotive design is aimed squarely at the densely populated areas centred on London, Paris, Berlin, Detroit, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing - they are not designed for areas with the sort of population density of 95% of Australia, where the nearest dealer might be a day's drive away, and rather than stop/start being the order of the day, more common are the signs pleading with drivers to take a break every two hours.

I think that this explains the attraction of older technology for many forum members.

John

[Dougal]

it could argued that by releasing the Prius, toyota has spurred on other manufacturers to produce much lower emission vehicles like the small diesels from VW etc... It could also be argued that this would have happended anyway - rising fuel prices will push technology improvements etc...

That would not be a valid argument. Diesel VW's getting great fuel economy were around a good 20 years before the prius.

The VW golf td engine was produced in the mid 70's, the prius in the late 90's.
An SAE paper produced by VW engineers in 1977 on the motivations behind the diesel engine development have shown to be a very good prediction of the future diesel passenger vehicle market.
The paper is called "A Diesel for Subcompacts Cars", authors P Hofbauer and K Sator for Volkswagenwerk AG.

[akelly]

That would not be a valid argument. Diesel VW's getting great fuel economy were around a good 20 years before the prius.

The VW golf td engine was produced in the mid 70's, the prius in the late 90's.
An SAE paper produced by VW engineers in 1977 on the motivations behind the diesel engine development have shown to be a very good prediction of the future diesel passenger vehicle market.
The paper is called "A Diesel for Subcompacts Cars", authors P Hofbauer and K Sator for Volkswagenwerk AG.

Yep - except I said lower emission vehicles. Not more economical.

FWIW - although I live in Sydney (not my choice) I travel extensively throughout NSW in my Defender 130 as part of my business (I did almost 10,000km in Jan-Feb). I completely understand the desire for low-tech if you must have reliability and ease of repair.

What I am very pleased with is the fact that car manufacturers are out there giving the alternatives a go, and that consumers are joining them to try and reduce emissions and the reliance on fossil fuels (oil specifically). I want to be driving my landies for many years, and to pass on my IIA to my son - to my way of thinking the best way to do that is to be able to switch them to alternative power plants down-stream when the technology becomes available. Although I'm not directly investing in the new tech, I will be indirectly by taxation etc... and perhaps getting in on the hybrid act if I can ever convince my wife to get out of the Disco!

My views may be a little 'green' for some, fair enough. I may be a little 'left' in my ideas for some, fair enough. After a fair whack of my life in uniform, followed by some exposure to mines and coal power stations I feel entitled to my opinions. What I am not is ignorant, uneducated on the issues or driven by ideology - not saying anyone else is either, we just have different POVs.

Cheers,

Adam

[Casper]

I want to be driving my landies for many years, and to pass on my IIA to my son

Easy, Bio Diesel, don't have to change a thing and will still be cleaner than a Prius.

As Adam said before a Prius is a stepping stone but just not a good one.

There are several different types of Hybrid fuelled cars,

1. Electric/Petrol (Prius) where is electric drive with a petrol engine back up, which is all good until the batteries are low or you need to go faster than 75k's then you just have an underpowered heavy weight small car.

2. Plug in electric/petrol which is a bit better, much the same but you can take advantage of plugging it in and charging off the grid to lessen the reliance on the petrol engine.

3. Diesel or Petrol/Electric which is where it has a small just powerful enough conventional engine which is running all the time as per normal but through a gen set and electric motor as the transmission.
They also have a smaller battery pack which can provide extra power for climbing hills, fast acceleration or over taking and they provide amazing economy on long distance runs but like normal cars lose it a bit in traffic.
The Honda version of this had a stop start device and the battery pack started the car rolling and then once at a certain speed cut in the engine which worked very well.
The latest Honda Civic Hybrid I think is similar to this but I'm not sure.

4. Duel Fuel, Gas/Petrol, a lot of us run it and it works very well, there are some brilliant systems available these days, some people don't think they are a Hybrid system but by definition they are.

There have been Diesel/Steam Hybrids, Electric/Air Hybrids, HHO/Petrol(Diesel) Hybrids (not the make your own HHO on board types as we know THEY DON"T WORK Please don't start in this thread about that) and probably many others that I have missed but I'm talking more commercially available here.

The thing about Prius the car is that there is only a few niggling problems with the whole package, e.g.Battery Life, not plug in, the enviromental foot print of building them and the fact that the fireys need hasmat gear if ones in a crash but the worsed thing about them by far is that I'm yet to meet the owner of one that I don't want to punch.

The owners seem to think that they are something special because they paid way too much for way less of a car than what the rest of us have.

The ones I have met have been self centred arrogant tossers who like nothing more than putting other down.

So far I have refrained from punching them in the face but I did get very tempted to run one of them off the road one day when in traffic they persisted in sitting between 2 lanes and were swerving about stopping others from passing while they left 1/2km in front of them Grrrrrrr.

I like Electric vehicles of all types, I'm actually helping out designing an electric tractor at the moment and have worked with several manufactures in the past with Electric turf equipment development so I understand that is where we are heading.

Just one thing though people, just because you drive electric doesn't mean you need to bee a D%$K.

Cheers Casper

[Dougal]

Yep - except I said lower emission vehicles. Not more economical.

The biggest single emission is CO2. Which is simply fuel economy expressed another way.

If you would like to disregard CO2 (as US emissions labels do) then you can drive an ultra low emissions vehicle powered by a 6 litre V8 which gets single digit mpg. I don't believe emissions and consumption can be divorced like that.

[akelly]

The biggest single emission is CO2. Which is simply fuel economy expressed another way.

If you would like to disregard CO2 (as US emissions labels do) then you can drive an ultra low emissions vehicle powered by a 6 litre V8 which gets single digit mpg. I don't believe emissions and consumption can be divorced like that.

I think Nitrogen is the largest amount (by %) of exhaust gases - I could be wrong though, I'm not a guru on these things.

You can keep your ideas about what is an appropriate path for technology - you obviously don't have an interest in what is possibe - that's fine. I'm not here to change your mind, I put my position forward. I want to have a series land rover powered by a clean electricity drop-in power plant. I'm odds-on to get that within 20 years and that suits me fine.

Your desire to keep burning oil, regardless of cost, until it runs out then look for a solution may not have as happy an outcome, I'm afraid.

Cheers,

Adam

[Dougal]

I think Nitrogen is the largest amount (by %) of exhaust gases - I could be wrong though, I'm not a guru on these things.

Indeed no guru.
Nitrogen passes through the engine, it's not produced by the engine so isn't an emission.


You can keep your ideas about what is an appropriate path for technology - you obviously don't have an interest in what is possibe - that's fine. I'm not here to change your mind, I put my position forward. I want to have a series land rover powered by a clean electricity drop-in power plant. I'm odds-on to get that within 20 years and that suits me fine.

Your desire to keep burning oil, regardless of cost, until it runs out then look for a solution may not have as happy an outcome, I'm afraid.

Cheers,

Adam

Your electric powered landrover will be running on coal fired power stations. There is not enough renewable electricity generation in Australia to run electric vehicles.

There are only a few sources of energy in the world (well actually only one, the sun).
Here are the intermediate sources:
- Weather (solar, wind, tidal, hydro)
- Geothermal.
- Biomass (wood, algae etc)
- Fossil fuels (prehistoric biomass, oil, coal etc).

Which of these do you think can provide the minimum 20kw you need to move a landrover?

I don't have desire to keep burning oil, I have a desire to minimise the amount of oil I burn. I do this through owning vehicles with the most efficient engines on the planet (direct injection diesels).

Your ideas aren't green at all. Simply green-washed. Like the prius (oh look our company is reducing it's footprint) and these hydrogen powered research vehicles which are also running on power generated from burning coal.

You keep dreaming and trying to make yourself feel good. I and the other engineers will work on the real solutions.

[akelly]

Indeed no guru.
Nitrogen passes through the engine, it's not produced by the engine so isn't an emission.



Your electric powered landrover will be running on coal fired power stations. There is not enough renewable electricity generation in Australia to run electric vehicles.

There are only a few sources of energy in the world (well actually only one, the sun).
Here are the intermediate sources:
- Weather (solar, wind, tidal, hydro)
- Geothermal.
- Biomass (wood, algae etc)
- Fossil fuels (prehistoric biomass, oil, coal etc).

Which of these do you think can provide the minimum 20kw you need to move a landrover?

I don't have desire to keep burning oil, I have a desire to minimise the amount of oil I burn. I do this through owning vehicles with the most efficient engines on the planet (direct injection diesels).

Your ideas aren't green at all. Simply green-washed. Like the prius (oh look our company is reducing it's footprint) and these hydrogen powered research vehicles which are also running on power generated from burning coal.

You keep dreaming and trying to make yourself feel good. I and the other engineers will work on the real solutions.

Crack on hero. A breathless nation awaits. I'm an engineer too, although obviously far inferior to your far-sighted genius.

You've ignored every point I've made about not focusing on present capabilities - you must be one hell of an engineer.

[nobbyclrk]

I can't help reading this thread and noticing alot of disinformation, in fact most of the figures are incorrect.
The Prius arrangement is actually an impressive piece of engineering compared to other electric hybrid systems. It has a reasonable power output and very good fuel consumption figures. It's a parallel hybrid unlike the the Honda which is a seris hybrid (unless they have changed in very recent years). Which is why many manufacturers have adopted the Prius technology.

A lot of posts on this thread are written with hear say. Voltages, safety, performance, plug in or not plug in, etc. It gets very confusing while fogging the truth.
But heres one interesting figure is it takes 500Kg of batterys to store the same amount of power as 5L of fuel. That does make you think. But this is only a embryotic technology and in its very early days. So expect some big changes.

Casper your post has so many inconsistances after three attempts to correct them I gave up.

[Casper]

I can't help reading this thread and noticing alot of disinformation, in fact most of the figures are incorrect.
The Prius arrangement is actually an impressive piece of engineering compared to other electric hybrid systems. It has a reasonable power output and very good fuel consumption figures. It's a parallel hybrid unlike the the Honda which is a seris hybrid (unless they have changed in very recent years). Which is why many manufacturers have adopted the Prius technology.

A lot of posts on this thread are written with hear say. Voltages, safety, performance, plug in or not plug in, etc. It gets very confusing while fogging the truth.
But heres one interesting figure is it takes 500Kg of batterys to store the same amount of power as 5L of fuel. That does make you think. But this is only a embryotic technology and in its very early days. So expect some big changes.

Casper your post has so many inconsistances after three attempts to correct them I gave up.



So is that 500kg of Lead acid, Calcium, Deep cycle, Lithium Ion for that amount of storage?

Specs
Mass: 83 lb (37.5 kg)
Dimensions: 33 x 15 x 7.5"
Nominal Voltage: 201.6 V
Nominal Capacity : 6.5Ah
Module weight: 1040 g
Module Form Factor: Prismatic
No of Modules: 28
Total no of Cells: 168
Module specs: http://www.peve.jp/e/hevjyusi.htm

What voltage queries were there? Has that answered your questions?

http://www.evworld.com/library/prius_fire_forensics.pdf
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2009/11/new-vehicle-extrication.html
Not to mention them taking off on there own and not decelerating when needed even when depressing the brake.

Safety is very much in question

Performance is one of those grey areas where it's always a compromise between economy and out right performance, no doubt they are zippy little buggers but they are rarely driven like that due to when they are driven like that you may as well own a Commodore or Falcon.

Why would you spend $39,490 to $57,060 on a small uncomfortable car just to get 8 to 10 ltr/100kms so I don't believe performance really comes into this discussion.

You can get around 3.9 to 4.0 ltr/100kms average from a prius where our old Carolla used to return 6/100kms most of the time around town for $12,000.

Other than I have just been reading about the US PHEV which is a plug in Prius, but from what I can find we don't get it in Oz.

Feel free to PM me with all the inconsistencies, we can discuss them away from the forum so not to be getting away from what the thread is really about while slinging insults at each other.

If your going to throw mud buddy, put up your argument not just a wise crack.

It is a very technical subject and one which I have had a little to do with and one which I've been working on in very recent years with some of the most up to date INDUSTRIAL equipment.

The Prius is not cutting edge nor is it all that clever, the first was rushed into production to try and be the first and the didn't make it, Honda beat them by a year and they are still working out the bugs each series that comes out.

The Prius is a stepping stone and has pushed electronics and electrical storage to a more affordable level but it is not the be all and end all and has a larger carbon foot print than an F150 Raptor brand new and has less recyclable parts (at the moment) for when it reaches end of use.

In between building it and end of use, one to one on average use for that type of car it SHOULD use less fuel but that is not a given, it SHOULDN'T produce as many green house gasses but again that's not a given.

If it were a fleet of each your talking about of maybe 30 or so then there would be a definite difference but I know for a fact and you can get the numbers to prove it easily enough that the Subaru Liberty over a 3 year period costs significantly less to own and run in fleet operations in mostly suburban use than the Prius.

This study was done in conjunction with the Shire of Casey about 4 years ago.

The report was published in the local paper so shouldn't be too hard to track down if your really that interested.

I take it you must own a Prius then?

By the way, this is a pretty good article lol

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/01/piston-slap-long-term-ramifications-of-prius-abuse/

I think that just about covers it, sorry for the edits folks, just added stuff didn't take anything out.

Cheers Casper

[nobbyclrk]

So is that 500kg of Lead acid, Calcium, Deep cycle, Lithium Ion for that amount of storage?

Try again. 500Kg's of Hybrid battery as used by Toyota, Lexus, Ford, Honda and probably others.

Specs
Mass: 83 lb (37.5 kg)
Dimensions: 33 x 15 x 7.5"
Nominal Voltage: 201.6 V
Nominal Capacity : 6.5Ah
Module weight: 1040 g
Module Form Factor: Prismatic
No of Modules: 28
Total no of Cells: 168
Module specs: http://www.peve.jp/e/hevjyusi.htm (http://www.peve.jp/e/hevjyusi.htm)

Thanks for the specs but your link appears to be broken. But I think thats for the Gen II Prius, is it not?

What voltage queries were there? Has that answered your questions?

I thought I brushed past a thread mentioning 120Volts. It's not the point. The point is what could be an informative or constuctive thread is turned into a thread no use to anyone who would like to learn due to the amount of in-correct information in it.

http://www.evworld.com/library/prius_fire_forensics.pdf (http://www.evworld.com/library/prius_fire_forensics.pdf)
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2009/11/new-vehicle-extrication.html (http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2009/11/new-vehicle-extrication.html)

I only brushed over the lower post. What about the Lexus, Honda?
....But the real scarey bit of that is I saw no mentioning of confirming the HV is safe. I see it mention a bleed down time of ten minutes but I'm pretty sure that is if the bleed down circuit is functioning. Sorry no google link. A big assumption that it has bled down is it not?

Not to mention them taking off on there own and not decelerating when needed even when depressing the brake.

I'd love to read that TSB. But it's not just issues with Toyota. Toyota got the bad press. Ford Australia couldn't even make a brake line long enough and it took along time before that issue was addressed.

Safety is very much in question

Very much so.

Performance is one of those grey areas where it's always a compromise between economy and out right performance, no doubt they are zippy little buggers but they are rarely driven like that due to when they are driven like that you may as well own a Commodore or Falcon.

Why would you spend $39,490 to $57,060 on a small uncomfortable car just to get 8 to 10 ltr/100kms so I don't believe performance really comes into this discussion.

No idea. All about personal choice.

You can get around 3.9 to 4.0 ltr/100kms average from a prius where our old Carolla used to return 6/100kms most of the time around town for $12,000.

Other than I have just been reading about the US PHEV which is a plug in Prius, but from what I can find we don't get it in Oz.

Feel free to PM me with all the inconsistencies, we can discuss them away from the forum so not to be getting away from what the thread is really about while slinging insults at each other.

If your going to throw mud buddy, put up your argument not just a wise crack.

I don't throw mud. I just don't like reading misinformation like you had put up. No need to PM's.

It is a very technical subject and one which I have had a little to do with and one which I've been working on in very recent years with some of the most up to date INDUSTRIAL equipment.



The Prius is not cutting edge nor is it all that clever, the first was rushed into production to try and be the first and the didn't make it, Honda beat them by a year and they are still working out the bugs each series that comes out.

The Prius is a stepping stone and has pushed electronics and electrical storage to a more affordable level but it is not the be all and end all and has a larger carbon foot print than an F150 Raptor brand new and has less recyclable parts (at the moment) for when it reaches end of use.

In between building it and end of use, one to one on average use for that type of car it SHOULD use less fuel but that is not a given, it SHOULDN'T produce as many green house gasses but again that's not a given.

If it were a fleet of each your talking about of maybe 30 or so then there would be a definite difference but I know for a fact and you can get the numbers to prove it easily enough that the Subaru Liberty over a 3 year period costs significantly less to own and run in fleet operations in mostly suburban use than the Prius.

This study was done in conjunction with the Shire of Casey about 4 years ago.

The report was published in the local paper so shouldn't be too hard to track down if your really that interested.

I take it you must own a Prius then?

By the way, this is a pretty good article lol

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/01/piston-slap-long-term-ramifications-of-prius-abuse/ (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/01/piston-slap-long-term-ramifications-of-prius-abuse/)

I think that just about covers it, sorry for the edits folks, just added stuff didn't take anything out.

Cheers Casper

I don't understand the continually comparisons between a Honda and a Prius. They're Chalk and Cheese. In fact Honda only just reaches true hybrid status. There design is completly different. But don't think Honda are not continually trying to fix 'bugs'.

If we all looked at the automobile in the way some look at Hybrids we would all still be on horse back.

I'm not sure what to say about the rest of your post. It's pretty much all your personal opinion. Which is fine. I just like to read factual posts not hearsay. I stand by my earlier post.

And no I don't own a Prius. So you may not need to "refrain from punching me in the face" for that reason.
I just know a little bit about them.

[Casper]

I don't understand the continually comparisons between a Honda and a Prius.

They are both Hybrid.....There you go, Understand that.

They're Chalk and Cheese. In fact Honda only just reaches true hybrid status.Please post where you find the true deffinition of hybrid

There design is completly different. But don't think Honda are not continually trying to fix 'bugs'. I'm sure they are, though they have not had any of the negative publicity the Prius has had.
Regardless of what you think, a Honda is also a true Hybrid and I used it as a reference nothing more

If we all looked at the automobile in the way some look at Hybrids we would all still be on horse back.What's wrong with horse back, was my main transport for years on the farm

I'm not sure what to say about the rest of your post. It's pretty much all your personal opinion.As this is your's Which is fine. I just like to read factual posts not hearsay.You are yet to post a single fact so I think your argument has been answered I stand by my earlier post.Well you would wouldn't you

And no I don't own a Prius. So you may not need to "refrain from punching me in the face" for that reason.
I just know a little bit about them.

Your problem is that you know a little about them and your willing to post up an inflammatory post to try and discredit what I have posted.

I don't get it, are you agreeing that the Prius FOR EXAMPLE does have safety concerns that should really be considered?

As far as weight goes for the battery pack for a Hybrid, 1050g is on that spec sheet but I can't find anything to verify or discredit that on the net so If you have any other info then post it up, I would appreciate it.

As far as EV's go, you can have anything from a single KG to many tonnes of batteries so I'm trying to work out where this 5ookg/5l fuel comes from, that depends on many things,
Vehicle weight,
Drag,
Battery Cell Type
Status of Charge
And the list of variables goes on.

I have posted some sort of proof to what I have posted, I can't post up the attitude of the muppets I have met that own them but like I high lighted in my original post, It was my opinion of "THE ONES I HAD MET".

As far as your opinion of whats a real Hybrid and whats not,

Hybrid, Hy-Brid
Noun: A thing made by combining two different elements; a mixture.
Adjective: Of mixed character; composed of mixed parts.
Webster Dictionary (couldn't find any better).

The term Hybrid refers to Car's, Trains, Machinery, Plants, Chemicals, Plastics, Metals and the list goes on, so you can't say that something is a true Hybrid Vehicle unless it is as stated above or below.

There are many different definitions out there.
I would like to embrace a definition that includes hydraulic drive. I like the definition from centrica.com, as it is simple and does not exclude technologies like hydraulics, springs and water wheels (a diesel driven water pump, pumping water on a water wheel driving the wheels of the vehicle is silly, except for a toy - but you get the point ).
So for now we can use the following definition.
A Hybrid vehicle is:
"A vehicle with more than one power source such as a small internal combustion engine and an electric motor."

Definition of Hybrid Vehicle Technology (http://www.hybrid-vehicle.org/hybrid-vehicle-definition.html)


I'm sure your obviously thinking that you have read the true meaning of a Hybrid somewhere which is really just someone's opinion of what should define a Hybrid but there is the true meaning which has to add cred to my post.

Here is a HYBRID GREENS MOWER (I had a small hand in the testing and evaluation of the Australian model)
Jacobsen Eclipse 322 Riding Greens Mower - Intro - YouTube

Here is Frances first commercial HYBRID TRAIN
Green Technology and Environmental Science News: The World's First Hybrid Train Officially Enters Commercial Service (http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/24048)

Do I need to continue?

Cheers Casper

[clubagreenie]

This still doesn't prove your point. You claimed all wars were about resources. The US (and others) did not go into Afghanistan (or Vietnam) because of resources - this is a fact. Unless you're going to post up something that supports what you actually typed, either admit you got it wrong (you can do that without posting) or at the very least read a book. I'm well sick of wiki-research nonsense.

I thought they went into Vietnam for the baguettes and pho.

And speaking of the earlier mentioned cash for clunkers, notice that Holden got a donation of 250 million from the govt as according to her redheadedness "we were in a very dangerous position of australia not having a holden"

Wonder if I write to her and tell her I'm in a dangerous position of not having a house if she'll cop up the measly 300K I need.