I think that they only do the charging at times when the energy would otherwise be wasted eg when braking. But as you say they also carry extra weight 100% of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrover
Printable View
I think that they only do the charging at times when the energy would otherwise be wasted eg when braking. But as you say they also carry extra weight 100% of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrover
Tried and failed to find a pic of a great sticker that was posted on the Jeep forum...
Anyhoo...the text was something like: "I'm Carbon Positive -Suck It Up!"
Ooops - was that inappropriate? ;)
Mike
It is called "regenerative braking" and it only supplies a couple of percent of the total recharge, 98% of charge comes from the engine/generator so all your really doing is taking out the transmission and replacing it with an electric motor.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoStew
I was meaning with the plug in statement that it would be much more economical IF the prius could also be charged up off the mains so the engine didnt have to be used as much only when extra pep is needed.
At the moment, the only way to fully charge the batteries and make the best use out of them would be on a long trip at moderate speeds where it wouldnt keep flipping back to the petrol engine.
Yes they are in their infancy but there are some bloody clever people working on this but I think that there is really something holding them back as the tech they are using is dino style, e.g. Engine/EMotor/Generator/Batteries, just add some clever little addons like the regen braking and a bit of electrickery control and you have an old school elecky car with a gen set built in and not much more.
Similar to this 1981 Electric Rabbit
The problem with regenerative braking is that none of the currently available batteries can accept anything like the rate of energy transfer implied by even normal braking (it can be and is used pretty fully in electric trams and trains where there is no battery to limit the amount you can use, although the power supply in some systems does limit it).The problem with existing hybrid designs is that their economy can be matched or bettered for less cost with a conventional engine, because these do not have to lug round the batteries. A battery breakthrough (cost, charge rate, charge/discharge efficiency, and energy density) would make hybrids effective, but the same breakthrough would make electric cars look more attractive than hybrids for most uses.
Over twenty five years ago, my brother in the USA owned a VW Rabbit. He kept full fuel records for the life of it, and it averaged 52 miles per US gallon, most of it in city driving with the aircon going full blast. He replaced it with a Jetta Diesel - never gave as much as 40mpg (US), and then had to replace it with a petrol one as they stopped selling the diesel in the US. This was lucky to do 30mpg. So the technology to do a lot better than current caars has been around for many years - fuel economy is simply not a priority with most buyers, although that may be changing. But even the bottom line cars today weigh far more than the 1978 VW Rabbit, and have far higher performance!
John
A friend popped into my office just this week, he works for the Central West Area Health Service out of Dubbo and is complaining about his fuel bills driving his diesel MY03 HiLux back to the family property in the upper Hunter for weekends.
At work he has the option of 3 vehicles, Prius, Toyota Corolla and Ford Focus. Both the Corrolla and the Focus get better fuel economy than the Prius, because they have almost no stop start running.
Word from a local NRMA patrolman is that the earliest Prius are now having to change their battery packs - $6,000 a pack. To get to the average age of 15 years they will need 3 packs. Doesn't make a lot of economic sense when you are paying $500 per year in batteries on top of other running and fuel costs. That is without calculating the environmental cost of the battery packs.
Diana
A recent RACV publication listing running costs showed the Prius and the Honda hybrids to be easily the most expensive cars to run in their class - and since that looked only at about five year ownership, it did not include battery replacement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
John
I get 5l/100km from my prius
200$ fixed servicing costs
Sell at 4years
Cheaper then the dunny door it replaced
The battery is a short term energy sink, that is, Charge while breaking / consume while accelerating
The level of charge in the battery is not critical
This type of battery we can make
The type that is charged over night and discharged by driving, we can't make to meet our driving expectations yet
However electric vehicles are the future
The burning of fossil fuels will stop when they become too expensive to burn
Until then
The Prius for the city
and the series 2 for every where else
Steve
Unfortunately, there are a couple of minor problems with this scenario - almost all electricity in Australia is produced from fossil fuels, and electricity generation represents (from memory) 70% of Australia's CO2 emissions, so changing to electric vehicles will not reduce consumption of fossil fuels or CO2 emissions without a lot of other changes. And costs will not stop coal burning, although emissions concerns may do so - there is no coal shortage in sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by marsonearth
I agree that electric cars will feature large in the future, but for most of Australia, where a range of at least 1000km is essential (or at least 500 if it can be recharged in a few minutes), there is no practical battery technology in sight, so some form of liquid (or gas) fuelled vehicle seems inevitable.
At Mudgee Field day a fortnight ago I saw a company advertising electric conversion of small cars for as little as $18,000. Although they only have a range of around 30km, for many commuters or as a shopping/school run car for mum this would be quite suitable in many cases. This is something available today, but the standing costs of owning a car just for commuting etc make it impractical for most people (registration, insurance, capital costs etc) while they need to have a conventional car for even driving across town - when I visit Melbourne, for example, where my son lives and I have lots of contacts (I lived there for 22 years), it is not at all unusual for me to do 2-300km a day, even though I use public transport when possible. For example, staying in Caroline Springs, I will want to visit friends at Dixon's Creek, Wantirna, Balwyn, Phillip Island. Of these, only Balwyn is feasible using public transport, and the others will all involve a round trip of well over 100km.
John
Yes John
The needs of today are a far cry from what they were 70 years ago
People traveled for weeks not days
The needs of today are going to be a far cry from what they will be 70 years into the future
People again may have to except longer travel times (Depending on on the foresight of our politicians)
An energy mix will be likely but only for the rich or those that can produce their own.
My children will know fuel as something to be savored and respected ( unlike me ) because economic forces will demand this respect.
At this stage the common man will be limited to a 30km round trip
Or public transport
There are many European examples of people not leaving their village in their life time
Economies can still function
European towns are close together because of the necessity of travel (we too may need more towns along routes in the future)
Australia will still prosper for the same reason it has in the past (it is rich in natural resources compared to others) however if our politicians continue to be populist they will leave us clinging to the past rather then embracing the future.
The Prius is a first step down the road to the future
(not perfect but neither was the past)
Yes I agree! coal is going nowhere
Unless the scientists have got it right and global warming produces a change of heart??
Steve
1. 70 years ago most people travelled by train, but much of the infrastructure has been abandoned or dismantled. Since Australia's population is far more urbanised than it was then, it is difficult to see it being replaced. However, I would also point out that, for example, an uncle of mine rode his pushbike from Sydney to Hobart and back (obviously except the water) in 1921. So not everyone was confined to local travel or public transport. Australian towns have always been a long way apart (and Australians have always travelled long distances), but there used to be closely spaced inns on coach routes to provide changes of horses, and something like this is possible in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by marsonearth
2. I would be surprised if fuel costs will limit people in the way you suggest - certainly likely to reduce travel, but not to that extent. The point is, as fuel gets more expensive, more alternatives become economically practical.
3. The Prius may be a first step, although I am very doubtful whether it is the road to the future - as pointed out in earlier posts, it is only an improvement on normal types of cars in an urban environment where public transport or all electric are the future, and at present is not economically sensible for most uses.
What most people are not prepared to even think about, let alone discuss, is that the basic problem with the greenhouse emissions is that there are far too many people in the world. At least, despite the urging of politicians through the years, Australia has still got a relatively modest population, and hence is a minor greenhouse contributor - although I have seen it suggested that our population is around double what is really sustainable on the long term. And the real crunch in Australia is water, not carbon emissions.
John