Thread: Hybrid Discovery Unlikely - but it's coming

New RRS hybrid cited as 0-100 in 6.9 fuel economy sub 7l/100

Remember the top gear show where the stig took a Prius around the track,and then a V8 BMW.

Well you can guess which used less fuel,and no its wasn't the toyota.

Originally Posted by scarry

Remember the top gear show where the stig took a Prius around the track,and then a V8 BMW.

Well you can guess which used less fuel,and no its wasn't the toyota.

That is close to what happened.

They drove a Prius absolutely flat out around their track and followed immediately behind in a V8 BMW.

You are right about the fuel consumption. However the Top Gear crew weren't simply rubbishing the Prius. What they were trying to demonstrate is that how you drive makes a lot of difference to the fuel consumption. So if a Prius has to be continuously driven flat out (to avoid being run over by a V8 BMW), it is not going to be very efficient. It is not intended to be used like that.

What they proved is what I have been saying; that different vehicles are suited to different applications. There are circumstances in which a hybrids or electric cars shine and there are circumstances in which they are at a distinct disadvantage. Driving a hybrid at constant highway speed doesn't allow it to make use of any of its potential benefits.

I can't imagine what possessed the Greater Western Child Health Network to buy a Prius. Given the distances the vehicle would have to travel, that part of NSW would have to be just about the worst possible environment in Australia for a hybrid. If they had only ever used it within Dubbo and never left the city limits, they might have seen some benefit.

From comments I have seen about the Top Gear episode on a number of forums, it seems that most people forget what it was that TG was trying to prove. In spite of the hard time they repeatedly give the Prius, they were not trying to prove that it was rubbish. They were just trying to demonstrate that for some applications it is rubbish. However the same could be said of almost any vehicle.

Each NSW government department was allocated a number of Prius.
I suggested to the Director General of DPI that he replace his Statesman which travelled in Sydney with a Prius as an example.
I was greeted by stony silence.
I found one at Port Stevens Fisheries Research Station being driven flat out everywhere and they all hated it and tried to kill it.

I think generally they were placed as far from head office executives as possible.

It would have been ideal for the DG around Sydney except it was a bit small.
So much for government green initiatives.
Regards Philip A

I run a business as a 'sustainability consultant' and have for 11 years now. Predominately this is for the building industry as I was trained as an architect, but also provide 'lifestyle consulting' for lack of a better term.


For myself, I drive a D4, I go bush in it, I tow with it etc etc. For the purpose of which I use it, it is generally sustainable - sure there could be better ones, and also worse one. I also work from home, so some runs are too short to be efficient. (BTW, the wifes car is a forester but we've never owned a Volvo or Honda) Would I buy a hybrid or electric - no, not yet.


A current hybrid model or electric model won't let me go bush or tow, but would be good for the around town runs, meetings etc; for those short runs. But for my overall usage patterns it would be more unsustainable to run one.


There are a number of good comments above and not all mutually exclusive. While the Prius was a research platform, that platform was proven to be successful in its objective. From it has stemmed more hybrid or electric vehicles with improvements in each one. Each improvement is moving us towards a car that will be considered as saving the planet, while still being able to maintain the purpose of the vehicle, or even the image the driver wants to portray - look at the Merc AMG SLS electric.


All European vehicle (except sea going ships and aeroplanes) manufacturers are in the same boat - if they are to survive, they must come up with lower emission vehicles. If not, they might as well close up shop now. The ultimate aim is to provide vehicles with a zero emission (at point of use) by 2020 (depending which report you read). Thus we see more and more, and whether we like them or not, they are here to stay. Hopefully LR quality will match it too.


But they are still a long way *replacing* internal combustion vehicles. So in the mean time we are still going to see models that we think are pointless, expensive and not fit for the purpose, whilst all the time they improve the technology. What LR have done though is create a hybrid vehicle that can be seen to be on the way to that place, with a strong SUV type vehicle, not just a little city run-about like the Rav 4 EV etc. They even proved it by taking the Silk Road. It is merely the first step up the rocky track without a locker.


Unfortunately, manufacturing is most first world countries is cheaper in third world, or over-populous countries like China or India. Likewise, certain elements can only be mined in select locations in the world. So we end up with hugely embodied energy vehicles cos parts are coming from all over the world. That part is always unlikely to change, and is consistent whether hybrid/electric or internal combustion. (Ford Aust?)


Batteries too are a problem, and unlikely to ever change. All batteries are an environmental disaster - regardless whether they are NiMH in a Prius, or a Lead starter battery, or a AA in the bottom drawer. All batteries should be processed and not just thrown in the rubbish. They also all have a limited total life, and well before that stage are already losing charge, dead cells or whatever. They also take a long time to charge…


What about pollution from the power plant? Yes, that exists of course. It also exists from us charging our smartphones, running our fridges, lighting the house etc etc. Really the car is just another plug in device. And as stupid as it sounds, the power plants are going to produce that power anyway whether we use it or not - they don't make power just for the actual need draw, but produce much more than is ever needed. Once we understand that, the pollution doesn't change…


But anyway…a study was conducted at early 2012 by the EPA and a US dept. They determined, that a 'gasoline only' vehicle produced 500 grams/mile of the relevant pollutants, but the effective comparision for electric was 200-300 average depending on the vehicle model, and the power plant location and fuel type. But what about in Tasmania where 80% power is generated by Hydro, or in locations where the new solar plants are coming on line - there is no pollution in that context….


Well that’s my ramble anyways, there heap more that could be said (LPG, hydrogen etc) but I think I've used up my 30 second. Like I said, I wouldn't hand over cash for one. But don't be critical of those who do, cos they are helping to pay for the research that we benefit *us* in years to come

Originally Posted by stray dingo

I run a business as a 'sustainability consultant' and have for 11 years now. Predominately this is for the building industry as I was trained as an architect, but also provide 'lifestyle consulting' for lack of a better term.


For myself, I drive a D4, I go bush in it, I tow with it etc etc. For the purpose of which I use it, it is generally sustainable - sure there could be better ones, and also worse one. I also work from home, so some runs are too short to be efficient. (BTW, the wifes car is a forester but we've never owned a Volvo or Honda) Would I buy a hybrid or electric - no, not yet.


A current hybrid model or electric model won't let me go bush or tow, but would be good for the around town runs, meetings etc; for those short runs. But for my overall usage patterns it would be more unsustainable to run one.


There are a number of good comments above and not all mutually exclusive. While the Prius was a research platform, that platform was proven to be successful in its objective. From it has stemmed more hybrid or electric vehicles with improvements in each one. Each improvement is moving us towards a car that will be considered as saving the planet, while still being able to maintain the purpose of the vehicle, or even the image the driver wants to portray - look at the Merc AMG SLS electric.


All European vehicle (except sea going ships and aeroplanes) manufacturers are in the same boat - if they are to survive, they must come up with lower emission vehicles. If not, they might as well close up shop now. The ultimate aim is to provide vehicles with a zero emission (at point of use) by 2020 (depending which report you read). Thus we see more and more, and whether we like them or not, they are here to stay. Hopefully LR quality will match it too.


But they are still a long way *replacing* internal combustion vehicles. So in the mean time we are still going to see models that we think are pointless, expensive and not fit for the purpose, whilst all the time they improve the technology. What LR have done though is create a hybrid vehicle that can be seen to be on the way to that place, with a strong SUV type vehicle, not just a little city run-about like the Rav 4 EV etc. They even proved it by taking the Silk Road. It is merely the first step up the rocky track without a locker.


Unfortunately, manufacturing is most first world countries is cheaper in third world, or over-populous countries like China or India. Likewise, certain elements can only be mined in select locations in the world. So we end up with hugely embodied energy vehicles cos parts are coming from all over the world. That part is always unlikely to change, and is consistent whether hybrid/electric or internal combustion. (Ford Aust?)


Batteries too are a problem, and unlikely to ever change. All batteries are an environmental disaster - regardless whether they are NiMH in a Prius, or a Lead starter battery, or a AA in the bottom drawer. All batteries should be processed and not just thrown in the rubbish. They also all have a limited total life, and well before that stage are already losing charge, dead cells or whatever. They also take a long time to charge…


What about pollution from the power plant? Yes, that exists of course. It also exists from us charging our smartphones, running our fridges, lighting the house etc etc. Really the car is just another plug in device. And as stupid as it sounds, the power plants are going to produce that power anyway whether we use it or not - they don't make power just for the actual need draw, but produce much more than is ever needed. Once we understand that, the pollution doesn't change…


But anyway…a study was conducted at early 2012 by the EPA and a US dept. They determined, that a 'gasoline only' vehicle produced 500 grams/mile of the relevant pollutants, but the effective comparision for electric was 200-300 average depending on the vehicle model, and the power plant location and fuel type. But what about in Tasmania where 80% power is generated by Hydro, or in locations where the new solar plants are coming on line - there is no pollution in that context….


Well that’s my ramble anyways, there heap more that could be said (LPG, hydrogen etc) but I think I've used up my 30 second. Like I said, I wouldn't hand over cash for one. But don't be critical of those who do, cos they are helping to pay for the research that we benefit *us* in years to come

You say yourself that "all batteries are an environmental disaster", yet are praising the research in electric and hybrid electric/internal combustion cars, seems a bit contradictory to me...

They tried electric cars in the 1900's, they tried them in the 2000's, some companies are trying them still, yes hybrid electric can have some mechanical advantages, but I see nothing good for the environment, I actually did a case study on this for Design and Technology back in High School, specifically focusing on the Hydrogen powered Honda FCX Clarity (they couldn't have picked much more of a gay name haha). The Hydrogen car is the way of the future, it is truly renewable, it is powerful, and is totally do-able, once the infrastructure is in place.

Batteries only last 10 years tops at the moment, so every 10 years a hybrid-electric car will need 10 grand or so spent on a suitable battery(s), and along with all the resources to make it, and the waste from the old one, is a complete environmental disaster!

Hybrid vehicles such as the Prius are little more (I say that because they do slightly help research) than a publicity stunt and distraction from reality for the car manufacturers, they also go a distance to meeting the deadlines of efficiency and consumption that governments impose on car manufacturers, they bring the numbers down just enough.

Hydrogen is the only alternative fuel I support, as it is truly sustainable, maybe my mechanical engineering degree will lead me into it one day.

Cheers
Will

Surely even a hydrogen powered car could benefit from some of the technology developed in hybrid cars and other places.

For example, they might be able to benefit from energy recovery. Even Formula 1 cars have their KERS system.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that research associated with hybrid cars and electric cars is only about batteries and that there is no overlapping technology from one means of propulsion to another.

The concept of electrically-powered or enhanced vehicles is often linked to batteries and their attendant problems because that is what most people automatically think of as the storage solution. But hydrogen-fuel cell and more-so supercapacitor technology is almost at the point where it could make batteries redundant.

An electric or electric-hybrid using graphene supercapacitors would not have all the baggage associated with battery manufacture, weight and disposal. So as a platform for advancing road technology, you need to consider electric (hybrid) independent of the battery issue.

Cheers,

Gordon