Is my Rangie more environmentally proper than a Prius?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

14th March 2012, 04:23 PM
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.
14th March 2012, 04:45 PM
akelly

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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
14th March 2012, 04:54 PM
Dougal

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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......

Shorten the time-frame of energy storage to our lifetimes and get back to us.;)
14th March 2012, 04:54 PM
jakeslouw

Quote:

Originally Posted by akelly

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.
14th March 2012, 05:03 PM
Dougal

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakeslouw

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.
14th March 2012, 05:05 PM
Dougal

Quote:

Originally Posted by foz.in.oz

<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.
14th March 2012, 05:28 PM
Blknight.aus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dougal

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.
14th March 2012, 05:49 PM
akelly

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakeslouw

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.
14th March 2012, 05:49 PM
akelly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dougal

Well said.

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

Afghanistan. Again.

Where are you blokes learning history?
14th March 2012, 05:52 PM
akelly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dougal

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.

;)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page