Thread: Is my Rangie more environmentally proper than a Prius?

Originally Posted by jakeslouw

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

Originally Posted by garrycol

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?

Originally Posted by jakeslouw

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.

Originally Posted by akelly

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:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan"]Mining in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

USGS Projects in Afghanistan

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.

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

Originally Posted by akelly

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.

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

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.

Originally Posted by bee utey

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

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.