Really, serious? I get 48 m/g from the Prius in hilly country
including going to Albuquerque at 75 m/h. Granted, I can't act like an
idiot in a sports car. Nevertheless, I'm still able to buy both food
and gas.
Ed
On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Remi Cornwall wrote:
Top Gear environmental edition. Includes serious analysis of Prius
about halfway in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL9O1H9e1rA
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 September 2008 17:49
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to
move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries
are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge
the battery at that time. Therefore, a "small" ICE will not work.
For example, the Prius can travel at normal speed even without
batteries, which happens in mountainous country when climbing a long
hill. You would not want the speed to drop suddenly on a long hill.
Ed
On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Just to clear up a couple of points from Jed Rothwell's post:
> 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not
as
much pollution in the first place.
This is not the correct comparison to make!
Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric
-- and will have identical drive trains -- so the energy per mile is
identical; and the comparison then is between having one vehicle:
a.) operate solely on batteries, such as the Volt
b.) and the other one operate on batteries most of the time, yet
carrying a small diesel engine (motorcycle sized) to recharge the
batteries in an emergency or for the occasional long trip.
Due to the high cost of lithium batteries, option b.) would cost
less, give greater security, and could be accomplished with low cost
SLA batteries, for far less upfront cost than lithium.
The downside of option b.) is that the diesel would need to come on
for the last few miles of a long commute (but never for the trips to
the grocery store etc.)
Plus the big advantage is that option b.) is doable for probably
$20,000 with SLA batteries- versus the lowest possible cost of the
PHEV (which of course, will come down significantly once higher
volume is achieved). Still many customer would rather have the
security of NOT running out of juice on the freeway if the lithiums
did not get a full charge; and another big advatave is being able to
take a vacation by car without renting a vehicle to do it.
And it is not either/or. There will be a big market for both types.
In the end: option b.) should emerge as the mass market in terms of
volume due to lower cost and flexibility.
> 2. Pollution abatement at most power plants is much better than for
individual automobiles (except for CO2 of course).
That would only be true without the catalytic converter, it seems.
Or do you have a reference for that? At any rate, if the backup ICE
is seldom used, the issue is moot.
> 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources
such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity.
On a National average this is what? 35% in the USA ? This is not a
large fraction.
> In some states, at nighttime when cars will be recharged, nearly
all electricity comes
from baseline nuclear power plants, or wind power in Texas.
But even in those areas with nuclear power, many consumers would
like to have the backup security of a small diesel. The SLA
batteries which are used, would still charge at night, only for less
time as they only need to give you half the range or less.
>The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from
>grid-->home-->batteries-->vehicle, because of all the loses at every
>step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt.
> JR: I doubt it. I have read they are about equal. Certainly not if
the
electricity if generated with uranium or wind. Electric power
generation efficiency is improving faster than automobile engine
efficiency, as old coal-fired plants are being phased out and more
wind power comes on line. If the US builds 10 or 20 more nuclear
power plants it will be very difficult for any form of ICE to rival
electric power for low pollution.
Again - this comparison is being mis-stated. It should not be about
the PHEV compared to the ICE, but instead it is about the optimum
design for a hydrid - which need NOT be the all battery PHEV version.
A small ICE combined with maybe 6-8 standard SLA batteries makes the
most sense of all IMHO -- even if the ICE (in reserve) is only used
by the driver infrequently.... in fact, the goal would be to design
it so that it used very infrequently, but it is still always there
if you need it.
Jones
