Future Energy Sources 2.2 Hybrid Vehicles

The only way hybrids will ever be any good is when we learn they are no good at all.

Sounds like another oil man.

Dear guest-sorry to disappoint you but hybrids are proving out in leaps and bounds and the knowledge we gain from failures lead to greater successes.

They are a compromise you improve one thing and lose out on another.

And the IC engine on its own is not a compromise? - convenience/efficiency/noise/emmissions...............

I never said (wrote) what my indivdual views are you all have shown your own predudice here, I just said (Hybrids) are not the sollution every one thinks they are.

As has been explained else where they have two problems. When they first set out fully fueled you are abliged to carry alot of dead weight, either as petrolium spirit and the ICE, you set out as an electric car, then as your electric store batteries run down you move over to petrol power, now you have all the dead weight of the ellectric systems to carry around. Even if you mix and match during your trip either using the moptors to boost the ICE or the ICE to recharge the batteries your situation is that so much power is wasted by carting around the redundant power and what happens when the batteries are dead and you have ro motor on that puny enginge it is dragging all that dead weight consuming extra fuel giving out extra emmissions and doing nothiong at all to help save planet earth. Answers to this send them to the big gods at the car companies don't waste my time. Either support better ICE or go fully electric! The imbetween is a non runner.

"I never said (wrote) what my indivdual views are"

So whose view is this ? "Answers to this send them to the big gods at the car companies don't waste my time. Either support better ICE or go fully electric! The imbetween is a non runner."

I think you may have missed the point that by using a smaller IC to continually feed batteries, the weight is NOT increased, the instant power for acceleration can be increased, while also reducing emissions.

Hmm, so would my lawnmowing (so-called) tractor with (so-called) hydrostatic (so-called) transmission--like all such ride-on mowers, the wheels/tires are driven by a hydraulic motor which, in turn, is pumped by an IC engine, and the only "transmission," per-se, is a (so-called) drive belt--constitute a hybrid vehicle conveying a rotating blade? Indeed, the engine is optimally controlled at max. RPM under load(s), and ground speed is controlled using pedal linkage to the hydraulic motor.

Funny how all mfrs/sellers of ride-on mowers with (incorrectly-so-called) "automatic transmissions" will do anything to make the machines seem they are just like cars.

Not so funny how some riding mower sellers (did I hear Craftsman?) have now taken to advertising Shift-on-the-Fly mechanisms (also not transmissions) in their "tractors" as "automatic" transmissions--the operator can automatically reach down and manually adjust ground speed, must be the idea! But don't bother to inform their employees of the error (or deceptiveness) of their employer's ways.

It sure sounds as if it is.

Does the hydraulic pressure have an accumulator, so the IC operates at a near constant speed, while the machine is changing speed?

Let me try to answer...as a non-expert in hydraulic motors.

First, speed control of the load-(i.e., centrifugal-throwout-weights-) governed IC engine could be used, but is not (it is not recommended), to control carriage-ground and PTO speeds. Instead, IC-engine speed throttling for "work" and transport is Operator set & kept at maximum, as is the preferred engine speed with most if not all, air-cooled-engine-driven implements...to assure (in the case of cutters) maximum cutting impact/inertia/expulsion, and maximum engine cooling.

...am uncertain but, I take your reference to accumulator to mean a kind of fluid-volume-dependent compensating mechanism for the speed (output &or internal circulation rate) of the hydraulic motor...(?)...to compensate for variations in load (dynamic resistances vs. speed, including engine-imparted, demands)...(?). In other words, when the primer mover (the engine) output is held constant at max pumping (of motor fluid) "pressure," the "accumulator" will serve to relieve or recover static or dynamic motor pressure, respectively, by facilitating depletion or replenishment of fluid (volume) in the motor(?). Do I understand your question correctly?

The hydraulic motor is constant volume and does not appear to employ any (elastic or plenum) energy or fluid accumulation. (There is a remote fluid reservoir above the motor, but it serves only to replenish any fluid leakage and prevent air intrusion in the motor--much the same as a hydraulic braking or clutching system on cars.) Being constant volume, carriage drive wheel speed is controlled by altering fluid velocity through the motor. To enable changes in fluid velocity without accelerating/ decelerating the engine, the pulley sheave which pumps the motor--it is driven, via belt, by the engine--has a hub which is tapered. Linkage from the tractor speed-control pedal allows the motor pump pulley drive belt to be forced upwards and downward on the tapered pulley sheave hub, thus altering the pump-drive pulley speed and, in turn, the fluid velocity in the motor (engine-driven belt speed remains constant throughout this process.) The pedal-linkage arrangement is not unlike that used in manual shift-on-the-fly; in fact, it is probably, essentially no different except that the "shifter" has been removed to foot location (renamed, pedal) and spring loaded to return to "neutral-idle" upon foot release. By neutral-idle is meant: that release of the pedal engages an idler pulley to disengage drive belt and stop pumping and circulation of fluid in the motor; pedal release also actuates hydraulic locking (giving the effect of braking) of the drive wheels (axles) inside the motor. Reverse is implemented by reversing pump direction. Actual neutral (release of axles) must be accomplished manually, by a lever on the motor, to enable hand pushing of the tractor. Throughout these changes, IC engine governing as so precise that there is practically no discernible audible change in engine speed.

Hope this explains....to satisfaction; if not I could try to post an exploded view of the motor if requested.

With no accumulator, the maximum power available at any time is the power output from the engine. When running at less than full speed, excess power is wasted (blue sections of chart 1)

When an accumulator is used, the power can be stored while not moving, and used when required to provide greater output than the engine alone can manage. In chart 2, the energy is stored from the blue sections and used when the extra power is needed.

Because the accumulator stores the power until it is needed, the engine used can be smaller.

I don't support the idea of hybrid, due to the added weight that takes up the energy that can be generated.

Here is a list of alternative ways of producing energy.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologies_--_RD

Decide for yourself which one you like better. My fav. is the "Sines Reluctance Generator (Potomac Energy Projects)", just need to tap that one place where we can find abondunce of superconductors, may be Russian will have some.

BMW hybrid to be used in UK - but there's only ONE hydrogen pump!!

Hybrids are proving to get around 10-15% better mileage, at best. If you have a standard transmission or an overdrive in your car you can get 15% better mileage by pressing the throttle down about 2/3 and letting off to a gentle glide/slow down. If you drive 75-80 mph this works well because the power required to move the car is high enough to allow the engine to run without "lugging" the engine where torsional resonances in the drive are excited. Point being, one can get the fuel economy improvement of a hybrid without all the electrical complications, maintenace (new batteries every 100,000 mile) etc..

A hybrid gets its milage by basically having the throttle at the minimum BSFC point (about 2/3 throttle) most of the time and by allowing the engine to run at slower rpms at this min BSFC throttle setting. Point being, all this can be done by a continuously variable transmission of sorts with "throttle" being the engine speed and not a real throttle that lowers the effective compression ratio. The central issue here is the power pulse/resonance constraint with a hard transmission that prevents such use. This goes to the core of a piston/crank engine and requires a major rethink at the heart of the device.

In other words, if you design the IC engine correctly you will get MORE fuel ecomony WITHOUT the electrical hardware.

Keep in mind that there are "air" hybrid engines being developed, and there are hydrostatic systems, like those on UPS vans, that can recover kinetic energy and do so much better (3times or at 75% efficiency) than battery. A braking action is a very high power event (.5-.95Gs), which typically 2-3 times maximum acceleration ability (.25-.5) with the engine. An average braking event greatly exceeds the charging ability of batteries, but not air hybrids or hydrostatics. The ability to capture stop-and-go energy is key to city fuel economy, and when you can recover 75% you typically will have higher city fuel economy than highway due to aero drag losses.

In short hybrid electric systems are flawed and cannot get us to the 200 mpg city fuel economy that is possible in a 2000-3000 lbs car that someone would want to drive. The technology is a "band-aid" on an IC engine, and a poor one at that. A Prius will use MORE fuel in its lifetime than a similar well designed current tech IC engine when you factor in total energy used in manufacture.

The entire effort is a waste of time and money and draws resources away from correct solutions that will work.

HI ALL !

new batteries every 100,000 miles. G.M. just said they are coming out with a new car for hybrid use. the new twist is the fuel-cell hybrid. much more power for a longer time period used with biogas there would no pollution and the speeds would increase also. i winder how long these cars will be on the market, I remember the last try they collected them all and crushed them. who will invest in them? thanks !

goldrushnugget999

Hi GOLDRUSHNUGGET999,

• I winder how long these cars will be on the market, I remember the last try they collected them all and crushed them. who will invest in them?

I must admit that I get the impression that the big car manufacturers like Ford and General Motors are only doing this so that it appears they are doing something and that their whole effort is only a token exercise to keep governments off their back.

If they do nothing then they would get crucified but if they try and fail then they can say we did try but it is technically impossible.

HI masu !

you are right ! IT looks like the U.S. car manufactures are in with the big oil companies. All their decisions have the big oil's requests you can evaluate their decisions after the fact and they all point that way. it looks like the foreign motor companies have seen the light and are making more green cars for the general public.

thanks for now

goldrushnugget999

A gasoline/electric hybrid is simply another method that the oil companies use to continue to keep consumers tied to the gas pump. We will not be free of dependence on oil until we as consumers demand an alternative. Any modern auto can be converted to run on Hydrogen directly (cost about $500) or 100% alcohol (cost about $100). This is not fuel cell powered, but directly IC. Alcohol can be made as easily as baking a cake. Hydrogen can be made with nothing more than a battery and water. Storm

"We will not be free of dependence on oil". considering how many billions of dollars they sucked out from a consumer, it seems like it's the time to caught them off from our dollars and move on with alteranitive fuels. As for "Any modern auto can be converted to run on Hydrogen directly (cost about $500) or 100% alcohol (cost about $100)." for this coment, it seems a little too unreal to convert an engine to a different fuel, considering the different combustion of the fule and the impact it will leave on the engine parts. Is there any proof of what you are saying is true, if it is I will convert my car to hydrogen powered car right now, and open a hydrogen refinery.

Changing fuel sources is both easy and difficult. Many of the additives in gasoline are desirable for the engine's operation, not just as an energy source. Tetra-ethyl lead provided some anti-wear features, and its removal was the source of some engine problems in the 1970's. Back in the 1980's, Roger Billings (then in the Independence, MO area) had a garage mechanic friend of mine converting cars to run on hydrogen. A dual-fuel propane/gasoline carburetor was installed, and the propane jet sizes redone for the lower molecular weight of the hydrogen. That portion of a conversion is quite inexpensive. Now, add in the need for a storage tank for the hydrogen, etc. and the cost goes up. Add in the need for maintaining today's very complex engines without the various additives of the current gasoline blends, and cost can go up. Add in the complete elimination of hydrocarbon and carbon-monoxide emissions, and tune the engine for minimal nitrogen oxide emissions, and you eliminate many components of the engine and the catalytic converter, etc. These all allow the cost to go down.

Like our friends in Davis, CA who found you can completely eliminate the central AC unit from a properly designed and built house, and do so at a net savings of cost, I believe that a careful full design review and approach, instead of an incremental one will show that the net cost of a hydrogen-powered car is less than that of a gasoline-powered car.

Hi jmueller,

To quote you in post #15

"I believe that a careful full design review and approach, instead of an incremental one will show that the net cost of a hydrogen-powered car is less than that of a gasoline-powered car."

That may well be the case but it doesn't answer the question of where do we get the hydrogen?

Currently the only feasible answer is to get it from the world's oceans using electrolysis. Unfortunately that requires the use of vast amounts of electricity and most of the worlds electricity is generated from burning coal.

Lets have a look at the overall efficiency

• Coal power generating efficiency 30%
• Transmission line efficiency 97%
• Electrolysis efficiency 75% this is a conservative guess
• Internal Combustion engine efficiency 20%
• Overall efficiency < 5%

Not only is the overall efficiency abysmal but for the most part you are using a fuel that is fare more polluting than the existing fuels. All up you would end up using four times as much fuel and producing something like 6 to 8 times the pollution.

Hydrogen engines are indeed much cleaner than their fossil fueled cousins, however, until we find and ecologically sound pollution free way of generating the hydrogen they are no more of an answer than a coal fired steam engines. Put bluntly the so called hydrogen economy is a step backwards and is no more efficient or pollution free than a coal fired steam locomotive, a technology that we incidentally ditched nearly half a century ago because of, amongst other things, it's inefficiency and high levels of pollution.

Masu,

Your concern is real and valid. I think the engine efficiency is probably closer to 30%, instead of 20% but that is still picking at the edges of the problem. The efficiencies of the gasoline or diesel fueled engine should be considered: Exploration and extraction, transportation, refining, and combustion. I don't have any good numbers for these, but they probably are ending up with an overall efficiency of perhaps 10% at best.

Either way, the carbon footprint is huge. However, there are a few trade-offs or alternatives to consider.

First, if electrolysis is done, it can be done during off-peak times, so the electric utilities are operating much closer to their ideal efficiency, with a base load being higher and excess capacity for peak loads being proportionally less.

Second, I believe that one can explore the use of the lower-grade waste heat from utility or industrial processes as an input for chemical or electrolytic generation of Hydrogen--if so, then the input energy is much closer to "free", and the net thermal efficiency figures rise significantly.

Third, we could see microbiological or genetic engineering adaptations of the photosynthetic hydrogen transport mechanisms, which would greatly reduce the carbon footprint, even if efficiencies remain relatively low.

Fourth, the potential exists for photo-voltaic arrays to directly power the production of hydrogen, or perhaps be piggy-backed with other photo-catalyzed reactions which may generate hydrogen independently of the production of electricity.

I just don't want us to discard the idea of hydrogen for powering a vehicle--it is quite attractive from a view of pollution, etc. Besides, a fuel-cell may increase the overall vehicle efficiency enough to overcome some of the other drawbacks?

Thanks for your input and your responses--John Mueller

"We will not be free of dependence on oil"

You may find it easy to stop using liquid fuels from petrochemical companies, but to stop using their products entirely is another thing: where do plastics come from, and have you looked at the contents of shampoo & cosmetics: they nearly all have anti-freeze and other petroleum distillates.

Dear Masu,

Considering that list of definitions - linquistically speaking, there's no more reason to call the composite or multifuel vehicles hybrids, than there is to call a conventional IC-powered, itself, a hybrid...between a Radio Flyer and (among other things) and an IC engine. In short, hybrid, applied loosely as it is, is really just a buzz word...mostly to give marketing panache.

So what is it?

Are you calling my car a horseless carriage? Or a motorless motor vehicle?

As a good citizen doing my part to conform, I take offense to both!