100 miles per gallon

This is great, but I'd like to see the increase in my electric bill after a month. You can't calculate savings, ( if any ), without that.

www.a123systems.com and www.hymotion.com, their add-on is $9995. Setting up a waiting list, wonder how much of a premium Toyota dealers get for the Prius.

The dealer in our area, holds a lottery each month for the 60 he gets. Must be paid in full to enter, if not picked, wait until next month. Could take a long time to get one of his.

Pay close attention to the "Plug in your car" header. Interested to hear comments.

later,

If done "off Peak", substantial discounting of the rate is the norm.

Wow the first 60 miles of the trip achieved (60 miles / 0 gallons of fuel) ∞ mpg.

Blink has addressed this sort of stupidity before.

I'm confused.

The article states that the improved fuel economy would

"potentially reduce the vehicle's greenhouse gas emissions to less than two tons per year."

So, if the car travels 13,000 miles in a year (about average) and gets 100 miles per gallon of gas, that's 130 gallons of gas for the year. Gasoline weighs 6.3 lb/gal, so that's a total of 819 lb of gasoline burned in a year. Assuming it all turns into carbon emissions (not true) that's still less than a ton.

Where do they get 2 tons?

I suppose what they've done is to calculate how much greenhouse gas that 819 lb of gasoline turns into.

If we consider the carbon being converted into carbon dioxide. Given that carbon atomic weight is 12 and Oxygen atomic weight is 16, then each 12 units of carbon becomes (12+32)= 44 units of carbon dioxide.

819 pounds would thus become 3003 pounds which is closer to the "less than 2 ton" number.

Obviously, fuel is not 100% carbon and there would be some other assumptions included, but this is why the "emissions" are greater than the fuel input.

I recall doing a problem in chemestry in high school where we had to calculate the mass of oxygen (or air, can't recall) that is processed through the engine on a tank of gas.

As I recall we were given a tank volume, the milege per gallon the car gets and some percentage of the gas that was actually burned (engines do not burn 100% of the gas that goes in).

As I recall the mass of the air used exceeded the mass of the car. I don't recall the speciffics but the point is it takes a LOT of air to run a car, but I'd think as you pointed out, the carbon has to come from somewhere and it isn't coming from the air. The gas is the only place it can come from.

I would be interested to know exactly how much energy is contained in a gallon of gasoline. From the total amount of energy one could calculate how far a vehicle of a reasonable weight would go at a given speed if every bit of the energy in a gallon of gas were to be converted to forward motion.

As most of you know who have read my posts, I do not agree with the premis that global warming (or now climate change as it's being referred to as the eco-nuts call it to hedge their bets) is due to human activity. I don't argue that it's happening, and also aknowledge that the climate has been both hoter and colder in the history of the earth and you can't pin these previous changes on human activity.

Who is to say the climate we had in the recent past is optimum? Who's to say the climate we are headed toward won't be better?

I don't recall the numbers, but the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere is on the order of 12 ppt (parts per trillion) and to move from 12 to 13 ppt would require every drop of oil, wood and anything else that will burn to be burned. The point is that human activity is but a drop in the ocean.

Also, it's interesting how those who are hystarical about CO2 and global warming seem to convieniently ignore solar activity. Further, those like Algore refuse to debate the topic. They accept the premis because accepting the premis is a good tool to further their ends.

Travis

Let's do the math! You spend an extra $10k to get one of these. Now take the $10K divided by $5 per gal = 2000 gal x 45mpg = 90,000 miles you will get out of a standard Prius. @ 13,000 miles a year it will take you 7 years to break even. Now factor in the 130 gal @ $5 = $650 x 7= $4,500+ the electricity. Not to mention the electrical field your driving around in and the environmental hazards of disposing of this car and its batteries. I DON'T GET THE POINT OF IT ALL!!!!!!

The point is a con.

They talk about the carbon emissions of the gasoline used but what about the carbon emission created by the power plant that generated the initial charge of the Prius batteries.

The same is true of the miles per gallon issue. Add in the equivalent of the electricity in the initial charge and then tell us about miles per gallon.

The Prius is a greater shell game than the historic one played with walnut shells and a pea.

j.

Here in the United States of A. we learned that we were not restricted to burning coal for power generation. In the now to be lamented 20^th Century we learned that Hydro, Solar, Wind, & waste Co-Gen, as well as Nuclear Fission could be applied to the production of electricity.

As to the cost: Our 'friends' in the Middle East are very much like ourselves; "The customer is half a world away, We'd better take care of Ourselves 1st!" We mustn't blame them for that, we would, too.

On the flip side: We shouldn't allow ourselves to be the bulls-eye of their marketing plan.

Going 'Electric Car', while not perfect could allow us more options than currently available.

Best wishes to all!,

Don

The US has huge coal reserves but can not capitalize on them because of the greenies who will not allow any new coal fired plants to be built - just as they block building nuclear plants. I think the technology exists now to scrub stack emissions of coal plants which would make them very clean. But, it always gets back to the carbon emissions boogy man.

For the same reasons, we can not develop nuclear energy in the US.... the environmental lobby.

I think one of the biggest obstacles to any fuel source other than gasoline for powering vehicles is the lack of infrastructure. If you can't get it you can't use it. Many years ago there was a small movement to use LP to power vehicles. There are not a lot of opportunities to fill your car with LP (they exist but not in great numbers).

The same goes for hydrogen and any other sources.

Electric will not be viable until the storage capacity in whatever form it takes advances to a point where you will get decent range per charge. I do not think it is going to be viable if you will have to charge at the grocery store or once you get to work. I don't think many employers will sit still when a signifficant number of employees are running extension cords out to their cars.

I think Sweden (or somewhere thereabouts) is looking to build a hydrogen infrostructure and somehow produce hydrogen through a geo thermal process. I am not sure if they are using the geo thermal to make steam to generate the electricity to in turn make the hydrogen... in the house that Jack (or would that be Sven?) built.... In doing so they have recognized that no alternative system will work without adequate infrastructure.

Brasil came to the same realization when they shifted to ethanol from sugar cane. I think they were successful because the powers that be were supportave and they had huge capacity to produce sugar cane. The difference is that sugar cane is only a fraction of the food supply, unlike corn which is involved in a huge portion of the food chain. Also, I would bet the required alcohol infrastructure (supply and distribution) are a fraction of what would be required to do in the US.

Travis

But, why assume $5/Gal(US) is where it will stop?

As long as you allow them to 'have you by the b*!!$', they could ratchet it up to, say, $20/Gal. Would THAT be enough?

It will never see $7 let alone $20! At least not in the near future.

Gee, isn't what "they" said about $3.00 & 4.00? I just love it when people make absolute statements like that..

I'll put my money where my mouth is! Will you?

Think about It. $6 will start a revolution forget $20!

Another d*mn insurgent!

It's just the "Law of Supply & Demand".

We've gone to War to get the stuff; How will those who refuse to pay be dealt with?

It's hard to say... remember years ago how many people said, "I'll quit when they get to a buck a pack." Then we discovered that cigarets have a VERY inelastic demand curve.

I think the same goes for gas and diesel. We were saying similar things as the price aproached $2 a gallon about curbing driving, taking the bus, getting a smaller car (which as I recall was about the same time frame when the insurance companies were offering discounts to people who drove SUV's because the insurred occupant had a better chance than if they were in a smaller car - now that's come full circle).

Now, at $4+ a gallon we are seeing just how inelastic the demand curve for gasoline is. I do not think you can compare diesel equally to gasoline. Diesel is consumed primarily by the trucking industry (trains to a lesser degree) and their choice is pay or don't play. Remember how cheap diesel was right up to when GM and a few others put diesel engines in their cars - "to take advantage of inexpensive diesel". As soon as demand went up so did the price, never to come back down.

The amount the government makes on gasoline is obscene when you consider that the government does nothing to produce it (and actually take actions to prevent it from being produced). The government makes more on a gallon of fuel than the oil companies. On most cost break downs you will see a line that lumps oil company cost AND profits. The taxes are often about equal to the entry for the oil company's cost and profit.

If the price continues to climb I will be interested to see what form the public revolt will take. In reality we, the citesenry and the motoring public have little leverage over the powers that be - chiefly the government. Even worse, the politicians discovered long ago that all they have to do is "bring home the beacon" to their districts to grease the palms of the voters. At about the same time the voters discovered they can vote themselfs benefits. Then it was all over.

What form would such a revolt take? I doubt it will be public demonstrations. The American population is not good at demonstrating enmass. Most other countries are much better at mass demonstration. Look at the demonstrations against the US in Iran on any given day (and where do they get all of those American flags to burn?) Or more recently, look at how quickly the migrants (not immagrants) from Mexico organized and demonstrated the wall and clamping down on illegal migration. We American's can't hold a candle to anyone when it comes to public demonstration.

I think the reason why the American citizenry is so poor at organized public demonstration is the fact that for the most part we are all busy working at our jobs and those not working are happy having their stuck out hand greased with goodies.

All the best,

Travis

I think Mobil Exxon has more political clout than the rest of us put together so lets put it on them. How? Boycott! If we boycott Mobil Exxon they will have to lower prices and the rest will fallow. If we set the bar at $2 and refuse to do business with them until it gets there, they will be beating on congresses door for us!

Right now (well - about a week ago) the cost break down for a gallon of gas attributed $2.32 to the cost of the raw crude. The cost of the feed stocks is going to have to come down first. Even if you bouycott one company, say Exxon, and you skip down the road to a BP station the cost of raw crude will not come down because the total demand for gas (and by extention crude oil) will not have changed. The same total amount of gallons of gas will still be bought and burned. You've just shifted where you get it.

So long as the demand remains the same it does not matter who you get it from.

Now, if everyone bouycotted Exxon and DID NOT BUY THE GAS THEY WOULD HAVE FROM EXXON FROM ANYONE ELSE in theory it would work because you have lowered the demand for crude and finished gasoline. As long as you buy it from SOMEWHERE the demand will still exist which sets the cost of a barrel of oil on the world market.

I personally do not buy any gas from any Shell gas station. Shell is always the highest price I see. Since I do not buy gas from Shell, I go down the road and get it from whoever is the cheapest - but I still get it none the less. So far, Shell remains the highest price gas being sold. My refusal to buy shell gas makes no difference because I still buy gas - and other oil products from other producers.

This is why any of these efforts to "quit buying gas for a day" make no difference. Today I will not buy any gas, but I am still going to drive to work and go to the grocery store. The only way it would make any difference at all is if today I (and everyone else - Ha - when was the last time you saw everyone agree on the same thing?) did not buy gas and did not go to work or the store. But that will not ever happen because some time I am going to use those same gallons of gas, and sometime I am going to replace those gallons of gas.

Lest we forget, gasoline and diesel are not the only thing that comes from a barrel of oil. There is a finite amount of any given product that can be pulled out of a barrel of oil. You can not take 10 gallons of crude and today get 6 gallons of gas and 4 gallons of diesel and tomorrow decide you want 9 gallons of gas and just one gallon of diesel from the same 10 gallons.

Over the years through new and improved methods of cracking they have been able to get more gasoline and diesel from a barrel of oil but in doing so they will yield fewer gallons of other products.

Travis

You miss the point and I won't waste time on it again!

Most other countries also have better Mass Transit!

Similarly,

This weekend I looked at some scooters and motorcycles thinking I or my wife would be able to use one to shift some miles from our vans to a scooter or motorcycle. Scooters are running about $1500 on up to about $9,000 (that's one hell of a scooter!). I also looked at a small 250 motorcycle. I don't recall, I think it was somewhere between $1500 and $2000. Then they jumped to 500cc bikes which were 4 or 5 grand.

One van is a Dodge 1500 with a 318 engine and gets about 18 mpg (been so long since I've had a full tank of gas to be able to check it.....) and the other is a Ford Winstar with a 3.6 L engine and it gets around 20 mpg.

At $4.50 a gallon (which it is very close to out here on the Olympic Peninsula), figuring the Winstar's milege (20 mpg) that works out to $0.225/mile (22 1/2 cents per mile).

They said the 250 motorcycle gets 70-80 mpg. With the same cost for gas at 80 mpg that's $0.05625/mile (5 5/8 cents per mile).

The difference between the two is $0.16875 (16 7/8 cents/mile).

At $0.16875/mile difference and a cost of $2000 to buy the bike, you'd have to ride it 11,852 miles to break even (pay for the bike) strictly on money saved per mile. That's a lot of miles.

Now, if you already had the scooter or motorcycle paid for that would make quite a difference in cash flow, but to use the argument of paying for it in savings is tough.

Now, speak in terms of tens of thousands of dollars for buying a hybrid and the numbers are even more bleak.

Travis

Since an internal combustion engine averages about 12% efficiency [www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml) shows that an internal combustion engine (ICE) only has an average efficiency of 12 %] and an electric power plant can get nearly 90% efficiency, using a vehicle which is partially a plug-in EV will save energy. Saying that it will go the first 50-60 miles at 0 mpg is misleading, it will use the electrical equivalent of some amount of fuel and some amount of actual fuel will be used to make the electricity. By making it a short-range EV much money can be saved on expensive batteries.

There are EVs being made with limited range, no AC or heat and no power brakes or steering, but the commercial models that can get up to 70 mph, range from one passenger at $38,000, a Scion e5 conversion at $75,000 and the 2 passenger 200 mile range Tesla at about $100,000. Not your everyday transportation. Does this Prius travel as far as a standard Prius? What is the price? How many children will fit in one? This sounds like a test vehicle.

They still cannot just use the IC engine to make electricity and use electric motors to turn the wheels. They are wedded to the use of the IC engine as primary motive power. However there is a way to use an engine just to make electric power and use the electric motors and batteries for that short range driving. "www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml) shows that an internal combustion engine (ICE) only has an average efficiency of 12 % despite that the maximum efficiency for a gasoline engine is 35 %. The main reason to that is that a 200 kW ICE operates at very low loads (10-20 %) almost all it's life where efficiency is about 10 % instead of 35 %. A steam engine has the opposite efficiency characteristic, that is, maximum efficiency at part load (10-20 % load) and lower efficiency at full load. Complete simulations indicate 32 % efficiency at part load for a steam engine, that is 3 times lower fuel consumption for a 200-300 kW engine operating during normal conditions."

A small steam engine uses less fuel and is more efficient. To the basic plug-in EV add a small, highly efficient, low emissions steam engine which would run a generator only when the batteries got low. Since about 80% of driving is less than 25 miles from home the car would operate as an EV then, using electricity as fuel. For the other 20% of your driving the steam engine would run, as needed, to keep the batteries charged. The fuel used to make steam can be any liquid or gas the car is designed to use and it could be easily changed from one fuel to another. And when using fuel it uses about 3 times less than an IC engine. EV range is limited by how many batteries you can afford, but this type of hybrid could carry enough fuel to travel as far as a standard IC car.

There are many proven designs for steam power which by combining with an EV overcome the drawbacks of both. There are also a number of innovative steam engine designs. Modern materials and technology make this type of vehicle practical. The problems seem to be inertia, bigotry against steam, the lies told about steam, ignorance and the attitude that it is old technology.

If I had the money ... Well I just hope that someone out there has the money, the machine shop and all the abilities to build a car like this and will get interested in this idea.

Sorry folks, it's back to the horse and cart for most of us.

The Oil age is over, really over.

Kind Regards....

I don't think the oil age is over quite yet but I agree that the age of Cheap Oil is over. This last price run up will prompt conservation and more exploration so prices should stabilize or even come down some after a while but cheap oil is being used up. I also think this is a great opportunity for entrepreneurs to develop and bring to market new technology and alternates to oil. So I'm not quite ready to go back to the horse and cart but I'm ready to buy a 100+ mpg car, hybrid, electric car or ??? if I could find one that met my needs (good safety/crash protection, 2 seats in side-by-side seating, trunk space for a couple of suitcases, 100 mile electric/300-400 mile total range) at a less than outrageous price (<$40,000 US).

Hello Irving

It is the same for me, I would dearly love to use a fully functioning electric car, with a small hybrid steam motor fuelled by cheap coal or similar.

Even though I have years of experience in the Electrical and other fields, it's all down to price, which in unaffordable at present rates.

And I cannot justify the exorbitant prices being charged at present for fancy hybrid petrol/electric vehicles, because only the rich people can buy these.

We didn't really do ourselves a favour, when we followed in the footsteps of the petrol-powered car, we should have invested all that time, money and effort into steam cars, which were a very well-proved technology, over 100 years ago.

Kind Regards....

Sparky - the last US makes of steam cars, the Stanley and the Doble, were very advanced for their time in the 1920's and '30's, not 100 years ago. Many of them are still running. However technology has been developed since that would make them practical to run generators onboard the cars to keep EVs charged and running. Coal can be made into synthetic gas or just liquified.

Look up the Lamont boiler, a very efficient, safe and compact unit. Look up the Cyclone Engine, the Green Steam Engine, the Lysholm Expander, the double-acting compound uniflow design and the Tesla Turbine, any of which might prove to be a good choice after testing. The Wankel has too many problems to work as a steam engine.

New materials, computerized controls and the latest in EV technology would make a steam-electric hybrid or as the EV purists say, an extended-range EV, very practical.

Hello Taganan

Thank you for your good suggestions.

It's really only the lack of ready cash which stops me from making my electric wheeled 4WD car.

I have plenty of near relatives and friends I did not even know about, most of whom who died suddenly in Africa, and been left inheritances from them, but my spare cash has been eroded away with Bank Fees, Lawyers Fees, Palm Greasing, and the like.

So far, none of those various fortunes have arrived in my rather depleted bank account.

I live in hope.

Kind Regards....

No doubt Sparky, being resident in a country following the British legal tradition, you are familiar wit Dickens, and for instance his novel Bleak House and the case of Jarndice v. Jarndice.

Isn't that what lawyers do: bleed their clients dry?

j.

And, as I understand it, a simple steam piston engine, size for size, produces an awful lot more of horsepower let alone, with the proper boiler, have available any number of fuel sources.

Now there is an idea for a good project. One team work up the details of the car electrics, another work out the steam powered generation to run it.

The prior might consider things like regenerative breaking and a small battery to catch it, and as well the same battery as an intermediary so the steam section need only run full horsepower output when the battery gets low or heavy loads require it.

In combination you get a clean drive with a fuel flex power source that with a little thought is also a clean source.

j.

Jack - That is exactly what has been envisioned by - beesidemeusa@yahoo.co.uk [e-mail address] Build a plug-in EV with a 40-50 mile range at about 40 mph to keep the EV costs down, then add a steam engine which only turns the generator and which only runs when the batteries get low. The steam engine/generator only needs to be powerful enough to run the car at a constant 80 mph, even up steep grades for a couple of miles, say 20-25 hp. That is still a very small steam engine and generator. Since approximately the same time is spent going downhill or slowing, regenerative braking increases efficiency. If practical, using thermo-electrics to produce more electricity from the used steam and boiler exhaust would also boost efficiency. The car could be built to use any liquid or gaseous fuel and could easily be converted from one fuel to another.

Since the average efficiency of an IC engine is about 12% and a condensing, double-acting compound uniflow steam engine is about 25% efficient you can about double the mpg by running the hybrid even without plug-in charging. Since about 80% of your driving is less than 20-25 miles from home, most of your driving would be on electricity from the grid. Much cheaper than fuel, but when you need to go farther or use AC or heat, the steam engine/generator would start and give you that extra range found in IC cars. So overall, in a year you would use about 80% less fuel than a conventional IC auto and even when using the steam engine you would likely get twice as much mpg. It would produce fewer emissions even without any pollution controls. The best part is you could still have the size car you need for your needs, comfort and convenience.

I just wish I had the money to build them or do conversions. If only the EV people and the steam power crowd weren't such purists, maybe they could actually work together.

Sparky and the rest.

If you are ever in London, as I was a good many years ago, there is a museum where the early steam engines are on display. It is there to see how well developed those engines were all the way back over that hundred years that Sparky refers to.

j.