Internal Combustion vs. Electric Vehicles

I have never given it much thought but after a quick search it seems E.V.'s still emit less green house gases (factoring in the upstream emissions) then an I.C.E. vehicle.

http://www.hybridcars.com/heres-why-electric-cars-are-always-greener-than-gas/

https://content.sierraclub.org/evguide/myths-vs-reality

I am having a hard time finding anything that carries the opposite view.

"The study found that while the environmental impact of making electric vehicles is greater than for making gas and diesel vehicles, this is more than made up for by the greater impact of gas and diesel vehicles while they’re being used. This is true in terms of total energy consumption, use of resources, greenhouse gases, and ozone pollution. The electric vehicles were assumed to be charged from a grid that includes significant amounts of fossil fuels. (Other studies show that electric vehicles beat gas-powered ones in terms of greenhouse gas emissions even if they’re charged in regions that depend heavily on coal. Here’s one such study. In some areas, hybrids are a better choice than electric cars.)"

Are Electric Vehicles Better for the Environment than Gas-Powered ...

"On average, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) representative of those sold today produce less than half the global warming emissions of comparable gasoline-powered vehicles, even when the higher emissions associated with BEV manufacturing are taken into consideration. Based on modeling of the two most popular BEVs available today and the regions where they are currently being sold, excess manufacturing emissions are offset within 6 to 16 months of driving."

Gasoline vs Electric—Who Wins on Lifetime Global Warming ...

Draw your own conclusions, or completely ignore this.

Battery Electric Vehicles vs. Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles ...

Thanks for the links everyone.

The consensus seems to be that EVs are ok on emissions even in the areas that are heavy on coal fired power. They have a long ways to go to be economically viable and have the range needed by someone like me but, it doesn't appear to be as bad as I was imagining.

If EVs are to be the way of the future I think we will need some major upgrades to our electric power infrastructure.

I doubt we will see the demise of the ICE for several generations though. As EVs become more popular and the number of ICE vehicles decline, the demand for gasoline / diesel should decline along with it, thus lowering the price.

Yep. Price and range are big hang-ups for lots of people.

Should You Worry About Battery Replacement Costs for Electric Cars ...

Last week, our ever-so-curious friends at GreenCarReports reached out to General Motors to find out just how expensive it would be to replace the lithium-ion battery pack found inside the Chevrolet Bolt EV.

The answer, a total price of $15,734.29, is a fair hunk of cash for anyone, and may lead some to argue that electric car battery packs are just too expensive for electric cars to be consideredas mainstream vehicles.

But, as overwhelming data suggests, battery replacements are still very rare and even when they happen, they’re usually under warranty.

Nobody has mentioned yet the vehicle emissions other than tailpipe. There's dust from brakes, tyres and road wear, likely to be higher from EVs due to higher weight (OK maybe not brake dust IF the EV has effective regenerative braking).

Note as well, that continuous improvements are constantly being made. Battery technology is improving, hybrid drives have made quantum leaps over the past 20 years. As any engineer knows, products improve with incremental development over time.

In 5 years it may take half of the carbon needed today to produce an electric vehicle.

Just 'imagine' the battery-replacement co$t as being a lump-sum payment equivalent of saved gasoline purchases.

I am using a car only for shopping or long distance hauls. Would not mind an electric car for the short distance runs, but long hauls in long distance country, I cannot see this working with an EV.

BTW my daily commuting is already electrical in a train. So maybe you should include in your discussion public transport options.

And while we talk about transport, long hauls over land to move supplies where they are needed and electric on the road do not get along very well.

Trains maybe, not road trucks for long distance.

So you also need to define the use of the vehicle if you want to come up with a proper comparison.

I like that you mentioned that EVs just transfer the pollution to the electric power generating plant. The generating plant is probably better able to handle the pollution, but there are transformer and transmission line losses to move the electricity to the location of the EV.

I don't think the manufacturers of EVs should brag about the large miles per gallon they achieve;after all, that is not the only cost of running the car--ignoring all the other costs like insurance, licensing, etc, etc. they should give the cost per mile driven, since the electric component of the mileage certainly does have a cost.

Has the true environmental impact cost ever been taken into account or does the interest in it end at the tailpipe?

..."The direct answer to your question is that electric engines can be more than 90% efficient and even up to 98% efficient while combustion engines are 30 to 45% efficient. ... The biggest issue with electrical power vs combustion power or even hydrogen power is the medium that is used to hold energy in the vehicle."...

https://www.quora.com/How-energy-efficient-are-electric-motors-compared-to-combustion-engines

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-true-costs-of-alternative-energy-sources-are-we-unfairly-penalizing-natural-gas/

1 million btu's = 293 kWh

..."For a 2012 Nissan Leaf, its average rated efficiency of 99 MPGe translates to 34 kilowatt-hours per 100 miles. Just multiply that by your electric cost. So if you pay the U.S. average of 12 cents/kWh, the Leaf will cost you $4.08 to go 100 miles (versus $16 in a 25-mpg car with gas at $4/gallon).Mar 6, 2013"..

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1082737_electric-car-efficiency-forget-mpge-it-should-be-miles-kwh

The manufacturers are a little coy about giving you a battery lifespan and fall back on the "how you drive it, how you charge it" defence. A clearer picture might be seen looking at the warranties offered. The maximum I found after a brief search was 100,000 miles so figuring that the companies never want to fork out for a warranty replacement let us assume that 150,000 miles is a reasonable life expectancy. From an earlier post the replacement cost would appear to be $15,000 or with our assumed lifespan $10/100 mile to add to the $4.08/100 mile. This makes the comparison with the $16/100 mile ICEs much less attractive. When taking into account the additional time required for frequent recharging stops, depending on "how you organise you life around charging your car" and how much you cost your own time at it could be that EVs are more expensive to run.

Well I would say that’s about the same as an engine replacement, so this seems a wash... I would add that people rarely drive more than the distance a full charge would take them, so having the car charge in the garage overnight when a gasoline powered car would just be sitting, seems not to be an issue either...

Well, here in New Zealand a group of EV owners formed and documented their battery degradation etc (with the odd name flipthefleet.org ). They found that Nissan Leaf annual battery degradation was 2-3% for the 24kWh battery but that the newer 30 kWh batteries were closer to 10%. As I understand it the replacement battery is aroun NZ$6,000. New Zealand does not have any allocation for new Nissan Leafs, they are alll second hand imports from Japan - like us, they drive on the correct side of the road :-).

Don't you mean the other correct side of the road. But then we all drive on the correct side of the road....the top that is.

Sounds like whoever wrote ..."The direct answer to your question is that electric engines can be more than 90% efficient and even up to 98% efficient while combustion engines are 30 to 45% efficient. ... The biggest issue with electrical power vs combustion power or even hydrogen power is the medium that is used to hold energy in the vehicle."... hasn't heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The thermal efficiency of a power station is on a par with ICEs.

The difference is the scale...and the cost of the fuel... 8.3 gallons of gasoline = 1 million btu's

Natural gas is less than $3 per million btu's...If you're paying $3.75 per gallon of gasoline that = $31.13....

Not sure what point you're making. Is $3 per million btu for natural gas the price to power companies or domestic consumers? We pay a lot more in UK, but that doesn't surprise me.

Anyway, all I was saying is you get about the same shaft work per heat input, whether it's an ICE or a power station and electric motor. And that's a mains motor, further losses in a battery-powered vehicle.

"In a sensibly designed power plant (coal) the waste heat would be used for heating houses, hot water or industrial processes. It should be considered criminal to not utilize the waste heat of a power station, or any thermal power station for that matter."

From what I have seen around here, most of the power plants are built quite a distance from houses or other industries. They are almost always around a river or large body of water for a cooling source or have massive cooling towers.

Does anyone here know of any coal fired plants that utilize waste heat? A quick search of the internet turns up a lot of theoretical stuff but I don't find much on any waste heat recovery methods that have actually been implemented.

Edit: I meant to mark this off topic as it doesn't really relate to the original topic but, I don't think there is an option to do that after it has been posted.

The term is co-generation. It is quite common in the Houston Ship Channel Refinery and Petrochemical Complex (of +/-50 of said businesses). The key thing is the fuel which is natural gas augmented by tailend "squeak-of-the-pig" process leftovers.

About coal co-generation: There are two sites in Texas where there might be potential, One is a electrolytic aluminum smelter and the other is an electrolytic scrap steel remelt smelter. Coal power plants next to them provide the E-power, BUT both plants are in the rural middle-of-nowhere.

In addition to cogeneration which is usually used for industrial purposes, there's also district heating that has been around for nearly a century. It is found in high density urban areas where generating stations located closed to the city's load centers, provide steam and/or hot water for building heating and cooling (via absorption refrigeration). The customers pay for it on a metered BTU basis, and it saves them from installing, maintaining, and fueling their own boiler systems.

The latest spin is called CHP (Combined Heat & Power) and which utilizes the waste heat from local generation/processes to increase the overall cycle efficiency.

I've never heard of the idea that gasoline engine efficiency is reduced at part load, due to inlet throttling (not that that disproves it!). Power output, yes, that's the intention. In any case, compression ratio, final volume/initial volume, doesn't change, only final pressure.

Diesels don't throttle the air intake, just vary the fuel injected. I know diesels are more efficient than gasoline (though I believe gasoline efficiency is improving) but I thought that was due to higher compression ratio, not the absence of throttling.

Diesels are more efficient than Otto cycle engines for the simple reason that they operate at high compression all the time. In fact, the diesel cycle itself is less efficient than the Otto cycle in theory but the real world soon sorts that out.

Adding a turbocharger boosts the diesel efficiency by improving the effective expansion ratio of the gases passing through the engine and the same works for the Otto cycle engine, but as soon as you get away from full power the problems start for the Otto cycle engine and this is why turbo gas engines have miserable around town fuel economy. This is for the same reason as for the non-turbo engines, but made much worse because the compression ratio for a turbo gas engine has to be reduced to ensure the maximum power compression pressure is not exceeded, which would give pre-ignition. This is not a problem for diesel engines since their fuel is not mixed with the air, pre-ignition does not happen.

<...don't have any extra solar or wind capacity...> There's the opportunity - income-based activities rather than spending [<...coal...>] from the savings account.

How a vehicle is used varies widely among so many people. Not everyone uses them every day or for long trips. Gasoline does not have a very long shelf-life. Gas can go bad and carbs can get gummed up. EVs don't have that problem. Other than that, I do wonder how an EV will heat the cabin in winter. You might have to have a separate internal combustion heater just for that. And while you're at it, you might want to include an emergency generator just for when you're stuck out in the boondocks somewhere. Stuff happens. The main thing I want to say, is that neither EVs nor ICVs will be ideal for every situation. Some kind of hybrid would be better. But, it could lean more to either the EV side Or the ICV side, depending on the situation. I don't think anyone would like to settle for a poor fit/function.

After following the ICE v EV discussion / debate / contention over economic and environmental price for at least five years I have come to the conclusion it's a zero sum answer. I also see with the increase of solar and wind generation replacing coal a future probability of a slight edge to EV. But like everything else there is a time and place for EV. Dense population centers and short regional travel highly favors EV; yes this includes heavy transport. Here in Texas not so much. The City State of Metropolitan Houston easily covers 10,000 square miles, The Dallas-Fort Worth MetroPlex 15,000, and upwards to 50,000 people regularly commute on a daily basis the 250mi x 250mi x 200mi Dallas-Houston-San Antonio triangle (for all yu'al geographically challenged Austin is on the SA-DFW leg).

I haven't seen mention of disposal costs. This would end up being much higher for an EV as an EV contains a lot of hazardous material and a green recycling/recovery system isn't in place. With China rejecting recycle materials, this is unlikely to become more readily available.

From an energy density standpoint, we will need one or two more iterations of battery design as the gasoline or diesel ICE still has a huge energy density advantage.

I suspect in the end, another technology will step in. Hydrogen storage fueling ICE or fuel cell is a strong possible. Biofuel is also a contender as it eliminates the fossil carbon footprint and maintains the energy density advantage and the vehicle is readily recyclable.

Lithium Battery Recycling | Simple, EPA-Certified Process‎

For dead EV batteries, reuse comes before recycle - Roadshow - CNET

Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Facilities

Metal recyclers prepare for electric car revolution - Reuters

A Look At The Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Industry And Companies ...

Unfortunately, the references refer to future opportunities for recycling (not actually in place yet), perform questionable rebuilding/repurposing or offer to provide a quotation for you to pay to get your battery recycled (hazardous waste disposal). I don't see these as high volume solutions yet if other alternatives exist. Until recently, the answer was to send it to China and let them handle the environmental carnage. That option is closing. It will be interesting to see where these devices eventually go.

Like the poop train or spent nuclear fuel, I expect the problem doesn't have a destination yet.

I give up!

First this comment #3 was voted OT for only reasons the anonymous voter may know, and now I'm chided because recycling facilities, not presently needed, but planned for the time the need arises are not on-line and sitting idle, waiting for the time they will be needed?

Don't give up, build a recycling facility.

The hitch will be getting permission to do it.

The old Catch-22. Nobody does it because nobody is using it, and nobody is using it because nobody does it.

I was going to bring #3 back to neutral, but saw someone beat me to it.

You make good points, but the question is where you draw in the boundary conditions. By second law, you always lose as entropy always increases. Victory is in defining the limits of the model.

Please don't include spent nuclear fuel. This would be true of the presently used thermal reactors (water cooled, pressurized water, etc), but it is not true of the fast neutron reactors which are forthcoming. They can utilize as fuel what is considered waste from a thermal reactor. The fast reactor is much much more efficient, using about 99% of the fuel instead of 1% or so. There is waste left of course but perhaps 100 times less in volume and radioactivity that decays in hundreds of years instead of several hundred thousand.

I've always maintained that there was no greater waste than the failure to reprocess and reuse spent nuclear fuel. Carter imposed the recycling ban to support a fast breeder reactor program that never materialized and Regan reversed the ban in 1989, but no reprocessing of commercial fuel initiated (not in my back yard). Every bit of it should have been reprocessed for reactor fuel and the waste products of commercial value should have been put to use. They still could be except that no one has seriously set out to do it. Then the waste repository issue goes away and the volume of spent fuel in the country also goes away.

In 1994, I worked at a reactor plant that produced 1100MW at a cost of 2.8 to 3.2 cents per KWH depending on the quarter and the refueling schedule. We closed because the plant had Westinghouse type F steam generators that were prone to crevice corrosion on the steam side. Enough steam generator tubes had been plugged that the plant needed derating or steam generator replacement. Management knew about it and failed to plan for steam generator replacement. When the time came, the ready cash had been pocketed and the golden parachutes deployed. Half a billion dollars had been diverted into "other investments" and lost. Had management planned properly, the plant would still be running on it's first license renewal. They still have a building full of dry casks that aren't going anywhere.

I question whether fast fission spent fuel is any less radioactive or long lived than thermal reactor spent fuel. It wasn't in 1981 and was remarkably similar in isotopic analysis. However, if it is reprocessed and reburned, it is still not the issue we have at present with inventories of spent fuel in dry casks and spent fuel pools.

We would have to reprocess the inventories of spent thermal fuel to make it into fuel usable in whatever fast reactor design would be in use. It becomes less radioactive because the long-lived and highly radioactive transuranic actinides are consumed in producing energy. Fast reactors can also utilize depleted uranium and thorium. You probably know that President Clinton shut down the research in 1994 or we might have fast reactors by now. Argonne National Lab was about ready for a demonstration Plant I believe, when research was stopped for political reasons.

Regardless of the intended use, the fuel requires reprocessing. Typically thermal spent fuel began life enriched to about 5% U235 and 95% U238. Typical burn is to 2% U235, 94% U238 and 4% waste product of which a significant bit is Pu239.

Of the waste products Sr90 is the largest long lived product of commercial value.

The 94% U238, 2% U235 and the Pu239 can go directly back into new fuel with added U235 to bring it back up to an initial fuel load for a thermal reactor.

The Sr90 makes a very nice thermal pile battery with about a 90 year useful life and can be handled the same way we use Co60 radiation sources for industrial radiography.

All we need to do is to do it. The added benefit is that the inventory of spent fuel is large enough that we don't have to do any mining to gather the raw material.

Years ago I asked a question to this forum about a suggestion for a low cost reliable cars for a friend.

Based on the response a '96 toyota tercel was purchased.

My "friend" still owns the little green 2 door.. not much to look at and not particularly fun to drive, but to this day it runs like a top.

I've replaced a few feet of rusted brake line and a couple sets of brakes over the years, but those are sub $50 repairs. It runs on the fumes of the car in front of it and can go a month between fill ups.

Not bad for a car that was purchased for under $2500

I kind of doubt any EV can match the value of a used mid 90's toyota.

As a person who has purchased new cars and trucks from US manufacturers (and paid the price in post warranty/ extended warranty repairs) ..it's kind of an eye opener. .. it's ruined my appreciation for the latest and "greatest" model.

Thanks to the forum for the great advice!

Actually EV's use more fuel on a per energy basis. The well to wheel efficiency for ICE vehicles varies around 10%, whereas for EV's is around 5%. The "GHG reduction" appeal comes from multiple things. Based on many government mandates around the world, a significant portion of energy is to be renewable by 2050 (in select countries of course). This would mean there would be 0 emissions coming from EV's. In that sense the EV's "green" factor is calculated completely based on the grid emission factor of the energy supply.

Additionally, with the increasing availability of CO2 capture technologies, much of the CO2 emissions which come from coal/natural gas plants can be/or is expected to be processed and thus this would make EV's much more green overall than ICE's.

You are correct though; currently in many states EV's will not be more green than ICE's. It will not be until politicians start investing in renewable/carbon capture technologies that EV's will become a green vehicle.

Hi, and welcome.

Do you have any studies, data, empirical evidence to support your claims?

Study after study shows that BEV is the better, less polluting option. The question though, is moot. Once the EU and China set dates for the end of ICE vehicles, that pretty much was the nail that sealed the coffin. Everyone in the world except Elon Musk is now playing catch up. Now granted, America is owned by oil companies and so we will fail to lead yet again. Embarrassing as it might be, we will be the last bastion of fossil fuel power even as one of our own shows the world that EV’s are the future.

When I think about the carbon impact of cars, I think about conditions in the future, not necessarily as they are today. There seems to be a trend towards renewable energy around the world. Solar growth has been very strong as has wind energy. If these trends continue, then electric cars will become increasingly smaller carbon dioxide polluters as compared to internal combustion engines.

That said, if electric cars truly do start to replace internal combustion engines in any meaningful way, we will have to consider the pollution produced by all of those batteries. This is a significant issue that probably will need to be addressed through recycling efforts.

not that there's a solution here, but .. it's all very fascinating.

I'm secretly impressed that this works at all with such a small surface area.

The best thing here is the kitchen countertop assembly and so on..

...What I'm hoping is that the batteries also green up.. There's so much development, but little commercial success.

(I skipped through)

Well the idea was good. We'll give these big corporations tax breaks and subsidies so they can invest in R&D. What we didn't realize (but we should have really) was they would spend it on personal wealth increases and not on R&D and things like green energy or batteries or new technology, etc.etc.

Could GM or Toyota have done a better job than Tesla?

Probably since they had already made the move back in the last century.

But then something happened and suddenly the EV1 and the ERAV both disappeared.

So I am betting on Tesla since it seems they are not as easily swayed as GM and Toyo were.

Well there is another aspect here that hasn't been addressed at all, and that's energy security, and energy independence....as long as the US is dependent on foreign sources for oil, we are vulnerable to disruption due to political pressures that would use oil as a weapon, an economic weapon...anybody remember the gas shortages?...well I do, and is was and is still a threat...EV's help to reduce the demand for oil thus bringing us closer to energy independence....Another issue we have not addressed here is the cost of pollution in cities which is responsible for respiratory diseases, this drives up medical costs and contributes to lower quality of life issues....You can't have this discussion and ignore the associated problems ....

These are all reasons for transitioning to nuclear power. And if that is fast nuclear, there is enough uranium and thorium on hand that we won't even have to mine any more for a long time. Plus they can utilize, with reprocessing, all that waste from the currently used thermal reactors thus tremendously reducing the storage problems.

Is the volume of "waste" reduced during reprocessing? Doesn't the chemical reduction and seperation of the spent fuel generate more "waste?"
Can you share with us what the numbers might look like in terms of volume and mass of the waste generated during reprocessing?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for reducing the worlds emmisions to make for a greener, less toxic planet, but, the current EV technology is, in my opinion, flawed.

I agree with some previous comments, the power has to come from somewhere and if it's from a coal fired power station, is that really and better for the environment?

Please also consider the pollution and toxic waste generated from the production and mining of materials to produce the batteries.

This article supports my view https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24/nickel-mining-hidden-environmental-cost-electric-cars-batteries

So all in all are EV's any more environmentally friendly than the newer range of lower emission more fuel efficient combustion engined cars?

Steve

If the ICE of a hybrid vehicle could be made to operate at a near constant output during the entire transportation cycle how would this affect the overall efficiency of the process? Would it favor some types of ICEs over others?

When we look at regenerative braking isn't the ROI a function of prime mover efficiency? Where energy saved in primary energy source production approximates the energy regenerated / efficiency fraction of the prime mover?

Looking at a throughput efficiency of 25% (efficiency fraction .25) and excluding regenerated energy does it not take 4 units of input energy to perform one unit of work? Does it not follow that regenerating one unit of kinetic or gravitational energy would save the expense of 4 units of input energy? I do not believe this to be over unity; but simply the relationship of prime mover efficiency to regenerative braking.

I think a good way to go is with straight comparison. You have to compare like to like. So start with things that cancel out.

Tires, since all cars have them tires and their associated costs, financial and environmental are a non issue.

Brakes, If you use the regen braking feature you will not be changing your brakes very often. There are several 2012 model S owners still running original pads. So obviously brakes are more of a cost for an ICE vehicle. So that one lines up as a plus for EV since the fewer changes the less impact, financially, environmentally and health.

Now lets talk about the drive system. When you consider the cost of all that goes into the modern powerplant of an ICE vehicle you see a huge loss for that mode of transport. Everything from belts and bolts to how many different kinds of oils and fluids. All the pieces that have to be made all the hoses of all sizes and shapes, and an electrical system from hell. The cost of ICE goes up really fast. Especially the environmental since most of these items are dirty processes in manufacture and of course all use energy in production. Hybrids are even worse having two separate drive trains to build and maintain. Then there's the maintenance and upkeep. Lots.

The properly built EV has an electric motor. A reduction gear box. (no transmission like the Bolt has) the drive shafts are the same for either so again, cancels out. The production of electric motors is far less energy intensive or chemically damaging environmentally. Not saying there isn't waste produced, but far less of it per unit just in the drive train production alone. Then there's the maintenance and upkeep. None.

Production of the actual car. Now this one is going to be interesting. We can draw a possible conclusion from the legacy ICE manufacturers since other than Jag, all other legacy manufacturers have pulled back from releasing their EV's for at least another year or two. Given the ramp issues Tesla had I am going to assume that building an electric car is a far different proposition than building an ICE vehicle.

Is the cost of production of the chassis cheaper or more expensive? Less parts tends to mean less cost. But that I would love to see the numbers crunched on chassis and body costs. AS for environmental impact, all cars are built out of the same stuff so that one is a wash as well for the time being unless a substantial reduction in materials used is realized by EV's.

Fuel. Now there is a lot of arguing over this one. Mostly from people not fully aware of what they are talking about. Production of both battery and Gasoline are dangerous processes. Both generate pollution. The extraction of raw materials for either is likewise damaging to the environment. The only thing that puts battery ahead of Oil is its recyclable and sustainable and lets face it, we have yet to take recycling seriously as a planet so this one will get better in favor of battery obviously.

So lets Hypothetically assume that the cost to make batteries is equal to the cost to make gasoline.

I can't recycle gasoline. Once used it pollutes the environment again, over and above the pollution created in its manufacture.

However, electricity produces no point of use pollution. The battery is recycled. Recycling uses less energy and resources than gross production. Electricity can be produced without burning fossil fuels. (FYI, I have the option to use wind power in my Tesla and I do, my coworker who also has a Model 3 uses solar and a powerwall) All Madison Gas and Electric charging stations through the ChargePoint network are fed from Wind farms. As are all Tesla Superchargers in Madison.

I think you can see the general tack I'm taking here. A vinyl seat is a vinyl seat. a carpet is a carpet, Glass is glass. Paint is paint. The question of which is better is not really a question at all when looked at from the worlds future perspective. The problem is, we are looking at things presented to us by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Much like all the non stop Tesla this, Tesla that, which magically disappeared after the third quarter earnings call. Why? because all of that noise was being produced by shortsellers trying to not lose their shirts.

Most of the resistance comes from those who do not wish to change which is why the arguments become irrational very quickly. Fear. Unleashed, the dogs of wars!

Hoping for guidance, I'm posting here. I want to build a home-made hybrid pickup. I plan to purchase an older small pickup and hybridize it.

I think drive-shaft motors are available, and am hoping solar cells will get cheaper.

Flexible solar film on hood, cab, and a 'topper' would charge golf cart batteries mounted to the chassis and out of the way places.

The alternator would be as large as possible, and a second one in place of the air conditioner compressor all help to charge batteries.

The motor serves as backup, and is also charging the batteries.

I hope to keep costs down to acceptable levels, to make the project attractive to other hybrid fans. A do-it-yourself plan and kit for others, maybe even a hybrid club, might turn this idea into a fad.

I think the average mechanic with welding skills can do this project.

There is not enough collecting area on a small pickup to power it with solar panels unless you would charge it for days for a few minutes of operation.
Do a quick conversion from HP to Watts and you will find 25 hp is approx equal to 18,642 watts. The collecting area required is far in excess of what is available on a small pickup.
Perhaps look at a Harley Davidson engine coupled to a power and rpm matched alternator feeding a Maxwell Super-cap package. By averaging the power input over the entire transportation cycle the prime mover can operate at near constant output. Required storage for super high performance would require an energy capacity of about 4 times the kinetic energy at maximum sustained speed. A super high efficiency model would require a storage capacity slightly greater than the kinetic energy at maximum sustained speed. The energy storage requirements for such a hybrid system would be some small fraction of that required for an all-electric vehicle.
A quick freshman physics review of the relationships between Energy, Time, Power, and Gravitational Potential may also be helpful. A quick study of aerodynamic drag may also be helpful.
Solar power rocks; but the energy density is very low. It requires a large collecting area to support energy intensive processes.

Here is a link that MAY help you to understand some fundamental principles regarding hybrid vehicles.

http://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/2006/c/carter_mark/031206_hybrid_cars.htm

Thanks, Gavilan, for the good post. I was involved with Villanova's solar racer and solar commuter car, a VW, I believe. It's been a long time since that job. Both cars had solar panels everywhere, and very good battery systems. That is what has inspired me to try to build another solar commuter.

I didn't mention plug-in charging, or regenerative braking, which I find is not all that efficient, but I'm willing to try anything for a few more miles of range.

I'm not looking for a long-distance car. I only drive a little. For folks like me who don't need long distance travel, a car sitting all day can gather a lot of sunshine. Having a vehicle like this would be something to be proud of.

If I could find a small diesel pickup I could by-pass the gas station all-together! For sure I would paint the vehicle green.