Hybrid cars are useless.

Post Reply New Topic

I prefer something that might actually survive an accident...

I prefer not getting into accidents in the first place...

I really don't like excesive and unnecesary gasoline use. I hate to see moms driving a big SUVon their own to get to a grocery store that is a couple of blocks away. I am not a fan of american cars, I actually like Toyotas (I think Corolla is a great overall car and has good value) I just think Hybrid cars are a waste of time and effort. Diesel engines are good on principle, they are much more economycal than gas cars, even hybrid ones, they are cheaper to produce than hybrids and on the long run they are not as environmentally harmful.

The thing is that if you use public transportation, people think you're a poor person who can't afford his own car, while people who drive hybrid cars are seen as hip and environmentally friendly. Eventhough the second option is a lot more environmentally friendly than the former. It's not about whether you're helping the planet or not, it's how other people see you. That's why the Honda Civic Hybrid has de word HYBRID written on the back of the trunk. So that other people can see that you are caring for the environment and they aren't. But, again, who wants to do good deeds anonymously. I guess nobody.

*edited to correct a typo an add a missing word*

I agree 100% with the OP; they're a JOKE. I can't believe that anyone is gullible enough to think they're "green", when in fact they're doing more damage to the environment that probably 10 old, beat-up V8 American cars. Too complicated to explain in a post, but the basics are the manufacture of the gel in the batteries (in China), which is making a waste cocktail that only an H-bomb could surpass in toxicity. And the theory that these vehicles will only be on the road for 10 years, versus regular cars that can be on the road for 30 years. AND, last but not least, is EFFICIENCY (in the technical term). Every time you convert energy from one form to another, some is lost. In a regular gas engine, you are converting petroleum to heat to motion force, which moves the car. In a hybrid, you are converting petroleum to heat to motion for the generator, to electricity for the drive motor, then back to motion force to move the car, which equals a significant loss.

The true green answer for cars, is small Diesels. The newer ones are cleaner than gasoline or hybrid cars, and they produce NO carbon monoxide, and there are no 1000-year-toxic batteries to deal with.

Charles

I qualified it. These are the implications of what I said, then:



Power stations are more efficient that a car - a car engine is not very efficient at getting the energy in the fuel to do useful work. Power stations have more efficient machinery so they make better use of the fuel. So that's a qualification in favour of power stations.

But there is some loss involved in transmission - in order to get power from a power station to the charging point it has to be transformed to high voltage, sent along a wire, then transformed down. Because it is high voltage, the loss is low, but some is involved. So that's a qualification against power stations.

Coal is inherently more polluting than petrol - if you burn coal it produces more pollution (for a certain amount of energy) than if you burn petrol. Gas is different again - I don't know off-hand how it relates to the others, but you specifically asked about coal. Which is more polluting. So that's a qualification against (coal) power stations.

Power stations may employ carbon capture and storage - in other words, instead of releasing all the pollution they create, they may store some of it. (I don't think it's very common, in practice, but some places do.) So that's a qualification in favour of (some) power stations.

But the full equation must include the whole supply chain - which is where it all gets complicated, because you'd have to compare and contrast the logistics of refining and delivering petrol to cars (all over the place) against delivering coal in bulk to a small number of sites - I strongly suspect that favours power stations - but also the relative costs of constructing petrol and electric cars, which among other things has to account for the world's car industries being tooled up to produce large numbers of petrol engines, not large numbers of electric ones. An idealised comparison would compare the costs of mass producing petrol engines against mass producing electric engines, but that isn't the situation as it stands - it's the situation as it would be if electric cars were more common.

As I see it, taking this lot into account, it is slightly better to use electric cars, even if the power for them is coming from a coal station. In some places it may be considerably better, depending on how good the power station is. The more electric cars that are built, the more advantage they'll have (as their production improves) and obviously with cleaner power stations they're simply better. Except for the performance and crappy range and long charge times and all that.

At this current point in time hybrid cars are a huge waste. To make the battery alone it has to travel all around the world on non Eco friendly vehicles. When the raw materials for the batter's are dug up they poison the earth, air, water and produce acid rain. By the time a brand new Toyota Prius hits the show room, the energy that has gone into mining the materials and making the car it has made more green house gases than a Landrover Discovery does in its whole life. The engine in it is also infection for its kind. It's is also unsafe (bad acceleration, brakes and handling are just a few) the only thing that you get from a hybrid is a tax break. The first car to break 50 mpg was a 80s vw Jetta diesel. A study was done that said that a lot of cars (including supercars) running in a heavy smog area actually put out cleaner air than it took in. So the clear answer is everyone needs a supercar.

Last edited by fur_frog on 07 Sep 2011, 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

some non-technical thoughts-
i read a few decades back, that ford motor company [some employee thereof] invented a sort of mainspring mechanism for storing energy, which is activated when the brakes are applied, and tripped when the accelerator is depressed from a stop. volkswagon licensed this technology for use in its "3-liter" car [so named because it is rated to travel 100 KM on 3 liters of diesel fuel] some years back. this product enables the engine to be stilled when at stoplights, which eliminates wasteful fuel use in idling. the spring is powerful enough to both restart the engine as well as propel the car forward when the light turns green. i can't help but believe that it could play a small role in improving automotive fuel efficiency [as well as reduce pollution], along with a myriad of other little improvements such as low-rolling-resistance tires, re-use of waste engine heat [like with smokey yunick's "adiabatic" engine tech, for example], lightweight interior appointments [like air-filled seat cushions], reduction of heavy sound insulation/body mass in favor of engineered antinoise/antivibration tech, body-surface solar cells and supercapacitors for air-conditioning assistance or engine-assist energy storage, capture of energy from the suspension [from absorbing road bumps and such], more use of aluminum or non-metals wherever practical, lighter-weight suspension components/designs, passenger compartment-centered design minimizing unnecessary exterior bulk, run-flat tires to eliminate the spare, 3-wheeled designs, and anything else all you WPers can think of. i believe these various things have the potential to be simpler and less expensive than hybrid technology.
in addition, maybe it would be a good idea to rethink our energy distribution setup, with all the waste which occurs with transmission all over the place. maybe energy should be localized with small power acquisition/storage units in each community which could take advantage of any local environmental resources [wind, solar, wave, geothermal, whatnot]. what if every residence [apartment building or individual house] had its own power station? what if every such place took full advantage of whatever resource it had available to it, from solar or wind or geothermal? how much untapped energy is smoldering away in garbage dumps nationwide? how much energy can be captured from heavy vehicles travelling over roadways? how much energy can be captured from the sway of large [tall] buildings such as skyscrapers? if every major stream were tapped with thingies to capture energy from flowing water, how much energy could be captured? if long-distance power transmission were taken out of the equation, how much energy could be saved for other purposes? questions, questions...
this thread could become very exciting if every reader would submit ideas for saving energy or alternative energy sourcing.

If you want a car that can save you mpg or is eco-friendly look at alcohol engines you can make your own fule in your back yard. A turbo diesel if you can keep you foot out of the floor. Hydrogen car are safe reliable and only produce water vapor. Bio-mass fule cells. If you dont have the $ for a new car learn to drive efficiently. A test was done were a BMW M3 and a Prius. Were the Prius had to drive as fast as it could around a technical course and the BMW just had to keep up. The BMW got better mpg then the Prius. Showing how you drive is a huge factor. Stay away from electric cars besides the havoc all the batteries can produce. At this time they are practicly useless with there 18 hr. charge time and can only travel a few miles before on empty. Gas/electric or electric/gas are inefficient and bad for the environment. You can convert your gasoline injected car to alcohol. Just be warned that if you try to add a lot of "gas saving" things. Some don't work. They may add a few but beware of the "placebo" effect. You think you it get you better mpg you drive a little better. Some may ad drag to the engine so it may give you a little spike at low revs while actually decreasing them at high revs or it may just make it worse. A lot of people out there just want money.

Electric/hybrid = using electricity. Majority of electricity = generated from burning coal (80-some percent). Ergo, electric cars burn coal!

One big hurdle is that most people don't want an underpowered diesel, and even those who do can't get one in the US because they don't make/import them! In Europe, you can get a VW diesel that gets 70 mpg and it isn't even a hybrid or a turbo diesel! Slap a properly designed turbocharger on that and I bet you get still at least 60 mpg (actually some turbos can IMPROVE efficiency) and as much driveability as an underpowered 4 banger gasser. On top of that, use biofuels like biodiesel. It CAN be done without ruining anything in a diesel engine if you know what you're doing.

A Opel car was developed that was a turbo diesel that got 100mpg. Its biggest tweek was the addition of a the turbo. In theory all turbos increase mpg that was why they were made. You just have to drive properly. The transition also plays a huge part. If it is too aggressive your mpg goes down. Yet if it is too not aggressive enough the car will hardly move and no one will buy it. Aerodynamics also help. The 70mpg vw has sideview mirrors that fold against the car to reduce drag.

Awesome.

And on the topic of how you drive making a difference, a smaller engine with the same fuel economy per liter as a larger engine will be LESS efficient relatively to drive because it has to work harder and not at it's peak efficiency. I'm too tired to word that properly but I hope you still get it...

I'm pretty sure I get you.

Also at a certain speed the air rushing over the car will begin to push the car forward thus increasing your mpg. From what I hear its around 80mph for lots of cars. Oddly enough on the topic of speed, 55mph is a unsafe speed as it is fast enough to kill you yet not so fast you feel like it can. It also has a higher probability of inducing road hypnosis. Back to the topic. In theory you can increase horse power and get better mpg. If a engine can work more efficiently (horse power) it will take less gas to make it move. Water/meth can stabilize your engine and get better mpg as well as more horse power. Don't let the horse power fool you though a lot of cars just send lots more gas in instead of increasing it efficiency. Torque is what you use on a regular bases. A good cars torque will be higher then its horse power. It's what's used in lower revs while horse power is used in higher revs.

True. I see HP as a gimmicky number that's good for advertising. It isn't completely meaningless, but for those reading along who don't already know, it's a figure that's derived from torque to begin with, which is why hp = ft lbs of torque at something like 5250 RPM, always.

I'd never buy a new car without the salesperson showing me the power curve, especially if he was trying to sell me on a sports car.

Easiest break down I have heard.

Horse power = efficiency of the engine. Used in higher revs.
Torque = speed at which the engine can do its job. Used at lower revs.

If you have a car with a small engine with high horse power but lower torque (car a) vs a car with a equally small engine that has high torque and lower horse power (car b). Car b will win off the line but car a will have a higher top speed. In theory.

Last edited by fur_frog on 08 Sep 2011, 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

So much can account for better mpg. If the tires have a increased grip the friction from the tires will slow the car down by. If the don't grip enough then steering the car gets more difficult or the tires just spin.
The weight of the car determines how much harder the engine has to work. How the air it is traveling through is behaving at that point in time. The altitude also plays a part. As the air thins the harder the has to work just to move.