DJpowerHaus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 You guys really need to work on your English for me to take your points seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomad Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 My Mother drove a 1996 Civic HX 5 speed for about 9 years. I think it averaged 41+mpg for its entire life and the few times that I drove it, I rather enjoyed it. Also, I have a certain love for Hybrid drivers. It is so nice of them to burn less fuel. It means there will be more for me. And they help lower the demand maybe 0.10% nationwide, so maybe they depress the fuel cost a tiny bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanta Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 It kills me though, that once the warranty is up on a hybrid, you're hosed it seems. You would think that if a manufacturer really wanted to push being green, they would cover the batteries for a lot longer than just 5 years you know? Or, in the recent case of the Chevy Volt, not sell them for $43,000+ - I nearly dropped a brick when I saw the price tag ( and they're still loosing money supposedly at that price ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmyers151 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) What I've found, is that all these "green initiative" products are only really "green" in the eyes of the end user. Many are just a way to fool you into thinking they are better for the environment. When in reality, its the same amount of pollution, your just not the one doing the polluting. These electric cars for example, with their huge and/or multitude of small batteries. Yes they get better mileage, thus burning less fuel, equaling less emissions. What most don't realize, is the pollutants generated in the manufacture of these batteries is likely equal to that of driving a car that gets maybe 25-28 mpg average (personal estimate). Same with solar and geothermal energy/heating in residential and commercial housing applications. The stuff released in the manufacture of the solar panels is likely equivalent to the oil/coal burned needed to generate the power those panels would. Geothermal is the same, except where your pulling/sinking heat into the dirt as opposed to burning oil, you can trace the extra electricity used to power your pumps to a plant that's likely burning oil or coal. Edited November 23, 2011 by dmyers151 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizzord30 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 It kills me though, that once the warranty is up on a hybrid, you're hosed it seems. You would think that if a manufacturer really wanted to push being green, they would cover the batteries for a lot longer than just 5 years you know? Or, in the recent case of the Chevy Volt, not sell them for $43,000+ - I nearly dropped a brick when I saw the price tag ( and they're still loosing money supposedly at that price ). One thing need to remember is that a replacement free battery from the manufacturer is just as bad for the environment as a battery replaced after a warranty expired. As for gas dependence on middle east vs battery dependent on china, given the recent with hold of all precious metals from china purly to raise the prices (they actually said it was for that) And given the amount of people and Chinese govement I think i would prefer middle east gas over that.... I think once they can get something better then Li ion battery's made from materials can get easy will be when going hybrid will actually be better. And with current tech Electric cars are just not worth it, Unless the USA gets a new batch of Nuclear power plants That said I think E85 is crazy to be pushed as a reguler consumer fuel.... but as a Racing fuel its awsome :D so i kinda hope they keep it around But I want to get a flex fuel emblem for my Starion once I get it going :D Then people can think i am being environmentally friendly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance_S Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 So you'd rather be dependednt on foreign batteries than foreign oil? I don't see your argument here. Because China is somehow more palatable than Saudi Arabia or Venezuela? Turborusty I think you missed the point of the post. One of the main reasons the cost of the batteries for this application is so high is because there isn't a demand for them yet. As the demand increases, so does the supply, which drives down the economies of scale making them less expensive. The point of the poster was to complain that the cost of battery powered vehicles are too expensive and don't make sense in the long run. I was pointing out that the reason they are currently more expensive is because they are not built in mass quantity. But with an attitude like "they are expensive right now so it doesn't make sense to invest in the technology" then we will continue to be dependent on foreign oil and that makes no sense at all. The combustion engine is 100 year old technology. We need to pursue alternative renewable power supplies and there will be a cost involved in doing that in the beginning, just like every other technology that has been invented. I remember when the first cell phones came out. They were called (ok, i am dating myself here) "bag phones". They were literally the size of a child's lunch box. You had this huge battery underneath the phone, that took up most of the space. Then there was this huge hand set with a cord attached to the battery. If you had a bag phone you were super cool. lol. And they were crazy expensive. Only the "rich" had bag phones. Fast forward 15 years. You can get a phone that cost pennies, or is free with certain plans, is it tiny. Barely the size of a credit card. The reason for this is economies of scale. Because of the demand, mass production was able to drastically reduce the individual cost of the product by dispersing the overhead of the company over multiple products. It also saved cost of goods sold by purchasing raw materials in quantity. So you can say people are stupid for buying electric cars if you want. I actually wish I could afford to support the technology but I cant right now. I am just glad there are people that do support it so further research and development can continue. You suggest that those that are purchasing these vehicles are dumb and haven't done any research. The fact is that many that do support the technology are extremely intelligent. They are professionals and business owners that have done the research and know that yes, the replacement cost of the batteries offset the savings in fuel. They don't purchase these vehicles because of the fuel savings, they can afford the gas of a suburban. Many choose to drive emergent technology vehicles because they realize what I have just explained, that their support for lower emissions by purchasing these types of vehicles will shows the auto makers that people are willing to put their money where their mouth is. If they don't buy the cars, the technology stops because the auto makers will stop building them. I know this may be difficult to understand, but there are people out there that car less about the miles per gallon of the electric vehicle and more about lack of emissions and support of emergent technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 it has little to do with the enviorment and more to do with puting your $ into some one elses hand , and that is the truth about going GREEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burton Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 As much as I dislike my father-in-law, I learned a lot from him about hybrid/electric cars. He's got an engineering degree from GMI, and even tho he's not a "car guy" he is very smart at figuring out where these car manufacturers are heading, and spent a little time looking into the hybrid/electric thing when he was interested in a Malibu Hybrid. He started doing a cost analysis of both the hybrid car and regular Malibu over the warranty period of both cars (I think it was 5 years). In the end he found that the overall cost to own the hybrid was about $2500 more, even after tax breaks for buying a "cleaner" vehicle. While there was a savings for the tax break and gas cost, there was a higher cost of the car, as well as higher insurance and registration rates. At that point he figured no big deal because some people have no problem paying a little more to think that they're doing the right thing to save the earth, and be able to brag to everyone about how environmently concious they are. That was before even considering the possibility of having to replace the battery. As soon as he saw the prices related to that stuff (he came up with a number closer to $7k for replacement), he seriously started re-thinking if he wanted one. He finally figured that he didn't care too much about that issue because he figured he'd sell the car before the warranty came up. He was telling his bro-in-law (who's kind of a hippie) and myself this, when I brought up a question about who's gonna pay good resale on a car that may need a $7k battery soon after the sale. I could tell he hadn't really thought about that, but he figured it wouldn't matter much because he would probably just be trading it in at a GM dealer on another new car like he always does. About then, his bro-in-law wondered what would happen to all the bad batteries? We all just kinda stood there in silence for a few seconds thinking to ourselves about it. The brother-in law piped up about how we already have environmental issues with batteries, and now there would not only be a surge of more batteries out there, but they would be WAY bigger batteries. I looked at my father-in-law and said "And you want to get one of these?...Why?" His reply...."I did." Since then, my father-in-law went back and looked into the environmental issue with the batteries and was shocked with what he figured out. He's come to the conclusion that the production, distribution, and recycling/disposal of all those batteries could do more to harm the earth, in the end, than what the gasoline engine has, if we used "battery" powered cars as long, and as much, as gas powered cars. Obviously, the battery situation is gonna be a negative thing. I just hope technology makes the situation better, or comes up with a better, different source of power, like hydrogen or something. Here's what I worry about... There could be a better form of energy that we are either close to finding, or close to making work, but we don't get there because the electric/hybrid car becomes the replacement for what we drive now. Then, years down the road we realize the disposal of the batteries becomes a worse issue than gas power. Then we got to start over to find something better only now we have problems from gas power still, AND we got a bunch of HUGE batteries that cost a bunch to recycle, or worse, end up in landfills. Really, in th end, only time will tell what impacts it's going to have, good or bad. I just hope somehow it ends up being good, although, I can't see how myself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Man, I'm glad this is the BS section... BTW, the batteries in the Nissan are NMH, not LIthium ION. Solar panels last forever, literly. Even if it took a whole barrel of oil to make one, it will produce far more energy over it's lifetime than it took to produce it, and it takes no additional energy to keep it running. IN just 20 years, I bet the ratio is 1000:1 in favor of the solar panel. Do you know what a solar panel is made of? It's not that hard to make energy wise. hybrids save all their gas in city driving, but you guys keep quoting highway milage as a comparison . Our car is driven 90% city, so for us it totaly makes sense. There is not a car mentioned in this topic that approaches, let alone beats a hybrid in city fuel milage, period. gas only cars can be made to be very efficent, but they aren't very fun to drive. A well sorted out hybrid can do both (not all are well sorted out, but the altima is). the battery is disposable, so are you saying this waste is exceeding that of using just gasoline as a power source assuming the hybrid option only saves you 10 MPG over a 150,000 mile live span of the battery? In the case of the car we have, it saves about 2000 gallons of gasoline. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. When the barrel is processed, you may get something like 15 gallons of gasoline, 9 gal. of fuel oil (See Gasoil / D2), 10 gal. of jet fuel (Kerosene) and 4 gal of other "heavy" products such as lubricants, grease, asphalt / bitumene and plastics, and 4 gallons of lighter condensates/naphtha Read more: http://wiki.answers....l#ixzz1eY20GxU1 Keep in mind that the refining process is only 90% efficent, it takes 10% of that energy to distill and refine the oil into fuel. so that 2000 gallons of gas represents 2200 gallons of oil derived fuel. they burn the natural gas in the oil to fuel the process. (I am discounting the other usable fuels and compounds in that barrel of crude, we still need that stuff too). My 200-300 pound battery saves a tanker truck load of crude oil. When I throw the battery into the land fill, it takes up a few cubic feet of space. If I burned 2200 gallons of gasoline, I create 13,714 pounds of carbon in the air. Keep i nmind this does not take in to account any of the transport costs/wastes of that gasoline, those can be conciderable as well. it is waste to toss a battery at 150,000 miles? Yes. Is burning more gas to save on batteris in a landfil better? I can't see how anyone could say yes to that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Interesting points Burton, but the malibu is a poor car to compaere. They were a very inefficent answer to the problem, wehn we shopped, it was the least efficent of all hybrids on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 http://www.abatterypack.com/news/Recycling-your-battery.htm Although NiMH batteries are considered environmentally friendly, this chemistry is also being recycled. The main derivative is nickel, which is considered semi-toxic. The NiMH battery yields the best return. Recycling NiMH produces enough nickel to pay for the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 To ensure that hybrid batteries are returned to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information. Salvage companies that want to get a battery recycled can present it to any Toyota dealer and receive a $150 core reward. Toyota has been recycling NiMH batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, are recycled or processed for disposal. At the recycler, the battery modules are separated from the wire harness, controller and metal shell (all common materials that are recycled). Using a first generation Prius battery as an example:After the above mentioned parts are removed, there are 89 pounds of batteries.The plates are removed from the cases leaving 11 pounds of plastic cases and 78 pounds of plates/chemicals/and absorbent materials.The plastic cases (Polypropylene) are recycled similar to any other consumer plastic.Of the remaining 78 pounds, we extract 32 pounds of nickel that is sold into the steel industry as an alloy to make stainless steel, four pounds of cobalt that is used in a variety of industries -- other batteries and super alloys, and five pounds of common alloy steel (terminals and intercell connectors).The remaining materials and chemicals are processed for recycling or disposed in an environmentally friendly fashion following local, state, and federal regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance_S Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Yeah, It seems like everyone keeps forgetting clean diesel but America won't drive them. I had an E320CDI mercedes for a work car for a couple years. At 80 mph on the highway I got between 38 and 41 MPG. And that is a full size sedan, not a prius. I actually got better gas mileage at 80 mph than a prius. And the new diesels are so quite you can hardly tell they are diesels, they don't smoke like the old ones do either and run cleaner with less emissions than gas engines, but no one buys them???? The Jetta TDI gets 45 to 50 mpg, great car for commuting. The mini in England can be had with a diesel (not available here in the states) in that little thing gets 65 mpg. I don't know, maybe it's an American thing but I loved my diesel merc. I drove it from 70K miles to 160K miles and only changed tires and brake pads. Very reliable. I believe diesel is a good option but over here, people don't like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierquest Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 I'm not sure about most people but I seldom do any city driving. My commute is about 45 miles round trip with most all interstate, for me a hybrid would not be worth it. I car pull with 2 other guys, so that helps the a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turborusty Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 The "green" movement is not about saving the evironment....it's about the government controlling our consumption of resources. Not in the name of preservation, but in the name of governmental gontrol. Turborusty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucw458 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Hydrogen is a better solution but 2 things need to happen first to make it viable. 1 we need a cheaper way to produce hydrogen 2 an infrastructure needs to be built so hydrogen is available everywhere like gas is. #2 is important. Look at e85 currently. More people would consider converting to e85 if the fuel was readily available but it's not. I can't find it local to me so if I converted I wouldn't be able to get fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmyers151 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Solar panels last forever, literally. Even if it took a whole barrel of oil to make one, it will produce far more energy over it's lifetime than it took to produce it, and it takes no additional energy to keep it running. IN just 20 years, I bet the ratio is 1000:1 in favor of the solar panel. Do you know what a solar panel is made of? It's not that hard to make energy wise. The last time I checked, ~2 years ago, the output of a solar panel is de-rated at a rate of about 1% per year of service depending on location. As far as I know, they do not last forever, and require replacement and/or maintenance periodically. Also, in most (if not all) systems, the panel(s) main function is to charge a group of batteries. These batteries require replacement at regular intervals. It's not just about the resources required to manufacture the equipment, but also the pollutants produced during production. We're talking environmental impact, not just consumption of resources. Just like during the machining of metal, chips/heat/steam are produced. Similar, yet more toxic (IMO), materials are released during the production of PV panels. I'm not 100% sure as to what these materials are, as I've only design systems utilizing photovoltaic panels, but I know these things exist and that I haven't designed or specified a PV system in over 2 years. If your discussing hydronic solar panels, then we're on different pages. I'm pretty sure those are just a black garden hose in a glass box. I'm not looking to start a fight here, just using the knowledge I've obtained to try and expand the discussion. Edited November 23, 2011 by dmyers151 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucw458 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Got a 98 mustang 3.8 lt has 6 coils why?????what was wrong with one coil?????doesn.t make any better performance .but there 6 more things to go bad. Ignition coils take time to charge. Usually refered to as dwell time. With only one coil the spark can get weaker at high rpm because it doesn't have the same charge time as it does at lower rpm. By having 6 coils each coil has 6x the time to charge so they produce a hot spark for lower emmissions and better power throughout the rpm range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 what does it take to produce, distribute, and subsequently burn a gallon of gasolie? Everythign has "overhead", photovoltaic is no exception. I just think the idea that gasoline burning energy source is are more efficent than most green technology when considering all the "overehad" involved is a farce. If you burn a gallon of gas in your car, you :create polution,use up a non-renewable resouce,you have to pull 1.8 gallons ouf crude of the ground,distribute it,refine it,distribute it again,dispense itbuild/machine a complicated internal combustion machine with many other resources the idea behind a hybrid is to minimize the gasoline component of this equasion. You trade off the gasoline component for the battery component. Is a battery that adds 33% to the economy of the fuel consumption rate worth the added expense and components needed to accomplish this system? I think it is, but thats my opinion. Some say no, but don't seem to have a lot invested in the science behind their opinions. The idea behind the all electric is to elimiate the gasoline component and trade for the battery component, and to draw out of the power grid. Is the power in your neighborhood "clean"? mine is (hydro), but not every one else's is. It's all trade offs, but are the trades equal or not? It takes energy to type this conversation on the internet to discuss such things, do we take that into consideration too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Komeuppance Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 "Spit that hydro ghetto shhh..." I avoid Priuses, they're creating another pollution: Smugness. Evident when they are doing the speed limit in the fast lane and will not move over because they feel like people shouldn't be going faster, and purposefully hold up traffic. Or when they know two lanes will merge into one and don't want to be behind your smoking van even though it's going faster than they are, so they try to speed up and cut you off, but you know they'll just go slower than the speed limit after getting in front. But what they didn't realize is that the guy in the van with the bad valve seals was going faster for a reason, and does not hesitate to go WOT... especially when a Prius tries to get the jump. -Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmyers151 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 It's all trade offs, but are the trades equal or not? This is what I was trying to get at. Do the resources required and pollutants produced in manufacturing a hybrid/electric vehicle equal those of a tradition internal combustion car? I haven't a definitive answer. An educated guess says both are about the same, and it's just a scheme to look more environmentally conscious as a way to move more product. Those who know me will agree that I'm by no means a believer in any great conspiracy, but my gut tells me these hybrids don't add up like most are led to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance_S Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 I don't care nearly as much about the conversation, I just like to continue seeing Dmeyers151 Black Quest and Black rims with the racing stripe. Oh yes....I will paint my red car black some day......some day....it will happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 what about hydro power, vs nuclear, vs coal? they are all damaging the environment, just in different ways. One is causing climate change, the other two are equaly bad, but the effects can be mitigated (if we choose to). I think the same argument can be made for hybrid, vs all electric, vs pure gasoline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucw458 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 what about hydro power, vs nuclear, vs coal? they are all damaging the environment, just in different ways. One is causing climate change, the other two are equaly bad, but the effects can be mitigated (if we choose to). I think the same argument can be made for hybrid, vs all electric, vs pure gasoline. I fail to see how hydro electric can be as bad as coal or nuclear. Sure it changes the land a bit but it's renewable, clean, and creates lakes. It's also cheaper than the other 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahjah Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Environmentally friendly people like shelling out big bucks for them hybrid cars (garbage). They not only pay big time up front when they purchase these things new, but also in maintenance costs. To top it off, those stupid cars have a shelf life, when that hybrid battery goes south. And those batteries go south after 4-5 years. Then it's to time to pay up $3500-$4000 bucks for the batteries, plus labor and let me tell you the labor is ASTRONOMICAL! So in actuality, the bill can can be around $5k! Where's the benefit in that? Oh, and let's not forget something really important: What to do with the hybrid batteries after they're spent? Only recently did Toyota start a recycling program for those ground polluting batteries. Alot of auto recyclers just send them batteries to landfills or leave them in the car bodies to be crushed. Some auto dismantlers don't bother touching them because it can be dangerous, even dealerships have to have a specially trained tech to handle them batteries, hence why they charge up the tail pipe for labor. and that is my anti hybrid cars rant! So go ahead, go green, spend your money, your still polluting the air, your still polluting the ground, your still burning fossil fuels...but go ahead, get a hybrid, "go green" I've worked for two auto manufacturers who make hybrid cars. I've spent about 6 years with Toyota and about a year now with Hyundai and some of your information is just wrong. 1. The batteries are lasting longer than 4-5 years. the warranty on them is really long. like 10yr on some of the newer cars i think2. Surevys say that most of the people who buy hybrid cars buy them because they like the technology and think the new tech is cool. Not because they are trying to save the planet.3. They charge a standard time to do the labor, its not crazy rates or hours because 90% of it is warranty(read #1) and Techs are trained in hybrid just like techs are trained in transmissions or engines or how to read a check engine light. Its expected for all of them to be able to work on hybrids. Edited November 23, 2011 by jahjah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts