Hybrid tree hugger rant...

[Lindsay Richards]

Methinks you Tree Killers are counting your chickens before they hatch.

Wanting to protect my family by driving not driving a dinky car that gets 54 miles a gallon in the type of driving that I do is now somehow being a tree killer? There isn't a safe vehicle out there now that will get 54 miles a gallon today on a 300 mile trip. That is just the fleet average and half will have to get much more. What is wrong with just using the natural resources we have under our feet and off our shores?

[RickO]

Originally Posted by Jack1234

1)
Regardless, I'd love to see hybrid technology as the "answer", but like solar & wind, I'm just not convinced these technologies are going to stand-up on their own (without subsidies or CAFE) or prove to be cost effective. I hate to see billions of $$$$$ wasted chasing a dream technology that just can't provide the quantum gains necessary to justify the expense in time & money.

Thanks Jack. I understand your points.

I'm learning more daily about this topic and am trying to remain objective. Hopefully the hybrid will serve as a bridge to something much better but there is probably not one "answer".

Rick

[RustyJC]

Shown below is an interesting chart by Dennis Simanaitis, long time Engineering Editor of Road & Track magazine. In this, he examines applicability of various technologies as a function of drive cycles and duty cycles. RVs will generally fall in the long range/high load corner of the chart.



BEV = battery electric vehicles
HEV = hybrid electric vehicles
PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
FCEV = fuel cell electric vehicles

The full article is HERE and certainly worth reading.

Rusty

[Jack1234]

Originally Posted by RickO

Thanks Jack. I understand your points.

I'm learning more daily about this topic and am trying to remain objective. Hopefully the hybrid will serve as a bridge to something much better but there is probably not one "answer".

Rick

If the hybrid is only a bridge to something better "what" is better?

At the end of the day we are left to play the hand we are dealt. Unless, we can find someway to deconstruct our bodies into a series of molecular "dots& dashes" so that Scotty can beam us from place to place.....I think we are stuck with converting energy (fossil fuels) into power (horsepower) running through a mechanical contraption ( the car). We are stuck with the laws of thermodynamics where .......energy is neither created nor destroyed ......but is "converted". It is during the conversion that economics begins to take over from science. We can probably create some sort of super car that gets 200mpg, but can we afford to build it and can we afford to buy it?

Yada, Yada, Yada....

One solution is to keep exploring the limits of existing technologies.....better aerodynamics, lighter materials, more efficient combustion....Another solution is the marriage of technologies....combustion with electrical. =....... The hybrid. Both of these options have scientific limits (physics) which drive the economics and are subject to the law of " diminishing returns".

The solution is actually pretty simple if we want to kick the fossil fuel habit......nuclear fission or fusion. This is the most energy "dense" power source that we currently understand. If we want the equivalent of 200mpg cars, we are going to need to drive little mini nuclear power plants.

[RickO]

Originally Posted by Jack1234

If the hybrid is only a bridge to something better "what" is better?

I certainly have no idea but continuing to rely on a fuel source which is, by its very nature, finite and just letting our kids figure it all out doesn't seem to be an acceptable approach in my book either.

The political and economic infrastructure surrounding oil has a great incentive to maintain status quo.

Rick

[BCooke]

Originally Posted by RickO

I certainly have no idea but continuing to rely on a fuel source which is, by its very nature, finite and just letting our kids figure it all out doesn't seem to be an acceptable approach in my book either.

Well ummmm...... not necessarily completely true any more...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1129123307.htm
Hopefully better than then ethanol.

[Jack1234]

Originally Posted by RickO

I certainly have no idea but continuing to rely on a fuel source which is, by its very nature, finite and just letting our kids figure it all out doesn't seem to be an acceptable approach in my book either.

The political and economic infrastructure surrounding oil has a great incentive to maintain status quo.

Rick

Fair enough.....but if you think about.....man began by creating fire which burned wood ( a finite resource) and left his children to discover coal (another finite resource) who left their children to discover fossil fuels (gas& oil / finite) who will leave their children to exploit uranium ( fission/fusion -finite) who will leave it to their children to harness ( wind & solar - also finite BTW)....and if any of these generations fail....well......over 99.9% of all species who have ever lived on planet earth are now extinct!

[Paul R. Haller]

I don't really understand this argument. I think we all agree the fossil fuels are a dwindling resource. Those that can afford to should reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. I put my $ where my mouth is... and put in triple pane windows, insulate, buy 15 seer air conditioning units, tankless hot water heaters, and 97% efficiency furnaces. I changed all my CFLs to LED lights too. We also own 2 Priuses. Does that make me a tree hugger or a responsible world citizen trying any way I can to reduce my carbon footprint and live susstainably? I would argue the latter. It's not about what's best for me and MY $, it's about what's good for us all.

[moderator edit - partisan politics are not permitted on any forum]

-Paul R. Haller-

[jspande]

Originally Posted by Jack1234

1)

For example - the 2012 Honda Civic Hybrid is rated at a combined mpg of 44 & costs $24,200......while the normal gas Civic is rated at a combined mpg of 39 & costs $15,955.......,. Does the cost-benefit add-up?

But hey! I'm open to be proven all "wet" on this point.

Well, mistaken (I'll let you decide humidity level).

A $15,955 Civic would have to be a stripped down entry level model. Hybrids are well equipped (at least Honda). For example, only the automatic (CVT - Continuously Variable) transmission was available when I bought mine (2003 Civic Hybrid). As I recall, I paid about $2500 more than a comparably equiped non-hybrid Civic. Exact comparison was a bit difficult since the CVT was not even available on the standard Civic.

I figure I saved about 10 - 15 mpg over 95,000 miles with my driving pattern (initially 500 miles per week, then much less upon retirement) versus the VW New Beetle I previously had, so that's about 800 gal saved or $2800 @$3.50 per gal. It's also been the most reliable car I've ever owned so I'm highly satisfied with my choice.

[Lindsay Richards]

I think we all agree the fossil fuels are a dwindling resource.

We have centuries worth of coal, oil, and natural gas. We are not in danger or running out. Technology has vastly extended the available supplies drastically in the last few years. The shortfall of supply is politician in nature, not geological. The bridge to the future is at least a hundred years old. Not much more than 100 years ago, we depended on sperm whale oil for lighting. You rant on GW sure didn't do your argument any good. I am sure changing your CFLs to LEDs made you feel so good, but don't look down your nose at the rest of us who have different opinions. When the wackos announced the ban on incandescent, I bought several cases of Decade bulbs that will last through my lifetime. Once again, 98% of us don't buy hybrids or EV. Anybody who drives a motor home and worries about his carbon foot print must not be thinking things through. How about a tent to carry in your Prisus?

[guglipm63]

Anybody who drives a motor home and worries about his carbon foot print must not be thinking things through. How about a tent to carry in your Prisus?

Well said

[Jack1234]

Originally Posted by jspande

Well, mistaken (I'll let you decide humidity level).

A $15,955 Civic would have to be a stripped down entry level model. Hybrids are well equipped (at least Honda). For example, only the automatic (CVT - Continuously Variable) transmission was available when I bought mine (2003 Civic Hybrid). As I recall, I paid about $2500 more than a comparably equiped non-hybrid Civic. Exact comparison was a bit difficult since the CVT was not even available on the standard Civic.

I figure I saved about 10 - 15 mpg over 95,000 miles with my driving pattern (initially 500 miles per week, then much less upon retirement) versus the VW New Beetle I previously had, so that's about 800 gal saved or $2800 @$3.50 per gal. It's also been the most reliable car I've ever owned so I'm highly satisfied with my choice.

Your right? I am totally wet on this point. If you go to the Honda web-site and "check" every box on a Honda Civic EXL with Nav. You can get the price to $30,000. If you do the same with the Hybrid it also tops- out at $30,000. Next time I'm looking for a $30,000 Civic, I will definitely consider a BMW!

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

Wanting to protect my family by driving not driving a dinky car that gets 54 miles a gallon in the type of driving that I do is now somehow being a tree killer?

Flip of the coin. I'm trying to protect my family from the ginormous tree killer vehicle that you're driving!

[Lindsay Richards]

Flip of the coin. I'm trying to protect my family from the ginormous tree killer vehicle that you're driving!

What kind of RV do you drive and what mileage does it get? I guess you also believe in the myth of global warming too.