PDA

View Full Version : A question about fuel economy to all the boy geniuses..and girls



Michael Gibbons
12-23-2008, 6:51 PM
... Do you think we have tapped all the energy available in a drop of gas? I'm far from an engineer but I have heard that for every 100 lbs you remove from a vehicle you gain about 5 hp which would probably get you more MPH. So all the car companies have to do now is lighten the cars without sacrificing safety, correct??.. BTW, at what speed do they test vehicles to come up with the gas mileage ratings on the window sticker??

Brian Willan
12-23-2008, 7:05 PM
... Do you think we have tapped all the energy available in a drop of gas? I'm far from an engineer but I have heard that for every 100 lbs you remove from a vehicle you gain about 5 hp which would probably get you more MPH. So all the car companies have to do now is lighten the cars without sacrificing safety, correct??.. BTW, at what speed do they test vehicles to come up with the gas mileage ratings on the window sticker??


Not even close to tapping all the energy in a drop of gas. The internal combustion engine is about 15% efficient according to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml. Diesel engines are more efficient than gas. Still nowhere close to using all of the energy available.

A gallon of gas has about 35KWh of energy. Now if you want to talk about efficient motors, electric is the way to go. Most electric motors are well over 85% efficient.

Cheers

Brian

Larry Edgerton
12-23-2008, 7:24 PM
The formula that you heard is baloney. It would have to change continually with the weight of the car as the percentage of difference would be changing as the car became lighter and lighter. For example at 2000 pounds a 100 pound loss would be a 5% decrease in weight. At 200 pounds it would be a 50% decrease in weight. So for your theory to work it would have to consider that variables, not just weight but efficiency, wind resistance[CD], etc. and so on. I would not add 5 hp anyway, but would rather require less HP to move the same distance. It would however increase the speed of acceleration, not MPH. Top speed is governed more by aero than weight. For example to double the top speed requires four time the HP.

That sounds like one of those things tossed around in the same conversation with the 75mpg carburetor.


Less weight is a viable way to improve performance. I spent most of my life wasting my money racing one thing or another, and development to make it handle better and go faster is the fun part for me.

Paul Ryan
12-23-2008, 8:06 PM
Guys I am an ex master auto mechanic. I had been at it for 17 years untill I quite last year. There are lots and lots of veriables that goes into fuel mileage. I bigest thing effecting fuel milage right now is the emission requirements. You may not believe this but today's fuel injected motors must burn more fuel to meet emission requlation. That is baloney you might say. Think about it this way. The very 1st car I owned was a 1969 plymouth barracuda. It had a 318 with a 2 barrel carb. I got consistantly 20 mpg on the highway. I increased that to 28 mpg in the summer when I could lean out the carb. But this car did not have a cataylitic converter or oxygen sensors. In order for todays vehicles with cat converters to clean up the NOX emissions they have to get hot 800-1100 degrees. In order to get that hot they have to have fuel in the cat. So the oxygen sensors along with you map or maf sensor adjust the fuel mix to get the cat to "light off" once this happens the NOX emissions are cleaned up enough to meet regulations. But if is gets too hot then the carbon emissions are out of wack, and the cat will burn up. We all have seen the dreaded check engine light. But most know unless it starts flashing you can continue to drive the car until you can get it serviced. The only reason the light will start flashing is because you have a hard miss fire. And this is allowing to much unburndt fuel to get to the cat and make it get really hot, like red hot. If this happens the cat will burn up and be wrecked. I am not against clean emissions but the auto companies are facing consumers that want lots of power for towing and pleasure, but also the government saying the emissions need to be cleaner. You could much better fuel enconomy out of todays fuel injected engines if you could just lean them out. But if that happens then the emissions would be out of wack. We also have ac and ps systems taking power away from the engine that wasn't the case in the past. But gasoline is not a very efficent fuel to begine with. There is double the BTU's of heat in a gallon of diesel then in gas. But the future is not fossile fuels because they release horrible gases and solids into the atmosphere. Hopefully it will be electricity and then soon after fuel cells. I could write forever about mileage and emissions but who would want to listen. That is my .02.

Karl Brogger
12-23-2008, 8:17 PM
NOBODY is willing to pay for the technology and research it would take to make a vehicle really fuel efficient. Just adding a turbo boosts economy drastically, using wasted energy to pump more air into the engine. Volumetric effieciency is one of the most important factors to squeazing the most energy out of fuel, whether its alcohol, gasoline, or diesel.

The easiest way to raise effeciency is to lower the load on the engine, as in drag from valve train, and windage from oil. Use a drysump engine, getting the oil out of the crankcase will allow lower engine temps, (smaller water pump/less drag), plus the crank doesn't need to dip through the oil every revolution. Overhead cams did alot to reduce drag on the engine, but they are still driven by the engine. Switching to a system of electic solenoids, or running the valve train off of compressed air would be a good way to go. The added benifit would be that a computer would be able to control the cam timing and duration for essentially any RPM or load. You could go from a mileage setting to a performance setting at the push of a button. But no one is willing to pay for what is basically a Formula One engine. I always got a kick out of the Nascar folks, 800hp out of a 5.8L V8 engine, while F1 is getting 945hp from a twin turbo'd 1.8L V12 turning 22k rpm or better.

The absolute best engines that we have, as far as economy goes, is train engines. 2-stroke, w/ valves, supercharged, and turbo charged. The train companies wouldn't use them if there was something better.

Greg Cuetara
12-23-2008, 8:22 PM
Paul,
I for one would want to listen to more so please keep going if you have more to say. I am an engineer by trade but know nothing about cars. I hate to take my car into the shop because I know I am getting duped everytime I go in.

When I was living in CO they increased the ethanol in gas during the winter months and I always saw a decrease in fuel economy. I always questioned that because the ethanol was supposed to make the emissions better but you used more gas to get from point A to B so in the end you would be putting the same amount of emissions into the air. Not sure if this is correct but this is what I always thought and questioned.

Greg

Karl Brogger
12-23-2008, 8:24 PM
The biggest thing effecting fuel milage right now is the emission requirements.

Look at new diesel pickups, I've got a 2001 Cummins, before the switch to Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD), I was consistantly getting 21mpg with a 4wd, 7400# pickup. With the switch to ULSD I'm struggling to get 18 mpg. The new super clean diesels, post 2007, struggle to get 12mpg.:mad: Plus they have MAJOR mechanical issues. Some guys are removing the EGR valve, and the scrubber and instantly seeing a 5-6 mpg increase. If they get caught they're in a world of trouble though. I think the fine starts around $20k.

Jim Becker
12-23-2008, 8:36 PM
BTW, at what speed do they test vehicles to come up with the gas mileage ratings on the window sticker??

It used to be 50 or 55 mpg, but the new EPA rating system is supposed to be much closer to how folks drive in the real world. That's why all the sticker ratings dropped a year or so ago.

While it's true that saving weight will generally improve fuel economy it's still a balancing act. In order to save weight and also satisfy folks with all the features they want in a vehicle, a lot more has to be done with alternative materials, etc...many of us are just not willing to give up the toys!

Dennis Peacock
12-23-2008, 8:46 PM
I noticed that when we got gasoline with 10% ethanol in it, my fuel mileage immediately dropped by 10%. My minivan went from 25 MPG to just shy of 23 MHP and even my Honda Shadow motorclcye dropped from 51 MPG to just barely 46 MPG.

I can't quiet figure it out.......I pay the same for fuel, I get the same amount of fuel, but I get less mileage out of that same gallon of gas....so I'm buying MORE. just doesn't make good sense to me.

Karl Brogger
12-23-2008, 10:33 PM
I noticed that when we got gasoline with 10% ethanol in it, my fuel mileage immediately dropped by 10%.


This is why ethanol is such a cruel joke. Supposedly you get almost a 1.3 return by volume. You put 1 gallon of diesel into the production of the corn, and you get 1.3 gallons of ethanol. Great! but as far as energy goes, we've lost. It takes almost twice the amount of alcohol, which is more or less what ethanol is from an power producing standpoint, to generate the same amount of HP. In certain applications it is a good thing, but that is only when the fuel is used as a way to reduce temperatures in the cylinder. Ethanol is really hard on anything rubber, if the fuel system is designed for it, fine. If you're dumping that fuel into something older it will eventually dry rot many of the seals gaskets and hoses.

No easy solutions.

Give me a flat out electric car! No batteries like the hybrids. Just a generator, and electric motor. I like the idea of having the same amount of power at any given rpm.

Jim Becker
12-23-2008, 10:40 PM
Give me a flat out electric car! No batteries like the hybrids. Just a generator, and electric motor. I like the idea of having the same amount of power at any given rpm.

What runs the generator? (My mind is seeing Fred Flintstone... LOL :D )

Ben Rafael
12-23-2008, 11:09 PM
Not even close to tapping all the energy in a drop of gas. The internal combustion engine is about 15% efficient according to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml. Diesel engines are more efficient than gas. Still nowhere close to using all of the energy available.

A gallon of gas has about 35KWh of energy. Now if you want to talk about efficient motors, electric is the way to go. Most electric motors are well over 85% efficient.

Cheers

Brian

If used in a fission reaction a gallon of gasoline would produce approximately 12 megajoules of energy(If I remember my physics correctly). So if we were really serious about energy efficiency we need automobiles to have fission engines. 1 gallon of gas is all you would need to run your car for your lifetime.
The oil companies would never allow fission engines in cars, it would kill their business.

Joe Chritz
12-24-2008, 12:12 AM
What runs the generator? (My mind is seeing Fred Flintstone... LOL :D )

Seriously it is likely coal.

Gasoline engines will get the advancements they need when the market forces them to do so. That is one of the cool things about supply and demand and the open market. Some government interference is needed (emissions, safety standards, etc) but some just hurt everyone.

Ethanol is a great alternate fuel source when we stop producing it from corn and start using easier to produce crops. The biggest advantage is that the infrastructure is already in place to distribute it.

It is coming but it is likely to get painful before it gets here.

Joe

Neal Clayton
12-24-2008, 3:49 AM
I can't quiet figure it out.......I pay the same for fuel, I get the same amount of fuel, but I get less mileage out of that same gallon of gas....so I'm buying MORE. just doesn't make good sense to me.

it does if you're an oil conglomerate.


Seriously it is likely coal.

Gasoline engines will get the advancements they need when the market forces them to do so. That is one of the cool things about supply and demand and the open market. Some government interference is needed (emissions, safety standards, etc) but some just hurt everyone.

Ethanol is a great alternate fuel source when we stop producing it from corn and start using easier to produce crops. The biggest advantage is that the infrastructure is already in place to distribute it.

It is coming but it is likely to get painful before it gets here.

Joe

people have been saying "it's coming" for decades, we have less efficient versions of the same engines in everything detroit produces than we had a decade ago.

there is no open market. 2/3 of the oil market is controlled by a cartel. the US government selectively tariffs competing vehicles at detroit's behest to make sure "it's coming" never comes. if you think there are advancements in oil production and consumption drive to texas city sometime.

Mitchell Andrus
12-24-2008, 10:05 AM
The gasoline driven cars we know and drive today will be around for 15 - 20 years. Changes come slowly, and used cars don't get scrapped as blithely as they used to. So, the cars we're driving today will be here in great numbers til 2030 or longer.

Hybrids are a joke of an excuse for innovation. At 100,000 miles they won't be worthy of spending any money for a replacement battery. When the government of Japan stops the subsidies, new batteries will be unavailable for older models. spend $2,500.00 for a 10% increase in gas milage???? Right! At about 75,000 miles and a 15% efficient battery, you're pretty much back to driving a gas powered car like everyone else.

Hybrids are the automotive bridge to nowhere.

Fuel cell cars are DOA. The infrastructure changes required to deliver the fuel, not to mention the cost of production of the hydrogen and the cost to maintain the cars's systems put this off the table. Interesting college project, not gonna happen. The low cost to deliver electricity and the low cost to buy the power for charging a battery has already killed this concept.

All-electric drives will be showing up 3 years, super big-time in about 8 years - but as econo-boxes only. You'll see some bigger stuff like pick-ups and vans in about 12 years. We'll plug them in where we can, the rest of the time, they'll charge via a constant RPM gas engine turning a generator. Go the mall, restaurant, grandma's house? - The gas engine will run while you park if you tell your car the trip home is beyond the battery's range. It'll take about 3 hours of charge time to get you 1 hour of drive time. Gas engine efficiency about doubles when it only runs at it's optimum speed and is designed for a set load, as is the case with all-electrics.

Our driving habits will change substantially. The week-long road trip will be a distant memory. So will towing a boat and warming up the car in the middle of January.

Nuclear power plants and wind farms will need to be built to avoid running our cars on coal/electric not to mention the 50% increase in the county's population by 2070. So, NIMBY is gonna go away.

If we're going to change - we're gonna change a lot of stuff.

Paul Ryan
12-24-2008, 11:13 AM
I would debate with anyone that says fuel cells aren't the answer. We will face lots of problems developing the infristrusture to delever hydrogen at 1st but as technology advances we will be able to fill up at home. There are already toy cars and model airplanes that run off of water. They break down the water into hydrogen and make electricity. They problem with that is it costs too much at this time to put into cars. The day will come when it won't cost as much and a 50k car wont seem so expensive.
I live in MN which is a huge elthanol producting state. All I can say about ethanol is using it and making it is a enormous mistake. The only benifit from ethanol is it is cleaner to burn than gas. It has less BTU's per gallon than gas. That is why in states when it is put in winter gas your mileage goes down. In MN we always have %10 in and are going to %20 by 2010 which is a huge mistake. The only people it is good for is the ethanol producers. Farmers don't want it, but or government thinks it beneifits farmers. The corn will get used no matter what. Ethanol is a poor poor fuel to be used for transpertion. It can be produced with many other things that corn, which wont effect food prices as much. But using ethanol still causes a 25-30% drop in fuel efficency because of what it is. You have to buy ethanol at the station for about $1.50 a gallon less just to break even compared to using gas. The only tihng switching to ethanol will do for you wether it is a %20 blend or E85 is lower your MPG. The fuel won't save us money, it actually costs us more. Becasue government subsidies, increased food costs, and lower MPG all with a gallon costing the same $$. And the emissions comming out of the tail pipe arn't much better.

Paul Ryan
12-24-2008, 12:30 PM
Now I can go on my rant about the new diesel trucks. As of 2007 Ford, GM, and Dodge began putting in clean diesel engines in their trucks. The new diesel engines are cleaner than a cars gasoline engine due to the new fuel and designs. What makes these new diesel engine clean are new components like EGR valves to cool the exhaust, oxygen sensors to monitor the exhaust, ultra low sulfur fuel, and the biggest thing a particulate filter. The particulate filter does what the nane implies filters particulates. What has now happened to these trucks with the large diesel engines is they have become WORK ONLY VEHICLES. If you drive them as a grocery getter, or a communter, the particulate filter plugs up so fast, that you get poor fuel mileage and consistant check engine lights, in less than 3k miles. So those people that have bought diesel trucks to pull campers and boats 5 times a year now cannot use this vehicle for everyday use. In my opinion it was necessary to clean up the emissions being put out by the older engines, but the salesmen need to educate their customers to the fact that this is not the same vehicle it once was. And the old engines that made 500 lb/ft of torque required less fuel than a new engine that makes 650 lb/ft.

It is still all in the name of cleaning up the tail pipe emissions whether it is gas, diesel, or ethanol. But in order to clean up the emissions we burn more fuel. Which again sounds like a bunch of baloney but it is the truth. We as consumers either need to sacrifice the power and perfomance we like, or just suck it up. And understand that to be able to pull a 3k lb camper, a 5k lb boat, a 10k trailer, or be able to merge into on comming trafic is a split second, requires lots of fuel when ever the engine is running.

Mitchell Andrus
12-24-2008, 12:45 PM
I would debate with anyone that says fuel cells arn't the answer. We will face lots of problems developing the infristrusture to delever hydrogen at 1st but


When you compare apples to apples, the differences in losses/costs derived from production and delivery of hydrogen compared to the losses/costs derived from the production and delivery of eletricity are remarkable.

We need 'easy' really fast and hydrogen isn't it.

Nobody who's familiar with hydrogen will tell you any different: Hydrogen as a delivery/end use system is too far away from the simplicity of straight electric to make a meaningful run at the same market. Turning fossil or nuke or coal into elecricity, then into hydrogen, then transporting it, then turning it back into electricity makes no economic sense.

Electric power transmitted over an existing power grid and stored in the vehicle as electric power is light-years ahead in efficiency and infrastructure costs. Buying the electricty as an end user is pretty cheap too.

Hydrogen cost$ too much to make, store, transport, store again and pump into a car. On-the-spot generation at the service station isn't the answer either. Large-scale production.. even small scale production isn't possible at a 1/4 acre service station. At home generation?... forget it. Cheaper to just plug in the car and use the power as it already exists.

Ask your mother or sister which is better, a plug-in car that also charges itself on a bit of gasoline but only when away from home, ...or a hydrogen powered car with 75 pounds of Hindenburg under your kid's rear ends?

I know my answer.
.

Rob Russell
12-24-2008, 12:46 PM
Folks,



A couple of reminders about the SMC Terms of Service:

No profanity, including abbreviations. Your post should be readable by a conservative southern Baptist grandmother or 10 year old with out issue.
No politics.
I've had to edit several posts in the thread to bring things back in line with the TOS. Please keep the discussion germane to the topic of the orignal question (have we gotten all the power out of gasoline) or, if you want to discuss alternate technologies, that's fine - just keep the politics out of the thread and the discussion clean.

Thanks and Happy Holidays from the Moderators.

Rob

Paul Ryan
12-24-2008, 1:08 PM
I apologise for my roughness and implied profanity it was not necessary.

I agree completly that in todays technology the transportation of hydrogen is not the answer. But in order to have the freedom that we do today. To be able to jump in our car and drive to yellowstone, florida, or where ever you want to go, with out stoppping for 6-7 hours to recharge your cars battery. That some type of electricity producing system needs to be on board. It will start with a car light the Chevy Volt, a small gasoline generator. But eventually I think it is completely necessary to have some type of clean fuel we can fill our cars up with that can be turned into electricity. And that is a fuel cell, I am not saying we have pump straight hydrogen into the car, but why not water. It can be done now with very small engines, and someday with large engines like V6's, and V8's.

To get back on topic we are finding more and more ways to get power out of a gallon of gas. GM now has Direct inject thechnology in a 4 cycle engine. Instead of the fuel being injected ontop of the valve, and then the valves allowing it into the combustion chamber. The fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber so there is less fuel injected, and more is burned due to better atomization. But this technolgoy again costs money, and how much do you want to pay for a car!

Chris Padilla
12-24-2008, 1:59 PM
Don't pollute, Bike commute!

I know that a lot of people cannot bike commute but it can be a viable alternative.

I've been doing it for 3 years now, 28 miles per day, 140 miles per week, rain, snow, or sunshine! :)

There are too many cars on the road and we are an automobile-centric society. It is a tough battle but getting more folks out on bikes and out of their cars stuck in traffic would fix a fair amount of things....

Mitchell Andrus
12-24-2008, 2:09 PM
And that is a fuel cell, I am not saying we have pump straight hydrogen into the car, but why not water.


Water has zero capacity to move a feather, until you break the hydrogen away from the oxygen - with electricity.

So yes, you do have to pump hydrogen into the car.

Think of hydrogen as a way to store and transport the electricity that was used to break off the oxygen, and you'll understand how inefficient the process is.
.

Karl Brogger
12-24-2008, 2:25 PM
What runs the generator? (My mind is seeing Fred Flintstone... LOL :D )

Hybrids, the engine still drives the wheels, and runs a generator. Stop putting power to the wheels with the engine, have it do nothing but drive the generator. Whatever the most effecient RPM is, set it at that and let it buck.

Chris Padilla
12-24-2008, 2:27 PM
(My mind is seeing Fred Flintstone... LOL :D )

That's good, Jim!! Now just put some pedals on Fred's feet and away we go.... :D

David DeCristoforo
12-24-2008, 2:43 PM
The thing is, as long as we have petroleum, there will always be "something wrong" with "alternatives". But we are close to using up the petroleum. And the coal. After it's gone, the "alternatives" will not be alternatives any more. The truth is, we could have / should have solved these problems long ago. But we tend to be very short sighted. And we want it easy. We tend to get creative only when we have to. Right now, for the most part, we still don't believe we have to. At least where fossil fuels are concerned. Look at the bigger picture. It's very scary.

Ken Garlock
12-24-2008, 5:35 PM
Hello Good People.

Take some time to read this article in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency). The interesting thing is the table of the energy content of various fuels per unit volume.

BTW, I have a 2007 M/B E320 Bluetec diesel that gets over 33 mpg on the highway, consistently. It gets around 28 mpg in town, but will drop into the low 20s when tied up in traffic. Idling is a BIG killer of mpg.
MY best ever mileage was this last Thanksgiving day. I drove over 50 miles on US75 and I-30 to my daughters home, and got 39, yes thirty nine, mpg for the trip. I just set the cruise-control on 65 and watched the mpg readout rise. The engine is a 6 cyl., 3.2 liter with over 390 pound-feet of torque. It pushs you back in the seat as it goes from 0 to 60 in 6.6 sec.

Also note, my 2007 meets emission standards in all but 4 or 5 states. Starting in 2008 M/B Bluetec engines meet emissions standards in ALL 50 STATES, and still get over 30 mpg. THE TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE FOR CLEAN RUNNING DIESEL ENGINES. :mad:

My solution to the energy problem is to to build nuclear power plants along the seacoasts. Use the plants to dissociate sea water into hydrogen and oxygen. Collect the hydrogen for vehicle use, and let the oxygen back into the atmosphere, and collect sea water minerals for sale. Spent fuel rods from the plants can be reprocessed and and reused. Currently only about 15-20% of the fuel in a rod is used before the rod is removed from the reactor.(France is reclaiming fuel rods now.)

Ben Rafael
12-24-2008, 5:44 PM
With gas at $1.70 per gallon why would anyone buy a hydrogen car?

Jim Becker
12-24-2008, 6:05 PM
Hybrids, the engine still drives the wheels, and runs a generator. Stop putting power to the wheels with the engine, have it do nothing but drive the generator. Whatever the most effecient RPM is, set it at that and let it buck.

That's exactly the design of the Chevy Volt when (and if) it hits the market. The small (very small) gas engine doesn't directly engage the drive train. It only powers the generator when the vehicle reaches the limits of it's battery range. I suspect the plug-in Prius will also be similar when it's released.

Also, when I'm in my 2006 Highlander Hybrid or Professor Dr. SWMBO's 2008 Prius, if it's moving just on electric power, the gas engine is disengaged from the wheels.

Greg Peterson
12-24-2008, 7:03 PM
As to the OP, I think a recalibration of what fuel economy means is in order.

Fuel economy has been traditionally associated with automobiles. If we stop focusing on the word 'fuel' and give more consideration to 'energy' we start adding clarity to the discussion.

Fuel is simply a commodity that involves a finite group of stake holders. Oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, wave, ethanol and geothermal.

We need greater attention to how we use and waste energy. External power adapters, devices and appliances that require constant trickles of energy contribute mightily to the energy appetite. Why does the oven require power when not in use? Or the TV, answering machine, DVD player......

I think having all suburban residential housing off grid within a generation would be an excellent, albeit aggressive, goal. Having each house generating the power it requires would eliminate nuclear, coal and hydro plants. Industry could develop their own energy producing plants.

Imagine no electric bill, heating bill and gasoline bill.

Pie in the sky? Absolutely. Feasible? Not by today's standards. But then again, putting a man on the moon and returning him safely was a challenge that united this country in a way we haven't seen since. And look what happens when this nation bands together seeks a singular, well defined goal.

Neal Clayton
12-24-2008, 7:45 PM
Hello Good People.

Take some time to read this article in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency). The interesting thing is the table of the energy content of various fuels per unit volume.

BTW, I have a 2007 M/B E320 Bluetec diesel that gets over 33 mpg on the highway, consistently. It gets around 28 mpg in town, but will drop into the low 20s when tied up in traffic. Idling is a BIG killer of mpg.
MY best ever mileage was this last Thanksgiving day. I drove over 50 miles on US75 and I-30 to my daughters home, and got 39, yes thirty nine, mpg for the trip. I just set the cruise-control on 65 and watched the mpg readout rise. The engine is a 6 cyl., 3.2 liter with over 390 pound-feet of torque. It pushs you back in the seat as it goes from 0 to 60 in 6.6 sec.

Also note, my 2007 meets emission standards in all but 4 or 5 states. Starting in 2008 M/B Bluetec engines meet emissions standards in ALL 50 STATES, and still get over 30 mpg. THE TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE FOR CLEAN RUNNING DIESEL ENGINES. :mad:

My solution to the energy problem is to to build nuclear power plants along the seacoasts. Use the plants to dissociate sea water into hydrogen and oxygen. Collect the hydrogen for vehicle use, and let the oxygen back into the atmosphere, and collect sea water minerals for sale. Spent fuel rods from the plants can be reprocessed and and reused. Currently only about 15-20% of the fuel in a rod is used before the rod is removed from the reactor.(France is reclaiming fuel rods now.)

i have the 2006 model of the same car ken, and get a consistent 36 on the interstate in mine. also needs little maintenance compared to gasoline of course, oil changes every 10k or 1 year whichever comes first is about it other than wear-ables like belts brakes and hoses when they go out. the only thing i've had go bad in two years was the #6 glow plug which they happily warrantied a couple of months ago.

that's why i have no faith in the "it's coming when the market demands it" argument. that boat already sailed, the market demanded it in europe, and bosch, merc, BMW, and audi provided it quite some years ago. funny thing is, i mentioned this in another thread related to this topic recently, the only reason GM hasn't suffered from diesel issues like ford is cummins buys their electronics and injection system directly from bosch, ford and international tried to reverse engineer it and make their own to save a buck and failed miserably. there's your 'american ingenuity'. it might exist in small shops around the country but detroit seems devoid of it.

in the US we're protected from that market by detroit, oil companies, and the politicians they've paid to pretend to represent us.

but don't worry folks, if it all ever dries up i'll fill the merc with fried chicken grease and you can ride with me :D




Hybrids are a joke of an excuse for innovation. At 100,000 miles they won't be worthy of spending any money for a replacement battery. When the government of Japan stops the subsidies, new batteries will be unavailable for older models. spend $2,500.00 for a 10% increase in gas milage???? Right! At about 75,000 miles and a 15% efficient battery, you're pretty much back to driving a gas powered car like everyone else.



exactly, which is why detroit eagerly jumps on that bandwagon. they love throw away products, and hybrids are a great chance for them to weasel people into more throw away vehicles.

too bad our throw away society is the root of all of these problems.

Kevin Arceneaux
12-24-2008, 8:14 PM
Gee, just think how many folks will hit the unemployment office when oil run out.

For those of you think this is going to happen fast, well, it is time to get out of the clouds and face reality. While many of you do gooders think you are doing the "right" thing, well let's just leave it there.

BTW, are you going to give up woodworking? Or only use wood from a certified organic woods? Or ....

I have never seen a group of people out of touch.

Adios

John Schreiber
12-24-2008, 9:44 PM
Lots of good ideas and interesting discussions. Just one thing I know about and one additional idea to add.

Hydrogen is very difficult stuff to keep. As a gas, the molecules are so teeny tiny that many things which we think of as solid are porous to H2. For instance hydrogen can move through the glass in a light bulb. Typical gaskets and hoses would look like open space to hydrogen. Keeping it liquid means keeping it below -423 Fahrenheit. That's very difficult and requires a lot of energy. Another way to keep hydrogen is to bond it with some other chemical, but it takes energy to make and/or break that bond and the other chemical typically weighs as much as 100 times the hydrogen.

Those are solvable problems, but it seems to me that the cost and waste involved in solving them makes hydrogen a very unlikely solution.


Another approach to transportation policy is to change the way we use vehicles. We typically want a single vehicle which we can use for commuting to work, traveling with the family, towing a boat, hauling a load of lumber, handling heavy snow, and impressing friends. We also want it to be fun to drive and not look like brick.

There could be programs where you can drive a different vehicle depending on what you need at that time. If you mostly commute solo, you drive a single person car or motorcycle which gets 150 mpg. If you need something else, you quickly and conveniently change to a truck or van or convertible sports car or whatever you want. It won't be as convenient as having a half-dozen cars in your garage, but it is much more practical, and if handled well, could be quite realistic. Variations on public transportation could mix in with that idea too.

Greg Peterson
12-24-2008, 9:59 PM
I have never seen a group of people out of touch.

Adios

I agree with this sentiment 100%. I fail to understand why Amreicans want to keep giving money to OPEC. Don't they know that the only thing OPEC like's about Americans is our money? What's so rational about buying all that oil from regimes that can't stand us?

To be clear, when talking I'm talking about energy independence, I'm referring to the micro, not macro. The goal should be every household being fully capable of producing enough energy to provide for all their needs.

There would still be a need for oil, but the demand would be so low that our own reserves will be adequate to meet those needs.

What's to keep gas from going over $4.00 gallon again? Why put our economy and security at risk over oil? There's money to be made going green. The only ones that stand to lose anything are the ones that have a vested interest in the status quo.

Last couple of years at the gas pumps were painful enough, not interested in letting foreign interests pinch me for all I'm worth again.

Yes, people are indeed out of touch if they think gas/diesel prices can't go back up again.

Greg Peterson
12-24-2008, 10:15 PM
There could be programs where you can drive a different vehicle depending on what you need at that time. If you mostly commute solo, you drive a single person car or motorcycle which gets 150 mpg. If you need something else, you quickly and conveniently change to a truck or van or convertible sports car or whatever you want. It won't be as convenient as having a half-dozen cars in your garage, but it is much more practical, and if handled well, could be quite realistic. Variations on public transportation could mix in with that idea too.

Outside of the New York and Chicago, public transportation is a mixed bag.
Convenience is a paramount concern and easily justified. I agree that having a huge 4x4 pickup for the rare instance we get snow or ice out here doesn't make sense. But people do it anyway.

I suspect that there are generational divisions on these types of topics. I'm a tweener, and frankly I have very little in common with the generations on either side of me. Although the youngest ones coming of age seem the most adaptable.

Dennis Peacock
12-24-2008, 11:06 PM
Good question about the price of gas and it being $4 a gallon again. It will, and it will be more expensive than $4 per gallon. Just wait. IMHO, we are just in the lull-before-the-storm.

Sorry, no news agency proof (as if they are a real truth teller), but I just have this "feeling" that gas will be high enough to where $4 a gallon would be cheap. Just call me "suspicious". :rolleyes:

Dennis Peacock
12-24-2008, 11:11 PM
This thread is subject to removal. Much more editing of posts and this thread will go away.

Neal Clayton
12-25-2008, 11:56 AM
Gee, just think how many folks will hit the unemployment office when oil run out.

For those of you think this is going to happen fast, well, it is time to get out of the clouds and face reality. While many of you do gooders think you are doing the "right" thing, well let's just leave it there.

BTW, are you going to give up woodworking? Or only use wood from a certified organic woods? Or ....

I have never seen a group of people out of touch.

Adios

it has nothing to do with environmental concern, it's just wasteful.

why did we stop using re-usable glass bottles to get our cokes and pepsis in? i'm sure everyone here remembers that. getting your soft drinks in glass bottles and then bringing them back to the grocery store and exchanging them for refilled ones. now we put em plastic to throw away, more oil.

it's the same principle with gasoline. a six cylinder diesel engine is more efficient and equally as powerful as the 8 cylinder engines they put in F150s and silverados. plus they last longer. but detroit wants people to buy a new truck every 2-3 years so they make the less efficient one that needs to be serviced and replaced more often.

yeah we all use wood. but if we treated wood like others treat oil we'd take delivery of a thousand board feet every other day, pick the few boards we wanted, and throw the rest on the burn pile. there's a difference in using and wasting.

Greg Peterson
12-25-2008, 1:22 PM
There's a difference in using and wasting.

Hit the nail on the head.

Daniel Berlin
12-25-2008, 2:04 PM
With gas at $1.70 per gallon why would anyone buy a hydrogen car?

Because some people don't base car purchases on the current price of gas, but instead by watching what has happened to gas for 10 years at a time?
Sadly, a *lot* of people do, but you asked why *anyone* would do it :)

To derail slightly the price of oil is not really tied to anything sane these days (like current or even near future demand). It's almost entirely speculation. Let's be serious for a second. The price of oil was $110 a barrel 6 months ago. It's now $40. Does anyone actually believe that we are using 60% less oil than we were 6 months ago? Or even close to this?
(Not to mention all available facts and figures say 'no').

The second people think the economy is better gas will be right back at $3+ a gallon.

Frank Hagan
12-25-2008, 3:28 PM
Hybrids, the engine still drives the wheels, and runs a generator. Stop putting power to the wheels with the engine, have it do nothing but drive the generator. Whatever the most effecient RPM is, set it at that and let it buck.

The Chevy Volt has that system; a generator kicks in when the batteries are depleted and charges the batteries while they continue to provide power for the wheels. The gas motor never provides power to the wheels. They claim you'll see about 40 miles on pure electric before that generator kicks in, but I'm skeptical. The EV1 had a similar range, but the real life experiences were less than that; you had declining range as you increased speed, and most of the claims of the electric car folks are based on a low speed (22 to 25 MPH), flat terrain at 70 degrees. Go uphill, in cold weather, at higher speed and your "realistic" range in an all-electric vehicle is more like 20 miles.

The problem is that batteries can't match the energy density in gasoline or diesel. The EV1, even the nimh batteries in the series two, had only the energy density of 1/2 gallon of gas. Absent the battery technology to store huge amounts of energy, you won't be able to take a road trip, tow a boat or trailer, etc., until you have either a generator or a hybrid type of set up.

The mild hybrids like the Prius (I own one) work great for smaller cars, but not as you scale them up. To get enough battery power for a larger vehicle you add a lot of cost and weight, and with the weight you sacrifice range. Its an example of the law of diminishing returns. The Prius works well because its a smaller mid-size car (about the same size as the Camry) and the battery pack is there for an assist. Combined with an Otto cycle engine for better mileage at freeway speeds, and a gas engine that turns on and off during the drive, it saves quite a bit of gas. I'm averaging 50.1 mpg in mixed driving, including 70 - 80 on the freeway. A lot of myths exist about the Prius (cost of replacement battery packs, that they only last 100,000 miles, etc.) but it has proven to be the only hybrid that is "worth it" from a cost standpoint. Honda's new Insight will probably also be "worth it" due to a lower cost.

Unless there's a major breakthrough in battery technology, an all-electric car is not a viable option unless you have a very short commute and never need to travel more than 20 miles from home in that car. Chevy's Volt concept is probably something we'll see more of.

John Schreiber
12-25-2008, 4:16 PM
Outside of the New York and Chicago, public transportation is a mixed bag. . . .
Absolutely true regarding the Untied States, and I'm not sure about NY and Chicago.

The mindset for public transportation has been that it is only for people with no options. No one who can afford a car and parking chooses public transportation. The people who make and influence decisions about public transportation are not the same people who use it, so they see it as an expense to be minimized rather than as a public good. It is designed with little thought of pleasing the customer or making customers feel good about their experience.

Imagine if your grocery store had the ambiance of a subway station or a city bus. You wouldn't shop there if you had any options. The owner of the grocery store wants you to shop there, so they make it pleasant and satisfying for you.

Mike Henderson
12-25-2008, 7:34 PM
I'm a big fan of the plug in hybrid. Like any solution, it's not perfect for all situations, but according to DOE statistics, 80% of the cars in the US are driven less than 50 miles daily. So a solution that addresses close to 80% is a good start.

The Volt, and other plug in hybrids, claim they can do about 40 miles without any gasoline engine power. And when the battery falls to a low charge state, the gasoline engine kicks in and provides power to the battery - not to charge it - but sufficient to drive the car while the car is being used. Charging waits until you plug in the car.

So if you go more than 40 miles, your "average" miles per gallon is quite high because you traveled a high percentage of your distance without using any gas.

For charging, a 120V circuit can be used and it can charge the battery overnight. And for the electric company, night time is a very low demand time so adding the demand to charge plug in hybrids is within the existing capabilities of the electric grid.

You still have to generate the electricity from something, but even if you use fossil fuel, the efficiency of energy extraction from the fuel is much higher at a power generation station than in an automobile engine.

Hydrogen and fuel cells have a lot of problems. First, you have to get the hydrogen from somewhere and today, most hydrogen is made from steam reforming of petrolum products. If you want to make hydrogen from water, you have to input a lot of energy and you have to find a way to supply that energy without fossil fuel.

Transportation of hydrogen is a problem and there's no distribution system (no hydrogen service stations).

To my mind, the plug in hybrid is the winner because it uses the existing distribution systems (electric grid and gasoline stations). The negative is the additional cost of the car because of the batteries. Any solution will only be successful if gas is expensive.

Mike

Paul Ryan
12-25-2008, 8:22 PM
Guys,

The transportation, storage, and refining of hydrogen is a problem. But we can and will over come it. There are bus fleets in the world and the states that are strictly fuel cells. That is easy because you only need to fill them up at the bus center. But it is a stepping stone. Do you really think that gasoline was a hot concept 100-120 years ago. No, it wasn't there were huge concerns about storage. But it grew over time. The same will happen with fuel cells. Wether it is filling up with straight hydrogen, with water, or some other alternative. I believe that transportation of the future needs some sort of on board generating capabilities. No just stop and plug in when you are out of electricity. It maybe a place to start. A fossile fuel burning on board generator, I have been campaing for for years. But it is only a place to start. We then need to get rid of the fossile fuels. Because until you can get ride of burning fuels that emit harmful by-products, fuel mileage will not be what it should be.

Karl Brogger
12-25-2008, 8:38 PM
Gas at $1.70 is still about $.40-$.50 higher than it should be. Don't give me that supply and demand stuff. You're dilluding yourself if you believe that, as we aren't using 1/2 of the petroleum we were six months ago. Its speculators, same with any of the commodities, that drive the market price.

Bring on the Chevy Volt I say, except get rid of the gasoline engine & replace it with a diesel, and get rid of the stupid batteries, they don't work when its cold out. Give me a 3/4 or 1 ton pickup with 350hp, and 700 ft/lbs of torque and I'd buy one.

Mike Henderson
12-25-2008, 9:54 PM
Guys,

The transportation, storage, and refining of hydrogen is a problem. But we can and will over come it. There are bus fleets in the world and the states that are strictly fuel cells. That is easy because you only need to fill them up at the bus center. But it is a stepping stone. Do you really think that gasoline was a hot concept 100-120 years ago. No, it wasn't there were huge concerns about storage. But it grew over time. The same will happen with fuel cells. Wether it is filling up with straight hydrogen, with water, or some other alternative. I believe that transportation of the future needs some sort of on board generating capabilities. No just stop and plug in when you are out of electricity. It maybe a place to start. A fossile fuel burning on board generator, I have been campaing for for years. But it is only a place to start. We then need to get rid of the fossile fuels. Because until you can get ride of burning fuels that emit harmful by-products, fuel mileage will not be what it should be.

I don't have the numbers in front of me - I'm away from home right now - but I remember that the energy efficiency of creating hydrogen from water and electricity, transporting the hydrogen, and then converting it back to electricity is not very good - it's a very inefficient system.

Example with incorrect (but close) numbers: when making hydrogen from water and electricity, about 70% of the energy in the input electricity is converted to energy value in hydrogen. Transportation requires about 20% of the energy in the resulting hydrogen. Then a fuel cell converts about 70% of the energy in the hydrogen to electric energy. Whereas, about 90% of the energy put into a battery is recovered when you discharge it (LiIon batteries). So with hydrogen, for every 100 units of electric energy that you start with, you get 39 units of energy delivered to the electric motors in the car. With a plug in hybrid, you get about 90 units of energy delivered to the motors for every 100 units of input electrical energy.

It is much more efficient to generate electricity that directly gets put into a battery and is then used to power a car.

Mike

Rob Russell
12-25-2008, 9:57 PM
In my opinion, gas should be around $3.00 a gallon. When it's lower than that, people don't have a reason to conserve and there is little reason to develop more efficient technologies.

For the record, I drive a large car. I also ride a bicycle 8-9 miles to work when I can (mostly for the exercise).

I think it's unreasonable to expect gasoline prices to stay artificially low.

Karl Brogger
12-26-2008, 10:43 AM
In my opinion, gas should be around $3.00 a gallon. When it's lower than that, people don't have a reason to conserve and there is little reason to develop more efficient technologies.

You seem to think that people have been callously wasting thier money on fuel. Minus probably a very elite few, your average coupon clipping soccer mom doesn't like throwing money away any more than you do.



For the record, I drive a large car. I also ride a bicycle 8-9 miles to work when I can (mostly for the exercise).

I think it's unreasonable to expect gasoline prices to stay artificially low.

Gasoline is not artificially low!! It was, and still is artificially high!! For those who think we're running out of petroleum, we hardly pull any oil from the states, yes there are wells in the Dakota's, AK, OK, TX, and the Gulf, but no where near capacity. Africa is un touched, Russia has more oil than the middle east could ever dream about.
A few reasons the middle east are such oil producers:
-Its hot, but its always hot. The climate doesn't change much, and things doen't fail like when its cold. Like say Siberia, where it can get rediculously cold, and you have to contend with perma frost
-Terrain, for the most part there is none. Transportation is easier.
-Most importantly, it is a good grade of crude oil. Unlike the oil we get from Alaska which is pulled out of shale, and sand.


Oil drives our economy. It is the cornerstone of our infrastructure. You can blame the President, having Troops in Iraq, or the Easter Bunny, but the truth is that the markets were shook hard after 9.11, loss of faith is all it takes. Oil and its products have been on the rise since about 1999 and speculators are the ones to blame for driving up the price, nothing else, and that is what has driven our economy down. Everything you touch is made from, shipped by, or used energy from petroleum in some way. Everything.

Personally I hope a barrel of oil goes back over $130, I've got mineral rights in ND. The little bit more I pay to fill my tank and heat my home, is more than offset by the oil checks.:D

Greg Peterson
12-26-2008, 1:17 PM
I don't get the impression that Rob thinks consumers are callously wasting money on fuel. Until the last year or two I don't think fuel was even a consideration for many folks. I get all teary eyed when I drive through the country side and see all those McMansions with a couple of SUV's parked in front.

If our economy is so dependent on oil wouldn't the prudent thing be to break that dependency?

Sure speculators were driving the futures prices up on oil. But wasn't that just the market doing what the market does best, setting the price? BTW, the mechanism that allowed speculators to drive up the futures prices, known as the Enron loophole, was recently closed and coincidentally the prices starting dropping literally overnight. So, as Rob said, the prices are artificially low, due to regulations.

Sure we have oil resources within our borders. But even the best estimation of oil reserves doesn't meet our long term requirements, based on current rate of consumption. Perhaps the oil companies should start drilling, baby drilling on all those leases they hold rather than keep them on the books to inflate their assets side of the ledger. Since the leases are on public lands, these leases should expire within a defined time period. In other words, use it or lose it. Not fair to lock up natural resources from someone else that would be willing to drill it.

Clifford Mescher
12-26-2008, 5:17 PM
I don't get the impression that Rob thinks consumers are callously wasting money on fuel. Until the last year or two I don't think fuel was even a consideration for many folks. I get all teary eyed when I drive through the country side and see all those McMansions with a couple of SUV's parked in front.
.
:) I would not worry about it. Let it run it's natural course and when we run out we will come up with a solution. When USA gets pushed into a corner, it responds. Look how the science community got together for the Manhattan Project. Alot of worrying for nothing in my opinion. Clifford.

Jeffrey Makiel
12-26-2008, 8:35 PM
The only way hydrogen (or its isotope) is an effective fuel source is when its used in a fusion reactor. Unfortunately, fusion energy is a very, very tough nut to crack. But its fuel source is unlimited, no greenhouse emissions, no proliferation issues, and almost no waste.

-Jeff :)

Jeffrey Makiel
12-26-2008, 8:47 PM
Look how the science community got together for the Manhattan Project. Alot of worrying for nothing in my opinion. Clifford.

The Manhattan Project could never be replicated today. Time to start worrying again. :)

-Jeff :)

Pete Simmons
12-26-2008, 9:34 PM
It is easy to find reference to electric motors being around 85% efficient or better, while gas engines are quoted as in the 15 - 30% range.

Remember the gas engine starts with a gallon of gasoline on one side and produces rotary motion on the other along with a lot of wasted heat.

While the high efficient electric motor starts with electrical energy on one side and rotary motion on the other along with some wasted heat.

Follow the wires back to the fuel (for the sake of this post lets say oil as the fuel) and you will find that your efficiency numbers take a big drop. Now add in transmission and storage losses for the electrical energy and you will see why gas and the internal combustion engine are so popular.

Greg Peterson
12-26-2008, 10:35 PM
:) I would not worry about it. Let it run it's natural course and when we run out we will come up with a solution. When USA gets pushed into a corner, it responds. Look how the science community got together for the Manhattan Project. Alot of worrying for nothing in my opinion. Clifford.

And the Apollo program too!

Paul Ryan
12-26-2008, 11:07 PM
Now add in transmission and storage losses for the electrical energy and you will see why gas and the internal combustion engine are so popular.

The other reason the internal cumbustion engine is so popular. Is because you can fill up your tank every mile and don't have to stop to recharge, discharge or what ever else is being propsed. You can stop, use the restroom, grab some food, and continue on your marry way.

I don't think gasoline is still to high at $1.51, which I just paid about 2 hours ago. I think it is a little low like Rob suggested. With as much as transportion, refining, and additive costs have risen in the recent years I think $2-2.50 is resonable. But I am more than happy to only pay $1.50 or even lower. This past year I put on about 50k. I think we all knew that oil speculators were driving the costs higher than they should be. Hopefully the loop holes that alowed this to occur are permently closed. But I am not expecting gas to be under $3 next summer. Hopefully we have all learned our lesson from the $4 a gallon. That we need to conserve or fuels and find clean and cheap alternatives to our future transportation needs.
No mater which way you look at it, any type of internal cumbustion engine is a ticking time bomb. You cannot clean it up enough to make it our long term solution.

Clifford Mescher
12-26-2008, 11:27 PM
[quote You cannot clean it up enough to make it our long term solution.
Why not? Compare the air today compared to 30 years ago. Clifford

Rob Russell
12-27-2008, 10:59 AM
Apologies for taking so long to get back to this thread.

First, I believe that there are more Americans who are somewhat insensitive to gasoline prices than you'd suspect. We may complain about $4.50 a gallon gas, but how many of us really changed our lifestyles?

I have a neighbor who replaced a 4-door family sedan with a regular cab pickup truck. By far, the primary use of the truck is to commute to work. He has used it to haul some mulch and a few other things - but that's probably 10 uses over the last year or 2. During the winter, he starts the truck and leaves it running for 5 to 10 minutes before leaving for work - for a vehicle that's parked in a garage.


He can't take his family (wife + 3 kids) in the truck.
The truck gets lower gas mileage than the sedan did.
He could have put a trailer hitch on the sedan and bought a utility trailer for far less then the truck cost.

I agree that gas prices hit some families. An example of that are lower income families who live in areas where public transportation just isn't good. In cases like that, time is the only answer. Drive to a bus stop and take a bus. Practical? Not if you're trying to work a second job to make ends meet.

There are a lot of factors that come into play around the OP's question. Can we get more energy out of a gallon of gas? Related to that is "What's the most efficient form of energy to use?"

To respond to some of the other comments:



I will say that the quality of what comes out of a tailpipe is better than it was 30 years ago. Based on the net volume of tailpipe emissions, we're putting more polutants into the atmosphere now than we were 30 years ago. Putting it differently, individual cars are more efficient. There are so many more cars on the road that the overall level of "bad stuff" we're emitting has increased.
Alternate forms of energy are great. I think that grass-based ethonal has a lot of promise. Corn as a source of ethonal is a net loss from an energy perspective - it takes more energy to create a gallon of ethonal than than using the ethonal creates. Grass-based ethonal is a different story. You get more energy out of the gallon of than it takes to create the gallon On top of that, the grasses can grow in a wide variety of climates - as in all over the USA - and require almost no fertilizers or pesticides. Grass-based ethonal farms could be created around regional refineries which would reduce the transporation costs of distributing the ethonal. Problem? Yep - our infrastructure is built around corn and changing that means politics, which we won't go into here.
Electric motors are very efficient. For "city driving", where you do a lot of stop and start, electric motors are great because they are very high torque. Torque is what you need to get a car moving, horsepower is what pushes the car along at highway speeds. Some sort of hybrid combination where electric was used except for long trips would be great. I also read about a new solar collector panel technology which is something like 10 times as efficient as current panels and it's flexible. Imagine a solar collector on top of your car that helps recharge the battery and it's built into the roof. Ahhh - such are dreams built of.

Ben Rafael
12-27-2008, 11:25 AM
Rob,
I dont know about your neighbor. But I would have loved to have a trailer to hitch to my sedan. But I have no where to store a trailer and I cant park it on the street.
I also wouldn't mind having a second vehicle for hauling and what not. But where I live I would have to insure that vehicle even if I only drove it once a month. That would be about another $1200 per year for insurance, not to mention license fees, smog check fees, maintenance costs. I'd easily have to spend close to $2000 per year. In some states it might make more sense to have a second vehicle or a trailer; not where I live.
It is much cheaper and easier to just have a utility vehicle, even if it does use more gas.

Clifford Mescher
12-27-2008, 11:43 AM
B]There are so many more cars on the road that the overall level of "bad stuff" we're emitting has increased.[/[/B]b]


Rob..May I ask where that info is from? Total air quality in USA has improved steadily according to government stats. Clifford

Pete Simmons
12-27-2008, 11:50 AM
Roof top solar autos will never be no matter what the efficency of solar cells gets to be.

Many factors come into play starting with the solar constant including atmospheric absorbtion/reflection, angle to the sun and more.

It works out to only about 500 watts/sq meter (at best) at the earth's surface of solar energy. So you would need either very low power requirements or a very large roof to get any usable amounts of solar energy for your car.

I live in Florida and play a lot of golf. Why not a solar roof top for a self charging golf cart. I hear this question often.

Just not enough available power and/or available hours of sunlight for any significant battery charging to take place. Even if we had 100% efficient solar cells. Now factor in a 7% efficient solar cell and you can see why the solar power golf cart just does not work out.

Now to connect this back to the original question -

1 gallon of gas = about 126,000 BTU

Solar = about 130 BTU/sqft/hour

So again you need a lot of sq feet or a lot of hours of sunlight to get near the energy in one gallon of gas.

I go into these topics in much better detail at my site

Fuelfrenzy.com

Sonny Edmonds
12-27-2008, 10:20 PM
A gallon of gas has about 35KWh of energy. Now if you want to talk about efficient motors, electric is the way to go. Most electric motors are well over 85% efficient.

Cheers

Brian

Yeah Brian, but it goes back to what I told the AT&T guy when he came to sell me FiOS.
He couldn't tell me how he was going to feed me the signal when I go camping,
like my satellite provider can.
He didn't have a cord long enough! :D

I'm pretty sure I'll be dead before any of the current politicians come up with anything viable.;)

John Schreiber
12-28-2008, 10:05 AM
I'm pretty sure I'll be dead before any of the current politicians come up with anything viable.;)
Luckily we don't have to wait for politicians to make our own good decisions.