Fuel Efficient and Alternative Fuel transportation

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I see no end to people buying monster trucks, then complaining endlessly about how the government is allowing gas prices to be so expensive.

The price fluctuations in the economy as a whole are driven by supply, this is a well studied economic phenomenon.

nathaniel

It's not called "the dismal science" for nothing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AndyMan 7]

The supply of crude oil is limited. It will eventually run out.

If the supply side were dominant, then I suspect we'd be seeing a steady roll-up of prices in excess of inflation. However, we've seen the opposite - a relatively flat price over the last few decades, with price movements being dictated by supply.

The following events lead to higher prices:

1) A weekend.
2) The start of the "driving season"
3) The start of a gulf war - short term increases, mostly out of fear of future price hikes.
4) Immediately after terrorist attacks - mostly out of fear of hoarding and future price hikes.
5) Strong air travel, presumably because they're burning more jet-a.

Alternately, the following seem to lead to lower prices:

1) weekdays
2) the end of the "driving season".
3) reduced aviation activity - ie, we saw lower prices during the commercial aviation downturn, presumably because they were burning less jet-a.

These are all demand side.

I think clearly, the pattern fits demand far more than any notion of a limited supply.

The failure of OPEC seems to be that they react far too slowly to supply-side changes rather than constrict the supply in a typical monopolistic manner, as is typically stated.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I think clearly, the pattern fits demand far more than any notion of a limited supply.

And on the other hand we have the Oil Embargo of the 70's. It unequivocally demonstrated that supply cannot be discounted.

Quote

The failure of OPEC seems to be...

Amen, the failures of OPEC are many, and not just from the standpoint of a consumer.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Ron 10]

Quote

>electric

Probably the ultimate long term solution. Right now you could build an electric car that would blow the doors off any gas car and have a 250 mile range; the battery pack (lithium polymer with a supercap surge bank) would cost upwards of $100K. Give it ten years and that may be down to $10K at which point it will be practical. Combine that with evolutionary changes in solar (say, another 25% increase in efficiency and the continuation of the drop in price per watt) and you could generate all the power you need to run both your house and car from your own roof.

Hey Bill,

I am doing a paper on gas, and usage.

I remember seeing somewhere an electric car smoking the doors off of a Nissan 300Z..But I can't find any info about it..

Do you know where I can find a reliable source for showing an electric cars power and speed potential?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

I recall, I think it was monster garage, that made an electric dragster.

[billvon 3,131]

>Do you know where I can find a reliable source for showing an electric cars power and speed potential?

Well, there's nothing in production yet (obviously) but a good source for high performance electrics is:

http://www.nedra.com/


One story from that site:
-------------------------------------
John Wayland breaks 100 mph with his street legal Datsun 1200

John has become the first NEDRA member to race a street legal electric powered car to over 100 mph in the quarter mile, clocking in at 100.76 mph with an ET of 13.004 seconds. And at the same time beating a 375 HP V-8 Camaro in the next lane.
-------------------------------------

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

What else? Did I forget anything?

Human power. No parking hassles, no additional insurance, no car payments, and it makes staying in shape easier.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Do you know where I can find a reliable source for showing an electric cars power and speed potential?

Well, there's nothing in production yet (obviously) but a good source for high performance electrics is:

http://www.nedra.com/


One story from that site:
-------------------------------------
John Wayland breaks 100 mph with his street legal Datsun 1200

John has become the first NEDRA member to race a street legal electric powered car to over 100 mph in the quarter mile, clocking in at 100.76 mph with an ET of 13.004 seconds. And at the same time beating a 375 HP V-8 Camaro in the next lane.
-------------------------------------

My question is, how many kilowatts of electricity does it take to produce enough electricity to do this? If you aren't an advocate of nuclear power, then the electricity still has to be produced in a natural gas, coal, or oil fired generator.

[Ron 10]

I was looking for a site of where an electric Nissan 300 smoked the doors off a production Nissan 300z

I found an artical on an electric Lotus that will beat a production Lotus to 90MPH....So I'm gonna use that.

But thanks.

The spin I am taking is that Electrics and even hybrids while being "green" are NOT economic yet.

Civic Hybrid
46/51 MPG
19,650.00 MSRP
-1,500.00 Tax Rebate
=18,150.00

Civic Coupe
32/38 MPG
13,410.00

Avg of 20,000 miles a year.

Hybrid
434 Gallons per year
@ $1.85
=$802.90 per year

Traditional
625 Gallons per year
@ $1.85
= $1,156.25 per year

$353.35 per year less to drive the Hybrid

However, with the added cost of the Hybrid (4,740.00) it would take 13.4 years for the cost to be the same.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,131]

>My question is, how many kilowatts of electricity does it take to produce
>enough electricity to do this?

Kilowatts isn't the issue, it's kilowatt-hours, which is a measure of energy. A drag racer might use 100 kilowatts for 15 seconds; that's about .4 kilowatt-hours, or about 100 times less than a house uses in a day.

But drive even an efficient EV around all day and you'll use 4 times what a house does.

>If you aren't an advocate of nuclear power, then the electricity still has to
>be produced in a natural gas, coal, or oil fired generator.

Yep. Large scale nuclear and geothermal are the best sources for baseline power for the near future, with solar, wind, natural gas and large hydro filling in as peakers. Solar is especially good for EV charging since parking structures are often in the sun.

[PhreeZone 20]

Ron, something that you might want to relook at is the prices of those models and exactly what you are getting. To get a Civic Sedan at the same trim level as what the Hybrid one cames with standerd it id going to have to be at least a LX model trim package that has a base MSRP of $16,160.

Actually in looking at it it seems you are using 2003 #'s.

2004 Honda Civic Hybrid CVT       2004 Honda Civic Sedan EX 4-spd AT 


Base Price     $20,650   $18,060    

Destination Charge     $490   $490    

Comparably Equipped Price     $21,140   $18,550    

Here are the 2004 #'s for the same exactly equiped Honda Sedans. The only difference is one is Hybrid, the other is not.

To compare a 4 door loaded with all sorts of options to a stripped down 2 door coupe is'nt even fair.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Hybrids will eventually come to be synonymous with high performance and high gas mileage.

It is at this point that I believe the gas/electric hybrid will really take off. The majority of car buyers in the US right now just aren't willing to sacrifice the room, luxery, and performance of their gasoline powered vehicles. Really, who can blame them?

That's my $0.02, as I said before, I'd love to hear more.

Honda has an Accord hybrid coming out later this year, and Toyota will be making a hybrid SUV debut with a Lexus RX330 hybrid soon also (late '04/early '05).

These models still won't match the performance of their conventional counterparts (in terms of 0-60, braking, etc) and hybrids only deliver on their MPG if you have a light foot, but they add to the line-up.

I'd like to point out that there has been very little progress in engine technology (with exception of Ford) from the US auto makers. GM still plugs its 20+ year old 3800 V6 engine design into many of its cars. Most of their newer engines are fitted for the trucks (the new I-5 for the small pick-up and the "recent" DOHC-6 for the Blazer, etc). They'd answer fuel economy calls by forcing a Corvette or Camaro to shift from first to fourth gear unless you mash the gas pedal. The only four cylinder engines in their arsenal are on their foreign models, designed by those companies. GM hasn't built a diesel engine for cars in the US for about 20 years. Saturn's reasonabiy efficient engines are not shared with any domestic brands (it's V6 on the L300 is an Opel design and is also used on the Saab 9-5).

Chrysler's newest engine is a resurrected "hemi" V8. Their saving grace could be seeing more technology from Diamler creeping its way over from Germany. Diamler stopped selling diesels in the US years ago.

Ford has been very progressive. The EcoTec I4 is used in the US, Europe and Japan. Their larger engines are modular in many ways and are also used across their line-up (from Mazda to Jaguar to Aston Martin to Volvo). They could migrate some diesel technology from Ford-Europe fairly easily I imagine.

Personally, I would love to see diesels take the lead, but CARB regs need to be relaxed. As it is, you won't be able to buy a new diesel powered car in the US by the end of 2007.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Ron 10]

Quote

Actually in looking at it it seems you are using 2003 #'s

I got the price info from www.honda.com

I used the lowest price of both cars, hybrid and standard.

I don't know the trim of the hybrid low line....But for the issue of economics...It does not matter. If you are buying a car to save money...You would do better to get a traditional cheeper car.

But I will look into the trim models. I didn't see any traditional Civics over 16,860.00 on the website.

Thanks...besides its just for school (don't let Kallend hear that)

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Hey Bill,

I am doing a paper on gas, and usage.

I remember seeing somewhere an electric car smoking the doors off of a Nissan 300Z..But I can't find any info about it..

Do you know where I can find a reliable source for showing an electric cars power and speed potential?

I'm not Bill but I know of the electric car you're talking of. It was a GM prototype. I bet their web-site has some info on it. Just remember that prototype had a range of about 70 miles on a single charge.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Ron 10]

Quote

I'm not Bill but I know of the electric car you're talking of. It was a GM prototype. I bet their web-site has some info on it. Just remember that prototype had a range of about 70 miles on a single charge.

Thanks I found a Lotus that was about the same deal...I am trying to show boththe positive and negative of each type....Going really fast in an electric is positive...Only getting 70 miles is not.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Saturn's reasonabiy efficient engines are not shared with any domestic brands (it's V6 on the L300 is an Opel design and is also used on the Saab 9-5).

Honda supplies the V6 for the Saturn Vue that they brag in their advertising as the most powerful in its class.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not Bill but I know of the electric car you're talking of. It was a GM prototype. I bet their web-site has some info on it. Just remember that prototype had a range of about 70 miles on a single charge.

Thanks I found a Lotus that was about the same deal...I am trying to show boththe positive and negative of each type....Going really fast in an electric is positive...Only getting 70 miles is not.

The GM prototype eventually became what was known as the Chevy Impact. It was on the market for a very short period of time. It was a pure electric vehicle. The production model didn't have as much "off-the-line" performance as the prototype, but it was still very quick (saw one catch a sassy Mustang driver off guard once, albeit, it was a V6 stang ). Edit to add: here's a link from CNN. The GM EVs were all leased and were taken off the road when the leases expired apparently. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/04/09/electric.cars.ap/. Also, Toyota sells an electric RAV4 known as the EV1.

GM has all but abandoned electric technology, but I think they've got a fairly robust R&D effort in hydrogen fuel cell tech.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,131]

>Personally, I would love to see diesels take the lead, but CARB regs
> need to be relaxed. As it is, you won't be able to buy a new diesel
>powered car in the US by the end of 2007.

Actually, it's EPA rules that are the big issue, and they have recently been tigthened which (oddly enough) will make diesels a lot more likely. The EPA has mandated low sulfur diesel fuels by 2009, and that will allow catalytic converters that come close to gas-powered cars in cleanliness. (Sulfur poisons the catalysts.) I have a feeling once the low sulfur fuel is available you'll start seeing a lot more diesels.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I have a feeling once the low sulfur fuel is available you'll start seeing a lot more diesels."

Soon, Padewan, soon. Low sulphur diesel is already widely available over here.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Personally, I would love to see diesels take the lead, but CARB regs
> need to be relaxed. As it is, you won't be able to buy a new diesel
>powered car in the US by the end of 2007.

Actually, it's EPA rules that are the big issue, and they have recently been tigthened which (oddly enough) will make diesels a lot more likely. The EPA has mandated low sulfur diesel fuels by 2009, and that will allow catalytic converters that come close to gas-powered cars in cleanliness. (Sulfur poisons the catalysts.) I have a feeling once the low sulfur fuel is available you'll start seeing a lot more diesels.

I don't fully agree. It is typically CARB that forces the hand of other states to tighten their emissions control standards which exceed EPA standards. It is because of CARB that diesel autos are currently unavailable in many markets and why Audi, BMW, Diamler stopped selling diesels nationwide in the US in recent years. Mercedes 300D sedans last forever and they sold every single one they shipped here. When their biggest market (California) started turning too green, they could no longer justify shipping them to the rest of the country. EPA has standards, CARB has muscle and is too progressive in its requirements. It will always force standards more stringient than EPA.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,131]

>It is typically CARB that forces the hand of other states to tighten their
>emissions control standards which exceed EPA standards.

I agree. However, if CARB mandated low sulfur fuels, it wouldn't do a thing - because automakers will not sell cars that can only be sold in California, and will be destroyed by low-quality fuel if they leave the state. It takes the EPA to mandate a nationwide change to fuels.

>EPA has standards, CARB has muscle and is too progressive in its
>requirements.

Agreed that they are progressive. But when my wife was born in LA in the 1970's, their family doctor advised her family to move because the air was so bad. Nowadays you can see across the valley some days, and a lot fewer people are dying. That's worth being progressive.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>It is typically CARB that forces the hand of other states to tighten their
>emissions control standards which exceed EPA standards.

I agree. However, if CARB mandated low sulfur fuels, it wouldn't do a thing - because automakers will not sell cars that can only be sold in California, and will be destroyed by low-quality fuel if they leave the state. It takes the EPA to mandate a nationwide change to fuels.

Automakers used to though. Does anyone remember "49-state" cars or cars with "California emissions"? BTW, it's California fuel that's lower in overall quality IMO. In other states, you can buy 94/95 octane premium fuels and Sunoco has a 104-110 octane racing fuel too (compared to 76's 100 fuel in CA).

It is CARB that mandated stricter particulate emission for diesel autos, and that is why diesel autos will no be available on 2005 and newer models (VW Jetta TDI gave it a good run, but not even that engine can scrub that clean) in California. It was that progression years before that took Audi out of the diesel market, and later Mercedes -- nationwide. Solely because of CARB. Why? Because the California auto market is that big.

Quote

>EPA has standards, CARB has muscle and is too progressive in its
>requirements.

Agreed that they are progressive. But when my wife was born in LA in the 1970's, their family doctor advised her family to move because the air was so bad. Nowadays you can see across the valley some days, and a lot fewer people are dying. That's worth being progressive.

I don't dispute that. However, now we're "splitting hairs" on emissions.... ... The difference of 0.0025 and 0.0015 ... ...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,131]

>BTW, it's California fuel that's lower in overall quality IMO. In other states,
> you can buy 94/95 octane premium fuels and Sunoco has a 104-110
>octane racing fuel too (compared to 76's 100 fuel in CA).

?? Octane rating just means compatibility with certain compression ratios. Lower octane gas has slightly more energy; all other things being equal, you will get _slightly_ more power and more mileage out of lower octane fuel. The reason people think it's better is that it prevents detonation in very high compression ratio engines (like aircraft engines) and thus is used in high performance vehicles.

But if you have a modern car designed for an ONR of 85 or better you're actually better off with the lower octane fuel. It's cheaper and you might get a bit more mileage (depending on other factors besides octane, like oxygenate.)

>I don't dispute that. However, now we're "splitting hairs" on emissions....
>The difference of 0.0025 and 0.0015 ... ...

Splitting hairs, perhaps. But this particular hair has saved thousands of lives in LA alone, so it's probably worth splitting.