Finally, A Prius I Would Drive

[AlexandaHonda]

There are many different types of food in the world. Different people enjoy different food. Same with cars.

The facts are a Prius MPG or GP100K is rubbish. It averages around 45 mpg. You could go and buy a VW blue motion and hit 65 mpg. My old Clio 1.2d will do 70+mpg. The Prius is almost a dinosaur before it's time. It will not be long until electric cars are deemed pointless and useless. Once Hydrogen has been allowed to establish itself as the future fuel, everyone will have forgotten about electric cars. In Britain where the population is densely populated we have had car charge points installed through out the country. No one uses them. Even if the 10% who government think will use electric cars do actually use them, it is still a woefully low number considering the money that has been ploughed into them. And the car at the start of this article is homage to the pointlessness of electric cars.

 

[niky]

Not apples to apples. The Prius is 45 mpg on the EPA... but EPA estimates are just that... estimates. I've driven a Prius to 36 km/l. Your 70 mpg in the Clio in Imperial MPG is worth just 25 km/l.

This is not to say that a Prius makes any economic sense. Then again... hydrogen makes even less. The cost of hydrogen production and fuel cell storage are so high that they make battery electrics seem almost as cheap as gasoline.

No, idiot, the Lambo is the better performing option. And the running cost of a Leaf is not $0; it's runs up the electric bill when you plug it in. I'm going to leave this debate because of the stupidity being presented by my opponents.

If you don't want to debate points and simply choose to call anyone whose view is opposite your own as a traitor or an idiot, then you are very welcome to leave.

In the 1900's ol' Hank Ford designed the Model T to run on gas and ethanol because at the time he designed it, the oil experts claimed there was only ~10 years worth of oil left.

The oil we are using now is mostly oil from reserves that we have known about for a long time. The only reason it is still around is that in previous decades, the cost of extracting that oil was prohibitive.

But with oil prices (inflation adjusted) many times greater than they were in the past, it finally makes economic sense to extract it.

The term "peak oil" is misleading... because we will never run out of oil. The more important term is "peak price" or possibly "peak production", which we are (possibly) currently hovering at due to a complex interplay of economic uncertainty, political unrest, high cost of entry and investor speculation.

As I've said, oil prices no longer follow the classic supply/demand curve. It can no longer fall low enough to spur demand during recession dips and can not be raised high enough (for now) to make development of new wells in certain areas economically viable.

For more mind-numbingly boring discussion on oil:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/peak-oil-now-whatcha-gonna-do.245635/

 

[AlexandaHonda]

Not apples to apples. The Prius is 45 mpg on the EPA... but EPA estimates are just that... estimates. I've driven a Prius to 36 km/l. Your 70 mph in the Clio in Imperial MPG is worth just 25 km/l.

This is not to say that a Prius makes any economic sense. Then again... hydrogen makes even less. The cost of hydrogen production and fuel cell storage are so high that they make battery electrics seem almost as cheap as gasoline.

If you're trying to save your fuel you shouldn't be doing 70 mph! Hydrogen is a by product of many processes, being released into the atmosphere before it is now at least captured and used. It is the metals that are used in the fuel cells that allow the electrolysis to take place that cost the money to produce. That and the fact that oil companies have been pushing hydrogen fuelled cars under the ground since the 60's. http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/gm-electrovan.htm

 

[Beeblebrox237]

If you're trying to save your fuel you shouldn't be doing 70 mph! Hydrogen is a by product of many processes, being released into the atmosphere before it is now at least captured and used. It is the metals that are used in the fuel cells that allow the electrolysis to take place that cost the money to produce. That and the fact that oil companies have been pushing hydrogen fuelled cars under the ground since the 60's. http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/gm-electrovan.htm

Hydrogen is mainly produced by stripping hydrogen atoms off of natural gas. The oil companies would benefit from more hydrogen cars because it means more demand for natural gas. And this production technique creates far more CO2 than an internal combustion engine.

 

[homeforsummer]

Hydrogen is a by product of many processes

A by-product of some incredibly energy-intensive processes, that is. Like drilling for fossil fuels, or electrolysis.

The production of hydrogen needs to change massively before it's even slightly viable as an alternative fuel. And even when it does, a hydrogen fuel cell is currently around 50-60 percent efficient. A typical battery electric vehicle is 90+ percent energy-efficient.

Your previous post was largely inaccurate too. I'm not sure why you believe a Golf Bluemotion will do 65 mpg or your old Clio 70+ based on Euro combined figures when you dismiss the Prius's combined figures in the same tests. In reality I'd be surprised if the Clio regularly got more than 60 mpg (I rarely manage more from similarly-sized diesels), and I've struggled to break 60 mpg in the dozens of VAG diesels I've driven over the last few years. They pretty much all return mid-50s.

Best real-world I've got from a regular diesel is Honda's 1.6 i-DTEC, at mid to high 60s mpg. The last full hybrid I drove for any reasonable distance, a Yaris Hybrid, managed mid-70s. The last mild hybrid I drove was the Honda Insight. On my 50-mile, 70 mph motorway test route, it got 62 mpg, identical to a 1.6 TDI Skoda Rapid. The Prius, I'm led to believe, is better than the Insight in such tests.

Around town, there's even less contest - unless you drive around with no traffic whatsoever, you're lucky to break into the 50s in a diesel.

You're also mistaken about the prevalence of charging points in the UK. There's actually very few and they're scattered around just a handful of cities. It's hardly conducive to realistic use.

 

[niky]

If you're trying to save your fuel you shouldn't be doing 70 mph! Hydrogen is a by product of many processes, being released into the atmosphere before it is now at least captured and used. It is the metals that are used in the fuel cells that allow the electrolysis to take place that cost the money to produce. That and the fact that oil companies have been pushing hydrogen fuelled cars under the ground since the 60's. http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/gm-electrovan.htm

Typo. I meant 70 mpg. I've driven dozens of diesels. None of them get anywhere close to the Prius in the real world in traffic. The only cars I've driven that get close are super-minis with 800cc engines.

Hydrogen is technically very easy to produce. It is also very, very, very, VERY hard to capture and store. Hydrogen can diffuse straight through solid steel. Your choices are either liquid hydrogen storage, whose 10,000 psi storage pressures make 3,600 psi CNG tank explosions look tame by comparison or an exotic fuel cell... which is expensive not because of "oil companies", but because exotic chemical compounds and rare metals aren't exactly cheap.

And, as Beeblebrox states, oil companies would love a hydrogen economy. Oil companies currently burn off billions of dollars worth of natural gas at oil wells (for example:) that could instead be processed into hydrogen for sale.

Hard to imagine "greedy" oil companies passing up a chance to supplement their oil income with billions of dollars in extra profit.

 

[AlexandaHonda]

A by-product of some incredibly energy-intensive processes, that is. Like drilling for fossil fuels, or electrolysis.

The production of hydrogen needs to change massively before it's even slightly viable as an alternative fuel. And even when it does, a hydrogen fuel cell is currently around 50-60 percent efficient. A typical battery electric vehicle is 90+ percent energy-efficient.

Your previous post was largely inaccurate too. I'm not sure why you believe a Golf Bluemotion will do 65 mpg or your old Clio 70+ based on Euro combined figures when you dismiss the Prius's combined figures in the same tests. In reality I'd be surprised if the Clio regularly got more than 60 mpg (I rarely manage more from similarly-sized diesels), and I've struggled to break 60 mpg in the dozens of VAG diesels I've driven over the last few years. They pretty much all return mid-50s.

Best real-world I've got from a regular diesel is Honda's 1.6 i-DTEC, at mid to high 60s mpg. The last full hybrid I drove for any reasonable distance, a Yaris Hybrid, managed mid-70s. The last mild hybrid I drove was the Honda Insight. On my 50-mile, 70 mph motorway test route, it got 62 mpg, identical to a 1.6 TDI Skoda Rapid. The Prius, I'm led to believe, is better than the Insight in such tests.

Depends how you drive I guess and how you are able to drive due to conditions you live in. I live in rural conditions (literally no traffic), very, very little city driving. I regularly use to get 70+ mpg from my 1.2d clio. And VW bluemotion will easily manage 65mpg. My 2.2d Civic manages average 45 mpg if I drive like I enjoy to, or if I drive slowly it will get to 55 mpg.

You're also mistaken about the prevalence of charging points in the UK. There's actually very few and they're scattered around just a handful of cities. It's hardly conducive to realistic use.

It takes me 25 minutes to get to my local town, Leominster, look it up on google, it isn't a city. This has two charging points there which I, nor anyone have seen anyone use. Every town nearly in Britain has charging points installed at cost to the tax payer. Yet not 3% of cars sold in Britain last year were electric.

Hydrogen is technically very easy to produce. It is also very, very, very, VERY hard to capture and store. Hydrogen can diffuse straight through solid steel. Your choices are either liquid hydrogen storage, whose 10,000 psi storage pressures make 3,600 psi CNG tank explosions look tame by comparison or an exotic fuel cell... which is expensive not because of "oil companies", but because exotic chemical compounds and rare metals aren't exactly cheap.

I'm enjoying the schooling though!

 

[homeforsummer]

Depends how you drive I guess and how you are able to drive due to conditions you live in.

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner. What you're doing is essentially projecting your assumptions about MPG onto every other vehicle. Saying a Prius "averages around 45 mpg" is patently untrue - it's over mid-50s, according to real world use (and in my experience, often more).

The only Bluemotion that hits mid-60s is the Polo. And so it should, costing as much as it does. The new Golf? Around 60. Less than 70 percent of its quoted figure incidentally, compared to 80 percent for the Prius. Though since diesel costs about 8p/litre more than petrol, I suspect it's the hybrid owners spending less on fuel.

It takes me 25 minutes to get to my local town, Leominster, look it up on google, it isn't a city. This has two charging points there which I, nor anyone have seen anyone use. Every town nearly in Britain has charging points installed at cost to the tax payer.

This is also an assumption. You're going to have to come up with some sort of proof that "every town nearly" in Britain has charging points.

If you just want to go on unresearched word of mouth evidence, my town doesn't have any charging, yet it's a town of over 70 thousand people. Leeds isn't far away either, and I've not yet seen an on-street charging point there. Or indeed a charging point of any sort, according to this. Newcastle does have on-street charging, and even when I lived there - two or three years ago now, when EVs had only just gone on sale - it wasn't surprising to see a Leaf or i-MiEV charging there. I've not visited for several months but I doubt they're going unused now either.

Yet not 3% of cars sold in Britain last year were electric.

That's not entirely surprising, since there are fewer than ten different types of electric car on sale in the UK out of around 400 models overall.

Or less than 2.5 percent of the models on sale. So 3 percent of the sales isn't all that bad in about three years of the cars existing.

I'd not get too high and mighty about charging point subsidies either. Not only are many of them privately or charitably funded, but they're also a drop in the ocean compared to the 3.6 billion in subsidies UK oil, coal and gas companies got in 2010. I'm personally not a fan of subsidising anything really so I don't back my tax money being used to fund a handful of public charging points, but it's odd how your mock outrage at a charging station is out of proportion to huge subsidies granted to already vastly wealthy energy companies.

 

[AlexandaHonda]

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner. What you're doing is essentially projecting your assumptions about MPG onto every other vehicle. Saying a Prius "averages around 45 mpg" is patently untrue - it's over mid-50s, according to real world use (and in my experience, often more).

.....

I'd not get too high and mighty about charging point subsidies either. Not only are many of them privately or charitably funded, but they're also a drop in the ocean compared to the 3.6 billion in subsidies UK oil, coal and gas companies got in 2010. I'm personally not a fan of subsidising anything really so I don't back my tax money being used to fund a handful of public charging points, but it's odd how your mock outrage at a charging station is out of proportion to huge subsidies granted to already vastly wealthy energy companies.

I have no idea about this and don't think it is true. Oil companies make huge profit, why would we be subsidising this. If you have evidence I would be interested to read. About Leeds, I think you may have easy access to a power point or two.

http://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/charging-points.php

Maybe think about moving to Middlesbrough?

All I was explaining is that electric cars are for driving in town. Possibly. If you only drive to work and back and that is a round trip of 50 miles or less or that your work station has electric charge points. In my opinion they are not the future.

Edit* taken from honestjohn.co.uk about Toyota Prius- "Not so efficient for long distances at motorway speeds where some diesel cars still beat it. Can feel strained when accelerating hard."

 

[homeforsummer]

I have no idea about this and don't think it is true. Oil companies make huge profit, why would we be subsidising this. If you have evidence I would be interested to read.

So you didn't read the link I provided then? Here, have another (if you think the Grauniad is too left-wing to be speaking about energy policy), on the Telegraph. Though that one is even less positive - it speaks of 12 billion in annual subsidies, albeit across all energy companies.

And indeed - why would be subsidising profit-making energy companies? It's a question more people should really be asking. Thankfully, it's being investigated by the Commons Select Committee - their page is one of the very first links when you type "uk energy subsidies" into Google - so perhaps we'll have an answer soon.

Here's a tip though: Just because you've no idea about something, doesn't mean it isn't true.

About Leeds, I think you may have easy access to a power point or two.

http://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/charging-points.php

Holy crap, a whole two power points (only one of which has fast-charge capabilities) in a city of three quarters of a million people! That's everyone's problems solved then!

Maybe think about moving to Middlesbrough?

I can think of few places in the UK I'd less like to move to.

All I was explaining is that electric cars are for driving in town. Possibly. If you only drive to work and back and that is a round trip of 50 miles or less or that your work station has electric charge points. In my opinion they are not the future.

That's not surprising, since you seem to be basing your opinion on limited knowledge of the facts.

Edit* taken from honestjohn.co.uk about Toyota Prius- "Not so efficient for long distances at motorway speeds where some diesel cars still beat it. Can feel strained when accelerating hard." That is all I was saying!

No, you were saying that official economy figures for the Prius were (and I quote), "rubbish", before saying they do 45 mpg. Something I've already proven incorrect.

And yes, some diesels will do better on longer journeys. Many will also do worse. The single most correct thing you've said so far is this:

Depends how you drive I guess and how you are able to drive due to conditions you live in.

...and it pretty much negates any other aspect of the argument. Some will find diesels more efficient. Others will find hybrids more efficient. That's pretty much all there is to it. There's a whole other can of worms to open about particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen, and yet another can to do with complicated and expensive emissions equipment on diesels to deal with those issues, but that's probably better saved for another time.

 

[AlexandaHonda]

I didn't realise those where links before and I will read with interest.

Electric cars are not able to even be thought of as a possible contender for me. But it still has to be taken into consideration that energy out of a plug is still likely to be produced by burning fossil fuels. Here's an example

Now my 2.2d Civic at 110g/km, admittedly with a few extra bits and pieces in there but do you think our electricity is produced in 100% efficient power plants. They are more efficient then most engines but not necessarily any cleaner.

 

[ildd]

I think I'm going to post my essay in full as it is directly challenging some of the recent posts.
But I'm away from my computer right now, so... Maybe later

 

[McLaren]

No, idiot, the Lambo is the better performing option. And the running cost of a Leaf is not $0; it's runs up the electric bill when you plug it in. I'm going to leave this debate because of the stupidity being presented by my posts.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[homeforsummer]

But it still has to be taken into consideration that energy out of a plug is still likely to be produced by burning fossil fuels.

Indeed. Though there are a few things to note with that map. For a start, there are plenty of countries there that are fossil fuel light - which all strike me as more than suitable for EVs.

The second is that it's a bit unfair on America. So far, the vast majority of EVs in the US have been sold in California, and a high proportion of owners either go for greener energy tariffs or even have their own solar panels for charging (certainly those that seem to comment on my articles do), which drastically reduces fossil fuel use for charging alone in that state. It's an early adopter thing more than a mainstream thing, but better than nothing.

Fossil fuel use varies hugely across the US. North Dakota I believe is a particularly awful place to run an electric car since nearly 100% of their energy comes from coal. Other places use gas, which is better. Some have reasonably high renewable rates, which is even better.

I don't want to burst your bubble regarding your Civic by the way, but using the 45 mpg figure you mentioned earlier, your real-world CO2 is nearer 166 g/km of CO2. You may be benefitting from £20 a year car tax but you certainly aren't doing 110 g/km

 

[Harry6784]

Can we rename this the irony thread, please?

The very graph you've posted shows the price has nearly double per gallon, after adjusting for inflation, in the past ten years alone.

Additionally, other factors will adjust the demand as well, such as the continuing problems of air pollution in relation to using fossil fuels for power. I'm not talking about "oh god, think of the animals" as much as smog that you'd think is fog.

Apparently reading a graph is proving to be quite difficult for some people. If you look at the 'past 10 years' gas has been right around $.90 to $1.20 in 1979 currency. Have no idea that is considered 'nearly double' to some people. Has gas been on the slight rise? Yes but it's not setting records so I don't know why people are getting so agitated about this. Not to mention that the US is sitting on some quite significant untapped oil fields like the Bakken Fields in North and South Dakota. It is estimated that there is at least 200 Billion barrels of oil in this region. At a price of $100 per barrel the value of this find alone is $20 Trillion. The world has more than enough oil to sustain itself until a practical alternative is found. But forcing people and companies to "go green" with under-developed and inefficient technology, while self assuring to environmentalists, is suicide from a business standpoint. Let people buy EV's and use 'green power' when it is efficient to do so and saves money.

 

[Joel]

I didn't realise those where links before and I will read with interest.

Electric cars are not able to even be thought of as a possible contender for me. But it still has to be taken into consideration that energy out of a plug is still likely to be produced by burning fossil fuels. Here's an example

See for me the environmental effects for an EV depends on where in Canada I am. If I'm in Ontario, I'd be perfectly OK with driving an EV because between nuclear, hydro, and wind, roughly 80-85% of electricity is generated from zero carbon emission sources. The remainder is primarily (15%) natural gas, with a tiny (almost token) amount of coal burned simply to keep the one remaining coal plant operational in case of a higher demand.

Not to mention that the US is sitting on some quite significant untapped oil fields like the Bakken Fields in North and South Dakota.

That's not an "oil field" in the traditional sense of the word. It's shale oil, and incredibly expensive to produce. The reason it hasn't been developed is because it's cheaper for you to buy oil from the Saudis, and Canadians. How many times are we going to have to point out that it isn't about "running out" of oil? It's about going from oil sources that cost less than $10 a barrel to produce, to sources that cost over $50.

 

[Jet Badger]

Petrol on this side of the pond is US$7 per US gallon. It doubled over the past 10 years, if I could afford a Model S, I'd buy it right this very moment, thank you.

 

[AlexandaHonda]

I don't want to burst your bubble regarding your Civic by the way, but using the 45 mpg figure you mentioned earlier, your real-world CO2 is nearer 166 g/km of CO2. You may be benefitting from £20 a year car tax but you certainly aren't doing 110 g/km

You got to love the EU though. Good for some things! I actually have a 6 kw wind turbine and 4kw of solar panels and I'm trying to convince my other half to get a hybrid for her next car, which she's not convinced by. And here I am aruging against them still.

I was of the understanding that the Lithium mined for alot of elctric cars comes from California, so makes sense if they use them. Though the fact the Lthium was mined in Cali then shipped to Japan, then back to Cali.

 

[homeforsummer]

But forcing people and companies to "go green" with under-developed and inefficient technology, while self assuring to environmentalists, is suicide from a business standpoint. Let people buy EV's and use 'green power' when it is efficient to do so and saves money.

I'll start off by saying I agree with you. Nobody should be forced to buy anything.

However, you're mistaken in calling them "inefficient technology" - as noted above, electric drivetrains are highly efficient. Low battery capacity and relatively low range doesn't equal low efficiency.

Under-developed? That's debatable. Internal combustion vehicles have been continuously produced since cars have existed. Modern-day electric vehicles have been produced in volume for the past five years, yet all offer the sort of refinement and silence that luxury automakers have been striving to extract from an internal combustion engine for a hundred years. Again, arguably it's only the batteries that are under-developed, and it isn't like progress in that department is standing still.

On your third point, that too is already happening - Nissan sold its 100,000th Leaf worldwide just the other week. That's since December 2010 - in the same three and a bit years since it went on sale, from 1997 to 2000, Toyota had only managed to shift 52,000 Prius. A decade and a bit later they've sold over 4 million of the things. And given you can pick up a Leaf in the states for $199 a month and it costs very little to charge, I daresay it's saving plenty of people money too.

I was of the understanding that the Lithium mined for alot of elctric cars comes from California, so makes sense if they use them. Though the fact the Lthium was mined in Cali then shipped to Japan, then back to Cali.

Lithium comes from all over. China mainly, I think.

The shipping backwards and forwards thing is a little overplayed though. It was the case for the first few generations of Prius, which wasn't great when they weren't selling many so it was quite an inefficient process for a small number of cars. Selling as many as they do now, there's much better economies of scale (and transport efficiency) for moving large numbers of cars from place to place. That, and the larger proportion of a car's lifetime environmental impact comes from the stuff it burns, rather than how it was made or how it got to your driveway.

Or if you're Nissan making a Leaf, then you have three global factories producing them for important regions anyway - one in Japan, one in Europe (at the Sunderland plant next to Notes and Qashqais) and one in the US (in Tennessee).

 

[niky]

Apparently reading a graph is proving to be quite difficult for some people. If you look at the 'past 10 years' gas has been right around $.90 to $1.20 in 1979 currency. Have no idea that is considered 'nearly double' to some people. Has gas been on the slight rise? Yes but it's not setting records so I don't know why people are getting so agitated about this. Not to mention that the US is sitting on some quite significant untapped oil fields like the Bakken Fields in North and South Dakota. It is estimated that there is at least 200 Billion barrels of oil in this region. At a price of $100 per barrel the value of this find alone is $20 Trillion. The world has more than enough oil to sustain itself until a practical alternative is found. But forcing people and companies to "go green" with under-developed and inefficient technology, while self assuring to environmentalists, is suicide from a business standpoint. Let people buy EV's and use 'green power' when it is efficient to do so and saves money.

Pretty easy to ignore any evidence that refutes your claim? Let me repost:

Classic case of cherry picking. Gasoline sales didn't start in 1980, which was right after the Iranian revolution, where oil production dropped drastically and prices shot up.

Now, without relying on oil embargoes (1973 OPEC Embargo) or destruction of existing wells (1979 - Iran, 1990 - Kuwait), the price is going up, up and up. Oil prices have become relatively inelastic and independent of supply and demand.... fueled by commodities speculation and economic worries. Even the collapse of the world economy (2008) only put a temporary dent on the upward trajectory of oil prices.

Right now, the US still has a surplus due to the oil shale finds of recent years and the lack of capacity to ship or pipe that oil elsewhere, but analysis of well outputs show each new well returning more and more marginal numbers... which means higher prices. In fact, the spread between WTI and Brent oil (ergo, US oil and international oil) has very nearly disappeared.

-

TL;DR: Gasoline costs twice as much, inflation adjusted, as it did in the years when no wars interrupted production. If you don't see a problem with that, you're reading the graph wrong.

So you'll stop using the graph wrong:

1948-1950: Saudi pipeline established. The age of "cheap oil" begins. 1979-1981: Iranian government falls, gasoline reaches record high. Now: Gasoline prices are higher than they've ever been, and are 40-50% higher than at any period in which there was no active war in the Middle East.

Graphs are useless unless you understand the underlying principles driving gasoline prices.

As for the Bakken run... I've already covered that in the thread I linked:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/peak-oil-now-whatcha-gonna-do.245635/

But it can't hurt to add citations:

http://www.businessweek.com/article...not-last-as-fracking-wells-lack-staying-power

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9506

The drop-off in productivity from oil shale wells is much more pronounced and much quicker than for "traditional" oil wells. This is why WTI oil prices (and US gasoline prices) are going up. Because it is starting to cost more and more money to produce useful yields from these wells.

 

[Joel]

As an aside I love how this thread went from a Prius with an LS1 swap to the economics of oil production

 

[ildd]

Here's my essay from last semester that is very much related to this thread. It overviews the costs of gas, electric, and hydrogen powered cars in the U.S. as well as other reasons why alternate fuel vehicles aren't overpowering gas cars YET. It was made as a research paper with hints of arguments.


Moving the Future

The future is a very generic and touchy subject. Since the 20th century, people have always dreamed about what the future could bring and how much it could possibly change. The norm in the 1950’s was to think that by 2000, everyone would be flying cars instead of driving them; never could they have been so wrong. It’s 2013 now, and when it comes to personal transportation, not really much has changed. But with very recent strong pushes, alternative fuels have really been taking notice by people, and it gives some a sense of hope that the world is actually changing.
Alternative fuel is still a broad subject. To give you some perspective, fuel can be anything from normal gasoline, sugar cane, and of course 1890’s technology like steam and electricity. Some are more reasonable and accessible than others, and because of that, certain fuels are being heavily researched to power the future. They have to actually be an advantage over gas when it comes to things like affordability, reliability and, possibly the most important part, help the environment. In addition, the cars will have to be practical. Not everyone can drive an electric car that is 9 feet long, because not everyone lives in a tightly compacted city by themselves. There are very few cars today that run off alternative fuels that can comfortably move a family of 5, and that is a necessity for the future.
Along with oil-based fuels, there are fuels like Natural Gas, Hydrogen, Solar, Nuclear and Electric. All of which you have probably heard of, but are most familiar with Oil (gasoline or diesel) and Electric. Both of which have been around since the 1880’s and 1890’s, respectively. Because they have been used for so long, there is much more information known about Gas-powered cars and Electric Vehicles (EVs), and as a consequence, the general public feels safe buying them. More than 100 years of research and desire to perfection have put these two high on the list for fuelling the future. However, one of those two is ran off of fossil fuels, which will eventually become non-existent. Up until that happens, the price for filling your car up will keep getting higher and higher, due to supply and demand. On the other hand, with EVs, you can get your own energy however you want. Connect your battery plug straight into a home-made wind turbine and you can have all the free miles you want.
Cost
The biggest issue with consumers right now is pricing. For some, a very high-quality EV that costs $63,000 is completely out of the question. While the U.S. Government offers a $7,500 rebate for purchasing EVs, the 2013 Smart fortwo electric drive still costs in excess of $17,500; and that’s the cheapest on the U.S. market. Comparably, a gas-powered 2013 Nissan Versa costs $11,900 new, and you can put 3 more people in it and still haul all the groceries. The main reason people buy an EV is to save money at the pump. Well, outlet, for that matter. The fortwo gets the equivalent of 122 MPG in the city, while the Versa can get 26 MPG. Suppose that you drive each car 10,000 miles, gas costs $3 per gallon the entire year, and a kilowatt hour (kWh) costs 15 cents. You will have to pay $1,154 in gas for the Versa, and $419 in electric bills for the fortwo. So, excluding insurance, repairs maintenance, etc., the 2 cars will both cost you $20,701 in 7 years and 8 months. With a Hydrogen-powered car, the only other production alternative fuel car right now, you are pretty limited. First, you have to live in southern California, because that is the only place in the U.S. that has hydrogen fill-up stations. Second, the only car you can lease (there is no buying option) is a Honda FCX Clarity, and it runs you $600 a month for 3 years, totaling $21,600. The car has the equivalent of 60 MPG and 240 miles per tank, which can be good news considering there are only TEN fill up stations, 8 of which are in the Los Angeles area. The stations sell their hydrogen at an average of $22.50 per fill up. When Honda began producing these vehicles back in 2008, it would cost them $1 million per car to make, however there isn’t a known cost in 2013. So, you could brag about driving a million dollar car with your friends.
Fuel of the Future
The biggest question posed by many is regarding which fuel will actually be used in the future. We know it can’t be oil- that’s why all these fuels are being researched like crazy. The easy answer is electric, but many don’t agree with it (although I do). Nuclear power has been in the talks, but what would happen if you hit another car at 100 MPH? I wouldn’t want to be there to find out. As said by Daniel Sperling in “Two Billion Cars: Driving Toward Sustainability” :
Most have been tested in the past and found wanting. There’s no clear-cut replacement for oil. Each alternative is at a different stage of development, and each carries with it a different mix of pros and cons. Hydrogen and electricity are capable of substantially reducing oil use and greenhouse gases, but hydrogen isn’t ready for prime time and electricity faces substantial technical and economic barriers with batteries.
As I said earlier, hydrogen-fueled cars can cost upwards of a million dollars to produce. Electric cars are more expensive than gas cars for much less of a total package. However, if we have learned anything during research, it’s that time cures most things. Hydrogen is relatively new compared to gas and electric, and “behind” for that reason. Nuclear powered cars, specifically Thorium, splashed into internet articles in late October, 2013. And yes, Thorium is named after Thor, the Norse God of Thunder. In short, David Schilling’s article mentions that a Thorium car could run for 100 consecutive years with only 8 grams of fuel, or about the equivalent of 7,400 gallons of gas. Laser Power Systems, the company who is actively researching Thorium, says that Thorium produces less radioactivity than a dental x-ray machine, and that “In a few decades, a turbine about the size of an air conditioning unit could more provide cheap power for whole restaurants, hotels, office buildings. . .and eventually homes.” But, like they said, it’s a few decades away that COULD happen. There’s still a lot to learn.
Environmental Toll
The biggest reasons that these alternative fuels are being researched are to protect the Earth and the human race, mostly due to Carbon Dioxide, and efficiency, or getting the most out of less. Oil has always been the scapegoat for environmental problems, and… sometimes it deserves it. When an oil tanker crashes, you have an enormous fire that releases tons of harmful gasses into the air, and we know what happens when an oil rig sinks and 5 million barrels spill into the Gulf of Mexico; though “only” 11 people died in the BP Oil Spill in 2010, another 143 had to be treated, and most of them couldn’t really be helped after vision loss and seizures, among other problems. In addition, it completely ruined any marine life in a 30 mile radius, and harmed it in another 20 miles. When it comes to the gas cars on the road, they emit a bunch of Carbon monoxide, which has the power to knock you out in less than 15 minutes if you’re running the engine in a closed garage.
Electric cars can literally get their power from anything. If you want to install solar panels on the roof, that can be your energy source. You can build a small wind turbine that plugs directly into your car. Maybe you get your home energy from a nuclear plant and simply plug your car into an outlet. Hell, if you’re driving and let off the throttle, the wheels will generate energy and put it back in the battery (known as Regenerative Braking). That’s the beauty of electricity; you can get it from nearly everything.
So what is the Fuel of the Future?
I don’t know, nor does anyone else. We know that it can’t, and won’t, be oil or coal. We do know, however, that the fuel must be easy to obtain or make, be cheap, and above all it has to be clean for the environment- that’s the main reason why these fuels have cost billions, maybe even trillions, to research and develop. Because of those 3 reasons, all signs point to EV’s, at least for me. I just hope that nobody puts an electric motor into a 1955 Chevy Bel Air, and furthermore I hope you’re still allowed to drive gas cars in the future, even after they have long since been out of production.

erling, Daniel, and Deborah Gordon. "In Search of Low-Carbon Fuels." Two Billion Cars: Driving toward Sustainability. Oxford, England: Oxford UP, 2009. 79-112. Print.
Hordeski, Michael F. "Fuels for the Auto." Alternative Fuels: The Future of Hydrogen. Lilburn, GA: Fairmont, 2007. 99-123. Print.
Omi, Koji. "Alternative Energy For Transportation." Issues In Science & Technology 25.4 (2009): 31. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
Hodgson, P. E. "The Energy Crisis." Modern Age 50.2 (2008): 140. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
Schilling, David R. "Thorium-Fueled Automobile Engine Needs Refueling Once a Century." Industry Tap. Industrytap.com, 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Daileda, Colin. "One Day, Thorium Could Power Everything." Mashable. 07 Nov. 2013. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
"Smart.com - CC." Smart.com - CC. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
"THE 2014 NISSAN VERSA. Choose Your Versa." 2014 Nissan Versa. Web. 10 Dec. 2013

 

[Harry6784]

I'll start off by saying I agree with you. Nobody should be forced to buy anything.

However, you're mistaken in calling them "inefficient technology" - as noted above, electric drivetrains are highly efficient. Low battery capacity and relatively low range doesn't equal low efficiency.

Under-developed? That's debatable. Internal combustion vehicles have been continuously produced since cars have existed. Modern-day electric vehicles have been produced in volume for the past five years, yet all offer the sort of refinement and silence that luxury automakers have been striving to extract from an internal combustion engine for a hundred years. Again, arguably it's only the batteries that are under-developed, and it isn't like progress in that department is standing still.

On your third point, that too is already happening - Nissan sold its 100,000th Leaf worldwide just the other week. That's since December 2010 - in the same three and a bit years since it went on sale, from 1997 to 2000, Toyota had only managed to shift 52,000 Prius. A decade and a bit later they've sold over 4 million of the things. And given you can pick up a Leaf in the states for $199 a month and it costs very little to charge, I daresay it's saving plenty of people money too.

There is a small niche for EV's that some people fit into perfectly. But for the majority of people that technology is not yet here. And you are correct, electric motors are much more efficient than internal combustion engines, what is very inefficient are the batteries. Unlike gasoline, batteries are complicated and expensive to fabricate. Batteries also have to be recycled which again cost money. Even though the product itself may be efficient, the fact that they cost more to manufacture doesn't mean it makes sense to switch.

Pretty easy to ignore any evidence that refutes your claim? Let me repost:



So you'll stop using the graph wrong:

1948-1950: Saudi pipeline established. The age of "cheap oil" begins. 1979-1981: Iranian government falls, gasoline reaches record high. Now: Gasoline prices are higher than they've ever been, and are 40-50% higher than at any period in which there was no active war in the Middle East.

Graphs are useless unless you understand the underlying principles driving gasoline prices.

As for the Bakken run... I've already covered that in the thread I linked:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/peak-oil-now-whatcha-gonna-do.245635/

But it can't hurt to add citations:

http://www.businessweek.com/article...not-last-as-fracking-wells-lack-staying-power

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9506

The drop-off in productivity from oil shale wells is much more pronounced and much quicker than for "traditional" oil wells. This is why WTI oil prices (and US gasoline prices) are going up. Because it is starting to cost more and more money to produce useful yields from these wells.

Hard to call something evidence when different sources claim different numbers.

Notice how oil prices are loosely related to the amount of oil the US produces vs imports. Simple matter of the fact is that oil is more expensive to import than it is to produce. U.S. crude oil production exceeded imports in October 2013 for the first time since February 1995, which explains the falling gas prices of the past 2 or 3 years.

But it can't hurt to add citations:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/consumer&id=9317252

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...g-reasons-why-gas-prices-have-fallen-so-much/



And how all this relates to a LS1 Prius I have no idea

 

[niky]

Hard to call something evidence when different sources claim different numbers.

Different graphs say different whatnow? Those graphs say exactly the same thing.

Notice how oil prices are loosely related to the amount of oil the US produces vs imports. Simple matter of the fact is that oil is more expensive to import than it is to produce. U.S. crude oil production exceeded imports in October 2013 for the first time since February 1995, which explains the falling gas prices of the past 2 or 3 years.

Note how US production went down in the 90's and oil prices still fell. That's because cheaper domestic oil has been drying up. US production is only going back up now because world oil prices and fracking make shale oil economically viable. As I've said, we've known about this stuff for a long time.

Gas prices have gone down because of the supply glut that couldn't leave fields due to the lack of transport. Now that the oil is going out, the prices are finding their natural levels, which is why the Brent-WTI spread is disappearing.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...nes-help-ease-supply-glut-nyse-hk-1770049.htm

In the age of cheap OPEC oil, $60 shale oil made no sense at all. Today, it makes perfect sense. But as you need to keep drilling to keep up the supply, the price has to go up to support new wells. We're no longer at the $60 support level. Most industry insiders say that $85 is the support level, but this is bound to go up. And, if you would refer to my links, this support level is bound to rise as Bakken well productivity declines.

Oil shale gives us breathing room. We've always known oil shale would give us breathing room. But we've also always known it would be more expensive than the glut of oil we've had in past decades. With more advanced and cheaper fracking techniques, it should be good for another thirty or forty years. But it won't be cheap, and it won't last forever.

 

[Lotus Exige S]

By George Barris, king of custom

 

[White & Nerdy]

I have a hard time believing Barris had anything to do with that ugly heap.

 

[niky]

Oddly, yes.

But then he's always had a fascination with large... errh...

Not like he actually cares what people think. He's always done things his own way, which is why he's a legend.

 

[Adamgp]

I find very few Barris creations to be good looking, the original Batmobile for one.

Most of the time it seems like he beats them with an ugly stick and puts a shiny paint job on. Like this Prius he managed to make even uglier.

 

[homeforsummer]

Blimey, you aren't wrong there. Just googled some of his cars. Not pleasant. The Super Van has some cartoonish appeal, though.

 

[Grayfox]

Now my 2.2d Civic at 110g/km, admittedly with a few extra bits and pieces in there but do you think our electricity is produced in 100% efficient power plants.

Remapped your FK3 or FN3 yet?