[mQb0aVZe]

Anyway, the main gist is total electric cars won't be efficient in metropolitan areas. There's too much stop and sit time. Now, I do know people that have hybrids that get the suggested 50-ish MPG with them, however, in the summer they don't use the AC that much, and they drive very gently. Personally, I'm not one for sucking up exhaust fumes, so I have no clue how they do that. It makes me sick to sit in DC traffic with the windows down. Guess that's what I get for growing up a country boy with clean air, huh?

To add the the posts above me. If everyone else would use electric car, you wouldn't have to suck up exhaust fumes, but breathe clean air ;-)

[Coollabioto]

If you think about how much oil could be saved if all cars on the planet were Diesel cars... that would end up in 30% and you wouldnt even need a different infrastucture.

Diesel emmissions are a lot worse than emmissions from gasoline engines.



To ARC,I was speaking more about PA and VA,not nescisarily around DC.

I agree with everyone else though,EV's are better in cities,there are a whooooole lot of people who don't live in cities thoigh.

[ManHolDenPoker]

I don't care what toyota thinks,lots of other people disagree,and current ic engines could be pretty easily adapted to run on hydrogen.

Yeah, but current fuel tanks could not hold the Hydrogen. Which urges another question... how do you think we can safely transport Hydrogen in vehicles?

It would have to be stored under high pressure to make it feasible and it has nearly three times the energy density of 87 Octane gasoline, not to mention being extremely flammable even in a diluted solution with air.

[Beriilosal]

Um, that is where electric cars shine the most and IC ones are least efficent.

I'll believe electric cars are efficient in heavy city driving when I see it.

Not all of us like to sit in a sweltering car in the middle of a 110F summer here in Satan's Crotch. Considering that as of right now, no hybrid will run on simply electric power whilst the AC is blaring tells me that electric cars will not handle sitting in high heat with an AC running. Same with heating.

Now I would agree that in light stop-and-go with a good climate, sure, electric would be great. But here in a really heavy metropolitan area? Yeah, I don't see them working too well. Especially when I've talked to hybrid owners around here who always have their IC's kicking on in the middle of traffic and while sitting still.

To add the the posts above me. If everyone else would use electric car, you wouldn't have to suck up exhaust fumes, but breathe clean air ;-) No, I'd just have to deal with the asphalt below me giving off at least 120F temps.

The temperature gauge on my wife's XC90 reads up to something like 135F. And it's topped out sitting in traffic in downtown DC in the middle of summer.

Now, you're gonna tell me we have the battery technology to handle that and deliver the juice to effectively run an air conditioner with that type of heat? As I said above, I'll believe it when I see it. I've driven hybrids, and they're uncomfortable as hell in the middle of summer at 95F. . .let alone in the middle of a city sitting still with heat bouncing off the pavement and making the ambient temp around 120F.

Sorry, but I have no desire to end up at work with sweat stains in my crotch, down my back, and around my arm pits.

[Spongebob]

Diesel emmissions are a lot worse than emmissions from gasoline engines.

Nah, a little more nitrogen oxides but the sooty particles are completely filtered by the particulate filter. Plus modern Diesel engines are ALOT more efficient that what you probably know.

[Beriilosal]

Nah, a little more nitrogen oxides but the sooty particles are completely filtered by the particulate filter. Plus modern Diesel engines are ALOT more efficient that what you probably know.

BWM touts their diesels as only having something like 20% of the emissions of a gasoline engine, IIRC.

[Coollabioto]

Yeah, but current fuel tanks could not hold the Hydrogen. Which urges another question... how do you think we can safely transport Hydrogen in vehicles?

It would have to be stored under high pressure to make it feasible and it has nearly three times the energy density of 87 Octane gasoline, not to mention being extremely flammable even in a diluted solution with air.

It's flammable,but lighter than air so it's actually less dangerous if it catches fire than gasoline,as gasoline pools under the vehicle and hydrogen burns straight up into the atmosphere.

The best solution I've seen used a "honeycomb" of metal to hold the hydrogen in the spaces in the "honeycomb",it was hard to rupture,lightweight and a pretty good means of storing the hydrogen.

A half ton of batteries really aren't the definition of "safe" either,and would nescsitate getting an entirely new vehicle rather than some hose changes and a fuel tank swicth to run your existing car on hydrogen.

AND still gives you a lot better mileage and practicality than an EV.

[Beriilosal]

It's flammable,but lighter than air so it's actually less dangerous if it catches fire than gasoline,as gasoline pools under the vehicle and hydrogen burns straight up into the atmosphere.

The best solution I've seen used a "honeycomb" of metal to hold the hydrogen in the spaces in the "honeycomb",it was hard to rupture,lightweight and a pretty good means of storing the hydrogen.

A half ton of batteries really aren't the definition of "safe" either,and would nescsitate getting an entirely new vehicle rather than some hose changes and a fuel tank swicth to run your existing car on hydrogen.

AND still gives you a lot better mileage and practicality than an EV.

And the best part is, all you put out is water! You could use your engine to stay hydrated! [rofl]

[Coollabioto]

Nah, a little more nitrogen oxides but the sooty particles are completely filtered by the particulate filter. Plus modern Diesel engines are ALOT more efficient that what you probably know.

ORLY?

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Diesel

It's not nescesarily the AMOUNT of emmissions that are rleased,the composition is a factor too.

[enteltcheft]

It's flammable,but lighter than air so it's actually less dangerous if it catches fire than gasoline,as gasoline pools under the vehicle and hydrogen burns straight up into the atmosphere.

The best solution I've seen used a "honeycomb" of metal to hold the hydrogen in the spaces in the "honeycomb",it was hard to rupture,lightweight and a pretty good means of storing the hydrogen.

A half ton of batteries really aren't the definition of "safe" either,and would nescsitate getting an entirely new vehicle rather than some hose changes and a fuel tank swicth to run your existing car on hydrogen.

AND still gives you a lot better mileage and practicality than an EV.

The problem is that hydrogen reaches an explosive fuel air mix quickly while gasoline doesn't do that easily.

Batteries are rather safe in comparison and they don't need an entirely new vehicle either.


Using hydrogen for IC is as inefficent as gasoline, if not worse for the additional equipment needed to secure the hydrogen.

[Coollabioto]

The problem is that hydrogen reaches an explosive fuel air mix quickly while gasoline doesn't do that easily.

Batteries are rather safe in comparison and they don't need an entirely new vehicle either.


Using hydrogen for IC is as inefficent as gasoline, if not worse for the additional equipment needed to secure the hydrogen.

Yet hydrogen still vents directly straight up into the atmosphere,the batteries and electric motor do require a complete drivetrain overhaul and if you rupture the batteries you're dealing with a very biologocally unfreuindly mess.

Effeceincy may be less,practically and useability is so much higher as to make that a moot point at this time.

As i said,in twenty years or so EV's will almost certainly be the better option,provided we dont make something even better,as for now,they are more expensive,less practical,harder to "refuel" and thats going by their best possible stats under the optimal controlled situation.

No thank you.

[Spongebob]

ORLY?

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Diesel

It's not nescesarily the AMOUNT of emmissions that are rleased,the composition is a factor too.

Well thats what I said, as the article says

Diesel powered cars generally have about a 40% better mileage than equivalent gasoline engines [1] and produce only about 69% of the greenhouse gases. This greater fuel economy is due to the higher per-liter energy content of diesel fuel and also to the intrinsic efficiency of the diesel engine. While diesel's 15% higher volumetric energy density results in 15% higher greenhouse gas emissions per liter compared to gasoline, the 40% better fuel economy achieved by modern diesel-engined automobiles offsets the higher-per-liter emissions of greenhouse gases, resulting in lower CO2 emission per kilometer (69% of that of gasoline). [2][3] For this reason, proponents of diesel powered automobiles often cite this advantage as a way to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions.
On the other hand, diesel fuel often contains higher quantities of sulfur. European emission standards and preferential taxation have forced oil refineries to dramatically reduce the level of sulfur in diesel fuels. In contrast, the United States has long had "dirtier" diesel, although more stringent emission standards have been adopted with the transition to ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) starting in 2006 and becoming mandatory on June 1, 2010 (see also diesel exhaust). U.S. diesel fuel typically also has a lower cetane number (a measure of ignition quality) than European diesel, resulting in worse cold weather performance and some increase in emissions. High levels of sulfur in diesel are harmful for the environment because they prevent the use of catalytic diesel particulate filters to control diesel particulate emissions, as well as more advanced technologies, such as nitrogen oxide (NOx) adsorbers (still under development), to reduce emissions. However, lowering sulfur also reduces the lubricity of the fuel, meaning that additives must be put into the fuel to help lubricate engines. Biodiesel is an effective lubricant. European Diesel is kinda "clean" and allows the usage of particulate filters (which all german car makers and most others offer). Today's Diesel engines from european or japanese auto makers dont have much in common with what you know from your trucks or 18 wheelers.

[Coollabioto]

Well thats what I said, as the article says



European Diesel is kinda "clean" and allows the usage of particulate filters (which all german car makers and most others offer). Today's Diesel engines from european or japanese auto makers dont have much in common with what you know from your trucks or 18 wheelers.

It's cleaner than it was,it's still not a wonderfull cure all alternative that is completely and undeniably "better".

[Spongebob]

Actually it is. Its nothing "alternative" but would be the perfect "stop gap" technology. AND more fun to drive than a petrol engine with a simliar cylinder capacity and/or BHP.

[Coollabioto]

Actually it is. Its nothing "alternative" but would be the perfect "stop gap" technology. AND more fun to drive than a petrol engine with a simliar cylinder capacity and/or BHP.

I don't know about the last part,I certainly wouldn't throw a 165bhp diesel engine in my car and expect it to rev anywhere near as quickly or nimbly and gearing wouldn't make up for the sluggishness.

Hydrogen is the perfect stop gap,there shouldn't be any argument with that,but to each their own idea I geuss.

[ManHolDenPoker]

I don't know about the last part,I certainly wouldn't throw a 165bhp diesel engine in my car and expect it to rev anywhere near as quickly or nimbly and gearing wouldn't make up for the sluggishness.

Hydrogen is the perfect stop gap,there shouldn't be any argument with that,but to each their own idea I geuss.

Where would we get Hydrogen from? There is a lot of research, but no feasible way to harness enough Hydrogen for even a small percentage of this world's vehicles.

Also, this still does not get by the energy density factor, the whole lighter than air argument does not consider the voltality of Hydrogen. Take a lighter to a balloon full of Hydrogen and watch what happens...

[Spongebob]

Hydrogen is stupid as a "stop gap" because the costs for the respective infrastructure would be too high if its kicked out again after like 50 years.

And as far as the 165BHP Diesel engine goes... I'd rather take the BMW 3.0l 240BHP "520Nm @ 3800RPM" 6 cyl engine than any of your big ass engines as it consumes only 7.5l Diesel per 100km (whatever that is in mpg).

[thumbup]

[mQb0aVZe]

Now, you're gonna tell me we have the battery technology to handle that and deliver the juice to effectively run an air conditioner with that type of heat? As I said above, I'll believe it when I see it. I've driven hybrids, and they're uncomfortable as hell in the middle of summer at 95F. . .let alone in the middle of a city sitting still with heat bouncing off the pavement and making the ambient temp around 120F.

Sorry, but I have no desire to end up at work with sweat stains in my crotch, down my back, and around my arm pits.

Let's take Toyota RAV4 EV for example.

It's battery holds 27.4kWh of energy. If it's AC consumes 1kW of power, it means that it can cool a car for 27 hours.
Prius' AC probably stops working after a while because it's battery capacity is MUCH lower than RAV4 EV's.

Edit: I just checked it. Prius' battery holds only 1.3kWh, that's 20 times less than pure electric Toyota RAV4 EV. No problem running RAV4 EV's AC for much longer periods of time.

[Coollabioto]

Hydrogen is stupid as a "stop gap" because the costs for the respective infrastructure would be too high if its kicked out again after like 50 years.

And as far as the 165BHP Diesel engine goes... I'd rather take the BMW 3.0l 240BHP "520Nm @ 3800RPM" 6 cyl engine than any of your big ass engines as it consumes only 7.5l Diesel per 100km (whatever that is in mpg).

[thumbup]

My "big ass" 2.2 liter 4 cylinder? lol

That'd be capable of around +/- 30mpg AND producing upwards of 500 ft/lb's/677 nm's@ around 2800rpm if I had the cash to go crazy with the turbo.

[ManHolDenPoker]

My "big ass" 2.2 liter 4 cylinder? lol

That'd be capable of around +/- 30mpg AND producing upwards of 500 ft/lb's/677 nm's@ around 2800rpm if I had the cash to go crazy with the turbo.

As a BMW (non-turbo) owner, I can say -without the shadow of a doubt- that the sweet spot for the 3.0L is 4200RPM, so if you were going to go crazy with a turbo Aram, match the turbo size to start to spool around 4 Grand.

So much fun... I am going to go for a drive tonight I think. [thumbup]