Author Topic: Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll (Read 10096 times)

RustyTheDriver · « **Reply #15 on:** September 23, 2008, 11:02:17 PM »

Look, guys we should just be happy with what we have. I don't know about you guys but 'driving spiritedly' still gets me mid-upper 20's and that's FINE by me!! My stepdad has a Range Rover and a Porche 930 and my mom has a Lexus LX450 (a small tank) and they've all but given up on driving those things, and I feel lucky as hell. Sure, here in the southeast 91/93 octane is $3.90 a gal but I'll tell you, considering it's been this way for what, 6+ months? I think we might as well just get used to it. I'm thinking about going to Europe for college, and I can only hope I find something as efficient and fun as the 318is. Also, biodiesels and Veggie-Oil conversions are becoming more and more popular. Even the motor 'how-to' shows will actually tell you how to get diesel from used Vegetable oil. Sure, you're car smells like french fries, and o.k., the kit costs a pretty penny, but getting free fuel quickly outweighs the price. Oh and a big apology to those in CA. Anyways, we've got a few options out of this financial scare and the Federal Government is pretty much going in the complete opposite direction they should be. But I digress, that's my 2�

keflaman · « **Reply #16 on:** September 24, 2008, 01:37:51 AM »

There are many large American made or �American sized� vehicles driving around Europe nowadays. I see quite a few Jeep Grand Cherokee and Chrysler mini-vans along with the European SUV offerings, albeit almost all are in diesel variations.

I believe another point to consider in the OP's question is infrastructure; when we arrived in Italy with a Ford Explorer and Jeep TJ, we had a hard time finding a house to rent with a garage or parking big enough for our vehicles. The driveways were either too narrow or had turning radiuses exceeding the capability of the Explorer. With 33 inch tires and 4 inches of suspension lift on the Jeep, the ceilings of the garages were too low to drive into.

Although we get 400 liters of gas each month at �American� prices, we sold the Explorer simply because it was too big and impractical for use as a commuter car where we live. We bought a Ford Focus in its place.

There are a lot of interesting points made throughout this thread and it's refreshing to see the high level of civility in the discussions. I�ve visited many other forums where this topic would have morphed into a xenophobic, anti-(insert nationality) free-for-all. For the fact this hasn�t happened, I commend everyone for the respect shown to each opinion/comment.:cool:

tjts1 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 24, 2008, 03:58:56 AM »

In the last few months, I've really started to believe that electric vehicles will begin to take a large chunk of the new car market in a very short period of time. For a long time it was an issue of battery size, weight and range. Not anymore. Today you can build a pure electric car with the same power, torque (actually a hell of a lot more torque from zero RPM), weight and range as an average gasoline powered car. It just comes down to the price of the batteries. But if we've learned anything from the electronics industry, that cost will come down very very quickly. Lithium ion cells today cost 1/10 of what they cost 10 years ago when they first appeared. The battery going into the Chevy volt costs $10,000 and thats the first vehicle to use one in mass production. Both BMW and Mercedes have announced S class and 7 series hybrids that use Li-ion batteries. The 3.5 liter V6 S class with a 20hp, 180lb/ft electric motor and a 120v battery gets 30mpg in the combined city/highway cycle. I'm sure Mercedes is going to charge an extra $10k for the privilage, but the technology really isn't that expensive anymore.

The whole battery is the silver box on the passenger side just below the windshield.
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/09/mercedes-s400-hybrid-03.jpg
The battery takes up exactly the same amount of space as the old 12v lead acid battery. In stop and go traffic, this battery can move the S class on its own for a short distance the same way a Prius does.
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/09/mercedes-s400-hybrid-05.jpg
For comparison, this is the size of the NIMH battery in the much smaller and lighter Prius. Its about 4x1x1 feet and weighs 300lb.
http://priuschat.com/forums/attachments/private-sales/6146d1191294713-prius-hybrid-battery-pack-mint-low-mile-prius_battery.jpg
I'm not knocking the Prius. I'm just trying to point out how quickly the technology is advancing.

And finally, my all time favorite engine swap project.
http://www.evdrive.com/BMW_project/ProjectBMW.html

By the way, electricity costs the equivalent of 75 cents/gallon in California. In places like Washington state that have abundant hydro electric and nuclear power, its closer to 40 cents/gallon.

ose30 · « **Reply #18 on:** September 24, 2008, 04:04:29 AM »

I know what you mean. We have hard to find space enough even in newer parking places/buildings. Seems to me architectural planning is still in the '70's; at least they make parking places which are more suitable for average japanese/european car built 30 years ago. That can be easily see if i compare the size of my E30 to my wifes new Skoda Octavia, Skoda is considered a smaller class car than 3- series BMW, My E30 is much smaller than that "little" Skoda. So even european cars has grown a lot during past 20 years.

What comes to electric car; it's very interesting issue. Take for example Porsche. Old Ferdinad's first cars were 4 wd electric ones back in the early 1900's. He wrote then that the gas burning engines are old fashioned and they will die away in few years.... He changed his mind shortly after. So in the past 100 years the batteries has been and still are the major problem

tjts1 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 25, 2008, 12:01:29 PM »

Quote

A week after Mercedes-Benz announced details of its first hybrid, battery supplier Continental Automotive has launched production of the battery packs. Mercedes will be the first manufacturer to mass produce a hybrid vehicles with lithium ion batteries. Continental spent €3 million to build the battery manufacturing facility in Nuremberg. The first batteries that being produced weigh 55 lbs and have a volume of just under 0.5 cu. ft. When the Mercedes S400 BlueHybrid launches in mid-2009 with this 120V battery pack it will be installed in the engine compartment in place of the standard 12V lead acid battery.

Since this is the first mass market automotive application of a lithium battery, Mercedes and Continental are being extra careful. The battery is designed to last a minimum of 10 years and 100,000-150,000 miles so Continental has developed a sophisticated monitoring system to make sure that it operates within normal operating parameters. Each individual cell is monitored to keeps loads balanced and ensure even charging and discharging. Continental had to develop special processes to weld the copper bus bars that act as cell interconnects. The whole battery is enclosed inside of a laser-welded stainless steel case. The initial production capacity of the factory is 15,000 units a year and that can easily be doubled.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09/25/continental-starts-production-of-lithium-ion-batteries/
This battery will be used in both the S class and 7 series and probably many other cars soon there after.

e30 4cyl · « **Reply #20 on:** September 25, 2008, 10:19:01 PM »

I too believe electricity is our best option for the short term future, but only if it is nuclear.
Just as a hypothetical example: lets say that within 10 years the vast majority of automobiles are electric. The demand for electricity will skyrocket and energy plants will have to keep up with the demand.
This is where the problem is, currently most of the electricity in the United States is produced from natural gas, coal, oil, or other non renewable sources. Switching to electric vehicles would only sweep the problem under the rug so to speak and nothing would be solved. We would still be dependent on oil to produce the electricity we are all of a sudden dependent on.
But switch to nuclear, now thats a solution. That would probably be my first choice for the energy needs of the US and the world for the next few hundred years. Build more nuclear power plants and convert everything to electricity. Look at France for example, I believe over 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear sources.

ose30 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 26, 2008, 02:35:20 AM »

Trend in Europe is currently to drive down nuclear power plants. That is happening now for example in Germany and Sweden. If i remember correctly Sweden has decided to get rid of all of it's nuclear power plants. France is just a another kind of example, they use a lot nuclear sources. Here in Finland there is one new nuclear power plant under construction currently. There are lot's of plans in Europe to move to natural gas power plants. They have planned to build a huge natural gas pipe from Russia across of Gulf of Finland to northern Germany from where the pipe lines will be spread all over the Europe. Iam not sure tough is it wise to be more tight up to Russian energy sources.
We use here a lot of waterpower, after all there are rivers & lakes in this country. Also more and more renewable sources are used, mostly wood and swamps. Nuclear power is one alternative, but i suppose it is good to have alternatives as well, like wind, water etc. power.

tjts1 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 26, 2008, 10:48:01 AM »

Quote from: e30 4cyl;57387

I too believe electricity is our best option for the short term future, but only if it is nuclear.
Just as a hypothetical example: lets say that within 10 years the vast majority of automobiles are electric. The demand for electricity will skyrocket and energy plants will have to keep up with the demand.
This is where the problem is, currently most of the electricity in the United States is produced from natural gas, coal, oil, or other non renewable sources. Switching to electric vehicles would only sweep the problem under the rug so to speak and nothing would be solved. We would still be dependent on oil to produce the electricity we are all of a sudden dependent on.
But switch to nuclear, now thats a solution. That would probably be my first choice for the energy needs of the US and the world for the next few hundred years. Build more nuclear power plants and convert everything to electricity. Look at France for example, I believe over 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear sources.

This is a myth. In short, EVs are significantly more efficient in converting their energy into mechanical power. A coal fired power plant is about 35% efficient at converting the chemical energy stored in coal into electricity while a gasoline power engine can only do about 20-25%.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2007/10/why_electric_ve.html
http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electric-powered-cars.html

e30 4cyl · « **Reply #23 on:** September 26, 2008, 11:26:16 AM »

Quote from: tjts1;57407

This is a myth. In short, EVs are significantly more efficient in converting their energy into mechanical power. A coal fired power plant is about 35% efficient at converting the chemical energy stored in coal into electricity while a gasoline power engine can only do about 20-25%.

Not really.
Even if you assume electric motors are 100% efficient at converting stored energy into motion (which they are not but lets assume for this example which will make the EV's look better than they really are), they are comparable to gas engines and significantly worse than diesel engines. Coal fired and other non renewable sources to produce electricity are about 30-35% efficient, but then about another 8% is lost in the transport of electricity to where they are needed. So you are at best only around 27% efficient, whereas modern gasoline engines are more like 30-35% efficient. Diesels are at about 45%.
And that is not even including the huge amount of energy required to convert to EV.
EV's only make sense if we get the electricity from nuclear power or renewable sources.

tjts1 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 26, 2008, 11:40:06 AM »

Quote from: e30 4cyl;57409

Not really.
Even if you assume electric motors are 100% efficient at converting stored energy into motion (which they are not but lets assume for this example which will make the EV's look better than they really are), they are comparable to gas engines and significantly worse than diesel engines. Coal fired and other non renewable sources to produce electricity are about 30-35% efficient, but then about another 8% is lost in the transport of electricity to where they are needed. So you are at best only around 27% efficient, whereas modern gasoline engines are more like 30-35% efficient. Diesels are at about 45%.
And that is not even including the huge amount of energy required to convert to EV.
EV's only make sense if we get the electricity from nuclear power or renewable sources.

Can you cite a source of any of your claims? Most of it is just plain wrong.

Quote

Modern gasoline engines have an average efficiency of about 25 to 30% when used to power an automobile. In other words, of the total heat energy of gasoline, 70 to 75% is rejected (as heat) in the exhaust or consumed by the motor (friction, air turbulence, heat through the cylinder walls or cylinder head, and work used to turn engine equipment and appliances such as water and oil pumps and electrical generator), and only about 25% of energy moves the vehicle. At idle the efficiency is zero by definition, since no useable work is being drawn from the engine. At slow speed (i.e. low power output) the efficiency is much lower than average, due to a larger percentage of the available heat being absorbed by the metal parts of the engine, instead of being used to perform useful work. Gasoline engines also suffer efficiency losses at low speeds from the high turbulence and head loss when the incoming air must fight its way around the nearly-closed throttle; diesel engines do not suffer this loss because the incoming air is not throttled. Engine efficiency improves considerably at open road speeds; it peaks in most applications at around 75% of rated engine power, which is also the range of greatest engine torque (e.g. in the 2007 Ford Focus, maximum torque of 133 foot-pounds is obtained at 4500 RPM, and maximum engine power of 136 brake horsepower (101 kW) is obtained at 6000 RPM).
Engines using the Diesel cycle are usually more efficient, although the Diesel cycle itself is less efficient at equal compression ratios. Since diesel engines use much higher compression ratios (the heat of compression is used to ignite the slow-burning diesel fuel), that higher ratio more than compensates for the lower intrinsic cycle efficiency, and allows the diesel engine to be more efficient. The most efficient type, direct injection Diesels, are able to reach an efficiency of about 40% in the engine speed range of idle to about 1,800 rpm. Beyond this speed, efficiency begins to decline due to air pumping losses within the engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

Electric motor efficiency.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html

Electric power transmission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

WELL-TO-WHEELS EMISSIONS DATA FOR PLUG-IN HYBRIDS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Quote

EVs reduce CO 2 by 11%-100% compared with ICEs and by 24%-54% compared with HEVs, and significantly reduce all other greenhouse gas emissions, using the U.S. grid mix. If all U.S. cars were EVs, we’d reduce global warming emissions. Using electricity strictly from coal, EVs still would reduce CO 2 by 0%-59% compared with ICEs (one analysis found 0% change; six others found reductions of 17%-59%) and might produce 30%-49% more CO 2 than HEVs (based on only two analyses). On theother hand, if electricity comes from solar or wind power, EVs eliminate all emissions.

http://www.sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions%5B9%5D.pdf

e30 4cyl · « **Reply #25 on:** September 26, 2008, 02:01:15 PM »

Quote from: tjts1;57411

Can you cite a source of any of your claims? Most of it is just plain wrong.

All sources are within 5-10% of each other. Depending on which sources you choose of course you can skew the results to your side. A few percent here or there does not make anyone "plain wrong".
Your source specifically says that one study found EV's would not lower C02 emmisions if the electricity was from coal. Others varied but either way it is not clear cut. Believe it or not, nothing is so clear cut like you seem to know, usually there is some gray area. No one can for sure say what the results would be.
Think about it in the big picture, there is no need to be so unreasonable and claim a few percent variation makes something unacceptable. Every study weighs variables differently and has incentive to prove something to their benefit.
Gas engines are about 25-35% efficient. Coal fired electricity plants are about 30-35% efficient. Not such a huge change as a you claim. Is a 5% change really worth all the energy required to convert to EV's? And what about all the new mining needed for Nickel or Lithium batteries? Diesels destroy coal fired EVs so the global difference would be even less.

tjts1 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 29, 2008, 09:29:37 PM »

Well you have your claims, no matter how wrong they are and I have mine, backed up by data. Everyone else is free to read through the links I poster and come up to their own conclusion. So far you have failed to produce any data that backs up your position. My hypothesys stands: Even if an electric vehicle gets its power off the grid directly from a coal fueled power plant, it will produce far fewer CO2 emissions that any internal combustion engine including diesels. That's all there is to it.

e30 4cyl · « **Reply #27 on:** September 29, 2008, 10:32:59 PM »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

https://www.healthgoods.com/Education/Energy_Information/General_Energy_Information/fossil_fuel%20coal.htm
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html

Ok, there you go. You have your precious sources. Does that change any of my previous points? No.
Stop hiding behind your "source" excuse and claiming that I am completely wrong. It adds nothing to the discussion and is just a waste of time. Don't just list sources and say you are right, use your brain and add some useful analysis. It would also be nice if you read other people's points, thought about them for a little while, and then added a useful response or statement.

As I have stated before and I have now proved to you with your all-telling sources, coal fired electricity plants are only around 30-35% efficient.
Now think about it in the big picture. Gasoline vehicles are about 30% efficient as you have previously stated and backed up with sources. If coal fired electricity plants are 30-35% efficient, where is the drastic change?

A few percent is not what I would call "far fewer". And you have not even considered the amount of energy required to convert vehicles to electricity or build brand new EV's.

It is a nice idea, but currently does not make any sense.

And another thing, burning coal for electricity is currently the biggest source of emmisions in the US. Coal fired EVs with todays technology are merely a novel idea that sweeps our problems under the rug without solving anything.

christophbmw · « **Reply #28 on:** October 01, 2008, 12:39:03 PM »

anybody ever see who killed the electric car?

Poll

Threshold price would be

Author Topic: Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll (Read 10096 times)

RustyTheDriver

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

keflaman

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

tjts1

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

ose30

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

tjts1

Continental starts production of lithium ion batteries

e30 4cyl

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

ose30

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

tjts1

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

e30 4cyl

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

tjts1

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

e30 4cyl

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

tjts1

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

e30 4cyl

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll

christophbmw

Effects of high fuel price in USA, poll