Hybrid Misconception

[Coach]

My problem with this thread is that the OP posted his obvious dislike for hybrids (which is fine) with a statement that they are worse then regular cars and the only evidence sited being that they are more expensive. When you post your opinion at least back it up with some imperical facts rather than saying some places might not have a certified mechanic, or how you dont think theyre worth the money.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

My concern is the battery replacement cost at between 80 and 100k is about $3000.00.

now that is a myth. well with hondas anyways. My civic hybrid has an 8 year warranty on the battery.

And I've had no problems with the car in the 4 years since i've had it. But then again who knows about those crappy fords.

Only annoying thing is that when it's colder than -30 my battery engine shuts off and i'm driving around in an 80horsepower car. hehe.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by MattyC

My problem with this thread is that the OP posted his obvious dislike for hybrids (which is fine) with a statement that they are worse then regular cars and the only evidence sited being that they are more expensive. When you post your opinion at least back it up with some imperical facts rather than saying some places might not have a certified mechanic, or how you dont think theyre worth the money.

I think he thought he was giving us some crazy-unique angle that we may have never thought about with regards to hybrids, but in reality it's hard to have a conversation about hybrids without somebody rattling off those talking points every time.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Only annoying thing is that when it's colder than -30 my battery engine shuts off and i'm driving around in an 80horsepower car. hehe.

You got my Insight beat. I don't have any problems in the cold, but if I have to go over a mountain, I'm left with 67 horsepower. Still, I have more fun driving that car as fast as it can go than I ever did driving faster cars at 50%.

Mostly though, I just hate stopping at gas stations and love to go 500+ miles between fillups.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

now that is a myth. well with hondas anyways. My civic hybrid has an 8 year warranty on the battery.

And I've had no problems with the car in the 4 years since i've had it. But then again who knows about those crappy fords.

Only annoying thing is that when it's colder than -30 my battery engine shuts off and i'm driving around in an 80horsepower car. hehe.

I'm just going off of information that I've pulled off of the internet when I started doing new car research.

In terms of the amount of driving distances that I do, a Hybrid car for the added costs doesn't really pay off for me.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I hope this entire post is one big joke. A Prius' 0-60 is 10 seconds. That's slow motion if you're a car guy.

10 seconds is MUCH faster then you really ever get to accelerate in traffic anyway. The point is, for regular everyday driving, it's PLENTY powerful enough.

Also, I bet if you'd compare 100-140 km/h times for a Prius vs just about any regular drivetrain in the same car class, the Prius would be significantly faster, thanks to the extra torque of the electric motor.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

10 seconds is MUCH faster then you really ever get to accelerate in traffic anyway. The point is, for regular everyday driving, it's PLENTY powerful enough.

Also, I bet if you'd compare 100-140 km/h times for a Prius vs just about any regular drivetrain in the same car class, the Prius would be significantly faster, thanks to the extra torque of the electric motor.

Maybe 10 seconds is much faster than you get to accelerate, but I pin my 340hp car on a regular basis. If I'm at the front of the line at a red light, I'm flooring it when the light turns green. I find it fun and I hope I always will. At least daily I have it floored at some point.

Anyway, that's beside the point. My point is you are wrong again in thinking your Prius is fast. Here's a link comparing 50mph - 70mph acceleration times. The Prius' 50-70 mph time of 6.8 seconds is slower than the base models/base engines of the following cars that I believe would be considered a comparable class/size: Malibu, Avenger, Fusion, Accord, Sonata, Altima and Camry.

The Prius has many really cool attributes and I happen to like them, but it is certainly not fast. Just the opposite, actually.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Plug-in cars (whether purely electric or some sort of hybrid/hydrogen mix) are the future. There are many other issues with them at the current moment, but the fact that they draw their energy from a fossil fuel is not one of them.

The biggest oversight by hydrogen fuel believers is where they plan to get it from. It has to be made and no distribution network exists for it. Hydrogen will never be the transportation fuel of choice. We'll figure out solar long before.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The biggest oversight by hydrogen fuel believers is where they plan to get it from. It has to be made and no distribution network exists for it. Hydrogen will never be the transportation fuel of choice. We'll figure out solar long before.

I'm not sure I'm understanding youre post. Are you asking where we plan to get hydrogen from?

[Cowboy89]

For those of us who live in places that can see regular temperatures under -10; How well does the heater work in those conditions and are there any long term concerns about components in hybrids that drive in those environments?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm not sure I'm understanding youre post. Are you asking where we plan to get hydrogen from?

Not asking. We know where we can get it from. You have to make it. You either run electricity through water (and you have to make the electricity too) or you reform hydrocarbons (kicks CO2 into the atmosphere and you still need to produce the damn hydrocarbons people complain about in the first place). There's other methods too, but they all have one common theme...you have to spend a tonnnnnnnne of resources to produce a small amount of hydrogen.

Then there's the fact that no distribution network currently exists. Think of all the gas stations, pipelines, fuel trucks, etc. there are in the world. Then think of how much money that would cost to create an equivalent hydrogen distribution network. Many zeros.

So basically, we have to make it and we have no way of getting it to the consumer. It's great that it only makes water when you burn it, but it is very very far from practical.

[Frequitude]

But the biggest energy source in our solar system is sitting up there, raining down joule after joule for free. Solar will be the way one day. You don't have to find it. It's just there. You just have to make the panels once, then they produce for years. Too bad it doesn't make economical sense yet.

[Coach]

nvm i was totally wrong

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I agree with you on the solar aspect, but all the conversion of water into hydrogen youre talking about takes place in the fuel cell. You dont have to disperse hydrogen you have to disperse water (for which there are plenty of outlets already in place).

You have no idea how fuel cells work, or apparently how the laws of thermodynamics work either.

Hydrogen fuel cells convert hydrogen and oxygen to water and electricty. So the converson of wter into hydrogen you're talking about, does not take place in the fuel cell.

Secondly, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen (presumably using electricity) and then recombining it in a fuel cell, is a losing proposition energy wise. Yes it increasese the portability as hydrogen storage is currently more efficeint than batteries, but if you're talking about distribution networks eletricity is much more readily available, so we're probably better off to work no battery tech, than to build a hydrogen infrastructure.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

You have no idea how fuel cells work, or apparently how the laws of thermodynamics work either.

Hydrogen fuel cells convert hydrogen and oxygen to water and electricty. So the converson of wter into hydrogen you're talking about, does not take place in the fuel cell.

Secondly, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen (presumably using electricity) and then recombining it in a fuel cell, is a losing proposition energy wise. Yes it increasese the portability as hydrogen storage is currently more efficeint than batteries, but if you're talking about distribution networks eletricity is much more readily available, so we're probably better off to work no batter tech, than to build a hydrogen infrastructure.

yes I just looked it up in case i was wrong because the last time I learned about fuel cells was high school chemistry and I was under the false memory that the input and the output were both water. My mistake

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Not asking. We know where we can get it from. You have to make it. You either run electricity through water (and you have to make the electricity too) or you reform hydrocarbons (kicks CO2 into the atmosphere and you still need to produce the damn hydrocarbons people complain about in the first place). There's other methods too, but they all have one common theme...you have to spend a tonnnnnnnne of resources to produce a small amount of hydrogen.

Then there's the fact that no distribution network currently exists. Think of all the gas stations, pipelines, fuel trucks, etc. there are in the world. Then think of how much money that would cost to create an equivalent hydrogen distribution network. Many zeros.

So basically, we have to make it and we have no way of getting it to the consumer. It's great that it only makes water when you burn it, but it is very very far from practical.

Actually, you don't have to spend a ton of resources to produce hydrogen. Modern Electrolyzers along with a good gas compressor (to get pressure high enough to useful levels) is 75% efficient. That is, 75% of your input electricity will be stored in compressed hydrogen. Then you get 50% of that when you put the hydrogen in your fuel cell. Not as efficient as an electric car, but far more efficient than conventional ICE's.

Shantz brought up the major benefit of hydrogen is that something like the Volt gets you a 60 mile range, whereas the range of the hydrogen car is much closer to that of gasoline.

In terms of distribution tech, since electricity is the only thing that you need in order to generate hydrogen, it would be very possible to have portable electrolyzers that you plug in at night to refuel your car. I'm sure there's other ways to distribute hydrogen that won't require a million km's of pipeline but I guess I'm not quite visionary enough to find out what it is.

Now, I'm not saying that this is viable. It's not, due to current tech limitations as well as cost. However, there are ideas out there, and depending on how far battery tech gets vs. hydrogen, it is possible that hydrogen would come out to be the winner. For example, if it was possible to build current hydrogen cars for 1/5th their current cost, it would easily be the best option available. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Edit: I noticed I'm throwing out a lot of #'s without backing it up, but here's a start: http://www.hydrogenics.com/assets/pd...%20Leaflet.pdf

4.8kWh/Nm3 of hydrogen roughly translates to 60% electrolysis efficiency including all the pumps and compression. It seems I was a bit optimistic when I said 75%.

[Azure]

If I would buy another SUV it would be a hybrid.

[Hammertime]

The "Hybrid Misconception" that bugs me is that they are marketed in a way that makes people actually believe that they are somehow saving the planet.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Actually, you don't have to spend a ton of resources to produce hydrogen. Modern Electrolyzers along with a good gas compressor (to get pressure high enough to useful levels) is 75% efficient. That is, 75% of your input electricity will be stored in compressed hydrogen. Then you get 50% of that when you put the hydrogen in your fuel cell. Not as efficient as an electric car, but far more efficient than conventional ICE's.

4.8kWh/Nm3 of hydrogen roughly translates to 60% electrolysis efficiency including all the pumps and compression. It seems I was a bit optimistic when I said 75%.

The problem with what you're proposing is that you're forgetting that efficiencies are cumulative.

So you've got an electrolysis process that is at best 75% efficient and a fuel cell that is only 50% efficient. So at best you're 37.5% efficient.
Now if we assume that all of this power is produced by fossil fuel powered electricity sources (Because let's face it, if we assume solar, wind, hydro, etc, then the argument is completely moot as efficiency isn't really an isssue), then you're using power that comes from a source that is (optimsitically) 50% efficient.
So now you're down to <19% effeciency, which is lower than modern engines.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Hammertime

The "Hybrid Misconception" that bugs me is that they are marketed in a way that makes people actually believe that they are somehow saving the planet.

Are you suggesting that hybrids are NOT better for the environment, or that far more is required to protect the environment? If it is the latter, then I would agree..... and I suppose you yourself are doing far more to protect the environment than the typical hybrid driver?