April 5, 2005 6:22 AM PDT
Hybrid-car tinkerers scoff at no-plug-in rule
- Related Stories
-
Computers add fun, safety to concept cars
March 25, 2005 -
Road raves at the N.Y. auto show
March 24, 2005 -
Hybrids rev up for annual auto affair
March 23, 2005 -
Rocky road for car 'black boxes'
March 9, 2005
Hybrid cars that can be plugged in to wall outlets are supported by a diverse group of interests, from neoconservatives to utilities.
The New York Times
The story "Hybrid-car tinkerers scoff at no-plug-in rule" published April 5, 2005 at 6:22 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
20 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
pollution out to the country.
Since no oil is used in the production of
electric power, we get out from under the Arabs.
All power lines have no resistance to the generation of the power miles away is the
same as generation under your hood.
California is so full of BS.
They won't allow a new power plant
to be built there,
but they want more cars to use electric power.
Look at the cost per KWh and how much it costs
per mile. 100 mpg is nice, but what does it
do to your electric bill?
How much oil does it burn back at the plant?
More Nukes - less kooks.
What about the AZ teacher that has a vehicle that
burns H2?
Something about nukes, Arabs, and city-dwellers?
Secondly Power Lines DO have resistance. Learn some basic physics why dont you?
As for How much oil does it burn back at the plant Do you even know the primary source of power in California?
The fact of the matter is its easier to deal with one centralized cause of pollution rather then 1,000,000 individual cars/trucks polluting the environment. Its also easier to eventually fix the that one root problem (coal/nuclear) with alternative forms of electricity (Gas/Wind/Hydro/Geothermal) then to outfit those 1,000,000 vehicles with the latest and greatest fuel saving tech.
We answer the Q, How Much Cleaner than a Gasoline Car is a PHEV Charged from the Dirty (Coal) Grid? at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html</a>
And to keep things lively, weve linked to this and other discussions at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.calcars.org/kudos.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.calcars.org/kudos.html</a>
Hybrid cars on the market today are no more than standard vehicles with an electrical motor shoe-horned in. The engineering sucks. Student groups (on student budgets) have build project electric cars that have greater range, greater power and better economy than these beasts.
Start from scratch with a true four wheel electric (no transmission, no transaxle), then add a power plant for long distance cruising. With an efficiency band gas, diesel, or turbine charger you double your fuel efficiency, and it could be turned off altogether on those gridlock days where you creep along at 2 mph. Anyone who has burned a half tank of gas sitting all day in traffic while choking on exhaust knows what I mean.
New technologies (fuel cells, amorphous photovoltaic, off-peak charging) could easily be added to these cars as they become available. Supplying these technologies would be a boon to the economy and would help America take back some of the market from Asia.
As for increasing demand on the electric grid, wind turbine and solar could finally make a difference as storing power has always been more expensive than creating it - thus off-peak charging could be made available.
Again you don't provide any concrete data showing that there what you are proposing is "better" than the prius, taking into account the price for what is sold.
Also common great misconception. Wind power is a possible alternative, but the enviromental impact is too great (England just stopped a pilot tests because those huge mills were so noisy and not greatly efficient). Solar power still has a very low power and energy density (too little energy generated per mass). As far as storing is more expensive than creating energy is another very questionable topic: What do you mean by creating? nothing is free, and it has in fact quite a high cost.
So let's be realistic: the prius is a good thing in the short period. Hybrids will evolve, as new other possible technologies. But please do not pretend that what we are getting at the dealer is junk. I agree it could be better, but until I see huge unefficient SUVs around, I consider the prius a piece of jewelery.
Ta.
That's why it's not good for power plants, but fine for cars. The power plants could be used to produce it, but that still leaves the problem of having clean power plants.
readily available for capturing and using as a fuel. It has to be
manufactured, either from oil, coal, or by using a lot of energy
to split water.
The Bush administration's shift to hydrogen research, and away
from wind, solar, wave, and other fairly benign sources is
misguided. Hydrogen does not have the energy density of
petroleum based fuels, it will never work as an airline fuel, and
is questionable for cars.
A plug-in hybrid can make economic sense because much of the
electricity that is generated at night is wasted. But that does not
make the Prius bad. It is a lot better than what most of us drive.
Nuclear will not be acceptable until either 1) the waste problem
is resolved in a way that is acceptable to a large majority of the
public, or 2) we run out of oil and coal.
Conservation is a useful tool for making our current reserves last
longer. But Americans seem unwilling to make a personal
sacrifice for the good of the nation (or world). Can you imagine
the shrieks from the angry Talk Radio Big-mouths if a 55 mph
speed limit was suggested now, as it was by that radical Nixon
in 1973?
We reap what we sow. Or more accurately our children will.
Isn't this the reason the oil companies don't want you to plug your car in, they want to keep their strangle-hold on the transportation industry. I find it a little suspicious that toyota is so opposed to this, makes you wonder who they're "in bed" with.