Toyota Prius, transport, and the future.

[BillyC]

Dear Organs,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8505402.stm

I confess, that I reviewed the article above with more than a hint of smugness. With a global recall of the fashionably green Toyota Prius, it's clear that it's not so economical now.

I'm not a fan of this car, which is sported by Hollywood celebrities and Chelsea's alotment owners. On the one hand, its supposed green credentials suggest it is preferable to the 4x4 that is all too common on the school run these days. However, on the other, it's production costs, and materials paint a very different picture.

Despite being able to run on batteries, my understanding is that this is only achieved when creeping along in city rush-hour traffic; and that for the majority of the time the Prius labours along on its 1.5 litre petrol engine, hauling its now unnecessary, but significant, load of batteries.

My experience of encountering Pruises on the road, whether on my motorbike, or more often on my bicycle; is that many of the drivers have a holier-than-you attitude; probably fueled by the delusion that nothing but daisies are flowing from their exhaust, ignorant of the trail of environmental devastation left in the wake of the car's manufacture. They think they're doing more than "their bit" for the environment by investing a quite staggering £19,500 or more in this apparently impractical vehicle.

My general feeling and experiences above is at odds with another opinion of mine. I suppose I should applaud Toyota for taking a bold, albeit ineffective step with the Prius: a hybrid car with batters for the mass market. Other manufacturers have shied away from this. I do truly believe that cars today are excessive. While our engines have got cleaner and more economical, the cars have got bigger and heavier - effectively cancelling out many of the advances of the engine improvements.

Eventually we're going to have to drastically economise, and I don't think we can afford to shy away from this subject. Cars will once again need to be light and economical, fueled efficiently and so on. Electric cars may be fine for short simple runs around town, able to pull around heavy batteries and coping with light loads such as shopping. However, any more significant journey is surely going to rely on a more efficient powersource when comparing weight against energy output - this is simply where petrol and diesel will win.

It's widely acknowledged that oil is becoming scarce, though the reality of this is that we've simply used up all the easy-to-reach reserves, and now things are getting a bit trickier. Bio fuels are an option, but what is often overlooked is that we also need to feed ourselves as well as our vehicles, and so I don't think there's a lot of mileage in this area - excuse the pun.

So battery driven cars? Fuel cells? Solar? That's all very well, but little attention seems to be given to adjusting our way of life to drastically reduce the number of unnecessary journies. Whether it's someone driving to the shops for a pint of milk, when they could have walked; to great big lorries traversing the country with empty loads. The past 30 years have concentrated on centralised production and distribution, rather than decentralised, local based production which formed the basis of economies for hundreds of years.

Historically though, I suppose, a desire for exotic imported goods has long been established, and that requires transport. I might get a bit upset if I couldn't buy tea anymore!

I do wonder, if the industrial era born of the 19th century, that was honed in the 20th century, is about to die in the 21st century. Just a blip on human history, a brief holiday to spoil our race. Soon perhaps, we'll have to return to more traditional lifestyles, drawing local communities back in upon themselves; and returning to more traditional forms of transport. Soon perhaps, the jets and jumbos will join Concorde in museums?



Just a range of views for discussion... anyone care to join in? Does anyone own a Prius? Have you driven in one? Do you think we're all doomed, or is the next vehicular breakthrough just around the corner?

[eviltwin]

Sheesh, that's a big rant in response to the need for a simple software upgrade...almost as big an over reaction as the media's ;)

[shonadoll]

I have a Prius, but purely for financial reasons which is a point that a lot of people will picked up on. I bet a lot of the sales they make are due to the 15% tax banding, I'd rather we didn't pay out a huge wodge of our own cash in tax for driving a posey car, to be honest. Money better spent on bikes!

It drives fine, has a reversing camera, sat nav, blah blah blah but it's just a car, so don't care really. I'd disagree with the holier than thou attitude-I'm a good driver, and the Prius is fab because of the rear camera, it really help give an all round view when reversing, and it's fun to press the button that makes it park itself.

I drive a beat up Ka, which is more fun but the Prius saves us money, which is great.

[fizzwheel]

I dont own one. But my brother used to work at the local Toyota garage and had the pleasure of driving / servicing one.

His words

"utter sh8te" Like you say, heavy, when not on the batteries, the petrol engine has to be worked hard to keep up with traffic and thus the MPG is rubbish...

He reckoned and I agree, its more economical to buy a small diesel engined car that returns something like 60 odd mpg.

I might be wrong on this, but I dont think the batteries or the production of them that the Prius uses are paticularly "green" either.

[454697819]

they are in my cynical approach to global warming a mere **** in the ocean, they suck too.

[yorkie_chris]

Yeah it's a recall about brakes, bit of a red-face for Toyota and some code monkey in the ABS division will probably have to comit hari-kiri, BUT this car isn't a bold step forward. Anyone intelligent enough to design something like this can see it's pointless and see it's a cynical publicity exercise to get loads of complete rseholes, like actors to spend money on the overpriced POS. When actually they'd be better for the environment driving round in a series 2 land rover lol.

[the_lone_wolf]

I have a Prius...
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/funny-pictures-giraffe-shuns-duck1.jpg

[BillyC]

I'd disagree with the holier than thou attitude
Maybe it's a London thing... Perhaps a "I don't have to pay to drive in the Congestion zone, get out of my way" mentality.



Yes, partly a rant, partly a platform for discussion... please put down your thoughts.

[yorkie_chris]

... financial reasons ... the 15% tax banding,

the Prius saves us money, which is great.

What was the cost of the car?

I would put money on the fact that you will lose more in capital costs and depreciation (and fuel!) than you will ever save in tax.

Oh and when your prius is out of warranty, god help you!

[BillyC]

Yeah it's a recall about brakes, bit of a red-face for Toyota and some code monkey in the ABS division will probably have to comit hari-kiri, BUT this car isn't a bold step forward. Anyone intelligent enough to design something like this can see it's pointless and see it's a cynical publicity exercise to get loads of complete rseholes, like actors to spend money on the overpriced POS. When actually they'd be better for the environment driving round in a series 2 land rover lol.

Ladies and Gentleman, I show you the true rant :)

Really, I know what you're saying, but I'm not quite as cynical. The Prius was a bold step, no one else was doing anything like this, and only Lexus have some something vaguely similar (and even more useless).

I feel that too many people are praising the Prius, rather than constructively pointing out the defects, and scurrying off to find solutions to them.

[Alpinestarhero]

I share your sentiments there. I too have found many prius drivers to be arrogant and unreasonable road users, often driving with more blinkers than your average caged monkey and they seem to be profoundly deaf too (they dont seem to hear when I am alongside...)

I had a conversation with maria a while back, arguing the point that the amount of energy it must take to create a prius must be more than for the average car; I also figured that it is far more energy-saving to maintain your 5 year old yaris than for toyota to make you a new prius

I'm all for energy saving, but I think its small changes (like not taking short journeys in the car as said in the OP...I know many people who will drive rahter than do the same journey, on foot, and take 10 mins instead of 2 mins) that will help reduce our emissions. keeping a vehicle well serviced and maintained will also help reduce emissions. I like the technology being peddled by BMW and VW, incorporating low-friction materials and other things to get a good efficent vehicle.

As a side-discussion, motorcycles - whilst somewhat efficent, have a long way to go to match the efficiency of a car. Our oil needs changing more frequently, for the engine size we use alot of fuel, our tyres don't last as long. I was wondering how possible it would be to have direct injection motorcycle petrol engines, as this can improve efficiency. 2-stroke engines lend themselves to this wonderfully...the orbital 2-stroke engine is really efficient and realyl clean. I just wonder when the technology will be applied to the manufacture of large capacity engines

matt

[metalmonkey]

How viable is hydogren fuel cell at the moment? Is there not two problems with this form of fuel? One that when the government should be pouring money into this kind of things we drop bombs instead to fight over whats left off the oil.

Second how to produce enough hydrogen? The hydrogen-oxygen bond from what I understand is strong, thus requires alot of engery to actually produce the hydrogen. Where do we get that one from? I do find frustraining that hygrogen fuel cell technology isn't talked in the general press and people are lead to like the above car, is the answer?

You can clearly see public transport isn't gonna work, look at the tube spends most of the time during week broken, close it at the weekends to fix it. Opens Monday am, breaks just as the rush hour kicks in. Well done TFL, you are about useful as that dam car:mad:

Oh it had reversing cameras wow! You know I heard some where they came about casue americans got so fat, they couldn't turn to look behind when they tried to park. But americans don't really drive anyway, ever seen LA in the rush hour:rolleyes:

[BillyC]

What was the cost of the car?

I would put money on the fact that you will lose more in capital costs and depreciation (and fuel!) than you will ever save in tax.

Oh and when your prius is out of warranty, god help you!


By modern standard, perhaps the "cost" of the Prius, is not so obvious. The true cost is not the road tax you pay, based on the misguided weighting of emissions; but the cost that was invested to build it, set up its manufacture; its economy to drive every day, and it's recycling costs.

Traditional cars have quite a low cost in the grand scheme of things, although this does seem to have risen. But the Prius must take the prize for the most stealthy of costs of manufacture and recycling. It must totally wipe out it's day-to-day footprint which is probably embarrassingly similar to that of any other car with a similarly sized engine.

[yorkie_chris]

not much of a rant, true. All the "environmental cost" (#spit, goddamn hippy term...#) of your old landy is well and truly paid by now, and at what cost? A couple of mpg. Compared to these spastics who buy the newest "best mpg" (rofl), they save a gallon of fuel over the year, the car "cost" 200 gallons of fuel to produce.

P.S have you seen the South Park episode "smug"?

[yorkie_chris]

How viable is hydogren fuel cell at the moment? Is there not two problems with this form of fuel? One that when the government should be pouring money into this kind of things we drop bombs instead to fight over whats left off the oil.

Second how to produce enough hydrogen? The hydrogen-oxygen bond from what I understand is strong, thus requires alot of engery to actually produce the hydrogen. Where do we get that one from? I do find frustraining that hygrogen fuel cell technology isn't talked in the general press and people are lead to like the above car, is the answer?

Because the press completely miss simple logic. It takes MORE energy to produce the H2 than you release in the car by burning/oxidising it.

Exactly the same issue as those damn-hippy electric cars, you are just making a "longer tailpipe" as one US engineer put it. You are just shifting the emissions elsewhere.

[the_lone_wolf]

Second how to produce enough hydrogen? The hydrogen-oxygen bond from what I understand is strong, thus requires alot of engery to actually produce the hydrogen. Where do we get that one from? I do find frustraining that hygrogen fuel cell technology isn't talked in the general press and people are lead to like the above car, is the answer?

Conservation of Energy mother****er

It requires at a minimum the same amount of energy to split the Hydrogen and Oxygen as you will get back when you combine them

In real life you won't get anywhere near 100% efficiency

Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a fuel, it's like a battery, you still have to produce the energy in the first place...:(

[ophic]

Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a fuel, it's like a battery, you still have to produce the energy in the first place...:(
Cos with a fuel the energy comes from magic? I think not.

[yorkie_chris]

Cos with a fuel the energy comes from magic? I think not.

But, but, but the guy in the poncho said it was "clean energy dudddde"

[the_lone_wolf]

Cos with a fuel the energy comes from magic? I think not.
Well durrr:rolleyes:

Within the timescales were require manufacturing more oil isn't a viable option, for the purposes of this discussion the potential energy stored within oil can be considered as a finite resource that just is and that will run out when we've used all of it

Of course if you want to trace everything right back you're going to have to explain how the energy within the universe was created at the sigularity we call the big bang, explain that bitch=D>

[BillyC]

As a side-discussion, motorcycles - whilst somewhat efficent, have a long way to go to match the efficiency of a car. Our oil needs changing more frequently, for the engine size we use alot of fuel, our tyres don't last as long. I was wondering how possible it would be to have direct injection motorcycle petrol engines, as this can improve efficiency. 2-stroke engines lend themselves to this wonderfully...the orbital 2-stroke engine is really efficient and realyl clean. I just wonder when the technology will be applied to the manufacture of large capacity engines

You're absolutely right, and I wondered if someone would make this point.

A good efficient petrol car, albeit a small one (more relevant when comparing with motorbikes), might achieve 45mpg. The bike will probably do something similar - but it's half the size.

The oil change is a good point... but on the other hand, an SV (for example) will use 4.5 litres of oil over a 12,000 mile period. A small engine car will use something similar in that period too, perhaps twice as much if changing oil every 6,000 miles.

But, what motorbikes really have going for them, is that they'll achieve their 40mpg in town, where cars will struggle to achieve 30 or even 25. They'll complete their journies quickly and efficiently, cutting through congestion in ways that car drivers just can't understand.

However, I once drove an old 1 litre Peugeot 106. Even in congested traffic, doing my 25 mile journey to work, I average well over 55mpg over the months that I drove it... and that includes all the sitting in traffic. It wasn't anything special, but I don't know many bikes, or cars that could match that.

[454697819]

Ladies and Gentleman, I show you the true rant :)

Really, I know what you're saying, but I'm not quite as cynical. The Prius was a bold step, no one else was doing anything like this, and only Lexus have some something vaguely similar (and even more useless).

I feel that too many people are praising the Prius, rather than constructively pointing out the defects, and scurrying off to find solutions to them.

Other manufacturers were busy making diesel engines from existing processes with existing kit that consistently get 50mpg, ill pick one of those over sshi-tus any day

[yorkie_chris]

A good efficient petrol car, albeit a small one (more relevant when comparing with motorbikes), might achieve 45mpg. The bike will probably do something similar - but it's half the size.

But with comparable peak power. If you detuned a bike engine to the same level as a car engine they'd kick the fuel efficiency bit into the weeds.

Look at that enfield motor, they tested it on the EUs idea of a fuel consumption test and where cars claimed 40mpg this thing turned in 100+.

[ophic]

Within the timescales were require manufacturing more oil isn't a viable option, for the purposes of this discussion the potential energy stored within oil can be considered as a finite resource that just is and that will run out when we've used all of it
Correct. But once all the oil is gone, we'll be reliant on energy storage media unless someone comes up with something else to burn - or someone invents a nuclear reactor small enough to fit in a bike :alien:

[the_lone_wolf]

Correct. But once all the oil is gone, we'll be reliant on energy storage media unless someone comes up with something else to burn - or someone invents a nuclear reactor small enough to fit in a bike :alien:

Well yes, obviously...

But that's nothing to do with the meaning of my original post you quoted:D

[CheGuevara]

The hype over the recall is some of the saddest reporting I've seen. The explanation provided by (I believe it was) the head of Toyota UK was that the issue is some drivers being unfamiliar (and uncomfortable) with the feel of a particularly agressive setting on the ABS system -functioning as it is intended. Presumably more people have been exposed to ABS in action because of the recent bad weather.

On the whole though, I'm quite happy about the existence of the Prius. I wouldn't personally own one, but they're nice enough to ride in as a taxi. I commend Toyota for bringing it to market though, and making it a relative success. Somebody had to do it first (on this sort of scale) and because of the general acceptance hybrid cars will continue to be developed, improved, and prices will drop. The Toyota Camry Hybrid sold in Canada has 187hp -more than the non-hybrid 4cyl version of the car, and it probably wouldn't exist if the Prius hadn't come before it.

[Red Herring]

Let me just work this out. My wife has a small diesel car and she takes great pride in telling me she manages 60+ MPG and she's going to keep it until it's run into the ground rather than splash out on a new one..... I on the other hand drive a 3.0l car 100 mile round trip to work every day and then spend the weekend going around in circles burning off super unleaded and Dunlop as quickly as I can, often with several mates doing the same thing... Fortunately we're both very happy and neither begrudges the other what they enjoy doing.

The reality is we are all individuals and if someone is happy believing they are doing their bit by driving a Prius who am I to tell them not to, or even to criticize their decision. They're not doing me any harm or breaking any laws, and provided they keep everything in perspective and don't try and interfere with my lifestyle then good luck to them. Cars such as the Prius achieve so little (or nothing if you listen to some arguments) for the "big" picture. If we as a global population were serious about reducing fuel use/emissions then the only way would be a significant change in the way we do things, and that just isn't going to happen, or at least not until we have to because there isn't an alternative.

[ophic]

Well yes, obviously...

But that's nothing to do with the meaning of my original post you quoted:D
Yeah it has. We need the technology to develop efficient energy storage and delivery. Although hydrogen isn't a fuel in that sense, it's still important as these are the primary obstacles that need to be overcome. Generating[1] energy is comparatively easy and the technology has been around for decades.

By generating of course I mean transferring into a usable form. Or whatever.

[the_lone_wolf]

Yeah it has.

No it hasn't

I was simply posting a response explaining the difference between a fuel in the conventional sense of petroleum and a means of storing energy whereby the energy has to come from somewhere initially

I never commented on hydrogen's suitability, efficiency or importance in distributing energy to where we need it

You used semantics to pick up on the fact that I didn't specifically say that the potential energy in fossil fuels wasn't created but came from previous interactions, even though in the context of the post it was irrelevant, then changed the subject to the need for new infrastructure and technology to cope with a shift away from fossil fuel dependent society when I pointed out said irrelevance

But thanks for playing...;)

[ophic]

I was simply posting a response explaining the difference between a fuel in the conventional sense of petroleum and a means of storing energy whereby the energy has to come from somewhere initially
Your explanation missed the crucial point, which is time.

[yorkie_chris]

200 million years makes many points of argument invalid...

[the_lone_wolf]

Your explanation missed the crucial point, which is time.

Which you already conceded in your post at 12:20 was irrelevant to the discussion:smt064

[Sir Trev]

On the whole though, I'm quite happy about the existence of the Prius. I wouldn't personally own one, but they're nice enough to ride in as a taxi. I commend Toyota for bringing it to market though, and making it a relative success. Somebody had to do it first (on this sort of scale) and because of the general acceptance hybrid cars will continue to be developed, improved, and prices will drop. The Toyota Camry Hybrid sold in Canada has 187hp -more than the non-hybrid 4cyl version of the car, and it probably wouldn't exist if the Prius hadn't come before it.

Got to agree on this point. If we don't get the first few models into general use to get good feedback then the technology will not improve. I really do hope the Toyota, Lexus and Honda hybrids help move battery and electric traction forwards, as it will help in the long run when oil gets too expensive.

Got to disagree with the OP a bit though (sorry Billy). Cars are getting MUCH more efficient. I'm about to change jobs and get a fuel card so have been looking to see what to potentially change my car to in order to save some benefit-in-kind tax. A lot of manufacturers now offer diseasals with 160-odd HP for 130 thingies of carbon. Compared to my existing car, which is only four years old, this is way better.

Both points above equal the same thing - if there is demand then things will change. As long as people want to drive hybrids, and a few brave manufacturers provide them, they will improve. As long as road fund licenses and company car/fuel card BIK tax is based on carbon thingies we'll get more powerful cars with lower emissions...

[yorkie_chris]

Lower emissions or dodgy testing methods :-P

[ophic]

Which you already conceded in your post at 12:20 was irrelevant to the discussion:smt064
If you're not in politics already, start :smt019

[the_lone_wolf]

If you're not in politics already, start :smt019

You're second person who's said that to me today:smt120;)

[metalmonkey]

The issue is at the moment we have no way of producing any fuel that will match oil for its enegry content/output however you want to put it. We are buring more than ever. No one has any answers as what will be next.

All the choices we have, points made don't answer this question we can argue about it all we like but it won't change that simple fact.

It should also be pointed out that every facet of modern live depends on oil, you know all that medical tech we have that will go with oil as well, not too mention the clothes of your back. Its has potential to casue many problems, when its all gone.

We can do things about it, for start get rid of MC D's and others like it they cause so much damage to produce food that I wouldn't feed to my dog let alone a human being. We get food brough into this country we can grow here. Eat less meat as well, don't rape the oceans and rain forest of their bio diversty.

People don't think for themselves, they get told what to think. Look that Cleb has a Pirius, hmm I should get one as they "help" save the Earth. This goes for everything.

I really hate to think what the children of today are going to be left with.

Education and science is the way to change things, however that doesn't suit those in charge, so really nothing will happen.

When was the last time nuclear fusion was talked about? Why isn't money being put into that? It is another possiable that requires far more energy than it makes, after all trying to copy how a star produces energy.

Don't think for one second that the Earth won't get rid of us, it will carry on but we as species probally not, we have been here for a short period of time the way are carrying on probally not for much longer.

[yorkie_chris]

Because nuclear power is the only viable prime mover that could produce your hydrogen, charge your electric car. BUT the hippies hate it.

[ophic]

Because nuclear power is the only viable prime mover that could produce your hydrogen, charge your electric car. BUT the hippies hate it.
I thought it was only me that had this opinion. Everyone else just holds up crossed fingers and slowly backs away.

[metalangel]

I do wonder, if the industrial era born of the 19th century, that was honed in the 20th century, is about to die in the 21st century. Just a blip on human history, a brief holiday to spoil our race. Soon perhaps, we'll have to return to more traditional lifestyles, drawing local communities back in upon themselves; and returning to more traditional forms of transport. Soon perhaps, the jets and jumbos will join Concorde in museums?


Oh god, you're a peak oil doomer.

This is the site for you. (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/) Or you can be a bit more positive and read this instead (http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/07/307-confessions-of-ex-doomer.html). I will confess that I too went thorugh a phase of thinking we were all going to die.

To paraphrase a quotation by an unknown author in an unknown book, "how many worlds in the universe where the inhabitants now toil a harsh, primitive existence amdist the crumbling ruins of a past industrial civilization, a civilization where they failed to use the time afforded to them by oil to move on to renewable energy and instead exhausted it and find themselves forever trapped on their worlds in a dark age."

Nuclear power is what we need. Nuclear power to electrolyse and produce hydrogen to fuel aircraft and cars, to generate electricity for electric trains and power ships. Heck, they made nuclear jet engines in the 1950s hoping to replace the B-52s.

Alas, all the eco-beardos and self-appointed do-gooders have successfully nimbyed nuclear power away. I wonder how willing they'll be to live like savages with no electricity, modern medicine and transportation?

[BillyC]

Got to disagree with the OP a bit though (sorry Billy). Cars are getting MUCH more efficient. I'm about to change jobs and get a fuel card so have been looking to see what to potentially change my car to in order to save some benefit-in-kind tax. A lot of manufacturers now offer diseasals with 160-odd HP for 130 thingies of carbon. Compared to my existing car, which is only four years old, this is way better.


Hmm. I don't want to be misunderstood. Engines over the past 15 or 20 years, have become, on the whole, considerably cleaner and more economical - hard to argue otherwise!

But cars, have managed to minimise this benefit. An example quoted to me a little while back... A basic Volkswagen Golf Mk I weighed just 790Kg; but a Mk V weighs 1,320Kg. And so, engines work harder, and the benefits that could be realised with their improvements, are negated by the lard that vehicles have put on.

While my 1994 Peugeot 106 delivered an easy 55-60 mpg; today's equivilent probably wouldn't get close.

[Paul the 6th]

i did wonder how long it would be before someone ref'd lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

and yeah peak is gonna happen at somepoint (quite soon to be fair).. If we don't fix up and look sharp while we have the energy reserves to actually do something about it then the world is going to get ALOT bigger again...

No more £29 flights to amsterdam with same day return... no more nipping to tesco's 3 miles away - it won't be there because we won't have the resources to have carrots grown in wales, picked and transports to a factory, flown to poland to be hand packed and quality processed, flown back to the UK to various distribution centres and then driven up and down the motorways before being sold for a couple of pence...

Don't get me started on bananas...

but yes, the prius is shiit.

[BillyC]

Oh god, you're a peak oil doomer.

Thanks for the tarred brush, but I'm simply inviting debate.

If you think that it's a good thing to have nuclear power popping up all over the place, and not to worry about what we do with the resulting waste, fine. You're entitled to your say...

I'm simply inviting you to debate the consequences, so please kindly explain what you think they are...

[BillyC]

The issue is at the moment we have no way of producing any fuel that will match oil for its enegry content/output however you want to put it. We are buring more than ever. No one has any answers as what will be next...

...Don't think for one second that the Earth won't get rid of us, it will carry on but we as species probally not, we have been here for a short period of time the way are carrying on probally not for much longer.

Chris,

I never thought I'd see the day when I heard such sense from you ;)

I agree with a lot of what you said, and understand your points entirely. I'm concerned that far too little is being done now to encourage energy efficiency in homes, and reduce the addiction to energy; though this really has nothing to do with cars or Priuses.

Someone said that they applaud Toyota for creating the Prius, and as a result the Camry Hybrid. I agree with this, but I'm uneasy in my agreement - I feel like I'm missing something. There's a large carpet someone with a lot of debris and information swept under it.

And so the Camry Hybrid produces 187 bhp... great, that's fantastic, but why? Why does it need to produce 187 bhp? I can't think of a single realistic reason, why a "green" car needs to produce this kind of energy, let alone make it all available to the driver. Someone please explain?

[Paul the 6th]

in the words of jeremy from peepshow "You've seen madmax... that's what is going to happen!"

[metalangel]

Thanks for the tarred brush, but I'm simply inviting debate.

Sorry, but your choice of words make it sound like more than that.

If you think that it's a good thing to have neuclear power popping up all over the place, and not to worry about what we do with the resulting waste, fine. You're entitled to your say...

I refer you to my previous comment ;)

I'm simply inviting you to debate the consequences, so please kindly explain what you think they are...

Nukeuler energy isn't the ultimate solution, but it's an important step along the way. The dream is cold fusion, but that is taking time to develop and nuclear power is available NOW and can deal with the issues we have NOW. To my mind, the future is one of electricity and fuel cells, with the initial source of power being nuclear energy.

There's no denying that peak oil will happen. But saying it's guaranteed Mad Max is silly. The world needs to overcome its NIMBY nature - people are all in favour of being 'green' and all the other (nauseating to me) self-righteous do-gooderness until it might affect them. Wind turbines? Offshore generators? Nuclear power station? No, protest, build it somewhere else, think of the children. Five minutes ago they were sitting in their Prius and picking through their food waste like a starving badger and washing their clothes at 30 degrees because 'the future belongs to my children'. You can't have it both ways.

We also should be building waste to energy power stations. Everything that can't be recycled is put into a highly efficient incinerator and burned to produce electricty. The amount going to landfill drops dramatically, much needed electricity is produced (more hydrogen fuel!), great idea.

[ophic]

Isn't the gov't shutting down nuclear power stations?

[Warthog]

Isn't the gov't shutting down nuclear power stations?

Not voluntarily, some are coming to the end of their natural life.

[metalangel]

They aren't rushing to build replacements, though, which is the problem.

[ophic]

Not voluntarily, some are coming to the end of their natural life.
Are they gonna get replaced?
sorry I was reading the Daily Mail the other day

[Red Herring]

There really isn't much point in little old Blighty investing in clean power and cutting it's oil use by 4/5's if in the meantime places like China and Russia (not to mention the good old USA) keep going the way they are. Were wasting our time. The middle east won't turn round and say, "good old Brits, they haven't use their ration of oil, have some more", it will simply run out for everybody, full stop. Only then will we as a population have to do something about it, in the meantime anyone up for a ride this weekend?

[ophic]

There really isn't much point in little old Blighty investing in clean power and cutting it's oil use by 4/5's if in the meantime places like China and Russia (not to mention the good old USA) keep going the way they are. Were wasting our time. The middle east won't turn round and say, "good old Brits, they haven't use their ration of oil, have some more", it will simply run out for everybody, full stop. Only then will we as a population have to do something about it, in the meantime anyone up for a ride this weekend?
Is that really true? It would mean we're no longer dependent on it, so when everyone else runs dry, we're already prepared. And not depending on the Middle East can only be a good thing.

[metalangel]

Oil won't suddenly run out, production will decline. And during this decline all the alternative energy methods will eventually become more economical than oil.

I've been reading about stuff like waste to energy and fast breeder reactors and certainly we're not short of alternatives to oil.

[Dicky Ticker]

When you consider the number of coal mines and pits that were in this country and the large reserves still available it may involve a bit of ingenuity but we at least have alternative natural resources

[metalangel]

Coal can be made into oil anyway. That's what South Africa had to do during apartheid.

[ophic]

Coal can be made into oil anyway. That's what South Africa had to do during apartheid.
Really? For burning only, surely? not much good for lubrication.

[Dicky Ticker]

We have the North Sea smaller fields for that,the ones they know are there but at this moment in time a non-viable proposition

[yorkie_chris]

Coal gas can be turned into oil ... all oil is, is various length of chain hydrocarbons. Coal gas is full of volatiles like that.
Coke or smokeless fuel is just coal with this bit removed already :)

[Red Herring]

Is that really true? It would mean we're no longer dependent on it, so when everyone else runs dry, we're already prepared. And not depending on the Middle East can only be a good thing.

Fair point, guess we'll be an even more popular place for some to move to then....

[The Basket]

When the first Citroen 2CV first appeared...it could do 60mpg and was extremely light...it was virtually made out of nothing.

Makes the Prius look like a joke.

More 2CVs and less hybrids.

[metalangel]

Safety concerns would prevent them making anything (pardon the pun) too 2CV like. The Metro/100 was withdrawn largely because of safety, a lot of the Indian cars are also worrysome because they're not very safe.

Since when did life become about carbon emissions above all else? I'm not going to drive an unsafe car and be killed now for the sake of some 'future generation'. Likewise with my local council proposing turning off streetlights at night. How many stabbings, burglaries and RTAs will it take before they realize how stupid that idea is?

[yorkie_chris]

My bike's got a headlamp on it, I'm not too worried about unlit roads :-)
Also it would be nice to see the sky rather than just an orange glow.

[metalangel]

What happens if you're walking home from a night out? What if you break down? Or your property's been vandalised? Every noise outside is a lot scarier if you can't look and see there's nothing there.

I cannot comprehend how we're expected to put the safety of ourselves and our property at risk for the sake of 'reducing carbon', by switching off street lights. We've had street lights for thousands of years, why switch them off now??

[yorkie_chris]

Round here there are streets lit where noone lives. It's gotta be into megawatts of power which is mental.

[metalangel]

That at least is fair, but they're talking about possibly doing it everywhere, not just industrial areas.

You'll just have homeowners fitting security lights to the fronts of their houses, coming on everything a leaf blows past. Same street lighting *sort of* except now the council doesn't have to pay for it. Egads, it's a conspiracy!

[The Basket]

Fuel oil from coal is expensive...done by the Germans in the 30/40s and South Africa because they had plenty of coal and little oil but expensive to do.

I agree about safety of the 2CV but since the first one built could only do 40mph flat out...an accident will be a slow accident.

A very basic diesel or petrol car will be a better bet than any electric.

[beabert]

When was the last time nuclear fusion was talked about? Why isn't money being put into that? It is another possiable that requires far more energy than it makes, after all trying to copy how a star produces energy.

They can now get more energy out than the put in using lasers to get the hydrogen atoms close enough to make helium. Next they need to figure out a way to sustain it.

As for biofuel, recently a type bacteria (e coli) was modified to produce bio fuel when fed, so it will soon be viable to create it in tank etc, rather than take up valuable farming land.



The biggest problem is overpopulation!! people need to start thinking, and act by only having on 1 or 2 children, there are too many of us on this planet.

[ophic]

They can now get more energy out than the put in using lasers to get the hydrogen atoms close enough to make helium. Next they need to figure out a way to sustain it.
That's basically nuclear fusion. To my knowledge it hasn't been perfected yet. Can you quote your sources?

And you never get more energy out than put in. Fundamentally impossible, even if some of that energy is contained in mass form.

[yorkie_chris]

I agree about safety of the 2CV but since the first one built could only do 40mph flat out...an accident will be a slow accident.

But just because some hippies paint flowers on them it doesn't mean that's all that's coming out of the exhaust...

More NOx and HCs than some houseboat sized muscle car lol

[svrich]

I run two v8 land rovers totaling 7.5 litres, and my sv. The landies are both gas converted. Our Disco is the family car. It is 10 years old, in great condition and is considerably less poluting than both petrol and diesel. It covers less than 6000 miles a year and will never cost as much environmentally that a Prius ect that have batteries created from materials that scar the Earth and have a massive carbon footprint to create. My series landie was built in 1968 and is maintained well enough that it too has a minimal footprint (LPG, parts maintained so as not to need replacing etc) from manufacture to scrappage. I also only cover about 2000 miles a year. Our main mileage is covered by the bike. Although it has come by ship from Japan, it regularly returns 55mpg, is also well looked after and causes a lot less damage (road surface, space on the roads, and consumables etc) than any hybrid car. What will happen to the mighty Prius when it is an old car and in need of serious repair? How much environmental damage will it cause when it is scrapped. I am willing to put a large amount of money on the fact that my Land Rover will be running for far longer that any Prius now on the road.

I pass many different types of vehicle every day and am always amused that 99% only have the dirver on board. By anyones maths, a full 7 seater people carrier will always be more economical than a Prius with only a driver.
Simply, no vehicle can ever be classed as 'green' simply due to its environmental cost of manufacture, running and maintainance. However, attitudes towards motoring can make it have much less of an impact; Do you need to make that journey? ...Can I car share? ...Do I really need the newest car?

That's my 2p's worth. Take it or leave it.;)

[beabert]

That's basically nuclear fusion. To my knowledge it hasn't been perfected yet. Can you quote your sources?

And you never get more energy out than put in. Fundamentally impossible, even if some of that energy is contained in mass form.

Yes nuclear fusion, fission is a another dead end in the future, ofcourse its not been perfected otherwise we wouldn't be having this discusion lol.

Yep mass is energy, the energy gained from the difference is mass is more than the power used to power the lasers etc etc.

[orose]

In fear of derailing this thread into a general environmental thread, I did notice that MCN had a hydrogen fuel cell burgman in todays. Haven't yet had a chance to read the article, but it does show that its possible to do in bike sizes.

[Caddy2000]

I dont own one. But my brother used to work at the local Toyota garage and had the pleasure of driving / servicing one.

His words

"utter sh8te" Like you say, heavy, when not on the batteries, the petrol engine has to be worked hard to keep up with traffic and thus the MPG is rubbish...

He reckoned and I agree, its more economical to buy a small diesel engined car that returns something like 60 odd mpg.

I might be wrong on this, but I dont think the batteries or the production of them that the Prius uses are paticularly "green" either.

My Toyota Avensis 2L diesel estate does better mpg than a friend's Prius, I'm pretty sure that the recycling rates will be much better for the Avensis as well.

[Dicky Ticker]

Recall--------as a matter of interest caddy what have they said regarding your car?

I agree that the Co2 emissions created in building the car and scrapping one would be a lot higher for a battery/cell/engine powered car as against what we consider a conventional vehicle
Trying to find an alternative power source lower in Co2 is a different matter but why persecute the people who can't afford the new technology in favour of those who can. Cars have a life span and the will end up being scrapped naturally at some stage or another anyway.I'm no genius but i just don't get the thinking behind scrappage schemes considering the amounts of energy used and Co2 created in
producing hundreds of thousands of new cars
If the governments were honest and said that it was to generate employment I could understand that but they have bombarded us with the emissions theory

[yorkie_chris]

but they have bombarded us with the emissions theory

Just like the adverts saying cars are "the biggest single producer of CO2 emissions". Last figures I saw showed industrial use and power generation as about 4x the size of personal vehicles but I could be wrong.

[ophic]

Just like the adverts saying cars are "the biggest single producer of CO2 emissions". Last figures I saw showed industrial use and power generation as about 4x the size of personal vehicles but I could be wrong.
They probably subcategorise the industries into smaller sectors, just so that they can uphold that particular statement.

[shonadoll]

What was the cost of the car?

I would put money on the fact that you will lose more in capital costs and depreciation (and fuel!) than you will ever save in tax.

Oh and when your prius is out of warranty, god help you!

The car was £29,000, but it's a company car, so we only pay the tax, hence not caring.It can spontaneously combust and we don't pay for it.;) We get a different one every 3 years, but this is so cheap tax wise, we had an alfa and paid £300 a month more in tax than the prius.

[yorkie_chris]

The average person who has to put their hand in their pocket would be nuts to buy a prius, still!

£300 a month, that's mental, in my world that would be a new car every month :-P

[Viney]

The reason that Hybrids are so 'Now' is that they fit in with the idealolgy that is the car and the way with live with it now. You get in, you drive, it runs out of petrol, you fill it up, and it has the added benefit of being 'green' when in town, without taking the production methods into account that is. Sparky cars are not liek this. Yes they are sutied to town and city driving and thats where most of them are. In london wall car park there are about 12 G-Whizz's!
The only fuel that will give us what we need in the way cars/Trucks/Busses etc are currently used, driven and appreciated is Hydrogen. It works like fuel as in you can fill up and continue your journey in a matter of minutes, not a 2-24 hour charge! The issue behind this is the collection of hydrogen. It is the most abundant thing in the universe, but 'harvesting' it is difficult but as far as im aware relativly harmless (Open to be corrected there please) So this is the technology that we need to invest in as it will keep the human races need for how it percives a car or motorised transport should be. But like all things, governments do not want to jump on any bandwagon. No matter what the human race does, it will be the wrong thing, plain and simple, there is always going to be a downside, it limiting this to be as least an environmental impact as it can be. It wont happen in our lifetime thats for sure, but hopefully we'll see the seedlings of this technology, or alternates before we depart this mortal coil, and lets hope the Hearse is Hydrogen powered :)

[the_lone_wolf]

The issue behind this is the collection of hydrogen. It is the most abundant thing in the universe, but 'harvesting' it is difficult but as far as im aware relativly harmless (Open to be corrected there please)

Electrolysis is used to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas, nothing particularly spectacular unless you're smoking a ciggie when the equipment starts leaking...

[metalangel]

Viney is right, hydrogen is the key to continuing to operate motorized transport as we know it. Stuff like the Volt (and other 'plug in' hybrids) are an important step along the way, though. Yes, after a certain distance the Volt starts up its ICE to power the electric motors but for your mundane daily commute it'll run entirely off electricity. Yes, there's the issue of how that is generated but like I say, still an important step.

[ophic]

Electrolysis is used to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas, nothing particularly spectacular unless you're smoking a ciggie when the equipment starts leaking...
And you've still got to power the electrolysis process somehow. So you still have to burn/blow/split/fuse something.

[ophic]

I don't quite get hybrids. The power source is still fossil fuel, but instead of burning fuel to power an engine to create motion, you're burning fuel to power an engine to create electricity to charge a battery to power electric motors to create motion. Surely that can't be more efficient?

[orose]

I don't think they're thinking about electrolysis of water to unleash hydrogen... most articles on the subject refer to it being an untapped by-product of some industrial processes, and I don't think we launch that many LOx rockets ;)

[embee]

A lot of interesting and well balanced arguments here, only the odd anomaly! ;)

I've worked in powertrain engineering for 30+ years. One thing I always try to get over to folks is the difference between "regulated pollutants" and CO2 (fuel consumption by another name). Engines are infinitely "cleaner" (regulated pollutants HC+CO+NOx) than they ever have been, infinitely more durable and reliable, lighter, way more powerful/flexible, more efficient (specific fuel consumption), more user friendly etc etc. I muse sometimes about the first car I had, a Mini (when they were actually "mini") with the dear old A-series; noisy, filthy dirty (emissions), leaky, pitiful power, carb iced at the drop of a hat, drank oil (what it didn't leak), no brakes worth mentioning, and real life economy around 45mpg etc. I now have a 10yr old Yaris (from new), a world of difference.

Cars are infinitely safer in crashes than they were, which has been partly responsible for weight increases. Also they are generally much bigger, due to people getting bigger. Cars that were thought of as big in the 1960's are tiny by todays standards, see a Zephyr or Jag Mk2 in real life. Air con in cars should be banned in the UK (when I'm Prime Minister it will be).

A couple of things which others have already noted. The world needs a lower population, David Attenborough commented recently that since he started broadcasting the World's pop has trebled, we can't support that sort of increase. Is that going to happen? Doubt it.

We could do with changing our first-world lifestyles to reduce overall energy consumption, doubt that'll happen either.

We could all easily downsize one class in our cars and realise something like 10% fleet fuel consumption reduction using "conventional" technology overnight, that's probably on the cards due to running costs and one area (the only?) where I think the road tax banding is getting to the right sort of shape, strongly encouraging band A/B/C vehicles.

I have mixed feelings about hybrids/electric. So much could be realised with conventional technology if rules were different and people would be prepared to compromise a little. Electric is probably the future for city cars certainly.

Entertaining thread. :thumleft:

[ophic]

Air con in cars should be banned in the UK (when I'm Prime Minister it will be).
Disagree entirely - for one simple reason - it demists the windscreen in seconds, from cold, instead of waiting for several minutes for the engine to warm up and clear it, before it's safe to drive, and causing more pollution from an idling engine along the way.

[beabert]

A couple of things which others have already noted. The world needs a lower population, David Attenborough commented recently that since he started broadcasting the World's pop has trebled, we can't support that sort of increase. Is that going to happen? Doubt it.

Yep

[barwel1992]

just a quick question about all this stuf about cars getting heavier why ? i mean we ride around with a helmet and gear on and thats it but when it comes to cars its air bags hear there and evory where and then all the other stuf as well making them heavy, i think its unesosary to have all this extra protection on new cars making them use more fuel when we can still hop on a bike but naked and only a helmet on and be perfectly legal

finding it hard to get the point accros in my wrighting hear :( what im trying to say is whats the point when we can get on somthing else with no protection and be legal and classed as safe? using more materials and fuel to create somthing that is ove kill and in light of other things on the road not nessosary ,and soon we will be puting out kids in metal boxes to keep the safe from the air around us.

[beabert]

One reason is that users carry their children in them, the safer the car the more appealing it becomes to potential customers.

[Viney]

And you've still got to power the electrolysis process somehow. So you still have to burn/blow/split/fuse something.
I agree that some sort of energy needs to be produced to allow the process to happen, but what the qestion is, is what is the most energy efficent process? Creating electricity to charge all the G-Wizz's/Volts/Teslas etc, or, to produce Hydorgen through the electrolysis process. If we wnet nuclear, and i still believe that again this is the best method for producing electricity (again, i know that some research still needs to be done with regards the waste product) then i am sure things will improve. This is where the money should be spent.

[arenalife]

Hmmm the waste is such a problem, the Swiss won't consider a site for atomic waste storage unless they think it will be geologically stable for 1 milllllllion years. That's some gamble. It is tempting to stick it all in the ground though and trust that future generations will just come up with a solution.

That's what they're doing at Douneray isn't it, they've made an enormous concrete radiation tomb with all the junk in on the coast and will sort it out when someone has a good idea what to do about it.

[the_lone_wolf]

Hmmm the waste is such a problem, the Swiss won't consider a site for atomic waste storage unless they think it will be geologically stable for 1 milllllllion years. That's some gamble.

That's retarded


Firstly there isn't a method of storing the reactor waste that is stable for that timescale, even *if* you could find somewhere guaranteed to be geologically stable

Secondly, even the longest lived byproducts of nuclear fission are safe within roughly 300,000 years, some are less and the cuddliest ones are safe in a few hundred years

Thirdly, humans as a species have only existed for ~250,000 years, the 1m year barrier is 4x longer than our species has existed, and roughly 20,000, twenty thousand times longer than we've controlled the process of nuclear fission

Stating that you'd only allow nuclear on the basis of an impossible storage medium and for a period three times longer than the material remains radioactive just highlights an ignorance so great as to be laughable, not to mention showing how far up the political chain of command the nuclear scaremongering can reach...

[ophic]

Does anyone know the volume of waste produced? I was under the impression it was actually quite small.

According to that nice accurate(!) online encyclopaedia, the longest lived fission products have a half life of 16 million years. But these don't make up much of the volume of the waste product, and they are very weakly radioactive.

[the_lone_wolf]

Does anyone know the volume of waste produced? I was under the impression it was actually quite small.

According to that nice accurate(!) online encyclopaedia, the longest lived fission products have a half life of 16 million years. But these don't make up much of the volume of the waste product, and they are very weakly radioactive.

The half life is meaningless without a starting radiation level - It may take 16million years to halve the amount of radiation but if it was a safe level to begin with it makes no difference. The meaningful number is how long it takes for the absolute radiation to drop below a safe level

IIRC the volume of waste produced in the UK each year is 1200 or 12,000 tonnes, for reference we put ~30 million tonnes of refuse into landfill each year

[ophic]

I was after volume not mass, but I spose I can look up the density.

The other bit that people often don't realise is that a large proportion of the waste product can be reprocessed and used to power other reactors.

[the_lone_wolf]

The other bit that people often don't realise is that a large proportion of the waste product can be reprocessed and used to power other reactors.

In theory, breeder reactors are nowhere near that efficiency *yet*

What even more people often don't realise is the waste left by reprocessing the waste presents new problems before it's even sent back to the reactors..;)

[ophic]

So the reprocessing creates even more nasty stuff?

I thought they basically just extracted the useful bits and left the rest. The useful bits also tending to be the most radioactive.

[the_lone_wolf]

So the reprocessing creates even more nasty stuff?

I thought they basically just extracted the useful bits and left the rest. The useful bits also tending to be the most radioactive.
There's definitely more crap you need to get rid of

I don't know what particular constituents are removed and what's left, but my impression was that it was the waste products that were the really nasty stuff

Worth a bit of digging...

[Viney]

So basically we are doomed. I am sure that there are boffins out there that have the answer, but like all things it comes down to cash, and who on earth is going to fund it. Its like i cant understand why we cant produce Synthetic fuel. We can create syntetic oil which is better, and fuel is an oil... another thing to think about. I know that Embee will be along to tell me why this isnt possible :) Again, this is probably stopped by the OPEC or something. i am sure its possible.

For london, cheap affordable reliable public transport is wht we should have. It costs me £240 to get to work on the bus, and £3.60 for a days bus travel. The train on its own is £6.40 a day return for the same journey! It shoudl cost the same no matter what form you take.

[ophic]

Its like i cant understand why we cant produce Synthetic fuel.
Because the energy needs to come from somewhere, and we can't just create energy. Fundamental universal law.

[Sir Trev]

It shoudl cost the same no matter what form you take.

Unfortunately even though the trains have been de-nationalised you only normally get one operator on any line. No competition equals higher fares. Busses are generally cheper as you can get two or more operators on effectively the same route - but busses are for the poor and the unemployed as far as I'm concerned.