1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 18, 2004 08:56PM
<HTML>I just read a USA Today article on hybrid cars that shows what I have thought all along. The article describes actual fuel mileage as being 7 to 12 MPG below the ratings on the window sticker for the hybrids. It seems the real world test is not the same as the outdated DOT tests which are "optimum" conditions. I have been of the belief that if you spent the same amount of money on a regular car to lighten it and make it efficient, it would meet or beat the hybrids. How much energy is spent hauling the battery load around on a hybrid over it's life time? It seems the Hybrids may not be the answer and I don't see any hydrogen fuel pumps at the corner station either.
Maybe someone should try something revolutionary like a steam car.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Maybe someone should try something revolutionary like a steam car.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2004 02:36PM
<HTML>I have also wondered what these vehicles would be like in an accident. I would not want to hit one head on and have several hundred pounds of battery projected through my vehicle and it's contents. Not including the fact that the contents of the battery would be spread all over. I would think an accident involving a hybrid would prompt a call to a hazardous waste handler for clean up at the scene.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2004 04:06PM
<HTML>Peter,
Makes one think that a 20 year old VW Rabbit diesel could get 50mpg and with all the modern hybrid technology the old Rabbit still does very well. Of course the noisy smelly diesel is not politically correct whilst the new hybrids are. Wonder what the replacement cost of batteries would be after a few years went by.
George</HTML>
Makes one think that a 20 year old VW Rabbit diesel could get 50mpg and with all the modern hybrid technology the old Rabbit still does very well. Of course the noisy smelly diesel is not politically correct whilst the new hybrids are. Wonder what the replacement cost of batteries would be after a few years went by.
George</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2004 07:21PM
<HTML>Check out the Honda hybrid review at ars:
[arstechnica.com]
Seams to be a very nice mirage of IC and electroc drive. The batery pack isn't all that large.
Andy</HTML>
[arstechnica.com]
Seams to be a very nice mirage of IC and electroc drive. The batery pack isn't all that large.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2004 08:49PM
<HTML>George.
When I was in Germany I use to have a 1937 VW with a 24 HP engine and it got 60 MPG. Good thing as I had very little money.
Rolly</HTML>
When I was in Germany I use to have a 1937 VW with a 24 HP engine and it got 60 MPG. Good thing as I had very little money.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2004 11:35AM
<HTML>Rolly,
I was in Germany for 6 weeks in 1960 and had a new VW to use, every VW driver on the autobahns would always have the pedal to the metal! The gallon over there was 4 liters or about 5O% bigger I think.
My VW was king of the VW hill for weeks(pedal to the metal all the time) until one day I saw another VW in my rear mirror a half mile back---after 10 more miles he was closing on me! After 15 miles his front bumper was even with my rear bumper but the wind turbulence off my car kept him from passing.
We continued this for 40 miles when he gave up---I had been pushing so hard on the accelerator trying to push it thru the floorboard that my right leg was in agonizing pain!! Who knows he had probably passed his exit 20 miles back!!! He indeed was a very proud german with a fast older VW.
George</HTML>
I was in Germany for 6 weeks in 1960 and had a new VW to use, every VW driver on the autobahns would always have the pedal to the metal! The gallon over there was 4 liters or about 5O% bigger I think.
My VW was king of the VW hill for weeks(pedal to the metal all the time) until one day I saw another VW in my rear mirror a half mile back---after 10 more miles he was closing on me! After 15 miles his front bumper was even with my rear bumper but the wind turbulence off my car kept him from passing.
We continued this for 40 miles when he gave up---I had been pushing so hard on the accelerator trying to push it thru the floorboard that my right leg was in agonizing pain!! Who knows he had probably passed his exit 20 miles back!!! He indeed was a very proud german with a fast older VW.
George</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2004 02:18PM
<HTML>George
I got my gas at the Air base and a gallon is a gallon. I could not afford to get gas off base.
Rolly</HTML>
I got my gas at the Air base and a gallon is a gallon. I could not afford to get gas off base.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2004 02:28PM
<HTML>Rolly,
A 1937 VW? A crank-start kdf wagen? Neat! That would be worth a fortune today.
Andy & Peter,
Everything I have read indicates that hybrid vehicle cost, not even counting battery replacement, is far greater than the cost of the fuel saved, even with high fuel prices. For example, the Prius costs ~$20,000 but is equivalent to conventional economy cars costing ~$10,000, and it will not save anywhere near $10,000 in gas over its service life, relative to the comparable conventional car. That alone will kill them once the novelty wears off. On top of that, hybrid car prices are currently subsidized, and do not reflect their true production cost. That can't continue forever.
Also, I think that once the amount of toxic waste generated by hybrid vehicle battery production, disposal, and recycling becomes generally known among environmentalists, hybrid cars will quickly lose their environmental status-symbol appeal. The resulting loss of consumer and corporate support will end their production. Production-related toxic waste generation is much higher for cars with large drive batteries than for conventional cars. For pure electrics, the figure is 52 tons, vs 26 tons for equivalent conventional cars, according to figures published in Utne Reader in the early/mid 1990s. Hybrids are less toxic than electric-only cars, due to their smaller battery packs, but still much more toxic than conventional cars.
Steam cars can run cleanly and efficiently on a wide variety of "greenhouse-neutral" and potentially economical (often waste-sourced) biofuels, not to mention current fuels, and they can offer consumer-desireable performance and cost advantages over conventional, hybrid, and fuel cell cars. If carmakers were serious about alternative powerplants, they would be developing -- or at least seriously researching -- steam cars, which are potentially much more economically viable and marketable than conventional, hybrid, and fuel cell cars.
Peter</HTML>
A 1937 VW? A crank-start kdf wagen? Neat! That would be worth a fortune today.
Andy & Peter,
Everything I have read indicates that hybrid vehicle cost, not even counting battery replacement, is far greater than the cost of the fuel saved, even with high fuel prices. For example, the Prius costs ~$20,000 but is equivalent to conventional economy cars costing ~$10,000, and it will not save anywhere near $10,000 in gas over its service life, relative to the comparable conventional car. That alone will kill them once the novelty wears off. On top of that, hybrid car prices are currently subsidized, and do not reflect their true production cost. That can't continue forever.
Also, I think that once the amount of toxic waste generated by hybrid vehicle battery production, disposal, and recycling becomes generally known among environmentalists, hybrid cars will quickly lose their environmental status-symbol appeal. The resulting loss of consumer and corporate support will end their production. Production-related toxic waste generation is much higher for cars with large drive batteries than for conventional cars. For pure electrics, the figure is 52 tons, vs 26 tons for equivalent conventional cars, according to figures published in Utne Reader in the early/mid 1990s. Hybrids are less toxic than electric-only cars, due to their smaller battery packs, but still much more toxic than conventional cars.
Steam cars can run cleanly and efficiently on a wide variety of "greenhouse-neutral" and potentially economical (often waste-sourced) biofuels, not to mention current fuels, and they can offer consumer-desireable performance and cost advantages over conventional, hybrid, and fuel cell cars. If carmakers were serious about alternative powerplants, they would be developing -- or at least seriously researching -- steam cars, which are potentially much more economically viable and marketable than conventional, hybrid, and fuel cell cars.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2004 03:33PM
<HTML>RollyOT,
What Air Force base and what years where you there? I was in and out of Rhine-Main(Frankfurt) in 1960 and 62---maybe you were the crazy guy that I had the 40 mile Lemans with! ;o)
George</HTML>
What Air Force base and what years where you there? I was in and out of Rhine-Main(Frankfurt) in 1960 and 62---maybe you were the crazy guy that I had the 40 mile Lemans with! ;o)
George</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2004 04:38PM
<HTML>About the same time George
1961 to 63.
I was in the Ifel ( Eye- Full) ? mountains at a missile launch site out in the woods. It was in-between the Mosel and Rhine river. Near the Vosges mountains.
Rolly</HTML>
1961 to 63.
I was in the Ifel ( Eye- Full) ? mountains at a missile launch site out in the woods. It was in-between the Mosel and Rhine river. Near the Vosges mountains.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2004 06:47PM
<HTML>Hi Peter
I don't think the Honda hybrid is subsidized. Just the price would indicate otherwise. The electric motor in that vehical replaces the starter. A bit biger though and coupled directly full time to the drive.
Read the artical. The price differance between the hybrid and it's equilivent IC is less then a few $1000. The Hybrid out performs the IC version.
The batttery life is longer then most people keep a car. They are the same as used in Lap Top computers. I think the LapTop batteries would present more of an environmental hazard then in a car. With a car, one would be more inclined to have the batteries replaced by a dealer or shop were they would be recycled properly.
That review was done be a computer tech journalist. Not the usual type of artical you find on that site. He was just so impressed with it's performance.
That car is an IC car with electric assist.
"Honda's hybrid system is aptly named Integrated Motor Assist (IMA). The primary power comes from the gasoline engine, but under hard acceleration, the electric engine assists with secondary power, providing a total output of 73 HP @ 5700 rpm, and 91 ft-lbs of torque @ 2000 rpm. The electric engine is also used as a regenerative brake. When conventional cars slow down - either by traditional braking or using the engine to slow the car - substantial energy is lost as heat and is unrecoverable. However when you partially step on the brake pedal in the Insight, regenerative braking kicks in - the electric motor is used as a generator to recharge the battery while slowing down the car. If you depress the brake farther, then the hydraulic brakes slow down the car even further. The transition is smooth and feels similar to conventional braking.
Another gas saving technique is the Idle-Stop feature. When the car slows to the stop, and the clutch is disengaged and the transmission is put into neutral, the gasoline engine shuts off completely. It's eerie when you first experience this at a red light. The car becomes dead quiet except for the vent fans or the AC if you are using it. When you put the car in gear and press down on the gas, the engine restarts. The transition from Idle-Stop to start feels seamless because by the time you have the car in gear, the gas motor has had time to start up again. And in case you're wondering, the Idle-Stop doesn't kick in until the engine has achieved an appropriate temperature, so no "cold starts" at the stop light."
Honda is very innovative. More so then most auto makers.
My point Peter. Don't rule out thoes hybrids.
Are you so sure that there might not be some serious environmental concerns with material used in steam automobiles. KAO wool has a bio hazard warning that it may have serious health effects similar to asbestos. What about stainless and other exotic materials that would be used. Some of these (or their manufacturing process) may be environmental unfriendly. Boiler water treatment can also be a biohazard. Please don't get environmentalists into this. The real concerned environmentalista have long sense left those organizations. All that are left are just trouble makers.
Andy</HTML>
I don't think the Honda hybrid is subsidized. Just the price would indicate otherwise. The electric motor in that vehical replaces the starter. A bit biger though and coupled directly full time to the drive.
Read the artical. The price differance between the hybrid and it's equilivent IC is less then a few $1000. The Hybrid out performs the IC version.
The batttery life is longer then most people keep a car. They are the same as used in Lap Top computers. I think the LapTop batteries would present more of an environmental hazard then in a car. With a car, one would be more inclined to have the batteries replaced by a dealer or shop were they would be recycled properly.
That review was done be a computer tech journalist. Not the usual type of artical you find on that site. He was just so impressed with it's performance.
That car is an IC car with electric assist.
"Honda's hybrid system is aptly named Integrated Motor Assist (IMA). The primary power comes from the gasoline engine, but under hard acceleration, the electric engine assists with secondary power, providing a total output of 73 HP @ 5700 rpm, and 91 ft-lbs of torque @ 2000 rpm. The electric engine is also used as a regenerative brake. When conventional cars slow down - either by traditional braking or using the engine to slow the car - substantial energy is lost as heat and is unrecoverable. However when you partially step on the brake pedal in the Insight, regenerative braking kicks in - the electric motor is used as a generator to recharge the battery while slowing down the car. If you depress the brake farther, then the hydraulic brakes slow down the car even further. The transition is smooth and feels similar to conventional braking.
Another gas saving technique is the Idle-Stop feature. When the car slows to the stop, and the clutch is disengaged and the transmission is put into neutral, the gasoline engine shuts off completely. It's eerie when you first experience this at a red light. The car becomes dead quiet except for the vent fans or the AC if you are using it. When you put the car in gear and press down on the gas, the engine restarts. The transition from Idle-Stop to start feels seamless because by the time you have the car in gear, the gas motor has had time to start up again. And in case you're wondering, the Idle-Stop doesn't kick in until the engine has achieved an appropriate temperature, so no "cold starts" at the stop light."
Honda is very innovative. More so then most auto makers.
My point Peter. Don't rule out thoes hybrids.
Are you so sure that there might not be some serious environmental concerns with material used in steam automobiles. KAO wool has a bio hazard warning that it may have serious health effects similar to asbestos. What about stainless and other exotic materials that would be used. Some of these (or their manufacturing process) may be environmental unfriendly. Boiler water treatment can also be a biohazard. Please don't get environmentalists into this. The real concerned environmentalista have long sense left those organizations. All that are left are just trouble makers.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 27, 2004 10:07AM
<HTML>Hi Andy,
I did read the article, and didn't find any price info. It sounds like most of the fuel mileage improvements come from the aluminum body and other rather extreme (and very old) weight and air/tire drag reduction tricks, and from the small, low-powered engine, not from what is essentially an oddball semi-electric manual transmission.
Without the hybrid pack, the same car would get very nearly the same fuel mileage, even in the city. Note that the 70 mpg on the highway is achieved with the hybrid pack not operating, so that, and the highway performance, would be exactly the same with a conventional powerplant in the same vehicle. With a 1-liter 3-banger, I'd expect a gas car that light to get 40-50 mpg in the city; the hybrid package, for a few thousand dollars more, adds about 10 mpg in the city, which could probably be achieved (perhaps cheaper) with a conventional diesel powerplant. Not to dump on diesels, but very few people buy diesels despite their continuous availability for some decades now and their recent performance & economy improvements; I have not been able to figure out why, but there it is.
Even the reviewer didn't like the low highway passing power. In general, an underpowered, noisier, undersized, manual-transmission car, exactly what most people won't buy nowadays. The manual transmission alone limits its appeal to about 10% of the market, hardly an automotive revolution. With an automatic added for the other 90% of car buyers, the already small fuel mileage advantage gets even smaller, while its already high cost gets even higher.
Its only advantages are slightly better fuel mileage and acceleration in city driving -- and only in comparison to very sluggish conventional economy cars that very few people buy today.
I was, however, impressed with the compactness and design of the battery pack and electric motor. Good design work, despite not being steam. :) The nimh batteries must be of the new no-memory type, if they can survive constant partial charging/discharging in a typical drive cycle. Maybe somebody can price no-memory nimh D-cells and tell us how much 120 of them will cost to replace every 80,000 miles. As I recall, the roughly D-cell sized one in my video camera cost well over $20. I think the nimh batteries with memories are cheaper.
Also, note that 80,000 miles on the battery pack is "guaranteed", not necessarily achievable. The guarantee only means that Honda will replace the batteries, if they konk out before 80,000 miles, if you ask them. After 80,001 miles or 8 years, the owner buys the new batteries. For all we know, maybe Honda just squirreled away some bucks for subsidizing a few replacement batteries, perhaps expecting that most buyers will lose interest in the car long before 80,000 miles, and that most cars with worn batteries will be scrapped instead of re-batteried. Japanese economy cars in general do have a short service life, compared to other cars.
Most new-car buyers won't keep the car for more than 80,000 miles. True. But if it is costly to replace the batteries, then the resale or trade-in value of the car, after the initial buyer is through with it, will be lower, which adds to the net cost of the vehicle to initial buyers, and makes it much less desireable to them.
Many car companies advertise the durability and high resale value of their cars, because depreciation is an important factor to most new-car buyers, and therefore an important sales point. Mercedes-Benz has featured their 1950s-era million-mile cars in their commercials, and their Japanese pseudo-knockoff Lexus recently ran commercials bragging about their high resale values. How much will an Insight with 60,000 miles or 6 years on the original batteries be worth, especially if the batteries are expensive and the 80,000 mile/8 year battery guarantee only applies to the initial buyer?
Even the glowing reviewer expressed doubts about the claimed 8-year/80,000 mile service life of the battery pack. And his note about fanatically watching the MPG display & shift prompter on the dash to squeeze every last inch out of the precious gasoline, was good for a grin. How many drivers are going to waste their time playing MPG video games and obeying the in-dash shift prompts for more than a few months? Most real-world drivers are too busy changing the radio channel, munching on hamburgers, talking on cell phones, and telling the kids that no, we're not there yet. Occasionally they keep an eye on traffic too.
After the first few months of driving, I bet that most Insight drivers start to ignore the dashboard, and their fuel mileage drops well below the optimum achievable by those who obey their dashboard display. Of course, gee-whiz internet car reviewers (and EPA testers) will enthusiastically get and publicly report the optimum results. Nice marketing gimmick. I'd give it the same market life as those annoying "talking cars" of the '80s which reminded you in a Michigan accent that "The door is ajar". To which Eddie Murphy replied that no, the door is not a jar, the door is a door, and why don't these cars tell you something useful, like "hey man, someone stole your batt'ry!"
Peter</HTML>
I did read the article, and didn't find any price info. It sounds like most of the fuel mileage improvements come from the aluminum body and other rather extreme (and very old) weight and air/tire drag reduction tricks, and from the small, low-powered engine, not from what is essentially an oddball semi-electric manual transmission.
Without the hybrid pack, the same car would get very nearly the same fuel mileage, even in the city. Note that the 70 mpg on the highway is achieved with the hybrid pack not operating, so that, and the highway performance, would be exactly the same with a conventional powerplant in the same vehicle. With a 1-liter 3-banger, I'd expect a gas car that light to get 40-50 mpg in the city; the hybrid package, for a few thousand dollars more, adds about 10 mpg in the city, which could probably be achieved (perhaps cheaper) with a conventional diesel powerplant. Not to dump on diesels, but very few people buy diesels despite their continuous availability for some decades now and their recent performance & economy improvements; I have not been able to figure out why, but there it is.
Even the reviewer didn't like the low highway passing power. In general, an underpowered, noisier, undersized, manual-transmission car, exactly what most people won't buy nowadays. The manual transmission alone limits its appeal to about 10% of the market, hardly an automotive revolution. With an automatic added for the other 90% of car buyers, the already small fuel mileage advantage gets even smaller, while its already high cost gets even higher.
Its only advantages are slightly better fuel mileage and acceleration in city driving -- and only in comparison to very sluggish conventional economy cars that very few people buy today.
I was, however, impressed with the compactness and design of the battery pack and electric motor. Good design work, despite not being steam. :) The nimh batteries must be of the new no-memory type, if they can survive constant partial charging/discharging in a typical drive cycle. Maybe somebody can price no-memory nimh D-cells and tell us how much 120 of them will cost to replace every 80,000 miles. As I recall, the roughly D-cell sized one in my video camera cost well over $20. I think the nimh batteries with memories are cheaper.
Also, note that 80,000 miles on the battery pack is "guaranteed", not necessarily achievable. The guarantee only means that Honda will replace the batteries, if they konk out before 80,000 miles, if you ask them. After 80,001 miles or 8 years, the owner buys the new batteries. For all we know, maybe Honda just squirreled away some bucks for subsidizing a few replacement batteries, perhaps expecting that most buyers will lose interest in the car long before 80,000 miles, and that most cars with worn batteries will be scrapped instead of re-batteried. Japanese economy cars in general do have a short service life, compared to other cars.
Most new-car buyers won't keep the car for more than 80,000 miles. True. But if it is costly to replace the batteries, then the resale or trade-in value of the car, after the initial buyer is through with it, will be lower, which adds to the net cost of the vehicle to initial buyers, and makes it much less desireable to them.
Many car companies advertise the durability and high resale value of their cars, because depreciation is an important factor to most new-car buyers, and therefore an important sales point. Mercedes-Benz has featured their 1950s-era million-mile cars in their commercials, and their Japanese pseudo-knockoff Lexus recently ran commercials bragging about their high resale values. How much will an Insight with 60,000 miles or 6 years on the original batteries be worth, especially if the batteries are expensive and the 80,000 mile/8 year battery guarantee only applies to the initial buyer?
Even the glowing reviewer expressed doubts about the claimed 8-year/80,000 mile service life of the battery pack. And his note about fanatically watching the MPG display & shift prompter on the dash to squeeze every last inch out of the precious gasoline, was good for a grin. How many drivers are going to waste their time playing MPG video games and obeying the in-dash shift prompts for more than a few months? Most real-world drivers are too busy changing the radio channel, munching on hamburgers, talking on cell phones, and telling the kids that no, we're not there yet. Occasionally they keep an eye on traffic too.
After the first few months of driving, I bet that most Insight drivers start to ignore the dashboard, and their fuel mileage drops well below the optimum achievable by those who obey their dashboard display. Of course, gee-whiz internet car reviewers (and EPA testers) will enthusiastically get and publicly report the optimum results. Nice marketing gimmick. I'd give it the same market life as those annoying "talking cars" of the '80s which reminded you in a Michigan accent that "The door is ajar". To which Eddie Murphy replied that no, the door is not a jar, the door is a door, and why don't these cars tell you something useful, like "hey man, someone stole your batt'ry!"
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 27, 2004 10:48AM
<HTML>Hi Andy,
Good points on special alloys and insulation hazards in steam cars. I think that a good steamer can be built with no more stainless steel or advanced alloys than a modern gas car (or hybrid or fuel-cell car), and probably with less. Also, I don't know how toxic stainless or high-temperature alloys are to produce, relative to batteries or fuel cells. Stainless is just plain steel with a few percent of other metals tossed into the crucible.
As for insulation, there are very good insulating materials other than ceramic fibers, like the diatomaceous-earth "Kieselguhr material" used by Doble, magnesia, non-fibrous ceramics, refractory ceramic paints, etc, not to mention the possibility of using very efficient vacuumized/reflective insulating sleeves, as in dewar flasks or "Thermos" bottles. So even if ceramic fiber materials were banned, we still have plenty of refractory options -- and I have not heard anyone even suggest banning ceramic fibers yet, whereas some environmentalists have already raised concerns about battery disposal and even battery production/recycling.
In the departments of production- and operation-related pollution, I think the steam automobile powerplant is easily designed and fueled to be cleaner than any other automobile powerplant. Wherever environmentalists have questions, we have answers.
It is true that many sincere environmentalists have quit environmental organizations over issues like scientific methods/evidence problems with the "global warming" theory and extreme tactics/policies advocated by some environmentalists. Then again, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the groups are still there to "squeak". With more moderate voices leaving, they may "squeak" even louder.
Heading off political attacks from active and influential environmental groups, and commercially exploiting environmental concerns raised by them, are (IMO) the main reasons why major carmakers are pushing hybrid and fuel cell cars. They are well aware of what it has cost them to fight and then comply with emissions controls and safety regs pushed by small but highly active/effective political groups.
Peter</HTML>
Good points on special alloys and insulation hazards in steam cars. I think that a good steamer can be built with no more stainless steel or advanced alloys than a modern gas car (or hybrid or fuel-cell car), and probably with less. Also, I don't know how toxic stainless or high-temperature alloys are to produce, relative to batteries or fuel cells. Stainless is just plain steel with a few percent of other metals tossed into the crucible.
As for insulation, there are very good insulating materials other than ceramic fibers, like the diatomaceous-earth "Kieselguhr material" used by Doble, magnesia, non-fibrous ceramics, refractory ceramic paints, etc, not to mention the possibility of using very efficient vacuumized/reflective insulating sleeves, as in dewar flasks or "Thermos" bottles. So even if ceramic fiber materials were banned, we still have plenty of refractory options -- and I have not heard anyone even suggest banning ceramic fibers yet, whereas some environmentalists have already raised concerns about battery disposal and even battery production/recycling.
In the departments of production- and operation-related pollution, I think the steam automobile powerplant is easily designed and fueled to be cleaner than any other automobile powerplant. Wherever environmentalists have questions, we have answers.
It is true that many sincere environmentalists have quit environmental organizations over issues like scientific methods/evidence problems with the "global warming" theory and extreme tactics/policies advocated by some environmentalists. Then again, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the groups are still there to "squeak". With more moderate voices leaving, they may "squeak" even louder.
Heading off political attacks from active and influential environmental groups, and commercially exploiting environmental concerns raised by them, are (IMO) the main reasons why major carmakers are pushing hybrid and fuel cell cars. They are well aware of what it has cost them to fight and then comply with emissions controls and safety regs pushed by small but highly active/effective political groups.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2004 05:09PM
<HTML>Andy,
The first Hondas were subsidized, the article I read about them was that it cost $80,000 to produce each car. If they have, in a few short years, gotten the cost low enough to turn a profit, that would be some magic I would like to subscribe to.
How many independent repair shops will touch a hybrid ? Better know where the dealers are when you take a trip and you are at their mercy, the way auto manufacturers want it.
Better not store the hybrids too long without charging because NiMh batteries loose 1/2 their charge in a 6 month peroid. Not useing the vehicle often enough decreases it's efficiency which wrongly promotes using the car more often.
Regenerative braking adds about 7% to the efficiency of a vehicle but converting from engine power to electricity represents a loss of 10%, which in my book totals negative 3%.
Idle stop has been successfully used in conventional IC autos, you don't need a hybrid for that gain and steam really shines here.
Most of Honda's innovations can be seen in autos built before 1940, such as the pentroof combustion chamber, hybrids, oval pistons/combustion chambers, alumaferric castings and most everything else they have tried.
Enviromentally, what percentage of the batteries put on the road will actually be recycled or at least disposed of properly ? Unless there is a core charge that provides strong enough incentive for proper disposal, many batteries will become enviromental hazzards.
And as My first post asked. Where is the milage ? Why don't the Hybrids use the same Test standards as conventional autos ?
Peter,
Good point on the resale value of these over hyped road turds.
Peter Heid</HTML>
The first Hondas were subsidized, the article I read about them was that it cost $80,000 to produce each car. If they have, in a few short years, gotten the cost low enough to turn a profit, that would be some magic I would like to subscribe to.
How many independent repair shops will touch a hybrid ? Better know where the dealers are when you take a trip and you are at their mercy, the way auto manufacturers want it.
Better not store the hybrids too long without charging because NiMh batteries loose 1/2 their charge in a 6 month peroid. Not useing the vehicle often enough decreases it's efficiency which wrongly promotes using the car more often.
Regenerative braking adds about 7% to the efficiency of a vehicle but converting from engine power to electricity represents a loss of 10%, which in my book totals negative 3%.
Idle stop has been successfully used in conventional IC autos, you don't need a hybrid for that gain and steam really shines here.
Most of Honda's innovations can be seen in autos built before 1940, such as the pentroof combustion chamber, hybrids, oval pistons/combustion chambers, alumaferric castings and most everything else they have tried.
Enviromentally, what percentage of the batteries put on the road will actually be recycled or at least disposed of properly ? Unless there is a core charge that provides strong enough incentive for proper disposal, many batteries will become enviromental hazzards.
And as My first post asked. Where is the milage ? Why don't the Hybrids use the same Test standards as conventional autos ?
Peter,
Good point on the resale value of these over hyped road turds.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: February 29, 2004 11:28AM
<HTML>The main advantage of a hybred is that the engine always runs at full load, where it gets maximum efficiency. The battery handles all light load running and the excess load for acceleration and passing. Thus, the engine need not be larger than required for steady running at the maximum cruising speed, about 25 hp.
In the normal gas car the engine must be sized for the maximum peak power needed, even if the peak is only used for ten seconds in a day long trip. Almost all the time it runs greatly throttled, and, therefore, very inefficiently. A 100 hp. gas engine carrying a 25 hp. load will use twice as much fuel as a fully loaded 25 hp. engine.
Also, the hybred can use regenerative braking, using the kinetic energy of the car to charge the battery rather than throwing it away by heating the brakes. This makes a BIG difference in city driving.</HTML>
In the normal gas car the engine must be sized for the maximum peak power needed, even if the peak is only used for ten seconds in a day long trip. Almost all the time it runs greatly throttled, and, therefore, very inefficiently. A 100 hp. gas engine carrying a 25 hp. load will use twice as much fuel as a fully loaded 25 hp. engine.
Also, the hybred can use regenerative braking, using the kinetic energy of the car to charge the battery rather than throwing it away by heating the brakes. This makes a BIG difference in city driving.</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 29, 2004 12:29PM
<HTML>The hybrids I am familliar with use a throttle on the engine to control vehicle speed and the engine runs in the full RPM range. I have only seen hybrids that run only one engine speed as backyard machines, I don't think any are in production yet. The vehicles I am familliar with using a constant charge use only electric for the drive and rely on a large heavy electrical system and never shut off, even when the batteries are at full charge. Does anyone produce this type of hybrid ? I also noticed the manufacturers are headed away from this design, opting to reduce the electrical side as much as possible. There is a generator that can be driven directly from a turbine that has been considered for this type of vehicle but it was developed about 10 years ago and has yet to make to market.
Has anyone considered the losses from heating up the batteries with every charge and discharge ? Quality NiMh batteries have high charge and discharge rates but at a loss of efficiency due to the large amount of heat generated. I can melt the plastic cover on batteries from hard use and rapid charging makes them hot. Some devices that use NiMh batteries include cooling fans for the batteries.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Has anyone considered the losses from heating up the batteries with every charge and discharge ? Quality NiMh batteries have high charge and discharge rates but at a loss of efficiency due to the large amount of heat generated. I can melt the plastic cover on batteries from hard use and rapid charging makes them hot. Some devices that use NiMh batteries include cooling fans for the batteries.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 02, 2004 08:53AM
<HTML>Hi Peter and David,
That is a series hybrid, as opposed to the parallel-hybrid systems currently on the market (Honda Insight, Toyota Prius). There is a good reason why the series hybrid isn't on the market, or even planned for market to my knowledge. Cycling all the drive horsepower through batteries (except perhaps during highway cruise) drastically increases the battery replacement cost, averaged per mile of driving, almost to the terribly expensive level of electric-only cars. In a series hybrid, battery replacement costs much more than the fuel saved. I saw one analysis of electric cars which concluded that even if the electricity were free, the batteries cost more per mile than gasoline for a comparable conventional car.
In a parallel hybrid, the battery cost is still high, but less than in a series hybrid or electric-only car because only part of the "horsepower flow" is cycled through the batteries. However, the entire parallel-hybrid system still seems much more expensive per mile than a conventional powerplant in the same vehicle, even when the fuel savings are factored in. The margin is large enough to give me doubts about whether electric hybrids will ever be economical.
I like to think of electric and electric-hybrid cars as "battery burners" -- in practice (though not in theory), the chemical decomposition of the batteries is part of what runs them.
One problem with parallel hybrids is that "highway cruise" takes vastly different horsepower levels for different drivers of the same vehicle. If the engine is maxed out at, say, 65 mph, then there is little or no passing power, or perhaps only a "battery burst" for one or two passes. On a long road trip, this could drive some people berserk. The reviewer in the article Andy linked to complained about this problem. But if the "optimum cruise" is set for 80 mph for the sake of Leadfoot Louie, then Frank Feathertoes, who likes to cruise at 60, is still running at well below the optimum efficiency level. At highway speeds, small changes in mph mean big changes in hp. It would take a new kind of series hybrid to give plenty of power and maximum efficiency to all drivers -- at an affordable price.
I don't dismiss the hybrid vehicle powerplant concept entirely. Ford is supposedly working on a hydraulic-accumulator regenerative braking system that (IMO) looks promising, and I think that there may be some unexplored potential in compressed air, hydraulic, or steam/steam (exhaust recompression) series hybrids.
IC and/or steam hybrids may yet replace today's IC/tranny conventional cars. The trick is to develop acceptably lightweight, compact, and durable energy storage/release equipment with a per-mile cost low enough to be paid for (and then some) by the fuel savings. Electric batteries don't fulfill all of those requirements, and they are a mature mass-production technology with fundamental electrochemical & physics limitations and, IMO, little potential for future cost reduction.
Peter Brow</HTML>
That is a series hybrid, as opposed to the parallel-hybrid systems currently on the market (Honda Insight, Toyota Prius). There is a good reason why the series hybrid isn't on the market, or even planned for market to my knowledge. Cycling all the drive horsepower through batteries (except perhaps during highway cruise) drastically increases the battery replacement cost, averaged per mile of driving, almost to the terribly expensive level of electric-only cars. In a series hybrid, battery replacement costs much more than the fuel saved. I saw one analysis of electric cars which concluded that even if the electricity were free, the batteries cost more per mile than gasoline for a comparable conventional car.
In a parallel hybrid, the battery cost is still high, but less than in a series hybrid or electric-only car because only part of the "horsepower flow" is cycled through the batteries. However, the entire parallel-hybrid system still seems much more expensive per mile than a conventional powerplant in the same vehicle, even when the fuel savings are factored in. The margin is large enough to give me doubts about whether electric hybrids will ever be economical.
I like to think of electric and electric-hybrid cars as "battery burners" -- in practice (though not in theory), the chemical decomposition of the batteries is part of what runs them.
One problem with parallel hybrids is that "highway cruise" takes vastly different horsepower levels for different drivers of the same vehicle. If the engine is maxed out at, say, 65 mph, then there is little or no passing power, or perhaps only a "battery burst" for one or two passes. On a long road trip, this could drive some people berserk. The reviewer in the article Andy linked to complained about this problem. But if the "optimum cruise" is set for 80 mph for the sake of Leadfoot Louie, then Frank Feathertoes, who likes to cruise at 60, is still running at well below the optimum efficiency level. At highway speeds, small changes in mph mean big changes in hp. It would take a new kind of series hybrid to give plenty of power and maximum efficiency to all drivers -- at an affordable price.
I don't dismiss the hybrid vehicle powerplant concept entirely. Ford is supposedly working on a hydraulic-accumulator regenerative braking system that (IMO) looks promising, and I think that there may be some unexplored potential in compressed air, hydraulic, or steam/steam (exhaust recompression) series hybrids.
IC and/or steam hybrids may yet replace today's IC/tranny conventional cars. The trick is to develop acceptably lightweight, compact, and durable energy storage/release equipment with a per-mile cost low enough to be paid for (and then some) by the fuel savings. Electric batteries don't fulfill all of those requirements, and they are a mature mass-production technology with fundamental electrochemical & physics limitations and, IMO, little potential for future cost reduction.
Peter Brow</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 02, 2004 08:54PM
<HTML>A power recovery turbine would seem more realistic for hybrids than battery powered electric motors.
None of the manufactors seem to have given that anymore attention than steam........at least until you get to light plant sized diesels and gas turbines.Then you are hard pressed to find a manufactor.That doesn't copy Cat with combined cycle diesel and gas turbines somewhere in the powerplant stall.(Guess there is still a bit of Sentenel left in all of Caterpillars's takeover mergers...)</HTML>
None of the manufactors seem to have given that anymore attention than steam........at least until you get to light plant sized diesels and gas turbines.Then you are hard pressed to find a manufactor.That doesn't copy Cat with combined cycle diesel and gas turbines somewhere in the powerplant stall.(Guess there is still a bit of Sentenel left in all of Caterpillars's takeover mergers...)</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: March 03, 2004 11:27AM
<HTML>Of the batteries I have read about, lead acid are both the most efficient and the cheapest. A deep cycle lead acid battery can return more than 70% of its charging energy. Given good care and not too many deep discharges, they have a long life. I remember seeeing a set, in glass jars, that had run the local 'phone exchange for nearly 40 years. They were only scrapped because the exchange was obsolete, they changed to dial 'phones!
Lead acid batteries have several defects, of which weight and short life if cycled deeply or quickly are the major ones. A good deep cycle lead acid will have at least half its original capacity after 1000 cycles, if the cycle time is longer than ten hours.
Edison cells (nickel-iron) have very long cycle lives, but only about half the energy efficiency. I have heard of a fleet of electric trucks that used the original Edison batteries from 1908 'til 1948, cycled deeply six days a week! The trucks were replaced because their normal speed, 8 mph., didn't play in post WWII traffic.</HTML>
Lead acid batteries have several defects, of which weight and short life if cycled deeply or quickly are the major ones. A good deep cycle lead acid will have at least half its original capacity after 1000 cycles, if the cycle time is longer than ten hours.
Edison cells (nickel-iron) have very long cycle lives, but only about half the energy efficiency. I have heard of a fleet of electric trucks that used the original Edison batteries from 1908 'til 1948, cycled deeply six days a week! The trucks were replaced because their normal speed, 8 mph., didn't play in post WWII traffic.</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 04, 2004 01:46PM
<HTML>Gentlemen,
One comment and then I leave this discussion, because I have no more faith in this hybrid nonsense than I do with electric cars or hydrogen.
My contacts in the automotive engineering world, the real one not the fantesy version, tell me this.
1) The hybrid cars from Japan are being sold here far under the actual production costs. The same under the table payoffs that started with the Regan administration with Honda getting their foot in the American car market. Chrysler has written proof of this; but did not use it because of the probable fate of their military contracts, this directly from Bob Lutz.
2) A new Mercedes Benz, VW, BMW, Diesels can deliver better ACTUAL milage than the hybrids in overall service conditions.
3) The Prius works fine in the city; but don't think of even reasonable performance in cross country trips where mountains are involved. The batteries droop severely and then you are then using an underpowered engine.
4) All batteries degrade with each charge-discharge cycle. Service life with serious use and deep discharge drastically shortens their life. The cost of battery pack replacement means that a lot of these hybrid cars will then be scrapped and then replace with real cars. Same marketing ploy as computer printers, the printer is cheap, the ink cartridges are not, their price is jacked up 500%.
5) Serious repair work on the battery-electric system is eye watering.
6) Alcohol is being used only because of the fact that Archer Daniels Midland was the second largest contributor to the Bush campaign. Payoff and nothing less for A.D.M. and the farm industry. MTBE was phased out because it was claimed by the Bush administration that it leaked into the ground. That was after all gas stations were forced to replace their steel tanks with fiberglass by the EPA. Fiberglass tanks allow MTBE to diffuse through the walls, something that we were not told to protect the payola and make alcohol the govenment's mandated alternative. Bad science.
7) Hydrogen is also just as foolish. The cost to strip it from natural gas or make it from water is far above the payback in engine efficiency. It is very dangerous and putting it in the hands of the average motorist is suicidal.
8) According to Mercedes Benz, et al, the Diesel, can easily use vegatable derived fuels along with reclaimed oils, along with petroleum fuel oil.
Well, so can the steamer.
Jim</HTML>
One comment and then I leave this discussion, because I have no more faith in this hybrid nonsense than I do with electric cars or hydrogen.
My contacts in the automotive engineering world, the real one not the fantesy version, tell me this.
1) The hybrid cars from Japan are being sold here far under the actual production costs. The same under the table payoffs that started with the Regan administration with Honda getting their foot in the American car market. Chrysler has written proof of this; but did not use it because of the probable fate of their military contracts, this directly from Bob Lutz.
2) A new Mercedes Benz, VW, BMW, Diesels can deliver better ACTUAL milage than the hybrids in overall service conditions.
3) The Prius works fine in the city; but don't think of even reasonable performance in cross country trips where mountains are involved. The batteries droop severely and then you are then using an underpowered engine.
4) All batteries degrade with each charge-discharge cycle. Service life with serious use and deep discharge drastically shortens their life. The cost of battery pack replacement means that a lot of these hybrid cars will then be scrapped and then replace with real cars. Same marketing ploy as computer printers, the printer is cheap, the ink cartridges are not, their price is jacked up 500%.
5) Serious repair work on the battery-electric system is eye watering.
6) Alcohol is being used only because of the fact that Archer Daniels Midland was the second largest contributor to the Bush campaign. Payoff and nothing less for A.D.M. and the farm industry. MTBE was phased out because it was claimed by the Bush administration that it leaked into the ground. That was after all gas stations were forced to replace their steel tanks with fiberglass by the EPA. Fiberglass tanks allow MTBE to diffuse through the walls, something that we were not told to protect the payola and make alcohol the govenment's mandated alternative. Bad science.
7) Hydrogen is also just as foolish. The cost to strip it from natural gas or make it from water is far above the payback in engine efficiency. It is very dangerous and putting it in the hands of the average motorist is suicidal.
8) According to Mercedes Benz, et al, the Diesel, can easily use vegatable derived fuels along with reclaimed oils, along with petroleum fuel oil.
Well, so can the steamer.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 04, 2004 03:24PM
<HTML>Peter,
Forgot one more thing about the Mercedes-Benz Diesels that I got right from the horses mouth.
He said: "The gas engine as we now know it for car use, is really at the end of it's rope. It is already way too complex, and too costly by far to maintain, and there is just not much we can do with it in the near term future to improve either the gas milage or the exhaust emissions. It is just about as good as we can get it, and that is all of us in the auto industry.
The Diesel has a lot that can still be done with it to make it better and without adding all those unnecessary computers to it. We consider it to be the engine of the future and Mercedes-Benz intends to promote the use of the Diesel for passenger car use in America. In Europe, it is our largest seller and not just because of fuel milage; but because of super long life and almost zero maintainence.
Hybrids, hydrogen, fuel cells and alcohol are nothing more than political pandering, and we all have to do it to satisfy your government. We add that cost of research to the retail price of the car."
Jim</HTML>
Forgot one more thing about the Mercedes-Benz Diesels that I got right from the horses mouth.
He said: "The gas engine as we now know it for car use, is really at the end of it's rope. It is already way too complex, and too costly by far to maintain, and there is just not much we can do with it in the near term future to improve either the gas milage or the exhaust emissions. It is just about as good as we can get it, and that is all of us in the auto industry.
The Diesel has a lot that can still be done with it to make it better and without adding all those unnecessary computers to it. We consider it to be the engine of the future and Mercedes-Benz intends to promote the use of the Diesel for passenger car use in America. In Europe, it is our largest seller and not just because of fuel milage; but because of super long life and almost zero maintainence.
Hybrids, hydrogen, fuel cells and alcohol are nothing more than political pandering, and we all have to do it to satisfy your government. We add that cost of research to the retail price of the car."
Jim</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: March 04, 2004 05:08PM
<HTML>Peter,
Unfortunately anyone that would consider a steam car for high cruising speed efficiency is in for a near impossible time. It is a wonderful consideration for a brute force accerating machine and short distance performance and total all-out fun but not much more. If one were to make a very efficient steamer running 800/800 at the engine after throttling to produce 20HP@ 60MPH it would have 19.2% thermal efficiency after 85% boiler efficiency--the engine having 22.6% efficiency and the plant efficiency 19.2%, over three times that of a Stanley but still low.
This is with an on road steam rate of 9#/HP-HR or engine of 7.0#/HP-HR. This marvelous device would get 30.8GPH. It would do very well at traffic and stop and go conditions but at cruising speed would lose the game. Diesels are up to 40% thermal efficiency and for the same required 20HP get 64MPG. The only steam hybrid that would stand a chance is the diesel-steam cycle like the Still engine discussed many times before.
How two Stanley 30HP engines have entered this discussion I don't know but if a big Stanley engine could possibly peak at 180 horsepower for a short time before tearing its framerods apart using two could give 360HP and use 7200+#steam per hour---plan on burning 90 gallons of fuel per hour in a 80% efficient boiler to do this. Good luck on keeping the weight down.
I have a good and technically oriented friend that has a 2001 Honda Insight.
Its initial price was $21,000 and he was told that its cost to make was $30,000. A government incentive was given with a deductible tax writeoff the first year. It runs at 144 volts with a battery pack of only 14-16-12" and he says it has about a hundred large "D" type batteries in it behind the drivers seat.
Then it uses a DC-AC inverter to power the electric engine. He has had very good luck with it after 3 years and has averaged 50-60MPG with it. I drove it once and it was uncanny in silence, performed well and still is but its very streamligned form, small cargo volume and low height make it tough for an old man to deal with. The NiMh batteries have a 8 year warranty but I don't know if that is a pro rated warranty. Nice little commuting toy but too small for me.
The new Toyota Prius has a new EPA fuel milage rating of 55MPG and a subsidized price of $20,000. A 75HP gasoline "Atkinson" cycle engine(anyone out there know what that is?) coupled with a 67HP PM-DC electric motor and an infinitely variable manual transmission. These things must be terribly complicated in control systems and difficult for the present day Toyota mechanic to deal with.
The wonderfulness of a steam system is in its simplicity compared to these new cars and its great low speed acceleration but will never compete with cycle efficiencies of modern engines unless Jim's new material "unobtainium" is developed. Until then may we have fun with steam and enjoy it.
George</HTML>
Unfortunately anyone that would consider a steam car for high cruising speed efficiency is in for a near impossible time. It is a wonderful consideration for a brute force accerating machine and short distance performance and total all-out fun but not much more. If one were to make a very efficient steamer running 800/800 at the engine after throttling to produce 20HP@ 60MPH it would have 19.2% thermal efficiency after 85% boiler efficiency--the engine having 22.6% efficiency and the plant efficiency 19.2%, over three times that of a Stanley but still low.
This is with an on road steam rate of 9#/HP-HR or engine of 7.0#/HP-HR. This marvelous device would get 30.8GPH. It would do very well at traffic and stop and go conditions but at cruising speed would lose the game. Diesels are up to 40% thermal efficiency and for the same required 20HP get 64MPG. The only steam hybrid that would stand a chance is the diesel-steam cycle like the Still engine discussed many times before.
How two Stanley 30HP engines have entered this discussion I don't know but if a big Stanley engine could possibly peak at 180 horsepower for a short time before tearing its framerods apart using two could give 360HP and use 7200+#steam per hour---plan on burning 90 gallons of fuel per hour in a 80% efficient boiler to do this. Good luck on keeping the weight down.
I have a good and technically oriented friend that has a 2001 Honda Insight.
Its initial price was $21,000 and he was told that its cost to make was $30,000. A government incentive was given with a deductible tax writeoff the first year. It runs at 144 volts with a battery pack of only 14-16-12" and he says it has about a hundred large "D" type batteries in it behind the drivers seat.
Then it uses a DC-AC inverter to power the electric engine. He has had very good luck with it after 3 years and has averaged 50-60MPG with it. I drove it once and it was uncanny in silence, performed well and still is but its very streamligned form, small cargo volume and low height make it tough for an old man to deal with. The NiMh batteries have a 8 year warranty but I don't know if that is a pro rated warranty. Nice little commuting toy but too small for me.
The new Toyota Prius has a new EPA fuel milage rating of 55MPG and a subsidized price of $20,000. A 75HP gasoline "Atkinson" cycle engine(anyone out there know what that is?) coupled with a 67HP PM-DC electric motor and an infinitely variable manual transmission. These things must be terribly complicated in control systems and difficult for the present day Toyota mechanic to deal with.
The wonderfulness of a steam system is in its simplicity compared to these new cars and its great low speed acceleration but will never compete with cycle efficiencies of modern engines unless Jim's new material "unobtainium" is developed. Until then may we have fun with steam and enjoy it.
George</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 04, 2004 05:29PM
<HTML>George et al:
The only trouble with diesels is the pollution. Benz-Pyrenes are a very dangerous by product of diesels and NOx levels are hard to control. Stationary diesels used at the lumber mills, ski mountains and such must now be equipted with cyclonic separators costing several thousands of dollars in New York State. Unfortunately diesels have the ability to run to extreme levels of inefficiency before maintainance work is performed. This only compounds the pollution troubles. A diesel will ruin the exhaust sniffers that are used to inspect gasoline engine emissions.
The steamer avoids these troubles with combustion near atmospheric pressures, a step beyond EVERY internal combustion engine in emissions. The big appeal of a steamer to me is the possablity of burning non energy company fuels with very low emissions. Nothing else can I build that will do just that !</HTML>
The only trouble with diesels is the pollution. Benz-Pyrenes are a very dangerous by product of diesels and NOx levels are hard to control. Stationary diesels used at the lumber mills, ski mountains and such must now be equipted with cyclonic separators costing several thousands of dollars in New York State. Unfortunately diesels have the ability to run to extreme levels of inefficiency before maintainance work is performed. This only compounds the pollution troubles. A diesel will ruin the exhaust sniffers that are used to inspect gasoline engine emissions.
The steamer avoids these troubles with combustion near atmospheric pressures, a step beyond EVERY internal combustion engine in emissions. The big appeal of a steamer to me is the possablity of burning non energy company fuels with very low emissions. Nothing else can I build that will do just that !</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: March 04, 2004 05:51PM
<HTML>George,
The Atkinson cycle engine.
[www.lindsaybks.com]
Jim and George couldn't be more right! Hype and political desperation is all that hybrids and exotic(dangerous) fuels are and that is all that they will ever be, unless common sense is held in a high disregard.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
The Atkinson cycle engine.
[www.lindsaybks.com]
Jim and George couldn't be more right! Hype and political desperation is all that hybrids and exotic(dangerous) fuels are and that is all that they will ever be, unless common sense is held in a high disregard.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 04, 2004 06:23PM
<HTML>Hi Jim
You didn't explain the dangerous aspects of Hydrogen. But if you were think of it catching in fire or exploding than I can say that that's no big deal. It needs pure Oxygen to produce a hot flame. Combustion in air produces a very cool slow burn. I know. I have been in one. It might scare you to death. As a teen with little to do we made Hydrogen and filed $0.10 balloons. (This was in the 60s). They were about 3 cubic feet. A lot of UFO reports around LA were from our shenanigans. We released these with time delay fuses. They made spectacular fire balls some 20 to 30 feet in diameter. Anyway one of these got set off while I was holding it. An a?? hole kid down the street set it off. Other then being a little pale we suffered no ill effects from being in the fire ball. Not even singed hair.
You can make a Hydrogen generator using NaOH solution and Al. Draino water and aluminium nails. You need to run it through a drying stage to separate out the rather caustic water vapor also produced by the reaction.
Andy</HTML>
You didn't explain the dangerous aspects of Hydrogen. But if you were think of it catching in fire or exploding than I can say that that's no big deal. It needs pure Oxygen to produce a hot flame. Combustion in air produces a very cool slow burn. I know. I have been in one. It might scare you to death. As a teen with little to do we made Hydrogen and filed $0.10 balloons. (This was in the 60s). They were about 3 cubic feet. A lot of UFO reports around LA were from our shenanigans. We released these with time delay fuses. They made spectacular fire balls some 20 to 30 feet in diameter. Anyway one of these got set off while I was holding it. An a?? hole kid down the street set it off. Other then being a little pale we suffered no ill effects from being in the fire ball. Not even singed hair.
You can make a Hydrogen generator using NaOH solution and Al. Draino water and aluminium nails. You need to run it through a drying stage to separate out the rather caustic water vapor also produced by the reaction.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: March 04, 2004 06:40PM
<HTML>Peter,
I agree with everything in your last post but we must keep in mind that Washington and average income consumers are rather fickle, if and when gas and diesel prices go to $3.00/gallon even the environmentalists and those politically correct will head back to the reasonable cost car that is the most efficient . Plus several people in my area are running their diesels on a vegetable-diesel oil blend already that possibly decreases emissions and give them an evironmentally "feel- good" sensation.
Much like 35 years ago when the government awarded contracts for external combustion automobiles to solve the emissions hysteria/fuel consumption was not even considered just PPM of exhaust emissions, but then the fuel crunch came to bear and all that changed very abruptly. Fuel milage became the priority. Possibly history will unfortunately repeat itself as government and the populace that fail to learn from a previous lesson of history are condemned to repeat it again and again. Right now the sales of pickup trucks, humvees and low gas milage vehicles are way up and the cost of crude oil from afar is way up as well. I still find it amazing that people will rant about $1.60/gallon gasoline(that involves pumping, supertankers, hugely expensive refineries that no one wants in there area) while gladly paying the same price for bottled spring water and even more for Coke or Pepsi. We live in a strange world. I wonder how many of the bleeding enviromentalists that went to the Hollywood Oscars arrived in mini-cars in order to save the world environment.
Sorry, just having a bad hairless day!
George</HTML>
I agree with everything in your last post but we must keep in mind that Washington and average income consumers are rather fickle, if and when gas and diesel prices go to $3.00/gallon even the environmentalists and those politically correct will head back to the reasonable cost car that is the most efficient . Plus several people in my area are running their diesels on a vegetable-diesel oil blend already that possibly decreases emissions and give them an evironmentally "feel- good" sensation.
Much like 35 years ago when the government awarded contracts for external combustion automobiles to solve the emissions hysteria/fuel consumption was not even considered just PPM of exhaust emissions, but then the fuel crunch came to bear and all that changed very abruptly. Fuel milage became the priority. Possibly history will unfortunately repeat itself as government and the populace that fail to learn from a previous lesson of history are condemned to repeat it again and again. Right now the sales of pickup trucks, humvees and low gas milage vehicles are way up and the cost of crude oil from afar is way up as well. I still find it amazing that people will rant about $1.60/gallon gasoline(that involves pumping, supertankers, hugely expensive refineries that no one wants in there area) while gladly paying the same price for bottled spring water and even more for Coke or Pepsi. We live in a strange world. I wonder how many of the bleeding enviromentalists that went to the Hollywood Oscars arrived in mini-cars in order to save the world environment.
Sorry, just having a bad hairless day!
George</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2004 05:53AM
<HTML>Your mention of vegie oil....George
Are your aware that in some state( Texas is one of them ) boilers are the only approved combustion method other than hazard waste incinators.
For crankcase,hydralic,andtransmision oil.By State air quaility board standards.Here at least ,a steamer rolls up with a State disposal certificate
and a 1000 gallon tank.The stuff sales for $.10-.20 a gallon(road tax exempt)....wonder why model locos ,etc. are oil burners aroiund here with a club fuel tank.
And resturants pay us to pump their grease traps.....disposal certificate not required for restuarant oil and grease.
What does this veggie stuff cost up there?</HTML>
Are your aware that in some state( Texas is one of them ) boilers are the only approved combustion method other than hazard waste incinators.
For crankcase,hydralic,andtransmision oil.By State air quaility board standards.Here at least ,a steamer rolls up with a State disposal certificate
and a 1000 gallon tank.The stuff sales for $.10-.20 a gallon(road tax exempt)....wonder why model locos ,etc. are oil burners aroiund here with a club fuel tank.
And resturants pay us to pump their grease traps.....disposal certificate not required for restuarant oil and grease.
What does this veggie stuff cost up there?</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2004 01:44PM
<HTML>George,
Absolutely right again. The steamer cannot ever begin to match the Diesel for fuel efficiency no matter how much we would like it to do so. The cycle efficency is not there.
Consider a new steamer as something that is a fast and fun sports car, like a Corvette, Viper or perhaps the new Ferrari. Drive it for sheer enjoyment; but don't expect any good fuel efficiency. Magic engines notwithstanding.
Two Stanley 30hp engines putting out that amount of power would be history in a couple of blocks. Why anyone even looks at that crummy engine is beyond me.
Jim</HTML>
Absolutely right again. The steamer cannot ever begin to match the Diesel for fuel efficiency no matter how much we would like it to do so. The cycle efficency is not there.
Consider a new steamer as something that is a fast and fun sports car, like a Corvette, Viper or perhaps the new Ferrari. Drive it for sheer enjoyment; but don't expect any good fuel efficiency. Magic engines notwithstanding.
Two Stanley 30hp engines putting out that amount of power would be history in a couple of blocks. Why anyone even looks at that crummy engine is beyond me.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2004 01:46PM
<HTML>Peter,
Not the new ones, read the tests.
Jim</HTML>
Not the new ones, read the tests.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2004 03:14PM
<HTML>Wow, this thread sure took off! Great info guys, not much to add.
Andy: Also, 2/3 of the people aboard the Hindenburg walked away from the fire. Hydrogen isn't dangerous, it just takes a lot of (expensive) electricity to make it, and most of the energy is lost in its production and user-end energy-conversion.
George: You know about regenerative cycle steam systems, 58-60% net thermal efficiency, much of today's electricity is generated that way. A very practical technology. "Impossible" to adapt to road vehicle use, despite never being tried, but I have some ideas (and zero claims or promises for now) on the back burner for that and a similar steam cycle. Steam power is not inherently inefficient, only today's practical steam car equipment is -- under some conditions. But most driving, including (rush hour) highway driving, is stop and go; 70% of the world population lives in increasingly-crowded urban areas and (except for vacations) can only dream of high-MPG cruising on open roads. And for the foreseeable future, roads will get more congested, not less. Right on about steam cars being for fun; in the hobby, as in large segments of the car market, the prevailing attitude seems to be "damn the efficiency, full fun ahead!"
Everybody: I wish I had saved links to a few recent articles I read last year about diesel emissions and fuel issues. Regarding diesel emissions, everything except the inherent NOX problem is solveable -- at a price -- but NOX is a killer. Diesels produce a LOT more of it, and unlike "demon CO2", NOX really does create problems when dumped into the atmosphere in large quantities. Well, they do have ideas for "cutting" diesel NOX -- at the expense of lower efficiency, higher cost/maintenance, and reduced performance.
H2O scrubbers could give near-zero-NOX diesels, but besides large/heavy/costly onboard equipment (bottom line: forget it), that would also introduce a vast nitric-acid-recycling problem (it is, however, a very useful chemical). Perhaps the acid could be split back into clean N2 and O2 with onboard equipment (again, realistically, forget it), but the energy and equipment required, along with that required for other pollution controls, would soon put the diesel in the same boat that gas cars are in today -- complex, costly, and at the end of their technological rope.
A large-scale gas-to-diesel switchover would also create problems with re-directing hard-to-diesel lighter hydrocarbons. You can only get so much diesel out of a barrel of oil, then what do you do with the lighter stuff if there are far fewer gas cars (and no steam cars) to burn it? There are economical ways to crack heavier hydrocarbons to lighter ones, but not vice-versa. Not to mention the apparently eternal consumer contempt for diesels, I forget what low-single-digit percentage of the car market they're still stuck at despite tremendous performance and efficiency gains in recent years.
One thing that happened back when carmakers were dumping shiploads of diesel cars on us, was that diesel fuel quickly became more expensive than gasoline, derailing the switchover. That could happen again if high gas prices/shortages ignite another consumer rethink and another short-lived "diesel renaissance". And the last time it happened involved only a few percent cut in demand for gasoline, coupled with a few percent increase in diesel demand, as a relative few temporarily traded in their gas guzzlers for diesel sippers. The oil industry can't just "make all the diesel we can burn", the chemistry and physics of petroleum won't allow it. They have no magic wand to wave over a barrel of oil, to turn all the gasoline molecules into diesel -- but they can do the reverse through "cracking" processes. Diesel fuel ain't what it's cracked up to be.
Biodiesel is very groovy, baby, yeah, but Austin Powers aside, its sources are very limited compared to petroleum, and if only a fraction of a percent of the world car fleet went biodiesel, then biodiesel would quickly become too expensive to burn in a car. Its widespread use would also drive up food prices. The same applies to waste oil (except the food part). This reminds me of historical accounts of the early days of cars, when gasoline was a dirt-cheap throw-away byproduct of kerosine refining -- that situation changed very quickly when cars became commonplace.
The fuel and emissions prospects for diesel engines lead me to think that the idea of diesel cars, as a large-scale replacement for today's increasingly-troublesome gas cars, is as inadequately-analyzed and wishful-thinking an enterprise as the current foredoomed hybrid and fuel-cell efforts. But it's not so bad, somehow, to know that even after the current auto-techno-fads go flooey, the industry has yet another subsidy-sucking dead-end techno-economic flop waiting in the wings. Perhaps this is not so disturbing, because we know of a certain alternative automotive powerplant which actually has the potential to deliver a fun, affordable, & practical ride no matter what energy or emissions conditions prevail in the future.
Peter</HTML>
Andy: Also, 2/3 of the people aboard the Hindenburg walked away from the fire. Hydrogen isn't dangerous, it just takes a lot of (expensive) electricity to make it, and most of the energy is lost in its production and user-end energy-conversion.
George: You know about regenerative cycle steam systems, 58-60% net thermal efficiency, much of today's electricity is generated that way. A very practical technology. "Impossible" to adapt to road vehicle use, despite never being tried, but I have some ideas (and zero claims or promises for now) on the back burner for that and a similar steam cycle. Steam power is not inherently inefficient, only today's practical steam car equipment is -- under some conditions. But most driving, including (rush hour) highway driving, is stop and go; 70% of the world population lives in increasingly-crowded urban areas and (except for vacations) can only dream of high-MPG cruising on open roads. And for the foreseeable future, roads will get more congested, not less. Right on about steam cars being for fun; in the hobby, as in large segments of the car market, the prevailing attitude seems to be "damn the efficiency, full fun ahead!"
Everybody: I wish I had saved links to a few recent articles I read last year about diesel emissions and fuel issues. Regarding diesel emissions, everything except the inherent NOX problem is solveable -- at a price -- but NOX is a killer. Diesels produce a LOT more of it, and unlike "demon CO2", NOX really does create problems when dumped into the atmosphere in large quantities. Well, they do have ideas for "cutting" diesel NOX -- at the expense of lower efficiency, higher cost/maintenance, and reduced performance.
H2O scrubbers could give near-zero-NOX diesels, but besides large/heavy/costly onboard equipment (bottom line: forget it), that would also introduce a vast nitric-acid-recycling problem (it is, however, a very useful chemical). Perhaps the acid could be split back into clean N2 and O2 with onboard equipment (again, realistically, forget it), but the energy and equipment required, along with that required for other pollution controls, would soon put the diesel in the same boat that gas cars are in today -- complex, costly, and at the end of their technological rope.
A large-scale gas-to-diesel switchover would also create problems with re-directing hard-to-diesel lighter hydrocarbons. You can only get so much diesel out of a barrel of oil, then what do you do with the lighter stuff if there are far fewer gas cars (and no steam cars) to burn it? There are economical ways to crack heavier hydrocarbons to lighter ones, but not vice-versa. Not to mention the apparently eternal consumer contempt for diesels, I forget what low-single-digit percentage of the car market they're still stuck at despite tremendous performance and efficiency gains in recent years.
One thing that happened back when carmakers were dumping shiploads of diesel cars on us, was that diesel fuel quickly became more expensive than gasoline, derailing the switchover. That could happen again if high gas prices/shortages ignite another consumer rethink and another short-lived "diesel renaissance". And the last time it happened involved only a few percent cut in demand for gasoline, coupled with a few percent increase in diesel demand, as a relative few temporarily traded in their gas guzzlers for diesel sippers. The oil industry can't just "make all the diesel we can burn", the chemistry and physics of petroleum won't allow it. They have no magic wand to wave over a barrel of oil, to turn all the gasoline molecules into diesel -- but they can do the reverse through "cracking" processes. Diesel fuel ain't what it's cracked up to be.
Biodiesel is very groovy, baby, yeah, but Austin Powers aside, its sources are very limited compared to petroleum, and if only a fraction of a percent of the world car fleet went biodiesel, then biodiesel would quickly become too expensive to burn in a car. Its widespread use would also drive up food prices. The same applies to waste oil (except the food part). This reminds me of historical accounts of the early days of cars, when gasoline was a dirt-cheap throw-away byproduct of kerosine refining -- that situation changed very quickly when cars became commonplace.
The fuel and emissions prospects for diesel engines lead me to think that the idea of diesel cars, as a large-scale replacement for today's increasingly-troublesome gas cars, is as inadequately-analyzed and wishful-thinking an enterprise as the current foredoomed hybrid and fuel-cell efforts. But it's not so bad, somehow, to know that even after the current auto-techno-fads go flooey, the industry has yet another subsidy-sucking dead-end techno-economic flop waiting in the wings. Perhaps this is not so disturbing, because we know of a certain alternative automotive powerplant which actually has the potential to deliver a fun, affordable, & practical ride no matter what energy or emissions conditions prevail in the future.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2004 07:01PM
<HTML>Hi Peter
I think you are way off base on your diesel fuel rant. A lot of what could be diesel fuel is further cracked. A vary large percentage of crud oil can be turned into diesel. And when it comes to biodiesel. It would get cheeper with demand. Most of what goes into making bio fuels is waste from regular crops. Plant stalks etc. It wouldn't have much effect on food production. Our farm output capicity is no ware near maxed out. And you are paying for that unused production capacity by paying farmers not to plant. Most of my farm was in the CRP program this year. Around here, last time I checked, we get $75.00/acer not to plant. I rent my farm out at $65/acer.
Andy</HTML>
I think you are way off base on your diesel fuel rant. A lot of what could be diesel fuel is further cracked. A vary large percentage of crud oil can be turned into diesel. And when it comes to biodiesel. It would get cheeper with demand. Most of what goes into making bio fuels is waste from regular crops. Plant stalks etc. It wouldn't have much effect on food production. Our farm output capicity is no ware near maxed out. And you are paying for that unused production capacity by paying farmers not to plant. Most of my farm was in the CRP program this year. Around here, last time I checked, we get $75.00/acer not to plant. I rent my farm out at $65/acer.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 06, 2004 02:58AM
<HTML>Hi Andy,
True, they can make more diesel, but that still leaves the problem of what to do with the leftover lighter fractions if there is a major shift from gas to diesel.
Also keep in mind the difference between what they can do and what they will do. It is expensive to change a refinery to make less gasoline and more diesel. It won't put any oil companies out of business, but it is enough of a cost to eat into the bottom line. By cutting gas prices and raising diesel in response to a demand shift from gas to diesel, oil companies can avoid retooling costs, keep the profit margin about the same, and turn back the fuel shift in about the same time frame that an expensive retooling would take. It happened before.
That was a hard core rant, but I've been following the diesel research (already highly subsidized, & increasingly so) and the idea that it is the next official non-starter "alternative" to the gas engine, while steam is laughed off or merely ignored as if it does not even exist, really ¶1$$3$ me off sometimes. For every flop, there is an equal and opposite replacement flop waiting in the wings, sheesh, what a waste. I like diesels. Rented a large diesel truck recently for hauling machine tools, and was very impressed by its low-end torque and low fuel cost. Way better than the same-sized gas trucks I've rented. And that wasn't even one of the new ones; a dumpy old 80s-era GMC.
Yes, biofuels can be made from ag waste like corn stalks, etc, but not biodiesel. Biodiesel is (easily/cheaply btw) made from high-grade vegetable oils, and the BTU yield per acre in that form is very low relative to what you can get from waste cellulose, esp pelletized solid fuels. I'm a big believer in biofuels, btw; biodiesel is about the only one I have serious doubts about. For now, contaminated/used deep fryer oil is plentiful and dirt cheap: diesel and steam it at will! I'm only saying that if much more widely used, it would get expensive. It's not a viable large-scale replacement for petroleum fuels.
One thing that I think may quietly & gradually make a lot of these issues moot is the "oil from anything" thermal depolymerization process you mentioned on the SACA list. It's economical and profitable, and vast supplies of sewage, ag waste, landscaping waste, trash, etc exist to feed it. That may very well be the thing that replaces petroleum.
Don't EVEN get me started on agricultural subsidies. You are right on about that. Most insane waste of all time. When you think of what people could do with all those fallow acres and all those tax dollars ...
Peter</HTML>
True, they can make more diesel, but that still leaves the problem of what to do with the leftover lighter fractions if there is a major shift from gas to diesel.
Also keep in mind the difference between what they can do and what they will do. It is expensive to change a refinery to make less gasoline and more diesel. It won't put any oil companies out of business, but it is enough of a cost to eat into the bottom line. By cutting gas prices and raising diesel in response to a demand shift from gas to diesel, oil companies can avoid retooling costs, keep the profit margin about the same, and turn back the fuel shift in about the same time frame that an expensive retooling would take. It happened before.
That was a hard core rant, but I've been following the diesel research (already highly subsidized, & increasingly so) and the idea that it is the next official non-starter "alternative" to the gas engine, while steam is laughed off or merely ignored as if it does not even exist, really ¶1$$3$ me off sometimes. For every flop, there is an equal and opposite replacement flop waiting in the wings, sheesh, what a waste. I like diesels. Rented a large diesel truck recently for hauling machine tools, and was very impressed by its low-end torque and low fuel cost. Way better than the same-sized gas trucks I've rented. And that wasn't even one of the new ones; a dumpy old 80s-era GMC.
Yes, biofuels can be made from ag waste like corn stalks, etc, but not biodiesel. Biodiesel is (easily/cheaply btw) made from high-grade vegetable oils, and the BTU yield per acre in that form is very low relative to what you can get from waste cellulose, esp pelletized solid fuels. I'm a big believer in biofuels, btw; biodiesel is about the only one I have serious doubts about. For now, contaminated/used deep fryer oil is plentiful and dirt cheap: diesel and steam it at will! I'm only saying that if much more widely used, it would get expensive. It's not a viable large-scale replacement for petroleum fuels.
One thing that I think may quietly & gradually make a lot of these issues moot is the "oil from anything" thermal depolymerization process you mentioned on the SACA list. It's economical and profitable, and vast supplies of sewage, ag waste, landscaping waste, trash, etc exist to feed it. That may very well be the thing that replaces petroleum.
Don't EVEN get me started on agricultural subsidies. You are right on about that. Most insane waste of all time. When you think of what people could do with all those fallow acres and all those tax dollars ...
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 06, 2004 12:54PM
<HTML>Hi Andy,
I wanted to clarify a few points. On biodiesel, fresh vegetable oils are a lot more valuable and expensive than waste oils. My point was that with a major shift to biodiesel, currently available waste oil would be quickly bought up / contracted for, and then larger supplies of fresh vegetable oil would have to be produced for fuel use at a much higher price.
When estimating the price of biodiesel, remember that the market price of fresh vegetable oils is not the thing to compare to petroleum-based diesel fuel. Add the same road fuel tax applied to diesel & gasoline before making the comparison. Biodiesel might be tax-exempt at first, due to government programs to encourage its use, but if major usage were achieved, road taxes would almost certainly be reapplied and (perhaps gradually) increased to the same level per gallon ("all road users must contribute their fair share").
Also, if we saw cuts in the production cost of vegetable fuel oil (possible if produced in less-pure grade for fuel instead of food use), you can be sure that even more taxes would be added to gobble up the difference for "fairness" sake (a "windfall profits tax" on biodiesel producers?), with a little help from the politically influential petroleum industry.
If fresh vegetable oil price + same tax per gallon = same pump price as petroleum diesel, then biodiesel might have a chance. But also figure in the average vegetable oil yield per acre, and the number of unused acres available. I suspect that a program to replace gasoline with biodiesel would require more currently-unused farm acreage than is now available. You don't get much vegetable oil per acre, and there's an awful lot of petroleum to replace. I ran the numbers on cellulose production per acre a couple years ago, and even with several times as much cellulose produced per acre as vegetable oil, the barrels of petroleum per acre energy yield equivalent was disappointingly low. For vegetable oil fuel, the energy yield per acre would be worse than with cellulose.
And, even if that can all be worked out, diesels still have the Nox problem. Lest that be dismissed as mere absurd enviro-extremist chicken-littleism (of which there is plenty elsewhere), consider that nitric oxide (chemical abbr "NO" or NOX, not to be confused with N2O or nitrous oxide), turns to nitric acid on contact with water, either as airborne acid vapor or acid rain when generated in contact with atmospheric humidity, or as acid generated in contact with surface water in mucous membranes, lung tissue surfaces, etc in the human body.
Even at low levels, Nox is a serious respiratory irritant, injurious or deadly in higher concentrations (especially to older folks & ill people), and highly destructive to metals, concrete, stone, and other materials in urban areas. The Parthenon in Athens, and innumerable other structures, including bridges, have been seriously damaged by acidic pollution, and in Los Angeles in the past, and many cities today (esp 3rd world, China, India, etc), Nox makes the air painful to breathe and contributes to many illnesses and deaths, especially during heavy smog episodes. These problems are not imaginary projections, doom scenarios, or scare stories, but everyday realities in many parts of the world right now. Costly property destruction, discomfort, pain, injury and death, not to mention acid rain damage to forests and agriculture -- are these worth the greater energy efficiency of high-pressure combustion?
The increasing numbers and concentration of automobiles in urban areas compounds the problem. Cars have to get cleaner than they are today, to allow liveable urban areas in the future. When it comes to Nox, a large-scale switch to diesel cars would make cars dirtier -- or perhaps only as dirty as today's gas cars, not good enough.
Stack scrubbers can capture almost all Nox in the form of nitric acid, but this requires treatment of exhaust with water, then cooling of exhaust to 200°F or less to condense the water & acid vapors. The square footage, size, weight, fan horsepower, & cost of an acid-resistant heat exchanger to do this, in even a very efficient diesel car with relatively low exhaust temperatures, make this idea look impractical for road use. Then there is disposal of the recovered acid -- a dual-nozzle pump at filling stations, one nozzle delivering fuel and the other sucking out dilute nitric acid? Works great in large stationary powerplants, though, and they even make money selling the nitric acid.
All the methods of reducing Nox generation in diesel cylinders, which I have read about to date, involve reducing cylinder pressures and temperatures, which reduces the power to weight ratio and efficiency of the diesel engine. Perhaps there is some practical and economical method of reducing diesel engine Nox to Otto engine levels (or lower), which I have not read about; if so, I will re-evaluate this issue.
Peter</HTML>
I wanted to clarify a few points. On biodiesel, fresh vegetable oils are a lot more valuable and expensive than waste oils. My point was that with a major shift to biodiesel, currently available waste oil would be quickly bought up / contracted for, and then larger supplies of fresh vegetable oil would have to be produced for fuel use at a much higher price.
When estimating the price of biodiesel, remember that the market price of fresh vegetable oils is not the thing to compare to petroleum-based diesel fuel. Add the same road fuel tax applied to diesel & gasoline before making the comparison. Biodiesel might be tax-exempt at first, due to government programs to encourage its use, but if major usage were achieved, road taxes would almost certainly be reapplied and (perhaps gradually) increased to the same level per gallon ("all road users must contribute their fair share").
Also, if we saw cuts in the production cost of vegetable fuel oil (possible if produced in less-pure grade for fuel instead of food use), you can be sure that even more taxes would be added to gobble up the difference for "fairness" sake (a "windfall profits tax" on biodiesel producers?), with a little help from the politically influential petroleum industry.
If fresh vegetable oil price + same tax per gallon = same pump price as petroleum diesel, then biodiesel might have a chance. But also figure in the average vegetable oil yield per acre, and the number of unused acres available. I suspect that a program to replace gasoline with biodiesel would require more currently-unused farm acreage than is now available. You don't get much vegetable oil per acre, and there's an awful lot of petroleum to replace. I ran the numbers on cellulose production per acre a couple years ago, and even with several times as much cellulose produced per acre as vegetable oil, the barrels of petroleum per acre energy yield equivalent was disappointingly low. For vegetable oil fuel, the energy yield per acre would be worse than with cellulose.
And, even if that can all be worked out, diesels still have the Nox problem. Lest that be dismissed as mere absurd enviro-extremist chicken-littleism (of which there is plenty elsewhere), consider that nitric oxide (chemical abbr "NO" or NOX, not to be confused with N2O or nitrous oxide), turns to nitric acid on contact with water, either as airborne acid vapor or acid rain when generated in contact with atmospheric humidity, or as acid generated in contact with surface water in mucous membranes, lung tissue surfaces, etc in the human body.
Even at low levels, Nox is a serious respiratory irritant, injurious or deadly in higher concentrations (especially to older folks & ill people), and highly destructive to metals, concrete, stone, and other materials in urban areas. The Parthenon in Athens, and innumerable other structures, including bridges, have been seriously damaged by acidic pollution, and in Los Angeles in the past, and many cities today (esp 3rd world, China, India, etc), Nox makes the air painful to breathe and contributes to many illnesses and deaths, especially during heavy smog episodes. These problems are not imaginary projections, doom scenarios, or scare stories, but everyday realities in many parts of the world right now. Costly property destruction, discomfort, pain, injury and death, not to mention acid rain damage to forests and agriculture -- are these worth the greater energy efficiency of high-pressure combustion?
The increasing numbers and concentration of automobiles in urban areas compounds the problem. Cars have to get cleaner than they are today, to allow liveable urban areas in the future. When it comes to Nox, a large-scale switch to diesel cars would make cars dirtier -- or perhaps only as dirty as today's gas cars, not good enough.
Stack scrubbers can capture almost all Nox in the form of nitric acid, but this requires treatment of exhaust with water, then cooling of exhaust to 200°F or less to condense the water & acid vapors. The square footage, size, weight, fan horsepower, & cost of an acid-resistant heat exchanger to do this, in even a very efficient diesel car with relatively low exhaust temperatures, make this idea look impractical for road use. Then there is disposal of the recovered acid -- a dual-nozzle pump at filling stations, one nozzle delivering fuel and the other sucking out dilute nitric acid? Works great in large stationary powerplants, though, and they even make money selling the nitric acid.
All the methods of reducing Nox generation in diesel cylinders, which I have read about to date, involve reducing cylinder pressures and temperatures, which reduces the power to weight ratio and efficiency of the diesel engine. Perhaps there is some practical and economical method of reducing diesel engine Nox to Otto engine levels (or lower), which I have not read about; if so, I will re-evaluate this issue.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 06, 2004 04:12PM
<HTML>Internal combustion and NOx troubles will never be solved because the temperatures needed for combustion are high enough to cause the NOx reaction and combustion pressures act as a catalyst. Diesels are worse because of the combustion pressures. It will always be an "after the fact" correction with pollution control equiptment on IC engines. They have a very hard time finding metal that can take continous condensation of nitric acid and the metals are heavy. Besides with that size condenser you might as well have a steamer.
Higher fractions can be hydrogenated to produce lower fractions by the application of heat to the hydrocarbon in a hydrogen atmosphere. It is easily done with out great cost, and at some refineries right now, but it is a tiny fraction of refinery output. To increase this type of production to a scale required by a change to diesel vehicles would take years and $ billions. Refineries are very specific as to the raw stock they can use and also what comes out of them. Most accept a narrow range of crude and output as much gasoline as possible from that stock and it takes major investments to convert for different inputs and outputs. Right now gasoline is about 3 weeks old as you burn it in your car so there would have to be a almost perfect match of diesel production to diesel cars introduced to the highways.
Fuel companies won't want to spend a penny to change and neither will the car companies and I don't see them working together any time soon on this one.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Higher fractions can be hydrogenated to produce lower fractions by the application of heat to the hydrocarbon in a hydrogen atmosphere. It is easily done with out great cost, and at some refineries right now, but it is a tiny fraction of refinery output. To increase this type of production to a scale required by a change to diesel vehicles would take years and $ billions. Refineries are very specific as to the raw stock they can use and also what comes out of them. Most accept a narrow range of crude and output as much gasoline as possible from that stock and it takes major investments to convert for different inputs and outputs. Right now gasoline is about 3 weeks old as you burn it in your car so there would have to be a almost perfect match of diesel production to diesel cars introduced to the highways.
Fuel companies won't want to spend a penny to change and neither will the car companies and I don't see them working together any time soon on this one.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 06, 2004 06:04PM
<HTML>Pressure from plastic sales seems to be pushing refineries in the heavier fraction direction anyway.Exxon in Sliddel,La.would like everythin flat and unchangeing ,but the ethel plastic market is still increasing whether you want to remodel equipment or not.Same for Lake Charles and Baytown....
The new LNG plant that Contango among other working partners are putting in near Baytown. Promises to relieve the problem of running out of lighter fraction to hydrogenerate. Which in part is the reason you would want equipment set instead of everchanging in addition to the money expense.Gasoline is presently doing same thing in natural gas area,as the diesel you were talking about in the oil area.Yes you can make gasoline of out natural gas....may not want to ,but you work with the chemicals at hand to match products that are needed.Sometimes easier said than done....</HTML>
The new LNG plant that Contango among other working partners are putting in near Baytown. Promises to relieve the problem of running out of lighter fraction to hydrogenerate. Which in part is the reason you would want equipment set instead of everchanging in addition to the money expense.Gasoline is presently doing same thing in natural gas area,as the diesel you were talking about in the oil area.Yes you can make gasoline of out natural gas....may not want to ,but you work with the chemicals at hand to match products that are needed.Sometimes easier said than done....</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 06, 2004 06:42PM
<HTML>One other point....the news service and to some extent the general public
blabbles about our odd bedfellows in the Middle East Oil countries with18% of our supply.Never a word about our worse problem of Fox
natioalizing oil if we don't meet his evey demand.While controling upwards of 3 times that amount of oil dependent from Central America.... Fox has without fial acted the opposite way by his south neighbors as he has been with the U.S.But then as a U.S.citizen try buying a business or let a Visa expire in his country...it is notwhat Fox expects of the US on Mexican citizens.US Oil and railroads in that country have already lost everything due government siezure for nationalization during the 80's.
But since it is a different leader ,UNion Pacific has virtual total control of Mexican rail.And oil companies are flocking in on a promise the govrnment won't steal land and equipment again.....
Now if them Cuban and Haitians could strike oil.....</HTML>
blabbles about our odd bedfellows in the Middle East Oil countries with18% of our supply.Never a word about our worse problem of Fox
natioalizing oil if we don't meet his evey demand.While controling upwards of 3 times that amount of oil dependent from Central America.... Fox has without fial acted the opposite way by his south neighbors as he has been with the U.S.But then as a U.S.citizen try buying a business or let a Visa expire in his country...it is notwhat Fox expects of the US on Mexican citizens.US Oil and railroads in that country have already lost everything due government siezure for nationalization during the 80's.
But since it is a different leader ,UNion Pacific has virtual total control of Mexican rail.And oil companies are flocking in on a promise the govrnment won't steal land and equipment again.....
Now if them Cuban and Haitians could strike oil.....</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 06, 2004 07:30PM
<HTML>Frankly,I think the general public will go for a diesel car in the same fashion as they have for a diesel motorcycle.Yeah that Enfield or MZ gets 200MPG out of a 580cc Robin or Hatz engine .And NATO troops have brought them worldwide.But how many of them do you see with a kid cruising the maindrag thru town.</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 06, 2004 08:00PM
<HTML>You ever noticed that when someone talks about hybrids or banning diesels.......
The focus is only cars and trucks....never lawn mowers,generators,ag tractors or ?????
So,if hybrid cars are so important...why aren't we not seeing a hybrid John Deere or Cat pushed for the farm,warehouse, or construction site?</HTML>
The focus is only cars and trucks....never lawn mowers,generators,ag tractors or ?????
So,if hybrid cars are so important...why aren't we not seeing a hybrid John Deere or Cat pushed for the farm,warehouse, or construction site?</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 07, 2004 10:34AM
<HTML>Peter: A couple sources I have found over the years mentioned hydrogenation, but only in connection with plastics, as mentioned by Arnold. One source stated that it was uneconomical for fuel production, but per your comments, that may only have been in comparison with straight-run or cracked fuel, and maybe not by a huge margin. Oddly, mild steel containers/piping are used in nitric acid production, but in a diesel exhaust scrubber there would be carbonic acid, oxygen, water vapor, etc -- combined with nitric acid, an incredibly bad mix to expose mild steel (or just about anything short of gold or platinum plated materials) to, especially at engine exhaust temperatures. Maybe somebody will come up with a miracle NOx filter analogous to catalytic converters, but I don't see how. Remember that the larger NOx-scrubber heat exchanger would be in addition to the normal block-cooling radiator, unless the engine were air-cooled. I think that a steamer could be built with a much smaller & lighter waste-heat rejector (condenser) than such a system.
Agree that fuel and car companies are unlikely to change everything around for a costly gas-to-diesel changeover, especially with the continuing public disinterest in diesel cars. The diesel research articles I have read, plus Jim's insider info, seem to indicate that advanced diesel passenger cars of the future will be government/environmentalist-placating, "greenwashed", limited-production, below-cost-priced, subsidized "showcase products", replacing hybrid and fuel cell cars in that role. I would count on real improvements to production diesel vehicles and other diesel equipment, though.
Many heavy diesel vehicles may be phased out, however. In San Diego, they are replacing old diesel buses with Otto-engined natural gas buses. I live right on a city bus line, and rarely see the diesel buses out my front window any more. I think they are completely phasing out the diesel buses. The CNG buses are quieter, which is nice. But considering the massive idling waste, pure stop/go drive cycle, and light ridership/low engine load, I can't help but think that any halfway-decently-designed CNG-powered steam bus would use substantially less fuel, and have substantially longer range! Clean enough that they might also use gas or diesel fuel at comparable overall cost (cheaper/lighter fuel equipment). Not to mention dead-silent, lower powerplant purchase/maintenance cost, and cleaner running. The lethal comparison with diesel buses is now a moot point.
For long-haul trucks and buses, steam would be wasteful compared to diesel, unless clean burning of cheap solid fuels (biofuel pellets, desulphured coal, etc) were developed/allowed for steam trucks, and not taxed into oblivion -- a big "if".
Arnold: Thanks for the interesting notes on refinery operations. Drove thru Port Charles a year ago, downtown is practically a ghost town (mainly due to shrimping decline) and gas flares from the refinery complexes a few blocks away glow at night like a scene straight out of Hell. Absolutely medieval, Heironymus Bosch eat your heart out. Easily the most bizarre and memorable scene of the whole Easy Rider (mint '65 Cuda inst of Harleys tho) CA-N'awlins Mardi Gras road trip.
I think the rationale behind exempting smaller diesel engines from pollution controls has been that they are fewer/smaller, and they produce less acid and other toxic garbage than diesel trucks and cars. However, their smog exemption, too, may be in serious danger now, from little bits I have read here and there. They are already cracking down on small gas engines.
Peter</HTML>
Agree that fuel and car companies are unlikely to change everything around for a costly gas-to-diesel changeover, especially with the continuing public disinterest in diesel cars. The diesel research articles I have read, plus Jim's insider info, seem to indicate that advanced diesel passenger cars of the future will be government/environmentalist-placating, "greenwashed", limited-production, below-cost-priced, subsidized "showcase products", replacing hybrid and fuel cell cars in that role. I would count on real improvements to production diesel vehicles and other diesel equipment, though.
Many heavy diesel vehicles may be phased out, however. In San Diego, they are replacing old diesel buses with Otto-engined natural gas buses. I live right on a city bus line, and rarely see the diesel buses out my front window any more. I think they are completely phasing out the diesel buses. The CNG buses are quieter, which is nice. But considering the massive idling waste, pure stop/go drive cycle, and light ridership/low engine load, I can't help but think that any halfway-decently-designed CNG-powered steam bus would use substantially less fuel, and have substantially longer range! Clean enough that they might also use gas or diesel fuel at comparable overall cost (cheaper/lighter fuel equipment). Not to mention dead-silent, lower powerplant purchase/maintenance cost, and cleaner running. The lethal comparison with diesel buses is now a moot point.
For long-haul trucks and buses, steam would be wasteful compared to diesel, unless clean burning of cheap solid fuels (biofuel pellets, desulphured coal, etc) were developed/allowed for steam trucks, and not taxed into oblivion -- a big "if".
Arnold: Thanks for the interesting notes on refinery operations. Drove thru Port Charles a year ago, downtown is practically a ghost town (mainly due to shrimping decline) and gas flares from the refinery complexes a few blocks away glow at night like a scene straight out of Hell. Absolutely medieval, Heironymus Bosch eat your heart out. Easily the most bizarre and memorable scene of the whole Easy Rider (mint '65 Cuda inst of Harleys tho) CA-N'awlins Mardi Gras road trip.
I think the rationale behind exempting smaller diesel engines from pollution controls has been that they are fewer/smaller, and they produce less acid and other toxic garbage than diesel trucks and cars. However, their smog exemption, too, may be in serious danger now, from little bits I have read here and there. They are already cracking down on small gas engines.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 08, 2004 07:23AM
<HTML>The maintenace expense is higher on CNG than diesel as well...seen schools put the stuff in during the late80's early 90's.Only to have the mechanic begging for mercy within a couple of years wear time.
Would think a steamer might have an edge on that point over CNG as well.</HTML>
Would think a steamer might have an edge on that point over CNG as well.</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 08, 2004 08:41AM
<HTML>In a sense you are both right hydrogenation.....you are talking multi reaction steps centered on Fisher-Tropsch processes....
A lot of people can remember German sctientist fleeing Nazzi Germany and figure they were rocket propelsion or physist.
But there were chemist that could take piece of coal turn it into all the explosives,plastics,and fuel used by the Third Reith.By Fischer-Tropsch
processes that the US did not have.
The refineries took 200-300 of them form the 30's to the 50's.....
Back on topic both are used in combination.
On the catalitic for NOx Hexaaluminate seems to be the direction for diesels and turbines.4 others are in the running,but that looks to be leading at the moment.The other have problems with clogging etc.
Cataltic convertors are Fisher-Tropsch process on a car.</HTML>
A lot of people can remember German sctientist fleeing Nazzi Germany and figure they were rocket propelsion or physist.
But there were chemist that could take piece of coal turn it into all the explosives,plastics,and fuel used by the Third Reith.By Fischer-Tropsch
processes that the US did not have.
The refineries took 200-300 of them form the 30's to the 50's.....
Back on topic both are used in combination.
On the catalitic for NOx Hexaaluminate seems to be the direction for diesels and turbines.4 others are in the running,but that looks to be leading at the moment.The other have problems with clogging etc.
Cataltic convertors are Fisher-Tropsch process on a car.</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 08, 2004 02:37PM
<HTML>Arnold,
How about altering existing hybrid trains so the electric power can get them out of congested areas before they fire up the IC power.
I can just picture a $2000.00 hybrid push mower that is too heavy to push, only has enough power to cut the grass if it is under 4 inches tall, is cost subsidized so it retails for $250.00 and emissions tune ups are $100.00 a year with a $50.00 yearly emissions test fee.
The ships in a busy sea port are equal to about 1 million automobiles in daily emissions. It might be more effective to focus on this source of air pollution than just autos because each ship is equal to many many cars. Each improved vessel is a larger percentage of the total than each auto.
Peter Heid</HTML>
How about altering existing hybrid trains so the electric power can get them out of congested areas before they fire up the IC power.
I can just picture a $2000.00 hybrid push mower that is too heavy to push, only has enough power to cut the grass if it is under 4 inches tall, is cost subsidized so it retails for $250.00 and emissions tune ups are $100.00 a year with a $50.00 yearly emissions test fee.
The ships in a busy sea port are equal to about 1 million automobiles in daily emissions. It might be more effective to focus on this source of air pollution than just autos because each ship is equal to many many cars. Each improved vessel is a larger percentage of the total than each auto.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 08, 2004 04:36PM
<HTML>Hi Peter,
Ironically, a few minutes before reading your suggestion of improving diesel ship emissions, I read an Internet research paper on that exact subject! I did some more reading on the NOx issue. There are some technologies out there that can cut the NOx substantially, but they all require bunches of energy.
The Non-Thermal Plasma (NPT) process is the nicest, 97% reduction and potentially simple/cheap equipment, but lots of electricity input, cutting the whole system's efficiency. The catalytic systems take diesel fuel directly to run the absorption, desorption and reduction processes, fuel right out the tailpipe. There is a delightful system with about 95% reduction, alas the reaction consumes a supply of ammonia or urea -- add another tube in the fuel station nozzle? Argonne labs has a glowing report on a recent "major" diesel NOx breakthrough involving oxygen enrichment, but the fine print reveals only about a 10-15% reduction, not good enough.
All these NOx reduction methods have serious problems with both energy consumption and varying engine loads. But some of the methods are wonderfully simple in principle. I have to say that diesel NOx control now looks much more technically feasible to me -- and much less practical and economical!
The ultralow-NOx methods, like NTP and the ammonia/urea system, look like good candidates for "promising future technology" subsidy programs, a la today's hybrid and fuel cell car programs.
Still, somebody may yet come up with a big practical breakthrough that slashes diesel NOx to very low levels under varying engine loads without serious energy or money penalties. Maybe a cheap little self-contained chemical reactor in the exhaust pipe, or a cheap/compact filter/absorber that is changed now and then. There is a lot of research going on out there. Rats, after all that reading, now even _I'm_ thinking about ways to do it!
If anybody knows of some recent diesel NOx breakthrough that I or the search engines missed, please post it or send me a link. I have serious doubts about the cost/practicality of it, but it is a surprisingly fascinating technical challenge.
Peter</HTML>
Ironically, a few minutes before reading your suggestion of improving diesel ship emissions, I read an Internet research paper on that exact subject! I did some more reading on the NOx issue. There are some technologies out there that can cut the NOx substantially, but they all require bunches of energy.
The Non-Thermal Plasma (NPT) process is the nicest, 97% reduction and potentially simple/cheap equipment, but lots of electricity input, cutting the whole system's efficiency. The catalytic systems take diesel fuel directly to run the absorption, desorption and reduction processes, fuel right out the tailpipe. There is a delightful system with about 95% reduction, alas the reaction consumes a supply of ammonia or urea -- add another tube in the fuel station nozzle? Argonne labs has a glowing report on a recent "major" diesel NOx breakthrough involving oxygen enrichment, but the fine print reveals only about a 10-15% reduction, not good enough.
All these NOx reduction methods have serious problems with both energy consumption and varying engine loads. But some of the methods are wonderfully simple in principle. I have to say that diesel NOx control now looks much more technically feasible to me -- and much less practical and economical!
The ultralow-NOx methods, like NTP and the ammonia/urea system, look like good candidates for "promising future technology" subsidy programs, a la today's hybrid and fuel cell car programs.
Still, somebody may yet come up with a big practical breakthrough that slashes diesel NOx to very low levels under varying engine loads without serious energy or money penalties. Maybe a cheap little self-contained chemical reactor in the exhaust pipe, or a cheap/compact filter/absorber that is changed now and then. There is a lot of research going on out there. Rats, after all that reading, now even _I'm_ thinking about ways to do it!
If anybody knows of some recent diesel NOx breakthrough that I or the search engines missed, please post it or send me a link. I have serious doubts about the cost/practicality of it, but it is a surprisingly fascinating technical challenge.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 08, 2004 08:10PM
<HTML>Arnold, Peter,
The reason Diesel motorcycles/mopeds are not sold here is that not one bike shop in this whole area ever heard about such a thing.
If you are really concerned about pollution, then let's stop having kids.
Reverse the income tax: For every one brat you pay a flat $5,000 tax every year until he/she is on the payroll. Two of them, then it is $7500 each per year.
And, just think about all the jet aircraft spewing tons of soot and pollution high up in the atmosphere.
See why I can't be concerned about car pollution? They are only a highly visable target for the tree huggers.
Jim</HTML>
The reason Diesel motorcycles/mopeds are not sold here is that not one bike shop in this whole area ever heard about such a thing.
If you are really concerned about pollution, then let's stop having kids.
Reverse the income tax: For every one brat you pay a flat $5,000 tax every year until he/she is on the payroll. Two of them, then it is $7500 each per year.
And, just think about all the jet aircraft spewing tons of soot and pollution high up in the atmosphere.
See why I can't be concerned about car pollution? They are only a highly visable target for the tree huggers.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 09, 2004 01:27PM
<HTML>Your right Jim,
But you forgot to mention it is easier to attack the problem on the personal level and everyone has a car. It is harder to pin the individual environmental concern on a multiuser corporate owned jet, ship or train.
Peter Heid</HTML>
But you forgot to mention it is easier to attack the problem on the personal level and everyone has a car. It is harder to pin the individual environmental concern on a multiuser corporate owned jet, ship or train.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 09, 2004 02:14PM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
Well, I've been in LA and some other areas where it was hard to breathe, and I like cities with clean air, but still the main reason I'm interested in the smog issue is that the government is. IMO, they shouldn't be, but they are and we have to work around that.
The real solution is developing/marketing competitive products that don't pollute in the first place. I have to grin at the diesel/steam issue: the steam car can be clean enough to breathe from the tailpipe on a regular basis, but no, it uses more fuel, oil depletion, greenhouse effect, etc, so diesels are better because they use less fuel and put less carbon in the atmosphere, but wait they pollute more in other ways ...
If somebody successfully developed, mass-produced, and mass-marketed a nice-performing steam car, I think people would gladly line up to buy it (few care about fuel mileage in the final analysis), it would save them money overall regardless of the fuel mileage (the practical real-world MPG difference is usually grossly overstated, as with the "hybrid hype" which started this thread), and so long car pollution problems for good, without even trying. No mandates, subsidies, tax credits/penalties, bans, smog controls, vehicle inspections, "public/private partnerships", etc needed. Electric cars are Exhibit A on how well those things work, and electric hybrids and fuel cells will soon be Exhibits B & C, with "green diesels" lining up for Exhibit D.
If supplies of today's standard fuels ever got tight, the same steam cars could run on any other fuel, and natural increases in one fuel price would attract all the R&D money needed into thriftier engines or more plentiful & cheaper fuels. There are lots of fuel/energy options available; all this technologically illiterate "we're running out of energy and MUST CONSERVE TODAY'S FUELS AT ANY COST" stuff is pure zero-creativity, zero-sum chicken-little baloney designed to stampede the herd.
We'd probably all be driving steam cars now if it weren't for 1,001 govt subsidies to the gas car makers (= no incentive to change), plus all the red tape that makes it nearly impossible to start any business, let alone a car business (= no competition/incentive to change), and taxes that divert incredible mountains of capital from consumers and genuine product-oriented R&D to the pockets of politically influential nonproductives -- which is the real purpose of the panicky nonsense skewered above, enriching both tree hugger dopes on the "Left" AND their dopey dopplegangers on the political "Right": "defending our limited irreplaceable strategic oil supplies worldwide REQUIRES more $800 toilet seats from our campaign contributors at Crapco Inc!".
/rant
"Edison didn't bitch about darkness".
Peter</HTML>
Well, I've been in LA and some other areas where it was hard to breathe, and I like cities with clean air, but still the main reason I'm interested in the smog issue is that the government is. IMO, they shouldn't be, but they are and we have to work around that.
The real solution is developing/marketing competitive products that don't pollute in the first place. I have to grin at the diesel/steam issue: the steam car can be clean enough to breathe from the tailpipe on a regular basis, but no, it uses more fuel, oil depletion, greenhouse effect, etc, so diesels are better because they use less fuel and put less carbon in the atmosphere, but wait they pollute more in other ways ...
If somebody successfully developed, mass-produced, and mass-marketed a nice-performing steam car, I think people would gladly line up to buy it (few care about fuel mileage in the final analysis), it would save them money overall regardless of the fuel mileage (the practical real-world MPG difference is usually grossly overstated, as with the "hybrid hype" which started this thread), and so long car pollution problems for good, without even trying. No mandates, subsidies, tax credits/penalties, bans, smog controls, vehicle inspections, "public/private partnerships", etc needed. Electric cars are Exhibit A on how well those things work, and electric hybrids and fuel cells will soon be Exhibits B & C, with "green diesels" lining up for Exhibit D.
If supplies of today's standard fuels ever got tight, the same steam cars could run on any other fuel, and natural increases in one fuel price would attract all the R&D money needed into thriftier engines or more plentiful & cheaper fuels. There are lots of fuel/energy options available; all this technologically illiterate "we're running out of energy and MUST CONSERVE TODAY'S FUELS AT ANY COST" stuff is pure zero-creativity, zero-sum chicken-little baloney designed to stampede the herd.
We'd probably all be driving steam cars now if it weren't for 1,001 govt subsidies to the gas car makers (= no incentive to change), plus all the red tape that makes it nearly impossible to start any business, let alone a car business (= no competition/incentive to change), and taxes that divert incredible mountains of capital from consumers and genuine product-oriented R&D to the pockets of politically influential nonproductives -- which is the real purpose of the panicky nonsense skewered above, enriching both tree hugger dopes on the "Left" AND their dopey dopplegangers on the political "Right": "defending our limited irreplaceable strategic oil supplies worldwide REQUIRES more $800 toilet seats from our campaign contributors at Crapco Inc!".
/rant
"Edison didn't bitch about darkness".
Peter</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Al Joniec (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2004 04:40PM
<HTML>Gentlemen,
I’m not trying to take sides one way or the other, but regarding diesels, you have to separate the old tech from the new. And yes I know that though old paradigms are hard to break, you need to open you mind to the newest technologies that are happening in the diesel world. The biggest thing going for the new generation diesels is the very high pressure of up to 25,000 + PSI, single rail electronic fuel injector systems. Unlike the lower pressure mechanical system, these high-pressure systems permit the fuel droplet size to be extremely atomization to less than 10 microns. When fuel in not broken down to these very small fuel droplet sizes of say 10 microns, only the outer valance is oxidized in the combustion process and the center of the fuel droplet is left unconsumed (oxygen cannot reach the center) in the combustion process --- and is the source of the old diesels belching black shoot or particulates as they are called.
Also the old mechanical diesels systems had to inject their entire volume of fuel in the combustion chambers at once, typically around 15 degrees BTDC so the peak pressure would be in place at around 15 degrees ATDC. This lead-time is required to permit the combustion gases to expansion in time, so the rod angularity would be in the right position to push on the crank. This put enormous strain on the mechanical components and is the main reasons why diesels were so heavy and/or robust so as to contain these very high TDC peak pressure. These very high peak pressures also produced the diesel knock that you hear and is the main source of the high NOX that diesel are famous for.
With the new high pressure system, not only can they atomized the fuel better, the electronic injector response time are so fast that they can multi pulse the injector in a single 180 power cycle at 2,000 RPM. They inject fuel at the same 15 degrees before BTDC, but only use about 20% of the fuel charge to reduce the peak pressure at TDC (why the new diesels are so quite) and then following the piston down the bore with up to 6 addition partial injection of fuel to attempt to keep a constant pressure on the piston. Almost sound like a steam engine doesn’t it. At any rate, they are already into the second generation of these systems with pizeo electronic injector that permit these extremely fast modulation rates.
Though all of these advantages of high-pressure, electronic fuel injection produce less particulates and NOX, these so equipped diesels still give high (but not as much) levels of particulates and NOX. One of the reasons are that they have to heavily boost the engine thought turbo changing to make good power. They do have the technology to control the NOX, it’s simple selecting the best cost effective technologies to use and things like injecting Urea as one of them. Take a look at [www.dieselnet.com] is will tell you more of what I’m trying to talk about.
What I think that you have to understand is the first law of thermodynamics, which states; that energy cannot be made or destroyed, but just changes its form. That the so-called clean tail pipe emissions and any burning of any fossil based fuels produce Carbine dioxide (CO2). That the CO2 is the direct conversion of the carbon in all of the hydrocarbon based fuel that we are now using. And that diesels use less fuel to do the job is based not only on fuel conservation but the general reduction of CO2. The newest EPA requirements will introduce CO2 limits that encompass these areas. As you may know, CO2 is labeled with the green house effect with is arguably a bigger problem then the standard clean air requirements.
Whether you like it or not, diesels are the most fuel-efficient prime movers yet to date. I think that you will all enjoy checking out this site [www.bath.ac.uk] as it shows you the most powerful (at 108,920 HP) and the most fuel efficient (at a BSFC of .026) engine in the world today with a claimed energy thermal conversion efficiency of over 50%. I wouldn’t want to put it into a car, but it shows you what level of efficiency can be reached.
It’s a complicated matrix and it will stay controversial for some time as only history will tell who is right or wrong regarding the approach to any type of energy utilization with all of it’s ramifications.
Al</HTML>
I’m not trying to take sides one way or the other, but regarding diesels, you have to separate the old tech from the new. And yes I know that though old paradigms are hard to break, you need to open you mind to the newest technologies that are happening in the diesel world. The biggest thing going for the new generation diesels is the very high pressure of up to 25,000 + PSI, single rail electronic fuel injector systems. Unlike the lower pressure mechanical system, these high-pressure systems permit the fuel droplet size to be extremely atomization to less than 10 microns. When fuel in not broken down to these very small fuel droplet sizes of say 10 microns, only the outer valance is oxidized in the combustion process and the center of the fuel droplet is left unconsumed (oxygen cannot reach the center) in the combustion process --- and is the source of the old diesels belching black shoot or particulates as they are called.
Also the old mechanical diesels systems had to inject their entire volume of fuel in the combustion chambers at once, typically around 15 degrees BTDC so the peak pressure would be in place at around 15 degrees ATDC. This lead-time is required to permit the combustion gases to expansion in time, so the rod angularity would be in the right position to push on the crank. This put enormous strain on the mechanical components and is the main reasons why diesels were so heavy and/or robust so as to contain these very high TDC peak pressure. These very high peak pressures also produced the diesel knock that you hear and is the main source of the high NOX that diesel are famous for.
With the new high pressure system, not only can they atomized the fuel better, the electronic injector response time are so fast that they can multi pulse the injector in a single 180 power cycle at 2,000 RPM. They inject fuel at the same 15 degrees before BTDC, but only use about 20% of the fuel charge to reduce the peak pressure at TDC (why the new diesels are so quite) and then following the piston down the bore with up to 6 addition partial injection of fuel to attempt to keep a constant pressure on the piston. Almost sound like a steam engine doesn’t it. At any rate, they are already into the second generation of these systems with pizeo electronic injector that permit these extremely fast modulation rates.
Though all of these advantages of high-pressure, electronic fuel injection produce less particulates and NOX, these so equipped diesels still give high (but not as much) levels of particulates and NOX. One of the reasons are that they have to heavily boost the engine thought turbo changing to make good power. They do have the technology to control the NOX, it’s simple selecting the best cost effective technologies to use and things like injecting Urea as one of them. Take a look at [www.dieselnet.com] is will tell you more of what I’m trying to talk about.
What I think that you have to understand is the first law of thermodynamics, which states; that energy cannot be made or destroyed, but just changes its form. That the so-called clean tail pipe emissions and any burning of any fossil based fuels produce Carbine dioxide (CO2). That the CO2 is the direct conversion of the carbon in all of the hydrocarbon based fuel that we are now using. And that diesels use less fuel to do the job is based not only on fuel conservation but the general reduction of CO2. The newest EPA requirements will introduce CO2 limits that encompass these areas. As you may know, CO2 is labeled with the green house effect with is arguably a bigger problem then the standard clean air requirements.
Whether you like it or not, diesels are the most fuel-efficient prime movers yet to date. I think that you will all enjoy checking out this site [www.bath.ac.uk] as it shows you the most powerful (at 108,920 HP) and the most fuel efficient (at a BSFC of .026) engine in the world today with a claimed energy thermal conversion efficiency of over 50%. I wouldn’t want to put it into a car, but it shows you what level of efficiency can be reached.
It’s a complicated matrix and it will stay controversial for some time as only history will tell who is right or wrong regarding the approach to any type of energy utilization with all of it’s ramifications.
Al</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2004 08:14PM
<HTML>All very interesting. But it seams that CO2 may not be a bad thing. The latest on the science chanel is that wether patterns are very much a result of curent flows under the poler ice caps that equilize water temperatures around the world. All indications are that we are heading for another ice age as ice builds up and shuts down the flow. The current worming is just the peak before temperatures plumit.
Andy</HTML>
Andy</HTML>
Re: Hybrid And Diesel Hype
Posted by: Al Joniec (IP Logged)
Date: July 24, 2004 11:44AM
<HTML>Andy,
I have tons of other studies that show that CO2 is the problem (go to places like the EPA web site) and that you and I will never truly know who is right on this very controversial subject --- at least not in our life time. I try to be neutral and like I stated earlier, I believe that only history will show what is realy happening. So untill there is a technological break through, diesel's are the still the most fuel efficient prime movers and that's why everything else like CO2, NOX etc, will take a back seat.
AL</HTML>
I have tons of other studies that show that CO2 is the problem (go to places like the EPA web site) and that you and I will never truly know who is right on this very controversial subject --- at least not in our life time. I try to be neutral and like I stated earlier, I believe that only history will show what is realy happening. So untill there is a technological break through, diesel's are the still the most fuel efficient prime movers and that's why everything else like CO2, NOX etc, will take a back seat.
AL</HTML>
Re: Hybrid Hype
Posted by: entec (IP Logged)
Date: August 13, 2005 07:47AM
<HTML>we are looking for oil separator for car wash .
also we are looking for oil and grease trap for restaurants.
this restaurants are deferent size small .medium and big .
please if you have any one from two above subject give us information about it and good price .
best regards.
H.ELNAHDY</HTML>
also we are looking for oil and grease trap for restaurants.
this restaurants are deferent size small .medium and big .
please if you have any one from two above subject give us information about it and good price .
best regards.
H.ELNAHDY</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.