RE: Hybrids are the 'next diesel': Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
This reminds me of a Clarkson rambling back in 2009. Hybrids are a mistake. Hydrogen cars backed by Thatcher should have been the way things should have gone.
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/jeremy-clarkson/j...
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/jeremy-clarkson/j...
feef said:
Are you factoring in the power required to refine petroleum fuels??
Was wondering when this would be raised. It's usually forgotten that we have been burning a massive amount of fossil fuel to create the power to turn another fossil fuel into a viable format for burning. You could just stick that power into the grid and run an electric car for a few miles instead. kambites said:
I think the problem is people have a strange desire to believe there is a single best solution for providing motive force in cars. Diesels, petrols, EVs and hybrids all have their various places for people with different requirements.
...coming in here with your fancy common sense...bennyboysvuk said:
This reminds me of a Clarkson rambling back in 2009. Hybrids are a mistake. Hydrogen cars backed by Thatcher should have been the way things should have gone.
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/jeremy-clarkson/j...
He was entirely wrong about hydrogen. It's a terrible solution.https://www.topgear.com/car-news/jeremy-clarkson/j...
otolith said:
bennyboysvuk said:
This reminds me of a Clarkson rambling back in 2009. Hybrids are a mistake. Hydrogen cars backed by Thatcher should have been the way things should have gone.
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/jeremy-clarkson/j...
He was entirely wrong about hydrogen. It's a terrible solution.https://www.topgear.com/car-news/jeremy-clarkson/j...
But in terms of overall resource-consumption / environment-friendliness, there's a strong argument that fuel-cells are less destructive than Li-ion batteries. Go and google photos of that god-awful 'lake' in China...
...and if the energy is being generated by renewable sources (i.e. non-carbon-generating), is the overall energy-efficiency pre-consumer THAT important?
I think we're being diverted down a narrow path that suits those pulling the strings. Given a clean-slate approach, wouldn't we be investing heavily in long-life 'renewables' (including nuclear as the core mid-term generation medium), and off the back of that investing in the lowest-impact fuel solution for transport, not just focusing on quick-fixes and "conversion efficiency" because most of our power still comes from gas and oil/coal???
havoc said:
...and if the energy is being generated by renewable sources (i.e. non-carbon-generating), is the overall energy-efficiency pre-consumer THAT important?
This is very true if we ever have limitless clean electricity, but we don't so the fact that hydrogen requires generating three to four times as much electricity as a grid->battery EV is going to remain significant for a while. Fuel cells also have their own not insignificant requirements in terms of rare materials.
I can't understand why people are obsessed with finding a single catch-all solution. We don't need one and realistically we will never be able to find one.
rtz62 said:
Without the emissions...
The electricity used to charge the cars batteries is produced somewhere, just not usually where legislators and politicians live.
Until we harvest electrickety from wind or sea farms, the semantics are that we are just depositing the carbon footprint somewhere else other than city centres or adjacent to motorways. Or the muitl million £ mansions of the worlds 1% who form the richest demographic.
Funny how we never focus on countries like the good old US of A where vehicular transport is still predominantly gas-guzzling V8's, yet the political powers that be there won't, or darent legislate against them, as it would be seen to be akin to revoking their right to carry arms.
I often wondered when our politicians will turn their attention to banning F1 due to the carbon footprint caused by the fans, the teams travelling by air etc, and thence air transport itself.
Safe to say, those same politicians will no doubt still travel in behemoths that cost a fortune to build and maintain, not only just in the cost of those raw materials to build but also to propel.
As an aside, can anyone tell me why our politicians still insist on travelling to summits by air and road, when video conferencing would be the the most efficient way of 'meeting'? (Yes, I know the answer will include, having jollies, back-handers etc!)
A Prius has no plug. All its energy comes from the petrol you put in its tank. I won't defend the Porsche eHybrid but a Prius is no heavier than its automatic hatchback competition. It has fewer moving parts and much better reliability. It gets better fuel economy than a diesel with much lower smog-causing emissions, all in a practical package with a competitive price. The electricity used to charge the cars batteries is produced somewhere, just not usually where legislators and politicians live.
Until we harvest electrickety from wind or sea farms, the semantics are that we are just depositing the carbon footprint somewhere else other than city centres or adjacent to motorways. Or the muitl million £ mansions of the worlds 1% who form the richest demographic.
Funny how we never focus on countries like the good old US of A where vehicular transport is still predominantly gas-guzzling V8's, yet the political powers that be there won't, or darent legislate against them, as it would be seen to be akin to revoking their right to carry arms.
I often wondered when our politicians will turn their attention to banning F1 due to the carbon footprint caused by the fans, the teams travelling by air etc, and thence air transport itself.
Safe to say, those same politicians will no doubt still travel in behemoths that cost a fortune to build and maintain, not only just in the cost of those raw materials to build but also to propel.
As an aside, can anyone tell me why our politicians still insist on travelling to summits by air and road, when video conferencing would be the the most efficient way of 'meeting'? (Yes, I know the answer will include, having jollies, back-handers etc!)
havoc said:
In terms of full-usage-chain energy efficiency (i.e. conversion and utilisation), absolutely (albeit battery tech has moved on a lot in 8 years).
But in terms of overall resource-consumption / environment-friendliness, there's a strong argument that fuel-cells are less destructive than Li-ion batteries. Go and google photos of that god-awful 'lake' in China...
Mineral abstraction is seldom environmentally benign - but cars are mostly constructed from materials which need that to happen. I think considering the impact of extracting a bit of lithium (or in the case of fuel cells, a bit of platinum) to be a show stopper when you are happy to accept the impact of mining iron, aluminium, nickel and chromium to make the alloys for the body, and smaller amounts of copper, lead, zinc, tin, platinum, palladium, rhodium and neodymium in the electrical and emissions control components is a bit odd.But in terms of overall resource-consumption / environment-friendliness, there's a strong argument that fuel-cells are less destructive than Li-ion batteries. Go and google photos of that god-awful 'lake' in China...
havoc said:
...and if the energy is being generated by renewable sources (i.e. non-carbon-generating), is the overall energy-efficiency pre-consumer THAT important?
Once we have not only replaced all of our generation with renewables but have done it so cheaply that we can afford to be wasteful, for sure. Until it's both clean and too cheap to meter, not so much.998420 said:
Why do you hate the term Virtue Signaling, when it perfectly describes the utterly absurd posturing stupidity we have got ourselves into.
Politicians will say anything to get into power. Look at the center/left now, desperate to churn out anti immigration rhetoric they were denouncing as racist months ago as the polls are telling them they have to, or someone else will get elected.
Just as the Socialists hide their terminally flawed dreams behind lies about looking after the little people, Greens have been shilling and selling Green Business as a public smoke screen of virtuous planet saving, while us, the mug public, pay for it.
Look at your local councilors viewing their latest eco energy center, marvel at the massive backhanders and benefits in kind they have trousered, knowing that Nuclear Energy is cleaner and greener, but lacks the political posturing, the virtue signaling, and the backhanders for them and their kind.
Damn bro, you woke AF.Politicians will say anything to get into power. Look at the center/left now, desperate to churn out anti immigration rhetoric they were denouncing as racist months ago as the polls are telling them they have to, or someone else will get elected.
Just as the Socialists hide their terminally flawed dreams behind lies about looking after the little people, Greens have been shilling and selling Green Business as a public smoke screen of virtuous planet saving, while us, the mug public, pay for it.
Look at your local councilors viewing their latest eco energy center, marvel at the massive backhanders and benefits in kind they have trousered, knowing that Nuclear Energy is cleaner and greener, but lacks the political posturing, the virtue signaling, and the backhanders for them and their kind.
steve1386 said:
I'm sorry, but a Prius will never achieve the same real word economy as a diesel, nor will any hybrid. If the battery is fully charged, then they are only useful in short, stop-start city traffic.
Take one on a motorway for a long journey and you'll be lucky to see 40mpg.
On top of that you have to tell someone you drive a Prius!
I drove my parents 2016 Prius into Manchester and back last night, radar cruise set at 80 on the M6, M62, parked up in the centre then same on the return. Coming back was after midnight so just 80 all the way. Average at 80mph was 60-70mpg, in fact the average for the whole journey was about that. Take one on a motorway for a long journey and you'll be lucky to see 40mpg.
On top of that you have to tell someone you drive a Prius!
It was a really nice drive, got out fresh as a daisy. I would choose the Prius to do the journey over my C220 Auto every day of the week.
My next car will not be a diesel.
loose cannon said:
Tbh with all the jungles and forest's being chopped down for oak furniture village etc the collapse of sustainable fishing in the sea and the constant unsustainable population growth around the world do you really think a battery vehicle is going to save the planet 
Do shut up you old fart.You sound genuinely off your head with all those emojis.
otolith said:
havoc said:
In terms of full-usage-chain energy efficiency (i.e. conversion and utilisation), absolutely (albeit battery tech has moved on a lot in 8 years).
But in terms of overall resource-consumption / environment-friendliness, there's a strong argument that fuel-cells are less destructive than Li-ion batteries. Go and google photos of that god-awful 'lake' in China...
Mineral abstraction is seldom environmentally benign - but cars are mostly constructed from materials which need that to happen. I think considering the impact of extracting a bit of lithium (or in the case of fuel cells, a bit of platinum) to be a show stopper when you are happy to accept the impact of mining iron, aluminium, nickel and chromium to make the alloys for the body, and smaller amounts of copper, lead, zinc, tin, platinum, palladium, rhodium and neodymium in the electrical and emissions control components is a bit odd.But in terms of overall resource-consumption / environment-friendliness, there's a strong argument that fuel-cells are less destructive than Li-ion batteries. Go and google photos of that god-awful 'lake' in China...
havoc said:
...and if the energy is being generated by renewable sources (i.e. non-carbon-generating), is the overall energy-efficiency pre-consumer THAT important?
Once we have not only replaced all of our generation with renewables but have done it so cheaply that we can afford to be wasteful, for sure. Until it's both clean and too cheap to meter, not so much.I still maintain that a fuel-cell is a 'purer' solution from an engineering perspective, but it's also a more idealistic one...and as you both point out, we don't live in an ideal world...
havoc said:
I think we're being diverted down a narrow path that suits those pulling the strings. Given a clean-slate approach, wouldn't we be investing heavily in long-life 'renewables' (including nuclear as the core mid-term generation medium), and off the back of that investing in the lowest-impact fuel solution for transport, not just focusing on quick-fixes and "conversion efficiency" because most of our power still comes from gas and oil/coal???
That about sums it up for me as well, Politicians meddling in something they know absolutely nothing about.Fuel cells are closer to the usage pattern people are used to - run it empty, take it to a fuel shop and quickly fill up again. I think, though, that once people get used to an EV scenario where they stick the car on to trickle charge whenever they aren't using it, the idea of going back to having to go specifically to a refilling station will not seem like an improvement.
I think when Clarkson wrote that piece, the idea of retaining ICE cars and fuelling them with hydrogen still looked like a viable way of maintaining the status quo. Unimaginably inefficient now.
I think when Clarkson wrote that piece, the idea of retaining ICE cars and fuelling them with hydrogen still looked like a viable way of maintaining the status quo. Unimaginably inefficient now.
buggalugs said:
I drove my parents 2016 Prius into Manchester and back last night, radar cruise set at 80 on the M6, M62, parked up in the centre then same on the return. Coming back was after midnight so just 80 all the way. Average at 80mph was 60-70mpg, in fact the average for the whole journey was about that.
It was a really nice drive, got out fresh as a daisy. I would choose the Prius to do the journey over my C220 Auto every day of the week.
My next car will not be a diesel.
70mpg at 80mph? It was a really nice drive, got out fresh as a daisy. I would choose the Prius to do the journey over my C220 Auto every day of the week.
My next car will not be a diesel.
otolith said:
Fuel cells are closer to the usage pattern people are used to - run it empty, take it to a fuel shop and quickly fill up again. I think, though, that once people get used to an EV scenario where they stick the car on to trickle charge whenever they aren't using it, the idea of going back to having to go specifically to a refilling station will not seem like an improvement.
I think when Clarkson wrote that piece, the idea of retaining ICE cars and fuelling them with hydrogen still looked like a viable way of maintaining the status quo. Unimaginably inefficient now.
Hydrogen fuel cells are a smoke screen from big auto, unreachable unusable tech with a massive infrastructure cost and 4 times more energy required than EV'sI think when Clarkson wrote that piece, the idea of retaining ICE cars and fuelling them with hydrogen still looked like a viable way of maintaining the status quo. Unimaginably inefficient now.
Thank you for that extremely long winded rant!
Electric vehicles, whether we like it or not, are the fuuture of this world (believe me I don't want them)! However the oil in this world will run out so is your arguemnet even valid? Quite simply not. Diesel cars were just another angle for selling cars with a 5-10% premium price tag, while Electric cars will have to come and we all have to start somewhere. So is this an "eggs for eggs" arguement? No, it is a necessary step towards the next generation of motoring!
Electric vehicles, whether we like it or not, are the fuuture of this world (believe me I don't want them)! However the oil in this world will run out so is your arguemnet even valid? Quite simply not. Diesel cars were just another angle for selling cars with a 5-10% premium price tag, while Electric cars will have to come and we all have to start somewhere. So is this an "eggs for eggs" arguement? No, it is a necessary step towards the next generation of motoring!
porscheafh03 said:
Thank you for that extremely long winded rant!
Electric vehicles, whether we like it or not, are the fuuture of this world (believe me I don't want them)! However the oil in this world will run out so is your arguemnet even valid? Quite simply not. Diesel cars were just another angle for selling cars with a 5-10% premium price tag, while Electric cars will have to come and we all have to start somewhere. So is this an "eggs for eggs" arguement? No, it is a necessary step towards the next generation of motoring!
Good lurking sir.Electric vehicles, whether we like it or not, are the fuuture of this world (believe me I don't want them)! However the oil in this world will run out so is your arguemnet even valid? Quite simply not. Diesel cars were just another angle for selling cars with a 5-10% premium price tag, while Electric cars will have to come and we all have to start somewhere. So is this an "eggs for eggs" arguement? No, it is a necessary step towards the next generation of motoring!
RobDickinson said:
Hydrogen fuel cells are a smoke screen from big auto, unreachable unusable tech with a massive infrastructure cost and 4 times more energy required than EV's
I can see potential value for range-extending EVs for occasional long journeys - it allows you to use a liquid fuel to directly power the car without having to carry around two engines. If you're only getting a tiny percentage of your energy from hydrogen, the end-to-end efficiency problems are less significant (although obviously you still need the infrastructure). Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff