Honda Makes A Diesel!

[The Toecutter]

Stuff like this actually bothers me.

Honda makes a huge luxury car (accord) that can get 92mpg.

Why are we still screwing around with gasoline when diesel gets double the gas mileage in stock condition?

Imagine how that thing would do with a body aerodynamic enough to rival a GM Precept(.16 Cd). Can you say 120 mpg?

You can't go over 80 on the freeway without getting a ticket.

Sure you can. Just don't get caught.

They have to appear partial. But we all know they're like "ZOMG diesel pwns!"

To anyone with some semblence of education, they fail miserably.

"I think four cylinders and diesels make a lot of sense with the price of gas," Watts said "But we're looking at everything ? diesels, compressed natural gas, fuel cells, hybrids and E85. We don't believe there's one solution."

Like every other major automaker(barring Mitsubishi), they outright ignore the battery EV, the most promising of them all.

[SVOboy]

They made a battery EV years ago, they already looked at it,

[LincolnW]

I firmly believe that we are going to be seeing a LOT more diesel cars in the near future.

Have you seen the Audi R10? I went to the Le Mans series race last weekend and had a chance to sit down the the president and CEO of the series. He talked a lot about Audis effort with the R10 and how they have choosen this car to roll out a whole new era of diesel engines.

The R10 is an amazing car! Really, it's completely silent. All you can hear is the air being split. And, it fits within the specifications to race P1 in the series.

He told me that Audi is going to change the way the world views diesel engines. They will be coming out with new diesel Audis that are quiet, luxurious, are very powerful, and get the milage of a gas/electric hybrid. He said, "that's all I can tell you (wink)".

So yeah, stay tuned. I can't wait!!

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by The Toecutter

To anyone with some semblence of education, they fail miserably.

"I think four cylinders and diesels make a lot of sense with the price of gas," Watts said "But we're looking at everything ? diesels, compressed natural gas, fuel cells, hybrids and E85. We don't believe there's one solution."

Like every other major automaker(barring Mitsubishi), they outright ignore the battery EV, the most promising of them all.

Dood, that's just malignant. You got some numbers to back that up?

[The Toecutter]

Well, EV technology since the 90s has allowed comparable range and performance to gasoline cars. The only thing that hasn't been verified is costs, but only because Es haven't been mass produced. There are numerous studies that have projected the costs of manufacturing EVs, and found them comparable to gasoline cars.

The Solectria Sunrise achieved 373 miles per charge at highway speeds on NiMH batteries in 1996(http://www.evadc.org/ev_faq.html) the Solectria Force achieved 249 miles on a charge with NiMH batteries in 1997(http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3650/is_199709/ai_n8780200), the GM EV1 giot between 140-160 miles per charge with NiMH batteries and achieved 225 miles driven very gently in a Tour De Sol(http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20000525.htm),among others.

I'm sure you know the NiMH EV1 did 0-60 mph in under 8 seconds. It was governor limited to 80 mph, but with the governor removed, the car did over 180 mph on a test track(video: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/gallery/gallery_footage1.htm).

This is all 1990s technology, 10 years old. These are viable range numbers for mass production and commercial sale. The performance was mostly a matter of the motor/inverter used, as the batteries provided more than adequate power. Thus slow cars like the Sunrise and force could have been fitted with the propulsion system used in the EV1 to achieve good performance.

What about cost?

The following study examines mass production costs of EVs. Of note is that a NiMH EV could have been mass produced for under $30k years ago:

http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2000/05/36138.pdf

Another study in 2003 found that the battery and drive system for a midsize Li Ion battery car that seats 5 adults, does 0-60 mph in 8 seconds, and has 300 miles range, with no special attention to efficiency or aerodynamics, would cost under $20k in mass production.

http://www.evuk.co.uk/EAVES_BEV_VS_FCV%20040703.pdf

So for roughly decade or so, electric cars have been viable insofar as performance, range, and production cost.

It's not only promising, but it can meet the basic criteria for being marketable.



Compared with other alternatives, EVs win out in reducing pollution, reducing costs to the consumer, and reducing overall energy use. One of the studies above compares the overall well to wheel efficiency of EVs versus hydrogen, for instance, and EVs are found to use 1/3 the energy overall. Further, EVs don't need no funky energy delivery system like hydrogen does, as they can be charged in your garage.

Natural gas is non-renewable, ethanol has questionable EROEI.

Electricity can be produced from renewable sources like wind turbines(> 25 EROEI) and solar panels(> 10 EROEI). Even with electricity from coal-fired electric power plants, electric cars are cleaner than gasoline cars by far(http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf).

Hybrids really aren't an alternative if they still use gasoline.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

You're spot on, except the only downside is that potenial hasn't been reached. It's kinda like Nuclear fission... Cheap, safer, better for society. Unfortunately it's initially more expensive, cheap to fuel, and with no huge change in resources (aka price) in the near future, not as profitable as fossil fuels, at least for those with the capital to actually bring about either/or. EV's follow the same principle, even now, someone like Daewoo could build a streamlined version of the Aveo with the same range and much better acceleration for maybe ~$15-18k, if not less, including all those additional charges tacked on, etc.. Toss a 10hp gas genset and a five gallon tank to watch the range (at some average speed) more than double, for maybe a few hundred bucks more? Put one in every home and we increased the electric bill of every home by maybe 10-20% (which can be covered by a couple hundred nuke reactors, if that), and cut gasoline consumption down to ~20-30%...

But, and here's my big rant , I don't think this will happen because it's too cheap for the consumer. Economics isn't based on the best product in the market anymore, it's based on the most profitable product in the market (I blame facism), and modular, efficient, long range EVs with small diesel/gas/turbine gensets aren't profitable. Imagine if I had a car where the main engine never wore out, the only engine in the car that did wear required a few hundred bucks to replace, and the cost of replacing the batteries/ the electricity to run it at today's prices was still cheaper than the cumulative cost of gas each year? Which of course, will only rise, as battery costs drop. Not only that, but if a new motor and better batteries come out in a decade, then the range/power can increase without buying an entirely new vehicle... More money in the consumer's pocket, which hurts profits.

Now compared to something like reducing aerodynamic drag, which can be done by an individual, lowering the costs of batteries isn't doable on a small scale. I wish it was, but it seems we've been ouflanked by big business, with the only change in battery tech coming because of a potentially bigger market, computers. It's not that they're not better, or that I wouldn't build one if the cost was within reach, it's just they aren't the best option for the thifty DIY'er. Once costs go down, sure... But for now, they're on my backburner. Or should I say, they're on big business' back burner.

[The Toecutter]

Big business is the reason peak oil may be so devastating. They refuse to allow viable alternatives to take hold because it will eat into their profit margins. Meanmwhile, as oil prices rise higher, so too will the profits of the oil industry.

You see, just because demand increases, doesn't make the oil more expensive to extract. We could have $200/barrel oil in the near future that costs roughly the same to extract as the $70/barrel oil today. Guess what happens to profit?

Get alternatives in place so people don't need oil near as much, and to where the alternatives are sufficiently in use that oil demand drops, and the oil industry doesn't get a huge *** amount of profits.


We could have this huge dieoff, for no better reason than to make these greedy ****tards more money. It's sickening.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

We're gettin' really off topic, but yeah, it's sickening. The more I look at everything, the more I think that most people don't need to work in the conventional sense. They're just heavily persuaded to by our society, so that this huge disparity in wealth can continue. History books make such a big deal about the plight of peons/lords or slaves/warlords in the past, and how we're so different because we're free, but they fail to mention that those peons and slaves were closer to their higher-ups than we are to ours. It's like technogical innovation is stifled unless it helps increase the gap between the wealthy elite and the average person.

[tomauto]

I just want to add that EV's can be charged overnight during "off peak" load times for power plants. Thus there would not be any need to build new plants for the EV's produced.

The only real thing I see as a problem to EV's is that you couldn't make long range road trips. Im sure that a quick charge system could be developed say, 30 minutes, but I know that people do not want to wait that long for a vehicle.

[The Toecutter]

The only real thing I see as a problem to EV's is that you couldn't make long range road trips. Im sure that a quick charge system could be developed say, 30 minutes, but I know that people do not want to wait that long for a vehicle.

Depends on the person. Many people need a break between driving every 200-300 miles or so. I mean, it takes 15-20 minutes for most people to take a dump at a gas station. Longer to grab a bite to eat. Perfect time for an opportunity charge, and continue on your way. Maybe kick back and listen to some Howard Stern in the meantime, or watch an episode or two of Beavis and Butthead on your labtop.

Quick chargers aren't new. Aerovirnment made quick chargers that could top an EV off in 15-30 minutes. An electric Mitsubishi FTO broke a world record in 2000 when it travelled 1,250 miles in a 24 hour period including the time spent charging, thanks to a quick charger that could charge the lithium ion battery pack up from 0-100% in 20 minutes.

The amount of money America spends on oil subsidies and on defense to protect our oil supply in one year would pay for widespread EV fast charge infrastructure in every municipal above 2,000 people multiple times over. This infrastructure would last for decades with little upkeep needed.


We could in fact have had such infrastrucutre in California and neighboring areas to that state. Southern California Edison and other utilities were seeking to develop fast charge stations around the state and along Route 66 to make long trips by EV viable. The oil industry then lead a smear campaign with the goal of getting the utility industry to raise no funds at all at a hearing before the Public Utilities Commission. Lo and behold, the oilies got their way.

This infrastructure would have worked for short range EVs as well as long range ones. Even a 40-60 mile range lead acid EV could be charged in roughly 10 minutes from one of these fast charge stations, allowing them to feasably(albeit inconveniently) make 200-300 mile trips in one day.