"Hybrid" Cars

[Wilber]

Agree. Another plus is that the CANDU reactors require less refining of their fuels than do their contemporaries. It makes them a lot more attractive on the market. There is still a fair amount of potential, however. Nuclear safety and reactor technology are leaps and bounds ahead of where they were 20 years ago.

At the end of the day though, the glowing piles of control rods and uranium aren't leaps and bounds ahead of where they were 20 years ago. Nuclear is a very irresponsible option long-term.

Of course the the technology is far ahead of where it was. Thats like saying the internal combustion engine isn't ahead of where it was 20 years ago because it still burns the same kind of fuel. It seems the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels is also an irresponsible long term option.

[Leafless]

You have misunderstood.

When I say for instance, the air-gas ratio of an internal combustion engine is 14.7 to 1, that means for every gallon of fuel burnt you use 14.7 gallons of air.

IOW we are depleting earths air supply and at the same time creating global warming.

Diesel is a lot worse concerning depleting the earths air, if you look at my previous posted air-diesel oil ratio's.

You can talk all you want about new technology but basically all your doing is creating more water vapour (by way of catalytic converter) earths #1 greenhouse gas.

I think you have misunderstood, pollution comes from the fuel, not from air. It doesn't matter how much air you pump through an engine the amount oxygen used to provide combustion is directly proportional to the amount of fuel you add. Assuming that a gas engine used all the O2 in 14.7 gallons of air for each gallon of gasoline consumed, for a diesel using a 100:1 ratio to consume all the oxygen in 100 gallons of air it would mean that a gallon of diesel would have to contain 100/14.7=6.8 times as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. We know that isn't true. Comparing fuel air ratios means nothing, it is just a function of the different ways these engines work. A diesel has no throttle plate in its intake system so there is always a lot of air going through it, the amount of power produced is controlled purely by adding fuel. It doesn't matter how much air goes through an engine, if there is no fuel there is no pollution. Another reason gas engines need a 14.7 ratio is that they are spark ignition engines and cannot run too lean. A diesel is a compression ignition engine, it doesn't care very much about lean mixtures.

Catalytic converters are used with all engines now, diesel or gas and diesels produce 20% less CO2 and much less CO than comparable gas engines.

Let's get this staight.

I am not talking about pollution, Iam talking relating to the air ratio, either gas or diesel, earth's oxygen being unnecessarily depleted to support combustion either in a diesel engine or regular aspirated or fuel injected gasoline engine. This excludes the pollution factor.

Earth's atmosphere is comprised of 79% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen. Creating a deficit of 1% in the oxygen content of air relates to respiratory problems.

Now, back to the air-ratio mix.

A device similar to a throttle plate in gasoline fuel injected engines to-day control air volume and not the gas which is computer controlled to maintain an ideal 14.7:1 lean air-gas ratio. Of course you still have the regular aspirated gasoline engines with an air-ratio mix that badly contributes to pollution if not regularly maintained.

BTW- a diesel operating at an air-diesel mix of 100:1 is idling, it would not move the vehicle as there is an acute absence of hydrocarbons (diesel fuel). There is a very small power factor at this mix.

[Charles Anthony]

point of order:

Condense your quotations. It is not necessary to repeat an entire post in a quotation.

Check out these threads:

NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes!

[Leafless]

Almost 80% of France's electrical power is generated by nuclear plants.

Where do they put the waste? I wonder if they could drill a hole past the mantle and chuck the waste down there. I'm not sure how radioactive waste reacts to extreme temperatures.

Another thing to consider is 'water vapour' added to the earth's atmosphere as a major pollutant or a provider of unwanted thermal energy.

"Nuclear electrical power generation is seen as “clean” when one forgets that it also rejects some 50% of its heat into rivers , seas, or the atmosphere, that it carries with it nuclear waste disposal and environmental risks, together with its vast decommissioning “hidden” costs, but seems to be the choice taken by many nations to provide for their ever growing electrical needs."

This article is only relevant to the water vapour aspect scrolling a quarter way down the page:

http://www.otecnews.org/articles/ro_vs_otec.html

[Remiel]

I was cruising Wikipedia yesterday looking at nuclear related articles, and I came upon a new megaproject supposedely beginning construction in France. An experimental nuclear fusion reactor, which will take 10 years to build and 20 years to test, and be the 3rd most expensive megaproject ever after the Manhattan Project and the Internation Space Station. While not being without difficulties, if succesful, it would be a lot safer that fission reactors, and only produce about 1% of the nuclear waste fission reactors do. You can find it under the acronym ITER.

[stevoh]

1) Wind can't make up more than 10%ish of any power grid because of reliability issues. In Alberta for example, we can't add more wind as it would make our supply too risky.

I think the ultimate solution to "not generating GHGs" is a redundant system with lots of different sources of energy. Wind being one part, hydro electric another part, solar a third, geo-thermal and others. Lots of different ideas. That way, when one system is not producing, another system can compensate.

Also, like the concept of hybrid cars, natural gas or other fossil fuel powered plants can be operated when necessary, when the demand is high and the various other forms of power generation are unable to meet the demand. We can evolve into purely non-GHG producing energy as the technologies efficiency improves.

2) The process to manufacture solar panels is highly GHG and toxic pollutant intensive and the panels cannot be safely disposed of after their useful life. If we all loaded our houses with solar panels, we'd likely reduce GHG, but in 10 years when they all pass their useful life, we have a massive toxic waste problem on our hands. Solar is too expensive and dangerous to the environment to take seirously.

From what I have seen, the production of solar panels is getting cheaper and more efficient. However, I have been unable to find any references to how much GHG the production of a solar panel causes, as opposed to the amount of GHG release by say, a coal powered plant, to produce the same amount of energy. Surely, since the solar panel generates energy for 25 to 40 years, the amount of GHG created in production is almost negligable.

Also, there appear to be many different ways of manufacturing solar panels, some use harsh chemicals in order to closer approach ideal efficiency, definitely. But there are many alternatives and differing manufacturing processes that appear to both reduce the amount of harsh chemicals present in the actual cells, and the quantity used in manufacture.

10 years of useful life appears to be off as well. Just a quick search of the internet revealed warranties from 25 to 40 years in length.

Solar energy also indicates usefulness in systems that directly absorb the heat, such as simply black plastic radiators that heat water.

So I am far from ready to dismiss this ever evolving and improving energy source.

Just like we have current multiple ways of generating energy, we are going to have to use multiple differing ways of generating environmentally friendly energy as well. There is no holy grail solution, but ingenuity and diversity in solutions make it possible.

[Wilber]

Let's get this staight.

I am not talking about pollution, Iam talking relating to the air ratio, either gas or diesel, earth's oxygen being unnecessarily depleted to support combustion either in a diesel engine or regular aspirated or fuel injected gasoline engine. This excludes the pollution factor.

Earth's atmosphere is comprised of 79% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen. Creating a deficit of 1% in the oxygen content of air relates to respiratory problems.

Now, back to the air-ratio mix.

A device similar to a throttle plate in gasoline fuel injected engines to-day control air volume and not the gas which is computer controlled to maintain an ideal 14.7:1 lean air-gas ratio. Of course you still have the regular aspirated gasoline engines with an air-ratio mix that badly contributes to pollution if not regularly maintained.

BTW- a diesel operating at an air-diesel mix of 100:1 is idling, it would not move the vehicle as there is an acute absence of hydrocarbons (diesel fuel). There is a very small power factor at this mix.

I'll say it again, there is no carbon content in air. The oxygen consumed in combustion is proportional to the amount of energy contained in the fuel that goes into the engine. If less fuel is being used by the engine, the less O2 it is capable of consuming and the less greenhouse gas it is capable of emitting. Diesels us less fuel than gas engines. The diesel truck I use to tow a 10,000 trailer averages nearly 15 MPG when towing. A big block gas engine producing a similar amount of torque would be lucky to get 8 or 9 MPG. If diesel fuel contains only about 10% more energy than gasoline by volume and the diesel truck is consuming nearly 50% less fuel, how can it consume more O2 per mile for combustion than a gas engine? Diesel fuel actually contains slightly less energy than gasoline by weight so if diesels are using more O2 for combustion per amount of fuel consumed, it can only be because they are more efficient when it comes to getting energy out of their fuel.

A diesel doesn't need a 14.7:1 ratio because it relies on compression ignition. It doesn't matter what the ratio is as long as there is enough fuel to ingnite when it is compressed. There is no need to control airflow because any O2 not consumed just goes out the tailpipe back into the atmosphere. A gas engine has a throttle plate because it needs to maintain a specific ratio throughout its operating range in order to operate at all.

If you want to say they both use oxygen, that's true. So does anything else that burns.

[Wilber]

Getting back to hybrids, unless you are only trying to promote the technology, the idea of just subsidizing hybrid purchases is dumb. If Cadillac or Lincoln come out with hybrid Escalades and Navigators that barely get over 20 MPG, do we give the guy willing to plunk down 70K for one tax money put up by a guy who just bought a Yaris? Some of this crap just isn't very well thought out.

[na85]

Let's get this staight.

I am not talking about pollution, Iam talking relating to the air ratio, either gas or diesel, earth's oxygen being unnecessarily depleted to support combustion either in a diesel engine or regular aspirated or fuel injected gasoline engine. This excludes the pollution factor.

Earth's atmosphere is comprised of 79% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen. Creating a deficit of 1% in the oxygen content of air relates to respiratory problems.

Now, back to the air-ratio mix.

A device similar to a throttle plate in gasoline fuel injected engines to-day control air volume and not the gas which is computer controlled to maintain an ideal 14.7:1 lean air-gas ratio. Of course you still have the regular aspirated gasoline engines with an air-ratio mix that badly contributes to pollution if not regularly maintained.

BTW- a diesel operating at an air-diesel mix of 100:1 is idling, it would not move the vehicle as there is an acute absence of hydrocarbons (diesel fuel). There is a very small power factor at this mix.

Again, the throughput of the engine does not determine its eco-friendliness. If an engine uses 100 gallons of air, but only releases a few parts per million of particulate matter, then the rest of that 100 gallons is just carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. CO2 and CO can readily be converted back to O2 by plants and phytoplankton.

The AMOUNT of air is not the problem, it's the concentration of pollutants and greenhouse gases IN the air.

[White Doors]

Getting back to hybrids, unless you are only trying to promote the technology, the idea of just subsidizing hybrid purchases is dumb. If Cadillac or Lincoln come out with hybrid Escalades and Navigators that barely get over 20 MPG, do we give the guy willing to plunk down 70K for one tax money put up by a guy who just bought a Yaris? Some of this crap just isn't very well thought out.

Sure. $2000 to someone plunking down $70k isn't much of an incentive. $2k on a car that costs 14k is.

it all comes out in the wash.

[na85]

Just like we have current multiple ways of generating energy, we are going to have to use multiple differing ways of generating environmentally friendly energy as well. There is no holy grail solution, but ingenuity and diversity in solutions make it possible.

That pretty much sums up my opinions. Totally green energy will no doubt require many many different methods of generation.

[Wilber]

Sure. $2000 to someone plunking down $70k isn't much of an incentive. $2k on a car that costs 14k is.

it all comes out in the wash.

Who cares if it is an incentive, why give it to him at all. Reward efficiency, not the flavor of the day technology. You better double that 14K if you want to buy a hybrid.

[na85]

You better double that 14K if you want to buy a hybrid.

Yep.

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_...me=Civic+Hybrid

$22 600 for a Civic hybrid, looks like USD.

The Lexus Hybrid SUV runs for about $42,580

[Wilber]

Again, the throughput of the engine does not determine its eco-friendliness. If an engine uses 100 gallons of air, but only releases a few parts per million of particulate matter, then the rest of that 100 gallons is just carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. CO2 and CO can readily be converted back to O2 by plants and phytoplankton.

The AMOUNT of air is not the problem, it's the concentration of pollutants and greenhouse gases IN the air.

Again, diesels have always produced 20% less CO2 and much less CO than gas engines. CO2 is the major product of greenhouse gas from vehicles. Why? a big reason is because they burn less fuel. New technology is going a long way to reduce their other emissions like they have for gas engines. I have a 1966 vintage car with a great honkin V8 and no emission controls. It's exhaust stinks when it is running and pollutes far more than modern diesels in every category.

[na85]

Agree.

Not only do they burn less fuel, but better compression and efficiency means that new engines burn the fuel more completely, which results in less CO emissions.

[White Doors]

Sure. $2000 to someone plunking down $70k isn't much of an incentive. $2k on a car that costs 14k is.

it all comes out in the wash.

Who cares if it is an incentive, why give it to him at all. Reward efficiency, not the flavor of the day technology. You better double that 14K if you want to buy a hybrid.

I think hybrid technology will be around for a long time. Well at least until they perfect the hydrogen engine anyways. Sometimes an incentive to adopt new technology is a good thing to decrease the length of the rate of adoption. It shouldn't be permament but early adoption of thsi technology may go a way to reduce smog levels in Toronto for instance.

[White Doors]

Again, the throughput of the engine does not determine its eco-friendliness. If an engine uses 100 gallons of air, but only releases a few parts per million of particulate matter, then the rest of that 100 gallons is just carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. CO2 and CO can readily be converted back to O2 by plants and phytoplankton.

The AMOUNT of air is not the problem, it's the concentration of pollutants and greenhouse gases IN the air.

Again, diesels have always produced 20% less CO2 and much less CO than gas engines. CO2 is the major product of greenhouse gas from vehicles. Why? a big reason is because they burn less fuel. New technology is going a long way to reduce their other emissions like they have for gas engines. I have a 1966 vintage car with a great honkin V8 and no emission controls. It's exhaust stinks when it is running and pollutes far more than modern diesels in every category.

True, Dieses is a more efficient fuel and diesel angines more efficient than gasoline but Diesel discharge much more particulate into the air than do gasoline powered vehicles. It does not burn as well.

[White Doors]

Agree.

Not only do they burn less fuel, but better compression and efficiency means that new engines burn the fuel more completely, which results in less CO emissions.

CO? You mean Co2? who cares? that is a benign gas. I'm more worried about Co3 and the other noxious crap that come out of diesels moreso than gas engines.

[na85]

New Diesel engines come equipped with self-regenerating particulate filters. New diesels are quite clean. The problem is the old diesels in less-developed countries where emission standards aren't quite so stringent, nor so readily enforced.

[White Doors]

New Diesel engines come equipped with self-regenerating particulate filters. New diesels are quite clean. The problem is the old diesels in less-developed countries where emission standards aren't quite so stringent, nor so readily enforced.

That is good byt they are still less clean than gasoline engines.

[na85]

That is good byt they are still less clean than gasoline engines.

Not by much. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm

designed to remove diesel particulate matter or soot from the exhaust gas of a diesel engine, most of which are rated at 85% efficiency, but often attaining efficiencies of over 90%. A diesel-powered vehicle with a filter installed will emit no visible smoke from its exhaust pipe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter

[White Doors]

Not by much. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm

ok, but that is only for CO2. I couldn't care less personally. I was speaking of other gasses and particulate matter.

But I'm glad they are getting cleaner.

[Leafless]

Again, diesels have always produced 20% less CO2 and much less CO than gas engines. CO2 is the major product of greenhouse gas from vehicles.

You make this sound like a big deal when in reality it isn't.

You must remember the average mechanical efficiency of an internal combustion engine is around a LOWLY 20%.

So your 20% CO2 and less CO is almost meaningless as their still is a tremendous amount of pollutants being produced for basically nothing along with an 80% waste of energy per litre or gallon or whatever.

[na85]

You make this sound like a big deal when in reality it isn't.

You must remember the average mechanical efficiency of an internal combustion engine is around a LOWLY 20%.

So your 20% CO2 and less CO is almost meaningless as their still is a tremendous amount of pollutants being produced for basically nothing along with an 80% waste of energy per litre or gallon or whatever.

I fail to see how the mechanical efficiency is relevant. In your earlier post you called for smaller gasoline engines. Smaller engines aren't more efficient; you'd still lose 80% of the energy.

[Leafless]

I fail to see how the mechanical efficiency is relevant. In your earlier post you called for smaller gasoline engines. Smaller engines aren't more efficient; you'd still lose 80% of the energy.

Correct!

But only as a PRACTICAL and ECONOMICAL alternative to EXPENSIVE hybrid's, as was posted.

Smaller gas engines are not any more efficient, but they do use considerably less energy without any real modifications or expensive technological specialized devices.