Personal opinion on Hybrids

[jhodges]

Do hybrids really save the environment? They still use gas, and the electricity it uses to charge every night is created by burning coal, another fossil fuel. Seems to just be another step in my opinion. Still has a negative effect and you still have to pay for the electricity.

I agree 100% Even though I own a hybrid I didn't buy it because it was a hybrid but rather for its looks and fun to drive factor, the mpg's don't hurt either.

I think its funny that last year when the Volt commercials were on the radio they had a lady saying "I don't even know what its like to get gas"......really, cars have been filling up for well over a century now and even those living under a rock know what getting gas is like. Not only that but the Volt has a gas engine and unless you drive short distances and plug it in all the time, you'll need gas at some point. Speaking of electricity, they never talk about that in the ads, you do have to pay to charge the car up which is just like getting fuel, you have to pay one way or the other, its not running on solar power (only assesories IIRC)

In other news Supercars are starting to use electic assisted power and if its there for the taking when braking, I think its a good thing, harness everything.....waste nothing!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

Heard a short blurb on the news the other day about the fallacy of hybrids. Evidently, the carbon footprint and amount of energy required to build all of the special components, refine the special materials, the process involving the batteries, etc., and manufacturing the hybrid is an order of magnitude above that required to manufacture a regular automobile.

Evidently it all becomes "break-even" with regard to carbon footprint, pollution at around 160,000 miles on the hybrid vs conventional.

HowStuffWorks "Does hybrid car production waste offset hybrid benefits?"

To each his own. I wish I had majored in engineering; I'd have tried to spend a large part of my life trying to work out the solution with hydrogen. I think hydrogen "cooking" its way through some type of turbine engine is the solution.

Just thinkin'.................

Out here on the freeways (SoCal), too many hybrid pilots spend most of their time in the left lane trying to maximize mpg at whatever speed that magic number is obtained (appears to be at something less than 60-65 mpg) while texting.

Go figure. I still think hydrogen through a turbine is the answer.

That or sails.:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

[Bunky]

If the oil cartel could corner the hydrogen market, then it will become a reality sooner rather than later if technically viable. If Exxon owned the sun, we would use solar power.

One primary purpose of hybrids is to reduce to dependency on oil since even if the US was able to use all its own oil, the gas price is still subject to the world market price.

I see hybrid cars (gas engine, batteries for electric) as an interim technology (so not across the board greener than say oil) but still years away from a better replacement. We still need a leap in battery technology.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Evidently it all becomes "break-even" with regard to carbon footprint, pollution at around 160,000 miles on the hybrid vs conventional.

So your point is don't buy a hybrid because you're really not decreasing your carbon footprint? I'm imagining the same argument can be made against CFL bulbs, that with all the phospors and electronics and the extra shipping weight, that it doesn't "break-even" carbon-wise until you've used the bulb for 6000 hours (3/4 of its life). But during that 6000 hours and the remaining 2000, I'm saving a lot of money on electricity.

So if I can accept the warm-up time of a CFL bulb, and responsibility for the mercury disposal issues, are you telling me that I'm not really using less electricity, or if I am I shouldn't do it because I'm fooling myself into thinking I'm lowering my carbon footprint when I'm not?

So by the same token if I can find a hybrid vechicle that has performance that I can accept, and that I can accept the amount of ownership time required to pay off the hybrid premium in fuel savings, that I shouldn't buy it because I'm not really reducing my carbon footprint? So what? We all do things every day that are inconsistent with lowering our carbon footprint, I bought some strawberries from FL the other day, that had to be trucked all the way up here to NJ instead of just waiting for NJ strawberry season.

Besides, that Prius footprint argument is an old one, and as you know, there a lies, damn lies, and statistics. Even if that was true 5 years ago, the argument can't be applied to vehicles that are manufactured here like the Volt or the Leaf.

And just to finish, I don't know why hybrids bring out the anti-efficiency crowd. Because we hate efficiency, right? If I was to go out and buy a new Camaro--that would be the opposite of efficiency, right? Wrong. The Camaro of today is a model of efficiency, efficiency driven by the CAFE regulations of the 70's.

I had a 70's GM car with a 5.7l V-8, and it put out 145 HP. A hot Trans Am of the late 70's had a 6.6 T/A engine, which put out 220 HP. Today's Camaro SS gets 426 HP out of 6.2l, which is about twice the specific output of its late 70's parent, now that's efficiency, you do the math.

Man, that was inefficient sitting here typing all that stuff out, I hate inefficency!

 

[jhodges]

So your point is don't buy a hybrid because you're really not decreasing your carbon footprint? I'm imagining the same argument can be made against CFL bulbs, that with all the phospors and electronics and the extra shipping weight, that it doesn't "break-even" carbon-wise until you've used the bulb for 6000 hours (3/4 of its life). But during that 6000 hours and the remaining 2000, I'm saving a lot of money on electricity.

So if I can accept the warm-up time of a CFL bulb, and responsibility for the mercury disposal issues, are you telling me that I'm not really using less electricity, or if I am I shouldn't do it because I'm fooling myself into thinking I'm lowering my carbon footprint when I'm not?

So by the same token if I can find a hybrid vechicle that has performance that I can accept, and that I can accept the amount of ownership time required to pay off the hybrid premium in fuel savings, that I shouldn't buy it because I'm not really reducing my carbon footprint? So what? We all do things every day that are inconsistent with lowering our carbon footprint, I bought some strawberries from FL the other day, that had to be trucked all the way up here to NJ instead of just waiting for NJ strawberry season.

Besides, that Prius footprint argument is an old one, and as you know, there a lies, damn lies, and statistics. Even if that was true 5 years ago, the argument can't be applied to vehicles that are manufactured here like the Volt or the Leaf.

And just to finish, I don't know why hybrids bring out the anti-efficiency crowd. Because we hate efficiency, right? If I was to go out and buy a new Camaro--that would be the opposite of efficiency, right? Wrong. The Camaro of today is a model of efficiency, efficiency driven by the CAFE regulations of the 70's.

I had a 70's GM car with a 5.7l V-8, and it put out 145 HP. A hot Trans Am of the late 70's had a 6.6 T/A engine, which put out 220 HP. Today's Camaro SS gets 426 HP out of 6.2l, which is about twice the specific output of its late 70's parent, now that's efficiency, you do the math.

Man, that was inefficient sitting here typing all that stuff out, I hate inefficency!

Good points, all. I with ya' man. Me, too. I'm all for complete information, objectivity, and the truth.

As far as I am concerned, in this country, we are lucky enough to have "to each his own". Was just trying to provide some more information for the discussion.

I still think hydrogen is the way.

I'm with ya' on the strawberries, too. I love those things, but they don't have the taste they used to; neither do peaches, plums, or tomatoes. Maybe they are being "selected" for color than for taste. Jeez, I miss the peaches of 40 years ago. Do you remember those things? What I wouldn't give for just one more of those peaches.

Flowers don't smell as good as they used to either. I think they are being "selected" for color rather than smell. I don't know. Anyway, that's what my wife says.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Yeah, fruit is grown to look good in the store and last during transport (because it's coming from the opposite hemisphere?), not taste good.

I talked to a guy once that said hydrogen power would be the end of life on earth, eventually. He said that once they have a cheap way for hydrolysis (solar/nuclear power?), they will split water out into hydrogen and oxygen, and use the hydrogen for all kinds of fuel cell applications. Because hydrogen is such a small molecule, it leaks out easily, plus all the accidental and incidental release. As a light gas, when it is released, it floats away, out of the atmosphere, into space. So eventually all the hydrogen will be gone from the planet, and when that is gone, all the water will be, too, and all the life. That was his theory, anyway.

 

[jhodges]

Jeez. I never thought about it that way. M-m-m-m-m.... hydrogen. Maybe it isn't the solution after all.

There's always a catch; isn't there?

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Hey man, don't worry so much about your hydrogen footprint! We'll be long gone before the hydrogen is.

 

[Klasse Act]

So your point is don't buy a hybrid because you're really not decreasing your carbon footprint? I'm imagining the same argument can be made against CFL bulbs, that with all the phospors and electronics and the extra shipping weight, that it doesn't "break-even" carbon-wise until you've used the bulb for 6000 hours (3/4 of its life). But during that 6000 hours and the remaining 2000, I'm saving a lot of money on electricity.

So if I can accept the warm-up time of a CFL bulb, and responsibility for the mercury disposal issues, are you telling me that I'm not really using less electricity, or if I am I shouldn't do it because I'm fooling myself into thinking I'm lowering my carbon footprint when I'm not?

So by the same token if I can find a hybrid vechicle that has performance that I can accept, and that I can accept the amount of ownership time required to pay off the hybrid premium in fuel savings, that I shouldn't buy it because I'm not really reducing my carbon footprint? So what? We all do things every day that are inconsistent with lowering our carbon footprint, I bought some strawberries from FL the other day, that had to be trucked all the way up here to NJ instead of just waiting for NJ strawberry season.

Besides, that Prius footprint argument is an old one, and as you know, there a lies, damn lies, and statistics. Even if that was true 5 years ago, the argument can't be applied to vehicles that are manufactured here like the Volt or the Leaf.

And just to finish, I don't know why hybrids bring out the anti-efficiency crowd. Because we hate efficiency, right? If I was to go out and buy a new Camaro--that would be the opposite of efficiency, right? Wrong. The Camaro of today is a model of efficiency, efficiency driven by the CAFE regulations of the 70's.

I had a 70's GM car with a 5.7l V-8, and it put out 145 HP. A hot Trans Am of the late 70's had a 6.6 T/A engine, which put out 220 HP. Today's Camaro SS gets 426 HP out of 6.2l, which is about twice the specific output of its late 70's parent, now that's efficiency, you do the math.

Man, that was inefficient sitting here typing all that stuff out, I hate inefficency!

Let's not forget how much better the mileage is in the current muscle car too but like you said, CAFE standards!

I have a hybrid, albeit a "light" version and I drive 60 mph on the freeway to and from work everyday (speed limit is 55 and no, I don't live in Ohio either) but I stay in the middle lane, not the left. Hell in SoCal I'd think you'd be looked at as a great person for not only driving a hybrid but an even greater person for maximizing your mpg's instead of your mph!

The original Insight gets anywhere from 60-80 mpg's and my Honda hybrid only get's a best of 44.3 mpg, the original Insight came out well over a decade ago, where's the advancement I ask?!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

 

[Chris's FX4]

I can pull 17-18mpg with my truck at 75mph on a day with 5-10mph winds. Many a Ecoboost F150 are having a hard time getting that.

People get all worked up when companies say they are increasing fuel efficiency, and then expect big MPG improvements. Increasing fuel efficiency by pumping up the power with minimal MPG gain's is okay in my book.

As long as big oil is around, we'll still be using gas.

 

[Klasse Act]

As long as there's large tubes of aluminum flying hundreds of people all around our country, there's going to be a need for fossil fuels. Don't believe me, raise your hand if your willing to fly HYBRID AIR first....go ahead, I'll watch from down there!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online