Article: Plug-in hybrid

jim beam wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
> > your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
> >
> yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
> substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
> utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
> pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
> charging losses.

Certainly running on a pure electric mode that could give up to 50
miles could be promising. Regenerative braking could make it possible
with smaller batteries where pure electric vehicles of the past
couldn't. If the charge left in the battery is going to be inadequate,
then the IC engine can take over.

Large powerplants are generally run near peak output and are going to
be more efficient than a small on-board internal combustion engine.
It's shifting to a more efficient source of power. I've read that
an IC engine at best can convert 1/3 of the energy content of fuel
into useful energy, with the rest going to waste heat. Most typical
driving doesn't operate an engine at peak efficiency.

The basic concept of a "plug-in hybrid" is that the energy from the
plug-in time is still more efficiently produced than the on-board
engine could achieve.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:05:58 -0700, (Jason) wrote:

>In article >,
wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0700, jim beam >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> jim beam > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
>> >>>>your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
>> >>>substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
>> >>>utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
>> >>>pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
>> >>>charging losses.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
>> >>
>> >> That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
>> >> transportation costs from one energy bill to another?
>> >>
>> >you got it!
>>
>> Did you guys read the whole article? I'm not vouching for the
>> accuracy of the article, but they're claiming that the greenhouse
>> gases and pollutants produced during the generation of the electricity
>> used are much less than those produced by burning the oil necessary to
>> propel the auto the same distance. I, myself, don't even own a
>> hybrid, but I'd be reluctant to insult the intelligence of those
>> proposing this innovation by insinuating that they forgot that the
>> electricity was produced by burning fossil fuel. Calculating the
>> break-even point of this proposition is going to be a little more
>> complicated than that.
>> Ron
>
>Ron,
>You appear to be making an assumption that "...electricity was produced by
>burning fossil fuel." I agree that most of the electricity is produced by
>burning fossil fuel but electricity is also produced by nuclear power
>plants, water powered generators (at large dams) and wind energy. In some
>states, power companies are forced to buy back power from people that have
>solar panels on their roofs or special solar panels in their back yards
>that follow the sun.
>It's usually not a good idea to make assumptions. I should also note that
>power companies have to run many of their generators in the middle of the
>night. Much of that power is not even used--why not use it to provide
>power to charge hybrid batteries--it would reduce the amount of gasoline
>used in America.
>Jason

Jason,
You misunderstood my intent badly. I'm strongly in favor of letting
these folks experiment with this technology. I know full well that
some of the electricity is produced cleanly and that in the future,
more of it will be. I was just trying to point out that even the
electricity from fossil fuels is produced with less pollution than
burning the gasoline necessary to power the vehicle the same distance,
and that's the worst-case scenario. For other sources of electricity,
the plug-in hybrid looks even better. Look at my other posts in this
thread.

Cheers


Ron

In article >,
wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:05:58 -0700, (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0700, jim beam >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> >> >> In article >,
> >> >> jim beam > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
> >> >>>>your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
> >> >>>substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
> >> >>>utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
> >> >>>pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
> >> >>>charging losses.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
> >> >>
> >> >> That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
> >> >> transportation costs from one energy bill to another?
> >> >>
> >> >you got it!
> >>
> >> Did you guys read the whole article? I'm not vouching for the
> >> accuracy of the article, but they're claiming that the greenhouse
> >> gases and pollutants produced during the generation of the electricity
> >> used are much less than those produced by burning the oil necessary to
> >> propel the auto the same distance. I, myself, don't even own a
> >> hybrid, but I'd be reluctant to insult the intelligence of those
> >> proposing this innovation by insinuating that they forgot that the
> >> electricity was produced by burning fossil fuel. Calculating the
> >> break-even point of this proposition is going to be a little more
> >> complicated than that.
> >> Ron
> >
> >Ron,
> >You appear to be making an assumption that "...electricity was produced by
> >burning fossil fuel." I agree that most of the electricity is produced by
> >burning fossil fuel but electricity is also produced by nuclear power
> >plants, water powered generators (at large dams) and wind energy. In some
> >states, power companies are forced to buy back power from people that have
> >solar panels on their roofs or special solar panels in their back yards
> >that follow the sun.
> >It's usually not a good idea to make assumptions. I should also note that
> >power companies have to run many of their generators in the middle of the
> >night. Much of that power is not even used--why not use it to provide
> >power to charge hybrid batteries--it would reduce the amount of gasoline
> >used in America.
> >Jason
>
> Jason,
> You misunderstood my intent badly. I'm strongly in favor of letting
> these folks experiment with this technology. I know full well that
> some of the electricity is produced cleanly and that in the future,
> more of it will be. I was just trying to point out that even the
> electricity from fossil fuels is produced with less pollution than
> burning the gasoline necessary to power the vehicle the same distance,
> and that's the worst-case scenario. For other sources of electricity,
> the plug-in hybrid looks even better. Look at my other posts in this
> thread.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Ron

Ron,
You made some great points in your last post.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.