Volt IS a hybrid

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:08:53 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar > wrote:
>Something *other* than hydrocarbons ideally. Hydrogen is certainly the
>cleanest. In fact that *would* be a current example for a *proper*
>hybrid: a car with gasoline and hydrogen tanks, a fuel cell, and a
>coventional gasoline engine.

Hydrogen is a really **** poor energy transfer medium. It's dangerous
as hell, expensive, has a very low energy density. Hydrocarbon fuels that
are grown (and remove carbon from the air in the process) make far
more sense -- biodiesel, alcohol, etc.

On 10/13/2010 06:08 AM, chuckcar wrote:
> jim > wrote in
> t:
>
>> On 10/12/2010 04:27 PM, chuckcar wrote:
>>> jim > wrote in
>>> t:
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2010 09:39 AM, chuckcar wrote:
>>>>> AZ > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>
>>>>>> The generator has a gas engine. Can't you read?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ignoring the idiocy of calling a golf cart a car for a minute, one
>>>>> *with* a diesel generator isn't a hybrid. Now go find me that
>>>>> non-existant diesel powered golf cart - which *still* only has one
>>>>> source of power - the generator. The battery doesn't count, It
>>>>> doesn't charge without the generator and there's no other form of
>>>>> power generation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it's not the source of power, it's the source of traction. if it's
>>>> just power, then a prius is not a "hybrid". but it has two sources
>>>> of traction, thus it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sorry, my last reply came out far too trite and annoyed. Ok, you can
>>> use generators to store power in the battery (from braking and other
>>> sources that would be wasted otherwise) and then use that to drive
>>> your "other traction source" as you call it - namely the electric
>>> motor. Now *if* that uses a completely different battery than is used
>>> to start the gas engine, there's nothing we disagree about. However,
>>> the proper way to do it is to have a second source of power that
>>> doesn't require gas at all to run the car. That is, with an empty gas
>>> tank and just enough battery power to turn over/start this second
>>> engine you can drive away.
>>>
>>
>> i don't understand - what's this second engine going to run on if the
>> gas tank is empty???
>>
> Something *other* than hydrocarbons ideally. Hydrogen is certainly the
> cleanest. In fact that *would* be a current example for a *proper*
> hybrid: a car with gasoline and hydrogen tanks, a fuel cell, and a
> coventional gasoline engine.
>
> The whole point of having these vehicles in the first place is to have a
> reasonably inexpensive replacement for gasoline engines by reducing the
> production costs by having these engines put into normal cars. If you
> don't build vehicles with two different engines (one gasoline and one
> "green"), then you're doing nothing towards this progression. And BTW
> propane, diesel and alcohol based engines don't count - they're just
> normal conventional enginges very slightly modified if at all.
>
> What I'd *love* to see is a hydrogen combustion engine version of
> the Tesla.
>

that's completely illogical. two engines and two fuels? dude, that's
/beyond/ illogical.

oh, and hydrogen is a political boondoggle, it's not a practical fuel.
it's ridiculously dangerous, incredibly inefficient to produce, and
causes huge metallurgical problems. again, hydrogen is the crazytalk of
the naive and the politicians wanting to make themselves look good while
funneling taxpayers dollars to their friends. stay away.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam > wrote in
:


> oh, and hydrogen is a political boondoggle, it's not a practical fuel.
> it's ridiculously dangerous, incredibly inefficient to produce, and
> causes huge metallurgical problems. again, hydrogen is the crazytalk
> of the naive and the politicians wanting to make themselves look good
> while funneling taxpayers dollars to their friends. stay away.
>
>
Just read my reply again. You completely missed the point. I'm not going
the repeat myself for no good reason.



--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:08:53 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar >
> wrote:
>>Something *other* than hydrocarbons ideally. Hydrogen is certainly the
>>cleanest. In fact that *would* be a current example for a *proper*
>>hybrid: a car with gasoline and hydrogen tanks, a fuel cell, and a
>>coventional gasoline engine.
>
> Hydrogen is a really **** poor energy transfer medium. It's dangerous
> as hell,

Really? it wasn't even responsible for the Hindenburg disaster. That was
the caused by the explosive paint on the outside.

> expensive, has a very low energy density.

It has an *extremely* low density as well, It's energy per gram that
matters.

> Hydrocarbon fuels
> that are grown (and remove carbon from the air in the process) make
> far more sense -- biodiesel, alcohol, etc.
>
Not if there isn't any. And that's precisely the point.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

On 10/13/2010 09:37 AM, chuckcar wrote:
> AZ > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:08:53 +0000 (UTC), >
>> wrote:
>>> Something *other* than hydrocarbons ideally. Hydrogen is certainly the
>>> cleanest. In fact that *would* be a current example for a *proper*
>>> hybrid: a car with gasoline and hydrogen tanks, a fuel cell, and a
>>> coventional gasoline engine.
>>
>> Hydrogen is a really **** poor energy transfer medium. It's dangerous
>> as hell,
>
> Really? it wasn't even responsible for the Hindenburg disaster. That was
> the caused by the explosive paint on the outside.
>
>> expensive, has a very low energy density.
>
> It has an *extremely* low density as well, It's energy per gram that
> matters.

no it's not - it's the ability to funnel this stuff into your
engine/fuel cell/whatever. if you want to carry a meaningful quantity
of the stuff about with you - since mobility is the objective - you need
storage. and that is a major issue.


>
>> Hydrocarbon fuels
>> that are grown (and remove carbon from the air in the process) make
>> far more sense -- biodiesel, alcohol, etc.
>>
> Not if there isn't any. And that's precisely the point.

where does hydrogen comes from? seriously - what processes are used to
create it before you can use it?


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 10/13/2010 09:37 AM, chuckcar wrote:
> jim > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> oh, and hydrogen is a political boondoggle, it's not a practical fuel.
>> it's ridiculously dangerous, incredibly inefficient to produce, and
>> causes huge metallurgical problems. again, hydrogen is the crazytalk
>> of the naive and the politicians wanting to make themselves look good
>> while funneling taxpayers dollars to their friends. stay away.
>>
>>
> Just read my reply again. You completely missed the point. I'm not going
> the repeat myself for no good reason.

i did - and there appears to have been no good reason for what you said
in the first place.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum