Impact of hybrid/electrics on used ferraris and other supercars...

mk e, where did you get that figure that it costs 50pct more energy to manufacture a hybrid? would be interested to research that.

 

It’s from an analysis I did when I worked for a fuel cell company. The energy numbers are very hard to get at with exact figures, but there are a few assumptions that I think can be made to greatly simplify the problem.

First, is that all the materials and technology that go into building a car are mass produced commodities just like the gasoline that goes in the tank. That means steel, plastic, ect are purchased on the open market and profit margins are all similar percent of there cost. Since cars, steel gasoline, rubber, ect. have been around for a hundred years, and prices track the inflation rate, I think it is a safe assumption.

Second is that the labor is a similar percentage of the cost of all commodities. Since the process are all well developed, that should be a good assumption.

Third is that the market for the commodities is relatively stable, so production rates and consumption rates are equal. What that means is that the cost is driven by the cost of production. The cost of production is really the energy costs to make the commodity, with some % being labor. The cost of equipment breaks down the same way into energy and labor, so it can just be included directly in the total and does not need to be accounted for separately. For example, the price of steel is a measure of how much energy it takes to run the trucks to dig the ore , heat the furnace to smelt it, and electricity to run to the presses to stamp or roll the steel. Again, since cars and gas have been around for a hundred years, and prices track the inflation rate, I think it is a safe assumption.

If the assumptions are even close to correct then the energy required to produce a commodity is directly proportional to the cost of the commodity and the constant of proportionality is the same for all commodities. Therefore, the energy analysis simplifies to the cost analysis. So by simply comparing the price of similar items on a % basis, you are also comparing the energy on a % basis. This would not apply to a specialty or luxury items where labor costs and profit margins vary dramatically, but should be safe for mass produced items, particularly when comparing similar items from the same manufacturer.

The Toyota Prius has a sticker price of $20510. A Corolla that is about the same size costs $14055. The prius is 46% more money, therefore constructing it required 46% more energy. That is actually biased in favor of the Prius because as far as I know, Toyota is not making any money on the prius, so I should add about 10% to it’s price making the number 60%. Comparing to an Echo with the 10% correction, it’s 110% more.

Then if you assume a life of 100k miles and use the average of highway and city mileage as the actual fuel mileage and $2.00 per gallon for gas, a Prius will use $3603, a Corolla $5555, an Echo $5128. Taking the totals (using the 10% correction) of production and consumption, the Corolla is 33% better and the echo is 65% better. Hybrids are a bad idea if your intent is to conserve fuel.

 

Mark, thanks for the explanation. I hadn't thought of it that way!

 

FYA:

http://www.acpropulsion.com/

NYT article attached.

0-60 in 3.7s

powered by lithium-ion laptop batteries.

doody.

 

Very, very cool stuff. Thanks!

 

The new generation Prius is almost the same size as a Camry. Base price on a Camry is 19560.

http://www.toyotausa.com/vehicles/2004/camry/specs.html
http://www.toyotausa.com/vehicles/2004/prius/specs.html

It's also almost the same size, as you note, as a Corolla.
http://www.toyotausa.com/vehicles/2004/corolla/specs.html

The price range difference across similarly sized cars suggests a significant amount of variability in your model.

 

The particulates in uncontrolled diesel emissions are much more complex than just carbon. See

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts.html

There is real health hazard to diesel emissions, including the fact the small particles aren't always good for the lungs.

 

See March 2004 Road & Track for brief info and photos of hybrid sports cars.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=1165&page_number=1

 

I was curious as to any possible fuel type changes for the future too. I think there is little if any incentive for a change to take place. Not unless they decided to ban gas one day why would they change? It's all about performance in sports cars and not unless something comes along that dramatically improves what is existing, than I see little change in our lifetimes. Who knows though with some of the world developments. Bottom line is there is still plenty of oil and the special interest will continue to ensure our dependance on it.

 

"about the same size" was not really the correct phase. It should have been "the same class". A camry is a much nicer car than a prius. A prius is really an economy class car, it's build pretty light to make up for the weight of the batteries, it doesn't handle very well and is sparsely appointed. I think it is closest to the echo, but a touch larger.

It is a little clearer with the honda civic, same exact car, 19650 vs 13010

sedan
http://www.hondacars.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Civic+Sedan

hybrid
http://www.hondacars.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Civic+Hybrid

 

Mk e.....

I see some faults in your logic long term. First, as time goes by and the infrastructure grows for the production of hybrids, the relative costs will decrease. Eventually there will be parity in costs between building the hybrid vs the traditional car. Also... your assumption is that simply sticking with fossil fuels because its cheaper is a valid strategy. There is a finite supply of fossil fuels and the cost to get it out of the ground and to the pump will increase dramatically over the next 20 years.

There is going to an energy revolution over the next 50 years. Its not going to be just our cars that are going to have to depend on non-oil related power. Coal fired power plants have a good bit of longevity left (supposedly there are coal reserves enough to satisfy demand for 300+ years at projected needs) but we need to increase our use of hydroelectric, nuclear and other alternative sources. I read a really interesting article on a plan to build hydroelectric plants that utilize the water in and out flow associated with the tides.

It will reach a point where gasoline costs will be so high that the hybrid vehicles will not only cheaper but they will be the only alternative. Smart companies will be investing in this technology now, otherwise they will be left behind dead tomorrow.

Personally, here is my solution to the bigger picture energy problem: Get our power from the earth directly.

The earth is made up of the crust, the mantle, the core and the inner core. The crust on which we all live is about 30km thick. In some places it more..... in others much less. There are places where the crust is only 10-15km thick. Under the crust is the mantle which consists of semi-liquified rock and other materials.... and is VERY hot. Say 1000 degrees celsius.

So.... why not set up a power station that bores some big holes deep through the earths crust into the mantle and tap into that heat. Run massive pipes down to flow water. The water gets super-heated and the expansion helps increase pressure to push it back to the surface where the heated water is used to generate steam and thus drive turbines like any hydroelectric plant. Bingo.... instant energy. It never runs out. IT doesnt destroy the environment. It will never run out. This new "free" energy source can power the processes required to generate hydrogen to fuel our vehicles.

There you go folks.... all our energy problems solved in 3 paragraphs or less. Details? What details? Im just the idea guy..... you techies can figure out the details. PM me for the address to mail the royalty checks!


Terry

 

What about grain alcohol? I'm not talking about 80/20 either. It's not too difficult to make a carburated engine run on the stuff, FI can only be easier.

It sounds perfect to me, but I know I'm forgetting something. Not many modifications to the internal combustion engine (makes car manufacturers happy), natural fuel with synthetic fluids, car sounds the same and drives the same. What am I missing here? I mean, yes we'd need a huge amount of the stuff and yes mileage and horsepower would be down (slightly), but what's the problem?

Pardon my ignorance, but I always thought this was the obvious answer.

 

I do not believe the cost will come down. Hybrids cost extra because they have extra parts, mainly the electric motor and batteries. Electric motors and batteries are already very very high volume production items.

What I would highly recommend is that we burn every drop of oil that is in the ground before moving on because that is the cheapest and most efficient thing to do. After all the oil is gone, we can make fuel oil and gasoline from coal for another 200-300 years for about 20%-50% more than we make it from crude oil. That is also the absolute best thing we can do for the US too, since I think I read that something like 90% of the worlds coal is in the US. We also have a large % of the worlds uranium, we can also use the heat from a nuclear plant to make other fuels. That will make the US, not the middle east, the worlds primary energy supplier. Conservation is not in our best interest, it drives up prices for manufactured goods and prolongs energy driven trade deficits. From that stand point I like hybrids, fuel cells and hydrogen because they all increase fuel consumption, I just would never buy one for myself...way to expensive.

 

.

It takes about 1 gallon of gasoline or diesel to run the tractors to grow the corn to and fire the distillery to make 1 gallon of alcohol...which only has 70% the energy that that gallon of gas you started with did. It's a net loss of 30%, not including the labor costs. Alcohol fuel is a bad thing.

 

What would be more costly?:

If tomorrow the government said everything must run on alcohol.
(You now have to produce huge amounts of a natural substance)
If tomorrow the government said everything must run on electricity.
(Electricity is free, but you have to change the entire concept of the automobile)

 

I have also driven a Prius and I disagree that is doesn't handle very well. So do most of the automotive journalists who make a living out of comparing cars. It's not a sports car...that's not it's nitch. It has a fair bit of body roll, but other than that it handles quite acceptably.

 

Yes, I have a very libral/green type relative that I was unable to talk out of buying one. I personally felt that it was perfectly acceptable as far as economy cars go....but saying that it compares well to 10k-15k cars isn't really saying much. IMHO it does not handle quite as well as an echo (which I also drove on the same day) and does not come close to any of the the other 20k-ish cars, camry, accord, jetta...which I have driven. I don't know about any others, and of course that is just my opinion.

Again, I think the civic is a better example because then there is no question about what to compare it to.

 

That's a tough one. Clearly in the long run it would be cheaper to take free electric than pay for alcohol. I think the payback would be about 5-10 years. So it's the smart thing to do......I would rather drive an alcohol car, I'm running 22 psi of boost of gas, I bet I run 30 psi on alcohol...I bet I could wring 800 hp out of it

 

i disagree juicert. hybrid cars are beautiful engineering. because they take care of an owner's bigest concern: being able to get to his destination and back, regardless of distance, without having to stop longer than he currently does to fill the tank. pure electric cars do not have this capability, and therefore don't hold the same practical attraction as hybrids.

i disagree with mk e, on some of your energy input logic, but springer has voiced those issues already. i think from a purely economic perspective your calculations are correct, but it is also human (and govt) nature to try new tech when the prime resource costs exceed a certain upper limit - hence the fuel efficiency gains in cars over the last 50 years.

i disagree with the notion that tapping our earth's magma heat will solve all problems. it would certainly solve some of the static energy reqs near those areas of 'thin' crust. but it won't do anything for our mobile energy reqs. you could argue that there will be some energy consumption displacement though.

i do agree with the contention that coal is the answer for the USA. almost all the new power plants will accept some form of coal as fuel, and certainly the older plants can burn coal. but they don't. and this is largely because of our current inability to clean the exhaust sufficiently to meet clean air, for the greatest quantities of high lignite US coal. we either need to improve filter tech, or slacken those clean air rules. and since the tree huggers (with some right) won't allow the clean air act to be tampered with - and thereby adding to our dependance on foreign oil, somebody better start working on filters !

 

A great start would be opening up the Grand Escalante Staircase in Utah. I still can't believe nobody raised an eyebrow about Clinton making it a National Park. Hmmmmmm, but no, he didn't do any favors for the Riadi family(roll eyes).

 

http://www.halfbakery.com

I've been a halfbaker since mid-2000 & can safely boast some of my own halfbaked ideas have been mentioned in respectable Best or Unusual site of the day, week, month sites.

We do ideas. Many are just plain well, halfbaked, and accepted as such. Some are very, very good. If it's related to Energy - that's taken seriously, no goofing around with physics. Regardless, of category, duplication is a no-no, and originality is a must. If it's been done before, it's [marked-for-deletion] and indeed, gets deleted. No duplicate threads! You aren't required to post new ideas, you can annotate what tickles your fancy.

Here, for example is an idea originally posted on April 16, 2001. The annotation of "Nitehawk" on March 23, 2004 mentions the hybrid which outdoes the Ferrari F355 from 0-60.
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Hybrid_20Engine#1080085669

Look around the site, get a feel for it. You'll learn more than you can imagine, and imagine more than you can learn, and teach someone a thing or two.

Here's the help file
http://www.halfbakery.com/editorial/help.html

Here's my profile which I post as a link when newbies can't be arsed to read the help file - I'm a hardcore 'baker - grrrrr
http://www.halfbakery.com/user/thumbwax

 

I mostly agree with what you are saying, with a just couple exceptions. I'm all for wind/wave/ect power when it makes sense, but it only makes up something like 5% of our supply, maybe that could grow to 10% but probably not much more. Wind power technology has gotten to a point that in the right location it can make sense. Hydro is hands down the best technology, but it does trash the river ecosystem. In the US, the average KW of electricity is delivered at 30% efficiency. An IC engine in a car is about 25% efficient, pretty close. A modern natural gas (which can easily be made from coal) power plant is about 60%, but line losses average 10%, so it gets to you at about 50%. And last, specifically about all energy not being equal, I agree 100%, but the analysis I did already accounts for that. It shows up in the price you pay for the energy. For example, a BTU from electricity cost about 3-4 time what 1 BTU from oil costs. That’s because the power plant burns about 3-4 BTUs of oil to make 1 BTU of electricity. So again, just looking at the $ tells the energy story correctly.

Oh, and they do know how to make coal burning clean, it just costs more (because it make the process less efficient) and nobody real wants to pay for it. Once the oil is gone, I'm sure it won't be a problem to clean up the coal plants since there won't be a cheaper alternative, except maybe nuclear.

 

That's the problem. Torque curves on most electric motors peter out at 1000 to 1500 rpm. To use all of that torque up to higher speeds would require many gears and big ratios, resulting in losses that would eventually negate all the torque.