In my article “Hybrid Hype” published last month, I mentioned the fact that contrary to the general opinion that Electric Hybrids should very much reduce the tailpipe CO2 are just fodder for policymakers, because those cars are too expensive and not green at all.
Electricity is more often than not generated from coal, which qua CO2 emission is as bad or even worse as the CO2 gasses released by gasoline or diesel engines. In addition the manufacturing of batteries and the disposal of these batteries that have an average lifetime of 6 years, are bad for the environment too. Not to mention the extra weight that has to be tossed around.
Technically everything is ready for electric vehicles to enter the mainstream, except for the batteries. What matters for all-electric vehicles, as opposed to hybrids, such as the Prius, which can fall back on a petrol engine when the battery runs out, are their limited range and the time taken to recharge their batteries. Lithium-ion battery technology could push range to 300 KM or approx 200 miles, and fast-charge systems promise to provide a 60-70% top-up in only a little more time than it takes to fill a tank with petrol. However restricting the range to just over 100miles. Further a new infrastructure network for fast electric filling stations has to be put into practice within a range between each other of 150 KM (100miles). Further it is very inconvenient on a long journey that about every hour has to be stopped for a refill.
The Toyota’s Prius is the longest serving hybrid vehicle on the market and from the practice is learned that there are critical problems. Likewise the gas mileage is far more favorable declared in the prospectus than consumers have experienced. Most of the hybrid’s big mileage gains occur in stop-and-start city traffic. On an open road, the conventional engine actually gets better gas mileage. When you look at the Prius’ true mileage, there are plenty of conventional vehicles that do as well or even better.
Add in the high extra cost of the hybrid engine, and you have to drive the car over a hundred of thousands miles to recoup the extra money you pay for the fancy technology, and most likely still come out worse. Frequent stops for refueling are necessary and a cruel pain in the neck.
Next is the hydrogen fuel cell that gets the most hype. Detroit put all its chips on fuel cell technology, and it’s been telling us since the late 1990s that a breakthrough was just around the corner. In 1997, German-owned DaimlerChrysler actually predicted 100,000 fuel cell engines on the road by 2005. In 2001, General Motors projected about the same timeline. Even George Bush got into the act, declaring in his 2003 State of the Union message that “America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.” It didn’t happen and it probably won’t happen at all. Because the engineering problems are much bigger than anticipated. On top of that, the fuel cell engine costs 10 times as much as a conventional engine. Worse yet, there’s also the additional problem of building a national network of fuel stations where you can fill the tank with hydrogen. Hydrogen isn’t found in nature in a usable form, and it’s very expensive and energy consuming to produce. A national hydrogen rollout could cost $100 billion. There’s still hope that hydrogen will come through in the end, but the National Academy of Sciences believes the “hydrogen economy” is decades away.
There is a third alternative the old humble diesel engine. Because we Europeans have to pay heavy gasoline taxes and also worry about global warming. Much of R&D is invested in the diesel engine technology that in the current decennia has proven to be equal or even superior to gasoline engines.
Diesel engines get about 30% more mileage out of liter than gasoline, and those savings are real in any kind of driving conditions. What’s more, people who worry about global warming prefer diesel because it emits up to 20% less carbon dioxide (CO2). Diesels now rival traditional gasoline engines for quietness, while European refineries have removed most of the pollutants from the fuel. The engines cost more, but the gas savings make up the difference easily. While the lower expenditure on maintenance cost is another contributor to the savings. Diesel’s biggest edge is something you may never expect because there is no need for crude oil to make diesel fuel it can be made from coal, algae or even cooking oil. For example a restaurant can invest in a cooking oil converter kit that after the oil is used to fry a batch of potatoes, later to be reused as diesel oil in the delivery truck. Above and beyond all these advantage the range between refilling is over 1.000KM or 600miles!
Currently another new development is liquefied coal, the brilliant technology of the future no matter what. In diesel engines this coal converting technology will be the biggest phenomenon since the time horses were traded in for cars.
Imagine: The Chinese would have to buy 650 million vehicles to reach American levels of car ownership. That’s not likely to happen. But a fraction of that figure will create an oil and pollution crisis big enough to finish off our existence.
In the vast markets of India and China, a vehicle that runs without crude oil will be appealing.
And what about a hybrid diesel engine as next step? A combination of hybrid and diesel technology will take the fuel savings up another notch. And that might happen soon. Amongst others BMW has made much progress in reusing exhaust heat to generate electricity for onboard appliances.
A MIT study envisages the diesel hybrid that will outperform a hydrogen fuel cell engine on both fuel mileage and carbon emissions, within 10 years. In other words, the hydrogen fuel cell car may never get to market.
The auto industry is on its way to becoming a replay of the airline industry. The competition is already cutthroat, with razor-thin margins. Now we’re going to see General Motors and Ford file for bankruptcy. When that happens, they’ll walk away from the pension and health care obligations that are killing them. Their plants are in political battleground states so the politicians will help them stay afloat. They’re “too big to fail.”
Once they’re operating under Chapter 11, like the airlines, the automakers will launch profit-killing price wars that may last for decades, in which emissions are the key to their profits.
The best way forward from the diesel revolution will be a filter technology that’s going to remove the final pollutants, the last obstacle that stands in the way to zero emission.
The Europeans have been quite successful to remove the last bit of filth from diesel exhaust, for the sake of fuel economy and lower carbon emissions. Whoever now comes first with the best exhaust filter to take the ultimate particles out of the tailpipe fumes will become King in the automotive industry.
Concluding: the electric car is politically motivated and will never make it despite the governmental financial support and free publicity. It is absolutely a waste of money. The hydrogen fuel cell is decennial off in the future, but the diesel engine will for sure be the winner, even more now bio fuels will have the future, and make politically far more sense in becoming independent from the Middle East hot spots and Venezuelan Hugo Chavez. By: PIM of SPAIN
Short URL : http://bit.ly/4odLC1 (Tweet This)
Source : Electric Cars a Hoax
