Anandakos

How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence

Fred Linn,

Railroad locomotives do not use lead acid batteries as a storage technology for traction power. They do have batteries to crank the prime mover if its shut down, but the batteries are not in the power train.

They work as follows: a diesel engine of significant power turns a large alternator by direct drive. If the engine uses A/C traction motors the output from the alternator is fed directly to the traction motors through a control system. If the older direct current motors are used, the output from the alternator is passed through silicon rectifiers to product direct current which is then fed to the motors.

No batteries are used in standard diesel-electric locomotives.

Now there are some new hybrid designs coming on the market in order to store the electricity generated by regenerative braking in batteries for later traction use. However, the diesel electric locomotives "we have been building for the last 70 years" emphatically are not hybrids. They dissipate the regen braking energy through large steel grids on the roof of the locomotive. They function as resistive heaters to radiate the energy from braking.


On Aug 28 03:12 AM Fred Linn wrote:

> Mr. Peterson--------" Fred Lin, in an HEV you use the batteries to
> recover the energy lost in braking and use it to help with acceleration.
> In PHEVs and EVs I'm with you, why bother? "----------
>
> Exactly my point Mr. Peterson. People should not believe what
> they are being told----and this has been going on for YEARS.
>
> Hybrid vehicles offer about a 25% fuel savings overall, depending
> on driving conditions. There is lttle if any savings on highway
> driving----most of the savings are in stop and go city traffic.
> Compare that to 200% increase in thermal efficiency using biofuels.
> Hybrids seem to me to be paltry by comparison.
>
> Then add the fact that hybrids add another $2,000 to $5,000 to the
> price. Biofuels can be produced using all off the shelf parts,
> and are well tried and well proven.
>
> Of coarse automakers want people to believe that they can only have
> cars with power and efficiency if they pay a premium price.
> They are only interested in getting the premium price---not delivering
> the goods.
>
> There is no technical reason for using all the exotic battery types
> people are mentioning here. Good old lead/acid batteries work
> just fine----we've had 150 to perfect them(this year). The Baker
> Electric is a classic car that ran on lead/acid batteries and is
> widely recognized as one of the finest cars ever built---and performed
> admirably within the limitations of its battery/charging format.
> We can build hybrid cars just fine with lead/acid batteries.
> Railroad locomotives are one of the most efficient means of transport
> we have----and we have been building diesel/electric locomotives
> (hybrids using diesel engines to charge lead acid batteries) for
> over 70 years. If we can build locomotives capable of producing
> horsepower in the 4,000 to 6,000 range----we can easily produce cars
> needing only 100-200 hp.
>
> Look back through these posts. Everyone is brainwashed on "new"
> technology. The truth is, the clamor for "new" technology is
> just coporate manuevering to get hands deeper into your pockets.
> We can do everything we want our vehicles to do, right now, in a
> clean, renewable and sustainable way, using technology we have right
> now, and have had for over 50 years.
>

How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence

You say that Priuses use Nickel Metal Hydride batteries while the PHEV's and pure EV's use Lithium Ion batteries. Are you assuming that both kinds are manufactured in the same facility? It seems to me that's the only way that building more of one could necessitate building fewer of the other.


On Aug 26 11:14 AM John Petersen wrote:

> Mrfnd, the scarce commodity is the batteries. One GM Volt uses the
> same batteries that could be used to power 10 Prius class hybrids.
> One Nissan uses the same batteries that could be used to power 15
> Prius class hybrids. So for every EV you build, you are going to
> keep 10 to 15 Prius class hybrids off the road.

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

Good post, Love. Sounds like your "don't use the brakes" takes the place of a Prius' econometer. Well done.

It is odd how much extra fuel is consumed on curvy roads. It must be the greater tire friction from the turns. Yes, that's surely it.

On Aug 04 06:49 AM H. T. Love wrote:

> On Aug 02 09:04 PM Old Wizard wrote:

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

My bad. Not "$6,000 in gasoline" in the part about the Prius, but "6,000 gallons of gasoline".


On Aug 03 02:06 PM Anandakos wrote:

>
> Whaffle,
>
> You are SERIOUSLY computationally challenged. Even if one of the
> newly purchased cars goes 300K miles and is at the extreme low end
> of the allowable mileage range (23 MPG = the 18 MPG max for eligibility
> of the trade-in plus 5 MPG minimum improvement for the $3,500 rebate),
> it will use 13,050 gallons of gas in its lifetime. Most vehicles
> don't go 300K and most of those bought will get more than the legal
> minimum for the program, but let's assume the worst case scenario.
> Any higher mileage vehicle will pay less in Federal fuel taxes over
> the life of the vehicle.
>
> The Federal fuel tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, which is a total tax
> payment of exactly $2,400 over the life of that worst case new vehicle.
> That is ONE PERCENT of what you claim. And that's not even the DIFFERENCE
> between the new and old cars. If indeed the difference is only the
> minimum of 5 MPG (the "Clunker" gets 18 mpg) the loss in Federal
> fuel taxes is only $652.50. That is the minimum that the fuel tax
> will lose over the life of a 300K mile vehicle.
>
> Now lets look at your "worst case" scenario. Say the traded in vehicle
> gets 15 mpg and the new one gets 30. That is 10,000 gallons of gas
> over the new vehicle's 300K mile life or $1,840 in Federal fuel taxes.
> Assuming that the 15 mpg vehicle could last another 300K miles --
> unlikely at best -- it would have consumed 20,000 gallons of gas
> and paid $3,680 in fuel taxes.
>
> That is a difference of $1,840.
>
> How about if the old vehicle gets 10 and the new one 30? The old
> vehicle would have paid $5,540 in fuel taxes and the new one will
> still pay $1,840 for a difference of $3,680.
>
> Let's be really bizarre and assume you're trading in a Dodge Ram
> 7 liter crew cab and buying a Prius. I don't know exactly what the
> Ram would get but if we assume you were a idiot and didn't get it
> with a diesel, it would probably be in the seven to eight mpg range.
> If 7 mpg and it made it another 300K miles it would consume 42,850
> gallons and pay $7,886 in Federal fuel taxes. The Prius is rated
> at about 50 combined, so it would consume $6,000 in gasoline, paying
> $1,104 over its lifetime. Even this completely implausible scenario
> would cost the fuel tax fund only $6,782, about 2.7% of what you
> mooted.
>
> Think before you type. Also, you might want to change your alias
> to "Whiffle" in honor of the ball that packs no punch.
>
> On Aug 03 01:32 PM Whaffle wrote:

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

Whaffle,

You are SERIOUSLY computationally challenged. Even if one of the newly purchased cars goes 300K miles and is at the extreme low end of the allowable mileage range (23 MPG = the 18 MPG max for eligibility of the trade-in plus 5 MPG minimum improvement for the $3,500 rebate), it will use 13,050 gallons of gas in its lifetime. Most vehicles don't go 300K and most of those bought will get more than the legal minimum for the program, but let's assume the worst case scenario. Any higher mileage vehicle will pay less in Federal fuel taxes over the life of the vehicle.

The Federal fuel tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, which is a total tax payment of exactly $2,400 over the life of that worst case new vehicle. That is ONE PERCENT of what you claim. And that's not even the DIFFERENCE between the new and old cars. If indeed the difference is only the minimum of 5 MPG (the "Clunker" gets 18 mpg) the loss in Federal fuel taxes is only $652.50. That is the minimum that the fuel tax will lose over the life of a 300K mile vehicle.

Now lets look at your "worst case" scenario. Say the traded in vehicle gets 15 mpg and the new one gets 30. That is 10,000 gallons of gas over the new vehicle's 300K mile life or $1,840 in Federal fuel taxes. Assuming that the 15 mpg vehicle could last another 300K miles -- unlikely at best -- it would have consumed 20,000 gallons of gas and paid $3,680 in fuel taxes.

That is a difference of $1,840.

How about if the old vehicle gets 10 and the new one 30? The old vehicle would have paid $5,540 in fuel taxes and the new one will still pay $1,840 for a difference of $3,680.

Let's be really bizarre and assume you're trading in a Dodge Ram 7 liter crew cab and buying a Prius. I don't know exactly what the Ram would get but if we assume you were a idiot and didn't get it with a diesel, it would probably be in the seven to eight mpg range. If 7 mpg and it made it another 300K miles it would consume 42,850 gallons and pay $7,886 in Federal fuel taxes. The Prius is rated at about 50 combined, so it would consume $6,000 in gasoline, paying $1,104 over its lifetime. Even this completely implausible scenario would cost the fuel tax fund only $6,782, about 2.7% of what you mooted.

Think before you type. Also, you might want to change your alias to "Whiffle" in honor of the ball that packs no punch.

On Aug 03 01:32 PM Whaffle wrote:

> Using cars generates gas/road tax money.
> Therefore, more efficient cars will lower government revenue.
>
> Let's say every car purchased under cash for clunkers is 2x as efficient.
> Then, according to our mathematical and statistical manipulators
> (I mean, genius'es) , we'll see a 50% reduction in gas tax revenue
> over the life of the car.
> Pulling out my SWAG slide rule, that comes out to a cost of over
> 250,000$ per car.
>
> Clearly, we need less efficient cars if we want to "save our grandchildren
> from the vast debt we are creating".
>
> Disraeli was right , "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

Mud Engineer,

What foolishness; the people buying these new cars are not poor. The government is not buying the car for them, lock, stock, and barrel. It is basically providing a bigger trade-in allowance on guzzlers worth less than $4,500; most buyers still have to take out a loan. It's just somewhat smaller than it would have been.

Nobody whose car is worth more than $4,500 trade in is going to participate; if they were going to buy anyway, they'll take the trade-in offered by the dealer. I hope you're able to understand that.

Because of this there will be an economic cost, paid by the buyers of relatively low-priced used cars over the next few years. The truth is that anyone who can afford a new car in this economy is probably already driving a decently running, reliable vehicle. Those worth less than $4,500 are being trashed irrevocably and removed from the pool of available used vehicles. While that's a bit of a fuel economy and emissions benefit, it is an economic cost for people who are struggling anyway.

So in fact the people who you so hate -- the "losers" of society who "don't have to pay taxes or even get a so called tax refund -- will be the ones most hurt by this program, since reliable used cars will rise in price.

I surprised you aren't cheering their comeuppance, Ebeneezer.

On Aug 03 11:35 AM MudEngineer wrote:

> This cash for clunkers program "is not a tax rebate". This is taking
> money from the people who pay taxes and giving it to the people who
> make so little money that they don't have to pay any taxes and may
> even get a so called tax refund even though they paid no taxes.
> That my friend is exactly "socialism".
>
> Your wonderful "cap and trade" will really screw the people who have
> no or little money as energy in all forms will rise in cost and they
> can least afford to pay those new taxes. All because of a few idiots
> who mistake CO2 as the cause of global temperature change when sun
> spots actually cause this cycles naturally. If cap and trade and
> the healthcare plan both pass, we will be permenantly in a recession
> or a depression. THANK YOU LORD OBAMA, OUR NEW DICTATOR!

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

WD216,

Many Americans have "an anti-business mentality" because their interactions with business are unpleasant, unsafe, and unfair. Businesses deploy armies of lawyers against their customers, collude with one another to fix prices and limit service, exploit the employees who generate the revenue keeping the lights on, and buy legislation from Congress making it all legal and protecting the processes.

There is no doubt that the limited liability corporation is the economic organization best able to accomplish large projects lasting an extended period of time. But giving such legal enterprises access to Bill of Rights protections was stupendous folly. Sure, they need access to courts and court procedures as a "person" in order to defend themselves against torts and to initiate them against one another in order to protect their contract rights. But they should not be assumed to have the POLITICAL rights guaranteed by the first ten amendments (free speech, petition of grievance, bearing of arms, and so on).

Since we don't have the initiative at the Federal level I have no idea how to correct this one hundred and thirty year old catastrophe, but it is the root of most of the distortions that afflict our democratic republic today.

On Jul 31 01:39 PM WD216 wrote:

> If those are the correct numbers, then is program costing $1 billion
> and 22,000 vehicles were sold, then the $45,000 per vehicle is correct.
>
>
> However more importantly, are the lines, "This government is, unfortunately,
> a reflection of the current state of economic immaturity that prevails
> in America. The vast majority of people, including most people in
> Congress, do not understand the forces that drive the real economy"
>
>
> Brilliant lines, they sum up the entire mess. We have a bunch of
> good speakers in office that don't know their a*s from their elbow
> when it comes to the economy. The American people don't either as
> they have an anti-business mentality, learned mostly through our
> liberal education system.
>
> The country is going to come out of this recession, only because
> of the trillions that are being spent. However, within 2 to 3 years
> you will see disaster strike due to these same spending policies.
> Our problems will be much worse then. This all due to ignornat Americans
> electing people that speak well.

GM's Pending Bankruptcy: How Buying a Car Is Going to Change

Car Buyer,

Most of those 789 Chrysler dealers are following our local Dodge dealer into empty storefront oblivion. They will not be competing with anyone.

And you know, your image of "pissed off, angry, highly motivated competitor dealerships" is just so much Terminator fantasy. The car salespeople I've met are largely inert "something will turn up" Wallace Beery clones. So even the ones which have a foreign co-dealership by which to survive won't be breathing fire. They'll be waiting for shoppers in the showroom, just like they are today.

On May 29 10:25 AM Car Buyer wrote:

> What about Chrysler's 789 dealers and the GM dealers that will have
> to switch to selling used cars or another car brand? Nothing like
> pissed off, angry, highly motivated competitor dealerships (cut dealers)
> for the surviving Chrysler/GM dealers to have to compete with for
> car sales. And then for GM to be bringing in China built cars to
> replace American built cars? Looks like Ford and the foriegn brands
> will be doing well in the future.