Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Diesel Hybrid is really quite efficient and ideal (think locomotive..)
Won't happen in USA, but fortunately the world is bigger than the USA, and some very good diesel hybrids came out in the 90's (~80 - 100mpg). Run them on Synthetic fuels and emission is 20% of an ICE, but they seldom need to run.
CARB really muffed the USA chances of reasonable emissions solutions (without spending a zillion $ to support the CARB and DOE fluff jobs)
Simple conservation and purposeful technology could have met those goals 20 - 30 yrs ago.
For heavy trucks (Garbage, buses, fire...) , HHV (Hydraulic Hybrid) is quite promising and Australia leads the research in that technology.
If there was advancement in distributed Nuclear Power generation (Small regional sources). EV would be a LOT more practical.
Take a look at the power requirements for the 350kW fast chargers. That is not gonna run off your dryer outlet!
We have a ways to go, too bad we are 40 yrs too late.
We should be embracing ALL solutions, as quickly as possible.
Getting backed into the singular EV world will be a significant step backwards. Not everyone, in all places can utilize an EV (or a hybrid).
Develop a workable strategy, implement it!
End of discussion / arguments. Do your part and have a significant impact over what you can control. Don't jam everyone into the same test tube.
Farmers / ranchers in remote areas can conserve too, but they won't be doing it in an 'off-road' Prius.
We a average around 220w per mile around town on electric.
Low 40 mpgs on the highway on gas.
I really don't know what you're talking about.
You have to use a complicated MPGe-formula, for a hybrid-vehicle, to accurately calculate your
fuel usage. With all the technology, hardware and software thrown into a hybrid, it is not a very good result MPG-wise.
But I understand, people think hybrids are neato and ultra-efficient, fine.
A modern subcompact, with an ICE and all the modern fuel-saving technology, could easily get a real-world result of 80+MPG. But like I have said before, people will not shell-out 50 to 60 thousand for this type setup....even if it easily blows-away the actual MPG any hybrid gets.
End of discussion / arguments. Do your part and have a significant impact over what you can control.
Climate policy is ultimately an economic question:
How much does climate change hurt?
How much do various policy ideas actually help?
What do they cost?
You don't have to agree or disagree with the IPCC reports to disagree with climate policy that doesn't make economic sense. "Spend some money now - or accept reduced incomes through holding back on carbon emissions - in order to mitigate climate change thereby providing a better future economy"
The best guesses of the economic impact of climate changer are surprisingly small. The UN's IPCC finds that a large temperature rise of 3.66 degrees C by 2100 means a loss of 2.6% of global GDP. Even with outrageous assumptions models struggle to get to a 5% reduction in GDP by 2100 with no mitigation of climate change whatsoever.
To put that in perspective, climate change means that in 2100, if we do nothing at all between now and then, people will live at what 2097 levels of GDP would be if climate change were to magically disappear tomorrow.
Climate policy is ultimately an economic question:
How much does climate change hurt?
How much do various policy ideas actually help?
What do they cost?
You don't have to agree or disagree with the IPCC reports to disagree with climate policy that doesn't make economic sense. "Spend some money now - or accept reduced incomes through holding back on carbon emissions - in order to mitigate climate change thereby providing a better future economy"
The best guesses of the economic impact of climate changer are surprisingly small. The UN's IPCC finds that a large temperature rise of 3.66 degrees C by 2100 means a loss of 2.6% of global GDP. Even with outrageous assumptions models struggle to get to a 5% reduction in GDP by 2100 with no mitigation of climate change whatsoever.
To put that in perspective, climate change means that in 2100, if we do nothing at all between now and then, people will live at what 2097 levels of GDP would be if climate change were to magically disappear tomorrow.
The whole thing is about money and political power; nothing else. The ones who have control of these things aren't the ones paying for it.
I posted this thread asking to following question: Are you interested on hybrid automobiles?
Should forum members be "rocket scientist" to post in this forum? If you aren't interested you can very well express your views about it. After all, this is a public forum. However, if this is a public forum that belongs to you and for whatever reason I have broken the rules, by all means tell me so.
And yes, I made a grammatical error when writing this thread's title, but unlike other forums where one can make corrections (edits) days and even weeks later, this one does not allow it. Since you caught on my mistake, are you interested in hybrid automobiles or not?
Last edited by RayinAK; 04-28-2022 at 11:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
