Drove a Hybrid. Impressed?

Composed by one of the 47% perhaps?

Does a wind turbine, solar cell etc. ever produce more energy than the amount of energy that was needed to produce the materials they are made of - that is, within their operating lives?

Apparently someone has just developed a solar panel that 'produces' more energy than is used in making it.

Thus far every solar panel produced has wasted energy and at the moment all that will happen is that the energy is 'moved' from one place to another.

Electric cars are as unsustainable as they were 100 years or so ago (when they were the most common form of car) and for many of the same reasons.

Given that cars are mobile they are best with mobile energy generators, static objects (e.g. houses) work best with static energy generators (e.g. power stations) trying to reverse or combine these is a blind alley.

And as for their benefits, banning short haul flights (e.g. budget airlines) would be far more beneficial for the environment.

Apart from dubious energy benefits there are major problems in finding the raw materials for things like batteries - rare metals tend to be found in a very limited number of areas, most of which are in countries you don't want to be reliant on, and the quantities required for the numbers for cars etc that are being talked about requires the extraction of  such materials in far greater quantities than has been done so far (e.g. for just one manufacturer to produce the number of hybrid/electric cars they are talking about requires 5 times the total amount of Lithium that has ever been extracted).

I don't get why there are not bigger taxes due to polution on short air travels either. New trains got very good regenerative braking and all that. And last for 30 years easily if thats what you want.

One of the common locomotives in Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSB_El_14 This one does not have regenerative braking. DC powered by the way.

One of the oldest passenger train http://en.wikipedia....ki/NSB_Class_69

Edited by MatsNorway, 07 September 2014 - 22:13.

Apparently someone has just developed a solar panel that 'produces' more energy than is used in making it.

Thus far every solar panel produced has wasted energy and at the moment all that will happen is that the energy is 'moved' from one place to another.

Absolute nonsense. Same goes for the rest of your post but one thing at a time.

http://www.resilienc...tovoltaic-cells  (8 years ago)

On the other hand you can work it out for yourself. A 250 watt solar panel lasts at least 25 years and generates about 1.25 kW.hr per day. Lets be conservative and say 1kW.hr/day. 1 x 25 years x 365 = 9125 kW.hr

According to you there is more than this amount of energy embodied in the manufacture of the panel. At 5c/kW.hr the energy cost alone would be $456.25. Add in the other costs of manufacture, packaging costs, transport, numerous markups, warranties etc to arrive at the crazy retail price of . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . $300.  How do they do it?

Absolute nonsense. Same goes for the rest of your post but one thing at a time.

 

http://www.resilienc...tovoltaic-cells  (8 years ago)

 

On the other hand you can work it out for yourself. A 250 watt solar panel lasts at least 25 years and generates about 1.25 kW.hr per day. Lets be conservative and say 1kW.hr/day. 1 x 25 years x 365 = 9125 kW.hr

 

According to you there is more than this amount of energy embodied in the manufacture of the panel. At 5c/kW.hr the energy cost alone would be $456.25. Add in the other costs of manufacture, packaging costs, transport, numerous markups, warranties etc to arrive at the crazy retail price of . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

 . . . . . . . $300.  How do they do it?

Hardly a secret. Solar panels produce more greenhouse to manufacture than they save. Not more energy. 

And last as little as 3 years. Productive life [meaning they go downhill in productivity] is normally around 7 years.

I am seeing solar panels being replaced semi regularly. And others I know who bought are now getting nothing from them in as little a 3 years.

Solar is probably viable in a commercial scale, better quality panels and lots of them in a sunny area.On rotating plinths to chase the sun all day. Not on a roof in the suburbs semi shrouded by shadow half the time. With your average amount of fallout from a urban enviroment. 

A friend fell off his roof recently cleaning his panels!  They now produce a little more again. Luckily he landed on his feet on the lawn so a weeks rest fixed him!

Bullsh**!!

http://info.cat.org....me-pv-panels-uk

"More recent research by Fthenakis, Kim and  Alsema, (2008) suggests that the total greenhouse gas emission (including CO2 and other gases)  for electricity from PV panel is between 20 and 80g CO2-equivalent per kWh under UK conditions. This is ten times lower than the emissions for electricity from fossil fuels (UK grid average is around 500g/kWh, electricity from coal can be as high as 1000g/kWh)."

Solar panels last 7 years? Even the cheapest rubbish panels on the market are guaranteed to be producing greater than 80% of their claimed output - after 25 years. How do you provide such a warranty when the productive life is 7 years? Most failures you hear about are these cheap panels. I know several people with systems 3, 4 and 5 years old - not one has replaced a single panel.

The solar panels on my roof have just clocked up 12 months. I haven't cleaned them once. Sure if I did, the output might go up a few percent, but when I checked the output yesterday they were pumping out 5kW (max for my inverter) so why bother.

Bullsh**!!

According to Stanford university, in the Environmental Science & Technology journal, who looked at the overall picture of building and installing solar panels (which includes such things as the energy required to melt the silica rock to 3000 Fahrenheit to produce the silicon) the industry has just reached the energy balance tipping point.

Other studies have come to the same conclusions.

Solar panels are certainly fiscally interesting (partly because they are subsidised by other users) - especially in countries where the subsidy is more generous than the UK - but their environmental benefits are far less significant.

As for the price of the panels that is the reason why the companies are being investigated for dumping - but as more money is invested in them the price and efficiency has certainly improved and when they start using different materials the benefits will improve.

Incidentally, rather than subsidising individuals who install panels it would make more sense for electricity companies to supply and install the panels themselves on suitable roofs (possibly paying a rental fee to the householders) but that would not be very good for their profit margins, which these days are far more important than providing a utility.

As for the rest of my nonsense where are you going to dig up all the rare metals that are required - presumably you are on great terms with Russia & China, what about North Korea, Afghanistan etc all of whom are well known for their generosity and stability.

Edited by Peter Morley, 08 September 2014 - 09:25.

The solar panels on my roof have just clocked up 12 months. I haven't cleaned them once. Sure if I did, the output might go up a few percent, but when I checked the output yesterday they were pumping out 5kW (max for my inverter) so why bother.

Clean them and you peak earlier in the morning and stay at peak longer. A repositioning of them might be benefitial too. 5kW sounds alot. How big is the installation?

As for the rest of my nonsense where are you going to dig up all the rare metals that are required - presumably you are on great terms with Russia & China, what about North Korea, Afghanistan etc all of whom are well known for their generosity and stability.

http://www.solarblog...are-earths.html

How Rare are Rare Earths?

Panic over?

Edited by MatsNorway, 08 September 2014 - 15:46.

Clean them and you peak earlier in the morning and stay at peak longer. A repositioning of them might be benefitial too. 5kW sounds alot. How big is the installation?

Unless they are visibly dirty, cleaning is only worth a few percent. A 250W panel is typically 1680 x 950 so about 1.5 sq m. 20 of those for 5 kW.

Unless they are visibly dirty, cleaning is only worth a few percent. A 250W panel is typically 1680 x 950 so about 1.5 sq m. 20 of those for 5 kW.

I look at the crap that builds up on my car in a  week or so. So they will all be fairly dirty after a while. 

As for life? I know many who have had them fail. I see the things being either pulled down or replaced around my area. And they were not around more than 10 years ago. 

25 year guarantee? I would like to see the exclusions! Though 2/3 of the solar industry has gone, amalgamated, changed identity in the last 6 years here.

I look at the crap that builds up on my car in a  week or so. So they will all be fairly dirty after a while. 
As for life? I know many who have had them fail. I see the things being either pulled down or replaced around my area. And they were not around more than 10 years ago. 
25 year guarantee? I would like to see the exclusions! Though 2/3 of the solar industry has gone, amalgamated, changed identity in the last 6 years here.

Given they're capturing radiation dirt might not affect their performance significantly, they might also have some clever cleaning technology on them.

They certainly fail and if the return on them is based on a long life (as in the UK where the subsidy isn't very generous) insurance is reckoned to be essential to making sure that you see a return from them - several people I know with panels have had failures before they've paid for themselves. Of course the cost of the insurance has to be factored into their economic viability and the number of replacement panels considered when looking at their environmental impact.

Actual empirical facts are subject to a personal reality distortion effect around some people I've noticed. The majority of the time I don't think they even care, if it feels good coming out or in, it is true. Facts be damned.

I don't know why we should listen to scientists and engineers when there are so many qualified televangelists and radio talk show hosts willing to educate us on these subjects. 

I look at the crap that builds up on my car in a  week or so. So they will all be fairly dirty after a while. 

As for life? I know many who have had them fail. I see the things being either pulled down or replaced around my area. And they were not around more than 10 years ago. 

25 year guarantee? I would like to see the exclusions! Though 2/3 of the solar industry has gone, amalgamated, changed identity in the last 6 years here.

I guess I must be lucky. I have had my solar system for 10 months now. I have never cleaned them. We have had a pretty dry year with only occasional rain to rinse them off. Daily output is currently very similar to what it was 10 months ago and that was close to mid-summer. I guess if I got up and cleaned them, the output might improve as much as 10%. Don't think I'll bother.

Any ideas out there on why there are no hybrid minivans? Seems like the perfect platform for it if you ask me. They're already heavier so could benefit more from brake regen, they have more room to tuck away batteries, and they cost more so the extra $ of hybridization would be easier to absorb.

Perhaps something to do with the economics of operating a commercial vehicle.

- Generally diesel engine (less benefit from hybrid trans)

- High mile service life

- Simplicity and reliability

Very sane article - I essentially agree with the article as well. I predict the GG will hate it.

Yes, very sane and measured but composed entirely of cherry picked rebuttals of selected methodologies. Spend some time reading the discussion below the article as well and you will find some very good counter arguments. We have an observed phenomenon (warming). Scientific concensus supports the theory of AGW. There is no alternative credible theory.

The facts are

- Man made CO2 has increased atmospheric levels significantly

- The planet is warming

- There is a link between atmospheric CO2 and warming of the planet

Significant changes can be made at low economic cost. We know that fossil fuel resources are finite anyway - we already have price pressures driving new technology in the automotive arena. A little extra pressure to hasten the transition? Or wait till we have burned it all and hope that AGW, noxious pollutants, environmental degradation etc are not such a big problem after all and there is something left for our grandchildren?

Perhaps something to do with the economics of operating a commercial vehicle.

- Generally diesel engine (less benefit from hybrid trans)

- High mile service life

- Simplicity and reliability

In N.A. few minivans are used as commercial vehicles. For the most part, they don't live lives any harsher than your typical grocery getters like Camrys or Accords have to endure.

Do you think the minivan buyer would pay a premium for improved fuel economy or is sticker price top priority?

Wouldn't anybody pay a premium for improved fuel economy? It depends on how much premium for how much fuel economy, of course. Like a wise man once said, how long is a piece of string? 

Well you could look at other hybrids and compare the cost-benefit vs a standard model e.g. Camry vs Camry Hybrid. At Australian prices its a no-brainer. The hybrid only costs 12% ($4k) more and uses 47% less fuel around town.

I wonder if space for the hybrid trans is an issue?

Edited by gruntguru, 17 September 2014 - 23:55.

Reflecting on your points, I'm starting to think there may not be a powerful enough hybrid powertrain to drive a minivan in a manner that meets the expectations of N.A. consumers. All the ones I could find were based on inline 4s and maxed out at a combined 200hp. It would have to be a new, upsized, powertrain that's shared with other models in order to ensure cost recovery. That really just leaves the luxury/high performance segment, where there also wouldn't be much sales volume. It wouldn't do much good in the truck segment due to the concerns you mentioned regarding commercial duty use. Make sense?

OK, upon further research there IS in fact a higher output hybrid powertrain out there in the form of Toyota's 3.5L V6 in the Highlander and RX models. The price premium is about $11000 comparably equipped, with taxes. The fuel consumption is reduced by 3.1L/100km assuming a 50/50 split of city and highway driving. At today's gas prices, that works out to a payback after about 250,000km or around 12 years of typical driving. Of course as fuel prices rise, that timeframe will be reduced.

I doubt most new car buyers plan on keeping their cars for more than 10 years, and very few do such high mileage quickly. So the value of a hybrid isn't there for most buyers. Yet the appeal is clearly there, since the Highlander and RX hybrids exist (and they've been around for a while). So why not stuff that powertrain in the Sienna minivan? It's a straight swap for the 3.5L conventional mill in the Sienna that's also used in those normal Highlander and RX. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

The hybrid powertrain in the RX400h is a FWD gas/electric with RWD electric assist, for a combined 270ish max hp (claimed).  It's infinitely more powerful than my 4 cylinder Previa was. the same powertrain, or very similar, is available in the Toyota Highlander SUV.  I'm not sure why there were no diesel minivan offerings in NA, but I've heard rumours that Chrysler sells a diesel version of it's Caravan model, with a stick, in Europe.  I've never bothered to look and see if it's true.

As to why there's no hybrid van - perhaps because the premium the NA buyers pay is outrageous.  Or, because it doesn't offer a significant benefit.  Have you seen how lead-footed the school run is?

Imaginesix snuck that in there...

I've heard rumours that Chrysler sells a diesel version of it's Caravan model, with a stick, in Europe.  I've never bothered to look and see if it's true.

 

Is that the same as a Grand Voyager?  If so, then yes, only available as a diesel in the UK.

Here in the US anyone is free to purchase an electric automobile or install PV solar panels on the roof of their house. Yet only a small percentage of the population chooses to do either. Why? It's because the forces of free market economics are far more powerful than those of political correctness and environmental junk science.

If EVs or PV solar made economic sense, the general public would readily embrace these technologies.

Here in the US anyone is free to purchase an electric automobile or install PV solar panels on the roof of their house. Yet only a small percentage of the population chooses to do either. Why? It's because the forces of free market economics are far more powerful than those of political correctness and environmental junk science.

 

If EVs or PV solar made economic sense, the general public would readily embrace these technologies.

Probably because regular cars are cheap, and electric cars are not.

As to solar cells, I imagine that power in the US is quite cheap. Here in Australia it is among the highest in the world.

People in Australia are free to buy and install solar panels. The difference is that there have been some subsidies (varies between states) and generous fee-in tariffs. That, added to the excessive price of power makes it more economic to install them.

There is a reason US got like a billion billion dollar in depth. Not taking a decent tax on some things is one of them.

If EVs or PV solar made economic sense, the general public would readily embrace these technologies.

As they will do and sooner than you think. Ask Elon Musk.

Here in the US anyone is free to purchase an electric automobile or install PV solar panels on the roof of their house. Yet only a small percentage of the population chooses to do either. Why? It's because the forces of free market economics are far more powerful than those of political correctness and environmental junk science.

 

If EVs or PV solar made economic sense, the general public would readily embrace these technologies.

Electric/ hybrid vehicles will never make economic sense anywhere. 

Solar panels do but only because of the subsidys and excessive tarriffs being paid here in Oz.

I have said it before, 10000 home solar power stations are just plain dumb. So uneconomic. I will reserve judgement however on a small array for solar heated hot water.

However, IF, the blurbs I have read and have seen on TV it appears that solar in a sunny country like Oz is quite viable. Provided ofcourse it is near existing infrastructure. Eg near a normal base load power station as can happen here. Solar will obviously never be base load but will be producing some power at least 10 hours a day. Not ideal for home heating but great to run those airconds in Summer. And super 'green', that is if you discount the panel manufacture.

Probably would never be viable in cooler Northern hemisphere countries. Not enough sun, even in summer.

Well you could look at other hybrids and compare the cost-benefit vs a standard model e.g. Camry vs Camry Hybrid. At Australian prices its a no-brainer. The hybrid only costs 12% ($4k) more and uses 47% less fuel around town.

 

I wonder if space for the hybrid trans is an issue?

Hybrid Camry is /was a government subsidised vehicle. PM KRudds donation to the economy. The government had fleets of them, many are now cabs. Seemingly not liked by many of the drivers as they have less room  performance and running costs than a LPG Falcon or Commodore.Unlike however a Prius at least they are a remotely decent size.

I  occasionally sell new and used! tyres to an eastern gentleman who runs a few cabs. Often the drivers bring the cars here for fitting and tell me their likes and loathes.

Here in the US anyone is free to purchase an electric automobile or install PV solar panels on the roof of their house. Yet only a small percentage of the population chooses to do either. Why? It's because the forces of free market economics are far more powerful than those of political correctness and environmental junk science.

 

If EVs or PV solar made economic sense, the general public would readily embrace these technologies.

Market forces are also stronger than real science and actual politics in guiding people's actions. Just because something is the right thing to do, doesn't mean it will also be cheaper.

So if you're using the market forces argument to validate your climate denial and social justice, then you've failed as it's only revealed your bias.

Electric/ hybrid vehicles will never make economic sense anywhere. 

Solar panels do but only because of the subsidys and excessive tarriffs being paid here in Oz.

I have said it before, 10000 home solar power stations are just plain dumb. So uneconomic. I will reserve judgement however on a small array for solar heated hot water.

However, IF, the blurbs I have read and have seen on TV it appears that solar in a sunny country like Oz is quite viable. Provided of course it is near existing infrastructure. Eg near a normal base load power station as can happen here. Solar will obviously never be base load but will be producing some power at least 10 hours a day. Not ideal for home heating but great to run those airconds in Summer. And super 'green', that is if you discount the panel manufacture.

Probably would never be viable in cooler Northern hemisphere countries. Not enough sun, even in summer.

Your evidence is so solid, it can even predict the future.

-or-

You are ideologically biased against green energy.

Is there a 3rd option I've overlooked?

Here you go denialists, the next green tech for you to gnash your teeth and rail against:

http://techcrunch.co...-it-was-boring/

That's the beauty of it, the tech doesn't have to be a poor solution. Haters will rage about it regardless, as long as it's different and labelled 'green'.

Hydrogen has a very low conversion efficiency compared to battery technologies. Hydrogen > electricity is not too bad but electricity > hydrogen efficiency really sucks.

Electric/ hybrid vehicles will never make economic sense anywhere. 

Taxi operators are such idiots. They are switching from LPG Fords to Prius in droves.

Hydrogen has a very low conversion efficiency compared to battery technologies. Hydrogen > electricity is not too bad but electricity > hydrogen efficiency really sucks.

http://www.gla.ac.uk..._358595_en.html

Supposedly they have found a way of producing Hydrogen using less energy.

Here you go denialists, the next green tech for you to gnash your teeth and rail against:

 

http://techcrunch.co...-it-was-boring/

Given the enormous problems associated with hydrogen that puff piece should be printed out and used as ass wipe.

First you have to generate  electricity (usual efficincies apply)

then you have to electrolyse water or decarbon hydrocarbons (very energy intensive)

then you have to compress or liquefy the hydrogne. (also energy intensive)

Then you have to transport it to the refuelling station. (with associated losses)

then you have to keep it refrigerated. (energy intensive)

then it gets pumped into the car

admittedly from there on it is fine, if you keep it cold. BMW's hydrogen car would empty itself of hydrogen over 3 days whether you used it or not, the hydrogen boiled off.

Gnash Gnash.

A better question is why do car companies love hydrogen so much?

Here's a presentation by Argonne, an organisation that tends to cut its cloth as the EPA asks, but they do at least come up with some answers

http://www.iphe.net/...ion-09-2010.pdf

so if you start from coal your GHG emissions are the same as a gasoline car.

http://www.gla.ac.uk..._358595_en.html

 

Supposedly they have found a way of producing Hydrogen using less energy.

Didn't see any mention of energy or efficiency in that article.

Methane  CH4 sold as CNG is a great fuel for vehicles being already piped to most peoples houses already,so a home filling station is easy. In NZ it is available very cheaply at many petrol stations on the North Island.

It produces little carbon dioxide compared with other fuels and is very high octane so good for turbos. LPG is almost as good and has the advantage of being easily liquified. Converting methane to hydrogen to fuel cars is just expensive and stupid. Unless you are going to store the carbon produced it has little advantage over methane.

Here's the reasons that I know of why hydrogen continues to e promoted despite its many problems

a)patents

b)government funding

and now more trivially

c)It solves the EV refueling rate issue (so did Better Place)

d) it solves the EV range issue

e) it acts as a grid storage mechanism, that is, if your wind turbine is pumping out inconvenient energy, use it to make hydrogen.

Here's the reasons that I know of why hydrogen continues to e promoted despite its many problems
 
a)patents
b)government funding
 
and now more trivially
 
c)It solves the EV refueling rate issue (so did Better Place)
d) it solves the EV range issue
e) it acts as a grid storage mechanism, that is, if your wind turbine is pumping out inconvenient energy, use it to make hydrogen.

Edited by Superbar, 20 September 2014 - 08:55.

Taxi operators are such idiots. They are switching from LPG Fords to Prius in droves.

I saw a fleet of hire cars (almost Taxis) near here that has switched from Commodores and Falcons to hybrid Camrys. Morons.

Your evidence is so solid, it can even predict the future.

-or-

You are ideologically biased against green energy.

 

Is there a 3rd option I've overlooked?

I am practical and think! I keep my eyes and ears open. Any purported saving from a hybrid car is offset by a far higher purchase price and maintenance costs. That is simple math by talking to Toyota workshop people.  I have worked in the motortrade for over 40 years. So have more idea than most experts who read an internet spiel!

Read my post re solar panels. On a commercial scale they seem to be a good thing. But 10000 tiny power stations generating with big subsidies is a rip off for the people who dont or cant play the game. A LOT of buildings are unsuitable with orientation to the sun, or being shadowed by other development. And many people dont want butt ugly panels on the front of their premises. Again an orientation problem.