Absolutely. A certain 'Message drift.' With the object being political gain rather than productivity.
A few reasons.
Regen braking gives you an increase of efficiency of a few percent, assuming that all the kinetic energy of the car can be harnessed via the regen system (i.e. the regen system is powerful enough to not need much friction braking.) Teslas approach that, but few other cars do. So that means regen gives you perhaps a percent increase in efficiency, which often is cancelled out by the increase in weight by the motor/inverter/battery system. Indeed, in such cases its best selling point is a decrease in regular maintenance (brake pads.)The important parameter is that maximum use be made of regen braking.
Not sure where you got the idea that no one is "targeting" hybrids. In June 2017, 30,089 hybrids were sold, compared to 8814 EV's sold. (http://www.hybridcars.com/june-2017-dashboard/) So in general hybrids are being "targeted" over 3x harder than EV's.Instead of targeting obvious low hanging fruit, marketing and fantasyland tree huggers have hijacked EVs into some "statement" that clearly isnt cost effective - ie. is having little effect on total ~petrol consumption.
Bad idea. Hub motors don't work well for road vehicles. They add a lot of unsprung weight, and that means that tire wear and damage goes way up, handling suffers and maintenance requirements are increased. That's why no one uses hub motors now. Even the Volvo V60, an application that seems like hub motors would be ideal, used chassis-mounted motors with universal joints to the rear wheels.Here is how simple it is to have an anybrand urban delivery vehicle or bus. Take one existing model, swap the unpowered front or back wheels for wheels with hub motors. Add suitable battery and cheap ~stock electronic controllers from the ebike world.
?? The Prius uses an Atkinson cycle engine - and often engages at zero RPM. The strength of the Prius design comes from the PSD, which allows both electric motors and gas engines to contribute to overall torque without constraining the engine speed to match a multiple of wheel speed.If engines only had to engage at even 5kph, an entirely new and less wasteful ICE could be used (as in prius atkinson engine)
That's been experimented with quite a bit, butI have a simple & cheap idea for rapid charge/discharge storage that adds ~no weight. Make the spare tire a flywheel.
..how about Taxi"s ?
stuble is as stuble does
They are not "the answer" - just one of them.
So do I. (And I also don't worry that you'll be able to get in front of me before I merge into your lane.)the rest of us fuel up and drive where ever we want to, without worry.
Renewable energy jobs in the US - over 1 million. Not too shabby.All this dumb stuff you guys like, ethanol, wind mills, solar, its all smoke and mirrors so you dummies vote for the greenies. Nothing of economics, and the capitalist culture . . . .
It does indeed. And today we have climate change deniers, coal dead-enders and oil dependents who are proving that saying every day.Stop with, the well, but the planet crap. You will never change, in the immortal words of Forest Gump; stupid is as stupid does.
Well, you can say that all you like. Utilities disagree - which is why they are happy to pay sub 3 cents/kwhr for long term power purchase contracts for solar.
You mean the minority who elected Trump, vs the millions more who rejected him? Yep, that was pretty clear.and enough of Americans spoke loud and clear last November.
I am fine with that. Drop all subsidies for power. Make oil and coal companies purchase every acre they drill or mine, rather than giving resources away via subsidized lease deals. Require them to pay for what they break, whether it's damage from oil spills, deaths from coal power plant pollution or erosion of buildings due to acid rain.Oh, i'm sure you keep reading all the greenie crap feeling wholesome inside. If it was viable, then drop the soloar credit, oh, right you wouldn't agree to that. And dont bother to think fossil fuel is subsidized the same, its not.
Lets review;billvon wrote: ↑Nov 30 2017 4:53pmWell, you can say that all you like. Utilities disagree - which is why they are happy to pay sub 3 cents/kwhr for long term power purchase contracts for solar.
When it comes to believing you vs believing the people with the checkbooks - it's an easy call on who to believe.You mean the minority who elected Trump, vs the millions more who rejected him? Yep, that was pretty clear.and enough of Americans spoke loud and clear last November.I am fine with that. Drop all subsidies for power. Make oil and coal companies purchase every acre they drill or mine, rather than giving resources away via subsidized lease deals. Require them to pay for what they break, whether it's damage from oil spills, deaths from coal power plant pollution or erosion of buildings due to acid rain.Oh, i'm sure you keep reading all the greenie crap feeling wholesome inside. If it was viable, then drop the soloar credit, oh, right you wouldn't agree to that. And dont bother to think fossil fuel is subsidized the same, its not.
Then let the free market decide.
I have a feeling you won't like that very much.
I don't normally criticize grammar and writing in online posts, but if you are going to suggest that people are stupid, you might want to try using the correct words and brush up on your grammar a bit. Poor writing suggests poor thinking.
I'm all for that. But I don't think alternative energy would do that well. Certainly without subsidies, solar wouldn't have made the gains it has made.
Looks like you have trouble making logical arguments, and are going to resort to personal attacks and emotional arguments instead. Oh well. Such tactics are pretty common among climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, creationists and other such groups.
Definitely true. When I first looked at solar, it was $10 a watt. Now it's well under $1 a watt. Much of that progress has come from the artificial demand created through subsidies.
Probably true, unfortunately. The conversation usually goes like this:But that's all pie-in-the-sky anyway. Government entanglement in these things is so complex that you could probably never unravel it.
Agreed; which is why I don't pay much attention to solar power purchase contracts in the US as a sign of how cheap solar is getting overall. However, outside the US:wturber wrote: ↑Dec 01 2017 12:01pmThe research I've seen leads me to believe that there is frequently some creative accounting going on to make solar look as inexpensive as some of the alternatives. There are little tricks like not applying the appropriate amortization based on reasonable life expectancies of equipment and so forth.
Well, right; in the US they are publicly owned utilities. They get free use of public right-of-way for their transmission systems and a guaranteed monopoly. In return they have to heed public opinion, usually expressed via a public utility commission. Thus they get told that they have to (for example) extend lower prices to poor people, or give people benefits to reduce their power usage, or implement cleaner generation methods, even though those measures don't make sense from a pure business perspective.Further, few utilities operate in a free market. Most are regulated monopolies. The incentive structure does not necessarily lead them to be making decisions based on cost. Things are often as much political as they are economic. For instance, in our area, utilities subsidize the purchase of LED bulbs so that we will purchase less electricity from them. Go figure.
Typical liberal, rather than dispute facts, you do the Texas two step and not address your errors. Ho hum, its becoming rather a bore, wouldn't you say, darling.billvon wrote: ↑Dec 01 2017 12:05pmLooks like you have trouble making logical arguments, and are going to resort to personal attacks and emotional arguments instead. Oh well. Such tactics are pretty common among climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, creationists and other such groups.
Perhaps you would be happier on a forum that is less engineering/science based. There are plenty of forums out there where you will not be troubled by factual arguments.
I disagree with this. You've got two completely separate drive systems to integrate instead of just one engine or motor. Some of the OEM solutions are genius, but the development costs were astronomical (GM's 2-Mode system, Toyota's HSD). Even once the hardware is sorted, integrating it well enough for the user to be unaware of the difference in operation is extremely hard. I would much rather build a full electric or full gas car than doing another hybrid. Manufacturers are going to move away from hybrids as quickly as they can for regular passenger vehicles because full electrics are so much less demanding. That said, despite the recent electric semi announcements, I see hybrids being a staple of the commercial and industrial sector for a looong time.
I think there is a LOT of political pressure and government involvement/interference in these countries. I think that if you look into it, you are likely to find that this is mostly what is driving the move. Also, the price per KWh is frequently much higher in these countries.