> One can also get some of the benefits with less "tiny car" trade-off. We
> have a Lexus hybrid (same technology as the Prius, scaled up) and it gets
> about a 10 mpg boost over the identical model in its gas-only version.
This is a very important point. When comparing econoboxes, there is
very little gain with hybrid technology, but with larger, heavier
vehicles, the gain is very significant. Move up to utility vehicles,
like UPS and FedEx trucks, and the gain is huge.
> As for the fuel cell vehicles, I'm failing to see their advantage at
> present, as from what I can determine the cost of production of hydrogen is
> higher in terms of fossil fuels than is using those liquefied dinosaurs
> directly.
At this point, we really are just moving the position of the carbon
footprint around. It's an energy storage and transport issue, not an
efficiency issue. It takes the same amount of energy to move two tons
of automobile down the road regardless if it comes from a coal-fired
electric plant or from gasoline in the tank. However, with a slow
migration towards renewable energies, there is a net gain. Here in
Iowa, we are continuing to convert our farmlands into multitasking
"farms". Grow corn and beans at ground level and generate electricity
300 feet up in the air. There is a reason why Google, Facebook and
Microsoft have all built multi-billion dollar data centers here in
Iowa.
The variation of the theme is nuclear energy. Being able to keep the
power plant running at high output 24 hours a day is a very good
thing. By charging batteries and making hydrogen, we are essentially
storing the nightime energy for use in the daytime. Peak/Lull
balancing is where the biggest carbon-footprint gains are achieved.
In Iowa, the power generation infrastructure has been changing a lot.
Instead of huge coal-fired power plants providing all power, they've
been downsized to base-only load. The rest is provided by a
combination of wind and natural-gas. There are smaller natural-gas
power plants that come on line in balance with the wind generation.
The more wind, the less gas. The advantage of this is that the
coal-fired plants run 24/7 at peak efficiency without having to bring
generators and boilers on line. The other cool thing is that the
natural-gas plants have been implementing gas-turbine engines which
are really efficient and can come online in a couple of minutes.
> Nonetheless, the "greenest" option, usually, is keeping one's vehicle for
> the longest possible time, thus avoiding both the environmental costs of
> production of yet another new vehicle, and of the destruction/disposal of
> the old one. By that metric, my 26 year old Land Cruiser might be the
> greenest vehicle I have yet owned.
Up to a certain point, you are correct. It depends on how inefficient
the old vehicle is and how many miles you drive it. If you are a
moderate driver, and not using it to commute 500+ miles a week, it is
extremely efficient to keep the old beast running. With the high cost
of Land Cruisers, you really do need ot drive them for 20+ years to
reach payback anyway.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|