Talk:Hybrid vehicle/Archive 1

message: What does "while delivering 50% better fuel efficiency" mean? A car doesn't deliever fuel efficiency, it delivers mileage while having fuel consumption. So do hybrids consume 50% less fuel or drive 50% farther (meaning they consume 33% less)? Paranoid 19:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  71% softer skin? 

message: During the gass shortage in the 70s Volvo created a car that should probably be mentioned here. Alison9 06:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volvo in the 70s 

message: Moved to Gas-Electric Hybrid. --D0li0 09:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrid What? 

message: I have removed the 'Criticism of hybrid vehicles' section on the grounds that it is an unsourced, POV rant by an anonymous user.  This is not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms of the hybrid in its current form; rather, this is not an accurate summation of them.  Here's the original text.  How about trying to get this to be a more accurate, and preferably sourced, list of the criticism?
:== Criticism of hybrid vehicles ==
:
:
:In Europe, hybrid vehicles are seen with suspicion. Many people assume hybrids are meant to forward a particular U.S. political agenda, one which refuses to conserve energy to combat global warming. Instead hybrid propulsion technology is the alleged way to preserve the american SUV and big block full-sized car culture, which still wastes energy regarless of its origin (which is fossil or nuclear based after all). The Californian Governor's solicitation of hidrogen and hybrid Hummers has received negative publicity in the old continent.
:Most european car vendors follow a path of refining the traditional car with further reduction in the capacity of internal combustion engines and a trend towards smaller overall vehicle sizes to reduce fossil fuel consumption to 60MPG and beyond. Recently manufactured multi-phase direct injection commonrail turbo-diesel engines are quite powerful, have good acceleration and the RPM range is no longer limited (e.g. Toyota D-4D, Fiat Multijet, Peugot HDi). The inclusion of a particle filter drum or Euro-4 standards compliance reduces solid emissions dramatically. Such developments remove the need for auxillary electric propulsion in diesel-powered cars. Economic pure diesel vehicles continue to conquer the european market, having reached an 50% share of all new sales as of mid-2005 and hybrids are practically unheard of.
:The use of batteries for automotive power is controversial, because rechargeable batteries are amongst the least efficient forms of power storage known to mankind[SIC].  A partially or fully electric-powered vehicle needs to haul several hundred kilograms(220lbs, Insight=50lbs, Prius=<100) of batteries. BEV's often measure PbA pack capacity as a percentage of the total mass, using that as an estimate for range.  This large weight increase requires extra power from the engine due to increased friction, yet the batteries store juice for less than 100 kilometers (62 miles, Insight=0, Prius=2-4miles, PbA-BEV=30-90miles, NiMH-BEV=80-140miles, Li-BEV=300+miles) worth of full-electric cruise. The average internal combustion engine powered vehicle spends 2-4% of its onboard fuel reserve per 1000 kilometers to haul its own fuel stored in the tanks, though all the while wasting the vast majority of the fuels energy content, about 70% to 80% of the total energy goes unused.  This ratio is markedly worse in case of electric vehicles.  Of course this is all quite obvious as it's imposible to find an energy carrier as dense as liquid hydrocarbons, too bad they're destroying our environment and sparking wars.
:The onboard use of a large mass of batteries poses environmental and safety dangers. The cost to produce rechargeable batteries is very high when measured in terms of the raw materials used up (which of course can't be recycled), the manufacturing effort and the resulting pollution[SIC]. Many battery ingredients, including lead, acids, cadmium and metal-hydrides are poisonous or harmful to humans and the environment (and are the most recycled materials on earth), which causes problems in case of an accident and responsible disposal at the vehicle' end-of-life (which is never since only the Batteries in a BEV tend wear out).  While diesel and gassoline are perfectly benign as are oil spills and the massive conversion of such fuels into Carbon Dioxide.
=== Proposed new text ===
:insert new text here
The sucess of the hybdrid car concept builds large on a green image which reduces the bad reputation of contributing to global warmin, asthma etc.. If you look at the MPG or l/100km  figures you see that with mild hybrides there is no big improvements over cars sold in Europe for a long time. Only the SUV-boom and the increase of saftey for the occupants, gadgets and air conditions has been increasing vehicle weight and fuel consumption that much that changes are madatory. Taking into consideration the life cycle of a car i.e. the energy necessary to build the car you might be better of to use ECODRIVING (i.e. combine relaxed and low RPM US- drivig style with small to medium size European cars). 47 MPG 5l/100km should be no problem when driving with responsibility this way with a 10,000 EURO four seater.
:I'm not sure that mpg figure is entirely realistic. I drive a 1.2 litre Renault Clio (2001) and generally get around 45mpg(UK) out of it, and I'm no racer. That's about 37.5mpg(US) or 6.3l/100km. 
:I do agree with the principle though, driving a lighter, smaller capacity car sensibly can probably rival real life Hybrid performance. Of course, cost involved depends on your personal situation. My Clio is worth about £2000, so I would have to save an awful lot of fuel to justify buying an £18000 hybrid. However, if I drove a similarly priced car already, this would not be an issue. Unclejimbo83 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'Criticism of hybrid vehicles' section; discuss! 

message: :insert new text here
The sucess of the hybdrid car concept builds large on a green image which reduces the bad reputation of contributing to global warmin, asthma etc.. If you look at the MPG or l/100km  figures you see that with mild hybrides there is no big improvements over cars sold in Europe for a long time. Only the SUV-boom and the increase of saftey for the occupants, gadgets and air conditions has been increasing vehicle weight and fuel consumption that much that changes are madatory. Taking into consideration the life cycle of a car i.e. the energy necessary to build the car you might be better of to use ECODRIVING (i.e. combine relaxed and low RPM US- drivig style with small to medium size European cars). 47 MPG 5l/100km should be no problem when driving with responsibility this way with a 10,000 EURO four seater.
:I'm not sure that mpg figure is entirely realistic. I drive a 1.2 litre Renault Clio (2001) and generally get around 45mpg(UK) out of it, and I'm no racer. That's about 37.5mpg(US) or 6.3l/100km. 
:I do agree with the principle though, driving a lighter, smaller capacity car sensibly can probably rival real life Hybrid performance. Of course, cost involved depends on your personal situation. My Clio is worth about £2000, so I would have to save an awful lot of fuel to justify buying an £18000 hybrid. However, if I drove a similarly priced car already, this would not be an issue. Unclejimbo83 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new text 

message: I don't know of any motor that is physically run in reverse to generate power.  I guess it may mean reverse in the sense that it's pumping current the other way, but it's still spinning the same direction.  Should probably be clarified.
: I'm at a loss to come up with a better word or phrase to use and have italicized reverse to remind us all to try to come up with something better.  The best I can think of is instead of applying voltage, a load is applied which has the effect of makes the motor act as a generator, which is way to long.  I think that anyone who is even vagly familure with motor technology will understand what we mean, and perhaps come up with a better way of saying it.  Those who don't understand will at least come away knowing that the same device (motor) is also acting as a generator, although they may mistakenly believe that it runs in the opposite direction while acting as a generator, which is incorrect.  I'm not sure if it would be inappropriate to link the out of place word to this portion of the talk page, if it is someone will remove the link I'm about to create there. --D0li0 08:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "in generator mode"? I think the best solution is to use a phrase like that and link to a separate page that does the usual four quadrant diagram. It doesn't look like we have a candidate as yet. An alternative would be a footnote with text like "When a motor is driven faster than than the speed resulting from the electrical input, electrical power starts flowing in the opposite direction, in effect causing the motor to act as a generator." --Mike Van Emmerik 11:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds great! Would you like to have the honor of making that change, I'de have to look up how to do a footnote :( --D0li0 11:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: They really aren't that uncommon.  I've had small engines (on a grain auger) with electric starters--motors used to start the internal combustion engine, and then while it is running, to operate as a generator to charge the battery.  Gene Nygaard 12:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No problem, I'll do a "see also" in the footnote. I welcome suggestions on the placement of the footnote, or its appropriateness. --Mike Van Emmerik 23:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good use of a footnote.  I took the liberty of correcting the physical explanation -- really, it's the sign of current flow that is important rather than the speed of the motor.  That's important for motors like the ones in the Prius, which are commutated by direct computer control rather than by a physical commutator ring.  The phasing and sign of voltage pulses is important.  I believe the Prius also uses variable pulse-width switching and series inductors to adjust the applied voltage as the motor speed changes -- that sort of moots the question of applied voltage.  Rather than open that whole can of worms (involving inductors, pulse width modulation, feedback, transistors,  and control theory) it might be better just to gloss over the whole thing with the most general explanation possible! :-) zowie 04:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks great! I've moved the footnote to the bottom of the article, similar to Hydrogen_vehicle#References. --D0li0 09:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generator in reverse? 

message: * ISE ThunderVolt® Electric and Hybrid-Electric Buses and Trucks Drive Systems also using Ultracapacitators
* cars concept  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.17.99 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hybrid powertrains

message: I realize the "Criticism" section is pretty sparse right now because it's being hashed out on the Talk page.  One thing I haven't seen mentioned specifically, though, is the safety-after-a-wreck issue.  On the vehicle extrication page, it mentions dangers specific to hybrids: high voltages, acid and fire hazards when attempting to extricate people from a wrecked hybrid.
::Both Honda All and Toyota Prius G1 Prius G2, and I suppose now Ford escape , have First responders training materials which I believe are now a part of personel training courses.  They are rather unspectacular and I can sum them up pretty quickly.  1- They show the location of the main battery disconnects. 2- they say "Don't cut the Orange Wires".  Though in all reality if I'm left in my crushed Hybrid because someone is afraid of my hybrid I'll be rather pissed. Even if they do cut the orange HV wires the batteries fues would instantly blow (if it hadn't already from the crash).  The HV wires are located under the vehicle near the main frame members, which are rarely cut durring a rescue.  The HV is a danger, but it's overhyped IMO.  "Acid" dangers are nonesnese, there will be more "Acid" in the standard 12v battery which is normally undersized in an Hybrid.  Hybrids use NiMH batteries which have very little (If any) liquid electrolite that could leak and it would be nearly impossible to rupture all of the individule cells.  "Fire Hazards"?  What exactly do you call the 10+ gallons of liquid gasoline?  Hybrid batteries represent about 1/300th of the energy content of the gas tank.  Again most of these "Hazards" are speculative nonsense    , rescuers are trained for Hybrids just as they are trained to deal with all the real hazards they encounter with normal vehicles.  --D0li0 08:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: safety after a wreck 

message: I have removed the following point from the Hybrid_vehicle#Benefits section.
* In comparison with purely electric vehicles of comparable size and power, hybrids are usually lighter and roomier because fewer batteries are needed.  Batteries store less energy per unit mass and per unit volume than does gasoline.
* PbA GM EV1,    3,086 lb. (1,400 kg), Bat 1310 lb., 50.4 cu.ft./ 9.7 cu.ft.  (60.1)
* NiMH GM EV1,   2,908 lb. (1,320 kg), Bat 1147 lb., 50.4 cu.ft./ 9.7 cu.ft.  (60.1)
* Honda Insight, 1,878 lb. (  852 kg), Bat   48 lb., 47.4 cu.ft./16.3+2 cu.ft.(65.7)
** Both are 2 seat subcompacts and while the EV1 is heavier it is was also quicker and had sufficient range of 80-120 miles (which might be a valid point, but still doesn't belong in this article.  Had the EV1 progressed to use Lithium batteries it's battery weight would have been further reduced by about half, bringing it within about 500 lb. of the Ultra-light Insight, while further out-performing and increasing it's range to more than 200 miles.
** The Insight isn't much roomier than the EV1, and interiour space is more a general design aspect and not specific to a vehicles powertrain or fuel source.
* The energy storage characteristics of batteries vs liquid HC fuels is not a unique feature of BEV's nor Hybrids and has no place here.  These two energy carriers difference in specific energy is obvious and not the point of choosing to use a BEV versus traditional gas fueled vehicles.  If you think it is then you are missing the point entirely, you can't produce HC fuels in your backyard or on my rooftop.
--D0li0 11:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits comparison with purely electric vehicles 

message: Motorized bicycle is a hybrid vehicle.  I haven't really checked... but where would be the best place to put it in this article?  --CyclePat 07:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  motorized bicycle 

message: Hi,
Just looking around.  I noticed this article is fantastic.  However another one was started elsewhere.  I support the idea that there are many other vehicles out there.  So which one should we keep...hybrid transport and/or hybrid vehicle is the issue...  meuh?  Anyways cheers.  --Pat 05:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think hybrid vehicle is a better term.  "Transport" brings to mind other forms of transportation such as air, rail, ...; this article mainly focuses on hybrid motor vehicles.  Also, looking at What links here, there are far greater number of articles linking to hybrid vehicle (though a significant number link to "hybrid car", which redirects to "hybrid vehicle". --Aude 17:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kmf164.  This article should contain information on personal vehicles and then hybrid transport should contain a brief summary and then cover topics line air, rail, etc.  uriah923(talk) 14:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hybrid vehicle is the clear best choice Anlace 23:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MErge or delete? 

message: There is a list of hybrid vehicles inside the article and also a link to an external list of hybrid vehicles in the See Also section.  The two lists are starting to diverge and it would a chore to keep both in sync.  Since this article is growing too big, it would make sense to merge the "internal" list into the external list.  Kowloonese 02:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two diverging lists

message: I just made significant copyedits to the intro, paring it down to just saying what a hybrid is.  Cost & benefits are mentioned later in the article.  I also reordered the sections, putting "Types" and "Engines and fuel sources" after history and before "costs & benefits", as this section talks about topics explained in "types" and "engines. Seems like a more logical order, flow to the article.  I also got rid of the "Local regulatory concerns" heading, as that merely defined what a hybrid is - already covered in the intro.  References are also organized better, thanks to Uriah923.  There are also some facts mentioned in the article that lack citations.  Per discussion above, I'll look into doing something with the "list of hybrid vehicles" - maybe making it into an infobox or something. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedits 

message: :Mild hybrids are essentially conventional vehicles with oversized starter motors, allowing the engine to be turned off whenever the car is coasting, braking, or stopped, yet restart quickly and cleanly.
I thought these mild hybrids only use the big motor to start and stop the engine cleanly and efficiently.  It would be impossible to coast when the engine is shut off unless the transmission is put in neutral.  Compression braking and coasting are quite different.  I'd suggest removing the word "coasting" from this paragraph.  Kowloonese 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Shut off" does not mean "not spinning"; it means no gas is being consumed. Coasting is when you are neither burning gas nor actively braking but the car is moving; the fact that the engine is spinning and slowing down the car does not mean it's not coasting, anymore than aerodynamic drag slowing down the car prevents it from coasting. Coasting is a very good thing to do to improve fuel economy, but coasting in neutral is very bad for a few reasons and it's illegal in the U.S., or at least in a number of U.S. states. CGameProgrammer 23:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mild hybrid

message: Should we include details on non commercial hybrid buses? For example several (3 or 4 I think) are used in Auckland for the City Circuit bus  and have been since 2003 IIRC Nil Einne 08:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buses

message: The new Insight picture sucks. You can't tell what the car actually looks like at all, and it has a watermark. Watermarked images have no place in an encyclopedia. CGameProgrammer 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced this image with one that provides a better view of the vehicle.  Adolphe Youssef 03:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of the Insight

message: I have removed this text:
::From the purely environmental standpoint, hybrid cars are superior to elecric cars in cases where the electric car's fuel is provided by a coal power plant.  More pollution is created by turning coal into kinetic energy, then into elecrical energy, convert the voltage to transport it a long distance on power lines, convert the voltage to get it into your house, convert the voltage to store it in the car's battery, and convert it into kinetic energy to move the car than simply turning gasoline into kinetic energy.  If the electricity was made from hydroelectric, solar, wind, or other non-polluting energy source, the electric car is cleaner.
...primarily because it is pure conjecture with no proof whatsoever. It is difficult to imagine one large powerplant being less efficient than hundreds of thousands of tiny power plants. Plus the above paragraph is grammatically incorrect and it lists many steps that release no pollution at all. The only pollution is from burning the fuel and burning gasoline to transport it. But fuel is burnt in hybrids as well, and much less efficiently, and the gas has to be transported over much larger distances to cover all gas stations instead of just going to the power plant.
But hey, if you got real proof, by all means show it. Until then, try to remember this is an encyclopedia. Rules of journalism apply here. END RANT. CGameProgrammer 09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is about right. The hybrid car is not better from the number I've seen, but about equivalent in the coal case. I believe you could find the numbers in sources mentioned on the battery electric vehicle article's talk page. I pulled them up and there were sources with total emmisions equivalents for BEV's on coal electricity. It basically comes from totalling up all the electricity transmission and battery losses, not that the coal plant itself isn't more efficient. Better sources could be found to back that up too. Still, you did the right thing until someone wants to find some solid sources. - Taxman Talk 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this link 50% of all power generation in the U.S. is from coal. And coal is very inefficient, so obviously even better efficiency would be observed from gas and nuclear power plants that make up most of the other 50%. So why anyone is focusing on coal at all is beyond me. In general, if it's cheaper, it's more efficient, and power is cheaper then fuel. Plus, keep in mind the power plants generate alot of power at night that is never used and ends up being wasted, so electric cars charged at night effectively become 'free'. CGameProgrammer 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the statement didn't say anything about cheaper, it was referring to pollution, which is something Hybrid cars are promoted for. The point with coal pollution is that even with a 50% mix, there's still a lot of pollution. In any case there would need to be a lot more research to justify anything like that statement, and even then it would be POV by selective presentation of facts if not presented properly in the article. - Taxman Talk 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ...so electric cars charged at night effectively become 'free'. No, not really.  The benefit of charging cars at night comes from the infrastructural savings -- the transmission lines and generators are much less used at night than during the day, leaving extra capacity in the system (so that the power company doesn't have to actually run more power lines and install more transformers and generators).  But using power at night consumes more fuel at the power plant, just as it does during the day.  There's no free midnight snack, just as there's no free lunch. zowie 23:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Power plants do not turn off at night; they constantly produce the same amount of power 24/7. But at night it goes relatively unused. For this reason, power plants typically charge less for power consumed at night than for power consumed during the day. CGameProgrammer 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, supply and demand of electric power have to be balanced, pretty much at all times (net of import/export and some regulation/storage). They charge less at night because there are some plants that have to run all the time, or when they can (nuclear, run-of-river hydro, wind), and some that have such low costs they will almost always run, and some that will shut down if they're not getting enough to pay for fuel costs (e.g. gas). This is economic dispatch. Getting power at night may not consume any additional fuel (if say hydro or wind), or may use much more efficient/cheaper sources than during the day. Unfortunately, depending on where you live, you might not see any savings.--Gregalton 22:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Effective pollution of electric vehicles

message: I deleted this:
::  While most used batteries will be recycled, environmentally damaging mining to supply the metals for new vehicle batteries will increase dramatically as more gasoline-electric hybrids are sold.  This hidden environmental damage (mostly in third-world countries) contradicts the "green" image of the gasoline-electric hybrid.
because it fails to show that mining materials for batteries is in any way different from mining materials for anything else, such as the entire rest of the vehicle. CGameProgrammer 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Damage from mining

message: What does "PE" stand for?
:Good question. CGameProgrammer 23:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Hybrid Modes Diagram Question