The Leius is already here!

http://www.lexus-int.com/eco-thinking/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=adwordshybrid

Bob

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-solid-state-battery-range-electric-cars.html

 

Quote:

I fully expect we will see gas under $3/gal before we see it above $5/gal. I would not be too surprised to see gas prices dip under $2/gal again, but I'm not gonna hold by breath on that one.

I'd be shocked if either of those happens, unless we have a double-dip recession.

So, are you shocked, or do you believe we are in the grips of a double-dip recession?

Gas prices in Oklahoma are as low as $2.75/gal and around here they are as low as $3.08/gal and ready to slip below the $3/gal mark. I fully expect that to happen before the end of the year -- not a guarantee, but it's been looking likely for a couple of months now.

 

According to AAA, the average price paid by motorists in the US is $3.278. Do you really feel good about claiming <$3 when motorists are overwhelingly paying more?

 

This is a very interesting series of posts on EVs and Hybrids, and I tried to read a good portion of it, but wow it's long. Great information though!

 

According to AAA, the average price paid by motorists in the US is $3.278. Do you really feel good about claiming <$3 when motorists are overwhelingly paying more?

What's your point?

I had stated that I expected to see prices drop below $3/gal. You said you would be shocked if I ever saw that. Well, I've now seen it and am pointing that out.

Since prices somewhere going below $3/gal strongly correlates with motorists overwhelmingly paying less than they would be if prices nowhere were going below $3/gal, what's not to feel good about?

I suppose if I follow up with a post when the AAA average price drops below $3/gal your response will be to ask if I really feel good when half the people are still paying more than $3. And if the price falls such that 90% of motorists are paying under $3 you will ask if I really feel good when there are still people paying more than $3.

What? We can only feel good if government steps in and forces all gas prices to be exactly the same so that we have "equality" for everyone?

 

What's your point?

My point is motorists are on average paying $3.279 per gallon of gas. And thus, gas prices are not <$3/gallon.


If I followed your logic, I could claim gas is really >$4 gallon since that is the price in some places in California, for example.

 

Again, look at the statement I made and that you commented on. I said that I (me, myself, I) would not be surprised to see gas prices below $3/gal. You responded that you would be shocked if that happened (short of a double dip recession). Well, what I stated I would not be surprised to see I have, in fact, now seen. Are you shocked that that has happened, or not? If not, then why doesn't that mean that you believe that we are in a double-dip recession since that is the requirement you indicated needed to be in place in order not to be shocked?

Now, if you want to say that you interpretted what I said to mean that I expect the national average gas price to go below $3/gal, then that's not unreasonable and we can wait and see.

What is NOT reasonable is to claim that you interpretted what I said to mean that I expect gas prices to go below $3/gal everywhere for everyone.

And you can claim that gas is really above $4/gal if you want. That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that I have seen it go below $3/gal, which is ALL I stated that I would not be surprised to see. That's a logical fallacy that is used over and over again. Someone claims that most adult humans weigh more than 100lb and someone else believes they have refuted that claim by pointing to their mother that never weighed more than 90lb her entire life. So what? The claim wasn't that ALL adult humans weigh more than 100lb, only that MOST do. In order fo you to claim that I haven't seen gas prices drop below $3/gal, you would have to assert that gas prices are above $3/gal EVERYWHERE (in the U.S.), not just somewhere and not even on average and not even almost everywhere.

 

Sorry, you didn't say "I", you said "we". I still don't see <$3 gas.

I fully expect we will see gas under $3/gal before we see it above $5/gal. I would not be too surprised to see gas prices dip under $2/gal again, but I'm not gonna hold by breath on that one.

 

Sorry, you didn't say "I", you said "we". I still don't see <$3 gas.

Okay, fair enough. Let's wait and see if the national average falls below $3/gal. I would still maintain that it is unreasonable to interpret that statement as requiring that everyone has to see prices below $3/gal. Perhaps you disagree.

 

What would have really been reasonable is a real discussion on prices. But I gave up on hoping for reasonable discussions on here long ago. And so, I am out.

PS: Sorry if you read the unrevised comments. I don't mean to insult.

 

Earlier in this thread I determined that an EV might be more energy efficient, end-to-end, than a typical internal combustion engine. I didn't believe this initially but was forced into a mea culpa after a bit of research.

The back-of-the-napkin comparison was 24.9% for the EV versus ~20% for the traditional ICE. The slight bias towards EV ignores any life-cycle issues related to producing and hauling around the heavy batteries. I speculated at that time that an ICE purpose-built for efficiency might shift the bias back the other way.

Since then, I've learned that the ICE is in fact still superior when you include modern technologies like direct fuel injection, turbocharging, variable valve timing, and so on. Few engines on the road employ these technologies, but this is the ICE that should be compared to EV, not the engine on my '67 Barracuda.

Despite the hype, an EV is NOT a "green" car so much as it is a toy for the rich. It consumes more fuel and produces more pollution than a car with a modern ICE. Be sure to point that out to the driver if you see one go by.

 

Earlier in this thread I determined that an EV might be more energy efficient, end-to-end, than a typical internal combustion engine. I didn't believe this initially but was forced into a mea culpa after a bit of research.

The back-of-the-napkin comparison was 24.9% for the EV versus ~20% for the traditional ICE. The slight bias towards EV ignores any life-cycle issues related to producing and hauling around the heavy batteries. I speculated at that time that an ICE purpose-built for efficiency might shift the bias back the other way.

Since then, I've learned that the ICE is in fact still superior when you include modern technologies like direct fuel injection, turbocharging, variable valve timing, and so on. Few engines on the road employ these technologies, but this is the ICE that should be compared to EV, not the engine on my '67 Barracuda.

Despite the hype, an EV is NOT a "green" car so much as it is a toy for the rich. It consumes more fuel and produces more pollution than a car with a modern ICE. Be sure to point that out to the driver if you see one go by.

From your link:

The first engine in America with all three of these elements was the base 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the 2006 Audi A4. [...]
Ford’s EcoBoost system is nothing more than direct injection and turbocharging.

2006 Audi A4 gets 20MPG city/ 31MPG highway.
2014 ford Fiesta EcoBoost gets EPA rated 32PMG city and 45MPG highway for $16,445
I paid $2000 more and got 30% better mileage than Fiesta plus enough horsepower and cargo room to tote around 400+lbs worth of tools and spare parts. Does that extra $2000 make me rich? Put "green" aside; where is the ICE car that gets anywhere near the mileage as my Prius, while still being an actual car, not a go-cart that can't make it up a freeway entrance ramp with more than one passenger? Let's transfer my field service tool boxes into that 2014 Fiesta or '86 Chevy Sprint or '96 Geo Metro and see what happens. The Fiesta might be able to move, but all 3 passenger seats would be occupied.

I really don't understand how or why you are still arguing this. The numbers tell the tale.

 

The numbers tell the tale.

Yes, they do. Today's EVs are vanity vehicles that waste natural resources, relative to what could be achieved with a more practical technology, in exchange for making a fashion statement. Same as an SUV or a Hummer.

I'm not saying that making a fashion statement should be banned or anything, just that the irony is thick. The Hummer owner knows what they are saying to the world. "I'm better than you and so rich I don't care", or something like that. The EV owner is saying one thing ("I'm better than you because I want to save the planet") while ironically doing the opposite.

 

Yes, they do. Today's EVs are vanity vehicles that waste natural resources, relative to what could be achieved with a more practical technology, in exchange for making a fashion statement. Same as an SUV or a Hummer.

I'm not saying that making a fashion statement should be banned or anything, just that the irony is thick. The Hummer owner knows what they are saying to the world. "I'm better than you and so rich I don't care", or something like that. The EV owner is saying one thing ("I'm better than you because I want to save the planet") while ironically doing the opposite.

Lol for a second it looked like you were going to support those two spiteful and biased paragraphs with numbers.

 

I already did. EVs lose.

Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing here; by EV I mean pure electric that runs on power from the grid, not a hybrid. I fully agree that hybrid technology can squeeze more efficiency out of an ICE-based auto.

 

I already did. EVs lose.

Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing here; by EV I mean pure electric, not hybrid. I fully agree that hybrid technology can squeeze more efficiency out of an ICE-based auto.

Oh, a misunderstanding then.

Sorry.

So, what is it about EVs that chaps you so much worse than hybrids? Just the fact that they cost so much more, which makes them into a status symbol? Or is there more to it? You mentioned something about efficiency and natural resources; can you provide some data which illustrates how EVs are more damaging to the environment and/or less efficient than an ICE car? Please excuse me if you have already posted this information in the past; my memory is spotty.

 

So, what is it about EVs that chaps you so much worse than hybrids? Just the fact that they cost so much more, which makes them into a status symbol?

I had to think about your question a while. I've decided it has nothing to do with the cost or the technology itself, but rather the implied attitude of the owner. So yes, I stereotype EV owners as elitist jerks. I'll try to be a bit more observant in the future, to undo the stereotype if it's unwarranted.

If an electrical engineer wants to drive an EV (or a steam engine, or whatever) because it's interesting, fun or whatever, I wouldn't give it a second thought. If a nuclear physicist drives a billion-dollar fusion-powered car, cool. The problem is not that playing with a new technology is inherently elitist.

But the EV owner seems - to me - to be saying "look at me and the goodness I'm doing", when in fact there is very little or no goodness being done. Perhaps just the opposite. It's showing off something that shouldn't be shown off.

It's the Hollywood elitist, limousine liberal hypocrisy that gets under my skin. It's the political statement, not based on facts, that goes along with the vehicle. I feel a similar revulsion when I see a massive SUV or a Hummer driving around downtown. They're so wrapped up in conspicuous consumption that form no longer follows function. By that I mean it is SO much harder to have a large vehicle in a crowded urban environment. If I had to drive and park downtown, I sure wouldn't choose a Hummer. But there they are, and that bothers my engineer's sensibility of choosing the right tool for the job. How is the Hummer the right tool for running to the convenience store for coffee? The conspicuous consumption message is loud and clear, and irritating, but a bit more honest to my ears than the greeny's message.

BTW, I wouldn't mind having one of these.

 

How the USA can beat Hybrid fuel economy and get >100 MPG;

And THIS is how to get >600 MPG (per person);

 

From your link:

2006 Audi A4 gets 20MPG city/ 31MPG highway.
2014 ford Fiesta EcoBoost gets EPA rated 32PMG city and 45MPG highway for $16,445
I paid $2000 more and got 30% better mileage than Fiesta plus enough horsepower and cargo room to tote around 400+lbs worth of tools and spare parts. Does that extra $2000 make me rich? Put "green" aside; where is the ICE car that gets anywhere near the mileage as my Prius, while still being an actual car, not a go-cart that can't make it up a freeway entrance ramp with more than one passenger? Let's transfer my field service tool boxes into that 2014 Fiesta or '86 Chevy Sprint or '96 Geo Metro and see what happens. The Fiesta might be able to move, but all 3 passenger seats would be occupied.

I really don't understand how or why you are still arguing this. The numbers tell the tale.

While not a direct comparison, the '89 Ford Probe that I bought in 1995 with 85,000 miles on it for $6000 got 35mpg city and 43mpg highway and that son-of-a-bitch would flat get up and move with its 2.2L turbocharged engine. It had a very roomy trunk and on several occasions I had over 500lb worth of stuff in it on top of the over 300lb worth of me and it still was anything but sluggish. $10,000 buys a LOT of gas. In the 14 years that I owned it I put another 100,000 miles on it. One thing I did NOT do was baby it and it got abused pretty bad, so my city mileage at the end was down to about 28mpg and my highway was only about 32mpg or so. Let's split the difference and say I got an overall average over that time of 32mpg. Let's say that your's gets 30% more than 38mpg overall and is able to stay there for the next 100k miles, so call that 50mpg.

So over that time I consumed $3,125 gallons of gas and you will consume 2,000 gallons. So I used 1,125 gallons more, spent an additional roughly $3,000 more in gas (call it $5,000, which would require an average of $4.44/gal and I've only paid over $4/gal one time). That still means that I have $5000 that I got to spend on other things AND I'm not having to save up to replace an expensive battery pack at some point (although the costs of that pack are definitely coming down nicely).

You're right, the numbers tell the tale. It's just debatable what tale they tell.