EDIT - I just split this thread off from the climate change thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/194#194

How much do you wan't to put up the price of fuel to hake hybrids an attractive alternative FD?

I don't think that is on the cards within the next decade or two. All GHG emissions should be taxed equally, which will make a relatively small difference to petrol prices, but a big difference to electricity prices. I would never buy a hybrid at the current prices, but the price of petrol is high enough for me to buy the most efficient vehicle that suits my needs, which also tends to be the one with the lowest purchase price.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

Muso, there is no need to subsidise hybrids. Simply putting up the price would be enough.

What did you mean by this then? I assume it mean't the price of petrol.

How are hybrids any better? I remember when I mentioned something about electric cars, it was pointed out that I am just taking the green house emmisions from the car to the power plant.

Hybrids do the same thing.

This article suggest we are not going to run out of oil anytime soon. Also that it will be difficult to replace it as a transport fuel, even with carbon taxes. This is as opposed to electricity generation which is fairly easy to replace with low emission technologies:

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=576470

IEA calls for energy 'revolution'

By Ed Crooks in London , Financial Times, 6 Jun 2008

The good news in the International Energy Agency's report on the future of energy technologies is that there is enough oil left on the planet to allow a huge increase in consumption over the next few decades.

The bad news is that the consequences for the climate of burning that much oil would be alarming.

The IEA, the rich countries' energy watchdog, is urging the world to start weaning itself off oil, not because supplies are running out but to avoid "significant change in all aspects of life and irreversible change in the natural environment" as a result of global warming.

In the IEA's business as usual "baseline" scenario, oil demand rises from its present level of 87m barrels a day to 135m b/d by 2050. The projection is a robust rejection of the argument, increasingly prevalent as the price of oil has soared, that global oil production is at or near its peak.

The IEA accepts that meeting this sharply increased demand would require massive investment, especially in the Middle East, and "conventional" oil would provide at most about 92m b/d. The rest would come from "unconventional" sources such as oil sands, shale oil and Arctic oil, and liquid fuels made from coal and natural gas. Biofuels would also make some "limited" contribution.

However, if there is a "global energy technology revolution", the IEA believes, global oil demand could be cut sharply, dropping 27 per cent from present levels. Greater fuel efficiency in motor vehicles, greater production of biofuels, and some use of electric and hydrogen-fuelled transport would all contribute to curbing oil demand.

In that scenario, the world's carbon dioxide emissions could be halved from 2005 levels by 2050, and oil-consuming countries' dependence on potentially unstable oil-producing regions would be diminished.

The problem is that it is very hard to replace oil as a transport fuel. Electricity generation can be made low-carbon relatively easily, with nuclear power and wind farms, which are in use today, and carbon capture and storage at fossil fuel power plants, which can be done by integrating currently available technologies.The flexibility of oil-derived fuels for road and air transport is much more difficult to replace.

Cutting emissions from power generation and taking other relatively low-cost measures could mean global carbon dioxide emissions peaking during 2020-30, then falling back to current levels by 2050, the IEA believes.


"Those extra bits of carbon dioxide are so expensive to squeeze out," says Cecilia Tam of the IEA, one of the report's authors.

"When you look at transport, you need new technologies that are really not available today."

To make those technologies cost-effective, the IEA suggests, emissions would need to be priced at $500 a tonne of carbon dioxide, a huge increase from today's levels. Even with technological improvements, the price might need to be $200 a tonne.

Nobuo Tanaka, the IEA's executive director, said in Tokyo on Friday that the energy technology revolution was "both necessary and achievable", but accepted it would be a "tough challenge". Persuading consumers and voters to accept emissions prices in the hundreds of dollars will be one of the most daunting aspects of that challenge.

Sappho wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 9:02am:

How are hybrids any better? I remember when I mentioned something about electric cars, it was pointed out that I am just taking the green house emmisions from the car to the power plant. Hybrids do the same thing.

Only a plug in hybrid takes power from a power plant Sappho. Most models aren't plug in. They charge by capturing energy as the car brakes. As I pointed out they aren't all that more efficient than the most economical conventional cars and are considerably more expensive to buy.    

Yes PJ, that's what I meant.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 9:11am:

Sappho wrote on Jun 8th, 2008 at 9:02am: How are hybrids any better? I remember when I mentioned something about electric cars, it was pointed out that I am just taking the green house emmisions from the car to the power plant. Hybrids do the same thing. Only a plug in hybrid takes power from a power plant Sappho. Most models aren't plug in. They charge by capturing energy as the car brakes. As I pointed out they aren't all that more efficient than the most economical conventional cars and are considerably more expensive to buy.

PJ,

You need to speak to somebody that drives a hybrid. I get 4.7L /100km over some fairly hilly country. I know somebody who drives a conventional mid-size car (a Camry) and they report about 9.3L/100km for the same drive. I've done 124,000 in the last 3 years, and the car is as good as new.

So in my book twice the efficiency and "aren't all that more efficient" just don't match.

Of course if you want to sit cramped in a Yaris or a  Getz, then you just might get better economy than a Camry,  but then again the hilly country is going to be a challenge long term for the smaller car and it's not going to be quite as comfortable or as safe (roos spring to mind).

The reported efficiencies are not that different. Obviously hilly country is going to be where the biggest difference is.

muso wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 2:15pm:

PJ, You need to speak to somebody that drives a hybrid. I get 4.7L /100km over some fairly hilly country. I know somebody who drives a conventional mid-size car (a Camry) and they report about 9.3L/100km for the same drive. I've done 124,000 in the last 3 years, and the car is as good as new. So in my book twice the efficiency and "aren't all that more efficient" just don't match. Of course if you want to sit cramped in a Yaris or a  Getz, then you just might get better economy than a Camry,  but then again the hilly country is going to be a challenge long term for the smaller car and it's not going to be quite as comfortable or as safe (roos spring to mind).

Plenty of turbo diesel cars get around 5 to 6L/100km Muso. These are mid sized cars with 1.6 to 2L engines and cost on average 14K less than a hybrid.

PS, I get around 10L/100km driving by AU11 Falcon to work (4L petrol engine). Mind you this is freeway driving with little stopping and starting.

Now you're comparing petrol to diesel?

1. You need to factor in the price difference (20% more than petrol), or at least the difference in calorific value. Diesel produces more energy per litre than petrol. (38.7 as against 34.2MJ/L)

2. Combusting 1 litre of diesel produces 13% more CO2 than combusting 1 litre of petrol (although you could use biodiesel), and then;

3. By manufacturing hybrids, you get to develop the technology for full-blown electric vehicles. The new generation hybrids due to come out around 2010 (according to the word that's out) are set to half fuel consumption again.

By the way, I get 3.6L/100km with Freeway driving of that kind.

Are you sure you didn't mean 20 cents Muso, not 20% dearer (there's quite a difference)! I know this article was written a few months ago, but I don't think the difference is 20% today either. There may be moves to bring down the relative price according to the following - at least the price is under some scuitiny:

Diesel's turn under the pump
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Josh Gordon
April 13, 2008

THE new petrol price watchdog has promised to scrutinise soaring diesel prices, amid concern that oil companies are using the fuel to gouge profits previously earned on unleaded.

At $1.60 a litre, the average national diesel pump price is now 19 cents a litre higher than the average petrol price, compared with a price gap of just four cents mid-last year.

Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries chief executive Andrew McKellar said the price difference was ridiculous by historical standards, given diesel is no more expensive to refine.

"It does look highly suspicious," he said.

Petrol prices have been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent years, with oil companies facing pressure to justify any price movements that stray from international fluctuations. But the same level of scrutiny has not been applied to diesel. Since July last year, diesel prices have leapt from $1.30 a litre to $1.59, a 22 per cent increase. Petrol prices have risen by 11 per cent, from $1.26 a litre to $1.40.

In his first interview since taking up his post, the fuel price commissioner Pat Walker said retail prices for diesel had been tracking international benchmark prices, forced up by booming demand for diesel overseas.

But he said the Australian market for diesel was generally smaller and less competitive than the market for petrol.

"It's an area ... that will be the subject of ongoing monitoring and we'll be keeping an eye on," Mr Walker said.

Source: The Sun-Herald

muso wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 7:19pm:

Now you're comparing petrol to diesel? 2. Combusting 1 litre of diesel produces 13% more CO2 than combusting 1 litre of petrol (although you could use biodiesel), and then;

Yes that true but only because you get more power out of one litre of diesel - so more mileage. Then you have to factor in that diesel engines are inherently more efficient. Taken all together diesel engines emit less CO2 than petrol ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel

Diesel-powered cars generally have a better fuel economy than equivalent gasoline engines and produce less greenhouse gas pollution. Their greater economy is due to the higher energy per-litre content of diesel fuel and the intrinsic efficiency of the diesel engine. While petrodiesel's 15% higher density results in 15% higher greenhouse gas emissions per litre compared to gasoline,[5] the 20–40% better fuel economy achieved by modern diesel-engined automobiles offsets the higher-per-liter emissions of greenhouse gases, and produces 10-20 percent less GHG emissions than comparable gasoline vehicles.[6][7][8] However, the EPA carbon footprint estimates do not include the carbon cost of vehicle manufacture, nor the carbon cost of filtering particulates, sulfates, and nitrates emissions. Biodiesel-powered diesel engines offer substantially improved emission reductions compared to petro-diesel or gasoline-powered engines, while retaining most of the fuel economy advantages over conventional gasoline-powered automobiles.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 7:56pm:

Are you sure you didn't mean 20 cents Muso, not 20% dearer (there's quite a difference)! I know this article was written a few months ago, but I don't think the difference is 20% today either.

Well I was going off prices at the petrol station when I filled up earlier. ULP was 1.52 and Diesel was 1.82, and the difference between them is gradually increasing.

1.82 is (as near as damn it) 20% more than 1.52, so there is no financial justification to switch to diesel at the moment.


Your Wikipedia Article states that you get 15% more greenhouse gases, and my source puts the ratio of Calorific Values at around 12%, so from the energy benefit point of view, the two factors cancel out. There is still 3%, but you can keep the change.

The only thing that's left is the engine efficiency, but there is no inherent reason why diesel should be more efficient. If we switched to rotary engines, I believe the difference would be minimal.

http://news.smh.com.au/world/japan-pm-set-to-unveil-action-on-climate-20080609-2nv7.html

Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is expected to unveil a plan to force industry to cut carbon emissions in a bid to step up the fight against global warming despite resistance from the business community.

In a speech scheduled later in the day at the Japan National Press Club, Fukuda will likely announce a self-imposed target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 per cent by 2050, according to media reports.

He is expected to support a so-called "cap-and-trade" system which would require major businesses to reduce carbon emissions while creating an economic incentive by allowing the trade of emissions credits.

Fukuda's announcement is aimed at showing his determination in the global battle against climate change before he hosts the July 7-9 G8 summit, where global warming will be a key issue.

UN scientists who shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize warned that unless human-made climate change is halted, the world risks more natural disasters and droughts, putting millions of people at risk.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 2:56pm:

Plenty of turbo diesel cars get around 5 to 6L/100km Muso. These are mid sized cars with 1.6 to 2L engines and cost on average 14K less than a hybrid.

Ok - I'm interested. Can you provide some examples?

There's one in the Cars Guide of last Fridays Daily Telegraph:

Peugot 308 Touring - Price $ 30,590 to 38,390

Engine 1.6L 4-cylinder petrol: 7.5L/100km
         1.6L 4-cylinder petrol turbo: 8L/100km

         1.6L 4-cylinder diesel HDi turbo: 4.9L/100km
         2.0L  "                  "          "       5.7L/100km  

So thats about 40% lower fuel consomption for the diesels (in manual form), which more than offsets the fact that diesel is on average around 15% dearer (though a lot cheaper if you make your own bio-diesel)!

PS, if you want really frugal then go for a diesel hybrid. I heard something about one getting 69 mpg recently (though you still have the problem of higher cost and replacing the batteries).

Here's another one:

http://www.brucelynton.bmw.com.au/scripts/main.asp?PageID=12707&MediaReleaseID=715&Screen=ShowRelease&WhichPage=1&PageSize=10&SearchText=

A diesel powered BMW 1 Series has been voted "World Green Car of the Year".

Presented at the 2008 New York International Auto Show, the jury acknowledged the significant impact and effect of the BMW EfficientDynamics development strategy giving the BMW 118d its low consumption and emission ratings.

Securing this victory, BMW has continued the series of international awards for its ongoing strategy of enhanced efficiency throughout the current range of BMW Group models.

The jury, made up this year of 47 motor journalists from 24 countries, awards the title “World Green Car of the Year” to vehicles and technologies able to make a particular contribution to the reduction of emissions.

The BMW 118d convinced the experts above all through its unparalleled balance of driving pleasure, on the one hand, and economy, on the other.

The 2.0-litre four-cylinder diesel engine develops 105 kW and accelerates the BMW 118d to 100 km/h in a mere 9.0 seconds. By contrast, average fuel consumption in the EU test cycle is just 4.5 litres/100 kilometres and the CO2 rating is a mere 119 grams per kilometre.

The BMW 118d owes its exemplary consumption and emission standards to the latest achievements of the BMW EfficientDynamics development strategy. This strategy combines the most advanced engine technology with the most sophisticated efficiency-promoting technologies such as Brake Energy Regeneration, Auto Start Stop Function, a gearshift point indicator, on-demand management of ancillary units, tyres with reduced roll resistance, and optimised aerodynamics.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 8:06am:

There's one in the Cars Guide of last Fridays Daily Telegraph: Peugot 308 Touring - Price $ 30,590 to 38,390 Engine 1.6L 4-cylinder petrol: 7.5L/100km          1.6L 4-cylinder petrol turbo: 8L/100km          1.6L 4-cylinder diesel HDi turbo: 4.9L/100km          2.0L  "                  "          "       5.7L/100km   So thats about 40% lower fuel consomption for the diesels (in manual form), which more than offsets the fact that diesel is on average around 15% dearer (though a lot cheaper if you make your own bio-diesel)! PS, if you want really frugal then go for a diesel hybrid. I heard something about one getting 69 mpg recently (though you still have the problem of higher cost and replacing the batteries).

I didn't realise you could buy a diesel hybrid in Australia.  Now I'm very interested - hybrid technology plus biodiesel sounds cool.

The Peugeot 308 is a much smaller car than the Prius. The 2 Litre version would  have about the same power as the Prius, but without the low end torque. Diesels are even more sluggish that petrol vehicles in terms of low end torque. The Prius has a 1500cc engine, but with the two engines combined it's equivalent to about a 2.2 litre. The price of the Peugeot 308 2 Litre model is $38350, which is only about $110 cheaper than I would pay for a new Prius at the moment.

I'm looking at buying a new Prius when the plug-in hybrids become available in Australia, possibly late next year, but the prospect of a mid-size diesel hybrid has me interested - sounds like the way to go. I like the Peugeot 308. My youngest son drove one until very recently when a car went through a red light and totalled it. He escaped without injury.

I pay for renewable electricity, so either way is good. Our bill is slightly lower than it was for standard electricity, because I did an energy audit and identified where we could cut back.

I may get my next vehicle via novated lease. Paying for petrol pre-tax is definitely the way to go.

It's no hardship going green. It's actually quite stimulating, and it saves me money.

Here's an article that compares diesel to hybrids and backs up some of what I have been saying:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=577598

Some small diesel cars are more fuel efficient and emit less greenhouse gases than hybrids, motoring experts say.

Toyota's announcement today that it will manufacture a hybrid Camry in Australia has been greeted with enthusiasm by environmentalists and the local car industry.

But the new hybrid may not offer motorists value for money, Wheels Magazine deputy editor Jesse Taylor said.

Analysts predict the hybrids will cost $4000 more than the current Camry model.

Based on this estimate, Mr Taylor said it would take nearly 4.5 years for the average driver to recoup the difference in purchase price at the bowser.

British motoring magazine Auto Express has also called the value of hybrid cars into question.

After researching a range of hybrid cars, the magazine's road-test editor Ian Thorp said diesel cars could offer motorists better value when it came to fuel efficiency.

Hybrid car manufacturers' fuel-efficiency claims were often not correct when it came to real-life driving outside of laboratory conditions, Thorp said.

"Hybrid cars have low emissions in government tests, so they look very good on paper, but what we have found in reality is that they are not as efficient as a good diesel engine car," he told ABC radio.

Mr Thorp added efficient diesel cars would use less petrol than a hybrid car and therefore emit less greenhouse gas emissions.

"At the moment hybrid cars aren't quite where they need to be to offer an advantage in emissions and petrol consumption compared to an efficient standard car," he said.

Australian Automobile Association technical services director Craig Newland said that while hybrids were very efficient for driving in the city, they were not so efficient for highway driving.

"You generally need to drive a lot of kilometres to recoup the costs of a hybrid, so if you don't drive much then it may not be the right choice for you," he said.

"Diesel cars can be as fuel efficient as hybrid cars and are better with carbon dioxide emissions than petrol cars.

"But diesel cars also emit a lot of particulates into the air that can be harmful for humans."

Mr Taylor agreed, saying the problem with hybrids was that the technology — which allowed the car battery to recharge during braking — was based on stop-start driving.

"In real-world conditions the hybrid is great for city driving, but when it comes to highway and intercity driving the fuel efficiency drops dramatically," he said.

He also claimed the Toyota Prius still did not represent value for money for most Australian drivers at $37,400: despite a fuel efficiency rating of 4.4 litres per 100km, a much cheaper diesel option is the Hyundai i30 at $21,500.

"In real terms the Prius will save you $300 per year in fuel, but when you take into consideration the purchase price, it would take 50 years for that saving to pay off," he said.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 6:55pm:

[b]He also claimed the Toyota Prius still did not represent value for money for most Australian drivers at $37,400: despite a fuel efficiency rating of 4.4 litres per 100km, a much cheaper diesel option is the Hyundai i30 at $21,500.

You see, that's a good example of what so-called experts say about it. Again they're comparing the Prius with a smaller, less powerful car.  There is no way I'd drive a Hyundai i30. I need the extra room and comfort that the Prius provides. Apart from that, the inflated price of diesel doesn't make it a good option right now. I don't know why they do that. It's like comparing a Camry to a Yaris. A Yaris has an economy of about 5.6L/100k, but a Camry is up around 8.1L/100k. It stands to reason - the Camry is a midsize car.  So is a Toyota Prius.

Let's compare apples with apples.  

Most Australian drivers are city drivers, but the Prius is still competitive for this australian driver (I drive about 60,000 km a year), and they represent the way we need to go. I find that the economy is much better in large cities on freeway driving, but still pretty good for hilly country drives. It's not just from braking that the battery gets charged. Going down hills does the same. I got 4.6L/100km driving from Brisbane to Gladstone last month, so country driving doesn't mean a dramatic reduction in economy. That's my experience anyway. The worst economy with the Prius is driving is small cities like Gladstone, Rockhampton and Emerald. Short journeys with any vehicle is bad news.

What I mean when I say that they represent the way we need to go is that we're not aiming for a slight reduction - we should be looking at virtually eliminating fossil fuel all together (apart from petrochemicals, plastics etc).  Hybrid technology ultimately offers that possibility.

I guess biodiesel offers the same, but there are too many problems worldwide with biodiesel forcing food prices up.

It's not a clear cut issue by any means. There are many aspects to it. I have weighed up those aspects and made the decision that's right for me. When I come to change vehicles in 2009, the conditions may have changed.

Rising diesel price worries car makers
Toby Hagon, drive.com.au, June 2, 2008

The price of diesel can be 30c a litre more than petrol, sparking new concerns for car makers battling uncertain fuel prices.

Rising fuel prices and more expensive diesel has car makers such as Volkswagen “concerned”.

The price of diesel is at some outlets 30 cents per litre more than petrol. Diesel prices have been seen at almost $1.90 a litre, whereas petrol is closer to $1.60 a litre.

The higher price of diesel threatens to impact car makers such as Volkswagen, Fiat and Peugeot – among many other predominantly European brands - which now sell a range of diesel variants.

http://www.countrycars.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=53280

If diesel prices came down, this would be the car I'd buy:

http://www.countrycars.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=53117

http://news.smh.com.au/national/hybrid-cars-can-make-a-statement-20080612-2ph9.html

Hybrid cars make sense: they use less petrol and produce less emissions, saving precious fossil fuels and reducing their impact on the environment.

But if Australians plan to buy them to save money, they could be disappointed.

The models currently on sale on the local market, and those set to be sold here in the next few years, all sell at a premium price.

And, even with petrol prices skyrocketing, when compared with small, conventionally powered vehicles, they still lag behind in total running costs.

The cheapest hybrid available in Australia sells for more than $35,000.

Compare that with a smaller, four-cylinder car, which retails for well under $20,000, the savings in petrol costs need to be significant for the sums to add up.

At present they're not, with a hybrid likely to return a fuel economy figure of between four and five litres per 100 kilometres compared with about six or seven litres for its smaller rival.

At current petrol prices that would mean a saving in petrol costs of about $6,500 over the 200,000km life of an average car.

Even comparing a hybrid to a similarly-sized car, the time taken to recoup the extra purchase price remains about 10 years, according to Royal Automobile Association (RAA) technical services manager Mark Borlace.

---

Aussie plug-in hybrid car unveiled

http://news.smh.com.au/national/aussie-plugin-hybrid-car-unveiled-20080612-2pg7.html

A car of the future, which can be charged from a household power point, has been unveiled in Melbourne.

The vehicle was converted into a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) by an Australian university team.

The green car, which can be charged directly from the domestic power grid, was shown off by green company Szencorp and Sydney's University of Technology (UTS).

The PHEV uses a converted Toyota Prius, fitted with extra batteries for greater storage and a power socket so it can be charged directly from the grid.

Chris Dunstan, UTS project director, said the PHEV could offer not only much lower fuel bills but also the flexibility of storing wind power and solar energy at times.

"Plug-in hybrid cars have the potential to revolutionise not only how we drive but how we generate and use electricity in our homes and workplaces," Mr Dunstan said.

"This car heralds a not-too-distant future where householders will charge up their cars from solar panels on their roof and then pump surplus power from their car back into the grid on days of high peak power demand.

"If charged up on renewable energy, the PHEV can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it can run on electricity for over 30 kilometres, the average daily commute of many Australian motorists.

---

Toyota says to produce new hybrid battery next year

http://news.smh.com.au/technology/toyota-says-to-produce-new-hybrid-battery-next-year-20080612-2p7f.html

Toyota Motor Corp. said Wednesday that it plans to start producing lithium-ion batteries next year as it races against rivals to develop new high-mileage hybrid vehicles.

Toyota, seeking to keep its lead in the growing hybrid market amid rising petrol prices, said its joint venture with Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. will move into full-scale production of lithium-ion batteries in 2010.

The Japanese giant was a pioneer of hybrids, which are equipped with an electric motor and a standard petrol engine to make them more economical.

The firm is poised to overtake General Motors this year as the world's top automaker but faces renewed competition from other Japanese firms, such as Honda, and overseas rivals in the green automobile race.

Toyota said it would also step up efforts to development a next-generation battery that can outperform lithium-ion batteries.

---

Engineers search for fuel-saving big rigs

http://news.smh.com.au/technology/engineers-search-for-fuelsaving-big-rigs-20080612-2p7d.html

Tractor trailers lose valuable miles per gallon to the drag that air exerts, but air may also help tame the fuel guzzling forces.

Scientists at Georgia Tech's Research Institute are creating a "circulation control system" that blows a steady current of air around the back of the truck to help boost fuel efficiency.

Trailers are an aerodynamic nightmare, essentially boxes on wheels that can't be rounded off because that would cost valuable cargo space. As they plow down the road, getting 7 miles per gallon when they're lucky, wind funneling over the box creates a suction effect that drags down the vehicle.

Robert Englar, a Georgia Tech researcher, called the vortex an "aerodynamic anchor."

Englar, who helped develop air stabilizers working for Lockheed Martin, decided to apply some of the same principles to big rigs. He connects curved bumpers at a truck's back end to a blower that pushes a steady stream of air through them and out the sides. That air flow reduces drag by replacing it with a positive pressure that helps propel the vehicle.

On a test track, Englar's system reduced drag by 32 percent and increased fuel efficiency by 12 percent. That means a truck that once would get 5 miles per gallon gets 5.6 miles per gallon. That marginal increase could save thousands of dollars a year in fuel for a single truck.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 3:40pm:

"If charged up on renewable energy, the PHEV can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it can run on electricity for over 30 kilometres, the average daily commute of many Australian motorists. Toyota says to produce new hybrid battery next year http://news.smh.com.au/technology/toyota-says-to-produce-new-hybrid-battery-next-year-20080612-2p7f.html Toyota Motor Corp. said Wednesday that it plans to start producing lithium-ion batteries next year as it races against rivals to develop new high-mileage hybrid vehicles.

That's the vehicles I was talking about. I intend to buy one when the first ones come out.

The first article was comparing apples with lemons again. I don't want a smaller car. I'd prefer an apple to a lemon.

You mean this article?

Even comparing a hybrid to a similarly-sized car, the time taken to recoup the extra purchase price remains about 10 years, according to Royal Automobile Association (RAA) technical services manager Mark Borlace.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 8:18pm:

You mean this article? Even comparing a hybrid to a similarly-sized car, the time taken to recoup the extra purchase price remains about 10 years, according to Royal Automobile Association (RAA) technical services manager Mark Borlace.

That's about the time your up for new batteries - which cost quite a few thousand dollars.  

Quote:

That's about the time your up for new batteries - which cost quite a few thousand dollars.

By 2020 no doubt they will have developed more cost effective  batteries and many of these cars will be sold on the market second hand for hopefully a reasonable price.

I doubt they will have any trouble selling these cars - there are many people who want to contribute to reducing their petrol consumption and $35,000 is not that steep for companies who may lease them.

Apparently a second hand toyota prius was selling for more than a new one, due to the short supply.

mantra wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 7:27am:

Quote: That's about the time your up for new batteries - which cost quite a few thousand dollars.   By 2020 no doubt they will have developed more cost effective  batteries and many of these cars will be sold on the market second hand for hopefully a reasonable price. I doubt they will have any trouble selling these cars - there are many people who want to contribute to reducing their petrol consumption and $35,000 is not that steep for companies who may lease them.

Actually I know somebody with a 1998 Prius with the original batteries, which are still working perfectly.  They last much longer that usual because the charging is carefully controlled using the onboard computer.

Lithium Ion batteries will offer higher storage capacity, and possibly extended life. (I don't know about the extended life)

There is a considerable waiting time for Prius. I think it's now about 6 months, so second hand vehicles are at a premium.  

The payback time depends on a lot of things. Obviously if the resale value is high, then this reduces the overall investment.  A Prius holds its value better than just about any other vehicle. That's one factor that the so-called experts fail to take into account.  The cost after trade-in for a new Prius is considerably less if you're trading in a Prius.

The same goes for mileage. I have driven 125000 km in a little less than 3 years.

Then there is the fact that I got it on novated lease, the residue value is around $17,000 for a three year old vehicle, but it's worth $27,000. If I sold it, I'd stand to gain $10,000. However, when the lease runs out in August, I'll hang on to it until the PHEV model comes out, possible at the end of next year.

The strange thing about owning a Prius on novated lease is that they have overbudgeted for everything. The lease maintenance balance keeps mounting up (in my credit), in contrast with other leased vehicles.

How much electricity would it take to get a battery to full charge? I mean, would your electricity bill skyrocket when you plug in your PHEV?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 11:46pm:

How much electricity would it take to get a battery to full charge? I mean, would your electricity bill skyrocket when you plug in your PHEV?

I doubt if you'd notice it. Besides, the cost per unit for discounted (off-peak) electricity here is only 9c /kWh. That's equivalent to 75c per litre of petrol.

They are designing a new PHEV in Ireland. You just drive it home and plug it into the solar panels until you're ready to drive to work the next morning.  ;)

That's equivalent to 75c per litre of petrol.

Where did you get that from? It's a lot higher than I would have expected.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 11:10am:

That's equivalent to 75c per litre of petrol. Where did you get that from? It's a lot higher than I would have expected.

I worked it out in my head. Let's do it carefully this time:

The Energy value of petrol is 34 MJ/L. Multiply by 0.278 and you get 9.4 kWh/L (Units/L). With petrol at $1.60 per litre, that's 17 cents /Unit.

Discounted Electricity is 9c per unit = 9/17 = 53c per litre.

Hmmm,  I might have used a slightly higher energy value on the previous calculation. (Or I might have made a mistake). Is that more like what you expected?

A bit of Googling shows that the AIP figures for energy content are 31.9 MJ/L for petrol and 21.2 MJ/L for ethanol. I guess we should be using those figures.

That gives us 17.9c/ Unit for Petrol  at $1.60 per litre and 18.2c/Unit for E10 at $1.57 per litre (wow!)

That sounds more reasonable.

I forgot to multiply through by the price of petrol:

9/17.9 x 1.60 = 80 cents/litre

That's closer to what I got before. I was right the first time round. I think I used $1.53/L before, which is what I filled up for on the weekend.

Let us know when you figure it out. To get a meaningful result you would have to take efficiency (ie the various losses) into account as well. You will probably have to go by measured performance rather than trying to equate energy sources.

I thought about efficiency, but it all becomes too hard when you consider the use of electricity. The efficiency of appliances varies enormously. Incandescent light globes are about 10% efficient in terms of light output.

Keeping with Units is close enough for me.

This is a good exercise though. I must develop a spreadsheet for it.

From today's The Age newspaper

"HYBRID CARS COST $50 MORE TO RUN"

Extract:
Fuel for thought for potential hybrid car buyers is the revelation that the Toyota Prius, which uses an electric motor to help the petrol engine, costs about $50 a week more to run than its closest petrol equivalent, a Toyota Corolla small hatch, and up to $5 a week more than a mid-sized four-cylinder Toyota Camry.

The Honda Civic hybrid costs about $23 a week more to run than its four-cylinder petrol equivalent, the survey shows.

That should change when the hybrid Camry stars rolling off Toyota's local assembly line in two years, Mr Case says.

The Camry hybrid is expected to cost about $4000 more than its petrol equivalent, compared with the Civic and Prius, which cost about $10,000 more than their petrol equivalents and add substantially to ownership costs.



(Source: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/hybrid-cars-cost-50-more-to-run-20080624-2w65.html)

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 12:55am:

From today's The Age newspaper "HYBRID CARS COST $50 MORE TO RUN"

Utter horsefeathers. Don't believe a word of it.  "costs about $50 a week more to run than its closest petrol equivalent, a Toyota Corolla small hatch" ????

Guess what ? The Corolla is a much smaller and less powerful car than the Prius. The cost of servicing a Prius is the lowest of any car I've ever owned. Apart from anything else, the reliability is far superior to anything else I've driven. I've seen the oil that comes out of an oil change for a Prius. It comes out clean, because the engine is built to tighter specifications. The wear is minimal. Even the brake disks never wear out, because most of the braking is inductive. I spoke to a Prius mechanic recently who told me that he had never replaced the brake disks on any Prius yet, and he had never replaced the rechargeable batteries either.  

The fuel consumption of a Prius is around 4.4 L/100km compared to about 7 for a Camry. Also, read what I said earlier about resale value.

What has happened to reporting standards these days? I always take anything I read in the mainstream media with a grain of salt .  

muso wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 9:45am:

What has happened to reporting standards these days? I always take anything I read in the mainstream media with a grain of salt .

I'm of the same view.
:)

muso wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 1:55pm:

The Energy value of petrol is 34 MJ/L. Multiply by 0.278 and you get 9.4 kWh/L (Units/L). With petrol at $1.60 per litre, that's 17 cents /Unit. ....

What does the figure 0.278 represent?

It's very basic.  You have a car, it needs fuel to run it.   Nobody gives a fig on how much YOU spend a week getting to work.   It will always be cheaper to stay at home and WORK than driving to the Orifice, should you be able to do that.   Or catch a bus or train.  ;D

The best option is to live close to work and ride your bike. That way you get some much needed exercise as well. Assuming you are a desk jockey of course.

muso wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 9:45am:

Utter horsefeathers. Don't believe a word of it.  "costs about $50 a week more to run than its closest petrol equivalent, a Toyota Corolla small hatch" ????

Maybe they are including depreciation and other "whole of life" costs in their calculation.  There's a lot more to the cost of running a car than the fuel it uses.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 6:10pm:

muso wrote on Jun 24th, 2008 at 1:55pm: The Energy value of petrol is 34 MJ/L. Multiply by 0.278 and you get 9.4 kWh/L (Units/L). With petrol at $1.60 per litre, that's 17 cents /Unit. .... What does the figure 0.278 represent?

Energy unit conversion from MJ to kWh.

http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm

RecFisher wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 9:22pm:

muso wrote on Jun 25th, 2008 at 9:45am: Utter horsefeathers. Don't believe a word of it.  "costs about $50 a week more to run than its closest petrol equivalent, a Toyota Corolla small hatch" ???? Maybe they are including depreciation and other "whole of life" costs in their calculation.  There's a lot more to the cost of running a car than the fuel it uses.

Maybe they are buying it on the highest available interest rate and trashing it after 1 year without any insurance. Read my previous posts on resale value.

From RACV website:

"RACV calculations for the Vehicle Operating Costs Survey are based on a five-year ownership period and average operating conditions for private motorists, including an annual driving distance of 15,000km. The data was collated during May and April, 2008."

"RACV calculates vehicle operating costs for a number of popular new vehicles. The calculations include the cost of financing the vehicle, depreciation, scheduled services, registration, insurance, fuel, tyres, etc. The calculations are provided as a guide to the cost of owning and operating a vehicle over a five year, 75,000 km (15,000 km per year) period"

In that case, they are probably using standard ATO depreciation that doesn't allow for the higher than normal resale value of a second hand Prius.

An annual distance of 15,000 km is quite low. If that's all I was driving I probably wouldn't buy a Prius. The average annual kilometers (for NSW) was 23471 according to the EPA State of the Environment report. Car dealers normally work on about 20,000km per year. I have averaged around 45,000km over the last 3 years.

Basically all they are saying is that a Prius is more expensive to buy. We know that, so why obfuscate by talking about running costs?

The high resale value of a Prius is due to a shortage and is temporary.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:

The high resale value of a Prius is due to a shortage and is temporary.

It has been temporary for at least the last 5 years then.