Comments for Ethanol vs. Hybrids vs. Plug-ins: Why Argue? at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 21 out of 20 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Thu, 23 May 2013 14:36:29 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9298 Hi Hank The Prius saves gas by the engine being off a lot of the time. Its an Atkinson cycle engine and comes with a big starter motor to spin it up fast whenever it comes on. So the engine is either operating within an efficient range or is off. Excess power when the engine is on is also stored in the battery, such as when you're going slow. The regen brakes are only a small part of the efficiency gain. - Doodster Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:42:42 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9215 vell, all i have to say about zis is dat ve must do somethink. what i bet ya'll didn't know is that i'm down with the jews the gypsys, homosexuals, and retards too. i'm done burnin' people started burnin' cds! i stopped battlin' the worlds started battlin' mcs! ... now ze SS on my jacket stands for Super Smooth. be careful now, and dont get ze jew flu, vear a coat. - Adolf Hitler Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:09:37 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9155 It is clear that much of the confusion around the comparisons of different fuel sources is a lack of definition of the system which are being considered in the energy and material balances. Is the petroleum products used to grow and harvest the corn included? Or is this left out because the cellulose is a by-product? What about the energy needed to make the solar panels? A common basis is needed to make the comparisons consistent. - Mark Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:12:46 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9121 It will be all electric, but before the amazing ultracapacitors made from carbon nanotubes people will want some backup which is why REEVs made sense. All electric must win out cas in combination with cheap spray on solar (nanotubes again) we not only have no emmisions but FREE ENERGY. - Jason Des Forges Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:20:49 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9102 The ultimate answer is, and will be all electric. I don't think there is any disputing that. However... it's how we handle the next 10 or 20 years... the "interim" period that will make or break this world and our environment. True hybrids... with very efficient batteries, super-capacitors for regenerative breaking, thin-film solar on the roof, and a small, very efficient multi-fuel capable engine for charging and/or long-distance driving. Those are the things that will get us through to the next generation of advancements. Oh.... IMO. ;-) - anonymouse Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:10:58 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9087 Hopefully your hybrid doesn't break :D I agree, though. Anything's better than dead dinosaurs. - Cheezmeister Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:42:17 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9082 I am going to agree with Hank and JT here - that there can be discussion and comparison of various solutions, but arguing over which is better is counter productive. I also want to add to JT, and that multiple solutions need to be not only for various lifestyles (big cities, burbs, rural areas, small towns) but also for various people - the disabled, families, the elderly, young people... It seems like the MORE solutions we have for this transport problem, the better. - Tracy Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:45:49 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9075 Here's Joe Romm's response to Vinod Khosla http://tinyurl.com/yujppf This is the debate I think Hank was talking about. Hank, I get your point, and agree with you to a certain extent. But I think a more useful post will delve into the relative promises and hurdles for each technology, and more importantly how federal dollars ought to be allocated when they finally do come around. Also, I'd appreciate the data you cite in claiming that ethanol as we have it today is 85% carbon neutral. After all that, however, keep up the good work on your blogs. - Daniel Bell Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:30:04 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9073 I have been wondering about the true benefit from recyling CO2 from smokestakes (for example) using cellulosic processes. If the source is "old" CO2 that was out of the system for millions of years (i.e. coal), and is then turned into cellulosic ethenol, and reintroduced into the atmosphere when its burned again shortly thereafter, where is the benefit? I'd like someone to explain this, if possible. - James Staunton Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:05:55 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9071 It's about time more people start sharing Hank's sentiment. There's no magic bullet that will solve our transportation and energy shortcomings. We need diversity. And to those who say walk, bike, train & bus, those modes only work in cities large & small. I grew up in the country where your neighbor is a mile away, let me tell you that it's feasible in those areas. Bottom line, we need more than ONE solution. - JT Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:20:10 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9070 It does, i even think i heard about it with an other name (eu standards) excuse me for not checking on Wiki first, but i tend not to rely to much on Wiki-info (therefor forget to do so) - filip Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:08:22 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9069 Wikipedia has a good page. Basically CAFE is an acronym for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. It is a measure of what each manufacturer sells. Properly when we say CAFE we mean the "CAFE Requirement" which is our US way of commanding fuel economy. Hope this helps. - odograph Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:34:54 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9067 What are CAFE-standards? In our country a pub is called a 'café'; a cafe standard could therefor not stand for effeciency in any way over here. - filip Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:09:17 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9066 ...bring on the contreversy - filip Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:59:18 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9065 in reality, we do get along. But, for the sport of it, we like to have some discussion going on, and we prefer to do that amongst other eco-sensitive people rather than to those who don't give a f*ck about the environment. We "hurt" the ones we love most, isn't it?? - filip Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:56:45 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9063 It's not "here" when people are still "trying to hit $1/gal" or whatever. I'm sure industry insiders have an interest in selling us various future, but we should be more cautious than that. Let's eliminate the subsidies on things like this (and the ethanol CAFE loophole) and then let the innovators innovate. It's almost comic. If they were as good as they say they are, why would they be coming to us with hat in hand? They'd just go make money. - odograph Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:34:23 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9061 Cellulosic biofuels are here but not using technology based around enzymes or GM bacteria that act directly on cellulose. I've got the feeling that's like power from nuclear fusion, a technology that's been "five-years away" for the past 50 years. The trick is probably to thermally decompose cellulose from wood chips, garbage what ever and then either transform that into a diesel-like fuel or try using microbes to digest the carbon monoxide and hydrogen that the process produces and turn that into fuel. [url]http://www.icis.com/blogs/biofuels/archives/2008/01/gm-backs-second-generation-bio.html[/url]Coskata and GM have a venture to try and do that at under $1/gal There's no point doing that unless the engines which will use the fuel are much more efficient than even the revised CAFE standards will set. - Biofuelsimon Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:12:57 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9058 I agree...see EcoGeek's new blog at Carectomy.com - Hank Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:30:26 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9057 Or we could... - walk - bike - take the train - take the bus All of which are currently-available, commercially-proven technologies, and cost considerably less than we can expect a plug-in cellulosic ethanol hybrid to be. - Kiashu Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:42:18 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1303#comment-9056 I agree totally that hybrids and alt-fuels are compatible. It's been years since a Prius was tested and found to run just fine on E85 (the owners were taking a risk, violating waranty, for long term use wait for an E85 certified model). Sure on that I agree. But here is the rub, it is a violation of chronology to say that cellulosic ethanol "is" a solution. We are all still waiting for it. Now it's true, as you say, that a recent study showed good energy balance. But energy balance is just half the battle. You need good economic balance as well. You need EROEI and well as good old fashioned ROI. We are still in the "promises" stage with cellulosic ethanol. We are promised that it will get there, but it is not yet. And so I contest your statement that: There are a lot of problems with sugar-based ethanol, most of which are solved with cellulosic production. We aren't there yet, in commercial, wide-scale, and proven producton. Sure, we've all heard the promises though ... - odograph Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:22:56 +0100