Slashdot Log In
The Lightning Hybrid and the Inizio EV
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:45 AM
from the zum-zum dept.
from the zum-zum dept.
Mike writes "With auto show season hitting its stride, there's no shortage of incredible prototypes on display. First up is a brand new 100-mpg supercar by Lighting Hybrids. The biodiesel-fueled vehicle has its sights set on the automotive X prize and uses a hydraulic compression system to store energy from regenerative braking. Next, the Liv Inizio, a sleek fully-electric roadster that boasts a scorching top-speed of 150 mph and a 200-mile range, placing it in direct competition with the Tesla roadster."
Related Stories
Submission: The Lightning Hybrid and Inizio EV by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Price (Score:5, Informative)
Just so everyone knows:
Tesla Roadster (all electric): $98,000
Liv Inizio (all electric): $100,000
Lightning Hybrids car (biodiesel): $39,000-$59,000
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just to point out: 'biodiesel' = 'diesel'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i sill dont understand whats so great about biodiesel?
i mean we burn our crops in our cars instead of using the fields to harvest food for people who are starving
Re: (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly agree! Furthermore, I demand we ship all those tonnes of wasted Algae to the starving people in third world countries!
Side note: "Bio-" is a catch phase. Biodiesel and Oil were both created from Biological stuff, but we don't call oil "Biooil".
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, because excess corn in the US finds its way into the mouths of starving Africans.
The food shortage myth is propagated by oil companies so that whenever someone talks about a carbon cycle neutral crop alternative to fossil fuels, they can say "but think of the poor starving people!".If you want to know what big oil thinks about starving people go have a look at Shell's history of dealing with Nigerian villages, or Chevron's dealings with Ecuadorian natives. Big oil's obnoxious effort to feign concern over the welfare of the poverty stricken makes me sick.
The only reason food crops (such as corn, which is horribly inefficient as a fuel crop) are used is due to the insane subsidies that the US government offers them. Of course, the US government would never subsidize proper fuel crops such as rapeseed, flax or linseed because that would step on the toes of big oil.
So cut it out with the "think of the poor starving masses" rubbish please, it's so obviously a load of BS.
Parent
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think big oil is the problem. I think it's more about keeping the corn farmers happy.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really that difficult for a corn grower to move some or all of their production from corn to rapeseed/flax/linseed/ whatever crop is best for bio-diesel? IANAF, so serious question how difficult(expensive) would it be?
I am not a farmer either, well, not a professional one anyway. I do have one hell of tomato crop starting this year. Anyway, the areas that are ideal for growing corn may not be ideal for growing rapeseed/flax/linseed. You also have to consider the millions in investments (per farmer!) in equipment that is proprietary to corn farming like harvesters and such, that will become worthless if the farmers start growing switchgrass.
Re: (Score:2)
the subsidies go towards corn itself. Farmers could move to crops other than corn, but corn (as a food) is considered more important to promote the growth of than fuel-crops.
This is due to a combination of two factors:
- We've had food shortages in the past, while there have never been any fuel shortages, ever
- Food is vital to the survival, while Fuel is an unimportant luxury
Re: (Score:2)
The corn subsidies aren't to keep corn farmers "happy", it's to prevent the type of massive food shortage of the type which could easily happen if people only grew "as much as they needed to".
Grow "only as much as you need" (as any sensible businessman would do)
Subtract "as much as is wiped out due to an unexpected event"
and you have:
"less than as much as you need"
Same logic as banks which stopped paying into FDIC when "the interest in there is enough to cover what we would be paying in anyway!".
Som
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think big oil is the problem. I think it's more about keeping the corn farmers happy.
Big corn?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, because excess corn in the US finds its way into the mouths of starving Africans.
Corn prices rising due to wrongheaded ethanol production (making fuel from topsoil is fucking stupid - especially from crops fertilized with petroleum products) is not a myth, it most certainly is affecting the average Mexican family.
The only reason food crops (such as corn, which is horribly inefficient as a fuel crop) are used is due to the insane subsidies that the US government offers them
That is correct. You can get paid to inefficiently produce corn, which is at best what, 15% energy-positive or so? It takes a shitload of water, too, although if you're not eating the corn the water need not be all that clean I guess. At least not bacteriologically.
Of course, the US government would never subsidize proper fuel crops such as rapeseed, flax or linseed because that would step on the toes of big oil.
There is no
Re:Price (Score:5, Informative)
While I agree in general (not using food as fuel) I also have to point out that Jatropha is another good candidate for fuel production. Jatropha grows in very poor soil with very little water needed and produces seeds which are 1/3rd oil. I'm not sure what huge kind of acerage you would need to supply world energy demands but not every solution has to do it all. Algae is great if you have the water and the infrastructure to support that kind of production, but it's definitely possible that poorer places may need a different form of production which is less capital intensive.
Parent
Re:Price (Score:5, Informative)
``i sill dont understand whats so great about biodiesel?''
What is great about it is that the CO_2 you realease into the atmosphere when you burn it has first been extracted from the atmosphere while the crops you make it from were growing. In other words, biodiesel is CO_2 neutral: it does not add to the total amount of CO_2 to the atmosphere. It is often also cleaner than regular diesel in other ways, e.g. it contains no sulphur.
``i mean we burn our crops in our cars instead of using the fields to harvest food for people who are starving''
We can do that (and that certainly happens), but we can also make biodiesel from things that don't use up land that could be used for farming food crops. The crops that are best for feeding people and the crops that have the best yield for making bio fuel are not the same. Algae, for example, have very high oil yield and will grow on water, and even on desert land. If we do it right, we can produce bio fuels in addition to food.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not saying biodiesel is bad, but realize that it won't be carbon neutral. This is because we basically eat natural gas, NG being the main feedstock for ammonia, which of course becomes fertilizer. Because our food isn't carbon neutral, it won't make carbon neutral fuel.
Perhaps someday fueling stations will sell diesel, biodiesel, and organic-biodiesel for successively greater prices. But we'll never ever be able to replace the energy we get out of mineral oil with organic-biodiesel for a price anywhe
Re: (Score:2)
I should have included a link to the NG to ammonia process (Haber-Bosch): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is because we basically eat natural gas, NG being the main feedstock for ammonia, which of course becomes fertilizer.
Its far worse than that because of diesel used for transportation and tractors and insecticides and, well, everything else.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915 [harpers.org]
"Every single calorie we eat is backed by at least a calorie of oil, more like ten."
The theoildrum.com scientists seem to think ten is much more correct, a blathering mainstream media claims its 1:1, so it's probably somewhere in between, probably much closer to the scientists on theoildrum than to some magazine journalist. So, you can turn
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After a multi-hour 30 mile bike ride I am very hungry and can easily eat two pounds of food (and still lose weight, if it's salad and not eight quarter pounders with cheese and bacon).
Because you are riding a low efficiency junker.
Upgrade to a recumbent velomobile and your efficiency goes up DRASTICALLY. your comparison on biking is like comparing a Honda insight to a Hummer H1 driven in 1st gear the whole way. Your bicycle, yes even that overpriced $4500.00 trendy bike is a piece of crap in aerodynamic
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying biodiesel is bad, but realize that it won't be carbon neutral. This is because we basically eat natural gas, NG being the main feedstock for ammonia, which of course becomes fertilizer. Because our food isn't carbon neutral, it won't make carbon neutral fuel.
This objection does not apply to biodiesel from algae, the only viable feedstock. Fuels based on topsoils are idiotic not for the reason you describe, which is not a requirement for growing these crops; they're stupid because they deplete the soil. You can grow them in guilds but then they're hard to harvest, especially efficiently enough for feedstocks. Algae does not need to be purchased (it comes free with the air) and is easy to harvest, and a plant is coming online shortly [gas2.org]. This technology was develope
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you look at the average American, you can see we definitely have NO problem with starvation here.
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is: "Why should farmers grow something which they can sell, when they could be dedicating the same amount of time/energy/labor/resources towards growing so much excess that they have no choice but to give it away?"
That is what you're saying, right? just so we're clear.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Certain people will specifically be farmers for the fuel industry so it won't have a negative impact on our food sources. Farming is completely sustainable. The US only utilizes a small percentage of it's land for crop farming. We could double that usage and still not feel any negative effects. In fact more crops = more plants creating oxygen.
2) The US has very strict regulations with regards to food. If a farm product does not meet certain
Re:Price (Score:5, Funny)
You can grow oil.
It just takes a long, long time.
Parent
Re:Price (Score:5, Informative)
not that long [gas2.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, you don't burn crops, you burn what is grown on land that could be used for crops driving the price of food up in 3rd world countries.
Biodiesel is the bane of every food aid agency in the world.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument assumes at least two things:
1) That arable land is used for growing biofuel crops instead of food crops. There are many biofuel crops that will grow on land unsuitable for food crops.
and
2) That all arable land is used for growing food. The US has so much food growing capacity we actually pay farmers to NOT grow anything, since the abundant supply would ruin the value of the crops.
I'm sure there are other glaring holes in your argument but that's what immediately comes to mind.
=Smidge=
Parent
Re:Price (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
#3 - mass-produced biodiesel in the future will be generated by algae in tanks, not crops grown in soil?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any of those three sources I listed can be grown on land that is poorly suited to growi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Find a lot of the pioneers in the forum below.
http://endless-sph [endless-sphere.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they could get these down to the Vette price range, I'd be all over buying one. If they can get them into the $50K-$65K range, put me on the list.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How about a cheap, regular electric car I can drive every day instead of overpriced sports models? I am no car fan, I sometimes use a car to drive my ass and my bicycle from point A to point B, and I see no reason whatsoever to spend on a car that can do stuff I don't need.
Get me something moderately fast, reliable, not really ugly and reasonably priced that I can plug ... and drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. toys for the rich only....
Call me when they have a hybrid that sells for less than $15,000. And even then it will only be available to the upper class poor. ($35,000 a year and less income)
The sweet spot to get this to the masses is $9,999.99 Even a 2 seater at that price will change the world, well not the world, they already have cheap, high efficiency cars in europe. Change the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
My bank will surely give me a mortgage for one of those. This investment is definitely safer than what they had been doing a couple of years ago."
You know..I really don't know why people are so shocked and all that houses went down in value...??
I mean, they are a commodity just like anything else...they can go down in value.
I'm particularly blown away by people complaining, and apparently going to get bailed out because they are 'upside down' in their homes. Wh
100-mpg supercar (Score:4, Funny)
See? Told ya they've been holding out. Put that fancy secret carburetor that Exxon has under wraps on there and you'll get 200.
Well... (Score:2)
batteries (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you must ask these questions then you can't afford the car.
This is exactly why all three vehicles are "super-luxury" cars, where cost does not matter. Manufacturers (tiny shops) can afford to assemble each car by hand and there is enough money left to grow business. A car for everyone (Smart, Prius etc.) must be made by robots, and in quantity, to have a reasonably low cost. No small business can sink a billion dollars on an assembly plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Lightning looks a bit Tucker-ish (Score:2)
They don't appear to have enough wherewithal in that little shop to produce an actual production automobile in a year.
But I may be wrong.
*Snore* (Score:3, Insightful)
Please wake me, when they start building family cars at affordable prices...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah...like that is exciting. *snore* indeed.
If they can get the Inzo or Tesla in the $55K range...THEN I'm interested. Then again, I've never owned anything by 2 seat sports cars in my life.
Family car (Score:2, Interesting)
Hydraulic accumulator? (Score:3, Interesting)
In a car? The safety issues with the high pressures required aside , how reliable would this be over the cars lifetime and what would the maintenance costs be? Also I don't see how you can provide 150hp for any useful length of time from a pressure vessel that needs to fit into a sports car chassis. Call me cynical but I'll wait for v2.0 before I part with any cash for something like this.
Sedan? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't care about a sedan (Score:4, Interesting)
(Plans for the Doran Electric were always for sale in the back of the Popular Science magazines I used to collect when I was a kid, I'm talking 1986 or so, I always wanted to build one
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)