Diesel-Like Engine Could Boost Fuel Economy By 50% 721
bonch writes "Autoparts manufacturer Delphi has developed a diesel-like ignition engine running on gasoline, providing a potential 50 percent efficiency improvement over existing gas-powered engines. Engineers have long sought to run diesel-like engines on gasoline for its higher efficiency and low emissions. Delphi's engine, using a technique called gasoline-direct-injection compression ignition, could rival the performance of hybrid automobiles at a cheaper cost."
Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't really care about the karma here, but there's been so much bad news lately this is rather refreshing.
I'll let the critics speak and explain why this is not as good as it sounds, but FTS it's inspiring.
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Informative)
It is niether a bad idea nor magic. By pulsing injections they make the combustion behave closer to the Carnot cycle ideal, which is more efficient than the Otto cycle.
That aside, I have my doubts about the 50% improvement. And diesels are already closer to the Carnot cycle so you could say they are effectively running a diesel on gasoline.
One important benefit it could have over diesels though, is that diesel burns fairly slowly compared to gasoline - which is the reason why diesels rarely rev above 5000 or so. If they manage to get diesel-type efficiency but with faster-burning gasoline, it could result in an engine that feels and behaves like a gasoline engine but has the mileage of a diesel. That would be nice.
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Informative)
I have my doubts about the 50% improvement.
Careful reading reveals that your doubt is well placed, but you misread their claim:
technology that could improve the fuel economy of gas-powered cars by 50 percent...Diesel engines are 40 to 45 percent efficient in using the energy in fuel to propel a vehicle, compared to roughly 30 percent efficiency for gasoline engines.
So all they really claim is that a diesel engine that runs on gasoline has roughly the same efficiency as a fuel-oil powered diesel.
Re: (Score:3)
Diesel has not been less expensive than gasoline for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Informative)
I can see from your email address that your in the UK. In the US diesel is actually more expensive than gasoline. This is primarily due to taxes but the pricing is also influenced by refinery capacity. In any case, diesel is not substantially cheaper at the retail level.
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Informative)
Because there are countries like the U.S., where the infrastructure for gasoline is much better than for diesel. And diesel exhaust has more CO2 per Joule than gasoline, because longer carbohydride molecules have a higher carbon/hydrogenium ratio than the shorter ones.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds all nice, but I see an article about some new "miracle" engine technology or configuration that claims to deliver enormous gains in efficiency every year or so.
However, there is one thing that really stands out about this one: the claim is being made by Delphi, which is a very large company and the main supplier to GM (not long ago, it was actually part of GM). Usually, these "new engine" press releases are from some tiny 2-person company no one's ever heard of, and never hears from again after t
Re: (Score:3)
I'm quite aware that some racing vehicles (not all, probably not even very many, really just Indy cars; NASCAR cars, which are far more popular in the USA, use standard gasoline) use methanol. However, if you think there's enough sawdust to make enough methanol for the 100M+ vehicles in the USA today, I think you're been whiffing too many fumes. I don't know that much about methanol, so maybe there's some other sources that could be exploited for the massive volume that would be required, but I'm doubtful
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
For the vast majority of uses it won't matter. If you could get me 60mpg I would take 20 seconds 0-60. Old beetles were that bad and lots of people bought those. They also had crap for a top speed and were not what anyone would call responsive.
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Informative)
WV's bluemotion polo will do 78MPG and 0-60 in 13.9.
Naturally, it's not sold on this side of the pod.
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Who is WV, is that like a chinese knockoff of a VW?
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
I sometimes drive a Ford Anglia [wikipedia.org]. Has a 1L engine, about 39 HP. Does 0-60 in 30 seconds, which is slower than everything except loaded trucks and Model Ts.
You come to appreciate just what jackrabbits most cars are, and that acceleration is not that important. They jump out to a big lead, and then I catch up because they can't make traffic go faster and can't make lights turn green in time to avoid coming to a stop. I get to my destination as fast or almost as fast as with a modern car. There are a few situations where the lack of power can be a problem: a too short entrance ramp to a freeway built 50 years ago and in bad need of a redesign, the highway with 60 mph speed limits and a stoplight every mile (you reach 60 mph just as you approach the next light), trying to turn onto a busy highway at an intersection without a light, and mountain driving. You can't be in a hurry in that car. Forces the driver to take it easier.
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
The people I end up behind on the surface streets might be able to do 0-60 in less than 10 seconds, but for some reason they won't even do 0-45 in less than 20, if they get there at all. Even when I'm getting on the interstate... less than half the people seem to use the onramp to accelerate up to the speed of traffic, they go slow the whole way and only speed up where the lanes actually merge.
I guess what I'm saying is I'd prefer 0-60 in 20 seconds if
people actually did that
compared to what they are doing with their much higher performance cars now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well with normal diesel cars, we don't hear about problems like that. For most of these issues, is is more about the gearing then how the fuel spins the cylinders.
Re: (Score:3)
The Benz version doesn't sound too bad: http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/mercedes-benz-diesotto-engine [topgear.com]
But that was 5 years ago so is it vapour-ware?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm guessing with proper tuning, you'll get exactly the kind of performance you want.
They are raising the efficiency at which the engine burns gasoline. This can be used to propel a commuter car to same speeds with same acceleration, but using less fuel.
Or, increasing the amount of power you get out of a certain engine size, since the power is constrained by the amount of air-fuel mixture you can burn, which then depends on RPM/engine volume and possible use of turbos/superchargers.
So if you suddenly improv
Was only a matter of time (Score:4, Interesting)
From what I understand, the major challenge of combustion without a spark plug for gasoline is preignition. High pressure direct injection allows normal spark-plug motors to run at higher compression ratios with lower chance of knock (preignition), so that was part of it, but I wonder what other fabulous tech was used to get this to be feasibly production ready. Very cool.
Re:Was only a matter of time (Score:4, Informative)
All questions answered (from TFA):
[T]he researchers found that if they injected the gasoline in three precisely timed bursts, they could avoid the too-rapid combustion that's made some previous experimental engines too noisy. At the same time, they could burn the fuel faster than in conventional gasoline engines, which is necessary for getting the most out of the fuel.
They used other strategies to help the engine perform well at extreme loads. For example, when the engine has just been started or is running at very low speeds, the temperatures in the combustion chamber can be too low to achieve combustion ignition. Under these conditions, the researchers directed exhaust gases into the combustion chamber to warm it up and facilitate combustion.
Mark Sellnau, engineering manager of advanced powertrain technology at Delphi Powertrain, says the engine could be paired with a battery pack and electric motor, as in hybrid cars, to improve efficiency still more, although he notes that it's not clear whether doing that would be worth the added cost.
Re:Was only a matter of time (Score:5, Informative)
Well, as the article pointed out, they are using a much finer grained control of the injection precisely to control knock, injecting fuel in up to three shorter bursts.
This also allows them to space those bursts at precise times during the power stroke, such as when the piston is going down, and the expansion of the initial burst of fuel is losing effectiveness due to combustion chamber expansion reducing the instantaneous pressure. Adding a burst of fuel at that point gets you extra power at what would otherwise be the downward (backside) of the power curve.
Previous approaches to this were attempted with variable valve actuation [osu.edu], (essentially getting rid of the cam shaft and using other means of controlling valves more precisely). Costly, but effective.
This approach (precisely controlling fuel delivery) allows you to shape the combustion profile to the continuously varying cylinder volume and perhaps adjusting that for changes in engine loading as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Much of what you said is being done with direct injection engines already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_variable_valve_timing [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Gamma_engine [wikipedia.org]
Jevons Paradox (Score:4, Insightful)
People will just drive more to make up for the greater efficiency, and still whine about gas prices...
Re:Jevons Paradox (Score:5, Funny)
There's limits to this effect. My florescent lightbulb on my desk lamp is 400% more efficient than the incandescent bulb it replaced, but that doesn't make me sit at my desk 4 times longer.
Re:Jevons Paradox (Score:5, Funny)
...but that doesn't make me sit at my desk 4 times longer.
I couldn't log into the Diablo III servers either. Had to move to the couch and find the damn remote.
Re: (Score:3)
No one forces you to sit at your desk when the lamp is on.
But people are forced to drive more when driving a more fuel efficient car?
There may be something to that - when I drive my car to work, it's only 10 miles (and 30 minutes) by freeway, but when I ride my much more fuel efficient bike, it takes me 12 miles (and 60 minutes) by bike to get to the same destination.
Re:Jevons Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
Err, no. Driving has some significant extra costs that aren't captured by how much I spend on gas in a week: the time I sit in the car, being utterly unproductive. For some - specifically for those who drive for fun or work - this might lead to a zero reduction in gas costs. But it will reduce it for a whole lot of other people.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
From a buffoon (Score:4, Insightful)
What keeps diesel engines from becoming a standard in the US? I know regulations nearly disappeared them from the market, but that was for environmental reasons, which are the very reasons why diesel cars are attractive. While in Europe it is not outside the norm, here it seems like you are committing a crime if you run a diesel engine.
Also - since diesel engines are so efficient and all - what stops them from making a hybrid car that benefits from the even greater efficiency of diesel? or this new type of diesel like gas engine for that matter?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are diesel hybrids being sold right now in Europe. Also, Audi will probably win this years 24h of Le Mans with a diesel hybrid (Audi R18 TDI e-tron quattro, google it), which will be a first. That is bound to attract a lot of notoriety and drive more manufacturers to employ that technology onto its roadgoing cars.
Re:From a buffoon (Score:5, Insightful)
High fuel taxes on diesel, because 18-wheelers are business assets and gov't loves to tax business, since it's hidden from the consumer.
Re:From a buffoon (Score:5, Insightful)
High fuel taxes on diesel, because 18-wheelers are business assets and gov't loves to tax business, since it's hidden from the consumer.
Since big rigs account for about 99% of road damage, the truck companies are still coming out ahead of car drivers on fuel tax paid vs. government entitlements received.
Re:From a buffoon (Score:5, Informative)
Really? 99%?
Could you cite that?
Thanks.
I don't know if it actually works out to 99%, but in general, road wear rises with the 4th power of axle weight, so trucks account for the lion's share of wear and tear on roads:
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/equivalent-single-axle-load/ [pavementinteractive.org]
On the other hand, 99% might not be that far off:
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that's not it at all. 18-wheelers are HEAVILY subsidized, even with the slightly higher fuel taxes on diesel.
To break even on road tax, the taxes on 18-wheelers would be based on weight and mileage, and would be so much higher than car road tax, that it would literally cost more to tax the cars than the revenue from taxing the cars.
I wrote up a blog post about that: http://bhtooefr.org/blog/2012/03/19/why-long-haul-trucking-is-an-awful-idea-and-rail-is-far-better-for-long-distance-transport/ [bhtooefr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Great idea, then all the terrorist have to do to bring this country to a halt economically is knock apart a few rail tracks. Same for an invading army, but lets face it, that's less likely. Trucks can be rerouted to any number of roads, rail cannot.
During WWII, the British rail network took a very heavy pounding from the German bombers. And yet, somehow it managed to continue providing the service of transporting goods around the country.
The reason was that it had excellent built-in redundancy. Multiple available routes between all the major destinations made it remarkably robust. Sure, some routes are quicker than others, but the ability to keep things moving even if two or three main lines were knocked out was critical.
So history shows your argument
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada diesel fuel used to be cheaper than regular fuel due to less refinement, however taxes now make it more expensive than regular off setting the fuel efficiency so no one wants them.
Re: (Score:3)
don't believe me, check out the VW sites where drivers are posting their own experiences and do 46mpg or better on a regular basis.
Indeed - just bought a 2012 Jetta TDI for my wife, as she has a 60-mile-each-way daily commute down the interstate:
Average mileage: 50mpg... and she can often fill up on diesel for less than what I pay for the same amount of gasoline if she goes to Sam's Club.
Re:From a buffoon (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:From a buffoon (Score:5, Informative)
What keeps diesel engines from becoming a standard in the US? I know regulations nearly disappeared them from the market, but that was for environmental reasons, which are the very reasons why diesel cars are attractive. While in Europe it is not outside the norm, here it seems like you are committing a crime if you run a diesel engine.
Also - since diesel engines are so efficient and all - what stops them from making a hybrid car that benefits from the even greater efficiency of diesel? or this new type of diesel like gas engine for that matter?
Many reasons diesel hasn't been popular in the U.S. One reason is environmental concerns - at least in the north east U.S. and California, our emissions standards, particularly for particulates and sulfur compounds, are much stricter than Europe. A second reason is that people tend to buy cars based on horsepower, and diesels lag there. Third, lots of people have bad memories of noisy, smelly diesel engines from the 80's. Fourth, diesels cost more. All that said, they are making a comeback with the newer offerings from VW and BMW (and Mercedes?).
I believe the reason diesels haven't been seen in hybrids is a combination of several factors. One, they are heavier than gasoline engines which in a hybrid already facing weight issues due to batteries could be a problem. Second, they are more expensive than gasoline engines, and again hybrids already face a cost problem. Third, the efficiency gains using gasoline engines have been sufficient to set them significantly apart from most non-hybrid cars, so the additional mileage you might get from using a diesel instead isn't worth the additional cost and weight.
Re: (Score:3)
Diesel is more effecient and produces less carbon overall, but is does produce nasty Nitrogen and Sulphur compounds. Until the recent decade there was no way to effectively filter and dispose them off. But now we have means to 'burn' them off into relatively safer compounds, and there is pretty much no reason to opt for diesel.
Re: (Score:3)
Installed industrial base and public perception are the main culprits, I guess.
The production, distribution and consumption chain is geared towards gasoline, making diesel a less safe option as you can't be sure you'll be able to refill at any station.
North Americans are also used to equate V6 and V8 with power (although this is changing with the latest small turbo-4s such as EcoBoost), where the car diesel engines are most often geared for economy rather than performance (unless you look at BMW *35d series
Re: (Score:3)
>>>What keeps diesel engines from becoming a standard in the US?
The diesel cars introduced during the 70s/80s fuel crisis were crap, and now they have a reputation for being smelly and unreliable even though that's not really true anymore. Modern diesels are LEV qualified.
>>>what stops them from making a hybrid car that benefits from the even greater efficiency of diesel?
Nothing. Several companies have built prototypes over the years (example: An 80mpg Dodge Intrepid), but they've all de
Re: (Score:3)
I bought a VW diesel in the 80s, and I learned that it sucked. (Though I still miss the 55 mpg highway, 42 mpg city that it gave me)
I concluded that Chicago is too cold for diesel autos, since it was unreliable whenever the temperature got down much below 10F (-12C).
And it really was dirty for the first few minutes of operation until it warmed up su
Re: (Score:3)
When you refine crude oil, it distills out into a variety of substances, - kerosene, gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, tar, waxes, etc. Ideal case is when your gasoline and diesel use exactly matches the proportions of those which distil out.
The next-ideal case is when you use more gasoline than distils out. Gasoli
Re: (Score:3)
While there are advantages to a diesel engine, there are also disadvantages.
I tool around in my little 1.3L turbodiesel hatchback, rarely straying above 2000rpm, getting about 54mpg with hardly any effort. The greater torque compared to a similar-sized gasoline engine is very nice for daily driving, it makes overtaking less stressful and let's me drive along in town at ~35 in 4th gear at 1500-1600 rpms or so. Bigger diesels can even drive around town in 5th or 6th gear, no problem.
Now, drawbacks. There are
What's the advantage over diesel? (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, yes, this makes a gasoline engine more efficient by emulating a diesel. Why not just go with diesel, then?
Is there more energy density in gasoline? Is it cheaper to produce? Or is this just about gasoline being more widely available and consumers being more comfortable with it?
I'm asking. Someone here knows, I bet.
Re:What's the advantage over diesel? (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA: Diesel is dirty and requires expensive exhaust systems.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct. To clean up a turbodiesel engine, you need a combination of diesel particulate filters and urea liquid injection into the exhaust stream to chemically "break up" the NOx gases to a simpler form that is easily removed by standard catalytic converters. Developed originally by Mercedes-Benz under trademark name "BlueTec," it's a pretty expensive system of exhaust emission control, hence the reason why such systems have been limited to higher-end turbodiesel models.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:What's the advantage over diesel? (Score:5, Funny)
> I'm asking. Someone here knows, I bet.
Read the article. I'm begging you. Read it!
Re: (Score:3)
Gasoline is more efficient than oil in the same conditions. The problem is (or was in this case), the 2 types of engines cannot run in the same conditions, you can get more compression ratios with oil and it needs it to burn. Previous attempts at making a gasoline engine with a very high compression ratio like the diesel one resulted in explosions or melted engines.
Also, when you produce 1 liter of oil, you also produce some gasoline (even more than a liter if I recall correctly). So both should still coexi
Re:What's the advantage over diesel? (Score:4, Informative)
You haven't really understood it. You take crude oil, and you refine it by essentially splitting it up into constituent parts. Diesel is one of the things you end up with, petrol is another. One is not the waste product while the other is the "true" product- they're both just products of refining crude oil.
You are right that you can't create one without the other- so if we all went diesel, you'd have a lot of petrol going unused. But realistically there's no danger of that ever happening; the demand for all oil products is huge and dynamic- whenever something gets cheaper due to a drop in demand, someone else quickly finds a use for it at the new price point.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone here knows, I bet.
I've looked into it before. It's complex, but the "big four" are:
1. Diesel engines are heavier and more expensive. So sure you can buy a diesel that performs similarly to a gasoline engine, but it will cost about $5000 more and probably still be a bit heavier. Any technology that you can apply to diesels to make them rev faster or be constructed lighter can also be used in gasoline engines - so there will always be a cost and weight differential.
2. Diesel engines have more particulate emissions. In Europe, they do not regulate these as heavily as in the US. Meeting the US standard means more cost, complexity, and weight.
3. In Europe, diesel tends to be taxed at a lower rate than gasoline.
4. In Europe, they get high-quality crude and the refineries make diesel as a natural byproduct. In the US, we import a lot of really low-quality crude from Venezuela and Canada that needs to be "cracked". Once you are taking that additional step in the refining process, you can adjust the proportion of diesel and gasoline to suit the market... diesel is no longer a natural byproduct of the refining process. Diesel uses more crude than gasoline (it contains more energy - more carbon, per gallon), so there is little incentive for the refiners to produce it unless it is priced higher than gasoline.
Your data must be old. Diesel engines, horsepower for horsepower are not heavier than a gasoline engine. It is true though that a four cylinder diesel ways more than a four cylinder gasoline engine. However, the diesel provides over twice, if not more, horsepower in the same sized package.
Particulate matter in diesel exhaust is dependent on the quality of the fuel. It is true that Europe refines their fuel to a higher standard, both gas and diesel, which is also why they don't need all of the emission de
Re:What's the advantage over diesel? (Score:4, Informative)
Your data must be old. Diesel engines, horsepower for horsepower are not heavier than a gasoline engine.
At a cost of about $5000 :)
Diesel is not a by product of the refining product because it is an actual component product (intentionally manufactured).
If you don't "crack" the petroleum and just do fractional distillation, then you will end up with some proportion of diesel and some proportion of gasoline. Yes, they are intentionally making diesel - but it's not as if they could reconfigure the plant and make much of that into gasoline without other tradeoffs. This certainly isn't my field, but when I last looked into it, most of the refineries that can crack the fuel are in Texas - with Chavez striking a deal with China to build one their as well. It's a relatively expensive process, so you don't do it unless you have to - but once you have the capability you can make the diesel/gas ratio almost anything you want. Obviously, they make this ratio match the market - as you mention in your post. In Europe, the market is distorted - not only does the government tax diesel lower, but the refineries there simply make more diesel than the market would otherwise need. I'm not saying that the European refineries can't crack hydrocarbons - they've been doing that since the early 20th century - but they are geared for the high-quality stuff from the Middle East, while the US has to deal with oil sand sludge from Canada and the almost unusable stuff from South America (a barrel of Venezuelan crude only provides about 5 gallons of gasoline in a normal refining process). You wouldn't build that kind of a refinery in Europe because you have easier access to high-quality crude.
Here is an excellent primer that includes a discussion of cracking. [hubpages.com]
Better than conservation (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Better than conservation (Score:5, Insightful)
You keep using that word "justice." I do not think it means what you think it means.
If by "economic social justice" you mean "ways I believe that I should spend your money" and if by "unjust" you mean "bad because it is not how I would allocate your resources," then maybe.
But "justice" is the application of law to achieve a fair, reasonable, and consistent outcome. If your neighbor gets fined $100 for leaving trash on the street and you do the same thing but don't get fined, that's unjust.
Enabling or subsidizing somebody else to have access to something that they do not currently have may be altruistic or philanthropic and it may even be a good idea, but it's got nothing to do with justice. "Social Justice" might have meant something once, but it's been hijacked in pursuit of so many agendas (because everybody likes Justice, right?!?) that it's about as meaningful as the names of laws, where you regularly see things like "The American Equal Opportunity And High Paying Jobs For Everyone Act" that does nothing like what the title says.
Re: (Score:3)
If by "economic social justice" you mean "ways I believe that I should spend your money" and if by "unjust" you mean "bad because it is not how I would allocate your resources," then maybe.
Straw man. In the context of environmental protection, "justice" would mean things that the air people in poor neighborhoods would be nearly as clean as the air people in wealthy suburbs breathe.
I'll give you another example. Some years ago there was a proposal to establish airline service at an air force base which for decades has been a research center that hasn't supported combat aircraft since the 50s. I remember walking into the break room at work and hearing two people who happened to live in a very
Rival hybrids? I don't think so... (Score:4, Insightful)
At least they won't rival the hybrid version of this engine.
Would prefer this over a hybrid (Score:5, Insightful)
Hasn't this been done before? (Score:2)
Too little, too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Gasoline. Because we still have glaciers.
except (Score:3)
Hybrid will use this as well.
It's good thing, hope it pans out.
Similar technology in the 70's (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Again read the article- likewise fuel injection and 4 valve OHC has been around since the 40's but it has been a matter of getting manufacturing and engine management costs to a point where it could economically feasible to sell them to consumers.
Your CVCC example is somewhat related but a far cry from a direct injected gas motor with controlled dieseling.
Re:Redundant (Score:5, Funny)
Can't wait to have my self-driving electric flying car by 2032.
Re: (Score:3)
Meh. I'm waiting for my teleporter. There's no way I'd want to step outside with everyone flying badly maintained autonomous electric cars.
Re:Redundant (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean everything is moving over the next two decades to electric anyway.
Electric has a moving target to hit, just as it has for the last 100+ years. Batteries are not the only technology that can improve in the next two decades.
Re:Redundant (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's much of a moving target ... electric needs to reach a 600 mile range and charge in 10 minutes. That will make it an effective transportation alternative for all current automotive travel. It really doesn't need to get any better than that.
It's hard to see how electric can be beat in the long run. Even a 50% decrease in fuel use won't make gasoline fueling the cheaper choice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it's much of a moving target ... electric needs to reach a 600 mile range and charge in 10 minutes. That will make it an effective transportation alternative for all current automotive travel. It really doesn't need to get any better than that.
It's hard to see how electric can be beat in the long run. Even a 50% decrease in fuel use won't make gasoline fueling the cheaper choice.
How much will it cost to purchase the electricity to recharge that battery pack? It is naive to assume that electricity to recharge cars will be cheaper than gasoline to power cars once the electricity is the primary fuel source. Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear. Why would you expect electric recharging to be any different?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear."
Ah. Controlled by the Trilateral Commission, no doubt. Or perhaps the Illuminati.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not naive at all, it's simple physics, which apparently you know absolutely nothing about.
Most of the energy in gasoline is used to create heat, which is simply wasted. There's no way gasoline engines can even come close to electric cars in efficiency, once the battery problem is solved. Of course, a lot of electricity is still created with thermal cycle technology like cars (coal, oil, natural gas-fired plants), but a lot isn't (nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar). However, the efficiency of any power
Re: (Score:3)
"Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear."
Isn't that the same?
No. Supply and demand has some kind of curve for both, and and equilibrium is reached between the two. Since the demand for gas is so inelastic, instead of an X supply and demand curve, it is closer to a sideways t. As such, gas companies can pretty much charge what they want. The reason they don't is because of public backlash (which translates into government oversight, which they don't want), not because of as prices go up, people buy less gas and prices drop. In reality, as the price of gas goes up
Re:Redundant (Score:4, Insightful)
However, putting this in a Hybrid would provide the better of both worlds in the near term.
Re:Redundant (Score:4, Insightful)
When you get kids and a wife, you'll probably (not certainly, but probably) wind up owning two cars. I have a Camry and a minivan - I would gladly trade the Camry in on an electric car if my payback period were not infinite. I'd still have the minivan for longer trips.
Indeed you can't beat the price of a car for trips when you have multiple passengers. Well, maybe the bus.... Last time I looked it was still only about $12 to take the bus from Philly to NYC, which is hard to beat.
As an aside, we have a fundamental problem with our nation's infrastructure when it costs less to drive my own car into a major city than it costs to take transit of some form. Even given the atrocious parking fees, tolls, wear-and-tear, and gas, it will be cheaper for me to make the 6-hour trip up to Boston with my family of four by car than by Amtrak. Amazing.
Re: (Score:3)
Lucky you! I used to live next to the company that I work at, so I walked into work. Then I got married and had kids. Now instead of "where's the closest apartment complex to work" I had to optimize based on school systems and distance to both my work and my wife's. I think we did pretty well - I have a 10-mile commute and she has a 5-mile commute... not quite splitting the difference distance wise, but time-wise my commute is actually better because about half of mine is highway. I can't bike without takin
Re: (Score:3)
Hydrogen is the exact same story, actually. Somebody has to produce the hydrogen for your fuel cells, that takes energy.
Re:Redundant (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems a bit redundant really, I mean everything is moving over the next two decades to electric anyway.
Perhaps. It will depend on if we can figure out how to store electricity in the car less expensively then we can store the equivalent energy in a liquid fuel tank.
Re:Redundant (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably inevitable-- it's just a question of when. Battery cost per kWh has been decreasing at around 10% per year, and gasoline is getting consistently more expensive. It seems incredibly unlikely that both of these would stop moving toward the crossover point.
Re:Redundant (Score:4, Interesting)
This. Personally I can see all-electric cars being even more capable than fossil fuel cars, at a lower cost, and cheaper to run, over the coming twenty years.
Re:Redundant... What's "This."? (Score:3)
I've seen people use the term "This." just as you used it here.
I am not sure what "this" means.
Is this some kind of new shortcut phrasing? What does it mean?
I am a native English speaker (but an old person now and trying to keep up to date).
Re:Redundant... What's "This."? (Score:5, Informative)
It means "I approve of the above message which neatly encapsulates most of my feelings on the matter".
Re: (Score:3)
Word.
Re:Redundant (Score:5, Informative)
It's probably inevitable-- it's just a question of when. Battery cost per kWh has been decreasing at around 10% per year, and gasoline is getting consistently more expensive. It seems incredibly unlikely that both of these would stop moving toward the crossover point.
Gasoline engines have been keeping up with that 10% though. In 1998 the Ford Mustang GT with a 4.6L V8 had about 215hp. In 2011 the Mustang GT 5.0L V8 packed in 412hp. That's about 7% a year increase in power and a slight increase in mileage. It stands to reason if that extra efficiency was put towards more mpg instead of more power, that crossover point could be farther out than you think.
The good news is it's getting better on both fronts and fast!
We need new power plants ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems a bit redundant really, I mean everything is moving over the next two decades to electric anyway.
Until we see new power plants being built I am not so sure we will have a large scale transition to electrically powered vehicles. Various parts of our electrical grid are already pretty stressed out and seeing periodic brown outs and black outs. This could put a damper on large scale adoption of electric vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>everything is moving over the next two decades to electric anyway.
Only for those who live close to work and never go long distances like the beach or grandparents' house in the next state. For the rest of us, we need fuel-powered cars (including hybrids).
Re:Redundant (Score:5, Insightful)
long distances like the beach
If you're a long distance from a beach, you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
No. It's cheaper to own then rent. Not just for cars but virtually everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No I don't see all electric in 20 years.
Unless we solve the problems of...
1. Range
2. Recharge Time
3. Getting the Grid to handle all the cars.
4. How do we generate all that electricity to do so.
Range and Recharge time. is the biggest issue for me. I travel 30 miles to work and 30 miles back. That is 60 miles. Most electric cars are pushing 100 miles, but that is the ideal range... what is the range going up a mountain? What if the batteries after 8 years are not optimal...
Next my parents live 800 miles aw
Re: (Score:3)
1. is slowly being fixed by better batteries.
2. Charge times at a station can be down to 10 minutes already
3. Smart grid handles this.
4. not really needed since we have so much off peak power
5. If you parents are that far away consider taking a plane.
Re:Redundant (Score:4, Informative)
No I don't see all electric in 20 years.
Unless we solve the problems of...
1. Range
2. Recharge Time
3. Getting the Grid to handle all the cars.
4. How do we generate all that electricity to do so.
1. Range is increasing with every generation, and is already sufficient for 90% of daily needs.
2. Recharge time is also improving steadily, and is more a matter of infrastructure for convenience than time required. Recharge overnight at home, recharge during the day at the office, recharge while shopping, etc.
3 & 4. No clue - but I assume there are engineers working on solutions. Let them.
Range and Recharge time. is the biggest issue for me. I travel 30 miles to work and 30 miles back. That is 60 miles.
Charge at home overnight, charge at the office, you should have a mostly full charge when beginning either leg of your commute.
Most electric cars are pushing 100 miles, but that is the ideal range... what is the range going up a mountain?
Range will be effected by terrain -it is no matter your fuel source.
What if the batteries after 8 years are not optimal...
Batteries need to be replaced when they get old, oil needs to be changed, tires need to be replaced... its a fact: maintenance needs to be done.
Next my parents live 800 miles away. Say I have an electric car that can do 500 miles per run. I drive mostly there, however I need to recharge. Can I recharge in 5-10 minutes or will I need to spend the night charging my car. I do not have the money for a car to drive to work and a car to drive longer ranges. So we will still need chemical powered cars, until these issues are fixed. I am happy to see that they are getting a lot more fuel efficient.
The answer to these concerns is to rent a car for longer trips. I see Hertz has rental cars as low as $14 /day for some sort of econobox. I think my last multi-state driving vacation was about $150 for a week in a mercedes c240 (thanks to a free upgrade coupon).
That is a good sign, because electric cars are not going to solve all the problems.
Electric cars or hybrids do not have to be perfect. They need to be good enough for daily use - we use diesel rigs (18 wheelers) for hauling big loads, and dont say that because a honda civic cant haul the same load every day it isnt a viable commuter car. Different solutions for different problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can have cold temperatures. Artists know all about cold colors. I know several people with cold personalities.
Yes, it would be better to say "lower cost" than "cheaper cost," but it does differentiate from cheap as in low-quality.
Re:Any engine technicians around to translate? (Score:4, Informative)
The key distinction, as I'm aware, between diesel and gasoline is all about the ignition to begin with. In a gas engine, you create a spark to ignite a carefully mixed gas/air vapor. In a diesel, you don't need the spark, instead using sheer pressure from a much higher compression ratio. (this also leads to higher power per stroke, and therefore greater theoretical efficiency) Presumably they've found some way to reliably ignite gasoline without said spark, thus reaping the same compression ratio benefits or some such thing, I would guess.
Re:Any engine technicians around to translate? (Score:4, Informative)
Efficiency of gasoline is better than oil in the same conditions. But diesel engines have much higher compression ratios (needed to burn the oil and give the self combustion). The problem with gasoline is/was that you could not get those compression ratios until now without explosion or engine melt. :)
Sorry for the simplification
Re:Any engine technicians around to translate? (Score:5, Informative)
Gasoline engines tend to be limited in their compression ratios, because if you compress the air-fuel mixture too much, it'll spontaneously ignite while the piston is on the upstroke, a phenomenon called pre-ignition [wikipedia.org] or engine knock (because of how it sounds, I suppose). Diesel fuel burns a bit differently than gasoline, and diesel engines take advantage of spontaneous ignition: they purposefully have high compression ratios to heat up air in the cylinder, then inject the fuel when the piston is at/near the top of its stroke, where it immediately ignites. But diesel, as a fuel, has some practical downsides which has limited its more widespread adoption, primarily how cleanly it burns.
If, on the other hand, you could produce an gasoline engine that uses diesel-like compression ratios, and inject the gasoline at maximum compression, as a diesel engine does, you could have the best of both world: greater efficiency due to high compression ratio, cleaner running due to burning gasoline. But such an engine, for various technical reasons, has historically been difficult to achieve. Maybe these guys are really on to something.
Re:Someone correct me (Score:4, Interesting)
GDI is nothing new, but it didn't become viable until recently.
Ford calls their turbocharged GDI engines EcoBoost - I was shocked at the mileage I got from a rental Ford Edge with one of these in it. Good mileage from a fairly large vehicle that also had great acceleration.
Mazda calls it Skyactiv (Probably fairly similar to EcoBoost due to the historical close relationship between Ford and Mazda)
Hyundai doesn't apply any fancy marketing terms for it, but they have had GDI engines in their non-turbo (and maybe the turbo too) Sonatas for 2-3 years now. 6-speed + GDI engine = car that hauls serious ass while still getting great mileage (Along with the Edge, the Sonata was one of the best rentals I've had in the past few years.)