Hydrogen Powered Cars available in California

Page 5 of 8« First<2345678>
April 13th, 2021 at 3:48:56 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: AZDuffman
Most hybrid math still is not adding up. I will probably buy a Tuscon about 2025. Might well buy new as it will be one of my last 2-3 cars in life and last before true senior status so might reward myself. They have a hybrid, I did the early math and it does not save money! Now, deals happen all over. Might be in a depression by then with all kinds of deals. As of now, though, makes no sense.


A 12 volt battery's main purpose is to provide an electric current to the electric-powered starting motor, which in turn starts the chemically-powered internal combustion engine that actually propels the vehicle.

A Toyota Prius battery has a 12V battery but it also has a 288V battery to assist in propelling the vehicle. A Prius has what is known retroactively as a "full hybrid system". Manufacturers are now considering using a 48 Volt battery as the secondary battery. This 48V battery will not propel the car but take over more functions including modern entertainment systems and other electrical components.

Why Cars Are Moving to 48-Volt Electrical Systems

If you read the steady stream of articles that says we are all moving toward mass adoption of Battery Electric Vehicles this trend comes as a surprise as it seems that the 48V battery is headed 20 years in the past. But it just goes to show you that automakers are hedging their bets as it seems that most consumers especially ones in small cities are not going to embrace the BEV.

Proponents of the 48V "low cost hybrid" say it provides two-thirds the benefit of a full hybrid at a third the cost. Fuel economy increases by 15 to 20 percent.
April 13th, 2021 at 3:58:44 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Pacomartin
A 12 volt battery's main purpose is to provide an electric current to the electric-powered starting motor, which in turn starts the chemically-powered internal combustion engine that actually propels the vehicle.

A Toyota Prius battery has a 12V battery but it also has a 288V battery to assist in propelling the vehicle. A Prius has what is known retroactively as a "full hybrid system". Manufacturers are now considering using a 48 Volt battery as the secondary battery. This 48V battery will not propel the car but take over more functions including modern entertainment systems and other electrical components.

Why Cars Are Moving to 48-Volt Electrical Systems

If you read the steady stream of articles that says we are all moving toward mass adoption of Battery Electric Vehicles this trend comes as a surprise as it seems that the 48V battery is headed 20 years in the past. But it just goes to show you that automakers are hedging their bets as it seems that most consumers especially ones in small cities are not going to embrace the BEV.

Proponents of the 48V "low cost hybrid" say it provides two-thirds the benefit of a full hybrid at a third the cost. Fuel economy increases by 15 to 20 percent.



Cars moved from 6V to 12V in the late 1940s. It has stuck there ever since. Despite all the electrical things added on. I remember a show car in the mid 1980s had a 24V system. It is amazing we have not seen a jump in 70 years.
The President is a fink.
April 13th, 2021 at 11:13:46 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: AZDuffman
Cars moved from 6V to 12V in the late 1940s. It has stuck there ever since. Despite all the electrical things added on. I remember a show car in the mid 1980s had a 24V system. It is amazing we have not seen a jump in 70 years.


I find it amazing that a 24V or a 48V was not done in the 1990. Honda and Toyota went right to a ~200V to ~300V system for a full hybrid system where the battery power was used to run a motor that would help propel the car.

Right now, I think that Toyota has 20 years invested in developing their full hybrid system. They are not apt to go backwards to a 48V battery even if buyers find it to expensive. They have 5 models that are available with or without full hybrid systems which differ in MSRP by the given amount. The percentage shows the number of vehicles sold WITHOUT the full hybrid system. Follows is the expected savings in gallons of gasoline per 1000miles.

$3,575 COROLLA 89.9% 11 gallons per 1000 miles
$2,225 CAMRY 86.9% 15
$2,250 RAV4 74.2% 11
$3,650 HIGHLANDER 70.5% 15
$975 AVALON 59.3% 17

The Avalon, which is the only full size Sedan offered by Toyota is the least expensive (less than 3% of total price) and saves the most fuel. It may be possible to pay back the cost in only one year. If you drive 20,000 miles you can expect to save 20*17=340 gallons of fuel which will possibly cost over $975.

I am surprised that Toyota doesn't simply offer only a hybrid version of the Avalon (like they do for Prius, Sienna minivan, and Venza compact sport utility vehicle). There are so few units sold that it would be easier to just have one version.

Surprisingly the least expensive automobile, the corolla, costs the most to go to hybrid. Understandably it has a large percentage of customers who don't want the hybrid version.
April 15th, 2021 at 1:18:44 PM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
I once used the battery in a Dodge Aries [the K car] to pull myself forward. It had a manual transmission which was of course unusual, and I had stalled out after plunging through a basically invisible pool of water that gathered over the road due to a blocked culvert. It wouldn't start it was so deep in the water, so I put it in first gear and cranked the starter. I was surprised when it pulled me out, then before I even hit the clutch the car started too. Ran pretty rough for a few miles LOL
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
April 15th, 2021 at 1:28:03 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18633
Quote: odiousgambit
I once used the battery in a Dodge Aries [the K car] to pull myself forward. It had a manual transmission which was of course unusual, and I had stalled out after plunging through a basically invisible pool of water that gathered over the road due to a blocked culvert. It wouldn't start it was so deep in the water, so I put it in first gear and cranked the starter. I was surprised when it pulled me out, then before I even hit the clutch the car started too. Ran pretty rough for a few miles LOL


I once had a rental car in a mid-door high flooded road. Actually, a farmer's dam had breached and it was flooded heavily around me for quite aways. I tried to get it out and stalled. They sent a guy, who got in it and showed me how to get out. (assuming the water is not over the plugs and intake)

Revved the engine super high and burned the hell out of the clutch, but we got out. It was a manual, of course.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
April 15th, 2021 at 2:47:19 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: odiousgambit
I once used the battery in a Dodge Aries [the K car] to pull myself forward. It had a manual transmission which was of course unusual, and I had stalled out after plunging through a basically invisible pool of water that gathered over the road due to a blocked culvert. It wouldn't start it was so deep in the water, so I put it in first gear and cranked the starter. I was surprised when it pulled me out, then before I even hit the clutch the car started too. Ran pretty rough for a few miles LOL


They ran rough for the first 100000 miles.
The President is a fink.
April 15th, 2021 at 3:44:29 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: AZDuffman
And that is the thing. Greenies love EVs but hate power plants. Maybe the greenies in Suffolk county will let a power plant near Albion?


I don't think that is fair, I personally love some power plants (especially nuclear power). I really hate that so many of the left and the right are against nuclear power. My personal feeling is no serious environmentalist should oppose the expansion of nuclear power, it is safe and effective.

But, the thing that you guy are missing in these comments is about reduced emissions from vehicles is personal exposure. For example if there is a power plant (even a fossil fuel one) in the middle of nowhere, that does not effect my lungs. However, if I am standing outside in dense traffic being exposed directly to all kinds of vehicle emissions, in some cities I may as well be chain smoking.... This is something that you guys keep glossing over when citing increased emissions from power sources. In many cases this is currently true, but as far as the direct health impact it is irrelevant. I am far safer walking on a sidewalk during rush hours if 100% of the vehicles are EVs and there is some power plant many miles away that is allowing them to be charged than I am with a less used power plant miles away and hundreds of idling vehicles pumping fumes into my airways. It is about direct exposure (especially in cities).

We are quick to jump on places to ban smoking (rightfully so in most cases), but accept what is a far greater lung danger (constant inhalations of exhaust fumes as opposed to a whiff is cigarette smoke when passing, yes on an individual level inhaling cigarette smoke is more toxic than exhaust fumes, but its about near constant exposure in urban areas) and do not give it a second thought.

The point is being surrounding by hundreds of exhausting cars is more dangerous to personal health than one massive emission source that you will likely never be within miles of.... On a local level its about clean air. This is why some cities are so quick to give tickets to idling gas vehicles (in NYC you can actually make money from this filming idling vehicles on your phone on the DEP app and then you get a portion of the ticket).
April 15th, 2021 at 4:12:52 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Gandler
I don't think that is fair, I personally love some power plants (especially nuclear power). I really hate that so many of the left and the right are against nuclear power. My personal feeling is no serious environmentalist should oppose the expansion of nuclear power, it is safe and effective.

But, the thing that you guy are missing in these comments is about reduced emissions from vehicles is personal exposure. For example if there is a power plant (even a fossil fuel one) in the middle of nowhere, that does not effect my lungs. However, if I am standing outside in dense traffic being exposed directly to all kinds of vehicle emissions, in some cities I may as well be chain smoking.... This is something that you guys keep glossing over when citing increased emissions from power sources. In many cases this is currently true, but as far as the direct health impact it is irrelevant. I am far safer walking on a sidewalk during rush hours if 100% of the vehicles are EVs and there is some power plant many miles away that is allowing them to be charged than I am with a less used power plant miles away and hundreds of idling vehicles pumping fumes into my airways. It is about direct exposure (especially in cities).

We are quick to jump on places to ban smoking (rightfully so in most cases), but accept what is a far greater lung danger (constant inhalations of exhaust fumes as opposed to a whiff is cigarette smoke when passing, yes on an individual level inhaling cigarette smoke is more toxic than exhaust fumes, but its about near constant exposure in urban areas) and do not give it a second thought.

The point is being surrounding by hundreds of exhausting cars is more dangerous to personal health than one massive emission source that you will likely never be within miles of.... On a local level its about clean air. This is why some cities are so quick to give tickets to idling gas vehicles (in NYC you can actually make money from this filming idling vehicles on your phone on the DEP app and then you get a portion of the ticket).



Oh, please. You would never have made it in the 70s when we actually breathed leaded gas exhaust and survived. As to filming idling vehicles that is why I do not want to live in a city like NYC. Be careful what you wish for there.
The President is a fink.
April 15th, 2021 at 5:40:38 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: AZDuffman
Oh, please. You would never have made it in the 70s when we actually breathed leaded gas exhaust and survived. As to filming idling vehicles that is why I do not want to live in a city like NYC. Be careful what you wish for there.


I guess we will never know. But, I believe in progress and am happy to live in the present.
April 15th, 2021 at 6:11:00 PM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 14
Posts: 4470
Quote: Gandler


The point is being surrounding by hundreds of exhausting cars is more dangerous to personal health than one massive emission source that you will likely never be within miles of.... On a local level its about clean air. This is why some cities are so quick to give tickets to idling gas vehicles (in NYC you can actually make money from this filming idling vehicles on your phone on the DEP app and then you get a portion of the ticket).


You are missing the main point of the EV proponents. CARBON BAD We are all going to die of Global Warming if you live in a coastal city you are going to drown. None of them care about your lungs. It the world as we know it ending that has them upset. Hiding the carbon emissions in a remote place doesn't stop the emissions.
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
Page 5 of 8« First<2345678>