« Panda Ethanol Raising $140M | Main | AlgoDyne Launches Biofuel Projects in Brazil; Algae-Based Bio-Kerosene for Aviation Leads the List »
Ford Edge with HySeries a Possible Step Toward “Mobile Electricity” (Me-)
6 June 2007
 |
| Ford Edge with HySeries Drive. Click to enlarge. |
Ford recently brought its plug-in fuel-cell series hybrid concept Edge with HySeries Drive (earlier post) to Canada for the first time as part of a trip to showcase the advanced research vehicle alongside the production 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid.
The roadshow came shortly after researchers from the University of California Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) published a paper arguing that such plug-in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles—with the addition of an export capability (“plug-out”)—could be the foundation for a group of opportunities collectively called “Mobile Electricity” (Me-). Correspondingly, the Me-FCV (Mobile Electricity-Fuel Cell Vehicle) may prove a strong avenue for commercialization of fuel cell technology.
The paper, “Commercializing light-duty plug-in/plug-out hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles”, appeared in the 15 April issue of the Journal of Power Sources.
The HySeries Edge combines a 336V li-ion battery pack with a fuel cell range extender. When the battery state-of-charge (SOC) drops to approximately 40% (about 25 miles of all-electric range), the fuel cell begins operating to keep the battery pack charged. At full range (approximately 360 km / 225 miles), the HySeries Edge offers combined city/highway gasoline equivalent fuel economy rating of 5.9 l/100km (41 mpg) with zero emissions. For those who drive less than 80 km (50 miles) each day, the average jumps to more than 3.0 l/100 km (80 mpg).
Individual experiences will vary widely and can stretch out the time between fill-ups of the 350-bar tank, which stores 4.5 kg of hydrogen. The hybrid can travel at speeds of up to 136 km/h (85 mph).
Applying the fuel cell as a range extender in a series hybrid configuration rather than as the primary source of direct motive power reduces the size, weight, cost and complexity of a conventional fuel cell system by more than 50%, according to Ford, and promises to more than double the lifetime of the fuel cell stack.
What Ford has not emphasized with its HySeries work, however, is what ITS researcher Brett Williams characterizes as the “plug-out” aspect—the ability to export electricity across the traditional vehicle boundary to provide home recharging and mobile power; power for emergencies; and electric-grid-support services through vehicle-to-grid (V2G) functionality. Williams’s contends that such Mobile Electricity applications are the pathway to sustained commercialization of fuel cell technology in vehicles.
Even in the absence of vehicle performance limitations, robust private value propositions for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (H2FCVs) would be necessary to sustain their successful commercialization and to displace entrenched gasoline and diesel-powered cars and trucks. Because H2FCVs thus far are not superior to today’s vehicles on those dimensions conventionally valued by private consumers, product value must flow from other sources.
...H2FCVs will not sell simply as clean cars and trucks; they must be marketed as new products that provide innovative value to consumers....One group of opportunities for H2FCV innovation stems from the ability of these vehicles to produce clean, quiet electrical power for purposes other than propulsion.
—Brett Williams
The study integrates and extends previous analyses of H2FCVs, plug-in hybrids, and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) power. It also uses a new electric-drive-vehicle and vehicular-distributed-generation model to estimate zero-emission-power versus zero-emission-driving tradeoffs, costs, and grid-support revenues for various electric-drive vehicle types and levels of infrastructure service.
Given that even the best fuel cell vehicle/infrastructure combination modeled here earns modest spinning-reserves net revenues, and that even a relatively small plug-in battery doing regulation appears profitable (assuming ongoing improvements in battery life)...there is a case to be made for commercializing H2FCVs as plug-in/-out H2FCVs, that is Me-FCVs.
Might Me-FCVs be recharged at home (for daily needs) and hydrogen refueled abroad (for longer trips)? Or vice versa? Although the latter option seems less likely due to the costs of stand-alone small-scale hydrogen production, the home energy station being developed by Honda to supply hydrogen to cars and electricity and heat to homes might be even more valuable if it sends the family car with a full tank each day out into a fuel-neutral Me-world to earn some revenues.
Either way, it appears time to move beyond framing batteries and fuel cells in a zero-sum game, and to start thinking of them as complimentary.
—Brett Williams
Resources:
“Commercializing light-duty plug-in/plug-out hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles: “Mobile Electricity” technologies and opportunities”; Brett D. Williams and Kenneth S. Kurania; Journal of Power Sources Volume 166, Issue 2, 15 April 2007, Pages 549-566 doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.12.097
Williams dissertation: Commercializing Light-Duty Plug-In/Plug-Out Hydrogen-Fuel-Cell Vehicles: “Mobile Electricity” Technologies, Early California Household Markets, and Innovation Management
June 6, 2007 in Fuel Cells, Hybrids, Hydrogen, Plug-ins, V2G | Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/19104856
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ford Edge with HySeries a Possible Step Toward “Mobile Electricity” (Me-):
Comments
Lame!! Why not replace the $1million Fool-Cell with a
Briggs & Stratton generator. You can get one at any Home Depot.
Posted by: DS | Jun 6, 2007 2:48:54 PM
I think this is a move in the right direction. They're on to the advantages of an EV drive train. It has a decent PHEV range of 25 miles. They're talking about V2G (or power for your campsite). They're cutting the fuel cell down to a reasonable size and extending its life considerably by running it at a steady state. To get my interest all they have to do now is make a larger battery a plug-in upgrade option and make the fuel cell a removable option. As a third option you could have a bio fuel genset. (Please, something quieter than a Briggs and Stratton)
Posted by: Neil | Jun 6, 2007 3:34:59 PM
SJC, could you educate us with your reasons why the general idea put forward by DS is so silly?
Posted by: marcus | Jun 6, 2007 4:52:13 PM
I think if they put a generator in it you would have the chevy volt. there trying to be a leader good for them i hope it works.zero emmisions would be nice also
Posted by: kevin | Jun 6, 2007 5:26:49 PM
I suspect the specific Briggs & Stratton reference was a little in jest...
I would say though that if Ford doesn't hook up an ICE in series they are going to be left way behind if the Volt actually makes it to the show room floor.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 6, 2007 6:10:18 PM
Hm I like the fuel cells as a good way to have extra juice although I'd take an ICE anyday just because gas is just a more powerful substance and so far ICE + CAT combo is much more cost effective than a FCS (fuel cell stack) + CAT + hydrogen tanks.
The fuel cell stack can come 20 years later when the cost is finally to a reasonable number next to ICE's
Posted by: philmcneal | Jun 6, 2007 6:36:20 PM
Why would you need a fuel cell when you can recharge a battery just as fast? 100 mile charge in 1 minute.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge2
Hydrogen is just dumb.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
Where as electricity can be as dirty as possible, and still be like driving a hybrid in total emmisions.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugin3
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Jun 6, 2007 6:39:43 PM
With a good ice generator this vehicle could be built now. Yes, it would be very similar in operation to the volt.
Yes, the idea of a fuel cell hybrid is nice, but its not going to happen in the next 10 years. Not at least with a price under $100k.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jun 6, 2007 7:22:05 PM
why not forget the fuel cell and put the 40 kms electric vehicle in market right away with a quick charging battery.
Posted by: NIRMALSINH WALA | Jun 6, 2007 9:43:04 PM
The last post was NOT done by me. Mike has deleted this clowns messages and banned his IP. He will have to contact his ISP next.
Posted by: SJC | Jun 6, 2007 11:16:02 PM
I know that SUVs are unpopular here, but as an SUV driver, this is what we need. Seriously, I use that type of vehicle because that is what I want. Instead of trying to force me into a small vehicle, give me a large vehicle that produces low emissions. One way or another, I drive a SUV. It is up to you what type of fuel it uses.
Posted by: mike | Jun 7, 2007 12:00:18 AM
As long as they're using the battery for load-levelling and not the H2 fuel cell itself....
Imagine that, put 100 kWh of surplus electricity into the FCV for storage in the H2 tank and get 20 kWh back out again. Fortunately, even Ford have seen sense and aren't suggesting storing the electricity in this way.
Posted by: clett | Jun 7, 2007 1:24:24 AM
It is a myth DS that hydrogen fuel cells still cost millions for propulsion applications see this presentation by Ballard http://www.ballard.com/resources/documents/General%20IR%20PPT_Feb%2022%202007.pdf. Ballard does not disclose costs for their automotive fuel cells yet. They expect them to be commercially available by 2014. But that will most certainly be for bus use (their 80 kW model). Their fuel cells for fork lifts cost $900 per kW right now and are expected to drop to $500 by 2010. This price is a good proxy price for the automotive cells which should be a little cheaper because they are larger. So in 2010 a 20 kW fuel cell for cars (the size needed for a large SUV) would cost about $10000. This is not far from the commercial target of $4000 for a 20kW car application. I bet that future fuel cell vehicles (any type really) will not use compressed or cooled liquid hydrogen but instead sugar water 50% resolution that can be converted entirely into CO2 and H2 by enzymes at below 50 degrees Celsius. This means safe and low cost handling of the fuel see all the arguments at http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/05/researchers_dev_1.html#more.
The plug-in enzymatic sugar PEM fuel cell car will likely hit the market sometime 2017-2020. It will shock all the oil exporting countries because that industry could dye out entirely by 2040 if this vehicle is made commercially available before 2020. All we need for this to materialize is for the price of PEM fuel cells, PHEV batteries and sugar hydrogen enzymes to drop by about 75% or more. The best guarantee that the enabling research in these three technologies continue is that crude oil stay above $60 and preferable go further up.
Posted by: Henrik | Jun 7, 2007 1:29:11 AM
"One way or another, I drive a SUV. It's up to you what kind of fuel it uses."
Up to whom? Me? GCC? Ford? Dick Cheney?
Now how does that go...Something about non-negotiable way of life? Smugness, not just for Prious Drivers!
Posted by: darwin | Jun 7, 2007 7:47:45 AM
"On the subject of this new vehicle: I am NOT in support.."
That was not my post either. From now on I will have a new nickname and new email. If you see any posts by this guy it is not me.
Mike apparently banning the IP did no good. You should contact this person's ISP.
Posted by: SJC | Jun 7, 2007 7:51:18 AM
"I use that type of vehicle because that is what I want" ... this is the kind of logic you'd get from a child.
"One way or another, I drive a SUV. It is up to you what type of fuel it uses." ... an adult takes care of his own problems. Look after your part of the world Mike switch to something smaller for now and get in line for a Phoenix .
Posted by: Neil | Jun 7, 2007 7:56:57 AM
Henrik- I agree that NON-hydrogen based fuel cells MAY have some merit IF their production cost, longevity AND fuel source is competitive in price, safety, ease of use and ecologically friendly with other biofuels. The rub (or wonder) is that the new batteries can be fully recharged in less than 10 minutes which leaves the series PHEVs like the Volt and the HY-Series simply short-term stepping stones to pure BEVs for anything but long-range travel. Most families will either have both or rent a PHEV when traveling. Economy of scale in battery production, existing fuel infrastructure and buyer familiarity with ICEs will mean that BEVs and PHEVs with petro/biofuel powered genset will ultimately kill the fuel cells. The infrastructure costs and inefficiency and other dangers of Hydrogen makes it a non-starter. The bottom line is that fast-chargers are cheaper than tanks and tanker trucks and electrolyzing water into H2 is a waste of energy. The real key here is flexibility. May you live in interesting times… isn’t that a curse? Maybe and maybe not. Only the future will tell.
Posted by: Tim | Jun 7, 2007 8:33:50 AM
"One way or another, I drive a SUV"
Have you tried Cialis ? It's cheaper and more effective
for your ailment.
Posted by: DS | Jun 7, 2007 9:09:47 AM
To understand how fuelcells make so much sense you have to think about cumulative improvements.
In simple terms how much better are fuel cells today compared with 8 years ago and at what rate are they improving now and thus what does the future 8 years out look like?
Well each new gen of fuelcell has been a massive improvement.. in thelast 2 years they have gone from a 50 kw model the size of a very large engine and well.. SPENDY to an 80 kw model the size of a 4 cylinder engine and vastly cheaper AND more efficient to boot..
Thats 2-3 years.
They are eyeballing a 4k 80kw fuel cell in the not far future. And howsoon might a 20kw version pop up for 4-8k? Not long now.
Asfor energy costs... when we started 8 years ago it likely was 5% eff overall.. its over 50 now.
It wont take long for the total eff of a fuel cell sysem h2 gen anduse combined to be 75%...
And as history shows people will pay more for more and fuel cells will deliver morethen batteries.. morerange more power more more more...
By 2020 we will likely see fuel cell cars packing 200 even 300 kwh worth of energy per fill. We wont seethat in battery form.
Posted by: wintermane | Jun 7, 2007 9:29:25 AM
I'd argue big disadvantages with the hydrogen fuel cell range extender system. Perhaps the foremost disadvantage is the extended driving range is limited.
The theory I wrestle with most is that driving distances overall must be reduced. (Too many cars. Too much dependence upon them for every travel need.) Promoting a limited-range battery-power vehicle can create an economic incentive to drive less. Driving beyond minimal average distances should be possible, but expensive, no matter what fuel extends that range. However, hydrogen will be the most expensive fuel for the least extension of driving range. Thus, hydrogen's limited driving range extension is a disincentive. Wrestle with that one!
Other disadvantages: hydrogen application (in a fuel cell) and its distribution is more complex than bio-fuels. Hydrogen is also limited compared to the variety of bio-fuels. Methane-derived hydrogen may be deleterious to a fuel cell stack.
Hydrogen as a combustable fuel in a Plug-in Hybrid ICE drivetrain may be its best application and compromise. Such a drivetrain can utilize other available and practical fuels.
Posted by: Wells | Jun 7, 2007 10:02:19 AM
One thing I would like to know from that suger to hydrogen article is how much solution is required to get a 300 mile range. You can calculate that to get the equivalent energy of a 12 gallon tank of gas, you would need 31.6 gallons of suger solution. However given the different efficiencies of an ICE vs fuel cell/ electric motor I am not sure how the comparison goes when this energy gets converted into miles.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 7, 2007 10:24:39 AM
Ok I've found it. So you only appear to need 4 kg of hydrogen to get a 300 mile range and this could be obtained from a 12 gallon tank of sugar solution.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 7, 2007 10:46:04 AM
Marcus you must be wrong. The report on sugar to hydrogen says “A car with an approximately 12-gallon tank could hold 27 kg of starch, which is the equivalent of 4 kg of hydrogen.” And the GM Volt does 300 miles on 4 kg of hydrogen. I don’t know you get the 31,6 gallons of sugar it is 12 gallons of starch/sugar.
Posted by: Henrik | Jun 7, 2007 10:47:50 AM
Sorry I didn't see your latest post
Posted by: Henrik | Jun 7, 2007 10:49:21 AM
wintermane ,
Fool cells have never been used in a prodution car , so how
can we tell as consumers if they are any better than ten years ago , should
we leave it up to our ultra honest car manufacturers to assure us they are
better !
Had a ride in a fool cell car a few weeks ago , used 4 times as much
energy as the BEV version to go the same distance, sounds great to me, maybe
fool cells will give us a new type of crime " highway platinum robbery "!
Its all a load of ****ocks if car car companies put the same money into
Bev as they have put into this quite rediculous technology we would all be
riding around smelling of daisies!
Posted by: andrichrose | Jun 7, 2007 12:26:19 PM
You can tell how the fuel cells have progressed because they have in fact been testing each generation.
As for your fuel cell demo run that was a fuel cell froma few years back.
59 50 fuel cell and h2 gen nets around 25% eff.. add in old style compression and its a bot lower.
But current fuel cells and h2 generators are much better.. they have 85% eff generators and 75% eff fuel cells and the newer compressors use alot less energy.
As both fuel cell and electrolyzers or h2 from nat gas generators get better total energy cost goes down and range increases.
For example if you assume current h2 demo cars are only using 50% eff cells and getting say 50 mpk for that model.. then a 75% cell will net 75 mpk.
If you assume the volt cell is still only 60% eff and it reaches 75% by the 2012 deadline then the 75 mpk volt becomes a 94 mpk car with a range of 376 miles on h2. If by say 2020 that cell reaches just 80% thats over 100 mpk. And that for a 3500 lb car.
Posted by: wintermane | Jun 7, 2007 4:11:38 PM
Darwin:
Yes, my way of life is non-negotiable. I worked hard to get here, and I will live it the way I like to live it. If that makes me smug, then so-be-it.
Neil:
So I guess my logic is child-like. Somehow I managed to make it this far with substandard logic. "An adult takes care of his own problems" - the thing about it is, I don't consider what I am driving to be a problem. If you think it is, give me what I want to drive with a cleaner drive-train. And switch to something smaller? Nah, I'll pass, I like what I drive.
DS:
I never saw it that way. I have gone my whole life thinking my lifestyle was the best one, but somehow your questioning of my manhood has caused me to see the light! I owe you a debt that I can never repay....
Actually, the jokes on you: Not only am I impotent, I'm hung like a walnut, also, so I'm going to go out and purchase another Range Rover tomorrow so I have two to make up for my "shortcomings."
Posted by: mike | Jun 7, 2007 9:52:25 PM
Mike,
I think a lot of us here are somewhat mystified by the appeal of SUVs. Clearly most owners don't use its talents: they don't go off-road, don't use its cargo space except for groceries, aren't buying a safer car (rollovers), while they are clearly getting worse gas-mileage, creating more CO2 and are more likely to cause death to others in an accident.
So what reason is there then, besides a macho sense of superiority that comes from the high driving position and the aggressive styling?
I'm honestly wondering. Maybe you can tell us.
Posted by: Jeff R | Jun 8, 2007 10:12:37 PM
Opponents of FCV's and FC-PHEV's are somewhat shortsighted!
The prediction is that the cost of fuel cell stack for an average car will be reduced to $4000 USD. Promising research has shown that it may be possible to reduce the amount of platinum used to 1/10th of previous amount, making the platinum content comparable with current catalytic converters. Non-platinum catalysts may also be viable in the future.
The cost of a 4kg H2 tank is, right now, under $2000 USD that can store an equivalent of 4 kg x 36 kwh= 144 kwh of thermal energy. With an energy efficiency of 60% as reported in the Honda FCX, this is equivalent to 115 kwh of battery electricity assuming a grid-to-wheel efficiency of 75% for a BEV. Now, let's say that you can manage to reduce the cost of A123 Lithium battery from $2000 USD / kwh as is announced at the present, to $400 USD/kwh over many years, the 115 kwh will still cost ya $46,000 USD.
Now, what do ya want? A FC-PHEV with H2+ FC stack costing $ 6000 USD vs. a BEV with battery cost of $46,000 USD?
H2 produced from gasification of waste cellulosic biomass or coal, or fermentation of cellulosic biomass will be even more energy efficient than BEV when electricity is still produced from fossil fuels. Even if you have solar and wind electricity, these can be fed directly to the grid in order to allow IGCC clean coal (or biomass) power station to produce and store H2 for automotive use. If you would disperse these gasification plants into each community, then everyone will have convenient access to H2 fillup without costly distribution issue for H2.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jun 9, 2007 9:55:52 AM
"Clearly most owners don't use its talents"
- That may be true, IF you will only accept the uses YOU assign to them - Perhaps the way they are used by each purchaser is the proper use in their opinion. As a society member, you have to accept that some people will behave in a manner you don't like.
"they don't go off-road"
- I do. I purchased a house in the high desert so that I can disappear every few weeks, and I went out of my way to make sure that it is hard to get to, mostly so I wouldn't have to lend it to other people.
"don't use its cargo space except for groceries"
- If they purchase it to haul groceries, then you accept it as a legitimate use? Even if you did, most on here wouldn't, as thier dislike of SUVs is based on irrational hate. CO2 emissions are just a convenient vehicle for that. I remember the early 90's when gas was still ~$1 gallon, 99% of the people in this country had never heard of global warming, and yet people still found reasons to hate SUVs. The difference is that last time, the haters didn't have a holy crusade to hide behind.
"aren't buying a safer car (rollovers)"
- The only roll-over I have ever seen has been when someone hit the soft shoulder on the way to Vegas while speeding. They undoubtedly happen more often, but I don't seem to see them with the frequency that people claim they happen at, and I live in an area with a high prevelance of SUVs. Even if they do happen often, it's a risk I am willing to assume. Some people smoke, other people skydive, I drive the unsafe SUV. I live on the edge....
"while they are clearly getting worse gas-mileage, creating more CO2"
- Obviously, but that is MY problem. I know that to some of the people reading this, it will be considered their problem, too, due to warming, etc., but I get to choose what to drive, and I choose this. Fortunatley for the rest of us, national policy is decided by people that are voted into power, and not by religious fanatics on a global warming blog.
"and are more likely to cause death to others in an accident."
- I certainly don't want to kill anybody, but if someone had to die in a traffic accident, I would rather be the one causing accidental death than the one being killed. I know that seems harsh, but it is realistic. If driving this type of vehicle increases my chances of survival, then that is an incentive to drive it.
"So what reason is there then, besides a macho sense of superiority that comes from the high driving position and the aggressive styling?"
- Many reasons, but the question you asked is more interesting than any answer I could give. Are we supposed to assume that every suburban soccer mom driving a Chevy Tahoe is suffering from a bout of p*nis envy? If that's the case, thanks for the warning, I will stay out of their way to protect my precious testosterone reserves.
Posted by: mike | Jun 9, 2007 11:31:22 AM
Thanks, Mike, for sharing the pro-SUV sentiments.
Now, it's my turn to voice some anti-SUV rationales:
As a man, I like curvaceous, aesthetic bodies, and SUV's are mostly lacking in aethetic curves.
This deficiency translates to:
1) horrible aerodynamic efficiency, like moving a brick through the air. You can feel this every times at the gas pump now that gas is >$3/USGal. Ouch!
2) wind noise at high speed, due to higher level of wind turbulence from those sharp corners.
As a family man, I'm interested in overall safety.
And, surprise surprise, large-sized SUV overall safety statistic is not better than that of a smaller but well-made car like the Honda Civic! This is because the SUV's may be safer in frontal collision, the higher ride height make it more vulnerable to roll-over accidents and side collision with similar size vehicle. Minivans like the Toyota Sienna holds the trump card in term of collision and overall safety while has much higher fuel efficiency and comparable load-carrying capacity and internal space.
The tall ride height of the SUV requires stiffer suspension, resulting in harsher, less comfortable ride.
As a person with a social conscience, who is ready to risk my life to save the lives of others, I would rather drive a smaller car in order to reduce the risk of injury to others, rather than to live and suffer from a guilty conscience for the rest of my life should my oversized vehicle inflicts needless death and destruction to others. If everyone drives smaller cars, or not at all, our world will be a much better place.
SUV's are products of commercialism seeking to introducing a morbid fad upon the population, like tobacco, alcohol, fashion...and they, not knowing any better, are buying it in droves!
I drive a Prius with ~55mpg overall efficiency, ultra-quiet, ultra-reliable, and really enjoy the comfort and advance technology that the vehicle offers. If I'll died in a collision with a Hummer, I'll die a happy man with a clear conscience, and much better than if I would die from motorcycling, flying airplanes or do hang gliding or parachuting or any dangerous sports.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jun 9, 2007 6:46:17 PM
Roger:
I appreciate the way you approached your response to my post. For the most part, once I point out my view, other posters resort to ad hominems (see DS's post questioning my manhood!), and yours did nothing of the sort. With that in mind....
"As a man, I like curvaceous, aesthetic bodies, and SUV's are mostly lacking in aethetic curves.
This deficiency translates to:
1) horrible aerodynamic efficiency, like moving a brick through the air. You can feel this every times at the gas pump now that gas is >$3/USGal. Ouch!
2) wind noise at high speed, due to higher level of wind turbulence from those sharp corners."
- I am a fan of the curvaceous body as well (; P), but let's remember that not every man likes curvaceous bodies.....
joking aside, you are certainly correct, the average SUV is less aerodynamically efficient, but it is a tradeoff. I am willing to accept that boxy shape on the outside so that I can fit alot of gear on the inside. As far as windnoise goes, I like my Iggy Pop and the Stooges at high volume, so that's really not a problem. And yes, we can both agree that gas is expensive, but for me it is a tax writeoff, so the cost is completley mitigated every quarter when I file my estimated tax return.
"As a family man, I'm interested in overall safety.
And, surprise surprise, large-sized SUV overall safety statistic is not better than that of a smaller but well-made car like the Honda Civic! This is because the SUV's may be safer in frontal collision, the higher ride height make it more vulnerable to roll-over accidents and side collision with similar size vehicle. Minivans like the Toyota Sienna holds the trump card in term of collision and overall safety while has much higher fuel efficiency and comparable load-carrying capacity and internal space.
The tall ride height of the SUV requires stiffer suspension, resulting in harsher, less comfortable ride."
- I admitted in my last post that the SUV may be less safe than other vehicles, but, once again, that's my choice. I don't have kids yet (she is seriously pestering me about it!), and perhaps my opinions will change once that happens, but right now, the vehicle I drive fits my lifestyle. You may be correct about the interior space of the Sienna, but the Sienna won't get me through a flooded desert wash in the middle of the night (like this last winter). As far as the suspension goes, in my experience, stiff suspension is a sports car thing, and all the SUVs I have driven have had relatively soft suspensions because they are not built for handling, but for comfort. I would say that the LR3 is the king of soft suspension, and though I really like that SUV, it handles horribly due to the air suspension - soft ride, huge body roll.
"As a person with a social conscience, who is ready to risk my life to save the lives of others, I would rather drive a smaller car in order to reduce the risk of injury to others, rather than to live and suffer from a guilty conscience for the rest of my life should my oversized vehicle inflicts needless death and destruction to others. If everyone drives smaller cars, or not at all, our world will be a much better place."
- I am sure you possess social conscious, as all moral people do. I also agree about minimizing the risk you pose to others, but that doesn't mean you need to stay indoors all day. I am a former navy corpsman, and I HAVE risked my life in combat to help others (both friend and foe) on several occasions, so I understand the point of view you have. But your fear of causing damage to others is misplaced. You don't want to live with the guilty conscience of hurting others with your vehicle, but which is more likely to keep you awake at night? Hitting and killing a pedestrian with a Prius, or not hitting them at all with a SUV? I know that the choice of vehicle has nothing to do with whether or not you harm someone, but driving a small car does not guarantee that you won't accidentally kill someone.
"SUV's are products of commercialism seeking to introducing a morbid fad upon the population, like tobacco, alcohol, fashion...and they, not knowing any better, are buying it in droves!"
- Almost all vehicles are products of commercialism - how did you find out about the Prius you purchased? An advertisement? What is wrong with commercialism? Tobacco is certainly dangerous, and though I am a lover of beer, I know that alcohol carries its own risks. I think where we diverge is in our view of human behavior - I assume that people are generally smart enough to make their own decisions. And "morbid"? I think you are exagerrating the issue. I don't belive you think that people are stupid, but perhaps they DO know better, and they have merely made a choice that you do not approve of.
"I drive a Prius with ~55mpg overall efficiency, ultra-quiet, ultra-reliable, and really enjoy the comfort and advance technology that the vehicle offers. If I'll died in a collision with a Hummer, I'll die a happy man with a clear conscience, and much better than if I would die from motorcycling, flying airplanes or do hang gliding or parachuting or any dangerous sports."
- I have no doubt that the Prius is ultra reliable - most Toyotas are. That is why they sell so well. And I know from personal experience that they are quiet, as I was almost hit by a person driving one in a parking lot recently because I didn't hear it behind me when it was moving slowly - very cool! (as a side note, how will they modify electric vehicles to protect the deaf? Hopefully it won't sound like a garbage truck in reverse!) And if you died tomorrow in an accident, I'm pretty sure that as a family man, the vehicle you died in would be the last thought on your mind. And, quite frankly, your conscience should not be influenced by your choice of transporation. If it is, you're trumped by any person that has always used public transportation...
Posted by: mike | Jun 10, 2007 2:12:48 AM
Don't be afraid of the numerous anti-hydrogen people. with hydrogen we can replicate the u.f.o method of propulsion because the exhaust can be recirculate again
and become fuel again and again with good electyrolysis.
Water turning to hydrogen and oxygen then turning to water, it's the only free fuel there is, a bit like the sun. People are afraid of martians with good reasons but
it's not a reason to use oil. We can stay on earth but
use hydrogen with water electrolisis and find others problems instead of the energy problem.
Posted by: a.b | Jun 28, 2007 10:44:48 AM
