backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 111 comment(s) - last by kc77.. on Jun 30 at 3:30 PM

VW Twin Drive Golf  (Source: Wired)
VW Twin Drive sounds a lot like the Chevy Volt

While we languish under the ever increasing cost of oil, which in turn drives the price of gasoline up in America and abroad, many are looking to hybrid and electric vehicles to save us from greater oil dependence. Several problems still face hybrid and electric vehicles including cost and poor battery life.

VW has announced its take on the hybrid with a new Twin Drive Golf that has both a 122HP diesel engine and an 82HP electric motor. Living up to its “Twin Drive” name, the new Golf variant relies on its electric motor for around town driving, and the gasoline motor for longer trips according to Motor Authority.

VW’s Martin Winkerton said at the cars unveiling, “While the e-motor on a typical hybrid model just supplements the combustion engine, the exact opposite is true on Twin Drive. Here the diesel or gasoline engine supplements the e-motor.”

The VW Twin Drive is set to hit market in 2010, the same year the Chevy Volt is expected. Bob Lutz and the gaggle of engineers at GM will tell you right away that the Volt isn’t a hybrid. They prefer to call the Volt and extended range electric vehicle. VW comes out and calls the Twin Drive a hybrid, but the two vehicles still share a similar method of propulsion.

According to Wired.com, VW will be partnering with Sanyo to develop the lithium ion batteries for the car and Sanyo says it will spend $769 million developing the batteries. The German government is keen to get vehicles like the Twin Drive on the road to help reduce pollution and to help VW and other car makers launch hybrid and electric cars a program has been set up with $23.5 million in German government backing to fund development.

VW says that it expects to have a fleet of 20 Twin Drive Golf’s on the road by 2010, though whether or not the car will actually see mass production is unknown. According to VW the Twin Drive golf will have an all electric range of 31 miles.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2008 1:55:32 AM , Rating: 3
Does a 31 mile range electrical system honestly justify the extra weight and complexity of this vehicle ? 31 miles wouldn't even get me to work !

With such a small vehicle there is no need for this hybrid system. A fuel efficient turbo diesel is more than enough already. Its lighter, economical, and more reliable.

In my opinion, this is engineering gone wrong. Just because you CAN build something, doesn't mean you should.




RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By oab on 6/28/2008 5:10:33 AM , Rating: 3
31 miles would get me to work, back and a trip to the shops.

Just because there is "no need" for a hybrid system in such a small vehicle doesn't mean that it has no use. Namely, this increases MPG. Diesel hybrids > gasoline hybrids, and there are lots of gasoline hybrids.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Hare on 6/28/2008 7:40:03 AM , Rating: 2
I would quess that this 31 mile range doesn't include energy recovery with braking, so in practise the range may be higher.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2008 11:53:05 AM , Rating: 3
In practice, the range is most certainly lower. You don't think VW is picking the most optimistic fudged number ? Tell me, how long does that 31 miles go when I'm sitting in traffic with the A/C running ?


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 12:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty far since it's a hybrid. Meaning if you are at a stop just like the Prius and your AC is running so is the gas engine. Typically AC isn't run off of the battery.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 11:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "Meaning if you are at a stop just like the Prius and your AC is running so is the gas engine."

Err, the Prius runs the A/C off the battery pack, and has since the 2004 model.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2008 5:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
See ? This is another example of you talking out of your ass ! Either your a complete moron or you are just making stuff up to suit your argument. Wanting it to be true doesn't MAKE it so.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 7:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Complexity..LOL... twin drive propulsion systems have been around for decades maybe not in cars but they have been around in trains and submarines.

Depending on where you live, this car and especially cars like the Volt, not only reduce the need to use oil but they also reduce your general carbon foot print.

An example would be if you lived future up the valley in California where you receive hydroelectric power the overall carbon foot print with something like the Volt when you travel would hardly be anything when traveling.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 12:25:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Last time I checked saving weight wasn't a huge goal in a train."


That's funny since transportation of all of our goods in the world and the United States of America is based on weight..LOL... it would behoove you if you are going to insult my intelligence to not display your low IQ to me on platter and then say "Ha you're an idiot"..LOL...

Get used to hearing "Carbon Footprint" what do you think Cap and Trade is about? Unicorns??...

quote:
There is no way, NONE, to conserve our way out of that stark reality. It can't be done. We need more oil drilling, the sooner the better. If every single person on the PLANET used this car, it wouldn't change a damn thing.


How moronic... if a ship was sinking you would be the one running across the deck saying "Why try and swim ??.. you're bound to get wet anyway" No reasonable person thinks that conservation alone will save us... but the exact opposite ...just drilling for more oil is equally dumb.

Before you retort let me say this.... LIBERAL, NAZI, COMMUNIST, HIPPIE, MARXIST. I just wanted to get your safety words out of the way... they don't scare me, and don't relate to what we are talking about so you'll have to rely on your IQ instead.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 1:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and BTW.... in case you thought about discussing the whole weight and train thing let me help you....

Please look up:
Einstein's Theory of Relativity / General Relativity
Isaac Asimov in Understanding Physics

You might have to read a while, but the crux of it is that the desire to move an object at rest takes a certain amount of energy. So when you ship goods you are paying for the amount of energy it takes to move the weight of the object. This is way more important than the size (H or W).


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By JonnyDough on 6/29/2008 3:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
You sure about that? I thought that on the highway 70% of your gasoline was going towards air displacement.

Once your car (or train!) is up to speed, your energy used is going towards two types of friction.

If you can reduce friction with whatever is holding your vehicle up (i.e. bearings, and tires meeting the road) then the weight is less of a factor.

We have the technology, we can build it with less friction. Ever hear of nanotechnology? How about magnetic levitation?

What we don't have is a way to completely (or comfortably and safely) get rid of drag and wind resistance in cars.

Now if we could do away with wind resistance and invent a way to open up a vortex in front of our cars, then that would be something because the weight of your car and the friction caused by it would be the limiting factor when it comes to speed.

Believe it or not, when they design desert racers to set world records they focus more on aerodynamics and drag reduction than on the weight of the car, although both are obviously important. Weight matters only because of friction with the road and bearings, but ultimately the wind resistance is more slowing.

Getting up to speed with a small engine and more weight will take longer but it can be done if the transmission/gearbox is not a huge heavy mass.

One thing that so many people overlook when it comes to saving gasoline...is waxing their car. I have read that when on the highway you will save more gas by running the AC then turning it off and having your windows open. Drag.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 8:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
You are still dealing with mass and the effect of gravity. You spend most of your fuel getting up to speed, be it train, car, or whatever means of transportation you choose. You can always reduce the effect of gravity by reducing mass, or creating a counter balance to the effect of gravity but you are still dealing with mass.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 6:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "You spend most of your fuel getting up to speed, be it train, car, or whatever means of transportation you choose"

I'm sorry, but this isn't even close to correct. If it were true, cars would get essentially infinite MPG on the highway.

In reality, at cruising speed, mass is a minor component of vehicle performance; the vast majority of energy is consumed by rolling resistance (tire deformation/road friction), air resistance, and frictional losses within the drivetrain.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 9:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, but this isn't even close to correct. If it were true, cars would get essentially infinite MPG on the highway.


Really?? LOL LOL First of all I didn't say there wasn't any energy expelled once an object was in motion... did I??? I say that no where... I said that more energy was expelled to move an object at rest then an object already in motion, which is factually correct.

quote:
In reality, at cruising speed, mass is a minor component of vehicle performance; the vast majority of energy is consumed by rolling resistance (tire deformation/road friction), air resistance, and frictional losses within the drivetrain.


<<puts hand on forehead>>

First of all we are talking about about three different forces but they all rely on gravity. Let me end this by saying without gravity on Earth you don't have motion..PERIOD!!! If you have an object that has NO MASS .. I.E NO WEIGHT... is lighter than than any gas or object known to man we wouldn't be talking about cars now would we?? ... if someone made a car that was lighter than air it would float away due to it's mass .. so now that we are talking about air balloons how does air resistance play a bigger role??? .. yeah I thought so...


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 11:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "I said that more energy was expelled to move an object at rest then an object already in motion,"

No, you said "you spend most of your fuel getting up to speed", a statement which isn't true, especially for highway driving.

> "First of all we are talking about about three different forces but they all rely on gravity"

Again, no. Air resistance is wholly independent of gravity, and drivetrain losses are essentially so.

Rolling resistance depends on gravity and mass, but even here, the larger factor is the coefficient of friction, which depends on the composition of the tires (and road) more so than the weight of the vehicle.

> "if someone made a car that was lighter than air it would float away due to it's mass"

I think any rational point you were trying to make floated away along with that car.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 1:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, no. Air resistance is wholly independent of gravity, and drivetrain losses are essentially so.
You're an idiot. If you don't have gravity you don't have gravitational force. If you don't have gravitational force you can't determine weight. If you can't determine weight you can't begin to plug in the numbers to determine motion. If you can't determine motion you can't determine resistance. I.E you can't complete Newton's second law of motion without weight or mass ...

These are basic Newton laws.... FOR GOD'S SAKE ...WHAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN NEWTON!??!??! Don't even answer that... you might just say yes...


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're an idiot. If you don't have gravity you don't have gravitational force. If you don't have gravitational force you can't determine weight. If you can't determine weight you can't begin to plug in the numbers to determine motion
I got a nice chuckle out of this. Sorry, but "weight" isn't a factor in Newton's laws of motions. Mass is...and mass, sir, is independent of gravity. Do you think Newton's laws don't apply to an object moving in deep space, far from any gravitational well?

Furthermore, it is the Stokes (or Reynolds) equation that determines air resistance, not Newton's laws. And neither equation relies on the mass of the object moving, much less gravity.

Never argue physics with a physics major. That's good advice...and it's free.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 8:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Physics major you are not....

What's the equation for terminal velocity?


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 8:57:13 AM , Rating: 2
Might as well tell me if weight is a force or not.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 9:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't know if you failed physics or not so I went a head and pulled this... took me a while to find it. But nonetheless here it is. The correct answer in real terms is both forces have a bearing on motion. It's from NASA. In case you were wondering I work in the IT department of system and mechanical engineers. What school did that major in physics come again?

An object which is falling through the atmosphere is subjected to two external forces. One force is the gravitational force, expressed as the weight of the object. The other force is the air resistance, or drag of the object. The motion of any object can be described by Newton's second law of motion, force F equals mass m times acceleration a:

F = m * a

which can be solved for the acceleration of the object in terms of the net external force and the mass of the object:

a = F / m

Weight and drag are forces which are vector quantities. The net external force F is then equal to the difference of the weight W and the drag D

F = W - D

The acceleration of a falling object then becomes:

a = (W - D) / m

The magnitude of the drag is given by the drag equation. Drag D depends on a drag coefficient Cd, the atmospheric density r, the square of the air velocity V, and some reference area A of the object.

D = Cd * r * V ^2 * A / 2


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 3:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The correct answer in real terms is both forces have a bearing on motion


Nobody is denying this, yet you seem to want to argue it.

Your "according to NASA" implies that weight matters everywhere, although I'm sure that within the context of any statement NASA released they meant to imply that mass matters ONLY IF THERE IS GRAVITY. The weight of the space shuttle only matters as long as there is something to pull on that weight - gravity. Once in space, the space shuttle uses almost no fuel for forward motion. Short little spurts here and there to guide it. There is no atmosphere to slow it, and almost no gravity. It has no wheel bearings or other frictional loss, so your argument is void in a no grav environment.

Enter, the wheel. The wheel is designed to lower frictional loss. It's why they invented wheel bearings to go with the wheel, to further reduce it. Bearings use the same concept as wheel.

The wheel allows us to move more mass regardless of gravity by lessening the increase in friction caused by gravity.

Acceleration of falling object? Are you just trying to look smart? That isn't even relevant.

The whole point here is that reduction in air resistance is a major key to high speeds. It's why a monorail system with magnetic levitation is the ultimate in travel right now - except for wormholes which we have yet to use.

You simply cannot reduce drag any more than an arrow across land. Airplanes are not as efficient and never will be because they USE drag to lift them, they have to carry their power source (whereas a train does not), and airplanes cannot be in the shape of an arrow to further reduce drag. A monorail however, can do all of these things, and has the added benefit of not having to travel as far. No take off/landing, and the circumference of the earth is less closer to the ground. You actually travel a farther in an airplane than on the ground. Therefore, the future is not in airplanes but in trains. Not to mention if something goes wrong with a train's engine you don't crash land. You come to a stop.

Trains as we know them are out dated dinosaurs. They are more unsafe and inefficient. However, I believe that despite their weight they are still more efficient than airplanes. If someone wishes to research this and post links, be my guest.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 3:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody is denying this, yet you seem to want to argue it.
Really?? You might wanna look up the previous posts including your own. If you are not disputing then what's with all of the following drivel??

quote:
Once in space, the space shuttle uses almost no fuel for forward motion.
They key part of that whole sentence is once in space .


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 12:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
So gave this little problem to the engineers here. Apparently we are both correct. Actually what they said was "you are morons for arguing about this"..So it goes like this...

quote:
Stokes (or Reynolds) equation that determines air resistance, not Newton's laws
Drag is determined out side of gravity.This statement by itself is valid.

However, once you start going with scenarios like on earth or in space the dynamics of frictional force, weight (gravity), mass, vertical velocity, and thrust come into play. Especially with the physics of an engine which would drive said car. Without getting into frictional forces, in this example with a car on earth you cannot have movement without gravity the dynamics of the combustion engine won't allow it, along with other things.

So arguing either way is apparently stupid.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By rett448 on 6/30/2008 9:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
You can determine motion without weight or gravity. If there is no gravity all of the equations are still the same with the exception of the resistance for gravity is zero. In newtons second law of motion F=ma. You sum all of the forces; ie gravity, thrust, wind resistance ect. If one of these forces is non existant you can still sum the other forces and get motion. There is still motion in space away from sources of gravity. You dont determine resistance from motion, you determine motion from resistance


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 9:49:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can determine motion without weight or gravity.
If you are talking about in a vaccum .. sure.. but we are on earth with gravitational forces... which relates to the hybrid vehicle this post is about, which is what I'm basing this whole rant on... sure you eschew gravitational force from motion but you can't do that on earth now can you?


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 10:31:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There is still motion in space away from sources of gravity.
Gravity is a constant force. You are never free from gravity. All objects have a gravitational force.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 1:19:55 AM , Rating: 2
Where the heck did you come up with THIS???:

quote:
Let me end this by saying without gravity on Earth you don't have motion..PERIOD!!!


You're acting as if you can't have motion without gravity, which is obviously not true. Even without gravity mass could have motion. In fact, I believe it would have infinite motion. Light and radio waves are virtually unaffected by gravity aren't they? Do they not travel very fast, bounce off objects, and MOVER?

If mass was the same as these (and there's a very thin line between energy and mass, as one can be converted to the other) then would mass not also have the same properties of uber-mobility?

You're full of FUD, bud.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 1:49:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Where the heck did you come up with THIS???:

It's called Newton's law of motion you should read it sometime.

First of all we are talking about cars here not space travel. So if you have a car that moves without gravity I'd like to see it. Light not effected by gravity??!?!?.... hmm and a black hole does what to light again??? Gravity effects radios waves too... Black Holes have the same effect on them too.

quote:
You're full of FUD, bud.

Nope You're just a moron,


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By rett448 on 6/30/2008 8:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
The additional weight from the hybrid system on a train doesnt effect performance because it is such a small fraction of the total weight the train has to move. The same is not true on a car where the additional weight of the system is a much larger fraction on the total weight


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 8:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
You are kind of proving my point.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 6:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "... if a ship was sinking you would be the one running across the deck saying "Why try and swim ??.. "

The problem here is that no ship is sinking...except perhaps the ship of modern culture and achievement, being brought down by those who believe mankind and all his works are ultimately destructive.

Sixty years ago, half of all goods made in the entire world were from the United States. Half! But since the 1960s onward, our manufacturing has declined every year, as a growing tide of increasingly ridiculous environmental legislation shuts down more and more factories. Every year,a larger percentage of our energy comes from overseas, as we continually refuse to drill for more oil, or build new refineries.

And the trend is only getting worse. If some of the proposed cap-and-trade legislation is ever enacted, it'll succeed in strangling the remainer of our industry. Literally everything we do generates carbon emissions in one form or anything....The only way to a "zero-carbon footprint" is to return to a pre-industrial lifestyle...a life that was uniformly nasty, brutal, and short.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2008 7:52:08 PM , Rating: 1
Well KC, Masher has effectively covered my responses to your idealogical drivel, so I guess I have nothing left to say except...

Its funny how you bring up IQ but are being solidly and completely defeated on every single point you bring up. In some cases your counterpoints are so easily beaten because you didn't even bother to research your claims.

IQ is not the same as common sense. There is no common sense being used by the people on your side of the energy crisis fence. And its clear your just a brainwashed minion using their own regurgitated talking points.

Energy = prosperity. Its why everyone needs it. Everyone wants it. Again, you can't conserve your way out of a %50 increase in energy demand without increasing supply. This is simple common sense. You just don't get it.

Cars like this are a symptom, not the solution.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 8:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't the one to bring up intelligence ... you were... Pot meet Kettle.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 10:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem here is that no ship is sinking...except perhaps the ship of modern culture and achievement, being brought down by those who believe mankind and all his works are ultimately destructive.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?? Where do I say that... highlight it or quote it. I'm not going to retort to something I didn't even say. Oh you must of thought I was being literal. Hmmm look up the definition of ...ANALOGY.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 10:47:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But since the 1960s onward, our manufacturing has declined every year, as a growing tide of increasingly ridiculous environmental legislation shuts down more and more factories.
ROFL... OK ... this is just stupid...LOL... you sure it has nothing to do with globalization or workers being paid 25% of what we make here? WOW

quote:
Every year,a larger percentage of our energy comes from overseas, as we continually refuse to drill for more oil, or build new refineries.
If by overseas you mean Canada then yes...

First of all as a planet we are not running out of oil (not yet anyway). Attention spans can't be this short. Just last year "Big Oil" was telling us all that we weren't going to run out of oil and that peak oil was years away.... now all of sudden we need to drill??? Yeah right...

What are you Teddy Ruxspin ??

Let's just say that 10% of the worlds oil was in ANWR, it isn't (not even close) but just say it is.. within 8 years we've gone from $1.21 to $4.50 (nationwide averages)

So lets just say we drill right now and everything came online right now.. we would see a savings of .45

If you haven't figured it out yet that's nothing.... so why is it 4.00 again?? Oh yeah that's right we just aren't drilling enough.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 11:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
> ".LOL... you sure it has nothing to do with globalization or workers being paid 25% of what we make here? "

Wages have far less to do with it than people think. After all, in 1950 workers in Asia made far less than they do today and even less as compared to US workers, and yet we weren't farming out manufacturing jobs to them right and left.

> "Just last year "Big Oil" was telling us all that we weren't going to run out of oil and that peak oil was years away.... now all of sudden we need to drill??"

You seem confused. No matter how much oil the planet has, we can't use it unless we drill for it.

> "Let's just say that 10% of the worlds oil was in ANWR...
So lets just say we drill right now and everything came online right now.. we would see a savings of .45..."

Whoa, whoa...this is your largest stumble yet. A 10% increase in oil production does *not* equate to a 10% drop in prices. The effect would be far, far larger. Petroleum prices are extremely inelastic...a very small change in supply or demand leads to huge changes in price.

Take a look at gas prices after Katrina, for instance, where a brief 23% drop in refining capacity caused gas prices to double...even to triple in a few isolated areas. The same thing works in reverse. If world oil production was boosted 10%, we'd see massive declines in price.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2008 1:22:23 AM , Rating: 2
Hes a lost cause Masher.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 1:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 2:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
At least masher is giving me a work out. The complexity of both of your arguments leave much to be desired.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2008 5:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least masher is giving me a work out. The complexity of both of your arguments leave much to be desired.


I'm not here to give you a " work out ". Your not worth the time. When you can come back with something more than standard anti-prosperity anti-oil liberal crap talking points, give me a call.

My argument doesn't need to be complex. Its very simple. I'm right, and you are wrong. On all counts so far.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to take a drive in my water powered car that I stole from an Exxon warehouse where it was bought and hidden from the world in 1965.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 1:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your not worth the time. When you can come back with something more than standard anti-prosperity anti-oil liberal crap talking points, give me a call.


So you are talking because????

quote:
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to take a drive in my water powered car that I stole from an Exxon warehouse where it was bought and hidden from the world in 1965.


Where did I say this??? Oh that's right I didn't. Water came up in discussion with possible alternatives.. I didn't say anything about conspiracies nor Exxon in relation to water power did I?


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
> "Hes a lost cause Masher. "

I'm an optimist; what can I say?


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 2:02:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Whoa, whoa...this is your largest stumble yet. A 10% increase in oil production does *not* equate to a 10% drop in prices. The effect would be far, far larger. Petroleum prices are extremely inelastic...a very small change in supply or demand leads to huge changes in price.


quote:
A 10% increase in oil production does *not* equate to a 10% drop in prices.
Yes, which is why people are wondering why simple supply and demand doesn't seem to play much of a role here.

quote:
The effect would be far, far larger. Petroleum prices are extremely inelastic...a very small change in supply or demand leads to huge changes in price.
NO it doesn't.... The biggest example of this is our current usage for the year in the U.S is lower than that of previous years so why hasn't it made a difference??

Oil companies were investigated from the examples of Katrina. Primarily because those refineries are back online they have been back online for over a year... notice any price difference?


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
NO it doesn't.... The biggest example of this is our current usage for the year in the U.S is lower than that of previous years so why hasn't it made a difference??
Err, because the US isn't the only oil consumer in the world. Nations like China have seen their production rise sharply. Furthermore, world production dipped slightly over the last two years, even as demand rose.

Furthermore, US demand has only very recently (and very slightly) dropped. Before that, US demand was still rising, even as prices increased.

quote:
Oil companies were investigated from the examples of Katrina.
Of course. And you notice those politically showcase "investigations" all went nowhere. When supply drops, the price HAS to rise. Either that, or the pumps run dry and we all walk to work. Basic economics.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By danrien on 6/30/2008 9:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
I appreciate the Randian thoughts on this... however, I will say that much of the job loss has gone for the sake of globalization, which is basically a way for Ayn Rand's "heroes" to make more money off of less. The corporations were in support of globalization, and probably were the most responsible parties for allowing laws to be passed that allowed globalization to become easier to accomplish than it had been in the pre-1960 era.

Also, I don't believe that most people think that mankind's creations are ultimately destructive. However, to fail to recognize that they are causing some destruction to the environment around us is silly beyond compare. Rather, it is in our best interests to improve our creations to make them less destructive. Of course, man shapes his environment - that's one of the reasons why we won the game of evolution. It is our right to destroy this Earth, however it is ridiculous for us, after having come so far, to deny ourselves the ability to save ourselves for the sake of more money. Remember, you got to spend money to make money, and sometimes that involves a farther perspective on things than immediate business needs.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 10:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for saying that.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 1:23:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's funny since transportation of all of our goods in the world and the United States of America is based on weight


Apparently you have never shipped anything. It is based on volume as well as weight. You can't fill an airplane with Styrofoam peanuts and send them to China to be shipped back for a few dollars.

The U.S. Postal service recently revised their package standards, and now even with small packages, they measure them. As noted in posts below that I responded to, please stop spewing FUD.


RE: Conservation gone wrong.
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 8:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S. Postal service recently revised their package standards
Now you are just making stuff up. Funny I just shipped a LCD TV and they didn't care about size at all.

Also I didn't say size played no role. I said size takes a back seat to weight.


VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By IamMattJones on 6/27/2008 2:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
Coupling this with algae diesel could prove to put a big hurt on 'big oil.' No gas, ever again. I'll buy one, and an algae farm.




RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2008 11:54:34 PM , Rating: 3
"Big Oil" are actually energy companies, rather than oil. Chevron will be just as happy selling you some engineering biodiesel as they will anything else...probably happier, actually, as the revenues will likely be larger on the more expensive product.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 8:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
"Big Oil" aren't the leaders in producing alternative energy... not by a long shot. Not even biodiesel. Biodiesel is refined by local distributors and then sold to "Big Oil" to be packaged and used within their fuels.

Now are they starting to realize that they can only stifle innovation for so long until their competitors start offering what the market desires ...yes... so they are investing in alternative energies but more is spent by other companies, and governments than "Big Oil".


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By namechamps on 6/28/2008 9:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
If you sleep better "knowing" big oil is better then so be it.

BP solar ie one of the largest pv manufacturers in the world with 60MW of annual production capacity. They also are expanding the fastest. Bringing another 300MW worth of factories onlineby 2010. That will cost about $150 million in 2008 alone.

Forget about all that though. Reality is so complicated. It is so much easier to break it down to:
Energy companies = bad
Al Gore/liberals/eco-nazis = good.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By kc77 on 6/28/2008 11:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you sleep better "knowing" big oil is better then so be it.
Huh?

No where do I say Energy Companies = bad
If your little brain interprets what i'm saying as
quote:
Energy companies = bad

Al Gore/liberals/eco-nazis = good.

so be it.... some of us need to process little bites.

If a company is doing the right thing and not trying to lobby it's way out of innovating then I'm all for it... but when they don't, that's where I have a problem.

We've got cars that run on water, sun light, decayed foliage, I'm sure someone has one that runs on poo too.... so the question I have is why are we still running vehicles on oil. The whole argument that the technology isn't here is really wearing thin.

BP is one of the few that truly have diversified it's business. It's just too bad that there aren't more examples here in the US. I really hope the US will come out on top of developing the alternative fuel of the future... but I don't think that will be the case... I really am sick and tired of hearing "Who could have know that..." or "Noone could have seen that coming" or my favorite " Hindsight is 20/20 we can't always see the warning signs until it's too late"


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By masher2 (blog) on 6/28/2008 10:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "We've got cars that run on water..."

The only people that believe that are the ones who still see Elvis at their corner grocery.

> "...sun light..."

Sure, if you don't mind a top speed of 9 mph, in a car that weighs less than a large dog.

> "the question I have is why are we still running vehicles on oil. The whole argument that the technology isn't here is really wearing thin."

The argument that gravity is holding us all down is wearing thin also. What say we lobby Congress to do something about that too?


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 2:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
Now the water reference I knew was going to be shaky as the story came out only a couple of weeks ago which is why I gave more than one example...

quote:
Sure, if you don't mind a top speed of 9 mph, in a car that weighs less than a large dog.
The fastest top speed of a solar powered car is 105 mph.... if you are gonna be smart then at least get your facts straight.

quote:
The argument that gravity is holding us all down is wearing thin also. What say we lobby Congress to do something about that too?
What in the world are you talking about?? Do you even know? The force of gravity is a constant, alternative forms of energy are not. I know you were trying to be funny but your joke isn't based on any kind of reality. What this article is about and what I am speaking of are very much elements of reality. Won't you join us?


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By Ringold on 6/29/2008 4:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fastest top speed of a solar powered car is 105 mph.... if you are gonna be smart then at least get your facts straight.


Masher was still partly correct, no need to troll. I've seen such, uh, "cars" myself. I picked it up with one arm. It was more like a bad-ass tricycle with a battery that could temporarily boost it to high velocity than it was a "car." If a real car passed one of these "cars" on the highway, the air turbulence alone could be fatal.

You also pretty quickly ignored BP's position in the solar industry when it turned against you. You'd probably also ignore that Chevron has a 50/50 joint subsidiary with Energy Conversion Devices that provides batteries for many of the hybrids on the road today, or that Exxon has for years engaged in battery technology research via its chemicals division.

These companies are just doing what any other business does; prepare the next era of technology and profits. I think a lot of corporate America has looked at the news paper companies and taken them as a model of what not to do. Of course, you're right, other companies do a lot on their own, but the original point I believe simply was that "big oil" is indeed doing a lot on their own, rather than remaining pure-plays on oil and natural gas production.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By hubajube on 6/29/2008 7:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You'd probably also ignore that Chevron has a 50/50 joint subsidiary with Energy Conversion Devices
Is this the part where I say, Pwn3d?


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 9:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Masher was still partly correct, no need to troll. I've seen such, uh, "cars" myself. I picked it up with one arm. It was more like a bad-ass tricycle with a battery that could temporarily boost it to high velocity than it was a "car." If a real car passed one of these "cars" on the highway, the air turbulence alone could be fatal.


No Masher wasn't correct at all. He said that the fastest solar car went 9 mph which is false... PERIOD. I took him to task on it and he was wrong. And since you jumped in the discussion whose the troll???

quote:
You also pretty quickly ignored BP's position in the solar industry when it turned against you. You'd probably also ignore that Chevron has a 50/50 joint subsidiary with Energy Conversion Devices that provides batteries for many of the hybrids on the road today, or that Exxon has for years engaged in battery technology research via its chemicals division.


A no I actually devoted a paragraph to BP. If you want to overlook it so be it. By the way Exxon's battery technology was originally owned by GM from the EV1 project which they bought.

quote:
You'd probably also ignore that Chevron has a 50/50 joint subsidiary with Energy Conversion Devices that provides batteries for many of the hybrids on the road today, or that Exxon has for years engaged in battery technology research via its chemicals division.
Sorry ECD licenses the technology to other companies... the primary manufacturer of the batteries in the Prius which is the world's best selling hybrid is made by Panasonic. Chevron has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH IT...


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 11:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "He said that the fastest solar car went 9 mph which is false... PERIOD. "

I said no such thing. I said solar cars are great if you don't mind going 9mph...which is indeed about the best average speed you're going to get for a real-world car able to actually carry passengers and meet federal road safety requirements.

The fact that a 150 kg pancake, not even large enough for a steering wheel, can on a perfectly flat surface, at noon on a perfectly clear day, do much better is irrelevant. It's not a car people can feasibly drive.

Your notion that we're not all driving solar (or worse, "water" powered cars) due to a "big oil conspiracy" is flatly incorrect. There are numerous reasons why alternative sources are just not feasible.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 2:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I said solar cars are great if you don't mind going 9mph.
You can't even remember what you wrote.

You said "sure if you don't mind a top speed of 9 mph".


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 5:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "I know you were trying to be funny but your joke isn't based on any kind of reality"

The reality is that cars are still driven by oil because alternate forms of energy are still not practical. The only thing funny here is the willingness of some people to invoke conspiracy theories.

> "The fastest top speed of a solar powered car is 105 mph.... if you are gonna be smart then at least get your facts straight."

No. I assume you're referring to the Nuna II, which isn't a car, it's a solar-powered pancake without even enough room for a steering wheel inside. It also doesn't do 105 mph -- that report comes from a few overly-enthusiastic reporters who confused its top speed of 105 km/h with English units (it has since bettered this speed, and can now do briefly hit 140 km/h under ideal conditions -- about 88 mph).

For optimum performance, it also requires a pilot car ahead and behind it to monitor weather conditions (a single cloud can cut its speed in half), so solar or not, it actually winds up using more gas than your average subcompact.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 10:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reality is that cars are still driven by oil because alternate forms of energy are still not practical. The only thing funny here is the willingness of some people to invoke conspiracy theories.
What conspiracy theory? Where do I note a conspiracy? That's right I don't.

quote:
No. I assume you're referring to the Nuna II, which isn't a car, it's a solar-powered pancake without even enough room for a steering wheel inside.
So because you didn't bother to think before speaking or big enough to admit you made a mistake you would rather reclassify what everyone else calls a solar powered car... and the Nuna isn't the only one.. so you've got a few to explain away.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 6:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "Now the water reference I knew was going to be shaky as the story came out only a couple of weeks ago "

It's more than shaky; such a story doesn't even pass the most basic smell test. A car that ran on water would be a class 1 perpetual motion device, something that violates more laws of physics than a time machine.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By kc77 on 6/29/2008 10:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's more than shaky; such a story doesn't even pass the most basic smell test. A car that ran on water would be a class 1 perpetual motion device, something that violates more laws of physics than a time machine.


I already admitted my mistake.

Care to take care of the other means of propulsion?


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By masher2 (blog) on 6/29/2008 11:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "I already admitted my mistake. Care to take care of the other means of propulsion?"

I've already covered water and solar. What's left? Biodiesel works just fine, but its far too expensive unless you're getting free cooking oil from McDonalds...and there isn't enough of that to power even 0.5% of the nation's cars. As for making fuel from garbage or with gene-tailored algae, when those methods make it out of the lab, we can talk about them.

That leaves all-electric cars. Until very recently, we not only didn't have the battery technology to make them practical, but gas was so cheap as to render them irrelevant. Now that both situations have changed, we see every automaker in the book scrambling to build them.

So again, no conspiracy. Just the normal operation of the free market, producing the best product for the current situation.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 2:16:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That leaves all-electric cars. Until very recently, we not only didn't have the battery technology to make them practical
Um, they were practical in 1996 when they first debuted with the EV1.. same technology as the Prius actually even simpler.

Free market?!?!?.... GM pulled the cars off the market even though there were buyers for every single one of them...


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "Um, they were practical in 1996 when they first debuted with the EV1.. "

The EV1 was far from a practical vehicle. First of all, it was massively subsidized by GM simply to meet a CA fleet quota requirement. Were it sold at its true market value, it would have been over ten times as expensive as an equivalent gas-powered vehicle. Who would buy that, when gas was $1.50 a gallon?

Second of all, the EV1 took many hours to recharge, and in cold weather, its range dipped to below 35 miles. It also had a top speed of just under 80mph... and worse, it took ages to get there. Again, who would give up the performance of a gas-powered car, to pay far more for a charging, range, and performance hassles of an electric car?

Now that battery technology has evolved somewhat -- and more importantly, gas is $4/gallon -- you'll see a lot more interest in electric cars. That's a function of market realities, however, not corporate conspiracies.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By rett448 on 6/30/2008 9:38:59 AM , Rating: 2
GM didnt want the liability associated with selling the EV-1 after the leases expired.


RE: VW-TwinDrive-Algae Eater
By kc77 on 6/30/2008 1:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It also had a top speed of just under 80mph
it was electronically limited to that yes.. but was capable of much higher speeds.

quote:
Second of all, the EV1 took many hours to recharge, and in cold weather, its range dipped to below 35 miles.
The first version of the battery charged within 8 hours essentially a day at work. However, the future battery upgrade (same as Prius) would allow recharge within 2 hours.


Hybrid
By DrApop on 6/27/2008 3:01:23 PM , Rating: 5
This car sounds more like a prius type hybrid than it does the Volt....or perhaps a combination of the two. Why would you need a 120 hp motor to charge the battery pack. Seems overkill to me. Does it use any of that power as a drive train? As I understand the Volt only runs through an electric motor and the ICE is only for charging the battery. Although, I certainly can be wrong. Not sure of the hp on the concept Volt but I thought I was lower.




RE: Hybrid
By ChoadNamath on 6/27/2008 3:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's much more like a Prius than a Volt. It's not a serial hybrid like the Volt is. It may have similar functionality to the the Volt, but its implementation is the same as a traditional hybrid.


RE: Hybrid
By TMoney468 on 6/27/2008 3:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
On ZDNet they had a similar article about this car and they said it travels 30 miles on it's battery alone, and then uses the diesel engine when the batteries die out. It also has regenerative braking to charge the batteries.


RE: Hybrid
By bluedaily on 6/28/2008 8:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yea it is essential to encorporate regereative charging from braking into all electric motors .... it would be stupid not to.


RE: Hybrid
By KillaKilla on 6/27/2008 4:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
It would make more sense for this to be a series hybrid than the gasoline engine volt, since diesel engines benefit more from havinga narrow power band, as shown with trains and long haul trucks, both of which are built to keep their engines within a narrow rev range. Not sure why they would give it an ICE that makes more power than the electric motor will use even at peak, when they have a 1.4 liter inline-3 engine that would match the electric motor's peak output just about perfectly.


RE: Hybrid
By Alexvrb on 6/27/2008 7:52:01 PM , Rating: 3
"It would make more sense for this to be a series hybrid than the gasoline engine volt"

Tell that to VW. Maybe they should take that government cash and use it to hire people who can make that happen. However, I must disagree with your conclusion that the VW would be "better" as a serial hybrid, for a couple of reasons.

First off the Volt, by its very nature, is very flexible regarding what type of generator it uses. Initially it is coming out with a very efficient turbocharged 3-cylinder gasoline engine, but they could easily swap it out with little redesign effort - since the motor is just a generator for the batteries. Just drop in a future diesel, propane gas, or whatever engine.

The second issue is that in the US right now, gasoline is typically less expensive and more widely available than the alternatives. So it makes sense to have the initial model use a gasoline-based generator.


RE: Hybrid
By Mr Perfect on 6/27/2008 8:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
Serial hybrids like the Volt have batteries? I was hoping all that weight would be dropped when you've got a generator constantly supplying juice. Surely Diesel-electric locomotives don't have massive battery banks? I wonder if this is just some "Look, we can use zero fuel!" gimmick, or if it really makes sense to drag around a couple hundred pounds of battery so you can shut down the engine for a while.


RE: Hybrid
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2008 11:51:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "Serial hybrids like the Volt have batteries? I was hoping all that weight would be dropped"

If you don't have batteries, you can't use regenerative braking...plus you can't design the diesel engine to run at a constant rpm rate, which further reduces efficiency.

> "Surely Diesel-electric locomotives don't have massive battery banks"

They don't...but the main reason locomotives use diesel-electric technology is to both eliminate the need for a transmission, and to gain the massive torque that electric motors bring, rather than to gain a little more fuel efficiency.


RE: Hybrid
By oab on 6/28/2008 5:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
And when you need to start several hundred tons of things moving, you need LOTS of torque.


RE: Hybrid
By Spacecomber on 6/29/2008 9:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about it being a gimmick, but I think the Volt is suppose to be a "plug-in" car for typical daily use and it only requires the gasoline engine to recharge on longer trips. Thus, the need for a very hefty battery with a 40 mile range.