Latest French Study Slams Hybrid Trend As A Misinformed Craze

Considering your statement that the French are probably world leaders in nuclear energy, wouldn't it be wise for them to pursue PHEVs for their vehicle infrastructure? Its a match made in heaven. Those nuclear plants (they make up ~80% of the country's energy supply) have massive amounts of off peak capacity that is just begging to find its way into a battery.

According to the idiot that did this study, we should be using that off peak electricity to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen (and pay a massive friggin energy penalty in the process). Then we should distribute that hydrogen through a pipeline system (which doesn't exist and will cost big $$$ to build, while they/we already have power lines). Then we should store the hydrogen in expensive high pressure carbon kevlar tanks (real environmentally friendly, have a fleet of thermoset plastic tanks that aren't remotely recyclable running around with high pressure hydrogen that is constantly leaking through)

When will people get this these facts?

1. Hydrogen is an (inefficient) energy carrier.
2. Hydrogen tunnels. Unless you store it chemically, you will constantly leak H and therefore your energy.
3. Hydrogen embrittles. Any metals that are to come in contact with the hydrogen have to be specially made so that they won't prematurely fail.

About batteries:

1. They are extremely efficient at energy in to energy out operations.
2. Modern chemistries do away with energy density concerns.
3. Modern designs do away with power density concerns (if you can't differentiate this from #2, you don't deserve to discuss the topic).
4. Modern chemistries are capable of upwards of 2,000 cycles.
5. There is not a lithium shortage, esp when it is to be used with sulfur or titanate. There also exist numerous other viable chemistries that use much more abundant elements (such as lead).

— GreenPlease (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 10:49:23 PM | | Votes: 1   

While I'm at it, I should throw in that the French aren't really leaders. If anything, I would say Canada is a leader. Their original CANDU reactor design was quite inspired and its successor is supposed to drastically improve the economics of its fuel cycle (which was pretty good to begin with, it used natural uranium).

Don't hit me with that BS about the ITER and France's involvement. They all know that nothing will come of it except some really huge superconducting magnets.

— GreenPlease (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 10:52:38 PM | | Votes: 1   

Ya gotta love guys like "t bone" -- let them drive Civics or smaller death traps and leave more gasoline available for the rest of us. Alberta oil sands and Canadian and U.S. coal reserves will sustain us for at least 100 years. Technologies to convert coal into gasoline exist today. Cheap solar energy is just around the corner (what's more renewable than that?).

Water vapor is the most abundant green-house gas. CO2 can be sucked out of the atmosphere by planting more trees. Aluminum and carbon fiber will make it possible for us to drive lighter cars without sacrificing comfortable interior room.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 10:59:02 AM | | Votes: -4   

Civic, death trap? What are you on?

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 11:55:06 AM | | Votes: 4   

Oil sands are terrible - they are expensive, hugely polluting and dangerous.

— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 12:20:45 PM | | Votes: 0   

Hybrid is no longer the latest technology.

Compared to the new crop of diesels a gasoline hybrid falls short as car size increases.

Especially in anything larger than a Prius (arguably the best of the Hybrids).

However a diesel hybrid may have a higher purpose, because it benefit from the best of both worlds.

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 10:51:05 AM | | Votes: 5   

If you think that by (finally) adding particulate filters, urea injectors and low sulfur fuel that diesel has somehow leapfroged the technological jump made by hybrids, well that's certianly an argument that can be had.

So I will just say wait until the next gen of hybrids. Lighter, cheaper, more efficient, more powerful. I know I hate when people say, just wait for the next...., but this is a technology still in its infancy, yet already providing superior benefits. Diesel has been around for 100+years, before anyone has begun trying these cleaner technologies. So if diesel gets a good year or two when these cleaner diesels (finally) arrive, good on them. But it will be short lived until the next batch of hybrids. Then what do diesel mfrs have left up their sleeves??? And will it take another 100 years for the next leap?

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 11:54:06 AM | | Votes: -3   

Considering that new diesels are more efficient, faster and even as clean, I don't think there's any argument to be had.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 11:57:50 AM | | Votes: 5   

New, cleanER diesels are not nearly as clean as hybrids. Cleaner diesels finally meet the same emissions standards as regular gasoline engine vehicles, not advanced hybrids. They (by nature of high mpg) have decent CO2 emissions compared to a gasoline car of comparable size and power, but even the most advanced diesel technology does not compare to the clean tailpipe emissions of hybrids.

Faster-that just depends on the application. The GS450h is much faster than the MBZ E-class diesel(about a second faster to 60). It, of course, sacrifices some mpg for this, tho it does not sacrifice its SULEV rating.

More efficient- If the Jetta comes in at over 50mpg, I'll believe it. Since it is smaller than the Prius, it should achieve markedly superior mpg, if it is truly more efficient. We'll see.

So yes, an argument can be MADE that the new cleaner diesels are superior to gen3 HSD, but the vedict is still out on whether the argument can be WON.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 1:02:28 PM | | Votes: -1   

"once a hybrid runs out of electric juice or gets over the electric speed, the gasoline engine will cut in, and due to the lower effeciency of a gasoline engine, it will need to burn more atoms of carbon (bound in different carbomolecules) to produce the same power thus emmiting more CO2/hp."

Sailor, your assumption is based on the gasoline part of the hybrid vehicle's engine being grossly inefficient, which is a common misconception.

The Prius (obviously the best hybrid application) uses an Atkinson Cycle engine. "the Atkinson cycle, where the power stroke is longer than the compression stroke, is increasing in popularity due to the increase in fuel economy it provides." "By adjusting the linkage to allow a power stroke that is longer than the compression stroke, the engine can achieve greater efficiency than with the Otto cycle engine" (Wikipedia)

You are also assuming that hybrids must spend at inordinate amount of time utilizing only the gasoline engine, which is the kind of incorrect information that GM was trying to put out there when explaining that the Prius is a parallel, not serial hybrid. The fact is, the electric engine is almost always in use in the Prius (parallel), leading to high mpg and low emissions, and it also runs for short periods of time in only electric mode, where there are no emissions and of course off the charts mpg. I do not have the exact amount of time spent in each mode, it would be different for every driver. Rest assured, the electric motor in the Prius is almost always on (and it is always on in a parallel hybrid like the Civic.)

Back to emissions, regardless of how long the engine is in electric, gasoline powered or dual mode, hybrids earn SULEV emissions, emitting 10% of the standard emissions allowed by CARB. There are NO new cleaner diesels yet rated SULEV. Federally, the cleaner diesels will meet Tier 2 Bin 5, but that is just meeting the starndard. A T2B5 diesel is allowed to emit as much NOX as three and-a-half Priuses. Kudos to diesels for finally MEETING emissions standards.

So you can essentially win your argument because you are basing it on faulty facts.

Now let's add in the extra cost (and weight...since everyone is so concerned about the weight of hybrid batteries) of the new cleaner diesel engines, the added cost of the fuel, and the added energy required to produce diesel fuel.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 2:19:24 PM | | Votes: 0   

If any of these cleaner diesels were due to be CARB certified SULEV, we would know by now, just as we have been told for years now that they would be T2B5 certified. I'm not goin anywhere, so I'm willing to table that one until June when the first CA admissible diesels show up, but trust they will not be SULEV, maybe not even ULEV.

As for CO2, it is, of course, directly correlated to mpg. Therefore as the cleaner diesels have marginally higher mpg than a comparable gasoline engine, their CO2 emissions will indeed be lower. Show me a cleaner diesel that has higher mpg than a comparable hybrid.....you simply cannot. Therefore, hybrids are also better than cleaner diesels re:CO2.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 3:09:23 PM | | Votes: 0   

GS450h, your choice:

BMW 535d or the Merc E320CDI (european version)

LS600h... Well, just about any full sized top of the line diesel will give you almost the same performance and a considerably better fuel economy...

As to the Prius, well... Just about every european hatchback has a diesel model which has at least the same fuel economy...

The Toyota Camry is easily beat by the Passat TDI BlueMotion... Among others

First of all, without your actual mpg, numbers you have not proved anything.

Second, in some of your head to heads, the comparison is not valid. Example....The 450h is much more powerful than the BMW and MBZ you are comparing it to. The 450h was designed to showcase high mpg with high performance. The 2 german cars sacrfice performance for mpg.

Comparing any of the hatchbacks to the Prius is way too vague. Give me some example of a real midsized diesel with 0-60 in around 10 seconds that gets 45-50 mpg.

Comparing the Camry hybrid to the Passat...which according to Car and Driver.."Volkswagen is waiting for the show unveiling to confirm suspicions that this Passat BlueMotion uses a 103-hp version of the 2.0-liter diesel engine" Wonder what the 0-60 is for that?

You can put a small engine in anything to beat a hybrid, but that's not a valid comparison.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 3:59:03 PM | | Votes: 0   

535d 0-60 in...."BMW says 0-100 km/h or 62 mph takes just 6.5 seconds" (Autobloggreen) 1.3 seconds SLOWER than the GS.

I dont like wasting my time looking up this information for you either, but if I'm going to base an argument on facts and figures, I will at least take the time to do some research, so that I will not be proved wrong.

Now most of the other diesels you've listed are just random cars you threw out to make it seem like you have put more than a passing thought into your point. But none of them utilize the new cleaner diesels, they are from all different classes of vehicles, and you have shown no facts to back up the claims of superior fuel economy and/or performance in comparison to the models that you say they stack up well against.

The Camry Hybrid goes 0-60 in 8.6 seconds (edmunds), gets 33/34 (EPA 08 standadrds), seats five in comfort, is certified AT PZEV, for just over $25000. Can you really argue against numbers like that?? Can your Passat beat numbers like that??

This argument will never be just about mpg, hybrids have too many advantages to just compare mpg.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 6:27:22 PM | | Votes: 0   

California needs several dozen breeder-reactor-type nuclear power plants which burn up almost all of the nuclear fuel and the remaining nuclear waste can be safely stored in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Depository.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 11:09:10 AM | | Votes: 2   

I dont believe California has ever had a rolling blackout at night when one presumes most electric charging would take place.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 11:55:09 AM | | Votes: 1   

I assume you are a skeptic?

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 11:07:37 AM | | Votes: 1   

farabira1, hybrid technology may be new but its hard to get away from the fact that hybrids involve the lugging around of expensive and heavy battery packs. I might consider a plug-in hybrid but only for strictly urban use and only if the economic and environmental cost to society of producing the electricity for recharging overnight is attractive. Recycling and or disposal of old battery packs is also an issue with hybrids.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 11:16:51 AM | | Votes: 0   

"lugging around of expensive and heavy battery packs"

This is such a tired argument. Every new technology starts out heavy and expensive. I presume you are old enough to remember older microwaves or VCRs.

Without enough of us early aadopters out there lugging around these heavy, expensive battery packs (while getting 45 mpg and emitting practically just water vapor), we wouldnt be 18 months away from lighter, cheaper versions. What will you fall back on when that happens?

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 11:48:38 AM | | Votes: -1   

Not to mention how terrible those batteries are for the environment in the first place.

You're not emitting "practically water vapor" from your Pious, you know. Don't think your $hit doesn't smell.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 12:02:20 PM | | Votes: 1   

Obviously I know that Prius tailpipe emissions are not practically water vapor. That was an exaggeration that apparently ruffled your feathers this morning. It was a use of hyperbole to point out the ridiculousness of the argument of lugging around all those expensive heavy battery packs. A ridiculous claim countered with my just as ridiculous water vapor assertion.

Lighten up.

Oh and the Pious comment, c'mon that is so tired, I expect more from you.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 1:09:26 PM | | Votes: 0   

And of course the batteries terrible for the environment argument..... Do you know how much of every part of a car is terrible for the environment? We should all walk. There is nothing significantly worse about a hybrid battery pack that is not way more than made up for in the efficiency gains realized during the operation of that (partially) battery operated vehicle. (And it's recyclable!!)

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 1:14:06 PM | | Votes: 1   

yeah the GS450h has a real hard time lugging around the extra weight

First of all, the 450h weighs only 86 kg (189 lbs) more than the 460.

Meanwhile, it does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds, while getting 22/25mpg city/hwy (08 EPA standards), rated SULEV

The GS460 ggoes 0-60 in 5.4 seconds, gets 17/24 mpg and is only rated ULEV.

And it costs just $2300 for all that. Pretty freakin amazing if you ask me.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 2:31:25 PM | | Votes: 0   

Oh, so it is not convenient to your argument that I compare the GS450h to the NEW GS460. So sorry about that. Sure, let's compare it to a car using the old, outdated engine. If I did that, the difference in mpg and power would be even greater, again, more than making up for any weight difference.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 3:11:57 PM | | Votes: 1   

fine, and then for that extra weight, compared to the V6, you get
0-60 in 5.2 instead of 5.7
22/25 mpg instead of 19/27 (GS350 slightly better on hwy)
SULEV instead of ULEV.

Plus a lot more standard features add some of that weight as well.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 4:09:01 PM | | Votes: 0   

Now you're comparing it to the outdated GS300. Lexus.com quotes a weight difference between the 450h and the 350 of 154 kgs. The CVT might be part of it, different wheels, brakes, who knows, they dont break down the weights of each component. You're arguing over minute details, but your main point of these huge weight disparities is way off.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 6:08:10 PM | | Votes: 0   

But they make great cheese!

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/11/2008 4:36:50 PM | | Votes: 2   

huu - we don't get the BMW 745d in Britain, nor the S420cdi, but we do get the A8 4.2 tdi.
We do however get the ML and GL 420cdi and the Q7 4.2tdi and the Touareg and Phaeton 5.0 tdi.
At the moment Merc and BMW think the V8 diesels are a niche too far, but since Audi is doing very well with it I think they may reconsider.
Those large cars are usually owned by 4 sorts of people:
Taxi/limo firms (3.0 diesel for them)
Companies as executive transport (3.0 diesel)
Companies as part of a company car scheme (3.0 diesel)
Self owned (petrols, usually the larger V8 ones)

Thus the V8 diesels are in a bit of a pickle, but what Audi has found is that self owners like the big torque, great performance (faster than 4.2 fsi) from the 4.2tdi and great mileage.

— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 2/12/2008 7:56:35 AM | | Votes: 1   

ANd we also get the A8 3.0tdi.
Where did you get your information?

— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 2/12/2008 7:18:51 PM | | Votes: 2   

and the REASON for all this anti-japanese propaganda?

was your pa or grandpa a japanese POW?

there was a book by an aussie pow, whose war lasted like about 2 weeks before the brit forces (who actually outnumbered the japs by about 3 to 1) SURRENDERED.

he also talked disparagingly about the victors. YET there was also an undertone of grudging ADMIRATION.

it seems all YOU are full of (besides BS), is a HUGE GRUDGE. and you likely never even fought in wwII.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:26:57 AM | | Votes: -1   

well the f6f grumman was developed because its predecessors were being knocked out of the sky like flies by the superior Zero. the Zero was so far ahead of allied aircraft in 1940 and '41, that the japanese invested little to NO money developing more advanced fighters until much later in the war. and even then, those were produced in only small numbers. they also suffered attrition of skilled and experienced fighters that were NEVER replaced.

on surface naval battles, whenever air cover was not a factor, they usually tore apart our fighting ships. there were few fighting sailors, gunners, and torpedomen who could best their japanese opponents in EVEN matches.

ultimately, japan lost only because their industrial capacity was a mere 1/10 of america's. they were DESTINED to lose in a war of attrition. and they KNEW that from the start.

nevertheless, they did develop some very advanced weaponry despite their limitations.

in any case, that is all history. TODAY they are among the technology leaders on the planet.

NO ONE ELSE has yet made a tech tour-de-force comparable to the LS600hL.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:41:28 AM | | Votes: 0   

Citroen/Peugeot are going to introduce a diesel-hybrid in 2009.

— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 2/12/2008 11:06:33 AM | | Votes: 1   

up thru about 1700 or so, china WAS the MOST ADVANCED COUNTRY on the planet. by far.

chinese fleets had circumnavigated the globe in 1421-1423 (see book "1421" by gavin menzies), DECADES ahead of magellan. diaz and columbus themselves made their RE-discoveries guided by venetian and portuguese maps BASED ON chinese charts.

if not for a palace coup and the subsequent ban on overseas exploration and commerce, most of the world would be speaking chinese today.

the decline was accelerated when the brits FORCED OPIUM on the chinese, for profit and to weaken the chinese people. china was defeated in the Opium War largely because western military technology had passed them by, after the isolationist decrees.

EVEN AS they were being beaten, the chinese always felt it was ONLY thru "an accident of history" that the "western barbarians" had discovered modern weapons first. they felt once they ALSO learned the latest technologies, with their cultural superiority (MORE than mere belief: their high respect for learning and scholarship spread across asia), they would once again affirm their superior culture AND military strength.

it seems they are well on their way to finally ACHIEVING this. they've already "conquered" the u.s. ECONOMICALLY. following in the footsteps of their earlier more vigorous "younger brother," Japan. which itself has snuck ahead of the u.s. in most non-military technologies.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:45:59 AM | | Votes: 0   

Who cares about then??? Thats for history books. Its about now. All civilizations have their ups and downs. This thread is getting retarded.

A few Scientist in France give their opionion on Hybrids and believe that it is a crutch technology and not a complete solution to the impended oil crisis. These Scientist are not the ones paying for the Auto makers to Engineer, test, R&D, etc to make vehicles that have to be PROFITABLE!!!

Currently hybrids is a real world solution to help reduce oil consumption. There is a lot more potential with hybrids and it is good to see the auto companies continue to test other alternatives. Most of which is spurred by competition.

— Porschinator (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 4:44:48 PM | | Votes: 2   

they apparently asked the LES INFORMED chinese historians. the ships' logs and other records of the 1421-23 voyages were destroyed. yet knowledge of them were not completely wiped out. other scholars dug up corroborative information.

there were also OTHER chinese trips to n. america, as far back as ca 600 a.d.

look up the website for 1421. MODERN chinese scholars keep finding ever more evidence.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:22:25 AM | | Votes: 0   

LESS INFORMED

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:24:26 AM | | Votes: 0   

the average car buyer (which is a FAR larger universe than enthusiasts) likely doesn't give a s**t about what boy racer journos think. they simply buy the car that best meets THEIR needs and desires, at a price they think reasonable.

nor do they CARE what level of stress people in foreign countries endure. or don't.

the FINAL ARBITER of any car brands success, is THE MARKETPLACE.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:14:34 AM | | Votes: 1   

"European manufacturers have won every Formula One championship and every Le Mans race in the last fifteen years."


and before that, HONDA was dominating F1. after they got bored and quit, they sold some of their engine tech to Ferrari, who in turn dominated F1, spanking all the german entrants.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:29:51 AM | | Votes: 0