🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:59:06 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

>> Quite a few people think it's worthwhile.  One of the conversion
>> sites:
>> <http://www.calcars.org/howtoget.html>
>> lists the costs of converting a Prius to various plug-in power options
>> at:
>> -  $6,000-10,000 for lead acid batteries
>> -  $8,000 for NiMH
>> - $10,000 and up for Li-Ion

>I wonder whether they all did a sober calculation including the rather 
>finite number of charge cycles. I've seen lots of enviro-fans get 
>carried away.

Probably just ballpark guesses.  Since such conversions are not in
quantity production, estimating costs is tricky.

>Well, here's the story I mentioned. He had to plunk down $32k but that 
>was with labor and not DYI:
>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6174

Nice article.  (I use a few Freewave data radios).  Did you notice the
update at the end of the article?
<http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2008/05/hymotion_launches_more_afforda.html>
<http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/products/N5_range_extender>
Hymotion plug in conversion for $10,000.  Add a 2nd battery pack (as
was done in original article), and it will be perhaps $15,000.  The
plug-in installation doesn't seem to be a major project and shouldn't
add much to the cost.  The site says it only takes "a few hours" to
install.  Anyway, it's much less than the original $32,000.  I guess
it costs $$$$ to be a pioneer.

>> Well, maybe a nuclear powered home water heater (and sterilizer).
>
>That would be nice. We (have to) use propane for water heating. Used to 
>be $35/mo. Now it's about $80/mo. I'd call that hyper-inflationary.

A friends son and former juvenile delinquent is building a hot water
boiling solar generator.  Central boiler on a 50ft Rohn 25 tower (so
the intensified sunlight doesn't cook the neighbors) with some
tracking mirrors.  So far, he hasn't produced much steam, but has
produced enough hot water to warrant serious consideration.  So,
visualize your hot water heater sitting on top of a pole or tower with
squeaky reflectors all over the roof.  It's not nuclear, but it's sure
better than $80/month.  Otherwise, look into tankless flash water
heaters.  They have a rather high initial cost, but pay for themselves
in about 2-3 years (depending on consumption) in reduced energy costs.

>> Let's play with the numbers.  A gas hog SUV will get about 14mpg.  An
>> economy mini-SUV will do about 28mpg.  If I drive 15,000 miles per
>> year, at $4/gallon for regular, the gas costs are:
>>   $4,300 /year for the 14mpg gas hog SUV
>>   $2,100 /year for the 28mpg econo SUV
>> That's $2,200/year difference.  If the economy SUV costs MORE than the
>> gas hog (due to dealer discounts and difference in demand), a customer
>> might be willing to pay the extra $2,100/year just to drive the bigger
>> SUV.  I've been looking for a new vehicle and found that I can buy a
>> 2003 gas hog SUV for about $5,000 and an economy mini-SUV for about
>> $12,000.  If I plan to keep it for about 3 years, I'll break even.  A
>> bit more than 3 years if I throw in time value of money.
 
>Ok, my calcs are way different. I tend to keep cars for much longer than 
>a decade. Heck, my trusty Mitsubishi econo SUV is 11 years old now and 
>looks like new. I could imagine driving it another 10 years easily. Same 
>for my wife's 1995 Toyota, looks like new, runs like new.

Same here.  My previous 1983 Dodge D50 diesel went for 285,000 miles
and 23 years.  I still have it an plan to rebuild it some day.
However, my numbers and bad guesses are an effort to explain why the
US manufactories continue to produce gas hogs.  The discounted gas
hogs continue to sell, while the overpriced economy cars just sit.  It
would be nice to be proven wrong and therefore restore my faith in the
GUM (great unwashed masses).

My current 15mpg gas hog 1993 Isuzu Trooper SUV was purchased for
about $2,000 with 150,000 miles.  Before that was a 14mpg 1970 Land
Rover Series IIa which I drove for about 135,000 miles.  That was
preceeded by a 9mpg 1972 International 1210 3/4t 4x4 monster service
truck, which I bought new and drove for 140,000 miles.  The plan was
to run the current Isuzu for "a few years" until I could afford
something better.  Well, I'm now looking.

"New Car every 10 years or Used Car every 5 years"?
<http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/new-car-every-10-years-or-used-car-every-5.htm>

>If I had my druthers I'd import one of those 16-horse Citroen 2CV I use 
>to drive back at the university. This one:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Citroen2cvtff.jpg

You don't drive a 2CV.  You wear it.

The modern versions of shrink to fit automobiles is the Smart Car:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo>
<http://www.smartusa.com>
About 50mpg for gas.  80mpg for the diesel hybrid version.  There's a
rather large waiting list for one.  I did a test drive in San Jose
about 2 weeks ago, but decided it wasn't for me.  It's like riding an
enclosed motorcycle.

>It always netted me around 50mpg on regular, didn't mind the transition 
>to unleaded and the engine was designed 70 (!) years ago. All they 
>really did later was up the horsepower once in a while.

That was before smog was an issue.  For example, when it was new, my
1983 Dodge D50 diesel got 35 mpg.  In the 1984 model, the same engine
was smogged to reduce soot emissions.  The gas mileage dropped to
about 28 mpg.  Kinda like dragging an anchor.  

If you need some entertainment value, try calculating the REDUCTION in
CO2 emissions that would be produced by removing all the smog junk
from infernal combustion engines.  The official rate is 8.8kg (19.4
lbs) of CO2 produced for each gallon of gasoline.  If we suddenly used
perhaps 25% less gasoline, that would correspond to a reduction of
about a 1/4th of the 5 metric tons of CO2 produced by each car
annually.
<http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm>

>> So, at this time, economy cars are in demand, yet I'm sure if I quiz
>> the local used car dealers, the discounted gas hogs are still selling
>> equally as well.

>Not out here. There is a reason why Toyota does so well and we can see 
>that reason in driveways every day when we take our dogs for a long 
>walk. Remember when the guys at Buick and other places scoffed and 
>laughed once they saw an ad for the VW Beetle? Pretty soon after they 
>were heard syaing things like "Oh s..t!". Anyhow, at the end of the day 
>the bottomline at the individual automaker speaks the truth. And that 
>truth is painfully clear.

In the 1970's I used to drive by the GM plant in Fremont CA and noted
the rather large number of imported cars in the employees parking lot.
In my recent search for a new vehicle, I ran a spreadsheet and graph
of the resale value history for various prospective vehicles. American
cars loose value much faster than imported cars.  My guess is that if
American manufacturers will ever learn to make a reliable automobile,
that actually has some backing and support by the factory, then
perhaps they have a chance.  Otherwise, I'm afraid that you're
generally correct.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558