Car Review of the Honda Insight

[jfrazierjr]

Personally, I would LOVE to see the sodium borohydride solution be looked at a LOT closer. Bascially, you put a low flammable when compared to both gas and pure hydrogen (but it's more corrosive) solid fuel into your vehicle and you get out borax..... plain old laundry detergent... AND the waste borax can be recycled into more of the sodium borohydride fairly inexpensively in volume.

[tektonik]

I'm not sure, but when I was interning at the US Postal Service they were investing heavily into hydrogen-based cars. Their goal is to convert the entire fleet to hydrogen as soon as they can, so someone there must think it's the way to go vs. hybrid or electric.

IF they have hydrogen fuel ups at the distribution centers than they don't need to rely on market forces other than production of hydrogen.

I like how people say that hydrogen is the most abundant gas in the universe.... too bad i estimate that 90% of hydrogen is in stars... The most abundant gas is nitrogen on earth and it is inert.

I think the way to go is is upping R&D for finally nixing coal(clean coal? rofl) bio-corn, etc in favor of better solar, more nuclear fission and finally stabilizing nuclear fusion. Then we can work on electric cars because our source of electricity is no longer dirty... Then we need to worry about the Chinese and Indian pollution farms

[snikle]

Ouch:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2 ... ttery.html

Automakers are required to warranty batteries for 8 years and 80,000 miles nationwide

That's interesting to note, I did not know that.

And yes, I had totally forgotten to add in any costs for battery replacement.

[tektonik]

Ouch:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2 ... ttery.html

Automakers are required to warranty batteries for 8 years and 80,000 miles nationwide

That's interesting to note, I did not know that.

And yes, I had totally forgotten to add in any costs for battery replacement.

Given the length of the battery warranty, even if a hybrid owner does have to replace the battery pack after 80,000 or 150,000 miles, the cost is comparable to the cost of a transmission, which would likely have failed in other cars before that point. And hybrids have fewer other issues, which more makes up for any added battery cost.

edit: looks like you need to add maintenance cost to your normal car.

[Orchard]

I'm not sure, but when I was interning at the US Postal Service they were investing heavily into hydrogen-based cars. Their goal is to convert the entire fleet to hydrogen as soon as they can, so someone there must think it's the way to go vs. hybrid or electric.

IF they have hydrogen fuel ups at the distribution centers than they don't need to rely on market forces other than production of hydrogen.

I like how people say that hydrogen is the most abundant gas in the universe.... too bad i estimate that 90% of hydrogen is in stars... The most abundant gas is nitrogen on earth and it is inert.

I think the way to go is is upping R&D for finally nixing coal(clean coal? rofl) bio-corn, etc in favor of better solar, more nuclear fission and finally stabilizing nuclear fusion. Then we can work on electric cars because our source of electricity is no longer dirty... Then we need to worry about the Chinese and Indian pollution farms

Hey, I've got no delusions about the abundance of hydrogen...I'm just reporting what the USPS is doing--and it's very true that they can work outside the normal fuel distribution channels. But they are extremely serious when it comes to fuel efficiency. If they can save $.10/gal per vehicle, then a measure is worth it, since they have a MASSIVE fleet of vehicles (I believe it is the LARGEST single-entity owned fleet in the world, but don't hold me to that). They certainly put a LOT of miles on their fleet each day, and you'd be hard pressed to find a group that is more interested in saving money that way. So when they decide to put their eggs in a particular basket, it's hardly because they are just jumping on a bandwagon. The pressure for them to save money is enormous.

(I found this the other day: inflation adjusted, the price of stamps for is essentially unchanged since the early 1900s. The USPS MUST, by law, remain revenue neutral over a 3-year period, AND they receive exactly ZERO money from taxes. Considering that the mail gets where its going pretty well most of the time, its pretty good.)

All in all, I'm just in favor of greater efficiency--and if that means going to electric for a solid experience, fine, but remember, it needs to still allow for the same experience that I have now. And I need to be able to take a 3-day road trip if I so choose without massive issues. How will electric handle that?

[jfrazierjr]

I think the way to go is is upping R&D for finally nixing coal(clean coal? rofl) bio-corn, etc in favor of better solar, more nuclear fission and finally stabilizing nuclear fusion. Then we can work on electric cars because our source of electricity is no longer dirty... Then we need to worry about the Chinese and Indian pollution farms

I first want to say that I do NOT now, nor EVER want an electric car until and unless they can get up to the 1000+ (about 13 driving hours in a day, granted, I would want more!) miles on a single 6 or so hour charge. I am NOT going to go on a cross country trip and stop every 100 miles and wait 4 hours to charge the battery... For me, this is a line in the sand, no matter what other factors come into play.

I have no problem at all getting rid of coal if we can get cost vs price in line via nuclear. Solar just is not viable in the short term(nuclear IS AND HAS BEEN for 30+ years) since it only gives back around 400% energy return on investment(and as late as the early 90's you put more energy into production of a solar cell than the cell produced in it's 20-30 year lifetime.) Granted, I also don't have a problem with solar research or even deployment in some cases where it makes sense), but let's go with the proven technology in the short term (nuclear) while we work on increasing solar viability more. I

I am totally against removing corn as a grain crop used for food and diverting it to use for a bio fuel. This drives up the cost of the limited supply of corn, which while it is a renewable resource(which is good), is horribly dependent upon the weather and other environmental conditions that can ruin great swaths of crops during a year. Now, if we were to reduce crop planting of other plants to replace the supply increase, that's not quite as bad, but remember than crops really need to be rotated to maintain proper soil conditions, so you can't grow corn in the same fields 100 years in a row and expect the yield to remain steady.

For me, fields of solar panels in and around a city are not worth the energy gain vs land use at the current moment and wind is even worse (with the noise as well as size of the farms). For me, solar can only be an effective choice for communities where the citizens want it and dedicate land for it (I am thinking in terms of a housing development) or better yet, solar shingles which generally produce around 80+% of many household's yearly energy needs. This will suck in places where it is overcast most of the time(Seattle???) and won't work very well parts of the year in the extreme northerly or southerly locations.

[Orchard]

Personally, I would LOVE to see the sodium borohydride solution be looked at a LOT closer. Bascially, you put a low flammable when compared to both gas and pure hydrogen (but it's more corrosive) solid fuel into your vehicle and you get out borax..... plain old laundry detergent... AND the waste borax can be recycled into more of the sodium borohydride fairly inexpensively in volume.

From the wikipedia page on borohydride fuel cells, it looks promising, but I'm skeptical about going from $50/kg to $1/kg even with a conversion to mass production. If it works, then great, but I suspect this is a 20-years down the road type tech.

The biggest problem with any tech related to cars is that it always seems to be 20-30 years down the road, and most people aren't looking that far ahead. Consumers just want to get around safely and cheaply, while the enviro-groups want null emissions yesterday, and the government wants what it always wants: money. Go figure.

[jfrazierjr]

Consumers just want to get around safely and cheaply, while the enviro-groups want null emissions yesterday, and the government wants what it always wants: money. Go figure.

Mexican standoff..... The problem is when someone in government want to take sides and rob one group to pay another so to speak...

[Cweord]

The problem with hydrogen is the large amout of power it takes to seperate it from water, the low emisions you get in the car are far out done by the powerstation required to split water is any significant quantity. Do do it cleanly would requrire several new nuclear power stations, and the second you mention that word the same beardies that are complaining about emmisions start complaining about the risk of nuclear power.

Several of the developments made recenly in batteries may well mean that electric cars are practical in 5 - 10 years. good battery capacity and a GM project (involving various others) is working on a high power connector for gas stations, so your charge takes about 5 mins.

500+ miles for 5 mins I can live with.

The reviewer is an english reporter called Jeremy Clarkson, who at onepoint did dislike the volvo he was driving so much he drove it in to a tree. with another he didn't like he hooked it up to a model of a trebuche and catapulted it.

Here's a link to the weekly TV show he (and 2 others) hosts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/

He is very funny and the three of them make a great team.

[jfrazierjr]

From the wikipedia page on borohydride fuel cells, it looks promising, but I'm skeptical about going from $50/kg to $1/kg even with a conversion to mass production. If it works, then great, but I suspect this is a 20-years down the road type tech.

Yea, I agree.... but the real question that I have not really seen answered anywhere is the mileage cost per KG. If it were 10 miles per kg, then yea... that would kind of suck... it it were 300 miles per kg, then it would not be that far out of the bounds of current ICE engines and that would only get better as the price per unit goes down.

[jfrazierjr]

500+ miles for 5 mins I can live with.

See, I can get behind something like that. Even on a long trip, I have to stop for a bio break every 200 miles or so at the very least and each stop would be perhaps 5-10 minutes, longer if we are taking a food break and sitting down to eat(which would conveniently be around every 4-6 hours or so and thus 300-500 miles).

[Orchard]

500+ miles for 5 mins I can live with.

See, I can get behind something like that. Even on a long trip, I have to stop for a bio break every 200 miles or so at the very least and each stop would be perhaps 5-10 minutes, longer if we are taking a food break and sitting down to eat(which would conveniently be around every 4-6 hours or so and thus 300-500 miles).

I could live with that...as long as the recharge doesn't cost insane amounts compared to using the same amount of electricity at my house...

But yeah, the need really is to be able to take spontaneous road trips without being worried about running out of fuel part-way to your destination. ALL transportation MUST be able to accommodate that to some degree.

[tektonik]

Well if we start using this wireless electricity there maybe no limits if major highways were lined with it to recharge your car as you go. Maybe 50 years from now lol

[snikle]

Hey now, Telsa almost proved that wireless electricity is possible on a large scale, someday we will find out he was right!

[tektonik]

in case you missed the memo

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/132/brilliant.html