Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:21:52 GMT From: "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenospam.com> Subject: Re: SaabUSA Biopower survey
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinznospamcop.net> wrote in message news:441nmqF1p4ea3U1nospamvidual.net... > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:19:03 GMT, Walt Kienzle <wkienzlenospam.com> wrote: >> I had to laugh when I read this. > > Which part do you find funny, Walt? > The part I found funny because of its accuracy was snipped. Your statements here are accurate and reminded me of something I stated in my posting. You also snipped that part. You said: > Right. Because a solar car is practical, is that it? Tell me, what > power density can we expect from sunlight, please? Kindly compare this > to the surface area available, and the power needed to move a > street-legal car down the road. > > Or, I'll save you the math. There's not enough energy in sunlight, even > if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, to power a safe, streetable > car. It just isn't there. > > Plugin? Great, if you drive 10 miles a day. Next? Some of the people in this group think that the effective implementation of alternate fuels can whipped up in minutes, produced in volume, people will buy it and that it can make money. I commend Saab in coming out with the BioPower engine. Too little too late? Maybe Saab took this long so they could get it right - and then learn so they can come up with something better later. Cars that run on E-85 have been around in the US for at least 10 years and at least as long in parts of South America (specifically Brazil where Saab gained much of its knowledge for BioPower). The problem with the early implementations of E-85 was that fuel economy dropped 20% to 30% when compared to gasoline, based on USEPA estimates for certain Ford Taurus, Chrysler Sebring/Dodge Cirrus and various GM SUVs that have been available for several years with E-85 compatibility. For 2006, GM has a newer E-85 engine available in the 3.5L Impala/Monte Carlo that only has a 10% drop in fuel economy with E-85. This is an improvement, but not nearly as good as what Saab promises. I think I would happily pay the extra $1000 for BioPower if it delivers as advertised. I also agree that Hydrogen Fuel cell is pointless technology unless we can get the hydrogen out of water. Right now, we can't so there is no point in making those vehicles. If you happen to have such a vehicle, the most practical way to get hydrogen fuel is to extract it from natural gas. GM offered Cavaliers that run directly on Compressed Natural Gas until the Cavalier was discontinued last year. Honda still offers the Civic GX (http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Civic+GX) and sells a Natural Gas Refueling Appliance so owners can fuel up at home. For those that say "Too little, too late" I ask if you have purchased or at least investigated any of these new technologies. If you have, great. You are encouraging manufacturers to innovate and come up with new alternate fuel compatible products. When I started my investigation, I had to seek out the sales manager for corporate fleet vehicles. He was thrilled that I, as the general public, was asking about this technology. To all in this NG, ask yourself if you have been informing yourself and helping promote knowledge or just complaining that someone else hasn't done enough.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
