<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Hi David, Dan,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Thanks for speaking up, more people need to do that. I
have heard other information than what you provided in your letter on a number
of occasions. Can you provide references for the data you based your
statements on?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>‘</span>Hybrids use internal combustion engines no more
energy-efficient than the engines on non-hybrids.’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>It was my understanding that hybrid motors run in their
efficient mode for a much larger portion of their operating time than
non-hybrid motors which is where they get their efficiency. See the
difference between running a Atkinson motor <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle</a>
vs. a standard internal combustion motor <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle</a>.
Don’t forget the energy savings from regenerative breaking.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>‘</span>They also waste a lot of energy converting the
gasoline motor power to electricity, charging a battery, and then withdrawing
energy from the battery’. Ok, this was an eye opener for me.
What I found was ‘<span style='color:black'>The coulometric charging
efficiency of nickel metal hydride batteries is typically 66%, meaning that you
must put 150 amp hours into the battery for every 100 amp hours you get out.’.
I know that electric motors and generators as well as batteries have seen huge
improvements in efficiency over the last 20 years, so I assume you are right in
that there is a major power loss here. Anyone else have comments?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>‘</span>As for trains vs. airplanes, it turns out that
they are about equally energy efficient’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>As Samuel Clements noted there are three types of
lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Depending on your criteria
you can make statistics for just about any argument. In what way are
planes as efficient as trains?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Dan, ‘Toyota Prius … push the air past the front
of the vehicle … and it has one of the largest drags thereof’.
What I find is: ‘Wind resistance is reduced by a <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients"
title="Automobile drag coefficients">drag coefficient</a> of 0.26’ which
is lower than most other vehicles.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Now if you were talking about the environmental impact of
the manufacturing and disposal of the batteries compared to the pollution saved
in running the Prius.… <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28electricity%29#Environmental_concerns">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28electricity%29#Environmental_concerns</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>And don’t forget: ‘Advocates for the blind warn
that the Prius is so quiet it could be hazardous to blind pedestrians and
others accustomed to engine noise to warn of a nearby vehicle’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>In the end I get twice the mileage from our Prius as from my
car, and nearly 10 times as from my truck. No matter how ‘false’
the energy savings is in the Prius it seems to be working.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Matt<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
sgvlug-bounces@sgvlug.net [mailto:sgvlug-bounces@sgvlug.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dan
Borne<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:12 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> SGVLUG Discussion List.<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [SGVLUG] [OT]Hybrids and trains (was fuel prices and the
dollar)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I applaud your letter, I think
it is a good thing to say especially since the only thing I hear about
conservation of any sort is people driving a Toyota Prius (which is a quite
flawed method of "conservation" when one considers that around 70% of
the energy a car produces is used to push the air past the front of the vehicle
and it has one of the largest drags thereof) . I am still confused thought how
a plane is more efficient than a train; doesn't a jet engine burn 10, 11
gallons of fuel a second.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>2008/5/13 David Lawyer <<a href="mailto:dave@lafn.org">dave@lafn.org</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I've submitting the following letter to the editor of the LA
times.<br>
Not sure they will print it.<br>
David Lawyer<br>
=======================================================================<br>
Re: "Civilization's last chance", May 11<br>
<br>
The implication that hybrid autos and trains (instead of airplanes)<br>
could make much of a difference in global warming is simply wrong.<br>
<br>
Hybrids use internal combustion engines no more energy-efficient than<br>
the engines on non-hybrids. They also waste a lot of energy converting<br>
the gasoline motor power to electricity, charging a battery, and then<br>
withdrawing energy from the battery to power an electric motor to move<br>
the car. All this energy conversion wastes energy and adds to the<br>
weight of the car. The reason hybrids get good mileage is not because<br>
they are inherently efficient, but because people don't know how to<br>
efficiently drive a non-hybrid and because laws and car design, etc.,<br>
impede one from efficiently driving it.<br>
<br>
To efficiently drive a non-hybrid, one needs to get a "brake specific<br>
fuel consumption map" for their engine, which the auto companies don't<br>
supply. Then use the map to apply the optimal amount of torque at any<br>
given rpm, but autos have no torque meter. Efficient driving will<br>
mean doing a lot of coasting but coasting in neutral is illegal.<br>
<br>
As for trains vs. airplanes, it turns out that they are about equally<br>
energy efficient, and we don't save energy by taking the train. See<br>
the U.S. Dept. of Energy's "Transportation Energy Data Book": edition<br>
26, table 2.14, and account for the fact that about 15% of fuel for<br>
passenger aircraft goes to transport freight in the cargo hold. For<br>
details see my "Fuel-Efficiency of Travel in the 20th Century"<br>
<a href="http://www.lafn.org/%7Edave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-3.html#air_eff"
target="_blank">http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-3.html#air_eff</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>