Nuclear cars and other frivolous ideas

a.k.a. Why Hybrids Are Bad For The Environment


Welcome (back)!

So here we are. Hydrogen, electric, and hybrid-powered vehicles are all the rage now, especially in heavily-pollution-controlled states (yes, California, I'm looking at you!). Along with these, the newest trend in internal-combustion engines is variable valve timing, along with smaller engines and steeper gearing. Let's take a look at these concepts one at a time.

Alternative Fuels

OK. You may have noticed on the roads of your local metropolis all these awesome 'alternative fuel' vehicles. Hydrogen- or electric-powered cars, propane-powered buses, E-85 vehicles of all sorts, and all the eco-conscious folks driving them. The good: lower per-mile emissions and lower refuel costs (especially for hybrid vehicles). The bad: larger production footprint (fitting a hydrogen or propane fuel cell is orders of magnitude more complex than fitting a fuel tank), bad mileage on the highways/expressways, and LONG time to reconcile fuel savings vs increased vehicle cost. Here's how it works out for Joe Consumer: Joe buys a Flex-Fuel or alternative fuel vehicle, at an additional premium ranging from $8000 to $12000. Since 'alternative fuels' don't have the infrastructure, Joe spends additional fuel to go to a station that has his fuel, and pays roughly 10% less than a full fill-up of gasoline. Doing the math, cost-effectiveness for this method takes roughly 10 years to make up the difference. This is not taking into account related maintenance costs (go ahead, figure out the cost to replace a hydrogen fuel cell or an electric cell, either of which are reported to be good for roughly 5 years). So based on fuel costs alone, it really isn't effective unless you own the vehicle for at least 15 years. Once you start including maintenance costs, and the fact that you really can't work on them yourself (or contract an independant mechanic), the problem gets exponentially worse.
All these problems pale in the grand scheme of the environment due to the fact that the carbon footprint of a hydrogen or electric car is (as I've said before) orders of magnitude greater than an equivelant IC vehicle. It would take, on average, 20 years of continuous use (with no part failure) to make the vehicles worthwhile. This is aside from the fact that the fuel production footprint is MUCH higher than an equivalent gasoline or diesel vehicle (refining pressurized hydrogen takes a LOT of electricity).

E-85 a.k.a. the Corn fuel

One of the new rages in alternative fuels is E-85. This fuel is, in truth, 85% ethanol, which is refined from plants, specifically corn. The other 15% of this fuel is generally Diesel 1 (car diesel). Herein lies the problem with E-85... namely the fact that E-85 has a lower specific heat (combustion potential) than refined gasoline. The difference works out to ~15%-20% lower fuel mileage than a similar IC engine. Once you add in the up-front premium (usually at least $4000), you're again looking at a LONG repayment period, especially last winter, when gasoline and E-85 had a seperation of less than 10% in price in the Midwest. Flex-fuel or E-85 retrofit kits CAN be cost-effective, due to the fact that E-85 has an octane rating of roughly 110 (compared to 91 to 93 octane for high-octane gasoline). They become especially effective for high-performance cars (think road-course or drag-race cars) and trucks where the higher octane rating is required, but mileage isn't as important. In the end though, E-85 for passenger cars and trucks isn't really cost-effective due to the fact that a) the mileage doesn't justify the cost, and b) Flex-fuel/E-85 vehicles don't have the infrastructure outside the Midwest. They generally burn cleaner, but you definitely pay for it in refill frequency.

Hybrid Vehicles

Then we have the gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles, especially cars like the Toyota Prius, the Chevrolet Aveo, and Honda Insight. All these vehicles suffer from the maintenance headaches associated with alternative-fuel vehicles (increased production footprint, higher fuel footprint, reduced infrastructure) and have a HUGE weakness: they have serious issues reaching highway/expressway speeds. For example, the Toyota Prius gets its best mileage in 'mixed driving', which is generally city, with speeds not to exceed 45mph, and relatively long periods of stop/idle. Once you get it on the highway, on the other hand, the 1.2L gasoline engine doesn't have the power (namely torque) to propel it to average highway speeds (65mph in IL)in a reasonable time (from stop to 65mph off of an on-ramp is unheard-of). A few hybrids break this mold by offering a larger gasoline engine, or steeper gearing between the engine and wheels inside the transmission or transaxle. The Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Hybrids, for example, use a larger gasoline engine, which translates to shorter 'gas on' times in-town, and enough 'oomph' to make highway cruising fun again. But once again, you're still looking at higher-upfront costs, and long repayment times, which are fine if you intend to keep the car for it's full service life, but not so great if you trade in your car every few years.

Internal Combustion/Diesel and Variable Valve Timing

The best current solution, in my mind, is some of the new gasoline and turbo-diesel offerings from manufacturers like Ford, VW, and a few Chevrolet cars and trucks. Let's look at the new TD's first. Diesel has been used to power passenger cars since at least the 70's (Mercedes, BMW, and VW pioneered some pretty advanced systems during this timeperiod). Diesel was cheaper than gasoline, due to the fact that it was less refined, and the parts used were pretty much run-of-the-mill (forged, or all-steel, pistons were still standard). It was really the best of all worlds. Add a turbocharger, and the diesel offerings could compete with the gasoline offerings. Not to mention, diesels, for all their sulfur emissions, could still knock down in excess of 30mpg. IN THE 70'S. This was during the tail-end of the HorsePower Wars, when 10-15mpg was normal, and no-one thought anything of it. Now, turbodiesel offerings from companys like VW can compete with even hybrid cars, putting up 40mpg out of a relatively stock motor, and are still fun to drive.
The other technology that's showing promise is Variable Valve Timing from companies like Ford. Different than Honda's VTEC, in that VVT is more concentrated on fuel economy/torque production than raising horsepower, VVT is engineered to actually change the physical alignment of the camshaft relative to the rotating assembly under different load conditions. The mechanics are involved, yes (I could spend a whole 'nother blog talking about them), but the system itself is pretty simple, relying on increasing oil pressure to force the cam do to what the engineers want it to do. Upshot? Lower consumption during low-load/idle conditions, a broader powerband (which is good for the passing lane), and higher peak horsepower and torque numbers.

Future Technology a.k.a. Where Do We Go From Here?

asdasd So thus far, I've managed to alienate the Prius crowd, lambast those working on alternative energy, and I generally sound like your typical gearhead. Typical, right? Not really. Do the alternative fuels/hybrid cars show promise? Absolutely. BUT, to be truly cost-effective, we need better and less expensive ways to manufacture the components, increased infrastructure, and a 'green lane' where today's hybrids can stay in their efficiency band. Now, the title of the article mentions 'nuclear cars', right? Nuclear power is one of the cleanest-burning, simplest forms of energy that exists today. 20,000 miles between 'fill-ups', no emissions to be worried about, and a literal 1 in 1,000,000 failure rate for the powerplant. If science can find a way to shrink a nuclear pile down to something that can fit in a car, we'd be looking at a completely new era in automobiling. Until then, here's a few things that we CAN look forward to:

Running on garbage - There is a functional proof-of-concept for a generator/incinerator that uses basically a lightning bolt to turn any material into an ultra-fine ash, and due to radiation collectors, actually produces more electricity than it uses. This could be the new age of power generation, since you can put literally any material into it's 'tank', and end up with a power surplus. Problem is, it's currently the size of a 72-passenger bus. Steps are being taken to shrink it down, maybe one day it will sit in your garage, and provide the power for your electric car, or even better, sit in the trunk of the car and provide power on demand.

Blowin' in the wind - renewable sources of energy (wind, water, and solar power) are taking leaps and bounds of progress from where they were even a few years ago. Increased efficiency solar cells may one day be the 'skin' of your new car, providing charge for an electric car, and while it's parked, high-efficency windmills would generate enough power to recharge your vehicle in case of bad weather.

The "Z" engine - and odd-ball concept, this motor intrinsically creates it's own pressurized atmosphere (think supercharger), creating a massively efficient combustion process. Proof-of-concepts exist... in 1-cylinder formats. The problem currently is tooling that will allow for the odd machining of 2 cylinder bores for every one combustion cylinder. It's worth taking a look at, but as of right now, it's just a concept.

Along with ever-improving techniques for current technologies (better and cheaper hydrogen and electric cells, more efficient components, lower replacement costs, and better infrastructure), alternative fuels are gaining ground. Maybe one day you will have the option of a hydrogen car that costs the same as an IC car, with a home-based hydrogen-seperation chamber that uses no more power than your water heater. We can only look ahead.