Implying that there is a partly-electric mode. Although, it's pretty silly to say "even though" here, because if it can deliver 100 mpg, then it really isn't in all-electric mode, and therefore it wouldn't need to be recharged every 40 miles. Unless, of course, the "all-electric mode" is a deceptive misnomer, and simply means that using maximum electric assistance can deliver 100 mpg.
All in all, though, it's kind of interesting to see this happening. Now Americans can still drive around their huge-ass military grade vehicles and be environmentally conscious too!
[citation][nom]jecht[/nom]Apparently, Now Americans can still drive around their huge-ass military grade vehicles and be environmentally conscious too![/citation]
Military grade, NOT. The H1 is military grade. The H2 is basically a Chevy Tahoe with a different body, and the H3 is basically a Chevy TrailBlazer again with a body change.
Yeah, I'm just having a hard time buying this one. I see how it could use electricity for initial acceleration so you could use a much smaller combustion engine which would operate at a higher efficiency while cruising and charging the battery. Still, the 100mpg claim seems a little ridiculous. I guess we'll see when it comes out.
How about, we are just a small footprint on the earth. Even with our great expansion of 200 years, we do not touch the vast majority of the land, almost none of the ocean and have absolutely negligible effects on the atmosphere. Plants change the earth in far more and in more pronounced ways than humans do.
Yes we are saving on gas consumption, but at what other price?
That is the best argument against almost every single green activity. If the activity requires a label of green, that means that it is inefficient and is trying to justify it's cost as the expense of purifying people's false guilt.
Lower power computer chips are not green, unless they are deliberatly made lower power at the expense of usability. The reasons for lower power chips is not electric bills for your home user, but the heat that they put into the house. For businesses, it can be the bills, which include cooling, electricty to use as well as compactness of data servers.
Other uses for low power chips are mobile devices. What is the purpose of a low power car? Speed bump? Money pit? Because they have yet to build a "green" car that in the end does not cost as much over it's life cycle as a normal car with the same capabilities. Now, I think electric vehicles have their place. Say you live away from a fuel pump, but have a windmill, solar power, deisel generator or some other form of electricity at your rural site, an electric vehicle would make sense. Similar to those two wheeled things (segway?) that people use in business settings, having a flamable liquid as well as the exhaust from an ICE is not good, but an electric version for short runs works perfect, and because you are in a setting with lots of wall outlets, it is convenient to refuel. These are not done for reasons of "Green" they are done because it is the best solution and most efficient use of resources. Outdoor (Segways) primarily use gasoline, it is the more efficient fuel source.
When people talk about green, what they are talking about is irresponsible and ineffecient uses of our resources, all done to purify your soul from the false guilt that they ply you with.
Lets say that the gasoline engine can charge the batteries in 1 hour (unrealistic but easy for math) and during that time the vehicle is getting 16mpg When the batteries are charged and the engine can shut off you are basically getting "infinity" miles per gallon as you are using no gasoline. Since doing averages with the number infinity is basically a giant guess they probably assume that it gets that mileage. I would bet that if you drive 20 miles each way to work then you could basically only use the engine 2 business days a week and 100mpg AVERAGE could be attained.. Electric, gas/electric charging, electric, etc...
[citation][nom]jecht[/nom]Apparently, it's actually a hybrid:Implying that there is a partly-electric mode. [/citation]
If it has an all-electric mode, and it can travel 40 miles on battery power alone, it's probably an E-REV like the Volt. If so, it is an electric vehicle, not a standard plug-in hybrid. This seems very likely based on what is said in the article, I have no idea why the author didn't attempt to clarify this. The engine is not coupled to the wheels at all in a vehicle like this, so its not a hybrid, there's no "electric assist". The electric motors are the only thing that drive the wheels. After the battery is depleted, the engine acts as a generator and kicks on and off as needed to extend your range indefinetely (as long as you keep putting gasoline in it). It does not recharge the battery as you drive, because the idea is to plug it in when you get home, and use the grid to recharge the battery.
So it sounds to me like a Hummer with the Volt's E-Flex drivetrain system. As to how they get the 100MPG figure, that's up to the EPA, and it probably involves a somewhat long trip that is done partway on battery power alone, and partway with the generator running (well kicks on and off, due to regenerative braking, and other factors). Once the battery power is depleted it probably still gets very good mileage. But the idea is that it is charged off the grid like all-electric vehicles, but when you deplete the battery, it can burn gasoline and is still fairly efficient.
[citation][nom]bradalan1[/nom]Lets say that the gasoline engine can charge the batteries in 1 hour[/citation]It doesn't work that way. The engine doesn't charge the batteries. That wouldn't make sense, since you'd be burning additional gasoline to charge the batteries up. Instead what it does is that once tha battery is "depleted" (30% ish), the engine (generator) kicks on and off as needed to power the electric motor and keep the battery at that level of power. It can do this all day long if it has to. Then when you get home with a depleted battery, you can charge it off the grid.
If it used the engine to recharge the battery (using more gasoline) while you drive, then you might get home with a full or nearly-full battery. Oops! Now I can't charge it off the grid. So to recap it doesn't recharge the battery as you drive - that would be silly. It keeps the car moving, and keeps the battery from getting deep-discharged (somewhere below 30% charge) which shortens battery life.
Since this is supposed to be coming from GM, I'll believe it when I see it. It is all marketing hype at this point. GM is trying to convince the world, in the midst of death throes, that it is doing something - just like it is trying to convince the world it is doing something when they say they will produce the Volt - another "I'll believe it when I see it" vaporware vehicle.
But - IMHO - they are trying to take advantage of the people for whom their vehicle makes their life and their image. I'm not buying it.
If they were to drastically reduce the weight of the existing H3, they could achieve a significant fraction of their target efficiency. They could do this if they made most of the body and frame out of carbon fiber. The structural integrity would be vastly improved with carbon fiber, too. However, they will not use carbon fiber because of the standard rant "its too expensive."
GM should stop trying to convince the world they are doing something good and actually do something good.
When you think about all these hybrids and other "green things," don't forget to include all the manufacturing that goes into producing these systems and batteries. Yes we are saving on gas consumption, but at what other price?
Ugh, it's that constant skepticism for proven things that holds back progress in this country. Take, for example, people who still believe "climate change" is some massive conspiracy or at least hype created by tens of thousands of scientists worldwide.
Look, I'd rather have people moving toward greener transportation with the mindset that they want to save money, instead of having a bunch of people skeptical about the technology, creating a slow adoption rate. Let's be realistic here. There are always trade offs to new technologies. The costs of finding new ways to reduce fuel consumption (via hybrids) at this point are far outweighed by the benefits. Batteries are the least of our concerns right now - their disposal is dealt with by the dealers.
1) The "costs" that are pointed out here (associated with manufacturing hybrid vehicles) only serve as a "straw man" that deflects effort and support away from where it should be put: toward technologies that ultimately minimize environmental costs. Hybrids are a stepping stone toward other alternative forms of powering transportation.
2) Do you really think that by producing hybrids, we're creating some serious battery epidemic due to that source alone? Come on, hybrids take up a TINY chunk of lithium battery sales worldwide. Don't blame it on hybrids please. If anything, bring up a new issue about batteries and how to recycle/cleanly dispose of/produce them.