EPA says Series Hybrid Better

Coincidently, I was just wondering about this the other day.

I.e., instead of having the ICE turning the wheels directly, would it be more efficient to have it instead generate electrical power, which would power an electric motor that turns the wheels.

I have a hard time seeing how you don't end up losing energy in the process. Once again, the Toyota HSD just seems friggin' brilliant to me -- particularly the power splitter device.

 

Part of the elegance of the THS/THSII is that it can operate as a parallel or serial hybrid. It's a hybrid hybrid power train!

 

What the EPA describes sounds like how a diesel-electric locomotive works. There is no direct connection between the motor and the drive wheels, it's all electric.

 

there is always losses in either system. Sure you could probably get by with a smaller ICE but there is no free lunch in this world. That same small ICE coupled with a 15 or 20 speed sequential shifting transmission would probably move the car also. Could you sell them on a large scale? Toyota's hybrid system is probably about as good as it gets currently. Nissan and as Ford found out it's one of the best. Sure Ford's hybrid drive is not a Toyota but so close that to avoid lawsuits licenced some of the patents from Toyota. Nissan on the other hand bought the Toyota system. If they ever use it is another thing. Honda already uses the series system. Not like the EPA is describing but it's still a series system.

 

Actually, the Honda IMA is a pure parallel hybrid.

 

I want what EPA is smokin'. To get the same performance a series drive needs bigger motors and a bigger generator. Toyota's system lets the engine do some work directly and at the same time overcomes the problem of maximum RPM on an electric motor (1). It's brilliant.

(1) Fuel cell cars may need two motors and a power splitter for the same reason.

 

your correct I keep thinking that since the IMA is sandwitched between the ICE and the tranny it's in series but it's actually used in parallel with the ICE to boost output.

 

Frank...knowing all you know about how the EPA tests cars for gas mileage and you are surprised by this?? i'm not... its right in line with their backwards, behind the times thinking

of course, if Toyota had done this method, we would probably have a car that got better gas mileage. tops out at 41 mph and have great torque...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bookrats\";p=\"86175)</div>

Jeff, you are only about 100 years too late! The original 'hybrid cars' did just that, Google and see for yourself. Very interesting. I'm assuming Toyota engineers know about this too and opted for something better suited to today's drivers and technology.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000\";p=\"86749)</div>

Bruce -- you're right! I forgot that the Woods Electric Hybrid worked that way!

(No wait -- I'm wrong, my bad. The Woods worked like the Prius -- power could be either from electric or gasoline engine.)

 

we also have to remember that Toyota's power splitting device and snergy drive may not be all that easy to duplicate or better.

remember mercedes tried to do the same thing and was shocked to find out that their system got WORSE gas mileage than their regular car did.

so the math involved aint that easy to figure out. Toyota may already have the best algorithm possible

 

Hey, anyone know/have info on the magnetic clutch that this Woods Hybrid used back in 1917? It sounds fascinating... maybe the great-great-grand father of the power-split device. where's that family tree software?!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA\";p=\"86781)</div>

As I remember from the Wired article, a lot of the credit for the Prius' efficiency in this area lies in its software. Considered by many to be the "crown jewels" of the Prius.

 

Off this topic but the biodiesel potential is still interesting. In Washington State someone is busy building a plant to make biodiesel fuel.

Check out the thread about "Peak Oil" posted on this site.

 

Robert -- appreciate the pointer -- I hadn't heard about the Seattle Biodiesel plant.

Didn't find the thread you mentioned, but I did find a Seattle P-I article that discusses the plant (and does a nice primer on the subject.)

Like you, I find biodiesel extremely interesting. It's currently one of the most -- probably the most -- viable alternatives to fossil fuels for the future. (Particularly for cars.)

 

in the Peak Oil article Robert mentioned, it states that an unrealistically huge amount of farmland would be required and under todays technology bio diesel has a neg energy ratio...iow, it takes more energy to produce it then we can get out of it.

the ratio is getting better, but current technology would have to rely on a huge breakthrough... the fact that fertilizer is oil based just aggravates the situation.

another thing though... not a cure-all but more like the Prius...something to reduce consumption, would be using waste cooking oil and other products that would normally be filling up the landfill. this would produce double benefits. this is also energy intensive but only because of our garbage habits. if we were to put a little effort in to sorting our garbage, it would help immensely

 

Man, I get sick of hearing this BS that bio deisel is a net energy loss.
Those numbers are biased and outdated. They presume that farmers won't become more effiecient, that the resulting products will be shipped all over the country by outdated transportation methods, and the organic farming is an impossibility. The small cost of gas increase in the last 6 months has already changes the math so that it is not a net energy loss.

Why can't we use hybrid trucks for transport, or electric rail?

Also, farming in the last 50 years has been a push to bigger farms, bigger tractors, which is highly inefficient and oil intensive. Gas price was not a factor, only how much how fast. Why does a huge corn field need to be harvested in 1 day by a tractor the size of a house?
Can't a small electric machine on a track system do the job? You could have a solar array surrounded by a rail system that slowly guides the small electric tractor around a track as it plants, then weeds, then cultivates. All organic, no oil. It would be slower and the set up costs would be high, but it once set, it could be oil free crop production, with minimal human intervention.

Now rerun those numbers on biodeisel.
Even if biodeisel is a loss now, we should proceed with it so that the infrastructure is there when we really need it, 20, 10, or even 5 years from now. These and other renewable infrastructures need to be built NOW, while we do have somewhat affordable oil to do so. Not after we have a real problem and no oil to produce a solution.

As for the amount of land, supply and demand will take care of that.
When the cost per mile of driving a personal car is five times what it is now, fewer people will drive cars, opting to use public rails or bikes. Those that do will drive more efficient vehicles, and for shorter distances.
So yes, our current usage rates are not feasible in terms of acreage, but the acreage we do have, will dictate the amount of driving that is reasonable. Bad growing season? Prices go up and less people drive.