Honda Civic GX: natural gas vehicle

[ZokesPro]

It's seems all well and good, but how much time does it take to fuel up one of these puppies?

[Dr Mordrid]

At the Meijers fueling stations I've seen them refuel in just a little longer than a gas fillup. The extra time was well within the variations I've seen in gasoline pumping speed from pump to pump.

[cjolley]

It's seems all well and good, but how much time does it take to fuel up one of these puppies?

Why would it take any extra time?

[ZokesPro]

At the Meijers fueling stations I've seen them refuel in just a little longer than a gas fillup. The extra time was well within the variations I've seen in gasoline pumping speed from pump to pump.

Ah ok, that's good to know.

Why would it take any extra time?

Cause it's gas and not a liquid? I don't know.

[Dr Mordrid]

Because in some tankage you're pumping compressed gas (CNG = gaseous methane) & not liquid (LNG = liquid methane or LPG = liquid propane).

Saw an interesting tidbit on Physorg.com to the effect that they're beginning to get a handle on the Mn4Ca cluster plants use in photosynthesis to split water into O2 + protons + electrons. If that research results in easy mass (or localized) production....

http://www.physorg.com/news82034817.html

[cjolley]

Because in some tankage you're pumping compressed gas (CNG) & not liquid (LPG).

Oh.
I ran a concrete pump in the late 70's that ran on the stuff.
It was liquid unless the holding tank was nearly empty.

[ZokesPro]

The only natural gas I know more about is MY natural gas.

[GT98]

The eco-ride of choice? Utter bollocks! Give me a Prius any day or even a modern diesel.

I thought I read some place that a Prius uses more energy then a full size SUV in the states.

Heres the article:

Press Release Source: CNW Marketing Research, Inc.

Hybrids Consume More Energy in Lifetime Than Chevrolet's Tahoe SUV
Friday March 31, 2:10 pm ET

BANDON, Ore., March 31 /PRNewswire/ -- As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions.

But many of those choices aren't actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck.

CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables.

To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven.

The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents.

While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles.

For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the "Dust to Dust" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.

One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.

And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced.

For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.

"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high- fuel-economy vehicles," says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.

"We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer's selection of transportation," says Spinella. "Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue."

The goal of overall worldwide energy conservation and the cost to society in general -- not just the auto buyer -- can often be better addressed by being aware of a car or truck's "dust to dust" energy requirements, he said.

This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. "We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions," Spinella said. "We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world."

http://www.thewatt.com/article-1070-nested-1-0.html

IMO Hybrids are overrated

[ZokesPro]

IMO Hybrids are overrated

Once the batteries are no longer good on hybrids, that in itself will create a lot of pollution.

[cjolley]

There is something very fishy about CNW Market Research.
Here is one of thier projects- a reproduction of a 56 Crown Vic:

http://ebiz.netopia.com/cnwmr/gtcv/

and some of those numbers are transparently ridiculous.

For example our Civic Hybrid was $23,000
A new Hummer H3 is $28,000 absolute minimum.
So completely discounting a lifetime of of 3x better gas mileage (at least) the Civic is going to cost more than $5,000 more to dispose of than the hummer?
That's loony.
They have an agenda and are being paid by someone to do a PR campaign.

PS Here is another one of their projects.
A V8 powered MGB, which I would love to have, but makes me even more suspicious in this context.

http://ebiz.netopia.com/cnwmr/mgv8/

[spadnos]

There is something very fishy about CNW Market Research.
Here is one of thier projects- a reproduction of a 56 Crown Vic:

http://ebiz.netopia.com/cnwmr/gtcv/

and some of those numbers are transparently ridiculous.

For example our Civic Hybrid was $23,000
A new Hummer H3 is $28,000 absolute minimum.
So completely discounting a lifetime of of 3x better gas mileage (at least) the Civic is going to cost more than $5,000 more to dispose of than the hummer?
That's loony.
They have an agenda and are being paid by someone to do a PR campaign.

PS Here is another one of their projects.
A V8 powered MGB, which I would love to have, but makes me even more suspicious in this context.
http://ebiz.netopia.com/cnwmr/mgv8/

Well, I agree that they're probably full of sh*t, but that's not the cost they're talking about. They're talking about "energy cost", not "cost to operate". (at least according to the snippet that GT98 posted. I didn't feel like reading any other drivel in the article).

What gets me is that they're saying that the total energy cost for a Hummer H3 is less than a conventional Accord. Taking a car that's 1/3 the weight, gets 3x the fuel economy, and uses the same basic technology (which equalizes the construction / disposal techniques), and determining that it costs more energy for its lifetime is patently ridiculous. Of course this doesn't take into account the lifetime of the vehicle, but I'd suspect that the Accord lasts at least as long as the H3, and the energy needed to make any replacement parts needed are much lower, since the parts are likely to use less material.

- Steve

[cjolley]

...
They're talking about "energy cost", not "cost to operate". ...

Well, the "energy cost" must be included somewhere in the "cost to operate"
Unless you know someone who is giving away free energy.
And they said the H3 had a lower energy cost than the Prius!

My point was that even giving them a silly huge amount of benifit of the doubt in the calculations, their conclusion was simply impossible.


Here is a question from a Q/A in an appendix (there are a LOT of appendixes to it) at the end of the article.
Oddly, it simply went unanswered.

Question: I’ve taken a look at some of the data posted on your website about total energy requirements for certain vehicles and some of it doesn’t quite make sense. Do you have more detailed data on the calculations used to create your tables? Unless I am missing something, it looks like your total energy cost is overestimated or includes hidden costs not known to most people.

Looking at your numbers for the Honda Civic Hybrid, for example, you claim a total energy cost of $3.238/mile. Assuming a very conservative life of 150,000 miles, then the total lifetime energy cost would be $485,700. Your table shows that a total of 28.95% (or $140,610) of this energy is allocated to Suppliers, Main Plant, Transport, and Distribution. This means that if Honda sells this vehicle new to the consumer for $25,000, then they are taking a loss of $115,610 per vehicle just on the energy alone, excluding any of their costs for labor and other non-energy costs. How can this be? Do you have any documentation that would make your calculations more clear?

...

[cjolley]

Well I've read some more and it's amazing.
Did you know that little Fords last far longer than little Toyotas?
Man, I didn't.
And that Cadillacs can be expected to out last Lexus's by nearly 100,000 miles?

[spadnos]

Well, the "energy cost" must be included somewhere in the "cost to operate"
Unless you know someone who is giving away free energy.
And they said the H3 had a lower energy cost than the Prius!

My point was that even giving them a silly huge amount of benifit of the doubt in the calculations, their conclusion was simply impossible.


Here is a question from a Q/A in an appendix (there are a LOT of appendixes to it) at the end of the article.
Oddly, it simply went unanswered.

Oh - I was just pointing out that they're talking about the energy to make the car as well as the energy to run it. I agree that it's all a bunch of malarkey though.

- Steve

[KvHagedorn]

The world's most eco-friendly car:



Runs downhill only, I'm afraid.