[Graeme]

The 11,516 MPG Car Zips Past Fuel Efficiency Records

Earlier today, President Obama called on American automakers to increase fuel efficiency in the wake of the Gulf Oil spill, particularly for trucks. Though their creation is about the furthest thing from a big rig we can imagine — it looks more like some sort of hover vehicle — they might want to look to this hydrogen-powered car by France’s Team Polyjoule. The unnamed prototype has by far the highest fuel efficiency ever recorded — 4,896 kilometers per liter, or 11,516 MPG.

geekosystem

[timmac]

Well let me have a say here, we have had test cars like this for a while, 9000 mpg in 2005, electric cars getting 100 mile range over 50 years ago and so on, but year after year when we drive by the new car dealers its all the same, no real big increase in mpg, just a little here and there..

That brings me to this, why is Shell and Mobile always has their hand in these so called high mpg test cars and never is there tech ever brought over to the real world, did anyone see the movie who killed the electric car, in that movie they showed that Mobile bought out a high tech battery company that said could produce 30 percent more power over other batts, but where are those batts ??, where is that 100 mpg car ??..

Same old Shit, to keep us thinking there will be hope but it never gets here..

[ to answer my own question why does Shell and Mobile have their hands in these high mpg cars and batteries, to keep them away from you and me ]

You can call me Tinny thats OK, but the proof is right in front of you, Open Your Eyes..

Wake Up....

[Graeme]

Yes, PO is not a problem if we run fuel-efficient cars/trucks. The problem is apathy and corruption. Now finally this is beginning to change.

[diemos]

Lol.

To get that high an efficiency the key is minimizing air drag.

1 gallon [US] of automotive gas is 1.31e8 Newton-meters of energy.

11,516 miles = 1.85e7 meters

so to achieve this the car can have a maximum drag of 7 Newtons which is equivalent to 0.7 kilograms-force.

Air drag is proportional to the square of the velocity. So to achieve this efficiency you need a "vehicle" that is basically an aerodynamic coffin that can't go much above 20km/hr.

At 60km/hr your efficiency drops by a factor of 9 to 1,200 MPG.

Increase the cross sectional area by a factor of 10 to make it more like a useable vehicle and now you have 120mpg.

I don't think this is gonna save BAU.

[Graeme]

Well, I've got news for you. Politicians are not the only ones fighting back against corruption in the ff fuel industry. Scientists are too.

As oceans get warmer, Congress is facing heat

On the same day that climate researchers reported strong new evidence that the temperatures of the world's oceans are on the rise, teams of America's leading scientists Wednesday called on Congress to face the urgent problem of global warming by raising the cost of greenhouse gas emissions to U.S. industry.

The reality of the planet's changing climate was underscored by a new report on ocean temperatures that combined years of conflicting data into what researchers say is a realistic picture of ocean warming and the National Academy of Sciences, which released three major reports on the science behind the climate problem and the urgency with which it must be faced.

There is no longer any doubt that global warming is real, said Pamela A. Matson, dean of the School of Earth Sciences at Stanford, who led one of five panels organized at Congress' request to assess the reality and urgency of global warming and propose measures to cope with it.

"Climate change is occurring," Matson said. "The Earth is warming, concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are clear fingerprints that link these warming effects to human activity."
End business as usual

The three academy reports issued Wednesday totaled more than 860 pages and represent a dramatic shift from the organization's cautious approach to climate change in the past. The academy scientists warned that "business as usual" is no longer possible for American industry and called on Congress to quickly enact a "carbon pricing system" to curb the rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2008, American industries emitted the equivalent of 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the academy experts noted. They suggested that the nation adopt a "greenhouse budget" of permitted carbon emissions that would range from 170 billion to 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide for the period from 2012 to 2050, saying it is a "reasonable goal." If greenhouse gas emissions continue at the 2008 level, the scientists warned, the budget would be exceeded well before 2050.

sfgate

[timmac]

Increase the cross sectional area by a factor of 10 to make it more like a useable vehicle and now you have 120mpg.I don't think this is gonna save BAU.

Bingo.. That is what we should have had long ago was 100 mpg or better, than PO would have been put off for at least another 20 years. bring out high mpg today might not stop all problems today but would sure help, technology has been there to have twice the mpg we get today in America but the forces that be have keep that at bay...

[Windmills]

Yes, simple market forces. Elaborate conspiracies need not apply.

If American consumers' first priority in purchasing a car was always fuel economy, we'd be leading the world in economical cars. As long as fuel prices are relatively cheap or people can adapt to them, Americans will continue to buy as much car as they can get for their dollar. They'll want it loaded with as many features and conveniences as possible, and as much power, status, style, uniqueness, and sex-appeal as they can afford, and that almost always means lower MPG.

There wasn't anyone holding a gun to my head and forcing me to walk past more fuel efficient vehicles on the car lots I've visited. Maybe I just haven't purchased that many vehicles in my life to get a good statistical sample. Perhaps because, at a bespectaled 5'4" and 130 pounds, I'm such an all-out badass that the assault-rifle armed anti-fuel economy thugs that patrol the car lots feared me so much that they all hid behind Hummers. Yeah, that must be it. That's what is keeping Americans from buying more economical cars. Car dealership alien gangsters.

[timmac]

Yes, simple market forces. Elaborate conspiracies need not apply.

If American consumers' first priority in purchasing a car was always fuel economy, we'd be leading the world in economical cars. As long as fuel prices are relatively cheap or people can adapt to them, Americans will continue to buy as much car as they can get for their dollar. They'll want it loaded with as many features and conveniences as possible, and as much power, status, style, uniqueness, and sex-appeal as they can afford, and that almost always means lower MPG.

Yes you are right by only half,, when in the past [not the last 5 years] when you went to buy a new car or truck the incentive to by a suv or a large car was always strong and those small compact was always cheap looking and not so great on mpg any ways, the other half of the problem was at the White House where Big Oil was always in all of our politicians pockets and at one time Moblie oil owned a lot of GM stock.
I think you know where I am going with this and yes government never mandated higher fuel mileage and even rings true today, high mpg cars and trucks could have been available 20 years ago but no incentive from the government or big 3 to make them and all we got stuck with was large cars or trucks unless you jumped ship and bought foreign cars, or that so ever properly Chevy Shitvette [the 4 cly one]

So yes there has been a conspiracy in some way to keep low mpg autos/trucks on the road..

Open your eyes...

[ki11ercane]

Increase the cross sectional area by a factor of 10 to make it more like a useable vehicle and now you have 120mpg.I don't think this is gonna save BAU.

Bingo.. That is what we should have had long ago was 100 mpg or better, than PO would have been put off for at least another 20 years. bring out high mpg today might not stop all problems today but would sure help, technology has been there to have twice the mpg we get today in America but the forces that be have keep that at bay...

Vehicle use (ie. driving) "globally" accounts for 3% of the total use of fossil fuels. The other 97% is used in manufacturing, transport of goods and people (other than cars and trucks) and the production of electricity and converting one energy into another. (coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear from the extraction process to the use of whatever fossil fuel you're using)

Your car or truck would have to have 21,000 MPG to make the kinds of differences we would need to see to mitigate Peak Oil for 20 years.

Us driving our automobiles is not the problem. The "problem" itself is social and intertwines our planet's economy, population, and the direction society has taken. It's not as simple as having a car go 100MPG vs. 35MPG.

[Graeme]

In the US, transportation accounts for a much larger portion of petroleum use according to this information.



BTS

[Windmills]

Open your eyes...

The forces you describe would be feeble in comparison to the market forces generated by consumers constantly demanding high gas mileage in their vehicles decade after decade. I'm quite aware of the things you mention, but nothing more is required to explain this situation than rampant consumer apathy and narcissism. The people got exactly the type of car market that the majority wanted and for which they were willing to pay. You overestimate how many people actually give a crap when it comes to putting their money down. Opinion polls about how people would ideally like the world to be might say one thing, but sales numbers will tell you the real story. Every single person in this country was free to make their choice, and the cars we have today tell you exactly how each person decided. Your conspiracy forces couldn't stop the crash in truck and SUV sales when gas prices rose, and they won't stop a reversal in trends when they experience a short term decline.

[Frank]

Vehicle use (ie. driving) "globally" accounts for 3% of the total use of fossil fuels. The other 97% is used in manufacturing, transport of goods and people (other than cars and trucks) and the production of electricity and converting one energy into another. (coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear from the extraction process to the use of whatever fossil fuel you're using)

Where did you get this number? It does not seem reasonable to me.

thanks

[OilRefugee]

In the US, transportation accounts for a much larger portion of petroleum use according to this information.



BTS

A quick calculation would seem to indicate that in the US alone we use some 4% of total energy use in transporting ourselves around. The rest of the worlds personal transport would just be additive to that number so the original 3% number has to be too low. It could easily be double or triple the number claimed I bet.

[Pops]

Sure, oil is a primarily a transport fuel but it's silly to make such distinctions. Save oil by driving an EV and you just burn coal instead.

The problem isn't the car, it's the driver and his need to drive because of his past decisions. Fuel use/ mile driven really doesn't change all that much regardless of fuel price, CAFE standards, etc does it? Until oil went over $80 (and caused a drop/and the recession kicked in) miles driven just kept right on increasing:


Bigger Chart

The best thing that could happen, realistically, is oil between $80 and $100, but increasing a few % each year. Consumers then get the idea and move a little closer to work, force their neighborhoods to build sidewalks and a place to play soccer, the strip center to have a few actual stores instead of nail and tanning parlors and they wouldn't need to drive so much.

[Graeme]

Even more good ideas from Pops! I haven't read a great deal of your posts, Pops, but if they are like this then I'm a fan!

[Revi]

We have been driving a car that gets over 200 mpg equivalent for three years. What's the problem? It's time to dump the big vehicles (unless you are a farmer, fisherman or logger) and move into walkable neighborhoods. We can all get around in NEV's and ride the bus.

www.sunnev.com

[Frank]

A revenue-neutral carbon tax is designed to motivate people to make wiser choices for their personal transportation. It's nice to think that everyone should live in a walkable neighborhood (and I agree that should be the goal), but the reality is that a huge percentage of our population does not, and cannot in the near-term, live in such circumstances. We need to get better - now.

The deal with electric cars is that they are 4-5X more efficient than petroleum powered vehicles. Even if the electricity comes from coal it pollutes less than burning petroleum directly. And the grid will only get cleaner over time. Electrifying transportation is the only strategy I can think of that can/will work in the short term to burn less fossil fuels.

Revi, with all respect, you are driving a NEV (neighborhood electric vehicle) which can work for some people in some circumstances, but the vast majority of people won't accept this solution (I drive a converted Toyota pickup BTW). We need the major manufacturers to step-up with EV solutions that are practical. A carbon tax will reinforce this change, but it has to happen quickly. And it has to start slow than get bigger, the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. People won't give up their trucks and SUV's until they have no choice.

[OilRefugee]

We need the major manufacturers to step-up with EV solutions that are practical.

Well, if that is all that is required, I'd say we are good to go?

[Pops]

We need to get better - now.

The deal with electric cars is that they are 4-5X more efficient than petroleum powered vehicles.

I looked around a little and can't find numbers to back that up. I found some that say hybrids are twice as efficient (BTU-wise) but any new car is going to be more efficient than a 10 year old car if the CAFE standards are enforced.

But just because a new car can be more efficient doesn't mean the "average" car on the road is going to get more efficient anytime soon - someone needs to be able to purchase them and retire the old boat and it sounds like we are about out of that game.

Want to get better - now? Designate more carpool-only lanes and give employers an incentive to hire telecommuters.