Google puts its weight behind Hybrids

JHMEG

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/googles-new-search-engine--a-hybrid-car-705979.html

http://www.google.org/recharge/

layke

I wonder will it take off though, I can see the car itself being a big hit but I doubt we here in Ireland will benefit from it in the near future.

JHMEG

Pretty much everything Google touches turns to gold, so I'd say the chances of success are pretty good...

Cianos

Good to see...hopefully this will take off.

peasant

Sorry, but I can't see any sense in that at all.

You take the normal hybrid, whip out the engine, beef up the batteries and turn it into an electric powered vehicle ...what's new about that?

This whole "feeding back into the grid" idea is pants as well ...the car will either be in use during peak power demand (thus not availble to feed back) or else it will be empty once you want to use it.

If you want to use electricity powered, grid fed vehicles, the Prius is the wrong choice anyway ...way to big and heavy and nowhere near efficient enough.

it would have to be something like this:





http://www.twike.com/

to make it work

DonJose

I don't understand the logic behind plug-in cars. The electricity needed to recharge the battery is most likely generated in a fuel burning electricity station. Hot many gallons of oil are needed to generate the electricity needed to recharge these batteries?

JHMEG

Read the freakin article!:D

"When Google's initial fleet of hybrids is plugged in, it will be charged by Google's new 1.6-megawatt solar power facility - the largest such system in the United States"

It wouldn't be a hybrid if it didn't have a petrol engine. They're leaving that in, as a backup.

And as the article states, the surplus electricity goes back into the grid.

None of this is new.. people in the US have been doing this for years with EVs and Hybrids. What's new is that a massive company, that everyone wants to emulate, is doing it.

peasant

JHMEG wrote:

Read the freakin article!:D

"When Google's initial fleet of hybrids is plugged in, it will be charged by Google's new 1.6-megawatt solar power facility - the largest such system in the United States"

Fine for California and fine for Google who have such a facility.
Totally inefficient for the average home user (ever look a the energy balance of solar cells / manufacture vs output/effiency ...especially in non-Californinian climates?)

It wouldn't be a hybrid if it didn't have a petrol engine. They're leaving that in, as a backup.

So they're making the Prius even heavier (and therefore less efficient) than it already is ...great concept.

And as the article states, the surplus electricity goes back into the grid.

Which will mostly be any excess from the solar power plant ...because using the Prius as a mobile grid backup is just daft. There is also the issue of charge control. These batteries are very sensitive to deep discharges and have to be cycled very carefully. The actual amount of energy that could be fed into the grid within parameters would be fairly small.

None of this is new.. people in the US have been doing this for years with EVs and Hybrids.

Exactly.

But just because google is now implementing this, doesn't mean that it is a well thought out concept.
Had they used a purpose built EV or a human power hybrid like in my link above ...yes, that would make sense.

Hyping up the Prius even more doesn't.

No offence to you and your beloved vehicle: On the bottom line, inluding all the energy cost that goes into the batteries and their disposal at the end of life etc a Prius is only marginally more efficient than any "normal" car, if at all.
(you know yourself how many opposing figures are doing the rounds on that subject)

If Google had wanted to be "radical" they could have done a lot better.

IMO they've just gone "Hollywood" but not "green", if you know what I mean

JHMEG

peasant wrote:

Fine for California and fine for Google who have such a facility.
Totally inefficient for the average home user (ever look a the energy balance of solar cells / manufacture vs output/effiency ...especially in non-Californinian climates?)

Yeah... but... that's where they're doing it!

peasant wrote:

So they're making the Prius even heavier (and therefore less efficient) than it already is ...great concept.

How does going from 45mpg to 70mpg make them less efficient???!

peasant wrote:

Which will mostly be any excess from the solar power plant ...because using the Prius as a mobile grid backup is just daft. There is also the issue of charge control. These batteries are very sensitive to deep discharges and have to be cycled very carefully. The actual amount of energy that could be fed into the grid within parameters would be fairly small.

You're missing the point. The mobile bit is irrelevant. The excess solar energy is store in batteries to be fed into the grid when needed. The fact that the batteries are in cars doesn't matter...

peasant wrote:

On the bottom line, inluding all the energy cost that goes into the batteries and their disposal at the end of life etc a Prius is only marginally more efficient than any "normal" car, if at all.
(you know yourself how many opposing figures are doing the rounds on that subject)

One report dissed hybrids (that dust to dust thing), which has been dismissed as it's bordering on fiction. All the hippy groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace etc, all support Hybrids.

peasant wrote:

If Google had wanted to be "radical" they could have done a lot better.

Well, they haven't been wrong yet.

peasant

JHMEG wrote:

You're missing the point. The mobile bit is irrelevant. The excess solar energy is store in batteries to be fed into the grid when needed. The fact that the batteries are in cars doesn't matter...

No, i'm sorry ..you're missing the point, and so is Google.

Batteries have a lifecycle. The more often you discharge them, the shorter they last. Acting as backup for "the grid" wouldn't do them any good. any stored energy should be used for transport, nothing else.That's point number one.

Batteries don't hold charge for free, there are losses. In order to get amount X out, you have to put in X + Y. Point two.

But point three is the most important of them all. The vehicle is charged in order to run "green" on electricity. So what are you going to do in the evening when you climb into your Prius only to find the "the grid" sucked it empty during the day to fill some gaping hole somewhere?
Drive it home on petrol? Where's the sense in that? Would be much more efficient to just feed Google's solar power straight into the grid.

JHMEG

peasant wrote:

No, i'm sorry ..you're missing the point, and so is Google.

Batteries have a lifecycle. The more often you discharge them, the shorter they last. Acting as backup for "the grid" wouldn't do them any good. any stored energy should be used for transport, nothing else.That's point number one.

Batteries don't hold charge for free, there are losses. In order to get amount X out, you have to put in X + Y. Point two.

But point three is the most important of them all. The vehicle is charged in order to run "green" on electricity. So what are you going to do in the evening when you climb into your Prius only to find the "the grid" sucked it empty during the day to fill some gaping hole somewhere?
Drive it home on petrol? Where's the sense in that? Would be much more efficient to just feed Google's solar power straight into the grid.

The article says it's all about smart distribution.

Imaginary scenario: very hot day. All the Priuses are charged bt 11am. At midday the heat is unbearable and everyone starts to turn on aircon in their homes/offices etc. Power now comes from the Priuses (and the solar panels) into the grid to cope with the extra demand. 4pm, people turn down the aircon, and once again the surplus goes into the Priuses, which can charge until home-time, or later.

Point 1. Yes, they have a lifecycle. But how else do you store electricity?
Point 2. Yes they are not 100% efficient. But hey, the electricity is free in the first place.
Point 3. peasant alone is unlikely to be smarter than the combined brains at google.:D

E92

I love the way in order to boost supposedly greener vehicles that we have to use very un-green electricity, although to be fair Google are doing it by solar power,but nevertheless thats all well and good but for the rest of us who dont have solar power or renewable power? And did anyone else notice that Google have just admitted that the Prius is a whopping 32% LESS efficient that Toyota claims to be, at 45 mpg, compared to Toyotas claim of 65.7? 45 mpg can be bettered by some ordinary petrol cars, and loads of Diesel cars.

As for the 'hippie' movements / eco mentalist movements they dont always know what they are talking about, remember they want to stop any new roads being built even though everybody knows that being stuck in a traffic jam is about the least enviornmentally friendly thing possible to do with a car. They blame the car for all the worlds woes with the enviornment, the Greenie Groups cant bear the idea of using Nuclear Fuel, even though nuclear Fuel is extremely Enviornmentally friendly.

To add insult to the injury the EU told all the car companies that they had better do something fast about pedestrian safety, which means that cars now weigh a heck of a lot more, not very enviornmentally friendly, and then give out to car companies for not meeting the target of an average of 140 g/km by next year.

Of course if the EU have buggered off and stopped imposing this rule and that rule which piled on the weight of a car, which in turn meant that a car needed a bigger engine just to provide the same performance that a smaller engined car once would have(and therefore increase fuel consumption) they might actually have done it.

peasant

JHMEG wrote:

Point 1. Yes, they have a lifecycle. But how else do you store electricity?
Point 2. Yes they are not 100% efficient. But hey, the electricity is free in the first place.
Point 3. peasant alone is unlikely to be smarter than the combined brains at google.:D

1. not in a battery that was designed for something else
2. No it's not ...solar panels, cost, efficiency factor, resources and energy used during manufacture?
3. Who is Google ??

Seriously ...they're doing it arseways.
Google should feed their solar power permanently into the grid. It being solar power, it' availability would closely match the hours of peak demand anyway. Any excess they could then drip feed into their Prius pool.

unkel

Uh-oh! Google is what it is because it's been innovative. To copycat the beliefs of a few Hollywood A-list superstars won't do much for the share price. But I'm probably wrong. Scientology is doing well in America too :rolleyes:

History will tell todays Honda and Toyota petrol electric hybrids were a complete waste. You can quote me on that

JHMEG

peasant wrote:

1. not in a battery that was designed for something else

Eh? But batteries have just one purpose in life? (It's the charge/discharge circuitry that defines how smart a battery is, not the battery itself)

peasant wrote:

2. No it's not ...solar panels, cost, efficiency factor, resources and energy used during manufacture?

Gawd peasant, it's unanimous that solar panels are indeed a good thing. I don't think we need to debate that one.

peasant wrote:

3. Who is Google ??

Jeez, I dunno... Google and maybe something will turn up!

unkle wrote:

To copycat the beliefs of a few Hollywood A-list superstars;)

Mmm. Over a million A-list celebs so far, and gowing. And my wife is on the Hollywood A-list too! Wow... coooooool!

unkle wrote:

History will tell todays Honda and Toyota petrol electric hybrids were a complete waste. You can quote me on that;)

The sage has truly spoken.:D

peasant

JHMEG wrote:

Eh? But batteries have just one purpose in life? (It's the charge/discharge circuitry that defines how smart a battery is, not the battery itself)

Eggs- actly !

A battery designed to power a car would have completely different cycling wizzardry than one designed as a backup storage medium.

JHMEG

peasant wrote:

Eggs- actly !

A battery designed to power a car would have completely different cycling wizzardry than one designed as a backup storage medium.

Why not both, intelligently, aware of each other?

peasant

I don't know enough about the ins and outs of it all, but I'd imagine that if you plugged 100 Priuses into the grid it would simply be physically impossible to monitor the discharge of every single car in a way that you would
a) draw just the rigt amount of current out of every car in such a way as to cause minimum damage to the battery (remember, they could all be at different levels of charge)
b) get enough current at the right voltage and amperage to be actually useful for the grid.

I would imagine that you'd probably end up with a more or less "symbolic" current flow that is just a drop on a hot stone in regards of the grid but doing so you would still cause damage to at least some of the vehicle batteries that weren't at the right state of charge when they were sucked empty

Even if all of that could be avoided, the control circuitry that would optimise the outcome for both the grid and the vehicle battery would have to be massively complicated and expensive.

I still think it's pants.

Google should just feed all the solar power it doesn't consume itself into the grid ...whatever is left over could charge the Priuses ..or not.

E92

Solasr panels are something like 20% efficient IIRC. Thats even worse than the efficiency of a petrol engine(30%), and only half as good as a diesel(40%). that means a petrol engine is 1.5 times more efficient and a diesel is twice as efficient as a solar panel. Of course solar opanels dont pollute,but they are incredibly inefficient so I'm told.

Tell me something, if Hybrids are so wonderful, then why have Honda, the Hybrid champion after Toyota, decided that when the next Accord enters the world, it won't enter as a Hybrid? You heard it here first, the Hybrid's replacement is a Diesel that easily meets Euro 5 emissions rules, and unlike VAG/MB it wont require AdBlue. A 61.4 mpg 2.2 litre based on the existing i-CTDi is beiung offered to the US in 2009 instead of the Hybrid Accord.

As for Google, they are a company, do you really think they give a crap about the enviornment? Having a Fleet of Hybrids is just a way of keeping the Greenies off their backs. It gives them free publicity and allows them to be seen to be doing something for the enviornment. Businesses are there to make a profit, and they obviously think that there is money to be made in giving the impression that they are eco-consious.

I'd love to see the damage to the enviornment caused by car manufacture, and in particular the damage of a normal car versus a Hybrid car. And we may not have too wait too long to know that either. I believe the UK Government are planning to issue this information to car buyers in the not too distant future.They are in the process of agreeing with the car manufacturers at the moment I believe. I haven't a clue what the outcome will be, but I can't wait for it if its gonna happen.

peasant

Nothing on earth is as efficient in utilising solar power as a plant.

If you look at rapeseed for example:
You could harvest the seed, burn the oil in an adapted diesel engine and still be more efficient and carbon neutral than a hybrid.

Plus on top of it, you'd get the seedcakes as animal food and the remaining biomass as fuel for burners or as fertilisers.

Cost: minimal
Efficiency: 100 %
"Greenness": 100 %

OTK

Google.org wrote:

Google Fleet: To encourage alternate forms of commuting, Google will offer a free car-sharing program to its employees at its Mountain View, CA headquarters. This program will provide employees who come to work by carpooling, taking public transport, riding the Google shuttle, or self-powered commuting (bicycling, walking, etc.) with the ability to use a car during the day. This corporate car-sharing program enables employees who need to go to business meetings or run errands to avoid driving to work in a single occupant vehicle. This program is based on a partnership with Enterprise Rent-A-Car who will manage the fleet.

I've got an alternative suggestion for how Google can promote alternative forms of commuting.
a) buy large building beside a Caltrain a light rail station in Mountain View
b) move their staff into this building
c) give staff free train tickets (they likely do this already)
d) put car park for the new building 300m down the road from the office.

Google chose to place its headquarters in an edge of town location, a few miles from any decent rail transit. Now they are trying to fix the problem with their emissions which are the direct result of their choice of location.

Google staff notice that they put on a lot of weight in their first year working there The Google 15. It's hardly surprising when their offices can only be reached by car or (ugh) shuttle bus.

zod

If you watched the movie "who killed the electric car" you would know that silver lining was that one day we might be able to plug in the hybrids..

Well that day has come with these cars - running cars off battery charged by the grid is many times more efficient than the internal combustion engine .. even if you are using the dirtiest coal fired power stations to produce the electricity. This is fact.

Using a simple inverter to throw the battery power back into the grid, and the solar power etc are just icing.

Gatster

The truth behind the Prius is good marketing...there are frequent new articles exposing the fact it's not that efficient after all when purchase price, manufacturing costs, mpg, recycling costs etc. are taken into account.

Although written from a non-hybrid loving perspective, the article in EVO comparing various aspects of the Prius versus a Panda 100hp was quite telling, even Gordon Murray had a pop at the Prius, and he's quite a forward thinking chap.

The EPA in the US has slashed the mpg figures of the Prius for next year and I'm sure I read it's to lose it's low emissions status - all the bullsh!t marketing that Toyota has produced (including Hollywood Tree-Hugging) regarding efficiency if finally being exposed and I have to say I'm ecstatic. The figures the manufacturers are claiming are based on what are essentially lab condition tests...referring back to the above article, I'd actually really like a Panda 100Hp, but wouldn't spare a bottle of Evian for a burning Prius.

Rant Over.;)

JHMEG

It always amuses me how most of the hybrid-bashers have never even driven one, let alone owned one (otoh, I've tried one, and have seen the light).

Indeed, one hybrid basher on this thread can't even drive.

zod is spot on, and that film is well worth watching. Add-on batteries are here now for the Prius, and they can be charged whatever way you like (solar, plug-in etc). Charge em on solar and your first 20 or 30 miles a day are free.

Alternative fuel (of the combustable variety) is heading in two directions, bio diesel and ethanol. Ethanol suits petrol engines, and it's the next logical step for the current generation of hybrids.

@Gatster, the EPA has cut the MPG figures for all cars, owing to different traffic conditions now. The original test is 20 years old. The figures quoted by Toyota (in the US), and every other car maker are the original EPA figures, as tested under the old rules, by the EPA. You also say the real efficiency is now being exposed... why, how bad is your hybrid doing? My wife's is managing around 70mpg (which I'm exposing in my sig).

Gatster

It's all relative. I don't have a hybrid, I don't want one, although I have driven and been driven in one on numerous occasions. I don't like hybrids for reasons to do with my personal opinion of motoring enjoyment, you do it seems - I don't expect or want to change your opinion, but there are different perspectives to each discussion. I was aware of the EPA re-evaluation as a whole, but not all cars have been cut as you say, some have risen, but then not all cars claim such efficiency as part of their core appeal.

The problems being exposed are that as stated elsewhere, there is environmental cost to the manufacture and destruction of the hybrid, which may or may not outweigh it's environmental contribution during it's useful operating life.

That test in Evo indicated that the Prius driver would have to drive over one million miles to get the extra purchase price outlay back in comparision to the Panda regarding MPG...I don't know or read of anyone who has bought one for the driving credentials.

unkel

JHMEG wrote:

The sage has truly spoken.:D

If I quote your thread in 5 years time with an "I told you so" update, I'm sure I'll get banned for reviving old threads by the then mods and rightly so

JHMEG wrote:

one hybrid basher on this thread can't even drive

Not relevant given your thread title. Play the ball and not the man, JHMEG

Gatster wrote:

the Prius driver would have to drive over one million miles to get the extra purchase price outlay back in comparision
to the Panda regarding MPG

I haven't read that source, but it is fair to assume that very few cars ever reach that milestone of a million miles. A quick guess based on absolutely nothing would have me think one in ten thousand Toyotas would reach 1 million miles

E92

Ohhh that was a bit of a low blow wasn't it JHMEG telling people that 'one Hybrid basher can't even drive'.
But nevertheless since you're interested I can drive, maybe not very well but nevertheless I can and have been doing so for a while now at this stage, thank you very much. I dont feel its necessary to go telling people my every move on boards, in case you're wondering why I have said nothing about it before.

Now it is true to say that I have never driven a Hybrid, but I am unable to find any evidence that Hybrids are so fantastic fuel wise, apart from your sig. And as I've mentioned before I don't for a second doubt your ability to get 70 mpg, but one swallow doesnt make a summer. Everything I hear about Hybrids is bad, indeed you may be very surprised to know that I once was a Hybrid convert, I even tried to persuade my old pair to buy the Prius instead of an Avensis, considering they both cost around the same. Then the toyota salesperson kindly pointed out to us that the technology was still unproven(even though this was the Prius Mk2), and more importantly that Prius wasn't all so rosy on Fuel consumption, certainly the salesperson told us in no uncertain terms that it would not live up to Toyotas mpg claims.

Along come other Hybrids like the Lexus RX400h and lo and behold its no more economical than an X5 3.0d. Now surley it must be asked, why with all the technology including regenerative braking, Stop-Start technology and that advanced battery can a lightweight, and lets face it the RX400h is one of the lightest 4X4's in its class, according to Lexus it weighs exactly 2 tonnes(which by the way is 165 kg more than the non Hybrid RX350), and the X5 weighs 2180 kg.

Further searching of the internet confirms that lots of Hybrid owners are having real difficulty matching stated mpg claims. Indeed to this end What Car? and Auto Express have done economy tests on the Prius versus normal cars and surprise surprise the Prius is no better than a standard and comparatively old tech diesel. I have yet to see a Prius owner who has stated on the internet that his or her car will come close to official figures. Now I know for a fact no car meets official claims, but Hybrids in General seem to have more trouble than a regular car. And a lot of the European manufactureres are moaning about Hybrids. Of course they are. Like the Japanese some years ago, who didn't know that there was a diesel revolution taking place in Europe when even the dogs on the street in Europe knew that people were making a big shift towards filling up with the black pump. However unlike the Japs, who realised that the benefits(of Diesels) were too good to ignore, the Europeans are not at all convinced by the benefits of Hybrids. I've already posted about what Bosch had to say about it. BMW never wanted to do it, and they still can't make their Hybrids more efficient in the real world than a diesel, which is why they still haven't launched any, and won't be for some time yet. And this is cominng from a company whose middle letter is 'Motor'. Imagine they even co-operated with arch enemy Mercedes-Benz for Hybrids.

Now IF, and its a very big if, Hybrids do turn out to be more popular, and they do turn out to be closer to matching what the car companies say they can do, and if the car companies can actually build them and make a profit, and therefore no longer need VRT as a cover to sell them at a reasonable price, then I will be more than happy to join the Hybrid way of thinking once again. I'm always happy to be shown the error of my ways when necessary;)

Surley it would be far better if we just all switched to E85, and we would have an instant 80% reduction in CO2 emissions, and thats assuming thaty people kept driving the same car, the same way, and as often than before. And E85 requires no fancy batteries, all it needs is strengthened valves to deal with with Full Blown E85.

Af for not criticising something you've never done yourself, thats like saying that I can never criticise Ronan O'Gara for making a stupid pass because I've never played international rugby. Or saying that Minister X or Y is the most unless Minister ever, when hardly anyone ever gets to do the job. Naturally, appraising something when you've actually done it yourself is obviously better, but it doesnt mean that one should reamin silent just cause they never done it themselves.:D

JHMEG

E92, you told us on another thread here that you don't own a car, and can't drive. And anyway I didn't point any finger at you. I don't see any low blows.

I've never driven an M5. Can I say they're complete rubbish? I can, but I wouldn't really know what I'm talking about, so I'd say nothing instead.

I don't know why euro marques haven't done hybrids by now. I suspect its because they weren't willing to gamble (and didn't invest enough at the start). With over a million Priuses made, and Toyota now kingpin of the motor industry (helped in a big way by the Prius) rather than trying to dispute the success of hybrids you'd be better off arguing the earth is flat.

I think you're choosing to only listen to the bad stuff. Not everything you've seen/read is bad, as you claim. You've seen my sig, yet you choose to ignore it.