Hybrid Engines

Hybrid Engines

By Andi Bintang

Hybrid vehicles were a concept of the past. Fortunately through the advancement of technology these vehicles are now available in the market. These vehicles were originally designed to help the environment. Nowadays due to rising gas prices, consumers are buying them instead of the conventional cars. The demand has prompted companies to design quality cars that also takes style and looks into consideration.

Hybrid vehicles are now available in compact sedans but also SUVs. The Ford Company has redesigned their Ford Escape to be able to please the environment conscious customer who also wants a stylish car. Hybrid technology is continually being developed so that it will be more accessible and affordable to the public.

What makes a hybrid work?

Hybrid vehicles work by using two different power sources. Although it runs on an electric motor for fuel efficiency and less emissions, it also has a diesel engine that works when needed for high speeds. It also serves as a back-up when the electric power has been used up.

The first hybrid vehicle that was sold commercially was the Toyota Prius. It was then followed by the Honda Insight. A breakthrough came when Ford released the Ford Escape. SUV's have been known to guzzle gas with high greenhouse emissions. This time the Ford Company was able to figure out a way to redesign their famous SUV to be able to cater a stylish, environment friendly and fuel efficient vehicle.

There are different types of hybrid vehicles by the engine that makes the work. Although they may differ in structure they all work by the same purpose, reduce emissions and fuel consumption.

Hybrid electric petroleum vehicles work by having two power sources. An internal combustion engine (usually a diesel engine) and a rechargeable energy storage system are used by the vehicle. The vehicle is run by electric power most of the time and recaptures energy when braking. The diesel engine helps when more power is needed for acceleration.

Battery electric vehicles rely on battery packs which can be recharged, motor rollers and an electric motor. Unfortunately this type of vehicle is limited to battery capacity. It also tends to be more expensive.

Hybrid vehicles also operate in dual mode. Other vehicles use different types of fuel and power source. Trolleybuses can switch between a diesel engine and an electrical power. Flexible fuel vehicles use a mixture of biofuels and petroleum.

Read More

How Much Per Gallon?

A book I recently received from a publisher makes an interesting contrast with last Friday's posting on how many cars our current oil production might eventually support. Its title of "$20 Per Gallon" demands attention, though the book proves to be less of an argument for how we might get there than for what things might be like if--the author would say when--we did. Rather than providing detailed arguments for the imminent arrival of Peak Oil, Mr. Steiner essentially accepts that premise and builds on it to offer a set of scenarios describing life in the US at gasoline prices escalating steadily in $2 increments between $4 and $20 per gallon. It makes for an entertaining and sobering set of "what ifs?" Unfortunately, despite a brief author's note dated from February of this year, the book is something of a victim of the collapse of oil prices late last year. While its premise might have been accepted eagerly and unquestioningly last summer, the world looks a bit different today. The challenges he describes appear somewhat less urgent, particularly after oil's recent surge past $70 per barrel was cut short when it turned out that all that talk of "green shoots" might have been a bit premature.

In a sense "$20 Per Gallon" seems like two books, one quite interesting and the other seriously flawed, at least as a document about our energy future. The interesting part lies in the author's exploration of what successively higher energy prices might mean for different aspects of the US economy and lifestyle. True to its subtitle, it's hardly a tale of uniform woe, unless you have the misfortune of working in one of the sectors he concludes is doomed, including anything connected to commercial air travel as we now know it. He points out the environmental, health and safety benefits that might ensue from our responses to progressively dearer petroleum-derived products. Many of these benefits sound quite appealing, though I would propose that they are neither as inevitable nor as neatly tied to oil use as Mr. Steiner suggests. The book is also filled with anecdotes accumulated from his travels researching its subject. I particularly liked his description of the airplane graveyard and his rides in various energy-efficient UPS trucks. If you come to this book already convinced that we are on the precipice of Peak Oil, I suspect you would find most of this not just entertaining, but riveting.

The book is less likely to appeal to anyone who is skeptical about the inevitability of Mr. Steiner's scenario assumptions. Start with his structural choice of using gasoline prices as a proxy for underlying oil prices, despite the fact that petroleum product markets experience supply and demand fluctuations that differ--sometimes markedly--from oil's. This choice also ignores the enormous influence of taxes and other government policies on gas prices. You don't need $300/bbl oil to reach $8 gasoline, as European drivers can attest. Last week the price of the average gallon of gas in the US fell to $2.46/gal., compared to the equivalent of $6.40/gal. in the UK and $6.77/gal. in Germany. The difference is almost entirely due to taxes. Despite this, daily life in those countries is not so far beyond the pale of recent American experience as to frighten small children. The implications of a world of high fuel prices resulting from the combination of moderate oil prices and high taxation look quite different from those arising from oil prices above last summer's peak of $145/bbl.

There's an even bigger issue lurking under the surface, and it relates to the author's conviction that in the long run oil prices can only go higher--much higher--due to Peak Oil. There's at least some truth to that, and I've posted periodically on the enormous difficulties involved in attempting to increase oil production in the face of constraints on access to resources--internationally and domestically--along with high interest rates, scarce capital, chronic project delays, and the inexorable depletion of mature oil fields. But oil prices are determined by more than supply, and while he eagerly describes all of the ways in which we would have to adjust our habits to a world of higher and higher gasoline prices, I don't get the sense that Mr. Steiner has considered the ways in which these responses would tend to retard the steady price advances he describes. We have only to look at the impact that a demand reduction of less than 4% since late 2007 has had on oil prices in the last 12 months. That responsiveness to lower demand is as inherent in a commodity with a steeply-sloped short-run supply curve as were the high prices that accompanied the steadily increasing demand we saw earlier. This behavior reflects two sides of the same coin.

The complexities of the various feedback mechanisms involved would also make some of the positive outcomes that Mr. Steiner sees more uncertain. Consider the drop in traffic fatalities that he posits as a consequence of higher gas prices. While you would generally expect people to drive less if gasoline were much more expensive, that response would probably be less pronounced in the long run than in the short run, because of the other ways in which consumers would react. $4 gasoline is painful if your current automobile gets 20 mpg. However, once you've traded it in on a 50 mpg hybrid, your cost per mile--and thus your monthly fuel bill--is lower even at $6/gal. than it was before at $3.

In addition to these concerns, I noticed a few basic errors and misleading comparisons along the way. Compared to the above, they are nit-picks, but anyone who reads the book ought to bear them in mind. First, Mr. Steiner suggests a pretty dramatic impact from high gasoline prices on all the plastics we consume, without delving deeply enough to determine that most of the ethylene- and propylene-derivative plastics in North America--including Saran Wrap--aren't sourced from oil but from the liquids produced with natural gas. That's a crucial distinction, with vast new gas resources available and with the prices of oil and gas having diverged rather dramatically, at least for now. He also makes several numerical comparisons between the response to last year's oil price spike and the aftermath of the oil crisis of the 1970s without taking into account the 42% increase in US population since 1974.

I have to believe that Mr. Steiner would have written a somewhat different book, had he begun the project this year rather than last. I don't doubt that some of the outcomes he describes are waiting on the sidelines until the economy climbs out of its current trough, even if oil prices don't quite reach the stratospheric heights he expects. For example, it wouldn't take the oil-price equivalent of $8/gal. to trigger a radical restructuring of the airline business, after what's it's been through. At the same time, though, I doubt we've seen the last oil price cycle, and the relationship between the prices of oil and alternative energy sources remains complex and dynamic. In some respects proposals such as cap & trade or a carbon tax are intended to evoke some of the same responses that Mr. Steiner imagines, but on a gradual basis and without having to pay an external supplier for the privilege of motivating us. I suggest reading "$20 Per Barrel" in that spirit, rather than as a firm prediction of the inevitable future of our oil-based world.

Read More

Knowledge about the car insurance in Thailand

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE He split the insurance is issued.

Car insurance compulsory.
Car insurance voluntary sector.
Car insurance compulsory.
The details are as follows:
Compulsory car insurance (Compulsory Motor Insurance) refers to the type of car insurance law, car owners who use or have a car to use. Must provide insurance for the damage. Victims by insurance companies with reinsurance law that allowed the assembly. Types of car insurance business. The government is intent to make the protection of life. Body of people affected is significant.

Type vehicles to Act
Car insurance by Act to include all types of vehicles of all types of cars under the law. Law of the Land Transport. Law of the military vehicle owners are using or have used it. Whether it will go by car is the engine power or other energy, such as automobile, motorcycle, Motor tricycle vehicle passenger locomotive tow truck trailer car steamroller, but e etc.
Therefore, the Department of Transportation vehicle for certain types of land are not registered. If a car is that engine power is with walking or other energy. Arranged for a car to the insurance Act

Cars do not have insurance Act
1 car only for the king his heir apparent and regent
2 Car palaces of the Bureau of Registration And the Secretary-General has formally palaces.
3 Car departmental Department of the Ministry of Government and various military vehicle.
4-car unit of the administrative organization established by the Constitution. Administrative agencies and independent of any organization listed in the Constitution.

Who are responsible for the Act guarantees
1st victims of car, including People from all the affected vehicles. Whether the driver. Passengers pedestrian If it is damaged for life due to physical health caused by car accidents. Will be protected by this Act.
2, heirs of victims above. Case victims died.

Replacement of the affected funds.
Replacement of the affected funds. Established Victims Protection Act of 2535 The car is responsible to pay damages to victims initially. If victims do not receive a refund from the insurance company. Or car owner that does not provide insurance. Or can not be called from anywhere and then escape as car accident or car owner that does not provide insurance do not pay damages, etc. The damage is paid to basic medical treatment cases injured as $ 15,000 less than actual treatment. and cremation costs $ 35,000 the number of death cases, but if victim was injured and later died later. Victims of death will be treated as medical treatment does not exceed actual costs and $ 15,000 $ 35,000 including the number of cremation, not exceeding a total of $ 50,000 initial filing obtain damages from the Fund. Victims or heirs must be filed within 180 days from the date the damage occurred.

You can learn more from http://www.doi.go.th/opmv/index.html.


Car insurance voluntary sector.
Car insurance is not a law enforcement. Depends on the satisfaction of the insured risk and the idea that they will spread out the risk to others is the insurance company assurer The insured can choose the protection assured by the desire The insurance company will issue insurance provided as evidence. The protection of the conditions and exceptions to the Registrar approval

Voluntary automobile insurance sector is divided into 3 main categories:

Insurance type 1 (Comprehensive) The Company will pay ค่าสินไหมทดแทน:

o protect the person liable to life outside the body. As well as passengers in car insurance.

o liability protection to property of third parties.

o damage the protected vehicle.

o fire protection and loss of the vehicle.

Only 2 types of insurance protection for third party liability. And loss of the car and fire by the 1, 2 and 4).

3 types of insurance protection only liable to third parties by the 1 and 2).

Read More

Conserve More Fuel

How to Conserve More Fuel with Hybrid Cars?

By Andi Bintang

Most hybrid cars are made for fuel efficiency but you can further squeeze extra miles out of a gallon of gasoline buy adapting the same good driving habits you do in your gasoline-engine vehicles.

1. Go easy on the brakes. Your hybrid car has the regenerative braking system that recaptures the energy lost from braking and stores it back to your batteries. If you brake slowly, you give your electric motor more time to store power thus, recovering more energy back to the batteries. If you brake hard and abrupt, the regenerative braking system will not be able to recapture much of this energy and your brakes will take most of the work.
2. Drive at slow speed. When you drive at a slow speed, you are running the electric motor. This saves a lot of gas. Also high speed driving requires your engine to produce extra power to drive the car forward and push it through the air. This consumes more gas just to overcome the aerodynamic drag. (Take note: the air is much denser on snowy, rainy, and slushy conditions. This makes the engine consumes more fuel to push the vehicle through the air.)
3. Avoid quick acceleration. The electric motor can only give your car a certain amount of power. When you require more speed and step on the gas pedal, the combustion engine kicks in to provide that extra speed you need, thus consuming more fuel. Quick acceleration in gasoline- or diesel-engine car wastes a lot of energy and so with hybrid vehicles. If you need to accelerate, do it gradually if possible.
4. Check your tire pressure. Tires are made to improve safety and the quality of the ride. It is not actually made for efficiency but you can actually use the tire to significantly improve your gas mileage. Use and maintain the maximum recommended tire pressure for your car on the sidewall and not the psi supplied by the manufacturer on the doorframe. Also use low-resistance tires for better mileage.
5. Avoid rush hour. Stop-and-go traffic consumes a lot of gas.
6. Use low octane gasoline. Not only it is cheaper, vehicles are actually designed to run well on low octane gas. Check your manual.
7. Glide. If you are comfortable with driving back and forth to neutral, you can get the best out of your speed. Coasting in neutral gives you a longer cruise and better use of energy.

Read More

Going Farther on Oil

As I was perusing my UC Davis alumni magazine last night I ran across a short article mentioning a new book from a professor, Dan Sperling, who directs Davis's well-regarded Institute of Transportation Studies. I know him slightly from his participation as in invited expert in a scenario workshop many years ago, so this caught my eye. His book, which I haven't read yet, examines the impact and implications of the rapidly growing global vehicle population, which he sees reaching the two billion mark within the next 20 years. In the article he suggested that this would require an entirely new transportation energy mix, made up of hydrogen, electricity, and advanced biofuels. That certainly fit my own long-standing expectations, as well. However, it occurred to me to wonder just how far we might be able to stretch the transportation fuels we get from oil, and just how far short they would fall as the global car-park expands. To my surprise, it doesn't require very aggressive assumptions concerning improvements in fuel economy, reductions in vehicle miles traveled, and additional oil supplies to cover the needs of a significantly larger number of cars in the world.

The starting point for such an analysis is current oil supplies and the way we process them. Global oil output in 2008 reached 86.5 million barrels per day (MBD), including crude oil, natural gas liquids, and the volumetric gain that occurs when you run them through a modern refinery. Roughly 60% of that input is currently turned into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Improvements in refining technology should make it possible to push that fraction to perhaps 70%, at the expense of heavy fuel oil displaced from power generation and shipping. So even if global oil output plateaued at only 90 MBD, a scenario that would probably seem optimistic to the adherents of Peak Oil and pessimistic to some industry experts, it could still yield 63 MBD of liquid transportation fuels. Set aside 7 MBD of that for jet fuel and kerosene and another 26 MBD for trucking and home heating oil, and we're left with 30 MBD of gasoline and diesel for passenger cars. That's roughly 25% more than current global consumption in light-duty vehicles, including the couple of MBD of diesel fuel that power Europe's popular diesel cars.

That doesn't seem to get us nearly far enough, until we consider that in the near future, cars will become much more efficient than they have been, particularly in the US, where an improvement from the current notional average of 25 mpg to the required 35.5 should eventually reduce average fuel consumption per mile by 30%. If the recent reversal in annual vehicle miles traveled persists after the recession ends, that would compound future fuel savings. When we consider that new cars in Europe currently average about 35 mpg and are required to reach approximately 43 mpg by 2015, based on a standard of 130 grams of CO2 emitted per kilometer, and that China has also introduced stricter fuel economy standards, it's not hard to imagine the average world car getting 40 mpg by 2020. That doesn't even require the majority of cars to be hybrids, let alone plug-in hybrids. If that average car drove 9,000 miles per year, it would consume 225 gallons of fuel annually. Following this back-of-the-envelope calculation to its conclusion, our 30 MBD of petroleum-based fuel for light-duty vehicles would be sufficient to cover Dr. Sperling's 2 billion cars with a little bit left over.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is the likeliest scenario, or that it means we don't need any of the advanced biofuels or electric vehicle technology currently under development. As I've pointed out frequently, fleet turnover in the developed world has slowed, thanks to the recession, and we can expect a long "tail" of older vehicles to persist for some time. However, the results of this simple exercise surprised me; I had expected the final number of cars that could be supplied by oil to be much lower. So while our transportation energy mix in the next couple of decades is still likely to include a much greater variety of fuels and an increasing penetration of electricity, we should not lose sight of the potential for realistically-achievable fuel economy improvements and non-efficiency conservation--driving personal cars less and relying more on mass transit and electronic trip substitution--to be the most important "transition fuel" in our arsenal, as we reduce our present reliance on oil, in order to tackle energy security and climate change.

Read More

Apollo, Forty Years Later

I couldn't let the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing pass by without comment, and not just because of what that event meant to a space-obsessed 11-year-old in 1969. Aside from numerous calls for an Apollo program for energy, or the periodic allusions to energy and climate change as the equivalent of the space program for our time, Apollo's extraordinary accomplishment might still have some lessons to teach us about what it takes to achieve goals of such a magnitude--as well as the proper limits of those lessons. It's also high time to give some serious thought to the role of space exploration in our future.

Although I had originally intended to post on this subject next Monday, on the anniversary of the day that Neil Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface, it struck me as more appropriate to commemorate the entire mission and the enormous effort that went into planning and executing it. I was pleased to find a website called "We Choose the Moon" that will retrace the events of Apollo 11 in real time, beginning exactly 40 years after the launch on July 16, 1969. NASA has put up a 360-degree interactive panorama of the lunar landing site, and the New York Times has extensive coverage. As interesting as these sites are, however, none of them can recreate the feeling of that long-ago summer, when families and neighbors gathered around their TVs--many of them new color sets bought for the occasion. That cohesion proved fleeting, and it seems almost alien today. Sadly, so does the remarkable combination of urgency and patient, meticulous planning without which the moon landing would have remained as impossible as it must have seemed a decade earlier.

When President Kennedy made his speech to Congress in 1961 setting the goal of landing on the moon within the decade, the technology to deliver that outcome did not exist. The first American manned space flight by Alan Shepard had taken place just three weeks earlier, and the first unmanned Saturn V moon rocket wouldn't be flight-tested for another six years. The financial cost of the moon landing program was so high--roughly $150 billion in today's dollars--because so much of it had to be designed and built from scratch, from the vehicles to the entire infrastructure to assemble, launch, monitor and control them.

It was also high because despite the intense pressure of needing to pull off this feat within eight years, it involved the step-by-step incremental development and demonstration of the capabilities that would ultimately be required. For example, the Gemini Program, involving 10 manned launches in 1965 and '66, was mainly intended to test techniques such as rendezvous, docking and spacewalking that were integral to executing the Apollo concept for going to the moon. Then, between the disastrous Apollo 1 launch pad fire, which forced NASA to redesign the Apollo capsule, and "The Eagle has landed", there were four other manned Apollo flights, each testing incrementally more complex elements of the lunar mission. This was the epitome of combining bold strategic planning with planning by doing; that much, at least, seems broadly relevant to our current energy situation.

The US moon landing effort of the 1960s created a vast technical and industrial pyramid. At its apex was the delivery of a cumulative total of 12 Americans to the surface of the moon and their safe return home. If Apollo 13 had not experienced its well-documented accident, and if the last four missions hadn't been cancelled and recycled into the Apollo-Soyuz demonstration of US-Soviet Detente, plus three visits to the Skylab space station, that figure might have reached 22. Yet as impressive and unprecedented as that was, and in spite of a host of valuable breakthroughs and spinoffs in electronics, medicine, and other fields, this is precisely where all of the analogies between energy and Apollo break down. Remaking our energy systems to provide the safe, secure, affordable and environmentally-sound means of energizing the entire economy--national or global, take your pick--will be nothing like making a few trips to the moon and then turning our back on it for four decades. It will require a durable bi-partisan consensus in government for at least a generation and enduring public support of a kind that NASA was ultimately unable to sustain.

At the same time, the US manned space program has reached an existential crossroads. The shuttle is on its last legs, and its planned replacement, the Orion/Ares system won't be operational until at least 2015. The International Space Station could be "de-orbited"--allowed to burn up in the atmosphere--as early as 2016 if new funding and a renewed purpose aren't found. This is the context for a blue-ribbon panel that will advise the administration on NASA's future direction. Ambitious plans for a return to the moon and an eventual manned mission to Mars look vulnerable to budget concerns.

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention the enormous potential of space to contribute to solving our energy and environmental problems. Whether in the form of space-based solar power or potential deposits of exotic nuclear fuel on the moon, the long-term solutions to the earth's environmental challenges and resource needs must eventually capitalize on the boundless energy and materials available outside our atmosphere. I'm also mindful of the profoundly-expanded perspective that space exploration has provided us. The widely-recognized "Earthrise" photo from Apollo 8's trip around the moon in late 1968 probably did more to awaken our environmental consciousness than a thousand speeches and rallies.

With the economy sunk in a deep recession and the country grappling with the seemingly intractable issues of health care, gargantuan deficits, and a looming retirement crisis, I can't imagine a better time to recall a moment when we proved that we could accomplish almost anything, if we set our minds to it. I don't know how much the media intends to play up this anniversary. NASA certainly has big plans. Although 50th anniversaries tend to make bigger splashes, the ages of the Apollo 11 crew and the surviving scientists, engineers and others who made their journey possible preclude waiting another decade to stage a proper celebration of their achievement. I'm looking forward to explaining to my daughter just how thrilling it was to watch that first fuzzy broadcast from the moon.

Read More

Hybrid Electric

How Does Hybrid Electric Vehicle Work?

You probably own a gasoline- or diesel-engine car. You may have heard of electric vehicles too. A hybrid vehicle or hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) is a combination of both. Hybrid vehicles utilize two or more sources of energy for propulsion. In the case of HEVs, a combustion engine and an electric motor are used.

How it works depends on the type of drive train it has. A hybrid vehicle can either have a parallel or series or parallel-series drive train.

Parallel Hybrid

The parallel hybrid car has a gas tank, a combustion engine, transmission, electric motor, and batteries.

A parallel hybrid is designed to run directly from either the combustion engine or the electric motor. It can run using both the engine and the motor. As a conventional vehicle, the parallel hybrid draws its power from the combustion engine which will then drive the transmission that turns the wheels. If it is using the electric motor, the car draws its power from the batteries. The energy from the batteries will then power the electric motor that drives the transmission and turns the wheel.

Both the combustion engine and the electric motor are used at the same time during quick acceleration, on steep ascend, or when either the engine or the motor needs additional boost.

Since the engine is directly connected to the wheels in a parallel drive train, it eliminates the inefficiency of converting mechanical energy into electrical energy and back. This makes a very effective vehicle to drive on the highway.

Series Hybrid

The series hybrid car also has a gas tank, a combustion engine, transmission, electric motor, and batteries with the addition of the generator. The generator can be the electric motor or it can be another separate component.

The series configuration is the simplest among the 3. The engine is not connected to the transmission rather it is connected to the electric motor. This means that the transmission can be driven only by the electric motor which draws its energy from the battery pack, the engine or the generator.

A hybrid car with a series drive train is more suited for city driving conditions since the engine will not be subjected to the varying speed demands (stop, go, and idle) that contributes to fuel consumption.

Series-Parallel Hybrid

The series-parallel configuration solves the individual problems of the parallel and series hybrid. By combining the 2 designs, the transmission can be directly connected to the engine or can be separated for optimum fuel consumption. The Toyota Prius and the Ford Escape Hybrid use this technology.

Read More