Can someone please explain how this technology existed 31 years ago & where’d it go?
 

[youtube]https://youtu.be/9Xz3ZjOSMRU[/youtube]

48:14: “Why do we permit automobiles that get 15-25mpg, when the technology exists for automobiles to get 60-100mpg?” - Carl Sagan 2/9/90.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xz3ZjOSMRU

Couldn't see the video, fixed it for ya.

at work and youtube is blocked. Can someone give me a 20 word summary? Thanks

Haven't watched it (I'm at work) but it is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power.

An aerodynamic vehicle with a small diesel engine and long gearbox has been possible for decades now.
A 1999 VW Lupo 3L can beat 3,0 L/100 km (78 mpg) pretty easy with its 1.2 TDi engine.
If you swapped a Smart Roadster with the Smart ForTwo 0.8 CDI engine, you'd have an absurdly fuel efficent as well as fun car (if it wasn't for that god awfull gearbox).

^That's basically it.

Thanks for fixing my video! Summary of OP video: it’s a keynote address expounding on a 4 step call to action on Global Warming, briefly outlined here:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/HQ5u-l9Je0s[/youtube]

Sprinkled in with anecdotes from Greek mythology humorously used to good natured-ly poke fun at modern policies, as well as some space explorative studies, and specifically of our closest neighbors, Venus and Mars, and it’s related implications here on Earth.

Carl Sagan’s 4 step call to action:

1. Why not cars that get 70mpg, instead of 25.

We can do better today. Top 3 non-diesel gas cars reliably capable of 100+ mpg: 4th Gen Toyota Prius, Prius Prime, RAV4 Prime.

2. Alternative energy like solar & wind.

3. Reforestation on a grand scale.

4. Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.

I won't click on links unless there's some explanation of what it is.

Every click-bait tactic is some form of "You won't believe what happened!"

There's no reason to click on such things. I have no idea what technology is being discussed here.

That's not basically it; not anywhere near it. That's an explanation, not the only one.

Why does my motorcycle only get 40 MPG when it could get 100? I want a fast one, that's why. It has nothing to do with being conspicuously seen spending more money on gasoline just because I can.

That's just one alternate explanation among thousands.

Not just conspicuous consumption, but as Carl Sagan says,

“...adolescent young men, who need to have extremely rapid acceleration for psychological reasons of their own.

For all practical purposes, much greater fuel efficiency in automobiles is perfectly possible.”

Profound.

There is this:
I intend to watch it because it's Carl Sagan when I have the time.

I don't know about adolescent males today, but in my day cars were divided into rods and customs.

These are worth doing even if Climate Change has been deprecated.

Had the American customers engaged in a more austere buying pattern in the immediate aftermath of WWII like most Europeans did, I'm sure there would be more opportunities for automakers to sell smaller and more fuel-efficient models there and for extension in Canada and Mexico.

Well, I'm Gen Z and the record fuel economy I got with my first car was 3,5L/100 km or nearly 70 mpg with a small 3-cylinder car.
Granted, it had less than 70 PS, it litteraly had 20Nm more torque in the lugnuts than in the engine and no luxury whatsoever besides a ****ty radio.

Ah, I missed the reference to a timestamp and thought it was just a quote of Sagan, not something from the video. I'll watch a Sagan video.

The 4 points above are all well underway; Carl simply left too soon. I expect item #2 will be replaced by nuclear though.


...and womens consumer behavior is at least as vain as mens. I dated a girl who traded in her 2008 Chevy Aveo for a 2009 because she liked the color better and "could afford it" on her nanny paycheck.

https://www.vehiclehistory.com/evox_...61-03U-768.jpg

That's an easy answer. The it's the government.
Oh and you're not going to get anywhere near 100mpg in a gasoline burner in anything that resembles a car with modern features and traveling at interstate speeds.

What car was that?


Sometimes when I look at the power and torque ratings of newer 1.0L engines in my country, and got remembering the days they felt more underpowered than now, it does surprise me how the average Joe is fooled into believing power to be always more important than torque.

There's your problem.

https://ecomodder.com/forum/member-f...-sdc11161c.jpg

Convincing the average redneck, or even a self-proclaimed "cosmopolitan" New Yorker, into replacing a more traditional 4-wheeler car or truck with a tricycle is not easy. Some may keep an eye on them as a funny or "exotic" deal, but in the end they may take a more "entitled" approach while claiming a trike seems more suitable to Bangkok or some beach resort.

Now convince people to buy that instead of an suv.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/CbqGGy5o0pA[/youtube]

Well, at least this resembles a car (although some may disagree), but it does have more cargo capacity than almost all, if not all, vehicles of this size & efficiency.

Not sure what the max fuel efficiency is at interstate speed.

If you were to travel at the most fuel efficient legal speed of interstate travel, what would you guess the mpg to be?

Anyone here have a Prius Eco, that can verify their personal best interstate MPG in real world conditions? Thanks!

The point of travel isn't to get the best fuel economy, but to arrive at the destination, the sooner the better.

The Prius is a fantastic vehicle; very practical and fuel efficient. There's not much point in pushing the efficiency further because of the law of diminishing returns.

Toyota once set a goal of improving efficiency 10% with each generation of Prius, but they hardly improved it at all from 3rd to 4th. It was foolish to make such a goal considering diminishing returns makes each 10% improvement much more difficult than the preceding improvement.

I can do that with my leaf.
The energy economy just about doubles at 35mph compared to 65mph.
So I'm looking at way over 200mpg equivalent if I slow down to Sunday driver speed.
But ain't nobody got time for that.

Higher fuel prices would start to factor in.

I did that for about a year in my Leaf. Seriously I did. After we got it our circumstances changed a couple months later and we had to drive 70 miles one way and back twice a week. There was no place to charge in between, only at the destination, so I'd hypermile, going between 25 and 35mph for the first half of the return leg. It was a 2,000ft climb. We usually made it home with about 10 miles or less of range.

It was an Aygo.
However it didn't feel that underpowered as it was like 700-800 kg.
Also torque doesn't matter, torque curve shape, power and gearing do.
The little 1KR-FE had 80% torque at 1800 rpm and was happy to rev all the way to the limiter.

Gen IV Prius is significantly more efficient than Gen III. I haven't seen evidence of a Gen 3 Prius getting 100+ mpg, most report getting around 40 mpg. Gen 4 Prius, with a full car and air conditioner running, is still capable of about 60 MPG at even at 70-72 MPH highway speed, which is quite impressive at significantly over a 10% improvement:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/i-zHjAtf4QI[/youtube]

The Gen IV is significantly more efficient, technically, but not substantially [subjective] more fuel efficient. Perhaps there are people hypermiling them to great effect, and perhaps the newer design lends itself more readily to it, but Toyota's own reported fuel economy says they improved it only 4% from the previous generation. Toyota improved 11% from Gen I to Gen II, then 8% Gen II to Gen III, then 4% Gen III to Gen IV.

For them to achieve 10% better fuel economy in the Gen V, they would need it to get 6 MPG better fuel economy. I suspect Toyota will focus on making the car trendier than emphasising the environmental aspects since it's easier to engineer sentiment than to engineer a 10% improvement in fuel economy.

https://ecomodder.com/forum/attachme...1&d=1621352848

I'd love to see Carl Sagan's house at the time. Methinks he might have something larger than the necessary 500 sqft of living space for psychological reasons of his own.

Profundity apparently only applies lifestyles to other people.

And when has that ever worked out long term?

Compare the average fuel efficiency in the us and germany...

My one state of Montana is larger than the entire county of Germany. But with 1/84th the population. We only have 4 states more population dense then Germany, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. This is part of the beauty of the experiment of having 50 separate states united into one country. You get 50 experiments to see what works better and 50 varieties that may better serve one area compared to the other. What works in Germany or New Jersey, may not work well in Montana and it at least used to be New Jersey wouldn't try and force their way on Montana or at least wouldn't succeed.

... and Germany petrol is $5.57 / gallon currently. I'd expect higher efficiency when energy is more expensive.

When gas prices had been hopelessly stuck above $3.50 a gallon for years during the last biden administration it only appeared to slow large vehicle sales and made them even more of a status symbol.
Then when gas prices dropped in 2018 fuel efficient vehicle sales cratered, that was when we got the nissan leaf and Hyundai hybrid. Leaf prices were at an all time low and the dealer was trying to off load Hyundai hybrids like they were stolen goods.

where'd it go
 

It went into AMERICAN SCIENTIST, books, textbooks, HOME POWER Magazine, DISCOVERY CHANNEL, Rocky Mountain Institute, AeroVironment, World Solar Challenge, Shell Eco Marathon, SAE economy competition, PBS Television, CAR and DRIVER, CIRCLE TRACK, ROAD and TRACK, MOTOR TREND, NPR Radio, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, AUTOMOBILE, AUTOWEEK, Sport Truck, legacy maker concept cars, startups, MAXMPG, NATURE, SCIENCE, WARD's AUTOMOTIVE, Whole Earth Catalog, EcoModder.com, etc..
It never went away.

I finally watched the Carl Sagan video. After the mention of efficient cars not being fast or quick, he qualifies support for nuclear power, safe, efficient, no waste and not weapons grade byproducts. ...and then states no suitable fission reactors exist. ....in 1990.

The first proof of concept Thorium reactor was rejected in 1973. He should have known about it.

Here's what I learned when I looked up the date:
https://www.technologyreview.com/201...-four-decades/

That's good news but is the US market poisoned against anything nuclear?
Eh, 24 hours with no electricity in the winter will change people's mind.

2hrs with no electricity nation wide would change everyone's tune.

A customer in Boise was complaining about how dreadful it was to be out of power for 2hrs during a storm... meanwhile my parents and 80 year old grandmother went without for 2 weeks.

We're a soft people willing to trade liberty at the drop of a hat for comfort. That also means we might be willing to trade our misplaced fears of nuclear technology for cheap reliable electricity.

When that happens it won't be 2 hours, probably at least 2 weeks, maybe 2 months.

Well, when that happens there will be bigger problems that being out of power.

In case you didn't know, germany also has 16 states.