Parašė agnette
Rodyti pranešimą
-
Nu jei kalbet apie Toyota/Lexus gaminius tikrai negeresne. Vienintelis siu gaminiu atstovas kuris traukia yra GS450h bet jo kuro sanaudos yra kosmines (ant 140km/h jis valgo 10l/100, su A6 3.0TDI telpam i 8). Bet ir tai jis nusileidzia tarkim A6 3.0TDI ar BMW 530d. Paziurek nete pilna palyginimu ir panasiai.Paskutinis taisė Darius555; 2016.05.20, 20:48. -
Dyzelis tikrai nugali nes su 320d tokiu greiciu valgo 5.5. O dinaminka ir visa kita turbot pati supranti kieno puseje. Iki kiek lekejasi PRIUS 0-100 kazkur per 11s ?, BMW 320d per 7.4s. Taigi lyginam PRIUS su 1.6TDI nuo kurio irgi malku jis gautu, o sanaudos 1.6TDI Golfo yra taipat mazesnes uz PRIUSParašė agnette Rodyti pranešimą
PS : o su kokiu VW atstovu lygint PRIUS, as be Golf daugiau nieko nematau, ten tas pats Auris tik kitu kebuluPaskutinis taisė Darius555; 2016.05.20, 20:49.Comment
-
Pagreitėjimas nuo 0 iki 100 arba maksimaliai pasiekiamas greitis aktualus ne visiems.Parašė Darius555 Rodyti pranešimąComment
-
As nieko nebandau sumenkint. Prius yra patikimas paprastas,pigiai aptarnaujamas automobilis, su kuriuo i servisa uzsuksi itina retai. Naudojami oldschooliniai sprendimai kaip atmosferinis variklis ir nikelio baterijos, todel nera jau toks ir ekonomiskas ir greitas. Ir cia jokia ne paslaptis, kad siuolaikiskas dyzelis deda ji per visus galus. Vat idomu butu pabandyt siuolaikiska dyzeli ir siuokaikiska hybrida tarkim A3 TDI ir A3 e-tron.Parašė agnette Rodyti pranešimą
Bandziau NX300h - traukos nera, ekonomijos irgi neradau. Misriu rezimu rode 8.8/100. Finale pasirinktas dyzelinis Range Rover EvogueComment
-
Tau teke bandyt su PRIUS pilnai pakrautu ka nors aplenkt uzmiesty? Va kaip tau iduos PRIUS ir BMW 320d nuvaziuot nuo Kauno iki Berlyno tuomet suprasiParašė Aleksio Rodyti pranešimą
PRIUS tinkamas eksplotuot tik mieste. Lenkt ka nors su juo tas pats kaip su Yaris 1.3 varikliuComment
-
Mano mašinos variklis yra tik 50kW ir man jų visiškai užtenka. O kas liečia atstumą - nuo Vilniaus iki Vokietijos sienos nuvažiuoti buvo jokių problemų. Svarbiausia yra neskubėti: 85-90km/h.Parašė Darius555 Rodyti pranešimąComment
-
Vel sneki netiesa. Vaziavau su savo pilnai pakrautu bagazu Prius i Europos gylumus ir del dinamikos jokiu nusiskundimu. Lenkti furas [A5] visiskai jokiu problemu, net gi geriau nei anksciau su paprasta masina. Vienintelis kas nelabai patinka vaziuojant ilgai jo vairo stiprintuvas. Kuro sanaudos vaziuojant autobanais pakenciamas, reikia siprasti kad ne tam skirta masina.Parašė Darius555 Rodyti pranešimąComment
-
Nu nepriimk nieko asmeniskai bet kaip kam M5 mazai, kitam moskvicius per greitas. Taip tai yra ne tam skirta masina su ja nepalakstysi, o jei ir bandysi tai video zemiau - o su siuolaikiniu dyzeliu palakstyt gali.Parašė agnette Rodyti pranešimą
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F04MXepYiBsPaskutinis taisė Darius555; 2016.05.21, 06:29.Comment
-
O kam tas lakstymas išvis reikalingas? Tuo labiau kad dyzelis skirtas ne lakstymui, o taupiam vairavimui.Parašė Darius555 Rodyti pranešimąComment
-
Prius skirtas ECO'nomijai/logijai. Kas yra geriau karve ar arklys? Su arkliu gali palakstyti bet jis pieno neduoda... Kam stengtis lyginti nesulyginamus dalykus?Comment
-
tęsiant jūsų diskusiją apie elektromobilius priminsiu kad litras dyzelio sunkesnis ir turi daugiau(~5%?) energijos nei benzinas.
o apie variklius tai Tesla vieninteliai berods kurie asinchroninius naudoja elektromobiliuoseComment
-
Hibridai manau realiai neduoda naudos, bet sudetingesni ir pan. 4 kartos LPG iranda perskaiciavus per pinigus mieste 2l banzininis atmosferinis variklis gauname apie 6.5 l dyzelio + juokiu kietu daleliu, suodziu ir kitu nuodu, nera DPF filtru ir pan. Ismetimas vanduo + CO2 ir minimumas azato oksido. Labai paprasta ekologiska. Dar geriau vandenylis, yra metalo ir vandenilio junginiai kurie apsorbuoja vandelnilio daugiau negu galima sutalpinti i baliona po slegiu. Tai kad pasirinktas elektromobiliu kelias nera vienintelis, o bateriju gamyba labai neekologiskaParašė Darius555 Rodyti pranešimą
Comment
-
Užtat atima dalį bagažinės. Taip pat ne visi modeliai turi gamyklinę LPG įrangą (t.y. garantijos periodu teks vistiek važinėti be jos).Parašė arian_l Rodyti pranešimąPaskutinis taisė Aleksio; 2016.05.23, 20:11.Comment
-
Savartynai irgi neekologiški, tai gal metam šiukšles pro langą? Vis tiek tarša ta pati?Parašė arian_l Rodyti pranešimąTai kad pasirinktas elektromobiliu kelias nera vienintelis, o bateriju gamyba labai neekologiskaComment
-
Nu tarkime akumai ekologiski, o elektra ? Deginame dujas ir angli. Reikia ekologisko elektros saltinio. Vejas ir saule tiek neipus jeigu kiekvienas vietoje benzino/dyzelio naudos elektra. Siaip berods audi pastate gamykla kuri sistetina dyzelina ir LPG is oro( CO2, vanduo). problema ne masinuose, bet energijos saltiniuose. Reikia pigios ir svarios energijos.Comment
-
Dyzelis skirtas kroviniu tampymui, kuris turetu but montuojamas furuose, traukiniuose ir krovininiuose transportuose, bet ne "civiliniam" transporte. Bet sita vieta issigime ir yra zmoniu, kurie renkasi nuodyt save ir ypac kitus ir renkasi dyzelius miestamsParašė Aleksio Rodyti pranešimą
Linkejimai dyzelistams:
Oil company records from 1960s reveal patents to reduce CO2 emissions in cars
The forerunners of ExxonMobil patented technologies for electric cars and low emissions vehicles as early as 1963 – even as the oil industry lobby tried to squash government funding for such research, according to a trove of newly discovered records.
Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla.
Scientists for the companies patented technologies to strip carbon dioxide out of exhaust pipes, and improve engine efficiency, as well as fuel cells. They also conducted research into countering the rise in carbon dioxide emissions – including manipulating the weather.
Esso, one of the precursors of ExxonMobil, obtained at least three fuel cell patents in the 1960s and another for a low-polluting vehicle in 1970, according to the records. Other oil companies such as Phillips and Shell also patented technologies for more efficient uses of fuel.
However, the American Petroleum Institute, the main oil lobby, opposed government funding of research into electric cars and low emissions vehicles, telling Congress in 1967: “We take exception to the basic assumption that clean air can be achieved only by finding an alternative to the internal combustion engine.”
And ExxonMobil funded a disinformation campaigned aimed at discrediting scientists and blocking government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, before publicly disavowing climate denial in 2008.
The patent records were among a new trove of documents published on Thursday by the Center for International Environmental Law, and deepen the legal and public relations challenge for Exxon.
“What we saw was an array of patent technologies that demonstrated that these companies had the technologies they needed and could have commercialised to help address the problem of C02 pollution,” said Carroll Muffett, president of the Ciel. “They then turned to Congress and said you don’t need to invest in electrical vehicle research because the research is ongoing and it’s robust.”
The findings echo those in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, which explored the deliberate destruction of GM’s first electric vehicles.
Alan Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman, insisted he could not comment directly on the documents as he was unable to access the Center for International Environmental law website on which they were published on Thursday morning.
In an emailed statement, Jeffers said: “The Guardian gave us only a few hours to comment on documents from four decades ago.”
Jeffers went on: “This further illustrates the Guardian’s well-established bias on climate change issues which has been demonstrated previously through its keep it in the ground campaign.”
He said the company believed the risks of climate change were real, was researching lower emission technologies, and engaged in “constructive dialogue” with policy makers about energy and climate change.
Researchers discovered more than 20 such patents filed by oil companies from as early as the 1940s for technologies that could help in the development of electric cars.
However, Ron Dunlop, president of Sun Oil and API chairman, told a joint hearing of the commerce committee in 1967 that government funding of research into electric cars would be misplaced – because the oil companies were so advanced in their research of cleaner cars. “We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint,” he told Congress. “Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.”
Muffett said the findings were the result of three years of research and were not exhaustive.
“The question is what did they do to try to commercialise these technologies, knowing what they did about climate change,” he went on.
The revelations, the second set of documents released by Muffett’s organisation, reinforce charges by campaigners that Exxon was well aware that the burning of fossil fuels was a main driver of climate change – despite its public posture of doubt.
In addition to the technologies with potential for electric cars, Exxon and other oil companies were actively researching methods to cut emissions of carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas.
In another historic document that surfaced last month, a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon admitted the company had the technology to cut carbon emissions in half. However, the corporate memo dating from 1977 said it would be prohibitively expensive – doubling the cost of electricity generation, according to the documents obtained by Desmog blog.
New York and 17 other attorneys general, including DC and the US Virgin Islands, are investigating whether the oil company lied to investors and the public about the threat of climate change.
Campaigners plan to further turn up the heat on the company next week when Exxon holds its annual shareholder meeting in Dallas.
Campaigners have argued for more than a decade that Exxon bankrolled a network of front groups and conservative think tanks aimed at discrediting well-established science – confusing the public and delaying governments efforts to cut the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for warming.
Those efforts to put Exxon on the spot gathered pace after Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times reported that the company’s own scientists knew as early as the 1970s that greenhouse gases caused climate change.
The attorney general of the US Virgin Islands has subpoenaed Exxon to turn over email, documents and statements over the last decades.
Exxon has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated.
However, the company has reversed its opposition to fuel cell technology. Earlier this month, the company announced it had been conducting a joint research effort on fuel cell power plants with FuelCell.
The initiative, which got underway in 2011, aims to route the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning power plants into fuel cells, producing low emissions electricity. The company has estimated it can cut 90% of carbon dioxide emissions.
“At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action,” Rex Tillerson, Exxon’s chief executive, told the US Energy Association after receiving its annual award.Comment
-
Tai aš ir sakau, mesk šiukšles pro langą, nes savartynai nėra ekologiški. Koks skirtumas ar smirda po langais, ar už miesto, vis tiek gi smirda, ane?Parašė arian_l Rodyti pranešimąComment
-
trukt uz vadziu - vel is pradziu kas efektyviau pjauna medi: 1) diedas su benzininiu pjuklu? ar 2) lentpjuves konvejeris? Abu naudoja energija. Pirmu atveju diedas naudoja energija is benzo, o antru atveju lentpjuve is elektros tinklu.
N kartu kartota ir pateiktos mokslines studijos, jog anglimi kurenama jegaine isskirianti X kieki energijos yra svaresne, nei ta pati X kieki energijos isskiriantys mazi vidaus degimo varikliai imontuoti atitinkamam kiekyj lengvuju masinu. Visa tai paremta elementariu efektyvumu ir masto ekonomija.Comment
-
Tai gal ir dyzelinis šilumvežis švaresnis už naują Euro6 1,5 l dyzelinį hečbeką?Parašė ViR2 Rodyti pranešimątrukt uz vadziu - vel is pradziu kas efektyviau pjauna medi: 1) diedas su benzininiu pjuklu? ar 2) lentpjuves konvejeris? Abu naudoja energija. Pirmu atveju diedas naudoja energija is benzo, o antru atveju lentpjuve is elektros tinklu.
N kartu kartota ir pateiktos mokslines studijos, jog anglimi kurenama jegaine isskirianti X kieki energijos yra svaresne, nei ta pati X kieki energijos isskiriantys mazi vidaus degimo varikliai imontuoti atitinkamam kiekyj lengvuju masinu. Visa tai paremta elementariu efektyvumu ir masto ekonomija.
Comment
Comment