the profitableness of hybrid solar vehicles (HSV)
-the
total cost of a classical car, powered by internal combustion engine, [€ / ICE
car]
-the
total cost of a HSV, [€ / HSV]
-the
cost of the transport service in the case ICE, [€/ km ICE]
-the
cost of the transport service with HSV [€/ km HSV]
-the
investment cost of the ICE transport service, [€ / km ICE]
-the
consumption cost of the ICE transport service, [€ / km ICE]
-the
operation-maintenance cost of the ICE transport service, [€ / km ICE]
-the
investment cost of the HSV transport service, [€ / km HSV]
-the
consumption cost of the HSV transport service, [€ / km HSV]
-the
operation-maintenance cost of the HSV transport service, [€ / km HSV]
-the
investment cost of the ICE car, [€/car ICE]
-the
consumption cost of the ICE car, [€/car ICE]
-the
operation-maintenance cost of the ICE car, [€/car ICE]
-the
investment cost of the HSV, [€/ HSV]
-the
consumption cost of the HSV, [€ / HSV]
-the
operation-maintenance cost of the HSV, [€/ HSV]
-the
operation-maintenance ratio of HSV car service, (eq. 8);
-the
operation-maintenance ratio of ICE car service, (eq. 7)
-the
unitary fuel consumption of ICE, [l/100km ICE]
-the
unitary fuel cost, [€ / l fuel]
-the
fuel reduction ratio of HSV, (eq. 10);
-the
operation-maintenance ratio of ICE car product, (eq. 11);
-the
operation-maintenance ratio of HSV product, (eq. 12);
-
the state unitary subsidy of HSV program, [€/ 100 km]
-the
total life cycle of an ICE car, [km ICE / ICE car]
-the
total life cycle of a HSV, [km HSV / HSV car]
I-investment
C- consumption
p – product
s – service
f – fuel
HSV – hybrid solar vehicle
ICE – internal combustion engine
HSV – hybrid solar vehicle
1. & 121d34b nbsp; Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to analyze mathematically the conditions when HSV could be profitable. Starting on this way, we know that presently the classical cars are cheaper than HSV. This reality can be changed not so late in the future because of some tendencies we see:
In this case
[€
/ km] (19)
7. & 121d34b nbsp; Mathematical modeling, Results and discussion
In the reference papers
[1, 20] we found reasons to consider 
;
;
;
€/l fuel.
These data are argued below. From
[20] we can read: “Hybrid vehicles do cost more than their gasoline-only
counterparts. On average, the price premium is $2,500 to $3,000. Buyers,
however, do have the benefit of a $2,000 federal tax deduction for purchasing a
hybrid as part of the Internal Revenue Service’s Clean Fuel Vehicle deduction.
The deduction, which was put into place as an incentive for consumers to
consider this new technology, was scheduled to decline gradually beginning in
2004 and eventually be phased out. Congress has extended this credit, however,
offering up to a $2,000 tax credit on hybrids placed into service in 2004 and
2005. The credit drops to $500 for 2006.
Boughey received the $2,000 federal deduction as well as a state deduction of $3,600, which was calculated based on his purchase of a hybrid as well as on the vehicle he replaced — a 1991 Mercury Grand Marquis that was sold for salvage.
For comparison purposes,
Laumann calculated first-year insurance costs for all the versions of the 2004
Honda Civic four-door sedan including the Civic Hybrid. Costs ranged from $835
to $849 for an average driver in the state of
Like the other automakers,
When it comes to regular maintenance, most hybrids do not require any maintenance on the hybrid-specific components. One notable exception is an air filter on the Ford Escape Hybrid. “The air filter for the battery system needs to be replaced every 40,000 miles,” explained Olson.
The gasoline engine in a hybrid requires the same maintenance that it would if it were the only power source in the vehicle. That means oil changes every 5,000 to 10,000 miles depending on the vehicle and the driving conditions.
Another component that
regularly needs to be replaced on every vehicle is the brake pads, but with
hybrids these last much longer thanks to regenerative braking. In regenerative
braking, the electric motor becomes a generator and captures the energy that
would be lost as heat through the brakes when the vehicle’s brakes are applied
or when it is coasting. Once the energy is captured, it is transformed into
usable electricity, which recharges the batteries and in turn increases the
number of miles than can be traveled per gallon of gasoline. An added benefit is
that the reduced heat means less wear and tear on the brakes, which means that
they don’t need to be replaced as often as conventional brakes. “We’ve seen
customers go 85,000 miles before they needed to replace their brakes on their Prius vehicles,” says
One of the top reasons that people purchase a
hybrid vehicle is to get better fuel economy and they are often disappointed
that they don’t experience the fuel economy numbers listed on the window
sticker in their regular driving. “I just love my Honda Civic Hybrid, but I
have been a bit disappointed that the gas mileage isn’t better,” says Ivey Doyal of
To be sure, differences in projected fuel economy versus real-world driving can mean serious differences in your wallet over the long term. Unfortunately, there is a discrepancy between the EPA’s fuel economy ratings, which are listed on the window sticker when you buy a new car or truck, and the real-world results that most drivers experience, regardless of the type of vehicle they drive. The EPA’s ratings are the numbers manufacturers are required by law to list in all the promotional materials for their vehicles. Unfortunately, the procedure the EPA uses to calculate these numbers is outdated and isn’t indicative of the way most Americans drive today. The EPA has made adjustments to its calculations to try to compensate for this. Even with these adjustments, however, the numbers still often differ from the real world. “We’ve seen where the typical driving style can be as much as 20-percent less than the EPA fuel economy number,” says Bienenfield.
While all vehicles are affected by this discrepancy, hybrid vehicles have the appearance of being affected even more so. “For example,” explains Bienenfield, “A vehicle that has a fuel economy rating of 20 mpg may only get 18 mpg, while a vehicle that is rated at 50 mpg may only get 45 mpg. This seems like a bigger issue for the more fuel-efficient vehicle, but in reality both vehicles are off by 10 percent.”
In the informal survey we did
with Honda and
Perhaps what is most misleading
about the fuel economy ratings is that they don’t show how widely numbers can
vary based on an individual’s typical driving route. “Short trips are the
harshest on fuel economy, so anyone who drives just a few miles in his typical
trip will see lower mpg numbers than someone who drives, say, 15 miles to
work,” says Bienenfield.
Our unscientific poll showed these results as well.
At the opposite end of the
spectrum, Civic Hybrid driver Boughey
and Honda Insight owner Dana Dorrity
of
“To be fair,” says
Reading this large variety of documentary reasons, the reader can understand better how difficult was the authors’ task to collect numerical data for their study.
Finally the authors made the following hypotheses:
; 
;
€; 
;
;
km ICE or HSV / ICE
car or HSV; 
;
l / 100 km ICE; 
;
By using these data and the
mathematical model previously presented, the functions 
(fig. 1), 
(fig. 2), 
(fig. 3), were calculated.
From the fig. 1 we can see how
the state unitary subsidy of HSV 
[€ / 100 km] is influenced by total life cycle
of a HSV, τHSV [km HSV/ HSV car]. The diagram was calculated
with the values previously indicated and inserted in diagram field. The
compared cost-to-quality analysis applied here shows us that:
1) & 121d34b nbsp; The
state unitary subsidy [€
/ 100 km] is lowering when the total life cycle of HSV τHSV [km
HSV/ HSV car] is
increasing. In other words, the more resistant in time is HSV, the less is the
necessary unitary state subsidy. How much must be this total life cycle of HSV
so that the state subsidy to not be necessary? The calculus results shows 
=
830000 km for 
=
75000 km and =101500
km when =
93750 km. Of course, these results are unacceptable, we must have in view other
practical solutions, like the fuel reduction ratio increasing or to manufacture cheaper the HSV (the
value
2) & 121d34b nbsp; The
fig. 1 diagram shows also that the less is the total life cycle of the ICE cars
(the value )
the unitary state subsidy [€ / 100 km] is lower.
Fig. 1. The necessary subsidy  [€/100km] versus the total life cycle of HSV [km HSV / HSV car].
Fig. 3. The
necessary subsidy 8. FINAL CONCLUSION According to the done study there is a real feasible solution to make HSV profitable in the next future. This solution is characterized by the following numerical parameters: 1. The
total cost of HSV 2. The
total cost of classical car, powered by internal combustion engine, 4. The
operation-maintenance ratio of ICE car service (eq. 7), 5. The
operation-maintenance ratio of ICE car product, 6. The
investment cost of the HSV, 3. The
operation-maintenance ratio of HSV car service (eq. 8), 7. The
consumption cost of the HSV, 8. The
investment cost of the ICE car, 9. The
consumption cost of the ICE car, 10. The
unitary fuel consumption of ICE, 11. The
total life cycle of an ICE car, Of course, this is only one of the possible solutions. The done mathematical model presented here allows the modeling according to concrete possibilities the manufacturer has in order to achieve a better and better HSV. Modeling so, using the compared cost-to-quality analysis as work procedure, the authors are convinced that the best solution of a HSV is an ideal [12, 16, 17, 18], untouchable as any ideal, but an aim point for researchers. REFERENCES1. Arsie I., Di Domenico A., Marotta M., Pianese C., Rizzo G., Sorrentino M. (2005); A Parametric Study of the Design Variables for a Hybrid Electric Car with Solar Cells, Proc. of METIME Conference, June 2-3, 2005, University of Galati, RO. 2. Arsie I., Marotta M., Pianese C., Rizzo G., Sorrentino M. (2005); Optimal Design of a Hybrid Electric Car with Solar Cells, 1st AUTOCOM Workshop on Preventive and Active Safety Systems for Road Vehicles, Istanbul, Sept. 19-21, 2005. 3. Bejan A., e.a. (1996) – Thermal Design & Optimization, John Willey & Sons, New York 4. Frangopoulos, A. C, Caralis, C. Y., A method for taking into account environmental impacts in the economic evaluation of energy systems, Energy Conversion Management, Vol. 38, No. 15-17, 1997, pp. 1751-1763. 5. Juran, J. M., Godfrey, A. B., Juran’s Quality Handbook (5th Edition), McGraw-Hill, 1999. 6. Ionita,
C. I., Termoeconomia, stiinta
interdisciplinara de minimizare a costurilor produselor prin intermediul
exergiei (Thermo-economics, the Interdisciplinary Science which Minimizes
the Product Cost by Means of Exergy). Conferinta de Termotehnica, 1996, 7. Ionita,
C.I., Cernega, O., The Exergy-economic Analysis a Procedure to
Minimize. Both the Products Costs and the Noxious. Emissions of the Power Plants.
Heat Engines and Environmental Protection, 25-28 May, 1997, Proceedings, 8. Ionita, C.I. ,About the Application of Extended Exergy Analysis to the Optimization of Industrial Systems Using Cost/Quality Ratio, ECOS 2000 Proceedings, University of Twente, Nederland, pp. 187-198. 9. Ionita C.I., The Close Connection between Cost and Quality of Energy Products, ECOS 2001, Istanbul, Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 813-820. 10. Ionita, C.I., The Cost-to-Quality Evaluation and Optimization of the Heat Powered Systems, HPC’01 2nd International Heat Powered Cycles Conference, CNAM Paris, France, Proceedings vol. II, pp. 255-262. 11. Ionita, C.I., Popa. V. The Analysis of the hvac Systems Using Cost-to-Quality Criterion of Optimization, 7th REHVA World Congress Clima 2000, Napoli 2001, Proceedings on CD. 12. Ionita C.I. (2003), Engineering and Economic Optimization of Energy Production, International Journal of Energy Research, Article Reference No. 811, Journals Production Dept., 697-715 (DOI: 10.1002/er.811), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. 13. Ionita C.I., The Cost-to-Quality Ratio Based Optimization of the Energy Production, Entropie nr. 232, 2001, pp. 10-19. 14. Ionita,
C.I., Extending thermo-economic analysis
by cost to quality optimisation. Proceedings of ECOS 2002 July 3-5, 2002, 15. Ionita C.I, Ion V.I. Cost-to-Quality Optimization of Refrigeration, NATO Advanced Study Institute, June 23-July 5, 2002, Altin Yunus-Cesme, Izmir-Turkiye, An International Meeting, Co-Directors: Prof S. Kakac and Prof. H. Smyrnov, ASI No.978410. 16. Ionita C.I., From Energy Analysis to Compared Cost-to-Quality Analysis of the Thermal Systems, Technical Sciences Academy of Romania, (2003), MOCM-9-vol.2, pp.149-155, ISSN 1224-7480. 17. Ionita C.I., Thermal Systems Optimization and Cost-to-Quality Analysis, International Journal of Heat and Technology”, vol. 22 nr. 1, 2004 pp. 27-37. 18. Ionita C.I., Beyond thermo-economic analysis of thermal systems: the compared cost-to-quality analysis, 1st International Conference on Thermal Engines and Environmental Engineering, METIME 2005, June 3-4, 2005, Galati, Romania. 19. https://www.toyota.co.jp/en The Real Costs of Owning a Hybrid. www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/103708/article.html- 44k https://www.hybrid-car.or Document InfoAccesari: 1985 Apreciat:  Comenteaza documentul:Nu esti inregistratTrebuie sa fii utilizator inregistrat pentru a putea comenta Creaza cont nou A fost util?Daca documentul a fost util si crezi ca meritasa adaugi un link catre el la tine in site in pagina web a site-ului tau.
Copyright © Contact (SCRIGROUP Int. 2024 ) |
,
[€/100 km] versus the unitary fuel cost 
10000
€;
4800 €;
4800 €;
4000
€;
4000
€;