I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:08:16 -0500, Ignoramus6950
wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i
The only way it really "saves" anything is with hydro power, solar,
wind, or atomic. Possibly Natural gas.

On 6/25/2012 8:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:08:16 -0500, Ignoramus6950
wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i
The only way it really "saves" anything is with hydro power, solar,
wind, or atomic. Possibly Natural gas.



the analysis above is flawed. First, if you use gasoline, energy is
lost in transporting it to the gas stations, pumping it, refining it,
etc. Second, energy efficiency is only part of the problem, the other
problem is emissions. even the cleanest car emits more pollutants per
unit of energy produced than a fixed plant. So, if you worry about
breathing, there is a second part of the story to consider.
--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

"Ignoramus6950" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?



As far as cost per mile traveled, there can be no doubt that fully electric
automobiles are extremely economical to operate, and except for energy
that's lost due to heat and friction, they are 100% efficient all the way
from zero clear up to full rated output.

The problem is that the combustion engines that have traditionally been used
in automobiles are only mildly efficient at best when run at peak output, at
conditions other than peak, they are so terribly inefficient that trying to
compare them to a coal or natural gas fired electrical generation plant is
pretty much an absurd notion.

Enter the Atkinson cycle internal combustion engine, and hopefully you'll
start to understand the reason why hybrids are able to be so fuel-efficient
while also being able to perform reasonably well when you put the pedal
down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle

"While a modified Otto cycle engine using the Atkinson cycle provides good
fuel economy, it is at the expense of a lower power-per-displacement as
compared to a traditional four-stroke engine.[3] If demand for more power is
intermittent, the power of the engine can be supplemented by an electric
motor during times when more power is needed. This forms the basis of an
Atkinson cycle-based hybrid electric drivetrain. These electric motors can
be used independently of, or in combination with, the Atkinson cycle engine,
to provide the most efficient means of producing the desired power. This
drive train first entered production in late 1997 in the Japanese-market
Toyota Prius."

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:33:24 -0700, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ignoramus6950" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station operates
at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?



As far as cost per mile traveled, there can be no doubt that fully
electric automobiles are extremely economical to operate, and except
for energy that's lost due to heat and friction, they are 100% efficient
all the way from zero clear up to full rated output.

Nuh uh. Nothing is 100% efficient. If perpetual motion is pie-in-the-
sky, 100% efficiency is the pie plate.

While I haven't seen power budgets, if an electric car manages to take
80% of the energy that came in on the charging plug and turns it into
forward motion, I'd be surprised.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:33:24 -0700, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ignoramus6950" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station operates
at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?



As far as cost per mile traveled, there can be no doubt that fully
electric automobiles are extremely economical to operate, and except
for energy that's lost due to heat and friction, they are 100% efficient
all the way from zero clear up to full rated output.

Nuh uh. Nothing is 100% efficient. If perpetual motion is pie-in-the-
sky, 100% efficiency is the pie plate.

Which is why I mentioned "heat and friction loss"...

--learn to read, pal.


While I haven't seen power budgets, if an electric car manages to take
80% of the energy that came in on the charging plug and turns it into
forward motion, I'd be surprised.


The rest of it "evaporates".....same as with a gasoline vehicle...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...

While I haven't seen power budgets, if an electric car manages to take
80% of the energy that came in on the charging plug and turns it into
forward motion, I'd be surprised.


http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:08:16 -0500, Ignoramus6950
wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

I'll address your efficiency figures at a later date.


And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

If the frackin' tree huggers and our gov't would get out of the way of
nuclear energy, it would be more dependable and a helluva lot less
polluting than coal fired plants are now.

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 03:22:55 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

It depends on where the electricity comes from.

No, it does not.

There are essentially two sources of electric power on the planet:
Hydroelectric and coal. There are others, but they are very small.

Hydro power is cheap, so is always sold first. In other words, the
production capacity is always maxed out. It is not possible to produce
more hydro power than we already are.

Every electric car increases the total global demand for power, and
the only way to satisfy the demand is to make more coal power. Every
electric car is therefore coal powered.
--
RoRo

If the frackin' tree huggers and our gov't would get out of the way of
nuclear energy, it would be more dependable and a helluva lot less
polluting than coal fired plants are now.

things were starting to move, but then the event in Japan shut it
down. We're not likely to see ANY new nuclear plants for decades.

Karl

"Ignoramus6950" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about electric cars today.
An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from
the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.
Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).
i

If you put a similarly low powered gas engine in a car you could
achieve similar efficiency, but it would be only feeble, without the
compensating green status appeal. Such cars don't sell well enough.
The people who demand them want to force them on someone else.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/31/h...on-from-prius/

My 1978 Accord averaged 36-38 MPG with the interior space of a Saab or
BMW.
It handled better than my rich buddy's Saab 900 Turbo, too. (but was
no match for his BMW 2002)

jsw,

In article ,
says...

On 6/25/2012 8:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:08:16 -0500, Ignoramus6950
wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i
The only way it really "saves" anything is with hydro power, solar,
wind, or atomic. Possibly Natural gas.



the analysis above is flawed. First, if you use gasoline, energy is
lost in transporting it to the gas stations, pumping it, refining it,
etc.

Energy is also lost transporting fuel to power plants and preparing it
for use.

Second, energy efficiency is only part of the problem, the other
problem is emissions. even the cleanest car emits more pollutants per
unit of energy produced than a fixed plant. So, if you worry about
breathing, there is a second part of the story to consider.

Worrying about breathing is only an issue if you live in Los Angeles--
one of these days some terrorist with a nuke is going to put an end to
that problem. The major emission that anybody who doesn't live in Los
Angeles worries about is CO2 and fixed power plants don't emit any less
of that than mobile ones, it's part of the basic chemistry of
combustion.

In article ,
says...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...

While I haven't seen power budgets, if an electric car manages to take
80% of the energy that came in on the charging plug and turns it into
forward motion, I'd be surprised.


http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf

That's dollar cost and has little to do with the actual energy consumed.
Remember that much of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is taxes. Those
same taxes are not currently applied to electric vehicles, but if they
become popular those taxes will be.

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

While I haven't seen power budgets, if an electric car manages to
take
80% of the energy that came in on the charging plug and turns it
into
forward motion, I'd be surprised.


http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf

The glaring error there is ignoring the batteries as an operating
cost.
http://www.plugincars.com/replacing-...ry-122261.html

I've tested high-end batteries at Segway and [a medical equipment
manufacturer] and seen a small percentage of Lithiums begin to degrade
in less than a year. The packs' built-in supervisory computer recorded
all charge and discharge cycles, temperature and remaining capacity.
The battery maker wouldn't promise more than three years life,
regardless of cycle count.

What is your experience with the same battery technologies in power
tools and laptops?

Mine isn't good. I have to employ lab tech tricks on the batteries to
keep my Makita drills and 5+ year old laptops running.

jsw

"Ignoramus6950" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i

You forgot to add for petroleum refining losses.
Gas manufacture runs around 85% efficiency. That puts your internal
combustion engine closer to 24% efficiency.
Paul K. Dickman

Ignoramus6950 wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i

The source of the electricity used for charging has the greatest impact
on the true efficiency and emissions as everyone else noted. What they
forgot to note is that EVs do not consume any energy during stops or
downhill grades, and recapture some energy during braking, both of which
can further improve efficiency to a variable amount based on terrain and
usage.

"Pete C." wrote in message
.com...

The source of the electricity used for charging has the greatest
impact
on the true efficiency and emissions as everyone else noted. What
they
forgot to note is that EVs do not consume any energy during stops or
downhill grades, and recapture some energy during braking, both of
which
can further improve efficiency to a variable amount based on terrain
and
usage.

Planning the route and timing of your shopping trips does that too,
with any vehicle.

jsw

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus6950" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i

You forgot to add for petroleum refining losses.
Gas manufacture runs around 85% efficiency. That puts your internal
combustion engine closer to 24% efficiency.
Paul K. Dickman

Also, your transmission losses are high.
According to the EIA electric transmission losses are 7% average nationwide
(5.5% here in IL) and are based on total production + imports - direct
use -watts sold. So it would include losses at stepdown to 220.

Paul K. Dickman

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message
...

According to the EIA electric transmission losses are 7% average
nationwide (5.5% here in IL) and are based on total production +
imports - direct use -watts sold. So it would include losses at
stepdown to 220.

Paul K. Dickman

This analysis neglects the differences between the qualities of energy
sources. Coal won't fuel a car directly, it's only good for making
steam . Petroleum is more versatile. Electricity is the highest, most
valuable form which can do almost anything except be stored cheaply in
bulk..

jsw

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

And before anyone starts suggests that government ought to take
over, using taxpayer dollars, you need to realize that someone's
taxes would need to go up, and that government-control of energy
production is a textbook example of socialism.

The government has owned and controlled energy production since 1933:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

"The Kentucky Sierra Club called the [2008 Kingston] disaster the
"worst environmental disaster since Chernobyl"."
"The disaster continues to poison lakes and stream as well as
potentially the drinking water of millions."

Who knew?

jsw

On 6/26/2012 6:08, Ignoramus6950 wrote:
I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

That's simple. Just like any truly green electricity without CO2
emissions. Make the electricity with nuclear power.


However, in the cold or hot climate (most places, one of the big
problems with electric cars is AIR CONDITIONING, cooling or heating.
In a normal gasoline powered car, there is extra heat to use for
heating the car (here in winter at -20C). In the electric car, the
extra heat has to come from electricity in battery, and we are talking
about several kW.. Electric cars are cold cars in winter as the
battery just simply can't handle the heating.. Also, you have to use
power to cool it in summer, but that is less of a problem (less
delta-T). Perhaps better heat insulation will solve this.

The second big problem is that it costs 10000-20000 usd per 5 years
for battery replacement.. That makes a LOT for the USD/km cost..
Perhaps better battery technology will solve this.

The third big problem is TAXES. Nowadays here in Finland the gasoline
costs about 1.7 euro/litre (0.70euro/litre for gasoline and 1.00
euro/litre government tax). If the electric cars come popular, there
will definitely be a tax on "electric car electricity".. Perhaps put
a kWh counter in each electric car and then pay X.XX USD/kWh
electric car electricity tax.. Nothing will solve THIS.


Here the reasonable way to go at the moment is with CNG, compressed
natural gas. Conversion of old car is about 2500euro. Cost of CNG
driving is HALF the cost of gasoline driving, for fuel cost per km.
However, the big threat is that government will also put a heavy
tax on CNG (like on gasoline), so people are afraid to convert
their cars. It takes about 2 years payback time for the conversion.
Again, nothing will solve the TAX problem, especially poor
predictability on changes of taxes.

IMHO.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message
...

According to the EIA electric transmission losses are 7% average
nationwide (5.5% here in IL) and are based on total production +
imports - direct use -watts sold. So it would include losses at stepdown
to 220.

Paul K. Dickman

This analysis neglects the differences between the qualities of energy
sources. Coal won't fuel a car directly, it's only good for making steam .
Petroleum is more versatile. Electricity is the highest, most valuable
form which can do almost anything except be stored cheaply in bulk..

jsw

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

To be clear, my point was that Iggy's original premise was flawed. He
assumed no production or distribution losses on petroleum and inflated those
losses on electricity.

In terms of btus dug from the ground and delivered to the transmission, it
is probably a wash.

28% carnot efficiency * 85% production efficiency = 23.8% of the btu dug hit
the transmission
33% production efficiency * 93% transmission efficiency = 30.69% for
electricity delivered. If the charging and motor losses are 22.45% than it
is dead even.

As to Iggy's question, "And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more
CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?"

Even if the EV is less efficient than gas engines,
not all electricity comes from hydrocarbons but all gasoline comes from
hydrocarbons. If the difference in efficiency is less than the percentage of
electricity produced from hydro/nuke/solar/wind then it will result in a net
reduction of CO2.

All that aside, I drive a 12yo pickup. But speaking as a person who owns a
hundred different hammers, I say "Diversity is always a good thing and
should be encouraged".

There's more than one way to skin a cat.
That doesn't seem important now, but it's gonna be real handy when we run
out of squirrels to eat.

Paul K. Dickman

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ...

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

And before anyone starts suggests that government ought to take
over, using taxpayer dollars, you need to realize that someone's
taxes would need to go up, and that government-control of energy
production is a textbook example of socialism.

The government has owned and controlled energy production since 1933:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

"The Kentucky Sierra Club called the [2008 Kingston] disaster the
"worst environmental disaster since Chernobyl"."
"The disaster continues to poison lakes and stream as well as
potentially the drinking water of millions."

Who knew?



Still, it goes a long ways towards demonstrating that certain projects having the potential of providing huge benefits for all of society are oftentimes beyond the scope of private enterprize alone, the up-front costs being prohibitive.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message in.local...
In article ,
says...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...

While I haven't seen power budgets, if an electric car manages to take
80% of the energy that came in on the charging plug and turns it into
forward motion, I'd be surprised.


http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf

That's dollar cost and has little to do with the actual energy consumed.

Pretty sure Iggy was primarily looking at the situation from an economic standpoint, specifically, the out-of pocket cost per mile traveled.

And besides, you failed to come up with anything that would quantify a diference in the total amount of energy that's actually consumed one way or the other.

Remember that much of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is taxes.

An equally valid argument could be made that the cost of gasoline would be much higher, were it not subsidized..

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...09_600x450.jpg

Those same taxes are not currently applied to electric vehicles, but if they become popular those taxes will be.

Which would be perfectly fine by me....

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ...

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

While I haven't seen power budgets, if an electric car manages to
take
80% of the energy that came in on the charging plug and turns it
into
forward motion, I'd be surprised.


http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf

The glaring error there is ignoring the batteries as an operating
cost.
http://www.plugincars.com/replacing-...ry-122261.html


Eventual failure and the subsequent replacement of engines, axles, transmissions and so forth is an "operating cost" with fossil fuel vehicles as well.

I've tested high-end batteries at Segway and [a medical equipment
manufacturer] and seen a small percentage of Lithiums begin to degrade
in less than a year. The packs' built-in supervisory computer recorded
all charge and discharge cycles, temperature and remaining capacity.
The battery maker wouldn't promise more than three years life,
regardless of cycle count.


As an aside, if recall correctly, probably the biggest problem with batteries is that US lithium extraction is seriously underdeveloped at the moment.


What is your experience with the same battery technologies in power
tools and laptops?

For reasons completely apart from battery performance, typically I use an extension cord and I also have absolutely no desire whatsoever to own a laptop.

That said, it's pretty hard to argue that overall, battery performance hasn't improved quite a bit over the last decade or so


Mine isn't good. I have to employ lab tech tricks on the batteries to
keep my Makita drills and 5+ year old laptops running.


Pretty sure it was someplace on a wiki page where it was mentioned that a decade or so ago, there was quite a bit of fear that battery life might possibly turn out to be a HUGE problem but that what actuallly transpired is that in most cases, battery life has greatly exceeded initial engineering expectations.

Anyways, here's an article probably that lays out the situation fairly accurately :

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...s-battery-dies

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:33 -0500, Paul K. Dickman wrote:

(...)

You forgot to add for petroleum refining losses. Gas manufacture runs
around 85% efficiency. That puts your internal combustion engine closer
to 24% efficiency. Paul K. Dickman

There's that 300 - million - year delay in turning
biomass into oil, too. If time is money, that
is a hell of a toll.

--Winston

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

The government has owned and controlled energy production since
1933:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

-Still, it goes a long ways towards demonstrating that certain
-projects having the potential of providing huge benefits for all
-of society are oftentimes beyond the scope of private enterprize
-alone, the up-front costs being prohibitive.

We swing back and forth in an ad-hoc manner on public vs private
utility ownership, often after the private ones succumb to greed or
the public ones to incompetence or corruption. Both types need the
carrot plus the stick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Postal_Service

MITRE where I used to work was founded as a private corporation whose
research was almost all in the public (=military) interest.
Engineering the DEW line of radars across Canada had required a
broader range of radar + computer + communications expertise than any
one company possessed. At first MIT got the contract, spinning off
Lincoln Labs, but the workload was too great for professors part-time.

MITRE was the next attempt, on the same model as the RAND Corporation
and Sandia Labs, among many others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandia_...l_Laboratories
Not being a direct government employee has a lot of benefits such as
freedom to work on a wider range of projects, if you value adventure
over stability. Still it was a strange shadowy world.

jsw

Ignoramus6950 wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Not even close. A good Otto-cycle engine gets maybe 13% efficiency
at near wide-open throttle. At typical mid-throttle operation, it is
much worse, maybe 5-8%. A semi-Atkinson cycle engine like in my
Honda Civic Hybrid does better at mid-throttle, as does a Diesel by
eliminating pumping losses.

So, a standard gas engine is a lot worse than you might imagine.

Most of the electrical gear is WAY more efficient than that, hence
small heat sinks and minimal cooling system are needed.

No, the losses in the electrical system are small compared to the
incredibly poor efficiency of the typical gas engine. Any time you have the
gas pedal less than floored, you are practically driving with the brakes
on! Read up on "pumping loss" if you don't believe me.

Then, look at the VAST amount of heat going out the tailpipe, and the
significant amount of heat going out the radiator.

Just being able to drive without these massive heat losses gives some idea
of the efficiency of electric vehicles.

Compare the KWH energy loaded into the batteries of a typical EV against
the BTU content of a tank of gas, you won't believe the numbers!

Jon

Jim Wilkins wrote:



What is your experience with the same battery technologies in power
tools and laptops?

Mine isn't good. I have to employ lab tech tricks on the batteries to
keep my Makita drills and 5+ year old laptops running.
Yup, this is Honda's dirty little secret.
It looks like they will be replacing a majority of the battery packs
in the Honda Civic Hybrid over the course of their 80K mile warranty
in the general US, and probably almost all in California with the 100K
warranty. Lots of people are troubled with battery degradation and
outright failure. One nice feature is the car can still be driven with
a failed battery.

The HCH has no cell balancer system, which I think is a big mistake.
Not sure if the Prius has this, but they seem to have a lot better luck
with their battery system. In the HCH, they are running 100A through
Ni-MH D-cells!

Jon

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:06:01 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:

speaking as a person who owns a
hundred different hammers, I say "Diversity is always a good thing and
should be encouraged".

I'm considering buying a Chevy Volt. I know it's a long payout but I
can afford it and I want to support new tech. So far one salesman! and
two friends have tried to talk me out of the idea. I know more about
the car and the cost-benefit than all three put together but I may as
well fart into the wind as expect their support. Their collective
opinion seems to be that what I'm doing is good for everyone except
myself and I think that subconsciously they oppose that kind of
diversity. The irony is that none of them would try to talk me out of
a gas guzzler or a new toy because all three have their share of
those.

By the way if anybody's interested in reading the Volt shop manual
it's online here
http://www.autocats.net/manual/chevr...tart_Volt.html

Jon Elson wrote:
Ignoramus6950 wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Not even close. A good Otto-cycle engine gets maybe 13% efficiency
at near wide-open throttle. At typical mid-throttle operation, it is
much worse, maybe 5-8%. A semi-Atkinson cycle engine like in my
Honda Civic Hybrid does better at mid-throttle, as does a Diesel by
eliminating pumping losses.


Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25%
to 30% when used to power a car. In other words, even when the engine is
operating at its point of maximum thermal efficiency, of the total heat
energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 70-75% is rejected as
heat without being turned into useful work, i.e. turning the crankshaft.
Approximately half of this rejected heat is carried away by the exhaust
gases, and half passes through the cylinder walls or cylinder head into
the engine cooling system, and is passed to the atmosphere via the
coolant system radiator[1]. Some of the work generated is also lost as
friction, noise, air turbulence, and work used to turn engine equipment
and appliances such as water and oil pumps and the electrical generator,
and only about 25-30% of the energy released by the fuel consumed is
available to move the vehicle.

At idle, the thermal efficiency is zero since no usable work is being
drawn from the engine. At low speeds gasoline engines suffer efficiency
losses at small throttle openings from the high turbulence and
frictional (head) loss when the incoming air must fight its way around
the nearly closed throttle; diesel engines do not suffer this loss
because the incoming air is not throttled. At high speeds, efficiency in
both types of engine is reduced by pumping and mechanical frictional
losses, and the shorter time period within which combustion has to take
place. Engine efficiency peaks in most applications at around 75% of
rated engine power, which is also the range of greatest engine torque
(e.g. in the 2007 Ford Focus, maximum torque of 133 foot-pounds (180 Nm)
is obtained at 4,500 RPM, and maximum engine power of 136 brake
horsepower (101 kW) is obtained at 6,000 RPM). At all other combinations
of engine speed and torque, the thermal efficiency is less than this
maximum.

In the past 3-4 years, GDI (Gasoline Direct Injection) increased the
efficiency of the engines equipped with this fueling system up to 35%.
Currently the technology is available in a wide variety of vehicles
ranging from affordable cars from Mazda, Ford and Chevrolet to more
expensive cars from BMW, Mercedes-Benz, VAG.


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

Only about 14%–26% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets
used to move your car down the road, depending on the drive cycle. The
rest of the energy is lost to engine and driveline inefficiencies or
used to power accessories. Therefore, the potential to improve fuel
efficiency with advanced technologies is enormous.

Improving IC Engine Efficiency

Today’s efficiency situation:

FUEL 100%

PUSHING THE PISTONS 35%

OVERCOMING ENGINE FRICTION AND PUMPING THE AIR AND FUEL

(typical US driving condition) 20%


So, a standard gas engine is a lot worse than you might imagine.

Most of the electrical gear is WAY more efficient than that, hence
small heat sinks and minimal cooling system are needed.

No, the losses in the electrical system are small compared to the
incredibly poor efficiency of the typical gas engine. Any time you have the
gas pedal less than floored, you are practically driving with the brakes
on! Read up on "pumping loss" if you don't believe me.

Then, look at the VAST amount of heat going out the tailpipe, and the
significant amount of heat going out the radiator.

Just being able to drive without these massive heat losses gives some idea
of the efficiency of electric vehicles.

Compare the KWH energy loaded into the batteries of a typical EV against
the BTU content of a tank of gas, you won't believe the numbers!

Jon


--
Steve W.

If you're going to correct someone else, try to get your facts right.

http://www.differentsourcesofelectricity.com/

Sources of electricity
in the United States


49.8% of electricity in the US is generated by burning coal
19.9% from nuclear power, 17.9% from natural gas
6.5% from hydroelectric,
3% from burning petroleum
a paltry 2.3% from other renewable energy sources such as wind power , solar
energy , geothermal power, and biomass.
Renewable energy accounts for about 8% of all electricity generated.
(Source: Energy Information Administration)
A list of the different types of power plants
Information on renewable energy and renewable sources of electricity
Breakdown of how electricity is generated in the US


Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Robert Roland" wrote in message
...

No, it does not.

There are essentially two sources of electric power on the planet:
Hydroelectric and coal. There are others, but they are very small.

--
RoRo

I doubt it. Diesel and gasoline power cars do pretty well. Electric cars
need storage batteries, which are notably ineffecient.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Jim Wilkins wrote:



My 1978 Accord averaged 36-38 MPG with the interior space of a Saab or
BMW.
It handled better than my rich buddy's Saab 900 Turbo, too. (but was
no match for his BMW 2002)
Just came back from the CNC Workshop in Ann Arbor, to St. Louis, approx.
525 miles. I did 46 MPG up and back, running at about 70 MPH most of the
way. Around town I can get 56 MPG without the air conditioning, but
now that it is hotter, about 52 MPG with the A/C. This is a Honda
Civic Hybrid.

Jon

Pete C. wrote:


The source of the electricity used for charging has the greatest impact
on the true efficiency and emissions as everyone else noted. What they
forgot to note is that EVs do not consume any energy during stops or
downhill grades, and recapture some energy during braking, both of which
can further improve efficiency to a variable amount based on terrain and
usage.
My Honda hybrid does the same. As soon as you take your foot off the gas,
the fuel is cut off and the intake valves are closed, allowing the engine
to freewheel with low losses. As you slow for a stop, at 9 MPH the clutch
drops out and the engine stops completely. When you take your foot off
the brake, the engine is spun up by the assist motor and the valves are
engaged. The motor assists acceleration to cover for the woeful power
output of the semi-Atkinson cycle engine. The assist motor also absorbs
energy to charge the battery during downhill grades and average braking.
So, on Honda Hybrids, the brakes usually last the life of the car.

Jon

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:52:01 -0700, a friend
wrote:

On 6/25/2012 8:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:08:16 -0500, Ignoramus6950
wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i
The only way it really "saves" anything is with hydro power, solar,
wind, or atomic. Possibly Natural gas.



the analysis above is flawed. First, if you use gasoline, energy is
lost in transporting it to the gas stations, pumping it, refining it,
etc. Second, energy efficiency is only part of the problem, the other
problem is emissions. even the cleanest car emits more pollutants per
unit of energy produced than a fixed plant. So, if you worry about
breathing, there is a second part of the story to consider.
Actually, todays cars burn cleaner than MOST coal fired power
plants.

If the frackin' tree huggers and our gov't would
get out of the way of
nuclear energy, it would be more dependable and
a helluva lot less
polluting than coal fired plants are now.

things were starting to move, but then the event
in Japan shut it
down. We're not likely to see ANY new nuclear
plants for decades.


Why don't we hear more about thorium reactors?

"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus6950 wrote:
...
An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and
produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from
the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Not even close. A good Otto-cycle engine gets maybe 13% efficiency
at near wide-open throttle. At typical mid-throttle operation, it
is
much worse, maybe 5-8%. A semi-Atkinson cycle engine like in my
Honda Civic Hybrid does better at mid-throttle, as does a Diesel by
eliminating pumping losses.
Jon

My 1949 Aircraft Powerplant Handbook puts the typical engine output
power at 29.5% of the energy in the fuel at cruise, 60% of rated
power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
The R-3350 (B-29, DC-7) was better at 33.7%, close to the top of the
range for the most efficient gasoline car engines. It used an exhaust
power recovery turbine system that's much too complex and expensive
for an economy car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine

jsw

On 6/25/2012 11:08 PM, Ignoramus6950 wrote:
I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i



Ya'but does it make one FEEL good?

On 6/26/2012 12:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:08:16 -0500, Ignoramus6950
wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

I'll address your efficiency figures at a later date.


And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

If the frackin' tree huggers and our gov't would get out of the way of
nuclear energy, it would be more dependable and a helluva lot less
polluting than coal fired plants are now.

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln


Imagine where the nuclear industry would be now if not for "them".
Fusion would undoubtedly be closer to reality. Gee, who doesn't want
almost free, clean energy? Who would lose their power base?