Doctor Drivel wrote:
Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These batteries
are not available in volume yet.

Lithium Polymer (one of the best candidates for this - as you yourself
have stated) has an energy density of 166Wh/kg[1]

Petrol is of the order of 12000-13000Wh/kg[2][3] depending on the
source.

I make this about 70-80 times more efficient to carry your energy in
petrol than a battery if you ignore the fact that the fuel gets used
up. Assume that the tank averages a half-empty state you are about 150
times better off.

Out of interest diesel is about 13% better as far as gravimetric energy
density is concerned[3]


Refs:
[1] http://www.sanyo.com/batteries/lithpol.cfm
[2] http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml
[3] http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm

In article .com,
Matt Beard wrote:
Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These batteries
are not available in volume yet.

Lithium Polymer (one of the best candidates for this - as you yourself
have stated) has an energy density of 166Wh/kg[1]

Petrol is of the order of 12000-13000Wh/kg[2][3] depending on the
source.

I make this about 70-80 times more efficient to carry your energy in
petrol than a battery if you ignore the fact that the fuel gets used
up. Assume that the tank averages a half-empty state you are about 150
times better off.

Don't confuse his (dribble) poor little brain with figures. He only
'understands' them if they're in adverts.

There will never be a storage battery that competes with petrol on an
energy per given weight basis.

--
*Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:00:16 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

** snip **** kicker tripe **

You mean he bore false witness? I'm devastated....

Matt, you can recover from your devastation. The **** Kicker is very
confused.

"Matt Beard" wrote in message
oups.com...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.


Lithium Polymer (one of the best candidates for this - as you yourself
have stated) has an energy density of 166Wh/kg[1]

Petrol is of the order of 12000-13000Wh/kg[2][3] depending on the
source.

I make this about 70-80 times more efficient to carry your energy in
petrol than a battery if you ignore the fact that the fuel gets used
up. Assume that the tank averages a half-empty state you are about 150
times better off.


You have to take into account the total weight of the vehicle. IC engines,
transmissions an fuel tanks are bulky and heavy with knock ons like heavier
suspension, bigger stronger bodies, etc. The new Mitsubishi, to be
launched ion Japan in about 3 to 4 years, has an electric motor in wheel hub
setup. The total weight of the car is less vs. the IC equiv, giving the
designer greater licence.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article .com,
Matt Beard wrote:
Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight
modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.

Lithium Polymer (one of the best candidates for this - as you yourself
have stated) has an energy density of 166Wh/kg[1]

Petrol is of the order of 12000-13000Wh/kg[2][3] depending on the
source.

I make this about 70-80 times more efficient to carry your energy in
petrol than a battery if you ignore the fact that the fuel gets used
up. Assume that the tank averages a half-empty state you are about 150
times better off.

Don't

** snip dribbling senility **

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You have to take into account the total weight of the vehicle. IC
engines, transmissions an fuel tanks are bulky and heavy with knock ons
like heavier suspension, bigger stronger bodies, etc. The new
Mitsubishi, to be launched ion Japan in about 3 to 4 years, has an
electric motor in wheel hub setup. The total weight of the car is less
vs. the IC equiv, giving the designer greater licence.

Indeed. Until you fit it with batteries capable of giving a 500 mile range
at 70+ mph.

If all you want is a short range town car all these weight savings can be
incorporated in an IC design too. Just how much do you think a powerful
motor bike power unit weighs?

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

You have to take into account the total weight of the vehicle. IC
engines, transmissions and fuel tanks are bulky and heavy with knock ons
like heavier suspension, bigger stronger bodies, etc. The new
Mitsubishi, to be launched ion Japan in about 3 to 4 years, has an
electric motor in wheel hub setup. The total weight of the car is less
vs. the IC equiv, giving the designer greater licence.

Indeed.

Amazing! Is he learning at last? Is he turning over a new leaf? Is he
becoming civilised? Encouraging. We shall see.

** snip senility **

Sorry to disappoint but Hydrogen can easily be produced without fossil
fuel .... water is typically used (H2O) either catalyse or electrolyse
off the oxygen, and you have clean Hydrogen. (or Plasma arc process of
Kværner Engineering)
I know that industrial processes for Hydrogen then recirculate the
Oxygen to produce the energy for the process.

Presently there are also processes for bulk steam reforming of natural
gas or methane

OK it can be argued that you are probably using fossil fuel to produce
the electricity for any electrolytic process - but there are
workarounds for that.

If you want more details look at:
http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng3.html

They discuss a hugely efficient process (almost 100%) with 1005 usable
output products.

"Rick" wrote in message
oups.com...


Sorry to disappoint but Hydrogen can easily be produced without fossil fuel
..... water is typically used (H2O) either catalyse or electrolyse off the
oxygen, and you have clean Hydrogen. (or Plasma arc process of Kværner
Engineering) I know that industrial processes for Hydrogen then recirculate
the Oxygen to produce the energy for the process.

Presently there are also processes for bulk steam reforming of natural gas
or methane

OK it can be argued that you are probably using fossil fuel to produce the
electricity for any electrolytic process - but there are workarounds for
that.

If you want more details look at:
http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng3.html

They discuss a hugely efficient process (almost 100%) with 1005 usable
output products.



"Please also note that because of the staggering loss of exergy, use of
electrolysis for bulk hydrogen apps is a really, really dumb thing to do.
It is the equivalent of exchanging two US dollars for one Mexican peso."

http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:31:15 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Nonsense as usual. It can do 100mph, and cruise along with the rest of them
at high speed. No CVT, no gearbox

sigh

YOu show yourself to be resistant to learning. The Prius has a gearbox,
Toyota themselves have described it as "CVT".

So did Dribble on July 20th 2005

"The Prius now has a conventional CVT"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...da3afa5?hl=en&




--

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:31:15 +0000, Steve Firth
fresh from kicking **** wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Nonsense as usual. It can do 100mph, and cruise along with the rest of
them
at high speed. No CVT, no gearbox

sigh

YOu show yourself to be resistant to learning. The Prius has a gearbox,
Toyota themselves have described it as "CVT".

So did Dribble on July 20th 2005

"The Prius now has a conventional CVT"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...da3afa5?hl=en&

Lord Hall, you really are thick. Read the thread properly.

In article ,
Matt wrote:
Nonsense as usual. It can do 100mph, and cruise along with the rest of them
at high speed. No CVT, no gearbox

sigh

YOu show yourself to be resistant to learning. The Prius has a gearbox,
Toyota themselves have described it as "CVT".

So did Dribble on July 20th 2005

"The Prius now has a conventional CVT"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...da3afa5?hl=en&

Perhaps his nurse did it for him while he was having his afternoon nap?

--
*I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:14:44 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:08:15 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:00:20 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week

There's nothing wrong with the concept, we just need better batteries.

'Any' battery that needs charging, unless charged environmentally
friendlylyly simply moves the pollution / problem elsewhere .. hence
'flawed' ...


Not totally true. By operating heat engines at better efficiencies (and
powerstations are in general better than cars) yiou can get overall better
efficiencies.

Also car engines ae at their most effint (petrol ones) at mid to high
thtrottle settings. And zero efficiency idleing in traffic, The hybrid
exploits this somewhat to gain slight net gains.

Diesels are most efficient at lower part throttle settings.

A hydrid car that only charges it's batteries via energy initially
input from an IC engine (that should cover the 'regen braking' fans)
is an IC engined powered car. If it's charged from the 'mains' (in the
UK) then it's a gas / oil powered car ..

I own several (pure) electric vehicles and they are certianly not the
solution to the problem. Hybrid'ing simply increases the range /
performance it does not provide a solution (even with a 'synergy
drive' lol) or hasn't yet (when hybrids can do many more mpg than
many 'stock' cars today then we might be getting somewhere).


If we do indeed build a load more nuclear power stations then electric cars
will be the best way to utilise that.

Current cutting edge battery technology is able to deliver 2-300 mile range
at reasonable weight and charge times but not yet at reasonable cost, and
there are some safety issues.

That is likely to impove drastically in the next few years though.

Fuel cells using hydrogen have only one advantage over those...'fill up
time' - in every other way they are likley to be almost impractical.

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. How warm do you have to keep the garage for your hybrid /
electric car in the winter (to reduce cold battery capacity loss ..)
and where does that heating energy come from? ;-)

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:30:14 GMT, wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:
AIUI the point is that it is (or can be) a more efficient IC engine
powered car since the IC engine can always be run under the most fuel
efficient conditions instead of being geared to the road wheels.

Only while there's some battery charge. Once that is exhausted, the petrol
engine is effectively driving the wheels direct, but via a generator and
electric motor or some form of split drive. Hence the poor consumption
under those conditions.

So am I right in thinking that (roughly speaking) for continuous running a
conventional system is more efficient, whereas doing a lot of shuffling
along in heavy traffic a hybrid can be better?

Broadly yes. Good small diesel trin a light pedal settings at 40-60mph
will beat a hybrid under similar conditions.

Stick in traffic, the hybrid scores. The engine is either off, or charging
the battery at a fairly efficient point on its power curve.


Has anyone done the figures
(for current production technology conventional and hybrids) to work out
which would be better averaged out over national traffic patterns? In other
words, if you were to replace the entire national car fleet overnight with
equivalent hybrids would net fuel consumption increase or decrease?

Probably decrease, if only because of the reduced performance.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:50:09 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

The electricity it uses is overnight which normally would be wasted, that
is
why they offer economy 7 and 19 and 34, etc, when using overnight
electricity.


The electricity isn't wasted at night.

Actually it is.

The power stations are essentially idling at the great traffic lights of
consumer demand. Since they take a LOT of hours to come on line, they have
to be left at idle.

Overnight charging of cars wold make a LOT of difference in sommothing out
demand curves for electricity,and utilse the existing infratsructure to far
greater overall cost benefit.

It is just capacity that is not earning revenue at night.

Its better to reduce the daytime demand and use more of the capacity at
night.
This is why storage heaters were invented.

Yes. biut not because its capacity thats is not earning revenue, its
becasue it is capacity that is costing money and fuel to keep running.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:27:36 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...


Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.


Mines about 45kg but it only holds £40 worth.
How much charge can you get in 45kg of battery?

well lemme see..the best battery I have as 22 watt hours roughly and
weighs...rushing to scales...150g..and costs about 50 quid so thats 6.6Kwh.
for 45kg.

I reckon 30KWh is about what you need for a 300 mile range lighweight
electric 'shopping trolley' with a 300 mile range. About £50,000 quid. :-)

Say 250kg. About the same as a conventional car engine and transmission and
cooling system.

In this case Drivel has randomly hit upon a real factoid.

Adequate batterys are available,

But not yet, at sensible prices.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:30:43 +0000, Matt wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:56:59 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These batteries
are not available in volume yet.

Have you ever considered the energy in a fuel tank - say £50 worth?
Now compare that to "modern state-of-the-art batteries"

They don't even come within the same order of magnitude.

They do actually...just.

If you factor in the 20% averag efficiency of a car engine and the 80%
efficiency of an electric motor, it all can be done.

As I said, I reckon 30KWh for a small car is about the same as 30 quids
worth of petrol.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:00:26 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Matt wrote:
Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries are not available in volume yet.

Have you ever considered the energy in a fuel tank - say £50 worth?
Now compare that to "modern state-of-the-art batteries"

They don't even come within the same order of magnitude.

Nor will any rechargeable battery ever. Dribble just believes in magic.
The ad man's dream.

They already do.
I fly electric model aitrcarft, and the state of the art power output of a
modern system is about a brake horspower per pound of power train.

Now that is about a 4 minute flight at that power level admittedly,. but I
can certainly fly an average model for an hour on modern batteries. FLY it.
Not have it crawling along the ground.

The energy density is ceratinly good enough for at least one project car
powered by similar batteries to have been built that had a 300 mile range
and out performed a porsche. I think they paid $250k for the power pack
though,. :-)

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Matt aka Lord Hall wrote:
Nonsense as usual. It can do 100mph, and cruise along with the rest
of them
at high speed. No CVT, no gearbox

sigh

Archie the inventor speaks, so..

** snip senile garbage **

Boy is this nut a waste of space.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:30:14 GMT, wrote:

In other
words, if you were to replace the entire national car fleet overnight
with
equivalent hybrids would net fuel consumption increase or decrease?

Probably decrease, if only because of the reduced performance.

What nonsense. Performance is zippy all right. The average of hybrids is
about the mpg over a similar type of car. Indisputable facts.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:32:39 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Have you ever considered the energy in a fuel tank - say £50 worth?
Now compare that to "modern state-of-the-art batteries"

They don't even come within the same order of magnitude.

Alos look at the space tank takes up.

So you're suggesting there are batteries around that not only store more
energy than petrol but also take up less space? Is this on the planet Zog?


Not quite. But given the appalling efficiency and weight of IC engines,
overall it comes close.

State of the art electric powertrains cannot yet match the power to weight
of e.g. a racing 5cc model aircraft engine and fuel tank, but they are
within 50% of it easily. They exceed 'cooking' IC engine installations
easily.

Diesel is about 13 KWH/kg.

My Lithium batteries achieve about 150W/kg. Bigger ones achieve 350Wh/kg.

http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm

Now if you factor in the overall powertrain efficiencies, and the weight of
the IC option, things get far far closer.

Since a diesel engine is, at best, 30% efficient in road going mode whereas
a top quality electric motor is 90%, you end up with - in terms of output
power - 3.9Kw/kg of diesel and 315Wh/kg for the lithium battery.

Now if you look at power train weights...A 200bhp diesel car probably has
about 60% iof a 1.5 tonne weight in terms of all the gubbins associated
with making it go...to whit.

Engine
Exhaust stystem
Gearbox
Cooling system
Transmission

and so on. ALL of which can be replaced with 4 custom motors, one on each
wheel and say a fairly lightweight bank of electronics to drive them.

Thats 900kg of gubbins and about 60kg of fuel, being replaced by 600kg of
battery, and four electric motors.

I am seeing about 2Kw/lb or 4Kw per kg (roughly) in terms of motor weight
in the stuff I am aquainted with.

So to do 150KW of motors for our 200bhp car, we need about another 38kg of
motor(s).

so 900kg for the diesel, 638 kg for the electric, for similar range and
power output.

The difference is the diesel power train currently costs about 10,000 quid
and refills in 5 minutes, whereas the lithium.electric currently would cost
about half a million quid and takes an hour to refill.

Various lihium manufacturers are working to get cost and recharge times
down. Irs te reverse of what we do in the model aircraft world - there we
accept an hour to recharge and 5 minutes of flight - cars need 5 minutes of
recharge and 5-10 hours of travel...

So although its not there yet, the overall engineering of lithium electric
cars is possible and competive performance- and range- wise with an average
car engine.

The issues are safety, cost, and recharge times.

As I said before Drivel is usually wrong, but in this case randomly, he is
not.









Of course your 'Prius' doesn't have a petrol tank. Or batteries. You don't
need them on top of the mantelpiece.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:23:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You have to take into account the total weight of the vehicle. IC
engines, transmissions an fuel tanks are bulky and heavy with knock ons
like heavier suspension, bigger stronger bodies, etc. The new
Mitsubishi, to be launched ion Japan in about 3 to 4 years, has an
electric motor in wheel hub setup. The total weight of the car is less
vs. the IC equiv, giving the designer greater licence.

Indeed. Until you fit it with batteries capable of giving a 500 mile range
at 70+ mph.

I have never driven a car with a 500 mile range. 300 is average, and I have
had some that were less thahn 200, and a few that were over 300. None will
crack 400 even, let alone 500.

Read my other post. If you factor in the totality of the power train,
things look exceptionally rosy for a lithium electric. Its as good as or
better than an IC engine. Leccy motors are VERY light and do not need
complex gearboxes. If you add in regenerative braking they are even
better...

Where it would realluy score is in the urban/subuirban area - a small car
with lightweight body, that does at best 50-100 miles a day and gets
recharged every night. On off peak electriciity. But is still capable of
90mph and 300 miles on a good day.

This is technically feasible RIGHT NOW. Its not comnmercially viable YET.







If all you want is a short range town car all these weight savings can be
incorporated in an IC design too. Just how much do you think a powerful
motor bike power unit weighs?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:30:43 +0000, Matt wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:56:59 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.

Have you ever considered the energy in a fuel tank - say £50 worth?
Now compare that to "modern state-of-the-art batteries"

They don't even come within the same order of magnitude.

They do actually...just.

If you factor in the 20% averag efficiency of a car engine and the 80%
efficiency of an electric motor, it all can be done.

As I said, I reckon 30KWh for a small car is about the same as 30 quids
worth of petrol.

Also the overall weight of car is less with an electric car. The IC engines
is big and heavy along with transmission and fuel tank. It has to drag all
that weight around.

An electric car is a small wheel in hub motor and a set of batteries and no
heavy suspension and heavy body to support it either. The power to weight
ratio of an electric beats an IC.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:05:29 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:28:48 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulenece wrote in message ...
In article ,

Basically it says they're a con and can't compete in economy with a same
performance diesel but cost a lot more.

From a Prius owner who posted on this news group:
"After driving a Prius, driving any kind of manual diesel vehicle feels like
stepping onto a Fordson tractor."

** snip senile tripe ***

But, as usual, you are deflecting the point.

The 'point' of hybrid vehicles is to provide a better mpg / reduce
pollutiuon compared with a 'std' vehicle.


In some case they also offer the manufacturer experince with electric
transmissions that will pay dividends when the batteries they really need
become available.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:00:26 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Matt wrote:
Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries are not available in volume yet.

Have you ever considered the energy in a fuel tank - say £50 worth?
Now compare that to "modern state-of-the-art batteries"

They don't even come within the same order of magnitude.

Nor will any rechargeable battery ever. Dribble just believes in magic.
The ad man's dream.

They already do.
I fly electric model aitrcarft, and the state of the art power output of a
modern system is about a brake horspower per pound of power train.

Now that is about a 4 minute flight at that power level admittedly,. but I
can certainly fly an average model for an hour on modern batteries. FLY
it.
Not have it crawling along the ground.

The energy density is ceratinly good enough for at least one project car
powered by similar batteries to have been built that had a 300 mile range
and out performed a porsche. I think they paid $250k for the power pack
though,. :-)

Which will be down to about 2k if mass produced

On 25 Nov 2005 10:52:29 -0800, Rick wrote:

The Hygrogen Fuel engine that BMW are throwing millions at is a far
better proposition .. waste product is only water ... Hydrogen is easy
to produce and not a fossil fuel.
No heavy batteries to crat about (with dubious life)
They already have concepts up and running ... filling time at pump is
very fast, and the liquid hydrogen is stired in what sound like a
sponge, and is safer than petrol in the event of a collision.

Knowing BMW it will have a HUGE price penalty, as just about
everything is an extra (and very expensive extra at that)

Overall hydrigen will be even more polluting than diesel. The power
stations that make teh electricity that makes teh hydrogen have to burn
something

How is the hydrogen made? It needs more energy in than you get out of it..

How will it be transported? Stored?

It may be the de facto aviation fuel in 50 years time, but its a nono on
the roads.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:17:26 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
. uk...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

Now if the hydrogen were produced by solar/wind it would be good.

Good thinking me boy. But do you know how much energy it takes to
crack
it?

Electrolysis me boy.
water into hydrogen and oxygen.

That is the process. I said "do you know how much energy it takes to crack
it?"


Not much.
9V DC will do it (you can try with a pp3 battery if you like).

About 30 % more than the energy you get out in a fuel cell, and about 3
times what you would get out in an internal combustion engine running on
hydrogen.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:52:44 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

It made you sound simple. BTW, Nuclear is not cheap.


But it doesn't produce greenhouse gases like driving cars, including
hybrids, does.

Actually it would be cheaper than oil or gas at todays prices IF two things
were to happen

- it wasn't so completely sutrounded with sfatey regulations that are way
in excess of what is required for any other industrial activity pro rata to
te risk to life involved
- it wasn't effectively taxed with respet to the disposal of its waste
material way above what is fair compared with other indistrial activities.

People have been very emotional about nuclear power. i've heard ministers
claiming blatint lies to be facts...

Fortunately the game has switched from 'can we afford to take the risk' to
'can we afford NOT to take the risk'

And te short answr is , no we can't. There is a greater risk to UK society
from not going ahead with more nuclear plant than from going ahead with it.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
What nonsense. Performance is zippy all right. The average of hybrids is
about the mpg over a similar type of car. Indisputable facts.

So what's the point of the vast added expense of a hybrid?

Glad you've finally admitted they're no more economical as an average -
indeed worse on the open road. When did you visit Damascus?

--
*A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 27 Nov 2005 10:29:01 -0800, Rick wrote:

Sorry to disappoint but Hydrogen can easily be produced without fossil
fuel .... water is typically used (H2O) either catalyse or electrolyse
off the oxygen, and you have clean Hydrogen. (or Plasma arc process of
Kværner Engineering)

Thos etakler electricirty which comes from where?

I know that industrial processes for Hydrogen then recirculate the
Oxygen to produce the energy for the process.

Presently there are also processes for bulk steam reforming of natural
gas or methane

Natural gas an methane are fossil fuels

OK it can be argued that you are probably using fossil fuel to produce
the electricity for any electrolytic process - but there are
workarounds for that.

Not unless you use nuclear energy or wind turbines or some such there
ain't...and there is bugger all non fossil electrc capacity in our grid at
the moment/

If you want more details look at:
http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng3.html

They discuss a hugely efficient process (almost 100%) with 1005 usable
output products.

More adverts.

On 26 Nov 2005 12:49:31 GMT, Huge wrote:

Andy Dingley writes:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:00:20 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week

There's nothing wrong with the concept, we just need better batteries.

Err, no. The concept is totally flawed. All it does is move the pollution
about. They're certainly no more energy efficient than a small diesel of
similar performance.

They are. If your power station efficiency including tranmissions loses is
better than the diesl in a car, you gave a net gain.

Calculations show this is indeed the case.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:23:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) through a
haze of senile flatulence wrote:
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

You have to take into account the total weight of the vehicle. IC
engines, transmissions an fuel tanks are bulky and heavy with knock ons
like heavier suspension, bigger stronger bodies, etc. The new
Mitsubishi, to be launched ion Japan in about 3 to 4 years, has an
electric motor in wheel hub setup. The total weight of the car is less
vs. the IC equiv, giving the designer greater licence.

Indeed. Until you fit it with batteries capable
of giving a 500 mile range at 70+ mph.

I have never driven a car with a 500 mile range. 300 is average, and I
have
had some that were less thahn 200, and a few that were over 300. None will
crack 400 even, let alone 500.

Read my other post. If you factor in the totality of the power train,
things look exceptionally rosy for a lithium electric. Its as good as or
better than an IC engine. Leccy motors are VERY light and do not need
complex gearboxes. If you add in regenerative braking they are even
better...

Where it would realluy score is in the urban/subuirban area - a small car
with lightweight body, that does at best 50-100 miles a day and gets
recharged every night. On off peak electriciity. But is still capable of
90mph and 300 miles on a good day.

This is technically feasible RIGHT NOW. Its not comnmercially viable YET.

Try telling that to know-it-alls here. Boy do they think oddly. Richard
Cranium, bless him, I know he tries, thinks only the IC engine is worth and
all the rest is bunkum. Sad I know. A few were on about hydrogen being
produced for next to nothing....as if. That is the holy grail.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:27:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:50:09 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

The electricity isn't wasted at night.

Actually it is.

The power stations are essentially idling at the great traffic lights of
consumer demand. Since they take a LOT of hours to come on line, they have
to be left at idle.

With the exception of (the majority of) UK nuclear plants that have
specific problems with load changes down and then rapidly up, the
installed generating capacity in the UK (even the 500's and 660's coal
plants installed in the 60's and 70's) are perfectly capable of being
shut down or run on very reduced load overnight and return relatively
rapidly to load next morning. They don't like doing it and it is
wasteful in some respects - hence why some power stations have in the
past bid into the system at zero cost (they got paid the system
marginal rate) which works right up until the point at which the load
drops unexpectedly, the system marginal bid is zero and nobody gets
paid - it has happened!


--

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:34:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:27:36 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...


Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.


Mines about 45kg but it only holds £40 worth.
How much charge can you get in 45kg of battery?

well lemme see..the best battery I have as 22 watt hours roughly and
weighs...rushing to scales...150g..and costs about 50 quid so thats 6.6Kwh.
for 45kg.

I reckon 30KWh is about what you need for a 300 mile range lighweight
electric 'shopping trolley' with a 300 mile range. About £50,000 quid. :-)

Say 250kg. About the same as a conventional car engine and transmission and
cooling system.

Batteries on their own will not make a car move, the motor and control
system has to be factored in. In any case 250kg is considerably above
the weight of even some 15 year old engine gearbox combinations
(around the 1.6 litre mark)




--

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:52:44 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

It made you sound simple. BTW, Nuclear is not cheap.


But it doesn't produce greenhouse gases like driving cars, including
hybrids, does.

Actually it would be cheaper than oil or gas at todays prices IF two
things
were to happen

- it wasn't so completely sutrounded with sfatey regulations that are way
in excess of what is required for any other industrial activity pro rata
to
te risk to life involved
- it wasn't effectively taxed with respet to the disposal of its waste
material way above what is fair compared with other indistrial activities.

People have been very emotional about nuclear power. i've heard ministers
claiming blatint lies to be facts...

Fortunately the game has switched from 'can we afford to take the risk' to
'can we afford NOT to take the risk'

And te short answr is , no we can't. There is a greater risk to UK society
from not going ahead with more nuclear plant than from going ahead with
it.

Blair was on about energy from unstable countries. First the UK must use
less energy, and not waste so much as we do. That should be implemented
ASAP along with wind, tide, wave, solar. Then it is a matter of sorting out
the rest. Nuclear is a quick fix (in politicians eyes). The rest can be
mixed, but nuclear way down the list.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
So you're suggesting there are batteries around that not only store
more energy than petrol but also take up less space? Is this on the
planet Zog?


Not quite. But given the appalling efficiency and weight of IC engines,
overall it comes close.

But IC engines are getting better all the time and will continue to
improve. It's not so long ago all diesels were cast iron, rough, noisy and
slow - not so today.

State of the art electric powertrains cannot yet match the power to
weight of e.g. a racing 5cc model aircraft engine and fuel tank, but
they are within 50% of it easily. They exceed 'cooking' IC engine
installations easily.

Well yes. If you take state of the art anything and compare it with
cooking then what do you expect? You're also assuming the electric power
train will improve, but not the IC one.

Diesel is about 13 KWH/kg.

My Lithium batteries achieve about 150W/kg. Bigger ones achieve 350Wh/kg.

Err, rather a large gap to overcome? We're not talking about a few percent
but an order of some 37 times.

http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm

Now if you factor in the overall powertrain efficiencies, and the weight
of the IC option, things get far far closer.

Since a diesel engine is, at best, 30% efficient in road going mode
whereas a top quality electric motor is 90%, you end up with - in terms
of output power - 3.9Kw/kg of diesel and 315Wh/kg for the lithium
battery.

Better at only 12 times...
But your 30% figure is rather out of date.

Now if you look at power train weights...A 200bhp diesel car probably
has about 60% iof a 1.5 tonne weight in terms of all the gubbins
associated with making it go...to whit.

Engine
Exhaust stystem
Gearbox
Cooling system
Transmission

and so on. ALL of which can be replaced with 4 custom motors, one on each
wheel and say a fairly lightweight bank of electronics to drive them.

Again, you're not comparing like for like. All those heavy components need
not be so heavy. They're built down to a cost. Use the extra cost of the
hybrid power train on lightweight materials and the results will be rather
different.

Thats 900kg of gubbins and about 60kg of fuel, being replaced by 600kg of
battery, and four electric motors.

I am seeing about 2Kw/lb or 4Kw per kg (roughly) in terms of motor weight
in the stuff I am aquainted with.

So to do 150KW of motors for our 200bhp car, we need about another 38kg
of motor(s).

so 900kg for the diesel, 638 kg for the electric, for similar range and
power output.

The difference is the diesel power train currently costs about 10,000
quid and refills in 5 minutes, whereas the lithium.electric currently
would cost about half a million quid and takes an hour to refill.

Various lihium manufacturers are working to get cost and recharge times
down. Irs te reverse of what we do in the model aircraft world - there
we accept an hour to recharge and 5 minutes of flight - cars need 5
minutes of recharge and 5-10 hours of travel...

So although its not there yet, the overall engineering of lithium
electric cars is possible and competive performance- and range- wise
with an average car engine.

Predicting the future is risky. And we've been promised cheap electric
cars since I was a kid. But for every development of these we get similar
improvements with IC engines.

The issues are safety, cost, and recharge times.

And, of course, how you generate the electricity to charge them. That is
the big fly in the ointment since charging any battery is an inefficient
process.

As I said before Drivel is usually wrong, but in this case randomly, he
is not.

Excuse me? He reckoned there were existing batteries that weighed the same
and had the same energy capacity as a tank of petrol. This is just plain
nonsense.

How you convert that stored energy into useful power is neither hear nor
there.

If you want to predict that there will be batteries in the future that
will do, I could equally as well predict there will be some form of IC
engine developed that gets to 80% efficiency. But I'd be guessing, same as
you.

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:34:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:27:36 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...


Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight
modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.


Mines about 45kg but it only holds £40 worth.
How much charge can you get in 45kg of battery?

well lemme see..the best battery I have as 22 watt hours roughly and
weighs...rushing to scales...150g..and costs about 50 quid so thats
6.6Kwh.
for 45kg.

I reckon 30KWh is about what you need for a 300 mile range lighweight
electric 'shopping trolley' with a 300 mile range. About £50,000 quid.
:-)

Say 250kg. About the same as a conventional car engine and transmission
and
cooling system.

Batteries on their own will not make a car move,

Lord Hall, a battery is an energy carrier, or storage. It is not the energy
in itself.

the motor and control
system has to be factored in. In any case 250kg is considerably above
the weight of even some 15 year old engine gearbox combinations
(around the 1.6 litre mark)

The total energy/weight of an IC car and full electric. The electric wins.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Indeed. Until you fit it with batteries capable of giving a 500 mile
range at 70+ mph.

I have never driven a car with a 500 mile range. 300 is average, and I
have had some that were less thahn 200, and a few that were over 300.
None will crack 400 even, let alone 500.

Don't be silly. My petrol auto BMW 5 Series will do London - Aberdeen on
one tank if I keep to the speed limit. And that's 540 miles. Including
crossing London.

Last series of Top Gear Clarkson drove an Audi Diesel from one end of the
country to the other on one tank.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:35:40 +0000, Matt wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:27:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:50:09 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

The electricity isn't wasted at night.

Actually it is.

The power stations are essentially idling at the great traffic lights of
consumer demand. Since they take a LOT of hours to come on line, they have
to be left at idle.

With the exception of (the majority of) UK nuclear plants that have
specific problems with load changes down and then rapidly up, the
installed generating capacity in the UK (even the 500's and 660's coal
plants installed in the 60's and 70's) are perfectly capable of being
shut down or run on very reduced load overnight and return relatively
rapidly to load next morning. They don't like doing it and it is
wasteful in some respects - hence why some power stations have in the
past bid into the system at zero cost (they got paid the system
marginal rate) which works right up until the point at which the load
drops unexpectedly, the system marginal bid is zero and nobody gets
paid - it has happened!

Exactly they don;t like it and its wasteful.

Thert is a difference between shutting down - going 'cold' - and going to
'standby' , A BIG difference. Some power stations take a week to bring up
to speed from 'cold'. Standby means they are simply turning over, possibly
not connected to the grid at all, but still with heat being generated and
watsed and combustion going on.

It takes HOURS to get a steam boiler up to pressure. Only gas turbines are
relatively quick.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:35:58 +0000, Matt wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:34:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:27:36 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...


Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.


Mines about 45kg but it only holds £40 worth.
How much charge can you get in 45kg of battery?

well lemme see..the best battery I have as 22 watt hours roughly and
weighs...rushing to scales...150g..and costs about 50 quid so thats 6.6Kwh.
for 45kg.

I reckon 30KWh is about what you need for a 300 mile range lighweight
electric 'shopping trolley' with a 300 mile range. About £50,000 quid. :-)

Say 250kg. About the same as a conventional car engine and transmission and
cooling system.

Batteries on their own will not make a car move, the motor and control
system has to be factored in. In any case 250kg is considerably above
the weight of even some 15 year old engine gearbox combinations
(around the 1.6 litre mark)

I have factored that in elsewhere. Electrivc motirs are considerably
lighter than IC engines and even more os when you strip way te unwanbted
cooling and transmission.


.. I was talking about a 200bhp system and a diesel to boot. 1.6 petrol
engines at best might produce 100bhp.