Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1081
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... Also remember that for much of the year in the UK a car will need cabin heating. This comes for 'free' on an IC engined car - but not on an electric one. Renault, etc have developed insulated bodies. Gosh, and double-glazing, too? Do tell, drivel, we are keen to know. Actually that's the way to make electric cars work as far as heating goes. Doesn't help in hot sun mind you..aircon... Nope. The problem is that cars need a lot of energy, and energy storage from batteries doesn't cut the mustard. Fuel is amazing stuff. It's a first class compromise between weight, bulk, safety, ease to turn into mechanical energy, and cost. Nothing else touches it and we will be in a mess when its all used up... -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#1082
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote: In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... Also remember that for much of the year in the UK a car will need cabin heating. This comes for 'free' on an IC engined car - but not on an electric one. Renault, etc have developed insulated bodies. Gosh, and double-glazing, too? Do tell, drivel, we are keen to know. Actually that's the way to make electric cars work as far as heating goes. Doesn't help in hot sun mind you..aircon... Insluation works well for heating and cooling. Advanced glass can relect heat back from the car. Nope. The problem is that cars need a lot of energy, and energy storage from batteries doesn't cut the mustard. It does in town & city driving. Only in long hauls would a range extender cut in. |
#1083
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
[snip] Insulated bodies for EV cars has been in R&Dd for quite a time now. So the solution to a crap piece of technology is to make the car heavier thus reducing the range. In your mind, unsupported by any evidence, as always from you. Dickhead Drivel, Usenet's tosspot clown. -- €˘DarWin| _/ _/ |
#1084
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote: [snip] Insulated bodies for EV cars has been in R&Dd for quite a time now. So the solution This man is a total fool. |
#1085
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 18/10/2012 10:59, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... Couple that with a 60% CCGT power statin and you have around 50% gas-to-wheel which is better than any IC engine will achieve. Indeed - but given the lack of energy density of the best batteries, still well short of liquid fuels. You obviously have not heard of supercapacitors. You obviously have a short memory. I mentioned that they have even lower energy densities than batteries. They claw back most of the kinetic energy and give it off to accelerate. That they are well suited to. But not the bulk storage of energy in the first place. Shanghai is using them now to run EV buses. Which is irrelevant unless you want a car than needs a charge every 120 seconds. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#1086
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote: "Doctor Drivel" wrote: [snip] Insulated bodies for EV cars has been in R&Dd for quite a time now. So the solution to a crap piece of technology is to make the car heavier thus reducing the range. In your mind, unsupported by any evidence, as always from you. This ****wit. -- €˘DarWin| _/ _/ |
#1087
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
John Rumm wrote:
On 18/10/2012 10:59, Doctor Drivel wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message ... Couple that with a 60% CCGT power statin and you have around 50% gas-to-wheel which is better than any IC engine will achieve. Indeed - but given the lack of energy density of the best batteries, still well short of liquid fuels. You obviously have not heard of supercapacitors. You obviously have a short memory. I mentioned that they have even lower energy densities than batteries. That can clawback ALL the kinetic braking energy and give it back out in acceleration. They claw back most of the kinetic energy and give it off to accelerate. That they are well suited to. But not the bulk storage of energy in the first place. But they improve the efficiency greatly in city driving which most car drive in. Shanghai is using them now to run EV buses. Which is irrelevant unless you want a car than needs a charge every 120 seconds. It is not irrelevant It shows they work, even enough to propel a bus. They can also be used for trains, charge at each station with kinetic reclaim as well, and save the cost of expensive 3rd rail or overhead wires. Full electric commuter trains are viable without full line electrification. Overhead wires are ugly. |
#1088
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote: Steve Firth wrote: "Doctor Drivel" wrote: [snip] Insulated bodies for EV cars has been in R&Dd for quite a time now. So the solution to a crap piece of technology is to make the car heavier thus reducing the range. In your mind, unsupported by any evidence, as always from you. This ****wit. Proven. A total fool. |
#1089
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... Also remember that for much of the year in the UK a car will need cabin heating. This comes for 'free' on an IC engined car - but not on an electric one. Renault, etc have developed insulated bodies. Crikey - what a step forward in time. Who'd have thought it. Hope they have a cast iron patent. -- *I yell because I care Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#1090
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
Tim Streater wrote:
But only This man is an idiot. |
#1091
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:05:51 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
Renault, etc have developed insulated bodies. Gosh, and double-glazing, too? and curtains... |
#1092
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 18/10/2012 14:08, Doctor Drivel wrote:
John Rumm wrote: On 18/10/2012 10:59, Doctor Drivel wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message ... Couple that with a 60% CCGT power statin and you have around 50% gas-to-wheel which is better than any IC engine will achieve. Indeed - but given the lack of energy density of the best batteries, still well short of liquid fuels. You obviously have not heard of supercapacitors. You obviously have a short memory. I mentioned that they have even lower energy densities than batteries. That can clawback ALL the kinetic braking energy and give it back out in acceleration. They will store pretty much all of the electrical charge presented to them and hand it back later. That does not mean that all the kinetic energy is actually captured in the first place. However, its not really relevant to the bigger question of storing that energy in the first place, for which caps are not well suited since their capacity is low. They claw back most of the kinetic energy and give it off to accelerate. That they are well suited to. But not the bulk storage of energy in the first place. But they improve the efficiency greatly in city driving Indeed, not disputing it. which most car drive in. Some do, don't know about most. Shanghai is using them now to run EV buses. Which is irrelevant unless you want a car than needs a charge every 120 seconds. It is not irrelevant It shows they work, even enough to propel a bus. No one is disputing they work, but don't try to fool anyone that they are a solution to the feeble energy density of batteries. There is good argument to use them augment the performance of batteries (especially where you have kinetic recovery), but it does not help increase their capacity by any meaningful amount. They can also be used for trains, charge at each station with kinetic reclaim as well, and save the cost of expensive 3rd rail or overhead wires. Full electric commuter trains are viable without full line electrification. Overhead wires are ugly. Trains are already better suited to electric propulsion anyway. You can even afford to devote a whole carriage to motors and storage if you like. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#1093
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
John Rumm wrote:
Trains are already better suited to electric propulsion anyway. You can even afford to devote a whole carriage to motors and storage if you like. They don't store regenerated energy, they throw it back into the grid. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#1094
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
John Rumm wrote:
On 18/10/2012 14:08, Doctor Drivel wrote: John Rumm wrote: On 18/10/2012 10:59, Doctor Drivel wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message ... Couple that with a 60% CCGT power statin and you have around 50% gas-to-wheel which is better than any IC engine will achieve. Indeed - but given the lack of energy density of the best batteries, still well short of liquid fuels. You obviously have not heard of supercapacitors. You obviously have a short memory. I mentioned that they have even lower energy densities than batteries. That can clawback ALL the kinetic braking energy and give it back out in acceleration. They will store pretty much all of the electrical charge presented to them and hand it back later. That does not mean that all the kinetic energy is actually captured in the first place. About 95% plus. However, its not really relevant to the bigger question of storing that energy in the first place, for which caps are not well suited since their capacity is low. They supplement batteries. There is R&D to combine the two into one package. R&D is ongoing to improve supercaps to the point the size of a battery can store about the same charge. When this happens chemical batteries are near dead. Shanghai is using them now to run EV buses. Which is irrelevant unless you want a car than needs a charge every 120 seconds. It is not irrelevant It shows they work, even enough to propel a bus. No one is disputing they work, but don't try to fool anyone that they are a solution to the feeble energy density of batteries. The are solution to kinetic energy clawback. And improving There is good argument to use them augment the performance of batteries (especially where you have kinetic recovery), but it does not help increase their capacity by any meaningful amount. In city driving the kinetic energy reclaim means a lot. They can also be used for trains, charge at each station with kinetic reclaim as well, and save the cost of expensive 3rd rail or overhead wires. Full electric commuter trains are viable without full line electrification. Overhead wires are ugly. Trains are already better suited to electric propulsion anyway. You can even afford to devote a whole carriage to motors and storage if you like. |
#1095
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Proven. A total fool. Each time you post you prove that. -- €˘DarWin| _/ _/ |
#1096
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 17/10/2012 12:10, Doctor Drivel wrote:
tony sayer wrote: In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not- for-mail.invalid scribeth thus "The Other Mike" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:14:26 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" wrote: SteveW wrote: Pure electric vehicles cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of the "old" technology. That is pure nonsense. Petrol is around 34MJ per litre. A 50 litre refuel takes around 2 minutes So that is 1700MJ transferred in 2 minutes 1MJ = 0.28 kWh Or around 476kWh of energy transferred from the petrol station storage tank to the car fuel tank in 2 minutes But 80% of the energy in that tank is wasted. So go back and do some sums. Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?.. I am not the one doing the skewed sums. The average vehicle wastes 80% of the energy in the tank, negating any energy density claims of the fuel in running vehicles. The average electric car wastes less than 5% of the stored energy. There is the clue. A good diesel is 40% efficient. Some of that 60% loss is useful for heating. Some goes in rolling resistance, some goes in wind resistance, etc. An electric vehicle (on your figure) has 95% efficiency (motor losses), but then you have to take off rolling resistance and wind resistance, etc. just as for the diesel. Take off more for cabin heating and for charging inefficiencies. Now lets be very kind and say you can actually achieve 85% efficiency. Of course you need a power supply and a baseload, coal-fired power station only achieves 40% efficiency. So your 95% efficient electric car is actually only 34% efficient. If you use more efficient gas fired stations (50%) you've managed 42.5% So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, costs much more to buy, has limited life batteries that will need replacing at great cost, has limited range and long "refill" times, gives the driver "range anxiety", suffers the serious pollution aspects of battery manufacture - shall I go on? Oh and we've not even allowed for transmission losses! SteveW |
#1097
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 18/10/2012 19:50, SteveW wrote:
On 17/10/2012 12:10, Doctor Drivel wrote: tony sayer wrote: In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not- for-mail.invalid scribeth thus "The Other Mike" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:14:26 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" wrote: SteveW wrote: Pure electric vehicles cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of the "old" technology. That is pure nonsense. Petrol is around 34MJ per litre. A 50 litre refuel takes around 2 minutes So that is 1700MJ transferred in 2 minutes 1MJ = 0.28 kWh Or around 476kWh of energy transferred from the petrol station storage tank to the car fuel tank in 2 minutes But 80% of the energy in that tank is wasted. So go back and do some sums. Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?.. I am not the one doing the skewed sums. The average vehicle wastes 80% of the energy in the tank, negating any energy density claims of the fuel in running vehicles. The average electric car wastes less than 5% of the stored energy. There is the clue. A good diesel is 40% efficient. Some of that 60% loss is useful for heating. Some goes in rolling resistance, some goes in wind resistance, etc. An electric vehicle (on your figure) has 95% efficiency (motor losses), but then you have to take off rolling resistance and wind resistance, etc. just as for the diesel. Take off more for cabin heating and for charging inefficiencies. Now lets be very kind and say you can actually achieve 85% efficiency. Of course you need a power supply and a baseload, coal-fired power station only achieves 40% efficiency. So your 95% efficient electric car is actually only 34% efficient. If you use more efficient gas fired stations (50%) you've managed 42.5% So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, costs much more to buy, has limited life batteries that will need replacing at great cost, has limited range and long "refill" times, gives the driver "range anxiety", suffers the serious pollution aspects of battery manufacture - shall I go on? Oh and we've not even allowed for transmission losses! SteveW Should there not be an allowance for distribution costs/inefficiencies of the diesel - if you are including transmission losses for elctricity? Mind, I have no idea of the likely magnitude of that. -- Rod |
#1098
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 18/10/2012 20:05, polygonum wrote:
On 18/10/2012 19:50, SteveW wrote: On 17/10/2012 12:10, Doctor Drivel wrote: tony sayer wrote: In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not- for-mail.invalid scribeth thus "The Other Mike" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:14:26 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" wrote: SteveW wrote: Pure electric vehicles cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of the "old" technology. That is pure nonsense. Petrol is around 34MJ per litre. A 50 litre refuel takes around 2 minutes So that is 1700MJ transferred in 2 minutes 1MJ = 0.28 kWh Or around 476kWh of energy transferred from the petrol station storage tank to the car fuel tank in 2 minutes But 80% of the energy in that tank is wasted. So go back and do some sums. Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?.. I am not the one doing the skewed sums. The average vehicle wastes 80% of the energy in the tank, negating any energy density claims of the fuel in running vehicles. The average electric car wastes less than 5% of the stored energy. There is the clue. A good diesel is 40% efficient. Some of that 60% loss is useful for heating. Some goes in rolling resistance, some goes in wind resistance, etc. An electric vehicle (on your figure) has 95% efficiency (motor losses), but then you have to take off rolling resistance and wind resistance, etc. just as for the diesel. Take off more for cabin heating and for charging inefficiencies. Now lets be very kind and say you can actually achieve 85% efficiency. Of course you need a power supply and a baseload, coal-fired power station only achieves 40% efficiency. So your 95% efficient electric car is actually only 34% efficient. If you use more efficient gas fired stations (50%) you've managed 42.5% So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, costs much more to buy, has limited life batteries that will need replacing at great cost, has limited range and long "refill" times, gives the driver "range anxiety", suffers the serious pollution aspects of battery manufacture - shall I go on? Oh and we've not even allowed for transmission losses! SteveW Should there not be an allowance for distribution costs/inefficiencies of the diesel - if you are including transmission losses for elctricity? Mind, I have no idea of the likely magnitude of that. Yes, but I've no idea of that and so left out the transmission losses as a partial compensation. Distribution will be a low percentage - ships and trucks use very little compared to the amount they move. Processing will be the largest, but its cost will be spread over petrol, diesel, kerosene, bitumen and other products, not just vehicle fuel. SteveW |
#1099
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 18/10/2012 21:13, SteveW wrote:
On 18/10/2012 20:05, polygonum wrote: On 18/10/2012 19:50, SteveW wrote: On 17/10/2012 12:10, Doctor Drivel wrote: tony sayer wrote: In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not- for-mail.invalid scribeth thus "The Other Mike" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:14:26 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" wrote: SteveW wrote: Pure electric vehicles cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of the "old" technology. That is pure nonsense. Petrol is around 34MJ per litre. A 50 litre refuel takes around 2 minutes So that is 1700MJ transferred in 2 minutes 1MJ = 0.28 kWh Or around 476kWh of energy transferred from the petrol station storage tank to the car fuel tank in 2 minutes But 80% of the energy in that tank is wasted. So go back and do some sums. Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?.. I am not the one doing the skewed sums. The average vehicle wastes 80% of the energy in the tank, negating any energy density claims of the fuel in running vehicles. The average electric car wastes less than 5% of the stored energy. There is the clue. A good diesel is 40% efficient. Some of that 60% loss is useful for heating. Some goes in rolling resistance, some goes in wind resistance, etc. An electric vehicle (on your figure) has 95% efficiency (motor losses), but then you have to take off rolling resistance and wind resistance, etc. just as for the diesel. Take off more for cabin heating and for charging inefficiencies. Now lets be very kind and say you can actually achieve 85% efficiency. Of course you need a power supply and a baseload, coal-fired power station only achieves 40% efficiency. So your 95% efficient electric car is actually only 34% efficient. If you use more efficient gas fired stations (50%) you've managed 42.5% So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, costs much more to buy, has limited life batteries that will need replacing at great cost, has limited range and long "refill" times, gives the driver "range anxiety", suffers the serious pollution aspects of battery manufacture - shall I go on? Oh and we've not even allowed for transmission losses! SteveW Should there not be an allowance for distribution costs/inefficiencies of the diesel - if you are including transmission losses for elctricity? Mind, I have no idea of the likely magnitude of that. Yes, but I've no idea of that and so left out the transmission losses as a partial compensation. Distribution will be a low percentage - ships and trucks use very little compared to the amount they move. Processing will be the largest, but its cost will be spread over petrol, diesel, kerosene, bitumen and other products, not just vehicle fuel. SteveW It was largely because I had no idea either that I pointed it out - hoping you had some information! :-) -- Rod |
#1100
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:05:51 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: Renault, etc have developed insulated bodies. Gosh, and double-glazing, too? and curtains... Sounds like our coaches. :-) We have hybrid buses too. They're less reliable and more expensive to run than the straight diesel ones. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#1101
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
SteveW wrote:
On 17/10/2012 12:10, Doctor Drivel wrote: tony sayer wrote: In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not- for-mail.invalid scribeth thus "The Other Mike" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:14:26 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" wrote: SteveW wrote: Pure electric vehicles cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of the "old" technology. That is pure nonsense. Petrol is around 34MJ per litre. A 50 litre refuel takes around 2 minutes So that is 1700MJ transferred in 2 minutes 1MJ = 0.28 kWh Or around 476kWh of energy transferred from the petrol station storage tank to the car fuel tank in 2 minutes But 80% of the energy in that tank is wasted. So go back and do some sums. Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?.. I am not the one doing the skewed sums. The average vehicle wastes 80% of the energy in the tank, negating any energy density claims of the fuel in running vehicles. The average electric car wastes less than 5% of the stored energy. There is the clue. A good diesel is 40% efficient. Some of that 60% loss is useful for heating. Some goes in rolling resistance, some goes in wind resistance, etc. An electric vehicle (on your figure) has 95% efficiency (motor losses), but then you have to take off rolling resistance and wind resistance, etc. just as for the diesel. Take off more for cabin heating and for charging inefficiencies. Now lets be very kind and say you can actually achieve 85% efficiency. Of course you need a power supply and a baseload, coal-fired power station only achieves 40% efficiency. So your 95% efficient electric car is actually only 34% efficient. If you use more efficient gas fired stations (50%) you've managed 42.5% So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, costs much more to buy, has limited life batteries that will need replacing at great cost, has limited range and long "refill" times, gives the driver "range anxiety", suffers the serious pollution aspects of battery manufacture - shall I go on? Oh and we've not even allowed for transmission losses! Here, steady on, you're in danger of letting the facts get in the way of someone else's good rant, here. :-) -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#1102
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
polygonum wrote:
Should there not be an allowance for distribution costs/inefficiencies of the diesel - if you are including transmission losses for elctricity? Mind, I have no idea of the likely magnitude of that. Distribution and refining costs of diesel fuel from well-head to pump in terms of energy lost are on the order of 10%, depending on where the market is in relation to the well-head. After being refined at our nearest refinery, the tanker uses about 100 litres of fuel to deliver 20,000 litres to our fleet fuel tank, then we use about 10 litres equivalent of electricity to pump it from the holding tank into the buses. If we had a raised tank, the pump energy cost would be zero. Double the tanker fuel consumption if you live in Birmingham, halve it if you live in Liverpool. In more densely populated areas, the fuel is pumped from the refinery to central holding areas such as the Buncefield Depot near Hemel Hampstead, which has piped links to at least one airport. These use even less fuel than the tankers, but cost a lot more to build. Transporting liquefied natural gas from Australia to the USA in modern tankers costs less than 1% of the total energy supplied by the gas. The tanker engines are run by tapping off the natural vapourisation as the LNG tanks warm up during the voyage, and some of the gas is used to drive refrigeration plant. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#1103
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 18/10/2012 22:17, John Williamson wrote:
polygonum wrote: Should there not be an allowance for distribution costs/inefficiencies of the diesel - if you are including transmission losses for elctricity? Mind, I have no idea of the likely magnitude of that. Distribution and refining costs of diesel fuel from well-head to pump in terms of energy lost are on the order of 10%, depending on where the market is in relation to the well-head. After being refined at our nearest refinery, the tanker uses about 100 litres of fuel to deliver 20,000 litres to our fleet fuel tank, then we use about 10 litres equivalent of electricity to pump it from the holding tank into the buses. If we had a raised tank, the pump energy cost would be zero. Double the tanker fuel consumption if you live in Birmingham, halve it if you live in Liverpool. In more densely populated areas, the fuel is pumped from the refinery to central holding areas such as the Buncefield Depot near Hemel Hampstead, which has piped links to at least one airport. These use even less fuel than the tankers, but cost a lot more to build. Transporting liquefied natural gas from Australia to the USA in modern tankers costs less than 1% of the total energy supplied by the gas. The tanker engines are run by tapping off the natural vapourisation as the LNG tanks warm up during the voyage, and some of the gas is used to drive refrigeration plant. Thanks. I assume the LNG includes the costs of liquefaction? -- Rod |
#1104
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
polygonum wrote:
On 18/10/2012 22:17, John Williamson wrote: Transporting liquefied natural gas from Australia to the USA in modern tankers costs less than 1% of the total energy supplied by the gas. The tanker engines are run by tapping off the natural vapourisation as the LNG tanks warm up during the voyage, and some of the gas is used to drive refrigeration plant. Thanks. I assume the LNG includes the costs of liquefaction? The figures were quoted in an article in Scientific American a few years ago on tanker and pipeline design, so I'd assume the initial liquefaction wasn't included, while the cost of keeping it liquid definitely was. This article:- http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilga..._primerupd.pdf Says "This “boil off” gas, about 0.15 percent of the volume per day, fuels the liquefaction facility, LNG transport ships, and receiving terminals where LNG is regasified." That's to get the gas from Trinidad and Tobago to the USA mainland. So, it would seem to be even more efficient than I remember reading a few years ago. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#1105
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:15:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: The Other Mike wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:29:42 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" wrote: But 80% of the energy in that tank is wasted. So go back and do some sums. You do the same on the energy loss from the raw fuel coming into the power station to that eventually applied to the wheels in an electric car. Go on just make a stab at it. 50%. for a CCGT. About 70% for conventional coal. I knew that, just don't give him any clues! -- |
#1106
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
"SteveW" wrote in message ... snip drivel So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, Absolute tripe! snip drivel |
#1107
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
"polygonum" wrote in message ... It was largely because I had no idea either that I pointed it out - hoping you had some information! :-) He doesn't. He makes things up. |
#1108
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
"The Other Mike" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:15:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: The Other Mike wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:29:42 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" wrote: But 80% of the energy in that tank is wasted. So go back and do some sums. You do the same on the energy loss from the raw fuel coming into the power station to that eventually applied to the wheels in an electric car. Go on just make a stab at it. 50%. for a CCGT. About 70% for conventional coal. I knew that, just don't give him any clues! You never knew that at all. |
#1109
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On Oct 18, 7:50*pm, SteveW wrote:
On 17/10/2012 12:10, Doctor Drivel wrote: tony sayer wrote: In article , Doctor *Drivel invalid@not- for-mail.invalid scribeth thus "The Other Mike" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:14:26 +0100, "Doctor *Drivel" wrote: SteveW wrote: Pure electric vehicles cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of the "old" technology. That is pure nonsense. Petrol is around 34MJ per litre. *A 50 litre refuel takes around *2 minutes So that is 1700MJ transferred in 2 minutes 1MJ *= 0.28 kWh Or around 476kWh of energy transferred from the petrol station storage tank to the car fuel tank in 2 minutes But 80% of the energy in that tank is wasted. *So go back and do some sums. Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?.. I am not the one doing the skewed sums. The average vehicle wastes 80% of the energy in the tank, negating any energy density claims of the fuel in running vehicles. The average electric car wastes less than 5% of the stored energy. *There is the clue. A good diesel is 40% efficient. Some of that 60% loss is useful for heating. Some goes in rolling resistance, some goes in wind resistance, etc. An electric vehicle (on your figure) has 95% efficiency (motor losses), but then you have to take off rolling resistance and wind resistance, etc. just as for the diesel. Take off more for cabin heating and for charging inefficiencies. Now lets be very kind and say you can actually achieve 85% efficiency. Of course you need a power supply and a baseload, coal-fired power station only achieves 40% efficiency. So your 95% efficient electric car is actually only 34% efficient. If you use more efficient gas fired stations (50%) you've managed 42.5% So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, costs much more to buy, has limited life batteries that will need replacing at great cost, has limited range and long "refill" times, gives the driver "range anxiety", suffers the serious pollution aspects of battery manufacture - shall I go on? Oh and we've not even allowed for transmission losses! SteveW I saw an article that that reckoned there was nothing in it re. efficiency wise/ saving carbon emissions unless you used renewable electricity. Then there is the imponderables over battery costs and life. |
#1110
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 19/10/2012 21:23, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"SteveW" wrote in message ... snip drivel So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, Absolute tripe! He gave realistic looking figures. If you wish us to believe your claim, then point out the error in the figures. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#1111
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
"John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... On 19/10/2012 21:23, Doctor Drivel wrote: "SteveW" wrote in message ... snip drivel So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, Absolute tripe! He gave realistic looking figures. He never. |
#1112
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 20/10/2012 23:31, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... On 19/10/2012 21:23, Doctor Drivel wrote: "SteveW" wrote in message ... snip drivel So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, Absolute tripe! He gave realistic looking figures. He never. So demonstrate where you believe they are wrong. Otherwise they look plausible, and it appears you have no counter argument. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#1113
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
"John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... On 20/10/2012 23:31, Doctor Drivel wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... On 19/10/2012 21:23, Doctor Drivel wrote: "SteveW" wrote in message ... snip drivel So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, Absolute tripe! He gave realistic looking figures. He never. So demonstrate where you believe they are wrong. Otherwise they look plausible, To the likes of you they do. |
#1114
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More on electric cars.
On 21/10/2012 18:04, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... On 20/10/2012 23:31, Doctor Drivel wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... On 19/10/2012 21:23, Doctor Drivel wrote: "SteveW" wrote in message ... snip drivel So on average your ev is less efficient than a good diesel, Absolute tripe! He gave realistic looking figures. He never. So demonstrate where you believe they are wrong. Otherwise they look plausible, To the likes of you they do. So you can't find any fault in them then. Thought so. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Electric cars. | UK diy | |||
Electric cars again | UK diy | |||
Top Three Best Electric Cars | Home Repair | |||
Electric cars | Metalworking |