On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:28:07 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

This is a pure idiot

Correct, but don't do yourself down. You're not just an idiot. You are a
certified drooling moron.

He has to wear a lifejacket at all times so that he doesn't drown.

在 2012å¹´9月8日星期å…*UTC+8上å�ˆ1æ—¶40分58ç§’ï ¼Œharry写é�“：

Drove an electric car today.

Uncanny experience but good.

http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/imiev/technology.aspx


http://www.uggsaustraliaoutlet.co.uk/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:28:07 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

This is a pure idiot
Correct, but don't do yourself down. You're not just an idiot. You
are a certified drooling moron.

He has to wear a lifejacket at all times so that he doesn't drown.

He's not just any idiot, he's a Marx and Spender idiot...

A Daily Torygraph reader. Wow! all the nutballs in one post.

On 16/10/2012 00:14, Doctor Drivel wrote:
SteveW wrote:

If the primary power is nuclear then using the power to produce
synthetic fuels to provide all of the advantages of petrol and diesel,
while being cleaner would seem to make sense.

It does not make sense.

It makes very good sense when there is no battery technology either in
existence or development that can come close to the energy density of
hydrocarbon fuels.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 16/10/2012 13:42, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:28:07 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

This is a pure idiot

Correct, but don't do yourself down. You're not just an idiot. You are a
certified drooling moron.

He has to wear a lifejacket at all times so that he doesn't drown.

He needs that anyway because of the way he plumbs!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 16/10/2012 00:14, Doctor Drivel wrote:
SteveW wrote:

If the primary power is nuclear then using the power to produce
synthetic fuels to provide all of the advantages of petrol and diesel,
while being cleaner would seem to make sense.

It does not make sense.

It makes very good sense when there is no battery technology either in
existence or development that can come close to the energy density of
hydrocarbon fuels.


+1


--
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.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 16/10/2012 13:42, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:28:07 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

This is a pure idiot

Correct, but don't do yourself down. You're not just an idiot. You are a
certified drooling moron.

He has to wear a lifejacket at all times so that he doesn't drown.

He needs that anyway because of the way he plumbs!

Here is a Chav from Essex talking about pipes. Wow! Amazing

John Rumm wrote:
On 16/10/2012 13:42, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:28:07 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

This is a pure idiot

Correct, but don't do yourself down. You're not just an idiot. You are a
certified drooling moron.

He has to wear a lifejacket at all times so that he doesn't drown.

He needs that anyway because of the way he plumbs!

I plumbed in several items in PEX-al-PEX the week before last, much of it
done using press on and push fit fittings. I had to cut several places with
a hacksaw because of restricted room. Number of leaks - none.

Drivel really is a spectacular dickhead.



--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

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

Or, using a nominal 240v single phase power source, some 152 hours of charge via
a 13A socket (assuming 100% efficient charging)

476000W / volts = amps

Assume a 'fast' charger running at 1kV and to get 2 minute refuel times the
single phase current is 476A

A 500A connector at 1kV is going to be so large as to be inpractacal, so lets up
the voltage to 10kV and its just a piddling 50A and almost practical.

But then again, that one 50 litre refuel of petrol is equivalent to the output
of a 15MW power station for 2 minutes

Extrapolate that to the entire UK usage of petrol per day - 61.38 million
litres*

A 100% electric fleet needing that level of 'refuellling' requires 584GWh of
energy transfer every day.

Take that over 24 hours and that is around 24GW, all day every day of the year.

Or around the current summer base load.



* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8481740.stm







--

On 16/10/2012 23:57, The Other Mike wrote:
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

Or, using a nominal 240v single phase power source, some 152 hours of charge via
a 13A socket (assuming 100% efficient charging)

476000W / volts = amps

Assume a 'fast' charger running at 1kV and to get 2 minute refuel times the
single phase current is 476A

A 500A connector at 1kV is going to be so large as to be inpractacal, so lets up
the voltage to 10kV and its just a piddling 50A and almost practical.

But then again, that one 50 litre refuel of petrol is equivalent to the output
of a 15MW power station for 2 minutes

Extrapolate that to the entire UK usage of petrol per day - 61.38 million
litres*

A 100% electric fleet needing that level of 'refuellling' requires 584GWh of
energy transfer every day.

Take that over 24 hours and that is around 24GW, all day every day of the year.

Or around the current summer base load.

You have gone an done it now, you have used numbers. Dribble will just
have to call you a name and let that teach you!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

You have gone an done it now,

this idiot is from Essex.

"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.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

This man is a pure idiot.

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?..


--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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?..

Dribble do sums? He thinks a battery car 100% efficient. Bit like his
brain...

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

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

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.

Then take into account advances in batteries (Toshiba) and supercapacitors,
etc and the IC engines as direct power units become unfeasible. They will be
relegated to occassional use as range extednersa dn designed specifically as
such. Mazda are bringing out a Small rotary range extedner next year,
running at its constant speed sweet spot. Lotus are having a 3 cyl small &
light 1100cc range extending genny unit made.

BMW's have a charging system that only charges when the engine is on
over-run or braking. The alternator is disconnected via a beefy clutch when
the engine is powering the car. The same idea could be applied to an a/c
compressor, and when running around a town/city the mpg must clearly rise as
the a/c, like the alternator, only runs when on engine over-run or braking.
Of course an override switch for the a/c must be on the dash. Fuel
consumption must rise substantially implementing these two simple measurers.

In city driving BMW viewed the kinetic energy would be enough to charge the
battery. A long highway drive would entail the alternator coming in
occasionally - not all the time. BMW said about 4% better fuel economy from
the alternator alone.

To make matters better put in electric power steering and fuel consumption
matters are even better again. Then using a Ni-cad battery or Lith-Ion
battery will mean greater electrical capacity for a smaller battery package.
The fan belts for the water pump and power steering can be eliminated. Also
using an electric a/c compressor will make matters better too and again
another fan belt eliminated. None of this is rocket science and can be
implemented immediately in all cars.

Implementing electrically powered water pumps, oil pumps, PS
pumps,compressors, etc. do reduce the parasitic draw on an engine. Electric
ancillaries will make no difference to the price of a car once production is
up and running.

But improving the IC engine is not what they want to spend R&D money on.
Engines are designed to reach 50,000 miles before NVH falls away, then the
marketing men can sell another car. Electric ancillaries could have been
implemented 20 years ago, but the auto industry does not like change - why
the IC engine is a crock, where 75% of the energy in the tank is wasted.
R&D money is on all electric and hybrids. BMW are fiddling with edges in
start-stop, etc, because they have done little R&D on hybrids. The Germans
were way behind and are trying to catch up.

Look at supercapacitors, as they can claw back 99.99% of the kinetic energy
and give it all back. Buses are running on them in Shanghai. A Texas
company "claims" to have developed a supercapacitor with the same energy
density and size as a normal lead-acid battery. That mean the chemical
battery can be replaced. BTW, the Prius was originally to have a
supercapacitor. A combination of supercapacitor and battery may be
implemented soon. They have improved in 15 years.

The way foward is the Vaux Ampera. This setup can be greatly improved by
superior batteries and a smaller more efficeint range extender.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:


I am not the one doing the skewed sums.

[snip drivel]

Just to make him feel at home.

--


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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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?..

Dribble do sums? He thinks a battery car 100% efficient. Bit like his
brain...

In actual fact a battery car with regeneration added in is sort of
about 100% compared to a fuel car without which is probably in the
25%-35% range.

He's a bit out, but not by much.

I cant believe I said that.


--
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.

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?..

Because he can't?

I am not the one doing the skewed sums. The average vehicle wastes 80%

Are you not?

of the energy in the tank, negating any energy density claims of the
fuel in running vehicles.

Well no. If the energy density advantage were only 5:1 then you might
have a glimmer of hope - although in reality it would still be wrong for
other obvious reasons.

Since the best battery technologies can't even mange 0.7 kWh / litre,
the ratio is over 50:1.

So even if you go with the lie that the electric system is 100%
efficient, you are still ten times worse off.

The average electric car wastes less than 5%
of the stored energy. There is the clue.


Bwahahahahaha, oh good one, tell us another.

The charging process alone is significantly less than 95% efficient. You
will dissipate significant heat in the battery and the charger, and even
then will never recover 100% of the energy you actually manage to get
into the battery. Then when you use it, you will lose yet more.

All that is after you have had the power delivered to your charging
point. Consider that 10% of that generated was probably lost in
transmission, and it came from a power station that may have been 35%
efficient in the first place, and the whole argument collapses.

Then take into account advances in batteries (Toshiba) and

Batteries may get better - compared to other batteries. They are not
even in the same ballpark as liquid fuels.

See if you can find the battery technologies on this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ity.svg&page=1

supercapacitors, etc and the IC engines as direct power units become

capacitors are *significantly* worse than the best battery technologies
in terms of energy density. So while they may have uses in some
applications, bulk storage of energy is not one of them.

[snip regurgitation of glossy brochures]

In city driving BMW viewed the kinetic energy would be enough to charge
the battery. A long highway drive would entail the alternator coming in
occasionally - not all the time. BMW said about 4% better fuel economy
from the alternator alone.

To make matters better put in electric power steering and fuel
consumption matters are even better again. Then using a Ni-cad battery
or Lith-Ion battery will mean greater electrical capacity for a smaller
battery package. The fan belts for the water pump and power steering can
be eliminated. Also using an electric a/c compressor will make matters
better too and again another fan belt eliminated. None of this is
rocket science and can be implemented immediately in all cars.

So you want to shift all these loads from being direct powered by the
engine to power them indirectly from the engine?

Implementing electrically powered water pumps, oil pumps, PS
pumps,compressors, etc. do reduce the parasitic draw on an engine.

Erm, where is the electricity coming from?

Look at supercapacitors, as they can claw back 99.99% of the kinetic
energy and give it all back.

You really should engage a bit of thought before making these claims.

How do you convert the kinetic energy into electricity with adequate
efficiency to achieve this?

How do you convert electricity to kinetic energy with adequate
efficiency to achieve this?

The answer is that you can't

You seem to be looking at the efficiency of charge recovery from a
capacitor and assuming that applies to a whole system that is comprised
of many things that are not capacitors.

Buses are running on them in Shanghai. A

No, buses are running on electricity generated by a power station. The
capacitor is a very very short range fuel tank.

Texas company "claims" to have developed a supercapacitor with the same
energy density and size as a normal lead-acid battery.

So even if true, they have developed a capacity with a absolutely crap
energy density compared to a litre of liquid fuel.

That mean the
chemical battery can be replaced.

With something equally crap.

BTW, the Prius was originally to have
a supercapacitor. A combination of supercapacitor and battery may be
implemented soon. They have improved in 15 years.

The way foward is the Vaux Ampera. This setup can be greatly improved by
superior batteries and a smaller more efficeint range extender.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
[snip]

Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?..

I am not the one doing the skewed sums.

You then proceed to do some skewed sums. So that's lie #1.

The average vehicle wastes 80% of the energy in the tank,

That's lie #2. IC engines are between around 30 and 40% thermal efficiency.

negating any energy density claims of the fuel in running vehicles. The
average electric car wastes less than 5% of the stored energy.

That's both irrelevant because you deliberately avoid well to wheel
efficiency and biased because with all EVs electricity is lost from the
battery while they sit still.

There is the clue.

You don't have one.

[snip bull****]

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
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?..

Because he can't?

This man is from Essex you know.

snip Chav drivel

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:


I am not the one doing the skewed sums.

[snip drivel]

Just

This man is senile and a Jocko as well.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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?..

Dribble do sums? He thinks a battery car 100% efficient. Bit like his
brain...

In actual fact a battery car with regeneration added in is sort of about
100% compared to a fuel car without which is probably in the 25%-35%
range.

He's a bit out, but not by much.

I cant believe I said that.

I can't either. because you usually come out with snotty uni tripe.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
[snip]

Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?..

I am not the one doing the skewed sums.

You then proceed to do some skewed sums.

This man is a lunatic. He knows I do not do skewed sums.

On 17/10/2012 13:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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?..

Dribble do sums? He thinks a battery car 100% efficient. Bit like his
brain...

In actual fact a battery car with regeneration added in is sort of
about 100% compared to a fuel car without which is probably in the
25%-35% range.

He's a bit out, but not by much.

Even with regen, you are going to lose heat from the motor, and each
time you convert to and from chemical energy for battery storage (there
is where a capacitor for collecting regen would be better).

However its worth mentioning that most cars peak braking power tends to
exceed their motive power by several times. Hence the motors won't have
the power to capture all the regen energy on heavy braking, and you will
need to rely on the normal brakes thus wasting that energy.

This of course glosses over the big picture stuff such as the
inefficiency of the power station and the national grid in getting power
to your charger in the first place.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 17/10/2012 13:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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?..

Dribble do sums? He thinks a battery car 100% efficient. Bit like his
brain...

In actual fact a battery car with regeneration added in is sort of
about 100% compared to a fuel car without which is probably in the
25%-35% range.

He's a bit out, but not by much.

Even with regen, you are going to lose heat from the motor, and each
time you convert to and from chemical energy for battery storage (there
is where a capacitor for collecting regen would be better).

However its worth mentioning that most cars peak braking power tends to
exceed their motive power by several times.

True

Hence the motors won't have
the power to capture all the regen energy on heavy braking,

False

and you will
need to rely on the normal brakes thus wasting that energy.


No.

This of course glosses over the big picture stuff such as the
inefficiency of the power station and the national grid in getting power
to your charger in the first place.

Indeed.

The actual grid and battery turnaround efficiency and motor efficiency
will be somewhere in the 80%-90% level

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.

Add in some regen braking and you could be up to 50% more fuel efficient.

Especially considering you can do a better job optimising leccy motors
for low power cruising.

There's a lot less friction in a leccy motor compared with an IC engine
with all those bearings and pumps on it. That all counts at the lower
end of the power band







--
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.

On 17/10/2012 20:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 17/10/2012 13:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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?..

Dribble do sums? He thinks a battery car 100% efficient. Bit like his
brain...

In actual fact a battery car with regeneration added in is sort of
about 100% compared to a fuel car without which is probably in the
25%-35% range.

He's a bit out, but not by much.

Even with regen, you are going to lose heat from the motor, and each
time you convert to and from chemical energy for battery storage
(there is where a capacitor for collecting regen would be better).

However its worth mentioning that most cars peak braking power tends
to exceed their motive power by several times.

True

Hence the motors won't have the power to capture all the regen energy
on heavy braking,

False

How do you figure that if the motor can't generate the required current?

and you will need to rely on the normal brakes thus wasting that energy.


No.

This of course glosses over the big picture stuff such as the
inefficiency of the power station and the national grid in getting
power to your charger in the first place.

Indeed.

The actual grid and battery turnaround efficiency and motor efficiency
will be somewhere in the 80%-90% level

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.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Dribble do sums? He thinks a battery car 100% efficient. Bit like his
brain...

In actual fact a battery car with regeneration added in is sort of
about 100% compared to a fuel car without which is probably in the
25%-35% range.

He's a bit out, but not by much.

Even with regen, you are going to lose heat from the motor, and each
time you convert to and from chemical energy for battery storage (there
is where a capacitor for collecting regen would be better).

However its worth mentioning that most cars peak braking power tends to
exceed their motive power by several times. Hence the motors won't have
the power to capture all the regen energy on heavy braking, and you will
need to rely on the normal brakes thus wasting that energy.

This of course glosses over the big picture stuff such as the
inefficiency of the power station and the national grid in getting power
to your charger in the first place.

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.

--
*I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem. *

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

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
-september.
org...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
[snip]

Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?..

I am not the one doing the skewed sums.

You then proceed to do some skewed sums.

This man is a lunatic.

You are, we agree a lunatic.


He knows I do not do skewed sums.

Every reader of this newgroups knows that whenever you quote a figure it
is made up. You cannot do "sums".

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
He knows I do not do skewed sums.

Every reader of this newgroups knows that whenever you quote a figure it
is made up. You cannot do "sums".

Even if he could it wouldn't stop him lying to make some point or other.

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

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

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.


--

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.


--
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.

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
news
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.

The oil/petrol/diesel delivery network is energy intensive. Electricity goes
down a cable in a dangerous polluting truck.

Fracking is underway in Lancashire. The fracking means the UK could be self
sufficient in gas for hundreds of years to come - yet no hoo-ha is made of
this. The field is all the North of England from about Blackpool south, into
the midland and the northern Home Counties. Energy prices in the UK
currently are horrendous. All electricity could be fuelled by cleaner gas,
with more "local stations" that could combine Heat & Power
using the waste station heat to pipe to homes AND supply local EV charging
stations. EV cars and buses and a full electric rail network is feasible -
well they are now.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/10/2012 13:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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?..

Dribble do sums? He thinks a battery car 100% efficient. Bit like his
brain...

In actual fact a battery car with regeneration added in is sort of
about 100% compared to a fuel car without which is probably in the
25%-35% range.

He's a bit out, but not by much.

Even with regen, you are going to lose heat from the motor, and each time
you convert to and from chemical energy for battery storage (there is
where a capacitor for collecting regen would be better).

Supercapacitors take in electrical energy and give it back out as electrical
energy with no state change. 98% efficient. R&D to a combination battery
and Supercaps is underway.

However its worth mentioning that most cars peak braking power tends to
exceed their motive power by several times. Hence the motors won't have
the power to capture all the regen energy on heavy braking, and you will
need to rely on the normal brakes thus wasting that energy.

Magnetic brakes work well on aircraft. Hybrids rarely have their pads
changed as they rarely are used.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The actual grid and battery turnaround efficiency and motor efficiency
will be somewhere in the 80%-90% level

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.

Add in some regen braking and you could be up to 50% more fuel efficient.

Especially considering you can do a better job optimising leccy motors for
low power cruising.

You got that pretty well spot on. Look at my post on fracked gas in the UK
and small unmanned local gas powered power stations - these can be small
unobtrusive buildings nestling in the districts. These are some now in
cities to assist at peaks with gas turbines in them. Then the efficiency
goes way up. And the pollution levels drop like a stone as local homes are
heated by the waste heat (as in Sweden) and only EVs and electric trains and
trams are used.

We have no choice but to start the ball rolling to this approach - that is
if the country is going to use this gas in a big constructive way.

"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. They claw back most of the
kinetic energy and give it off to accelerate. Shanghai is using them now to
run EV buses.

"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.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
-september.
org...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
[snip]

Why don't you give us some realistic realisable sums instead?..

I am not the one doing the skewed sums.

You then proceed to do some skewed sums.

This man is a lunatic.

You are, we agree a lunatic.

This nut again.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Even if he

This man is senile.

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.

Of couse. I thought you would be shocked. Insulated bodies in sleeper cab
trucks have been around for quite a while. Going to sleep when it is -10C
outside, the cab has to be insulated.

Insulated bodies for EV cars has been in R&Dd for quite a time now.