$1b electric car infrastructure deal

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6md78fFg7n42U1@mid.individual.net...

**Not quite. Internal combustion engines are spectacularly inefficient,
whilst thermal power stations are respectably efficient. Worse, IC engines
are arguably the worst type of motor for stop-start city use.

Which pre-supposes cars are only used in cities for short trips. Mine isn't,
and outperforms a Toyota Prius for highway use.

Electric motors are vastly more suited to such a task.

Yep, and IF they would only start chrging CTP per *driver* instead of per
vehicle, it might become economic to have an electric city car, *and* a
diesel highway car.

A significantly smaller motor
can be used. The Prius electric motor, for instance, though only
developing
50kW, delivers around 400Nm of torque. That is the kind of planet-turning
toque only achieved by V8 engines and highly tuned turbo 4 cylinder
engines.
It provides the Prius with quite respectable off-the-line performance,
with
minimal fuel use.

Actually a 2 litre turbo diesel has similar torque characteristics, and uses
less fuel at a constant 100kph.
So where are the turbo diesel hybrids I wonder? Or how about the VW 1.4 twin
charged engine, plus electric motors. That would surely be interesting!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6mf3a7FgihdtU1@mid.individual.net...

Not particularly, a common myth. There is currently a drive to make 40%
efficient diesel engines for automotive use..

**And electric motors can easily double such efficiencies.

Not when combined with the generator losses, battery losses, and
distribution losses they cant!
Sure a little bit higher, but certainly not double!

MrT.

 

[Eeyore]

"David L. Jones" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote

But where is the "clean, safe, affordable" electricity going to come
from?

There is already some existing renewable capacity on the grid, but not
enough for a mass change overnight change of course.

The goal for NZ is to be using 90% renewable energy by 2025.

Laughable.

Really?
They are already at around 70% renewable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy_in_New_Zealand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NZelectricity2008.png

So 90% by 2025 isn't exactly stretching the imagination.

You mean JUST the electricity presumably ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

So where are the turbo diesel hybrids I wonder?

Opel are making one. They estimate average emissions of 40g CO2 / km overall
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/10/meet-the-euro-volt-opel-flextreme-concept-has-ultra-low-emissio/

Estimated time to market, 4 years.

Graham

 

[Mr.T]

"Mauried" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:49028d35.16301812@news.tpg.com.au...

The goal for NZ is to be using 90% renewable energy by 2025.

Laughable.

Some clarification is needed on David's claim. It should state "90%
renewable electrical energy."
^^^^^^^^
http://www.mercury.co.nz/News/news_story.aspx?id=855

I'll leave it to your self proclaimed research abilities to find out
what the present percentage is.

If there's lots of hydro and there's room for more I could see that
happen.
Bloody short timescale though.

Provided that it keeps raining and in the right places.
Hydro power is great if the dams are always full and the water is
free.
Some countries like Norway can make most of their power from Hydro
but most cant as the geography isnt suitable.
Goals are great provided that some elaboration on how the goal is to
be achieved are also provided.
Bland statements like "our target is to achieve 90% renewable power by
some date arnt worth the paper they are written on unless its also
explained how this is to be achieved."

In New Zealand they can (and do) at least generate electricity direct from
thermal energy, being located on an active fault line.
And hydro is a far better chance there as well, with so much rain and so
little population.
Not much chance for Australia to increase ours significantly though.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"swanny" <blahgswan3blah@blahbigpondblah.comblah.blahau> wrote in message
news:u6xMk.8315$sc2.8009@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

quote "there is a compelling case for automobile manufacturers to jump
in and build clean, safe, affordable electric cars for Australasia

But where is the "clean, safe, affordable" electricity going to come
from?
Not to mention "clean, safe, affordable" batteries!

CSIRO are working on one at the moment:

http://www.csiro.au/science/psyp.html

Sure, lots of people have been working on them for decades. When they
actually come up with something commercially viable, the idea might even
become feasible.

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Oct 25, 7:50 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote

But where is the "clean, safe, affordable" electricity going to come
from?

There is already some existing renewable capacity on the grid, but not
enough for a mass change overnight change of course.

The goal for NZ is to be using 90% renewable energy by 2025.

Laughable.

Really?
They are already at around 70% renewable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy_in_New_Zealand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NZelectricity2008.png

So 90% by 2025 isn't exactly stretching the imagination.

Dave.

 

[David Segall]

swanny <blahgswan3blah@blahbigpondblah.comblah.blahau> wrote:

David Segall wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow, if it actually happens:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24541574-15306,00.html
Wouldn't it be better to use the natural and coal seam gas that will
almost certainly be used to generate the electricity, directly in the
car? A distribution system for the gas and a change to multi-fuel cars
seems preferable to me.

Yes, natural gas is a very good option.
It is not too difficult to convert a conventional vehicle to use natural gas.
The gas is usually compressed in a tank which will give about 100km or so,
usually enough for daily commutes. The engine can be configured to switch to
another fuel source when the gas runs out.
That sounds ideal especially when combined with a home refueller

<http://www.myphill.com/> so you don't have to pay fuel tax.

 

[terryc]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:37:35 +0000, David Segall wrote:

That sounds ideal especially when combined with a home refueller
http://www.myphill.com/> so you don't have to pay fuel tax.

I am very curious about the electricty consumption of that device. AFAIUI,
it is taking gaseous NatGas from the street pipe and the pumping it into a
gas tank that is mastly liquid, o it has to do a lot of compression of the
natgas to get it into the tank.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Oct 25, 8:12 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"David L. Jones" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"David L. Jones" wrote:
You can buy 100% renewable electrical energy. More of it is simply a
matter of demand.

At a true (unsubsidised) cost of between twice to nearly ten times that of
conventionally generated electricity.

If you want it to stay subsidised at those levels your taxes are going to go up
a LOT.

Fossil fuel is also subsidised in Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia

Curious.

In Australia we currently have the option to pay about 1.5 times the
fossil fuel rate for 100% renewable energy.

You mean as the consumer ?

Yes.
There are various consumer options available from a variety of energy
providers.
Ranges from bogus "old infrastructure" partly green energy for only a
few cents extra (used to be no cost when the scheme started out),
through to 100% supply guaranteed plans that use new infrastructure
which is about 6 cents extra. You can choose your source too - wind,
solar, biomass or whatever, or a combination.
It is government audited too.

So those that want to be green can simply pay extra for whatever
source you want. I picked wind power.

Recycled water is also massively subsidised in Oz, and same too even
regular water to some degree.

Water resource shortages presumably ?

Nope, never had anything to do with it. It's all politics.

No more shortages in Sydney any more, disaster was averted, the Gods
smiled and it rained.

Dave.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Oct 25, 8:12 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"David L. Jones" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"David L. Jones" wrote:
You can buy 100% renewable electrical energy. More of it is simply a
matter of demand.

At a true (unsubsidised) cost of between twice to nearly ten times that of
conventionally generated electricity.

If you want it to stay subsidised at those levels your taxes are going to go up
a LOT.

Fossil fuel is also subsidised in Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia

Curious.

In Australia we currently have the option to pay about 1.5 times the
fossil fuel rate for 100% renewable energy.

You mean as the consumer ?

http://www.greenpower.gov.au/home.aspx

and for those who want to sign up:
http://www.alternatezone.com/files/GreenPower1.jpg
http://www.alternatezone.com/files/GreenPower2.jpg

Dave.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Oct 25, 9:18 am, Malcolm Moore <abor1953dag...@yahooneedle.co.nz>
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:50:48 +0100, Eeyore

rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote

But where is the "clean, safe, affordable" electricity going to come
from?

There is already some existing renewable capacity on the grid, but not
enough for a mass change overnight change of course.

The goal for NZ is to be using 90% renewable energy by 2025.

Laughable.

Some clarification is needed on David's claim. It should state "90%
renewable electrical energy."
^^^^^^^^

Yes, I was of course talking about electrical energy.
NZ are currently around 70%, so it won't be hard for them.
Google groups seems very slow at posting today, I've already posted
extra links.

Dave.

 

[David Segall]

terryc <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:37:35 +0000, David Segall wrote:


That sounds ideal especially when combined with a home refueller
http://www.myphill.com/> so you don't have to pay fuel tax.

I am very curious about the electricty consumption of that device. AFAIUI,
it is taking gaseous NatGas from the street pipe and the pumping it into a
gas tank that is mastly liquid, o it has to do a lot of compression of the
natgas to get it into the tank.
According to this article <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5960905>, it

uses 800 watts.

 

[The Doctor]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in
news:4901388b$0$4449$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

"Don McKenzie" <5V@2.5A> wrote in message
news:6mcnrpFg676hU1@mid.individual.net...
quote "there is a compelling case for automobile manufacturers to
jump in and build clean, safe, affordable electric cars for
Australasia

But where is the "clean, safe, affordable" electricity going to come
from? Not to mention "clean, safe, affordable" batteries!

There is another possibility. Currently if you look at the load curve of
typical cities, the load on the electrical network is alway lowest
through
the night when the offices and factories are shut. Most electricity
utilities provide off peak tarrif for hot water heating. They do this to
smooth our the load. The theory is that the generators can work at best
efficiency. But even with hot water load, there are still variation
across the day. By getting people to recharge their cars during at the
normal low load time then it might actually improve generation
efficency. Getting generators to generate at the best efficiency
might actually be better overall. Less pollution?

 

[Eeyore]

The Doctor wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in
"Don McKenzie" <5V@2.5A> wrote in message

quote "there is a compelling case for automobile manufacturers to
jump in and build clean, safe, affordable electric cars for
Australasia

Not really. It's a fairly stupid idea in fact.

But where is the "clean, safe, affordable" electricity going to come
from? Not to mention "clean, safe, affordable" batteries!


There is another possibility. Currently if you look at the load curve of
typical cities, the load on the electrical network is alway lowest
through
the night when the offices and factories are shut. Most electricity
utilities provide off peak tarrif for hot water heating. They do this to
smooth our the load. The theory is that the generators can work at best
efficiency. But even with hot water load, there are still variation
across the day. By getting people to recharge their cars during at the
normal low load time then it might actually improve generation
efficency. Getting generators to generate at the best efficiency
might actually be better overall. Less pollution?

Wishful thinking.

Graham

 

[The Doctor]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:49037AE9.1DB20031@hotmail.com:

The Doctor wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in
"Don McKenzie" <5V@2.5A> wrote in message

quote "there is a compelling case for automobile manufacturers to
jump in and build clean, safe, affordable electric cars for
Australasia

Not really. It's a fairly stupid idea in fact.


But where is the "clean, safe, affordable" electricity going to
come
from? Not to mention "clean, safe, affordable" batteries!


There is another possibility. Currently if you look at the load curve
of
typical cities, the load on the electrical network is alway lowest
through
the night when the offices and factories are shut. Most electricity
utilities provide off peak tarrif for hot water heating. They do this
to
smooth our the load. The theory is that the generators can work at
best
efficiency. But even with hot water load, there are still variation
across the day. By getting people to recharge their cars during at
the
normal low load time then it might actually improve generation
efficency. Getting generators to generate at the best efficiency
might actually be better overall. Less pollution?

Wishful thinking.

Prove me wrong!

 

[Eeyore]

The Doctor wrote:

Eeyore wrote
The Doctor wrote:
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in
"Don McKenzie" <5V@2.5A> wrote in message

quote "there is a compelling case for automobile manufacturers to
jump in and build clean, safe, affordable electric cars for
Australasia

Not really. It's a fairly stupid idea in fact.

But where is the "clean, safe, affordable" electricity going to
come from? Not to mention "clean, safe, affordable" batteries!


There is another possibility. Currently if you look at the load curve
of typical cities, the load on the electrical network is alway lowest
through
the night when the offices and factories are shut. Most electricity
utilities provide off peak tarrif for hot water heating. They do this
to smooth our the load. The theory is that the generators can work at
best efficiency. But even with hot water load, there are still
variation
across the day. By getting people to recharge their cars during at
the normal low load time then it might actually improve generation
efficency. Getting generators to generate at the best efficiency
might actually be better overall. Less pollution?

Wishful thinking.

Prove me wrong!

Pitifully simple.

They only sell electricity late at night for a discount because they HAVE to
keep the baseload stations running regardless.

It's merely a question of getting at least something for what they have no
choice but to do.

Make it popular and the price will go up. It's called 'the market'.

Do you even understand the difference between baseload and peaking
generation ?

NO free lunch again you see plus pure EV ranges are pitiful. AND the
batteries take an AGE to recharge and last at best 5 years.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"David L. Jones" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"David L. Jones" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote

But where is the "clean, safe, affordable" electricity going to come
from?

There is already some existing renewable capacity on the grid, but not
enough for a mass change overnight change of course.

The goal for NZ is to be using 90% renewable energy by 2025.

Laughable.

Really?
They are already at around 70% renewable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy_in_New_Zealand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NZelectricity2008.png

So 90% by 2025 isn't exactly stretching the imagination.

You mean JUST the electricity presumably ?

Of course. Look at the link titles, and the thread title, we are only
talking about electricity here.

That was NOT the claim made.

"The goal for NZ is to be using 90% renewable energy by 2025." Where does it say
'electricity' ?

Graham

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49023C54.9485CA26@hotmail.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"David Segall" <david@address.invalid> wrote in message
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow, if it actually happens:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24541574-15306,00.html
Wouldn't it be better to use the natural and coal seam gas that will
almost certainly be used to generate the electricity, directly in the
car? A distribution system for the gas and a change to multi-fuel cars
seems preferable to me.

**Preferable, but far less efficient. Conversion efficiencies for large,
thermal generation plants is MUCH higher than internal combustion engines
(around double).

Actually it's far from that good and may even be the reverse. What do you
think
those cooling towers are for at power plants. Half the energy gets 'thrown
away'.

**Indeed. A modern thermal plant can reach almost 50% efficiency. FAR
greater than an IC engine in a car. Look at it this way:

A modern petrol engine can reach around 35% efficiency AT BEST. That means,
over a very narrow rev range (though somewhat greater in modern, variable
valve timing type engines). My car manages around 7.1 Litres/100km, when
operating at around 90kph on a flat road. The car weighs around 1,500kg. It
is, for what it is, quite an efficent engine. HOWEVER, under mild
acceleration (say, taking 10 seconds to reach 60kph) fuel consumption rises
to around 30L/100km from 0-30kph and around 25L/100km form 30-60kph. In city
traffic, this occurs far more often than I care to think about. An electric
(of hybrid) vehicle has three, huge advantages under these conditions (which
is the majority for most city dwellers all over the world):

1) Electic motors develop all their torque from 0 RPM up. 'Fuel' economy is
the same, regardless of how hard the car accelerates.
2) Electric motors are approximately the same efficiency, regardless of RPM.
IOW: Whilst a petrol engine is, at BEST, 35% efficient, an electric motor
remains at (say) 80% efficiency.
3) Regenerative braking can be employed, potentially providing spectacular
gains.

Typical electricity generation averages around 30-33% from power plant
energy
input to wall socket. Losses in battery charging may lose another 10-20%
of it
too. It's not like refilling a pail of water, it's like refilling a leaky
pail
of water. so you could easily be in 25% efficiency territory (not
dissinilar to
a modern petrol engine) and worse as you factor in electrical losses in
the
vehicle itself.

**Indeed. You should not consider the MAXIMUM efficiency of an IC engine (as
used in a car) as representative of TYPICAL efficiency. It doesn't work like
that in the real world. A TYPICAL petrol engine would be more like 15%
efficient in real-world conditions. For those with a 'lead foot' and extreme
bumper-to-bumper' driving (ever been to LA, NYC or Sydney?) efficiencies
would be lower still. Electric motors, however, remain at 80-odd %.

In comparison, modern diesel engine efficiency targets for new technology
engines such as ones that eliminate the traditional camshaft are in the
40%
range and large marine diesels already exceed 50% thermal efficiency.

**No argument from me with stationary engines. Because they operate over a
very narrow rev range, their efficiencies can be very impressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wärtsilä-Sulzer_RTA96-C
"With a 42.7 MJ/kg fuel, the efficiency is 22.1 MJ/kg / 42.7 MJ/kg =
51.7%."

Apparently MAN make one with ~ 57% efficiency.

**Sure. How many are fitted to your GM cars?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4902ae5a$0$28218$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6md78fFg7n42U1@mid.individual.net...
**Not quite. Internal combustion engines are spectacularly inefficient,
whilst thermal power stations are respectably efficient. Worse, IC
engines
are arguably the worst type of motor for stop-start city use.

Which pre-supposes cars are only used in cities for short trips. Mine
isn't,
and outperforms a Toyota Prius for highway use.

**I'm sure it does. If I were to suggest a car for predominately highway
operation, it would not be a Prius.

Electric motors are vastly more suited to such a task.

Yep, and IF they would only start chrging CTP per *driver* instead of per
vehicle, it might become economic to have an electric city car, *and* a
diesel highway car.

**Indeed.

A significantly smaller motor
can be used. The Prius electric motor, for instance, though only
developing
50kW, delivers around 400Nm of torque. That is the kind of planet-turning
toque only achieved by V8 engines and highly tuned turbo 4 cylinder
engines.
It provides the Prius with quite respectable off-the-line performance,
with
minimal fuel use.

Actually a 2 litre turbo diesel has similar torque characteristics, and
uses
less fuel at a constant 100kph.

**It probably does. That merely reflects Toyota's unfortunate choice of IC
engine in their Prius. The concept is good, but the execution leaves much to
be desired. IMO, a MUCH larger battery, plug-in recharging and a smaller
Diesel engine would have been better choices.

So where are the turbo diesel hybrids I wonder? Or how about the VW 1.4
twin
charged engine, plus electric motors. That would surely be interesting!

**Indeed. That VW engine is an impressive device.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au