$1b electric car infrastructure deal

[David L. Jones]

On Oct 25, 4:13 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
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.

Dave.

 

[terryc]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:42:43 +0000, The Doctor wrote:

Getting
generators to generate at the best efficiency might actually be better
overall. Less pollution?

I'm not sure that it is just efficency, but more startup and sht down
times. AFAIK coal fired takes 24 hours to start up, gas turbine minutes
and hydro seconds. so if you have the coal burning and the boilers
bubbling you want the generator to be spining producing electricty that
you are getting paid for.

Certainly, rechargng a whole pile of electric cars during off peak would
give he coal station generators better return and thus higher efficency.

It is NOT however worth the home owner charging a whole pile of batteries
atthe cheap rate and then runing their house on an inverter during the
day. Efficency in and efficency out, then cost of asset and deprecation
takes care of all that. <Just thought I'd shoot that turkey before it
got off the ground>

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49027602.8FF817F1@hotmail.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

Australia
will be only 20% by 2020, but at least it's a start.

Exactly. We need to meet current demand with 100% clean, renewable
energy before we can increase demand that much. Otherwise we are
simply
burning> coal instead of petrol. Then adding battery problems to
boot!

**Not quite. Internal combustion engines are spectacularly
inefficient,

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.

Strawman. Where does the electricity come from at what efficiency ?

**Electricity generators. That may include:
* Coal fired plants (up to around 50% efficient).
* Nukes (up to around 40% efficient)
* Gas turbine (up to 60%)
* Wind (efficiency unimportant)
* PV cell (efficiency unimportant)
* Roof top PV cells (efficiency unimportant)

Don't forget: When you're judging automobiles, that several factors should
be considered:

* The vast majority of private cars in Australia are petrol powered.
* The actual efficiency of the engines in those cars is significantly lower
than the theoretical maximum.
* The cost of distribution (petrol tankers, petrol bowsers, lighting, etc)
should be taken into account (since you are costing electricity grids into
your costing).

Large marine diesels have no trouble exceeding 50%.

**Indeed. Ever seen one mounted in a car? I haven't. I have, however,
seen
such engines generating electricity.

whilst thermal power stations are respectably efficient.

Not particularly A common myth. About 30-33% from fuel thermal energy
input to wall socket.

Read it up !

**Actually, the efficiencies of modern thermal generators is
significantly
better than that. Transmission losses in the order of 3% per 1,000km are
easy enough to manage in this day and age. Large engines will always be
able
to provide higher specific efficiency that similar smaller engines. Hence
the high efficiencies of the marine engines you cited.

Grid losses are typically in the order of 6-10% alone AIUI.

**In SOME cases (and the number is growing) Australians are generating much
of their own power from their own rooftops. Additionally, you need to accept
that the theoretical efficiency of a car engine is not the real-world
efficiency. You also need to add fuel distribution costs into your
equations.

And you're not going to replace all that coal fired electricity overnight.

**Indeed. THAT is the biggest problem I see. There is not a snowball's
chance in Hell that mass adoption of electric vehicles will occur anytime
soon. That should not stop planning for such an event right now, though.

The

only realistic option is a huge scale program of nukes.

**Nope. Australia has abundant reserves of geo-thermal energy, at costs
which rival nukes. Even better, public acceptance is pretty much assured.
Solar, wind and todal can supplement the base load plants. Don't foget: The
Sun shines a lot in Australia, over a wide range of time zones and at times
when demand is highest.

You have the uranium

AIUI. Result, the EV is currently LESS efficient than modern ICE based
proposals
and is inherently inflexible wrt long journeys.

**Indeed. However, we need to start planning for the lack of oil NOW.
There's not much being made right now. Sticking one's head in the sand and
saying: "electric cars are not as efficient as petrol cars" will not solve
the problem. Eventually, we have to find an alternative (or, more likely, a
range of alternatives).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:06:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

* The cost of distribution (petrol tankers, petrol bowsers, lighting, etc)
should be taken into account (since you are costing electricity grids into
your costing).

And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.02.35.38.745374@woa.com.au...

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:06:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:


* The cost of distribution (petrol tankers, petrol bowsers, lighting,
etc)
should be taken into account (since you are costing electricity grids
into
your costing).

And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

**Indeed. It is remarkable how many fossil fuel proponents forget how the
automobile got to where it is by the use of general taxation. Now that some
want subsidies to be provided to some of the alternative energy proponents,
the fossil fuel guys call "foul".


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"The Doctor" <doctor@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B433F19A36C1docwhoATbigpondDOTne@61.9.191.5...

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

So you really think burning more brown coal will create less pollution?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6mhhupFgvouaU1@mid.individual.net...

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).

A bit of a contradiction there, how can it be "AT BEST", if so many modern
engines can do better?

My car manages around 7.1 Litres/100km, when
operating at around 90kph on a flat road.

Mine does under 5 Litres/100km under those same conditions, and *averages*
6L/100km, all without expensive batteries.
And can still manage to safely overtake in sixth gear!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.02.35.38.745374@woa.com.au...

And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure, and
has done so for many decades.

MrT.

 

[Mauried]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:44:59 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.02.35.38.745374@woa.com.au...
And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure, and
has done so for many decades.

MrT.

Since 1985 actually, when Keating changed the rules with what could be
done with fuel excise.
Fuel excise is now simply a revenue measure which can be used for any
Government purposes.
Last year fuel excise raised around $15 billion dollars of which
around $6 billion went back to roads, the rest was used to partly
fund the operation of Centrelink.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4903e7c4$0$31801$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6mhhupFgvouaU1@mid.individual.net...
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).


A bit of a contradiction there, how can it be "AT BEST", if so many modern
engines can do better?

**Non-sequitur. Modern Petrol engines can only mange around 35% efficiency,
AT BEST. Typically, in heavy city traffic, fuel consumption will easily
double.

My car manages around 7.1 Litres/100km, when
operating at around 90kph on a flat road.

Mine does under 5 Litres/100km under those same conditions, and *averages*
6L/100km, all without expensive batteries.
And can still manage to safely overtake in sixth gear!

**Great. BTW: How much does it weigh? How many people can it legally carry?
How much luggage? What is the fuel consumption under acceleration (mine can
easily exceed 60L/100km (yes, SIXTY), when I really give it some stick) What
is the fuel consumption is typical SYDNEY/LA/NYC/London heavy peak hour
traffic? Don't forget: The Prius and pure electric cars are designed for
cities, not country towns.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6mi9k7Fgtc23U1@mid.individual.net...

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).

A bit of a contradiction there, how can it be "AT BEST", if so many
modern
engines can do better?

**Non-sequitur. Modern Petrol engines can only mange around 35%
efficiency,
AT BEST.

And yet *YOU* were the one who already pointed out the now common VVT
engines might do better, not me! Not to mention the increasingly common
turbo diesels.

My car manages around 7.1 Litres/100km, when
operating at around 90kph on a flat road.

Mine does under 5 Litres/100km under those same conditions, and
*averages*
6L/100km, all without expensive batteries.
And can still manage to safely overtake in sixth gear!

**Great. BTW: How much does it weigh?

About 1.4 Tonne

How many people can it legally carry?

Five.

How much luggage?

Enough.

What is the fuel consumption under acceleration (mine can
easily exceed 60L/100km (yes, SIXTY), when I really give it some stick)

The instantaneous readout has never exceeded 20l/km, but the important thing
to me is that the average is 6.0L/100km over more than 10,000km, both city
and highway use.

What
is the fuel consumption is typical SYDNEY/LA/NYC/London heavy peak hour
traffic? Don't forget: The Prius and pure electric cars are designed for
cities, not country towns.

I live in a city myself, and even then the Prius would cost me *far* more to
own/run, and perform worse in many situations.
We don't all have to drive to the CBD every day you know!
But how come you don't have one if you think they are so great? Frankly I
think they are a pathetic attempt at cashing in, and can easily be improved
on when the demand/economics justify it.
It may be quite a while before a one car owner in Australia could seriously
consider an electric vehicle IMO however.
I won't hold my breathe waiting for the government to do something about the
CTP disincentive though. At the moment you are FAR better off simply buying
a Falcodore and taking the $2k taxpayer handout to convert it to gas. then
not having to pay the huge fuel excises either.

In fact the conversion companies are now starting to do quite a few four
cylinder cars as well, I can't see how a Prius could possibly compete with
that.

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:490411d3$1$31803$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6mi9k7Fgtc23U1@mid.individual.net...
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).

A bit of a contradiction there, how can it be "AT BEST", if so many
modern
engines can do better?

**Non-sequitur. Modern Petrol engines can only mange around 35%
efficiency,
AT BEST.

And yet *YOU* were the one who already pointed out the now common VVT
engines might do better, not me! Not to mention the increasingly common
turbo diesels.

**Basic efficiency is not improved. Just the efficiency over a wider rev
range.

My car manages around 7.1 Litres/100km, when
operating at around 90kph on a flat road.

Mine does under 5 Litres/100km under those same conditions, and
*averages*
6L/100km, all without expensive batteries.
And can still manage to safely overtake in sixth gear!

**Great. BTW: How much does it weigh?

About 1.4 Tonne

How many people can it legally carry?

Five.

How much luggage?

Enough.

**All quite impressive for a petrol engine. What is the fuel consuption
under acceleration and in typical Sydney peak hour traffic?

What is the fuel consumption under acceleration (mine can
easily exceed 60L/100km (yes, SIXTY), when I really give it some stick)

The instantaneous readout has never exceeded 20l/km, but the important
thing
to me is that the average is 6.0L/100km over more than 10,000km, both city
and highway use.

**You have a commendably light foot, or your car accelerates very slowly.

What
is the fuel consumption is typical SYDNEY/LA/NYC/London heavy peak hour
traffic? Don't forget: The Prius and pure electric cars are designed for
cities, not country towns.

I live in a city myself, and even then the Prius would cost me *far* more
to
own/run, and perform worse in many situations.

**Fine.

We don't all have to drive to the CBD every day you know!

**Fine. Don't buy a Prius. The Prius is designed for people who do *a lot*
of heavy traffic driving.

But how come you don't have one if you think they are so great?

**For a bunch of reasons:
* I NEVER buy new (or near new) cars.
* I need a vehicle which can carry long (2 Metre) loads.
* I drive as little as possible. The Prius only makes sense for heavy city
drivers.

Frankly I

think they are a pathetic attempt at cashing in, and can easily be
improved
on when the demand/economics justify it.

**You're entitled to your opinion. I also feel that Toyota COULD have done
better. However, credit should go them, since Ford, GM and others have
managed to completely ignore the issue.

It may be quite a while before a one car owner in Australia could
seriously
consider an electric vehicle IMO however.

**We'll see.

I won't hold my breathe waiting for the government to do something about
the
CTP disincentive though. At the moment you are FAR better off simply
buying
a Falcodore and taking the $2k taxpayer handout to convert it to gas. then
not having to pay the huge fuel excises either.

**That is obscene. Along with the nonsensically high price of Diesel.

In fact the conversion companies are now starting to do quite a few four
cylinder cars as well, I can't see how a Prius could possibly compete with
that.

**In pure Dollar terms, it cannot. Prius purchasers often have other
incentives.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6mij72Fh2lc5U1@mid.individual.net...

And yet *YOU* were the one who already pointed out the now common VVT
engines might do better, not me! Not to mention the increasingly common
turbo diesels.

**Basic efficiency is not improved. Just the efficiency over a wider rev
range.

Not for turbo diesels, Increased efficiency over a narrower rev range
compared to petrol engines. Not a problem when mated with lots of gears or
CVT

**All quite impressive for a petrol engine.

Not for a turbo diesel as I keep telling you.

What is the fuel consuption
under acceleration and in typical Sydney peak hour traffic?

My *average* is 6.0L/100km, including peak hour city driving. Why should I
care about Sydney peak hour traffic anyway? That's what public transport is
for.

The instantaneous readout has never exceeded 20l/km, but the important
thing
to me is that the average is 6.0L/100km over more than 10,000km, both
city
and highway use.

**You have a commendably light foot, or your car accelerates very slowly.

Nope *easily* out exelerates most cars in traffic without needing a petrol
bowser in tow!

**Fine. Don't buy a Prius.

Thanks, I won't!

The Prius is designed for people who do *a lot*
of heavy traffic driving.

Actually designed for countries/cities different than our own. But mostly
just to get in on the developmental ground floor. Pity they haven't climbed
any higher in the last decade though.

But how come you don't have one if you think they are so great?

**For a bunch of reasons:
* I NEVER buy new (or near new) cars.
* I need a vehicle which can carry long (2 Metre) loads.
* I drive as little as possible. The Prius only makes sense for heavy city
drivers.

And not even then! But you see it it pointless for you, just as it is for
*most* people in Australia.

**You're entitled to your opinion. I also feel that Toyota COULD have done
better. However, credit should go them, since Ford, GM and others have
managed to completely ignore the issue.

Nope, the Ford Focus and GM Astra Turbo diesels (among others) are far more
practical in Australia than the overpriced Prius.
And God help you when the batteries need replacing.
GM had an electric car long before the Prius. The time wasn't right, just as
it still isn't. I'm not saying that won't ever change however. Maybe then
the vehicles will improve, they certainly need to!

It may be quite a while before a one car owner in Australia could
seriously
consider an electric vehicle IMO however.

**We'll see.

If you live long enough.

I won't hold my breathe waiting for the government to do something about
the
CTP disincentive though. At the moment you are FAR better off simply
buying
a Falcodore and taking the $2k taxpayer handout to convert it to gas.
then
not having to pay the huge fuel excises either.

**That is obscene. Along with the nonsensically high price of Diesel.

No argument from me!

In fact the conversion companies are now starting to do quite a few four
cylinder cars as well, I can't see how a Prius could possibly compete
with
that.

**In pure Dollar terms, it cannot.

Exactly.

Prius purchasers often have other incentives.

Ignorance of the total costs involved until too late, or simply a wish to
scare pedestrians?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:49042261$0$4453$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Nope *easily* out exelerates most cars in traffic without needing a petrol
bowser in tow!

er, make that accelerates

MrT.

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:44:59 +1100, Mr.T wrote:

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.02.35.38.745374@woa.com.au...
And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure, and
has done so for many decades.

Could you list that "revenue"
Motor vehicle rego barely covers the cost f the rego dept.
Considerinfg that out major highways cosy $1B+/km now, then add allthe
major roads, minor roads, and back streets that are subsidised by state
fess and local government rates.

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 03:57:40 +0000, Mauried wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:44:59 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:


"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.02.35.38.745374@woa.com.au...
And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure,
and has done so for many decades.

MrT.



Since 1985 actually, when Keating changed the rules with what could be
done with fuel excise.
Fuel excise is now simply a revenue measure which can be used for any
Government purposes.
Last year fuel excise raised around $15 billion dollars of which around $6
billion went back to roads, the rest was used to partly fund the operation
of Centrelink.

You are forgetting all the other sources that fund roads.

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:21:38 +1100, Mr.T wrote:

"Mauried" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:4903ea20.105625203@news.tpg.com.au...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:44:59 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.02.35.38.745374@woa.com.au...
And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure,
and
has done so for many decades.

Since 1985 actually, when Keating changed the rules with what could be
done with fuel excise.

But as I said the "total government revenue from motorists" (of which the
fuel excise is only a part), was far higher than the total expenditure
*long* before then.

Could you please list that "revenue", then list all the money spent on
roads at federal, stae and local government level?

It will be very informative for you.

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

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.

That compression will cost you a LOT of energy. No free lunch remember.

Same with the MDI/Tata 'air car' too btw.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

David Segall wrote:

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

For how long ? And for what energy output ?

You're quoting power when you should be quoting energy. A classic mistake of
wannabes. Don't get your units mixed up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

READ IT !

Graham

 

[Mauried]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:25:44 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

terryc wrote:

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.

That compression will cost you a LOT of energy. No free lunch remember.

Same with the MDI/Tata 'air car' too btw.

Graham

Compressed Natural Gas doesnt liquify when pumped into a tank.
You have to cryogenically cool it to liquify it.
Liquifies at -170 C.