$1b electric car infrastructure deal

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote

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.

The Prius is indeed merely an interim 'feel good' solution for a few bleeding
hearts.

When the REAL series hybrids like the Opel Flextreme (using a diesel engine for
efficiency when battery recharge is needed) come on stream the whole situation
will change radically and every motor manufacturer other than GM will be left
looking very stupid.

Even considered they might have learnt something from the EV1 ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message

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.

The '3 litre' Lupo could do 100km on 3 litres of fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

And that was several years ago and not even a hybrid !

"The Lupo 3L was a special-edition made with the intent of being the world's
first car in series production consuming as little as 3 litres of fuel per 100
kilometres (78 miles per US gallon or 94 miles per Imperial gallon). To achieve
this the 3L was significantly changed from the standard Lupo to include:
1.2 litre 3-cylinder diesel engine with turbocharger and direct injection (61
hp, 140 Nm)
Use of light-weight aluminum and magnesium alloys for doors, bonnet, rear-hatch,
seat frames, engine block, wheels, suspension system etc. to achieve a weight of
only 830 kg (1830 lb)
Tiptronic gearbox
Engine start/stop automatic to avoid long idling periods
Low rolling resistance tires
battery location moved to boot for better weight distribution

During the period of series production of the Lupo 3L, Volkswagen also presented
the 1L Concept, a prototype made with the objective of proving the capability of
producing a roadworthy vehicle consuming only 1 litre of fuel per 100 kilometres
(235 miles per US gallon)."

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

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.

This is the fundamental difference between baseload and peaking generation.
Peaking is expensive typically. Baseload is very cheap typically.

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

How does it change their efficiency ?

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

That would be just nuts.

Graham

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4904F123.434FF49A@hotmail.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message

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.

The '3 litre' Lupo could do 100km on 3 litres of fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

And that was several years ago and not even a hybrid !

**I'm pretty certain I could find a motorcycle with superior fuel economy
too. Additionally, that is not in stop-start motoring. THAT is what the
Prius is designed to do best. You seem to forget that the Prius offers
comfort for five people and reasonable luggage capacity. It is important to
compare apples with apples.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

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

"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

**Indeed. Things are changing in that area too.

**All quite impressive for a petrol engine.

Not for a turbo diesel as I keep telling you.

**Ah, the old apples with oranges comparison. I understand it well.

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.

**It is also why many people buy Prius cars.

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!

**What is the acceleration from 0-100kph? The Prius is approximately 11
seconds. My own dinosaur manages it in around 8 seconds.

**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.

**Nope. The Prius works extremely well right here in Sydney.

But mostly

just to get in on the developmental ground floor. Pity they haven't
climbed
any higher in the last decade though.

**They have, actually. Just not far enough.

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.

**I disagree. Most people I see on the roads do not require huge load
carrying capacity, nor long distance ability. Some do, but most do not.

**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.

**Not around Sydney, they're not. The price of Diesel is far too high and
they don't provide sufficient economy for city driving.

And God help you when the batteries need replacing.

**What's the warranty? 8 years? I did some calculations and figured that I
could replace the batteries in a Prius for around AUS$1,000.00. Given that I
could manage it, I'm certain others could do likewise, at lower prices.
Toyota's battery price is just silly, of course.

GM had an electric car long before the Prius. The time wasn't right, just
as
it still isn't.

**I've seen interviews with the people who leased that car. They seemed to
feel that the time was right. They were not allowed to keep their cars.

I'm not saying that won't ever change however. Maybe then

the vehicles will improve, they certainly need to!

**Oh, we're just starting this particular journey into the technology. But
start we must. Personal transport using fossil fuel is doomed.

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.

**Like I said: we'll see. 'Peak oil' has probably been reached. $10.00/Litre
for Diesel/petrol is not an unreasonable expectation within the next decade.
At those levels, electric cars will suddenly appear to be a real good idea,
despite the limitations (and they are certainly considerable).

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?

**A desire to do their bit for the environment. At least, three of my
neighbours, who own Prius cars cite that as their rationale. I applaud them
for putting their money where their mouths are. The Prius is a very
expensive way to make a statement. They are certainly not under the delusion
that the Prius will pay itself back in fuel savings.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.22.16.55.136579@woa.com.au...

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.

Yep, sure is. I suggest you try it. Make sure you include all motoring
related taxes, levies, duties, excises, fines, etc, both state and federal.
I have no real problem with motorists being taxed for other purposes than
roads, (although I do object to the ad-hoc nature of many of the charges)
but denying it happens is just plain ignorance.
I still remember part of the targeted bi-centennial fuel levy being used
here for a tram extension. So even when it's not supposed to go to
consolidated revenue, it still doesn't benefit drivers.
(OT. Trams must be the worst form of public transport invented IMO, and the
biggest cause of traffic congestion in the cities of those that have them,
along with indiscriminate on street parking)

Then there are the cross subsidies actually spent on roads, but mainly for
the benefit of freight transport. Car drivers help fund the free interstate
highway network, whilst being forced to pay tolls on many local roads. So
they could at least admit non-motorist consumers benefit from all those
motoring taxes, levies, duties, excises, fines, etc. etc,or get the
interstate freight off the road and onto the rail network where it should be
IMO! Or how about tolls on the Hume, and all the current freeways to bring
some semblance of fairness to the system.

My first change though would be to cut out fixed registration and CTP
charges, and increase fuel taxes, thereby making smaller or hybrid vehicles
and motorcycles a viable option as a second or even third vehicle, and
making those who use their vehicles more, actually pay more.

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:49051b3d$0$28216$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.22.16.55.136579@woa.com.au...
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.

Yep, sure is. I suggest you try it. Make sure you include all motoring
related taxes, levies, duties, excises, fines, etc, both state and
federal.
I have no real problem with motorists being taxed for other purposes than
roads, (although I do object to the ad-hoc nature of many of the charges)
but denying it happens is just plain ignorance.
I still remember part of the targeted bi-centennial fuel levy being used
here for a tram extension. So even when it's not supposed to go to
consolidated revenue, it still doesn't benefit drivers.
(OT. Trams must be the worst form of public transport invented IMO, and
the
biggest cause of traffic congestion in the cities of those that have them,
along with indiscriminate on street parking)

Then there are the cross subsidies actually spent on roads, but mainly for
the benefit of freight transport. Car drivers help fund the free
interstate
highway network, whilst being forced to pay tolls on many local roads. So
they could at least admit non-motorist consumers benefit from all those
motoring taxes, levies, duties, excises, fines, etc. etc,or get the
interstate freight off the road and onto the rail network where it should
be
IMO! Or how about tolls on the Hume, and all the current freeways to bring
some semblance of fairness to the system.

My first change though would be to cut out fixed registration and CTP
charges, and increase fuel taxes, thereby making smaller or hybrid
vehicles
and motorcycles a viable option as a second or even third vehicle, and
making those who use their vehicles more, actually pay more.

**I sort of agree with this. It would be a true user pays system. However,
there are a couple of sticking points:

In more than 35 years of driving, I've never caused the injury of another,
pedestrian driver, passenger, nor myself, nor a passenger in my car/s. Yet,
my CTP insurance STILL rises each and every year. There needs to be a fairer
way for those drivers who don't hurt other road users. Then we have these
morons who collect their children from school in Landcruisers (and the
like). These monsters are over-represented in the death and injury stats of
other road users. Perhaps a tax based on the 'agressivity' and road damage
of the vehicle is required.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6mkb62FgscdvU1@mid.individual.net...

**All quite impressive for a petrol engine.
Not for a turbo diesel as I keep telling you.

**Ah, the old apples with oranges comparison. I understand it well.

Why? My car is directly comparable to a Prius in size, passenger/luggage
carrying ability, comfort, overall running cost, emmissions etc. BUT
performance is better, costs less to buy, no batteries to replace.
It's actually YOUR car that is a totally different category it seems.

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

**What is the acceleration from 0-100kph? The Prius is approximately 11
seconds.

See, mine is less than that! (9.3 seconds according to the manufacturer with
a slightly more expensive model rated at 8.2 seconds with a rated fuel
consumption of 6.3 litres combined) You really need to see what is out there
before singing the praises of overpriced obsolete technology like the Prius.

My own dinosaur manages it in around 8 seconds.

So can *many* cars, at the expense of fuel consumption of course.

**Nope. The Prius works extremely well right here in Sydney.

But not as well as some other options.

But mostly
just to get in on the developmental ground floor. Pity they haven't
climbed
any higher in the last decade though.

**They have, actually. Just not far enough.

The Prius has hardly improved at all in that time unfortunately.

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

**I disagree. Most people I see on the roads do not require huge load
carrying capacity, nor long distance ability. Some do, but most do not.

Ah, the old "perfect for others but not for me" argument.

**Not around Sydney, they're not. The price of Diesel is far too high and
they don't provide sufficient economy for city driving.

Yep, if all you do is travel in the city, save your money and use public
transport. OR buy a motor scooter.

**Oh, we're just starting this particular journey into the technology. But
start we must. Personal transport using fossil fuel is doomed.

No argument there. Renewable energy sources and electric only cars will be
necessary, NOT cars like the Prius!

**Like I said: we'll see. 'Peak oil' has probably been reached.
$10.00/Litre
for Diesel/petrol is not an unreasonable expectation within the next
decade.
At those levels, electric cars will suddenly appear to be a real good
idea,

Certainly not crap like the Prius though.

despite the limitations (and they are certainly considerable).

No argument there.

**A desire to do their bit for the environment.

Walk or ride a push bike then.

At least, three of my
neighbours, who own Prius cars cite that as their rationale. I applaud
them
for putting their money where their mouths are.
The Prius is a very expensive way to make a statement.

Not to mention delusional when there are far better options.
My beef is that the single biggest problem with the world is 6+ Billion
people, and yet those pretending to save the planet are often the same ones
screaming for baby bonuses, child care support, and a hundred other handouts
to encourage people to make the problem worse!

They are certainly not under the delusion
that the Prius will pay itself back in fuel savings.

That's just as well.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:6mklmkFh8ul2U1@mid.individual.net...

My first change though would be to cut out fixed registration and CTP
charges, and increase fuel taxes, thereby making smaller or hybrid
vehicles
and motorcycles a viable option as a second or even third vehicle, and
making those who use their vehicles more, actually pay more.

**I sort of agree with this. It would be a true user pays system. However,
there are a couple of sticking points:

In more than 35 years of driving, I've never caused the injury of another,
pedestrian driver, passenger, nor myself, nor a passenger in my car/s.

Me either, that's what you get with a no fault system. The bad drivers are
subsided by the others.

Yet,
my CTP insurance STILL rises each and every year. There needs to be a
fairer
way for those drivers who don't hurt other road users.

True, but at least a system that charges for the time you are actually on
the road rather than in the garage, would be an improvement IMO.
Certainly no worse on that score.

Then we have these
morons who collect their children from school in Landcruisers (and the
like). These monsters are over-represented in the death and injury stats
of
other road users. Perhaps a tax based on the 'agressivity' and road damage
of the vehicle is required.

At least including it in fuel taxes does help, since the bigger the vehicle
the more fuel it will use.

MrT.

 

[Roy West]

On Oct 24, 8:27 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Trevor Wilson 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 existingrenewablecapacity on the grid, but not
enough for a mass change overnight change of course.

The goal for NZ is to be using 90%renewableenergyby 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
energybefore 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 ?



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 thermalenergy
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.

And you're not going to replace all that coal fired electricity overnight.. The
only realistic option is a huge scale program of nukes. You have the uranium
AIUI. Result, the EV is currently LESS efficient than modern ICE based proposals
and is inherently inflexible wrt long journeys.

Graham

www.fieldstoneenergy.com River, ocean, tidal barrage
applications. Our systems can also produce nearly 1 million gallons of
purified water with a single system.

 

[David Segall]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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 ?
If I had known the answers I would have provided them. My guess would

be that it has to provide a "reasonable" days driving with an
overnight fill. Almost all of the contributors to this group are
capable of making similar assumptions.

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

 

[Eeyore]

Mauried wrote:

Eeyore 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.

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

Should be fun. They do have big tanker ships moving LNG around btw.

Dispensing it at the pump might be interesting. -170C would embrittle the hose
and cause it to crack. Whoops !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

David Segall wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
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 ?
If I had known the answers I would have provided them. My guess would
be that it has to provide a "reasonable" days driving with an
overnight fill. Almost all of the contributors to this group are
capable of making similar assumptions.

Assumptions are worthless. Read "guess". Hardly a basis for a scientific
discussion. And don't get your Watts confused with your Joules or kWh.

Graham

 

[David Segall]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

David Segall wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
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 ?
If I had known the answers I would have provided them. My guess would
be that it has to provide a "reasonable" days driving with an
overnight fill. Almost all of the contributors to this group are
capable of making similar assumptions.

Assumptions are worthless. Read "guess". Hardly a basis for a scientific
discussion. And don't get your Watts confused with your Joules or kWh.
Don't get "Where are the electric cars ?" confused with a scientific

discussion.
<http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.electronics/msg/c94e135a26036e2d?hl=en>

[OT] I could resist clicking on "view profile" when I looked up your
post on Google. How did you manage to get yourself banned? I have
found your posts a bit pompous but I can't imagine why they would
offend the folks at Google.



Graham

 

[Eeyore]

David Segall wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
David Segall wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
David Segall 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.
According to this article <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5960905>, it
uses 800 watts.

For how long ? And for what energy output ?
If I had known the answers I would have provided them. My guess would
be that it has to provide a "reasonable" days driving with an
overnight fill. Almost all of the contributors to this group are
capable of making similar assumptions.

Assumptions are worthless. Read "guess". Hardly a basis for a scientific
discussion. And don't get your Watts confused with your Joules or kWh.
Don't get "Where are the electric cars ?" confused with a scientific
discussion.

So what's 'unscientific' about it and why would you promote an unscientific approach
?

http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.electronics/msg/c94e135a26036e2d?hl=en

[OT] I could resist clicking on "view profile" when I looked up your
post on Google. How did you manage to get yourself banned? I have
found your posts a bit pompous

The truth often comes over that way. People would LIKE free lunches you see and get a
bit upset when you tell them there aren't any.

but I can't imagine why they would offend the folks at Google.

I'm not banned from anywhere.

I can only assume some malicious bugger filed a complaint for telling him he was a
MORON, not having a clue what my real identity is. And Google are too witless to know
either. Besides, Google doesn't run Usenet.

Graham

 

[The Doctor]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:49038DB1.A737EF39@hotmail.com:

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'.

Come on, have you even done a rough calculations of what kind of load we
are talking about? I like to see you do some back of the envelop
calculations. Firstly, how much energy are we talking about?

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

Without any calculations, how do you know what sort of load are we
talking about? As you say if you have to keep the baseload stations
running why
not put them to good use? Apart from heating people's hot water over-
night and street lighting, what else would you be using them for?

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

That's right they are talking about building the infrastructure to
support it. What's the difference between that any heaps of suburban
petrol stations across the cities? Batteries and solar cell technologies
are getting better. Finally when you say taking a long time to recharge,
what sort of time are you talking about? How about some calculations to
show that it is not feasible?

One more thing, if nothing else, we will have much cleaner air, at least
in the bigger cities. That has to be a good thing for people with
breathing difficulties.

 

[Mauried]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:17:40 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Mauried wrote:

Eeyore 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.

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

Should be fun. They do have big tanker ships moving LNG around btw.

Dispensing it at the pump might be interesting. -170C would embrittle the hose
and cause it to crack. Whoops !

Graham

Yes , it doesnt work in liqufied form.
Its only used that way for export.
Large ships with special insulated cryo tanks carry the stuff around
the world.
The local busses here run on CNG but its simply compressed as a gas
into hi pressure cylinders which are located on the roof of the bus.
There are some cars running around powered by CNG and there is one CNG
filling station near where I live.
Just looks like a normal petrol station with slightly differant
looking pumps.
CNG is a bit of a dilemma for Govts in how do they tax it.
Gasoline and LPG are taxed, but CNG isnt, or not yet anyway.
If you tax it , then the tax will have to apply to all CNG uses, as
you wont be able to stop people filling their cars at home of the gas
pipe.

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:39:20 +1100, Mr.T wrote:

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.22.16.55.136579@woa.com.au...
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.

Yep, sure is. I suggest you try it. Make sure you include all motoring
related taxes, levies, duties, excises, fines, etc, both state and
federal.

Lol, doesn't even cover what is spent each year on maintenance.

I have no real problem with motorists being taxed for other
purposes than roads,

That is the point, motorists ARE NOT TAXED for other purposes,
but are grossly subsidised out of general revenue by EVERYONE,
including non-motorists.

 

[Mauried]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:10:01 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Mauried wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"David L. Jones" wrote:

Wow, if it actually happens:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24541574-15306,00.html

Where are the electric cars ?

Also where are the batteries.

Indeed !


Given that the artcile completely leaves out what battery technology
the cars are going to use, Id say the idea hasnt had much research
done.

No. I suspect an attempt to manupulate share prices with provocative media
announcements.


Batteries are currently the weak link for EVs , not lack of charging
stations.

I believe the highest energy density types are the molten sodium and molten
salt types e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery

Like the Zebra battery. One small problem.....
"When not in use, zebra batteries typically require being left under charge, in
order to be ready for use when needed. If shut down, a reheating process must
be initiated that may require up to two days to restore the battery pack to the
desired temperature, and full charge."

They ALL have to be kept hot i.e. molten to work.

Graham

And they are simply too heavy.
The lightest batteries at the moment are Lithium Ions which weigh
around 10 KG per KWH.
So for a range or around 150 miles you need 30 KWH , so thats 300 KG
of battery in your car, or the equivalent of around 4 passengers all
the time.
But its really all academic anyway.
History shows that people wont adopt new technology unless it costs
around the same or less than whats currently available for the same
level of performance.
So Evs will have to compete price wise with conventional cars for
similar performance, and so far thats just a dream.
Heres a bit of interesting info.
When Henry Ford invented his model T , it sold for around $300
which was approx 4 months pay at that time.
That would make a Model T cost around $4000 in todays money, not
far from what Indias Tata motors are aiming for . ($3800)
Electric cars will have to come down to around $20K or less before
there will be much interest, and currently you cant even buy the
battery for that price.

Heres an interesting question to ponder.
What gives the greatest improvement in CO2 reduction per dollar spent.
Solar Panels or Electric cars.
Why arnt Electric cars subsidised like Solar Panels are.

 

[Eeyore]

The Doctor wrote:

Eeyore wrote
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'.

Come on, have you even done a rough calculations of what kind of load we
are talking about? I like to see you do some back of the envelop
calculations. Firstly, how much energy are we talking about?

Irrelevant. Electricity doesn't ACTUALLY get cheaper at night by some
macick.

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

Without any calculations, how do you know what sort of load are we
talking about? As you say if you have to keep the baseload stations
running why not put them to good use?

They're just ticking over. Demand a serious load and they'll use MORE FUEL.

You have a basic problem with thermodynamics I see and conservation of
energy. I guess SCIENCE wasn't your strong suit ?

Apart from heating people's hot water over-
night and street lighting, what else would you be using them for?

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

That's right they are talking about building the infrastructure to
support it. What's the difference between that any heaps of suburban
petrol stations across the cities? Batteries and solar cell technologies
are getting better. Finally when you say taking a long time to recharge,
what sort of time are you talking about? How about some calculations to
show that it is not feasible?

One more thing, if nothing else, we will have much cleaner air, at least
in the bigger cities. That has to be a good thing for people with
breathing difficulties.

Existing cars with catalysts do fine. Even in 1993 the Saab 9000 was
promoted as an 'air cleaner' in congested cities. The emissions from its
tail pipe were less than in the surrounding air. Guess my car.

Graham