Why Electric Motors Are 3X - 4X More Efficient Than Internal

[Eeyore]

RLDeboni wrote:

That may happen ... if too many misunderstand energy saving with
electricity saving and stop building power plants.
I am convinced that energy saving starts from converting transportation
from oil to electriticy and the result would be "less total energy
consumption", but "more electricity demand"

Have you you had your brain examined recently ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" wrote:
John Larkin wrote

But why would anybody want a 76 Thunderbird, even in 1976?

I am really tall, but with a short torso, so I really needed the leg
room. It was $250 to purchase, another $350 to make roadworthy, and
less than $700 a year for liability coverage.

In other words, a beater.


You do not understand ride-comfort; until you have driven a pug heavy
vehicle with cushy suspension and a high ratio of sprung to unsprung
weight-- the T-bird's wheels followed every imperfection in the road
surface.

Lovely. It probably also didn't go round corners very well. Euro cars fixed
all these things decades ago.

(Sorry, had to be said).

Graham

By 1976, the Thunderbird was a bloated parody of the original
roadster.

I occasionally rent an American car = never owned one = and I'm
impressed by their feel and handling, even in radical situations like
power sliding in the rain. Japanese cars used to have sloppy, mushy
American handling, and they're much better now too.

I taught The Brat how to spin a (rented) SUV in the snow when she was
10. We shut down the road below the parking lot where we were
practising; nobody could figure where the snow flurries and fog were
coming from. It was a blast, and the Explorer did OK.

Wasn't the Austin Allegro the worst car of all time?

Actually, in its own right, the Austin Allegro wasn't a truly bad car except
some very early models. The police bought them by the thousands.

OTOH it was a very boring car. I wouldn't have bought one.

When my g/f bought an MG Metro I could instantly see its development from the
MG1300 of the previous generation and it was a scream to drive. VERY satisfying.

But nowhere near a Saab. You should try one if only just for fun. I've only ever
been able to afford a 9000 (and they go for peanuts here these days). Try a 9-5
Aero ! Or a 9-3 SW.

Graham

 

[Sevenhundred Elves]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:48:24 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

How can a water turbine generator pollute more than a coal fired turbine of the same output?

Trouble is that only a tiny percentage of electricity is generated that way.

World-wide, it's 16% hydro

Like hell it is.

and 15% nuclear.

That neither.

Together, they constitute almost a third of the world's electricity generation.

Nope.

Coal is 40%,
gas 20%,
oil 7%,
and "other" is 2%.

You've plucked those numbers out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

If I provide a better source for those numbers than someones arse,

You obviously cant, or you would have.

First, I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Graham.

Second, I'm sure that Graham only needs to see the numbers I provided
in order to check his facts, and find out the numbers for himself.
Unlike you, he is perfectly capable of finding facts on the Internet
or in the library.

Third, I have already provided a link to the source in a recent post.
If you don't read my posts, it's not my fault.

will you apologize for your rudeness and general stupidity?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Why do you think that's such a worthwhile pursuit? Do you often find
yourself inside wet paperbags with bullshitting your only means of
escape?

S.

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyorewrote
"rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" wrote:
John Larkin wrote

But why would anybody want a 76 Thunderbird, even in 1976?

I am really tall, but with a short torso, so I really needed the leg
room. It was $250 to purchase, another $350 to make roadworthy, and
less than $700 a year for liability coverage.

In other words, a beater.


You do not understand ride-comfort; until you have driven a pug heavy
vehicle with cushy suspension and a high ratio of sprung to unsprung
weight-- the T-bird's wheels followed every imperfection in the road
surface.

Lovely. It probably also didn't go round corners very well. Euro cars fixed
all these things decades ago.

(Sorry, had to be said).

Graham

By 1976, the Thunderbird was a bloated parody of the original
roadster.

I occasionally rent an American car = never owned one = and I'm
impressed by their feel and handling, even in radical situations like
power sliding in the rain. Japanese cars used to have sloppy, mushy
American handling, and they're much better now too.

I taught The Brat how to spin a (rented) SUV in the snow when she was
10. We shut down the road below the parking lot where we were
practising; nobody could figure where the snow flurries and fog were
coming from. It was a blast, and the Explorer did OK.

Wasn't the Austin Allegro the worst car of all time?

Further response. The Allegro was the successor of the Austin/Morris/MG
1100/1300.

I drove an MG or Austin GT 1300 down to the 'west country' once when a friend
kindly lent me one in return for a delivery job. I was totally converterted to
FWD when handling it in the snow. It was so good. Passers by looked at us in
astonishment as if to say how can you drive in this ?

Now try a Saab ! They *race* them in the snow !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Sevenhundred Elves wrote:

"Rod Speed wrote:
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

How can a water turbine generator pollute more than a coal fired turbine of the same output?

Trouble is that only a tiny percentage of electricity is generated that way.

World-wide, it's 16% hydro

Like hell it is.

and 15% nuclear.

That neither.

Together, they constitute almost a third of the world's electricity generation.

Nope.

Coal is 40%,
gas 20%,
oil 7%,
and "other" is 2%.

You've plucked those numbers out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

If I provide a better source for those numbers than someones arse,

You obviously cant, or you would have.

First, I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Graham.

Second, I'm sure that Graham only needs to see the numbers I provided
in order to check his facts, and find out the numbers for himself.
Unlike you, he is perfectly capable of finding facts on the Internet
or in the library.

Third, I have already provided a link to the source in a recent post.
If you don't read my posts, it's not my fault.

will you apologize for your rudeness and general stupidity?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Why do you think that's such a worthwhile pursuit? Do you often find
yourself inside wet paperbags with bullshitting your only means of
escape?

Good response.

Can we start selling seats for the semi-finals ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
....
"""
...Although half the [USA] uses coal-fired plants, EVs recharging from
these facilities are predicted to produce less CO2 than ICE vehicles

Who said CO2's the problem or do you just believe everything the news
media says ?


Come on Graham,
Daniel went to great length to shows you results of a list of studies on ALL
kind of pollutants. Not just CO2.
So why you pick out this one ?

Well *I* didn't. You want SO2, NOx, CxHx, particulates or what. Might be best to
state that first.

Besides that, with different starting fuels (coal or nat gas->electric->EV
versus gasoline->ICE) it is hard to talk about efficiency differences, but
in absense of any other measure, CO2 emissions overall IS an indication of
efficiency.

Every fuel leaves a different footprint. Concentrating on one alone in isolation
is BERSERK !

Graham

 

[Sevenhundred Elves]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:55:23 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sevenhundred Elves wrote:

"Rod Speed wrote:
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

How can a water turbine generator pollute more than a coal fired turbine of the same output?

Trouble is that only a tiny percentage of electricity is generated that way.

World-wide, it's 16% hydro

Like hell it is.

and 15% nuclear.

That neither.

Together, they constitute almost a third of the world's electricity generation.

Nope.

Coal is 40%,
gas 20%,
oil 7%,
and "other" is 2%.

You've plucked those numbers out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

If I provide a better source for those numbers than someones arse,

You obviously cant, or you would have.

First, I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Graham.

Second, I'm sure that Graham only needs to see the numbers I provided
in order to check his facts, and find out the numbers for himself.
Unlike you, he is perfectly capable of finding facts on the Internet
or in the library.

Third, I have already provided a link to the source in a recent post.
If you don't read my posts, it's not my fault.

will you apologize for your rudeness and general stupidity?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Why do you think that's such a worthwhile pursuit? Do you often find
yourself inside wet paperbags with bullshitting your only means of
escape?

Good response.

Can we start selling seats for the semi-finals ?

Graham

I dunno. Whut's in it for me 'n Rod? We figger we deserve equals
shares with you, not just some tiny percentage. Foighting is much
harder woik than jus' selling tickets, I tells ya.

S.

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"""
...Although half the [USA] uses coal-fired plants, EVs recharging from
these facilities are predicted to produce less CO2 than ICE vehicles

Who said CO2's the problem or do you just believe everything the news
media says ?

Come on Graham,
Daniel went to great length to shows you results of a list of studies on ALL
kind of pollutants. Not just CO2.
So why you pick out this one ?

CO2 is vitally essential to life on the planet earth. Theree is NO actual
evidence whatever that increasing levels will cause climate catastrope. That's
purely in the minds of of the doom-mongers like the IPCC who are working on
paper thin weak hypotheses.

Besides that, with different starting fuels (coal or nat gas->electric->EV
versus gasoline->ICE) it is hard to talk about efficiency differences, but
in absense of any other measure, CO2 emissions overall IS an indication of
efficiency.

When a hydrocarbon is a fuel , yes. GM's Opel division plan to have a car soon
that will emit 40g / km of CO2 on average.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any automobile engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

How can a water turbine generator pollute more
than a coal fired turbine of the same output?

Trouble is that only a tiny percentage of electricity is generated that way.

World-wide, it's 16% hydro

Like hell it is.

and 15% nuclear.

That neither.

Together, they constitute almost a third of the world's electricity generation.

Nope.

Coal is 40%,
gas 20%,
oil 7%,
and "other" is 2%.

You've plucked those numbers out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

If I provide a better source for those numbers than someones arse,

You obviously cant, or you would have.

First, I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Graham.

Fuckwit still hasnt managed to work out what usenet is about.

Or that I didnt even say anything about your shit initially.

Second, I'm sure that Graham only needs to see the numbers I provided
in order to check his facts, and find out the numbers for himself.

Translation: I couldnt actually find a cite for those stupid numbers.

Unlike you, he is perfectly capable of finding facts on the Internet or in the library.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Third, I have already provided a link to the source in a recent post.

Lying, as always.

If you don't read my posts, it's not my fault.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

will you apologize for your rudeness and general stupidity?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Clearly you have nothing of value to contribute, unless you count insults.

Grahama

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
just the pathetic excuse for a troll thats all it can ever manage.

Ah, showing your true colours again I see.

Recommendation to serious posters ..... Ignore ALL posts from 'Rod
Speed'.. They are purely trolls.

Graham

 

[RLDeboni]

Rod Speed wrote:

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
John Larkin wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
John Larkin wrote

5PM, I'm in a hotel in Santa Barbara. We had a late breakfast in San Francisco.

It's a long trip for an electric car ...
I am thinking about commuting, about 50 km range.

A smallish plug-in hybrid is a sensible vehicle. One could use it as
an electric for short trips, and run a small, efficient, fixed-speed
gasoline engine when you do need to drive all day, or when the local electric grid is collapsing from a few million
of your neighbors trying to charge their cars overnight, too.

That may happen ... if too many misunderstand energy saving with electricity saving and stop building power plants.

Nope, if that does happen, it will be airconditioning that does it, not car charging.

Airconditioning ... overnight ? I would guess they will be full power at
noon, not midnight

I am convinced that energy saving starts from converting transportation from oil to electriticy

Wont happen much except for very short ranges if that.

We have:
- cars ... may we say about half of the demand is short range ?
- trucks ... long range could change to railway (ok ... that could be
diesel, long lines electrification is costly, but near the cities ?)

and the result would be "less total energy consumption",

That wont happen either.

Take a MAN 5S50ME-C7 low speed engine.
95 RPM, 3'800 kW power, 159 gr/kWh specific fuel oil consumption

http://www.manbw.com/engines/TwoStrokeLowSpeedPropMEEngines.asp?model=S50ME-C7

In the MW range, the efficiency of a conventional 1 MW synchronous
machine is 95%. So 3800 kW in 1 hour would deliver:

3800 * 0,95 = 3610 kWhe

In a hour, fuel oil consumption is 3800 * 0,159 kg = 604.2 kg
Fuel oil lower calorific value is 42,700 kJ/kg
Primary energy is 604.2 * 42,700 = 25'799'340 kJ = 7'166,48 kWht

Fuel oil to electricity efficiency is 3610/7167 = 50,37%

In one day, consumption is 14'501 kg fuel oil and electricity production
is 86'640 kWh.

Let us forget that fuel oil is neither gasoline nor diesel fuel.
Let us say that with 1 kg of fuel we make 10 miles.
So with 14'501 kg fuel, we do 145'010 miles

Le us say that we power 1'000 homes, each one with one car.
If every home gets 14,5 kg fuel, an ICE engine car could make 145 miles
a day.

Instead, say that every home get's 87 kWh of electricity.
Tesla Roadster charging efficiency is 86%.
That's 87 * 0,86 = 75 kWh, enough to fully charge 1,4 times.
Tesla Roadster range is 221 miles on the EPA combined cycle.
That's 1,4 * 221 = 309 miles ... double the milage of an ICE engine car.

Or we can power 1'000 cars 221 miles each and 22 kWh free electricity
(forgetting the power plant price ;-) for each home.
In winter the power plant could additionally give some 40 kWht of waste
heat for heating (say about 30 kWht losses) and warm water.
In summer, the waste heat could be used for a 300 kW ORC plant, and luke
warm water for the homes. That is cogeneration + combined cycle.

May I say: 75% efficiency ?

but "more electricity demand"

And if that does happen, we'll just build more nukes.

Replacing oil with nuclear power is not so bad ...

But has to cart around a massive battery and move it up those hills.

But downhill that massive weight gives back the accumulated potential
energy ...
And, anyway, how much "massive" are you thinking ? 100 kg ? 200 kg ?
How heavy is a ICE engine, complete with automatic drive ?

R.L.Deboni

 

[RLDeboni]

Rod Speed wrote:

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
John Larkin wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
John Larkin wrote

5PM, I'm in a hotel in Santa Barbara. We had a late breakfast in
San Francisco.

It's a long trip for an electric car ...
I am thinking about commuting, about 50 km range.

A smallish plug-in hybrid is a sensible vehicle. One could use it as
an electric for short trips, and run a small, efficient, fixed-speed
gasoline engine when you do need to drive all day, or when the
local electric grid is collapsing from a few million of your neighbors

trying to charge their cars overnight, too.

That may happen ... if too many misunderstand energy saving with
electricity saving and stop building power plants.

Nope, if that does happen, it will be airconditioning that does it,
not car charging.

Airconditioning ... overnight ? I would guess they will be full power at
noon, not midnight

I am convinced that energy saving starts from converting
transportation from oil to electriticy

Wont happen much except for very short ranges if that.

We have:
- cars ... may we say about half of the demand is short range ?
- trucks ... long range could change to railway (ok ... that could be
diesel, long lines electrification is costly, but near the cities ?)

and the result would be "less total energy consumption",

That wont happen either.

Take a MAN 5S50ME-C7 low speed engine.
95 RPM, 3'800 kW power, 159 gr/kWh specific fuel oil consumption

http://www.manbw.com/engines/TwoStrokeLowSpeedPropMEEngines.asp?model=S50ME-C7

In the MW range, the efficiency of a conventional 1 MW synchronous
machine is 95%. So 3800 kW in 1 hour would deliver:

3800 * 0,95 = 3610 kWhe

In a hour, fuel oil consumption is 3800 * 0,159 kg = 604.2 kg
Fuel oil lower calorific value is 42,700 kJ/kg
Primary energy is 604.2 * 42,700 = 25'799'340 kJ = 7'166,48 kWht

Fuel oil to electricity efficiency is 3610/7167 = 50,37%

In one day, consumption is 14'501 kg fuel oil and electricity production
is 86'640 kWh.

Let us forget that fuel oil is neither gasoline nor diesel fuel.
Let us say that with 1 kg of fuel we make 10 miles.
So with 14'501 kg fuel, we do 145'010 miles

Le us say that we power 1'000 homes, each one with one car.
If every home gets 14,5 kg fuel, an ICE engine car could make 145 miles
a day.

Instead, say that every home get's 87 kWh of electricity.
Tesla Roadster charging efficiency is 86%.
That's 87 * 0,86 = 75 kWh, enough to fully charge 1,4 times.
Tesla Roadster range is 221 miles on the EPA combined cycle.
That's 1,4 * 221 = 309 miles ... double the milage of an ICE engine car.

Or we can power 1'000 cars 221 miles each and 22 kWh free electricity
(forgetting the power plant price ;-) for each home.
In winter the power plant could additionally give some 40 kWht of waste
heat for heating (say about 30 kWht losses) and warm water.
In summer, the waste heat could be used for a 300 kW ORC plant, and luke
warm water for the homes. That is cogeneration + combined cycle.

May I say: 75% efficiency ?

but "more electricity demand"

And if that does happen, we'll just build more nukes.

Replacing oil with nuclear power is not so bad ...

But has to cart around a massive battery and move it up those hills.

But downhill that massive weight gives back the accumulated potential
energy ...
And, anyway, how much "massive" are you thinking ? 100 kg ? 200 kg ?
How heavy is a ICE engine, complete with automatic drive ?

R.L.Deboni

 

[RLDeboni]

Rod Speed wrote:

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
....snip...
Nope, if that does happen, it will be airconditioning that does it, not car charging.

Airconditioning ... overnight ?

Doesnt matter when it peaks when its the peak that determines the power station capacity you need.

Ok. That's right.

I would guess they will be full power at noon, not midnight

Guess again. The max temp is well into the later afternoon, around 4pm with daylight saving.

I agree.

Take a MAN 5S50ME-C7 low speed engine.
95 RPM, 3'800 kW power, 159 gr/kWh specific fuel oil consumption

http://www.manbw.com/engines/TwoStrokeLowSpeedPropMEEngines.asp?model=S50ME-C7

In the MW range, the efficiency of a conventional 1 MW synchronous
machine is 95%. So 3800 kW in 1 hour would deliver:

3800 * 0,95 = 3610 kWhe

In a hour, fuel oil consumption is 3800 * 0,159 kg = 604.2 kg
Fuel oil lower calorific value is 42,700 kJ/kg
Primary energy is 604.2 * 42,700 = 25'799'340 kJ = 7'166,48 kWht

Fuel oil to electricity efficiency is 3610/7167 = 50,37%

Pity about the power station efficiency.

It raises interesting questions ...

In one day, consumption is 14'501 kg fuel oil and electricity production is 86'640 kWh.

Let us forget that fuel oil is neither gasoline nor diesel fuel.
Let us say that with 1 kg of fuel we make 10 miles.
So with 14'501 kg fuel, we do 145'010 miles

Le us say that we power 1'000 homes, each one with one car.
If every home gets 14,5 kg fuel, an ICE engine car could make 145 miles a day.

Instead, say that every home get's 87 kWh of electricity.
Tesla Roadster charging efficiency is 86%.
That's 87 * 0,86 = 75 kWh, enough to fully charge 1,4 times.
Tesla Roadster range is 221 miles on the EPA combined cycle.
That's 1,4 * 221 = 309 miles ... double the milage of an ICE engine car.

Or we can power 1'000 cars 221 miles each and 22 kWh free electricity
(forgetting the power plant price ;-) for each home.
In winter the power plant could additionally give some 40 kWht of
waste heat for heating (say about 30 kWht losses) and warm water.
In summer, the waste heat could be used for a 300 kW ORC plant, and
luke warm water for the homes. That is cogeneration + combined cycle.

May I say: 75% efficiency ?

No you cant, thats a complete wank.

Electricity (50%) +

Combined Cycle (+5%) +

like the BMW concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosteamer

With a stationary plant we don't have weight and size problems.

Home Heating (+20%)

recovered waste heat.

But downhill that massive weight gives back the accumulated potential energy ...

With the ineffeciency losses.

Yes, but "less" losses than a ICE engine (without any energy recovering)

And, anyway, how much "massive" are you thinking ? 100 kg ? 200 kg ?

Depends on the battery technology used.

I see that the Tesla Roadster (a "true" car) ha 450 kg :-(

How heavy is a ICE engine, complete with automatic drive ?

Not much with a SMART car.

100 kg ?
If the SMART car is the reference ... 100 kg of batteries would do the
job

An electric car with the SMART specifications could weight, with
batteries, about 500-600 kg.

R.L.Deboni

 

bud-- wrote:

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Far and away the biggest problem comes from the basic
thermocycles of
adiabatic engines, i. e., gas turbines (Brayton/Joule/Ericsson
I),
diesel (Diesel) and spark ignition (Otto).

The Prius uses a 4 stroke Atkinson cycle engine. Like a
conventional
Otto engine, the air-fuel mix is optimum. But like a diesel there
is no
throttle plate. Not pumping air past a throttle plate is supposed
to be
one reason Atkinson has a higher efficiency. The effective
compression
ratio (and power) are controlled by intake valve timing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle

--
bud--

Isn't his a throttle plate? Sure looks like it to me.

http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/tb/tps/

G˛

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Aug 16, 12:34 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" wrote:
John Larkin wrote

But why would anybody want a 76 Thunderbird, even in 1976?

I am really tall, but with a short torso, so I really needed the leg
room. It was $250 to purchase, another $350 to make roadworthy, and
less than $700 a year for liability coverage.

In other words, a beater.

You do not understand ride-comfort; until you have driven a pug heavy
vehicle with cushy suspension and a high ratio of sprung to unsprung
weight-- the T-bird's wheels followed every imperfection in the road
surface.

Lovely. It probably also didn't go round corners very well. Euro cars fixed
all these things decades ago.

(Sorry, had to be said).

Graham

I forgot to finish the sentence. The wheels moved up and down, but
the body did not. It takes a gawd-aweful amount of sophisticated and
expensive suspension technology to duplicate the effects of a massive
car. My clapped out T-bird could be driven on a washboard road
without spilling anyone's drink. The track was wide enough and the
ride height low enough that it did not corner as badly as you would
assume for a nose-heavy, two-and-a-half ton car.

To respond to another poster, the first T-bird was a roadster to
compete with the corvette, but sales did not take off, until they
added a rear bench. The four-seaters were always full sized cars.
Some of the convertibles had a cover that hid the rear seats, giving
it a roadster appearance. The '76 was a luxury touring coupe.

 

[Bill Ward]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:02:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote just the pathetic excuse
for a troll thats all it can ever manage.

Ah, showing your true colours again I see.

Recommendation to serious posters ..... Ignore ALL posts from 'Rod
Speed'.. They are purely trolls.

It may be someone trying to pass the Turing test with a sheet of rat
neurons.

Graham

 

[RLDeboni]

Rod Speed wrote:

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote

Take a MAN 5S50ME-C7 low speed engine.
95 RPM, 3'800 kW power, 159 gr/kWh specific fuel oil consumption
....snip...
In one day, consumption is 14'501 kg fuel oil and electricity
production is 86'640 kWh.

Let us forget that fuel oil is neither gasoline nor diesel fuel.
Let us say that with 1 kg of fuel we make 10 miles.
So with 14'501 kg fuel, we do 145'010 miles

Le us say that we power 1'000 homes, each one with one car.
If every home gets 14,5 kg fuel, an ICE engine car could make 145 miles a day.

Instead, say that every home get's 87 kWh of electricity.
Tesla Roadster charging efficiency is 86%.
That's 87 * 0,86 = 75 kWh, enough to fully charge 1,4 times.
Tesla Roadster range is 221 miles on the EPA combined cycle.
That's 1,4 * 221 = 309 miles ... double the milage of an ICE engine car.

Or we can power 1'000 cars 221 miles each and 22 kWh free
electricity (forgetting the power plant price ;-) for each home.
In winter the power plant could additionally give some 40 kWht of
waste heat for heating (say about 30 kWht losses) and warm water.
In summer, the waste heat could be used for a 300 kW ORC plant, and
luke warm water for the homes. That is cogeneration + combined cycle.

May I say: 75% efficiency ?

No you cant, thats a complete wank.

Electricity (50%) +

Combined Cycle (+5%) +

like the BMW concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosteamer

With a stationary plant we don't have weight and size problems.

Home Heating (+20%)

recovered waste heat.

You're ignoring the power station inefficiency with electricity.

Ignoring 50% ?

You cant do that.

Sorry, but I don't understand.
What I can not do ?

R.L.Deboni

 

[Bret Cahill]

Locking in anything, particularly power generation, to what is known at
any one time, like the present, is a mistake, at best.

Electricity specifically being something wide open to new discovery as it
itself is new in terms of human ability to know enough to manipulate it.
Solar is in the wings. They both should have been coming center stage 30
years ago.

What's really inexplicable is that it's nearly impossible to find
anyone, even here on newsgroups, who will deny future advances in
battery technology will be significant.

It's common for the majority but rare for _everyone_ to be hopelessly
optimistic. Even nuclear has a nut case poster with a junk science
"proof" that controlled fusion is impossible on earth.

Where can we find a proof on battery limits?


Bret Cahill

 

[RLDeboni]

Rod Speed wrote:

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote:

Ignoring 50% ?

Thats not the power station inefficiency, thats the charge discharge inefficiency.

Sorry, but that's the power station inefficiency (or efficiency ... ;-)

In the example, the Power Station is powered with a MAN 5S50ME-C7 low
speed engine (95 RPM, 3'800 kW power, 159 gr/kWh specific fuel oil
consumption):

http://www.manbw.com/engines/TwoStrokeLowSpeedPropMEEngines.asp?model=S50ME-C7

In the MW range, the efficiency of a conventional synchronous machine is
95%. So a 4 MW generator, powered with the above engine, in 1 hour would
deliver: 3800 * 0,95 = 3610 kWhe

That is the produced electricity.

In a hour, fuel oil consumption is 3800 * 0,159 kg = 604.2 kg
Fuel oil lower calorific value is 42,700 kJ/kg
Primary energy is 604.2 * 42,700 = 25'799'340 kJ = 7'166,48 kWht

That is the input energy.

From the two values, I calculate che fuel oil to electricity efficiency:

3610/7167 = 50,37% --> 50%

R.L.Deboni

 

Locking in anything, particularly power generation, to what is known
at any one time, like the present, is a mistake, at best.

Electricity specifically being something wide open to new discovery
as it itself is new in terms of human ability to know enough to
manipulate it. Solar is in the wings. They both should have been
coming center stage 30 years ago.

What's really inexplicable is that it's nearly impossible to find
anyone, even here on newsgroups, who will deny future advances in
battery technology will be significant.

It's common for the majority but rare for _everyone_ to be hopelessly
optimistic. �Even nuclear has a nut case poster with a junk science
"proof" that controlled fusion is impossible on earth.

Where can we find a proof on battery limits?

You cant find 'proof' on any relevant 'limits' except thermodynamics etc.

www.excellatron.com claims the theoritical specific energy [for work]
of Li - Air is 11kW-hr/kg -- 3X that of liquid fuel.



Bret Cahill