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

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

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

You're ignoring the power station inefficiency with electricity.

Ignoring 50% ?

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

Should one laugh or cry ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

I think that there will be great advances (albeit slowly) in battery tech the future,

And why do you think that when the lead acid cell has barely changed in around 100+ years.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:02:29 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in message news:ns0ea4laluuo709fs19ifoc9ddbo6ig2qa@4ax.com...
.....
The general idea is that it is easier to control emissions from a few large
power plants running at optimal efficiency than it is to control it from
thousands of vehicle ICEs.

These plants have amazing filter systems. Better than what would be
affordable for automobiles.
Besides that, they run at optimal RPMs, reducing pollutions to a minimum.
That cannot said about automobile ICEs in city traffic.

Rob


A modern gasoline-powered car creates very little pollutants...
essentially zero particulates and low ppm levels of hydrocarbons and
nitrous stuff, probably cleaner watt-for-watt than the average coal
plant.

That's not what the studies say.
Daniel posted a few results in a side thread.

Rob

I haven't seen the studies. But pollution from coal plants is
currently a serious problem. Pollution from modern cars really isn't.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:57:08 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:48A74E15.2FFDDA1F@hotmail.com...


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.

I wonder if you even read the rest of Daniel's post (after you noticed the letters CO2 reduction in the first lines).
Hint : ALL pollutants are down when we use grid electricity to drive vehicles.

Sure. Light, aerodynamic vehicles that don't go very far will in fact
reduce pollution.

John

 

[RLDeboni]

Rod Speed wrote:

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote

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):

Thats irrelevant, hardly anyone is stupid enough to do a power station that way anymore.

It burns also natural gas (with some modifications) ... with enough
cattle ... ;-)

R.L.Deboni

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

I haven't seen the studies. But pollution from coal plants is
currently a serious problem.

Unscrubbed smokestacks most certainly are a problem.

Pollution from modern cars really isn't.

Indeed. The last 'MOT' test my Saab had showed something like 0.0000% (or whatever they measure it in) hydrocarbons output,
negligible CO in the single digits IIRC ppm and lambda=1.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

It is a vital constituent of life.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

Sure. Light, aerodynamic vehicles that don't go very far will in fact
reduce pollution.

Right, but that's not what was stated in the studies.

What was stated is that vehicles driven from grid electricity pollute
significantly less that similar vehicles driven from gasoline or diesel.

When you do a 'total environmental impact' analysis I very much doubt that
actually unless the electricity is all coming from nukes.

Graham

 

[The Trucker]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:19:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change? We see that the sunspot
correlation is crapola. Is the climate changing and the north pole
melting because we fart too much? Are you seeing something in coal that
you do not see in auto exhausts and can you formulate a correlation?

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:06:59 -0700, The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:19:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:



Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change? We see that the sunspot
correlation is crapola. Is the climate changing and the north pole
melting because we fart too much? Are you seeing something in coal that
you do not see in auto exhausts and can you formulate a correlation?

Particulates.

John

 

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

That hardly changes the fact that man made CO2 is a pollutant.


Bret Cahill

 

[Eeyore]

The Trucker wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change?

NATURE !

Do you expect climate to be static ?

Jesus Holy Christ !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change?

Natural variation.

We see that the sunspot correlation is crapola.

Yes, but the total sun output correlation aint.

Is the climate changing and the north pole melting because we fart too much?

Nope, there isnt any evidence for any more than natural variation.

The conditions in greenland were actually quite a bit warmer than they currently
are in medieval times, before we increased the atmospheric CO2 levels.

Are you seeing something in coal that you do not see in auto exhausts

Yes, the emissions from power stations are quite different to car exhausts.

and can you formulate a correlation?

Nope. And we dont need one, natural variation has clearly been more than we are currently seeing.

A good post. Why can't all of yours be to the same standard ?


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

The Trucker wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change? We see that the sunspot
correlation is crapola. Is the climate changing and the north pole
melting because we fart too much? Are you seeing something in coal that
you do not see in auto exhausts and can you formulate a correlation?

Particulates.

Sulphur content too.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

That hardly changes the fact that man made CO2 is a pollutant.

CO2 is NEVER a pollutant. More CO2 > more plant growth > less CO2.

Graham

 

[bud--]

stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:

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/

Is it the current engine model?

My recollection is that the intake valve closed earlier for high power
and later for low power but in a brief search I didn’t find a source.

The Wikipedia entry for the "Hybrid Synergy Drive" used by Prius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive
(Performance) "the Atkinson cycle engine itself was also designed
specifically to minimize engine drag via an offset crankshaft to
minimize piston drag during the power stroke, and a unique intake system
to prevent drag caused by manifold vacuum versus the normal Otto cycle
in most engines."
The "unique intake system" is not described.

You may be right that there is a throttle plate, I don’t know.

--
bud--

 

[Eeyore]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

That hardly changes the fact that man made CO2 is a pollutant.

NO CO2 is a pollutant.

Almost all plants grow faster and better in higher levels of CO2. Hence
more food.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

bud-- wrote:

You may be right that there is a throttle plate, I don’t know.

Diesels don't have any.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Rob Dekker wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.


That's one possible explanation.
I have another one :

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly and after considerable analysis and looking at the facts
came to the conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt' that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy
and ultimately our health as well. Which makes it a pollutant.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ?
Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

Maybe oxygen is a pollutant too ?

Graham

 

[Bill Ward]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:04:06 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48A976F0.430F4321@hotmail.com...


Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.


That's one possible explanation.
I have another one :

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly
and after considerable analysis and looking at the facts came to the
conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt' that CO2
emissions case harm to the planet, our economy and ultimately our health
as well. Which makes it a pollutant.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably
to be right ? Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better
than you did ?

To quote Honest Abe, "Callin' a tail a leg, don't make it a leg."