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

[The Trucker]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:46:35 -0700, BretCahill 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.

Diesel puts out more and exactly where you don't want it.

Check with The Trucker but I understand that semi-rigs will soon be
required to be retrofitted with cat converters like cars ~ $10,000.

For trucks it is a question of filters and not a question of catalysts.
The particulates can be filtered out.

California just prohibited ships from burning of cost effective bunker
oil within 25 miles of the coast.

Same deal. Particulates can be filtered.

Some cancers were 500 times more prevalent near Long Beach than the
inland deserts.


Bret Cahill
--

"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

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

Sigh. So in France all air pollution problems are solved now ?

France is merely part of a large continent so it imports pollution from the surrounding countries but I
wouldn't be surprised if thier air IS cleaner than the average.

Graham

 

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.

Most SO2 can be removed by reacting it with lime and then dumping the
gypsum into a stack.

Maybe Hg, Pb and other heavy metals are a bigger issue w/ coal.


Bret Cahill

 

[Eeyore]

nurk wrote:

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
nurk <nurk@nurk.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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.

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

No you dont.

Yes I do. It's right here :

Nope, it isnt.

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'

No they didnt. Thats the CRIMINAL test, not the civil test.

Picky with words ?

Pathetic excuse for bullshit in your case.

that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy and ultimately our health as well.

The Supreme Court didnt even do that. They ACTUALLY found that the EPA
does have the legal say on CO2 emissions from cars, a different matter entirely.

You can make the same stupid claim about water too.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

Wrong again. The legislation that the Supremes ruled on doesnt just cover human activity.

Which makes it a pollutant.

Pity about water.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

Wrong again. The legislation that the Supremes ruled on doesnt just cover human activity.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ?

It aint a binary choice.

It kind of is :

Nope.

Human induced CO2 emissions are a pollutant or not.

That aint what the supremes ruled on.

You can talk until the cows come home, but your opinion in this is rather irrelevant : The Supreme Court made a
decision that it is (a pollutant).

No it didnt. It actually made a decision that the EPA does have the legislative
authority to deal with CO2 when it comes from some sources, but not with others.

End of story,

Nope, nothing like the actual story.

unless they overturn the decision.

And that too. The Congress can change the EPA legislation if it wants to too.

Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

They obviously didnt when they would have come to the same conclusion about water.

Once our human induced water emissions end up increasing the water quantity on the planet by more than 50% I'm sure
the Supreme Court will look at the impact of that,

Your surety is completely irrelevant. Thats nothing like the Supreme Court's role.

and determine if these human-induced water emissions are damaging to the planet and our heath and need to be
regulated.

The Supreme Court didnt even do that with CO2.

ALL they actually did was rule that the current EPA legislation allows the EPA to deal with SOME CO2 sources.

A different matter entirely.

Meanwhile, you are free to appeal the Supreme Court decision with the 'water' argument.

Not even possible, it isnt something that the Supreme Court gets any say what so ever on.

Good luck with it.

Dont need any luck, just an understanding of the Supreme Court's role.

Its nothing like what you claim it is.

Considering it came from Rob Dekker, that's hardly surprising ! Maybe he ought to learn about the carbon cycle ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"nurk" <nurk@nurk.com> wrote in message

ALL they actually did was rule that the current EPA legislation allows the EPA to > deal with SOME CO2 sources.

A different matter entirely.

Not just 'allow the EPA', but 'force the EPA' is what they decided.
There is a big difference.

I'm glad you have such faith in the courts.

That means Gore's film DOES contain lies and errors as determined by a British Court.

Graham

 

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.

Diesel puts out more and exactly where you don't want it.

Check with The Trucker but I understand that semi-rigs will soon be
required to be retrofitted with cat converters like cars ~ $10,000.

California just prohibited ships from burning of cost effective bunker
oil within 25 miles of the coast.

Some cancers were 500 times more prevalent near Long Beach than the
inland deserts.


Bret Cahill

 

[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.

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.

Diesel puts out more and exactly where you don't want it.

Check with The Trucker but I understand that semi-rigs will soon be
required to be retrofitted with cat converters like cars ~ $10,000.

California just prohibited ships from burning of cost effective bunker
oil within 25 miles of the coast.

Some cancers were 500 times more prevalent near Long Beach than the
inland deserts.

Diesel particulates emissions is already being increasingly regulated
successfully in the EU.

Graham

 

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 ?

Once our oxygen emissions end up increasing the O2 quantity in the atmosphere by more than 50% that question would be a good one to
investigate.

2 orders of magnitude more than CO2 emissions?

What activity would cause that?


Bret Cahill

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

Paris stifled by smog shroud :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1467515.stm

Too many ancient 2CVs I expect.

Funnily enough, once the car of choice for 'greenies'.

Graham

 

[z]

On Aug 15, 11:04 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

When it comes to converting one form of energy one way to mechanical
work only a Pelton wheel can approach an electric motor's 95+%
efficiency.

In sharp contrast all single cycle high compression ratio ICE small
enough to be hauled down a road tops off at 40% efficiency with
vehicle size spark ignition ICE generally running below 30%.  That's a
well tuned engine running on it's "sweet spot" rpm.

Why can't anyone do much about the sorry efficiency of 99.9% of the
prime movers on the planet?

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 machinery dictates the processes and the shape of the thermocycle
and even the idealized [read: fantasy] adiabatic cycle doesn't fill a
Carnot or other isothermalized parallelogram cycle -- the
thermodynamic limit of heat engines -- very well.   Materials
temperature limits reduce the Carnot limit below 100%, so maybe a
little over 50% Carnot for most ideal adiabatic cycles.

The real cycle, however, looks more like a paramecium.  The nice
sharply defined corners of the ideal have been rounded reducing
efficiency still more.

Toss in incomplete combustion and other parasitical losses and
electric motors start to look pretty.

Bret Cahill

internal combustion engines have that unfortunate torque curve which
forces you to have a much bigger than necessary engine to compensate
for the fact that torque drops at stall instead of increasing. that
wouldn't be much of a problem for IC engines running at constant
speed, even for longhaul highway driving, but for what most of us do
with our cars, it's less than optimal.

 

[z]

On Aug 15, 5:11 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
"Daniel T." wrote:

Really? Do you know of any city in the industrialized world that
*doesn't* have an electricity transportation system already in place?

   Do you know of any built entirely with superconductors to eliminate
all I/R losses?  Do you know ANYTHING about electricity, other than not
to stick your tongue in a light socket, the second time?

The myths about electricity and how it can be used and how good it is 'for
the environment' never fail to amaze me.

Graham

Nobody ever thinks about what happens when we run out of electrons. We
may have passed peak electrons already.

Which reminds me:
"Johnny, do photons have mass?"
"How should I know, teacher, I didn't even know they were Catholic"

 

[z]

On Aug 15, 5:09 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Daniel T." wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Sure, but where does the electricity come from?

Power plants that run at much higher efficiency

Not that great actually.

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

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

could ever hope to do.

Overall thermal efficiency from typical power plant to power socket is in
the 30-40% region.

A very large marine diesel can and does EXCEED 50% thermal efficiency. Only
now are combined cycle gas turbine generators coming on line that can beat
that but you still have transmission losses.

Graham

Little known fact; efficiency of electrical generation is currently
half of what it was in Edison's day. Well, it's a trick question,
though; Edison was businessman enough to sell off the heat as a
byproduct (isn't that what they call cogeneration?) but today
utilities, as monopolies, are too lazy too chase that efficiency/cash.
too bad for all of us.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:57:03 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net>
wrote:

Nobody ever thinks about what happens when we run out of electrons. We
may have passed peak electrons already.

Which reminds me:
"Johnny, do photons have mass?"
"How should I know, teacher, I didn't even know they were Catholic"

---
So this cesium atom walks trudges into a bar and the bartender says:
"Why so glum?"

"I lost an electron." says the atom.

"Are you sure?" asks the bartender.

"I'm positive." the atom replies...

JF

 

[RLDeboni]

Rod Speed wrote:

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote
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) ...

If you're gunna power it with natural gas, you dont use that sort of engine either.

Why not ? 50% efficiency is very good.

R.L.Deboni

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:57:13 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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

I meant to say that. Really.

Before people "fix" gasoline-powered cars, which don't need fixing,
they should do something about diesels. Diesels are a serious
pollution problem.

In the EU, diesel cars now have cats and some at least have special particulates
traps which burn them off harmlessly AIUI from time to time. We have the
advantage too that we switched to 'clean diesel' some time ago, a process that
is only now taking place in the USA. Plus vehicle diesel engine design in Europe
has become highly advanced. Even 20 years ago I drove a mid-compact Peugeot with
a 1.9 litre turbo diesel engine and it was quick. No slugggish acceleration
either.

We don't have many diesel cars here, and the new ones are clean. The
problem is trucks. In a lot of US highways, half of the traffic is big
trucks, which translated to most of the fuel burned. America runs on
diesel transport.

It's ironic that, until recently in many US cities, a major source of
dangerous particulates was public transport. Things look a little
better lately.

Diesel costs more than premium gasoline here lately.

John

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Aug 19, 1:59 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

On Aug 15, 5:09 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:



"Daniel T." wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Sure, but where does the electricity come from?

Power plants that run at much higher efficiency

Not that great actually.

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

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

could ever hope to do.

Overall thermal efficiency from typical power plant to power socket is in
the 30-40% region.

A very large marine diesel can and does EXCEED 50% thermal efficiency. Only
now are combined cycle gas turbine generators coming on line that can beat
that but you still have transmission losses.

Graham

Little known fact; efficiency of electrical generation is currently
half of what it was in Edison's day. Well, it's a trick question,
though; Edison was businessman enough to sell off the heat as a
byproduct (isn't that what they call cogeneration?) but today
utilities, as monopolies, are too lazy too chase that efficiency/cash.
too bad for all of us.

Edison's DC power scheme had to make a virtue out of a necessity. For
his DC generators to supply loads, they had to be close to them.
Westinghouse's AC system supplied the entire Chicago World's Fair from
a single, central station. Edison would have needed to space 27
generator across the grounds to provide the same coverage(why he lost
the bid). With a DC electrical power system, you were within walking
distance of the power station that supplied your home. Without fancy
power electronics to create buck/boost convertors, the voltage at your
socket was the generator terminal voltage, less ohmic drops in the
transmission line.

Edison could sell you the waste heat from his steam turbines (you hope
they were turbines, reciprocating pistons could be felt for hundreds
of yards through the soles of your feet), but NIMBYism meant no power
connection. Westinghouse could supply your house from halfway across
the continent. I am sure that there are utilities in large cities
that supply heat and light, in the core areas, but the return is too
small to lay the pipes in areas of low density housing.

 

[Eeyore]

z wrote:

internal combustion engines have that unfortunate torque curve which
forces you to have a much bigger than necessary engine to compensate
for the fact that torque drops at stall instead of increasing. that
wouldn't be much of a problem for IC engines running at constant
speed, even for longhaul highway driving, but for what most of us do
with our cars, it's less than optimal.

Diesels are FAR better in this respect.

You can buy SPORT model diesels in Europe now. The torque gives them that
low end advantage.

UK driving programme Top Gear put a sport model Gasoline and diesel car of
the same model round their track and the diesel won.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

z wrote:

On Aug 15, 5:11 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
"Daniel T." wrote:

Really? Do you know of any city in the industrialized world that
*doesn't* have an electricity transportation system already in place?

Do you know of any built entirely with superconductors to eliminate
all I/R losses? Do you know ANYTHING about electricity, other than not
to stick your tongue in a light socket, the second time?

The myths about electricity and how it can be used and how good it is 'for
the environment' never fail to amaze me.

Graham

Nobody ever thinks about what happens when we run out of electrons. We
may have passed peak electrons already.

Which reminds me:
"Johnny, do photons have mass?"
"How should I know, teacher, I didn't even know they were Catholic"

I like that ! I reckon that's a keeper.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

z wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Daniel T." wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Sure, but where does the electricity come from?

Power plants that run at much higher efficiency

Not that great actually.

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

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

could ever hope to do.

Overall thermal efficiency from typical power plant to power socket is in
the 30-40% region.

A very large marine diesel can and does EXCEED 50% thermal efficiency. Only
now are combined cycle gas turbine generators coming on line that can beat
that but you still have transmission losses.

Graham

Little known fact; efficiency of electrical generation is currently
half of what it was in Edison's day. Well, it's a trick question,
though; Edison was businessman enough to sell off the heat as a
byproduct (isn't that what they call cogeneration?) but today
utilities, as monopolies, are too lazy too chase that efficiency/cash.
too bad for all of us.

Good point.

Certain Scandinavian countries in particular make use of this 'waste heat' for
district heating.

I can see a potential move to local district co-gen (as opposed to GW central
plants) being very attractive.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Rob Dekker wrote:

Paris stifled by smog shroud :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1467515.stm

Too many ancient 2CVs I expect.

Los Angeles then. Modern cars, strictest emission standards in the world,
and no coal fired power plants in the area : "Los Angeles Most Polluted US
City, According To American Lung Association Report"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070501081737.htm

IIRC doesn't that have a particularly nasty thermal inversion layer that traps
the 'smog'.

Unfair comparison.

Graham