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

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Rob Dekker wrote:

Face it dude : The ICE is responsible for the majority of air pollution
in all cities around the world.

If you INSIST in living in cities then how do you plan to get around town
without serious infrastructure pre-planning. Which is not typically how
cities arise, nor easily fixed after the event.

another red herring

Not even remotely. It's CRITICAL !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

That's right. CO2 is not the cause of climate change. Pirates are, as this graph proves :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/FSM_Pirates.png

You have neatly shown that correlation is not causation.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com 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.

It won in the highest number of gear shifts dept.

Not all diesels are like that.

You can buy diesel Jaguars, Saabs (my goodness both of those broke a few hearts)
and BMWs here too along with Mercedes who have offered diesel for yonks.

And then there's all the small diesel cars too with phenomenal economy.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" wrote:

z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Eeyore > wrote:

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.

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.

Scandinavian countries can do it.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

RLDeboni wrote:

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.

And you can probably do something useful with the 'waste heat' too.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

RLDeboni wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

The problem is that you dont get anything like that 48% with a POWER
STATION for the overall efficiency from natural gas to electricity

Generator efficiency 95%. Engine efficiency 50%. Combined 48%.
If the power station is small and in the same block with all the users,
you don't need a transformer. And if the cables are sized correctly, the
are virtually no losses. I would say that I get that efficiency up to
the user doorstep.

The point about generation close to point of use is highly relevant. It also helps use the waste heat
effectively.

and thats
the only thing that matters with a POWER STATION. There are other
ways to do a POWER STATION running on LNG that do a lot better.

Combined cycle ?
But you can do it with a diesel motor. The Wartsila does it.

For small plants like 5-10 MW, in the world they still build a Power
Station starting with e diesel engine.

Makes sense. Lots of places could use them.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

DB wrote:

RLDeboni wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

The problem is that you dont get anything like that 48% with a POWER
STATION for the overall efficiency from natural gas to electricity

Generator efficiency 95%. Engine efficiency 50%. Combined 48%.

Actually, combined cycle natural gas plants are approaching 60% now.

But natural gas supplies are declining where I live (plus would YOU rely
on Russia for YOUR natutal gas ?) and the price is going through the roof.

Graham

 

[Bill Ward]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:21:19 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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.

I see you're unwilling to respond to a factual statement instead of an
emotional one.

Let me ask you directly.

Does or does not Los Angeles suffer from a regular thermal inversion layer
that traps in pollution ? Therefore making it's use as any reference quite
worthless.

Graham

Yes, there is an inversion layer that forms fairly often at a few
thousand feet, locking in the haze from the ocean along with everything
else.

It's far, far better than it was in the 1960's, though, because the
photochemical O3 component has been reduced by auto NOx and HC emission
controls. I've lived in and around LA since the 50's, and can vouch
personally for the improvements. The air is clean enough now that I think
we're past the point of diminishing returns.

IIRC, the original Indian name translates as "Valley of the Smokes", from
the low hanging clouds over the campfires.

 

[DB]

Eeyore wrote:

DB wrote:

RLDeboni wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
The problem is that you dont get anything like that 48% with a POWER
STATION for the overall efficiency from natural gas to electricity

Generator efficiency 95%. Engine efficiency 50%. Combined 48%.

Actually, combined cycle natural gas plants are approaching 60% now.

But natural gas supplies are declining where I live (plus would YOU rely
on Russia for YOUR natutal gas ?) and the price is going through the roof.

Well, that was not the topic of this part of the thread. But as you
brought it up, better to use NG at 60% rather than <30% in peakers.
Don't you think?

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Yes, it makes no sense to be wasting natural gas on generating
electricity when its much better used in gasoline engines.

Now there I would tend to agree with you. It's down to practicality.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

DB wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:
RLDeboni wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
The problem is that you dont get anything like that 48% with a POWER
STATION for the overall efficiency from natural gas to electricity

Generator efficiency 95%. Engine efficiency 50%. Combined 48%.

Actually, combined cycle natural gas plants are approaching 60% now.

But natural gas supplies are declining where I live (plus would YOU rely
on Russia for YOUR natutal gas ?) and the price is going through the roof.

Well, that was not the topic of this part of the thread. But as you
brought it up, better to use NG at 60% rather than <30% in peakers.
Don't you think?

Show me the spreadsheet !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Makes no sense compared with nukes on the grid.

I hope you've got PLENTY of uranium or thorium up your sleeve.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bill Ward wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
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.

I see you're unwilling to respond to a factual statement instead of an
emotional one.

Let me ask you directly.

Does or does not Los Angeles suffer from a regular thermal inversion layer
that traps in pollution ? Therefore making it's use as any reference quite
worthless.

Yes, there is an inversion layer that forms fairly often at a few
thousand feet, locking in the haze from the ocean along with everything
else.

It's far, far better than it was in the 1960's, though, because the
photochemical O3 component has been reduced by auto NOx and HC emission
controls. I've lived in and around LA since the 50's, and can vouch
personally for the improvements. The air is clean enough now that I think
we're past the point of diminishing returns.

IIRC, the original Indian name translates as "Valley of the Smokes", from
the low hanging clouds over the campfires.

That's my understanding too courtesy of a 1969/1970 edition of Paul and Anne
Ehrlich's "Population Resources and Environment". Given to me as a Christmas
present by the then Science Editor of the Guardian newspaper (UK), Anthony
Tucker and signed by him.

Graham

 

[DB]

Eeyore wrote:

DB wrote:

Well, that was not the topic of this part of the thread. But as you
brought it up, better to use NG at 60% rather than <30% in peakers.
Don't you think?

Show me the spreadsheet !

What are you talking about?

 

[Eeyore]

DB wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:

Well, that was not the topic of this part of the thread. But as you
brought it up, better to use NG at 60% rather than <30% in peakers.
Don't you think?

Show me the spreadsheet !

What are you talking about?

Proof of your statement. It sounds a little simplistic.

Graham

 

[DB]

Eeyore wrote:

DB wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:

Well, that was not the topic of this part of the thread. But as you
brought it up, better to use NG at 60% rather than <30% in peakers.
Don't you think?
Show me the spreadsheet !
What are you talking about?

Proof of your statement. It sounds a little simplistic.

Huh? The efficiencies of combined cycle and peakers have been posted
here, with references, ad nauseum.


I don't have to 'prove' anything just because you demand it.

Here, you snipped this right out of the gate:
Google: combined cycle natural gas plant 60%

Same old Graham...

 

[Eeyore]

DB wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:

Well, that was not the topic of this part of the thread. But as you
brought it up, better to use NG at 60% rather than <30% in peakers.
Don't you think?
Show me the spreadsheet !
What are you talking about?

Proof of your statement. It sounds a little simplistic.

Huh? The efficiencies of combined cycle and peakers have been posted
here, with references, ad nauseum.

I don't have to 'prove' anything just because you demand it.

Here, you snipped this right out of the gate:
Google: combined cycle natural gas plant 60%

Same old Graham...

I KNOW that GE's best can apparently manage 60%. Indeed I thought I was the
first to mention it in this thread.

What puzzles me is that you think there is a choice of only 30% or 60%
efficiency.

Graham

 

[DB]

Eeyore wrote:

DB wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:

Well, that was not the topic of this part of the thread. But as you
brought it up, better to use NG at 60% rather than <30% in peakers.
Don't you think?
Show me the spreadsheet !
What are you talking about?
Proof of your statement. It sounds a little simplistic.
Huh? The efficiencies of combined cycle and peakers have been posted
here, with references, ad nauseum.

I don't have to 'prove' anything just because you demand it.

Here, you snipped this right out of the gate:
Google: combined cycle natural gas plant 60%

Same old Graham...

I KNOW that GE's best can apparently manage 60%. Indeed I thought I was the
first to mention it in this thread.

What puzzles me is that you think there is a choice of only 30% or 60%
efficiency.

I have not seen NG used in any plant other than a peaker or a CC plant
in the U.S. Do you have some minor example in mind?

At that, I never said one or the other. I did point out two substantial
extremes.

 

[Eeyore]

DB wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:

Well, that was not the topic of this part of the thread. But as you
brought it up, better to use NG at 60% rather than <30% in peakers.
Don't you think?
Show me the spreadsheet !
What are you talking about?
Proof of your statement. It sounds a little simplistic.
Huh? The efficiencies of combined cycle and peakers have been posted
here, with references, ad nauseum.

I don't have to 'prove' anything just because you demand it.

Here, you snipped this right out of the gate:
Google: combined cycle natural gas plant 60%

Same old Graham...

I KNOW that GE's best can apparently manage 60%. Indeed I thought I was the
first to mention it in this thread.

What puzzles me is that you think there is a choice of only 30% or 60%
efficiency.

I have not seen NG used in any plant other than a peaker or a CC plant
in the U.S. Do you have some minor example in mind?

At that, I never said one or the other. I did point out two substantial
extremes.

And what exactly was the point of that ?

Graham

 

[DB]

Eeyore wrote:

DB wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
DB wrote:

Well, that was not the topic of this part of the thread. But as you
brought it up, better to use NG at 60% rather than <30% in peakers.
Don't you think?
Show me the spreadsheet !
What are you talking about?
Proof of your statement. It sounds a little simplistic.
Huh? The efficiencies of combined cycle and peakers have been posted
here, with references, ad nauseum.

I don't have to 'prove' anything just because you demand it.

Here, you snipped this right out of the gate:
Google: combined cycle natural gas plant 60%

Same old Graham...
I KNOW that GE's best can apparently manage 60%. Indeed I thought I was the
first to mention it in this thread.

What puzzles me is that you think there is a choice of only 30% or 60%
efficiency.
I have not seen NG used in any plant other than a peaker or a CC plant
in the U.S. Do you have some minor example in mind?

At that, I never said one or the other. I did point out two substantial
extremes.

And what exactly was the point of that ?

You were the one that came along and changed the subject. What was the
point of that?

Same old Graham...