Is E85 or biodiesel really the anwser?
Todd
that cannot get 3 meals a day. Look at E85 rich Brazil
"Few people die from starvation , but there is wide spread chronic food
insecurity and malnutrition"
Can you as a citizen of earth drive your Hummer to work knowing that you
are burning processed food while other citizens are starving?
And what happens when a drought or disease destroys mass amounts of
sugar and corn crops? Do we pay $4 for an ear of corn, or $4 for a
gallon of E85 and biodiesel?
Earth can make hydrogen from electricity. Electricity can be made from
wind, light, water, and earth.
Lets, not dig ourselves into a whole. Our refrigerators will never run
on E85 but the media makes it sound like a God sent solution.
Water is Life. Life is water. Treasure both
./Todd
Anthony Matonak
...
> Earth can make hydrogen from electricity. Electricity can be made from
> wind, light, water, and earth.
Why bother with the hydrogen? Use electricity to power efficient
mass transit systems (http://www.skywebexpress.com/) and inter-city
transit via high speed rail. Use electric cars and trucks for local
driving and deliveries and then biofuels for what remains.
Anthony
Rob Dekker
"Todd" <To...@STOPSPAMacpdata.com> wrote in message news:pQwlg.25039$7G2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Should the world honestly use crop to fuel cars while there are people that cannot get 3 meals a day. Look at E85 rich Brazil
>
> "Few people die from starvation , but there is wide spread chronic food insecurity and malnutrition"
>
> Can you as a citizen of earth drive your Hummer to work knowing that you are burning processed food while other citizens are
> starving?
IMHO, This is an interesting question from an ethical point of view,
but it applies already today :
How can you buy a latte every morning for $3, if you know that for $3 / day
you can adopt a child : feed it, shelter it, send it through school, and
give it a real chance in making it in life ?
Or how can we import food from countries where we know people are starving ?
Or how can you eat meat, if you know that meat requires at least 10 times
its weight in vegetable food for the animal.
>
> And what happens when a drought or disease destroys mass amounts of sugar and corn crops? Do we pay $4 for an ear of corn, or $4
> for a gallon of E85 and biodiesel?
First of all, there IS enough food to feed all 6.5 billion people on this planet, and
we can still grow more.
Second, fuel prices will have to go way through the roof to affect food prices :
One gallon of ethanol will require at least 10kg corn starch (the theoretical maximum yield).
If one ear of corn contains 200g of dry corn starch (it is probably less than that),
then one gallon of ethanol requires at least 50 ears of corn. Plus processing costs.
So one gallon of ethanol will always be more expensive (wholesale) than 50 ears of corn.
So when we pay $10/gallon of ethanol, one ear of corn will still cost less than 20ct.
Point is, retail cost of most food is mostly determined by retailers.
Much less by farmers that produce it.
A full worldwide embracement of ethanol and biodiesel, in a true free world market,
will likely raise the cost of suger cane/beets and oil seeds. But that is good,
because that will increase profits for the farmers (in developing nations?) and stimulate
economic growth in agriculture.
>
> Earth can make hydrogen from electricity. Electricity can be made from wind, light, water, and earth.
We probably will need everything that produces energy. Biofuels, nuclear,
hydro power, solar, you name it. AND we need to be more efficient too :
Upgrading the remaining 4 billion inpoverished people on this planet to a better life, and
meanwhile reducing fossil fuel usage will be the biggest effort mankind has undertaken
since the industrial revolution. In my opinion...
>
> Lets, not dig ourselves into a whole. Our refrigerators will never run on E85 but the media makes it sound like a God sent
> solution.
E85 is being hyped in the media. That's all marketing from the big oil
companies to show their 'green' side.
In reality, E85 and biodiesel are in their infancy, providing less than a few percent
of the world's fuel needs. (Except for in Brasil).
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
to fuel all our cars. And even though it is highly subsidised, Ethanol
is still more costly than gasoline (today about sixty cents a gallon
more). And Ethanol rusts pipelines and engines. The only reason we
have so much of a hoot about ethanol is the power of our farm lobby.
Having said that, if we are going to chose a new fuel, we should think
it out. If we engineer bugs to make ethanol from wood, why not make
something else? During WW2 folks made gasoline and methane from coal,
they didn't redesign the world. I think eventually we will be able to
make fuel from just about anything using yeast, basteria and other
bugs. And can't you imagine the varmint mentals fearing the bugs might
survive in the potent distilate and turn into some kind of mind snatchers?
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Yellary Clinton & Yellalot Spitzer: Nasty Together]
Pooh Bear
vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> The only reason we
> have so much of a hoot about ethanol is the power of our farm lobby.
Umm no actually. Your farm lobby didn't influence various European countries to
adopt ethanol for fuel did it ?
> Having said that, if we are going to chose a new fuel, we should think
> it out. If we engineer bugs to make ethanol from wood, why not make
> something else?
Because ethanol is actually as near perfect a fuel as you could want.
> During WW2 folks made gasoline and methane from coal,
Messy, smelly, polluting etc.
Get off the gasoline thing man ! Used in engines designed to run on it from the
start, ethanol actually produces *more* power than gasoline on account of its
high octane rating. It also burns very cleanly.
Graham
Pooh Bear
vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> And Ethanol rusts pipelines and engines.
Actually it doesn't rust engines. The problems with pipelines is simply that
ethanol, being a great solvent, will dissolve years of accumulated deposits,
thus spoiling the fuel.
Graham
Rob Dekker
<vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com> wrote in message news:e77ff8$a0q$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> All the corn in the USA will only provide 10% of the ethanol needed
> to fuel all our cars. And even though it is highly subsidised, Ethanol
> is still more costly than gasoline (today about sixty cents a gallon
> more). And Ethanol rusts pipelines and engines. The only reason we
> have so much of a hoot about ethanol is the power of our farm lobby.
Forget the hype and the media. Look at the reality :
In the US, most fuel ethanol is currently used as a replacement for MTBE.
Not for E85.
Point is : Ethanol is not yet a true replacement for gasoline (again, except for in Brasil).
> Having said that, if we are going to chose a new fuel, we should think
> it out. If we engineer bugs to make ethanol from wood, why not make
> something else? During WW2 folks made gasoline and methane from coal,
> they didn't redesign the world. I think eventually we will be able to
> make fuel from just about anything using yeast, basteria and other
> bugs.
And which fuel is going to win will mostly depend on the cost to produce it.
I'd say : Let the free market choose.
But ethanol definitely has a chance. Especially since the process to produce
it is relatively simple. Try to produce butanol (which is much nicer as a gasoline
replacement) from bio mass and the production costs are higher.
> And can't you imagine the varmint mentals fearing the bugs might
> survive in the potent distilate and turn into some kind of mind snatchers?
You lost me.
Paul Ciszek
In article <44974328...@hotmail.com>,
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>
>> The only reason we
>> have so much of a hoot about ethanol is the power of our farm lobby.
>
>Umm no actually. Your farm lobby didn't influence various European countries to
>adopt ethanol for fuel did it ?
Is it possible that *their* farm lobbies did? Just asking.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Pooh Bear
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <44974328...@hotmail.com>,
> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> >
> >> The only reason we
> >> have so much of a hoot about ethanol is the power of our farm lobby.
> >
> >Umm no actually. Your farm lobby didn't influence various European countries to
> >adopt ethanol for fuel did it ?
>
> Is it possible that *their* farm lobbies did? Just asking.
Not that I'm aware of.
Graham
fpga...@yahoo.com
Todd wrote:
> Should the world honestly use crop to fuel cars while there are people
> that cannot get 3 meals a day. Look at E85 rich Brazil
First of all, bio fuels are just one way of harvesting solar energy,
and a poor one at that:
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Pimentel_98-2.pdf
> "Few people die from starvation , but there is wide spread chronic food
> insecurity and malnutrition"
Then we should stop wasting energy growing ethanol, as overall it has a
negative return, and just eat the corn. It does however, reduce smog
when blended with gas.
> Can you as a citizen of earth drive your Hummer to work knowing that you
> are burning processed food while other citizens are starving?
Again ... stop wasting food for fuel.
> And what happens when a drought or disease destroys mass amounts of
> sugar and corn crops? Do we pay $4 for an ear of corn, or $4 for a
> gallon of E85 and biodiesel?
Again ... stop wasting food for fuel.
> Earth can make hydrogen from electricity. Electricity can be made from
> wind, light, water, and earth.
We do not "make" hydrogen, we waste energy to use a hydrogen to store
energy, as a battery process. If we are going to make electricity from
wind and light, we should use it productively, rather than waste part
of it playing hydrogen storage games that are wasteful.
> Lets, not dig ourselves into a whole. Our refrigerators will never run
> on E85 but the media makes it sound like a God sent solution.
Just as media idiots seem to believe solar, wind, and other resources
are the answer.
It has been frequently quoted that it takes 84 square miles of solar
capture to replace the energy sold each day by a typical gas station.
You can capture that solar using solar panels, plants, direct thermal
conversion, etc .... but it still takes that much surface area to
capture it. BioFuels are just solar capture with plants. It takes a lot
of water to farm, a lot of energy to pump water, a lot of energy to
harves and process plants, solar harvesting with plants to produce fuel
just isn't effective use of the resource.
Cheap solar panels would be a lot more effective .... but even then, it
takes roughly 84 sq miles to panels to replace one gas stations energy
sales in a day ... some how I think environmentalisty would have a fit
if 3/4 of the US ended up covered in solar panels.
cnctu...@wmconnect.com
Todd,
Ethanol production from grain crops only consumes the carbs in the
seed--what's left is DDG (distillers dried grain) with a protein
content of about 35-40%. One bushel of shelled corn cost about $2 at
the grain elevator and produces about 2.5-2.75 gallons of ethonal...
and 14-17 lbs of DDG. Cattle love DDG and have a growth rate about 20%
higher on it over unprocessed corn.
I suspect anyone that was truly hungry would be happy to get
DDG--however, don't look for it in the WIC section of your grocery just
yet. ;-))
Best Wishes
Tut
spongehead
can brew their own with a still from wasted "sugars" from leftovers at
your local grocer or restaurant, but you dont need to re-design the
automobile to use it like you would with hybrid or hydrogen vehicles,
nor do we need to replace every gas station.
"Can you as a citizen of earth drive your Hummer to work knowing that
you
are burning processed food while other citizens are starving? "
Its not like we're throwing big macs, a bucket o' KFC chicken, a french
vanilla mocha latte and a case of Red Bull in the gas tank and throwing
the styrofoam container in the street. Heres a thought. Think of all
the places with a high margin of starving people and a warm climate.
Give them Sugar cane and beet seeds and we'll pick up the crops in the
same oil barge that was due to arrive in the middle east. In any case,
theres enough land and waste materials to support our need for fuel in
the US.
"And what happens when a drought or disease destroys mass amounts of
sugar and corn crops? Do we pay $4 for an ear of corn, or $4 for a
gallon of E85 and biodiesel? "
Droughts and diseases have been messing up crops for centuries. I've
only seen minimal increases at best. We're still going to need crude
oil for plastics, heating oil and rubbers etc. so we'll still have it
for back-up. I'd rather have piece of mind knowing that we're less
dependent on foriegn oil.
The media hype with E85 and Mr Big Oil Company showing a greener side
is just another way for them to make money. They can see the potential
of ethanol cutting out a huge chunk of profit, so why not jump on the
E85 bandwagon. Crude is becoming a dangerous game.......
ghostwriter
I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from, but modern
concentrated stirling systems are 30% efficient and cost $1watt. I
calculate the average usage of a household with relatively efficient
cars and appliances to be in the 120-150Mwh range (assuming 20-30 gals
of gas a week, 15Mwh in normal electricity and 60Mwh in climate
control). Assuming 4hours a day of sun on average that means that every
m^2 generates 1.2 kwh a day, thats 438kwh per year. That means 350M^2
per household or .09acres which is about 5% of the acreage currently
used to produce food. If you decide to generate synthetic gasoline
instead of using electric cars that number jumps to 500m^2(assuming a
Fischer trouche efficency of 40%). Basically the price of meat would
increase by 5-10%.
The problem is that the infrastructure would cost about $100K per
household to build at current prices (I didnt assume any ecomonics of
scale). And so would require energy costs to increase by 50% in order
to support it. Obviously the price would decrease as the scale
increased but how much is anyones guess. Its worth noting that
stirling systems do not require silicon and I would imagine require
maintance on par with crops.
Rooftop solar thermal systems would significantly decrease that number
as heat is about 50% of the average Americans energy use by my
estimates. Ground source heat pumps would decrease that even further.
That combined with ecomonics of scale MIGHT be enough to make it cost
compeditive.
Personally anything within about 25% of current prices would be worth
it in order to get energy independence.
Ghostwriter
Keith
I looked around me and I saw that people were blaming someone else
theres many socialists in England that want to put thier hands in other
peoples
pockets and say why should you do better when I wont try (jealousy)
the one thing I like about America is their answer to this problem
" get off your but and go to work "
We already have a wonderfull socialist system its called money
ie the more you put in to society the more you get paid and you can spend
your money how you want
but have you noticed how some people manipulate the political system
to try and take out more than they put in ie we dont want to work and we
want to live off of some one elses back
so the answer is how can we use bio diesel when others are hungry
is for hungry people to work for it and for successfull people to try and
stop
political systems bleeding them dry
this is how I feed myself = work
News
"Keith" <keit...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:g2Opg.11454$v4....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> This is how i solved my food problem
>
> I looked around me and I saw that people
> were blaming someone else theres many
> socialists in England that want to put thier
> hands in other peoples pockets and say
> why should you do better when I wont try (jealousy)
Total nonsense.
> the one thing I like about America is
> their answer to this problem
> " get off your but and go to work "
That is the same in the UK too.
> We already have a wonderfull
> socialist system its called money
> ie the more you put in to society
> the more you get paid and you can spend
> your money how you want
That is a novel way of describing it, but do go on...
> but have you noticed how some
> people manipulate the political system
> to try and take out more than they put
> in ie we dont want to work and we
> want to live off of some one elses back
Yep. The British Royal family comes to mind together with the Land owning
British aristocracy.. Do go on....
> so the answer is how can we use
> bio diesel when others are hungry
> is for hungry people to work for it
> and for successfull people to try and
> stop political systems bleeding them dry
You are obviously totally confused.
> this is how I feed myself = work
Gosh. My oh my!
Paul Ciszek
In article <44a7c573$0$16372$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
News <Nos...@here.com> wrote:
>
>> but have you noticed how some
>> people manipulate the political system
>> to try and take out more than they put
>> in ie we dont want to work and we
>> want to live off of some one elses back
>
>Yep. The British Royal family comes to mind together with the Land owning
>British aristocracy.. Do go on....
I am just a clueless Yank. Is there much left of the British Land-owning
aristocracy? I know the titles are still around, but I thought the
fuedal system was dead.
John Ladasky
> fpga...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
> > It has been frequently quoted that it takes 84 square miles of solar
> > capture to replace the energy sold each day by a typical gas station.
> > You can capture that solar using solar panels, plants, direct thermal
> > conversion, etc .... but it still takes that much surface area to
> > capture it. BioFuels are just solar capture with plants. It takes a lot
> > of water to farm, a lot of energy to pump water, a lot of energy to
> > harves and process plants, solar harvesting with plants to produce fuel
> > just isn't effective use of the resource.
> >
> > Cheap solar panels would be a lot more effective .... but even then, it
> > takes roughly 84 sq miles to panels to replace one gas stations energy
> > sales in a day ... some how I think environmentalisty would have a fit
> > if 3/4 of the US ended up covered in solar panels.
>
> I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from, but modern
> concentrated stirling systems are 30% efficient and cost $1watt. I
> calculate the average usage of a household with relatively efficient
> cars and appliances to be in the 120-150Mwh range (assuming 20-30 gals
> of gas a week, 15Mwh in normal electricity and 60Mwh in climate
> control).
Huh? These numbers seem WAY too high to me. Maybe it's because you
don't state your unit of time for any item except gasoline consumption?
I assume that you are quoting megawatt-hours per year when you
quantify electricity use. Is that correct?
Now, my California household is environmentally-inclined, and we do
conserve, but no one in our home goes without any of the normal
conveniences of suburban life. Some form of electronic entertainment
is almost always on in this house, as well as one computer. We are a
family of three, but we have a frequent fourth visitor.
Our household electricity use from March 24, 2005 to date was 8.82 MWh.
That works out to 6.92 MWh/year, under half what you quoted for
"normal" household electrical use.
And then you tacked on another 60 MWh for "climate control?" A few
years ago we lived in Maryland, in an uninsulated 1950's brick house.
Summers were brutal, and we certainly used the air conditioning, and we
did make ourselves comfortable. Even then, in our worst month the air
conditioner only added 0.9 MWh to our base usage. I couldn't use SIX
MWh/year for climate control in that house if I tried, much less 60.
In our California home we have a well-insulated attic, somewhat less
well-insulated walls, double-pane glass, and no air-conditioning. We
have a few portable fans and fixed ceiling fans which draw a total of
800 watts, if we run them all at the same time. I have to look pretty
hard into my electric usage records to notice the times when we use
them.
I still have a few efficiency upgrades to make! I have an old
refrigerator, washer, and dryer. I am waiting for them to die before I
replace them with Energy Star appliances. I also have two nasty old
halogen torch lamps which need to be replaced with new fixtures
(everything else in the house is fluorescent). Making all of these
upgrades will probably cut our usage by another 10%, or 0.69 MWh/year.
I don't have a permanent clothes line in the back yard yet. The wife
and I are still debating where to install the posts. If I had this
done, I would save about 4 kWh per load of clothes washed in the
warmest six months of the year, or about 0.48 MWh/year.
Meanwhile, on the automotive side, we own a Toyota Prius which is
getting about 10,000 miles/year of use at 48 MPG real-world, and a
Honda Civic which is driven about 6,000 miles/year at 30 MPG. So the
Prius consumes 208 gallons of gasoline per year, or 4.0 gal/week. The
Civic consumes almost exactly the same amount. We use eight gallons of
gasoline per week, about a third what you estimate as normal.
I realize that our mileage is low compared to many families, but when
you mentioned "relatively efficient cars," I can't imagine that you
meant to include any model which gets under 30 MPG.
I found a conversion factor of 36.6 kWh per gallon of gasoline.
http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm
(...but given that electric cars are commonly stated to consume between
250 Wh and 400 Wh/mile, I think that the 36.6 kWh figure must not take
the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine into account.
Otherwise we would be getting 90 - 140 MPG from gasoline. Anyway, you
burn the gasoline and all of its energy content is gone.)
400 gallons/year x 36.6 kWh/gallon = 14.64 MWh/year on transportation.
Totaling up my family's annual energy use, I get 6.92 MWh (residential
electric) + 14.64 MWh (transportation) = 21.56 MWh. I would have to
get afwully creative to expend even twice this amount of energy. How
could the average family possibly account for 120 - 150 MWh in a year?
What would they have to do?
Is it just WASTE? Here are links to some articles I wrote a few years
back, when I was a landlord to someone very much unlike myself...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/714791a4808436a7
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/feda8666302c3bb7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/89aac384f31542e0
Are you computing source energy, rather than end-use energy? In other
words, are you including electric transmission losses, the
well-to-wheel efficiency losses for gasoline? Have I got your units
completely wrong? I just can't see how your figures could be so large.
I think that fpga_toys's numbers are about right, however. I'm
supplying 94% of my household's electrical energy needs, 6.51 MWh/year,
with a stationary rooftop solar PV array which occupies 367 square
feet. One acre of PV would generate 773 MWh/year in my neighborhood --
and a square mile, 494 GWh/year. Converting that energy figure back to
gasoline, I get 13,500 gallons of gasoline equivalent per square mile
of PV per year. Handwaving, if 20 gallons of gas are sold every five
minutes by a gas station for twelve hours a day, they would sell 2,880
gallons/day. The square mile of PV thus represents about 4.7 days'
worth of gasoline sales and, therefore, 78 square miles of PV would be
required to replace it.
I can't put a Stirling engine on my roof, but yes, that would reduce
the land requirement by about a factor of three.
Having said all that, how many gas stations are there per square mile
in the United States anyway?
Your turn.
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.: blowing sunshine up your |
| power grid since March 24, 2005. Fiat lux! |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Uptime Downtime kWh generated kWh consumed |
| 465 days none 8602 8816 |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
ghostwriter
I think I will step back for a second and recalculate. Some of my
assumptions are almost certainly based on the fact that I live in a
colder region of the country. A quick search gets.
http://www.nef1.org/ea/eastats.html
Adding everything together gives me 2.2 billion tons of oil equilvent
used in 1999. Dividing that by 300 million gives me about 7.5 tons per
person per year. Oil contains about 40GJ per ton so thats 300GJ per
person per year. 278kwh/GJ means 83MWH per person per year.
Average household size in the US is 3.9, thats 323MWH per household, so
I underestimated the industrial/commercial usage hugely.
The problem with using the gas station comparison is that an average
household visits a gas station twice a week and so a single gas station
using your numbers supplies the WEEKLY gasoline needs of 72 households
every day. That means that it meets the daily needs of about 500
households. So I would imagine there are about 150,000 gas stations in
the US if your assumtions reflect the average. Thats assuming
76,000,000 households stopping twice a week. About one gas station for
every 500 residences, which seems close. My hometown of 2000 souls has
one gas station, and the local small city (pop15,000) has 8. So that
seems to be about right.
So while the average gas station may need 78 mi^2 (200M m^2) (assuming
10% efficiency), that meets the needs of about 2000 people. With
stirling efficiencies that number drops to 26mi^2. Thats about 16.7
acres, less than 2% of the land already dedicated to the needs of those
2000 people.
My point is those 500 households already have about a 1000 acre of land
dedicated to supplying them with food and meat. 10% of that land would
give 100 acres, or 400,000 m^2 with stirling solar giving
1.5kwh/day(30% efficiency, 5kwh/day/m^2). Thats 600MWH/day or 219GWH
per year. Divide that by the 500 households and you get 438MWH of
stirling solar per household per year. Thats about 130% of 1999 usage
levels, and would allow for production of synthetic gasoline, or
transmission losses.
That would require that the average american household abstain from
meat one day a week. Basically the price of meat would increase until
that the breakeven point, 20% percent perhaps.
Ghostwriter
G.fried
snip
>
> I still have a few efficiency upgrades to make! I have an old
> refrigerator, washer, and dryer. I am waiting for them to die before I
> replace them with Energy Star appliances.
what about thermnl solar heat?
or is it that hot that you don't need warm water?
anyhow your a brave american - go on...
cheers
G.fried
T.Keating
wrote:
>ghostwriter wrote:
>(...but given that electric cars are commonly stated to consume between
>250 Wh and 400 Wh/mile, I think that the 36.6 kWh figure must not take
>the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine into account.
The EV1 ~160 Wh/mile @ highway speeds...
Modern EV's will be even less. ~100 Wh/mile..
(Lighter and more eff battery packs.)
Note: old ICE to EV conversions ranged in the 240 to ~400Wh(SUV)
range.. http://ev.inel.gov/fsev.html
>Otherwise we would be getting 90 - 140 MPG from gasoline. Anyway, you
>burn the gasoline and all of its energy content is gone.)
Modern EV's would get more than that, One should expect to get 240 to
360 (hwy)Miles for every 36kWh. Even more lower speed driving..
The Toyota prius holds the record for gasoline to useful energy at
wheels @ ~25%..
And the production and distribution of Gasoline entails significant
losses of more than ~20% (depending on source) and those losses
continue to increase with depletion.
John Ladasky
[snip]
> I think I will step back for a second and recalculate. Some of my
> assumptions are almost certainly based on the fact that I live in a
> colder region of the country. A quick search gets.
>
> http://www.nef1.org/ea/eastats.html
>
> Adding everything together gives me 2.2 billion tons of oil equilvent
> used in 1999. Dividing that by 300 million gives me about 7.5 tons per
> person per year. Oil contains about 40GJ per ton so thats 300GJ per
> person per year. 278kwh/GJ means 83MWH per person per year.
>
> Average household size in the US is 3.9, thats 323MWH per household, so
> I underestimated the industrial/commercial usage hugely.
OK, if you're including industrial, commercial, and public usage as
well (street lighting, etc.), then of course the figure will be higher.
It will be so much higher, in fact, that I don't know why you even
made comments about "a household with relatively efficient cars and
appliances," or "I live in a colder region of the country." The
efficiency of a household's cars and appliances will be insignificant
when measured against non-residential usage. That would also hold true
for home heating.
If you want the total per capita energy consumption in the United
States, for all purposes, here is how I would compute it:
In 2002, the United States Department of Energy reports that we
consumed 109 exajoules of energy, in all of its various forms. The web
page where I got that figure also does a reasonably nice job of
diagramming that energy flow, though it doesn't break it down into
residential and non-residential use as you might prefer:
http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php
109 exajoules = 30.28 petawatt-hours = 30.28 billion MWh.
http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm
Population of the United States in 2002 = 287,676,000.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/prod/wp02/tabA-07a.pdf
Per capita energy use = 30.28 billion MWh / year / 287,676,000 people.
I get 105 MWh per capita per year. Your figure was 83 MWh/person/year,
so we agree to within a factor of about 1.25.
> The problem with using the gas station comparison is that an average
> household visits a gas station twice a week
Hah! Between my wife and myself, we make one visit about every 10
days. :^)
Pushing Stirling-based solar systems to this point is a bit of an
absurd thought experiment, but I agree with your basic point. It is
entirely possible for American society to rearrange its priorities so
that, appropriating only some land that we are presently using to farm
meat, we can produce all of our present non-food energy needs.
John Ladasky
> In 2002, the United States Department of Energy reports that we
> consumed 109 exajoules of energy, in all of its various forms.
OOPS! I made a typo, then propagated it forward into my calculations.
The correct number was 103 exajoules.
Using the correct number drops the per capita energy consumption in the
US to 99.5 MWh/year, even closer to "ghostwriter's" estimate of 83 MWh.
John Ladasky
> John Ladasky schrieb:
> > ghostwriter wrote:
> >> fpga...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> snip
>
> >
> > I still have a few efficiency upgrades to make! I have an old
> > refrigerator, washer, and dryer. I am waiting for them to die before I
> > replace them with Energy Star appliances.
>
> what about thermnl solar heat?
>
> or is it that hot that you don't need warm water?
Oh yes, I forgot to list the fact that I'm considering adding a solar
hot-water system. However, I was using a lot more energy heating the
house, and we were uncomfortably hot on some summer days, so I decided
to address the home issues first. I've managed to improve our comfort
quite a bit without resorting to active air conditioning.
Also, the southwest-facing roof where my solar PV modules are located
is two stories high! I have a lower, more accessible section of roof,
but it slopes northeast. I don't know yet whether a hot-water solar
collector on this lower part of the roof will be effective.
> anyhow your a brave american - go on...
Thank you, I try hard to transcend the limitations of my nationality.
;^)
John Ladasky
> On 3 Jul 2006 00:15:01 -0700, "John Ladasky" <lad...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >ghostwriter wrote:
>
> >(...but given that electric cars are commonly stated to consume between
> >250 Wh and 400 Wh/mile, I think that the 36.6 kWh figure must not take
> >the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine into account.
>
> The EV1 ~160 Wh/mile @ highway speeds...
Really? So those 250-400 Wh/mile figures must have been for electric
car kits retrofit to an existing chassis. Vehicles that weren't
designed from the ground up with efficiency and electric operation in
mind.
> Modern EV's will be even less. ~100 Wh/mile..
> (Lighter and more eff battery packs.)
Drool. When my 1994 Honda Civic finally dies (will it ever?), give me
a two-seater PHEV with this type of performance for my next car -- or
maybe even I'll even risk an all-electric vehicle, if the range is
good.
I still have a little room left to expand my solar PV system. I can go
from the 27 BP3160 modules I have to 32, or maybe 34. I could
generate an additional 1200 - 1650 kWh per year. Allowing for, say, an
80% efficiency of conversion to on-vehicle energy, you're saying that I
would be able to drive between 9,000 and 13,000 miles/year on sunshine?
Very cool.
I don't know what the embodied energy content of the components of the
electric car itself would be, but it would have to be a LOT larger than
a conventional car's embodied energy content to detract from the
coolness. Rule of thumb: dollars spent equate to energy used to make
the product. If it's cheaper to operate the EV over its lifetime than
the gasoline-powered car, it's also better for the environment.
> Note: old ICE to EV conversions ranged in the 240 to ~400Wh(SUV)
> range.. http://ev.inel.gov/fsev.html
So slapping batteries and an electric motor into a Dodge Dart gives you
the equivalent of SUV-class performance on gasoline? That's a shame.
The weight penalties must be quite large. Maybe this is also a
reflection of the use of heavy lead-acid batteries in older EV's which,
as you point out, are becoming obsolete.
> >Otherwise we would be getting 90 - 140 MPG from gasoline. Anyway, you
> >burn the gasoline and all of its energy content is gone.)
>
> Modern EV's would get more than that, One should expect to get 240 to
> 360 (hwy)Miles for every 36kWh. Even more lower speed driving..
>
> The Toyota prius holds the record for gasoline to useful energy at
> wheels @ ~25%..
And I'm really happy to own one of these!
On the electric side, I have read 250 Wh/mile specifically cited for
the Prius.
> And the production and distribution of Gasoline entails significant
> losses of more than ~20% (depending on source) and those losses
> continue to increase with depletion.
This I know well. It won't be long now before we use more than a
gallon of gasoline's worth of energy to get a new gallon of gasoline.
If we don't have options in place by then, we're in trouble.
danny burstein
>> >(...but given that electric cars are commonly stated to consume between
>> >250 Wh and 400 Wh/mile, I think that the 36.6 kWh figure must not take
>> >the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine into account.
>>
>> The EV1 ~160 Wh/mile @ highway speeds...
Is that battery-post energy or the amount actually
used by the motor?
>Really? So those 250-400 Wh/mile figures must have been for electric
>car kits retrofit to an existing chassis. Vehicles that weren't
>designed from the ground up with efficiency and electric operation in
>mind.
>> Modern EV's will be even less. ~100 Wh/mile..
>> (Lighter and more eff battery packs.)
Hmm, lesse... with my Insight I'm getting (figures
rounded, but not much) 65 miles/gallon while
doing 65 miles/hr. That's one gallon for 65 miles.
one gallon - about 115k btus [a]. Figure
on a 25 percent total cycle efficeicny
from the burning -> tires, so that's
about 30k BTUs for 65 miles, or about 500
BTUs in energy to move a mile.
Hmmm.. 500 BTUs converts to 150 or so watt-hours [b].
for each mile.
If we figure 80 percent efficiency on the
battery -> motor -> tire, that means
we'd need about 180 wat-hours at the terminal
(and something like 200 in the charger).
now... an electric car will weigh a _lot_ more
than my insight, but it would be optimized
for this, so the 200-300 w-hr/mile looks realistic
for a vehicle with a decent amount of _heavy_
energy storing batteries.
(and if you improve the battery->tire efficiency
to "lab shelf" components, which would happen
after a few years of mass production, you''
be at the lower range).
[a] URL: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm
[b] http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
T.Keating
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <1152067233....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "John Ladasky" <lad...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>> >(...but given that electric cars are commonly stated to consume between
>>> >250 Wh and 400 Wh/mile, I think that the 36.6 kWh figure must not take
>>> >the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine into account.
>>>
>>> The EV1 ~160 Wh/mile @ highway speeds...
>
>Is that battery-post energy or the amount actually
>used by the motor?
>
>>Really? So those 250-400 Wh/mile figures must have been for electric
>>car kits retrofit to an existing chassis. Vehicles that weren't
>>designed from the ground up with efficiency and electric operation in
>>mind.
>
>>> Modern EV's will be even less. ~100 Wh/mile..
>>> (Lighter and more eff battery packs.)
>
>Hmm, lesse... with my Insight I'm getting (figures
>rounded, but not much) 65 miles/gallon while
>doing 65 miles/hr. That's one gallon for 65 miles.
>
>one gallon - about 115k btus [a]. Figure
The accepted norm for gasoline is 123K BTU's per gallon.
(Reformulations don't count since their usage and distribution is
constantly changing.)
>on a 25 percent total cycle efficeicny
>from the burning -> tires, so that's
>about 30k BTUs for 65 miles, or about 500
>BTUs in energy to move a mile.
A modern EV will loose a lot of those ICE characteristics which
inflict additional drag penalties. .
Like radiators, mufflers, Catalytic converters, drive shaft,
extra wide tires, heavy duty suspension & chassis, gas tank, ICE,
starter, alternator, lead acid starting battery, etc...
http://media.mitsubishi-motors.com/pressrelease/e/corporate/detail1269.html
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/environment/e/miev.html
http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/NewsID/2050824.001/mitsubishi/1.html
(220 Wh/mile sports car)
>
>Hmmm.. 500 BTUs converts to 150 or so watt-hours [b].
>for each mile.
500 / 3.412 == 146 watt-hours..
>
>If we figure 80 percent efficiency on the
>battery -> motor -> tire, that means
>we'd need about 180 wat-hours at the terminal
>(and something like 200 in the charger).
>now... an electric car will weigh a _lot_ more
>than my insight, but it would be optimized
>for this, so the 200-300 w-hr/mile looks realistic
>for a vehicle with a decent amount of _heavy_
>energy storing batteries.
no..
What type of batteries are you planning on installing??
Some 30 Wh/kg.. Lead acid types? Silly rabbit.. .
This is the 21st century.. put in some modern (and efficient) Li-ion.
Which yields ~95% of the charging energy and provides ~5x the energy
density.
http://web.mit.edu/mit_energy/events/discussions/disc_2006_hev.html
http://web.mit.edu/mit_energy/resources/iap/MatSciOfRenewEnergy_Lecture2_Batteries_2006.pdf
Note: Batteries still have plenty of room for improvement..
(Meanwhile.. Fossil fuels are near their limit..)
>
>(and if you improve the battery->tire efficiency
>to "lab shelf" components, which would happen
>after a few years of mass production, you''
>be at the lower range).
Huh? Lab shelf components.. No one builds batteries in the Lab..
Same goes for electronics and motors... They use preexisting
commercial processes & components to make them.
Let's not forget.. Gasoline (or a reformulated mix) is intermediate
energy source (does not occur naturally) It takes a lot of effort and
energy to get that gallons of gasoline into your fuel tank. We can
bypass many of those wasteful steps on our way to an renewable based
economy.
danny burstein
In <1152113111.8...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> "T.Keating" <tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> writes:
>>
>>one gallon - about 115k btus [a]. Figure
>The accepted norm for gasoline is 123K BTU's per gallon.
Tell that to the Feds. The url I cited is from
the EPA, and they're saying 113 - 117 k-btu/gallon
for summer fuel... less in the winter.
>(Reformulations don't count since their usage and distribution is
>constantly changing.)
RFGs are umptity percent even lower than straight gasoline.
>>on a 25 percent total cycle efficeicny
>>from the burning -> tires, so that's
>>about 30k BTUs for 65 miles, or about 500
>>BTUs in energy to move a mile.
>A modern EV will loose a lot of those ICE characteristics which
>inflict additional drag penalties. .
Lose the extra "o" please...
>Like radiators, mufflers, Catalytic converters, drive shaft,
> extra wide tires, heavy duty suspension & chassis, gas tank, ICE,
>starter, alternator, lead acid starting battery, etc...
Some yes, some no. You'll certainly need a heavy duty suapension...
>http://media.mitsubishi-motors.com/pressrelease/e/corporate/detail1269.html
>http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/environment/e/miev.html
>http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/NewsID/2050824.001/mitsubishi/1.html
>(220 Wh/mile sports car)
>>
>>Hmmm.. 500 BTUs converts to 150 or so watt-hours [b].
>>for each mile.
>500 / 3.412 == 146 watt-hours..
Like I said, numbers are rounded off for simplicity..
>>If we figure 80 percent efficiency on the
>>battery -> motor -> tire, that means
>>we'd need about 180 wat-hours at the terminal
>>(and something like 200 in the charger).
>>now... an electric car will weigh a _lot_ more
>>than my insight, but it would be optimized
>>for this, so the 200-300 w-hr/mile looks realistic
>>for a vehicle with a decent amount of _heavy_
>>energy storing batteries.
>no..
>What type of batteries are you planning on installing??
>Some 30 Wh/kg.. Lead acid types? Silly rabbit.. .
>This is the 21st century.. put in some modern (and efficient) Li-ion.
>Which yields ~95% of the charging energy and provides ~5x the energy
>density.
If you really believe that theyreturn 95% outside
a lab shelf, I've got a bridge for you. Also, given
the safety track record of li-ion, i'd hold off
a few more years before mass usage of _large_ assemblies.
(That's not to say it won't work. But not just yet.)
Ni-MH, as used in most (?all?) of the current mass
market hybrids, give about 1 kw-hr /50 pounds (which
includes a modest amount of extra packaging and sensors), or
to convert back to your units, that's about 60 or so
available wh-kg. Maybe a touch more.
>http://web.mit.edu/mit_energy/events/discussions/disc_2006_hev.html
>http://web.mit.edu/mit_energy/resources/iap/MatSciOfRenewEnergy_Lecture2_Batteries_2006.pdf
>Note: Batteries still have plenty of room for improvement..
> (Meanwhile.. Fossil fuels are near their limit..)
>>
>>(and if you improve the battery->tire efficiency
>>to "lab shelf" components, which would happen
>>after a few years of mass production, you''
>>be at the lower range).
>Huh? Lab shelf components.. No one builds batteries in the Lab..
A battery designed to just sit on a lab shelf can be optimized
for a lot more energy density than one that's sitting
in a car, getting stirred, shaken, folded, spindled,
mutilated, and... overheated.
But that's where you start off. Then carry it over
to the car, watch what happens, do a twweak here
and a twaddle there, and try again...
> Same goes for electronics and motors... They use preexisting
>commercial processes & components to make them.
You can get custom motors that are umptity more efficient
than standrad ones. Tightere tolerances, higher magnetic
fields, misc. this and that. Take a look at the crazies
running solar powered cars in the endurance races.
But... with more demand and more manufacturing, the
stuff at the expensive cutting edge will come down
to mass market.
T.Keating
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>[ misc comments interspersed ]
>
>In <1152113111.8...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> "T.Keating" <tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> writes:
>>>
>>>one gallon - about 115k btus [a]. Figure
>
>>The accepted norm for gasoline is 123K BTU's per gallon.
>
>Tell that to the Feds. The url I cited is from
>the EPA, and they're saying 113 - 117 k-btu/gallon
>for summer fuel... less in the winter.
>
>>(Reformulations don't count since their usage and distribution is
>>constantly changing.)
>
>RFGs are umptity percent even lower than straight gasoline.
>
>>>on a 25 percent total cycle efficeicny
>>>from the burning -> tires, so that's
>>>about 30k BTUs for 65 miles, or about 500
>>>BTUs in energy to move a mile.
>
>>A modern EV will lose a lot of those ICE characteristics which
>>inflict additional drag penalties. .
No bridges .. just some realistic efficency factors.
FYI.. Typical Li-Ion's exhibit just a fraction of the thermal effects
(of other bat tech) while recharging @ C/3 rate.
Lead acid.. 75% eff..
NiMH .. 65% eff..
>the safety track record of li-ion, i'd hold off
~500 mIllion notebooks currently in service. (most using Li-Ion battery
packs in one form or another.).
>a few more years before mass usage of _large_ assemblies.
There are several different types of Li-ion..
The ones with LiCoO2 cathodes are subject to thermal run-a-way when
damaged.
>(That's not to say it won't work. But not just yet.)
>
>Ni-MH, as used in most (?all?) of the current mass
>market hybrids, give about 1 kw-hr /50 pounds (which
>includes a modest amount of extra packaging and sensors), or
>to convert back to your units, that's about 60 or so
>available wh-kg. Maybe a touch more.
So what. I writing about pure EV's....
And your numbers are off.. NiMH is NOW in the 100Wh/kg range..
As for Ni-MH that's another tech on it's way out...
But that hasn't stopped them from improving capacity..
Just a few years(~5) back. The best rechargeable AA's one could get
were:
Ni-Cd AA cells @ 600 - 700 maH
Ni-MH AA cells @ 1600maH
In today's world
Ni-MH AA cells @ 2700maH are available.
No matter... Pure EV's and PHEV's will be using Li-ion or another
advanced battery technology..
>
>>http://web.mit.edu/mit_energy/events/discussions/disc_2006_hev.html
>>http://web.mit.edu/mit_energy/resources/iap/MatSciOfRenewEnergy_Lecture2_Batteries_2006.pdf
>
>>Note: Batteries still have plenty of room for improvement..
>> (Meanwhile.. Fossil fuels are near their limit..)
>>>
>>>(and if you improve the battery->tire efficiency
>>>to "lab shelf" components, which would happen
>>>after a few years of mass production, you''
>>>be at the lower range).
>
>>Huh? Lab shelf components.. No one builds batteries in the Lab..
>
>A battery designed to just sit on a lab shelf can be optimized
>for a lot more energy density than one that's sitting
>in a car, getting stirred, shaken, folded, spindled,
>mutilated, and... overheated.
Li-Ion battery packs installed in modern Laptop's take plenty of
abuse..
(They're even transported in automobiles)..
>
>But that's where you start off. Then carry it over
>to the car, watch what happens, do a twweak here
>and a twaddle there, and try again...
>
>> Same goes for electronics and motors... They use preexisting
>>commercial processes & components to make them.
>
>You can get custom motors that are umptity more efficient
>than standrad ones. Tightere tolerances, higher magnetic
>fields, misc. this and that..
Commercial electric (3 phase) motors.
100-hp motors that qualify for the NEMA "Premium Efficient" rating
have a nominal energy efficiency rating of 95.4%.. "Energy Efficient"
label and is rated at 94.1% and the average efficiency of older,
standard-efficiency motors is 92.3%.
http://www.nema.org/stds/complimentary-docs/upload/MG1premium.pdf
Your engineering knowledge is somewhat lacking.
>Take a look at the crazies
>running solar powered cars in the endurance races.
Those kids racing solar cars are pioneers..
>
>But... with more demand and more manufacturing, the
>stuff at the expensive cutting edge will come down
>to mass market.
Any manufacturer who is capable of building several hundred thousand
EV's per year can also build (or sub contract out) a factory dedicated
to assembling electric motors for EV's.
Mauried
wrote:
I suggest you have a look at how Lithium Ion batteries are made , then
have a look at how Lithium itself is refined.
Its not exactly cheap stuff, currently worth US$400 a lb.
Car batteries have got to come down in price dramatically and mass
production wont do it , in fact if the world demand for Lithium
rockets, then so will its price.
Mass production only brings costs down , when the raw materials
themselves are cheap and in abundant supply.
Lithium isnt.
Lithium Ion batteries currently cost between US$1000 - $2000 per kw/h.
No suggestions from anyone that Mass production will cause these
prices to drop any time soon.
Laptop computers have Lithium Ion batteries and are mass produced, but
the cost is still US$2000 per kw/h.
danny burstein
>>[ more misc comments interspersed ]
>>
>>If you really believe that theyreturn 95% outside
>>a lab shelf, I've got a bridge for you. Also, given
>No bridges .. just some realistic efficency factors.
>FYI.. Typical Li-Ion's exhibit just a fraction of the thermal effects
>(of other bat tech) while recharging @ C/3 rate.
>Lead acid.. 75% eff.. NiMH .. 65% eff..
Do you have a dite for Li-Ion being 95%? I'd be very impressed
if that's verifiable.
>>the safety track record of li-ion, i'd hold off
>~500 mIllion notebooks currently in service. (most using Li-Ion battery
>packs in one form or another.).
And we've had a couple of hundred _reported_ cases of
laptops or cellphones (or other appliances) where the
batteries have melted/burnt/caught fire.
Like I said, not quite ready for high capacity
prime time. Soon, though...
> And your numbers are off.. NiMH is NOW in the 100Wh/kg range..
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/chem/nicmet/
gives us D cells with 4,500 mah at 1.2 volts = 5.4 watt-hrs in
a 165 gm package = 54 watts in 1.65 kg = 32 watt-hrs/kg.
Now... the AAs have had a 15 or so percent labeled improvement
(at store shelf), from the 2,000 mah on the chart to 2,300 on
store shelves, so that gets us to the hig 30s. Add in some
more efficiency in larger sizes, so we're at 40 or so.
(That's for production units, not lab bench).
> Ni-Cd AA cells @ 600 - 700 maH
> Ni-MH AA cells @ 1600maH
>In today's world
> Ni-MH AA cells @ 2700maH are available.
I woonder about that super high figure... I'd rather
believe the lower, 2,300, number from National Panasonic...
>Li-Ion battery packs installed in modern Laptop's take plenty of
>abuse..
> (They're even transported in automobiles)..
And all too many of them and their brethren burn up.
>Commercial electric (3 phase) motors.
> 100-hp motors that qualify for the NEMA "Premium Efficient" rating
>have a nominal energy efficiency rating of 95.4%.. "Energy Efficient"
>label and is rated at 94.1% and the average efficiency of older,
>standard-efficiency motors is 92.3%.
Thanks. Wasn't aware of the " Premium Efficient " labeling.
Hmmm... let's see... we've got a (let's guess at 10 hp)
water pump in my building that operates (50% WAG) to
pump water from the street to the rooftop..
It's old... let's guess 85% efficient. so..
each month it's using...
that's an average of 5 hp, times 720 hrs = 3,600 hp-hrs,
whch converts to 2,685 kw-hrs.
at 0.85 efficiency that's 3,158 kw-hrs
at 0.95 efficiency that's 2,826 kw-hrs
saving... 330 or so kw-hr/month. At (nyc rates of) $0.20
(that's 20 cents/kw-hr) we'd save $66/month.
Hmm.... definitely worth checking out the exact
costs of a new motor and the actual electrical usage...
>http://www.nema.org/stds/complimentary-docs/upload/MG1premium.pdf
>>Take a look at the crazies
>>running solar powered cars in the endurance races.
>Those kids racing solar cars are pioneers..
Hey, I meant it affectionately...
>>
>>But... with more demand and more manufacturing, the
>>stuff at the expensive cutting edge will come down
>>to mass market.
>Any manufacturer who is capable of building several hundred thousand
>EV's per year can also build (or sub contract out) a factory dedicated
>to assembling electric motors for EV's.
As I said... the high tech bleeding edge motors and controllers
are plausably amenable to mass production. They wouldn't
be quite as good as the super fine tuned ones, but they'd
be better than what's commonly used...
fpga...@yahoo.com
danny burstein wrote:
> As I said... the high tech bleeding edge motors and controllers
> are plausably amenable to mass production. They wouldn't
> be quite as good as the super fine tuned ones, but they'd
> be better than what's commonly used...
It's one thing to look at specs and costs for stationary motors, but EV
motors are a completely different design. Stationary motors don't have
6 axis stresses due to the directional changes, and roll, pitch, and
yaw of a mobile platform. Nor do they have the huge G forces of pot
holes, or frames capable of containing the energy of a full RPM rotor
in a crash. Bearing technology for a stationary at rotor forces is
completely different for EVs.
Industrial electric motors with serious power are expensive today in
pretty fair production volumes, it would be unrealistic to expect a
road safe and worthy EV motor to be a lot cheaper.
Ditto for high density batteries. Sure they are ment to be hauled
around mobile like, they they are not that safe either in a crash the
crushes or penitrates the battery, that shorts them. Discharging that
much stored energy in a few seconds, or even a few minutes, will be a
pretty spectaculare show.
On the other hand, 60 years of engineering lead acid flooded cells, has
produced a battery that can quickly vent it's electrolyte, and become
quickly harmless. It may take nearly as long to find a high current,
high density, battery that can fail safe in a crash.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>Lithium Ion batteries currently cost between US$1000 - $2000 per kw/h.
What do you mean by "kw/h"?
Nick
William Dryden
<fpga...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152160861.1...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Batteries are out. Try ultracaps:
Nominal Voltage Window 6.5 - 13 Volts
Operating Voltage Window 3.0 - 14.5 Volts
Energy Stored at Nominal Voltage Window 60 Kilojoule
Capacitance 1000 F
Internal Resistance, Ohm, +68°F (+20°C) 0.003
Internal Resistance, Ohm, -22°F (-30°C) 0.0045
Maximum Power 17 kW
Charged Capacitor Voltage Reduction After 6 Months of Storage at +68°F
(+20°C), not more 6 Volts
Cycle Duty, not less than 100,000
Operating Temperature Range -58° to 122°F
-50° to 50°C
Weight 30.8 lbs.
Overall Dimensions (L x W x H), inches 13.2 x 3.48 x 9.92
GL
"William Dryden" <william...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:IU9rg.62293$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Batteries are out. Try ultracaps:
Price for these?
//gml
T.Keating
Citations??
No.. I didn't think so.. Another diversion.
Li costs way less than $400lb..
In 2004 Lithium hydroxide(LiOH, 15% Li by weight) averaged 2400$ per
metric ton..or 16$ per kg of lithium..
Likewise.. Lithium Carbonate (Li2CO3, 9% Li by weight).. averaged
2300$ per metric ton.. or 25$ per kg of lithium
ref:
http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/lithium/lithium_t3.html
The 2005.. annual report for www.sqm.com the WORLD's LARGEST SUPPLIER
of Lithium Carbonates indicates that their 2005 revenues where 81.4 M$
for the production of 27800 tons of Lithium Carbonate &
derivatives(LiOH, etc.)
or 2,928$ per metric ton. (~32$ per kg of lithium)
====
And here is a current retail price for Lithium Carbonate from a
pottery supplier. http://www.claydogs.com/Chemicals.htm.
502.96 $ per 100lb bag.. or 502.96/(100lbs*.09) == 56$ per pound of
Li. and
still way less than $400/lb!!!!
-----------
A typical EV battery pack contains less than 5% Li by weight.
A two hundred pound Li-ion battery pack will contain less than ten
pounds of Lithium.
>Car batteries have got to come down in price dramatically and mass
>production wont do it , in fact if the world demand for Lithium
>rockets, then so will its price.
>
>Mass production only brings costs down , when the raw materials
>themselves are cheap and in abundant supply.
>Lithium isnt.
>
>Lithium Ion batteries currently cost between US$1000 - $2000 per kw/h.
>No suggestions from anyone that Mass production will cause these
>prices to drop any time soon.
Bulk Li-ion battery prices are well under $400 per kWh..
A large EV manufacturer could probably produce them for less than $100
per kWH. With lithium raw material costs making up less than $10 per
kWh of battery capacity.
The key thing is to cut out the middle men and use their scale of
economy to their advantage. Where a EV/PHEV manufacturer builds their
own dedicated manufacturing plant for making EV batteries.
P.S. They would have to be absolutely INSANE to not have built a
dedicated manufacturing faclitity making lithium-ion batteries.
>
>Laptop computers have Lithium Ion batteries and are mass produced, but
>the cost is still US$2000 per kw/h.
Wrong.. Retail price are now dropping under $1000 per kWh..
http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductDetail?sku=5417067&srccode=cii_10043468&cpncode=12-9721727-2
12-cell 8800mAh @ (10.8v) == 95wH retails for $79.99
or 842$ per kWh .. RETAIL...
====
In summary.
Just about everything you wrote was a gross deception of the current
market conditions.
T.Keating
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <1152141918.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> "T.Keating" <tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> writes:
>
>>>[ more misc comments interspersed ]
>>>
>>>If you really believe that theyreturn 95% outside
>>>a lab shelf, I've got a bridge for you. Also, given
>
>>No bridges .. just some realistic efficency factors.
>>FYI.. Typical Li-Ion's exhibit just a fraction of the thermal effects
>>(of other bat tech) while recharging @ C/3 rate.
>
>>Lead acid.. 75% eff.. NiMH .. 65% eff..
>
>Do you have a dite for Li-Ion being 95%? I'd be very impressed
>if that's verifiable.
>
>>>the safety track record of li-ion, i'd hold off
>
>>~500 mIllion notebooks currently in service. (most using Li-Ion battery
>>packs in one form or another.).
>
>And we've had a couple of hundred _reported_ cases of
>laptops or cellphones (or other appliances) where the
>batteries have melted/burnt/caught fire.
>
>Like I said, not quite ready for high capacity
>prime time. Soon, though...
>
>> And your numbers are off.. NiMH is NOW in the 100Wh/kg range..
>
>http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/chem/nicmet/
>
>gives us D cells with 4,500 mah at 1.2 volts = 5.4 watt-hrs in
>a 165 gm package = 54 watts in 1.65 kg = 32 watt-hrs/kg.
Snippy,.. You can't even read the manufacturer's tables correctly.
Your Panasonic link lists two D cells with
"Minimum Capacity (1/5C) (mAh)" at
6500 maH (HHR650D) and 8250 maH (HHR900D) respectively.
Let's see.. (8250 * 1.25 / .165 ) ~= 62 watt hrs/kg...
(P.S.. You really shouldn't confuse charge rates with capacity, nor use
terminal voltage as the average voltage).
B.T.W.. Panasonic ins't on the leading edge battery technology..
http://www.thomas-distributing.com/ap-11500-2-d-rechargeable-batteries.htm
As these NiMH D cells are rated @ 11500maH..
T.Keating
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <1152141918.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> "T.Keating" <tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> writes:
>
>>>[ more misc comments interspersed ]
>>>
>>>If you really believe that theyreturn 95% outside
>>>a lab shelf, I've got a bridge for you. Also, given
>
>>No bridges .. just some realistic efficency factors.
>>FYI.. Typical Li-Ion's exhibit just a fraction of the thermal effects
>>(of other bat tech) while recharging @ C/3 rate.
>
>>Lead acid.. 75% eff.. NiMH .. 65% eff..
>
>Do you have a dite for Li-Ion being 95%? I'd be very impressed
>if that's verifiable.
>
>>>the safety track record of li-ion, i'd hold off
>
>>~500 mIllion notebooks currently in service. (most using Li-Ion battery
>>packs in one form or another.).
>
>And we've had a couple of hundred _reported_ cases of
>laptops or cellphones (or other appliances) where the
>batteries have melted/burnt/caught fire.
>
>Like I said, not quite ready for high capacity
>prime time. Soon, though...
>
>> And your numbers are off.. NiMH is NOW in the 100Wh/kg range..
>
>http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/chem/nicmet/
>
>gives us D cells with 4,500 mah at 1.2 volts = 5.4 watt-hrs in
>a 165 gm package = 54 watts in 1.65 kg = 32 watt-hrs/kg.
Snippy,.. You can't even read the manufacturer's tables correctly.
Your Panasonic link lists two D cells with
"Minimum Capacity (1/5C) (mAh)" at
6500 maH (HHR650D) and 8250 maH (HHR900D) respectively.
Let's see.. (8250 * 1.25 / .165 ) ~= 62 watt hrs/kg...
(P.S.. You really shouldn't confuse charge rates with capacity, nor use
terminal voltage as the average voltage).
B.T.W.. Panasonic ins't on the leading edge of battery technology..
William Dryden
"GL" <som...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:W1arg.127756$Mn5.36472@pd7tw3no...
coming from Maxwell Technologies. They include the KaPower modules which I
quoted specs for and other manufactures as well. The 2.7V 2600 farad
individual capacitors are around $50 USD. as remember.
The power density is there and the best thing about ultracaps is that they
accept a charge much faster than a battery can. They can also discharge
faster if needed.
Anthony Matonak
>
> Price for these?
In addition to price, you might want to compare their capacity/weight
and capacity/volume against batteries. As I recall, the last time I
looked at ultracapacitors they stored around 1/10th the energy by
weight as lead-acid batteries.
Anthony
John Ladasky
Ultracapacitors look interesting. Their two advantages are 1) unlike
batteries, ultracaps basically don't wear out, and 2) You can charge or
discharge them at pretty much any rate you like.
But I'm doing some math here which says that they are still quite heavy
and large. Price information is encouraging, though.
In your earlier post you quoted specifications for a 1000-farad
ultracap which could store 60 kilojoules.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/050b08bd9b07ea19
That's only 16.7 watt-hours!
The standard Toyota Prius has a NiMH battery back with 1.3 kWh of
storage capacity but only uses about 300 Wh of that, to extend battery
life. Based on an earlier article in this thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/e9b5f8f2d23b8267
...that 300 Wh is good for somewhere between one and three miles of
all-electric travel. Let's use it as a reasonable benchmark for the
minimum amount of energy we would want to store on an HEV (a full EV
would obviously require more). We will need eighteen of your
1000-farad ultracaps to replace the Prius battery.
Now, this isn't strictly an apples-for-apples replacement. The
efficiency of regenerative braking in existing hybrids is quite a bit
lower than 100%, because the batteries can't accept the charge quickly
enough. So an ultracap will buy you some advantages, but we can
overlook them for a moment to get a handle on the price, size, and
weight issues.
You stated that this 1000-farad, 16.7-Wh ultracap weighed 30.8 pounds.
(I compute an energy per unit mass of 1.2 Wh/kg.) So an
ultracap-equipped Prius would carry 554 pounds of on-board energy
storage. That's a lot of weight! The Prius NiMH battery weighs 117
pounds. Assuming that there was even space for them, switching to
ultracaps would add 437 pounds, about fifteen percent, to the vehicle's
current weight of 2890 pounds.
So now let's talk about volume. You gave dimensions of 13.2 x 3.48 x
9.92 inches per ultracap. That's 7.47 liters. (Energy density per unit
volume = 2.2 Wh/liter.) Eighteen of these ultracaps would occupy 134
liters. The Prius battery pack occupies about 24 liters of space, much
less than the ultracaps. There is an empty space next to the Prius
battery pack, which could hold an additional 24 liters. Toyota's
intentions for this space have been the subject of much speculation...
but it's too small to accomodate your ultracaps. Even removing the
existing battery only gives you 48 liters of space.
Now let's talk about cost. Above, you quote 2.7-volts, 2600 farads,
for $50.00 US. Your 1000-farad ultracap presumably stores the quoted
60 kilojoules at the upper end of its nominal operating voltage of 13V?
If so, this smaller ultracap for which you found a price has about 54%
of the capacity -- 32.4 kilojoules, or 9.0 Wh.
So the price point for ultracaps is roughly $5.56 per Wh of energy
stored. Replacing the Prius' NiMH 300-Wh battery capacity with an
ultracap would cost you $1,667.00. That actually compares quite
favorably with the price of replacing the NiMH battery!
It's too bad that ultracaps are SO much heavier and larger than
batteries though.
A possible solution to the mass and volume problems is a
"hybrid-hybrid." Store electricity in your car using both a
high-density battery, and an ultracap which is just large enough to
recapture the energy of one full stop from highway speeds.** When you
come to a stop and the ultracap is full, you can use it to
trickle-charge the battery if you like.
**
(Using m = 2890 lb, and v = 70 MPH, and KE = 1/2 mv^2, I get 167
watt-hours for one highway-to-full-stop braking. Can anyone confirm my
reasoning and math? This is a surprisingly large fraction of the 300
Wh figure I've been using as the Prius' on-board capacity -- and if
correct, it is a testament to how little energy the regenerative
braking system actually recovers in the current car.)
Carry on!
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>A possible solution to the mass and volume problems is a "hybrid-hybrid."
>Store electricity in your car using both a high-density battery, and
>an ultracap which is just large enough to recapture the energy of one full
>stop from highway speeds.** When you come to a stop and the ultracap
>is full, you can use it to trickle-charge the battery if you like.
With the help of some non-trivial electronics.
>**
>(Using m = 2890 lb,
... 1314 kg.
>and v = 70 MPH,
... 31.3 m/s.
>and KE = 1/2 mv^2, I get 167 watt-hours for one highway-to-full-stop braking.
... 1314x31.3^2/2 = 643 kJ... /3600 = 179 Wh?
Nick
fpga...@yahoo.com
fpga...@yahoo.com
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> >(Using m = 2890 lb,
>
> ... 1314 kg.
>
> >and v = 70 MPH,
>
> ... 31.3 m/s.
>
> >and KE = 1/2 mv^2, I get 167 watt-hours for one highway-to-full-stop braking.
>
> ... 1314x31.3^2/2 = 643 kJ... /3600 = 179 Wh?
as a small nit (in most cases), this is only the majority of KE, the
part involved in linear translation. There is another KE stored in all
the rotating components, from tires/wheels thru the drive train which
is in addition of the linear motion.
So the energy in each tire/wheel is KEt = KE + KEr
Consider that if the car left the road at 100MPH rolled over in the
air, and hit a mountain side, that the wheels and drivetrain would
still be rotating with the energy they aquired before leaving the road,
and the linear travel/energy was abrubtly stopped by the mountain.
Depending on the rotational speed and mass distribution this can be a
significant additional component.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>> ... 1314x31.3^2/2 = 643 kJ... /3600 = 179 Wh?
>
>as a small nit (in most cases), this is only the majority of KE, the
>part involved in linear translation. There is another KE stored in all
>the rotating components, from tires/wheels thru the drive train which
>is in addition of the linear motion.
>
>So the energy in each tire/wheel is KEt = KE + KEr...
>
>Depending on the rotational speed and mass distribution this can be a
>significant additional component.
Sure. The bicycle rule of thumb "An ounce on the rim is worth
two on the frame" turns out to be true when accelerating.
Nick
Paul Ciszek
In article <wMCdnb1QqKreNzDZ...@comcast.com>,
A combination of batteries and ultra-caps might be useful for people
who wanted to make "high performance" electric cars that would burn
rubber or whatever.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
William Dryden
"John Ladasky" <lad...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1152237543.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
There are better versions than the KaPower "pack" I cut and pasted the specs
for. I would use (5) 2.7V 2600 Farad individual caps to get to the 13.5V
nominal. I didn't have the weight specs for those and the easiest way to
give you all the specs is with this link.
http://www.maxwell.com/pdf/uc/datasheets/MC_Cell_Power_1009361_rev2.pdf
I hope that is OK on usenet.
Bill
sza...@pacbell.net
Do not forget that corn is not the only way to produce ethonol. In
fact, corn is probably a very short term alternative fuel. Several
companies, and I am not talking the "Big Oil" here are in the midst of
developing enzymetic ethanol aka Cellulosic ethanol, which is produced
from cellulose of plants. Think about how much we could produce from
the stalks and husks of corn alone. The numbers are unbelievable, when
you begin looking into this. Ethanol is our future, if our screwed up
government is going to be funding enough research to develop this
technology enough, in about 10 years our roads will be filled with flex
fuel vehicles.
As for electricity... It can be made out of a lot of things, but
remember most of the technology is still at its infancy. Even solar
panels, which we had for years, are still only about 15% efficient. We
need an intermediate alternative, and ethanol is it.
Todd wrote:
> Should the world honestly use crop to fuel cars while there are people
> that cannot get 3 meals a day. Look at E85 rich Brazil
>
> "Few people die from starvation , but there is wide spread chronic food
> insecurity and malnutrition"
>
> Can you as a citizen of earth drive your Hummer to work knowing that you
> are burning processed food while other citizens are starving?
>
> And what happens when a drought or disease destroys mass amounts of
> sugar and corn crops? Do we pay $4 for an ear of corn, or $4 for a
> gallon of E85 and biodiesel?
>
> Earth can make hydrogen from electricity. Electricity can be made from
> wind, light, water, and earth.
>
> Lets, not dig ourselves into a whole. Our refrigerators will never run
> on E85 but the media makes it sound like a God sent solution.
>
> Water is Life. Life is water. Treasure both
>
> ./Todd
JoeSP
<sza...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1152367162.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Folks,
>
> Do not forget that corn is not the only way to produce ethonol. In
> fact, corn is probably a very short term alternative fuel. Several
> companies, and I am not talking the "Big Oil" here are in the midst of
> developing enzymetic ethanol aka Cellulosic ethanol, which is produced
> from cellulose of plants. Think about how much we could produce from
> the stalks and husks of corn alone. The numbers are unbelievable, when
> you begin looking into this. Ethanol is our future, if our screwed up
> government is going to be funding enough research to develop this
> technology enough, in about 10 years our roads will be filled with flex
> fuel vehicles.
>
> As for electricity... It can be made out of a lot of things, but
> remember most of the technology is still at its infancy. Even solar
> panels, which we had for years, are still only about 15% efficient. We
> need an intermediate alternative, and ethanol is it.
If it were all science-driven, it might happen that way. Don't forget how
much oil money flows into Washington. If you had billions of dollars
invested in oilfields and infrastructure around the world, you probably
wouldn't be getting too excited about biofuels coming in to impact the
markets either. Dick Cheney is a powerful man, and I don't think it's
purely an accident that the price of crude oil has tripled since he got into
office.
G.fried
> <sza...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:1152367162.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Folks,
>>
>> Do not forget that corn is not the only way to produce ethonol. In
>> fact, corn is probably a very short term alternative fuel. Several
>> companies, and I am not talking the "Big Oil" here are in the midst of
>> developing enzymetic ethanol aka Cellulosic ethanol, which is produced
>> from cellulose of plants. Think about how much we could produce from
>> the stalks and husks of corn alone. The numbers are unbelievable, when
>> you begin looking into this. Ethanol is our future,
remember your poor efficiency in terms of kJ per mile and the effort to
grow plants before postulating this...
if our screwed up
>> government is going to be funding enough research to develop this
>> technology enough, in about 10 years our roads will be filled with flex
>> fuel vehicles.
your land will be filled with more trains and buses and there will be a
transition phase from a car based mobility to a more flexible approach...
G.fried