How does 60% Otto cycle efficiency become 20% car efficiency?
Andrew
cycle is given by:
efficiency = 1 - (1/rc)^k-1
k = ratio of specific heats
rc = compression ratio
Assuming a value for k of 1.4 (air) I calculate the efficiency of a
car engine with compression ratio of 10 to be 60%. But I see a lot of
references around to much lower efficiencies - around 20%.
What makes up this missing 40%??
Is it simply that k is lower if you factor in the k of the vapourised
petrol, or is it the additional cooling (on top of the heat that you
waste on the exhaust stroke) that has to be provided to stop the
engine melting down.
I know that there will be mechanical inefficiencies involved here too
but I wouldn't have thought they were so high (I think I've seen 88%
mentioned).
Thanks heaps,
Andrew
Dean Dardwin
An old rule of thumb... given that heat is power and power is heat:
33% is lost as heat to the atmosphere through the cooling system
33% is lost as heat through the exhaust system
of the remaining 33%, 33% is lost through the drivetrain and
accessories as friction and therefore heat
what remains is about 22% of the "theoretical" power delivered to
actually propel the vehicle
An approximation it that for an engine "theoretically" capable of 600
hp, 400 hp are lost directly as heat, the engine actually develops 200
hp of which 67 are lost to the drivetrain; therefore, 133 hp are
available to propel the vehicle. I think this is the 20% figure you are
referring to; (600 x .22 = 132).
Dean
Richard Bell
Andrew <hook...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I understand that the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of the Otto
>cycle is given by:
>
>efficiency = 1 - (1/rc)^k-1
>
>k = ratio of specific heats
>rc = compression ratio
>
>Assuming a value for k of 1.4 (air) I calculate the efficiency of a
>car engine with compression ratio of 10 to be 60%. But I see a lot of
>references around to much lower efficiencies - around 20%.
>
>What makes up this missing 40%??
>
textbook. Little things like the cylinder walls are not perfect
insulators, getting air into/out of the cylinder takes work, and the
practical engine must operate at many speeds.
Ed Ruf
(Andrew) wrote:
>I understand that the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of the Otto
>cycle is given by:
>
>efficiency = 1 - (1/rc)^k-1
>
>k = ratio of specific heats
>rc = compression ratio
>
>Assuming a value for k of 1.4 (air) I calculate the efficiency of a
>car engine with compression ratio of 10 to be 60%. But I see a lot of
>references around to much lower efficiencies - around 20%.
>
>What makes up this missing 40%??
>
>Is it simply that k is lower if you factor in the k of the vapourised
>petrol, or is it the additional cooling (on top of the heat that you
>waste on the exhaust stroke) that has to be provided to stop the
>engine melting down.
If you look at the products of combustion, you might estimate the
ratio of specific heats would be closer to 1.3, which would drop the
efficiency down much closer to 45% to begin with. Then there are all
the losses associated with real (non-ideal) processes, such as
non-isentropic compression and expansion, heat , friction and air and
oil pumping losses.
______________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (EG...@home.com)
See images and 360 panoramas taken with my CP-990 at
http://members.home.net/egruf-digicam
Duane C. Johnson
Andrew wrote:
>
> I understand that the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of the Otto
> cycle is given by:
>
> efficiency = 1 - (1/rc)^k-1
>
> k = ratio of specific heats
> rc = compression ratio
>
> Assuming a value for k of 1.4 (air) I calculate the efficiency of a
> car engine with compression ratio of 10 to be 60%. But I see a lot of
> references around to much lower efficiencies - around 20%.
>
> What makes up this missing 40%??
>
> Is it simply that k is lower if you factor in the k of the vapourised
> petrol, or is it the additional cooling (on top of the heat that you
> waste on the exhaust stroke) that has to be provided to stop the
> engine melting down.
One of the main reason for the lower practical
efficiency in a gasoline Otto cycle engine is the
approximately 25% single cycle theoretical limit
imposed by the detonation of the fuel.
A Diesel engine has an approximately 39% single cycle
efficiency imposed by the melting temperature of
the cast iron head.
References are long gone from my head.
> I know that there will be mechanical inefficiencies involved here too
> but I wouldn't have thought they were so high (I think I've seen 88%
> mentioned).
Of course other practical limits such as the premature
cooling of the burned hot basses by a cold cylinder wall.
> Thanks heaps,
> Andrew
Duane
--
Home of the $35 LED solar tracker.
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3
CUL8ER \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ Receiver
Powered by\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ [*]
Thermonuclear \ \Solar\Energy\from the Sun \ /////|
Energy(the Sun) \ \ \ \ \\ \ / / /\/ / /|
\ \ \ \ \ /\ / \/ / / / |
WA0VBE \ \ \ \ / /\ \/ / / \/ /|
Ziggy \ \ \/ / / \ \/ \/ /\ |
\ / \ \/ / /\ \\ / \ / / |
"Red Rock Energy" === ===\ / \ / \ === \ / ===
Duane C. Johnson, Designer=== === \ \ === / |
1825 Florence St Mirrors,Heliostats,Controls & Mounts|
White Bear Lake, Minnesota \ \ / |
USA 55110-3364 \ \ |
(651)635-5O65 work \ \ / |
(651)426-4766 home \ \ |
(413)556-659O Fax copyright \ / |
(651)583-2O62 Red Rock Energy Site (C)980907 ===\ |
red...@redrok.com (my primary email: address) \ |
red...@hotmail.com (Hotmail address) \ |
duane....@unisys.com (Unisys address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com/index.htm (My New Web site) \|
These are my opinions, and not that of Unisys Corp. ===
P.G. Felton
> I understand that the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of the Otto
> cycle is given by:
>
> efficiency = 1 - (1/rc)^k-1
>
> k = ratio of specific heats
> rc = compression ratio
>
> Assuming a value for k of 1.4 (air) I calculate the efficiency of a
> car engine with compression ratio of 10 to be 60%. But I see a lot of
> references around to much lower efficiencies - around 20%.
>
> What makes up this missing 40%??
>
> Is it simply that k is lower if you factor in the k of the vapourised
> petrol, or is it the additional cooling (on top of the heat that you
> waste on the exhaust stroke) that has to be provided to stop the
> engine melting down.
k of the combustion products is lower than 1.4 for a start also the
analysis
that leads to that equation assumes an instantaneous burn which is not
the case
there are cooling loses during the expansion stroke and also there is an
assumption
of an instantaneous blow down through the exhaust valve which also gives
a loss.
finally there's pumping losses in a 4 stroke. And that's before you get
to the
transmission!
Phil.
C. E. White
1) The formula only applies to theoretical engines. It doesn't address
engines that actually suck in and exhaust the working fluid.
2) The formula is only calculating thermal efficiency. It doesn't
include mechanical losses such as friction and pumping losses.
3) The formula doesn't address the "real" cycle, only the theoretical
cycle. In the theoretical cycle the exhaust temperature is the same as
the external heat sink temperature. In the real world, a lot of energy
goes out the tail pipe. I suppose if you had a very low rpm long stroke
engine with very conservative valve timing you can limit the energy lost
to the exhaust, but the car would be a dog. The theoretical otto cycle
has adiabatic compression (assumes no heat loss to the outside world),
followed by constant volume addition of heat, followed by adiabatic
expansion (assumes no heat loss to the outside world), followed by
constant volume cooling (exhaust). This is nothing like the real cycle.
In the real world you have a compression stroke where heat is constantly
being lost to the surroundings, you have energy added during compression
and after expansion has begun, you have energy lost to the surrounding
during expansion (power stroke), the exhaust valve opens before the
power stroke is completed, so even more energy is lost through the
exhaust port, the working fluid is not allowed to cool, but rather it is
shoved out the exhaust port, taking even more energy out the exhaust.
The theoretical cycle is useful for deciding what sort of things might
improve efficiency. However, it is not able to predict actual
efficiency. I believe there are computer models that can handle this.
Regards,
Ed White
David B Brownell
Only diesels can achieve efficiencies of 33% and higher. I am, of
course, excluding large steam turbines/systems.
As far as losses in an automobile drive line, this is in fact very low
once the torque converter is locked up--less than 3%. (not 33%) In
the case of a manual transmission the losses are less. These numbers
also include the third member as part of the 'transmission.'
Dave Brownell
DB Technologies
Dean Dardwin
The net difference in measured hp on an engine dyno and measured rear
wheel hp on a chassis dyno is usually about 33%. The figure is
approximately correct for stock engines. As engines are modified to
produce more hp the ratio changes as the driveline friction remains the
same but in no case does it ever approach anything like 3%... 20% maybe.
Dean
Mark Jones
possible? Everything besides the clutch and torque converter is on bearings
and should be relatively frictionless. Sure there is a torque loss due to
the rotational mass, but 33%? If a tranny commonly dissipated 74,570 watts
(100hp), transmission intercoolers would be much more common... in fact,
manditory.
"Dean Dardwin" <d...@dxd.com> wrote in message
news:3BFB93CD...@dxd.com...
Dean Dardwin
Can't discuss theory with you. But I have watched and participated in dozens of dyno pulls. If you live near a big city, you can find a chassis dyno in the phone book. You can then pay to get the "real world" rear wheel numbers for your vehicle. You might be very surprised.
BTW, all automatic transmissions have pumps which seriously heat the fluid. They all use intercoolers. In fact, they use the engine coolant (at 200F or so) to cool the transmission fluid!
Dean
Dragon
aerodynamic
braking
accessories
driveline
rolling
aerodynamic losses contribute to a large percentage over 40 mph, braking
looses kinetic energy gained by acceleration and is wasted in heat and
re-accceleration, accessories running in the car keep the alternator
charging - of which is only around 50% efficient as well as belts to drive
it - water pump, fan blade, etc.... driveline losses... gears churning in
oil create massive friction and losses are in heat, rolling losses -
bearings covered in thick grease, seals dragging on metal to keep the grease
in, tire air pressure - flexing rubber all absorbs energy..... by the time
your done there isn't much left going to pushing the 3000 lb car around.....
"David B Brownell" <db...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e1b015c3.01112...@posting.google.com...
Duncan Wood
"Mark Jones" <mailto:helios...@att.net> wrote in message
news:VQOK7.178473$3d2.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Axel Berger
>A gasoline engine is around 22% efficient--not 33% as someone said. Only
>diesels can achieve efficiencies of 33% and higher. I am, of course,
>excluding large steam turbines/systems.
Current mass produced car Diesel engines can top 50 % (Volkswagen TDI)
Petrol engines have done better than 260 g/kWh (VW Polo, 1.3 l, 40 kW,
1983) for years, which equals
1/0.26 kWh/kg / 42.5 MJ/kg * 3.6 MJ/kWh = .326 = 33 %
The problem in practice is that best efficiency is only achieved with
wide open throttle at low medium revs, which is hardly ever used in
traffic and impossible to achieve without real gearboxes with the silly
part hydraulic nonsense you Americans seem to insist on.
>-less than 3%. (not 33%) In the case of a manual transmission the
>losses are less.
Unfortunately not. Of course losses are far less than 33 % (that number
was invented by dyno operaters to console owners about the discrepancy
between nominal power from the maker and actually measured output) but
gearboxes do not get any better than about 91 %.
>the third member
Who's that when he's at home?
Andrew
Re premature cooling of the gases during the cycle am I right in
saying that the combustion reaction can reach temperatures of about
2000-2500degC whereas the steel (?) engine parts can only withstand
about 800degC? That is - there must be a pretty steep temperature
gradient across the combustion chamber!
I see that my car cooling system normally runs at about 90degC so if I
knew a couple more numbers (like coolant flowrate and the heat energy
per "explosion") I could complete the energy balance. Has anyone done
any rough calc like this?
Thanks again,
Andrew
Mark Jones
expect if the current automobile concept was scrapped and instead
computer-controlled magnetic coils or rails were built in the existing
roadway? The new "car" would levitate much like a maglev train does.
Magnetic friction is almost nil- there goes all of the tranny and tire
losses, and most of the engine loss too. If the traffic was
computer-controlled, the autos could be very light, since accidents would be
almost impossible.
I know the idea has a lot of holes in it, but it's intriguing. I'm sure
we'll see all kinds of "neat stuff" happen before oil's all said and done
with.
"Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9thhlo$8b5$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Robert Hancock
generate the magnetic field. Unless, of course, you used superconducting
magnets, but the cost of that would probably be ludicrous for a car (though
maybe not in the future..)
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
"Mark Jones" <helios...@att.net.> wrote in message
news:Fa%K7.200150$W8.75...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Don Lancaster
> This is just my rambling thoughs, but what kind of effeciency could we
> expect if the current automobile concept was scrapped and instead
> computer-controlled magnetic coils or rails were built in the existing
> roadway?
>
> "Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9thhlo$8b5$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...>
The typical roads I drive on have a peak rush hour worst case crunch time
traffic of three vehicles per year.
Do you have the faintest idea how cost ineffective it would be to provide coils
every few feet on such roads?
The streetcars proved that putting the infrastructure on the ground does not
work. It is a linear approach to a 3-D world.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (520)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
charliew
> This is just my rambling thoughs, but what kind of effeciency could we
> expect if the current automobile concept was scrapped and instead
> computer-controlled magnetic coils or rails were built in the existing
> roadway? The new "car" would levitate much like a maglev train does.
> Magnetic friction is almost nil- there goes all of the tranny and tire
> losses, and most of the engine loss too. If the traffic was
> computer-controlled, the autos could be very light, since accidents would
be
> almost impossible.
>
> I know the idea has a lot of holes in it, but it's intriguing. I'm sure
> we'll see all kinds of "neat stuff" happen before oil's all said and done
> with.
>
(big cut)
Indeed. Some of the "neat stuff" would involve litigation against ? when
there was a computer glitch and several hundred cars crashed, killing
several hundred occupants. The big question:
Would the motoring public be willing to put their lives in the "hands" of an
emotionless machine?
Tony Pelliccio
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> > This is just my rambling thoughs, but what kind of effeciency could we
> > expect if the current automobile concept was scrapped and instead
> > computer-controlled magnetic coils or rails were built in the existing
> > roadway?
> >
> > "Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:9thhlo$8b5$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...>
>
> The typical roads I drive on have a peak rush hour worst case crunch time
> traffic of three vehicles per year.
>
> Do you have the faintest idea how cost ineffective it would be to provide coils
> every few feet on such roads?
>
> The streetcars proved that putting the infrastructure on the ground does not
> work. It is a linear approach to a 3-D world.
Tell that to the folks who run the ITS systems across the U.S. Given
time cars will follow either small magnetic markers in the road or use
GPS signals to basically drive themselves on highways and such. All of
it is technically very probable.
Tony
Tony Pelliccio
More than ever before we're gradually accepting the role of advanced
technology in our cars. Right now it's just engine and drivetrain
management but in the future our cars WILL take a more active roll in
the actual act of driving.
Tony
Graham Cowan
> take a more active roll ...
But there will always be those of who prefer straight and level.
Guidance systems will need to be a tad more reliable than
those of smart bombs in the recent news, won't they.
- Graham Cowan
Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room.
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Don Lancaster
And the cost difference between a small magnetic marker and a superconducting
levitating coil is???
Mark Jones
that well in the states because of the fact that it IS linear transit. But
we may be forced to reconsider the trolley's value. It's been stated many
times that in the coming years oil levels will eventually dry up, and we as
a world will be forced into using alternate modes of travel. Since
ultimately the best solution would be the most energy-effecient one;
magnetism and superconductors seem to be a very compelling science to
investigate. Not the only science, but a compelling one. There are
limitations, losses, and inherent problems with ANY mode of travel. Our job
is to investigate and deduce the best method, not argue about facts and/or
fiction.
In any case, direct magnetic propulsion would likely be more effecient than
an electric car or fuel cell car, simply because the energy carrier changes
states less (and hence less energy is lost in conversion). Do we have any
datas on the effeciency of the 200mph maglev train vs. say, an electric car?
Regards,
Mark
"Tony Pelliccio" <stopspam...@home.com.stopspam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1666eeaf478638f3989a43@news...
DPH
trackage, and steel wheels on steel rails to move cars about.
The car would drive into a railcar that would be controlled
individually. Each railcar would be moved from the rail station onto
the main line independently. Using this system, the railcar would be
added to the rear of a "train" that is composed of similar railcars,
running nose-to-tail, but not hooked together. Therefore, any
particular railcar can be moved out of the train, at speed, and into a
railstation without the other cars having to slow or stop at all, much
in the manner of how a current freeway works. This only requires a
switch that can do that to be invented, and I think I know how to do
that.
Using computer control to do this, and thus eliminating the cause of
most accidents, human error, the death toll could be positively
affected. By running nose-to-tail, with some appropriate aerodynamic
engineering, the power required in all but the lead car should be very
low, at least on flat ground.
When going downhill, the motors in each railcar could be used for
dynamic braking, allowing power produced in this manner to be fed back
into the electricity grid that powers the railcars, and used to
mitigate the power requirements for raising railcars that are climbing
the same or a different hill somewhere else. Similarly, deceleration
into a rail station could be used to generate power to accelerate
railcars leaving the same or other station(s) up to speed.
This "electric rope", aiding some railcars with extra energy produced
by other railcars that get theirs from stored energy, should have the
further benefit of making the system an overall energy saver.
Plus, since it is all electrically run, the transportation system of
this country could be partially run on many different fuels, maybe
enough to mitigate our foreign oil requirements significantly. Wind
generators coulld electrolize water to produce hydrogen which is
easily stored via compression in tanks. Same for solar cells. Then
there's geothermal, solar thermal, tidal, biomass, and the ace in the
hole, nuclear.
Dave Head
DPH
wrote:
There is always going to be litigation - the best thing to do is to
ignore the fact of litigation and build the safest transportation
system you can.
I think computers controlling individual cars in place of the driver
are going to have to be a whole lot smarter than they are now. They
have to be able to handle the unusual as well as the usual. Are they
smart enough to stop or swerve to avoid a cement block that's fallen
off a truck? Will they brake wildly for leaves being blown thru the
air, detecting an object that they "think" must be avoided? Will they
know enough _not_ to brake fully on ice? Can they handle gravel
roads? Will they be able to detect a blowout and respond
appropriately? Etc. I think affordable computer technology to do
this reliably (and it _better_ be reliable) is a long way off.
Plus, the system might work perfectly when the car is new, but what
happens after 10 years? Do we have to put up with being on the road
with 10 year old computer controlled cars that haven't been maintained
because the owner thinks he is a hot-shot mechanic that fixes the
computer wiring with a match and a piece of solder? What happens when
a wire breaks and causes the steering to go into full lock either
right or left?
I don't think that allowing people to own cars with such capability,
so that they are responsible for maintaining them properly, will work.
The responsibility for maintenance would have to be put on someone
else - a corporation such as the car manufacturer in the form of a
"forever" warranty, etc and big criminal penalties for screwing around
with that system yourself.
BTW, I don't want to own such a car - I want to drive it myself
because it is fun in some cases, and do want to be able to add
aftermarket equipment like turbochargers, etc. I want to be able to
race it, etc. IOW, I don't know how to retain the fun of driving in
this mode.
Dave Head
Josh Halpern
charliew wrote:
Rather than the nut job in the next lane with the jabbing finger??
Happy Thanksgiving to all you nut jobs out there:)
josh halpern
Don Lancaster
> In any case, direct magnetic propulsion would likely be more effecient than
> an electric car or fuel cell car, Regards,
> Mark
>
>
Exceptionally unlikely when fully burdened costs are considered.
Axel Berger
>BTW, all automatic transmissions have pumps which seriously heat the
>fluid.
may have to dump the full rated power.
Axel Berger
>aerodynamic
>braking
>accessories
>driveline
>rolling
Only accessories and driveline are losses (which in case of the
accessories is more convention than sense), the rest are what the
engine is meant to do in the first case. Adding them in makes
efficiency exactly zero for all of the time.
JT
> Just to mention a few of the losses ....
>
> aerodynamic
> braking
> accessories
> driveline
> rolling
>
> aerodynamic losses contribute to a large percentage over 40 mph, braking
> looses kinetic energy gained by acceleration and is wasted in heat and
> re-accceleration, accessories running in the car keep the alternator
> charging - of which is only around 50% efficient as well as belts to drive
> it - water pump, fan blade, etc.... driveline losses... gears churning in
> oil create massive friction and losses are in heat, rolling losses -
> bearings covered in thick grease, seals dragging on metal to keep the
grease
> in, tire air pressure - flexing rubber all absorbs energy..... by the time
> your done there isn't much left going to pushing the 3000 lb car
around.....
If you considered all that you would have to say that the car is 0%
efficient because when you arrive at your destination 100% of the energy
that was in the fuel you used is now wafting around as low grade heat in the
air between where you were and where you are. The 20% car efficiency
mentioned in the header would have to be something like power at the rear
wheels compared to energy released by the combustion of the fuel used to
develop that power.
The translation of people and materials from one location to another of
equal elevation does not essentially require the consumption of energy. It's
the overcoming of the friction that is always involved in any method adopted
that requires the consumption of energy. Think mag-lev train running in an
evacuated tunnel for an almost frictionless method of moving things from one
place to another.
ray
DPH wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:28:30 -0600, "charliew" <char...@hal-pc.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark Jones <mailto:helios...@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:Fa%K7.200150$W8.75...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> This is just my rambling thoughs, but what kind of effeciency could we
> >> expect if the current automobile concept was scrapped and instead
> >> computer-controlled magnetic coils or rails were built in the existing
> >> roadway? The new "car" would levitate much like a maglev train does.
> >> Magnetic friction is almost nil- there goes all of the tranny and tire
> >> losses, and most of the engine loss too. If the traffic was
> >> computer-controlled, the autos could be very light, since accidents would
> >be
> >> almost impossible.
> >>
> >> I know the idea has a lot of holes in it, but it's intriguing. I'm sure
> >> we'll see all kinds of "neat stuff" happen before oil's all said and done
> >> with.
> >>
> >
what about driving on "back roads" where there's no power grid? How
does one power their car from their driveway to the main road and
back again? I think something like this may eventually happen, but
it's still barely out of the "dream" phase.
...and I still like driving. My new car has no traction control,
no onboard GPS, no onboard telemetry, no OnStar, it's a manual
transmission, etc. More fun that way.
Ray
Mark Jones
news:uhcqvtobpnr0m43b4...@4ax.com...> [big cut]
>
> BTW, I don't want to own such a car - I want to drive it myself
> because it is fun in some cases, and do want to be able to add
> aftermarket equipment like turbochargers, etc. I want to be able to
> race it, etc. IOW, I don't know how to retain the fun of driving in
> this mode.
>
> Dave Head
Sure, we'd all like to go offroading or roast off the wheels if we feel
like it. : ) Perhaps a limited form of liquid fuel such as methanol could be
made at home to run *your* car. For mass transit though, this wouldn't cut
it.
In the end, it comes down to, what will we do when there is no more gas? No
gas = no motion of millions of cars. So what if we ran the same cars from an
alternate fuel like methanol, jet A-1, hydrogen, or even boron? Then we're
stuck with where that fuel is coming from and the effeciency loss of
producing it.
It's a complicated topic, independent of the perspective. One thing is
clear though- change is inevitable. The final solution may be for the better
or worse, but it's more likely a mix of both.
The Izzman Returneth
> So you lose about a hundred horsepower just in the drivetrain? How is that
> possible? Everything besides the clutch and torque converter is on bearings
> and should be relatively frictionless. Sure there is a torque loss due to
> the rotational mass, but 33%? If a tranny commonly dissipated 74,570 watts
> (100hp), transmission intercoolers would be much more common... in fact,
> manditory.
To lose 100hp to the drivetrain, you'll have to be putting down about
600hp at the flywheel. Cars that put out that much power over
extended periods of time DO typically have coolers, typically in the
differential because they usually have hypoid gears in there which
naturally run hotter.
When it only takes about 20-40hp for a given car to maintain its speed
on the highway, you're not going to be losing very much power as heat
to the driveline (which is typically a 10-15% loss).
Although, there is a video around of the McLaren F1 doing a top speed
run, it reached, I believed, 393km/h on the test track. The driver
noted, after letting off, that the transaxle fluid temperature had
reached 133deg, Celsius I assume. 600+hp routed through a transaxle
for half a minute... yeah that figures out about right.
Don Lancaster
> Think mag-lev train running in an
> evacuated tunnel for an almost frictionless method of moving things from one
> place to another.
Where did you get such a silly idea?
You have to consider all the thermal losses of the energy sources, along with
the energy losses of the system amortization.
The friction losses in your example are utterly staggering.
Graham Cowan
Roger Blake wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 03:12:43 GMT, Mark Jones <helios...@att.net> wrote:
> > In the end, it comes down to, what will we do when there is no more gas? No
>
> You have no idea how ludicrous statements like this sound to someone who
> spent years working in the R&D department of a major oil company. We are
> not in danger of "running out of gas" anytime soon, even from traditional
> sources.
>
> (I was recently reading in a mechanics-type magazine that all the oil
> will probably be gone in 30 years or so. The magazine was from the 1950s.)
OK, but you should refute the most competent predictions of doom,
not cheap-and-cheerful ones like that.
By "the most competent" I'm thinking of Hubbert.
Oil production in the US did peak as he said it would.
Do you think 70s levels of US domestic production could
be reattained, surpassed, and the new high levels maintained
for, let's say, 50 years?
>
> > stuck with where that fuel is coming from and the effeciency loss of
> > producing it.
>
> Yes, let's all run our cars on magical fairy dust.
Nuclear energy, actually.
Why should it matter that a threefold increase in
primary energy is necessary, to make motor fuel
rather than just distributing it,
when the primary energy costs thirty cents a barrel?
-- Graham Cowan
Mark Jones
http://www.runningonempty.org/oilcrash.htm
"Roger Blake" <rogg...@inamme.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9vsofv.7...@linux1.linux.bogus...
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 03:12:43 GMT, Mark Jones <helios...@att.net>
wrote:
> > In the end, it comes down to, what will we do when there is no more
gas? No
>
> You have no idea how ludicrous statements like this sound to someone who
> spent years working in the R&D department of a major oil company. We are
> not in danger of "running out of gas" anytime soon, even from traditional
> sources.
>
> (I was recently reading in a mechanics-type magazine that all the oil
> will probably be gone in 30 years or so. The magazine was from the 1950s.)
>
> > stuck with where that fuel is coming from and the effeciency loss of
> > producing it.
>
> Yes, let's all run our cars on magical fairy dust.
>
> --
> Roger Blake
> (remove second "g" and second "m" from address for email)
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 03:12:43 GMT, Mark Jones <helios...@att.net>
wrote:
> > In the end, it comes down to, what will we do when there is no more
gas? No
>
> You have no idea how ludicrous statements like this sound to someone who
> spent years working in the R&D department of a major oil company. We are
> not in danger of "running out of gas" anytime soon, even from traditional
> sources.
Let's get all the cards on the table. If gas mileage on cars had stayed at
1950's levels and population with cars had increased at post WWII levels, we
would be out of gas (and planet) by now.
Engineers have increased gas mileage by at least a factor of two. And
consumers have been willing to support that effort. Will this coincidence
continue, when cars will have to get smaller, lighter, and more complex to
get the next factor of two reduction?
It is time to look for more efficient energy supplies. Electric cars at
least allow us to use the 40+% efficiency in power generation as opposed to
the 13% of an internal combustion engine. The 60% losses into a storage
battery is unfortunate, of course.
We aren't looking to put you out of a job. We are asking how to keep you
and your children (assuming...) alive and prosperous even longer. Can you
see that?
Do you think the Middle East (and more) would be nearly so important to us
if we didn't send so much money to them?
David A. Smith
Eric Swanson
>
>spent years working in the R&D department of a major oil company. We are
>not in danger of "running out of gas" anytime soon, even from traditional
>sources.
>
>will probably be gone in 30 years or so. The magazine was from the 1950s.)
I hope you have spent some time looking at the latest geology.
A recent reference you might find interesting is:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/commons.htm
There are many other quotes and links at:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
We aren't making any more fossil fuels. The oil will runout.
The only question is when will things start to get really tight.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke McMullan N5GAX
> In the end, it comes down to, what will we do when there is no more gas? No
> gas = no motion of millions of cars.
Mark, that's an unrealistic way of looking at it. It's not as if we have a
pipe from which our gas comes, and some day it'll just run out.
Rather, ask what we will do as gas (petrol) and other petrofuels become more
and more expensive. The sources are widely distributed, new technologies make
some older wells reusable, and we may yet find significant untapped crude
supplies. (Don't hold your breath on that last one! ;^)
Although the supply is demonstrably finite, it won't just shut off. The crude
sources simply will become fewer and harder to mine. That translates to more
expensive oil. As the price grows, other technologies become competitive. We
switch over gradually.
Of course, other sources may come online. Solar and wind energy are here, but
are horribly expensive for supplying what we need. Nuclear is here, but is
also expensive. Coal is great, except for the exhaust.
Here's a vague, unengineered idea: Burn coal heavily, and mine the CO_2 from
the exhaust, combining with water to form hydrocarbon fuels. The coal thermal
cycle drives both electrical generation and the hydrocarbon generation plants.
We've got lotsa coal; we've got lotsa uranium.
We've got lotsa sun; we've got lotsa wind.
The last two are the cleanest, but also the most expensive. The first is the
most widely available, but the exhaust has this big CO_2 load. Sequestration
is expensive. Nuclear is expensive, and the proton-beam technologies for
destroying long-lived radioisotopes in the waste fuel stream is, AFAIK, still
just science and not engineering.
That last applies to quite a few other technologies, including Graham's rather
detailed plans for running a society on boron. Examine his pages; it's worth
the time.
Some would suggest just shutting down the big fuel consumption, and letting the
population crash.
No, thanks.
In any event, "running out" of petrofuels isn't an overnight thing. It'll be
gradual, over decades if not centuries. Meantime, we're always finding new
ways to do things. Sometimes, those things even involve the use of hydrogen.
;^)
d
PS -- An interesting thing: Stationary power plants, due to size
considerations, usually are rather different from mobile power plants. There's
overlap, to be sure, but burning coal for a big electric plant is a whole
different ball game from burning coal in millions of little car, truck and
airplane plants.
d
--
"What did you do to the cat? It looks half-dead." --Schrodinger's wife
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 Duk...@mail.com
Duke McMullan N5GAX
news:slrn9vsofv.7...@linux1.linux.bogus...
> Yes, let's all run our cars on magical fairy dust.
Well . . . it's more realistic than electrolytic hydrogen.
Tim Worstall
OK, I did have a look. It's tosh. Complete, unadulterated, misleading
incompetent tosh.
Try looking at Lomborg and his chapter on oil. As good a round up of
all the pieces as you are likely to find.
Tim Worstall
ingen
wrote in <slrn9vsofv.7...@linux1.linux.bogus>:
>You have no idea how ludicrous statements like this sound to someone who
>spent years working in the R&D department of a major oil company. We are
>not in danger of "running out of gas" anytime soon, even from traditional
>sources.
If you are doing R&D I can see that US has a long way to go to fight
technological illiteracy.
I have a book printed in US as part of
THE WILEY SCIENCE EDITIONS
Its title : "Leviating Trains and Kamikaze Genes
Technological Literacy for the 1990s" by Richard P. Brennan.
This Richard P. Brennan start his book by testing your technological
literacy. One of the 50 questions is this:
Which of the following is not considered a viable alternative to
continued dependency on fossil fuels until at least 2020?
a. Nuclear power
b. Solar power
c. Hydrogen fuel
d. Improved energy efficiency
Here is the answer that is given for the questions above:
"Hydrogen fuel, while offering great long-range potential, faces great
technical challenges, and even advocates of a hydrogen future do not
foresee significant use of this fuel before 2025."
The technological literates among us know that hydrogen is not a fuel,
and that US is "running out of gas".
--
ingen
"We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is
decay. At the root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable
tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is
the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately
into the heart of the Universe." The 2nd law, p. 200, by P. W. Atkins
Don Lancaster
The correct answer is ALL OF THE ABOVE.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> > Which of the following is not considered a viable alternative to
> > continued dependency on fossil fuels until at least 2020?
> > a. Nuclear power
>
> The correct answer is ALL OF THE ABOVE.
I don't trust *me* to drive a nuclear powered vehicle on city streets, and I
haven't had an accident in 20 years.
David A. Smith
Tony Pelliccio
\(formerly\)" <dl...@home.com> says...
I have a feeling that science already has an answer for a clean and
inexpensive energy source for homes and vehicles. But the economic
consequences of such things are too harsh to be realized under our
society.
Just look at the new generation of nuclear reactors that you hear very
little about. They are essentially fissionable material piles that don't
require liquid cooling and generate 15MW from a small facility. I
believe that Krupp experimented with such a design in 1968.
Tony
Duke McMullan N5GAX
plants, but I keep watching France and thinking, "Maybe . . . just maybe!"
Then, "Tony Pelliccio" <take_this.tonypo@and_this_out_to_reply.home.com> wrote
in message news:MPG.16699adfa8eb9c9c989a4e@news...
> I have a feeling that science already has an answer for a clean and
> inexpensive energy source for homes and vehicles. But the economic
> consequences of such things are too harsh to be realized under our
> society.
> Just look at the new generation of nuclear reactors that you hear very
> little about. They are essentially fissionable material piles that don't
> require liquid cooling and generate 15MW from a small facility. I
> believe that Krupp experimented with such a design in 1968.
All right, Tony. Please point us toward sources of info. Preferably ones with
lots of useful numbers.
Axel Berger
>Why should it matter that a threefold increase in primary energy is
>necessary,
It would matter I think, but it would not be necessary. From the power
station you have electricity, which can be used quite efficiently, even
if not without losses of course. For the alternative you have quite
significant refinery losses and then the quite inefficient combustion
engine. In all you will get a substantial bite of the initial loss
incurred when comparing electricity to oil back.
Michael Groszek
> So you lose about a hundred horsepower just in the drivetrain? How is that
> possible? Everything besides the clutch and torque converter is on bearings
> and should be relatively frictionless. Sure there is a torque loss due to
> the rotational mass, but 33%? If a tranny commonly dissipated 74,570 watts
> (100hp), transmission intercoolers would be much more common... in fact,
> manditory.
Don't worry it's a BS figure that is peddaled by some rolling road
operators to make you feel good after you buy their products. 15% is
much more realistic.
Brad Tittle
that CO is a pollutant, but it is also present naturally. SOx and NOx are a
little closer to "pollutants". CO2? CO2 is a necessary trace gas. Heightened
CO2 just makes plants grow better.
Brad Tittle
have the said the same thing on this group. Before we run out of oil it will
become too expensive to extract and we will use something else.
btw. it is nice if you post links that other people can actually link to. I
couldn't even get to the .com level to maybe get a login.
ciao
> From: swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson)
> Organization: Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC
> Newsgroups:
> sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.engr.mech,rec.autos.tech,sci.energy.hydrogen
Mark Jones
http://members.tripod.com/~highforest/woodgas/woodfired.html
Mark Jones
http://www2.whidbey.net/lighthook/woodgas.htm
"Mark Jones" <helios...@att.net.> wrote in message
news:bB1M7.196792$3d2.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Jeffrey Siegal
> We will never run out of oil. I don't know who made the point, but others
> have the said the same thing on this group. Before we run out of oil it will
> become too expensive to extract and we will use something else.
It won't become too expensive to extract, but it will become too
expensive to use for some things (as it is already). It will continue
to be extracted and used for other things (at a higher price), unless
some technological substitute or substitutes makes it altogether
useless.
Eric Swanson
>
>We will never run out of oil. I don't know who made the point, but others
>have the said the same thing on this group. Before we run out of oil it will
>become too expensive to extract and we will use something else.
While technically correct, what's the difference?
For most people, it won't be available for use.
>btw. it is nice if you post links that other people can actually link to. I
>couldn't even get to the .com level to maybe get a login.
Funny thing, I went to the web site the day I posted.
Now there is a password??
Don Lancaster
> Why worry about sequestering CO2? CO2 is not a pollutant. You might argue
> that CO is a pollutant, but it is also present naturally. SOx and NOx are a
> little closer to "pollutants". CO2? CO2 is a necessary trace gas. Heightened
> CO2 just makes plants grow better.
>
Increasing CO2 increases global warming.
What should be sought out is a "carbon neutral" scheme where carbon is removed from
the atmosphere at the same rate it is introduced.
Fuels with carbon in them perform ridiculously better and are far more convenient
than those without.
JT
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3BFDC5C7...@tinaja.com...
> JT wrote:
>
> > Think mag-lev train running in an
> > evacuated tunnel for an almost frictionless method of moving things from
one
> > place to another.
>
> Where did you get such a silly idea?
>
> You have to consider all the thermal losses of the energy sources, along
with
> the energy losses of the system amortization.
>
> The friction losses in your example are utterly staggering.
>
>
within the boundaries of what we currently know. I just tossed the idea out
there to show it is within the realm of possibility to create an almost
frictionless form of transportation (at least once the system was built that
is). I had considered that the idea might be good for a desk top novelty
item. A little smile of glass tube with a permanent magnet levitation
system. Set the tiny train in motion and see how long it pendulums to and
fro in its vacuum.
JT.
Brad Tittle
> From: Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
> Organization: WebUseNet Corp. - "ReInventing The UseNet"
> Newsgroups:
> sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.engr.mech,rec.autos.tech,sci.energy.hydrogen
> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 09:30:35 -0700
> Subject: Re: Automobile Effeciency?
>
> Brad Tittle wrote:
>
>> Why worry about sequestering CO2? CO2 is not a pollutant. You might argue
>> that CO is a pollutant, but it is also present naturally. SOx and NOx are a
>> little closer to "pollutants". CO2? CO2 is a necessary trace gas. Heightened
>> CO2 just makes plants grow better.
>>
>
> Increasing CO2 increases global warming.
>
Actually they seem to think that it is the other way around, increased
global warming increases CO2.
> What should be sought out is a "carbon neutral" scheme where carbon is removed
> from
> the atmosphere at the same rate it is introduced.
>
Lovely things called plants.
> Fuels with carbon in them perform ridiculously better and are far more
> convenient
> than those without.
>
And they are probably very high on the list of tools/resources that have
cleaned the environment for us.
Brad Tittle
>> A recent reference you might find interesting is:
>> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/commons.htm
>>
>> There are many other quotes and links at:
>> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
Can anyone other than the original poster access this site. I get a "You do
not have permission to enter this site." My credentials are no good.
Jeffrey Siegal
> For most people, it won't be available for use.
Sure it will, the way gold or even bottled water (currently more
expensive than oil) is available for use. They just won't be able to
afford to use as much of it. They'll be more careful and budget
conscious.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
news:B825CEB6.4B1A%bti...@charter.net...
(These quotes of Brad's are in reversed order; it makes for a slightly more
coherent response. --d )
> CO2? CO2 is a necessary trace gas. Heightened
> CO2 just makes plants grow better.
CO_2 is indeed a trace gas and is indeed necessary. But, from the second
sentence, strike "just" and insert "some" before "plants".
It's not a question of the presence or absence of CO_2 -- it's a question of
how much of the stuff is in the atmosphere. Different organisms react
differently to that concentration.
Some plants, at least during daylight hours, will photosynthesize better, or at
least at a greater rate, with higher concentrations of CO_2. For others, "your
mileage may vary."
Too much -- well above "trace" quantities -- and you start poisoning a
significant part of the biosphere. Bad juju.
> Why worry about sequestering CO2? CO2 is not a pollutant. You might argue
> that CO is a pollutant, but it is also present naturally. SOx and NOx are a
> little closer to "pollutants".
What constitutes a pollutant is both subjective and relative: One organism's
food is another's poison, etc., etc.
Increase the CO_2 level, and likely it'll be a pollutant to someone . . . or,
at least, to some organism.
With any complex system (and the biosphere certainly qualifies as complex), you
can never do exactly one thing. In this case, increasing the CO_2 will have
different effects on various organisms, and -- this is somewhat
controversial -- may significantly contribute to global warming (GW).
In the short term, at least, GW is pretty much an established fact. In the
long term, it's far less certain.
In both cases, the biggest questions are ones of attribution: How much (if any)
of GW is caused by CO_2 buildup, and how much of that buildup is due to human
activity?
NOT easy questions to answer.
In any event, few people (with a few exceptions, some rational, some not) think
that it's a bad idea to stop dumping CO_2 into the atmosphere on a large scale.
Trouble is, stopping that dump is very expensive and extremely disruptive to
our societies . . . at least, the more technologically developed ones.
I think I'll stop here, since I haven't time to write an essay (unless
adequately remunerated ;^), and that's what'll happen in a hurry if I start
enlarging on any of this.
Jeff
Rail transportation will not work in America as we have too much area
to cover. The thought of stretching track (steel or magnetic coils)
from every workplace and domicile in this huge country is mind
boggling. It's fine to do this from point A to point B, but what
happens when you have point A to point XYZ? That's a lot of tracks.
A gentleman with the last name of Diesel invented an engine in the
late 1800's. What fuel did it run on? It wasn't Diesel fuel, that
was invented by the petroleum companies to capitalize on this new
engine. Mr. Diesel originally powered his engine on VEGETABLE OIL.
That's right, the plants that grow power the vehicles that go.
Biodiesal cuts out the eons of waiting in current fossil fuels. Do a
search on Biodiesel, check out the hemp van from Canada. You can even
make biodiesel from used fryer oil (exhaust smells like french fries
or donuts) in your own kitchen, with a blender and a few added
household ingredients. So, you grow a crop of corn, soybeans, or hemp
and extract the oils/syrups. You now have a renewable source of
energy, fairly cheaply. Some may point out the cost in fuels that
comes from the agriculture industry. They can use biodiesel too.
Another renewable substitute for petroleum is alcohol. Funny cars
have been using it for decades, it provides ample enough power, and
lowers emissions. It evaporates slightly faster than gasoline, but it
doesn't pollute in its evaporation. It burns plenty clean, too.
So let's review. Take 6% of the arable land in the US, plant hemp or
soybeans, extract the oils, make biodiesel, and run the ENTIRE United
States without importing a drop of oil. Why haven't we done this?
Big Oil. They have such a powerful hand in our economy, they can't
afford to switch. Every crude oil refinery in America would be shut
down. Thousands of jobs lost, billions in revenues diverted. Foreign
governments all of a sudden going bankrupt. That's the true power in
America. We all want to be clean, and it wouldn't cost much, but it
costs the wrong people, the people currently in power. That's the
answer to your fuel efficiency question. Not can it be done, because
it can, but can we convince the people in power that it is
advantageous to do so.
Jeffrey Siegal
> So let's review. Take 6% of the arable land in the US, plant hemp or
> soybeans, extract the oils, make biodiesel, and run the ENTIRE United
> States without importing a drop of oil. Why haven't we done this?
> Big Oil.
No, the reason is cost. It makes no sense to do this as long as oil is
plentiful and cheap. When oil becomes scarce, and therefore more
expensive, we will do it (or something else). Thank you for pointing
out to the doomsayers the existance of some of the oil substitutes that
will be available for our use in the future.
Liz Riley
<cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Andrew wrote:
>>
>> I understand that the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of the Otto
>> cycle is given by:
>>
>> efficiency = 1 - (1/rc)^k-1
>>
>> k = ratio of specific heats
>> rc = compression ratio
>>
>> Assuming a value for k of 1.4 (air) I calculate the efficiency of a
>> car engine with compression ratio of 10 to be 60%. But I see a lot of
>> references around to much lower efficiencies - around 20%.
>>
>> What makes up this missing 40%??
>>
>> Is it simply that k is lower if you factor in the k of the vapourised
>> petrol, or is it the additional cooling (on top of the heat that you
>> waste on the exhaust stroke) that has to be provided to stop the
>> engine melting down.
>>
>> I know that there will be mechanical inefficiencies involved here too
>> but I wouldn't have thought they were so high (I think I've seen 88%
>> mentioned).
>>
>> Thanks heaps,
>> Andrew
>
>1) The formula only applies to theoretical engines. It doesn't address
>engines that actually suck in and exhaust the working fluid.
>
>2) The formula is only calculating thermal efficiency. It doesn't
>include mechanical losses such as friction and pumping losses.
>
>3) The formula doesn't address the "real" cycle, only the theoretical
>cycle. In the theoretical cycle the exhaust temperature is the same as
>the external heat sink temperature. In the real world, a lot of energy
>goes out the tail pipe. I suppose if you had a very low rpm long stroke
>engine with very conservative valve timing you can limit the energy lost
>to the exhaust, but the car would be a dog. The theoretical otto cycle
>has adiabatic compression (assumes no heat loss to the outside world),
>followed by constant volume addition of heat, followed by adiabatic
>expansion (assumes no heat loss to the outside world), followed by
>constant volume cooling (exhaust). This is nothing like the real cycle.
>In the real world you have a compression stroke where heat is constantly
>being lost to the surroundings, you have energy added during compression
>and after expansion has begun, you have energy lost to the surrounding
>during expansion (power stroke), the exhaust valve opens before the
>power stroke is completed, so even more energy is lost through the
>exhaust port, the working fluid is not allowed to cool, but rather it is
>shoved out the exhaust port, taking even more energy out the exhaust.
>The theoretical cycle is useful for deciding what sort of things might
>improve efficiency. However, it is not able to predict actual
>efficiency. I believe there are computer models that can handle this.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
Well said, Ed.
This theoretical efficiency is what can be aimed at, but never hit or
even approached closely. It can soitenly never be exceeeded.
Regards John Riley West Oz
DPH
>A couple of things:
>
>Rail transportation will not work in America as we have too much area
>to cover. The thought of stretching track (steel or magnetic coils)
>from every workplace and domicile in this huge country is mind
>boggling.
But, if you use your rail system to haul individual automobiles that
drive to the station and onto the rail car under their own power, you
don't have to string so much trackage around the US. You only have to
build rail and railstations to the population centers, just like
interstate highways are built.
>Another renewable substitute for petroleum is alcohol. Funny cars
>have been using it for decades, it provides ample enough power,
Yes and no. You can get more power out of alcohol in an IC engine
because it doesn't detonate as easily under higher compressions, but
there's not near as much energy in each gallon of alcohol as there is
in gasoline. This means stopping every 100 - 150 miles to refill the
tank, or fitting a really huge tank and then hammering your fuel
mileage, handling, acceleration, etc. because of the extra weight.
Alcohol kinda needs a "mid air refueling" scheme to work best, so you
don't have to stop so often.
>So let's review. Take 6% of the arable land in the US, plant hemp or
>soybeans, extract the oils, make biodiesel, and run the ENTIRE United
>States without importing a drop of oil.
6%? You have a source that supports this? If this is true, I say we
figure out the "mid air refueling" and get on with energy
independence. Unless of course that diverting 6% of the land is going
to cause people to starve...
>Why haven't we done this?
>Big Oil. They have such a powerful hand in our economy, they can't
>afford to switch.
Detroit is reportedly actually commited to going to hydrogen, which is
maybe not so pleasing to big oil either. Hydrogen is easy to get if
you have the power to electrolyze water.
>Every crude oil refinery in America would be shut
>down.
Nah, you still need lubricants, and you're not going to magically zap
out nor convert all the cars on the road that already burn gasoline
and diesel.
>Thousands of jobs lost, billions in revenues diverted. Foreign
>governments all of a sudden going bankrupt.
I like that foreign govts part - couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of
folks...
Dave Head
Richard Bell
Jeff <jwm...@smsu.edu> wrote:
>A couple of things:
>
>Rail transportation will not work in America as we have too much area
>to cover. The thought of stretching track (steel or magnetic coils)
>from every workplace and domicile in this huge country is mind
>boggling. It's fine to do this from point A to point B, but what
>happens when you have point A to point XYZ? That's a lot of tracks.
>
>A gentleman with the last name of Diesel invented an engine in the
>late 1800's. What fuel did it run on? It wasn't Diesel fuel, that
>was invented by the petroleum companies to capitalize on this new
>engine. Mr. Diesel originally powered his engine on VEGETABLE OIL.
Oddly enough, my reading puts the original fuel as "town gas", a coal
distillate (the first diesels were stationary engines). My late father's
heat engine textbook (1946 edition of book first written in 1904) describes
coal (8 or 9 varieties), charcoal, wood, and peat as fuels, but not vegetable
oils. Town gas is mentioned as an early fuel, but not vegetable oil. Do
you have a source for your claim?
Diesel may have experimented with vegetable oil when he went looking for an
autmotive fuel, but that was after his engine had gone as far as it could
in stationary applications.
>
>So let's review. Take 6% of the arable land in the US, plant hemp or
>soybeans, extract the oils, make biodiesel, and run the ENTIRE United
>States without importing a drop of oil. Why haven't we done this?
Foreign oil is so cheap, that this scheme is wholly unworkable, without
crippling the US economy.
>Big Oil. They have such a powerful hand in our economy, they can't
>afford to switch. Every crude oil refinery in America would be shut
>down. Thousands of jobs lost, billions in revenues diverted. Foreign
>governments all of a sudden going bankrupt. That's the true power in
>America. We all want to be clean, and it wouldn't cost much, but it
>costs the wrong people, the people currently in power. That's the
>answer to your fuel efficiency question. Not can it be done, because
>it can, but can we convince the people in power that it is
>advantageous to do so.
Expect Big Oil to head the charge to biodiesel, when it becomes cheaper
than mineral oil. The refineries will go from fractionating crude to
reforming vegetable oil, but not until it is profitable.
The real reason that the US has not gone for biodiesel is because they have
never been on the losing end of a war, or any other situation where
importing stuff has become difficult, at any price. Britain was perfectly
happy to import food from Australia, until two U-boat campaigns introduced
them to sea denial, and they nearly starved. Japan has absolutely bizarre
agricultural policies that only make sense when you remember the noose of
submarines tightened around the home islands. The US has always been able
to import stuff without hindrance, why will they stop when it will cost
them money, jobs, and profit?
Eric Swanson
There are about 6 Billion people on Earth.
Around 2 Billion are malnourished, ie, unable to buy enough food.
Do you think they are using gasoline??
If the U.S. rate of oil consumption were spread to a larger
population, only (roughly) 1.1 billion would be using oil.
Oil is already in short supply, by these measures.
Don Lancaster
Please clarify how a commodity can be both grossly undervalued and in
short supply at the same time.
Graham Cowan
DPH wrote:
>
> On 26 Nov 2001 01:02:49 -0800, jwm...@smsu.edu (Jeff) wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > So let's review.
Is that what they call it now-a-days.
> > Take 6% of the arable land in the US, plant hemp or
> > soybeans, extract the oils, make biodiesel, and run the
> > ENTIRE United States without importing a drop of oil.
>
> 6%? You have a source that supports this?
If he does, it is a source of nonsense.
(Then again, he may be a primary source.
It's an inexhaustible resource!)
Any kind of biofuel plantation has the handicap
of converting 300 MW/km^2 or less of sunlight
at efficiency of 0.005 or less.
Yield, 1.5 MW/km^2 or much, much less.
10 Mb/d petroleum is 0.65 terawatts.
That will be 440,000 km^2 (or much more).
Perhaps he has a "source" for the United States'
having 7.3 million km^2 of arable land.
-- Graham Cowan
Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room.
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Brad Tittle
> From: "Duke McMullan N5GAX" <Duk...@mail.com>
> Organization: Mine very own self, no others
> Reply-To: "Duke McMullan N5GAX" <Duk...@mail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.engr.mech,rec.autos.tech,sci.energy.hydrogen
> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 22:06:19 -0700
> Subject: Re: Automobile Effeciency?
>
> "Brad Tittle" <bti...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:B825CEB6.4B1A%bti...@charter.net...
>
> (These quotes of Brad's are in reversed order; it makes for a slightly more
> coherent response. --d )
>
>> CO2? CO2 is a necessary trace gas. Heightened
>> CO2 just makes plants grow better.
>
> CO_2 is indeed a trace gas and is indeed necessary. But, from the second
> sentence, strike "just" and insert "some" before "plants".
>
reasonable.
> It's not a question of the presence or absence of CO_2 -- it's a question of
> how much of the stuff is in the atmosphere. Different organisms react
> differently to that concentration.
>
good point.
> Some plants, at least during daylight hours, will photosynthesize better, or
> at
> least at a greater rate, with higher concentrations of CO_2. For others,
> "your
> mileage may vary."
>
excellent.
> Too much -- well above "trace" quantities -- and you start poisoning a
> significant part of the biosphere. Bad juju.
>
Here is the gotcha! What is trace?
Even the most egregious of statements puts current CO2 concentrations at <
1000 ppm. This is less than 0.1% of the atmosphere. I may be wrong, but the
chief mischief CO2 causes in most organisms is at high concentrations, or as
you say, well above trace.
>> Why worry about sequestering CO2? CO2 is not a pollutant. You might argue
>> that CO is a pollutant, but it is also present naturally. SOx and NOx are a
>> little closer to "pollutants".
>
> What constitutes a pollutant is both subjective and relative: One organism's
> food is another's poison, etc., etc.
>
> Increase the CO_2 level, and likely it'll be a pollutant to someone . . . or,
> at least, to some organism.
>
> With any complex system (and the biosphere certainly qualifies as complex),
> you
> can never do exactly one thing. In this case, increasing the CO_2 will have
> different effects on various organisms, and -- this is somewhat
> controversial -- may significantly contribute to global warming (GW).
>
> In the short term, at least, GW is pretty much an established fact. In the
> long term, it's far less certain.
>
Global warming is a necessity, otherwise we would still be in an ice age.
> In both cases, the biggest questions are ones of attribution: How much (if
> any)
> of GW is caused by CO_2 buildup, and how much of that buildup is due to human
> activity?
>
Little to none. I direct your attention skyward for the biggest culprit in
GW. I can't see it right now because the clouds are hiding it. It is also
one of the least understood. Change the solar flux (pick your constituent)
and you change the climate. The solar experts tell us that the solar flux is
constantly changing.
The chance that our paltry additions to the CO2 concentrations (and they are
tiny even in our advanced age) are causing the current "trend" in increased
temperatures (a questionable assertions by itself).
> NOT easy questions to answer.
>
> In any event, few people (with a few exceptions, some rational, some not)
> think
> that it's a bad idea to stop dumping CO_2 into the atmosphere on a large
> scale.
>
I have no problem with coming up with ways of reducing emissions. One of the
benefits of our wealth is the excess capital we have for further research.
Fuel cells are very promising.
> Trouble is, stopping that dump is very expensive and extremely disruptive to
> our societies . . . at least, the more technologically developed ones.
>
So expensive, that if we tried, we would end up causing more pollution than
otherwise. It is the wealth that we have created as a result of the
pollution that allows us to recognize that we have polluted. It is the
advances that have come as a result of the pollution that allow us to start
to address it. The beauty of our system is that if you can make something
and convince people to buy it you can succeed. We can come up with ideas
that address tangible problems in the environment. I will even support
(through my taxes of course) efforts to attack these issues.
CO2 should probably be at the bottom of the list, though. I would actually
dump other problems into CO2 if I could. If I could improve water quality by
increasing CO2 production, I would. If I could reduce CO/SOx/NOx emissions
by increasing CO2, I would. If I have choice between more food or less CO2
(a real choice by the way), I will choose more food.
No matter what we do, I will always choose greater demanded production over
parasitic bureaucracy. We are consumers. We can never get away from this. No
matter how religious you get, you have to eat and drink if you want to see
tomorrow. You can choose to eat and drink comfortably or in squalor. I would
rather be comfortable eating a "Hot Pocket", than wiping grime off of a
rotten potato, wondering if I might be lucky enough to find another.
Too much talk....
> I think I'll stop here, since I haven't time to write an essay (unless
> adequately remunerated ;^), and that's what'll happen in a hurry if I start
> enlarging on any of this.
>
It is so easy to get carried away in this group, and end up spinning your
wheels. Being remunerated for your writing would be an example of how our
wealth generating pollution has helped us.
Graham Cowan
But, because the "parasitic bureaucracy", if they are parasitic,
are to a large extent parasitic on hydrocarbon producers
and consumers, through taxation,
they too will tend to choose greater production (of CO2).
Chris Matthaei
>On 26 Nov 2001 01:02:49 -0800, jwm...@smsu.edu (Jeff) wrote:
>>Another renewable substitute for petroleum is alcohol. Funny cars
>>have been using it for decades, it provides ample enough power,
Just a nit-pick: NHRA funny cars burn Nitromethane. There are many
other drag racing classes that burn alcohol, though.
>Yes and no. You can get more power out of alcohol in an IC engine
>because it doesn't detonate as easily under higher compressions, but
>there's not near as much energy in each gallon of alcohol as there is
>in gasoline. This means stopping every 100 - 150 miles to refill the
>tank, or fitting a really huge tank and then hammering your fuel
>mileage, handling, acceleration, etc. because of the extra weight.
>Alcohol kinda needs a "mid air refueling" scheme to work best, so you
>don't have to stop so often.
Interesting that you see this as a problem that can't be simply solved
with larger fuel tanks, but later mention H2, which has 10x the storage
problems of alcohol.
>>So let's review. Take 6% of the arable land in the US, plant hemp or
>>soybeans, extract the oils, make biodiesel, and run the ENTIRE United
>>States without importing a drop of oil.
>6%? You have a source that supports this? If this is true, I say we
>figure out the "mid air refueling" and get on with energy
>independence. Unless of course that diverting 6% of the land is going
>to cause people to starve...
Biodiesel has an even higher energy density than gasoline, so there's no
need for "mid-air refueling". I still question that 6% figure, though.
>>Why haven't we done this?
>>Big Oil. They have such a powerful hand in our economy, they can't
>>afford to switch.
>Detroit is reportedly actually commited to going to hydrogen, which is
>maybe not so pleasing to big oil either. Hydrogen is easy to get if
>you have the power to electrolyze water.
Waste of electricity.
Chris
Don Lancaster
> >Detroit is reportedly actually commited to going to hydrogen, which is
> >maybe not so pleasing to big oil either. Hydrogen is easy to get if
> >you have the power to electrolyze water.
>
> Waste of electricity.
>
> Chris
But only if you are interested in converting two kilowatt hours worth twenty
cents into one kilowatt hour worth 0.8 cents.
Electrolysis for bulk energy apps is really, really dumb.
The process is exactly the same as converting two us dollars into one
mexican peso.
See http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>> In article <3C01642D...@quiotix.com>, j...@quiotix.com says...
>> >
>> >Eric Swanson wrote:
>> >> For most people, it won't be available for use.
>> >
>> >Sure it will, the way gold or even bottled water (currently more
>> >expensive than oil) is available for use. They just won't be able to
>> >afford to use as much of it. They'll be more careful and budget
>> >conscious.
>>
>> There are about 6 Billion people on Earth.
>> Around 2 Billion are malnourished, ie, unable to buy enough food.
>> Do you think they are using gasoline??
>>
>> If the U.S. rate of oil consumption were spread to a larger
>> population, only (roughly) 1.1 billion would be using oil.
>>
>> Oil is already in short supply, by these measures.
>Please clarify how a commodity can be both grossly undervalued and in
>short supply at the same time.
"Imperfect" distribution.
In Afganistan (and elsewhere), food is in short supply.
In the U.S., it is not.
The U.S. textile industry is in serious decline, while the
imports of textiles from developing nations is booming.
Have you looked at the label on your undies lately?
We have been financing out binge with a $300 Billion plus
trade deficit for the past few years.
As more manufacturing jobs move away from the U.S.,
I suspect that these market imperfections will be resolved.
Bernd Felsche
>In article <53bd2a28.01112...@posting.google.com>,
>Jeff <jwm...@smsu.edu> wrote:
>>Rail transportation will not work in America as we have too much area
>>to cover. The thought of stretching track (steel or magnetic coils)
>>from every workplace and domicile in this huge country is mind
>>boggling. It's fine to do this from point A to point B, but what
>>happens when you have point A to point XYZ? That's a lot of tracks.
>>
>>A gentleman with the last name of Diesel invented an engine in the
>>late 1800's. What fuel did it run on? It wasn't Diesel fuel, that
>>was invented by the petroleum companies to capitalize on this new
>>engine. Mr. Diesel originally powered his engine on VEGETABLE OIL.
>Oddly enough, my reading puts the original fuel as "town gas", a
>coal distillate (the first diesels were stationary engines). My
>late father's heat engine textbook (1946 edition of book first
>written in 1904) describes coal (8 or 9 varieties), charcoal, wood,
>and peat as fuels, but not vegetable oils. Town gas is mentioned
>as an early fuel, but not vegetable oil. Do you have a source for
>your claim?
>Diesel may have experimented with vegetable oil when he went
>looking for an autmotive fuel, but that was after his engine had
>gone as far as it could in stationary applications.
The limitation was (IIRC - not that I'm that old) with the injection
technology.
>>So let's review. Take 6% of the arable land in the US, plant hemp or
>>soybeans, extract the oils, make biodiesel, and run the ENTIRE United
>>States without importing a drop of oil. Why haven't we done this?
>Foreign oil is so cheap, that this scheme is wholly unworkable, without
>crippling the US economy.
It's cheap in North America and possibly the Gulf.
In Europe, it's sufficiently expensive to have biodiesel as a viable
alternative. It's made mainly from rapeseed (aka canola).
>>Big Oil. They have such a powerful hand in our economy, they can't
>>afford to switch. Every crude oil refinery in America would be shut
>>down. Thousands of jobs lost, billions in revenues diverted. Foreign
>>governments all of a sudden going bankrupt. That's the true power in
>>America. We all want to be clean, and it wouldn't cost much, but it
>>costs the wrong people, the people currently in power. That's the
>>answer to your fuel efficiency question. Not can it be done, because
>>it can, but can we convince the people in power that it is
>>advantageous to do so.
>Expect Big Oil to head the charge to biodiesel, when it becomes cheaper
>than mineral oil. The refineries will go from fractionating crude to
>reforming vegetable oil, but not until it is profitable.
Depends on the tax regime.
>The real reason that the US has not gone for biodiesel is because
>they have never been on the losing end of a war, or any other
>situation where importing stuff has become difficult, at any price.
>Britain was perfectly happy to import food from Australia, until
>two U-boat campaigns introduced them to sea denial, and they nearly
I think you're exaggerating Australia's contribution to Britain's
larder in those times. Canada was more significant.
>starved. Japan has absolutely bizarre agricultural policies that
>only make sense when you remember the noose of submarines tightened
>around the home islands. The US has always been able to import
>stuff without hindrance, why will they stop when it will cost them
>money, jobs, and profit?
Ahh... and the oil crisis of the 1970's was a figment of my
imagination? Remember the time when diesel "Rabbits" were the car to
buy?
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! |
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature|
/ \ and postings | to help me spread! |
Liz Riley
> Set the tiny train in motion and see how long it pendulums to and
>fro in its vacuum.
Does this tiny train have passengers?
Scale it up and carry thousands of passengers, and see the phenomenal
amount wasted on friction, maintaining the (partial) vacuum and
generating all that electricity for whooshing the train down this
partial vacuum.
Don Widders
"DPH" <rall...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:k0d40u0cm51sl23h7...@4ax.com...<snipisimo>
> Detroit is reportedly actually commited to going to hydrogen, which is
> maybe not so pleasing to big oil either. Hydrogen is easy to get if
> you have the power to electrolyze water.
>
Therein lies the rub! From where will all that power come? Call me a
doomsayer, but I believe we will incorporate many solutions to the problem
of crude oil depletion and still come up short of energy to maintain status
quo. Big time reduction in energy consumption will be unavoidable and not
necessarily a bad thing.
Don Widders
Jeff
approved by VW in Germany for use in some of their vehicles. There
are no legislated standards for it yet, but there are government
guidlines and continuing education/research.
What evidence do I have that Diesel used vegetable oil? I don't have
any websites, unfortunately, but if someone is willing to corroborate,
in the 1900 World's Fair he used peanut oil to power his new engine.
I think that qualifies.
A couple of questions for other respondents:
What are the benefits of higher combustion temperatures? Gasoline's
flash point is lower than diesel fuel, so it cannot be under as much
pressure (detonation/ping/knock) So with a higher flash point, you
could yield a higher compression, yielding more power? Or is this
flawed logic?
I admit that alcohol is not a perfect automotive fuel, as it not only
has inferior power-producing capabilities to gasoline, but is also
more corrosive to certain metals in automobile engines/fuel systems.
I was just suggesting it as a readily available and cheap alternative
to gasoline. BTW, last time I checked, alcohol was not a carcinogen,
and gasoline was. But that's neither here nor there, this is an
efficiency issue.
So, the ultimate in fuel efficient vehicles (for now): A very small
Diesel turbine (with catalyst to clean emissions) powering an electric
generator for an all-wheel drive vehicle. The vehicle has electric
motors on all four wheels, selectively engaged for optimum
acceleration, handling, and reversible to scavenge electricity from
braking to be fed into a bank of batteries.
What needs to happen to bring this vehicle to fruition? More
efficient batteries, for one. The current high capacity battery is
rediculously heavy, and loses a lot of energy in the storage/release
process. I am also not entirely sure one the effect of high voltage
on human physiology. Something to be researched more in the coming
days.
Sorry if I'm rambling, too vast a topic for me to be concise on my
reply.
Open to comment!!
Richard Bell
The original injection was with compressed air, which made mobile engines
impractical. His fuel of choice (which turned out to be impractical) was
coal dust (to directly compete with steam).
>
>>>So let's review. Take 6% of the arable land in the US, plant hemp or
>>>soybeans, extract the oils, make biodiesel, and run the ENTIRE United
>>>States without importing a drop of oil. Why haven't we done this?
>
>>Foreign oil is so cheap, that this scheme is wholly unworkable, without
>>crippling the US economy.
>
>It's cheap in North America and possibly the Gulf.
>
>In Europe, it's sufficiently expensive to have biodiesel as a viable
>alternative. It's made mainly from rapeseed (aka canola).
Different tax scheme. All oil is sold at the price for West Texas crude.
Brazil has problems importing oil (which is why they grow as much of their
own fuel as they can). The first world economies can easily afford crude oil.
>
>>>Big Oil. They have such a powerful hand in our economy, they can't
>>>afford to switch. Every crude oil refinery in America would be shut
>>>down. Thousands of jobs lost, billions in revenues diverted. Foreign
>>>governments all of a sudden going bankrupt. That's the true power in
>>>America. We all want to be clean, and it wouldn't cost much, but it
>>>costs the wrong people, the people currently in power. That's the
>>>answer to your fuel efficiency question. Not can it be done, because
>>>it can, but can we convince the people in power that it is
>>>advantageous to do so.
>
>>Expect Big Oil to head the charge to biodiesel, when it becomes cheaper
>>than mineral oil. The refineries will go from fractionating crude to
>>reforming vegetable oil, but not until it is profitable.
>
>Depends on the tax regime.
>
>>The real reason that the US has not gone for biodiesel is because
>>they have never been on the losing end of a war, or any other
>>situation where importing stuff has become difficult, at any price.
>>Britain was perfectly happy to import food from Australia, until
>>two U-boat campaigns introduced them to sea denial, and they nearly
>
>I think you're exaggerating Australia's contribution to Britain's
>larder in those times. Canada was more significant.
Canada, Australia, these are both places very far from Britain. The
point made was that before WWI, Britain made no attempt to be self
sufficient in food, as it was cheaper to import canadian wheat and meat
from Australia and New Zealand.
>
>>starved. Japan has absolutely bizarre agricultural policies that
>>only make sense when you remember the noose of submarines tightened
>>around the home islands. The US has always been able to import
>>stuff without hindrance, why will they stop when it will cost them
>>money, jobs, and profit?
>
>Ahh... and the oil crisis of the 1970's was a figment of my
>imagination? Remember the time when diesel "Rabbits" were the car to
>buy?
Yes, I do. However, the oil embargo does not compare to the hunger years
of the Netherlands or the fuel privations of Vichy France, where the
only available fuel for a car was distilled from wood. OPEC flexed its
muscle to demonstrate arab disapproval of the US aid to Israel, but they
did not cut the US off, merely raised the price by limiting supply.
Diesel "Rabbits became the vehicle of choice because, by any standard, US
automakers produced a uniform line of automotive junk, but, before people
noticed that they were expensive to fuel, nobody seemed to care.
The enduring commercial success of the Ford Crown Victoria (admittedly only
about two thirds as heavy as it was 30 years ago) shows that the '73 oil
embargo was not that bad.
South Africa had a real fuel embargo, they had to make fuel from coal, because
noone would sell them oil at any price.
Tom Martin
>
> A couple of things:
>
> Rail transportation will not work in America as we have too much area
> to cover. The thought of stretching track (steel or magnetic coils)
> from every workplace and domicile in this huge country is mind
> boggling. It's fine to do this from point A to point B, but what
> happens when you have point A to point XYZ? That's a lot of tracks.
>
> A gentleman with the last name of Diesel invented an engine in the
> late 1800's. What fuel did it run on? It wasn't Diesel fuel, that
> was invented by the petroleum companies to capitalize on this new
> engine. Mr. Diesel originally powered his engine on VEGETABLE OIL.
> That's right, the plants that grow power the vehicles that go.
I suggest you revisit the Disel Engine and it's development.
Diesel's engine was to be run off coal dust, that's why his
backers, the Coal & Iron barons of Germany were more than
miffed when his design did not pan out. Germany had millions
of tons of coal dust & no oil.
That the engine, we know today as a Diesel engine, was not
what Diesel set out to achieve and really owns more to Akroyd
of the UK.
Tom
JT
> > Set the tiny train in motion and see how long it pendulums to and
> >fro in its vacuum.
>
> Does this tiny train have passengers?
>
> Scale it up and carry thousands of passengers, and see the phenomenal
> amount wasted on friction, maintaining the (partial) vacuum and
> generating all that electricity for whooshing the train down this
> partial vacuum.
>
other than a novelty. I don't think maintaining the high order partial
vacuum or accelerating and decelerating the train down the tunnel/pipe are
terribly high on the list of things that make the idea impractical.
Developing the vacuum in the first place would be. Pumping down a chamber
(the tunnel/pipe) effectively millions of cubic meters in size would be a
major challenge.
The cost of the tunnel would be phenomenal and this would I think be the
main obstacle.
I wouldn't use DC magnetic levitation. I would use AC levitation with the
magnets just aboard the train. This would allow the track to be just
conductive plates imbedded in the tunnel wall. The lack of efficiency for
short durations wouldn't be a huge penalty.
The train itself would require self contained life support systems and power
systems. It would also need to contain and power part of the magnetic
levitation system possibly with cryo-cooled conductors.
How to rescue persons on the train if something went wrong, such as
levitation failing and the train landing and stranding mid tunnel, would
also be an obstacle.
Even if all the obstacles could be overcome all of the energy and time
penalties still required would need to be offset by travelling fairly large
distances at very high speeds.
JT.
Richard Schumacher
> > Detroit is reportedly actually commited to going to hydrogen, which is
> > maybe not so pleasing to big oil either. Hydrogen is easy to get if
> > you have the power to electrolyze water.
>
> Therein lies the rub! From where will all that power come? Call me a
> doomsayer, but I believe we will incorporate many solutions to the problem
> of crude oil depletion and still come up short of energy to maintain status
> quo. Big time reduction in energy consumption will be unavoidable and not
> necessarily a bad thing.
In alphabetical order :_> nuclear, Solar, and wind.
But the biggest problems with hydrogen are storage and distribution.
The liquid is very difficult to handle because of extremely low
temperature, very low density and embrittlement of common metals.
Gaseous H2
is perfectly safe, but the density problem is obviously worse.
Metal hydrides are very heavy for their energy density. Solutions
to these problems are not at all clear; we may never have a
hydrogen economy.
Richard Schumacher
> So, the ultimate in fuel efficient vehicles (for now): A very small
> Diesel turbine (with catalyst to clean emissions) powering an electric
> generator for an all-wheel drive vehicle. The vehicle has electric
> motors on all four wheels, selectively engaged for optimum
> acceleration, handling, and reversible to scavenge electricity from
> braking to be fed into a bank of batteries.
Add "low sulfur Diesel fuel". You need less than, uhh,
about 20 ppm sulfur to avoid producing particulates. 10 ppm
is the standard now in Korea (and the EC?), in the US in 2006.
BioDiesel
is naturally low in sulfur, by the way; after filtering, used
cooking oil and soybean oil have been used as an (almost)
direct substitute for petroDiesel.
And I'd bet on an ICE rather than a turbine. No R&D
required.
> What needs to happen to bring this vehicle to fruition? More
> efficient batteries, for one. The current high capacity battery is
> rediculously heavy, and loses a lot of energy in the storage/release
> process.
NiMH batteries are about good enough now. Ultracapacitors will
help.
> I am also not entirely sure one the effect of high voltage
> on human physiology.
None at all when properly insulated and shielded. Not a
problem.
JT
> Diesel turbine (with catalyst to clean emissions) powering an electric
> generator for an all-wheel drive vehicle. The vehicle has electric
> motors on all four wheels, selectively engaged for optimum
> acceleration, handling, and reversible to scavenge electricity from
> braking to be fed into a bank of batteries.
>
> What needs to happen to bring this vehicle to fruition? More
> efficient batteries, for one. The current high capacity battery is
> rediculously heavy, and loses a lot of energy in the storage/release
> process. I am also not entirely sure one the effect of high voltage
> on human physiology. Something to be researched more in the coming
> days.
>
two things that affect the energy consumption/performance of a vehicle.
Aerodynamic drag and weight. Your ideas relate mostly to improving drive
train efficiency. If those ideas add a large weight penalty over a more
conventional vehicle the overall efficiency or performance could suffer.
Take the regenerative braking for instance it requires the addition of a lot
of extra weight in the form of batteries. The highway efficiency/performance
is likely to suffer as a result as the brakes are hardly used here. The
vehicle has to lug all this extra weight up hills, its rolling resistance is
higher due to the weight, and it's acceleration is either worse or requires
more power (more power equals higher fuel consumption) because of the
weight. Don't think it is only battery weight that you add too. The vehicle
structure would be beefed up along with the suspension, axles, wheels, and
friction brakes (yes you would still require them). The volume occupied by
the batteries tends to reduce the utility of the vehicle also. While this
all sounds like a bit of a death knell for regenerative braking you would
have to put some numbers on it to tell for sure.
I suspect that with the turbine generator-motor combo you would need the
load levelling of batteries anyway to keep the turbine running at optimum.
JT.
m...@here.com
> Did some more research on diesel/biodiesel. Biodiesel is currently
> approved by VW in Germany for use in some of their vehicles. There
> are no legislated standards for it yet, but there are government
> guidlines and continuing education/research.
> What evidence do I have that Diesel used vegetable oil? I don't have
> any websites, unfortunately, but if someone is willing to corroborate,
> in the 1900 World's Fair he used peanut oil to power his new engine.
> I think that qualifies.
> A couple of questions for other respondents:
> What are the benefits of higher combustion temperatures?
Higher efficiency. Also, if one could make an adiabatic
engine, that would also improve efficiency quite a bit.
Alas, high temperature engines are rather demanding on both
the engine oil and material (ceramics were tried, but without
much success)
> Gasoline's
> flash point is lower than diesel fuel, so it cannot be under as much
> pressure (detonation/ping/knock) So with a higher flash point, you
> could yield a higher compression, yielding more power? Or is this
> flawed logic?
Higher flash point doesn't necessarily translate into higher
combustion temperature (that's the one that really matters)
but aside from that, it's more or less true.
> I admit that alcohol is not a perfect automotive fuel, as it not only
> has inferior power-producing capabilities to gasoline, but is also
> more corrosive to certain metals in automobile engines/fuel systems.
> I was just suggesting it as a readily available and cheap alternative
> to gasoline. BTW, last time I checked, alcohol was not a carcinogen,
> and gasoline was.
Regardless, alcohol is not very healthy either.
> So, the ultimate in fuel efficient vehicles (for now): A very small
> Diesel turbine (with catalyst to clean emissions) powering an electric
> generator for an all-wheel drive vehicle. The vehicle has electric
> motors on all four wheels, selectively engaged for optimum
> acceleration, handling, and reversible to scavenge electricity from
> braking to be fed into a bank of batteries.
I don't like the idea of two conversion processes -- I think
a computer controlled engine and transmission driving the
rear wheels with the front wheels having a small electric motors
to be used for extreme acceleration/ 4WD / breaking would
be better given the current state of the technology.
Jeffrey Siegal
> Gaseous H2 is perfectly safe, but the density problem is obviously worse.
Not perfectly safe. While small quantities of H2 are relatively safe
out in the open because of its tendency to rapidly dissipate upward, in
enclosed areas (garages, tunnels, etc.) it can readily form highly
explosive mixtures with air. Of course, other forms of storage which
can release H2 into the air (liquid, etc.) are pretty much the same.
Gordon Couger
"Jeffrey Siegal" <j...@quiotix.com> wrote in message
news:3C044734...@quiotix.com...
a bigger mess somewhere else so you can have a clean car in town.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Eric Swanson
>
>So, the ultimate in fuel efficient vehicles (for now): A very small
>Diesel turbine (with catalyst to clean emissions) powering an electric
>generator for an all-wheel drive vehicle. The vehicle has electric
>motors on all four wheels, selectively engaged for optimum
>acceleration, handling, and reversible to scavenge electricity from
>braking to be fed into a bank of batteries.
Don't you mean turbo diesel, instead of diesel turbine??
>What needs to happen to bring this vehicle to fruition? More
>efficient batteries, for one. The current high capacity battery is
>rediculously heavy, and loses a lot of energy in the storage/release
>process.
Amory Lovins proposed the "Hypercar" a few years ago. He used a similar
concept, but with a light weight carbon fiber body shell to save weight.
I think his design concept has changed considerably since.
One big problem is that the 4x4 electric motors need to be big enough to
stop the vehicle. This can be thought as brake horsepower.
Just as it takes a certain horsepower to accelerate a vehicle from
a stop, the size of the motors must be big enough to provide most of
the stopping power. Also, the car must have a regular braking system to
handle the stopping power in situations in which the motors are no longer
available, or when faster stops are required. Think of the "horsepower"
needed to stop a vehicle from 65 mph within 250 feet. It's quite large.
The result would be very high currents, which overwhelm the batteries.
Little of the energy is stored, as a result. The alternative is smaller
motors, but then the amount of energy recovered during a stop is even less.
Finally, having motors in the wheels increases the unsprung weight,
which makes the ride quality much worse. On smooth roads, things would
not be too bad, but on rough roads (can you say SUV?) the car would
ride like a truck.
Greg Locock
In article <STTM7.39933$xS6....@www.newsranger.com>, Greg Locock says...
>
>In article <20011126040937...@mb-cs.aol.com>, J. Todd Wasson says...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dave,
>>>
>>>The net difference in measured hp on an engine dyno and measured rear
>>>wheel hp on a chassis dyno is usually about 33%. The figure is
>>>approximately correct for stock engines. As engines are modified to
>>>produce more hp the ratio changes as the driveline friction remains the
>>>same but in no case does it ever approach anything like 3%... 20% maybe.
>>>
>>>Dean
>>>
>>>David B Brownell wrote:
>>>
>>>>A gasoline engine is around 22% efficient--not 33% as someone said.
>>>>Only diesels can achieve efficiencies of 33% and higher. I am, of
>>>>course, excluding large steam turbines/systems.
>>>>
>>>>As far as losses in an automobile drive line, this is in fact very low
>>>>once the torque converter is locked up--less than 3%. (not 33%) In
>>>>the case of a manual transmission the losses are less. These numbers
>>>>also include the third member as part of the 'transmission.'
>>>>
>>>>Dave Brownell
>>>>
>>>>DB Technologies
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dean,
>>
>> This is what I've heard countless times as well and have never really seen an
>>end to the debate. I wrote and sell a 1/4 mile predictor program for drag
>>racing and was puzzled to see this same issue pop up. With my sim work, I've
>>found the numbers you're referring to give accurate timed predictions, right in
>>conjunction with tests from car enthusiast magazines and so forth (75-85%
>>mechanical efficiency). One competitor of mine (Quarter and Quarter Jr.
>>programs from http://quarterjr.com ) uses much higher values, more along the
>>lines of what Dave mentioned, 95+% efficiency. It's puzzling, because I got
>>the same timed performance as Quarter did on one test when using real world
>>numbers pulled from dyno tests like you're referring to as Quarter did with the
>>higher efficiencies... Wierd. Anyone have an idea why this might be?
>>
>> My other competitors use the lower efficiency numbers as well. We all get
>>about the same accuracy though, even though the numbers are so different than
>>with Quarter and Quarter Jr. I finally assumed that Quarter and Quarter Jr
>>might have a built in efficiency somewhere...
>>
>> All I know for sure is that folks that do dyno testing and have seen numbers
>>for both chassis and flywheel tests on the same engine say exactly what you're
>>saying about the low efficiencies, yet most engineers immediately balk at the
>>notion of anything worse than 95% or so efficiency being observed... Any idea
>>what could really be going on there?
>>
>> Also, at the risk of getting too long here with this post, I included an
>>option for assuming a fixed torque loss due to friction through the driveline,
>>as it turns out assuming a constant mechanical efficiency turns out to not be
>>such an accurate situation as the frictional losses would merely follow the
>>shape of the torque curve... I assumed this was right because the program's
>>test results usually are very close to reality with both methods if you have
>>good input data. In other words, is it safe to assume that one particular
>>driveline might exhibit 75 foot-lbs torque loss through the driveline at all
>>engine speeds (or whatever amount, but the point being that the torque loss
>>stays constant)?
>>
>> (BTW, to the original poster, I don't know how the 60% Otto efficiency
>>becomes 20% car efficiency)
>
>I'll add to the confusion. The measured efficiency of our standard diff is to be
>'not less than 95%'. The manual box is around 98% efficient in 3rd 4th and 5th,
>somewhat worse in 1st and 2nd. You will also get some drag from the wheel
>bearings, and of course the rolling resistance of the tyres, which is heavily
>non linear.
>
>I think you are safer assuming that the friction loses are torque dependent
>rather than constant.
>
>Do you include the referred rotational inertia of the engine (in particular) in
>your predictions? It can be a surprisingly large proportion of the resistance,
>even of a street car, equivalent to 25% of the vehicle mass.
>
>Cheers
>
>Greg Locock
>
>
>
>
Doug Dwyer
A very valuable discussion .
The first advance of the 17/18C was to lower friction (iron rails and
wheels or canals) so that the expensive (one or two man to maintain)
horse could pull more.
When, not if, fuel gets much more expensive low friction will return
hopefully we will still have free will the question is how to have
individual vehicles and low friction, I vote for increased complexity
and light weight. Regeneration goes without saying not necessarily
electrical, regenerative braking with compressed air storage? A graceful
changeover is to be hoped for otherwise the fuel wars could be a grim
reality especially if you are sitting on top of the stuf.
Before In article <9u37ob$4e6l$1...@news3.infoave.net>, Eric Swanson
<swanson@nospam_on.net> writes
--
Doug Dwyer
Richard Schumacher
> Don't you mean turbo diesel, instead of diesel turbine??
He probably *should* have meant "turbo Diesel", but he did
mean "Diesel turbine" :_>
> One big problem is that the 4x4 electric motors need to be big
> enough to
> stop the vehicle. This can be thought as brake horsepower.
A "big" problem? The drive motors are certainly capable of
decelerating the vehicle at the same rate that they can accelerate
it. To the
extent that the energy storage system can absorb that energy,
it's a freebie. (We can expect further improvements in electrical
storage technology.) Any excess generated by faster braking rates
is easily dissipated.
Mechanical brakes are of course required for panic stops and
a safety backup.
> Finally, having motors in the wheels increases the unsprung weight,
> which makes the ride quality much worse. On smooth roads, things would
> not be too bad, but on rough roads (can you say SUV?) the car would
> ride like a truck.
Hmm, did he suggest putting motors in the wheels?
That would be a mistake, for exactly the reasons you cite.
For an example of a "pure" electric drive hybrid vehicle,
see
http://www.uqm.com/Technologies/programs/hummer.html
for a description of two versions of electric drive hybrid Diesel
Hummers. The 9100 lb tactical version does zero-50 in 8 seconds (!)
16 MPG for the utility version is double the economy of the standard
drive model.
DPH
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
>
>"DPH" <rall...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:k0d40u0cm51sl23h7...@4ax.com...
>> On 26 Nov 2001 01:02:49 -0800, jwm...@smsu.edu (Jeff) wrote:
><snipisimo>
>> Detroit is reportedly actually commited to going to hydrogen, which is
>> maybe not so pleasing to big oil either. Hydrogen is easy to get if
>> you have the power to electrolyze water.
>>
>> Dave Head
>
>Therein lies the rub! From where will all that power come?
Nuclear
Wind
Solar (PV)
Solar (Thermal)
Tidal
Geothermal
Hydro
> Call me a
>doomsayer, but I believe we will incorporate many solutions to the problem
>of crude oil depletion and still come up short of energy to maintain status
>quo. Big time reduction in energy consumption will be unavoidable and not
>necessarily a bad thing.
Its necessarily a bad thing if we can only use it to go back and forth
to work, but can't use any to have a good time with, as in some fuel
rationing scheme.
DPH
>
>Don Widders
>
DPH
wrote:
>Chris Matthaei wrote:
>
>> >Detroit is reportedly actually commited to going to hydrogen, which is
>> >maybe not so pleasing to big oil either. Hydrogen is easy to get if
>> >you have the power to electrolyze water.
>>
>> Waste of electricity.
>>
>> Chris
>
>But only if you are interested in converting two kilowatt hours worth twenty
>cents into one kilowatt hour worth 0.8 cents.
>
>Electrolysis for bulk energy apps is really, really dumb.
>
>The process is exactly the same as converting two us dollars into one
>mexican peso.
>
>See http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
Its not dumb if it somehow solves a problem with no current solution.
That is, if you have a vast electrical grid with way-cheap energy, but
it can't be used to power individual automobiles to perform in a
manner similar to the way they do now (acceleration, handling,
independence of wires strung all over the place) then it does indeed
make sense to use said electric grid to electrolyze water to put into
a tank that can power said car to the corners of the country, where
there may or may not be an electric grid or a way to get the
electricity off the grid and into the moving vehicle where its needed.
DPH
Don Widders
Batteries are not a current <no pun intended> solution? Commercially made
batteries exist; commercially made battery chargers exist; even commercially
built battery-operated vehicles exist in many colors and brands.
Commercially built electrolyzers are prohibitively expensive. No safe and
reasonable way has yet been developed to store and transport the hydrogen in
your vehicle. I know of not one single hydrogen powered vehicle
commercially available today.
What appeals to you about driving a hydrogen powered vehicle?
Don Widders
Don Widders
to produce all the energy we now get from crude oil. 80 million barrels a
day of nuclear is really a lot. Nuclear power most likely will take up the
bulk of the slack.
For all the same reasons that a tiny fraction of our power now comes from
wind it's not likely to ever generate enough electricity to replace even 10
million barrels of oil a day. And remember that this is a discussion of
electrolysis. Lots of extremely expensive electrolyzers might be able to
make 10 million barrels a day worth of hydrogen using 15 million barrels per
day worth of electricity. Less expensive electrolyzers are less efficient
and would require as much as 20 barrels worth each day.
Until PV technology gets a LOT less expensive and a lot more efficient it
isn't even worth commenting on.
The best solar (Thermal) devices are the oceans. There is a lot of
hydroelectric power to be developed. Of all the 'clean' energy sources
available, hydroelectric is by far the most economical. Even if it is
possible to develop 80 million barrels a day worth of hydroelectric power
over the next 30 years, that energy is just too valuable to throw away on
electrolysis.
In which coming year do you expect to own your first hydrogen powered car?
I may be willing to wager it won't happen.
Don Widders
Gordon Couger
"Graham Cowan" <gco...@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:3BFD2B41...@eagle.ca...
>
>
> Tony Pelliccio wrote:
> >
> > In article <9tj5k5$1ipr$1...@news.hal-pc.org>, char...@hal-pc.org says...
> > >
> > > Mark Jones <mailto:helios...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Fa%K7.200150$W8.75...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > This is just my rambling thoughs, but what kind of effeciency could
we
> > > > expect if the current automobile concept was scrapped and instead
> > > > computer-controlled magnetic coils or rails were built in the
existing
> > > > roadway? The new "car" would levitate much like a maglev train does.
> > > > Magnetic friction is almost nil- there goes all of the tranny and
tire
> > > > losses, and most of the engine loss too. If the traffic was
> > > > computer-controlled, the autos could be very light, since accidents
would
> > > be
> > > > almost impossible.
> > > >
> > > > I know the idea has a lot of holes in it, but it's intriguing. I'm
sure
> > > > we'll see all kinds of "neat stuff" happen before oil's all said and
done
> > > > with.
> > > >
> > >
> > > (big cut)
> > >
> > > Indeed. Some of the "neat stuff" would involve litigation against ?
when
> > > there was a computer glitch and several hundred cars crashed, killing
> > > several hundred occupants. The big question:
> > > Would the motoring public be willing to put their lives in the "hands"
of an
> > > emotionless machine?
> >
> > More than ever before we're gradually accepting the role of
> > advanced technology in our cars. Right now it's just engine
> > and drivetrain management but in the future our cars WILL
> > take a more active roll ...
>
> But there will always be those of who prefer straight and level.
>
> Guidance systems will need to be a tad more reliable than
> those of smart bombs in the recent news, won't they.
>
The guys that write software for antilock brakes take their work pretty
serious. And there are some fighters that are to unstable for a human to
fly.
But I don't see a computer controlled roadway ever because there is no way
to get rid of the old cars and get everybody working on the same page. I
have been around a computer standards committee for trucks and I don't think
that there could ever be a good enough standard to assure a safe computer
controlled road.
DPH
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
>"DPH" <rall...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:6i6b0u8jctvjp2orm...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:38:56 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Its not dumb if it somehow solves a problem with no current solution.
>> That is, if you have a vast electrical grid with way-cheap energy, but
>> it can't be used to power individual automobiles to perform in a
>> manner similar to the way they do now (acceleration, handling,
>> independence of wires strung all over the place) then it does indeed
>> make sense to use said electric grid to electrolyze water to put into
>> a tank that can power said car to the corners of the country, where
>> there may or may not be an electric grid or a way to get the
>> electricity off the grid and into the moving vehicle where its needed.
>>
>> DPH
>
>Batteries are not a current <no pun intended> solution? Commercially made
>batteries exist; commercially made battery chargers exist; even commercially
>built battery-operated vehicles exist in many colors and brands.
No, batteries are not a solution. Car companies have been trying to
build a viable electric car for decades. They just can't figure out
how to store enough electricity to make cars perform like the do now
with gasoline. Generally, prototype cars that are built this way are
very much shorter in range, require long times to recharge the
batteries, and don't perform as well as gasoline engine cars. They
have to perform as well as gasoline engine cars or people won't buy
them, except for commuting around town in the case where people are
rich enough to own a car just for this purpose.
>Commercially built electrolyzers are prohibitively expensive. No safe and
>reasonable way has yet been developed to store and transport the hydrogen in
>your vehicle. I know of not one single hydrogen powered vehicle
>commercially available today.
Detroit is working on them, and hopes to be more successful than they
have been with sticking the energy into electric batteries.
>What appeals to you about driving a hydrogen powered vehicle?
Nothing in particular about the vehicle.
Lots of environmentalists like the emissions performance - I'm not a
greenie and don't really much care about that.
I do like the energy independence idea - we have lotsa water. Don't
have to import it from a bunch of people that are always fighting with
each other, and continuously trying to drag us into it.
Dave Head
>Don Widders
>
DPH
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
I'm not sure we really disagree, since I never meant to imply that we
could do it with existing nuclear plants. We would have to build
more plants, and probably revive the breeder reactor idea.
>For all the same reasons that a tiny fraction of our power now comes from
>wind it's not likely to ever generate enough electricity to replace even 10
>million barrels of oil a day.
I agree that wind will always be limited. There is only so much wind.
> And remember that this is a discussion of
>electrolysis. Lots of extremely expensive electrolyzers might be able to
>make 10 million barrels a day worth of hydrogen using 15 million barrels per
>day worth of electricity. Less expensive electrolyzers are less efficient
>and would require as much as 20 barrels worth each day.
I also am not necessarily convinced that this is the ultimate idea. I
think it would be better to convert roads to rails, put individual
automobiles on railcars, and ship them down the road at a much higher
speed than they could drive it, running on nuclear power (and wind,
and solar, etc.) at much better efficiency than would be possible with
the electrolyzation of water.
>Until PV technology gets a LOT less expensive and a lot more efficient it
>isn't even worth commenting on.
I am assuming that all the work going on toward making PV more
efficient and less expensive will ultimately be successful. This may
not, however, occur in our lifetimes.
>The best solar (Thermal) devices are the oceans. There is a lot of
>hydroelectric power to be developed. Of all the 'clean' energy sources
>available, hydroelectric is by far the most economical. Even if it is
>possible to develop 80 million barrels a day worth of hydroelectric power
>over the next 30 years, that energy is just too valuable to throw away on
>electrolysis.
Yep.
There are solar-thermal generators that are much higher efficiency
than the equivalent PV output, or so I understand. The desert
southwest could account for some really nice boost in our overall
energy equation, if it were so exploited.
>In which coming year do you expect to own your first hydrogen powered car?
>I may be willing to wager it won't happen.
I can't remember when Detroit said they thought they would be ready.
I think 2010. Doesn't necessarily mean that the energy supply people
will be ready with the hydrogen, however.
Dave Head
>Don Widders
>
>
Axel Berger
>In Europe, it's sufficiently expensive to have biodiesel as a viable
>alternative. It's made mainly from rapeseed (aka canola).
No, it is subsidized. Fuel sold at petrol stations is rather highly
taxes, exempting one kind of fuel from that tax is just as much a kind
of subsidy as, making up a stupid example, exempting one chain of
stores from value added tax would be.
--
Tschö wa
Axel
Don Widders
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:42:28 -0800, "Don Widders"
> <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
>
> >Batteries are not a current <no pun intended> solution? Commercially
made
> >batteries exist; commercially made battery chargers exist; even
commercially
> >built battery-operated vehicles exist in many colors and brands.
>
> No, batteries are not a solution. Car companies have been
> trying to build a viable electric car for decades. They just
> can't figure out how to store enough electricity to make cars
> perform like the do now with gasoline.
Yes, gasoline is amazing stuff. Car companies have been trying to build a
viable hydrogen car for a while too, and can't figure out how to store
enough hydrogen to make cars perform like they do now with gasoline.
> Generally, prototype cars that are built this way are very
> much shorter in range, require long times to recharge the
> batteries, and don't perform as well as gasoline engine cars.
> They have to perform as well as gasoline engine cars or
> people won't buy them, except for commuting around town
> in the case where people are rich enough to own a car just
> for this purpose.
In the 70's, the price of crude oil stood at $60 a barrel for a short time
and lots of folks bought small, Japanese vehicles without the room and
performance to which they were accustomed with larger, American cars.
I've been leasing a 2000 Ford Electric Ranger for almost 2 years and I don't
consider it to be a prototype vehicle. The range is limited and I accept
that. Depending on conditions, I can drive about 70 to 100 miles on a
charge and it takes about 6 hours to go from empty to full charge. I'm not
a rich guy. I do have an old Plymouth I can use on the rare occassion that
I must drive farther than the truck will take me. Personally, I prefer to
use mass transit, but my employer pays me to have my vehicle available to
take me wherever I need to go, so I've kept the Plymouth. My point is that
electric vehicles are for real, there is an infrastructure in place whereby
I can get a charge at many shopping centers, public parking facilities and
public transit station. A standard battery system could be designed for
swapping instead of charging in place. When there is no more crude oil in
the ground, people will change the way they live and cars performing like
they do now with gasoline will not be a requirement.
>
> >Commercially built electrolyzers are prohibitively expensive.
> >No safe and reasonable way has yet been developed to store
> >and transport the hydrogen in your vehicle. I know of not one
> >single hydrogen powered vehicle commercially available today.
>
> Detroit is working on them, and hopes to be more successful than
> they have been with sticking the energy into electric batteries.
If you don't like the range of electric vehicles on the market today, you
problable won't like the range of vehicles carrying hydrogen tanks. You
might have heard of a 300 mile LH2 BMW, but they don't tell you that it
constantly vents hydrogen, so if you leave it parked for an extended time it
loses its hydrogen.
>
> >What appeals to you about driving a hydrogen powered vehicle?
>
> Nothing in particular about the vehicle.
>
> Lots of environmentalists like the emissions performance - I'm not a
> greenie and don't really much care about that.
>
> I do like the energy independence idea - we have lotsa water. Don't
> have to import it from a bunch of people that are always fighting with
> each other, and continuously trying to drag us into it.
>
> Dave Head
>
The energy doesn't come from the water -- which brings us back to 'where
does the energy come from?' The "greenies" like to think about the water
vapor tailpipe emissions and to forget about where the hydrogen came from.
Energy independence is a good thing, but becoming dependent on THIS kind of
energy instead of THAT kind isn't really energy independence. Conservation
(and energy efficiency) works in conjunction with all the possible energy
solutions. Electrolysis, hydrogen compression/liquefaction, hydrogen
storage and conversion back to electricity is not an energy efficient
system.
Don Widders