I feel quite comfortable playing around with electricity and have been tempted to create a kit with prongs and wire with crocodile clips as a universal solution but now that I have young children I have to adopt a somewhat safer approach.
Will the transition from fossil fuels be similar to that from Petrol to Diesel?
- Thread starter Ultra Motor
- Start date
I can see why you can't imagine a more suitable place for enlargement but anyone who lives near Stanstead can. The charm and not of the UK is the way in which we allow personal tort to inform general policy. We uphold the rights of the individual.
The French have a more cynical take on this. They do not uphold the same personal property freedoms we do (Englishman's home is his castle) but ameliorate it by offering you 125% of market value.
I think the idea of saving the world with electric cars is oversimplified. It is based on a perception that using electricity in the cars does not require burning fossils, which of course is wrong.
Most of the electrical plants today still burn fossils to make the electricity that pushes electric cars. The energy conservation law implies that approximately the same amount of fossils per mile is required to be burned either in the car or in the electric plant (plus-minus difference in nominal efficiency of engines).
Therefore the only effect of burning fossils in power plants and not in cars would be moving the energy/pollution production away from big cities to less populated or less important locations. Of course on the long run, the whole planet gets equally polluted and heated.
Using nuclear plants to produce electricity (20% in US) may have the advantage of cleaner energy, with a zero carbon emission, however the energy is still released from nuclear fuel into the planet ecosystem, contributing its share to the global warming. And of course there are some other risks involved in nuclear energy production.
The only advantage of the electrical cars over petrol/gas based is the ability to regenerate the energy when cars decelerates. From that point of view, hybrid cars are equally efficient as a fully electrical ones.
I truly believe that the only way to achieve the energy efficiency in this planet is to stop releasing new energy from natural sources (fossils/nuclear fuel) to our poor planet, but to efficiently reuse the solar energy that is added to our ecosystem anyway. In this sense, burning bio-fuels, using solar power plants or wind turbines could could make the difference.
Most of the electrical plants today still burn fossils to make the electricity that pushes electric cars. The energy conservation law implies that approximately the same amount of fossils per mile is required to be burned either in the car or in the electric plant (plus-minus difference in nominal efficiency of engines).
Therefore the only effect of burning fossils in power plants and not in cars would be moving the energy/pollution production away from big cities to less populated or less important locations. Of course on the long run, the whole planet gets equally polluted and heated.
Using nuclear plants to produce electricity (20% in US) may have the advantage of cleaner energy, with a zero carbon emission, however the energy is still released from nuclear fuel into the planet ecosystem, contributing its share to the global warming. And of course there are some other risks involved in nuclear energy production.
The only advantage of the electrical cars over petrol/gas based is the ability to regenerate the energy when cars decelerates. From that point of view, hybrid cars are equally efficient as a fully electrical ones.
I truly believe that the only way to achieve the energy efficiency in this planet is to stop releasing new energy from natural sources (fossils/nuclear fuel) to our poor planet, but to efficiently reuse the solar energy that is added to our ecosystem anyway. In this sense, burning bio-fuels, using solar power plants or wind turbines could could make the difference.
Last edited:
The real evil is the internal combustion engine. Most of the chemical enegery is lost as heat. When 60% of the extracted oil is used for transportation, it does make you want to go electric.
"To answer the world's material needs, technology has to be not only beautiful but also cheap", Freeman Dyson. That is also the Chinese approach.
"To answer the world's material needs, technology has to be not only beautiful but also cheap", Freeman Dyson. That is also the Chinese approach.
Question: What is the size of the trailer of a 65 mph 40 ton articulated truck?
Answer: The battery for an 65 mph electric 40 ton articulated truck.
It's not all about cars, a large proportion of the usage of fossil fuels for transport is in commercial vehicles, and battery power isn't practical for freight transport, in cost, size and weight..
Answer: The battery for an 65 mph electric 40 ton articulated truck.
It's not all about cars, a large proportion of the usage of fossil fuels for transport is in commercial vehicles, and battery power isn't practical for freight transport, in cost, size and weight..
There are claims that the peak was already reached around between 2004 to 2008 (if I recall the numbers correctly).
Sorry, can't provide links, (neither you do with your claims), but there are quite a few supporting evidences that prove the opposite of your claims
1. Statistically, there is a significant drop of rate at which new reserves are discovered.
2. Despite of the shortage of refineries, there is no rush in building new ones. Perhaps these guys know something which we don't.
3. I've heard Putin's speech when he declared that Russia can no longer base its long term financial future on oil export and Russia needs urgently to start industrial and technological reforms
flecc, progress made on batteries are an order of magnitude greater than the improvement gained of ic engines, don't you agree? in a few years, carbon nanotubes will be produced a lot more cheaply and it's not a scarce resource. Even if electricity generation in the near future will still predominantly burn gas or coal, the generators' yield in converting heat > steam > electricity is much, much better that the best of Mercedes engines and that before you factor in the cost of refining oil and its distribution. The reason that I think the diesel engine will go out of fashion in 20-30 year time is because of advancement made on nano technology, the key factor in developing cheap, high energy batteries. If you look at the cost of battery as the cost of distribution of electric energy, it is conceivable that this cost as a percentage of the price of the KWH will become ever smaller. Look at what has been achieved with digital ICs. The ic engine (not just diesel engines) must go to save earth's resources. The cost of oil will go up much faster than the cost of electricity, similarly, the cost of ic cars will not go down much while the cost of EVs will continue to come down. It's just a matter of time before the economical choice is in favour of EVs. I think the world needs another Clive Sinclair who would do to EVs what Sir Clive did to the home PCs.
Agree, however this fact alone doesn't proof that fossil-fired power plants are more efficient. In fact, it could be the other way around. From the wikipedia:
1. "The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency of any regular internal or external combustion engine due to its very high compression ratio. Low-speed Diesel engines (as used in ships and other applications where overall engine weight is relatively unimportant) often have a thermal efficiency which exceeds 50 percent"
2. "Typical thermal efficiency for electrical generators in the industry is around 33% for coal and oil-fired plants"
If you combine the power plant inefficiency with inevitable energy loss of electric motors (could be up to 50%), you'll get Diesels as clear winners.
Last edited:
Absolutely not, that's the complete reverse of the truth.
Over a century ago, e-cars were ahead of ic cars, but the failure of batteries to progress meant that they have been left in the doldrums. In contrast, ic cars have been totally transformed over that time
And batteries still haven't really progressed, the largest application of high discharge batteries is still 19th century technology lead-acid in ouir vehicles, nothing else good enough.
Also, you are mixing up different things, apples can't be compared to oranges. Batteries are fuel, ic engines are motors. The comparison should be between petrol/diesel and battery energy densities, or between electric and ic motors.
QUOTE=alexk-il;
There are claims that the peak was already reached around between 2004 to 2008 (if I recall the numbers correctly).
No different from all the previous claims that have proved untrue
1. Statistically, there is a significant drop of rate at which new reserves are discovered.
As was true in the 1950s and '60s, but then finds increased again in the 1970s and '80s.
2. Despite of the shortage of refineries, there is no rush in building new ones. Perhaps these guys know something which we don't.
Waiting for governments to make up their minds. Meanwhile that doesn't stop the construction of a huge pipeline from the Russian border 'stans to get oil to the west, no lack of investment courage there.
3. I've heard Putin's speech when he declared that Russia can no longer base its long term financial future on oil export and Russia needs urgently to start industrial and technological reforms.
Of course he wants to ensure Russia keeps command of the oil benefit, no different from the way the middle eastern OPEC countries behave to safeguard their long term future by rationing issue to the west. It makes sure the west buys others out of their resources first, and I would do the same in the same position.
There are claims that the peak was already reached around between 2004 to 2008 (if I recall the numbers correctly).
No different from all the previous claims that have proved untrue
1. Statistically, there is a significant drop of rate at which new reserves are discovered.
As was true in the 1950s and '60s, but then finds increased again in the 1970s and '80s.
2. Despite of the shortage of refineries, there is no rush in building new ones. Perhaps these guys know something which we don't.
Waiting for governments to make up their minds. Meanwhile that doesn't stop the construction of a huge pipeline from the Russian border 'stans to get oil to the west, no lack of investment courage there.
3. I've heard Putin's speech when he declared that Russia can no longer base its long term financial future on oil export and Russia needs urgently to start industrial and technological reforms.
Of course he wants to ensure Russia keeps command of the oil benefit, no different from the way the middle eastern OPEC countries behave to safeguard their long term future by rationing issue to the west. It makes sure the west buys others out of their resources first, and I would do the same in the same position.
Your certainty about coming developments reminds me of Nils Bohr's remark that prediction is difficult, especially if it's about the future 
1. Statistically, there is a significant drop of rate at which new reserves are discovered.
As was true in the 1950s and '60s, but then finds increased again in the 1970s and '80s.
This could be easily explained by the fact that most of US oil reserves were either depleted or already discovered. This created the strong push to discover more reserves at least convenient locations.
Today, the situation repeats itself on a bigger scale.
2. Despite of the shortage of refineries, there is no rush in building new ones. Perhaps these guys know something which we don't.
Waiting for governments to make up their minds.
Assuming governments to be stupid and inefficient could be one explanation. Assuming, that they know something we don't is another one.
As was true in the 1950s and '60s, but then finds increased again in the 1970s and '80s.
This could be easily explained by the fact that most of US oil reserves were either depleted or already discovered. This created the strong push to discover more reserves at least convenient locations.
Today, the situation repeats itself on a bigger scale.
2. Despite of the shortage of refineries, there is no rush in building new ones. Perhaps these guys know something which we don't.
Waiting for governments to make up their minds.
Assuming governments to be stupid and inefficient could be one explanation. Assuming, that they know something we don't is another one.
Was that to me, Alex or who, Lemmy?Your certainty about coming developments reminds me of Nils Bohr's remark that prediction is difficult, especially if it's about the future
If me, you misunderstand, my certainty is about the lack of development and the status quo continuing for a long while yet as my posts show.
We'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from our attachment to oil, and we'll go to crazy lengths to continue to get hold of it.
Progress made on energy density of batteries: silver oxides in the 60's 0.5MJ/kg, Nicad in the 70's: 0.6MJ/kg, Lithium ion in the 90's: 0.7MJ/kg and this decade: lithium nanowire >2MJ/kg and for reference: petrol 46MJ/kg.
Yield of combustion engine: 30% in the 40's 50% this decade. Clearly, batteries development is faster and still has a long way to go.
Yield of combustion engine: 30% in the 40's 50% this decade. Clearly, batteries development is faster and still has a long way to go.
Electric motors can be efficient or not depending on the way it is deployed (Pansonic drive versus hub motor) - the motor itself can achieve 78% yield. Gas fired generators can achieve 50%. In order to compare fairly, you should compare (crude oil to diesel to mechanical energy) against (crude oil to electricity to mechanical energy) - I don't think diesel engine will win.
Last edited:
Exactly my point Alex, we just push harder and find even more each time we are threatened with shortage. While people will cut down on food rather than abandon their cars, there'll be someone ready to supply, whatever the cost.
Our background position is I'm sure little different. I think burning oils to heat buildings or run vehicles is total madness and has been ever since we discovered it's true value for general chemical uses and plastics production. But I'm not an idealist as so many are in a forum like this, I'm a realist who from experience is aware of how political expediency wins the day over commonsense.
I know, but they are still not good enough in so many ways to take the place of lead-acid as I've already said. When I see lithium batteries starting our cars they'll have got there. Meanwhile their shortfalls in performance and cost are far too great yet.
It's unlikely lithium will ever make it anyway, it's too scarce a resource.
That would be much more like it, and biological approaches may pay off better eventually in many fields. Energy densities will still be low I'd think, but we may eventually have to learn to live with much smaller resources anyway. We should be doing that now, but there's no enthusiasm or will for it to happen.
I guess you haven't look at the article I've attached to my post. Otherwise you would know that the efficiency of the electric motors is strongly affected by the load.
Anyway, let's play with your numbers.
Let's take the 50% efficiency of the gas generators and pretend that there are no oil/coal burning power plants. Let's assume the electrical motor in a car always runs at optimal load (no stops at traffic lights, no heavy traffic) and ALWAYS has the efficiency of 78%. Multiplying 50% by 78% gets you 0.5 * 0.78 = 39%.
Let's compare the resulting overall 39% efficiency with the 40% efficiency of a diesel engine (as per your other post). Do you still think, the electrical engine is the winner? And since we also have the coal burning power plants as well, the overall efficiency may be even less favorable for electric engines.
We need to realize that fossils had actually accumulated the sun energy (through the photosynthesis process) over a few billion of years. Releasing all that accumulated energy back to planet (either by burning in engines, houses or power plants) over a period of only 200 years may not be the smartest thing to do for the human kind. Replacing combustion engines by electrical ones makes little difference (except for more efficient energy recycling)
So my only claim is that unless we learn to reuse the Solar energy which is delivered to Earth anyway, all other energy releasing technologies are almost the same from the point of view of the global warming. Therefore, burning bio-fuel vs burning fossils can make all the difference. Add to this wind turbines, solar panels, etc. and we'll get a hope.
Last edited:
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
