Will the transition from fossil fuels be similar to that from Petrol to Diesel?

[alexk-il]

Alex,
I just googled a wiki on ic engine which quotes:
Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[11][12] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they combust at very high temperatures and pressures and are able to have very high expansion ratios.
Although I accept that the adiabatic cycle inside the combustion chamber is more efficient than steam cycle, the ic engine has to have 4 strokes of which 3 are non producing.

OK, I give up. I'll stop playing with the numbers and will get back to the main idea which triggered this arguing.

As a result of the efficient energy transmission in electrical cars, all fossils accumulated over billion years will not be burned out over a period of 200 years period as I claimed. The fossils will be burned out in a 230 years, all the sun energy and accumulated in fossils over billion years will be released with a nice load of CO2 at a slower rate and this is what is going to give our planet another 30 years before the global warming and pollution will make the planet unfit for living. OK, ok, the electrical motors will be even more efficient in the future. I agree to add another 20 years to the total of 250 years... The batteries will be lighter? They will use kryptonium to reduce the friction? Great, can we close the deal on 265 years? 266? 267?

Congratulations, my friend, you've won.

P.S. By the way, this 200 year fossil burning period has started back in the end of the 19th century, so some of us may live long enough to see the results of these fossil burning adventures

 

[trex]

alex, there is a lot of pessimistic view about humans destroying his own habitat, while ignoring that human cleverness will always come through, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Nobody would want to dispute that global warming is man-made but how near are we to the tipping point? I don't believe we are anywhere near it. The debate about nuclear generation is another thing, is it dangerous? yes, it is. Do we need it? yes, we do but only for a while. Look at the ITER project in Caradache, nuclear builders will switch from fission to fusion around 2050, way before we run out of oil.

 

[Straylight]

I have to take issue with the notion of "human cleverness". The recent and ongoing banking crisis, to me best exemplifies this: short term avarice over long term prosperity. By nature, we are very shortsighted, territorial, and only altruistic when it suits our immediate advantage and/or costs us nothing.

I do hope that the experiments re: nuclear fusion bear fruit, but as yet it is simply that, a hope.

 

[lemmy]

I don't believe we are anywhere near it.

I believe we are nearer the tipping point than we realise, so you and I believe differently. I cannot see what belief has to do with it really, belief is a basis for religious argument, not rational argument.

What do we know? There is no agreement on that. Is global warming caused by human activity? Again, we don't know. Not enough evidence. Forty years ago we were being solemnly given exactly the same 'evidence' on climate change and would all be in the grip of an ice age by now.

You say human cleverness will always come through which is really another statement of quasi-religious belief. Past performance is no guide to the future as they say on the financial pages.

I think your wide eyed optimism is heart warming but I have less faith in your confident assertions of the future than you do. Your view seems to me to contain a rather dangerous element of complacency.

I am in no way pessimistic - I just think that blythe assurances that everything will be all right are not helping us, whether climate change is real or not.

And now, off my soapbox for aride around Richmond Park. As I look out of the window, I find cannot predict whether it will rain in the next hour or not

 

[alexk-il]

I don't believe we are anywhere near it. The debate about nuclear generation is another thing, is it dangerous? yes, it is. Do we need it? yes, we do but only for a while. Look at the ITER project in Caradache, nuclear builders will switch from fission to fusion around 2050, way before we run out of oil.

It has nothing to do with your personal believes or the earth running out of oil. It is all about releasing huge amounts of accumulated CO2 and energy to the Earth ecosystem at higher rates than Earth is capable to naturally remove/dissipate.

"To avoid a global warming of 2.1°C, it is estimated that a concentration [of CO2] of less than 450 ppm needs to be maintained if other gasses were to return to pre-industrial levels. ... At the current accelerated growth rate, exponentially extrapolating the Keeling curve, this concentration will be reached in 22 years. Even with constant concentration growth, with the current 2.2 ppm/yr, this concentration will be reached in (450-390 ppm)/(2.2 ppm/yr)=27 years."

2011 + 27 = 2038 which is 12 years short of that nuclear fusion heaven, which in turn is unlikely be deployed worldwide as the main energy source.

... human cleverness will always come through, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

This would be similar to the following claim - Don't worry about possible nuclear terrorism in 2050. Hiroshima's history teaches us that the human cleverness will always come through and make it up for the survivors. Oh, yeah, tell this to your kids...

 

[trex]

Alex, the nuclear industries spend lots of money to convince us all that we are going to be doomed by CO2, our politicians are also very good at making this point to all of us so they can justify airport departure tax and fuel escalator and other carbon taxes in a few years.
The graph of number of sunspots over time and average temperature over time follow one another more closely than CO2 concentration and temperature, earth will not be doomed by CO2 because we will learn to limit CO2 in one or two generations. However, few people are aware of how soon fusion will become reality, so we will accept nuclear power more readily. Fusion does not present the same risks (terrorism, earthquake, tsunami) as fission. The tritium that is needed as fuel is produced in small amount (less than 50g a day), there is no danger with its production or storage.

 

[banbury frank]

Hi If you read this it will show that 50 years ago we nearly had a nuclear core melt down we did not have a clue

Windscale on Fire, 1957 « Paul Langley's Nuclear History Blog


Today IT cant Happen as new plants would be fitted with vessels full off carbon powder which would flood the reactor core KILLING the reactor DEAD for ever

So 100 % safe

We have new planing rules on a site where a power plant is or was . No need for any planing permission just get on and build new nuclear plants

BUT this can take 10 to 15 years


Frank

 

[alexk-il]

Alex, the nuclear industries spend lots of money to convince us all that we are going to be doomed by CO2, our politicians are also very good at making this point to all of us so they can justify airport departure tax and fuel escalator and other carbon taxes in a few years.

And of course, the oil barons haven't spent a penny to fight back. And UK government had not increased the taxation on the bio-fuels to make them economically inefficient for most of us, it was probably done by the bad boys as a part of the nuclear conspiracy. And the CO2 has zero effect on the greenhouse effect... And we don't need to worry, we'll die before it becomes a problem. And it is up to the next generation to admire our wisdom and to find solution if the unlikely problem of the global warming will still be there. And it is the Sun to blame, anyway...

I think we need to have a beer together. Any plans to visit NI. Beer is on me

Alex

 

[eclectic_bike]

alex, there is a lot of pessimistic view about humans destroying his own habitat, while ignoring that human cleverness will always come through, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Nobody would want to dispute that global warming is man-made but how near are we to the tipping point? I don't believe we are anywhere near it. The debate about nuclear generation is another thing, is it dangerous? yes, it is. Do we need it? yes, we do but only for a while. Look at the ITER project in Caradache, nuclear builders will switch from fission to fusion around 2050, way before we run out of oil.

I'm afraid there is no guarantee of ITER succeeding. It is an experimental reactor and there are new key technologies that must be invented before the concept can even demonstrate the theory. I certainly hope it is successful but ITER themselves acknowledge that it may never work or that other superior fusion technologies may happen in the time-scale of the project.

We certainly cannot pin our hopes on a concept that may ultimately turn out to be unfeasible.

 

[lemmy]

So 100 % safe

Nothing is 100% safe.

 

[trex]

eclectic_bike:
We certainly cannot pin our hopes on a concept that may ultimately turn out to be unfeasible.

Large projects like ITER or the super large hadron collider (upgrade from the present LHC) aren't likely white elephants. Most of ITER objectives are simply scaled-ups of proven techonlogies. The experiments are developed around the world in places like our CCFE.

 

[lemmy]

Large projects like ITER or the super large hadron collider (upgrade from the present LHC) aren't likely white elephants. Most of ITER objectives are simply scaled up of proven techonlogies. The experiments are developed around the world in places like our CCFE.

ITER? CCFE? Do we do English here or is it outmoded LOL ROFL IMHO ?

 

[trex]

Oh I forgot to mention the very promising ICF at the NIF.

 

[lemmy]

Llfc dfrt nndt!

 

[flecc]

Oh I forgot to mention the very promising ICF at the NIF.

Wow! That would have been a disaster, lucky you remembered just in time.

 

[eclectic_bike]

Large projects like ITER or the super large hadron collider (upgrade from the present LHC) aren't likely white elephants. Most of ITER objectives are simply scaled-ups of proven techonlogies. The experiments are developed around the world in places like our CCFE.

I agree that they may may not be white elephants, but that is a possibility. I very much think we should be investing in fusion research as it holds so much promise, but the economics may not turn out to be as good as is hoped. Do you remember the promise of fission producing electricity too cheap to meter?

My point is that, given the very real possibility of failure of fusion, we should be also investing in other low carbon technologies.

 

[trex]

Do you remember the promise of fission producing electricity too cheap to meter?
It was in 1954 wasn't it? before that, Einstein could not envisage nuclear power 'because one has to shatter atoms at will' in 1932. We progress, we learn along the way. Before fusion, I reckon we will be using a lot more of solar energy. Fusion power will happen in the second half of this century because the world will need it, if only for smashing up the pile of long life nuclear wastes from fission reactors.
By the way, I asked the Chinese e-car maker for the price of their e-car, it's $5100 with lead acid battery, $8000 with Lithium battery (4kw motor). Anyone interested in assembling ecars in the UK from Chinese kits? There may be 25% grant somewhere to be had...

 

[flecc]

By the way, I asked the Chinese e-car maker for the price of their e-car, it's $5100 with lead acid battery, $8000 with Lithium battery (4kw motor). Anyone interested in assembling ecars in the UK from Chinese kits? There may be 25% grant somewhere to be had...

Hardly anyone would buy one here Trex, it's useless for anything other than dead flat conditions and will be very poor even then. It's 4 kW is less than the better e-scooter/mopeds, so on hills it would be beaten by a milk float.

As a light car it's similar to that Renault Twizy from earlier in the thread, and that has 15 kW, about the minimum to be acceptable for this application.

 

[trex]

I fully accept your view, flecc. They can fit a bigger motor but I don't know if they can make a good controller for this kind of power. The Chinese still have a long, long way to go.

 

[flecc]

I think now that such microcars as the Twizy have arrived, plus the limited releases of the Think and Smart e-cars and the long established G-Wiz e-car, the Chinese have perhaps lost an opportunity. Today's exchange rates make it increasingly difficult for the Orient to beat EU production costs. Inquiring about a Daihatsu model a short while ago, they told me it isn't brought in any more because exchange rates with the low pound mean it can't have an acceptable showroom price here. The "Japanese" car I've just bought is made in Hungary for the same reason. China will probably have to set up manufacturing here if they want to break into the car market.