Planet Rugby Forum

Geek wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

towny wrote:

slow wing wrote:Cheers for the information, FA.

You mentioned the batteries. Ford has endorsed Tesla's Panasonic batteries as the best in the world and is using it themselves in their Ford C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid.

Next year Panasonic will be mass producing new batteries with a 30% increase in energy storage over this year's batteries of the same volume. They are using a new negative electrode where silicon replaces the graphite. We can expect such incremental improvements to continue for lithium ion batteries. Once they are good enough, electric cars will dominate in all sectors.

Will renewables have the capacity to handle all of the current load and all of the tens of millions of cars in the world?

Or will cars be ultimately powered using coal?

Not as much of a problem as you might think because power stations far exceed the efficiency of ICE's.
Up to 60% if you include the use of waste heat for other industry.
In a real ICE the percentage would be probably be 25% if you don't include transmission losses as they are common to all drivetrains.

The charge/discharge cycle efficiency of batteries means that you are still way better off using electrics if efficiency of non-renewables is your focus.

This is a dishonest post. The efficiencies of gas turbines and engines are very comparable (in fact engines should be theoretically more efficient). I worked a new build of CHP gas stations for E.On a few years ago and am pretty familiar with the hype and the reality. Utilizing the waste heat does raise the overall efficiency but not anywhere near 60%. The particular stations we were building were using the heat to melt LNG (Liquid natural gas) which was the fuel for the station. A clever move, but also part of the energy requirement of the process, anyway.

BTW I've been reading for years now about the issues with Lithium supply. It's not a very environmentally friendly process to extract, and there have been very real fears of supply outstripping demand for a while now. Increasing demand by 9% year on year is not really a positive in my view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined-cycle

The ICE vs gas turbine is not the issue, merely that in a car, you are unlikely to be able to approach the efficiency of a power plant.
Even if you only get 50% from your combined cycle plant, that's way better than the 30% or less you're likely to get in a vehicle even at favourable loads.

The lithium issue to me is more of a concern, as is the energy cost of producing batteries.
The energy cycle from well to wheel though seems to favour batteries strongly.

deadduck wrote:It's all well and good to talk about efficiencies, but with a vehicle they are not the only consideration. Energy density, availability of supply, life cycle, and effective range are more important factors. For that reason battery electric vehicles will be at a performance disadvantage if an economical and practical fuel cell vehicle comes to market.

That's right. Fuel cells could still prove to be the winner, even if they're not the optimal solution.

deadduck wrote:It's all well and good to talk about efficiencies, but with a vehicle they are not the only consideration. Energy density, availability of supply, life cycle, and effective range are more important factors. For that reason battery electric vehicles will be at a performance disadvantage if an economical and practical fuel cell vehicle comes to market.

The importance of efficiency really depends on whether your looking at it from the point of view of a vehicle owner or of a world with major problems finding new energy sources, and major pollution issues.

Overall the ICE is currently still a better solution than battery.
Battery, however has a great deal more potential development.

A fuel cell makes sense as long as it is not based on hydrogen due to the fact that it takes more energy to free hydrogen from water than is recovered by using it again.
A methanol fuel cell could work ut is a long way off.

merlin the happy pig wrote:A fuel cell makes sense as long as it is not based on hydrogen due to the fact that it takes more energy to free hydrogen from water than is recovered by using it again.

Why does that matter? It makes a contribution to the cost-to-benefit equation for the process, but doesn't mean it makes no sense. It just means it's lossy storage. That lossiness may be counterbalanced by many other factors, such as the availability of motors, transportability of fuel, energy security or the quality of emissions.

6roucho wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:A fuel cell makes sense as long as it is not based on hydrogen due to the fact that it takes more energy to free hydrogen from water than is recovered by using it again.

Why does that matter? It makes a contribution to the cost equation for the process, but doesn't mean it makes no sense. It just means it's lossy storage.

Because most of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
It is actually more energy efficient to just burn oil in an ICE than it is to use it to free hydrogen from water, then convert it into electricity to drive an electric motor.

This means that a hydrogen fuel cell is a backward step from petrol/diesel.

Given that the U.S would kill (arabs) to enure security of supply of oil, any efficiency improvement is very mportant indeed.

merlin the happy pig wrote:

6roucho wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:A fuel cell makes sense as long as it is not based on hydrogen due to the fact that it takes more energy to free hydrogen from water than is recovered by using it again.

Why does that matter? It makes a contribution to the cost equation for the process, but doesn't mean it makes no sense. It just means it's lossy storage.

Because most of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
It is actually more energy efficient to just burn oil in an ICE than it is to use it to free hydrogen from water, then convert it into electricity to drive an electric motor.

This means that a hydrogen fuel cell is a backward step from petrol/diesel.

Given that the U.S would kill (arabs) to enure security of supply of oil, any efficiency improvement is very mportant indeed.

I don't think that makes sense. Energy for fuel cells can come from any source. ICEs are more efficient but that's just one variable. Lossy storage is often preferable because of its utility. You don't have an ICE in your wife's vibrator.

BEVs are taking over quickly and the only question is whether supercapacitors or another battery technology will eventually catch lithium ion.

BEV infrastructure already exists in the homes and fast charging stations are being rolled out along the highways. Neither hydrogen nor methanol will have time to establish a similar network. Motorists on trips will be able to add back 200 miles of range from a half hour stop. Otherwise, just plugging in where parked will do the trick for normal commuting and errands. That's a better deal than what we have with ICEs.

That leaves up front cost as the only remaining issue and reasonable people will accept the inevitable once a $30-35K Tesla arrives within 4 years...

Elon Musk wrote:The focus is on cost down. We’ve got the range. We’ve got the capability and ride and handling. Now it’s a question of how to optimize it.

Pretty much everything else about BEVs is superior, or vastly superior, to ICE cars or any other proposed technology. Energy efficiency is a big one, as Merlin the Happy Pig has pointed out.


Vested interests and major car companies follow the facile logic that says 'keep trying all technologies'. But the above points show that it is simply not realistic to back hydrogen cars, or methanol cars, or compressed air cars, or wind-up rubber band cars.

This is a bombshell scoop if it is true...

Coming Soon: The Tesla-Based Mercedes
By Anton Wahlman02/01/13 - 06:00 AM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- One year from now, Mercedes will launch its all-new electric car that has been co-engineered with Tesla (TSLA_).

What is this car, and why is Mercedes staking its future on Tesla?
...
Sometimes, the Tesla-based Mercedes test cars are parked on a public street. I took this picture (among many) last October:

...

Link.

slow wing wrote:BEVs are taking over quickly and the only question is whether supercapacitors or another battery technology will eventually catch lithium ion.

BEV infrastructure already exists in the homes and fast charging stations are being rolled out along the highways. Neither hydrogen nor methanol will have time to establish a similar network. Motorists on trips will be able to add back 200 miles of range from a half hour stop. Otherwise, just plugging in where parked will do the trick for normal commuting and errands. That's a better deal than what we have with ICEs.

That leaves up front cost as the only remaining issue and reasonable people will accept the inevitable once a $30-35K Tesla arrives within 4 years...

Elon Musk wrote:The focus is on cost down. We’ve got the range. We’ve got the capability and ride and handling. Now it’s a question of how to optimize it.

Pretty much everything else about BEVs is superior, or vastly superior, to ICE cars or any other proposed technology. Energy efficiency is a big one, as Merlin the Happy Pig has pointed out.


Vested interests and major car companies follow the facile logic that says 'keep trying all technologies'. But the above points show that it is simply not realistic to back hydrogen cars, or methanol cars, or compressed air cars, or wind-up rubber band cars.

I see you dodged the question re clockword. It will be back.

Fuckin' big keys for all!

Clockword?? I don't have a clue what you are talking about, MungoMan.



Btw, concerning that Tesla-Merc, there was a tip-off last July that was posted on the previous page. Bear in mind that Daimler-Mercedes owns about 6% of Tesla Motors so it is not surprising that the two are as tight as thieves.

slow wing wrote:This is a bombshell scoop if it is true...

Coming Soon: The Tesla-Based Mercedes
By Anton Wahlman02/01/13 - 06:00 AM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- One year from now, Mercedes will launch its all-new electric car that has been co-engineered with Tesla (TSLA_).

What is this car, and why is Mercedes staking its future on Tesla?
...
Sometimes, the Tesla-based Mercedes test cars are parked on a public street. I took this picture (among many) last October:

...

Link.

Is it also going to cost twice as much as an identical Merc with a normal ICE engine?

slow wing wrote:This is a bombshell scoop if it is true...

Coming Soon: The Tesla-Based Mercedes
By Anton Wahlman02/01/13 - 06:00 AM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- One year from now, Mercedes will launch its all-new electric car that has been co-engineered with Tesla (TSLA_).

What is this car, and why is Mercedes staking its future on Tesla?
...
Sometimes, the Tesla-based Mercedes test cars are parked on a public street. I took this picture (among many) last October:

...

Link.

The Luddites will be chewing their beards over that.

Sandstorm wrote:

slow wing wrote:This is a bombshell scoop if it is true...

Coming Soon: The Tesla-Based Mercedes
By Anton Wahlman02/01/13 - 06:00 AM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- One year from now, Mercedes will launch its all-new electric car that has been co-engineered with Tesla (TSLA_).

What is this car, and why is Mercedes staking its future on Tesla?
...
Sometimes, the Tesla-based Mercedes test cars are parked on a public street. I took this picture (among many) last October:

...

Link.

Is it also going to cost twice as much as an identical Merc with a normal ICE engine?

No, slightly less. $46,000 before tax incentives.

Groucho already knows the price...

How, Groucho?


Sandstorm, I doubt it. BEV prices are dropping fast. For example, the 2013 Nissan Leaf starts at $6800 less than the 2012 model did. It is less than $19,000 in California, after rebates. And it will be able to be leased for $199/month...

slow wing wrote:Groucho already knows the price...

How, Groucho?


Sandstorm, I doubt it. BEV prices are dropping fast. For example, the 2013 Nissan Leaf starts at $6800 less than the 2012 model did. It is less than $19,000 in California, after rebates. And it will be able to be leased for $199/month...

It's on the last page of the review, Slow.

Ah, his guess. OK. I do like that he crawled underneath it in order to be able to estimate the battery pack size: 36 kWh - good for an estimated range of 120 miles.

slow wing wrote:Ah, his guess. OK. I do like that he crawled underneath it in order to be able to estimate the battery pack size: 36 kWh - good for an estimated range of 120 miles.

Whats your guess? This is news.

6roucho wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

6roucho wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:A fuel cell makes sense as long as it is not based on hydrogen due to the fact that it takes more energy to free hydrogen from water than is recovered by using it again.

Why does that matter? It makes a contribution to the cost equation for the process, but doesn't mean it makes no sense. It just means it's lossy storage.

Because most of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
It is actually more energy efficient to just burn oil in an ICE than it is to use it to free hydrogen from water, then convert it into electricity to drive an electric motor.

This means that a hydrogen fuel cell is a backward step from petrol/diesel.

Given that the U.S would kill (arabs) to enure security of supply of oil, any efficiency improvement is very mportant indeed.

I don't think that makes sense. Energy for fuel cells can come from any source. ICEs are more efficient but that's just one variable. Lossy storage is often preferable because of its utility. You don't have an ICE in your wife's vibrator.

If it is less efficient than an ICE and we don't have 100% renewable energy then the result will be a net increase in fossil fuel usage.

Here's an extraordinarily simple amalysis from a fuel cell expert who says hydrogen fuel cells are a wasteful technology.

http://phys.org/news85074285.html

As for utility is there any sense in which a hydrogen fuel cell outperforms petrol, that would make you want to take the efficiency hit?

slow wing wrote:Clockword?? I don't have a clue what you are talking about, MungoMan.

No need to tick me off.

[fudge - that's a bit too Globus for my liking]

slow wing wrote:BEVs are taking over quickly and the only question is whether supercapacitors or another battery technology will eventually catch lithium ion.

BEV infrastructure already exists in the homes and fast charging stations are being rolled out along the highways. Neither hydrogen nor methanol will have time to establish a similar network. Motorists on trips will be able to add back 200 miles of range from a half hour stop. Otherwise, just plugging in where parked will do the trick for normal commuting and errands. That's a better deal than what we have with ICEs.

That leaves up front cost as the only remaining issue and reasonable people will accept the inevitable once a $30-35K Tesla arrives within 4 years...

Elon Musk wrote:The focus is on cost down. We’ve got the range. We’ve got the capability and ride and handling. Now it’s a question of how to optimize it.

Pretty much everything else about BEVs is superior, or vastly superior, to ICE cars or any other proposed technology. Energy efficiency is a big one, as Merlin the Happy Pig has pointed out.


Vested interests and major car companies follow the facile logic that says 'keep trying all technologies'. But the above points show that it is simply not realistic to back hydrogen cars, or methanol cars, or compressed air cars, or wind-up rubber band cars.

This makes no sense.

Auto manufacturers are not in the habit of wasting money on a whim. Different powertrain solutions are developed because markets and technology change. Different consumer requirements/legislation etc. drive changes.

30 years ago nobody wanted a diesel passenger vehicle. Technology moved on and diesel has a majority market share now in Europe. However, powertrain development has been going away from diesel as legislation drives up the cost of diesel engines and efficiency of gasoline engines has increased.

All the major OEMs have been looking at BEVs/hybrids/fuel cells etc. for decades. It's all very well to predict what technology will be here in 10 years time, but the fact is you don't know.....

There's no point debating with Slowy as he'll just post some pseudo-intellectual crap in rebuttal and then refuse to debate further.

This statement for example is complete tosh

BEVs are taking over quickly and the only question is whether supercapacitors or another battery technology will eventually catch lithium ion.

BEV infrastructure already exists in the homes and fast charging stations are being rolled out along the highways. Neither hydrogen nor methanol will have time to establish a similar network.

The point about hydrogen and methanol fuel cells is that they are technologies that will easily and somewhat automatically integrate into the existing petroleum distribution network just as fuels like CNG and LPG have. Slowy will never acknowledge this as it doesn't help his cause. For more examples just look at his reaction in that thread about atmospheric carbon conversion into fuel.

Ultimately, battery technology and capacitor technology will always come second to an oxidation technology as the energy density and available power is far higher. The challenge is finding a fuel that is 1. cheap(Relatively) and 2. practical and 3. sustainable. Right now we don't have that answer so batteries look pretty good, but that doesn't mean we'll never have that answer.

Methanol is an exciting option because it is a chemical that is easily produced from a number of renewable sources, is fairly easily transported and has a reasonable energy density (more than 15x that of lithium batteries w/w). Unfortunately our current tech does not allow us to extract the energy quickly enough for high power applications, but things change.

merlin the happy pig wrote:

6roucho wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

6roucho wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:A fuel cell makes sense as long as it is not based on hydrogen due to the fact that it takes more energy to free hydrogen from water than is recovered by using it again.

Why does that matter? It makes a contribution to the cost equation for the process, but doesn't mean it makes no sense. It just means it's lossy storage.

Because most of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
It is actually more energy efficient to just burn oil in an ICE than it is to use it to free hydrogen from water, then convert it into electricity to drive an electric motor.

This means that a hydrogen fuel cell is a backward step from petrol/diesel.

Given that the U.S would kill (arabs) to enure security of supply of oil, any efficiency improvement is very mportant indeed.

I don't think that makes sense. Energy for fuel cells can come from any source. ICEs are more efficient but that's just one variable. Lossy storage is often preferable because of its utility. You don't have an ICE in your wife's vibrator.

If it is less efficient than an ICE and we don't have 100% renewable energy then the result will be a net increase in fossil fuel usage.

Here's an extraordinarily simple amalysis from a fuel cell expert who says hydrogen fuel cells are a wasteful technology.

http://phys.org/news85074285.html

As for utility is there any sense in which a hydrogen fuel cell outperforms petrol, that would make you want to take the efficiency hit?

Again, that's highly simplistic. Which system "wins" is a reasonably complex function of the ratio of renewables to fossil fuels used in power generation, vs. the comparative efficiency of ICEs to fossil fuels power generation, vs. the comparative energy loss.

You certainly don't need 100% renewable power generation to make fuel cells carbon beneficial: in fact you don't necessarily need any, since gas power generation with C02 scrubbing has far lower carbon emissions per unit of power produced than ICEs in cars.

In which case the energy loss is only interesting as a partial determinant of costs.

Tesla Model S: "Gallons of Light" Commercial - YouTube 1m01s.

Very well done but it wasn't commissioned by Tesla. Some guy just got so excited by the technology that he decided to make it...

Why Volkswagen's super-efficient XL1 could be one of the most significant cars of the 21st century

A 2-seater diesel-electric plug-in hybrid. And it's about to go into production! That is, an initial run of just 50 cars, rumoured at more than $100,000 per piece.


On the other hand, that price would also get a Performance Tesla Model S fully electric vehicle, probably with enough left over to install solar panels and charge it at home.

Road & Track appears to like the Tesla Model S...

Return to Power: the 2013 Tesla Model S
The Performance model lives up to its name

By Jason Cammisa February 25, 2013 / Photos by Eric McCandless




...

Beautiful, well-crafted, cool, and seriously fast, the Model S isn't just the most important car of the year. It's the most important car America has made in an entire lifetime.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-reviews ... la-model-s

Elon Musk showing off to an attractive Asian girl...

Tesla Model S Plays Any Song You Ask for - Video, 1m24s.

The mainstream car companies are starting to get more realistic, and they will need to in order to not cede the market to Tesla.


What was the milestone number of Nissan Leafs sold world-wide by February?



Nissan says that makes its Leaf the most popular electric car in history.
Nissan has been bringing down the price - offering pricing arrangements similar to those for a comparably sized ICE car.


More impressive to me is that Mitsubishi is basically doubling the range of its front-line electric car. Their new CA-MiEV, which is just about to be introduced at the Geneva Motor Show, has a claimed range of 300 km (186 miles)...



Link: Mitsubishi electric concepts revealed

Toyota is showing a new tilting 3-wheel enclosed electric scooter concept at the Geneva Motor Show (opening about now)...




The video is actually quite cool...

Introducing TOYOTA i-ROAD Personal Mobility Vehicle - YouTube, 1m26s

Very much a local vehicle at this stage though...
Toyota i-Road Main Specifications
Length 2,350 mm
Width 850 mm
Height 1,445 mm
Wheelbase 1,700 mm
Curb weight*1 -- 300 kg
Tire size Front: 80/80R16
Rear: 130/70R10
Seating 2
Minimum turning radius 3.0 m
Powertrain Electric motors (2 kw × 2 units) <--- front wheel drive
Maximum speed 45 km/h
Driving range 50 km*2
Battery type Lithium-ion
*1Empty vehicle weight excluding passengers, cargo, etc.; *2Target value based on operation at 30 km/h.
Link - automotiveworld.com

What I want to know is how often you have to change the batteries and how much does it cost every time you do

Bill wrote:What I want to know is how often you have to change the batteries and how much does it cost every time you do

In a Tesla, about 10 years, and $12k if you buy the replacement battery option.

slow wing wrote:Toyota is showing a new tilting 3-wheel enclosed electric scooter concept at the Geneva Motor Show (opening about now)...




The video is actually quite cool...

Introducing TOYOTA i-ROAD Personal Mobility Vehicle - YouTube, 1m26s

Very much a local vehicle at this stage though...
Toyota i-Road Main Specifications
Length 2,350 mm
Width 850 mm
Height 1,445 mm
Wheelbase 1,700 mm
Curb weight*1 -- 300 kg
Tire size Front: 80/80R16
Rear: 130/70R10
Seating 2
Minimum turning radius 3.0 m
Powertrain Electric motors (2 kw × 2 units) <--- front wheel drive
Maximum speed 45 km/h
Driving range 50 km*2
Battery type Lithium-ion
*1Empty vehicle weight excluding passengers, cargo, etc.; *2Target value based on operation at 30 km/h.
Link - automotiveworld.com

Been done and failed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5

Why did the Sinclair fail?

6roucho wrote:Why did the Sinclair fail?

Because it was a bit shit.

Auto Express wrote:This new 1.6-litre diesel model is the best Honda Civic you can buy right now. It makes the 2.2-litre i-DTEC all but superfluous thanks to its punchy power delivery and excellent fuel economy.

CO2 emissions are 94g/km, meaning free road tax and low 13 per cent company car tax. The new diesel also promises 78.5mpg fuel economy, while producing a useful 118bhp and 300Nm of torque.

In comparison, the most efficient 1.6 TDI version of the new Golf will return 74.3mpg and emits 99g/km of CO2, while making do with just over 100bhp and 250Nm of torque. This power advantage is clear on the road, as the Civic is a stronger performer throughout the rev range.

To accommodate the lighter diesel (which is built in Swindon, Wilts), Honda’s engineers have tweaked the Civic’s suspension and steering settings, so this is now the sweetest model to drive.

The nose-heavy feel of the larger-engined i-DTEC car is replaced by sharp turn-in. The throttle is highly responsive and the steering pleasingly direct.

Honda Civic, Urban 70.6, Combined 78.5, Extra urban 85.6mpg, range 862 miles, max speed 129mph, from £19,400

Nissan Leaf, range 100 miles (without lights, heating and wipers), max speed 94mph, from £23,420

Hmm, officially quoted mpg figures. I sure you approach them with the same sceptical view you approach the quoted ranges of electric cars.

Meanwhile, diesel is worse for your health than petrol.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/27/ ... rse-petrol

The government accepts that air pollution from all sources contributes to about 30,000 deaths a year in Britain. But the research estimates that diesel-related health problems cost the NHS more than 10 times as much as comparable problems caused by petrol fumes. Last year the UN's World Health Organisation declared that diesel exhaust caused cancer and was comparable in its effects to secondary cigarette smoking.

Unbelievable that an allegedly civilised country accepts this! FA, why do you leave this part out in your rants against converting to renewables?

DOB wrote:

6roucho wrote:Why did the Sinclair fail?

Because it was a bit shit.

Indeed. I think the best way to build a successful three-wheeler is to make it not shit.

slow wing wrote:

The government accepts that air pollution from all sources contributes to about 30,000 deaths a year in Britain. But the research estimates that diesel-related health problems cost the NHS more than 10 times as much as comparable problems caused by petrol fumes. Last year the UN's World Health Organisation declared that diesel exhaust caused cancer and was comparable in its effects to secondary cigarette smoking.

Unbelievable that an allegedly civilised country accepts this! FA, why do you leave this part out in your rants against converting to renewables?

Dark satanic windmills.

6roucho wrote:

DOB wrote:

6roucho wrote:Why did the Sinclair fail?

Because it was a bit shit.

Indeed. I think the best way to build a successful three-wheeler is to make it not shit.

You could be onto something here, 6roucho. I look forward to the release of the not shit 3-wheeler.

DOB wrote:

6roucho wrote:

DOB wrote:

6roucho wrote:Why did the Sinclair fail?

Because it was a bit shit.

Indeed. I think the best way to build a successful three-wheeler is to make it not shit.

You could be onto something here, 6roucho. I look forward to the release of the not shit 3-wheeler.

That Toyota looks the business to me.