281 replies to this topic

[24gerrard]

So, if everyone converts to electric powered cars will it also mean that the mining equipment that digs up the ground to get the raw materials for the batteries also be electric?

I do not know.
What difference does this make in the short term?
As I said, I have not even touched upon environmental issues yet.
My primary arguments for EVs are economic and political ones.

However, I did convert a pig farm to self sufficient energy burning compacted straw in the 1970s.
At that time we also had plans for self sufficient farms using straw to generate electricity for farm equipment.
Oil suppliers did not like that one and invested in the development of short stalked straw to remove the energy source.

I even ran a tractor on powdered straw. Ran well.

Edited by 24gerrard, 12 May 2011 - 10:34.

[cheapracer]

I do not know.

Finally

But seriously...

What difference does this make in the short term?
As I said, I have not even touched upon environmental issues yet.
My primary arguments for EVs are economic and political ones.

However, I did convert a pig farm to self sufficient energy burning compacted straw in the 1970s.
At that time we also had plans for self sufficient farms using straw to generate electricity for farm equipment.
Oil suppliers did not like that one and invested in the development of short stalked straw to remove the energy source.

I even ran a tractor on powdered straw. Ran well.

One of China's genuine pollution problems putting aside the exported Co2 is straw. Farmers every year burn off masses of the stuff even though the Government has offered to pay for it and instituted other programs to stop the Farmers doing it but 1000's of years habits don't die easily. I literally can't breathe properly for 2 x 2week periods each year.

Straw fuel has a potential in China is obviously where I'm going.

[saudoso]

There is one huge difference between batteries and fossil fuel.
You burn fossil fuel and it adds to the atmospheres CO2 and pollution content.

And how is it that you generate the electric energy again?

[meb58]

Yes, yes! If we count only the source of CO2 - the tailpipe - then battery power wins. However, when we begin to peel away the layers in the processes required to develop, manufacture, maintain and recycle, I think battery power loses some of it's shine. But as 24gerrard implied, the battery development picture appears to be changing at a very fast rate...

[saudoso]

Yes, yes! If we count only the source of CO2 - the tailpipe - then battery power wins. However, when we begin to peel away the layers in the processes required to develop, manufacture, maintain and recycle, I think battery power loses some of it's shine. But as 24gerrard implied, the battery development picture appears to be changing at a very fast rate...

I guess it will come along Mars commercial exploration.

So we can leave racing as it is for now and start starF1 when the time comes.

[desmo]

Not a V6 but a... 6 cyl.. straight six sounds like... heaven done right. Not likely to be seen in F1 tho but why not leave it open.
http://www.youtube.c...etailpage#t=12s

I was at a hillclimb in Tuscany a couple of weeks back and there were a few hillclimb cars with straight-6 BMW engines and they sounded quite amazing going off.















In fact the entire event was what I'd consider closer to the spirit of motorsport than the big commercial corporate circuses, with cars running up and down public streets dodging among traffic and people to get to between the pits set up on the sides of the roads and the starting line or scrutineering. I should probably do a picture thread of the whole spectacle.

[24gerrard]

Finally

But seriously...




One of China's genuine pollution problems putting aside the exported Co2 is straw. Farmers every year burn off masses of the stuff even though the Government has offered to pay for it and instituted other programs to stop the Farmers doing it but 1000's of years habits don't die easily. I literally can't breathe properly for 2 x 2week periods each year.

Straw fuel has a potential in China is obviously where I'm going.

Straw contains a lot of energy and is a by product of food production.
Using it adds no more CO2 to the atmosphere and is a win win situation.
I worked with straw compactors that either compacted large dried bales or smaller brickets.
The brickets were burned in an efficient multi pass boiler to supply heated water to serve a small holding house and pig unit.
Both brickets and the larger bales can be used to produce steam to drive turbine generators.
With the developments now of smart grids there is no need for electrical storage as the current generated feeds directly into the grid.
Electricaly powered farm plant and equipment is under development to get rid of fossil diesel fuel, which is the MAIN cost in modern farming.

China could be a MAJOR benificiary of this technology, as it is a country that still has a huge and under developed farming base.
I would be pleased to help if they are interested.
Britain still has politicians with an almost complete ignorance of such things.
So I dont bother with them.
From my own experience British farming is to blinkered and reliant on the b--l sh-- they get from current equipment and fuel suppliers.
British farmers are only interested in government subsidies and moaning about the price of diesel as far as I know.

[24gerrard]

And how is it that you generate the electric energy again?

God damn it, here we go again for the ten thousandth time.
Same silly questions.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IS USED TO GENERATE THE ELECTRICITY.
By having an efficient grid supply structure on modern 'smart' lines, the generation can either be centralised therebye attracting efficient methods of cost effective power generation OF ANY TYPE, or from incentives given by government to villages towns, businees, farms etc to generate small level input to either reduce or illiminate their energy costs. or even make them a tidy profit.

[Tony Matthews]

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IS USED TO GENERATE THE ELECTRICITY.

So brown coal is OK, then.

[saudoso]

God damn it, here we go again for the ten thousandth time.
Same silly questions.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IS USED TO GENERATE THE ELECTRICITY.
By having an efficient grid supply structure on modern 'smart' lines, the generation can either be centralised therebye attracting efficient methods of cost effective power generation OF ANY TYPE, or from incentives given by government to villages towns, businees, farms etc to generate small level input to either reduce or illiminate their energy costs. or even make them a tidy profit.

It does matter, because if you get a 10% efficience / emissions gain from the stationary generation and has a 30% wieight overhead from the bateries you are not gaining anything

[24gerrard]

It does matter, because if you get a 10% efficience / emissions gain from the stationary generation and has a 30% wieight overhead from the bateries you are not gaining anything

You are again forgeting the liquid fuel distribution network.
Using batteries in EVs, centralised and also small scale generation, all allow the fine control over energy production and its balance to peak demands and slack periods.
Actual powertrain plus batteries compared to liquid fuel stored in tanks and the ic powertrain, is nowhere near a 30 percent more electric weight figure.
More like 10 at present, which is more than overcome by the huge efficiency gains with an electric network plus the potential huge energy cost savings for all, if not actual profits for us all.

[24gerrard]

So brown coal is OK, then.

As far as for a complete electric grid system with EVs being more cost effective for us all, then yes it is Tony.
The centralised generation will allow the best possible methods of converting your 'brown coal' to energy.

Of course brown coal is not an energy source ideal for reducing CO2 output or pollution but I am not talking about green issues only economic and political.
As I keep saying, the source of energy is irelevent if we are talking solely about the best cost effective methods of running vehicles and all other human energy needs.

When this is accepted, then it will be seen that the electric method is again the best to address the CO2 and pollution problems on the planet.
I am simply proving that to be an EV supporter does NOT mean you have to be a 'green' weirdo, or some pc anti motor head weed, it is common sense.

[WhiteBlue]

Todt: New Rules Set in stone

Are there any serious publications of the anti 2013 faction plans? AFAIK it is only Montezemolo and Ecclestone who are pushing this story. The rest of the teams and engine manufacturer have never come out with criticism since December 2010.

[gruntguru]

It does matter, because if you get a 10% efficience / emissions gain from the stationary generation and has a 30% wieight overhead from the bateries you are not gaining anything

New electricty generation plant has at least 40% thermal efficiency, 60% for combined cycle CNG turbine, very low CO2 for nuclear, solar, hydro, wind etc.

Using an IC engine in a car gives (up to) 35% TE PEAK! Once you include idling, off-peak operation etc the average is much lower - perhaps 10%. EV's on the other hand have very high conversion efficiency (electricity is often considered as interchangeable with work).

Anyway, comparing 10% with the 40% TE of a coal fired power station is a 75% improvement - not 10% as you suggest.

Sure this is a very simplistic analysis and neglects a lot of things, like energy input at manufacture and distribution inefficiencies for both hydrocarbons and electricity.

The big plus for EV is the flexibility of the energy source. The future holds a lot of promise for green electricity from nuclear fusion to small scale local generation (solar panels on the roof, micro CHP etc). IC engined vehicles have far fewer options for energy source.

[Greg Locock]

New electricty generation plant has at least 40% thermal efficiency, 60% for combined cycle CNG turbine, very low CO2 for nuclear, solar, hydro, wind etc.

Using an IC engine in a car gives (up to) 35% TE PEAK! Once you include idling, off-peak operation etc the average is much lower - perhaps 10%. EV's on the other hand have very high conversion efficiency (electricity is often considered as interchangeable with work).

Anyway, comparing 10% with the 40% TE of a coal fired power station is a 75% improvement - not 10% as you suggest.

That maths is so bad. You can't use that 60% figure it is cheating. 35% is not the best, 42% is. The average IC is better than you suggest. Experienced EV operators quote a 60% round trip for energy into and out of a battery, not the 100% you suggest. etc etc etc.

[gruntguru]

That maths is so bad. You can't use that 60% figure it is cheating. 35% is not the best, 42% is. The average IC is better than you suggest. Experienced EV operators quote a 60% round trip for energy into and out of a battery, not the 100% you suggest. etc etc etc.

Mostly good points. How is the 60% cheating?

[Greg Locock]

Mostly good points. How is the 60% cheating?

Because I was wrong, sorry. I thought that was combined electricity+heat, it isn't.

[Catalina Park]

So brown coal is OK, then.

The Tasmanian Greens prefer brown coal power over hydro-electric power.

[Tony Matthews]

The Tasmanian Greens prefer brown coal power over hydro-electric power.

They must know someone with a lot of brown coal, then!

[gruntguru]

Bob Brown perhaps?

[Catalina Park]

The Victorians have a lot of brown coal so they built a power cable under Bass Straight so that Tasmania didn't have to build more hydro.

[cheapracer]

The Victorians have a lot of brown coal so they built a power cable under Bass Straight so that Tasmania didn't have to build more hydro.

Must take a lot of pressure to pump coal through such a small cable.

[Wuzak]

The Victorians have a lot of brown coal so they built a power cable under Bass Straight so that Tasmania didn't have to build more hydro.

It was supposed to be that the Tasmanian system supplied extra power to the Victorian grid during periods of high demand, but then the drought happened and power was being imported to Tasmania due to very low level dam storage.

In Tasmania the private consumer can only purchase power throuh Aurora, which is the state owned electricity retailer (the Hydro Electric Commision utility was divided into 3 parts during the '90s to appease the "you must privatise everything" Howard government - the HEC remains the generator, Transend are the distributor and Aurora the retailer - cleverly trebling the bureaucracy).

Large companies and government can get bulk deals from suppliers outside of the state - the state government did a deal with a Queensland supplier earlier in the year.

And last time I was in Victoria I saw that Aurora sells there now too....

[cheapracer]

during the '90s to appease the "you must privatise everything" Howard government -

Not even close if you think it started there but they are both as bad as each other in this area at the end of the day so I am in no way looking for a Libour or Laberal debate - I'm surprised they aren't renting Parliment House from who and for more than they sold it for by now.

Edited by cheapracer, 13 May 2011 - 09:41.

[24gerrard]

It was supposed to be that the Tasmanian system supplied extra power to the Victorian grid during periods of high demand, but then the drought happened and power was being imported to Tasmania due to very low level dam storage.

In Tasmania the private consumer can only purchase power throuh Aurora, which is the state owned electricity retailer (the Hydro Electric Commision utility was divided into 3 parts during the '90s to appease the "you must privatise everything" Howard government - the HEC remains the generator, Transend are the distributor and Aurora the retailer - cleverly trebling the bureaucracy).

Large companies and government can get bulk deals from suppliers outside of the state - the state government did a deal with a Queensland supplier earlier in the year.

And last time I was in Victoria I saw that Aurora sells there now too....

Sounds like yet another corrupt method for private enterprise to milk profits from cheap and in this case 'dirty fossil' fuels and to block any political barriers by sourcing deals offshore (out of state).
It is the same in the UK using dangerous French nuclear power.
Both energy set ups are delaying developments in alternate energy supply, photo voltaic, wind and hydro and of course electric traction to help grid modernisation.
As long as these privately based operations can gain profits cheaply, there will be no proper investment in our childrens future and we will remain 'stuck' in the daft , greedy and corrupt world 'dream' form of economics.

I apologise for my part in disrailing the original thread subject.
However all this energy supply corruption does have a direct effect on how F1 developes and of course the 2013 regulations.
I see Bernie is again quoting 'shock and awe' in defence of big engined, noisy F1 cars.
He knows that outside forces from world politics and economics can still have a major effect on the future of the sport.
I am with WB though, the four cylinder formula is all but done and dusted.

[saudoso]

Are there any serious publications of the anti 2013 faction plans? AFAIK it is only Montezemolo and Ecclestone who are pushing this story. The rest of the teams and engine manufacturer have never come out with criticism since December 2010.

"We are in a world where things can change, you know. It is not only our little world of F1. You have other things happening in the world.

Dramatic things could happen and then we would have to reconsider something. But at the moment there is no reason of reconsidering because it has been unanimously agreed, and after lengthy discussions and meeting with people who are involved in this business."

Can someone please translate this JT's bit from politichese into english?

[24gerrard]

Can someone please translate this JT's bit from politichese into english?

I thought I had

[saudoso]

I thought I had

No you didn't. You gave your opinion on the 4 banger issue as a whole. You didn't cover that conclusion in JT's words

I'm asking someone of a more political vein to decipher the meaning of that statement.

For me it means leaving a backdoor safely and wide open.

[Wuzak]

Not even close if you think it started there but they are both as bad as each other in this area at the end of the day so I am in no way looking for a Libour or Laberal debate - I'm surprised they aren't renting Parliment House from who and for more than they sold it for by now.

Labor did sell the Commonwealth Bank and QANTAS before Howard got in.

But the Hydro Electric Commission was not Howard's to sell, and the people of Tasmania had no intention of selling. But Howard threatened withdrawal of federal funding to the state if the Hydro was not privatised. So they split it up into the three bits so they could have a separate retail arm to compete against othere electricity retailers. It is just that no other electric retailers have been allowed in yet.

[Wuzak]

Sounds like yet another corrupt method for private enterprise to milk profits from cheap and in this case 'dirty fossil' fuels and to block any political barriers by sourcing deals offshore (out of state).

The government here is trying to introduce a carbon trading scheme/tax that has thus far met with very high resistance. The naysayers tell everyone who will listen that we will be going it alone, conveniently forgetting that other countries have had CTS for the best part of a decade.

Some power production is described as green or renewable, and I suspect people who opt for such a supply get tax benefits. The hydro dams in Tasmania were built before the cut-off date for consideration as renewable generation schemes.

[Wuzak]

I see Bernie is again quoting 'shock and awe' in defence of big engined, noisy F1 cars.

At 2.4l they are hardly big.

[24gerrard]

At 2.4l they are hardly big.

Depends what you compare it to.
I have a Le France from 1917 in our yard, thats a big engine.
Chain drive.
2.4 liters is large compared to my old Norton 99 dominator, or the Fiat 500s I used to used to go to lunch.

In my experience, the 'motor head' simply considers things by the 'noise' an angine makes.
In a road car, this is anti social and not neccesary.
In a race car it is a result of the power extraction process, lack of regulation and modifications to enhance the noise past reality.
It is a played out and dated argument.
Every year it becomes more difficult to gain planning permission to run motor sport and the 'noise' is the biggest problem.
Size of engine has NO relevence whatsoever.