$1b electric car infrastructure deal - Page 6

Not in the long term.
What happens when the gas runs out?
WA already has a gas crisis.

You can buy 100% renewable electrical energy. More of it is simply a
matter of demand.



Electricity already has a distribution system in place, it's called
the grid.

Dave.

At a true (unsubsidised) cost of between twice to nearly ten times that of
conventionally generated electricity.

If you want it to stay subsidised at those levels your taxes are going to go up
a LOT.

Graham

Fossil fuel is also subsidised in Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia

In Australia we currently have the option to pay about 1.5 times the
fossil fuel rate for 100% renewable energy.

Recycled water is also massively subsidised in Oz, and same too even
regular water to some degree.

Dave.

up


Curious.



You mean as the consumer ? There'll doubtless be a big govt subsidy to the
supplier
on top of that which isn't reflected in the price on your bill.




Water resource shortages presumably ?

Graham

go up


Yes.
There are various consumer options available from a variety of energy
providers.
Ranges from bogus "old infrastructure" partly green energy for only a
few cents extra (used to be no cost when the scheme started out),
through to 100% supply guaranteed plans that use new infrastructure
which is about 6 cents extra. You can choose your source too - wind,
solar, biomass or whatever, or a combination.
It is government audited too.

So those that want to be green can simply pay extra for whatever
source you want. I picked wind power.



Nope, never had anything to do with it. It's all politics.

No more shortages in Sydney any more, disaster was averted, the Gods
smiled and it rained.

Dave.

go up


http://www.greenpower.gov.au/home.aspx

and for those who want to sign up:
http://www.alternatezone.com/files/GreenPower1.jpg
http://www.alternatezone.com/files/GreenPower2.jpg

Dave.

**Preferable, but far less efficient. Conversion efficiencies for large,
thermal generation plants is MUCH higher than internal combustion engines
(around double). Electric motors in vehicles routinely top 80+% efficiency.
Even better, is that electric motors generate torque at zero RPM and thus
are perfectly suited to stop-start motoring. Even betterer still is that
regenerative braking can be used to extend the efficiency of the entire
vehicle still further.

Actually it's far from that good and may even be the reverse. What do you think
those cooling towers are for at power plants. Half the energy gets 'thrown
away'.

Typical electricity generation averages around 30-33% from power plant energy
input to wall socket. Losses in battery charging may lose another 10-20% of it
too. It's not like refilling a pail of water, it's like refilling a leaky pail
of water. so you could easily be in 25% efficiency territory (not dissinilar to
a modern petrol engine) and worse as you factor in electrical losses in the
vehicle itself.

In comparison, modern diesel engine efficiency targets for new technology
engines such as ones that eliminate the traditional camshaft are in the 40%
range and large marine diesels already exceed 50% thermal efficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W ärtsilä-Sulzer_RTA96-C
"With a 42.7 MJ/kg fuel, the efficiency is 22.1 MJ/kg / 42.7 MJ/kg = 51.7%."

Apparently MAN make one with ~ 57% efficiency.

Graham

And I forgo this bit too. Another guy in another group wondered about reclaiming
exhaust heat. They DO !

"High-efficiency waste heat recovery

An important feature of the first ship installation of the 14RT-flex96C is the
high-efficiency waste heat recovery system. It contributes major savings in fuel
consumption and reductions in exhaust gas emissions.

Exhaust gases of the ship’s main engine pass through an exhaust-gas economiser to
generate steam for a turbine-driven generator. The turbogenerator set also
includes
an exhaust-gas power turbine driven by a portion of the exhaust gases diverted
from
the main flow through the engine’s turbochargers.

This high-efficiency waste heat recovery plant can provide an electrical output
of
up to about 12% of the main engine power. The generated electricity is supplied
to
the ship’s main switchboard and employed in a shaft motor to assist in ship
propulsion. A portion of the steam from the exhaust economiser is utilised in
shipboard heating services.

Energy recovery is maximised by adapting the engine to the lower air intake
temperatures that are available by drawing intake air from outside the ship
(ambient air) instead of from the ship’s engine room. The engine turbochargers
are
matched for the lower air intake temperatures thereby increasing the exhaust
energy
without affecting the air flow through the engine. There is thus no increase in
the
thermal loading of the engine and there is no adverse effect on engine
reliability."

http://www.wartsila.com/,en,press,0,tradepressrelease,8F51527F-00A3-4C5F-ABEA-B543789ACA1B,26EE6684-06C9-48B3-920A-3B238B7C302A,,.htm

So we're into ~ 58% efficiency territory here.

Graham

**Indeed. A modern thermal plant can reach almost 50% efficiency. FAR
greater than an IC engine in a car. Look at it this way:

A modern petrol engine can reach around 35% efficiency AT BEST. That means,
over a very narrow rev range (though somewhat greater in modern, variable
valve timing type engines). My car manages around 7.1 Litres/100km, when
operating at around 90kph on a flat road. The car weighs around 1,500kg. It
is, for what it is, quite an efficent engine. HOWEVER, under mild
acceleration (say, taking 10 seconds to reach 60kph) fuel consumption rises
to around 30L/100km from 0-30kph and around 25L/100km form 30-60kph. In city
traffic, this occurs far more often than I care to think about. An electric
(of hybrid) vehicle has three, huge advantages under these conditions (which
is the majority for most city dwellers all over the world):

1) Electic motors develop all their torque from 0 RPM up. 'Fuel' economy is
the same, regardless of how hard the car accelerates.
2) Electric motors are approximately the same efficiency, regardless of RPM.
IOW: Whilst a petrol engine is, at BEST, 35% efficient, an electric motor
remains at (say) 80% efficiency.
3) Regenerative braking can be employed, potentially providing spectacular
gains.



**Indeed. You should not consider the MAXIMUM efficiency of an IC engine (as
used in a car) as representative of TYPICAL efficiency. It doesn't work like
that in the real world. A TYPICAL petrol engine would be more like 15%
efficient in real-world conditions. For those with a 'lead foot' and extreme
bumper-to-bumper' driving (ever been to LA, NYC or Sydney?) efficiencies
would be lower still. Electric motors, however, remain at 80-odd %.



**No argument from me with stationary engines. Because they operate over a
very narrow rev range, their efficiencies can be very impressive.



**Sure. How many are fitted to your GM cars?

means,


A bit of a contradiction there, how can it be "AT BEST", if so many modern
engines can do better?



Mine does under 5 Litres/100km under those same conditions, and *averages*
6L/100km, all without expensive batteries.
And can still manage to safely overtake in sixth gear!

MrT.

**Non-sequitur. Modern Petrol engines can only mange around 35% efficiency,
AT BEST. Typically, in heavy city traffic, fuel consumption will easily
double.



**Great. BTW: How much does it weigh? How many people can it legally carry?
How much luggage? What is the fuel consumption under acceleration (mine can
easily exceed 60L/100km (yes, SIXTY), when I really give it some stick) What
is the fuel consumption is typical SYDNEY/LA/NYC/London heavy peak hour
traffic? Don't forget: The Prius and pure electric cars are designed for
cities, not country towns.

engines).

modern
efficiency,

And yet *YOU* were the one who already pointed out the now common VVT
engines might do better, not me! Not to mention the increasingly common
turbo diesels.



*averages*


About 1.4 Tonne



Five.


Enough.


The instantaneous readout has never exceeded 20l/km, but the important thing
to me is that the average is 6.0L/100km over more than 10,000km, both city
and highway use.



I live in a city myself, and even then the Prius would cost me *far* more to
own/run, and perform worse in many situations.
We don't all have to drive to the CBD every day you know!
But how come you don't have one if you think they are so great? Frankly I
think they are a pathetic attempt at cashing in, and can easily be improved
on when the demand/economics justify it.
It may be quite a while before a one car owner in Australia could seriously
consider an electric vehicle IMO however.
I won't hold my breathe waiting for the government to do something about the
CTP disincentive though. At the moment you are FAR better off simply buying
a Falcodore and taking the $2k taxpayer handout to convert it to gas. then
not having to pay the huge fuel excises either.

In fact the conversion companies are now starting to do quite a few four
cylinder cars as well, I can't see how a Prius could possibly compete with
that.

MrT.

**Basic efficiency is not improved. Just the efficiency over a wider rev
range.



**All quite impressive for a petrol engine. What is the fuel consuption
under acceleration and in typical Sydney peak hour traffic?



**You have a commendably light foot, or your car accelerates very slowly.



**Fine.



**Fine. Don't buy a Prius. The Prius is designed for people who do *a lot*
of heavy traffic driving.



**For a bunch of reasons:
* I NEVER buy new (or near new) cars.
* I need a vehicle which can carry long (2 Metre) loads.
* I drive as little as possible. The Prius only makes sense for heavy city
drivers.

 Frankly I


**You're entitled to your opinion. I also feel that Toyota COULD have done
better. However, credit should go them, since Ford, GM and others have
managed to completely ignore the issue.



**We'll see.



**That is obscene. Along with the nonsensically high price of Diesel.



**In pure Dollar terms, it cannot. Prius purchasers often have other
incentives.

Not for turbo diesels, Increased efficiency over a narrower rev range
compared to petrol engines. Not a problem when mated with lots of gears or
CVT



Not for a turbo diesel as I keep telling you.



My *average* is 6.0L/100km, including peak hour city driving. Why should I
care about Sydney peak hour traffic anyway? That's what public transport is
for.


city

Nope *easily* out exelerates most cars in traffic without needing a petrol
bowser in tow!



Thanks, I won't!



Actually designed for countries/cities different than our own. But mostly
just to get in on the developmental ground floor. Pity they haven't climbed
any higher in the last decade though.



And not even then! But you see it it pointless for you, just as it is for
*most* people in Australia.



Nope, the Ford Focus and GM Astra Turbo diesels (among others) are far more
practical in Australia than the overpriced Prius.
And God help you when the batteries need replacing.
GM had an electric car long before the Prius. The time wasn't right, just as
it still isn't. I'm not saying that won't ever change however. Maybe then
the vehicles will improve, they certainly need to!



If you live long enough.


then

No argument from me!


with

Exactly.


Ignorance of the total costs involved until too late, or simply a wish to
scare pedestrians? :-)

MrT.

er, make that accelerates :-)

MrT.

**Indeed. Things are changing in that area too.



**Ah, the old apples with oranges comparison. I understand it well.



**It is also why many people buy Prius cars.



**What is the acceleration from 0-100kph? The Prius is approximately 11
seconds. My own dinosaur manages it in around 8 seconds.



**Nope. The Prius works extremely well right here in Sydney.

 But mostly


**They have, actually. Just not far enough.



**I disagree. Most people I see on the roads do not require huge load
carrying capacity, nor long distance ability. Some do, but most do not.



**Not around Sydney, they're not. The price of Diesel is far too high and
they don't provide sufficient economy for city driving.



**What's the warranty? 8 years? I did some calculations and figured that I
could replace the batteries in a Prius for around AUS$1,000.00. Given that I
could manage it, I'm certain others could do likewise, at lower prices.
Toyota's battery price is just silly, of course.



**I've seen interviews with the people who leased that car. They seemed to
feel that the time was right. They were not allowed to keep their cars.

 I'm not saying that won't ever change however. Maybe then


**Oh, we're just starting this particular journey into the technology. But
start we must. Personal transport using fossil fuel is doomed.



**Like I said: we'll see. 'Peak oil' has probably been reached. $10.00/Litre
for Diesel/petrol is not an unreasonable expectation within the next decade.
At those levels, electric cars will suddenly appear to be a real good idea,
despite the limitations (and they are certainly considerable).



**A desire to do their bit for the environment. At least, three of my
neighbours, who own Prius cars cite that as their rationale. I applaud them
for putting their money where their mouths are. The Prius is a very
expensive way to make a statement. They are certainly not under the delusion
that the Prius will pay itself back in fuel savings.

Why? My car is directly comparable to a Prius in size, passenger/luggage
carrying ability, comfort, overall running cost, emmissions etc. BUT
performance is better, costs less to buy, no batteries to replace.
It's actually YOUR car that is a totally different category it seems.



petrol

See, mine is less than that! (9.3 seconds according to the manufacturer with
a slightly more expensive model rated at 8.2 seconds with a rated fuel
consumption of 6.3 litres combined) You really need to see what is out there
before singing the praises of overpriced obsolete technology like the Prius.



So can *many* cars, at the expense of fuel consumption of course.



But not as well as some other options.



The Prius has hardly improved at all in that time unfortunately.


for

Ah, the old "perfect for others but not for me" argument.



Yep, if all you do is travel in the city, save your money and use public
transport. OR buy a motor scooter.



No argument there. Renewable energy sources and electric only cars will be
necessary, NOT cars like the Prius!


$10.00/Litre

decade.
idea,

Certainly not crap like the Prius though.



No argument there.



Walk or ride a push bike then.


them

Not to mention delusional when there are far better options.
My beef is that the single biggest problem with the world is 6+ Billion
people, and yet those pretending to save the planet are often the same ones
screaming for baby bonuses, child care support, and a hundred other handouts
to encourage people to make the problem worse!



That's just as well. :-)

MrT.

Yes, natural gas is a very good option.
It is not too difficult to convert a conventional vehicle to use natural gas.
The gas is usually compressed in a tank which will give about 100km or so,
usually enough for daily commutes. The engine can be configured to switch to
another fuel source when the gas runs out.

That sounds ideal especially when combined with a home refueller
<http://www.myphill.com/ so you don't have to pay fuel tax.