sharetrader
Page 156 of 174 FirstFirst ... 56106146152153154155156157158159160166 ... LastLast
Results 2,326 to 2,340 of 2607
  1. #2326
    The past is practise. Vaygor1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northland
    Posts
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiora View Post
    COST-EFFECTIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION
    "Trucks are being developed to run on hydrogen, and the government here is “quite excited” about its potential here, he said. But others question whether conversion of electricity to hydrogen to fuel cells and back to electricity can ever be economic."

    http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/c...y+25+June+2019
    It can never be economic, as is the use of electric cars.

    Every time energy is converted from one form to another, or transmitted/distributed, there are losses, and sometimes really big ones.

    To keep this simple lets look at using fuel to drive an internal combustion engine vs using the same fuel to drive an electric electric engine.

    We'll start with the fuel = a base value (datum) of 100


    Combustion Engine
    Oil (Chemical Energy) 100
    Combust in an engine, explosion causes mechanical energy. Lose 65% of its potential.
    Energy left = 35
    Car moves

    Electric Engine
    Oil (Chemical Energy) 100
    Burn oil in a power station to make heat (Heat Energy). Lose 15% of the heat in the process
    Energy left = 85
    Use the heat to make steam (Transfer of Heat Energy). Lose 5%
    Energy left 81
    Use the steam to rotate a turbine (Mechanical Energy). Lose 60%
    Energy left = 32
    Convert the rotating energy to electricity via an armature (Electrical Energy). Lose 40%
    Energy left = 19
    Send electricity to your house (Distribution of Electrical Energy via lines and transformers). Lose 20%
    Energy left = 15.5
    Use electricity to charge your battery (Back to Chemical Energy in the battery). Lose 5%
    Energy left = 15
    Use Battery to make electricity to drive the motor (Back to Electrical Energy). Lose 5%
    Energy left = 14
    Use electricity to turn electric motor (Mechanical Energy). Lose 20%
    Energy left = 11
    Car moves

    The above does not take into account the mining of the earth for materials to make these batteries (Housed in plastic made out of oil), then the distribution of the minerals to a factory producing large scale toxic waste to make them, then distribution of these batteries around the globe.

    Also not taken into account is the speed at which these batteries increasingly lose their charge while in use or not, until they eventually need replacing.

    All the efficiency figures above are in the greenies favour.

  2. #2327
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bolivia.
    Posts
    1,574

    Default

    ***Dunnos City Council declares Climate Emergency***

    If you live in Dunedin, another excuse for your rates to go up.

  3. #2328
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sideshow Bob View Post
    ***Dunnos City Council declares Climate Emergency***

    If you live in Dunedin, another excuse for your rates to go up.

    But we'll be safe from that nasty climate. Whoopee!

  4. #2329
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,146

  5. #2330
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    2,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    ..........
    ......... gone

  6. #2331
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sideshow Bob View Post
    ***Dunnos City Council declares Climate Emergency***

    If you live in Dunedin, another excuse for your rates to go up.
    But no problems granting consent for the Hospital on the waterfront hey. Just another excuse to garner more rates.

  7. #2332
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bolivia.
    Posts
    1,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    But no problems granting consent for the Hospital on the waterfront hey. Just another excuse to garner more rates.
    Not quite waterfront as mainly the old Cadbury site, but reclaimed land.

    However DCC with others are looking to build this edifice on the waterfront - https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/b...in-harbourside

  8. #2333
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaygor1 View Post
    It can never be economic, as is the use of electric cars.

    Every time energy is converted from one form to another, or transmitted/distributed, there are losses, and sometimes really big ones.

    To keep this simple lets look at using fuel to drive an internal combustion engine vs using the same fuel to drive an electric electric engine.

    We'll start with the fuel = a base value (datum) of 100


    Combustion Engine
    Oil (Chemical Energy) 100
    Combust in an engine, explosion causes mechanical energy. Lose 65% of its potential.
    Energy left = 35
    Car moves

    Electric Engine
    Oil (Chemical Energy) 100
    Burn oil in a power station to make heat (Heat Energy). Lose 15% of the heat in the process
    Energy left = 85
    Use the heat to make steam (Transfer of Heat Energy). Lose 5%
    Energy left 81
    Use the steam to rotate a turbine (Mechanical Energy). Lose 60%
    Energy left = 32
    Convert the rotating energy to electricity via an armature (Electrical Energy). Lose 40%
    Energy left = 19
    Send electricity to your house (Distribution of Electrical Energy via lines and transformers). Lose 20%
    Energy left = 15.5
    Use electricity to charge your battery (Back to Chemical Energy in the battery). Lose 5%
    Energy left = 15
    Use Battery to make electricity to drive the motor (Back to Electrical Energy). Lose 5%
    Energy left = 14
    Use electricity to turn electric motor (Mechanical Energy). Lose 20%
    Energy left = 11
    Car moves

    The above does not take into account the mining of the earth for materials to make these batteries (Housed in plastic made out of oil), then the distribution of the minerals to a factory producing large scale toxic waste to make them, then distribution of these batteries around the globe.

    Also not taken into account is the speed at which these batteries increasingly lose their charge while in use or not, until they eventually need replacing.

    All the efficiency figures above are in the greenies favour.
    Bwahahaha, first a complete load of bunkum in efficiency figures, backed up by nothing, then a total lie to finish it off.

    Now lets go to some real world figures.

    Fuel to output of a CCGT plant is typically 50% efficency (not 21% as your figures work out to) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...en_HHV_and_LHV)
    "A real best-of-class baseload CCGT efficiency of 54%, as experienced by the utility operating the plant, translates to 60% LHV as the manufacturer's published headline CCGT efficiency."

    I'll use 50% because we aren't going to assume best in class performance


    Also, your 80% efficiency for electric motor efficiency is not true, permanent magnet motors do much better under low load which is where EVs operate most of the time. try 90% (lose 10%)

    But back to the matter at hand
    Using realistic efficiency figures for the CCGT plant, and we'll run with your distribution and charging figures because they are close enough.


    Diesel fuel 36MJ/L
    Generator output 18MJ/L
    Less transmission losses 18 * 0.8 = 14.4MJ/L
    less charging losses 14.4 *0.95 = 13.68 MJ/Litre
    MJ to Watt hours = 13,680,000 / 3600 (secs/hour) = 3800 Watt hours.

    https://i.redd.it/thg92q0whsg01.png <-- real world normal driving in a model 3 = 267W.Hr/mile = 166 W.hr/ km

    3800 / 166 = 22km / litre or 4.3L per 100km.

    Yeah, your ICE got smoked.. and thats worst case, if your power is coming from oil; if its wind, solar, geothermal/hydro electric are all better again for the planet

  9. #2334
    The past is practise. Vaygor1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northland
    Posts
    901

    Default

    You've wasted your time sorry Vags.

    A CCGT power station you quote combines both Gas and Steam. The apples-for-apples comparison used oil as the datum.

    You can compare your CCGT power station with a car that runs on both gas and steam and come back to me if you want.

    Your figures are optimistic to suit your position. Your 50% does not include the full chain of inefficiencies including distribution losses (of which my figure is very conservative).

    We can both quote figures and websites and scenarios until the cows come home but the reality, using my example is:

    Energy transfer using Internal combustion engine
    Chemical --> Mechanical

    Energy transfer using electric engine
    Chemical --> Heat ---> Heated Steam ---> Mechanical ---> Electrical (plus distribution losses) ----> Chemical (Battery - including storage losses I neglected)---> Electrical -----> Mechanical.

  10. #2335
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    120

    Default

    When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging is generally the advice given.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaygor1 View Post
    You've wasted your time sorry Vags.

    A CCGT power station you quote combines both Gas and Steam. The apples-for-apples comparison used oil as the datum.
    You're right, CCGT can't use diesel as a fuel, my bad. But we can re-run the numbers with a piston powered combined cycle powerplant.

    You can compare your CCGT power station with a car that runs on both gas and steam and come back to me if you want.
    Err, steam is a working fluid in a power station..its not fuel.. all the energy ultimately comes from the fuel (that'd be diesel (fuel oil) or gas).

    Unless you want to claim that the CCGT is burning steam (=water) as fuel? Go right ahead, because that would be very entertaining.

    Anyway, if you got to (https://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/1997/T1860.pdf) and read the paragraph at the bottom of page 3. Diesel buring piston powered combined cycle powerplant can reach efficiencies of 54%. so replace CCGT with CC piston power plant in the above figures.. and we get the same results.
    Your figures are optimistic to suit your position. Your 50% does not include the full chain of inefficiencies including distribution losses (of which my figure is very conservative).
    Err, yeah, it does, go read my post again, there is a line that starts with the words "Less transmission losses".. for which I used YOUR 20% loss (80% efficiency) figure..

    We can both quote figures and websites and scenarios until the cows come home but the reality, using my example is:

    Energy transfer using Internal combustion engine
    Chemical --> Mechanical

    Energy transfer using electric engine
    Chemical --> Heat ---> Heated Steam ---> Mechanical ---> Electrical (plus distribution losses) ----> Chemical (Battery - including storage losses I neglected)---> Electrical -----> Mechanical.

    And yet... your single energy transfer (which actually isn't a single transfer, its Chemical -> Heat -> mechanical) is so freaking inefficient that the entire chain of transfers involved in burning fuel to spin a turbine( or a crankshaft in a piston generator) to generate electricity, ship it around the country via wires and transformers, charge a battery, then use it to drive an electric motor to move a car .. it's still more efficient!!!

    So today we learned that a low speed (<150rpm) two stroke diesel engine, with all those extra transfers to capture energy that would be pumped straight out of a dirty exhaust pipe in your car engine, is more efficient than a simple 'suck, squeeze, bang, blow' car engine. Sometimes simple is better, sometimes simple is just wasteful.
    Last edited by Vagabond47; 26-06-2019 at 07:42 PM. Reason: bleh, corrections.

  11. #2336
    The past is practise. Vaygor1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northland
    Posts
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond47 View Post
    ... Err, steam is a working fluid in a power station..its not fuel.. all the energy ultimately comes from the fuel (that'd be diesel (fuel oil) or gas).

    Unless you want to claim that the CCGT is burning steam (=water) as fuel? Go right ahead, because that would be very entertaining.
    It would be entertaining, but it is you, not me, making the comparison with systems that use steam. Haven't seen too many cars that use steam as part of their driving force... seen a few trains though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond47 View Post
    Anyway, if you got to (https://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/1997/T1860.pdf) and read the paragraph at the bottom of page 3. Diesel buring piston powered combined cycle powerplant can reach efficiencies of 54%. so replace CCGT with CC piston power plant in the above figures.. and we get the same results.
    Interesting paper you are heralding with that link there Vags. Right at the start , 1st paragraph of the Abstract it states "This paper surveys the latest technology of power plants driven by reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines, ... "

    So now your are extolling the virtues of an ICE, claiming how efficient they are... and that generating electricity using an ICE 1000's of miles away from where it is used is more efficient than having the ICE in the vehicle itself... and you can find the numbers to back this up.

    "But wait" you say... "I'm talking about using an ICE power plant to drive electrically driven engines". You must have a point there. We should get together and produce a purely electrically driven car whose sole fuel source is diesel or petrol, thus eliminating those pesky electricity transmission losses and the need for those dirty Li-Ion battery banks. I can't believe we're the 1st ones to think of it.

    But alas, it just doesn't make sense to go through all those changes of state of energy with their associated losses when you can go direct. I am afraid our invention might have a fundamental flaw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond47 View Post
    And yet... your single energy transfer (which actually isn't a single transfer, its Chemical -> Heat -> mechanical) ....
    I see, so you believe it is heat that causes a piston to move, not the explosive force of a volatile air/chemical mixture.

    It is the chemical reaction (ie an explosion) that directly produces the mechanical force and also directly produces the heat (and sound). This heat by-product is by far the main component of an ICE's inefficiencies.

    It is the tiniest of sparks along with a volatile chemical/air mix that causes the chemical reaction. The smallest amount of static electricity can produce a spark, but won't heat up an engine block by any measurable amount.

  12. #2337
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaygor1 View Post
    It would be entertaining, but it is you, not me, making the comparison with systems that use steam. Haven't seen too many cars that use steam as part of their driving force... seen a few trains though.



    Interesting paper you are heralding with that link there Vags. Right at the start , 1st paragraph of the Abstract it states "This paper surveys the latest technology of power plants driven by reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines, ... "

    So now your are extolling the virtues of an ICE, claiming how efficient they are... and that generating electricity using an ICE 1000's of miles away from where it is used is more efficient than having the ICE in the vehicle itself... and you can find the numbers to back this up.

    "But wait" you say... "I'm talking about using an ICE power plant to drive electrically driven engines". You must have a point there. We should get together and produce a purely electrically driven car whose sole fuel source is diesel or petrol, thus eliminating those pesky electricity transmission losses and the need for those dirty Li-Ion battery banks. I can't believe we're the 1st ones to think of it.

    But alas, it just doesn't make sense to go through all those changes of state of energy with their associated losses when you can go direct. I am afraid our invention might have a fundamental flaw.
    Except your direct conversion wastes normally >2/3rds of the energy straight out the exhaust pipe/radiator.

    I see, so you believe it is heat that causes a piston to move, not the explosive force of a volatile air/chemical mixture.

    It is the chemical reaction (ie an explosion) that directly produces the mechanical force and also directly produces the heat (and sound). This heat by-product is by far the main component of an ICE's inefficiencies.

    It is the tiniest of sparks along with a volatile chemical/air mix that causes the chemical reaction. The smallest amount of static electricity can produce a spark, but won't heat up an engine block by any measurable amount.
    Yeah, you have no idea. I could take photos of several pages of my first year engineering texts and prove you wrong, but its really not worth the effort.

    Chemical energy -> Combustion (not explosion) -> thermal energy.. what happens when you heat the air in the combustion chamber? (heck, they even call it a combustion chamber, not an explosion chamber) Thermal expansion (Pressure), which pushes the piston down.

    Go to any experienced automotive mechanic and tell him your car engine experienced detonation (=explosion) at high load and high speed and he'll expect to a see a baked beans tin with pieces of broken piston in it (or your car arriving on a tow truck for an engine replacement)

    As for refuting the rest of your rubbish, not going to bother, you have zero clues, zero logical argument, and I've already linked the data that refutes your nonsense. (oh, and out in the real world power companies keep paying extra money for all these combined cycle powerplants.. because power companies are run by morons? or because all that extra plant pays for itself over the life of the plant in much higher efficiency?

    toodle-pip.

  13. #2338
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,146

    Default

    And the world is going to increase food production? Go figure.
    "According to a report commissioned by Horizons as part of the plan change preparation, dairy production would fall in Tararua by 28 per cent and vegetable production in Horowhenua by 64 per cent if no changes were made.

    That would shrink Tararua's GDP by 4.9 per cent and Horowhenua's by 1.4 per cent."
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/far...y+27+June+2019

  14. #2339
    The past is practise. Vaygor1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northland
    Posts
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond47 View Post
    Except your direct conversion wastes normally >2/3rds of the energy straight out the exhaust pipe/radiator. ...
    Correct, but its still miles more efficient than the methods you support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond47 View Post
    Yeah, you have no idea. I could take photos of several pages of my first year engineering texts and prove you wrong, but its really not worth the effort.....
    I'm not sure I would trust any engineering paper (let alone a 1st year student's engineering paper) from someone who steadfastly believes an electric battery powered vehicle charged by a diesel powered generator thousands of miles away is somehow more efficient than a diesel powered vehicle.

    You should focus on things that do good, rather than feel good. It is apparent your cognitive dissonance ensures new 'facts' will be vigorously sought to back up your favoured yet disproven theories.

    I can only hope that one day you'll acknowledge to yourself it is pressure that moves a piston, not heat.

  15. #2340
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaygor1 View Post
    Correct, but its still miles more efficient than the methods you support.



    I'm not sure I would trust any engineering paper (let alone a 1st year student's engineering paper) from someone who steadfastly believes an electric battery powered vehicle charged by a diesel powered generator thousands of miles away is somehow more efficient than a diesel powered vehicle.

    You should focus on things that do good, rather than feel good. It is apparent your cognitive dissonance ensures new 'facts' will be vigorously sought to back up your favoured yet disproven theories.

    I can only hope that one day you'll acknowledge to yourself it is pressure that moves a piston, not heat.
    Yeah, and again you show either your lack of comprehension, or your mendacious nature. I said engineering text, as in Text book. And your final sentence of the above post again demonstrates the mentioned mendaciousness. I never said heat moves a piston. Heat causes thermal expansion of the trapped gases, and yes it is the pressure differential that moves the piston.

    I'm not going to bother with your **** anymore. You have zero clue, and pull numbers out of your butt that have no place in reality, and back up your BS assertions with zero supporting evidence. You are all hot air.

    Psst: not worth replying, you just got killfiled, I won't see it.
    Last edited by Vagabond47; 03-07-2019 at 11:25 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •