Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-11-2010, 01:27 PM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern Florida, USA
Posts: 510

Hot Tamale - '10 Toyota Prius III
Thanks: 27
Thanked 96 Times in 70 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
Bet you it does :-)
Containment building - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you seen a reactor in the Pantheon lately?


Last edited by Patrick; 07-11-2010 at 01:34 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-12-2010, 01:01 AM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 810 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurentiu View Post
are you referring to fly ash ?
Nope. All rock is radioactive*. Matter of fact, so's everything else. So get over the "Omigawd it's radioactive, we're all gonna DIE!" hysteria, and figure out if the amount & type of radiation is harmful.

So here you've built - at great expense - a big concrete containment (note the root there: contain) in which you put a nuclear reactor. You run the reactor for 40 years or so, then tear everything down and ship it to a nuclear waste dump? Why not refurbish the current reactor, or put a next-gen one in the existing structure?

*It's said that Britain's nuclear power plant workers couldn't vacation in Cornwall, because the natural radioactivity from the rock there would exceed their permitted dose.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 08:59 AM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,023 Times in 1,304 Posts
What would the US do if we were in the same situation as we were in WW2?

Now add to that scenario one additional issue hypothetically. We did not have enough oil to drive our wartime economy or our military.

My purpose is presenting this scenario is to try to get people to think beyond their individual agendas.

We are at war, but this time it is much more subtle, and its primarily economically driven.

What we need to do, is to spend research funding to assist EVERY potential technological pathway to increased efficiency.

I see the support for all electric as potentially beneficial, but I also see ignorance of other alternative pathways as very shortsighted.

Hypermilers do more with less, and the tactics of driving for economy are available to every drive on the planet. The incentive is greater in other countries because the energy cost is significantly higher.

My Patent demonstrates a method of improving fuel economy in ANY vehicle with wheels.
It cares not how you create the power to drive the vehicle, only about your tank to wheel efficiency. The Patent was conceived on one basic assumption, that you can incorporate hypermiling techniques into the vehicle itself, and remove operator involvement from the equation.

I don't know about the rest of you, as to how successful you have been in converting others to efficient driving techniques, but personally I find the ignorance astounding and the attitude that I am some kind of obsessed, semi nutcase, because I focus on efficiency.

One of my acquaintances has driven 100 miles a day to work and back, averaging 20 MPG in a truck. Had he driven a very economical car for the last 28 years he has made that commute, he could have well over $250,000 in the bank today if the savings had been wisely invested, regardless of market fluctuations.

It is a shame that something like the X-prize contest and the media even propagate the fantasy that you can get 300 MPG in an electric vehicle. I find the dis ingenuity to be about on par with the water for gas snake oil pitch.

The problem is when you bombard people with so much misinformation, they would not know the truth when it was staring them in the face.

I use the analogy of Cassandra, the priestess of Troy who warned the Trojans about Greeks bearing gifts. Although blessed by the Gods with the gift of prophecy, she was cursed by the same Gods with the disbelief of her countrymen.

While that scenario may be fictional, the consequences are very similar to what we are facing today.

Like the Canary in the submarine that showed the crew when the oxygen content was approaching the terminal point, we must succeed in our objective. Otherwise we may not see our children suffer the consequences of our inaction.

It's not one or the other, electric or renew ables. It's not about fossil fuels or whatever alternative you feel is the future energy source we should employ.

Like the early pioneers who first extracted energy from what was available, where factories grew in areas where water power was available, we must adopt the same, conscientious effort to make everything more efficient as well as cleaner.

Politicising that priority will ensure our heirs will not even visit our graves.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 09:00 AM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,893

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,448
Thanked 2,929 Times in 1,833 Posts
Radioactivity exists in nature, but that doesn't mean that is okay. Asbestos is natural, too.

If reusing a nuclear power plant was possible/economical, then I think they would be doing it? The risk of reusing things is that you cannot be as sure about how they will work -- and the risk is too great to be be making assumptions.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 01:18 PM   #25 (permalink)
EtOH
 
Allch Chcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North Coast, California
Posts: 429

Cordelia - '15 Mazda Mazda3 i Sport
90 day: 37.83 mpg (US)
Thanks: 72
Thanked 34 Times in 25 Posts
I believe that a KW-h based system on total energy used from wall or fuel pump is much more practical as it allows liquid fuels to be on a more comparable basis with EVs and allows for more accurate FE comparisons. From calculating Kw-h per mile you can calculate cost per mile easier as well. It allows more practical comparisons between the liquid fuels like Diesel, Gasoline, and Ethanol. Diesel doesn't get placed on a shelf while Ethanol looks like a pig. They can be compared and the KW-h per mile will show more accurate results.

Using CO2 to calculate energy consumption is not going to get anywhere, it's just not rational.

Calculating KW-h efficiency is just as important as finding the cost per gallon. If you are paying less per Kw-h but using more Kw-h per mile it isn't paying off. This works for Premium fuel comparisons too, some people have gotten results from using higher octane gasoline. Comparing them by KW-h is just simpler.
__________________
-Allch Chcar

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2010, 11:06 AM   #26 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,893

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,448
Thanked 2,929 Times in 1,833 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertSmalls View Post
@Clev: The W2W anaylsis I was referring to is this one. The beauty of a top-level analysis is it accounts for all the steps in between.
If you use renewable energy to power your EV, then there is no generation loss; making EV's 92+% efficient, and if you have solar PV on your roof, then it is better still. The only carbon is used to manufacture and transport the panels. And as we transition to more and more renewables (as we must!), that amount of carbon used to make and transport the panels continues to be reduced, eventually to almost zero.

Your 250Wh/mile "battery-to-wheel" and 324Wh/Mile plug-to-wheel is off a bit: state of the art BEV (like say the TW4XP) are 85% efficient plug-to-wheel, so the 324 number becomes 288Wh/mile.

By the way, almost nobody uses a "battery-to-wheel" number, because it is virtually impossible to measure. The plug-to-wheel is what is typically used, because that is what is most easily measured. The Illuminati '7' can use just 155Wh/mile plug-to-wheel: Illuminati Motor Works: Blog

So, by putting solar PV panels on your roof, you have "magically" made the carbon equivalency about 89kWh/gallon (92% efficiency because the generation losses are zero, and only the grid loss is applied), and with your example EV (324Wh/mile), that would be 274MPGe carbon equivalency. If it was similar to the TW4XP plug-to-wheel efficiency, it would be 309MPGe carbon equivalency. And the 4 seat Illuminati '7' would get 574MPGe.

So coal can be improved up to ~45% efficiency, and natural gas plants are already ~60% efficiency; and renewables that use zero fuel to generate power, only the carbon used to construct the system is used -- which gets amortized out over the lifespan of the system. It also takes carbon to build coal, natural gas, nuclear -- all types of power plants, so in fairness, renewable energy has about 99% generation efficiency.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2010, 12:21 PM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,893

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,448
Thanked 2,929 Times in 1,833 Posts
Here's a synopsis of more than 40 studies on source-to-wheels carbon use:

http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/...onsSummary.pdf

Page 5 in particular shows ICE's producing ~500g/mile, and EV's ~220g/mile on today's US grid.

Another source for carbon emissions:

http://www.plugincars.com/doublechec...rs-104202.html

Quote:
For San Francisco, near where I live, I used a CO2 average of three different grids (from eGrid)—listed in kg/CO2 per kWh of 0.1 to 0.183 as .36, .45 and .66 (this is right now)—to indicate emissions for 15,000 miles of driving as follows:

* 4,345 pounds of CO2 for the EV
* That’s tremendously cleaner than the 30-mpg car’s 11,850 pounds of CO2
* It’s also way better than the 50-mpg hybrid’s 7,110 pounds of CO2
So, the first link puts the carbon output of EV's at 44% as much as ICE's and the second has EV's at 37% as much carbon output as ICE's -- on today's US grid.

Edit: Another interesting link about using solar panels to offset the electricity used for an EV:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/elec...ic-solar-cells

Also, note that the Tesla Roadster uses about 200Wh/mile; which is lower than the numbers used in the original post of this thread.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Last edited by NeilBlanchard; 11-08-2010 at 01:30 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2010, 01:46 PM   #28 (permalink)
dcb
needs more cowbell
 
dcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 269 Times in 212 Posts
My tdi runs on renewable energy too, it is besides the point here. The question is how do you do a fair comparison of vehicle efficiency when multiple power sources are being compared. Electricity has already gone through the major conversion from it's source, be it sun or coal or whatever, so a straight btu-energy equivalence may over simplify it. In fact I'm not convinced that there IS a good way to compare the two, might as well keep them separate, not letter grades or mpge dumbing down.
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!

Last edited by dcb; 11-08-2010 at 03:34 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2010, 05:06 PM   #29 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 196
Thanks: 4
Thanked 34 Times in 26 Posts
renewable nuclear...

Most published analyses of the energy costs of the nuclear fuel cycle end up using a lot of hand waving. The biggest problem is the storage of the high level wastes.

Best imaginable scenario for waste storage is a relatively short 300 years by avoiding storing the uranium and plutonium waste streams. Then we burn the uranium waste and plutonium waste in Mixed Oxide reactors built for the purpose. The biggest problems are, fuel reprocessing itself is quite energy intensive, quite dirty, quite expensive, and unavoidably produces bomb grade plutonium, which is a terrorist's dream.

How many countries can 100% reliably keep that out of terrorist's hands? For hundreds of years? Really!?! And even the 300 years worth of storage, what is the energy cost for that, considering that industry proponents paint this as the best case scenario.

If you don't go down the fuel-reprocessing path, then the uranium and plutonium high level waste must be securely stored for, ummmmm, 300,000 years. That has an exquisitely expensive price tag in terms of energy and money, and the whole thing becomes a net energy loser. Further, just burning the uranium once, we will run out in a relatively short time. Unworkable really.

And how many breeder reactors and reprocessing plants are planned or being built right now? Just because it is theoretically possible doesn't do us much actual good in the real world. And how many would we need to drive the new electric transportation sector?

I am not opposed to nuclear energy, just show me the positive EROEI for the whole fuel cycle, including long term storage. That also has to include the energy costs associated with a few clean ups, like Cherynoble, Three Mile Island, and a couple future events.


Finest regards,

troy
__________________
2004 VW TDI PD on bio

want to build 150 mpg diesel streamliner.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to solarguy For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (11-08-2010)
Old 11-08-2010, 07:01 PM   #30 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 69

EcoSentra - '04 Nissan Sentra
90 day: 35.93 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Personally, I don't like any of the methods of calculating mpge.

Life Cycle Energy Equivalence - Unfairly compared Well to Wheels for EV to Tank to Wheels for ICE.
CO2 Equivalence - Makes an assumption on where I get my electricity and it's CO2 content.
Cost Equivalence - Makes an assumption on how much I pay for electricity.
Direct BTU Equivalence - Gives unrealistic expectations on the range and cost of operation for EVs.

What I need to know is capacity of battery pack in kWh, and "fuel economy" in wh/mi, and I can figure the rest out.

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 04_Sentra For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (11-08-2010)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New personal record: 632 miles on 1 tank. 48 MPG in my Auomatic 05 Corolla blackjackel Success Stories 6 11-30-2009 01:02 PM
About 4 miles per gallon RandomFact314 Hypermiling / EcoDriver's Ed 21 08-30-2009 05:24 PM
Various transportation methods, how many gallons to go 350 miles Daox General Efficiency Discussion 27 04-06-2009 01:56 AM
Why SUV fuel economy is so much more important than small car fuel economy... SVOboy General Efficiency Discussion 30 02-23-2009 06:26 PM
What's your best bet for an automatic? Crono EcoModding Central 16 10-22-2008 01:14 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com