RyanT
10 mW
Yeah same here. Over 70% or Oregon's power is from hydro and other renewables.
TESLA to Plans to Build World’s Biggest Battery Factory!
- Thread starter USAEBIKECO
- Start date
speedmd
10 MW
Some more charts.
http://www.ags-energy.com/html/efficiency-g3.html
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/99-00/bio_fuel_cells/groupproject/library/chp/efficiencies.gif
http://www.fuelcells.org/base.cgim?template=benefits
http://greenecon.net/page/2
http://www.ags-energy.com/html/efficiency-g3.html
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/99-00/bio_fuel_cells/groupproject/library/chp/efficiencies.gif
http://www.fuelcells.org/base.cgim?template=benefits
http://greenecon.net/page/2
speedmd
10 MW
Wiki list PEM cells at 50-70% which the upper end is a bit optimistic unless you can also recover / use the heat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell The DOE chart on that page shows a max is 60% for PEM cell (which is a bit outdated going by my sources) if you recover heat such as for the fuel to H2 reforming step.
speedmd
10 MW
Toyota has it at 50% on this chart.
http://www.toyotageorgetown.com/hybrid/ths4.asp
Wind mill/ solar cell charged battery, clearly the best current approach for local transport. For long Distance travel, the renewable source FCHEV even if not as efficient still a big step forward.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=110155
http://www.toyotageorgetown.com/hybrid/ths4.asp
Wind mill/ solar cell charged battery, clearly the best current approach for local transport. For long Distance travel, the renewable source FCHEV even if not as efficient still a big step forward.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=110155
I find it hard to draw a conclusion about any of these figures. Many of them are counter-intuitive and conflict with general-knowledge values, which means they are either BS, or the result of extensive research, including factors not normally considered when considering the efficiency of vehicles. Without being familiar with the authors, how are we to tell?
Take for example the tank to wheel efficiency of the gasoline car Vs. Prius hybrid. The disparity is huge (absurd, even) and suggests the test conditions (intentionally or otherwise) greatly preferred the hybrid.
Take for example the tank to wheel efficiency of the gasoline car Vs. Prius hybrid. The disparity is huge (absurd, even) and suggests the test conditions (intentionally or otherwise) greatly preferred the hybrid.
I have to be careful here because this is not a subject I'm intimately familiar with.
My issue is that based on a general knowledge of automotive gasoline engines with efficiencies of better than 30%* why, after adding a handful of percent for transmission losses, this becomes "typically" 16%. A lot of stop-starts, idling and low speeds would be my guess, which would also explain the better efficiency of the Prius.
I would argue that it's also well known that the Prius does not achieve double the fuel efficiency of a similar gasoline ICE under "normal" driving, which is what makes the 16/32% figures stick out.
*Earlier I saw an EPA document listing a study of the efficiency of diesel engines. Granted, these ranged from tiny offroad engines to 10 litre bus and truck engines, but efficiencies in the range of 44-48% were given.
My issue is that based on a general knowledge of automotive gasoline engines with efficiencies of better than 30%* why, after adding a handful of percent for transmission losses, this becomes "typically" 16%. A lot of stop-starts, idling and low speeds would be my guess, which would also explain the better efficiency of the Prius.
I would argue that it's also well known that the Prius does not achieve double the fuel efficiency of a similar gasoline ICE under "normal" driving, which is what makes the 16/32% figures stick out.
*Earlier I saw an EPA document listing a study of the efficiency of diesel engines. Granted, these ranged from tiny offroad engines to 10 litre bus and truck engines, but efficiencies in the range of 44-48% were given.
speedmd
10 MW
22-24% for raw gas motors. Even blown diesels are well under 30%. Have to go super high compression ratio to get above these numbers. This is at the crank also.
speedmd
10 MW
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
speedmd
10 MW
Claim 4x efficiency of piston engine. May be a option some day to charge batteries.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/11/new-gasoline-engine-design-has-4x-efficiency-of-pistons/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/11/new-gasoline-engine-design-has-4x-efficiency-of-pistons/
The tables posted above indicate 84% efficiency well-to-tank for gasoline.
EPA diesel engine testing, 43-49% efficiency: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/may04/crc0304c.pdf
Resorting to Wikipedia, but...
Modern diesel cars peak efficiency of 45%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Fuel_economy
Gasoline direct injection cars, 35%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_combustion_engines
Not a criticism, but figures like 20% might well be typical for the U.S. market where fuel efficiency is often of little concern, emissions restrictions can be strangling and with a preference for large-displacement engines with lots of low-down torque often results in engines with low specific outputs. ~1 litre, two or three cylinder diesel engines may be godawful but they are efficient
This isn't completely off-topic - I did see a few charts during general searching that suggested diesel hybrids were equal to, or slightly more efficient well-to-wheel than BEVs or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Who knows if the numbers were reliable, though
EPA diesel engine testing, 43-49% efficiency: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/may04/crc0304c.pdf
Resorting to Wikipedia, but...
Modern diesel cars peak efficiency of 45%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Fuel_economy
Gasoline direct injection cars, 35%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_combustion_engines
Not a criticism, but figures like 20% might well be typical for the U.S. market where fuel efficiency is often of little concern, emissions restrictions can be strangling and with a preference for large-displacement engines with lots of low-down torque often results in engines with low specific outputs. ~1 litre, two or three cylinder diesel engines may be godawful but they are efficient
This isn't completely off-topic - I did see a few charts during general searching that suggested diesel hybrids were equal to, or slightly more efficient well-to-wheel than BEVs or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Who knows if the numbers were reliable, though
speedmd
10 MW
A continuous combustion wave turbine as pictured above could be a very neat generator until the air battery is ready to go. It should be able to run gaseous fuels also which are already in wide spread use. Looks to be just one moving part that could share shaft / structure with the generator.
speedmd
10 MW
Depends on the test method.Punx0r said:
Theory / indicated!
They are picking peaks on prototype / non commercial power plants in most cases.
Not a criticism, but figures like 20% might well be typical for the U.S. market where fuel efficiency is often of little concern, emissions restrictions can be strangling and with a preference for large-displacement engines with lots of low-down torque often results in engines with low specific outputs. ~1 litre, two or three cylinder diesel engines may be godawful but they are efficient
This isn't completely off-topic - I did see a few charts during general searching that suggested diesel hybrids were equal to, or slightly more efficient well-to-wheel than BEVs or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Who knows if the numbers were reliable, though
wineboyrider
1 MW
The biggest loss of waste in a ICE car is in the radiator. That's where the energy is wasted and should be extracted so a turbine that can turn the wasted heat to another usable form of energy means ICE engine can live another few more decades.
I'm not spamming this thread, honest Just avoiding doing work at the moment...
A little while ago I had what I thought was a good idea: Use wasteheat from an ICE to create high pressure steam and drive another cylinder. I was seriously considering buying a 5 cylinder Audi to experiment with. The idea was to the reconfigure the petrol ICE to run on four cylinders, leaving the fifth for high pressure steam injection. The cooling system would be used to preheat the water, which would then be heated to high temperature and pressure by the exhaust. I figured that the petrol combustion might produce enough recoverable water to sustain the steam system.
It seemed like a great idea until I realised that a single expansion, non-condensing steam piston "engine" like this would probably be about 1-2% efficient. So using the ~70% waste heat generated by the ICE the overall efficiency boost to the entire system might be 1% :faceplam:
I still suspect the Prius would be more efficient with a diesel engine. If there's a reason Toyota went with petrol other than U.S. market acceptance I'd love to know
Just avoiding doing work at the moment...A little while ago I had what I thought was a good idea: Use wasteheat from an ICE to create high pressure steam and drive another cylinder. I was seriously considering buying a 5 cylinder Audi to experiment with. The idea was to the reconfigure the petrol ICE to run on four cylinders, leaving the fifth for high pressure steam injection. The cooling system would be used to preheat the water, which would then be heated to high temperature and pressure by the exhaust. I figured that the petrol combustion might produce enough recoverable water to sustain the steam system.
It seemed like a great idea until I realised that a single expansion, non-condensing steam piston "engine" like this would probably be about 1-2% efficient. So using the ~70% waste heat generated by the ICE the overall efficiency boost to the entire system might be 1% :faceplam:
I still suspect the Prius would be more efficient with a diesel engine. If there's a reason Toyota went with petrol other than U.S. market acceptance I'd love to know
speedmd
10 MW
Exhaust is the largest heat/energy loss. Cooling system is a big part also. They are working on thermal electric generators but they are not commercially viable yet. When / if available would eliminate the alternator also picking up some 3-6% even if just to charge the starter batteries and run lights and other cabin features. Most likely be available when the gas motors can run 35% efficient. LOL
You need big power plants to run turbines with the waste heat. Cars with small engines don't make much more than what is needed to keep the cab warm in cold climates on short trips or with easy driving.
Toyo does not do diesel cars for whatever reason in the US. Too stinky I guess. I wish I could buy a diesel hybrid toyo van with a extra large electric motors and huge battery pack. Maybe next time.
You need big power plants to run turbines with the waste heat. Cars with small engines don't make much more than what is needed to keep the cab warm in cold climates on short trips or with easy driving.
Toyo does not do diesel cars for whatever reason in the US. Too stinky I guess. I wish I could buy a diesel hybrid toyo van with a extra large electric motors and huge battery pack. Maybe next time.
RyanT
10 mW
So the argument for hydrogen is that we can switch over to natural gas production instead of gas(because the efficiently drops way down for all other sources). They already said it will cost roughly the equivalent of driving with gas. So why should people switch? Don't you think a lot of people are going to say screw it I'll just buy a gasoline car?
At least with electric cars it's cheaper to run and you can fill up at home. I don't see the incentive for fuel cell cars. There's not as many refueling stations as gas, and fuel cell cars cost more. It would create a natural gas boom that you can bet commodity traders will jump on. Create fracking wells as far as the eye can see, and leave no room for cost effective renewable energy solutions.
The appealing part about electric cars to the average consumer is cheaper running cost and being able to recharge at home. I guess it can be argued fuel cell cars are better for the environment but battery cars are already offering a better solution. Tesla has already proved electric cars are practical even for long road trips (that are infrequent for most people). And free refueling for life on said trips via the already big supercharging network.
A battery swapping station would take away any lingering arguments against electric cars. I don't even think it's needed though. Tesla is already doing it and other car manufacturers are going to increase range. It's inevitable. Nissian is already talking about a 150 mile Leaf battery option. Tesla will have 300 mile options in 5 years tops. Then you're talking about a 40 min recharging wait for a full day of driving (500 miles). Who doesn't want to eat, check their email, text a friend, take their dog for a walk, post to facebook, or stretch their legs etc during a 8-10 hour drive?
At least with electric cars it's cheaper to run and you can fill up at home. I don't see the incentive for fuel cell cars. There's not as many refueling stations as gas, and fuel cell cars cost more. It would create a natural gas boom that you can bet commodity traders will jump on. Create fracking wells as far as the eye can see, and leave no room for cost effective renewable energy solutions.
The appealing part about electric cars to the average consumer is cheaper running cost and being able to recharge at home. I guess it can be argued fuel cell cars are better for the environment but battery cars are already offering a better solution. Tesla has already proved electric cars are practical even for long road trips (that are infrequent for most people). And free refueling for life on said trips via the already big supercharging network.
A battery swapping station would take away any lingering arguments against electric cars. I don't even think it's needed though. Tesla is already doing it and other car manufacturers are going to increase range. It's inevitable. Nissian is already talking about a 150 mile Leaf battery option. Tesla will have 300 mile options in 5 years tops. Then you're talking about a 40 min recharging wait for a full day of driving (500 miles). Who doesn't want to eat, check their email, text a friend, take their dog for a walk, post to facebook, or stretch their legs etc during a 8-10 hour drive?
RyanT
10 mW
I was just reading that the world's supply of natural gas is "Slightly" larger then the oil reserve : /
speedmd
10 MW
More tesla / FC news.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Fuel Cell Dispatch News
Monday, April 28, 2014
Electric vehicles receive full support from Tesla
Tesla Motors Inc. believes electric cars are the green future for the auto industry.
Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors Inc., does not believe that hydrogen fuel vehicles will ever thrive in the automobile marketplace and that electric vehicles (EVs) will be the superior choice, which is why Tesla has placed all of its support behind EVs and has not invested in hydrogen-powered cars like other big motor companies, including Honda, Toyota and Hyundai.
Green vehicles face three major roadblocks, starting with affordability.
Although it is still a mystery as to which of these two types of green cars is the most likely to come out on top in the future, it is becoming apparent that auto manufactures who use either technology face three major problems, which were outlined by Leo Sun, a contract finance writer at The Motley Fool, in his article “Tesla’s Next Big Battle: Electric Cars vs. Hydrogen Cars”. According to Sun, these three issues include: affordability of the vehicles, problems with infrastructure and cost of fuel.
In regard to the first problem – affordability – Tesla made the decision to first appeal to consumers who are attracted to high-end cars before taking the next step and designing a more affordable car for the average buyer. As it stand now, U.S. purchasers of Tesla electric vehicles can benefit from up to a $7,500 tax credit, which the government could increase to up to $10,000 in the future.
On the flip side of the coin, Sun points out hydrogen fuel cars will likely cost more at the start compared to Tesla’s Model S, which carries a price tag of $85,000. According to Toyota, it estimates its fuel cell vehicle the FCV-R that is to be launched next year, will cost a shade under $100,000. To top it off, the tax credits available for HFC vehicles is only $4,000.
Infrastructure and fuel create more obstacles for Tesla’s electric vehicles.
Tesla Motors has poured a lot of its focus into building its Supercharger stations, which are designed solely for its electric vehicles. However, while building these charging stations is not a huge problem, one of the major drawbacks of the Supercharger stations is the fact that they cannot be used by drivers who use other brands of EVs.
As for fueling costs, Sun points out that Tesla does have a leg up over its EV competitors because their Supercharger stations are free for their consumers to use. However, in terms of speed and convenience, hydrogen-powered cars still have the motor company beat because compared to electric vehicles, which require notable time to charge, hydrogen fuel vehicles can be filled in as little as three minutes. While EV drivers do have the opportunity of swapping a battery instead of charging it, this is a much more costly option.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Fuel Cell Dispatch News
Monday, April 28, 2014
Electric vehicles receive full support from Tesla
Tesla Motors Inc. believes electric cars are the green future for the auto industry.
Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors Inc., does not believe that hydrogen fuel vehicles will ever thrive in the automobile marketplace and that electric vehicles (EVs) will be the superior choice, which is why Tesla has placed all of its support behind EVs and has not invested in hydrogen-powered cars like other big motor companies, including Honda, Toyota and Hyundai.
Green vehicles face three major roadblocks, starting with affordability.
Although it is still a mystery as to which of these two types of green cars is the most likely to come out on top in the future, it is becoming apparent that auto manufactures who use either technology face three major problems, which were outlined by Leo Sun, a contract finance writer at The Motley Fool, in his article “Tesla’s Next Big Battle: Electric Cars vs. Hydrogen Cars”. According to Sun, these three issues include: affordability of the vehicles, problems with infrastructure and cost of fuel.
In regard to the first problem – affordability – Tesla made the decision to first appeal to consumers who are attracted to high-end cars before taking the next step and designing a more affordable car for the average buyer. As it stand now, U.S. purchasers of Tesla electric vehicles can benefit from up to a $7,500 tax credit, which the government could increase to up to $10,000 in the future.
On the flip side of the coin, Sun points out hydrogen fuel cars will likely cost more at the start compared to Tesla’s Model S, which carries a price tag of $85,000. According to Toyota, it estimates its fuel cell vehicle the FCV-R that is to be launched next year, will cost a shade under $100,000. To top it off, the tax credits available for HFC vehicles is only $4,000.
Infrastructure and fuel create more obstacles for Tesla’s electric vehicles.
Tesla Motors has poured a lot of its focus into building its Supercharger stations, which are designed solely for its electric vehicles. However, while building these charging stations is not a huge problem, one of the major drawbacks of the Supercharger stations is the fact that they cannot be used by drivers who use other brands of EVs.
As for fueling costs, Sun points out that Tesla does have a leg up over its EV competitors because their Supercharger stations are free for their consumers to use. However, in terms of speed and convenience, hydrogen-powered cars still have the motor company beat because compared to electric vehicles, which require notable time to charge, hydrogen fuel vehicles can be filled in as little as three minutes. While EV drivers do have the opportunity of swapping a battery instead of charging it, this is a much more costly option.
wineboyrider
1 MW
GM has a patent on that idea I read it once in a popular mechanics magazine.Punx0r said:I'm not spamming this thread, honest
A little while ago I had what I thought was a good idea: Use wasteheat from an ICE to create high pressure steam and drive another cylinder. I was seriously considering buying a 5 cylinder Audi to experiment with. The idea was to the reconfigure the petrol ICE to run on four cylinders, leaving the fifth for high pressure steam injection. The cooling system would be used to preheat the water, which would then be heated to high temperature and pressure by the exhaust. I figured that the petrol combustion might produce enough recoverable water to sustain the steam system.
It seemed like a great idea until I realised that a single expansion, non-condensing steam piston "engine" like this would probably be about 1-2% efficient. So using the ~70% waste heat generated by the ICE the overall efficiency boost to the entire system might be 1% :faceplam:
I still suspect the Prius would be more efficient with a diesel engine. If there's a reason Toyota went with petrol other than U.S. market acceptance I'd love to know
Similar threads
