Then there's Next Gen Nuclear - No long lived radioactive waste. It's renewable, green, non-polluting and we have oceans filled with fuel. Seems like the way to go to me.Is there a fusion reactor (besides the sun) that's actually commercially viable for power generation?Just how much more fuel efficient can the car manufactures make the cars? Have you done the math calculations? Modern cars aren't poluting like in they use to and the onboard computers enerure the fuel is being burned with 99.9999% efficinecy. So where's this extra energy going to come from to move the car?Most car engines are only about 25% efficient, with the best commercial designs topping out at around 40%. The real gains are from making the car itself more aerodynamic, of which if we exclude plug ins, the best one on the US market - Prius Eco - does 58 MPG highway. GM made a few EV1 hybrid prototypes 20 years ago that have outdone that at 80 MPG. They had a winning design, but let their biggest competitor take the market...
Do you know how much of Europe is expected to be powered by the one Next Gen Nuclear power plant being built in France?I also know what liquid sodium does better and more often than help maintain good uptime in a nuclear plant ...
QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.I did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient on average so with more efficient cars it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.
There is no need for 10,000 miles to the gallon (don't be silly). Just cars which run in the ballpark of 25km on one liter. You can find the numbers (conversion rate and amount of material per surface area) on poet-dsm.com and according to Google there is over 1 Billion acres of land used for agriculture in the US.
Friend you said, "I did the math." But in reality you really didn't do the math calculation you said you did because you are pawing it off to some other web site. If you didn't do the math, how do you know they are correct?I did the math long ago and remembered the result. I showed you the sources I used so you can verify by yourself.Intersting that UC Berkeley scientests calcaulation are off by a magnitude that's over a million orders from your calculations. Any possibility you made a mistake? UC Berkeley scientests calculations have been peer reviewed and found to be accuarate. Have your calcuations been peer reviewed? Or have the calcaulation on the web site you provided been peer reviewed? Or could it just be marketing BS?That depends on who has been paying the UC Berkely scientists and what the exact question was they where seeking an answer for. On the other hand there is not much reason to doubt the numbers Poet-DSM has put on their website. Poet-DSM has invested several tens of millions of dollars and DSM is a major player in high-tech chemicals (a multi billions dollar annual revenue). All in all I think they know a little bit more about their bio-fuel than some desk jockeys in a dusty office. Also keep in mind that shareholders and the authorities won't like it when the numbers turn out to be way off so there is also a legal reason not to fudge too much with the numbers.
QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.I did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient on average so with more efficient cars it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.So you take the bio waste and turn it into bio fuel and burn it in a combustion engine. Then it get's turned into carbon. ummm
So that "waste" does it get plowed under and put back in the ground.
QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.I did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient on average so with more efficient cars it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.So you take the bio waste and turn it into bio fuel and burn it in a combustion engine. Then it get's turned into carbon. ummm
So that "waste" does it get plowed under and put back in the ground.
WAIT a second you are violating the laws of physics and chemistry. Biomass is made up of carbon. You aren't turning it into carbon, what's going on is an oxidative reaction whihc involves carbon. The carbon was alwasy there.
QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.I did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient on average so with more efficient cars it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.So you take the bio waste and turn it into bio fuel and burn it in a combustion engine. Then it get's turned into carbon. ummm
If sodium does better why hasn't Sorensen received any funding?
Cars are already aerodynamic, car companies did that about 15 years ago by lowering the roof line. What do you expect them to do, drop the roofline again to make it more aerodynamic? Many Americans can't fit into most of the current cars or trucks. Take a look at the short list on cars for tall people .com. It's a very short list. Not very practical if one is tall or has a family.
Cars are already aerodynamic, car companies did that about 15 years ago by lowering the roof line
Most car engines are only about 25% efficient, with the best commercial designs topping out at around 40%.
A car engine is 25%(gas) to 40%(diesel) efficient. But only at one specific load point (rpm, torque). That load point is typically when applying full throttle. At any other load points, it's 5-10% only.
A car engine is 25%(gas) to 40%(diesel) efficient. But only at one specific load point (rpm, torque). That load point is typically when applying full throttle. At any other load points, it's 5-10% only.This may be true for an atmospheric V8 but a modern downsized engine with a turbo has a much wider RPM range where it reaches peak efficiency. The much lower fuel consumption those cars have proven that. All in all your claim is outdated. You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.
You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.
You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.Compare modern to modern, with a modern coal plant this simply isn't true.
You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.Compare modern to modern, with a modern coal plant this simply isn't true.Numbers? And please no efficiency numbers which came out of a dark hole. Only the CO2 emissions count. Google (results) tells me that electricity made by burning coal produces between 900 to 1200 grams of CO2 per kWh which puts an EV between 225 to 300 gr of CO2 per km.
Numbers? And please no efficiency numbers which came out of a dark hole. Only the CO2 emissions count.
Lets do it again, latest Golf GTI has 125+ g/km CO2 WLTP. Latest leaf does 40/270 kwh/km WLTP, latest coal plants have 46+% efficiency, lets do 10% transmission/conversion losses, 340 grams of CO2 per kwh total energy for coal. So 40/270*340*1/(0.46*0.9) is 121+. Pretty much the same ignoring CO2 expenditure for mining/refining.
Can't find WLTP numbers for a Ford Fiesta Ecoboost, but another index promising realistic tests http://equaindex.com gives numbers in the same ballpark.
To get 1kilo of Fuel to a petrol station, it takes anything from 2kg (North Sea Brent) to over 5kg (tar sands) of fuel to get it there: Extraction, transport, burnt off unrifinables, waste, boil off, refining, warming or cooling for pumping, loading, transport, boil off during sea passage, unloading, pumping, truck transport, pumping to final storage, evaporation in tank (petrol in hot weather) etc. All energy intensive processes. A few criminally dirty.
lets do it again, latest Golf GTI has 125+ g/km CO2
So while everyone is arguing over the next great thing, I'll drive my electric car, powered by a utility that is 90% hydro-electric. Not everyone has that option, but given I do, it seems like a good plan.
Cars are already aerodynamic, car companies did that about 15 years ago by lowering the roof line. What do you expect them to do, drop the roofline again to make it more aerodynamic? Many Americans can't fit into most of the current cars or trucks. Take a look at the short list on cars for tall people .com. It's a very short list. Not very practical if one is tall or has a family.As counterintuitive as it may sound, it's possible to make a car more aerodynamic by making it bigger, without reducing the height.
https://www.wired.com/2008/01/more-details-ab/