UUUUUUUUURG. Electric Vehicles

[ThEGr33k]

Well its REALLY annoying me how short sighted people are being! They say Electric cars are brilliant because they produce no emmissions.

BUT

Where do they thing the power comes from? Power stations is where, these that burn Coal and Oil. So HOW are these emmission free?

To make it better the government is now planning on spending £100,000,000 of our money on trying to get electric cars/vehicles tested and on our roads.

I watched this on the politics show. How can I write in/E-mail them to tell them they are short sighted idiots and that they need to think about what they say? :smt076

[Sid Squid]

But what if only we had nuclear power stations? Then there'd be no carbon/greenhouse pollution problems, or maybe lots more wind and wave power.
As things stand, you're quite right, they're not at all green, the reason why they're possibly more polluting than a modern, well designed, economical fossil fuel vehicle being used appropriately, is that even if the electricity produced were no more polluting than burning fuel at the point of use, (and due to the economies if scale it probably isn't), the losses in transmission - getting it to your electric vehicle - outweigh any advantages.
But we need to keep in mind that this is a young technology - it will unquestionably improve, and just recently a proposal to return to DC grid transmission was made as more recent conductor developments might allow lower losses over lengthy distances.

[at-sv]

I have been saying this for ages greek no one seems to see the WHOLE picture ](*,) , yes these new hydrogen vehicles and electric powered vehicles are great but power would still need to come from the grid to charge them up. Power from the grid has got cleaner with wind farms etc, but it is the usual people who go "I want to look after the planet etc" but as soon as someone goes OK we are going to put some turbines here or some other 'clean' energy source people go "F*ck off not near me"

Following on from the other threads that have been on here recently regarding electric bikes I think it is a fantastic technology that will start to develop quickly (small companies will start to release trial vehicles etc) when oil companies reduce their barrel output to line their own pockets and claim that there is none left.

There is the technology out there and it is proven that wind, wave and solar power can create electricity that can be put on the grid but it is much MUCH cheaper for electric companies to use fossil fuels. Nuclear, ok it works but it does produce toxic waste (anyone remember those sweets in the toxic waste pot, god they tasted awful) back on topic.

I have always believed that there is a plan to implement new vehicle fuel technologies such as hydrogen, but where are the fuelling stations? LPG is only available at certain places too. When fossil fuels are very low there will be magical new sources of fuel appear from the oil companies, and before you know it we will be seeing manufactures building them and you will be able to charge your car at the forecourts.

Regarding the £100m, I can think of worse things they have wasted money on :smt044, plus they have to be seen to be doing something to help as well.

Well that felt better :), hope that helps carry on the debate

[ThEGr33k]

You are right. It might be a future thing... But then there is also the technology coming out to make Petrol out of CO2 out of the atmosphere powered by the sun. If they can do this then it will not be polluting because any emmissions will go into the air and then get pulled back out to reproduce the fuel again so will effectivly be clean! :cool:

[at-sv]

You are right. It might be a future thing... But then there is also the technology coming out to make Petrol out of CO2 out of the atmosphere powered by the sun. If they can do this then it will not be polluting because any emmissions will go into the air and then get pulled back out to reproduce the fuel again so will effectivly be clean! :cool:

Thats where they should be investing their £100m and imagine the Return On Investment if they got it to work.

[ThEGr33k]

Thats where they should be investing their £100m and imagine the Return On Investment if they got it to work.


OH YES!!!!!!!! :D

I watched it on the last section of that science programme James May made. Fantastic programme and if they get that tech working they will be in the money! One machine can make about 4 gallons (US id guess because they were Yanks) in 24 hours... Have a few thousand/million of these machines and wow. :cool: There is a lot of desert available for them to be placed.

[at-sv]

OH YES!!!!!!!! :D

I watched it on the last section of that science programme James May made. Fantastic programme and if they get that tech working they will be in the money! One machine can make about 4 gallons (US id guess because they were Yanks) in 24 hours... Have a few thousand/million of these machines and wow. :cool: There is a lot of desert available for them to be placed.

Depending on how much one of these machines actually cost then yes it is possible to create a lot of cash.

I think current OPEC output is about 30 million barrels of oil a day, cant seem to find out the gallon demand of petrol in a day though.

4 gallons, well a yank could drive about 30 miles on it then :D

[ThEGr33k]

Depending on how much one of these machines actually cost then yes it is possible to create a lot of cash.

I think current OPEC output is about 30 million barrels of oil a day, cant seem to find out the gallon demand of petrol in a day though.

4 gallons, well a yank could drive about 30 miles on it then :D


Ha ha yes their vehicles will need them strapped on :p

Thing is once the hardware is fitted in then you should only need a few tech's to keep them running and maybe a few spares. So the fuel cost "should" be pretty cheap if that is right. Though I guess it depends if they do actually use consumables... I dont think they do though from what I hear.

[at-sv]

Ha ha yes their vehicles will need them strapped on :p

Thing is once the hardware is fitted in then you should only need a few tech's to keep them running and maybe a few spares. So the fuel cost "should" be pretty cheap if that is right. Though I guess it depends if they do actually use consumables... I dont think they do though from what I hear.

Few tech's you say, ill do it lol, must be more interesting than sorting out "me pc dunt wherk"

Seems an interesting program, what channel was it on?

[ThEGr33k]

Few tech's you say, ill do it lol, must be more interesting than sorting out "me pc dunt wherk"

Seems an interesting program, what channel was it on?

Id do that job too :D

James may's big idea's. (http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=13&broadcastType=1&searchDate=23/10/2008&searchTime=17:00&jspGridLocation=/jsp/tv_listings_grid.jsp&jspListLocation=/jsp/tv_listings_single.jsp&jspError=/jsp/error.jsp&listingsFormat=G)

[at-sv]

Id do that job too :D

James may's big idea's. (http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=13&broadcastType=1&searchDate=23/10/2008&searchTime=17:00&jspGridLocation=/jsp/tv_listings_grid.jsp&jspListLocation=/jsp/tv_listings_single.jsp&jspError=/jsp/error.jsp&listingsFormat=G)

Damn they have took it off iPlayer, will have to watch it another way later on, thanks for that mate.

[ThEGr33k]

Damn they have took it off iPlayer, will have to watch it another way later on, thanks for that mate.


It was a 3 part programme, saw most of the 2nd (was robots/AI) and the 3rd (Power). Was very interesting! Wonder what the 1st one was.

[at-sv]

The first one was entitled 'Come Fly With Me' - All about planes, flying and a rocket pack apparently.

[yorkie_chris]

How the hell can you convert CO2 into fuel without a MASSIVE input of energy?

Main problem with electric vehicles is you have many losses, with normal engine you drill for oil, lose a bit refining it, then straight to power.

With electric, losses digging it out, losses producing electricity, losses transmitting it, major losses charging batteries, then you use it... They all add up. Not sure what the exact figures are for total process efficiency exactly though.

[ThEGr33k]

How the hell can you convert CO2 into fuel without a MASSIVE input of energy?



The sun, some mirrors and a desert :cool:

Main problem with electric vehicles is you have many losses, with normal engine you drill for oil, lose a bit refining it, then straight to power.

With electric, losses digging it out, losses producing electricity, losses transmitting it, major losses charging batteries, then you use it... They all add up. Not sure what the exact figures are for total process efficiency exactly though.

Indeed TERRABLE efficiency. Then there is the fact you cant just fill up, if you run out of power in the middle of no where you are screwed and when you find power you have to wait an age to charge it up.

[yorkie_chris]

I hate to be a thermodynamic pointer-out-of-the-obvious but the sun is a massive source of energy. And you're not going to see much of that next to drax...

However I have not heard of any chemical process by which you can take co2 and water and produce light hydrocarbons.

[ThEGr33k]

I hate to be a thermodynamic pointer-out-of-the-obvious but the sun is a massive source of energy. And you're not going to see much of that next to drax...

However I have not heard of any chemical process by which you can take co2 and water and produce light hydrocarbons.


Well im not really a great Chemist but I hear its something to do with using bacteria. As long as you have energy and the raw materials and the knowledge of how to I cant see a reason why you cant.

Drax? I guess you mean over here? I guess we will again have to rely on the hotter countries. Something we wont benefit from unfortunatly being a cold country :( But then I guess if we can use wind and wave (which we have a LOT of) to power this then I cant see the issues?

[yorkie_chris]

Bacteria ehhh. Anyone got a link to the article?

[at-sv]

I haven't seen the show but I think from reading about it this is what other people are saying about the process,

Apparently it is a machine that can create petrol out of carbon dioxide and water by breaking one of the double bonds C=O (carbon dioxide) into Carbon Monoxide C-O and then combining the Carbon Monoxide with a hydrogen atom to form hydrocarbon chains.

It requires a temperature of 2400 degrees C and they are proposing to do this by using solar energy from an array of mirrors and lenses

Known as cracking but it does require a lot more energy to be put into the process than you are going to get out.

Gonna have to watch the program though.

[yorkie_chris]

That was my point, it's never going to be efficient. But if it's done with solar heat then that doesn't really matter.

[at-sv]

That was my point, it's never going to be efficient. But if it's done with solar heat then that doesn't really matter.

That's it, they can just use the sun to create the required temperature like setting light to a bit of paper with a magnifying glass :)

[ThEGr33k]

That was my point, it's never going to be efficient. But if it's done with solar heat then that doesn't really matter.


Exactly. Its an energy that should be there every day and if it isnt then... well we are screwed :rolleyes:

[ThEGr33k]

That's it, they can just use the sun to create the required temperature like setting light to a bit of paper with a magnifying glass :)

Welllllll. They did actually use their machine to melt steel and OMG it went through it in seconds. MENTAL!!! :cool: Also incinerated a hot dog as well. ha ha.

They also mentioned that they had worked on a system that used a reletivly much lower temp to do the same job. If this is right then it will be much easier im sure.

[yorkie_chris]

Is going to need a massive energy input too though, not just temperature, heat.

Roughly 45MJ/kg at total efficiency. Roughly 300W/m2 from sunlight in a really really hot desert, some sums give that as roughly 41 hours to produce 1kg of petrol from 1m2 of ground.

[yorkie_chris]

Doing it at a lower temperature will be easier, as you can use lower quality heat to do same job, but still needs the massive amount of heat transfer.

[ThEGr33k]

Is going to need a massive energy input too though, not just temperature, heat.

Roughly 45MJ/kg at total efficiency. Roughly 300W/m2 from sunlight in a really really hot desert, some sums give that as roughly 41 hours to produce 1kg of petrol from 1m2 of ground.


Oh yes i think the mirrors they used were large... about maybe 4-6M diameter, not sure as it didnt really show very well. Luckily for this there is no limit of desert really. A good use for it is this :)

[yorkie_chris]

OK so lets fudge it a bit. Say it was 48 hours per kg ... so .5kg/daym2

A random statistic gives up petrol consumption as 72 million liters a day. So at 0.369l/day-m2. That's 195 million square meters of mirror. Just for the UK's fuel use. Lotta desert that.

Edit: 72 million liters is 5.3x10^7kg. 2.34x10^15J of energy a day, equivalent to 2.7x10^10W. That's nearly 7 chernobyls worth of power output. Just for petrol.

[ThEGr33k]

Aye... but they said something about 4-5Gallons (US) which is more like 8-9KG's over 24 hours... So maybe they do require considerably less power than you think?

[yorkie_chris]

6m dia. mirror is 28m2. 15 kilos of fuel a day roughly by my guesstimates. 19.3 liters ish. 4 gallons ish.

If anything that confirms my bodge-maths.

Edit: Bugger... misread the post ... but yes would make more sense. Just take that to mean they're getting 60% efficiency at a guess...