Did you know ? Questions answers ecology and energy.

[Christophe]

what is it, equivalent carbon cost, production cost ??

https://www.econologie.com/l-effet-de-se ... -2936.html

"I favor nearby destinations." CO2 emissions per mode of transport and per person on a Paris-Marseille journey: car = 178 kg (for the driver alone, 89 kg with a passenger); plane = 97 kg (if the plane is full); TGV = 3 kg.

Source: Nicolas Hulot mailing

[denis]

Impressive !!
What about the motorcycle?

[Christophe]

Impressive !!
What about the motorcycle?

Well it's easy it depends directly on its consumption ... just multiply the liters consumed by 2,3 approximately to obtain kg of CO2. See details here: https://www.econologie.com/equation-de-c ... s-638.html

So my vfr which is roughly 5,2 L / 100 emits over 800 km about 96 kg.

Small comparison

The raw energy contained to make these 800 km or 41,6 L of gasoline is 416 kwh. With an engine efficiency of 25% (exaggerated) we obtain roughly 100 kwh mechanical per passenger (for 1 single passenger) to move roughly 350 kg.

For the TGV (assuming that it is also 800 km) on the other hand it seems to me little ... indeed a French electric Kwhe emits 90 gr of CO2. So you only need 3000/90 = 33 kwhe electric ... with an engine efficiency of 90% (likely) so we get roughly 30 kwh mechanical per passenger (i.e. if the TGV had an internal combustion engine of 25% efficiency one consumption of 1,5 L / 100)

My motorbike and the TGV are subject to the same forces (G, Inertia ...) and taking into account the useful mass / vehicle mass ratio (the mass moved by passenger in a train is undoubtedly much greater than a motorbike) and the average speed of a TGV bine higher than the motorcycle (if ) ... well I find this value very low ...

Obviously I'm not even talking about losses in the network (losses = loss online, unreadable and loss in the transformers or just for the transformers at least 0,95 power the number of transformer if you have 4 transformers these are already 18,5, 100% loss ...) or the filling rate far from being 2% (although in the TGV XNUMXnd class it is often crowded) ...

So where is the error ?? Too much approximation, lack of precise data or idealization of the calculations in the interest of the train .... ??

Attention I am 100% for train journeys (because they are full or empty they circulate) I only ask myself some questions as an energy engineer ....

Fun game:


Repeat the calculation if you take the train in Germany, knowing that Germany roughly rejects 460 gr / kwhe ...

[Chuwee]

Fun game:


Repeat the calculation if you take the train in Germany, knowing that Germany roughly rejects 460 gr / kwhe ...

Another fun game, do the math by walking 800kms ...

edit: I just did the calculation at an average of 6km / h, with a pulmonary capacity of 3l and an efficiency of 80%, that's done in the 830Kg of CO2 for 800 kms. And that's without counting the food

[denis]

"Well, it's easy, it depends directly on its consumption ... just multiply the liters consumed by 2,3 approximately to obtain kg of CO2. See details here:"

well it's huge !!! we are going to think, filling up
you must be sure of yourself, where do the extra kg come from?

[Christophe]

well it's huge !!! we are going to think, filling up you must be sure of yourself, where do the extra kg come from?

Obviously I am sure of myself ... the kg simply come from Oxygen (atomic mass = 16 g / mole or CO2 = 12 + 2 * 16 = 44 g / mole including 72,72% oxygen)

Calculation details here: https://www.econologie.com/equation-de-c ... s-638.html

If you still don't believe me, look at the ads for cars ...
you will have the consumption and the g / km of CO2. You just have to reduce everything to 100 kg ...

A "small" car that emits 150 gr / km of CO2 will reject 15 kg / 100 km while it will have consumed about 15 / 2,3 = 6,52kg or 8,8 L of gasoline ....

[Christophe]

Another fun game, do the math by walking 800kms ...

edit: I just did the calculation at an average of 6km / h, with a pulmonary capacity of 3l and an efficiency of 80%, that's done in the 830Kg of CO2 for 800 kms. And that's without counting the food

I asked myself the same question a few years ago: the influence of the respiration of 6 billion people, which represents, in mass, in the 20% of CO2 emissions from petroleum! And yes it has NOTHING negligible ....

But the fact is that all of the carbon we release comes from our food ... so it's in a "closed cycle".

Obviously this cycle is not so closed since it is necessary to add the additional carbon resulting from the production of this food ...

The figures vary enormously depending on the study: one thing is sure the more the food is "advanced" the greater its impact. In other words: 1kg of salad has almost no impact unlike 1 kg of steak (beef is one of the most polluting meat, there are the figures above in this subject).

ps: I don't really understand your notion of 80% efficiency ... pulmonary, muscular, digestive?

[Chuwee]

I was talking about lung performance and I took this value like that, without looking for an exact figure. It could be interesting to calculate the human yield ...

In fact the most "simple" solution for the future of the planet (and of the Human species) would be to eliminate 3 billion people ...

For me, in the current state of things, I do not think that renewable energy or energy savings here and there will give anything concrete in the long term apart from perhaps a reprieve from 50 to 100 years (which does not don't stop me from thinking about it). In my opinion, it is just a means like any other to make people spit by scaring them (as always since).

[Other]

Hello

Impressive !!
What about the motorcycle?

Well it's easy it depends directly on its consumption ... just multiply the liters consumed by 2,3 approximately to obtain kg of CO2. See details here: https://www.econologie.com/equation-de-c ... s-638.html

So my vfr which is roughly 5,2 L / 100 emits over 800 km about 96 kg.

Small comparison

The raw energy contained to make these 800 km or 41,6 L of gasoline is 416 kwh. With an engine efficiency of 25% (exaggerated) we obtain roughly 100 kwh mechanical per passenger (for 1 single passenger) to move roughly 350 kg.

For the TGV (assuming that it is also 800 km) on the other hand it seems to me little ... indeed a French electric Kwhe emits 90 gr of CO2. So you only need 3000/90 = 33 kwhe electric ... with an engine efficiency of 90% (likely) so we get roughly 30 kwh mechanical per passenger (i.e. if the TGV had an internal combustion engine of 25% efficiency one consumption of 1,5 L / 100)

My motorbike and the TGV are subject to the same forces (G, Inertia ...) and taking into account the useful mass / vehicle mass ratio (the mass moved by passenger in a train is undoubtedly much greater than a motorbike) and the average speed of a TGV bine higher than the motorcycle (if ) ... well I find this value very low ...

Obviously I'm not even talking about losses in the network (losses = loss online, unreadable and loss in the transformers or just for the transformers at least 0,95 power the number of transformer if you have 4 transformers these are already 18,5, 100% loss ...) or the filling rate far from being 2% (although in the TGV XNUMXnd class it is often crowded) ...

So where is the error ?? Too much approximation, lack of precise data or idealization of the calculations in the interest of the train .... ??

Attention I am 100% for train journeys (because they are full or empty they circulate) I only ask myself some questions as an energy engineer ....

Fun game:


Repeat the calculation if you take the train in Germany, knowing that Germany roughly rejects 460 gr / kwhe ...

Theoretically moving a mass or making a huge vehicle travel should not consume energy.
We have the most beautiful example, of a satellite in orbit even that it would weigh tons it will revolve around the earth for years,
It took energy to climb and launch it into orbit
and normally to stop it and bring it down again it should restore its energy. (when we will have to find the means to move other than by ejecting tons of gas to move)
From this reason, we should be able to make a long vacuum tunnel and place a vehicle in orbit at ground level.
a bit like laboratory tires.
An energy shot to launch the torpedo and restitution of energy to stop it.

The soldiers would have experienced torpedoes at very high speeds in water, without friction, (a kind of vacuum in front of the torpedo)

Andre

[Christophe]

The soldiers would have experienced torpedoes at very high speeds in water, without friction, (a kind of vacuum in front of the torpedo)

Andre

Yes André, the energy of displacement is only friction ... but without friction we cannot move .... without the initial impulse of which you speak ... but worse: we cannot stop no more

As for the hyper cavitation torpiles, it is not conditional that we must talk about it ... The Russian model which could move at 400 km / h is called the Skwal or Schkval (according to sources ) and would have intervened in the sinking of the Kursk ... http://www.corlobe.tk/article286.html

ps: another question "did you know?"

"When you use a liter of fuel in your vehicle, it is as if you had heated the atmosphere with this liter of fuel because all the energy resulting from combustion ends up transforming into heat. A vehicle which advances heats up l 'air."

Your opinions ?