Pierre Langlois: Driving without oil, Book excerpts

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79128
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10975




by Christophe » 19/01/09, 17:14

Elec wrote:The Think is on sale in Norway.


Cella ci: https://www.econologie.com/forums/think-city ... t4620.html ? Price announced (to be confirmed?): 25,000 €

It is expensive the cm of this small car! Ecolo can be, econological surely not ...

Elec wrote:Conclusion: 2 factor at 3 of difference.


You forgot the losses in lines and storage, so let's start on a coef of 2... that's what I said intuitively above
0 x
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 19/01/09, 17:18

Christophe wrote: Cella ci: https://www.econologie.com/forums/think-city ... t4620.html ? Price announced (to be confirmed?): 25,000 € It is expensive the cm of this small car! Ecolo yes econological surely not ...


Without the battery (BP system), electric models cost the same price (see less) than their gasoline equivalent. We come back to the interest of having a good business model if we want to introduce en VE mass.

let's start on a coef of 2

Coef 2 if we talk about a mixture 100% coal.
Coef 3 if we talk about a mix 100% gas

And if we are talking about a 100% renewable mix, taking into account the performance of the "well" when taking it no longer makes sense. Only the efficiency of the wheel grip then becomes relevant.

Hence the interest of comparing the yields of the catch with the wheel.

NB - For the other question, line losses are taken into account.
Last edited by Elec the 19 / 01 / 09, 17: 26, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79128
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10975




by Christophe » 19/01/09, 17:25

a) Without the battery, it's like selling a gasoline vehicle without the tank: as a living room furniture is not bad but otherwise you do not do anything ...

b) For the balance sheet, no because you say:

- electrical way: 51% with gas cycle; 34% with a coal or other fuel plant


The best gas cycle = 54% efficiency on the gas PCI (I do not know if we condense, it may even be on the PCS) ... and a gas pipeline costs energetically ...

So I can not see how it can happen from well to take with a balance of 51% ...

Regardless, let us retain a coef of 2,5 on the balance of well to the wheel to the advantage of VE! But not more!
0 x
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 19/01/09, 17:28

Christophe wrote:a) Without the battery, it's like selling a gasoline vehicle without the tank: as a living room furniture is not bad but otherwise you do not do anything ...


Without a battery, it's like selling a gasoline vehicle without gas. A battery is e-gasoline.

54%

http://www.axpo.ch/internet/axpo/fr/med ... twerk.html
Last edited by Elec the 19 / 01 / 09, 17: 32, 2 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79128
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10975




by Christophe » 19/01/09, 17:30

Ah no it's not the essence, it's the tank: you can not charge without battery ...
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15998
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5194




by Remundo » 19/01/09, 17:31

Finally, the electric car in terms of energy efficiency from source to wheel is more effective if you inject renewable.

For Nuke, it all depends on the dislike or love that we have for radioactive waste : Cheesy:

For all thermal electricity (coal, gas, oil), there is more electricity than direct combustion in petrol engines.

If you take some criteria like:
- the cooldown
- autonomy
- the weight of the tank
- the need for more or less rare metals / materials (Lithium, Cadmium, Polymers ...)

The situation is not X times better : Idea:

These are extremely subtle issues that cannot be summed up by "it's X times better", even with a fraction making X.
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79128
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10975




by Christophe » 19/01/09, 17:35

Remundo wrote:For all thermal electricity (coal, gas, oil), there is more electricity than direct combustion in petrol engines.


It depends what are the criteria ... for example on pollutant emissions, the mass production of electricity will induce a reduction compared to the energy produced.

Example: kg of soot / MWh of electricity from an oil-fired power plant to compare with the kg of soot / MWh thermal required to make the same displacement of diesel vehicles ...

On this point there is no picture: the advantage is EV ... even pollution exists and it is centralized ....
0 x
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 19/01/09, 17:35

Christophe wrote:Ah no it's not the essence, it's the tank: you can not charge without battery ...


In the BP business model, battery = e-gasoline.
I find this very relevant as an approach.


Remundo,

Re: the sentence of physicist Pierre Langlois is in my opinion quite relevant. You have a different opinion, I respect it but I have the right not to agree with you;)
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79128
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10975




by Christophe » 19/01/09, 17:42

Elec wrote:In the BP business model, battery = e-gasoline.
I find this very relevant as an approach.


Business model is one thing, concrete achievements and profitable is another ...

Because it requires the doubling of batteries (one onboard and the other in charge offboard) is that?
0 x
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 19/01/09, 17:55

Christophe wrote: Business model is one thing, concrete achievements and profitable is another ... Because it requires the doubling of batteries (one onboard and the other in charge offboard) is that?


Not at all. An average car is parked 23H on 24. With BP, wherever you park, you recharge.

I think that to really understand the relevance of the BP model, you have to project yourself into a situation where there are charging stations everywhere. 100 000 for Danermak (for starters) for example (same in Israel, on the east coast of Australia it's 600 000)

For the record, trips greater than 160 km represent less than 95% of journeys in Europe. A motorist who has a BP contract will go to battery exchange stations (highways and highways) every year a lot less times than he went to the pump with his gas car.
Last edited by Elec the 19 / 01 / 09, 18: 01, 1 edited once.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 240 guests