The car of the future

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.
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 05/01/09, 18:10

Michel Kieffer wrote:Christophe,

Thank you for the link, I found there: average European electricity: 0,46 kg of CO2 / kWh.

0,46 kg of CO2 / kWh = 0,128 kg of CO2 / MJ… phew! It is reassuring to arrive at the same thing by different people and different paths.

Michel


However, the conclusion of paper cited is that the balance sheet of the electric car is better than that of all other types, and this even if the electricity is 100% fossil.
Last edited by Elec the 05 / 01 / 09, 18: 16, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 05/01/09, 18:16

Michel Kieffer wrote:It is reassuring to arrive at the same thing by different people and different paths.


Yes, and the truth must not be far ...

Elec, I don't quite understand your remark since with 460 gr CO2 / kWh, a EUROPEAN electric car which needs 20 kWh / 100 km mechanical and with an overall "wheel grip" efficiency of 70% will reject the equivalent of 130 g of CO2 per km ... just for electricity.

Fortunately there is not only CO2 in life!

On the other hand with these figures, the book does not say if it is about kWh "leaving the factory" or "customer meter" ... between the 2 are the losses in lines and transformation.
0 x
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 05/01/09, 18:19

Christophe wrote:
Michel Kieffer wrote:It is reassuring to arrive at the same thing by different people and different paths.


Yes, and the truth must not be far ...

Elec, I don't quite understand your remark since with 460 gr CO2 / kWh, a EUROPEAN electric car which needs 20 kWh / 100 km mechanical and with an overall "wheel grip" efficiency of 70% will reject the equivalent of 130 g of CO2 per km ... just for electricity.

Fortunately there is not only CO2 in life!

On the other hand with these figures, the book does not say if it is about kWh "leaving the factory" or "customer meter" ... between the 2 are the losses in lines and transformation.


You haven't read Christophe's paper. I invite you to do so.
If this paper is wrong (I don't think so), please specify where the error is.

The energy balance and CO2 balance of the electric car is better than that of any other type of vehicle, even if 100% of the electricity is produced with fossil gas. This is the conclusion of the study.

NB - The efficiency of the grip at the wheel of an EV is not 70% but 84%. (unless we are talking about prehistoric battery models).
0 x
Michel Kieffer
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 716
Registration: 21/12/08, 18:25
Location: Strasbourg
x 7




by Michel Kieffer » 05/01/09, 19:28

Wink: reality is hard, very hard ...

3 hours of cycling per week = 156 hours of cycling per year;
156 hx 3600 sx 120 W = 67 MJ per year;
67 MJ / 44 MJ = 1,5 kg of fossil fuel = 1,8 liters per year

A Frenchman consumes about 6000 (six thousand) liters of oil equivalent per year. Without being dogmatic "zero displacement", which does not make sense, we find that the game is not won!

Michel

PS data: 120 W = power of a trained cyclist; 44 MJ = energy contained in one kg of fossil fuel
0 x
RIAZ
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 391
Registration: 04/10/08, 10:21
Location: Cholet
x 2




by RIAZ » 05/01/09, 20:47

Elec wrote: .... When we work through the numbers, we find that the electric car is significantly more efficient and pollutes less than all alternatives (...)


Actually Michel KIEFER works with the numbers too...

Either there is an error in the calculation that he detailed (and sourced) in this thread and his conclusions are inaccurate, or the guys from Stanford tell cracks ...

If there is an error, imbued as you are with this study that you always put out and forums, you must be able to assemble it very quickly and save us a lot of time. We will be indebted to you with eternal gratitude because it is serious to persist in error ....

The good thing about this problem is that researchers cannot hide behind known know-how or obscure protocols.
The 4 operations, the rule of three and the formidable mountain of information accessible with the internet, allow you to form an opinion for yourself, without being at the mercy of the first guru to come.

In these areas (and in others too for that matter), being for or against is as vain as being optimistic or pessimistic.

There are things that are true, false, that are true, others that are not.

There are scenarios, models and there it is more difficult for the basic guy. He is obliged to seek validation from "trusted" people or organizations. This is the case with the IPCC for climate change, for example. The IPCC produces nothing (by virtue of its constitution and its operating rules) other than the expression of the broad consensus of the world scientific community. It is well worth the word of the mammoth degreaser to quote one at random ...

There are sincere people, manipulators, crooks.
There are laboratories that run after funding.
There are industrialists who pilot monsters by the week ...

And if we really want the car of the future to exist, it is better not to launch it on a false road. Ballot for a car!

But when you can see more clearly with a few rules of three, do not deprive yourself!
0 x
In terms of the future, it is not to foresee it, but to enable it (Antoine de Saint Exupery)
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 05/01/09, 22:06

RIAZ wrote:If there is an error, imbued as you are with this study that you always put out and forums


You're wrong, this study, it is the first time that I quote it.
The recent summary study of MZ Jacobson whom I have cited several times on this forum and which is a key study, it is not this one. You know, there are a lot of studies published by Stanford University. You just remembered their common point, "Stanford".

You demonstrate in any case that you do not consult the studies cited and that you prefer to throw yourself on your keyboard to try to attack those who do not share your diminishing vision of the world. To each their own. So before calling researchers "gurus", I invite you, at the very least, to read their work. Otherwise, discussing these works rests on a vacuum.
0 x
RIAZ
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 391
Registration: 04/10/08, 10:21
Location: Cholet
x 2




by RIAZ » 05/01/09, 23:17

Elec wrote:You're wrong, this study, it is the first time that I quote it.


Sorry, I forgot in my description of the landscape those who call ETUDES, the advertising brochures ...

Well done besides the brochure ... but like a pub brochure.

The recipe is simple is known:
- Compare 2 vehicles that have nothing in common,
- one whose consumption is perfectly proven, the other perfectly hypothetical,
- take the combined cycle gas power plant as an electrical production benchmark, which is too rare an exception in this world,
- consider that the batteries are of the immaculate design and their recycling itou,
and we “demonstrate” without the slightest grimace betraying the effort that “from well to wheel” the TESLA is doing twice as well as this unfortunate CIVIC and its equally unfortunate 2 m traveled by MJ consumed.

Great Coco...

But say Coco, why 250 CV ... if it is to adorn the feathers of the camel?
0 x
In terms of the future, it is not to foresee it, but to enable it (Antoine de Saint Exupery)
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 06/01/09, 00:05

For information the Tesla Roadster is marketed and its consumption is proven.

Come on, have fun calling your interlocutors "coconut".
Your aggressiveness is pitiful.

This time, I send you a final Bye-bye.
0 x
Michel Kieffer
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 716
Registration: 21/12/08, 18:25
Location: Strasbourg
x 7




by Michel Kieffer » 06/01/09, 08:54

Elec,

Characteristics of " highly reliable organizations "? Quite simply, the culture of doubt, of critical debate, their capacity to welcome those who bring bad news, the complainers… (cf. “ Berkeley School ").

In this sense, you perfectly played this role of " iconoclastic titler And we can only thank you for that. Clearly, without your presence, the debates would not have reached such a quality.

So stay in the "loop", thank you.

Sincerely

Michel
0 x
Michel Kieffer
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 716
Registration: 21/12/08, 18:25
Location: Strasbourg
x 7




by Michel Kieffer » 06/01/09, 09:01

As we say Riaz, “No need to highlight our math lessons, a simple rule of 2 is enough! ", Do not hesitate.

So, “solar electric car + batteries” (VSEB) or not?

Approach A :
Our VSEB saves 237 MJ per cent, or 17,4 kg of CO2, of fossil energy (note A).
Assessment over 20000 km: our VSEB allows us to save 237 MJx200 = 47400 MJ or 17,4x200 = 3480 kg of CO2

Approach B:
Objective, to remove conventional thermal power plants (those that pollute the most). That is to say, we keep our fossil vehicle but we feed the electrical network with our solar panels. Over the year, our 34m2 (for 20000 km) of solar panels produce 810 MJ / year (note B) x 34 m2 = 27540 MJ / year. Before becoming final energy (at the outlet), we must integrate the distribution efficiency (90%) which gives us 27540x0,9 = about 24800 MJ of final energy.

Taking into account the average efficiency of conventional thermal power plants + distribution (36%, see page 12 http://cocyane.chez-alice.fr/pdf/electricite_et_co2.pdf ), so we saved 24800 MJ / 0,36 = 68900 MJ of fossil energy. At the rate of 0,083 kg of CO2 per fossil MJ (note C), we saved 5700 kg of CO2.

Let's summarize:
Approach A (VSEB) allows us to save 3480 kg of CO2
Approach B (based on the fossil car) allows us to save 5700 kg of CO2


So, let's keep our good old fossil car and push the manufacturers to finally make us these cars " 2 liters per hundred super light super profiled "But fossils ...

Clearly, unless I am mistaken, the VSEB electric car is seriously questioned unless there is a radical change in context. It remains to be verified that a “non-solar” recharge of electric cars at night (when demand is low) is not at least of partial interest.

The error is human, to your calculators… (I check later and update if necessary)

Michel Kieffer


PS: Elec certainly right in the long run, but we all understand that today there is much more effective and much more urgent to do ...

PS: This reasoning is valid whatever the individual mode of production of electricity: wind turbine (cf. suggestion of Lietseu), micro hydraulic power plant

PS: In addition, let's quickly return to approach A: our car loads at night which puts lead in the wing of approach A: there is a basic problem due to lack of sun at night!

PS: that does not mean that the individual must invest in solar panels: one euro invests in insulation today is much more effective than one euro in solar panels.

Notas:

A - Reference vehicle: car with diesel engine, vehicle mass around 1300 kg:
• Data: assumption of average diesel engine consumption: 6,5 liters per cent; yield 35%; diesel density 0,85; diesel energy 43 MJ / kg; releases: 0,073 kg of CO2 per MJ of diesel fuel (3,16 kg / kg)
• Onboard energy to complete 100 km (U2) = 6,5 liters x0,85x43MJ = 237 MJ

B - Energy produced per m2 of solar panels: 225 kWh / year (estimate, this value seems rather high) = 810 MJ / year

C - We are removing very polluting thermal power plants and not hydraulic power plants! For this reason we should not take our 0,128 kg of CO2 per MJ of final energy but 0,083 kg of CO2 per MJ of fossil secondary energy (this is an average, see page 26 http://cocyane.chez-alice.fr/pdf/electricite_et_co2.pdf )
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 161 guests