Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.

Post Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:37 pm

Split from the Formula E discussion....

do people actually think EVs are anything but a gesture and a diversion ?
the world needs more heat energy than electrical energy, and always will
and, as we are finding, viable renewable electricity is a fiction
EV people haven't even got batteries that are worth spit !!
do we really have faith in vehicles and energy systems that are effectively designed by elected politicians ?
when elected politicians have conspicuously failed in all aspects of their actual jobs
remember that EVs and Hybrids exist only because of California's legal mandates justified on zero tailpipe emissions in cities

...... or ...... please stop blowing your greenist trumpet, 'gyro !!
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tommy Cookers
 
Joined: 17 Feb 2012

Post Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:53 am

Tommy Cookers wrote:maybe this distorts some of our other perceptions ?
do people actually think EVs are anything but a gesture and a diversion ?
the world needs more heat energy than electrical energy, and always will
and, as we are finding, viable renewable electricity is a fiction

I have to disagree and would love to read a further explanation of your point of view

Viable renewable electricity is a reality. It´s more expensive, ok, that´s the reason we were not using it before, but when the main concern stop being the price, and the new problem we focus on is the environement, then it is as viable as we want it to be.

Is Spain there have been some months we´ve consumed more renewable energy than any other. Reality.

And it still is a field where we (humans) need a lot of development. There are tons of new projects to use energy from sea currents, from sea waves, from any heat source.... You can´t criticize renewable energies so lightly saying they´re a fiction, they´re something we´re developing and still need a lot more, but they are the future if we want to keep using the energy levels we use today, with heat energies and the energy demand we have today the planet have an expiring date, it is this simple, so we can ignore the problem, or we can face it and accept there will be some necessary changes

Tommy Cookers wrote:EV people haven't even got batteries that are worth spit !!

I think you missed the videos Aleks_ader posted some pages back. Take a look, they´re worth it
aleks_ader wrote: Look belove for example at that videos (sorry if everyone already post it). I think it good made my point why is good to do it and why is worth to try...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtfKux9BUnE&list=FL8icmya37JBXPLjCwNEFRUA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IipCijIBHeQ


We need just "Aladins lamp" :wink: and open that unexploded areas and once for all do something good for our future generations. We mechanical and electrical engineers must stick heads together and make it work. =D>




Tommy Cookers wrote:do we really have faith in vehicles and energy systems that are effectively designed by elected politicians ?
when elected politicians have conspicuously failed in all aspects of their actual jobs
remember that EVs and Hybrids exist only because of California's legal mandates justified on zero tailpipe emissions in cities ... or ... please stop blowing your greenist trumpet, 'gyro !!


So Toyota, a japanese company, took some politicians to design the Prius in 1997, and it was because of California´s legal mandates... in the future :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Sorry couldn´t resist, it looked like you were kidding... :P
Andres125sx
 
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Location: Madrid, Spain

Post Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:06 pm

It has been stated that the primary tech development area that FE wants to motivate is the area of battery improvement.
This is a fundamental purpose of the formula.
The source of the electricity needed to charge these batteries is not at this time directly relevant.
Electric vehicles in Cities will become essential in the near future solely because of pollution issues.
Racing FE in City centers will help to develop City electric transport and hopefully energy infrastructures to support them.
Racing electrics and road electrics require no costly fuel inefficient distribution networks just improvements to the electrical grid system.

Longer distance vehicle use will take longer to change to pure electric but it is going to happen.
It will be interesting when long range rally electric motor sport begins, I look forward to that.

None of this technology change is a direct result of global warming or CO2 emissions.
It will remain an energy cost issue forced on by technological breakthroughs.
There will be no significant breakthroughs in the now obsolete ic technology by comparison, it is decades since there were any.
Electric racing should and must be THE area for advancement so support FE.
Even if it is French at the moment, times change :wink:
autogyro
 
Joined: 4 Oct 2009

Post Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:37 pm

autogyro wrote:None of this technology change is a direct result of global warming or CO2 emissions.


Agree on almost all your reply autogyro, but not on this. I think it´s not a direct result of any single factor, but the result of multiple factors, and global warming and CO2 emissions are two of them.

Cost of fuel is another one.

Marketing is another one (any company need to attract customers, and today being "green" is a big factor to attract)

Weather changes we´re watching and make us afraid about our influence to the planet is another one

Health and pollution, specially into any big city is another one

And so on...


If you take all of this it´s easy to understand the technology change. As usually, it´s not a matter of some single factor, but the summation of multiple factors
Andres125sx
 
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Location: Madrid, Spain

Post Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:41 pm

@autogyro
you have certainly here clarified your position over the areas I had mentioned
I shall print a copy and keep it in hand when reading further posts of yours in this thread (and as ever try to sit on the other hand !)

@ Andres
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14386&view=unread#unread

in this thread here my prime point was that overall we need more heat energy than electrical energy, and we always will
(it is scandalous that the EU-wide official system that we all now have is structured to conceal this simple fact)
so the possible benefits from land vehicle electrification are small relative to this 'big picture'
and we are anyway very far from replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation

in the unfortunately-titled 'N' thread I tried to suggest that we are a long way from fossil fuel exhaustion
and that globally we are in need of renewable water sources rather than renewable energy sources
(many are now living on food grown with non-renewing water)
Last edited by Richard on Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Link added
Tommy Cookers
 
Joined: 17 Feb 2012

Post Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:26 pm

Andres125sx wrote:
autogyro wrote:None of this technology change is a direct result of global warming or CO2 emissions.


Agree on almost all your reply autogyro, but not on this. I think it´s not a direct result of any single factor, but the result of multiple factors, and global warming and CO2 emissions are two of them.

Cost of fuel is another one.

Marketing is another one (any company need to attract customers, and today being "green" is a big factor to attract)

Weather changes we´re watching and make us afraid about our influence to the planet is another one

Health and pollution, specially into any big city is another one

And so on...


If you take all of this it´s easy to understand the technology change. As usually, it´s not a matter of some single factor, but the summation of multiple factors


I agree that 'green issues' have a major effect on promotion and marketing for EVs even in F1.
I do not believe that these issues are the reason for the increased developments within EV technology.
There is continuing debate on how serious mankinds damaging actions to the environment and the atmosphere actually are.
Of course there needs to be major changes to how we treat the environment and reductions to the wasteful and polluting way we use energy sources.
I do not think there are many who object to these principles.

However, unless their is a major global risk identified and proven from the continued use of fossil vehicle fuel, I do not see the 'green issues' forcing a change away from their use.

It is the cost comparison that is fueling the change.
autogyro
 
Joined: 4 Oct 2009

Post Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:30 pm

One possible benefit of rethinking the distribution of electrical power is the ability to locate renewable energy sources closer to where the electricity is needed. Transmission loses over traditional electrical grids can be as much as 50%.

But all the same, there is no free lunch. Every form of energy has drawbacks, whether it is the need for expensive catalysts or the lack of constant output for solar and wind power systems.

There are, however, people thinking of new and creative ways to harness the natural energy of the world's ecosystems. One of the most promising involves the use of underwater kites to tap tidal currents as a source of electrical energy. You can read more at this link: Kites For Tidal Power

I have no doubt that 50 years from now, the world's energy needs will be met in ways we cannot even envision today. :!:
Some men go crazy; some men go slow. Some men go just where they want; some men never go.
MOWOG
 
Joined: 7 Apr 2013
Location: Rhode Island, USA

Post Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:21 am

Tommy Cookers wrote:@ Andres
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14386&view=unread#unread

in this thread here my prime point was that overall we need more heat energy than electrical energy, and we always will

No, we need a billionaire bank account, we need robot butlers, we need F1 cars that everyone can buy.... we need a lot of things, but lately we are realicing we can´t focus only on what we need, and we should focus a lot more on the needs of the planet we live in

That mentality is the result of capitalism, where people usually think only about himself. I´m not criticising capitalism, but as always nothing is perfect, and this is one of the problems of capitalism, it make us selfish and avaricious

I like to think we´re slowly getting over this mentality, but I´m not that sure.... :?


Tommy Cookers wrote:so the possible benefits from land vehicle electrification are small relative to this 'big picture'
and we are anyway very far from replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation


And....

Sorry but can´t get what you´re trying to say, do you mean we should give up because the change will be slow?

Do you mean we should give up because we need to change a lot of things to see any benefits?

Even if I agree with you (and I don´t, land vehicle electrification would provide instant benefits), I can´t understand what you´re trying to say. No change is easy, and no big change is fast, but that means nothing about the necessity of the change.

Yes, it will be slow and difficult, but that´s not a serious reason to question it

Tommy Cookers wrote:in the unfortunately-titled 'N' thread I tried to suggest that we are a long way from fossil fuel exhaustion
and that globally we are in need of renewable water sources rather than renewable energy sources
(many are now living on food grown with non-renewing water)


And we need a billionaire bank account, and robots.....

You can´t seriously argue against electricity saying we need a lot more things Tommy. Of course, we need many things, one of them is replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. More needs do not dilute this one
Andres125sx
 
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Location: Madrid, Spain

Post Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:52 am

I think something might be lost in translation?

I read Tommy's comments as meaning the need for clean heat energy and clean water supplies is more pressing than clean vehicles. I'm not sure how basics such as heat and water can be seen as avaricious?

Yes clean electric cars would be great for urban pollution, but that's trifling compared to the fuel used to heat buildings. I've only mentioned the point of consumption. It gets worse when we factor in distribution. The so called "no emissions" vehicle is a fallacy, it merely experts emissions to a distant power station with associated losses in distribution.

So the argument then says we should make generation & distribution more efficient. But when we get cleaner electricity we'd find it would have the greatest benefit if it was used it in our buildings.

Heating buildings is where we burn the majority of a natural resources, so that's where we can have the greatest gains. I can see the cooling plume from the UK's largest power station from where I'm sitting now. Raw material is being burnt and a lot of the released energy is thrown away in those steam plumes, and another load of that energy is thrown away in distribution to my house to power this laptop. In addition the most efficient way to heat my house is to burn even more raw material (ie gas) in my own little power station in my garage. My car is a pimple in comparison to all that waste.

As the ancient mariner might have said "Heat, heat everywhere, but not a joule for warmth"

As it happens my house is in a small development of perhaps 30 houses, the ideal size for a small CHP unit that would provide cheap heat in winter and free cooling in the summer. When the house is empty in the daytime that CHP unit can send energy over a very short distance to the nearby town centre. Waste heat from that daytime generation can be stored in my house to see me though the night, or used for cooling in the summer.

Unfortunately UK obsession about owning our own little castles and fear of anything remotely resembling social housing means we'll never get domestic CHP schemes in the UK. Centralised power systems do have a bad press thanks to poor quality social housing in the 60's and 70's.

CHP can't be that bad can it? Look at this lovely residential area with a nearby CHP plant. It has lots of trees, no noise, and zero crime! :D

Image
Richard
 
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: UK

Post Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:02 am

Oil & tobacco companies are evil ...

<< pictures of industrial pollution killing children >>

.... think of your children's health and any future generations health...

... take a look at the pictures above ...

... how can you sleep at night ...
Last edited by Richard on Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:37 am, edited 5 times in total.
Reason: Distilled from the author's own words
Andres125sx
 
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Location: Madrid, Spain

Post Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:20 am

Andres, how does driving (for fun?) a 2-stroke KTM 125 SX go together with your strict believe that it is harmful for the planet to burn petrol?
Dear FIA, if you read this, please pm me for a redesign of the Technical Regulations to avoid finger nose shapes for 2016! :-)
Blanchimont
 
Joined: 9 Nov 2012

Post Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:44 pm

Blanchimont wrote:Andres, how does driving (for fun?) a 2-stroke KTM 125 SX go together with your strict believe that it is harmful for the planet to burn petrol?

First, it was my first mx bike, it was 1994-5 (93 bike) and four stroke bikes didn´t exist. Anycase I´ve also owned two CR125 and a KX250, all of them two strokes. Only the last one could have been a four stroke, but needed to be second hand (never been rich) so went for an affordable and known KX two strokes, far better reliability :)

Second, I said we have two options, limiting the energy we consume, wich is what you´re insinuating and I already said is completely unreal, or the second option would be doing some sacrifice (paying a higher price) for a less polluting energy, wich is what the "green and stupid initiative" try to promote. Me too.

I´d love to have an electric mx bike, believe me, would really love it. I must admit this is not because of environemet concerns tough, but because electric vehicles have tons more torque, no mechanical failures, no need to warm up, no oil changes, no maintainance.... The only problem stopping them is the battery and mileage, and that will be solved soon. I´m looking forward for next generation batteries, they will be the final nail in ICE´s coffin
Andres125sx
 
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Location: Madrid, Spain

Post Fri Nov 29, 2013 7:14 pm

Let's be honest - the only reason we haven't switched to "green energy" completely is simply because of the costs we, as consumers, would have to pay. Does anyone really care how the electricity coming out of the wall socket was generated? But what do we say when we get the bill?
And, since capitolism is the world religion, the energy companies will not accept losing profit to be green, because their sole purpose is to earn money - that's why they exist. We, the consumers, are left to pay for this conversion. And when some countries, like here in Germany, force the conversion, then we will inevitably pay for it - and be the dumbasses in the end, because no one else even tried, but we pumped a hell of a lot of money into the energy companies and into the government through taxes.

And who wins, our future generations (no money) or theirs (lots of money)?

I am all for clean energy generation; as long as we don't know our influence on the environment, we should try to minimalize our impact. But those that actually try to make a change will be screwed over by all those that don't - and I am looking at you, America, China & Russia - so why bother trying?

P.S.: I am American, before any finger pointing starts.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" R. W. Emerson
CBeck113
 
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Location: Regensburg, Germany

Post Fri Nov 29, 2013 7:46 pm

Sorry Richard, didn´t see your reply as I posted my last two in a row and didn´t realice about your post in between...

richard_leeds wrote:I think something might be lost in translation?

Probably, english is not my native language and I sometimes misread some things, and usually can´t explain my point of view properly :oops:

richard_leeds wrote:I read Tommy's comments as meaning the need for clean heat energy and clean water supplies is more pressing than clean vehicles.


Agree, never said the contrary. But I didn´t read Tommy was talking about clean heat energy tough. If that´s the case, then sorry

richard_leeds wrote:I'm not sure how basics such as heat and water can be seen as avaricious?


I never said that Richard, even with my poor english I think you can´t read that on any of my replies. The only mention to that term was when I was talking about the cons of capitalism, and that was after talking about petrol companies, so you can´t seriously say this Richard, I´m afraid you´ve misread it

richard_leeds wrote:Yes clean electric cars would be great for urban pollution, but that's trifling compared to the fuel used to heat buildings. I've only mentioned the point of consumption. It gets worse when we factor in distribution.


Off course Richard, but that works both sides, you can´t compare electricity consumption, distribution and production with just fuel consumption, and if you compare the whole process for both, then yes it get worse... for fossil fuels.

When you compare the final use or consumption: fuel pollute vs electricity don´t
When you compare distribution: fuel pollute (trucks, oil tankers...) vs electricity don´t (HV network may have looses, but don´t pollute)
When you compare the production: fuel pollute (oil wells, refineries...) vs electricity "pollute" (coil plants pollute, nuclear plants pollute, but hydro stations don´t pollute, wind mills don´t pollute, solar plants don´t pollute...)

So when you compare both you´re really tempted to say electricity is 100% clean because the comparison is overwhelming. It´s not true because it depends if it comes from a coil plant or from a hydro station, but the difference is so huge it´s easy to understand electricity is seen as a green energy. And if it comes from an hydro station or a wind mill it´s even true and accurate :wink:

Also, electricity does pollute today, but we´re improving and inventing new ways to get renewable energy continuously, so we are replacing polluting plants wich means in the future all of them will be 100% renewable energy, while fossil fuels pollute today, and will pollute in any future. That´s another huge difference and a big reason to defend the change.

richard_leeds wrote:So the argument then says we should make generation & distribution more efficient. But when we get cleaner electricity we'd find it would have the greatest benefit if it was used it in our buildings.

Heating buildings is where we burn the majority of a natural resources, so that's where we can have the greatest gains. I can see the cooling plume from the UK's largest power station from where I'm sitting now. Raw material is being burnt and a lot of the released energy is thrown away in those steam plumes, and another load of that energy is thrown away in distribution to my house to power this laptop. In addition the most efficient way to heat my house is to burn even more raw material (ie gas) in my own little power station in my garage. My car is a pimple in comparison to all that waste.

As the ancient mariner might have said "Heat, heat everywhere, but not a joule for warmth"

As it happens my house is in a small development of perhaps 30 houses, the ideal size for a small CHP unit that would provide cheap heat in winter and free cooling in the summer. When the house is empty in the daytime that CHP unit can send energy over a very short distance to the nearby town centre. Waste heat from that daytime generation can be stored in my house to see me though the night, or used for cooling in the summer.

Unfortunately UK obsession about owning our own little castles and fear of anything remotely resembling social housing means we'll never get domestic CHP schemes in the UK. Centralised power systems do have a bad press thanks to poor quality social housing in the 60's and 70's.

CHP can't be that bad can it? Look at this lovely residential area with a nearby CHP plant. It has lots of trees, no noise, and zero crime! :D

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71363000/jpg/_71363732_624_city-arch-background.jpg


Completely agree Richard. That´s my job (construction engineer) and we can improve that aspect by a really big factor. But that´s another debate, improving energy use. We can do it everywhere, heating buildings, improving the inneficient lights we use everywhere, with a more reasonable use of electric machines, realicing we don´t need a lift to go down two or three floors....

But I think that´s another debate
Andres125sx
 
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Location: Madrid, Spain

Post Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:08 pm

the UK has a huge debt, but gives aid money to countries that subsidise fuel prices to further their right to economic development
eg Venezuela's gasoline that sells at 3 cents/litre
with this sort of justification many countries will continue to use all the fossil fuels they can afford
there is no restraint of fossil fuel use except rising prices
another reason why to be less than thrilled with the exaggerations of European EV programme
and with its billion Euro size handout to Asian manufacturers

btw China is stated today to be mining the moon within 10 years
apparently nuclear fusion cannot be used for generation without Helium 3 compounds
these exist in significant quantity on the moon, but not on Earth
does China know something that we don't ?
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tommy Cookers
 
Joined: 17 Feb 2012

Next

Return to Off topic chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests