$1b electric car infrastructure deal

[terryc]

Getting
generators to generate at the best efficiency might actually be better
overall. Less pollution?

I'm not sure that it is just efficency, but more startup and sht down
times. AFAIK coal fired takes 24 hours to start up, gas turbine minutes
and hydro seconds. so if you have the coal burning and the boilers
bubbling you want the generator to be spining producing electricty that
you are getting paid for.

Certainly, rechargng a whole pile of electric cars during off peak would
give he coal station generators better return and thus higher efficency.

It is NOT however worth the home owner charging a whole pile of batteries
atthe cheap rate and then runing their house on an inverter during the
day. Efficency in and efficency out, then cost of asset and deprecation
takes care of all that. <Just thought I'd shoot that turkey before it
got off the ground>

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Strawman. Where does the electricity come from at what efficiency ?

**Electricity generators. That may include:
* Coal fired plants (up to around 50% efficient).
* Nukes (up to around 40% efficient)
* Gas turbine (up to 60%)
* Wind (efficiency unimportant)
* PV cell (efficiency unimportant)
* Roof top PV cells (efficiency unimportant)

Don't forget: When you're judging automobiles, that several factors should
be considered:

* The vast majority of private cars in Australia are petrol powered.
* The actual efficiency of the engines in those cars is significantly lower
than the theoretical maximum.
* The cost of distribution (petrol tankers, petrol bowsers, lighting, etc)
should be taken into account (since you are costing electricity grids into
your costing).

Grid losses are typically in the order of 6-10% alone AIUI.

**In SOME cases (and the number is growing) Australians are generating much
of their own power from their own rooftops. Additionally, you need to accept
that the theoretical efficiency of a car engine is not the real-world
efficiency. You also need to add fuel distribution costs into your
equations.

And you're not going to replace all that coal fired electricity overnight.

**Indeed. THAT is the biggest problem I see. There is not a snowball's
chance in Hell that mass adoption of electric vehicles will occur anytime
soon. That should not stop planning for such an event right now, though.

The

only realistic option is a huge scale program of nukes.

**Nope. Australia has abundant reserves of geo-thermal energy, at costs
which rival nukes. Even better, public acceptance is pretty much assured.
Solar, wind and todal can supplement the base load plants. Don't foget: The
Sun shines a lot in Australia, over a wide range of time zones and at times
when demand is highest.

You have the uranium

AIUI. Result, the EV is currently LESS efficient than modern ICE based
proposals
and is inherently inflexible wrt long journeys.

**Indeed. However, we need to start planning for the lack of oil NOW.
There's not much being made right now. Sticking one's head in the sand and
saying: "electric cars are not as efficient as petrol cars" will not solve
the problem. Eventually, we have to find an alternative (or, more likely, a
range of alternatives).

 

[terryc]

* The cost of distribution (petrol tankers, petrol bowsers, lighting, etc)
should be taken into account (since you are costing electricity grids into
your costing).

And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

**Indeed. It is remarkable how many fossil fuel proponents forget how the
automobile got to where it is by the use of general taxation. Now that some
want subsidies to be provided to some of the alternative energy proponents,
the fossil fuel guys call "foul".

 

[Mr.T]

Prove me wrong!

So you really think burning more brown coal will create less pollution?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

A modern petrol engine can reach around 35% efficiency AT BEST. That means,
over a very narrow rev range (though somewhat greater in modern, variable
valve timing type engines).

A bit of a contradiction there, how can it be "AT BEST", if so many modern
engines can do better?

My car manages around 7.1 Litres/100km, when
operating at around 90kph on a flat road.

Mine does under 5 Litres/100km under those same conditions, and *averages*
6L/100km, all without expensive batteries.
And can still manage to safely overtake in sixth gear!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure, and
has done so for many decades.

MrT.

 

[Mauried]

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure, and
has done so for many decades.

MrT.

Since 1985 actually, when Keating changed the rules with what could be
done with fuel excise.
Fuel excise is now simply a revenue measure which can be used for any
Government purposes.
Last year fuel excise raised around $15 billion dollars of which
around $6 billion went back to roads, the rest was used to partly
fund the operation of Centrelink.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

A bit of a contradiction there, how can it be "AT BEST", if so many modern
engines can do better?

**Non-sequitur. Modern Petrol engines can only mange around 35% efficiency,
AT BEST. Typically, in heavy city traffic, fuel consumption will easily
double.

Mine does under 5 Litres/100km under those same conditions, and *averages*
6L/100km, all without expensive batteries.
And can still manage to safely overtake in sixth gear!

**Great. BTW: How much does it weigh? How many people can it legally carry?
How much luggage? What is the fuel consumption under acceleration (mine can
easily exceed 60L/100km (yes, SIXTY), when I really give it some stick) What
is the fuel consumption is typical SYDNEY/LA/NYC/London heavy peak hour
traffic? Don't forget: The Prius and pure electric cars are designed for
cities, not country towns.

 

[Mr.T]

Since 1985 actually, when Keating changed the rules with what could be
done with fuel excise.

But as I said the "total government revenue from motorists" (of which the
fuel excise is only a part), was far higher than the total expenditure
*long* before then.
(that doesn't include the general taxation that motorists pay of course,
only those related to motoring, including taxation, fees, surcharges,
duties, levies, fines etc. etc. etc.)
Soon we can add carbon credits as well :-(

Fuel excise is now simply a revenue measure which can be used for any
Government purposes.

As is, and was, all consolidated revenue in any case.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

**Non-sequitur. Modern Petrol engines can only mange around 35% efficiency,
AT BEST.

And yet *YOU* were the one who already pointed out the now common VVT
engines might do better, not me! Not to mention the increasingly common
turbo diesels.

**Great. BTW: How much does it weigh?

About 1.4 Tonne

How many people can it legally carry?
Five.

How much luggage?
Enough.

What is the fuel consumption under acceleration (mine can
easily exceed 60L/100km (yes, SIXTY), when I really give it some stick)

The instantaneous readout has never exceeded 20l/km, but the important thing
to me is that the average is 6.0L/100km over more than 10,000km, both city
and highway use.

What
is the fuel consumption is typical SYDNEY/LA/NYC/London heavy peak hour
traffic? Don't forget: The Prius and pure electric cars are designed for
cities, not country towns.

I live in a city myself, and even then the Prius would cost me *far* more to
own/run, and perform worse in many situations.
We don't all have to drive to the CBD every day you know!
But how come you don't have one if you think they are so great? Frankly I
think they are a pathetic attempt at cashing in, and can easily be improved
on when the demand/economics justify it.
It may be quite a while before a one car owner in Australia could seriously
consider an electric vehicle IMO however.
I won't hold my breathe waiting for the government to do something about the
CTP disincentive though. At the moment you are FAR better off simply buying
a Falcodore and taking the $2k taxpayer handout to convert it to gas. then
not having to pay the huge fuel excises either.

In fact the conversion companies are now starting to do quite a few four
cylinder cars as well, I can't see how a Prius could possibly compete with
that.

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

And yet *YOU* were the one who already pointed out the now common VVT
engines might do better, not me! Not to mention the increasingly common
turbo diesels.

**Basic efficiency is not improved. Just the efficiency over a wider rev
range.

About 1.4 Tonne


Enough.

**All quite impressive for a petrol engine. What is the fuel consuption
under acceleration and in typical Sydney peak hour traffic?

The instantaneous readout has never exceeded 20l/km, but the important
thing
to me is that the average is 6.0L/100km over more than 10,000km, both city
and highway use.

**You have a commendably light foot, or your car accelerates very slowly.

I live in a city myself, and even then the Prius would cost me *far* more
to
own/run, and perform worse in many situations.
**Fine.

We don't all have to drive to the CBD every day you know!

**Fine. Don't buy a Prius. The Prius is designed for people who do *a lot*
of heavy traffic driving.

But how come you don't have one if you think they are so great?

**For a bunch of reasons:
* I NEVER buy new (or near new) cars.
* I need a vehicle which can carry long (2 Metre) loads.
* I drive as little as possible. The Prius only makes sense for heavy city
drivers.

Frankly I

think they are a pathetic attempt at cashing in, and can easily be
improved
on when the demand/economics justify it.

**You're entitled to your opinion. I also feel that Toyota COULD have done
better. However, credit should go them, since Ford, GM and others have
managed to completely ignore the issue.

It may be quite a while before a one car owner in Australia could
seriously
consider an electric vehicle IMO however.

**We'll see.

I won't hold my breathe waiting for the government to do something about
the
CTP disincentive though. At the moment you are FAR better off simply
buying
a Falcodore and taking the $2k taxpayer handout to convert it to gas. then
not having to pay the huge fuel excises either.

**That is obscene. Along with the nonsensically high price of Diesel.

In fact the conversion companies are now starting to do quite a few four
cylinder cars as well, I can't see how a Prius could possibly compete with
that.

**In pure Dollar terms, it cannot. Prius purchasers often have other
incentives.

 

[Mr.T]

**Basic efficiency is not improved. Just the efficiency over a wider rev
range.

Not for turbo diesels, Increased efficiency over a narrower rev range
compared to petrol engines. Not a problem when mated with lots of gears or
CVT

**All quite impressive for a petrol engine.

Not for a turbo diesel as I keep telling you.

What is the fuel consuption
under acceleration and in typical Sydney peak hour traffic?

My *average* is 6.0L/100km, including peak hour city driving. Why should I
care about Sydney peak hour traffic anyway? That's what public transport is
for.

**You have a commendably light foot, or your car accelerates very slowly.

Nope *easily* out exelerates most cars in traffic without needing a petrol
bowser in tow!

**Fine. Don't buy a Prius.

Thanks, I won't!

The Prius is designed for people who do *a lot*
of heavy traffic driving.

Actually designed for countries/cities different than our own. But mostly
just to get in on the developmental ground floor. Pity they haven't climbed
any higher in the last decade though.

**For a bunch of reasons:
* I NEVER buy new (or near new) cars.
* I need a vehicle which can carry long (2 Metre) loads.
* I drive as little as possible. The Prius only makes sense for heavy city
drivers.

And not even then! But you see it it pointless for you, just as it is for
*most* people in Australia.

**You're entitled to your opinion. I also feel that Toyota COULD have done
better. However, credit should go them, since Ford, GM and others have
managed to completely ignore the issue.

Nope, the Ford Focus and GM Astra Turbo diesels (among others) are far more
practical in Australia than the overpriced Prius.
And God help you when the batteries need replacing.
GM had an electric car long before the Prius. The time wasn't right, just as
it still isn't. I'm not saying that won't ever change however. Maybe then
the vehicles will improve, they certainly need to!

**We'll see.

If you live long enough.

**That is obscene. Along with the nonsensically high price of Diesel.

No argument from me!

**In pure Dollar terms, it cannot.
Exactly.

Prius purchasers often have other incentives.

Ignorance of the total costs involved until too late, or simply a wish to
scare pedestrians?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Nope *easily* out exelerates most cars in traffic without needing a petrol
bowser in tow!

er, make that accelerates

MrT.

 

[terryc]

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure, and
has done so for many decades.

Could you list that "revenue"
Motor vehicle rego barely covers the cost f the rego dept.
Considerinfg that out major highways cosy $1B+/km now, then add allthe
major roads, minor roads, and back streets that are subsidised by state
fess and local government rates.

 

[terryc]

Since 1985 actually, when Keating changed the rules with what could be
done with fuel excise.
Fuel excise is now simply a revenue measure which can be used for any
Government purposes.
Last year fuel excise raised around $15 billion dollars of which around $6
billion went back to roads, the rest was used to partly fund the operation
of Centrelink.

You are forgetting all the other sources that fund roads.

 

[terryc]

But as I said the "total government revenue from motorists" (of which the
fuel excise is only a part), was far higher than the total expenditure
*long* before then.

Could you please list that "revenue", then list all the money spent on
roads at federal, stae and local government level?

It will be very informative for you.

 

[Eeyore]

I am very curious about the electricty consumption of that device. AFAIUI,
it is taking gaseous NatGas from the street pipe and the pumping it into a
gas tank that is mastly liquid, o it has to do a lot of compression of the
natgas to get it into the tank.

That compression will cost you a LOT of energy. No free lunch remember.

Same with the MDI/Tata 'air car' too btw.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

According to this article <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5960905>, it
uses 800 watts.

For how long ? And for what energy output ?

You're quoting power when you should be quoting energy. A classic mistake of
wannabes. Don't get your units mixed up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

READ IT !

Graham

 

[Mauried]

That compression will cost you a LOT of energy. No free lunch remember.

Same with the MDI/Tata 'air car' too btw.

Graham

Compressed Natural Gas doesnt liquify when pumped into a tank.
You have to cryogenically cool it to liquify it.
Liquifies at -170 C.