think about this the next time you're at the gas station!
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
isn't it time we evolved past this outdated and wasteful technology?? how has virtually everything else exploded in technological advances and efficiency and yet we are stuck with low 20%??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_c ... efficiency
http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm
http://mb-soft.com/public2/engine.html
"they generally indicate that a conventional internal combustion engine cannot have an overall efficiency of greater than around the low 30% range. As noted below, there have been some experimental engines designed that have been measured at around 28%, but the most efficient production engines are around 25% and most vehicles on the highways now have engines which have around 21% overall efficiency.....we can estimate that around 21% of the energy becomes useful power to move the vehicle; 35% of the energy gets lost in the exhaust gases; and 44% gets lost due to the cooling system and other radiative cooling effects."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_c ... efficiency
http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm
http://mb-soft.com/public2/engine.html
"they generally indicate that a conventional internal combustion engine cannot have an overall efficiency of greater than around the low 30% range. As noted below, there have been some experimental engines designed that have been measured at around 28%, but the most efficient production engines are around 25% and most vehicles on the highways now have engines which have around 21% overall efficiency.....we can estimate that around 21% of the energy becomes useful power to move the vehicle; 35% of the energy gets lost in the exhaust gases; and 44% gets lost due to the cooling system and other radiative cooling effects."
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
That is because of pollution standards - the "tier" system that will max out in 2014. The Tier 4b engines in 2015 will release exhaust that is cleaner than the air itself in most major cities.
To get better particulate, NO, CO2 standards it is impossible (with combustion engine) to increase efficiency.
So we are burning more fuel to decrease pollution... but more fuel burned equals higher prices and more energy required to get the fuel to the consumer... quite the nasty situation.
Godfather.
two main problems ...
1. you have to make hydrogen: using electricity from conventional dirty sources to separate the hydrogen from water can be missing the point unless the energy is coming from renewable sources
2. storage: there is no infrastructure to store hydrogen now although - i would think they could retrofit many gas stations with the ability ...
i am not positive but when i did some preliminary math using a wind turbine to create hydrogen that was then used in a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle ... it was still cheaper than gas without subsidies ...
Honda has developed a car called the FCX Clarity that runs on hydrogen. They are also testing re-filing stations in Cali that generate hydrogen from solar power. Hydrogen could be a contender for alternative fuel one day if it can be efficiently created and distributed by means of clean renewable energy like wind and solar.
Hydrogen fueled autos only emit heat and water.
yes ... i should add there are some safety issues surrounding the storage of hyrdrogen but i'm not entirely sure about it ...
The Environmental Protection Agency reported that the average performance of new, 2008 model cars and trucks was 20.8 miles per gallon in 2008, up 0.2 mpg compared to 2007 model year vehicles a year ago, and a 1.5 mpg increase since 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model ... f_starting
The Model T had a 177 in3 (2.9 L) front mounted inline four-cylinder en bloc engine (that is, all four in one block, as common now, rather than in individual castings, as common then) producing 20 hp (15 kW) for a top speed of 40-45 mph (64–72 km/h). The Model T four cylinder sidevalve engine was first in the world with a detachable head, making service like valve jobs easier. According to Ford Motor, the Model T had fuel economy on the order of 13 to 21 mpg (5 to 9 kilometres per litre or 11.1 to 18.7 litres per 100 km).[10] The engine was capable of running on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol,[11][12] though the decreasing cost of gasoline and the later introduction of Prohibition made ethanol an impractical fuel.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Brilliant ... I'd like to see this go somewhere.
That's the thing though, how many people would accept a car that had a top speed of 45mph? Not to mention the model T had pretty much on safety features. A lot of the reasons newer model cars have poor fuel economy is because of the increased safety features. I mean thinks like side impact beams and roofs that don't collapse in a roll over are freaking heavy and the heavier a car is the more fuel it needs to move. I heard somewhere, I think it was on a show on PBS that something like 95% of the power a car generates is used in just moving the car, only a tiny amount is required to move the driver.
we can go from wind up airplanes to the moon and back, yet we are still running a combustible engine. i think i read somewhere, several individuals have created super engines, but the auto industry would buy their technology and keep everything away from the consumer.
also....i am by no means a "conspiracy" person, but on this issue, it leaves me wondering.
95% of the original 21% it actually isn't very good.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
It's probable. Even the history of Los Angeles reveals that the city was first designed with efficient trains. In the 1930s, the auto companies bought out the railroads and tore up the tracks, leaving cars as the only choice for getting around.
perfect....then decades pass and we "bailout" the auto industry. ahhhh, the sweet taste of justice.
You assume that the combustion engine isn't the best method of getting us around. It is BY FAR the cheapest and BY FAR the most efficient. It is probably one of the top 10 achievements in the history of man.
That being said, it is dirty. Other methods of (clean) energy transfer are less efficient (horsepower & torque) and much more expensive. So, it comes down to a question of $$$ versus pollution. And the pollution thing is being attacked daily as some sort of communist conspiracy by the right-wing media, but my opinion is that the longevity and health of this planet and of people and animals is more important than saving a dollar today...
Right now, there is no silver bullet. More like "silver buckshot." Meaning that we need to look at multiple ways to reduce the amount of petroleum used such as renewable fuels, electricity, wind, solar, and we need to change the way we live by using public transportation, walking or biking, change how and what we buy, become localvores, and so on. Maybe one day there will be a silver bullet but I'm not holding my breathe.
I'm not completely sure and a little too lazy to look it up, but I think combustion engines actually have a pretty low efficiency, in the range of 20%. I have read that electric cars, hydrogen powered, and even natural gas vehiclkes have a much higher efficiency level. And Electric cars can provide much more torque through all ranges of acceleration becasue there is no chemical reaction -- it's just straight power. Our typical gasoline engines lose a lot of energy in the burning process.
all things being equal (assuming we paid the TRUE cost of oil) ... electric cars powered by wind would easily outdistance oil in terms of cost, efficiency and sustainability ...
But that is only the case like you said if you are using wind, or some other form of power generation with little or no emmissions. If you are using coal you are still polluting just as much if not more (and a huge percentage of power generated in the US is done using coal). I would be interested in seeing more electric cars, but I am not sure how fast it could be done since it would place an increased demand on the power grid.
20% efficiency? Efficiency of what? Power to the ground? Torque at the driveshaft? Please be more specific... There is a reason big construction/farm equipment uses diesel fuel. It produces much more horsepower and torque than any other method and the same is true with cars. You move fast and far with relatively little energy use. You must also consider what it takes to get "X amount of energy" from the source to the end-user. Again, petroleum is by far the cheapeast energy available.
I'm not an advocate of using more oil or anything... just in search of the facts. Let's all take off our environmentalist goggles and see the situation for what it is. $$$ vs. Pollution.
Unfortunately, the $$$ will always win, or at least that has been true since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe people can change their habits... but I hear a lot of talk and VERY LITTLE action.
wind or hydro ... yes, coal would not be good ... the thing is tho that most would be charging their cars overnight when power requirements are at the lowest ...
only because of the subsidies associated with oil ... if we paid the true cost of oil - it's nowhere close to being the cheapest energy available ...
You're correct that they could be charged at night when demand is low. But if that would be the case then it would worry me in places where coal power produces the majority of the electricity. In those locations all they would do is ramp up the output of the existing coal power plants at night to meet the demand , which would be much cheaper then building new wind/hydro generation to run at night.
they do, i put all that info in the OP
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
did you know ontario can go without coal right now? ... there would be no need to ramp up coal at night as the drain could be met ... edit: http://cleanairalliance.org/
wind is the cheapest form of new energy production right now ... again - subsidies aside ...
i like the technology that uses the power of the tide to power a generator....of course this can't be used for a car but we could easily break it up and supply ALL our electrical needs by putting photovoltaics in the desert areas, wind turbines in windy areas, hydroelectric on the coasts where there's strong tides....
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Which is great for Ontario, and wish they would shut the coal plants down faster. But the US gets around half its electricity from coal. So if all of the sudden there are a ton of new electrical appliances (car batteries) that need to be charged, the quickest way to charge them is to run those coal plants at the same capacity at night that they do in the day, leading to as much if not more pollution then you would have by just running the car on a gas engine.
the actual potential energy in gasoline. Of the total heat energy potential of gasoline, some 70-80% is lost or ejected in things like exhaust or friction of moving parts. I guess you'd call it power to the ground.. or the potentil energy of gasoline vs. the amount of power that is created propel the vehicle forward --You just have to google it I guess. it's all over the place. And yes, or course diesel is much more efficient.
really? ... extracting and refining and burning oil/gas is better than coal?
to say that oil is... "nowhere clost to being the cheapest energy available" due to subsidies is at best arguable... more likely it is just plain wrong.
Federal energy subsidies IN TOTAL... yes oil receives the most. But the oil industry is massive compared to other energy sources available...
If you look at the subsidy for every "energy unit produced" (admittedly I don't know exactly what that is) it is small compared to others. Renewables received 26 times as much, Nuclear energy receives 16 times as much, coal receives 3 times as much, and natural gas receives 2 times as much subsidies per unit energy unit produced. (Source; energy information administration... source may controversial I guess if you don't believe everything the government tells you... but hey its the best I could do as far as an "unbiased" source)
All energy industries receives subsidies and oil receives the fewest per unit. It would be like looking at a nation's GDP without looking at the GDP per capita.
edit: more subsidies links
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07 ... p-them.php
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
but what are you looking at - just the refinery process? ... what about the cost of extraction? ... the energy used to extract and refine the oil ... etc ...
http://cleantech.com/news/node/554
While it's easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry "probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country", according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury's former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, remember that subsidies are important across all sectors of the energy industry.