Thanks for pointing out the Argonne labs data. Its interesting doing the calculations but I think grid based electricity still wins for short commuters. A few extra ideas I have thought of that may affect the calculations. If the engine is running at fixed rpm then it will have to be charging the battery when the car isn't accelerating introducing the same charging inefficiency as the grid for at least part of the time. I live in Australia where off peak electricity is as little as 4 US cents per KWHr. Off peak pricing has a large impact. Given a 40% efficient engine petrol would have to be beter than $1.00 a gallon to compete in Australia. I'm doubtful that petrol will get cheaper in the medium term. But I can always hope.
"if we ballpark the engine efficiency at 60%"
Way off i'm affraid. Try 20%.
The best super large marine oil engines get 50%.
The best diesel car engines get 30% but only at a fixed RPM, which cars never do.
"Has anyone quantified the "recharging load" on the grid?"
Yes they have. If you recharge the cars during off peak the grid does not need upgrading until 40% of all vehicles are plug in electric. Given that about half the population is within "no recharge at work" range this seems a pretty good fit.
In my country, the turnover of vehicles is less than 8% a year. If the US is similar then even if every new whicle was plug in electric we'd have 5 years to get some upgrades going. Of course every new vehicle wont be plug in electric, they are only most suitable for the 50% of the people that live within 20 miles of work. So now we have a decade to get our act together.
I dont get the problem. You tax all diesel at the sale or wholesales point and let farmers and any other special groups claim the tax back at tax time. They just have keep their reciepts. Claiming to have used diesel on your farm business that you instead sold to someone else is simple tax fraud. It gets caught with an audit when the farmer can't explain where the money from the sold diesel is comming from.
No need for ID cards or acreage checks or any other stuff you mention.
And yes, the farmer can sell diesel if he bought too much, to his neighbour. He just cant claim the tax back at tax time.
My city has 5 major toll roads. They even changed the road system so that you must take the toll road if you want to go to many destinations. People still use their cars instead of the much cheaper train or walking.
What if you lived in a small town that only had air access to the rest of the country and the governement proposed building a road funded by taxes on everyone, including people that dont own cars.
You need to fly because it takes less time to get where you want to go. Most other people would just be happy to be able to drive.
The ailine is protesting because they will lose business. You are protesting because your taxes will go up and so will your airfares.
It comes as no supprise to me that successful cities are connected by roads (built by governments) and not air. And yet you apparently have no convincing arguement to have roads built by governments.
What is the difference between this senario and yours?
Paid for stuff gets priority by consumers over free stuff all the time. I could walk the 12 miles to work for free but, I, and nearly everyone else I know, buys a car and drives. My country has a heavily subsidised public train system which is much cheaper to use instead of cars and yet most people still prefer to drive to work.
Your XP example is a classic. A great many people will happily pay for XP even if their new machine came preloaded with a free OS.
I'm a bit of a Libertarian myself but its imposible to ignore the huge benefits that government activities, including running businesses, can play in mproving an economy. Saying otherwise just shows you haven't thought about it enough.
"Those soldiers are willing to die for an opinion different than yours."
So are the terrorists. It seems these soldiers are also happy to kill for this opinion, just like the terorists.
You will have to come up with a far more convincing arguement than a moronic following of duty.
"You may not agree or understand, but they will continue to fight for a simple cause- The hope that they can bring a better life to opposed people."
This would be about the fifth reason so far we have been offered for the war in Iraq. Once again, it isn't true. The death rate of Iraqis is far worse (one estimate says more than tenfold) under our occupation than under Saddam. We are worse than Saddam. Once the die hards realise this, we will leave. Hoping to achieve something and actually doing actions that will achieve it are totally different things.
"They've accomplished setting up running water and electricity to villages that have never had those luxuary's before, organized Boy Scout troops, help rebuild schools."
Thats a lovely story but it doesnt reflect reality. The electricity and water situation now are worse than under Saddam. I have no idea if the "boy scout" situation is better or worse.
"What have you done with your life to make a difference? Was fucked up situation have you tried to make the best of? "
Sometimes, doing nothing is the best course of action. I can assure you that I haven't actively participated in the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqis like your relatives. And I haven't stood at the sidelines cheering it on like you.
The bigger picture for soldiers in Iraq is that by being there they make us less safe, that's the opposite of their job. Everyone should be able to see by now that they have acheived nothing and the consequences are getting worse. Any soldier with a sense of morality would conscientiously object. Only the immoral would to justify it by saying they are doing their duty.
Your opinions of my character are irrelevent. It's the content of your arguement that is lacking.
I cant respect people that put their own lives in danger to acheive less than nothing for themselves and their country. What is to respect? They are idiots. How can you respect that?
People already pay other people to mod chip their Playstaions. I don't see how this is different. The Grand Parent has it right. I can imagine people setting their Zunes to automatically share music whenever another moded one comes into range. You could take the train to work and when you get there, you could find new music on your machine that came from someone you didnt even notice sitting near you.
At 99% efficiency then 0.52Kw hours is dumped in to the cap, which weighs 200 pounds. If the cap has a specific heat that is close to water then it will heat up by about 40 degrees Celcius. If the cap can distribute its heat to the car body then the whole car will only heat up by less than 4 degrees.
Your point is certainly worthy of consideration but I dont think it is a deal breaker for this technology.
Forget about putting one of these ultracaps in my car. I'm getting one for my house. I can buy all the electricity I use in a day at off peak rates, store it in the ultracap and use it throughout the day. The payback time for the ultracap is less than 2 years in my area. After that, I get half price electricity. Not to mention, power outages of less than a day would no longer have any impact on me. I cant remember a time when my power was out for more than a few hours. The more I think about this product, the more it changes the world. Wind generated electricity gains about 30% better cost effiiency due to the fact that they can sell off peak generated power at peak rates. In fact, the idea of off peak disappears entirely, due to arbitrage. All electricity becomes cheaper due to this.
Depending on your definition of close, you would lose that bet. Thermal efficiency of a car engine is about 15% to 20%. In thick city traffic, it is as low as 5%. Coal fired power stations are always at least 30% efficient. Gas fired power stations can be up to 60% efficient. Tansmission loses and other inefficienies for electric cars are not 50%, meaning electric cars are a definite win for greenhouse gases. Potentially up to ten-fold. Posibly a little more when you consider the efficiency gains of regenerative braking that an oil powered car doesnt get.
The idea of a country importing and exporting the exact same amount of a product sounds proposterous but further research usually shows it makes some sense.
I have read that Switzerland imports the same aount of electricity that they export. They buy it cheap off peak, store it by pumping water uphill, then sell it back during peak times for a profit.
As far as fresh potatoes go, there could by many reasons for this. It might be that he English and German seasons are slightly offset meaning one country sells to the other when it is the only one producing. There could be a lot of logical reasons.
I'm still in favour of a gas tax. It is a great example of userpays.
Actually it's not a marketing ploy. By filling out the form, you are selling your carbon rduction to the company "giving" away lights. If you have taken more than one set of bulbs then you have breached the contract with them.
I dont think the companies actually care too much because they dont cross check the forms to see if you have filled out the form more than once. They still get to on-sell the carbon credit. The envrionment still wins because less electricity gets used.
To my thinking, its a great thing. The state government deserves a pat on the back for finding a way to give away free stuff to people that also reduces their electricity bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for pointing out the Argonne labs data. Its interesting doing the calculations but I think grid based electricity still wins for short commuters.
A few extra ideas I have thought of that may affect the calculations.
If the engine is running at fixed rpm then it will have to be charging the battery when the car isn't accelerating introducing the same charging inefficiency as the grid for at least part of the time.
I live in Australia where off peak electricity is as little as 4 US cents per KWHr. Off peak pricing has a large impact. Given a 40% efficient engine petrol would have to be beter than $1.00 a gallon to compete in Australia.
I'm doubtful that petrol will get cheaper in the medium term. But I can always hope.
"if we ballpark the engine efficiency at 60%" Way off i'm affraid. Try 20%. The best super large marine oil engines get 50%. The best diesel car engines get 30% but only at a fixed RPM, which cars never do.
"Has anyone quantified the "recharging load" on the grid?"
Yes they have. If you recharge the cars during off peak the grid does not need upgrading until 40% of all vehicles are plug in electric. Given that about half the population is within "no recharge at work" range this seems a pretty good fit.
In my country, the turnover of vehicles is less than 8% a year. If the US is similar then even if every new whicle was plug in electric we'd have 5 years to get some upgrades going. Of course every new vehicle wont be plug in electric, they are only most suitable for the 50% of the people that live within 20 miles of work. So now we have a decade to get our act together.
If he tested with and then without the product, effectively, he has used a control group.
Try this baby:
i znatch/
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2006/10/15/85w-cfl-b
Its an 85 watt not so Compact Flouresent.
"But there's no inherent reason though."
There must be or we'd have flash products that thrash hard disks in sustained transfer speed.
Actually, disks also have a significant advantage in sustained transfer speed too.
Yes much tougher and much shorter, say 15 years.
I dont get the problem.
You tax all diesel at the sale or wholesales point and let farmers and any other special groups claim the tax back at tax time. They just have keep their reciepts.
Claiming to have used diesel on your farm business that you instead sold to someone else is simple tax fraud. It gets caught with an audit when the farmer can't explain where the money from the sold diesel is comming from.
No need for ID cards or acreage checks or any other stuff you mention.
And yes, the farmer can sell diesel if he bought too much, to his neighbour. He just cant claim the tax back at tax time.
And that's different from the current US situation?
My city has 5 major toll roads. They even changed the road system so that you must take the toll road if you want to go to many destinations.
People still use their cars instead of the much cheaper train or walking.
Can you explain again why you cant keep using your private road?
If you don't think that transportation by train and car are "in the same ballpark" then go right ahead and ignore my arguement.
I'd say most people reading this would agree with me that they are comparable. I only need one counter example to make your assertion false.
I will point out that a great many Mac owners have purchased windows emualtion software and a copy of windows to run with it.
What if you lived in a small town that only had air access to the rest of the country and the governement proposed building a road funded by taxes on everyone, including people that dont own cars. You need to fly because it takes less time to get where you want to go. Most other people would just be happy to be able to drive. The ailine is protesting because they will lose business. You are protesting because your taxes will go up and so will your airfares. It comes as no supprise to me that successful cities are connected by roads (built by governments) and not air. And yet you apparently have no convincing arguement to have roads built by governments. What is the difference between this senario and yours?
Proven false by counter example.
Paid for stuff gets priority by consumers over free stuff all the time.
I could walk the 12 miles to work for free but, I, and nearly everyone else I know, buys a car and drives.
My country has a heavily subsidised public train system which is much cheaper to use instead of cars and yet most people still prefer to drive to work.
Your XP example is a classic. A great many people will happily pay for XP even if their new machine came preloaded with a free OS.
I'm a bit of a Libertarian myself but its imposible to ignore the huge benefits that government activities, including running businesses, can play in mproving an economy. Saying otherwise just shows you haven't thought about it enough.
"Those soldiers are willing to die for an opinion different than yours." So are the terrorists. It seems these soldiers are also happy to kill for this opinion, just like the terorists. You will have to come up with a far more convincing arguement than a moronic following of duty. "You may not agree or understand, but they will continue to fight for a simple cause- The hope that they can bring a better life to opposed people." This would be about the fifth reason so far we have been offered for the war in Iraq. Once again, it isn't true. The death rate of Iraqis is far worse (one estimate says more than tenfold) under our occupation than under Saddam. We are worse than Saddam. Once the die hards realise this, we will leave. Hoping to achieve something and actually doing actions that will achieve it are totally different things. "They've accomplished setting up running water and electricity to villages that have never had those luxuary's before, organized Boy Scout troops, help rebuild schools." Thats a lovely story but it doesnt reflect reality. The electricity and water situation now are worse than under Saddam. I have no idea if the "boy scout" situation is better or worse. "What have you done with your life to make a difference? Was fucked up situation have you tried to make the best of? " Sometimes, doing nothing is the best course of action. I can assure you that I haven't actively participated in the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqis like your relatives. And I haven't stood at the sidelines cheering it on like you. The bigger picture for soldiers in Iraq is that by being there they make us less safe, that's the opposite of their job. Everyone should be able to see by now that they have acheived nothing and the consequences are getting worse. Any soldier with a sense of morality would conscientiously object. Only the immoral would to justify it by saying they are doing their duty. Your opinions of my character are irrelevent. It's the content of your arguement that is lacking.
It isnt just Fox: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/intelligence-back s-nuke-claim/2006/10/14/1160246359176.html
I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this one and faux news has always refered to Fox News.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_News
wikipedia takes you directly to their Fox News article.
I cant respect people that put their own lives in danger to acheive less than nothing for themselves and their country. What is to respect? They are idiots. How can you respect that?
People already pay other people to mod chip their Playstaions. I don't see how this is different.
The Grand Parent has it right. I can imagine people setting their Zunes to automatically share music whenever another moded one comes into range.
You could take the train to work and when you get there, you could find new music on your machine that came from someone you didnt even notice sitting near you.
At 99% efficiency then 0.52Kw hours is dumped in to the cap, which weighs 200 pounds. If the cap has a specific heat that is close to water then it will heat up by about 40 degrees Celcius. If the cap can distribute its heat to the car body then the whole car will only heat up by less than 4 degrees.
Your point is certainly worthy of consideration but I dont think it is a deal breaker for this technology.
Forget about putting one of these ultracaps in my car. I'm getting one for my house. I can buy all the electricity I use in a day at off peak rates, store it in the ultracap and use it throughout the day.
The payback time for the ultracap is less than 2 years in my area. After that, I get half price electricity. Not to mention, power outages of less than a day would no longer have any impact on me. I cant remember a time when my power was out for more than a few hours.
The more I think about this product, the more it changes the world. Wind generated electricity gains about 30% better cost effiiency due to the fact that they can sell off peak generated power at peak rates.
In fact, the idea of off peak disappears entirely, due to arbitrage. All electricity becomes cheaper due to this.
Depending on your definition of close, you would lose that bet.
Thermal efficiency of a car engine is about 15% to 20%. In thick city traffic, it is as low as 5%.
Coal fired power stations are always at least 30% efficient. Gas fired power stations can be up to 60% efficient.
Tansmission loses and other inefficienies for electric cars are not 50%, meaning electric cars are a definite win for greenhouse gases. Potentially up to ten-fold. Posibly a little more when you consider the efficiency gains of regenerative braking that an oil powered car doesnt get.
The idea of a country importing and exporting the exact same amount of a product sounds proposterous but further research usually shows it makes some sense.
I have read that Switzerland imports the same aount of electricity that they export. They buy it cheap off peak, store it by pumping water uphill, then sell it back during peak times for a profit.
As far as fresh potatoes go, there could by many reasons for this. It might be that he English and German seasons are slightly offset meaning one country sells to the other when it is the only one producing. There could be a lot of logical reasons.
I'm still in favour of a gas tax. It is a great example of userpays.
Actually it's not a marketing ploy. By filling out the form, you are selling your carbon rduction to the company "giving" away lights. If you have taken more than one set of bulbs then you have breached the contract with them.
I dont think the companies actually care too much because they dont cross check the forms to see if you have filled out the form more than once. They still get to on-sell the carbon credit. The envrionment still wins because less electricity gets used.
To my thinking, its a great thing. The state government deserves a pat on the back for finding a way to give away free stuff to people that also reduces their electricity bill.