This is energetico's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following energetico's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Renault is going to send this year a microhybrid with a little engine in his flywheel, and 48V. It will be mounted in a 110 HP diesel engine (dci). Will be in his MPV "Scenic", a very popular model in Europe. At the end of this year 2016, or the first months of the 2017. We will see significant improvements in efficiency in the next years.
This cycle is, more or less, comparable at the Atkinson cycle. This cycle is used in the Prius since almos 10 years. Subaru and Nissan also have used it. for more info, you can look for "miller cycle" at the Wikipedia.
"why don't they just spend all the money on battery research" Seriously: The near-future is not pure electric, nor pure thermal. It's plug-in hybrids (Small batteries for the first 50 miles, and ICE for longer distances). It will be the cheaper and more efficient solution. And every contribution to improve the IC engine is in the good direction.
False title: "total PM10 emissions from EVs equal to those of modern ICEVs". In the test you can see that it refers to "non exhaust emissions". But, what is the proportion of the "exhaust emissions" and the "non exhaust emissions" in all the emissions of a ICEV vehicle? If there is a proportion of 90% of exhaust, and 10% non exhaust.... Then there is not absolutely any importance in the "non exhaust" emissions of the EV vehicle.
You could bought some of them from Spain. Years ago, we suffered a "gas combined cycle bubble". They are very efficient... but they are surpassed by wind farms, and there are dozens of new gas plants that and haven't produced any MWh... Years ago, american new riches, buyed european castles, deconstructed and reconstructed in the U.S. stone by stone... now, you could do the same with gas combined cycle power plants...
While this is the state of the art in the USA, in Germany, in this moment... Mercedes V 220 turbodiesel (a similar van, more luxury, with more space), 5.8l/100 (40.6 mpg). Volkswagen T6, 2.0 TDI, 6.0 l/100 (39.2 l/100).
Very interesting. Will arrive Arabia Saudi at his peak oil before this "cold war" ends? Will Russia do? Are we living the end of the party of cheap oil? (well... today we consider it "cheap oil" ... 10 years ago, 30 dóllars/barrel was an expensive oil).
@ai vin Only in Germany you can go at 200kph. (Decission influenced by the automakers lobbies, I suppose). In the rest of the UE countries, we have limited the max speed at 120 - 130 km/h mostly. And actually, in Europe we have sport cars too... 6 cylinders, turbo, cars with 400 or most HP, with 0-60mph in less tan 5 seconds... but most people get efficient (diesel) cars, of about 100-140 HP. (this is the bad thing of it, Diesel, with its pollution problems9.
A Tax is the fastest way to increase energy efficiency in transportation. Does anybody believe than in Europe we don't like cars with huge motors, a lot of cilinders and a good performance? Of course we like. But we have taxes in fuel... so our cars are more efficient than american ones. With gas at 1€/liter (about 4,2$/galon), in Europe, we choose efficient cars.
Just like Jevons paradox. In XIX century, William Jevons discovered that improvement in efficiency of coal-use, drove to a increase in use of coal in a lot of industries... So, thanks to increase of efficiency, there were a increase of coal consumption. It is not really a logical paradox, but seems a paradox. Nothing new.
So what? Nobody guarantee the correct functioning of systems to control emissions. If you have a problema with turbo in 20.000 km, you will notice it, and you will go to the technical service. If you have a problema with your DPF, or with your EGR, or with your SCR... who cares? Nobody realize... And, in many cases, if there are some problema with this systems that affect the performances of the car... there are mechanicals who nullify anty-pollution systems... And again, nobody realizes it. There are thousands and thousands of diesel cars, vans and trucks across all Europe, with anty-pollution systems cancelled, bypased, etc. ... this ilegal practice, allows to make cheaper maintenance, avoid some kind of mechanical faults, and by now, are almost undetectable. (Some manufacturers, indeed, make this illegal operation, very easy, with an easy reprogramation of variables with an ECU - cable).
"You were just telling me that some of your wind farms were obsolete at just 10 years old." No. Wind farms are not obsolete in ten years. But technology has upgraded power, so when ten years ago, we only could have 1 MW turbines... today, there are 5 MW turbines. Today, wind energy is cheaper than 10 years ago... but turbines installed ten years ago, still work, and they are far from be obsolete. Solar investors in Spain... made investments with prices of solar panels that, 5 years ago, where two times more expenses than today ones. They profited an elevated aid... and the new government have cut it. Today, january (almost february) 2016, solar photovoltaic, is competitive. You can see investments in Chile, China, the US, etc. Your country (US?) has a big variety of climatic regions. 100% renewable is a difficult and expensive goal... but 50% renewable... it is a very different goal. Good luck with your renewable energy (firewood). Biomass is also a good choice. (but take care about inner pollution, make a good maintenance in your chimney)
"Spain's reckless overbuilding of "renewables", and the economic crash caused by the malinvestment" Economic crash has been caused by "property bubble", based in a cheap credit. Of course, there is an study for everything that says what you want to hear. Smoking is healthy, a Hummer is more "Green" than a prius, etc. You insist in "nuclear". Is it a global solution? Do you agree with nuclears in Iran? In Egypt? In Syria? In Morocco? etc. Nuclears only for our friends? Nuclear is not a global solution. Green Energy has got a faster economic return. Requires less investment. Once you decide to invest in solar, or wind... you can have it producing in one year... in Nuclear, you need almost 10 years to produce the first kWh... Wind power has a positive economic return. And has advanced a lot in 10-15 years. Now, are avaliable more powerful turbines, than make windfarms still more profitable. Spain is growing economically. And we can do this with 40% renewable electricity. And we can do this, with our GDP per capita that is half than the US's. It's absolutely affordable. Renewable energy is cheap. Is global. It has few risks. Its easely scalable. You can invest ten thousand dollars... one hundred thousand... a million... ten million... one hundred million dollars... and always, you begin to receive energy in less than one year, and with a ROI of less than 10 years. In nuclear... well... remember Olkiluoto-3 (Finland). Estimated time construction: 4 years.... real, 11 years. (The project really began in 2.000, the construction began in 2005, now, January 2016, is beginning their first testing). Estimated cost: 3 Billions. Real: 8 Billions. ¡¡¡!!! So... if you decide to invest in nuclears TODAY... you will not receive a single kWh until 2031 (5 years for the project, permissions, economic analysis, etc.... and 10 years for the construction). If you decide to invest in renevables TODAY... you will begin to receive energy in about one year. In January-February 2017.
@ Engineer-Poet It's your spanish OK? If so... an interesant file: Year 2014: renewables: 42.8%, non-renewables: 57.2%. wind:20.3% hydraulic: 15.5% solar: 5.1% thermal renewable: 1.9% Our huge capacity of generation (103 GW), compared with our real consumtion (about 40 GW), makes that now, it has no sense to invest in new renewable plants (nor in non-renewable). We are paying electric plants that never are connected, because between 2005 and 2008, Spain was in "the champions league of the Economy" (our president said), and we began to build a lot of electric plants (mainly, gas combined cycle), and now, they are underused, and we have to pay them... But 50% of renewable electricity is a goal almost every country can achieve. Because our wind-plants are, in many cases, 10 or more years old... now there are bigger turbines, and in Spain we have not "offshore" turbines installed... 50% renewable electricity, is a relative easily affordable goal.
It's no necesary to increase Nuclear Power. Spain, for example, has more than 40% of renewable electricity generation. It's based in eolic, hydro, and solar (Photovoltaic and also solar termal power). It can be increased quickly, but we have too much power generation capacity. Several natural gas combined cycle power plantas have been installed in the past years... and energy comsuption hasn't increased due to the crisis. 50% renewable electricity is an easy attainable goal, and it is not really expensive. Renewable energy, now, in 2016, is economically competitive.
energetico is now following The Typepad Team
Jan 28, 2016