"CRUDE" oil, an absolute must see program !!!

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by brian eiland, Feb 22, 2008.

  1. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    paradise is open to fools and foes alike
    some few sane souls will make little difference
    regardless of the definition of sanity
    the insanity will continue
    B
     
  2. Frosty

    Frosty Previous Member

    Paradise is in the eyes of the beholder.
    One mans meat is another man poison.
     
  3. Meanz Beanz
    Joined: Jun 2007
    Posts: 2,280
    Likes: 33, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 585
    Location: Lower East ?

    Meanz Beanz Boom Doom Gloom Boom

    What about typhiod?
     
  4. Frosty

    Frosty Previous Member

    Beanz are you a septic?
     
  5. Meanz Beanz
    Joined: Jun 2007
    Posts: 2,280
    Likes: 33, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 585
    Location: Lower East ?

    Meanz Beanz Boom Doom Gloom Boom

  6. Boston

    Boston Previous Member



    neither am I
     
  7. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    This would be a waste of money with no payback ever. But this seems to be just the sort of thing environmentalists love, though:rolleyes:

    About 50% of ground transportation power comes from diesel powered vehicles. Those vehicles are already pretty efficient and are mostly used for long trips, so they won't benefit from the so-called hybrid technology. That leaves only the other half of ground transportation that could benefit from this expensive technology. But ALL of ground transport only comprises about 25% of US oil consumption. The great lion's share goes to producing electricity. This leaves only 12% of US oil consumption that could potentially be cut from this tech. Realistically, it's only going to be about 10-20% of THAT, due to the expense, so 1.2-2.4% of oil consumption can be reduced at great expense, with hybrids fully implemented where they can be.

    It's easy to see that the only beneficiary of the technology is Toyota, who, just like GM and Ford, has a 'problem' in that they have sold a LOT of big gas guzzling pickups and SUV's here in the states. Selling their hybrid at cost (which is what they do) is a way to get their CAFE numbers back in order. But Toyota cannot survive on these hybrids; the real profits are in the P/U's and SUV's.

    And these hybrids, even if implemented completely, will make no measurable difference in fuel consumption on the whole for the reasons outlined above.

    Auto engines are already so efficient and clean, there's really very little that can be done to improve them at this point. Switching cars over to electric power makes NO SENSE whatsoever, since this will place new demands on the power plants, which are already overloaded. Furthermore, electric power plants all use old dirty combustion engines, so actually will produce more pollution than cars per seat/mile if used to power cars than modern car engines do. Even the most efficient batteries are horribly inefficient on the whole when charging losses are considered; it takes many more KW to charge them than you can draw out later. All those extra KW will have to be produced by dirty old inefficient power plants. Pollution will actually increase, although the source and end use of the pollution will now be separated, which might be good sometimes.

    In addition, electric cars suck, as they are heavy, have poor range, and are expensive. The long term costs will be worse too because of battery production and disposal issues. Also, the weight of batteries is a serious safety issue with electric cars.

    It makes the most sense to seriously upgrade the electric power generating
    system than to switch cars over to either electric or hybrid; the gains will be far greater and there is no downside. Better electric plants will pollute less and consume less oil. Incremental improvements mean much more when the piece of the pie is so much larger; and the combustion engines used in electric generation have not been upgraded in a long time, unlike autos. Additionally, electric generation can benefit much more from using renewable fuels, like alcohols or even hydrogen (if that fuel ever becomes viable economically) than autos since both alcohols and hydrogen both have big safety issues that gasoline and diesel fuel does not. And electric plants, being stationary installations, don't need to worry about the weight of any new technology that comes along to either improve efficiency or reduce pollution.

    With limited resources, we need to think about what we spend on, lest our money be wasted. We need to spend where it will do the most good, not improve some big company's 'CAFE' position even while they sell a $hitload of big gas guzzlers. Meanwhile the hybrid owners pat themselves on the back for their 'prudence'. You have to admire the sheer genius of the marketing, huh:p

    Jimbo
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
    1 person likes this.
  8. charmc
    Joined: Jan 2007
    Posts: 2,391
    Likes: 78, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 840
    Location: FL, USA

    charmc Senior Member

    Good points, Jimbo.

    Plug in electric cars are really coal and natural gas fired cars, but at lower efficiencies. The batteries are just a storage media. The electric power comes from the utility generating stations which burn fossil fuels at relatively low efficiency to turn generators. The power is transmitted over large distances with further energy losses, then stepped down to lower voltages with further losses, then is stepped down again as it flows into the car battery, with further losses, then it powers a motor, with a further loss. More efficient? debateable. Fossil fuel source of power for the car? Absolutely.

    You're right, Jimbo. Changes and improvements in the generation of power to regional grids will make a much bigger savings, of money, greenhouse gases, and resources than a bunch of electric or alcohol fueled cars.
     
  9. Knut Sand
    Joined: Apr 2003
    Posts: 471
    Likes: 30, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 451
    Location: Kristiansand, Norway

    Knut Sand Senior Member

    Ehhmm. To be added:
    Some of us have clean energy sources, like electric power from waterfalls. And for the rest of you, well; during the night time, the power use drop considerably, So; hypothetically speaking, if your nearest power plant is a gas/ turbine driven plant. The efficiency of these again are better and cleaner, run at full throttle, also the cooling water from these again can be used for heating purposes, meaning; charge vehicles at the night/ use the heated cooling water for heating of public buildings/ public swimming pools. So there may be an advantage to that way of thinking, instead of throttling down these power plants again during night time and using petrol driven cars in the day time.

    Also to be added; as machines... Gas turbines; they feel better running at close to full efficiency.... All the time...
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. masalai
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 6,823
    Likes: 120, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1882
    Location: cruising, Australia

    masalai masalai

    Enough of this assuming adequate "fossil fuel" think of windmills, sail power non-food displacement energy sources micro-hydro harvest from every option you can imagine for your own domestic needs 'cause that is all that will be affordable in the near future?
    another 2c - - - - can I collect these? - the metal could have future uses.....
     
  11. Frosty

    Frosty Previous Member

    Well done guys ,great ideas, especially the bit about dragging our feet trying to increase efficiency. Err the problem is here NOW we don't have the time.
    Saying we cant do it because its not efficient is a government tactic and typically American.
     
  12. masalai
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 6,823
    Likes: 120, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1882
    Location: cruising, Australia

    masalai masalai

    How can you drag your feet to increase efficiency? - - - - Arrrr bugger - still not the drivel thread?
     
  13. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    QUOTE=Jimbo1490

    About 50% of ground transportation power comes from diesel powered vehicles. Those vehicles are already pretty efficient and are mostly used for long trips, so they won't benefit from the so-called hybrid technology. That leaves only the other half of ground transportation that could benefit from this expensive technology. Says who? Where? In EU diesel cars were even forbidden for a period of time in 1990's. Only trucks were permitted. They are making slow comeback now. and total diesel use is about 30% in ground transport.

    The great lion's share goes to producing electricity. This leaves only 12% of US oil consumption that could potentially be cut from this technology. Realistically, it's only going to be about 10-20% of THAT, due to the expense, so 1.2-2.4% of oil consumption can be reduced at great expense, with hybrids fully implemented where they can be. How much of electricity is produced by nuclear plants in the usa, and how much in thermo-plants (gas, oil, coal)?

    It's easy to see that the only beneficiary of the technology is Toyota, who, just like GM and Ford, has a 'problem' in that they have sold a LOT of big gas guzzling pickups and SUV's here in the states. Peugeot and Citroen are producing hybrides, so is Honda, which currently has the most powerful hybrid on the road, so Toyota gaining the most of the benefits is a bit disoriented statement.But that may apply to your country though.

    Selling their hybrid at cost (which is what they do) is a way to get their CAFE numbers back in order. But Toyota cannot survive on these hybrids; the real profits are in the P/U's and SUV's. You really need to go out a bit more. I was just 2 days ago in Australia and saw the ad on their TV for Honda's Civic hybrid which starts at $38 000 AUD. Petrol Civic starts at $21 000AUD. A set of lithium batteries and 30kW motor would not cost more than $12 000 if you buy them yourself, and hybrids have cheaper nickel batteries. They ARE making a lot of money on hybrides. Honda Civic in factory costs about 4 500 Euros, which is a pittance. They sell them in Denmark for half the price they sell them every else. If they couldn't sell them for a profit, they wouldn't.

    And these hybrids, even if implemented completely, will make no measurable difference in fuel consumption on the whole for the reasons outlined above. Wrong. They would make no difference at all because nickel batteries are crap and have so small capacity that they are really just a marketing ********, not power storage. Another dogma is "regenerative braking" which regenerates (expletive) all power from braking. I mean, how long would one need to brake to charge anything into the batteries?

    Auto engines are already so efficient and clean, there's really very little that can be done to improve them at this point. Good grief...you must be a pastry chef, right? Diesel engines are about 40% efficient. When you calculate 20% resistance from the gear box and another 10% from transmission, you end up with 25% effective power of the engine reaching your wheels. Turbo can recover that, but how many engines are fitted with turbo? It's a "premium" feature that you pay $10 000Aud/usa, whatever, for. Petrol engines with turbo fitted on are about 35% efficient on the wheels. A good electric motor is 90% or more efficient.

    Switching cars over to electric power makes NO SENSE whatsoever, since this will place new demands on the power plants, which are already overloaded. Furthermore, electric power plants all use old dirty combustion engines, so actually will produce more pollution than cars per seat/mile if used to power cars than modern car engines do. Even the most efficient batteries are horribly inefficient on the whole when charging losses are considered; it takes many more KW to charge them than you can draw out later. All those extra KW will have to be produced by dirty old inefficient power plants. Pollution will actually increase, although the source and end use of the pollution will no be separated, which might be good sometimes.
    True to a point. But given the current financial situation, this is also a perfect opportunity to invest in industry and build turbine powered electricity plants, since turbines run near full efficiency and by recycling their heat, they could even run 99.9%. There was a proposal from Volvo on the internet to build microturbines for this particular purpose: clean electricity. Comment about the batteries being charged with much more than what they give out is sorry but plain ********. I'd love to see some really hard data for such a statement. I am looking at a website that sells lithium batteries and they claim 12-13% loss as a heat.

    In addition, electric cars suck, as they are heavy, have poor range, and are expensive. The long term costs will be worse too because of battery production and disposal issues. Also, the weight of batteries is a serious safety issue with electric cars.You have never been in an electric car, have you? European superfast trains are all pure electric beasts, running currenttly at 550km test speed. Electric engines, such as Dr. Nikola Tesla's triphase AC motor are capable of speeds over 15 000 rpm, with torque that is near or equal to diesel engines' torque. Only a turbine can produce better speeds than that.


    www.teslamotors.com claims 300+ km range, acceleration 5-6 secs 0 to 100km, 200+km/h max speed. How is that bad for an electric car?
     
  14. Frosty

    Frosty Previous Member

    BUT thats today,--- let them build the cars and they will be improved up to the max efficiency we are capable of, we got to start somewhere.

    I hear people say Oh electric cars is no good you have to stop and charge them up, SO--- you have to stop and put fuel in engine driven cars, and service them and change oils and that also have toxic transmission oil, gear oil, and toxic coolant.

    Even if the electric cars are used for city work and diesels used for longer hauls that really need to be discouraged with cheaper flights and car rental.

    Thats the biggest problem here, every one has a good idea why we should not do it, or bother about it.

    Pretty poor show actually from bunch of guys that are supposed to be innovative in the Marine industry.
     

  15. Meanz Beanz
    Joined: Jun 2007
    Posts: 2,280
    Likes: 33, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 585
    Location: Lower East ?

    Meanz Beanz Boom Doom Gloom Boom

    The first step is expensive oil... until the current fuel (oil) becomes expensive no alternates will be competitive. A high oil price is the fastest way to bring about solutions to this problem.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.