<<SNIP
> -The efficiency of converting fuel to electricity is much less than
> 100% probably around the same as your I/C engine converting fuel to
> rotational HP.
>
<<SNIP>>
> - -Mark "give a hoot don't pollute" Jurras
>
Mark,
I appreciate the copper losses coming from the station to my
house, and the fact that the power plant produces pollution, but I
still maintain that the conversion of fuel to electricity in a power
plant is MUCH, MUCH more efficient than conversion in an I/C engine.
First, power plants are more likely to be better maintained than an
I/C engine. Second, and most important, a power plant produces HUGE
amounts of power, ALL the time. They are designed to be started up, cranked up
to
95%-100% full power, and left there for weeks or months on end. Compare this
to an I/C
engine, which is started/warmed up hundreds of times per year, and
constantly cycles from idle to about two-thirds of max power as the
car accelerates, decelerates, and sits idling. Whatever the most
efficient conditions are for an internal combustion engine, rest
assured that the engine only spends a small fraction of its life
there.
The thing that makes electric cars ideal for commuter vehicles
is that when the car isn't moving, it is consuming virtually NO
energy, just having to run the lights/radio/dash instruments.
Internal combustion engines are not the best things going. Why
do you think the Navy doesn't produce any more diesel aircraft
carriers? Because nuclear fuel consumption is measured in grams per
day, whereas diesel fuel consumption is in gallons per FOOT.
Internal combustion engines are a century-old technology, and
regardless of how much we can tweak it, we always need to be looking
for better ways of getting the job done. I personally think $30,000
for an electric commuter car is great, because it fills a valid need,
and they will only get cheaper. After all, how expensive were the
first cars, compared to the price of a horse and carriage?
Scott Gardner
gardner@lwcomm.com
|