Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Advanced

ZAPPP EV E30!

Posted by JUMPNYC 
January 27, 2011 05:00PM
Electric E30 smokes Teslas

Another Article on the car

The Original Build Thread



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2011 05:01PM by JUMPNYC.
January 27, 2011 05:19PM
900 HP? I'm impressed. What does the setup do to the all up weight as well as weight distribution of the car itself?

alan
January 27, 2011 07:45PM
Holy Geebuss, that is the E30 I always wanted!

I guess I have a goal now ... not 900hp but maybe 200hp with a much longer range smileys with beer

I could have my cake(E30) and eat it too(be environmentally friendly) grinning smiley
January 31, 2011 12:36AM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Holy Geebuss, that is the E30 I always wanted!

I guess I have a goal now ... not 900hp but maybe 200hp with a much longer range smileys with beer

I could have my cake(E30) and eat it too(be environmentally friendly) grinning smiley

My car is quaking in its tires. Does not know if it should, laugh, cry or say its prayers.
January 31, 2011 07:30PM
Kelly,

Your 'beemie' and everyone else's E30 don't have to take a back seat or worry about these anomalies smiling smiley

Just the same, I wouldn't mind having a simpler 200hp version with a greater range on a charge smiling smiley
Actually, a 150hp version would still provide more grunt than the stock 2.5 gasoline engine...electric motors develop a lot of torque to go along with the hp!
January 31, 2011 08:52PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Kelly,

Your 'beemie' and everyone else's E30 don't have to take a back seat or worry about these anomalies smiling smiley

Just the same, I wouldn't mind having a simpler 200hp version with a greater range on a charge smiling smiley
Actually, a 150hp version would still provide more grunt than the stock 2.5 gasoline engine...electric motors develop a lot of torque to go along with the hp!

More importantly, they don't have a torque curve! Electric motors produce the same torque from 0 to max RPM. This results in the HP output not ring a curve, but a linear line going up and up and up smiling smiley

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 - E30 - M20 - Manual. Approximately 270,000 miles
2000 - E46 - M52TUB28 - Manual. Approximately 110,000 miles

January 31, 2011 10:38PM
Yes, it feels like being lauched from a catapult or slingshot.

I remember when the first Mazda Rotary came out; it was very similar with a relatively straight hp/torque curve smiling smiley
February 01, 2011 10:29AM
Quote
Earendil
Electric motors produce the same torque from 0 to max RPM. This results in the HP output not ring a curve, but a linear line going up and up and up smiling smiley
I don't believe that's true.

Electric motors produce the greatest torque at startup, i.e. at zero rpm. The torque falls off as the rpm increases.
February 01, 2011 12:01PM
Quote
Ferdinand
Quote
Earendil
Electric motors produce the same torque from 0 to max RPM. This results in the HP output not ring a curve, but a linear line going up and up and up smiling smiley
I don't believe that's true.

Electric motors produce the greatest torque at startup, i.e. at zero rpm. The torque falls off as the rpm increases.

You know, I lost my modifying word at some point in the corrections. I really need to stop making posts here on my iPhone...

I believe the torque curve is "effectively" flat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but gas powered cylinder based engines have a half dozen inputs and a dozen or more variables that produce different engine efficiencies at different RPMs. Electric motors have no such variables, and are mostly effected by friction. Now there are other electrical variables that will modify the torque (thus an electric drill can have multiple "speeds" with the same power supply), but these tend to not be inherent inefficiencies the way you see them on gas powered engines. There are of course RPM limits based on mechanics and the supply of current (half dead battery = less torque).

THAT said, what I know comes from an electronics class that was not about motors. These few tidbits are what I gleaned from comments made by the professor. I would not doubt that there are multiple ways to create an electric motor, and that the torque curves for each type would be vastly different depending on the application they were designed for. Ferd, do you know whether or not the electric motors used in vehicle applications tend towards having a torque curve that substantially drops off due to something besides friction?

I'm now quite curious about this. Must...keep...working...arg!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 - E30 - M20 - Manual. Approximately 270,000 miles
2000 - E46 - M52TUB28 - Manual. Approximately 110,000 miles

February 01, 2011 12:26PM
Okay, I retract some, but not ALL of what I said smiling smiley

I went looking for a few dyno charts of EV cars. I could only find one for the Tesla Roadster. Surprise surprise, no one dynos their Chevy Volt ;-)




So Ferd, can we call it a draw? smiling smiley

My ever so slightly better than uneducated guess, is that before the torque drop is what would be considered the operating range. Tesla, according to Top Gear, only has a single gear for that car because they kept breaking the gear box. So with a single gear they have to spin the engine up to 14,000 just to get to 120mph.
If they had 4 gears and a double clutch transmission, they could rev limit it to 6k and have an effectively smooth torque curve up to well past 120mph. Of course, they would have to remove some of the batteries that they crammed into every inch of that car ;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 - E30 - M20 - Manual. Approximately 270,000 miles
2000 - E46 - M52TUB28 - Manual. Approximately 110,000 miles

February 01, 2011 12:30PM
Yeah, Tesla needs a few more gears.




Taken from this article here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 - E30 - M20 - Manual. Approximately 270,000 miles
2000 - E46 - M52TUB28 - Manual. Approximately 110,000 miles

February 01, 2011 12:39PM
Ferdinand and Earendil, You are both right, and both incomplete.
There are deferent types of motors.
the DC series motor has maximum Torque at zero rpm, decreasing when rpm increase to give a somewhat flat Power output, it is widely used in vehicles like trains, trams, cars, etc...
The DC parallel motor has less starting Torque, increasing Power.
The AC 3 phase motor has fixed rotation speed, depending on the frequency of the voltage applied, which can be controlled with modern electronic motor drives. These have the advantage of the simplest construction and ruggedness.
There are also brush-less DC motors, servo motors, stepper-motors, etc. Each has it's own Torque and Power curves, and the corresponding way to control speed and power. Some are better than other to work both as motor or generator, important for dynamic braking and energy recovery.

The weak point, now like 100 years ago, is the batteries needed to make an electric car usable. Those are very expensive, bulky, heavy and can last only a given number of charge-discharge cycles. Also the raw materials needed to build the battery pack includes hazardous chemicals, and some are not easy to recycle or dispose.
I wouldn't consider a battery electric car "environmentally clean", it produces no exhaust but it has polluted to be built, the energy has to be produced somewhere to charge it, and it will be (when old) a dangerous residue.

The only "green" transportation is walking.:redface:
February 01, 2011 12:48PM
Quote
Earendil
Okay, I retract some, but not ALL of what I said smiling smiley

I went looking for a few dyno charts of EV cars. I could only find one for the Tesla Roadster. Surprise surprise, no one dynos their Chevy Volt ;-)




So Ferd, can we call it a draw? smiling smiley

My ever so slightly better than uneducated guess, is that before the torque drop is what would be considered the operating range. Tesla, according to Top Gear, only has a single gear for that car because they kept breaking the gear box. So with a single gear they have to spin the engine up to 14,000 just to get to 120mph.
If they had 4 gears and a double clutch transmission, they could rev limit it to 6k and have an effectively smooth torque curve up to well past 120mph. Of course, they would have to remove some of the batteries that they crammed into every inch of that car ;-)

EV cars need no gears or clutches cause the motor can develop power from zero rpm, unlike internal combustion engines.
The horizontal part of the graph is maximum Torque, the decreasing torque is limited by the maximum voltage and current the motor wire-windings can take.
There is no problem in using the motor at that regime, over brief periods.
February 01, 2011 12:59PM
Quote
Jose Pinto
Quote
Earendil
Okay, I retract some, but not ALL of what I said smiling smiley

I went looking for a few dyno charts of EV cars. I could only find one for the Tesla Roadster. Surprise surprise, no one dynos their Chevy Volt ;-)




So Ferd, can we call it a draw? smiling smiley

My ever so slightly better than uneducated guess, is that before the torque drop is what would be considered the operating range. Tesla, according to Top Gear, only has a single gear for that car because they kept breaking the gear box. So with a single gear they have to spin the engine up to 14,000 just to get to 120mph.
If they had 4 gears and a double clutch transmission, they could rev limit it to 6k and have an effectively smooth torque curve up to well past 120mph. Of course, they would have to remove some of the batteries that they crammed into every inch of that car ;-)

EV cars need no gears or clutches cause the motor can develop power from zero rpm, unlike internal combustion engines.
The horizontal part of the graph is maximum Torque, the decreasing torque is limited by the maximum voltage and current the motor wire-windings can take.
There is no problem in using the motor at that regime, over brief periods.

I understand that there is no need for a clutch, but wouldn't a few gears allow the electric motor to operate within a more suitable range? I would assume that it would be able to generate a higher torque at a lower RPM... but perhaps the decrease in torque has more to do with load caused by wind resistance than it does the RPM?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 - E30 - M20 - Manual. Approximately 270,000 miles
2000 - E46 - M52TUB28 - Manual. Approximately 110,000 miles

February 02, 2011 05:24AM
Quote
Earendil

I understand that there is no need for a clutch, but wouldn't a few gears allow the electric motor to operate within a more suitable range? I would assume that it would be able to generate a higher torque at a lower RPM... but perhaps the decrease in torque has more to do with load caused by wind resistance than it does the RPM?

If there were gears, one would need a clutch or something to change them.
If you look at EV practice over the last 120years, there is not much to be gained in using gears, just a final drive.
Large electric locomotives have gears, one low used to heavy freight train at lower speed, other for higher speed express train.
The best in using electric motors is exactly that, useful power all the way from zero rpm to maximum (usually about 6000 for DC motors)
And no, the decrease in Torque above certain Power (maximum nominal ) has to do with maximum Voltage and current limits the motor can take.
The wind friction and all that doesn't affect much the motor.
rkj
February 03, 2011 06:48PM
Quote
Jose Pinto
Quote
Earendil

I understand that there is no need for a clutch, but wouldn't a few gears allow the electric motor to operate within a more suitable range? I would assume that it would be able to generate a higher torque at a lower RPM... but perhaps the decrease in torque has more to do with load caused by wind resistance than it does the RPM?

If there were gears, one would need a clutch or something to change them.
If you look at EV practice over the last 120years, there is not much to be gained in using gears, just a final drive.
Large electric locomotives have gears, one low used to heavy freight train at lower speed, other for higher speed express train.
The best in using electric motors is exactly that, useful power all the way from zero rpm to maximum (usually about 6000 for DC motors)
And no, the decrease in Torque above certain Power (maximum nominal ) has to do with maximum Voltage and current limits the motor can take.
The wind friction and all that doesn't affect much the motor.

I was amazed when I drove my friends prius; it had much more power than I thought it would before the gas motor kicked in. Ever since I've looked at electric cars with a whole new view. I wonder what the Volt feels like :biggrin:
February 03, 2011 06:53PM
Well, what I have read/heard is that if you amortize the battery cost, you would be surprised at what the real cost of the car is per mile. And surprisingly, manufacturing a Prius compared to a conventional car is not as green a process as manufacturing a conventional car. I believe hybrids are viewed as a transient technology, not the answer. As for the Volt, what I don't understand is how people think they are driving for free. The last time I checked, Edison always sends me a bill for electricity used (the cars don't charge themselves). Add in the $40,000+ pricetag, well, you get my drift here.

alan
February 03, 2011 07:03PM
Quote
alanrw
Well, what I have read/heard is that if you amortize the battery cost, you would be surprised at what the real cost of the car is per mile. And surprisingly, manufacturing a Prius compared to a conventional car is not as green a process as manufacturing a conventional car. I believe hybrids are viewed as a transient technology, not the answer. As for the Volt, what I don't understand is how people think they are driving for free. The last time I checked, Edison always sends me a bill for electricity used (the cars don't charge themselves). Add in the $40,000+ pricetag, well, you get my drift here.

alan

Yeah. Buying a new electric car do not save you money, even in the long run. The only reason to buy an electric car is to help the environment. Yes, they possibly cause more problems during production then does a "regular" vehicle, but if you consider the life of a vehicle, it's quite possible we'll have a better means of disposing of the parts in the future. However the fumes put out by a tradition vehicle over the next 20 years will not be as easy to "clean up".

The other reason to buy one, is because it's @#$%ing fast as @#$% grinning smiley

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 - E30 - M20 - Manual. Approximately 270,000 miles
2000 - E46 - M52TUB28 - Manual. Approximately 110,000 miles

February 03, 2011 07:18PM
Quote
Jose Pinto
Quote
Earendil

I understand that there is no need for a clutch, but wouldn't a few gears allow the electric motor to operate within a more suitable range? I would assume that it would be able to generate a higher torque at a lower RPM... but perhaps the decrease in torque has more to do with load caused by wind resistance than it does the RPM?

If there were gears, one would need a clutch or something to change them.
If you look at EV practice over the last 120years, there is not much to be gained in using gears, just a final drive.

When I said there was no need for a clutch, what I mean was the use of a clutch for starting a vehicle from a stop. This is needed in an engine that achives zero torque at 0 RPM, but not in an electric car.

However, you don't need a clutch in a vehicle to archive different input-output ratios. See Continuous Variable Transmission.
I have no doubt that the Tesla car would shred modern CVTs. However it would seem that if there were such a CVT, it could serve to extend the speed at which the vehicle is traveling before the torque drops off. You wouldn't need to engage the CVT until the point at which the torque started to drop off. This would also serve to give the vehicle a better top speed, and could act as an overdrive.

Still, I can't imagine a CVT system capable of withstanding the 2000 ft-lb of torque the Tesla puts out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 - E30 - M20 - Manual. Approximately 270,000 miles
2000 - E46 - M52TUB28 - Manual. Approximately 110,000 miles

February 03, 2011 07:45PM
That is the weak spot of the current CVT technology or it would be in highway long haul trucks right now. It's getting better but until the car or transmission companies really get serious, the CVT will lag behind.

As for all the negatives about producing and fueling electric cars...folks, we are running out of oil and will have to switch eventually. The sooner we do it, the sooner we will figure out cleaner ways of building these things and the oil that is left can still be used to produce the million other products we depend on!

Stop thinking like or listening to Big Oil or Detroit; they only fill your heads with crap that supports their earth killing agenda >:<(
February 03, 2011 07:53PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
That is the weak spot of the current CVT technology or it would be in highway long haul trucks right now. It's getting better but until the car or transmission companies really get serious, the CVT will lag behind.

As for all the negatives about producing and fueling electric cars...folks, we are running out of oil and will have to switch eventually. The sooner we do it, the sooner we will figure out cleaner ways of building these things and the oil that is left can still be used to produce the million other products we depend on!

Stop thinking like or listening to Big Oil or Detroit; they only fill your heads with crap that supports their earth killing agenda >:<(


Yes, but sad to think I'll be explaining to my grandkids someday about how cars used to go "vroom vroom". They'll soon all be going "......"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 - E30 - M20 - Manual. Approximately 270,000 miles
2000 - E46 - M52TUB28 - Manual. Approximately 110,000 miles

February 03, 2011 08:12PM
Quote
Earendil
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
That is the weak spot of the current CVT technology or it would be in highway long haul trucks right now. It's getting better but until the car or transmission companies really get serious, the CVT will lag behind.

As for all the negatives about producing and fueling electric cars...folks, we are running out of oil and will have to switch eventually. The sooner we do it, the sooner we will figure out cleaner ways of building these things and the oil that is left can still be used to produce the million other products we depend on!

Stop thinking like or listening to Big Oil or Detroit; they only fill your heads with crap that supports their earth killing agenda >:<(


Yes, but sad to think I'll be explaining to my grandkids someday about how cars used to go "vroom vroom". They'll soon all be going "......"

Interesting you should say that...

Early Mazda Rotary car ads used to compare the traditional engines with 'boing, boing' or something like that with '......' or 'hmmmm' winking smiley

Now Mazda says 'Zoom', 'Zoom' and folks think 'vroom, vroom' grinning smiley
February 03, 2011 09:06PM
Did anyone see the documentary called "who killed the electric car" it was very interesting how GM and the California Govt along with the big oil put a swift demise to it.
The expose center's around GM's EV1, of which hundreds were built to satisfy a law passed by the California Air Commission, or some board with that sort of name, that regulated that 10% of all cars would be emission free, with the percentages rising annually.
And how GM got them to repeal the law and then promptly reclaimed every single EV1 on the road from there owners and crushed them.
Not A single EV1 survives today, and they were very popular with their owners.
It can be found on You Tube in 5 or 6 segments, really worth a look, if you haven't seen it.
An interesting statistic about the range issue, was that the EV1 had a range of 300 miles and the average American does 29 miles a day, on their daily commute.
I used to poo poo electric cars, but look at them in a whole new light.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E30'S AREN'T BUILT, THEY'RE CAUGHT IN THE WILD!!!



When in doubt, use full throttle,
it may not improve the situation, but it will end the suspence.
February 03, 2011 09:36PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Early Mazda Rotary car ads used to compare the traditional engines with 'boing, boing' or something like that with '......' or 'hmmmm' winking smiley
Here's a trip down memory lane:




:mrgreen:

I remember those ads well. My best buddy's older brother had a first generation RX-7 that I coveted. Now I own two Mazdas, but both with piston engines. Rotaries are cool, but the atrocious fuel mileage means I'll probably never own one.

Regarding electric cars, they're also cool. Obviously they're still in their infancy and nowhere near the planet-saving wonders that some people make them out to be, but cool nevertheless. I have no doubt that some day gasoline-burning engines will be a thing of the past, but whether they are replaced by electric engines, biofuel engines, batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, or anything else, or some combination of those, is still anyone's guess. Only hindsight after it's already happened will tell us for sure.

Oh, yeah, and I really like that electric E30. :cool:

__________
Dave
'91 325iX
February 03, 2011 09:48PM
I would like to see cars evolve to the point where they are HSST type vehicles. That is, they run on magnetic levitation and are simply powered by the utilities.

Better still might be the Molnar flying cars winking smiley
February 04, 2011 12:07AM
Pfffffttt, small thinkers. I want a Delorean with a Mr. Fusion matter converter in the back..where we're going, we don't need highways.

smiling smiley

alan
February 04, 2011 08:43AM
This discussion is biased perhaps, we area group of people who love to drive cars!
EV are no long-term solution, simply because electricity is not a primary energy. It is stupid to produce electricity out of natural gas or oil and use it on EV by means of large pouting battery packs, it will always be more efficient end cheap to burn the oil or gas directly on your car!
Nevertheless, energy will be more expensive, and we will have to travel less day to day, daily commuting alone in the car will be something from the past.

There are loads of ECO-bullshit and green-washing floating around.
The world will never have cheap plentiful energy our parents had back in the '60s and '70s.
Then, our "way of life" was transformed from public transport (trains, trams, bus...) to roads, high ways and private cars.
Cities exploded like oil spilled on water, the suburbs filled with houses with huge garages whose owners worked 50km away. Street shops closed and huge malls replaced them, again in the suburbs, too far out of walking range. Old cities are somewhat decayed, or turned into museums, and surrounded by the new urban/suburban areas built to accommodate automobile.
Perhaps we will have to revert back to 1920, move to live near work, use mass transit, and spend another huge pile of money to restore the transport networks that were demolished 20 or 30 years ago for being old and inefficient, this while still paying for the empty highways recently built and financed to be payed over 50 years, with estimated traffic increasing over the years.

There was some old movie on TV the other day, the action was in some small town in Texas in mid '80 and every school boy had a huge car or truck to drive anywhere. Over here in Europe small towns it's not very different, only people only drives after 18. That is what Earendill will tel his grandkids, that everyone drove a 3 ton own vehicle thousands of Km every month, without even thinking about it.
They will look at car museums and fuel prices and think: "The old guy is crazy, now he lost it completely!"

JP
February 04, 2011 09:04AM
Just everyone wait till Bloom Boxes become small enough and feasible for use in the automotive industry.

[www.wired.com]

[www.bloomenergy.com]

[www.csmonitor.com]
February 04, 2011 09:10AM
Quote
Jose Pinto
It is stupid to produce electricity out of natural gas or oil and use it on EV by means of large pouting battery packs, it will always be more efficient end cheap to burn the oil or gas directly on your car!
Are you certain about that? I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall reading something that suggested the opposite. Certainly energy is lost during the transmission from power plant to the user, but energy is also lost in internal combustion engines. In fact, IIRC most of the energy in our current fuels is not ever transmitted to the wheels.

__________
Dave
'91 325iX
February 04, 2011 09:11AM
Quote
JUMPNYC
...Bloom Boxes...
Those look really cool. :cool:

__________
Dave
'91 325iX
February 04, 2011 09:22AM
couple of more links to Bloom Box tech.

[c0688662.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com]

the Wikipedia

[en.wikipedia.org]

If the military is looking at small ones for portable use, we arent that far off from automotive use.
General Colin Powell is a board member, and I am sure its because of military applications.

Hopefully this new clean energy is something America can lead again in technology.

The Bloom Box "servers" make me think of the old computers that would take up rooms of years past.

Eventually if this tech follows the rules according to Moores Law it will get smaller quite quickly. Hopefully in the next 10 years!
February 04, 2011 11:15AM
Quote
JUMPNYC

The Bloom Box "servers" make me think of the old computers that would take up rooms of years past.

Eventually if this tech follows the rules according to Moores Law it will get smaller quite quickly. Hopefully in the next 10 years!

I have plenty of room at home, price is what concerns me!
:boohoo:
February 04, 2011 06:20PM
Quote
Dave_G
Are you certain about that? I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall reading something that suggested the opposite. Certainly energy is lost during the transmission from power plant to the user, but energy is also lost in internal combustion engines. In fact, IIRC most of the energy in our current fuels is not ever transmitted to the wheels.

I am pretty sure, considering current technology. Energy is not created or destroyed, just transformed.
Electricity must be produced from other energy sources, and that process has more or less losses, considering that from the total energy input only so much energy comes out as electricity to the grid. After that, from the plant to the consumer, some energy is lost in heat produced at the wires, transformers, etc (Power plants are often far from the consumers). Just like the total energy produced by burning gasoline can't be completely transformed in mechanical energy to move the car. Thermal engines usually have relatively low efficiency, due to heat and pumping losses.
Now if one multiply the successive efficiency ratios, an EV has always LOWER efficiency than the power source it is charged from.
Even if there was an ideal EV, that could use all the electricity charged on it, some energy and resources would be needed to build it in the first place, and energy had to be produced somewhere to charge it.
Note i am not saying EV are a bad solution, considering electricity comes from many sources, some of them are renewable!
Same for hydrogen cars, the car itself is very clean and only produces H2O, but most hydrogen is made out of natural gas at some plant, so the bad emissions are concentrated there. :bag: Why not use regular cars powered from that same gas?!
There is no "free" or "green" energy, just compromise solutions.
hot smiley
February 04, 2011 09:52PM
What about wind power, wave power, geothermal power, solar power, tide power, hydro-electric power?

There are lots of 'not so polluting' sources for electricity smiling smiley
February 04, 2011 10:03PM
The thing that the fuel cell companies completely fail to disclose; is that apart from the fuel cell producing only water; is that the fuels that are cracked for the hydrogen are waste products just as hazardous as other technologies.
For example; GM uses gasoline to power it's version of the fuel cell. What they don't tell you is what to do with the gasoline once the hydrogen has been removed form it! Same applies to methyl hydrate or any of the other hydrogen rich fuels.

Might be that Mercedes has one of the cleanest fuel cell systems...it runs on Borax(sodium borate). After the hydrogen is removed, you are left with Boraxo...soap winking smiley
February 05, 2011 02:49PM
Spot on. The governments should focus on (efficient!) mass transport, taking away as much private circulation as possible. All vehicle taxes could be canceled and fuel prices raised a lot, so people would become really aware of the environmental problem. (and if you'd own a Ferrari you'd take out twice a year, it wouldn't cost as much as it does now in my little country)
February 07, 2011 10:03AM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
What about wind power, wave power, geothermal power, solar power, tide power, hydro-electric power?

There are lots of 'not so polluting' sources for electricity smiling smiley

Wind power require huge wind towers, erected on windy spots, usually mountain tops. those places are often environment sensitive areas, plus the consumers are far away from there, requiring long transmission lines, with respective losses. The towers+generator themselves are big and bulky, need losts of steel and concrete plus major work to place them at the final location. Plus the wind is unpredictable, and seldom coincides with consumption peaks, requiring other plants on the network to fill in the gaps. On top of that, if there is too much or too little wind they don't work at all.
Over here we have considerable power of wind turbines working, the deal is ALL power they generate is bought by the network at a fixed (high) price and that expense is paid by all the consumers.

Wave power: there is no economically viable technology yet.

Geothermal power: good resource for HVAC systems on buildings or houses, if there is a possible source nearby. The equipment is very expensive, and seldom economically viable, is definitely a path to develop further.

Solar power (photo-voltaic?): Very expensive equipment, again we have lots of m2 of it. Power is ALL sold to the grid, consumers pay it.

Hydro electric: renewable and clean in operation, except it needs a huge dam to work. It takes space, and destroys valleys that had other use before, so not all rivers are suitable to be damed. Dams can be equipped to operate reversed, to pump water from below to above and use that water latter on the turbine. This can compensate the wind power "fluctuation" at expense of the transmission losses on the power lines, plus efficiency losses of the pumping ant turbinate hydraulic process, about 0.75. Also the "artificial" lake, with still and deep water is a source of methane and CO2 gases, from decomposing mater under water, equivalent to emissions from a gas plant of similar power.

Nuclear: it would be good, except for the radioactive waste and danger of catastrophic failure...hot smiley

Nuclear fission: How much longer we must wait?! They are working on it for decades now! :hitwithrock:
February 07, 2011 08:01PM
Sorry Jose,
I only see the same old tired excuses why we don't get off our behinds and make these things 'financially' viable sad smiley

I have visited one of the 'wind turbine farms' in the Southern California mountains and there is little to no evidence of ecological disaster other than the few metres of ground around the bases of the towers...and of course the dirt tracks that service vehicles use to access the towers. Other than a few displaced scrub brush bushes and cactuses, the ecology is pretty much undisturbed.

The other sources I mentioned also have equally viable and non-intrusive possibilities. Tide power is currently being use very successfully in the mouth of the Thames river in England. Geothermal power runs a lot of Iceland; heating for sure and also steam turbines that produce electricity.

These technologies are not in the far future; they are here now but being delayed by the big oil concerns.

Oil is still relatively plentiful and cheap but it won't last forever and we need to be ready with alternatives. CEO/accountant bonuses based on the price of oil are probably the worst enemy of development of alternative technologies. If the oil companies spent even a fraction of the money they do fighting alternate energy, we would be a lot closer to becoming oil independent. I don't care who controls the alternate energy sources, just so long as we have them!
February 08, 2011 06:02AM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Sorry Jose,
I only see the same old tired excuses why we don't get off our behinds and make these things 'financially' viable sad smiley

I have visited one of the 'wind turbine farms' in the Southern California mountains and there is little to no evidence of ecological disaster other than the few metres of ground around the bases of the towers...and of course the dirt tracks that service vehicles use to access the towers. Other than a few displaced scrub brush bushes and cactuses, the ecology is pretty much undisturbed.

The other sources I mentioned also have equally viable and non-intrusive possibilities. Tide power is currently being use very successfully in the mouth of the Thames river in England. Geothermal power runs a lot of Iceland; heating for sure and also steam turbines that produce electricity.

These technologies are not in the far future; they are here now but being delayed by the big oil concerns.

I didn't meant to say alternative energies shouldn't be exploited or developed, just there to point that any source of energy has an impact on the environment.

When you visited the wind turbine farm, you saw the disturbs, and qualified it as pretty much undisturbed, some wildlife may think the opposite.
The only free energy is the one you save, every kWh saved is one less to be produced somewhere and transported to you, and less you have to pay.

The alternative energies are not necessarily NEW. There have been windmills since forever.
There are old tide mills in Portugal, those were abandoned because it was so much more convenient to make flour at a factory near the city than to carry the cereal to the mill and the flour back.

In the 1950, the Benguela railway (Angola) operated steam engines that used eucalyptus wood for fuel. The trees were planted to grow along the line, and chopped in bits adequate for firnig the locomotives. That is completely renewable energy, despite the low-tech involved. Those trains were repllaced by new diesel locomotives, burning oil. :wall:

Same with cars, people no longer walks, and most moved to the suburbs far away from work and services, so we depend on the automobile now!
Hence the need for massive amount of energy, let it be oil, electricity or whatever we choose to power our cars from.
What we need is to go back to basics, use less energy.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 5
Record Number of Users: 3 on September 29, 2015
Record Number of Guests: 109 on June 08, 2017