http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...0303-ph0n.html

As per the discussion had here a while ago - new audi will come with a
250cc engine running at a fixed rpm and only charging the batteries

Not a diesel though. Wankel petrol.

JL

"JL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:b9122204-967f-49d4-bb1b-(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...0303-ph0n.html
>
> As per the discussion had here a while ago - new audi will come with a
> 250cc engine running at a fixed rpm and only charging the batteries
>
> Not a diesel though. Wankel petrol.
>
> JL


Their figures don't add up either
they claim 1.9 litres per 100 kilometres with a 12 litre tank gives it a 250
kilometre range
Not to my addition, which comes to about 630 kilometres a tankful and that
is only running the generating motor

Moike wrote:
> George W Frost wrote:
>> "JL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:b9122204-967f-49d4-bb1b-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...0303-ph0n.html
>>>
>>>
>>> As per the discussion had here a while ago - new audi will come with a
>>> 250cc engine running at a fixed rpm and only charging the batteries
>>>
>>> Not a diesel though. Wankel petrol.
>>>
>>> JL
>>
>>
>> Their figures don't add up either
>> they claim 1.9 litres per 100 kilometres with a 12 litre tank gives it
>> a 250 kilometre range
>> Not to my addition, which comes to about 630 kilometres a tankful and
>> that is only running the generating motor
>>
> It may be that the motor isn't capable of recharging the batteries as
> quickly as they are depleted at cruising speed. Battery range is 50
> something kilometers, and IIRC it said it took 5 hrs to recharge on AC
> power. I can well imagine that about 250 ks is what you get at cruising
> speed, starting with a full battery, and recharging on the run.

That does, indeed, sound like what is happening.

I wonder if it was intentional, or if they thought that the vehicle
would be able to proceed purely under the petrol system's generated
electricity, and only found out at testing that it wouldn't.

It would seem that their claimed fuel consumption claim is rather sneaky....
not counting the electricity shoved into the batteries before it starts.

regards,
CrazyCam

On Mar 5, 8:40*am, CrazyCam <Crazy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Moike wrote:
> > George W Frost wrote:
> >> "JL" <jlitt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >>news:b9122204-967f-49d4-bb1b-(E-Mail Removed)....
> >>>http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...power-shock-20....
>
> >>> As per the discussion had here a while ago - new audi will come with a
> >>> 250cc engine running at a fixed rpm and only charging the batteries
>
> >>> Not a diesel though. Wankel petrol.
>
> >>> JL
>
> >> Their figures don't add up either
> >> they claim 1.9 litres per 100 kilometres with a 12 litre tank gives it
> >> a 250 kilometre range
> >> Not to my addition, which comes to about 630 kilometres a tankful and
> >> that is only running the generating motor
>
> > It may be that the motor isn't capable of recharging the batteries as
> > quickly as they are depleted at cruising speed. *Battery range is 50
> > something kilometers, and IIRC it said it took 5 hrs to recharge on AC
> > power. *I can well imagine that about 250 ks is what you get at cruising
> > speed, starting with a full battery, and recharging on the run.
>
> That does, indeed, sound like what is happening.
>
> I wonder if it was intentional, or if they thought that the vehicle
> would be able to proceed purely under the petrol system's generated
> electricity, and only found out at testing that it wouldn't.

Possibly, a less cynical reading would be that the form factor clearly
calls it out as a city car and hence they aren't expecting you to take
it on the highway, so you'll be charging it several times per tank of
fuel (given average distance travelled for that sort of car was circa
40Km per day - IIRC).

> It would seem that their claimed fuel consumption claim is rather sneaky.....
> not counting the electricity shoved into the batteries before it starts.

If you counted the cost of charging the batteries you'd be lucky to
move the consumption rate ie convert $2.50 worth of power spent
charging it into an extra 2litres of fuel consumed for the same range
and I doubt that moves the consumption far

JL

On Mar 5, 10:33*am, JL <jlitt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 8:40*am, CrazyCam <Crazy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Moike wrote:

> > > It may be that the motor isn't capable of recharging the batteries as
> > > quickly as they are depleted at cruising speed. *Battery range is 50
> > > something kilometers, and IIRC it said it took 5 hrs to recharge on AC
> > > power. *I can well imagine that about 250 ks is what you get at cruising
> > > speed, starting with a full battery, and recharging on the run.
>
> > That does, indeed, sound like what is happening.
>
> > I wonder if it was intentional, or if they thought that the vehicle
> > would be able to proceed purely under the petrol system's generated
> > electricity, and only found out at testing that it wouldn't.
>
> Possibly, a less cynical reading would be that the form factor clearly
> calls it out as a city car and hence they aren't expecting you to take
> it on the highway, so you'll be charging it several times per tank of
> fuel (given average distance travelled for that sort of car was circa
> 40Km per day - IIRC).
>
> > It would seem that their claimed fuel consumption claim is rather sneaky....
> > not counting the electricity shoved into the batteries before it starts..
>
> If you counted the cost of charging the batteries you'd be lucky to
> move the consumption rate ie convert $2.50 worth of power spent
> charging it into an extra 2litres of fuel consumed for the same range
> and I doubt that moves the consumption far

On another angle of alleged low-emission vehicles there was a snippet
on the news this morning saying that if every household in Oz had a
main-charged electric vehicle, we would need to double the number of
coal-fired power stations in the country. Another item said that the
two new proposed power stations for NSW would emit greenhouse gases
equal to the current NSW vehicle fleet.

Do we really want coal-powered electric cars?

Theo

On Mar 5, 3:44*pm, theo <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 10:33*am, JL <jlitt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 8:40*am, CrazyCam <Crazy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > Moike wrote:
> > > > It may be that the motor isn't capable of recharging the batteries as
> > > > quickly as they are depleted at cruising speed. *Battery range is50
> > > > something kilometers, and IIRC it said it took 5 hrs to recharge onAC
> > > > power. *I can well imagine that about 250 ks is what you get at cruising
> > > > speed, starting with a full battery, and recharging on the run.
>
> > > That does, indeed, sound like what is happening.
>
> > > I wonder if it was intentional, or if they thought that the vehicle
> > > would be able to proceed purely under the petrol system's generated
> > > electricity, and only found out at testing that it wouldn't.
>
> > Possibly, a less cynical reading would be that the form factor clearly
> > calls it out as a city car and hence they aren't expecting you to take
> > it on the highway, so you'll be charging it several times per tank of
> > fuel (given average distance travelled for that sort of car was circa
> > 40Km per day - IIRC).
>
> > > It would seem that their claimed fuel consumption claim is rather sneaky....
> > > not counting the electricity shoved into the batteries before it starts.
>
> > If you counted the cost of charging the batteries you'd be lucky to
> > move the consumption rate ie convert $2.50 worth of power spent
> > charging it into an extra 2litres of fuel consumed for the same range
> > and I doubt that moves the consumption far
>
> On another angle of alleged low-emission vehicles there was a snippet
> on the news this morning saying that if every household in Oz had a
> main-charged electric vehicle, we would need to double the number of
> coal-fired power stations in the country. Another item said that the
> two new proposed power stations for NSW would emit greenhouse gases
> equal to the current NSW vehicle fleet.
>
> Do we really want coal-powered electric cars?

I'd prefer nuclear powered electric cars and shut down the coal
powered stations, thanks.

JL

"JL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:b77b1b10-4939-46c2-8f9d-(E-Mail Removed)...
On Mar 5, 3:44 pm, theo <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 10:33 am, JL <jlitt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 8:40 am, CrazyCam <Crazy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > Moike wrote:
> > > > It may be that the motor isn't capable of recharging the batteries
> > > > as
> > > > quickly as they are depleted at cruising speed. Battery range is 50
> > > > something kilometers, and IIRC it said it took 5 hrs to recharge on
> > > > AC
> > > > power. I can well imagine that about 250 ks is what you get at
> > > > cruising
> > > > speed, starting with a full battery, and recharging on the run.
>
> > > That does, indeed, sound like what is happening.
>
> > > I wonder if it was intentional, or if they thought that the vehicle
> > > would be able to proceed purely under the petrol system's generated
> > > electricity, and only found out at testing that it wouldn't.
>
> > Possibly, a less cynical reading would be that the form factor clearly
> > calls it out as a city car and hence they aren't expecting you to take
> > it on the highway, so you'll be charging it several times per tank of
> > fuel (given average distance travelled for that sort of car was circa
> > 40Km per day - IIRC).
>
> > > It would seem that their claimed fuel consumption claim is rather
> > > sneaky....
> > > not counting the electricity shoved into the batteries before it
> > > starts.
>
> > If you counted the cost of charging the batteries you'd be lucky to
> > move the consumption rate ie convert $2.50 worth of power spent
> > charging it into an extra 2litres of fuel consumed for the same range
> > and I doubt that moves the consumption far
>
> On another angle of alleged low-emission vehicles there was a snippet
> on the news this morning saying that if every household in Oz had a
> main-charged electric vehicle, we would need to double the number of
> coal-fired power stations in the country. Another item said that the
> two new proposed power stations for NSW would emit greenhouse gases
> equal to the current NSW vehicle fleet.
>
> Do we really want coal-powered electric cars?

I'd prefer nuclear powered electric cars and shut down the coal
powered stations, thanks.

JL


*******************

I am with Mister Littlejohn on this issue

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:46:27 +1100, Moike <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>theo wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 10:33 am, JL <jlitt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 8:40 am, CrazyCam <Crazy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Moike wrote:
>>
>>>>> It may be that the motor isn't capable of recharging the batteries as
>>>>> quickly as they are depleted at cruising speed. Battery range is 50
>>>>> something kilometers, and IIRC it said it took 5 hrs to recharge on AC
>>>>> power. I can well imagine that about 250 ks is what you get at cruising
>>>>> speed, starting with a full battery, and recharging on the run.
>>>> That does, indeed, sound like what is happening.
>>>> I wonder if it was intentional, or if they thought that the vehicle
>>>> would be able to proceed purely under the petrol system's generated
>>>> electricity, and only found out at testing that it wouldn't.
>>> Possibly, a less cynical reading would be that the form factor clearly
>>> calls it out as a city car and hence they aren't expecting you to take
>>> it on the highway, so you'll be charging it several times per tank of
>>> fuel (given average distance travelled for that sort of car was circa
>>> 40Km per day - IIRC).
>>>
>>>> It would seem that their claimed fuel consumption claim is rather sneaky....
>>>> not counting the electricity shoved into the batteries before it starts.
>>> If you counted the cost of charging the batteries you'd be lucky to
>>> move the consumption rate ie convert $2.50 worth of power spent
>>> charging it into an extra 2litres of fuel consumed for the same range
>>> and I doubt that moves the consumption far
>>
>> On another angle of alleged low-emission vehicles there was a snippet
>> on the news this morning saying that if every household in Oz had a
>> main-charged electric vehicle, we would need to double the number of
>> coal-fired power stations in the country. Another item said that the
>> two new proposed power stations for NSW would emit greenhouse gases
>> equal to the current NSW vehicle fleet.
>>
>> Do we really want coal-powered electric cars?
>>
>> Theo
>There was a nice bit on RN last week about a proposal to use electric
>cars as a distributed storage system to even out variations in green
>power supply. Vehicles with big batteries (35KWh was mentioned) that can
>dump power back into the grid on demand. differential rates make it an
>earner for the car owner, and on-board management systems could allow
>the owner to ensure the car always has enough charge when required.
>
>Distributed syorage would put lower stresses on the grid and allow
>generation to occur at closer to optimal rates.
>
>transript:
>http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...htm#transcript

Yeah - I was listening to that when it went to air.

The concept of being able to tell your car whether you knew you only
needed to travel 20km the next day to and from work and therefore the
car could dump power back into the grid, or altenatively you knew you
had a long trip and you grabbed full power down is a nice concept.

We still need to get this power generated cleanly though. Cold fusion
anyone? Or maybe a good Timex clock mechanism?

Kev

On Mar 5, 7:46*pm, Moike <bmwmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> theo wrote:

> > On another angle of alleged low-emission vehicles there was a snippet
> > on the news this morning saying that if every household in Oz had a
> > main-charged electric vehicle, we would need to double the number of
> > coal-fired power stations in the country. Another item said that the
> > two new proposed power stations for NSW would emit greenhouse gases
> > equal to the current NSW vehicle fleet.
>
> > Do we really want coal-powered electric cars?

> There was a nice bit on RN last week about a proposal to use electric
> cars as a distributed storage system to even out variations in green
> power supply. Vehicles with big batteries (35KWh was mentioned) that can
> dump power back into the grid on demand. differential rates make it an
> earner for the car owner, and on-board management systems could allow
> the owner to ensure the car always has enough charge when required.
>
> Distributed storage would put lower stresses on the grid and allow
> generation to occur at closer to optimal rates.
>
> transript:http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...htm#transcript

I wonder how much you lose on the transfer in charging the vehicle and
then feeding it back to the grid though. I would think probably in the
order of 20% or more. This loss is literaly going up in smoke.

I try to mange my home power as best I can. My meter reads power used
by time of day/rate and power fed back into the grid by my solar
cells. I read it daily. OK, I'm retired and need to fill in my time.
My currrent daily usage is around 20-24Kwh per day, with close ot 45%
at off-peak rates and less than 10% at peak rates (the solar panels
mostly generate power at peak rates). My power costs for February was
$3.47 per day. An electric car would likely double that usage. Just
how much does an electric car use per km? At what speed. For me, an
electric vehicle would need to be able to travel 100+ kms between
charges with half of the distance at highway speeds. To drive my ute
100 kms costs $11.40, and burns no coal.

Theo

Theo

On Mar 8, 12:54*pm, "Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> wrote:
> theo wrote:

> > I wonder how much you lose on the transfer in charging the vehicle and
> > then feeding it back to the grid though. I would think probably in the
> > order of 20% or more. This loss is literaly going up in smoke.
>
> > I try to mange my home power as best I can. My meter reads power used
> > by time of day/rate and power fed back into the grid by my solar
> > cells. I read it daily. OK, I'm retired and need to fill in my time.
> > My currrent daily usage is around 20-24Kwh per day, with close ot 45%
> > at off-peak rates and less than 10% at peak rates (the solar panels
> > mostly generate power at peak rates). My power costs for February was
> > $3.47 per day. An electric car would likely double that usage. Just
> > how much does an electric car use per km? At what speed. For me, an
> > electric vehicle would need to be able to travel 100+ kms between
> > charges with half of the distance at highway speeds. To drive my ute
> > 100 kms costs $11.40, and burns no coal.
>
> Coal/oil? *I think the search for renewable alternative fuels treats
> coal or oil similarly, that is, I don't think that you need feel good
> about anything because your car burns no coal. *In fact, I think coal is
> preferable power source to oil because production of power from coal in
> a power station is much more efficient and less polluting than that from
> oil-based fuels in a car engine. *It's the only reason why electric cars
> can make environmental sense in the present time.

How about this then

http://www.mrsharkey.com/charging2.htm

While studies of the pollution-reducing ability of electric vehicles
in California are quite favorable, they cannot be applied to the rest
of the world as a whole. The truth is that when using electricity
generated from dirty sources such as coal and oil, electric vehicles
may actually create more of some pollutants than comparable internal
combustion engine vehicles. A report by the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) cited a German study that estimated the environmental
impact of electric vehicles with two distinct energy mixes: one
comprised of only 49% coal-fired electricity, and one comprised solely
of coal-fired electricity [1]. The estimates provided by the study are
given in table 1. Assuming that 49% of an electric vehicle's charging
energy being derived from coal, the study found that electric vehicles
would cause comparable levels of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide to
be emitted, and that sulfur oxide emissions would increase by a factor
of 10 [1]. Furthermore, when assuming that an electric vehicle is
charged with 100% coal-fired electricity, the study estimated that the
electric vehicles would emit 150% more carbon dioxide, 250% more
nitrogen oxides, and 2400% more sulfur oxides than a comparable
internal combustion engine vehicle [1].
[1] Electric Vehicles: Likely Consequences of U.S. and Other Nations'
programs and Policies. (1994). In Gateway Japan. [20 November 1995].

I think Oz grid electricity production is around 80% coal.

Theo