theo wrote:
> 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

Lots of Australian electricity production uses brown coal and not black
coal and that creates more pollution again.


G-S

On Mar 8, 3:21*pm, G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> theo wrote:

> > 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
>
> Lots of Australian electricity production uses brown coal and not black
> coal and that creates more pollution again.

Brown coal is like burning damp cow-pats. It may even be damp cow-
pats.

Theo

"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.

Did the sums and my CBR1000RR is using 8l/100kms which is pretty **** poor for
a bike.

Fraser

Fraser Johnston wrote:
>
>
> "JL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:b9122204-967f-49d4-bb1b-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > http://fat.ly/z0mfu
> >
> > 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.
>
> Did the sums and my CBR1000RR is using 8l/100kms which is pretty **** poor
for
> a bike.
>
> Fraser
>
>
>
>

Well, until you start doing the sums for a one or two seater four wheeler,
that offers comparable performance and frequently uses it anyway. Cheers

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

On Mar 17, 3:00*pm, "Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> 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.
>
> Did the sums and my CBR1000RR is using 8l/100kms which is pretty **** poor for
> a bike.

<Baffled look> Why on earth would you even be caring about the fuel
consumption of a serious sports bike ? Do they even measure the fuel
consumption of a Ferrari ?

If it was a CB250, sure.

And for an engine putting out what 120Kw per litre capacity or
thereabouts I think that's pretty reasonable fuel economy btw.

JL

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:43:55 -0700 (PDT), JL wrote:

>On Mar 17, 3:00*pm, "Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> 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.
>>
>> Did the sums and my CBR1000RR is using 8l/100kms which is pretty **** poor for
>> a bike.
>
><Baffled look> Why on earth would you even be caring about the fuel
>consumption of a serious sports bike ? Do they even measure the fuel
>consumption of a Ferrari ?
>
>If it was a CB250, sure.
>
>And for an engine putting out what 120Kw per litre capacity or
>thereabouts I think that's pretty reasonable fuel economy btw.

Yes, it's the no free lunch thing - if you want power you need to burn
fuel. Engine design is about finding better ways to burn the fuel.

--
GWD

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:29:48 +1100, Moike <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>GWD wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:43:55 -0700 (PDT), JL wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 3:00 pm, "Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> 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.
>>>> Did the sums and my CBR1000RR is using 8l/100kms which is pretty **** poor for
>>>> a bike.
>>> <Baffled look> Why on earth would you even be caring about the fuel
>>> consumption of a serious sports bike ? Do they even measure the fuel
>>> consumption of a Ferrari ?
>>>
>>> If it was a CB250, sure.
>>>
>>> And for an engine putting out what 120Kw per litre capacity or
>>> thereabouts I think that's pretty reasonable fuel economy btw.
>>
>> Yes, it's the no free lunch thing - if you want power you need to burn
>> fuel. Engine design is about finding better ways to burn the fuel.
>>
>Yep. Even my relatively anaemic bike costs more to run per Km than my
>Mitsubishi express 4x4 campervan. I no complain.

And when you start to factor tyre and servicing costs in as well. I
recall I worked at one stage on the Budgie, I was burning as much
money on tyres as I was on fuel, per km.

Kev

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:16:03 GMT
Kevin Gleeson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> And when you start to factor tyre and servicing costs in as well. I
> recall I worked at one stage on the Budgie, I was burning as much
> money on tyres as I was on fuel, per km.

THe Noggie gets about 320km for 19l around town, so that's 5.9l/100km
or 16.8km/l. The Mighty Scooter does about the same, but $60 tyres
every 15,000 are cheaper than $220 tyres every 15,000!

Beign a twoey the scooter's easier to service but the Norge doesn't
need a litre of bloody expensive 2 stroke oil every 1000km!

But then if I'd wanted cheap transport I'd not have chosen a heavy
1200 or a hot two stroke. The Bolwell scooters seem to run on the
smell of other people's petrol.

Zebee

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:26:56 +0000 (UTC), Zebee Johnstone
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:16:03 GMT
>Kevin Gleeson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> And when you start to factor tyre and servicing costs in as well. I
>> recall I worked at one stage on the Budgie, I was burning as much
>> money on tyres as I was on fuel, per km.
>
>THe Noggie gets about 320km for 19l around town, so that's 5.9l/100km
>or 16.8km/l. The Mighty Scooter does about the same, but $60 tyres
>every 15,000 are cheaper than $220 tyres every 15,000!
>
>Beign a twoey the scooter's easier to service but the Norge doesn't
>need a litre of bloody expensive 2 stroke oil every 1000km!
>
>But then if I'd wanted cheap transport I'd not have chosen a heavy
>1200 or a hot two stroke. The Bolwell scooters seem to run on the
>smell of other people's petrol.

I was melting budgie rears at $300 every 2500km for a while, then
decided that I really need to go to a harder compound . . . 5000km I
don't mind but 2500km was a bit excessive. Especially as I was riding
100km per day. But they did build a racetrack to my front door, the
bastards.

Kev

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:24:42 +1030
JohnO <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> The Bandit is getting ~ 4.7ltr/100km ~ 21.5km/litre. I think the
> Bandit motor knocks out about 96hp out of 1250cc, so it is not an
> overly stressed motor.
>

Probably less stressed than the Norge in Sydney traffic.

If I don't ask it to lanesplit for 1m at a time, it does better.

Zebee