Good info but "better for the environment" is a bit simplistic. He's just talking about fuel efficiency rwt carbon emmissions.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
What would you have liked to have him talk about?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
The video is good, I'm just nitpicking about the title.
It'd be good to see a video about deisel v gasolene that covers the kind of pollution they both emit. Deisel can be pretty toxic for our lungs. It's not all about the atmosphere & climate change.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
This is an issue with older diesel cars. If we change to electric vehicles this problem will be pretty much eliminated. I find it way more interesting that despite all the conversions and losses the electric engine "wins".
CO2 emmissions not only need to be severely reduced, a solution has to be found to to reduce the current and future excess. Simply planting trees is not it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
Yeah it was really good to see the basics of the fuel efficiency argument laid out. It's something I was curious about.
I dunno about deisel problem being eliminated by switching to EVs. Apparently trade ships account for 36% of carbon fuel emmissions & deisel power stations would also be a huge chunk - these are the source of cancerous particles in the smog in some cities apparently.
I kinda see deisel as a cheap & dirty alternative to petrol but don't know a lot about it.
It seems that the solution is to get into 'clean' energy production & get everything running from the power grid. So far all that's happening is some countries are cleaning up the power grid a little.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Power stations burn the fuel at very high temperatures, so this is not really an issue also they would have particle filters and ships do not pose a threat to people living in a city, which is where the particle pollution is a problem.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
GKhan (Old Spike)
Also, batteries and hydrogen pose huge opportunities in shipping and many shipping companies are very interested. It will take time and likely start with new ships being built electric. Arguably this may be an easier problem to solve as there is simply less ships/shipping companies than cars.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I wonder how the gallon of fuel to kwh equivalent is derived.
Is it the theoretical potential energy of the fuel or what your average ICE can produce?
ICE engines are about 30-40 % efficient, so you are losing most of the energy to heat and friction.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
It is compared via the equivalent of heat that can be generated, i.e. it is derived from how many BTUs are in a certain amount of combustible material.
As the video takes into account the losses of transport etc. the comparison is not unfair. You can literally burn fuel to generate electricity with it and then power an electric car and this is more efficient than an ICE.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
GKhan (Old Spike)
yeah, there is a lot missing here in practical use. In the USA, I beleive the Prius is still the least CO2 producing vehicle to operate. This is because so much electricity comes from heavy CO2 producing facilities. While in BC where 95-100% of electricity is from hydro the CO2 is close to nothing.
This discussion can go back and forth many ways but instead of comparing on the exact situation today, I beleive it's always good to remind that to really drop CO2 we need to get both sides off CO2 - no CO2 producing entities and no CO2 burning entities. Ie. A system in the future with electric cars and nuclear/hydro energy production will really help to reduce CO2 emissions.
As an aside, one of the big barriers to getting off coal in the US for eletrcity production is that it is difficult to manage the flux in demand. Large batteries will help this but ultimately hydro works best. When there is execess energy, pump water back uphill into a big dam and then during peak hours run the turbines and drain the resevoir.
Horribly ineffecient but not a problem when there is more energy than needed and it is all CO2 free production.
(and of course this is only operational costs and leaves out CO2 from capital investments but that's another problem and one that can be refined)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
There are several concepts currently researched to overcome the issue of storage, some kill birds though.....
Comments
(Old Spike)
Good info but "better for the environment" is a bit simplistic. He's just talking about fuel efficiency rwt carbon emmissions.
(Old Spike)
What would you have liked to have him talk about?
(Old Spike)
The video is good, I'm just nitpicking about the title.
It'd be good to see a video about deisel v gasolene that covers the kind of pollution they both emit. Deisel can be pretty toxic for our lungs. It's not all about the atmosphere & climate change.
(Old Spike)
This is an issue with older diesel cars. If we change to electric vehicles this problem will be pretty much eliminated. I find it way more interesting that despite all the conversions and losses the electric engine "wins".
CO2 emmissions not only need to be severely reduced, a solution has to be found to to reduce the current and future excess. Simply planting trees is not it.
(Old Spike)
Yeah it was really good to see the basics of the fuel efficiency argument laid out. It's something I was curious about.
I dunno about deisel problem being eliminated by switching to EVs. Apparently trade ships account for 36% of carbon fuel emmissions & deisel power stations would also be a huge chunk - these are the source of cancerous particles in the smog in some cities apparently.
I kinda see deisel as a cheap & dirty alternative to petrol but don't know a lot about it.
It seems that the solution is to get into 'clean' energy production & get everything running from the power grid. So far all that's happening is some countries are cleaning up the power grid a little.
(Old Spike)
Power stations burn the fuel at very high temperatures, so this is not really an issue also they would have particle filters and ships do not pose a threat to people living in a city, which is where the particle pollution is a problem.
(Old Spike)
Also, batteries and hydrogen pose huge opportunities in shipping and many shipping companies are very interested. It will take time and likely start with new ships being built electric. Arguably this may be an easier problem to solve as there is simply less ships/shipping companies than cars.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I wonder how the gallon of fuel to kwh equivalent is derived.
Is it the theoretical potential energy of the fuel or what your average ICE can produce?
ICE engines are about 30-40 % efficient, so you are losing most of the energy to heat and friction.
(Old Spike)
It is compared via the equivalent of heat that can be generated, i.e. it is derived from how many BTUs are in a certain amount of combustible material.
As the video takes into account the losses of transport etc. the comparison is not unfair. You can literally burn fuel to generate electricity with it and then power an electric car and this is more efficient than an ICE.
(Old Spike)
yeah, there is a lot missing here in practical use. In the USA, I beleive the Prius is still the least CO2 producing vehicle to operate. This is because so much electricity comes from heavy CO2 producing facilities. While in BC where 95-100% of electricity is from hydro the CO2 is close to nothing.
This discussion can go back and forth many ways but instead of comparing on the exact situation today, I beleive it's always good to remind that to really drop CO2 we need to get both sides off CO2 - no CO2 producing entities and no CO2 burning entities. Ie. A system in the future with electric cars and nuclear/hydro energy production will really help to reduce CO2 emissions.
As an aside, one of the big barriers to getting off coal in the US for eletrcity production is that it is difficult to manage the flux in demand. Large batteries will help this but ultimately hydro works best. When there is execess energy, pump water back uphill into a big dam and then during peak hours run the turbines and drain the resevoir.
Horribly ineffecient but not a problem when there is more energy than needed and it is all CO2 free production.
(and of course this is only operational costs and leaves out CO2 from capital investments but that's another problem and one that can be refined)
(Old Spike)
There are several concepts currently researched to overcome the issue of storage, some kill birds though.....