Stanley Paris Calls it Quits

[Caracal]

A quooker boiling water tap, fed from the batteries?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

Yes, but in practice they export the used cars, to the UK among others. (The cars have the steering wheels on the right side.) Exporting the old "dirty" ones does nothing for global pollution although it probably helps with the local pollution.

Greg

LMAO...

[Vasco]

Anyone on this thread got a boat?

[CarinaPDX]

Perhaps I should have said "right-hand side" as one might misinterpret "right" as "correct", which is clearly not the case.

Greg

[Sand crab]

No, the left is right and that is correct.

[Starryvalley]

Regarding the tradeoff between a low mileage SUV and a high mileage Lithium battery based car, there is an online tool that can help one make these comparisons. As with many subject areas, sustainability is more complex of an issue, when one delves into it.
Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - Carnegie Mellon University

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by Starryvalley

Regarding the tradeoff between a low mileage SUV and a high mileage Lithium battery based car, there is an online tool that can help one make these comparisons. As with many subject areas, sustainability is more complex of an issue, when one delves into it.
Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - Carnegie Mellon University

I tried to plug in Stanley's boat, but it wouldn't calculate.

[Andrew Troup]

We interrupt this SUV thread to bring a gratuitous post about Dr Paris's tribulations, in the hope that someone will learn something from them:

Regarding preventers: according to this

Stanley Paris Email from Kiwi Spirit to Explain Failures | Sailfeed

he didn't have one fitted, and doesn't see how it would have helped.

I reckon it would be borderline suicidal for a young, strong, insomniac, gifted, highly experienced solo sailor to head for the Southern Ocean with a mainsail that size without
a) very carefully designed preventers in constant use, and
b) a clever system for absorbing the excess energy involved in gybes, both voluntary and involuntary

It seems to me Dr Paris might sometimes have resorted to using his chequebook when he should have been using his brain, and it seems likely the people he hired (to whom it seems he is STILL delegating the primary decision-making roles) were not people who had done what he was planning to do.

Possibly some are also not the sort of people who are equipped to rise to the highest test of character for a professional: telling the client what they need to know but do not want to know.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I've always been confused by electric cars or by hydrogen fuel cells for that matter.
First where do you get the enormous amount of electricity if most cars were electric? Nuclear or coal?
Hydrogen is just an energy carrier, where do you get the Hydrogen? Nuclear or coal?

Fortunately, most people are smart enough to know that electric cars are not really zero emission vehicles. But there is no reason they couldn't be. Since today's electric vehicles use batteries for energy storage, the method for electricity generation and the fuel source are irrelevant. So, using only hydro-, solar-, or wind-generated electricity would make an electric car a zero emission vehicle.

What about fossil fuel generated electricity? There are still several environmental/energy advantages to battery-powered cars:
1) Pollution from power plants is less per unit of energy than pollution from cars.
2) Conversion efficiency is better for power plants than it is for cars. This considers all losses from the time the fuel is extracted to the time the cars' wheels are rolling.
3) The power grid takes advantage of fuel diversity; most cars rely on a single fuel: fairly highly refined gasoline. Some people think that we should allocate fuel to its highest purpose. For instance, why cook with electricity when natural gas does the job better, cheaper, cleaner? (Hint: first cost for house builders.) Now consider what is happening to the grid at night. We need to keep fueling the thermal plants to keep them ready to go the next morning and we need to keep water flowing through dams for navigation, irrigation, and ecosystem health. All while there is not much load. What if we could charge batteries instead of wasting all that standby generation?

Hydrogen: I guess you could see it as an "energy carrier." I've never heard that term, so I'm not sure what it means. In nature hydrogen likes to hook up with other atoms to form molecules, like water. In fuel cells, hydrogen is allowed to combine with atmospheric oxygen. That chemical reaction produces energy and has a byproduct of pure water.

Two convenient sources of hydrogen atoms are water and hydrocarbons. It is true that it requires energy to break hydrogen way from oxygen or carbon; more energy than will be usable on the conversion in the fuel cell. There are two considerations: 1) How much energy is lost in the conversion compared to how much energy is lost in the inherent inefficiency of internal combustion engines? 2) What is the energy source of the hydrogen separation process? Again, it could be solar energy, in which case the conversion efficiency doesn't really matter, except for the capital costs of the plant.

The fuel cells that are commercially available today are fueled with hydrocarbons such as natural gas, a readily available and transportable source of easy-to-obtain hydrogen molecules. There are at least two advantages to using natural gas in fuel cells rather than burning it: 1) Fuel cells are significantly more reliable than internal combustion generators. Fuel cells are more reliable than the power grid, too; 2) The hydrocarbon/fuel cell process is FAR, FAR cleaner than combustion.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by jwing

Fortunately, most people are smart enough to know that electric cars are not really zero emission vehicles. But there is no reason they couldn't be. Since today's electric vehicles use batteries for energy storage, the method for electricity generation and the fuel source are irrelevant. So, using only hydro-, solar-, or wind-generated electricity would make an electric car a zero emission vehicle..

Not true the car and batteries have to be manufactured. Unlikely that you will be mining, smelting, and rolling steel using alternate energy sources in our lifetime.

Originally Posted by jwing

What about fossil fuel generated electricity? There are still several environmental/energy advantages to battery-powered cars:
1) Pollution from power plants is less per unit of energy than pollution from cars..

Not true for coal fired power plants...http://electricdrive.org/index.php?h...ction/id/27895

Originally Posted by jwing

Fuel cells are more reliable than the power grid, too; .

This doesn't seem to make sense if using an apples to apples comparison. The power grid is wires, poles, and transformers. Pretty reliable stuff.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by jwing

Hydrogen: I guess you could see it as an "energy carrier." I've never heard that term, so I'm not sure what it means. In nature hydrogen likes to hook up with other atoms to form molecules, like water. In fuel cells, hydrogen is allowed to combine with atmospheric oxygen. That chemical reaction produces energy and has a byproduct of pure water.

Two convenient sources of hydrogen atoms are water and hydrocarbons. It is true that it requires energy to break hydrogen way from oxygen or carbon; more energy than will be usable on the conversion in the fuel cell. There are two considerations: 1) How much energy is lost in the conversion compared to how much energy is lost in the inherent inefficiency of internal combustion engines? 2) What is the energy source of the hydrogen separation process? Again, it could be solar energy, in which case the conversion efficiency doesn't really matter, except for the capital costs of the plant.

The fuel cells that are commercially available today are fueled with hydrocarbons such as natural gas, a readily available and transportable source of easy-to-obtain hydrogen molecules. There are at least two advantages to using natural gas in fuel cells rather than burning it: 1) Fuel cells are significantly more reliable than internal combustion generators. Fuel cells are more reliable than the power grid, too; 2) The hydrocarbon/fuel cell process is FAR, FAR cleaner than combustion.

"It is true that it requires energy to break hydrogen way from oxygen or carbon; more energy than will be usable on the conversion in the fuel cell."

So when you make hydrogen you end up with less energy potential than you started with, while spending a lot of money to do it. Money IS an integral part of the real world equation. Almost every industry depends on energy and when energy costs increase, everyone's prosperity decreases. Given the condition of our economy, I haven't heard too many people who have much money to spare, and we in the US have it better than almost the whole rest of the world. Who gets to be "that guy" who has to tell hundreds of millions of 3rd world folks that they'll have to continue living in 3rd world poverty because those of us fortunate enough to be living in relative luxury in the first world that was made possible by cheap energy have decided that the party's over and we all need to stop burning cheap fuel sources in favor of cleaner, WAY more expensive sources of energy? SUX 2 be you, so sorry.

"What is the energy source of the hydrogen separation process? Again, it could be solar energy, in which case the conversion efficiency doesn't really matter, except for the capital costs of the plant."

...except for the capital cost of the plant AND the unreliability of the power source.

Hydrogen fuel cells have been around for a looooong time, it's not new technology, but I bet you don't own any. Ditto for solar cells. So many people think these two items are a big part of the answer to our energy needs, but I've yet to find even one of them who has made the choice to derive most of their own personal energy needs from a fuel cell or solar array (unless they live on a boat in the Caribbean). Virtually none of these people who advocate for solar panels and fuel cells have actually chosen to make the capital investment necessary to use them for the bulk of their own energy needs. Why? I imagine it's for the same reason the rest of us don't. They cost way too much and aren't reliable enough to depend on so you have to duplicate their potential to produce energy using another source. If it's not good enough for you, what makes you think it's good enough for us?

[jwing]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Not true the car and batteries have to be manufactured. Unlikely that you will be mining, smelting, and rolling steel using alternate energy sources in our lifetime.

OK. how is that different from an internal combustion powered car?

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Not true for coal fired power plants...http://electricdrive.org/index.php?h...ction/id/27895

I may have misinterpreted this article (my native language is American, not English ), but I'm pretty sure that article says that electric cars are less polluting than petrol (gasoline in the USA) combustion cars. Right there in the graph on page 2 and in the last paragraph on page 3.

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

This doesn't seem to make sense if using an apples to apples comparison. The power grid is wires, poles, and transformers. Pretty reliable stuff.

Yes, the electricity grid is pretty reliable. However, have you ever had an outage due to weather, or a substation component failing, a tree falling on a transmission wire? Now let's say you operate a hospital surgery suite or the regional emergency medical center. or an important data center, or a refrigerated food warehouse. Pretty reliable is not good enough. You need EXTREMELY reliable. Fuel cells are extremely reliable. Grid reliability varies by location and in the USA, it is generally trending downward.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by jwing

OK. how is that different from an internal combustion powered car?


Your original quote was that electric cars could be zero emission. It wasn't about comparisons to petrol cars.



I may have misinterpreted this article (my native language is American, not English ), but I'm pretty sure that article says that electric cars are less polluting than petrol (gasoline in the USA) combustion cars. Right there in the graph on page 2 and in the last paragraph on page 3.

Your original quote said that pollution from power plants was less than from (petrol) cars. That is not true for coal fired plants according to the article.




Yes, the electricity grid is pretty reliable. However, have you ever had an outage due to weather, or a substation component failing, a tree falling on a transmission wire? Now let's say you operate a hospital surgery suite or the regional emergency medical center. or an important data center, or a refrigerated food warehouse. Pretty reliable is not good enough. You need EXTREMELY reliable. Fuel cells are extremely reliable. Grid reliability varies by location and in the USA, it is generally trending downward.

The comparison should probably be with power plants and not the grid. Fuel cells are good for the short term backup power.

I think you need to think in terms of the total life cycle energy costs for any system. Also, you would need to include one battery set replacement for an electric car. There is also disposal and recycle energy requirements.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

"It is true that it requires energy to break hydrogen way from oxygen or carbon; more energy than will be usable on the conversion in the fuel cell."

So when you make hydrogen you end up with less energy potential than you started with, while spending a lot of money to do it. Money IS an integral part of the real world equation. Almost every industry depends on energy and when energy costs increase, everyone's prosperity decreases. Given the condition of our economy, I haven't heard too many people who have much money to spare, and we in the US have it better than almost the whole rest of the world. Who gets to be "that guy" who has to tell hundreds of millions of 3rd world folks that they'll have to continue living in 3rd world poverty because those of us fortunate enough to be living in relative luxury in the first world that was made possible by cheap energy have decided that the party's over and we all need to stop burning cheap fuel sources in favor of cleaner, WAY more expensive sources of energy? SUX 2 be you, so sorry.

"What is the energy source of the hydrogen separation process? Again, it could be solar energy, in which case the conversion efficiency doesn't really matter, except for the capital costs of the plant."

...except for the capital cost of the plant AND the unreliability of the power source.

Hydrogen fuel cells have been around for a looooong time, it's not new technology, but I bet you don't own any. Ditto for solar cells. So many people think these two items are a big part of the answer to our energy needs, but I've yet to find even one of them who has made the choice to derive most of their own personal energy needs from a fuel cell or solar array (unless they live on a boat in the Caribbean). Virtually none of these people who advocate for solar panels and fuel cells have actually chosen to make the capital investment necessary to use them for the bulk of their own energy needs. Why? I imagine it's for the same reason the rest of us don't. They cost way too much and aren't reliable enough to depend on so you have to duplicate their potential to produce energy using another source. If it's not good enough for you, what makes you think it's good enough for us?

If you use solar or wind to make hydrogen, you do not end up with less energy than you started with since you started with nothing; you are essentially using hydrogen to store and transport that energy in a form that is 100% available.

Wow, you made a mighty leap from my answering a question of where does the energy for electric cars come from to me telling poor people that they need to stay poor. There's a lot you missed in that leap, by the way, like how "3rd world" countries are taking advantage of technological advances, while the redneck USA is choosing to stay behind. Here's an example we can all agree on: cellphones. Some countries completely skipped building telephone transmission grids and were faster in universal adoption of cell phones than the USA was. Now the USA can't build a cell phone and are forced to buy from people who you consider "3rd world."

You seem to be unaware of many corporations and individuals throughout the world, including the USA, who have invested in alternative energy sources, including fuel cells. But like I said, I'm not proselytizing, just stating facts. I always wonder why people get defensive when they are shown the facts.

The unreliability of solar and wind energy is not an issue. Annual average insolation and wind resource is well-known. So if you want to make X amount of hydrogen per year, and your process requires Y amount of electricity per year, you build a photovoltaic generation plant be capable of creating Y times whatever safety factor you want using the average yearly insolation. It's capital intensive, but it's not rocket science. This is an area that the redneck USA is lagging and will be second- or third-tier in my lifetime.

From an economic viewpoint, all change brings on opportunity. Established industries are challenged by new paradigms. If they adopt they will flourish along with the new economy. If they stubbornly resist changes, they will die off. If a society buys into the old-schoolers' fear mongering of economic catastrophe, the whole society will slip into obsolescence. This has happened many times in the past. It is exactly what is happening in the USA.

You are correct about needing standby generating and transmission capability in the case of people putting PV arrays on their roofs and feeding their excess onto the grid. There may be some benefit to doing so, but net-metering is forced on the utilites by state and local governments, and is one of the stupidest policies that exist. And that is saying a LOT.

Speaking of misguided policies, when you discuss costs, you do not mention the societal costs of obtaining and burning fossil fuels (like health, ecosystem degradation). These costs are not embedded in the prices of fuel or electricity as they should be. If they were (say like a carbon tax), the financial considerations of clean energy would shift substantially. It's very difficult to assess a monetary value on those costs; I hope people take individual responsibility before it is forced upon them by government edict.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Your original quote said that pollution from power plants was less than from (petrol) cars. That is not true for coal fired plants according to the article.

I don't mind be mistaken once, but I want to be accurate the second time. Where in that report does it say that petrol cars are cleaner than coal-fired plants?

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

The comparison should probably be with power plants and not the grid. Fuel cells are good for the short term backup power.

Power plant availability is FAR less than the grid. Boiler plants are taken off line for weeks at a time every year or two. And that's just for scheduled maintenance. It is the grid that allows a diversified portfolio of generating stations to keep availability fairly high. Fuel cells are currently be used as primary power sources in some hospitals, where reliable power is essential and there is a use for the heat which is a by-product of fuel cells. Those hospitals use the grid as their code-mandated backup power source. The reason hospitals do this is purely financial.

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I think you need to think in terms of the total life cycle energy costs for any system. Also, you would need to include one battery set replacement for an electric car. There is also disposal and recycle energy requirements.

I am neither a proponent or opponent of electric cars; I'm just relating some of the facts. I do a life-cycle cost analysis on all my high capital purchases. I could not justify an electric car or even a hybrid. And that was when my sole reason to buy a car was to burn less gas. (I already had a perfectly good pickup truck that I wanted to keep.)

Yes, all financial decisions should be made on a life-cycle cost basis. Then we would be arguing about what the costs are. However, this much I know for sure: all energy life-cycle analyses that I have ever done (it's what I do professionally) prove that reducing the demand is more cost effective than:
1) not reducing the demand;
2) investing in expensive technology to make energy efficiency improvement without first reducing the demand.
I also know that the economy can and will shift toward reducing energy demand without individuals, companies, or companies suffering - except oil companies who refuse to adapt. Lots of people will make lots of money in this shift; it is already happening despite what Rush Limbaugh, et. al. have to say about it.