The Great Powertrain Robbery

[Screwdriver]

Bit harsh...Nuclear is mentioned in the first section and then is not lumped in with fossil fuels in the "non renewable" section.

Nuclear isn't renewable even though it's zero emission.

OK, had another look. It seems nuclear is no longer a so called renewable, at least that's progress. I remain skeptical but the idea the grid could cope with 100% ev deserves further consideration (when I get my broadband back).

[Mr. Dazzle]

Well it anyone would know, you'd assume the National Grid would. I think their proper paper on the subject has all the workings out.

The bigger surprise is just how much consumption has reduced by IMO.

[Screwdriver]

Might as well ask a fisherman if we should eat more fish but I take your point and it's an interesting development, not something I would blindly refute.

[Mr. Dazzle]

It's the main way modern engines make more power than old ones, reducing internal friction and reduction of the mass of moving components

Modern pistons, rings and oil help, but credit must be due to the fluid dynamics of modern intakes, combustion chambers and exhausts. Then there’s fuel mixture control and super duper ignitions.

Back on topic though, this ^^^ is the really big thing.

Consider for example my auld Trumpet which can just about run "high compression" 11:1 pistons if it is fuelled with super duper fuel and doesn't get mega hot.

My wife's 15 year old Honda Civic on the other hand has 140k on it and will run 13:1 all day long on Tescos cheapo jungle juice.

Compression ratio is the absolute dogs dangles for making engines more powerful and efficient. In fact it's pretty much the ONLY thing which you can do to add performance, everything else is about reducing losses IYSWIM.

[demographic]

It's about 60-80% "grid to wheel" depending on a number of factors. ICE is about 15-30% "nozzls to wheel" for comparison.

Hell of a lot of energy (and infrastructure) to go from "Underground to Nozzle" as well.

[wull]

It's the main way modern engines make more power than old ones, reducing internal friction and reduction of the mass of moving components

Modern pistons, rings and oil help, but credit must be due to the fluid dynamics of modern intakes, combustion chambers and exhausts. Then there’s fuel mixture control and super duper ignitions.

Back on topic though, this ^^^ is the really big thing.

Consider for example my auld Trumpet which can just about run "high compression" 11:1 pistons if it is fuelled with super duper fuel and doesn't get mega hot.

My wife's 15 year old Honda Civic on the other hand has 140k on it and will run 13:1 all day long on Tescos cheapo jungle juice.

Compression ratio is the absolute dogs dangles for making engines more powerful and efficient. In fact it's pretty much the ONLY thing which you can do to add performance, everything else is about reducing losses IYSWIM.

As oppose to lower compression and forced induction, I mean that’s definitely not the dog danglies for more power

[Mr. Dazzle]

Tis a red herring though, cause you need to consider compression from the outside world if that makes sense.

That's the fundamental reason turbos can make engines more efficient. They increase the overall CR with a smaller increase in pumping losses.

Doesn't just apply to piston engines BTW, anything which has the ol' suck/squeeze/bang/blow. Jet engines for example.

[Cousin Jack]

I do enjoy the lithium thing.

Where do fossil fuels come from, if not the ground? You have to dig up Lithium to make Lithium Ion batteries yes...but you also have to dig up oil/gas/coal which you only get to use once.

For oil/gas you drill a hole.

For mining metals you dig up 25 tons of rock to get 1 ton of ore. Then you use all sorts of toxic chemicals to get maybe 10 lbs of metal. You are then left with 1000 gallons of highly toxic waste.

Of course in Africa/South America this is all ok. Nothing to do with me squire.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I don't deny mining Lithium is environmentally damaging. I just don't see how anyone can, with a straight face, make that argument against it as some kind of argument for fossil fuel production which is an environmental disaster.

[Rockburner]

I do enjoy the lithium thing.

Where do fossil fuels come from, if not the ground? You have to dig up Lithium to make Lithium Ion batteries yes...but you also have to dig up oil/gas/coal which you only get to use once.

For oil/gas you drill a hole.

For mining metals you dig up 25 tons of rock to get 1 ton of ore. Then you use all sorts of toxic chemicals to get maybe 10 lbs of metal. You are then left with 1000 gallons of highly toxic waste.

Of course in Africa/South America this is all ok. Nothing to do with me squire.

You do realise that "petrol" is only about 1/4 of what's in crude oil? (That figure is a guess, but it's in the right ballpark from what I remember). Depends on the crude source, but refining outputs mostly much heavier stuff iirc.

[Cousin Jack]

Well it anyone would know, you'd assume the National Grid would. I think their proper paper on the subject has all the workings out.

The bigger surprise is just how much consumption has reduced by IMO.

And now their capacity is in the wrong places. Grid designed for big power stations near big steel works, big factories, etc. Now we have wind/solar generation scattered all over, and demand has changed radically too. IIRC a Commons debate slated the National Grid very recently, and basically told them to get off their arse and sort it out. At the moment places like the North of Scotland have to pay a huge interconnect fee, as I suspect do places like Wales and the South West, all of which are littered with wind farms

Demand has reduced, but it has changed too. That means the local distribution is also wrong, big demand is likely to come from housing with home charging, not from the big industrial estates that they planned for. Renewing local distribution in cities will be interesting to say the least.

[Horse]

Nuclear ... it's zero emission.

Great! No longer any need to wear lead underpants to protect against emissions!

[Count Steer]

Nuclear ... it's zero emission.

Great! No longer any need to wear lead underpants to protect against emissions!

It's not really zero. Construction (hoooge amounts of concrete), fuel mining, refinement, waste transport and treatment, decommissioning etc etc. Probably low carbon/kWh but not zero.

[Cousin Jack]

I don't deny mining Lithium is environmentally damaging. I just don't see how anyone can, with a straight face, make that argument against it as some kind of argument for fossil fuel production which is an environmental disaster.

All I am suggesting is that we (UK/Europe) slow down the headlong rush to switch to electric. Let's find the lithium, work out how to extract it safely, let's work out if it really is the best way forward, and not rush headlong into something. Yes, climate change may bite our arse, but the UK doing something will make very little impact, we will get bitten anyway.

I seem to recall not too long ago our Government encouraging the use of diesels because they emitted less CO2 per mile. They were also encouraging the use of wood-burning stoves as being 'renewable energy'. Diesels are now Public Enemy No 1, and I read a recent report that suggested that a wood burning stove can emit as many particles as about 750 trucks

[The Spin Doctor]

All I am suggesting is that we (UK/Europe) slow down the headlong rush to switch to electric. Let's find the lithium, work out how to extract it safely, let's work out if it really is the best way forward, and not rush headlong into something. Yes, climate change may bite our arse, but the UK doing something will make very little impact, we will get bitten anyway.

The 'not worth doing anything because no-one else is' argument.

I seem to recall not too long ago our Government encouraging the use of diesels because they emitted less CO2 per mile. They were also encouraging the use of wood-burning stoves as being 'renewable energy'. Diesels are now Public Enemy No 1, and I read a recent report that suggested that a wood burning stove can emit as many particles as about 750 trucks

That's because government knows scientists are wrong.