TheEEStory.com

cechilders wrote:

Are you suggesting that all Zenn stock holders need remedial teaching? Maybe I can type s-l-o-o-w-e-r.

Does that help?

You *need* to put lots of random *emphasis* in your posts.

That normally *does* the job.

Genius!

Shock absorbers that generate electricity, which are being developed by Cambridge, MA-based Levant Power, can lower fuel consumption by 1.5 to 6 percent, depending on the vehicle and driving conditions. The system can also improve vehicle handling.

...

As in a conventional shock absorber, the Levant technology uses a piston moving through oil to damp down movement. But Levant has developed a modified piston head that includes parts that spin as it moves through the oil, turning a small generator housed within the shock absorber. To improve vehicle handling, the power controller uses information from accelerometers and other sensors to change the resistance from the generators, which stiffens or softens the suspension. For example, if the sensors detect the car starting a turn, the power controller can increase the resistance from the shock absorbers on the outer wheels, improving cornering, says David Diamond, the vice president of business development at Levant.

source

Lensman seems to think that they keep the boilers fed at full capacity regardless of the generation requirement.

In the same way that you keep your oven on 24x7 regardless of your cooking needs. Not.

He also seems to think that when the steam is not being used to drive the turbines, it stays in the system rather than being vented to maintain system pressure.

Geofree wrote:

They still stink to high heaven and when you use diesel you give Terrorist money to bomb us :(

Diesel buyers also give the Government thick wads of tax $ to pay for invasions of future terrorist countries so we can pre-emptively bomb the future terrorists back into the middle ages before they can bomb us. Win/Win situation!

Btw, how much oil do we buy from terrorists anyways...? Last I looked it was approximately none-at-all, happy to be proven wrong?

Lensman wrote:

I'll stop taking Tec to task when he stops being intellectually dishonest.

And when will *you* stop?

Lensman wrote:

He claims batteries have about 1% of the energy density of diesel; it's actually *double* what he claims

*Prove* it?

Lensman wrote:

Synthetic diesel puts just as much pollution-- including carbon monoxide, sulfur compounds, and carcinogens-- into the air we breathe as does diesel from natural oil

BS

Wiki wrote:

synthetic diesel has 30% lower particulate emissions than conventional diesel Source

The fact is that diesel engines have far greater emission controls than US power stations, they emit less CO, Na, particulates and carcogenics and less radioactive waste.

"intellectually dishonest" - give it a break.

X_Y_Z wrote:

Taxes? I don't know, I do know it hurt truckers and driven food costs up the last few years. A few years back during the spike it drove or nearly drove many truckers out of buisness. Years back it was cheaper than reg gas here too, but not now.

Cheaper as in $/mile or as in $/gallon?

seslaprime wrote:

student wrote:

According to a study by Envronmental Science and Technology, the Average lifecycle emissions are actually "670 g CO2-eq/kWh" electricity in the "U.S. avg. scenario" (ref35)

Thats higher than the 612g CO2/kWh I used. Hmmmmm... Looks like you're gonna have a hard time backing THAT argument up Seslaprime.

I do not care to back anything up. because "it does not matter". your argument is completely irrelevent. it will not effect the fact that the EV is the best alternative to the ICE. the Auto manufacturer's, you know, the guys who decide what you will be driving in the future? tend to agree with me. so enjoy.

Looks to me like the mainstream view from the auto manufacturers is Hybrid and Range-extender, not BEV.

Good analysis Student : places Tesla-like EVs as *decent* alternatives to the average car for reducing GHGs, but not the *ONLY* alternative and generally not the *BEST* alternative.

After seeing what Range-Extenders have done in buses (30% reduction in fuel use and emissions - link), I am looking forward to seeing what the Volt, Audi A1 e-tron, etc will be able to do.

It's certain that they will be able to outperform Telsa-like EVs in every area (except 0-60 time), based on the figures in the OP.

*** Moderator

off topic post removed

Last edited Fri, 07 May 2010, 4:43am by Moderator

RmW wrote:

student wrote:

I'm all for reducing the emissions related to the production of electricity. They are huge.

Yes, but maybe not as big as the emissions spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for your Jetta, etc.

And pretty much everything you consume, own, rent, have borrowed, etc.

Your point is...?

Oh, and as for oil price - so what? Why not put the Zenn stock price on that chart as well? It's just as meaningful.

Lensman wrote:

trick wrote:

So nobody owns their own apartment in Lensworld?

My *point* is that anyone who owns their own home can reduce the carbon footprint of their EV by installing solar panels on their roof.

Your point is that not everyone owns his own home. And so? I never said they did.

You get an "F" for reading comprehension. But by all means, when you've lost the argument, try to distract from that by insulting the other guy.

You can keep your F. Glad that you appreciate that your insults only serve to prove your own inadequacy.

My *point* is that people *do* own apartments, where it is *difficult*, if not *impossible*, to install PV cells.

These people, who are in the *majority*, need to rely on the *grid* for their electricity.

While *other* technology can *quickly* move to *improve* efficiency, the *majority* of BEV owners are *stuck* with a *dirty* grid for *decades* to come.

(Thought it might be *easier* for you to read if I use lots of *pointless* *emphasis*. No need to thank me.)

Does the local tax office know about this?

Lensman wrote:

student wrote:

Satellites do not provide better phone service than regular cell phones get from cell-towers. Satellites do not provide better TV reception than cable companies.

Your willingness to display your ignorance on virtually every subject raised in this forum never ceases to amaze me, "Student". Both long-distance phone service-- regardless of whether the call ends in a cellphone or not-- and cable TV service use satellite communications as an integral part of the system.

Commenting out of your depth again.

The vast majority of all satellite traffic is 1-way. I can only guess at why you think that's better than the alternatives.

Last edited Tue, 27 Apr 2010, 1:58pm by trick

Lensman wrote:

I think pretty much everyone here understands that the category "home owner" does not include people who rent an apartment.

So nobody owns their own apartment in Lensworld? LOL.

Hey, look! I found you a new avatar! Wear it with pride :)

Lensman wrote:

trick wrote:

On the other hand, ICE-based cars are already breaking the 100g/km CO2 band (source), and will continue to do so as efficiencies rise and alternate technologies (Capstone, REX, etc) become mainstream.

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison, "Trick". You're ignoring the amount of carbon emitted in extracting, refining, transporting, and dispensing the gasoline/diesel needed to power the gas guzzler.

I am also ignoring the CO2 emitted in extracting / refining the raw material needed for the Tesla's electricity generation.

The PV cells in your picture are responsible for CO2 emissions of 35-58g/kwh, depending on how much sunlight they get.

This kind of micro-generation is rare and will always be rare until affordable multi-kwh PV units the size of a satellite dish can be domestically installed.

In the meantime, how long before the average grid emissions can match even 58g/kwh?

Lensman wrote:

trick wrote:

Now, how can Telsa effectively improve on this? The answer is : not easily. As you have shown, they already have very high efficiencies for charging and the motor, and they already have regen braking.

I admire you here, "Trick"-- in the way I admire a clever snake-oil salesman. That's a good job of misdirection, altho distinctly lacking in honesty.

Ahh, you couldn't resist making it personal could you? As usual, another perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Lensman wrote:

It's not up to EV makers deal with the problem of the electric grid getting far too much of its energy from coal. EVs themselves have a very "clean" operation. It's up to governments and the electric utilities to make grid energy more "green".

As I said : decades.

Lensman wrote:

But any home owner can reduce the carbon imprint of his EV. No need to wait for the grid to improve.

Completely untrue.

Where do you suggest the owner of the 3rd story appartment installs their PV cells?

A few sites have calculated the CO2 emmitted per kw/h in the US. In this example they state that the average 1kw/h = 0.45kg CO2 in the US.

Using your Tesla figures, the battery is 53kwh, meaning that we need to generate 66.27kwh to fill the battery, which at 0.45kg/kwh will produce 29.82kg of CO2.

With a useful range of 185miles (297km) (source), when charged from the US grid, the Telsa produces ~100g/km CO2.

Now, how can Telsa effectively improve on this? The answer is : not easily. As you have shown, they already have very high efficiencies for charging and the motor, and they already have regen braking.

Realistically, any improvement has to come from a change in the national grid energy mix.

Any significant change here will take decades.

On the other hand, ICE-based cars are already breaking the 100g/km CO2 band (source), and will continue to do so as efficiencies rise and alternate technologies (Capstone, REX, etc) become mainstream.

Maenwhile, the best that Tesla can hope for in the short term is a significant reduction in the mass of the battery pack. Good job they didn't bet their business on that eh, Zenn?