7% of transmitted power is lost to line transmission, that means 93% of it is used elsewhere. How is line loss the single biggest user of electricity? How is 7% larger than 93%? A large majority of generated electricity is used, a small percentage, 7% is lost in transmission.Jags said:
This will be a game changer
- Thread starter tony58
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
JRP3 said:
Because no other single entity consumes 7% or more of the produced electricity. And asking a question like "how is 7% bigger than 93%" is simply hot air. Its not, you and I both know its not and the question has no basis in refuting the 7% line transmission loss as a large waste of energy. You can retain your opinion of "its tiny" if you wish. At the rate of over 3.5 Million MwH/year for the US consumption, 7% of that number is ginormous.
Jags out.
Jags said:
That's all the statement was meant to convey. No other single sector of the economy...transportation or whatever...consumes as much power as is lost in transmission/distribution. It's simply one way to look at it. Not difficult to grasp. Rick
Please take the time to read what others post, it helps. Look at my post above and the link to Transmission Losses between 8-15%. That's my source. Willing always to consider other credible sources.
I was looking for numbers that backed up the claim that grid transmission losses were the largest single consumer of grid electricity. I've seen other claims stating the same thing, and I'm not saying I don't believe it, I was just thinking there would be data showing as much. In other words if transmission losses are the largest consumer of electricity then the second largest consumer must be known, and I was wondering what it was.jebatty said:
Well, here's an interesting bar graph:
http://www.energyliteracy.com/?p=134
ETA: His label "Lost in Generation Transmission" seems to indicate that he's taking into account the efficiencies of the generating facilities in addition to the transmission/distribution losses (mostly heat because of resistance)...it doesn't specifically address the question we're wondering about here, but I find the graph interesting in any case.
http://www.energyliteracy.com/?p=134
ETA: His label "Lost in Generation Transmission" seems to indicate that he's taking into account the efficiencies of the generating facilities in addition to the transmission/distribution losses (mostly heat because of resistance)...it doesn't specifically address the question we're wondering about here, but I find the graph interesting in any case.
Here is another interesting one. Note the conversions losses.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec8_3.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec8_3.pdf
Notice that chart uses 7% for transmission and distribution losses. To bring this back to the original topic, all the losses involved in generating and transmitting electricity will only be compounded by an air car, making it an inefficient use of electricity for transportation.
Interesting but nearly irrelevant. Your point would make much more sense if it was directed at other extremely inefficient uses of electricity, the incandescent light bulb, for example, which has losses of 90% to heat, only about 10% for light, and certain elements of the public heatedly argue to preserve this albatross against any effort to conserve electricity by switching to more efficient lighting. Similarly, the gas guzzling motor vehicle with 18 mpg or less and a single person being transported vs a 36 mpg+ vehicle transporting 4 persons and 8 times or more the efficiency. And the list goes on.
I know that I'm not going to sway your opinion, just like the horse and buggy advocate could not be swayed by the early gasoline engine or electric motor vehicles. And I will let the science, engineering and the market work it out for the air vehicle without dismissing it as a hair brained idea from the get go. Also makes me think of the demise of the Swiss watch, the typewriter, the dial phone, the vacuum tube, two cans with a string stretched between them, and ....
Let innovators and inventers do their work. Probably for every real good idea there are 1000 or maybe 100,000 ideas that don't work out. I would let the 1000 or 100,000 give it their best, because somewhere in there may be a paradigm changing revolution in thinking, in a product, or in a technology, and I would hate to throw that out with the bathwater.
Cheers.
mbcijim said:
Dont know what the tank is made of but pieces of it(and the car and its occupants) would be every where if it ruptured. One big bang and the company is bankrupt.Hell they are making a big deal out of volts that caught fire in storage 3 weeks after an accident.
keep in mind that some of those transmission losses are to heat, and its not really lost, its being used by our local non-migrating birds to keep their toes warm. think of all the frozen little birds we'd have if there were no losses....sad, toeless birds.
If you're not comparing the conversion losses to the inefficiencies of drilling oil, pumping, shipping to a refinery,refining into gasoline, shipping all the way to the gas pump, retrieving (driving to the gas station), pumping, and then converting gas into power in your car, then the conversion losses are entirely irrelevant. We are not talking about storing/generating electricity- we are talking about driving a car.
JRP3 said:
I find it hard to believe that the sum total costs and impacts of mining, transport and manufacturing a full set of batteries - per car, that is using rare-earth metals in its motor is going to be less than a simple air engine that is fueled by a solar driven, community compressor? Surely the costs into battery technology are greater than for an air system. A community charger for batteries is impractical due to the long time it takes to recharge each vehicles. That means lots of chargers which also have a cost and impact. I don't think this is so with a compressed air system which can refill a tank in minutes.
Looks like we really do need a flux capacitor here because as far as I know, right now, electric cars are somewhat of a luxury item. Without the Federal tax rebate, their sales would be quite small. Why? Batteries, charging systems and rare-earth motors are costly. If the Tata MiniCat sells for under $18K without subsidies, it has a large cost advantage, particularly if the operating and maintenance costs are very low. Pragmatically, it can be made with India's natural resources, not dependent on other countries for lithium or neodymium. I have to believe that this is part of the underlying assumptions. Tata is not a big gambler. They have a track record of really trying to improve transportation in India. If they bring this car to market, I fully expect it will be well thought out and tested. If it doesn't prove out, then they won't.
That solar driven compressor will provide much fewer "miles per charge" than charging a battery from those solar panels, which is a highly important factor. Electric motors do not need rare earth elements, that is a fallacy that keeps being perpetuated. Series DC motors, Sepex motors, Shunt motors, and AC induction motors, such as Tesla, (and many industrial machines use), don't require rare earth elements. Nor do lithium batteries. Regarding manufacturing inputs, I doubt high tech carbon fiber tanks capable of holding high pressure air are easily or cheaply manufactured either. If you want to do low tech low speed limited range vehicles powered from solar power simple EV's using lead acid batteries are going to be hard to beat. They can also be upgraded in the future with lithium cells, which would provide lower long term costs anyway.
Pointing out the inefficiency of the "air car" is quite relevant since that's the subject. Changing light bulbs, which I support, can be done no matter what technology is used for transportation. My point has always been that if we are going to use electricity for transportation the answer is not wasting a huge amount of it in "air cars" but using it much more efficiently in EV's. "Air cars" have never done what they claim and they never will because the efficiency of the forces involved won't allow it. The physics of compressing and expanding a gas are well understood, it's not cutting edge theoretical research.jebatty said:
Carbon is locally available. And low speed, short range is exactly why you initially criticized this car. (Though that is not proven. The original article claims for the car exceed your predictions.) Finally, in an urban area, where short range would be more acceptable, the 'fuel' would come from a few, grid powered air compressors or many grid powered electric chargers.
Yes I criticized the speed and range, but realize that if those parameters are acceptable then a NEV type EV could easily achieve them, with a more efficient use of electricity, grid or solar. I also provided a link to a very inexpensive version of such a vehicle with on board solar panels, the Sunnev. Since no one has demonstrated the claimed range of the air car and no one has even claimed any possible mechanism to expand the known limitations of compressed air as an energy storage concept for a vehicle I'm more than skeptical they will ever achieve their claims. `Yes carbon may be locally available, but the carbon fiber producing, laminating and weaving equipment, plus the high strength epoxy resins required, probably are not, and are not cheap.
To put it into perspective if someone claimed they were going to build an electric car using lead acid batteries that would have the claimed specs of the air car, yet did not claim to have had some unheard of breakthrough in lead acid technology and had not demonstrated such, most people would not believe those claimed specs would ever be achieved, and rightly so.
To put it into perspective if someone claimed they were going to build an electric car using lead acid batteries that would have the claimed specs of the air car, yet did not claim to have had some unheard of breakthrough in lead acid technology and had not demonstrated such, most people would not believe those claimed specs would ever be achieved, and rightly so.
I think you need to get up to date on India and their technology. Tata Advanced Materials would be a good start.
http://www.tamlindia.com/
http://www.tamlindia.com/
We can speculate until the cows come home. Let's wait and see what the final cost and performance of the vehicle is.
- Status
Similar threads
