Fuel economy and hybrids

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/audis-rotary-power-shock-20100303-ph0n.html

As per the discussion had here a while ago - new audi will come with a
250cc engine running at a fixed rpm and only charging the batteries

Not a diesel though. Wankel petrol.

JL

 

Their figures don't add up either
they claim 1.9 litres per 100 kilometres with a 12 litre tank gives it a 250
kilometre range
Not to my addition, which comes to about 630 kilometres a tankful and that
is only running the generating motor

 

That does, indeed, sound like what is happening.

I wonder if it was intentional, or if they thought that the vehicle
would be able to proceed purely under the petrol system's generated
electricity, and only found out at testing that it wouldn't.

It would seem that their claimed fuel consumption claim is rather sneaky....
not counting the electricity shoved into the batteries before it starts.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Possibly, a less cynical reading would be that the form factor clearly
calls it out as a city car and hence they aren't expecting you to take
it on the highway, so you'll be charging it several times per tank of
fuel (given average distance travelled for that sort of car was circa
40Km per day - IIRC).

If you counted the cost of charging the batteries you'd be lucky to
move the consumption rate ie convert $2.50 worth of power spent
charging it into an extra 2litres of fuel consumed for the same range
and I doubt that moves the consumption far

JL

 

On another angle of alleged low-emission vehicles there was a snippet
on the news this morning saying that if every household in Oz had a
main-charged electric vehicle, we would need to double the number of
coal-fired power stations in the country. Another item said that the
two new proposed power stations for NSW would emit greenhouse gases
equal to the current NSW vehicle fleet.

Do we really want coal-powered electric cars?

Theo

 

I'd prefer nuclear powered electric cars and shut down the coal
powered stations, thanks.

JL

 

I'd prefer nuclear powered electric cars and shut down the coal
powered stations, thanks.

JL


*******************

I am with Mister Littlejohn on this issue

 

Yeah - I was listening to that when it went to air.

The concept of being able to tell your car whether you knew you only
needed to travel 20km the next day to and from work and therefore the
car could dump power back into the grid, or altenatively you knew you
had a long trip and you grabbed full power down is a nice concept.

We still need to get this power generated cleanly though. Cold fusion
anyone? Or maybe a good Timex clock mechanism?

Kev

 

I wonder how much you lose on the transfer in charging the vehicle and
then feeding it back to the grid though. I would think probably in the
order of 20% or more. This loss is literaly going up in smoke.

I try to mange my home power as best I can. My meter reads power used
by time of day/rate and power fed back into the grid by my solar
cells. I read it daily. OK, I'm retired and need to fill in my time.
My currrent daily usage is around 20-24Kwh per day, with close ot 45%
at off-peak rates and less than 10% at peak rates (the solar panels
mostly generate power at peak rates). My power costs for February was
$3.47 per day. An electric car would likely double that usage. Just
how much does an electric car use per km? At what speed. For me, an
electric vehicle would need to be able to travel 100+ kms between
charges with half of the distance at highway speeds. To drive my ute
100 kms costs $11.40, and burns no coal.

Theo

Theo

 

How about this then

http://www.mrsharkey.com/charging2.htm

While studies of the pollution-reducing ability of electric vehicles
in California are quite favorable, they cannot be applied to the rest
of the world as a whole. The truth is that when using electricity
generated from dirty sources such as coal and oil, electric vehicles
may actually create more of some pollutants than comparable internal
combustion engine vehicles. A report by the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) cited a German study that estimated the environmental
impact of electric vehicles with two distinct energy mixes: one
comprised of only 49% coal-fired electricity, and one comprised solely
of coal-fired electricity [1]. The estimates provided by the study are
given in table 1. Assuming that 49% of an electric vehicle's charging
energy being derived from coal, the study found that electric vehicles
would cause comparable levels of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide to
be emitted, and that sulfur oxide emissions would increase by a factor
of 10 [1]. Furthermore, when assuming that an electric vehicle is
charged with 100% coal-fired electricity, the study estimated that the
electric vehicles would emit 150% more carbon dioxide, 250% more
nitrogen oxides, and 2400% more sulfur oxides than a comparable
internal combustion engine vehicle [1].
[1] Electric Vehicles: Likely Consequences of U.S. and Other Nations'
programs and Policies. (1994). In Gateway Japan. [20 November 1995].

I think Oz grid electricity production is around 80% coal.

Theo

 

Lots of Australian electricity production uses brown coal and not black
coal and that creates more pollution again.


G-S

 

Brown coal is like burning damp cow-pats. It may even be damp cow-
pats.

Theo

 

Did the sums and my CBR1000RR is using 8l/100kms which is pretty piss poor for
a bike.

Fraser

 

Well, until you start doing the sums for a one or two seater four wheeler,
that offers comparable performance and frequently uses it anyway. Cheers

 

<Baffled look> Why on earth would you even be caring about the fuel
consumption of a serious sports bike ? Do they even measure the fuel
consumption of a Ferrari ?

If it was a CB250, sure.

And for an engine putting out what 120Kw per litre capacity or
thereabouts I think that's pretty reasonable fuel economy btw.

JL

 

Yes, it's the no free lunch thing - if you want power you need to burn
fuel. Engine design is about finding better ways to burn the fuel.

 

And when you start to factor tyre and servicing costs in as well. I
recall I worked at one stage on the Budgie, I was burning as much
money on tyres as I was on fuel, per km.

Kev

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:16:03 GMT

THe Noggie gets about 320km for 19l around town, so that's 5.9l/100km
or 16.8km/l. The Mighty Scooter does about the same, but $60 tyres
every 15,000 are cheaper than $220 tyres every 15,000!

Beign a twoey the scooter's easier to service but the Norge doesn't
need a litre of bloody expensive 2 stroke oil every 1000km!

But then if I'd wanted cheap transport I'd not have chosen a heavy
1200 or a hot two stroke. The Bolwell scooters seem to run on the
smell of other people's petrol.

Zebee

 

I was melting budgie rears at $300 every 2500km for a while, then
decided that I really need to go to a harder compound . . . 5000km I
don't mind but 2500km was a bit excessive. Especially as I was riding
100km per day. But they did build a racetrack to my front door, the
bastards.

Kev

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:24:42 +1030

Probably less stressed than the Norge in Sydney traffic.

If I don't ask it to lanesplit for 1m at a time, it does better.

Zebee