[Tfug] OT: Battery Powered Transportation: Converting Thermal to Electrical Energy

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Charles,

> Thank you Bexley,

Don  :> 

> > I think the fallacy in the "article" you cite is the premise
> > that *all* transportation energy needs will be replaced with
> > electricity.
> 
> The article I cite is my own.

Yes, I assumed that by noting no author information in
the "Document Properties"  :>
 
> Firstly, the motive for electric vehicle transport is to
> make a significant impact on the consumption of hydrocarbon
> fuel by the transportation sector, ie. foreign fuel, perhaps
> using low-emission energy such as windmills, nuclear plants,
> etc.

See, this is where I disagree.  I don't think the impact will
be "significant" (a subjective term, of course... perhaps
my idea of significant differs from yours?).  I think this is
just part of an overall shift in mindsets that must (?) take
place to bring energy demands down to something more reasonable.

For example, to get people thinking about smaller vehicles
as *acceptable* modes of transportation.  Or, for a variety
of vehicles at your disposal to more closely fit your exact
"task specific" needs.

So, instead of driving your land yacht to the grocery store
half a mile away, you possibly walk (gasp!) instead.  Or,
use the eq 
> Secondly, the context of the article are the three orders
> of magnitude: 1) using only 10% (not *all*) of the
> transportation sector hydrocarbon energy consumption
> -converted to electricity WITHOUT ANY loss, 2) and again, on
> the consumption side, another order where vehicles are about
> 10 times more efficient than they are today, and 3) on the
> production side, that hypothetical nuclear power plants have
> ten times their current output.
> 
> All three orders to the *benefit* of the "electric vehicle
> argument" have to be unargued for electric vehicles to be a
> rational form of transportation.
> 
> I could've just as well argued, without the three orders,
> that there are needed 5,000 x 1,000 nuclear power plants.
> 
> ----
> 
> Also, moving electricity does have costs, called "loss of
> transmission" as does moving liquid fuel.  I disbelieve
> either of these losses are significant considering the
> context of the article (the three orders), being that it
> doesn't take several semitrailers of fuel to transport a
> semitrailer of fuel across the country.
> 
> Is my math wrong, my assumptions??
> 
> Perhaps there is an argument that battery powered vehicles
> will soon be thousands of times more efficient; I see no
> other.
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me,
> Charles
> --
> 
> This message and any attachments may contain information
> that is privileged or confidential, and is intended solely
> for the addressee.  If you recieved this message in
> error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete
> the message and any attachments.  Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>