GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

hi-tech

Despite using google for the last several weeks, I have not confirmed what I suspect, here is the issue somehow detailed.

The media is very often saying or quoting developers stating that due a new solar/wind installation, 'from now on x amount of pollution will not be created' [thrown out to the atmosphere], by the related power plants.

I dont believe it.

Really I would like to see a graph for different power plants, [specially oil burning], showing the relationship between load [power being  drawn from the generator] and oil consumption.

A graph let's say from no load to full load.

The media give the false impression there is a *direct relationship* [straigh graph line] between electric power consumption [load] and fuel/oil burning by the power plant.

We only need to take the issue to the extreme to prove it false.

Here is the extreme, let's say the  power plant is on/running but not "online", do that means the power plant will no consume any fuel?

When the power plant goes online, load applied, will not consume much more oil, the consumption may stay the same.

The reason is that utility companies have a calculated base load, no matter what, and "tune" the generator for that "number".

imo, some utilities sell cheaper during off peak hours for that very same reason, they have to burn the oil anyway.

The issue has to do with "megawatts per million BTUs", for which i got no data either,
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Mike Nickerson
What the papers are saying is essentially true.  As you increase the load on
a generator, it gets a LOT harder to turn.  That increases fuel consumption.
I don't think it will be a completely 0% load is 0% fuel and 100% load is
100% fuel linear ramp, but it will be close.  It probably takes around
10-20% fuel consumption to keep the power plant idling and ready to
generate.  Consider that overhead.

I think the other point you're getting at is speed of reaction time.  The
power grid has a mixture of plants that can react quickly and ones that are
slower.  The power companies try to use the plants that react slowly as the
base generation.  They use the faster plants for the peak load.  It is
expensive to have these plants on standby when they're not used, which is
why the power companies are always looking for ways to level out their peak
load.  It is worth money to them to have some equipment they can send a
signal to and cut off load.  Also, why they encourage off-peak usage with
pricing.

I would characterize the power plant fuel consumption based on load as
roughly linear, but with a fixed overhead.  

Note:  I don't know anything specific about power plant operations, and
would gladly defer to someone with more specific data, but much of this kind
of "falls out" from basic Physics properties.

Mike

P.S.  I really recommend that everyone play with a motor/generator pair.  It
is very informative to see exactly how different the drive energy has to be
into a generator when it's under load compared to no load.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of hi-tech
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:38 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [EVDL] GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?


Despite using google for the last several weeks, I have not confirmed what I
suspect, here is the issue somehow detailed.

The media is very often saying or quoting developers stating that due a new
solar/wind installation, 'from now on x amount of pollution will not be
created' [thrown out to the atmosphere], by the related power plants.

I dont believe it.

Really I would like to see a graph for different power plants, [specially
oil burning], showing the relationship between load [power being  drawn from
the generator] and oil consumption.

A graph let's say from no load to full load.

The media give the false impression there is a *direct relationship*
[straigh graph line] between electric power consumption [load] and fuel/oil
burning by the power plant.

We only need to take the issue to the extreme to prove it false.

Here is the extreme, let's say the  power plant is on/running but not
"online", do that means the power plant will no consume any fuel?

When the power plant goes online, load applied, will not consume much more
oil, the consumption may stay the same.

The reason is that utility companies have a calculated base load, no matter
what, and "tune" the generator for that "number".

imo, some utilities sell cheaper during off peak hours for that very same
reason, they have to burn the oil anyway.

The issue has to do with "megawatts per million BTUs", for which i got no
data either,


--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/GOING-GREEN-LES
S-POLLUTION-REALLY-tp3494648p3494648.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

hi-tech
mike,

i beleive very few people can speak with authority on this subject, so until i see hard data from manufacturer m ystate of mind wnt change.

I will give you an easier example for which i dont have data either, some here will possible have it.

What about a truck?, any truck. would like to see a graph for each additional 10 pounds.

At least manufactures should 'print" [maybe they do] no load, full load, half load.

not that i paid too much attention to that in the past, but my cars didn't care much [gas wise] being load or just the driver.

I would guess most plant are slow base load, even if they are fast [ i dont know any of them].... , what difference does it make -+ 1 megawatt load for a typical 500 mega power plant. That is 0.2%

BUT for any 1 mega green wind/solar they claim astronomical reduction in pollution.

I dont beleive them.

Even for 100kw they claim ridiculous pollutions savings !!!

that is only 0.02%,  right? [for a typical 500 mega w plant

imho, steam power plants increase and reduce capacity not by burning more or less oil but controllling the amount of steam utilized by the generator.

power plants moved by turbines[i beleive that's how they are called] is a different story.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Zeke Yewdall
How many power plants use oil for fuel?  A few up in the northeast, but it's
very uncommon compared to coal or natural gas.  Many of the natural gas
plants are gas turbines vs steam turbines, but the concept is still the
same... an overhead power use just to keep it up and running (probably
slightly less overhead), and then a fuel consuption per kWh that is more or
less linear.  Reaction time of the gas turbines is alot faster.

terms like "rediculous" and "astronomical" pollution savings mean
nothing.... This should be expressed in lbs or tons and then perhaps I could
actually comment on whether the numbers make any sense.

Z

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:38 AM, hi-tech <[hidden email]> wrote:

> mike,
>
> i beleive very few people can speak with authority on this subject, so
> until
> i see hard data from manufacturer m ystate of mind wnt change.
>
> I will give you an easier example for which i dont have data either, some
> here will possible have it.
>
> What about a truck?, any truck. would like to see a graph for each
> additional 10 pounds.
>
> At least manufactures should 'print" [maybe they do] no load, full load,
> half load.
>
> not that i paid too much attention to that in the past, but my cars didn't
> care much [gas wise] being load or just the driver.
>
> I would guess most plant are slow base load, even if they are fast [ i dont
> know any of them].... , what difference does it make -+ 1 megawatt load for
> a typical 500 mega power plant. That is 0.2%
>
> BUT for any 1 mega green wind/solar they claim astronomical reduction in
> pollution.
>
> I dont beleive them.
>
> Even for 100kw they claim ridiculous pollutions savings !!!
>
> that is only 0.02%,  right? [for a typical 500 mega w plant
>
> imho, steam power plants increase and reduce capacity not by burning more
> or
> less oil but controllling the amount of steam utilized by the generator.
>
> power plants moved by turbines[i beleive that's how they are called] is a
> different story.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/GOING-GREEN-LESS-POLLUTION-REALLY-tp3494648p3494860.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110504/41a8b0f9/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Dave Hymers
In reply to this post by hi-tech
Do you have a URL for the astronomical claims, I'd like to take a look.

Your basis for disbelief could use a bit of expanding beyond that. I too
have reservations about claims for CO2 reduction, but I think they're a lot
less severe than yours. For instance, installing a PV system does reduce
one's use of grid power, during the day you're not depending on burning
lumps of coal.

Any reasonable inquisitive mind will latch onto another source of emission
though; producing the raw materials, manufacturing, etc.. etc ... It's not a
question of saving CO2 once a system is running, be it a more efficient coal
plant or a PV array, every process we use to produce energy has embedded
energy, the only reasonable question you can ask, and spend a lifetime
answering, is which
process has the least ? which one has a more closed loop lifecycle ?

Again and again I an pretty sure Solar, and perhaps wind, will win out over
coal for mw / ton of Co2 but it's a very fluid argument and will likely
remain that way, especially if people have no idea it exists.

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:38 AM, hi-tech <[hidden email]> wrote:

> mike,
>
> i beleive very few people can speak with authority on this subject, so
> until
> i see hard data from manufacturer m ystate of mind wnt change.
>
> I will give you an easier example for which i dont have data either, some
> here will possible have it.
>
> What about a truck?, any truck. would like to see a graph for each
> additional 10 pounds.
>
> At least manufactures should 'print" [maybe they do] no load, full load,
> half load.
>
> not that i paid too much attention to that in the past, but my cars didn't
> care much [gas wise] being load or just the driver.
>
> I would guess most plant are slow base load, even if they are fast [ i dont
> know any of them].... , what difference does it make -+ 1 megawatt load for
> a typical 500 mega power plant. That is 0.2%
>
> BUT for any 1 mega green wind/solar they claim astronomical reduction in
> pollution.
>
> I dont beleive them.
>
> Even for 100kw they claim ridiculous pollutions savings !!!
>
> that is only 0.02%,  right? [for a typical 500 mega w plant
>
> imho, steam power plants increase and reduce capacity not by burning more
> or
> less oil but controllling the amount of steam utilized by the generator.
>
> power plants moved by turbines[i beleive that's how they are called] is a
> different story.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/GOING-GREEN-LESS-POLLUTION-REALLY-tp3494648p3494860.html
>  Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110504/611e4349/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

hi-tech
Zeke and Dave,

First of all keep in mind that most electric power in USA is generated by nuke plants [imho, but need to be proven wrong], no CO2, right?.

And btw, the real polllution comes from ICE vehicles, so let's "keep-on-trucking" but using EV.

http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=gh-gas&subpage=&external_estimator=

At the above link they say,

"Green House Gas Reduction

Our goal is to help the US reduce greenhouse gases by 4 million tons. That's about 20,566 solar energy systems installed.

So far we have help reduce 3,142,342 tons of greenhouse gases: 79% of our goal.

To date, more than 16,156 people have found Solar Professional installers/contractors through us. We assume each consumer inquiry results in a solar (PV) system installation with an average energy production of 11,340 kWh per year. This is the average energy use per household in the USA. To supply that amount of electricity, power plants would emit 7.79 metric tons of CO2 per year, or 194.5 tons over the 25-year estimated life of a PV system.

The US-EPA offers personal emissions calculators."
---

the above may not be the best example, but at least i see they are not providing straight data

they have a "goal" !!,
so what?

"we have help",
making you beleive something not proven. The fact is that  they only "assume".

Do you have an idea where they get the following data? [not from a nuclear plant]

'To supply that amount of electricity, power plants would emit 7.79 metric tons of CO2 per year, or 194.5 tons over the 25-year estimated life of a PV system.'

According to their numbers, 17174 lb of co2 is what the average house will force the power plant to 'produce' per year.

what they are saying is that if next saturday i go camping and turn off everthing at the house for that day, i will take
46 lb of co2 out of the air.

I dont beleive it.

Ask 1 million 'houses' in any small state, to turn off everything for a day, to test it. You should feel 46 million lbs less of co2, during that day. Will you?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Dave Hymers
"USA is generated by
nuke plants [imho, but need to be proven wrong]" -

EIA table on Energy production by source in BTU's -

http://www.eia.doe.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/txt/ptb0102.html

About 49% of generation capacity in the US is coal fired.

As for the goal of reducing emissions 4 million tons and being 79% of the
way there, it's not very hard to believe or a really astronomical figure
considering :

"*

Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
*

In 2009, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,633.2 Tg or million
metric tons CO2 Eq. While total U.S.

emissions have increased by 7.3 percent from 1990 to 2009, emissions
decreased from 2008 to 2009 by 6.1 percent

(427.9 Tg CO2 Eq.). This decrease was primarily due to (1) a decrease in
economic output resulting in a decrease in

energy consumption across all sectors; and (2) a decrease in the carbon
intensity of fuels used to generate electricity

due to fuel switching as the price of coal increased, and the price of
natural gas decreased significantly. Since 1990,

U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.4 percent.
" ---
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads11/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Executive-Summary.pdf


79% of 4 million tons of Co2 is well ... almost nothing, and considering
it's an estimated figure from a source installing
about 20,000 PV systems; that's not a lot in the scheme of things.
I don't think any of these figures are crazy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110504/12d8e8ff/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Mike Shipway
In reply to this post by hi-tech
Where did you get this idea? "most electric power in USA is generated by
nuke"
You are not even close to correct.
If you look at the January 2010 to January 2011 statistics at the Department
of Energy:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

20%    nuclear
47.1% coal
20.4% natural gas
7.1%   hydro
0.9%   petrolum
4.5%  other

Mike-


On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:47 PM, hi-tech <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Zeke and Dave,
>
> First of all keep in mind that most electric power in USA is generated by
> nuke plants [imho, but need to be proven wrong], no CO2, right?.
>
> And btw, the real polllution comes from ICE vehicles, so let's
> "keep-on-trucking" but using EV.
>
>
> http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=gh-gas&subpage=&external_estimator=
>
> At the above link they say,
>
> "Green House Gas Reduction
>
> Our goal is to help the US reduce greenhouse gases by 4 million tons.
> That's
> about 20,566 solar energy systems installed.
>
> So far we have help reduce 3,142,342 tons of greenhouse gases: 79% of our
> goal.
>
> To date, more than 16,156 people have found Solar Professional
> installers/contractors through us. We assume each consumer inquiry results
> in a solar (PV) system installation with an average energy production of
> 11,340 kWh per year. This is the average energy use per household in the
> USA. To supply that amount of electricity, power plants would emit 7.79
> metric tons of CO2 per year, or 194.5 tons over the 25-year estimated life
> of a PV system.
>
> The US-EPA offers personal emissions calculators."
> ---
>
> the above may not be the best example, but at least i see they are not
> providing straight data
>
> they have a "goal" !!,
> so what?
>
> "we have help",
> making you beleive something not proven. The fact is that  they only
> "assume".
>
> Do you have an idea where they get the following data? [not from a nuclear
> plant]
>
> 'To supply that amount of electricity, power plants would emit 7.79 metric
> tons of CO2 per year, or 194.5 tons over the 25-year estimated life of a PV
> system.'
>
> According to their numbers, 17174 lb of co2 is what the average house will
> force the power plant to 'produce' per year.
>
> what they are saying is that if next saturday i go camping and turn off
> everthing at the house for that day, i will take
> 46 lb of co2 out of the air.
>
> I dont beleive it.
>
> Ask 1 million 'houses' in any small state, to turn off everything for a
> day,
> to test it. You should feel 46 million lbs less of co2, during that day.
> Will you?
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/GOING-GREEN-LESS-POLLUTION-REALLY-tp3494648p3496612.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110504/951521db/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Dave Hymers
Thanks Mike :) That nice pie chart was what I was attempting to find.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110504/4b329f61/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Mike Nickerson
In reply to this post by hi-tech
When talking about CO2 emissions, it helps to keep in mind the chemical
formulas for the incoming hydrocarbons and the outgoing gasses.  I was
floored when I read that burning 1 gallon of gasoline (which weighs less
than 6.3 pounds) creates 20 pounds of CO2.  At first, I couldn't see how
that could happen.  However, CO2 is two oxygen atoms @ atomic weight of 16
and one Carbon @ atomic weight of 12.  It is much heavier than the
hydrocarbon we started with.   See:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml

Burning a pound of fuel causes a lot more CO2 emissions than you would
normally guess at first.

According to the following link, Coal generation creates about 2 pounds of
CO2 per kWh generated.  My conversion goes 4 miles per kWh, so that would be
about 0.5 pounds CO2 per mile (assuming all my power generation is coal,
which it isn't).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html

My relatively efficient ICE gets 30-35 MPG so it would be about 0.57 to 0.67
pounds CO2 per mile traveled.  My Suburban gets 10-12 miles per gallon, so
that would be about 2 pounds CO2 per mile traveled.

Since I live in the Pacific Northwest, the CO2 per kWh is quite a bit less.
We get a lot of power from hydro and much of the rest from natural gas.
Coal plants do exist, but are fairly rare compared to the Northeast.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of hi-tech
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:39 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

mike,

i beleive very few people can speak with authority on this subject, so until
i see hard data from manufacturer m ystate of mind wnt change.

I will give you an easier example for which i dont have data either, some
here will possible have it.

What about a truck?, any truck. would like to see a graph for each
additional 10 pounds.

At least manufactures should 'print" [maybe they do] no load, full load,
half load.

not that i paid too much attention to that in the past, but my cars didn't
care much [gas wise] being load or just the driver.

I would guess most plant are slow base load, even if they are fast [ i dont
know any of them].... , what difference does it make -+ 1 megawatt load for
a typical 500 mega power plant. That is 0.2%

BUT for any 1 mega green wind/solar they claim astronomical reduction in
pollution.

I dont beleive them.

Even for 100kw they claim ridiculous pollutions savings !!!

that is only 0.02%,  right? [for a typical 500 mega w plant

imho, steam power plants increase and reduce capacity not by burning more or
less oil but controllling the amount of steam utilized by the generator.

power plants moved by turbines[i beleive that's how they are called] is a
different story.



--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/GOING-GREEN-LES
S-POLLUTION-REALLY-tp3494648p3494860.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

hi-tech
In reply to this post by Mike Shipway
Mike,  

"Where did you get this idea? "most electric power in USA is generated by nuke" "

It was just the product of a short circuit in my head and shooting-from-the-hip-quick-typist. :)

your chart,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

proved me wrong, wasn't very sure anyway, let me save face by saying that I confused it with the *fact* that USA is in the list of 3 major users of nuke power, stand to be rectified. :)

nevertheless that is not the main issue i presented when initiated this thread,

the rest of the information provided by you and Dave is good to know but,

"Really I would like to see a graph for different power plants, [specially oil burning], showing the relationship between load [power being  drawn from the generator] and oil consumption." "A graph let's say from no load to full load."

finding the above information will possibly invert the polarization in my mind.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Matt Childress
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=power+plant+load+profile

Then hit the images button on the left.

M@

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of hi-tech
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:24 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Mike,  

"Where did you get this idea? "most electric power in USA is generated
by
nuke" "

It was just the product of a short circuit in my head and
shooting-from-the-hip-quick-typist. :)

your chart,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

proved me wrong, wasn't very sure anyway, let me save face by saying
that I
confused it with the *fact* that USA is in the list of 3 major users of
nuke
power, stand to be rectified. :)

nevertheless that is not the main issue i presented when initiated this
thread,

the rest of the information provided by you and Dave is good to know
but,

"Really I would like to see a graph for different power plants,
[specially
oil burning], showing the relationship between load [power being  drawn
from
the generator] and oil consumption." "A graph let's say from no load to
full
load."

finding the above information will possibly invert the polarization in
my
mind.

--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/GOING-GREEN
-LESS-POLLUTION-REALLY-tp3494648p3497578.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

gottdi
In reply to this post by hi-tech
Hi-Tech,

Maybe you can look at it this way. Not including the cost to make them or the pollution generated making them. Reason is that they will be or already have been made so the point is moot.

Take our solar panels of which we have 39 180W panels. All pumping out clean power daily to power our home and to charge my electric car. From day one there has been ZERO pollution generated from the setup.

Take our propane whole house generator for back up purposes only. Kind of like the standby power plants. It just sits idle all the time until I need emergency power. At which time it will fire up cold as can be and belch out pollution until it is no longer required to provide power. Granted it does not produce much because on the grand scale of things it's pretty tiny but it does produce pollution. While running to provide power it is at about half throttle even if we are not using all the power that is available. It is the minimum required to run to generate power. If we need power we have it at the ready. If we don't use it, it just gets wasted. If we need more than the minimum the generator will sense the extra required power and increase speed to the level we need power. If we still need more and it exceeds the demands that the generator can provide it shuts down. Oh drats, the private grid just crashed. When the power requirements go back to the level we can use it will start up again. The extra pollution from the accelerated generator is tiny compared to the constant power to sustain a minimum amount of power. Again it is usually not for more than a few hours then we are back on solar power once again. Yes, we are grid tied, for now.

A neighbor might have a whole house generator and he hates the power companies so he spends his money on the BIG OIL companies and uses an industrial generator 24/7. That generator will operate like mine at a minimum setting and will gladly sit like that all the time until the power requirements become greater than the capacity. The generator will power up faster but the actual fuel consumption is not that much extra.

The main consumption of fuel for any fuel powered power plant is in keeping it at a steady rate whether the power it being used or not. That is where the WASTE comes from. If you have a standby plant running that never really gets used but is being feed fuel it is a polluting giant. It is a waste of fuel and electricity and it pollutes our air.

The solar array down the street just sits there providing power. In a grid tie system it puts back into the grid and at night I take back out what I put in. Over the course of a year it balances out pretty much. At least here in California. I put in 1 and get back 1.

So there really is no need for a graph. If it uses coal, natural gas, propane, wood, nuclear or whatever it pollutes except solar, wind and water. These are clean sources of power. Now power generated could be wasted and not used but at least it's not making our ground water or ground or air polluted.

The end result is to clean our environment and not to save money. It's to save you and your children and their children.

So going green is LESS pollution. Less than what it would be if you did not go green. You must be smart about your going green but yes, it is always better. Even if it saves one ounce from before it is better. You can't argue that.

Pete :)

I am glad we produce our own clean power.

http://onegreenev.blogspot.com/
No need to wait any longer. You can now buy one off the shelf. You can still build one too.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Mike Chancey
In reply to this post by Mike Nickerson
Has anyone found the numbers for how much CO2 per gallon of gasoline is
created between the oil well and the gas pump?  I am sure it isn't zero,
but everyone seems to assume everything emitted by burning gasoline
comes out of the car.

To maintain fairness and balance the same info would be needed for coal
to include the mining and transportation to the power plant.

Thanks,

--
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
http://evalbum.com/106
EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://evtinker.com
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.evdl.org

In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
position. (Horace)

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Dave Hymers
That's the embedded energy ! :) People hardly ever think about it. The key
is to work that into every conversation about pollution and energy
consumption, after many discussions like this I still think solar comes out
on top, and a solar powered EV ? yeah !

I believe Neil Blanchard posted a good look at the embedded energy of oil as
a good example -
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/2010/09/oil-is-finite-electricity-is-infinite.html
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Mike Chancey <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Has anyone found the numbers for how much CO2 per gallon of gasoline is
> created between the oil well and the gas pump?  I am sure it isn't zero,
> but everyone seems to assume everything emitted by burning gasoline
> comes out of the car.
>
> To maintain fairness and balance the same info would be needed for coal
> to include the mining and transportation to the power plant.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mike Chancey,
> '88 Civic EV
> Kansas City, Missouri
> http://evalbum.com/106
> EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
> My Electric Car at: http://evtinker.com
> Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
> Join the EV List at: http://www.evdl.org
>
> In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
> position. (Horace)
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110505/e03b931a/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Matt Childress
In reply to this post by Mike Chancey
It's dangerous to descend into this argument:  if you're trying for a
magic number that the public can easily understand, the number of
assumptions that have to be made invalidate any real numbers -- for
example, where's your oil well located at, and where's your gas pump?
If your oil well is on land, near-by, it's easier, but you still got to
get the toxic stuff from the ground, to the refinery and then to the
pump and that typically means semi-truck tankers and mucho road
wear/damage.  If it's on the north shore (Alaska) do you calculate in
the manpower/equipment/materials for the building/repair/maintenance of
the pipeline and tankers (and then the semi-truck tankers for final
delivery)?  If it's in the ocean, do you count the clean-up costs
(energy/CO2) for the BP, Valdeez and countless other "minor spills"?  If
it's in the middle east, do you count all the military equipment used to
protect our national security (ie, oil economy)?  The amount of
CO2/energy it takes to create and grow a human to adulthood and train
them to be a soldier or a civilian job, and then waste 'em on oil
defense (ie, body count)?  Anything less would be an inaccurate picture
of the true cost of oil (even just from a CO2 perspective), and adding
all that up you would not get an answer that would be easily
communicated to the public at large (though I'm pretty sure it would be
"42").

The analysis, like oil, is not only messy but more importantly *a waste
of time* and *not fun*.  Anyone wanting to enter this argument is not
interested in change but defense of the status quo, so it is better to
thwart their wish to argue with FUN.  FUN is universal, and FUN is what
EV's are all about.  Focus on the EV Grins ;-)

On the electricity side, coal/natural gas/nuke-generated electricity is
*much* better, largely due to the efficiencies of electric motors and no
electricity wars -- here's a prettied up EPA analysis that originally
appeared in the New York Times: www.illinois.edu/goto/CO2 , but the grid
still has *severe* drawbacks (mountain topping, black lung, fracking,
nuclear "spills", en-situ leach mining).  HOWEVER, if you move to
sun-generated electricity (solar, wind, tidal--whoops, that's
moon-based), all most all of the assumptions and uncertainty in the oil
analysis disappears in the wind:  An EV, even charged on the current
grid, has the *option* in the future of moving to 100% renewable.  Over
time as the grid gets greener, your plug-in vehicle gets greener with
age (the exact opposite of an ICE).  A plug-in hybrid/range extended EV
also has the option of mainly being fueled on renewable.  An ICE/hybrid
does not.  Ever.  Until it's converted ;-)

Once you do a back-of-envelope analysis as above, you quickly come to
the realization that the debate over an accurate analysis is moot -- the
preponderance of the evidence makes the decision a no-brainer from any
angle -- environmental, national security and economic.

Show OPEC where to stick it, drive a plug-in.
Save a soldier:  go to the drive-in in your plug-in.
Frustrated over high gas prices?  You have an outlet - drive a plug-in!

M@

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Mike Chancey
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:21 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Has anyone found the numbers for how much CO2 per gallon of gasoline is
created between the oil well and the gas pump?  I am sure it isn't zero,

but everyone seems to assume everything emitted by burning gasoline
comes out of the car.

To maintain fairness and balance the same info would be needed for coal
to include the mining and transportation to the power plant.

Thanks,

--
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
http://evalbum.com/106
EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://evtinker.com
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.evdl.org

In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
position. (Horace)

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Dave Hymers
Those are some great bumper sticker ideas :D
I've shown a few people the Illinois EV Assoc. version of the EPA graph, the
easter bunny always gets a giggle.

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Childress, Matthew
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> It's dangerous to descend into this argument:  if you're trying for a
> magic number that the public can easily understand, the number of
> assumptions that have to be made invalidate any real numbers -- for
> example, where's your oil well located at, and where's your gas pump?
> If your oil well is on land, near-by, it's easier, but you still got to
> get the toxic stuff from the ground, to the refinery and then to the
> pump and that typically means semi-truck tankers and mucho road
> wear/damage.  If it's on the north shore (Alaska) do you calculate in
> the manpower/equipment/materials for the building/repair/maintenance of
> the pipeline and tankers (and then the semi-truck tankers for final
> delivery)?  If it's in the ocean, do you count the clean-up costs
> (energy/CO2) for the BP, Valdeez and countless other "minor spills"?  If
> it's in the middle east, do you count all the military equipment used to
> protect our national security (ie, oil economy)?  The amount of
> CO2/energy it takes to create and grow a human to adulthood and train
> them to be a soldier or a civilian job, and then waste 'em on oil
> defense (ie, body count)?  Anything less would be an inaccurate picture
> of the true cost of oil (even just from a CO2 perspective), and adding
> all that up you would not get an answer that would be easily
> communicated to the public at large (though I'm pretty sure it would be
> "42").
>
> The analysis, like oil, is not only messy but more importantly *a waste
> of time* and *not fun*.  Anyone wanting to enter this argument is not
> interested in change but defense of the status quo, so it is better to
> thwart their wish to argue with FUN.  FUN is universal, and FUN is what
> EV's are all about.  Focus on the EV Grins ;-)
>
> On the electricity side, coal/natural gas/nuke-generated electricity is
> *much* better, largely due to the efficiencies of electric motors and no
> electricity wars -- here's a prettied up EPA analysis that originally
> appeared in the New York Times: www.illinois.edu/goto/CO2 , but the grid
> still has *severe* drawbacks (mountain topping, black lung, fracking,
> nuclear "spills", en-situ leach mining).  HOWEVER, if you move to
> sun-generated electricity (solar, wind, tidal--whoops, that's
> moon-based), all most all of the assumptions and uncertainty in the oil
> analysis disappears in the wind:  An EV, even charged on the current
> grid, has the *option* in the future of moving to 100% renewable.  Over
> time as the grid gets greener, your plug-in vehicle gets greener with
> age (the exact opposite of an ICE).  A plug-in hybrid/range extended EV
> also has the option of mainly being fueled on renewable.  An ICE/hybrid
> does not.  Ever.  Until it's converted ;-)
>
> Once you do a back-of-envelope analysis as above, you quickly come to
> the realization that the debate over an accurate analysis is moot -- the
> preponderance of the evidence makes the decision a no-brainer from any
> angle -- environmental, national security and economic.
>
> Show OPEC where to stick it, drive a plug-in.
> Save a soldier:  go to the drive-in in your plug-in.
> Frustrated over high gas prices?  You have an outlet - drive a plug-in!
>
> M@
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Mike Chancey
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:21 AM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?
>
>  Has anyone found the numbers for how much CO2 per gallon of gasoline is
> created between the oil well and the gas pump?  I am sure it isn't zero,
>
> but everyone seems to assume everything emitted by burning gasoline
> comes out of the car.
>
> To maintain fairness and balance the same info would be needed for coal
> to include the mining and transportation to the power plant.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mike Chancey,
> '88 Civic EV
> Kansas City, Missouri
> http://evalbum.com/106
> EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
> My Electric Car at: http://evtinker.com
> Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
> Join the EV List at: http://www.evdl.org
>
> In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
> position. (Horace)
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110505/fdb7bda5/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Matt Childress
Thanks!  The keynote presentation (Apple's supe'd up powerpoint)
actually breaks it down step-by-step -- it's a pretty complex graph, and
deconstructing it and then building it back up step-by-step makes it a
lot more palatable.  The Easter Bunny is there to represent that all of
the fuels that are to the left (the better end of the graph) with the
exception of "grid electricity," are, with respect to the US, not
available to the public (ie, like the Easter Bunny, a figment of your
imagination).  I really should youtube the animated version someday.
Good learning experience for the 9-year-old over the summer, I think!
Also need to brush it up and then stick a creative commons license on
the various animated graphs so if people want to recycle it into their
presentations, they can.

I became interested in the CO2 issue and have looked at it upside down
and sideways after becoming involved with team TW4XP and the X-PRIZE's
decision to apply a CO2 adjustment to the electric vehicles in the
competition, which *to me* didn't sync up with their "plug to
wheels/pump to wheels" claim -- there were several EV's that were DQ'd
because of this rule -- including one of my favorites (Rick
Woodbury/Commuter Car's Tango).  It was in fact this rule choice that
made me initially disinterested and stop following the X PRIZE, and the
fact that the German manufacturers of the Twike (my EV) were going to be
in the US was what renewed my interest.

The renewed interest was well worth it (though I still disagree
regarding the claim that they measured from "plug to wheels" as an EV
emits zero CO2 between the plug and wheels), as meeting and getting to
know the co-competitors for the X PRIZE was life-changing.

The EPA data that the NY Time's graph demonstrates how moot the
CO2/ICE/EV argument is... I just sexed it up a bit and added the "100%
renewable" bar graph on the farthest left position.  Oh yes, and the
Easter Bunny ;-)  A copy of the original is here:
http://www2.grist.org/gristmill/images/user/8/nyt_comparing_fuels.jpg


M@


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Dave Hymers
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:09 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Those are some great bumper sticker ideas :D
I've shown a few people the Illinois EV Assoc. version of the EPA graph,
the
easter bunny always gets a giggle.

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Childress, Matthew
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> It's dangerous to descend into this argument:  if you're trying for a
> magic number that the public can easily understand, the number of
> assumptions that have to be made invalidate any real numbers -- for
> example, where's your oil well located at, and where's your gas pump?
> If your oil well is on land, near-by, it's easier, but you still got
to
> get the toxic stuff from the ground, to the refinery and then to the
> pump and that typically means semi-truck tankers and mucho road
> wear/damage.  If it's on the north shore (Alaska) do you calculate in
> the manpower/equipment/materials for the building/repair/maintenance
of
> the pipeline and tankers (and then the semi-truck tankers for final
> delivery)?  If it's in the ocean, do you count the clean-up costs
> (energy/CO2) for the BP, Valdeez and countless other "minor spills"?
If
> it's in the middle east, do you count all the military equipment used
to
> protect our national security (ie, oil economy)?  The amount of
> CO2/energy it takes to create and grow a human to adulthood and train
> them to be a soldier or a civilian job, and then waste 'em on oil
> defense (ie, body count)?  Anything less would be an inaccurate
picture
> of the true cost of oil (even just from a CO2 perspective), and adding
> all that up you would not get an answer that would be easily
> communicated to the public at large (though I'm pretty sure it would
be
> "42").
>
> The analysis, like oil, is not only messy but more importantly *a
waste
> of time* and *not fun*.  Anyone wanting to enter this argument is not
> interested in change but defense of the status quo, so it is better to
> thwart their wish to argue with FUN.  FUN is universal, and FUN is
what
> EV's are all about.  Focus on the EV Grins ;-)
>
> On the electricity side, coal/natural gas/nuke-generated electricity
is
> *much* better, largely due to the efficiencies of electric motors and
no
> electricity wars -- here's a prettied up EPA analysis that originally
> appeared in the New York Times: www.illinois.edu/goto/CO2 , but the
grid
> still has *severe* drawbacks (mountain topping, black lung, fracking,
> nuclear "spills", en-situ leach mining).  HOWEVER, if you move to
> sun-generated electricity (solar, wind, tidal--whoops, that's
> moon-based), all most all of the assumptions and uncertainty in the
oil
> analysis disappears in the wind:  An EV, even charged on the current
> grid, has the *option* in the future of moving to 100% renewable.
Over
> time as the grid gets greener, your plug-in vehicle gets greener with
> age (the exact opposite of an ICE).  A plug-in hybrid/range extended
EV
> also has the option of mainly being fueled on renewable.  An
ICE/hybrid
> does not.  Ever.  Until it's converted ;-)
>
> Once you do a back-of-envelope analysis as above, you quickly come to
> the realization that the debate over an accurate analysis is moot --
the
> preponderance of the evidence makes the decision a no-brainer from any
> angle -- environmental, national security and economic.
>
> Show OPEC where to stick it, drive a plug-in.
> Save a soldier:  go to the drive-in in your plug-in.
> Frustrated over high gas prices?  You have an outlet - drive a
plug-in!

>
> M@
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Mike Chancey
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:21 AM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?
>
>  Has anyone found the numbers for how much CO2 per gallon of gasoline
is
> created between the oil well and the gas pump?  I am sure it isn't
zero,
>
> but everyone seems to assume everything emitted by burning gasoline
> comes out of the car.
>
> To maintain fairness and balance the same info would be needed for
coal

> to include the mining and transportation to the power plant.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mike Chancey,
> '88 Civic EV
> Kansas City, Missouri
> http://evalbum.com/106
> EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
> My Electric Car at: http://evtinker.com
> Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
> Join the EV List at: http://www.evdl.org
>
> In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
> position. (Horace)
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110505/fdb7bda5/a
ttachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

hi-tech
What hijacking a thread and going on a tangent means?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GOING GREEN LESS POLLUTION. REALLY?

Doug Weathers
In reply to this post by Mike Nickerson

On May 4, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Mike Nickerson wrote:

> P.S.  I really recommend that everyone play with a motor/generator pair.  It
> is very informative to see exactly how different the drive energy has to be
> into a generator when it's under load compared to no load.

Agreed.

BTW, it is very easy to do this with Lego geared motors.  Hook two of them together with a Lego wire, put a crank on one of them, and turn it.  The other motor will turn, too.

You can build a little car powered from the second motor and make it move around by turning the crank.  (I recommend four-wheel drive.)

It gets harder to turn the crank as the cart goes uphill or over obstacles.

Very instructive, and also surprisingly fun.  One of my favorite Lego diversions.

>From an old website of mine:

<http://replay.web.archive.org/20040413040217/http://www.rdrop.com/~dougw/cranker.html>

--
Doug Weathers
http://www.gdunge.com
"There is no easy way from the Earth to the stars." - Seneca
"We choose to go to the Moon and do the other things - not because  
they are easy, but because they are hard." - John F. Kennedy


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
12