Yanmar All Juiced Up!!

[cfoxmd]

Knute:

I'm not sure I see a huge difference in going from diesel to mechancial power than from diesel to electric to mechanical power. I thought part of the reason that locomotives were deisel electric were that part of the railroad grid was electrified--so use the generated electricity rather from a power plant.

I know electric motors are far more reliable than combustion engines, but do you lose that when you start with a diesel engine? I know you lose the transmission and all its maintenance, but do you get better efficiency?

 

[tmoritz]

Scrinch - If our government were at all serious about this - which I very much doubt - they'd look abroad to what Europe is doing and they'd find that the new technologies are being used in full flow (especially wind and solar). The more they are being used, the more they become ecomically viable. Germany, for instance, is already in a position to commit to turning off their last nuclear reactor within 15 years or so. In other words, there is not much need for the US to start by 'developing' technologies. How about benefitting from the ones already developed and in use in other countries? The 'new technology' train is fast gathering speed - but elsewhere.

 

[scrinch]

Flat rate in CA is 11-12 cents....probably the same as in LA. Summer weekday peak rate is 29 cents if you use time-of-use metering. So that's what solar is competetive with...not base load but peaking power during the time of max commercial usage.

Our government seems focused on finding more petroleum, not preparing for when it becomes scarce. In my opinion that's what oil companies should be doing. The government should be looking ahead beyond that. But that's an issue for another forum, I suppose.

 

[cfoxmd]

Oil companies do what is profitable. In Europe, tax on fuels leads to $3-$4 per gallon gas. They have clean diesel (low sulfur) which has a higher octane (cetane?) rating which is required by law. Therefore there are turbosiesels that put out more power for a given size engine. All the tax does is change the financial incentives by inducing inefficiencies in the market. Is it really better to pay $4 a gallon for gas so that people use less? France's electrical grid is 78% supplied by nuclear power and they are building more. Clearly nuclear power is economically/politically viable at least in France

Clearly there are more than one way to derive energy from the environment. Virtually every type will put out some energy--the question is at what cost? What are the other costs and impacts of each technology? Does it cost more to produce the power than it is worth? I am unaware that there are any commercially driven solar utility plants. Some may exist because they were required by law (some states require a certain percentage of "green" power).

Economically, big swings in energy price leads to an economy that is slightly less than maximally efficient, but is more flexible.

It is true that as you build more of something, it becomes cheaper per unit. I remember CD players--20 years ago I paid $400, now they are $40. Right now, no other type of fuel can effectively compete with burning fossil fuels on price (with the exception of nuclear power).

I whole heartedly believe in technological advances. Better fuel efficiencies will help. Tax subsidies to accelerate the developement of technologies are not a bad thing to diversify the dependence on fossil fuels will help. The main problem we face is that there is a huge infrastructure associated with the production, refining, distribution and sales of gas. Assume you have a Liquified natural gas car--there are no filling stations in Louisiana. You have to make your own at home, but then you can't go more than 100 miles from home.

 

[Knute]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Knute:

I'm not sure I see a huge difference in going from diesel to mechancial power than from diesel to electric to mechanical power. I thought part of the reason that locomotives were deisel electric were that part of the railroad grid was electrified--so use the generated electricity rather from a power plant.

I know electric motors are far more reliable than combustion engines, but do you lose that when you start with a diesel engine? I know you lose the transmission and all its maintenance, but do you get better efficiency? )</font>

Subways and streetcars get their power from a grid, usually a third rail or raised power lines, but with locomotives the engines are diesel generators that provide the power. They get better efficiency because the engine is running at a constant RPM all the time, whatever the most efficient rate is unlike normal use in a car or truck where you might be going from 500 RPM to 3,000 RPM, it can't be at it's most efficient over the entire range. Electric motors are supposed to be more efficient than combustion and you don't have any loss to a transmission, and have the benifit of running at X rpm all the time it seems to work out in the end, plus the advantage of 100% of your torque available instantly.

I doubt we'll see compact tractors like this for a while (if ever) but I'm sure John Deere and others are working on large ag equipment that are diesel electric.

John