Electric drag racing

[Elie]

http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/56-Electric-Drag-Racing

Check it out, totally awesome!!

[TransformX]

I totally agree!

[Dr Mordrid]

Note the drag bike footage in the last third. The Killacycle's advanced LiION battery is by A123 Systems, one of the companies GM will use to build batteries for the Volt.

[gt40]

Wow I'm impressed. 12-20 min recharge after a 12 sec run.
I don't think pure electrics are the answer given the state of current technology, nor do I see it being so for the next 10 years.
And honestly, I think the Volt will have the same fate as the EV-1.

[Brian Ellis]

Not an ounce of pollution

Bollocks! They just displace it in trumps!

[TransformX]

Bollocks! They just displace it in trumps!

One could argue that:
1. The efficiency of the electric company is much higher than that of a car's internal combustion engine, thus producing more usable energy and less pollution.
2. Pollution produced by the energy company is released many many feet up in the air to the atmosphere and not at ground level where you get to breathe it much less diluted.

[Dr Mordrid]

3. in areas with abundant nuclear power, like here, EV's produce much less pollution.

[Nowhere]

Uhmm...you call 20% "abundant"?...even EU as w whole is better, at 30% (though it might drop to ~20 with lunatic greens going rampant in few countries; otoh few other will build nuclear power plants, so it might almost even out...)

France is where we all should be, at 80% (couple that with 15% shown by Denmark to be maximum practical amount from wind&solar, and hydro or geothermal could account for the remaining 5%). Or Sweden - almost 50% from nuclear, as much again from hydro, planning oil phase-out quite soon.


Regarding the video...I'm completelly "bleh" regarding the aspect of drag racing (I'll never get it...), however what he's doing is IMHO still great - some people will consider electrics/serial hybrids only on ground of overinflated performance needs.

[cjolley]

Nice find. That was fun and interesting.

[az]

Drag racing fascinates me!

I couldn't run a race in those high heels:

[Brian Ellis]

One could argue that:
1. The efficiency of the electric company is much higher than that of a car's internal combustion engine, thus producing more usable energy and less pollution.
2. Pollution produced by the energy company is released many many feet up in the air to the atmosphere and not at ground level where you get to breathe it much less diluted.

Absolutely wrong on both counts. Before I explain why, let me point out that drag racing is nasty. Every road vehicle emits dangerous particulate matter from tyre and road wear. The tyres are a mixture of natural and synthetic rubbers, carbon and other fillers plus various chemical modifiers. These particles are carcinogenic. From the road surface, the particles are mainly bitumen and silica. The bitumen, which are the still bottoms from crude oil refining, is certainly carcinogenic. The silica can cause pneumosilicosis. Under normal road use at constant speed, the wear is small, but, when accelerating and braking, it reaches much larger proportions. I suggest drag racing would hardly be healthy to anyone within a few hundred metres of where it takes place and the EV, with better acceleration, would cause more pollution than its lamer competitors.

1, The efficiency of thermal power stations is lower than that of modern petrol engines and lower still than that of modern diesels. A typical fossil fuel>electricity ratio of an ordinary power station is 28-35%. That of a modern petrol injection ICE is typically 34-36%, of an Atkinson cycle engine (as in the Prius) 36-40% and that of a modern diesel engine 38-42%. If a fossil fuel power station is a CHP gas turbine type, the efficiency might rise to as high as 50%, but these are generally small plants and are not very widely distributed. If a fossil fuel station, of any type, is equipped with anti-pollution equipment, then the efficiency drops a lot, because the extra equipment consumes much more of the power produced. This is a problem with the carbon-capture systems, which are still very experimental, it being estimated that 30-50% of the electricity produced will be needed to capture the carbon. So, no, your argument is not based on facts.

OK, to support these facts. The US electricity sector absorbed, in 2002, 38.2 quads of energy to produce 11.9 quads of electricity, with an overall efficiency of 31.15% and this includes inputs of 20.0 quads from coal, 5.7 from natural gas, 0.9 from renewables except hydro, 2.5 from hydro, 8.1 from nuclear and 0.08% from net fossil fuel imports. (Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab figures). Similar statistics have been given by the UK DTI.

2. The pollution produced by fossil fuel power stations is much higher that that produced by petrol engines fitted with catalytic converters. It is totally irrelevant that the stack is 50 or 100 m high. Most of the particulate matter generally falls to the ground within a radius of 50 km (depends on wind patterns) as dust. The rest of the particulates forms a persistent aerosol and could remain in the atmosphere for years. Particulates from car engines are negligible, except for the first 2 km or so, as the converter burns them up into CO2 and H2O. CO2 makes no difference where it comes from, as it has an atmospheric residence time of >100 years and any emissions are homogenised within the emission latitude band within 14 days, within the hemispheric troposphere within ~10 months and within the whole atmosphere, up to the outer stratosphere, within 14 years. In addition, motor fuel is highly refined and contains very little in the way of heavy metals, sulfur and other dangerous pollutants. This is not the case with fossil fuels burnt in power stations and vast amounts of dangerous pollutant gases and vapours are emitted. More sulfur gases, mercury compounds, arsenic and radionuclides are emitted from burning coal in power stations than any other source and all these very dangerous substances are slowly accumulating in the air you breathe, whether you like it or not. And there is more than a very fair chance you are breathing more concentrated pollutant levels from the oil-fired (HFO) power stations on this island as the homogenisation process would be barely started in the 290 km that separate us. Bon appetit!

As for Dr M's argument that, because there are some nuke power stations near him, he can use electricity ad lib without emitting CO2 is based on false premises. There happens to a grid in the US, which acts as an enormous melting pot. The electricity he consumes is the same as the electricity consumed in Miami or Seattle, and that is 52.4% from coal and 14.9% from NG. Only 21.2% comes from nukes. Even France (76% nukes, 22% HE) and Switzerland (36% nuke, 58% HE, 6% waste and renewables), neither of which has any sizeable fossil fuel plants, cannot guarantee that electricity consumed is non-CO2-emitting, because the European grid interconnecting them with Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Spain and the UK (and farther) is mostly coal- and gas-fired.