This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Where in the hell is Australia heading?

Jump to new

So why do they run the alternator in a car from the engine rather than an existing moving part ie the wheel? The existing generator charges the battery. Why cannot the wheels run a magneto setup that charges "other batteries" that can be used to drive the car? The faster it turns the more electricity it would create so according to my theory it will produce more during cruising and acceleration then it would braking.

If the problem is the resistance then it could be setup with a centifugal clutch the engages/disengages during acceleration/braking.

*hooks up centrifugal clutch to the generating axle*
 
trainspotter said:
So why do they run the alternator in a car from the engine rather than an existing moving part ie the wheel?
Click to expand...
So the alternator can charge the battery and run the electrics while the car is stationary.

Sure the faster it goes the more electricity you produce. However, the more electrical energy you generate the stronger the associated magnetic field and therefore the greater the resistance. It would be like trying to drive with the brakes always on. You couldn't just cruise, the engine would have to behave as if it were accelerating just to maintain a constant velocity. You would use more energy than you generate.

When you brake you are slowing the car by changing the kinetic energy of motion into heat energy (and some sound energy) that is lost. What you want to do is instead of just wasting that energy as heat, capture it as electricity.

trainspotter said:
If the problem is the resistance then it could be setup with a centifugal clutch the engages/disengages during acceleration/braking.

*hooks up centrifugal clutch to the generating axle*
Click to expand...
That will work - there are some designs that use a heavy flywheel that spins up during breaking and then assists the engine during acceleration. To produce electricity you could either use a clutch to physically engage magnets or you could turn on an electromagnet to generate the magnetic field (a bit of a chicken and the egg but once the generator begins to create power you would then use it to power it's own electromagnet during the breaking cycle).


As a bit of an aside, in some of the big haulpacks in the open pits the diesel engine is just a small electricity power station that drives electric motors situated on each wheel.
 

So according to the magnetic field generated by the faster you go it would feel like the brakes would be on?

I remember when I was a kid and I had a ten speed bicycle. It had a set of lights attached to it and hooked up to a dynamo on the front wheel. The faster I pedalled the brighter the globes got and the dynamo seemed to spin easier to me? Did not feel like it was increasing load?

Transferring heat into electricity inside a motor vehicle is way too complex. It can be done but I am thinking in very simplistic terms here.

My point is we have all these moving/spinning parts that are not actually doing anything in the way of generating forward motion/electrical generation on a motor vehicle.

Axles, tail shafts, rotor discs, wheels, crown gears etc etc. Surely it can't be that hard to hook up a geared reduction motor to assist the forward motion either by generating electicity or to power assist in some way?

*goes back to shed with a brand new plan of attack*
 
tayser said:
Mortlake has a Gas 500MW station U/C right now - and with the incentive to now invest more in this type of generation, more will come along allowing a phased shut down of Hazelwood (1600MW) to occur in the medium term.
Click to expand...

It would appear Canberra does not have a clue nor a plan.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...se/story-e6frfku9-1226093221538#ixzz0tS7MKeCr
 
Getting a fair way off topic here Yeah I had one too on my three speed dragster complete with sissy bar. When you start pedalling the kinetic energy of the bike is low and the resistance of the dynamo is relatively significant. As you get quicker the kinetic energy of the bike (or inertia) is such that the dynamo now only constitutes as small fraction of the energy. As the dynamo on bikes are small, the relative increase in resistance with increased electricity generation is not proportional to the increase in kinetic energy the bike gains with speed so it feels easier. On my bike I could switch the light on and off while leaving the dynamo engaged on the rim and while the light was off pedalling was easy and as soon as I turned on the light you could feel the resistance of the dynamo generating power.

trainspotter said:
Transferring heat into electricity inside a motor vehicle is way too complex. It can be done but I am thinking in very simplistic terms here.
Click to expand...
The heat created in braking is just how the energy required to slow the car is dissipated. No need to use that heat to generate electricity, you just need to use the kinetic energy of the vehicle to spin something to generate electricity and then the resistance that that creates slows the vehicle.

Anything that is in the drive train, while not generating energy, is part of the system that transfers energy from the engine to the wheels. If you hook something up to these spinning bits to create power you will reduce the amount of energy that makes it too the wheels. Your best bet is to capture the energy that is wasted as heat and sound i.e. the braking process.

As another aside . The Snowy Mountain scheme uses a similar principle to the energy off braking method. They use off-peak power (surplus and cheap) to pump water back up to the dam essentially storing energy for later power generation. I think their main reason is that they can pump it up with cheap energy and sell it later as more expensive peak electricity .i.e. make money. Though this may be a way around the solar PV issue of no power at night. Down the track when PV is cheap and printable and can cover a much greater percentage of surfaces there will be a large surplus of electricity during the day. This can be used to fill hydro dams or other energy stores to assist base load and night time energy requirements (sounds good - I'm sure it's not that simple).
 

Was it the Chopper like this one? I soooooooo wanted one of these.



Anyhooooooooo ...... not wanting to be picky about the dynamo thingy derty cause you are very smart on such matters BUT ...... the dynamo would still create electricity even if the light was off. The current would not go through the globe is all.

The moment the dynamo starts spinning it will create electricity whether or not it is powering a globe. Unless you had one of those real fandango ones which had an isolation switch that stopped the armature/rotor from spinning. I did not. It was either on or off and sometimes using ones foot to enagage the dynamo ones toes would get caught in the spokes causing all sorts of profanities that my mother could hear from about 8kms away.
 
Well it was red. Much more like this one though with a banana seat. Complete with a three speed on the cross bar to mangle your nuts on. I have never worked out why boys with nuts have bikes with bars to smash them on and girls who do not have nuts do not have the same bar.

When the dynamo is doing work it is harder to turn. Like when you switch the kettle on out camping with a generator. The dynamo needs a closed circuit to generate electricity so when the light is off there is no circuit so no electricity or load.

My dynamo was the same. Push it on with your hand or foot (dangerous with no shoes ) but I had a switch on the front light I could turn on and off.
 
If you extract energy from the wheels then that energy has to come from somewhere (ie the engine thus using more fuel).

The effect if an alternator ("generator" in common language) is that of a brake. Regardless of whether the source of motion is a steam tubine, hydro, gas turbine etc the effect is the same. The alternator is the load on that source of motion and it takes in mechanical power, in order to put out electrical power.
 

I am so jealous. I had a gold one of these with gorilla handlebars. Mine wasn't the three speed model though. I "chopperised" it with extendable forks and a dinky wheel. I thought I was cool.

Yeppers .... dynamo logic is kicking in now. I knew I could count on you for the science.

I still have the scars on my left foot when I went a bit too far with engaging the dynamo ... over the handlebars in a gracious arc and SPLAT on the bitumen. *ouch*
 
wayneL said:
There is a difference between my nonsense and yours - mine is irrational.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

trainspotter said:
Has not peaked but hitting on the ceiling? Which one is it?
Click to expand...

The ceiling was made in regards to energy resources, and I said it would be good if during the transition we could at least use ones which have not peaked yet.

trainspotter said:
Irrespective ... to mine the minerals to manufacture these efficient/non eficcient cars will require fossil fuels to dig the damn stuff out of the ground.
Click to expand...

This is the argument with all cars; I don't really see your point.

trainspotter said:
Semantics I know but you cannot have it both ways Jimny Cricket.
Click to expand...

What else could one mean when they say storing energy generated, but to do it with a battery?


trainspotter said:
I am sure there will be more oil available than lithium to mine Hydrogen is the way of the future for the motor vehicle industry. NASA has been using it for years for their rockets.
Click to expand...

Not really, there is not only very little oil left which is coming up at decreasing pressures, but to get the last remaining oil will take immense energy.

Furthermore hydrogen is not a fuel and it is not any sort of a solution, it is merely a glorified battery. Until we figure out a way to charge this battery in an energy efficient and renewable way, it is pretty pointless.

trainspotter said:
Agreed but at what cost to the environment due to the mining operations to obtain the minerals to manufacture the batteries !!
Click to expand...

This is the case for all products. Maybe it would be more prudent to give up ipads, iphones and ipods instead.


Sources please that they cost any more than regular cars + oil use.
How do they present pollution when they wear out?
Mining materials are required for all cars!!! All products!! How is this even an argument.

And they are not expensive, in the next 1 years there will be electric cars on the market at all price ranges, even a few grand! You could have a car for the same cost of a reasonably powerful computer.

trainspotter said:
Oh oh ! The manufacture of the batteries is the killer for the environment.

Now we gotta charge the damn things up with that pesky thing called ELECTRICITY.
Click to expand...

Please provide at least a half reputable site; not someone's back yard blog. It didn't even compare the emissions of cars throughout their life, not to mentioned it concentrated on one specific car, and didn't mention how unique or broad these generalisations (if they are even true are), not did it provide any evidence nor sources, apart from a silly 8 year old report (battery technology has changed quite a bit since then).

And I'm personally completely uninterested in hybrids in general, I cannot imagine why anyone would want one when there are such fantastic electric cars that are coming on the market so very soon.

Electricity luckily can be produced in many clean and sustainable ways. Oil can not.


Smurf1976 said:
As for $23 per tonne, I take it you do realise this constitutes a 15% increase in total input costs to some industries?
Click to expand...

More importantly, how does it affect their profit margins? A lot of mining related industries make obscene profits which shouldn't even be legal.
 
The Snowy scheme uses both diversion pumping and pumped storage. Snowy has 7 power stations, all but one of which are of reasonable size. However, Tumut 3 is the only pumped storage scheme as such - other pumping is simply a one-way diversion of water flow.

Other pumped storage schemes in Australia are Shoalhaven (NSW) and Wivenhoe (Qld).

The Tasmanian hydro-electric system has no pumped storage since it was built for baseload generation rather than as a peak load system. It does however have a number of diversion pump stations, some of which operate without upstream storage (ie they run at any time of the day, not just in the middle of the night). Some of these diversion pumps feed directly into canals leading straight to power stations, whilst others feed into storage.

As for the practicality of using pumped storage hydro as a means of storing solar etc energy, it is in practice by far the cheapest and most workable means we have for storing electricity. If it was decided to do this then there are numerous identified sites in NSW where pumped storage schemes could be built, as well as possibilities in other states.

One thing about pumped storage, is that it becomes practical to have a far larger peak capacity than you would have with a baseload hydro system using the same reservoir since the natural inflows comprises only a minor part of the energy output from a pumped storage scheme (the rest being from energy from the grid stored via pumping).

As for other means of storing electricity, quite a bit as been done with wind/diesel/solar/bateries on King Island. OK, it's not a huge system, but it's the only power supply there and it's actually being done for real, not just in a lab. http://www.hydro.com.au/system/files/documents/King_Island_Renewable_Energy_PK_2008.pdf
 
Starcraftmazter said:
More importantly, how does it affect their profit margins? A lot of mining related industries make obscene profits which shouldn't even be legal.
Click to expand...
That comment is socialist in nature rather than environmental and I think many will see this as relevant.

However, to answer it I don't have a precise figure but I'd say that the key point really is that % return on investment in these sort of things isn't outstanding as it is. It's certainly been nowhere near the big profits made by things like real estate or even Coca Cola in recent years.

The main effect of the tax in that context is to bring about a situation comparable to what happened with timber in Tasmania due to the same reasons (lack of cheap energy, environmental constraints). That is, abandon local processing as it becomes unviable and then offset that via a major expansion of raw material extraction. In Tas that meant large scale logging whilst total employment fell. For things like the aluminium industry (nationally) it means closing the smelters (where most of the general economic benefit arises) and then ramping up mining at Weipa etc. In short, we abandon downstream processing in favour of a greater focus on "dig it up or chop it down". That's the lesson so far and it is the likely outcome if processing becomes unviable in Australia (noting that the energy cost was already too high in WA, SA and NT for smelting).
 
Smurf1976 said:
That comment is socialist in nature rather than environmental and I think many will see this as relevant.
Click to expand...

Not really. Miners do not generate massive profits because of any unique skills or innovations. Miners are getting rich because they are selling something which belongs to every single Australian. Every single Australian should as such benefit from this to a significant extent, because what is being sold are non-renewable, very valuable resources - the export of which devalues the wealth of our entire country permanently more and more.

What's more shocking is that all of these resources will forever be necessary for all humans, yet this "boom" will only benefit a small proportion of Australians for a very short time period.

To say miners pay enough tax is ridiculous, and the fact that they have gotten away paying so little for so long is scary in regards to the vast amount of wealth we have already permanently lost
 
Starcraftmazter said:
More importantly, how does it affect their profit margins? A lot of mining related industries make obscene profits which shouldn't even be legal.
Click to expand...

So profit is a dirty word? It is called free enterprise my little card carrying communist. These mining related industries employ a LOT of people. Some of them may even need your mathmatical brilliance one day or even your IT knowledge. Would you ask them to lower their profits so your integrity allows you to work for them? I think not. Get in the real world.

I bet they pay a LOT of tax as well. So much in fact the government wants more with the MRRT.

Miners do not have unique skills nor innovators??? WOW ..... you are going out on a limb here big guy.

P.S. The problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other peoples money. - Margaret Thatcher
 
trainspotter said:
So profit is a dirty word?
Click to expand...

Not at all, but it does mean on how the profit is made (see my earlier post).

trainspotter said:
I bet they pay a LOT of tax as well.
Click to expand...

Not enough in my view. Again, they are shipping what belongs to all Australians, what will be valuable forever, which is completely non renewable.

Just consider that for a moment, our greatest national resources are being depleted, at very little long-term benefit to our nation.

This is just not something I can reconcile with; I consider this the greatest theft of our generation.
 

You might want to look at the government that is allowing this to happen instead of shooting the messenger.

Belongs to all Australians? Are you out of your mind? Have you got land rights on what they are doing legally? I did not see you spending billions of dollars on creating mine sites and oil exploration? And somehow it belongs to you?

No long term benefit? HUH? Ohhhhhh you mean the billions of dollars they already pay in "royalties" to the states that provide infrastructure or do you mean the billions paid by the workers of said mining companies in taxes to the Federal Guvmint or do you mean the billions paid in company tax as well as the billions paid in the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT) ??? No long term benefit HUH?

And you think this is theft? OMFG you are not quite up to speed as to what actually goes on are you?
 
Starcraftmazter said:
To say miners pay enough tax is ridiculous, and the fact that they have gotten away paying so little for so long is scary in regards to the vast amount of wealth we have already permanently lost
Click to expand...
No, the minerals belong to no one so anyone has the opportunity to extract them by fronting up the capital if they have that inclination so don't whinge that miners earn too much or don't pay enough tax in the supply/ demand trade. No one "owns" anything. They have pieces of paper as a form of agreement to use it over a given (life) time.
 
Australia has a great future still.

Look at NSW, comprehensively rooted by Labor for years, and they survived, and are recovering.

Once Tony gets in, this country will kick on again.

gg
 
trainspotter said:
You might want to look at the government that is allowing this to happen instead of shooting the messenger.
Click to expand...

I am in no way happy with the government. Just another reason to vote Greens - they would tax miners more.

trainspotter said:
Belongs to all Australians? Are you out of your mind? Have you got land rights on what they are doing legally? I did not see you spending billions of dollars on creating mine sites and oil exploration? And somehow it belongs to you?
Click to expand...

It belongs to everyone, yes. All natural resources belong to the Australian people; miners merely have the legal authority to dig them out and export them. Miners do not own any resources.

trainspotter said:
No long term benefit? HUH? Ohhhhhh you mean the billions of dollars they already pay in "royalties" to the states that provide infrastructure
Click to expand...

What happens when this infrastructure needs to be replaced because it is too old of age, and there is no more resources to monetise in order to do so, nor any resources with which to do so?


Correct, no long-term benefit. Only for the duration of the mining operations. These will not last very long compared to how long humanity will need said resources (ie. forever until we die as a species).


Wysiwyg said:
No one "owns" anything. They have pieces of paper as a form of agreement to use it over a given (life) time.
Click to expand...

These two things are obviously contradictory, so it should be obvious to you that you are incorrect.
 
Starcraftmazter said:
I am in no way happy with the government. Just another reason to vote Greens - they would tax miners more.
Click to expand...

And send the miners to Brazil our major competitor for iron ore thus cutting off your nose to spite you face? Brilliant plan my small Green offshoot. I can't wait til they get into power.

It belongs to everyone, yes. All natural resources belong to the Australian people; miners merely have the legal authority to dig them out and export them. Miners do not own any resources.
Click to expand...

You had better go look at your text books young gun. You are wrong. It does not belong to us. In relation to minerals situated within State boundaries, prima facie, the power to legislate for minerals remains with the States. However, despite the fact that the Constitution of Australia does not list minerals as an area over which the Federal Parliament has jurisdiction, a number of the Commonwealth Parliament’s powers encompass matters relevant to mining operations and any legislation of the Commonwealth based upon these powers will override any inconsistent State legislation.

What happens when this infrastructure needs to be replaced because it is too old of age, and there is no more resources to monetise in order to do so, nor any resources with which to do so?
Click to expand...

You are not quite with it this evening are you? Do you think a mining company would let their infrastructure fall into a state of disrepair because of it's life expectancy? They would have packed up and high tailed it out of there long before this has happened. LOL

Correct, no long-term benefit. Only for the duration of the mining operations. These will not last very long compared to how long humanity will need said resources (ie. forever until we die as a species).
Click to expand...

Are you David Attenborough now? The death of a species? JEEEEEEZUZ CHRIST for a smart educated fellow you are not very globally aware of the big picture stuff are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...