What should the UK energy policy for the next 25 years+be

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/why-your-cars-diesel-engine-more-efficient-power-station

Hi

Don't you just love articles when either reader approval or vested interests are the main driving factors and honesty becomes secondary ....

The article is very conspicuous in the fact that it compares CO2 levels directly with the highest contribution source 'coal' whilst failing to consider the generation mix .... currently, of the 39.7GW UK demand, nuclear is contributing 6GW & wind 4.7GW ( http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ ) ... it's also pretty likely that the total UK pv capacity is providing a further ~1GW either directly to demand or to offset demand (39.7GW demand should therefore be increased to 40.7GW !).


HTH
Z

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Don't you just love articles when either reader approval or vested interests are the main driving factors and honesty becomes secondary ....

The article is very conspicuous in the fact that it compares CO2 levels directly with the highest contribution source 'coal' whilst failing to consider the generation mix .... currently, of the 39.7GW UK demand, nuclear is contributing 6GW & wind 4.7GW ( http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ ) ... it's also pretty likely that the total UK pv capacity is providing a further ~1GW either directly to demand or to offset demand (39.7GW demand should therefore be increased to 40.7GW !).


HTH
Z

Where does it do that?

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

Where does it do that?

Hi

Well considering that a good proportion of readers never get beyond the headline ... "Why your car's diesel engine is more efficient than a power station"

Then a further good proportion simply look at the graphics, so ...

... with the caption being "Fact: your car's diesel engine is more efficient than a power station "

Then there's the first three paragraphs which concentrate on coal fired generation before an almost insignificant mention of "given the overall energy mix of the UK", which many readers would overlook even if they actually managed to get that far ...

It's a typical journalistic approach to write a factually correct article, but headline a tenuous conclusion whilst burying a reference to the detail ....

Of course, the headline will delight those who would naturally be delighted, be flawed to those who look for the detail or understand how/why the article was presented as it was, whilst being insignificant to those who don't know or don't care ....

HTH
Z

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Well considering that a good proportion of reader never get beyond the headline ... "Why your car's diesel engine is more efficient than a power station"

Then a further good proportion simply look at the graphics, so ...

... with the caption being "Fact: your car's diesel engine is more efficient than a power station "

Then there's the first three paragraphs which concentrate on coal fired generation before an almost insignificant mention of "given the overall energy mix of the UK", which many readers would overlook even if they actually managed to get that far ...

It's a typical journalistic approach to write a factually correct article, but headline a tenuous conclusion whilst burying a reference to the detail ....

Of course, the headline will delight those who would naturally be delighted, be flawed to those who look for the detail or understand how/why the article was presented as it was, whilst being insignificant to those who don't know or don't care ....

HTH
Z

You haven't answered my simple question, "The article is very conspicuous in the fact that it compares CO2 levels directly with the highest contribution source 'coal' whilst failing to consider the generation mix"

Where does it do that? It compares efficiency, yes agreed.

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

You haven't answered my simple question, "The article is very conspicuous in the fact that it compares CO2 levels directly with the highest contribution source 'coal' whilst failing to consider the generation mix"

Where does it do that? It compares efficiency, yes agreed.

Hi

The article starts by comparing efficiencies between coal fired generation and a representative diesel engine vehicle, then moves to CO2 comparisons between representative electric and diesel vehicles ... it is also noted that the selected diesel for efficiency is not the same vehicle as the one selected for CO2 emissions ... this would naturally suggest that the most efficient engine in terms of converting fuel to motive power may not produce the highest mpg or lowest CO2/km. As such, the article's headline, graphics & structure are all attempting to convey to the reader that a diesel engine vehicle operated within the UK is both a more energy efficient and a lower contributor of CO2/km than an EV whilst still leaving the author a 'get-out' clause ....

A clever journalistic trick which is also used by politicians ... is it really surprising considering the high incidence of PPE graduates in both 'professions' ...

HTH
Z

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

The article starts by comparing efficiencies between coal fired generation and a representative diesel engine vehicle, then moves to CO2 comparisons between representative electric and diesel vehicles ... it is also noted that the selected diesel for efficiency is not the same vehicle as the one selected for CO2 emissions (1)... this would naturally suggest that the most efficient engine in terms of converting fuel to motive power may not produce the highest mpg or lowest CO2/km(2). As such, the article's headline, graphics & structure are all attempting to convey to the reader that a diesel engine vehicle operated within the UK is both a more energy efficient and a lower contributor of CO2/km than an EV (3)whilst still leaving the author a 'get-out' clause ....

A clever journalistic trick which is also used by politicians ... is it really surprising considering the high incidence of PPE graduates in both 'professions' ...

HTH
Z

I've asked a simple question twice, which you have just obfuscated in response. No doubt, more to come. I found the article interesting.

(1) "The British government’s figures say 38 per cent of the energy put into a coal-fired power station comes out as useful work, whereas a good modern diesel engine is about 40 per cent efficient (at least when running steadily at its optimum speed). The latest Mercedes-Benz 2.2-litre diesel hits 42 per cent"

(2) Your 'suggestion' not the articles.

(3) "This explains why the CO2 figure for an EV like the Nissan Leaf or Renault Fluence is 75-80g/km, given the overall energy mix of the UK, even though they produce zero tailpipe emissions. That is not so different from a Ford Focus 1.6 TDCi Econetic, which emits 88g/km from the tailpipe or about 100g/km when the CO2 from refining and transporting its fuel is included.

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

I've asked a simple question twice, which you have just obfuscated in response. No doubt, more to come. I found the article interesting.

(1) "The British government’s figures say 38 per cent of the energy put into a coal-fired power station comes out as useful work, whereas a good modern diesel engine is about 40 per cent efficient (at least when running steadily at its optimum speed). The latest Mercedes-Benz 2.2-litre diesel hits 42 per cent"

(2) Your 'suggestion' not the articles.

(3) "This explains why the CO2 figure for an EV like the Nissan Leaf or Renault Fluence is 75-80g/km, given the overall energy mix of the UK, even though they produce zero tailpipe emissions. That is not so different from a Ford Focus 1.6 TDCi Econetic, which emits 88g/km from the tailpipe or about 100g/km when the CO2 from refining and transporting its fuel is included.

Hi

Referencing a recent post within context ....

zeupater wrote: »

...Of course, the headline will delight those who would naturally be delighted, be flawed to those who look for the detail or understand how/why the article was presented as it was, whilst being insignificant to those who don't know or don't care ....

... of course, there's always the option that everyone would change all of their opinions and always be in agreement with your own, then everyone would be equally right or wrong and we would all exist in total harmony ...

"ubi odium, amorem seram
ubi iniuria, veniam
ubi dubium, fidem
ubi desperatio, spem
ubi caligo, lucem
ubi tristitia, laetitiam"

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Shouldn't the article compare like to like:

so a coal power plant's efficiency to a coal powered steam car, and

a diesel engined car to a large scale diesel generator.

I'm really impressed by the efficiency gains of modern cars (petrol and diesel), but the losses are still huge. At least future FF plant efficiencies could / might benefit from supplying heat to nearby users. That could double their overall efficiency.

Cars of any type will always be inefficient, unless you can stick them in long aerodynamic lines and avoid over-acceleration and over-braking. Have I just invented light rail trains with regenerative braking?

Mart.

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Referencing a recent post within context ....

... of course, there's always the option that everyone would change all of their opinions and always be in agreement with your own, then everyone would be equally right or wrong and we would all exist in total harmony ...

"ubi odium, amorem seram
ubi iniuria, veniam
ubi dubium, fidem
ubi desperatio, spem
ubi caligo, lucem
ubi tristitia, laetitiam"

HTH
Z

Please obsfucate where my high-lighting parts of the article that contradict what you 'say' the articles says/implies became 'my opinion'. Perhaps you could do it in Latin, it would probably make as much sense.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Shouldn't the article compare like to like:

so a coal power plant's efficiency to a coal powered steam car, and

a diesel engined car to a large scale diesel generator.

I'm really impressed by the efficiency gains of modern cars (petrol and diesel), but the losses are still huge. At least future FF plant efficiencies could / might benefit from supplying heat to nearby users. That could double their overall efficiency.

Cars of any type will always be inefficient, unless you can stick them in long aerodynamic lines and avoid over-acceleration and over-braking. Have I just invented light rail trains with regenerative braking?

Mart.

Hi M

I don't think that it would be fair to compare to 'steam' cars as there aren't that many on the road ... , but a fair approach when comparing EVs to Diesel, whether CO2 or efficiency, would be to consider the average UK mix, not concentrate on the most efficient diesel vs the least efficient mass generation source (input vs output) ....

The article is written to portray a scenario which doesn't really exist in reality - with this almost certainly being done to purposely mislead anyone who hasn't the time to consider what has actually been written within a logical context. As previously stated, the headline will delight those who would naturally be delighted .....

HTH
Z