Electric Bikes

[jtarkany]

Yes, In fact when my petrol motor gives out my next mod will be an electric conversion. I have been contemplating getting in touch with the folks at Brammo (100% Electric Motorcycle : Brammo Empulse and Enertia Home) to see if they would be willing to set me up with their Empulse powerplant and batteries

 

[DownrangeFuture]

You have no evidence to back this up. I'm certain of this because it does not exist.

Why? Most people can do the math if they understand how losses in closed systems work. Particularly losses when converting types of energy to another type.

Electric plants run on coal, or oil (gasoline or diesel) for the most part. There are a few atomic ones, but they're rare and probalby only going to get rarer. Using coal, you burn 2-3x more coal to make the equivalent amount of power for a mile, than you do in gasoline. And coal is dirtier to burn than gas, not being refined you see. Why is this? Well, gasoline engines are far more effcient than a coal generator. Even atomic reactors are only 1% effcient. Gas generators are better, and closer to what you'd get in a car, but there are losses in making the electricity, then losses in using the electricity to move the car. You'll burn more gas to make electricity to run a car for a mile, than you'd burn to move a car itself a mile.

Each conversion of energy loses some of that energy. For a car it's gas into motion. The loss is heat. For a gas generator to electric car its: Gas into motion (losing heat), motion into electricty (losing heat again to friction), electricity into motion (losing heat to friction). More loss means you need more gas to do the same thing. Not to mention most gas generators are gas turbine generators. While the gas turbine engine can make more power per gallon than an internal combustion engine, the latter is far more effcient. One of the myriad of reasons gas turbine cars never went anywhere.

:thumbup:

Now if atomic reactors make a comeback (or there's some other solution like that), then I'll probably switch to electric. It might actually do some good then. Will we run out of oil someday? Yes. Current, scientifically sound, estimates put it somewhere in the late 2200's. Something we should look into, for sure, but not something our grandkids would deal with even. I imagine fusion reactors will be feasble by then though.

But just switching to electric cars isn't the solution. Unless we come up with a better way to make electricity. Nor is ethonal, but that's another topic. And if you still demand "proof", take some collegete physics classes and pay attention when you get to thermodynamics and its effects/relationship on the conversion of energy/matter.

 

[FizzySix]

Apparently, electric bikes could potentially be insanely fast.

Which, of course, results in people doing silly things like this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o15EALghp0"]Electric Motorcycle[/ame]

 

[ste]

Why? Most people can do the math if they understand how losses in closed systems work. Particularly losses when converting types of energy to another type.

Electric plants run on coal, or oil (gasoline or diesel) for the most part. There are a few atomic ones, but they're rare and probalby only going to get rarer. Using coal, you burn 2-3x more coal to make the equivalent amount of power for a mile, than you do in gasoline. And coal is dirtier to burn than gas, not being refined you see. Why is this? Well, gasoline engines are far more effcient than a coal generator. Even atomic reactors are only 1% effcient. Gas generators are better, and closer to what you'd get in a car, but there are losses in making the electricity, then losses in using the electricity to move the car. You'll burn more gas to make electricity to run a car for a mile, than you'd burn to move a car itself a mile.

Each conversion of energy loses some of that energy. For a car it's gas into motion. The loss is heat. For a gas generator to electric car its: Gas into motion (losing heat), motion into electricty (losing heat again to friction), electricity into motion (losing heat to friction). More loss means you need more gas to do the same thing. Not to mention most gas generators are gas turbine generators. While the gas turbine engine can make more power per gallon than an internal combustion engine, the latter is far more effcient. One of the myriad of reasons gas turbine cars never went anywhere.

:thumbup:

Now if atomic reactors make a comeback (or there's some other solution like that), then I'll probably switch to electric. It might actually do some good then. Will we run out of oil someday? Yes. Current, scientifically sound, estimates put it somewhere in the late 2200's. Something we should look into, for sure, but not something our grandkids would deal with even. I imagine fusion reactors will be feasble by then though.

But just switching to electric cars isn't the solution. Unless we come up with a better way to make electricity. Nor is ethonal, but that's another topic. And if you still demand "proof", take some collegete physics classes and pay attention when you get to thermodynamics and its effects/relationship on the conversion of energy/matter.

dam thats a great post
what about dams? they produce lots of clean energy
id love to know where you got these facts from because oil is only likely to last 90 more years unless they find a big deposit in the antartic
do u know something the rest of the world does not about secret oil reserves

 

[pookamatic]

And if you still demand "proof", take some collegete physics classes and pay attention when you get to thermodynamics and its effects/relationship on the conversion of energy/matter.

I have a Bachelor of Science in engineering, so I can spout the BS too. :BLAA:
I'm fully aware of the principles of physics and thermodynamics. In fact, you would be outright shocked at how much time I have spent pondering energy transformation topics in the last 25 years.

Your statements are vague and misleading. Not trying to start a nerd fight, but here it goes. First, let's simplify it to just coal-fired electric plants versus gasoline-powered cars.

Both sources of energy must be harvested, delivered, refined
I submit to you that it takes significantly less energy to get coal on American soil, sift the rocks out, then train/truck it to its destination than drilling for oil, shipping it halfway around the world to a chemical plant for refinement, then transporting it again to the pump. I don't have, nor do I care to actually run numbers on this, but I believe it's a safe assumption.

Regulations
Power plants are big central places that have constant monitoring and control devices put in place to limit the damage. Then you have governmental and other agencies keeping an eye and issuing fines when things get out of line. And then there's good ol capitalism- if a company can squeeze an extra dime out of a pound of coal, they will find it.

You cannot effectively or efficiently monitor and control emissions at the tailpipe. Most of the US does it, but we all know a whole lot can change in an engine in a year (2 in Delaware). Hell, how many people swap out parts for the inspection only and swap out higher polluting parts before the thing has even had a chance to cool?! If every vehicle was electric, think of all the waste we could easily cut immediately in terms of this poor execution of emissions "control."

2-3x more coal to make the equivalent
I'm calling you on this one. I need to see where you got this number from. Read this:

Winning the "Coal burning electric plants" vs "Burning gas at the tailpipe" Argument | PluginCars.com

Yes - I know it's from a potentially biased source, but I doubt he made up his numbers.

 

[jtarkany]

Why? Most people can do the math if they understand how losses in closed systems work. Particularly losses when converting types of energy to another type.

Electric plants run on coal, or oil (gasoline or diesel) for the most part. There are a few atomic ones, but they're rare and probalby only going to get rarer. Using coal, you burn 2-3x more coal to make the equivalent amount of power for a mile, than you do in gasoline. And coal is dirtier to burn than gas, not being refined you see. Why is this? Well, gasoline engines are far more effcient than a coal generator. Even atomic reactors are only 1% effcient. Gas generators are better, and closer to what you'd get in a car, but there are losses in making the electricity, then losses in using the electricity to move the car. You'll burn more gas to make electricity to run a car for a mile, than you'd burn to move a car itself a mile.

Each conversion of energy loses some of that energy. For a car it's gas into motion. The loss is heat. For a gas generator to electric car its: Gas into motion (losing heat), motion into electricty (losing heat again to friction), electricity into motion (losing heat to friction). More loss means you need more gas to do the same thing. Not to mention most gas generators are gas turbine generators. While the gas turbine engine can make more power per gallon than an internal combustion engine, the latter is far more effcient. One of the myriad of reasons gas turbine cars never went anywhere.

:thumbup:

Yes to all of the above, however, it is a little more complicated as electric motors are more efficient thus recouping some (not all) of the loss from the conversion of fossil fuels to electricity.

A gasoline engine is about 25% - 30% efficient, meaning about 70% - 75% of the energy converted is lost to heat and 25% - 30% makes it's way to actual mechanical energy. An electric motor is about 75% - 80% efficient (converted to mechanical energy) with 20% - 25% lost to heat.

The real problem we face is that we have spent the last 100 years developing an infrastructure that is reliant on a finite fuel source (fossil fuels). Ideally, we would create a new infrastructure that uses various passive forms to generate electricity; Solar, Wind, Hydro, etc. to support electric motor vehicles. I am not a big fan of Hydrogen, but look what the Scandinavians are doing with their Hydrogen Highway: http://www.scandinavianhydrogen.org/, pretty cool, they use solar powered electrolysis to separate the hydrogen to be burned in their fuel cell vehicles.

A quick note on fuel sources and their average energy conversion efficiency to electricity:
- 20% for Solar Cell (non-polluting, passive, renewable)
- 35% for coal (polluting, non-renewable)
- 38% for oil-fired power generation (polluting, non-renewable)
- 45% for natural gas (clean, non-renewable)
- 50% for Wind Turbine (non-polluting, passive, renewable)
- 60% for Gas Turbine plus Steam Turbine (clean, non-renewable)
- 75% for Fuel Cell (Hydrogen) (by-products may be hard to deal with, renewable)
- 90% for Water Turbine (non-polluting, passive, renewable)

On another note, even if we got completely away from fossil fuels as a fuel source, we are still dependent upon it as a chemical compound for things like rubber and plastics (as well as other stuff), and for manufacturing purposes. Which most of our electric vehicles would need.

Don't get me wrong, I want an electric vehicle future (or some alternative, non-polluting, renewable resource), all I am saying is that it goes beyond what motor and fuel we choose...it's complicated

 

[jtarkany]

...and another thing...The health of our current electric grid can barely handle the increase in power consumption from AC's during hot weather. Definitely need to invest in that or get each of us to start producing our own electricity on site, where we use it, solar, wind, fuel cell...

 

[shamrocker]

I voted no, but not because I wouldn't want one, I just wouldn't do it to "save the planet." I feel like my FZ6 is already an eco-friendly form of transportation (especially compared to my car).

 

[fyrebug]

If I had a car for long distance travel and an electric bike for city commute it would be perfect. 150mile range would last me the week. but 150-200 is too little if you want to really travel about and I don't want 2 vehicles right now.

I'm really surprised there aren't more electric scooters. not those crappy bicycle slow ebikes, but 60km/h 49cc style scooters fully electric with 100km range or something. I could see those selling well.

 

[fyrebug]

mmm and just a random comment about being reliant on oil for plastics etc, yes and no. we are right now because it's the easy way. there are alternatives.

I have 2 3d printers, in one of them I print plastic parts in PLA which is corn based plastic. it's not perfect, as hot water for a few hours will dissolve it, but it's just an example of 1 of many alternatives.

 

[pookamatic]

I voted no, but not because I wouldn't want one, I just wouldn't do it to "save the planet." I feel like my FZ6 is already an eco-friendly form of transportation (especially compared to my car).

I was with you, until I saw the Mythbuster's episode where they compared bikes versus cars. It turns out, motorcycles are actually *significantly* worse for the environment than cars in many key areas (hydrocarbons, CO, etc). They only beat out cars in fuel economy and CO2 I think.

'MythBusters' asks: Are motorcycles greener than cars? - latimes.com

 

[Wh0M3]

I was with you, until I saw the Mythbuster's episode where they compared bikes versus cars. It turns out, motorcycles are actually *significantly* worse for the environment than cars in many key areas (hydrocarbons, CO, etc). They only beat out cars in fuel economy and CO2 I think.

'MythBusters' asks: Are motorcycles greener than cars? - latimes.com

I saw that one. It was crazy to see the results. I had always thought motorcycles were better at everything in this regard.

Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ste]

yeah them mythbusters are good and actually feature good science too:rockon:

 

[ste]

they can get rubber from rubber trees, its not as efficient as oil, but still an option, and yes there are lots of new plastics being developed without oil

 

[mave2911]

I'd like to see Mythbusters test a current bike, and not use an average of three decades of manufacture.

It somewhat skews the results.

The FZ6 has one, or up to three catalytic converters, is EFI etc.

One would imagine, the efficiency of the motorcycle as a means of transportation also needs to be considered.

Even if a bike produces 1.5 times as many oxides of nitrogen, but a trip takes half as long, then the motorcycle is more efficient, and thus produces less pollution.

The same argument is valid for stop start traffic, where a car/truck/bus has to accelerate a much greater weight compared to a bike, so uses considerably more fuel, and thus produces MUCH more pollution etc.

So, the results are not as clear as one would like.

I think a revisit is in order!

Cheers,
Rick

 

[ste]

well the one from the noughties is an r1 from at least 2003 maybe younger
and they have better cats than most fz6's

 

[Wh0M3]

I'd like to see Mythbusters test a current bike, and not use an average of three decades of manufacture.

It somewhat skews the results.

The FZ6 has one, or up to three catalytic converters, is EFI etc.

One would imagine, the efficiency of the motorcycle as a means of transportation also needs to be considered.

Even if a bike produces 1.5 times as many oxides of nitrogen, but a trip takes half as long, then the motorcycle is more efficient, and thus produces less pollution.

The same argument is valid for stop start traffic, where a car/truck/bus has to accelerate a much greater weight compared to a bike, so uses considerably more fuel, and thus produces MUCH more pollution etc.

So, the results are not as clear as one would like.

I think a revisit is in order!

Cheers,
Rick

The kicker for the bike verse car test was they were comparing by the size of the vehicle, so it was a pound per pound with what they were putting out into the environment. The reason the cars did better was because of better aerodynamics. They "fixed" it by adding a tear drop bubble around a motorcycle then found that helped make the motorcycle better than the cars.

 

[Dunno]

Ripperton made an electric bike in his garage. He has also entered it in a few eBike races here in Australia & won! :thumbup:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GFgchxnXY]RIPPERTON ELECTRIC SUPERBIKE FREE SPIN.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

Here it is scaring crap out of a few people at an Eastern Creek track day. But they weren't expecting that!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzHUcvzHJVU]RIPPERTON ELECTRIC SUPERBIKE EC ride day 11 Oct 2011.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

Personally I don't see them ever replacing the petrol burners but it's good to see people thinking outside the square & making their own stuff at home as he has.

 

[mave2911]

well the one from the noughties is an r1 from at least 2003 maybe younger
and they have better cats than most fz6's

Yes, but then they averaged the result over the three.

And as for the 'per pound' argument, you'd need 10 bikes per car on a weight basis, and with rider, that'd STILL be many times lighter than most cars (especially SUVs and Ford Utes)

Add to that most cars have a sole occupant, like most bikes, and per person, the pollution would be far, far greater.

In an hour traffic jam, like we see on the telly, the only vehicles moving, usually, are bikes.

Jamie is a rider, he KNOWS the efficiencies experienced by motorcyclists vs cages.

From a simple test, yes it would appear that cars produce less pollutants than bikes, partially due to aerodynamics and refinement.

But a wholistic test, including variables like travel time, weights of vehicle (not just car to bike, but SUVs, trucks et al) etcetera would, in my opinion, come up with a completely different result

Cheers,
Rick