La voiture de demain, énergies alternatives

[Nick de Cusa]

Comme c'est cher et pas pratique, autant l'appliquer à une voiture de luxe et de frime.

En plus, les moteurs électriques donnent un nouvel éclairage à l'expression "babe magnet".

Officially Official: Mercedes to produce electric SLS gullwing

by Sam Abuelsamid on Jul 16th 2009 at 10:57AM

Mercedes-Benz has officially confirmed the rumors that have been floating around in recent days – it will build an electrically powered version of its upcoming SLS gullwing coupe. The EV version of the SLS will drive all four wheels by means of an individual motor for each corner. It will not however use wheel hub motors, since those add too much unsprung mass. The motors will be mounted just inboard of the suspension components.

Energy will be stored in a 48 kWh liquid cooled lithium ion battery pack running down the central tunnel. The combined output of the electric drive system is 392 kW (526 hp) and 880 Nm (649 lb-ft), which compares to 420 kW (563 hp) and 649 Nm (479 lb-ft) for the 6.3-liter V8 in the conventional SLS. Mercedes claims it will accelerate to 62 mph in four seconds. No range is being quoted at this time, but given that the battery capacity is lower than the Tesla Roadster and the car is larger, it will likely be well under 200 miles. No timeline for the electric version is being quoted, although earlier rumors placed it at 2015.

One of the reasons that Daimler said it was investing $50 million in Tesla Motors was the upstart's ability to move quickly and develop systems faster than could be done at Daimler. Given that, we may well see the electric SLS sooner rather than later. Check out our high-res gallery of (internal combustion) Mercedes SLS prototypes below and the official press release after the jump.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/16/officia…c-sls-gullwing/

[h16]

Je vois le magnet, je vois pas les babes.

[eclipse]

Je vois le magnet, je vois pas les babes.

Avec 200 miles d'autonomie, tu peux leur faire le coup de la panne

[Nick de Cusa]

L'investissement de ExxonMobil de 600M Dollars dans les algues me laisse sans voix.

Le blogueur (pourtant peak oiliste) Robert Rapier, qui suit de très prêt les bio craburants, qui a fait sa thèse sur ce sujet et bossé dessus des années en tant qu'ingé, n'y croit pas. Pour lui ça reste 15-20 fois plus cher que le pétrole.

Mais Exxon est une société qui est très près de ses sous. Ceux qui disent que 600M ne repésente rien au vu de leurs profits ne comprennent pas la galère que c'est que d'obtenir des Dollars d'investissement en interne.

Comme le dit l'article, les difficultés majeures avec les algues c'est comment les faire pousser à très grande échelle, et surtout comment séparer le produit intéressant du reste de l'algue.

Bref, Exxon, ou leur nouvel allié Craig Venter, ont-ils fait une découverte particulière? Nous devons être très nombreux à nous poser cette question en nous grattant la tête.

Ou alors c'est juste un acte de désespoir face aux nouvelles lois sur le CO2. Ca serait une volte face complète de céder comme ça, de leur part. Personnellement, je ne crois pas à cette version.

July 16, 2009

Some See Exxon Investments Into Alt Energy Signaling 'Paradigm Shift' for Big Oil

By KATIE HOWELL of Greenwire

Is Big Oil warming at last to the notion of an alternative-energy future?

So say some analysts who are pondering Exxon Mobil Corp.'s recent moves. Breaking from years of steadfast commitment to fossil fuels, the behemoth has announced big investments in electric cars, unconventional natural gas and algae-based biofuels (Greenwire, July 14).

"I think they see changes to the energy system coming over the next decades," said Michael Webber, an energy expert and engineering professor at the University of Texas. "It's pretty transparent that the energy field will be different 30 years from now. They're an energy company, so they had better be prepared than to wait."

The Exxon announcements have come rapidly this summer after years of rejecting pleas from environmentalists, legislators and shareholders to invest in alternative-energy technologies and commit to addressing climate change.

Just six months ago, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson said his company was not investing in alternative-energy efforts because "we think these technologies are old. If there is going to be a fundamental shift" from fossil fuels, he said, the technology "hasn't been discovered" (Greenwire, Feb. 17).

But in recent weeks, Exxon has tossed about $500,000 into an electric car-sharing program in Baltimore and participated in development of unconventional natural gas plays in Canada. On Tuesday, it announced a $600 million partnership to develop next-generation biofuels from algae.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Rob Young said the timing of the announcements is circumstantial. Each comes, he said, after significant internal research. "This is not something that happened overnight," he said. "The announcement and collaboration come after a number of years of work."

Analysts and experts are buzzing about a larger impact on major energy companies.

"This is very significant. I put Exxon's move as groundbreaking as Wal-Mart and GE's sustainability strategies," said Will Sarni, CEO of energy and environment consultant Domani. "One could argue -- maybe in hindsight -- that this is really the start of the second generation biofuels industry."

Certainly, alternative-energy advocates are thrilled, seeing Exxon's investment in algae biofuels spurring additional investments and faster movement toward such fuels' commercialization.

"I think the fact that Exxon -- which has a history of openly opposing biofuels and saying they don't work -- is moving into algae biofuels sends a strong signal to the investment community and technology community that there is a paradigm shift going on," said Brent Erickson, senior vice president for the industrial and environmental section at the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group.

Mary Rosenthal, newly appointed executive director of the year-old Algal Biomass Organization, agreed. "This is definitely a shot in the arm for the industry," she said. "It shows that traditional oil companies see next-generation biofuels as a positive horizon."

To be sure, Exxon Mobil is not the first oil company to invest in algae-based biofuels, but its investment is significant because of the size and the company's historical opposition to biofuels like ethanol. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chevron Corp. and BP have all recently announced algae biofuels partnerships or research ventures. And Dow Chemical Co. last month launched a pilot project with Algenol to produce ethanol from algae (Greenwire, June 29).

"Algae holds more potential than traditional biofuels, and firms are starting to realize that," RBC Capital Markets energy analyst Sandeep Ayyappan said. "If some of the scale efficiency issues are resolved, then algae could become a very competitive biofuel, especially since it absorbs CO2, as well, and could be eligible for offset credits."

In fact, climate legislation is likely a key driver in oil companies' decisions to invest in alternative-energy technologies.

"Climate change legislation that is now moving through the House and Senate … is inducing companies to think outside the box on their sustainability profiles, so they can meet possible cap-and-trade requirements in the future," Erickson said.

Fluctuating crude oil prices are likely another key driver, he added.

"I think that the price of oil -- even while the economy is down -- is still high and quite volatile," Erickson said. "People are still looking for alternatives."

Steve Gluck, head of Dow Chemical's algae technology program, agreed. "The squeeze on oil prices last year," he said, "stimulated a lot of investment from the venture-capital side."

'Real money'

To be clear, Exxon Mobil is not turning into an alternative-energy company. Its algae biofuels investment, for example, represents a little more than 1 percent of its 2008 net income and a little more than 2 percent of its 2008 capital expenditures. But experts say the investment is significant nonetheless.

UT's Webber said Exxon's $600 million investment is an order of magnitude larger than the amount spent by the federal government on algae biofuels in the past decade.

And Webber said Exxon is in the biofuels game to make a difference. "This is not a [public relations] stunt, because Exxon generally doesn't care about PR -- and I mean that in a loving way," he said. "For Exxon to get involved, I think they're serious. Primarily because of the amount of money, I think they're serious."

Said Greenpeace research director Kert Davies, "It's real money."

"Real money" is what algae biofuels needs, its leaders say.

There are scientific and economic hurdles to scaling up algae biofuels production. Among them are determining the best organisms to use, figuring out how to grow them and discovering the best technology to separate oil from algae.

"The algae biofuel industry needs to bring technologies to scale," Sarni said. "VCs [venture capitalists] will not be the ones to do this, but companies like Exxon will. If Exxon pulls this off, they could jump ahead of their competitors."

Exxon Mobil's technical expertise will also likely make it an asset for the sector, Webber said.

"Exxon operates differently than the others. They're an energy company, and they like to tackle problems that require engineers," Webber said, adding that the company is likely further along in advancing the technology than expected.

Senior reporter Mike Burnham contributed.

Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/16/16…agewanted=print

[Nick de Cusa]

Eh bien, de fait, Rapier est aussi dubitatif que moi. Billet du 16/7.

Un remarque intéressante toutefois : l'huile d'algues marcherait si les algues la sécrétait, ce qui éliminerait le problème de la séparation.

Ca me semble un gros SI. Il n'y a pas d'espèce qui font ça. Enfin, je devine. S'il y en avait, ça ferait des remous (si je puis m'exprimer ainsi au sujet d'une mer d'huile).

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/

[Nick de Cusa]

Alimentation électrique sans fil. Aucune mention du rendement dans l'article.

Wireless power system shown off

By Jonathan Fildes

Technology reporter, BBC News, Oxford

A system that can deliver power to devices without the need for wires has been shown off at a hi-tech conference.

The technique exploits simple physics and can be used to charge a range of electronic devices.

Eric Giler, chief executive of US firm Witricity, showed mobile phones and televisions charging wirelessly at the TED Global conference in Oxford.

He said the system could replace the miles of expensive power cables and billions of disposable batteries.

"There is something like 40 billion disposable batteries built every year for power that, generally speaking, is used within a few inches or feet of where there is very inexpensive power," he said.

Trillions of dollars, he said, had also been invested building an infrastructure of wires "to get power from where it is created to where it is used."

"We love this stuff [electricity] so much," he said.

Mr Giler showed off a Google G1 phone and an Apple iPhone that could be charged using the system.

Witricity, he said, had managed to pack all the necessary components into the body of the G1 phone, but Apple had made that process slightly harder.

"They don't make it easy at Apple to get inside their phones so we put a little sleeve on the back," he said.

He also showed off a commercially available television using the system.

"Imagine you get one of these things and you want to hang it on the wall," he said. "Think about it, you don't want those ugly cords hanging down."

The system is based on work by physicist Marin Soljacic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

It exploits "resonance", whereby energy transfer is markedly more efficient when a certain frequency is applied.

When two objects have the same resonant frequency, they exchange energy strongly without having an effect on other, surrounding objects.

For example, it is resonance that can cause a wine glass to explode when a singer hits exactly the right tone.

But instead of using acoustic resonance, Witricity's approach exploits the resonance of low frequency electromagnetic waves.

HOW WIRELESS POWER WORKS

1. First magnetic coil (Antenna A) housed in a box and can be set in wall or ceiling

2. Antenna A, powered by mains, resonates at a specific frequency

3. Electromagnetic waves transmitted through the air

4. Second magnetic coil (Antenna fitted in laptop/TV etc resonates at same frequency as first coil and absorbs energy

5. Energy charges the device

The system uses two coils - one plugged into the mains and the other embedded or attached to the gadget.

Each coil is carefully engineered with the same resonant frequency. When the main coil is connected to an electricity supply, the magnetic field it produces is resonant with that of with the second coil, allowing "tails" of energy to flow between them.

As each "cycle" of energy arrives at the second coil, a voltage begins to build up that can be used to charge the gadget.

Mr Giler said the main coil could be embedded in the "ceiling, in the floor, or underneath your desktop".

Devices using the system would automatically begin to charge as soon as they were within range, he said.

"You'd never have to worry about plugging these things in again."

Mr Giler was keen to stress the safety of the equipment during the demonstration.

"There's nothing going on - I'm OK," he said walking around a television running on wireless power.

The system is able to operate safely because the energy is largely transferred through magnetic fields.

"Humans and the vast majority of objects around us are non-magnetic in nature," Professor Soljacic, one of the inventors of the system, told BBC News during a visit to Witricity earlier this year.

It is able to do this by exploiting an effect that occurs in a region known as the "far field", the region seen at a distance of more than one wavelength from the device.

In this field, a transmitter would emit mixture of magnetic and potentially dangerous electric fields.

But, crucially, at a distance of less than one wavelength - the "near field" - it is almost entirely magnetic.

Hence, Witricity uses low frequency electromagnetic waves, whose waves are about 30m (100ft) long. Shorter wavelengths would not work.

Witricity is not the first jump on the concept of wireless electricity.

For example, the nineteenth century American inventor Thomas Edison and physicist and engineer Nikola Tesla explored the concept.

"In the very early days of electricity before the electric grid was deployed [they] were very interested in developing a scheme to transmit electricity wirelessly over long distances," explained Professor Soljacic.

"They couldn't imagine dragging this vast infrastructure of metallic wires across every continent."

Tesla even went so far as to build a 29m-high aerial known as Wardenclyffe Tower in New York.

"It ran into some financial troubles and that work was never completed," said Professor Soljacic.

Today, chip-giant Intel has seized on a similar idea to Witricity's, whilst other companies work on highly directional mechanisms of energy transfer, such as lasers.

However, unlike Witricity's work, lasers require an uninterrupted line of sight, and are therefore not good for powering objects around the home.

In contrast, Mr Giler said Witricity's approach could be used for a range of applications from laptops and phones to implanted medical devices and electric cars.

"Imagine driving in the garage and the car charges itself," he said.

He even said he had had interest from a company who proposed to use the system for an "electrically-heated dog bowl".

"You go from the sublime to the ridiculous," he said.

Ted Global is a conference dedicated to "ideas worth spreading". It runs from the 21 to 24 July in Oxford, UK.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8165928.stm

[Randian shithead]

Aucune mention du rendement dans l'article.

A vue de nez, je pense qu'il y a une bonne raison à ça.

[NL1]

Comme le dit l'article, les difficultés majeures avec les algues c'est comment les faire pousser à très grande échelle, et surtout comment séparer le produit intéressant du reste de l'algue.

L'exemple ne vaut peut être pas grand chose mais la Spiruline est une algue aujourd'hui produite à moyenne échelle. Quand a son rendement, je n'ai aucune info.

[Nick de Cusa]

En effet : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiruline_(co…nt_alimentaire)

Je n'y connais rien algues, mais tout ce que j'en ai lu jusqu'à présent c'est que les espèces candidates pour produire des bio carburants sont plus retorses.

Ou alors c'est juste les quantités requises. Il faut bien voir qu'en masse, l'humanité consomme bien plus de carburants que de nourriture : rien que pour le pétrole 85 millions de barrils par jour donne environ 12 millions de tonnes soit, 12 milliards de kilos, soit 2 kg par habitant par jour! A la louche. Si je puis m'exprimer ainsi.

Tiens, je n'avais jamais fait ce calcul. Impressionnant.

[Nick de Cusa]

Kia (groupe Hyundai) prétend pouvoir vendre une voiture à combustible à 50.000 Dollars US dans l'état actuel de la technique. Gonflé. En même temps, tant qu'il n'ont pas investi 1 won dans la moindre usine, ce genre de déclaration n'est pas très risquée.

Kia bigwig reportedly says mass-produced fuel cell cars would cost $50,000 if made today

by Jeremy Korzeniewski on Jul 24th, 2009 at 1:59PM

Kia Borrego FCEV - Click above for high-res image gallery

Let's face it: Hydrogen technology still has a ways to go before there's any real chance that we'll all be driving fuel cell cars in lieu of electric or fossil fuel-burning machines. Chief among the issues confronting the widespread adoption of hydrogen for automotive use is manufacturing cost, though that obstacle is currently being worked on. According to Byung Ki-Ahn, general manager of Kia's Mabuk-ri site, "Even if we were producing 50,000 fuel cell cars a year, they would currently have to cost $50,000 each."

While it would be easy for hydrogen proponents to latch on to this statement as good news – and, if true, that pricing is considerably better than we would have predicted – there's more to overcome than just the pricey fuel cell stack. For instance, even if Kia were indeed building 50,000 fuel cell cars per year, there would need to be an adequate infrastructure to support those vehicles. Further, a low cost and eco-friendly process for capturing, storing and transporting large amounts of hydrogen still needs to be developed.

Regardless, it's clear that Kia, along with corporate cousin Hyundai, believe these issues will be worked out in time. When asked where the Korean automaker currently sits on a production-ready hydrogen vehicle, Ki-Ahn said, "On a scale of one to 10, I'd say we we're at six or seven. Before 2020, many people will be hearing about fuel cell vehicles made by Hyundai-Kia."

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/24/kia-big…-cars-would-co/

[Brock]

un won et c'est gagné

[h16]

Tiens, dédicace pour jim16 :

On approche progressivement des robots totalement autonomes humanoïdes.

[Randian shithead]

Tiens, dédicace pour jim16 :

On approche progressivement des robots totalement autonomes humanoïdes.

Dernière image de la vidéo à retenir pour ceux qui disent que les entreprises ne participent plus au développement technologique.

[Silhouette]

L'investissement de ExxonMobil de 600M Dollars dans les algues me laisse sans voix.

Le blogueur (pourtant peak oiliste) Robert Rapier, qui suit de très prêt les bio craburants, qui a fait sa thèse sur ce sujet et bossé dessus des années en tant qu'ingé, n'y croit pas. Pour lui ça reste 15-20 fois plus cher que le pétrole.

Mais Exxon est une société qui est très près de ses sous. Ceux qui disent que 600M ne repésente rien au vu de leurs profits ne comprennent pas la galère que c'est que d'obtenir des Dollars d'investissement en interne.

Comme le dit l'article, les difficultés majeures avec les algues c'est comment les faire pousser à très grande échelle, et surtout comment séparer le produit intéressant du reste de l'algue.

Bref, Exxon, ou leur nouvel allié Craig Venter, ont-ils fait une découverte particulière? Nous devons être très nombreux à nous poser cette question en nous grattant la tête.

Ou alors c'est juste un acte de désespoir face aux nouvelles lois sur le CO2. Ca serait une volte face complète de céder comme ça, de leur part. Personnellement, je ne crois pas à cette version.

L'intérêt du procédé est qu'il permet des rendements bien plus élevés que les biocarburants de première génération, et que surtout il n'oblige pas à sacrifier des hectares de cultures vivrières pour nourrir nos réservoirs, ce qui est la pire des absurdités. Actuellement, le procédé est expérimental. Séché espère à terme des rendements de 20 000 litres d'éthanol par hectares de cultures d'algues, soit 2 litres au m2.

Toutefois, ces rendements pourraient être enfoncés. Un concurrent américain, Joule Biotech, fondée par des chercheurs uiversitaires (MIT, Harvard…) a eu les honneurs du Wall Street Journal ces derniers jours. Cette start up affirme que grâce à des algues génétiquement modifiées, elle peut envisager des rendements de 20 000 gallons/acre, soit 18 litres par m2/an. Le carburant ainsi produit reviendrait à ce jour 50$ / baril, subventions incluses, hélas. Mais le procédé n'en est qu'au début, des progrès importants sont tout à fait escomptables. Je suppose qu'il y a une part d'intox dans ces chiffres, chasse aux subventions oblige. Mais tout de même, la filière de production de carburant par des micro-organismes paraît incroyablement prometteuse.

Extrait d'un des derniers articles de Vincent Bénard

[EcoGuy]

En l'occurence, l'Etat déroule le tapis rouge de bitume pour vous inciter à rouler. Il vous impose donc sa vision par la force

Non.

L'Etat déroule plutôt le tapis de fer en subventionnant lourdement SNCF et transports urbains collectifs, tandis qu'il assomme les automobilistes de TIPP + TVA.

Et n'allez pas me chanter que la TIPP sert à entretenir les routes, car ce n'est vrai qu'en partie seulement.

En effet, la TIPP est le financement principal du RMI (payé par les régions, qui récupèrent une bonne partie de la TIPP), et tout un tas de mesures "sociales", ou encore de la subvention aux transports collectifs.

Une grossière différence recettes tipp / dépenses routes donne 15 à 20 centimes de moins par litre à la pompe.

Ergo, l'Etat vous force à abandonner la voiture et à préférer ses couteux joujoux, souvent vides de clients.

Anecdote: les écolos fous de Delanouille sont allés jusqu'à déclarer officiellement que devant le constat de la faible utilisation des moyens de transport mis à disposition par les pouvoir publics, il aller falloir "allonger le temps de transit des automobilistes" en créant chicanes et rétrécissements, "de façon à rendre les transports publics intéressants par rapport à la voiture."

Ouvrages conseillés:

Les danseuses de la république

SNCF la machine infernale

Bastiat: Sophismes Economiques

IX: "Immense découverte !!!"

XVI: "les fleuves obstrués plaidant pour les prohibitionnistes"

XVII "Un chemin de fer négatif"

[Nick de Cusa]

Tiens, dédicace pour jim16 :

On approche progressivement des robots totalement autonomes humanoïdes.

Bon là elle le pousse, de façon répétée et clairement intentionnelle, et il ne lui fiche même pas un petit coup de pied dans le tibia.

[Nick de Cusa]

Pas mal pour un début en la matière :

Buffett Posts $1 Billion Profit on China Hybrid Carmaker BYD

By Bloomberg News

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. earned a $1 billion paper profit from an investment it agreed to make in Chinese carmaker BYD Co. less than a year ago.

The automaker has jumped fivefold in Hong Kong trading since the deal was announced on Sept. 27, helped by Buffett’s investment and rising demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. Three days earlier Berkshire agreed to an investment in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that has since generated a paper profit of about $2 billion.

“When Warren Buffett says the sun shines out of somebody’s backside, it’s worth paying attention,” said Guy Spier, principal at New York-based hedge fund Aquamarine Funds LLC, who owns Berkshire shares and has researched BYD. Buffett is “betting on the jockey in this case,” Spier said, referring to BYD’s Chief Executive Officer Wang Chuanfu.

Berkshire’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. unit agreed to buy 225 million new shares of BYD for HK$8 apiece. That stock now has a market value of HK$9.66 billion ($1.25 billion), based on today’s closing price. Buffett will pay HK$1.8 billion.

BYD said last night it completed the sale. Buffett didn’t respond to a request for comment.

BYD’s Hybrid

The investment may help BYD, the seventh-biggest carmaker in China, boost its profile overseas and also reassure potential customers, Chief Executive Wang said last year. The automaker started selling the F3 DM, the world’s first mass-produced plug- in hybrid, in December.

“Investors are buoyed by the potential growth in BYD’s electric-car business,” said Barry Leung, an analyst at Sun Hung Kai Securities Ltd. in Hong Kong. “The alternative-energy sector is clearly one that will continue to enjoy the support of the Chinese government.” Leung rates the carmaker “buy.”

BYD, also China’s biggest maker of rechargeable batteries, climbed 3.1 percent to HK$42.95 at the close of trading today. The company supplies power units to mobile-phone makers including Motorola Inc., Nokia OYJ, Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc.

“Battery technology is one of the most important subjects affecting the technological future of man,” Charlie Munger, Berkshire’s vice chairman, who first identified BYD as a potential investment target, said in a May 1 Bloomberg TV interview. “BYD is one of the most interesting small companies in the world.”

Sales Growth

The Shenzhen-based company aims to more than double vehicle sales this year to 400,000 helped by exports and new models, Wang said in March. First-half sales more than doubled to 176,814, helped by demand for the F3, China’s fourth bestselling car, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers. China’s overall passenger-car sales rose 26 percent to 4.53 million.

BYD plans to sell shares on the mainland to help fund the development of its auto business. The company intends to offer as many as 100 million yuan-denominated shares in Shenzhen, it said in a July 16 statement.

In May, the automaker agreed to explore cooperation with Volkswagen AG in areas including hybrid cars and lithium-battery powered electric vehicles. The company will also work with Buffett’s MidAmerican on the development of rapid-charge batteries for storing power from wind and solar generation, MidAmerican Chairman David Sokol said in September.

…

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206…id=a5nT9dttOs7w

[Nick de Cusa]

Mitsubishi prétendrait que le prix de la iMiev passerait en trois ans de 35.000 Euros à 15.000. Sachant qu'après, le coût carburant est très bas, il y aurait alors un proportion de la population qui pourrait vivre avec l'autonomie de ~150 km.

MITSUBISHI

20 Prozent E-Autos bis 2020

Nach Einschätzung des japanischen Automobilherstellers fährt bis 2020 ein Fünftel der neu produzierten Fahrzeuge mit elektrischem Antrieb.

Bis zum Jahr 2020 werden nach Einschätzung von Mitsubishi ein Fünftel aller neu produzierten Autos mit elektrischem Antrieb fahren. Aber schon 2012 sollen mindestens 30.000 der neuen Elektroautos von Mitsubishi vom Band laufen, berichtet das „Handelsblatt“ in der heutigen Montagausgabe. Bislang kostet das neue Auto i-Miev noch umgerechnet 35.000 Euro, laut Mitsubishi-Motors-Chef Osamu Masuko soll der Preis aber im Jahr 2012 auf rund 15.000 Euro sinken. Von Ende 2010 an will der Hersteller sein Elektroauto auch in Deutschland verkaufen.

http://www.automobil-industrie.vogel.de/oems/articles/223584

[Nick de Cusa]

IEMU* : la puissance intallée de tout le parc automobile est 35 fois supérieure à celle toutes les centrales électriques réunies (USA). A peu près 38.000 gigawatts contre 1.100.

Curiosity: Report says we have 35x more HP in our driveways than our power plants

by Jeremy Korzeniewski on Aug 19th 2009 at 11:40AM

It may not be a particularly glamorous definition of the automobile, but it's true on some level that cars and trucks are individual little power generators on wheels, a fact pointed out here by Wired staff writer Alexis Madrigal. Interestingly, when viewed in that light, the United States has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to overall latent power availability.

In fact, Madrigal calculates that the U.S. has 35 times more horsepower sitting there in our driveways than in all our power plants combined. Like numbers? Says Madrigal:

Turns out we have something on the order of 51 billion peak horsepower sitting in our driveways. That's an incredible 38,276 gigawatts of power available. That absolutely dwarfs the nameplate capacity of our electrical power plants, which total up to a mere 1,087 gigawatts. In fact, each week of 2008, a horrible year for car sales, almost 38 gigawatts of capacity rolled into the streets of America.

That's mighty impressive, no? While we're not sure we'd follow the logic all the way to the conclusion that we should all be driving Tata Nanos, we do agree that the average passenger car doesn't really need 200 horsepower to get its lone occupant to work on time. We also can't help but consider the potential of a national electric car infrastructure as a way to store excess power that could be called into action in a jiffy if required.

[source: Inventing Green]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/19/curiosi…driveways-than/

* : info étonnante mais inutile

[h16]

Plus généralement, ça montre qu'on pourrait plutôt avoir des générateurs électriques de niveau individuel (ou disons, par petits blocs d'habitation) plutôt que des grandes centrales, et ce, à probablement moindre coût d'entretien.

[neuneu2k]

Plus généralement, ça montre qu'on pourrait plutôt avoir des générateurs électriques de niveau individuel (ou disons, par petits blocs d'habitation) plutôt que des grandes centrales, et ce, à probablement moindre coût d'entretien.

Certainement, pour des centrales a gaz, pour des centrales nucléaires, on n'y est pas encore (mais ça viens… oh oui, ça viens !)

[eclipse]

Les grandes centrales sont tout de même utile pour produire l'énergie nécessaire à certains procédés industriels.

[neuneu2k]

Les grandes centrales sont tout de même utile pour produire l'énergie nécessaire à certains procédés industriels.

Indubitablement (j'en sais quelque chose, tu sais combien ça consomme un datacenter ?)

[h16]

Indubitablement (j'en sais quelque chose, tu sais combien ça consomme un datacenter ?)

Parce qu'ils sont électriques, chez vous ?

Nous, on fait pédaler. Green powa.

[john_ross]

Parce qu'ils sont électriques, chez vous ?

Nous, on fait pédaler. Green powa.

Le mien il fonctionne avec des hamsters qui actionnent une dynamo pour l'éclairage et des rats pour manipuler les bouliers?

[Nick de Cusa]

Les grandes centrales sont tout de même utile pour produire l'énergie nécessaire à certains procédés industriels.

Pas forcément si chaque micro centrale alimente le réseau.

Non, l'argument principal en faveur des grosses centrales, c'est le rendement énergétique des chaudières à très haute pression couplée a de très grosses turbines.

+ évidemment sur les sites industriels la cogénération ("cogen") électricité + chaleur (sous forme de vapeur). Là on arrive à des rendements supérieurs à 80%

[neuneu2k]

Non, l'argument principal en faveur des grosses centrales, c'est le rendement énergétique des chaudières à très haute pression couplée a de très grosses turbines.

C'est gros comment l'implantation d'une GE H ?

[Rincevent]

Indubitablement (j'en sais quelque chose, tu sais combien ça consomme un datacenter ?)

Ca consomme beaucoup, beaucoup moins qu'un four à aluminium. Le plus gros de France bouffe à lui seul un millième de la puissance du réseau électrique.

Et oui, c'est pas toi qui a la plus grosse prise électrique.

[Cato]

Les énergies alternatives aux produits fossiles sont sans aucun doute l'avenir énergétique de l'humanité. Je crains malheureusement que la transition d'un type d'énergie à l'autre n'a pas été préparé. Cette transition risque de faire mal!

[john_ross]

Nous avons encore le temps de réaliser la transition fossile vers autre chose.

Et le problème ce n'est pas tant la production que le stockage.