Formula E heads to Mexico for the fourth round of the season with Bird and Virgin leading the championships, a new driver in the field. We preview what to look out for in Mexico.
It depends on your definition of what a "battery" is.piast9 wrote:It's not the electrolyte itself that causes batteries to generate electricity but the electrochemical reactions at the electrodes. Changing only the electrolyte won't cause the battery to be charged. The charged lead acid battery that you mentioned has one lead electrode and the lead oxide at the second electrode, both of which turn into lead sulfate as the battery is discharged.Wideband mindeD wrote:Isn't it feasible to simply swap the electrolyte liquid out of a lead/acid type battery (maybe the gel type) with some sort of push/pull refueling rig? Car comes in and stops, hook up rig, suck out old gel as new gel is sucked in, change tyres and release.
Flow batteries provide several advantages over conventional battery storage technologies:
a) Power/Energy Design Flexibility. Since electrolyte is stored separately from the reaction stacks, the energy storage rating (kWh) is independent of the power rating (kW). This allows for design optimization for power and energy separately, specific to each application. Therefore, flow batteries have the advantage of scalability. To increase peak power output additional battery cells need to be added. But to increase the amount of energy that can be stored, and therefore to increase the time they will operate on a full charge, can be expanded almost indefinitely by building biffer tanks and filling them with electrolyte. The result is that these batteries can be used in a wide range of roles; from small scale units to power-station scales of hundreds of MWhs.
b) Layout Flexibility. The tanks can be easily arranged to fit the available space and shape of the facility. In one demonstration, the tanks were made of rubber that conformed to the shape of basement walls in an office complex.
c) Low Standby Losses. Depending upon the application, it is possible to drain the stacks and store the charged electrolyte for long periods of time without self-discharge or pump auxiliary loads.
d) Simple Cell Management. Conventional batteries must be periodically charged at high voltages to equalize all cells to the same state of charge. This can produce undesirable levels of explosive hydrogen gas (a safety issue) and reduces the available water in the battery (a life issue). In flow batteries, however, all cells share the same electrolyte at the same state of charge, so equalization is unnecessary.
All alcohol burnt from plant sugar is CO2 neutral.Tommy Cookers wrote:@ gato azul
zero carbon claim for bioethanol is surely based on the CO2 emissions being absorbed by the next generation of (cane) bioethanol
US sourced bE is from corn, requiring fertiliser and more work, giving small carbon benefit (why IRL changed from corn to cane bE)
cane bE can be better, but can be bad carbonwise as all bE causes 50 year carbon release if ploughing virgin land
not @ gato azul
so cane bE can be ok, corn or wheat bE is simply fraud (by governments making themselves look good) .... fraud won't save the world (biodiesel can be ok,too, but often bad for carbon release and for orang-utans etc)
similarly electric cars are (government) fraud (until we have majority low-carbon electricity, which IMO can't happen ?)
this thread has shown me that for PR purposes racing needs to kiss up to greeness (however fraudulent)
but that shouldn't stop F E being an efficiency formula, not another inefficiency formula ?
Supporting renewables is asking me to support a system that is contrary to my fundamental belief system i.e. I don’t believe that things can be renewed, at least not with regard to energy. I worship at the altar of entropy. Basically, I believe that the universe popped into being at a very high energy state and has been running down ever since. We can’t go back and renew energy; at best we can extract work as it passes from one state to a lower state on the way to cold and dark.Cam wrote:A simpler and far better way of promoting Formula E as a 'green' form of racing would be to Carbon Offset it and actively show what teams are doing. If they open up the inner workings and can publicly show that the cars and teams are both using as much renewable and recycled material where possible and offsetting what's left over.
I love the idea of electric racing. I just hate that the FIA cocks up everything.autogyro wrote:What makes me laugh is the lengths the 'anti greens' will go in their attempts to discredit electric vehicles and electric racing.
On that weird Autosport forum they even have some duck guy telling everyone his Brother or someone commutes 600 miles every day, I will say it again 600 miles every day.
Someone called him a bullsh--ter and he complained over the label.
If I wasnt banned I would have posted just to offer the daft guy's brother a proper job.
I think the label fits perfectly.
But then it was for telling the truth that I got banned for in the first place.
Sorry guys, electric racing is here to stay.
Formula E is electric car racing, not a marketing idea for renewables. [...]Supporting renewables is asking me to support a system that is contrary to my fundamental belief system i.e. I don’t believe that things can be renewed, at least not with regard to energy. I worship at the altar of entropy. Basically, I believe that the universe popped into being at a very high energy state and has been running down ever since. We can’t go back and renew energy; at best we can extract work as it passes from one state to a lower state on the way to cold and dark.
Fundamental beliefs should not be subject to political decree or marketing hype. Racing IMO should be about excellence for excellence sake and should steer clear of the bare-butt emperor with his cloak of renewability. There’s enough politics in racing already without dragging renewability in too.
That said, I certainly respect anyone’s right to believe differently provide the respect is reciprocal.
so I'm not actually against promoting Formula E in terms of renewables, but I personally couldn't support it. Why not cast a wider net?
olefud wrote: Supporting renewables is asking me to support a system that is contrary to my fundamental belief system i.e. I don’t believe that things can be renewed, at least not with regard to energy. I worship at the altar of entropy. Basically, I believe that the universe popped into being at a very high energy state and has been running down ever since. We can’t go back and renew energy; at best we can extract work as it passes from one state to a lower state on the way to cold and dark.
You missed an important part of Cam’s quote. I’m interested in and can support new technologies. When terms such as “renewable”, “offsetting” and “conflict minerals” are used we’re into marketing hype at best and politics at worst.skgoa wrote:olefud wrote: Supporting renewables is asking me to support a system that is contrary to my fundamental belief system i.e. I don’t believe that things can be renewed, at least not with regard to energy. I worship at the altar of entropy. Basically, I believe that the universe popped into being at a very high energy state and has been running down ever since. We can’t go back and renew energy; at best we can extract work as it passes from one state to a lower state on the way to cold and dark.
.
.
.
.
.
.
An F3 car which makes even less noise than an F3. Not going to be the greatest spectator attracting seriesForza wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDZ4VSFC6z0[/youtube]
Technical Data EF01 (prototype)
Top speed: 250 km/h
Acceleration: 0 à 100 km/h in 3 seconds
Race autonomy: 20 minutes
Gearbox: 2 speeds
Time in qualification lap: close to that a Formula 3
Time of recharge: between one and one and a half hours
Source
I don't think that noise is as much an issue as with F1 when it comes to electric racing. You certainly do not attach as high a value on it as you do in F1. Personally I would not mind a formula without much noise if it focusses on performance and the promotion of valuable technology. Horses for courses would be a good motto.jdlive wrote:An F3 car which makes even less noise than an F3. Not going to be the greatest spectator attracting series
It's interesting for all of those involved and everyone interested in the technologies used. But, an F3 race is already pretty much boring as --- due their lack of speed (when viewed from alongside the track) and due to their non-existant sound. This will be even worse for spectators. No one is going to show up. At the latest F3 race at Spa there were hardly any spectators and it was free entrance.WhiteBlue wrote:I don't think that noise is as much an issue as with F1 when it comes to electric racing. You certainly do not attach as high a value on it as you do in F1. Personally I would not mind a formula without much noise if it focusses on performance and the promotion of valuable technology. Horses for courses would be a good motto.jdlive wrote:An F3 car which makes even less noise than an F3. Not going to be the greatest spectator attracting series
