Mazda - Compression Ignition Petrol Engine

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Mazda - Compression Ignition Petrol Engine

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1861218 9-Sep-2017 10:47

What are these EV's made of? How are they shipped?
Producing an ICE car produces roughly the same greenhouse gases through it's lifetime as driving it.

Steelmaking's one of the world’s leading industrial sources of greenhouse gases.
Steel's made from iron oxide (rust!) by reducing it with carbon (from coking coal); the process belches out carbon dioxide as a byproduct. One tonne of steel generates almost two tonnes of CO2.

The smelting of aluminuim is very energy intensive – and depending on the energy source – can produce lots of greenhouse gas. In Australia for instance 16 tonnes of CO2's produced per tonne of aluminium.
In Canada's Kitimat, or New Zealand's Tiwai point smelters use mainly hydroelectric power, but the actual production process produces again two tonnes of CO2 per Tonne of Aluminium and the ore's mined and shipped using fossil fuels.

Plastics, of course are a byproduct of refining oil, or Natural Gas. Producing each tire cost about 80KG CO2..

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1861252 9-Sep-2017 12:48

Sidestep:

What are these EV's made of? How are they shipped?
Producing an ICE car produces roughly the same greenhouse gases through it's lifetime as driving it.

Steelmaking's one of the world’s leading industrial sources of greenhouse gases.
Steel's made from iron oxide (rust!) by reducing it with carbon (from coking coal); the process belches out carbon dioxide as a byproduct. One tonne of steel generates almost two tonnes of CO2.

The smelting of aluminuim is very energy intensive – and depending on the energy source – can produce lots of greenhouse gas. In Australia for instance 16 tonnes of CO2's produced per tonne of aluminium.
In Canada's Kitimat, or New Zealand's Tiwai point smelters use mainly hydroelectric power, but the actual production process produces again two tonnes of CO2 per Tonne of Aluminium and the ore's mined and shipped using fossil fuels.

Plastics, of course are a byproduct of refining oil, or Natural Gas. Producing each tire cost about 80KG CO2..

This of course is usually forgotten.
I'm of the opinion that putting effort into making cars last - or at least producing them to have a low cost of maintenance - increasing their serviceable life - would be an environmentally responsible thing to do.
In most cases cars actually are much more reliable than they were decades ago, but serviceable life is shortened by the high cost of spare parts, and/or high cost of labour to fix things. OTOH one of reasons for the damned complexity is to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. I'm not sure if the "balance" is right. Could be wrong, but the average age of the NZ fleet is about 13 years. In 13 years time I expect every new car being sold today to be a maintenance horror story - including Toyotas which some people believe never need maintenance and last forever.

Curiously anti EV folks whine about the cost of inevitable battery replacement, but ignore the fact that it probably costs as much or more to replace just the high-tech transmission in some of these new ICE cars, and once out of warranty they're ticking time-bombs.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1861253 9-Sep-2017 12:54

It's not just cars - we have a throw away society now for all sorts of products. Nobody repairs things anymore as it's much cheaper to throw it away and buy a new one. Add to the cost of steel manufacturing the incredible amount of packaging waste - it's a nightmare.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1861273 9-Sep-2017 13:19

kryptonjohn:

It's not just cars - we have a throw away society now for all sorts of products. Nobody repairs things anymore as it's much cheaper to throw it away and buy a new one. Add to the cost of steel manufacturing the incredible amount of packaging waste - it's a nightmare.

I agree - more than "not just cars" the non-serviceability of general tech goods based on the concept that there's more money to be made selling a new one has changed marketing - what's happening with cars is just following that trend.

Hard to avoid though - if still wanting to live a "normal" life.

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1861279 9-Sep-2017 13:56

I think there is a long way to go before EVs become comercially viable at the consumer level.

Primarily, I dont think people will start buying them outside of early adopters and businesses (which can recover costs) until the price falls to below that of the current equivalent ICE vehicles, so trucks, vans, utes, sedans, convertibles, minis and motorcycles etc.

My experience of the R&D field suggests that these vehicles are still in the innovation stage. Lots of new features and technology which is interesting an novel, but the redundancy I think is still quite rapid. Until standardisation and modularity across manufacturers kicks in, the price will stay fairly high.

There is also the issue of vehicle as a service. That is, one doesnt own the vehicle but leases it either short or long term - kind of like paying a little extra to get a new phone each year.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

smalltrader

174 posts

Master Geek

#1861366 9-Sep-2017 17:01

I am not so sure ICE will die quickly. There are other factors beside range and costs. In a city where I live is hilly and many residents are either off street parking or if you are lucky a carport with no power connection.

I will only buy an EV if it costs the same as an ICE car and I can go to a charging station and get a full charge in less than 5 mins that can give me a range of at least 500km. In fact a diesel Mazda can go 1000 km on tank if driven on flat road. I do believe EV will achieve the same thing given time.

There are people who believe EV will completely take over in 5 years. I don't think so and I am not interested in a religious debate. What Mazda is doing is a good transitional strategy.

All the current information about EV running cost being massively cheaper is because you don't pay ruc on EV. By the time you add ruc, EV is still cheaper on consumption cost but not massively cheaper.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1861375 9-Sep-2017 17:10

Linuxluver:
Burning petrol releases carbon at 2.2kg / Litre.

Petrol weighs about 700g/litre. How can a litre contain 2.2kg of carbon?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1861384 9-Sep-2017 17:18

frankv:

Linuxluver:
Burning petrol releases carbon at 2.2kg / Litre.

Petrol weighs about 700g/litre. How can a litre contain 2.2kg of carbon?

The hydrocarbons combine with oxygen (includes the 'weight' of atmospheric oxygen)

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1861389 9-Sep-2017 17:24

ICEs are at best about 40% efficient (at WOT) in turning potential energy in fuel into kinetic energy. That's mainly because they have to pump air through the engine to burn the fuel, and pumping air uses energy. No amount of tweaking and tuning can avoid that. In fact, most of the tweaking has been done to improve the horrendous inefficiency when the engine isn't running at WOT (as it does 99% of the time).

I did wonder about separating the air pumping from the fuel burning function; e.g. have a really efficient air compressor (a super-supercharger, if you like) that provides high pressure air to the combustion engine. But I doubt that there's much to save there either. I did also wonder about external combustion, (e.g. burn fuel in an efficient furnace to produce heat which in some way drives the wheels). But I think these ideas have already been superceded by EVs and fuel cells.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1861390 9-Sep-2017 17:25

Sidestep:

frankv:

Linuxluver:
Burning petrol releases carbon at 2.2kg / Litre.

Petrol weighs about 700g/litre. How can a litre contain 2.2kg of carbon?

The hydrocarbons combine with oxygen (includes the 'weight' of atmospheric oxygen)

So that's the weight of CO2, not of carbon?

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1861396 9-Sep-2017 17:39

frankv:

Sidestep:

frankv:

Linuxluver:
Burning petrol releases carbon at 2.2kg / Litre.

Petrol weighs about 700g/litre. How can a litre contain 2.2kg of carbon?

The hydrocarbons combine with oxygen (includes the 'weight' of atmospheric oxygen)

So that's the weight of CO2, not of carbon?

Yes, I see what you mean. I read linuxluver's 'carbon' to be meant as CO2

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1861437 9-Sep-2017 18:13

Sidestep:

frankv:

Sidestep:

frankv:

Linuxluver:
Burning petrol releases carbon at 2.2kg / Litre.

Petrol weighs about 700g/litre. How can a litre contain 2.2kg of carbon?

The hydrocarbons combine with oxygen (includes the 'weight' of atmospheric oxygen)

So that's the weight of CO2, not of carbon?

Yes, I see what you mean. I read linuxluver's 'carbon' to be meant as CO2

It's a distinct advantage with energy density over any possible "battery" when over 70% of the two reagents' weight can be sucked from the air - less than 30% of the total "fuel" weight needs to be carried.

Hence despite very crappy efficiency it still gives a massive advantage in "range" (the 40% figure given above is extremely optimistic/achievable under ideal conditions which probably isn't wide open throttle).

Fuel cells using atmospheric oxygen could in theory enjoy the same advantage, but with much higher efficiency than ICE. Honda manage to get about 600km range, fuel economy better than 1kg hydrogen per 100km.

Not sure if I'm comfortable with the idea of tanks with H2 at 10,000psi though...

Edit to mention that a hydrogen fuel cell is also a battery - with the same advantage as liquid fossil fuel, that the heaviest reagent can also be sucked from the air as you travel, the combined reagents dumped as water- but that hydrogen has about 2 1/2 timers the energy density as petrol per kg, and efficiency could be much closer to 100% than fossil fuel will ever be.

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1861545 9-Sep-2017 20:25

Sidestep:
frankv:

Linuxluver:
Burning petrol releases carbon at 2.2kg / Litre.

Petrol weighs about 700g/litre. How can a litre contain 2.2kg of carbon?

The hydrocarbons combine with oxygen (includes the 'weight' of atmospheric oxygen)

maths I think - and units of measure :)

The density of fuel is 700g/litre. Density is mass per volume and is measured in kg/m3 (fuel is about 720).

Mass is measured in kg - I think relatively equal to a cubic decimeter of water at 4C

Weight is a force, it is measured in Newtons and is mass x gravity.

I believe one cannot say petrol weighs 700g, but it can weigh 6.86N :)

Combustion is an exothermic chemical reaction I think. The fuel and oxygen as the input so perhaps typically the output is co2 and h2o + heat. From memory probably something like 16co2+18H2o

...they/their/them...

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1861590 9-Sep-2017 22:33

surfisup1000:

kryptonjohn:

Note also that it has more power in addition to more efficiency so depending on the downsides that they will have to iron out, and the fact that ICE engines are going to be around for a while no matter what happens with EV it's still got a lot of potential.

ICE will die out very quickly as soon as an EV becomes available with decent range with a price similar to ICE. Currently, you can get either decent range or decent price, but not together :)

Not in my lifetime. THere's a much better chance of extinction of woodburners than ICEs.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1861613 10-Sep-2017 01:24

frankv:

ICEs are at best about 40% efficient (at WOT) in turning potential energy in fuel into kinetic energy. That's mainly because they have to pump air through the engine to burn the fuel, and pumping air uses energy. No amount of tweaking and tuning can avoid that. In fact, most of the tweaking has been done to improve the horrendous inefficiency when the engine isn't running at WOT (as it does 99% of the time).

I did wonder about separating the air pumping from the fuel burning function; e.g. have a really efficient air compressor (a super-supercharger, if you like) that provides high pressure air to the combustion engine.

You have just described a 2 stroke diesel engine. They have to have a supercharger to run. And they need an electric fan to push air through the engine to start them.

Also diesel engines are inherently more efficient, as unlike petrol engines which use a butterfly valve (throttle) to regulate the air going into the engine. Which means under low load, a petrol engine is often operating with a compression ratio as low as 4:1. While a diesel engine even at idle still operates at it's full compression ratio. Really big diesel engines in large ships are getting efficiencies up to 50%. Which is by running really huge compression ratios, and in turn the max RPM of those engines is often less than 1000 RPM.

I think that those engines could be miniaturised into a car engine - would have to be a single cylinder with a big flywheel though. But it would suit as a "range extender" engine for an electric car. And in really cold climates, the heat from the engine could be recovered to heat the cabin and keep batteries warm. Which would mean a theoretical efficiency close to 100% as virtually all energy present in the fuel will be getting used for useful tasks.

The biggest killer of efficiency in modern engines is NOx emissions rules. As heat engine theory says that the higher the combustion temps obtained - the higher the efficiency, all other things being equal. But higher combustion temps mean higher NOx emissions. So heaps more CO2 gets spewed out by the worlds cars and trucks to meet silly NOx emission rules. Lots of people in the UK (and other parts of the world) also disable the Exhaust Gas Recirculation systems on their cars. As you get better fuel economy by doing so. And since petrol and diesel are really expensive in the UK, more incentive to cheat the emissions rules.

The diesel van provided to me by the company I used to work for. (Mitsi L300) It would struggle to get much more than 300Km to a tank of diesel. I disabled the EGR on it. After that, it would do over 420K to a tank of diesel no problem. So at least a 30% saving on fuel usage. Which is also a 30% reduction in carbon emissions. All from disabling something that is supposed to be an emissions reduction device. It also blew out less diesel smoke and it drove better as well. It was also a really easy mod to do on an L300. Pull the vacuum hose off the EGR actuator, and stick a bolt in the end of the hose to block it.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4