Not strictly true... Forgetting the initial capital costs of equipment (panels, turbines, heat exchangers and Land Rovers etc) then solar / wind energy might be an example. Solar / wind energy is essentially free.

Another example might be crematoria providing direct energy to heat water for their local community swimming pools etc by capturing and exploiting the heat generated by the primary purpose of the facility that otherwise vents directly into the atmosphere.

Turbo chargers are driven by exhaust gases, a by-product of combustion that is produced whether or not it is used to drive the TC. Instead of venting directly to the atmosphere, the same pressure that drives exhaust gases to the rear of the car and out is redirected to drive a turbine en route to the atmosphere. To all intents and purpose it's free. You might even say that it reduces cost (over an equivalently performing non TC diesel engine).


It's really nothing like saying the alternator is turning so lighting is free of course, The alternator has to be driven to meet the demand placed upon it - the greater the demand, the harder it has to be driven by the primary energy producer (the engine). Drive everywhere at night with with lights, wipers, heater satnav, radio, bluetooth, seats, screens etc. switched on and mpg will be lower than the same driving with fewer or none of those things on.

The alternator output has a direct and measurable cost in the diesel consumed by the engine.

Quote:

The alternator output has a direct and measurable cost in the diesel consumed by the engine.

Is this correct? My understanding is the alternator is able to produce a level of output determined by the engine speed, it directs that output to whats currently required by the vehicle electrics, any surplus up to a level goes to recharging the battery, and any surplus from that goes to ground. Switching on more and more electrics would just end up running the battery flat, I can't see how it adds an extra load on the engine to make it work harder (run faster)?

I can see how turning an electric device like the aircon unit on can add load to the engine because its a separate device engaged on the drive belt. 
Hung like Einstein, smart as a horse.

It's true - the greater the electrical load the greater the mechanical resistance of the alternator, and that will have an effect (albeit small) on fuel consumption. You can often hear a change in engine note when you turn on/off high-load electrical items with the engine idling (although the effect is more noticeable on small petrol engines than a large-ish diesel).

HappyNomad wrote:

Forgetting the initial capital costs of equipment (panels, turbines, heat exchangers and Land Rovers etc) then solar / wind energy might be an example. Solar / wind energy is essentially free.

Ok, I didn't realise that, I thought there was an initial load due to the size of the alternator but I thought it was a fixed load and it didn't vary, I couldn't envisage how any extra mechanical load could be induced as its just a fixed weight magnet spinning around copper coils. But I had a google and you get magnetic fields created which increasingly pushing against each other as the draw increases, creating the resistance.

Schooled.  
Hung like Einstein, smart as a horse.

The AA wrote:

Air-conditioning, lights and other electrical loads – which increase fuel consumption in the real world - are all switched off for the test.

pab wrote:

HappyNomad wrote:

Forgetting the initial capital costs of equipment (panels, turbines, heat exchangers and Land Rovers etc).

Except you really can't forget those costs...

shiggsy wrote:

... just a fixed weight magnet spinning around copper coils.

Pollution from coal mining. Just looking at one region in Australia. The Hunter Valley North of Sydney has twice the pollution levels of Sydney. Coal dust heath costs are always left out of the equation. Not only are the people suffering. Cattle are also breathing in this pollution and we are eating them. The dust also affects the vineyards. I don't buy any wine from the Hunter Valley.

Uranium mining in Australia has regular leaks from tailing dams. Not the best thing of have going into the environment.

Damage caused by long wall mining where the land above simply collapses. The continuous stream of 8000 tonne coal trains from all these different mines. The actual footprint the conventional power industry requires from mine to transport to power stations is pretty frightening.

At least one can still use the land for farming under a wind turbine. Solar farms don't look that much different to poly tunnels for food. A coal fired power station looks like a small city on the landscape and there is one after the other and they are not the prettiest things to look at.

I think once we look at the full cost including heath implications to the whole community, all the tax and fuel subsidies the mining industry is getting. There will be a far more level playing field with renewables. Procrastination, mankind's greatest labour saving device!

Acoustic insulation ARB TPMS 3xARB air compressors After cooler Air tank On-board OCD pressure air/water cleaning Additional 50L fuel Carpet in doors ABE 2x1kg Waeco 28L modified fridge Battery 4x26ah Solar 120w Victron MPPT 100/20 DC-DC 18amps 175amp jumper plug Awning 6x255/60R18

dorsetfreelander wrote:

Mav71 wrote:

Turbocharging doesn't need any mechanical power from the engine to drive it. It's free power from waste exhaust gases to spin the turbo.

Sorry but First law of thermodynamics rules ie you can't get something for nothing. Bit like saying that your alternator is turning so your lights are on for free.

pab wrote:

It's true - the greater the electrical load the greater the mechanical resistance of the alternator, and that will have an effect (albeit small) on fuel consumption. You can often hear a change in engine note when you turn on/off high-load electrical items with the engine idling (although the effect is more noticeable on small petrol engines than a large-ish diesel).

Absolutely right  Freelander 2 HSE Lux 2013MY - Barolo Black with Ivory Leather. Alpine DVD - Privacy -Evoque 20" Dynamic Wheels and more to come.........

Article in yesterday's Financial Times about the French government plans to start phasing out diesels from 2015. Looks like we will also be driving big petrol engines soon.

Carmakers braced for European crackdown on diesel vehicles

The French government, which owns about 15 per cent of carmakers Renault and PSA Peugeot Citroën, has pledged to “progressively” ban from 2015 diesel vehicles — which account for two-thirds of car sales in the country and almost two-thirds of Renault and Peugeot’s European sales.

The November announcement by prime minister Manuel Valls — in which he admitted the promotion of diesel cars had been a “mistake” — was followed last month by a promise from Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo to ban these vehicles from the city by 2020.

France’s stance highlights a big shift taking place in the European debate over vehicle pollution. For a decade or more, policy makers have focused on targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and this prompted carmakers to invest heavily in diesel vehicles because they emit less CO2 than the petrol equivalents.



But now the focus is turning to air quality, which raises far-reaching questions about the viability of diesel vehicles. This is because they emit harmful pollutants such as nitrogen oxide that can cause serious respiratory problems.

Cities are under pressure from the European Commission to tackle pollution. Studies from the International Council on Clean Transportation, a research body, and King’s College, part of the University of London, have highlighted the scale of emissions from diesel vehicles and linked them to as many as 60,000 deaths a year in the UK.

London has vowed to act on these findings. Under plans for an “ultra low emission zone” in the city, the capital’s traffic congestion charge would be almost doubled for older diesel vehicles by the end of the decade, and Islington council is set to introduce a parking fee for the most-polluting cars — “to encourage a move away from diesel vehicles”.

Cities in Norway have discussed similar anti-diesel measures.

The changing stance of European policy makers presents a big problem for the continent’s biggest carmakers, including the two French state-backed companies and the big three German manufacturers.

This post has been merged into existing thread by the site administration team

Electric it is then. 

An electric motor on each wheel would remove the need for engine, gearbox, clutch, rear diff, haldex, half shafts, in fact everything that goes wrong. Bring it on!

I'm a diesel mechanic, should I retrain as a sparky?.
Hub mounted Motors need to run through a differential to distribute torque evenly like when cornering/roundabouts etc

Torque to electric motors can easily be controlled by electronic motor controllers. All this is possible with current technology. It also enables the use of the motors as part of the braking system to return power to the battery on braking. The only thing holding this back is battery technology.