Why are Mazda persisting with the Rotary Wankel engine?
Discussion
thefuture said:
Rammy76 said:
Absolute rubbish.
How exactly would we regulate this supply to keep up with demand?
With current technology these tidal barriers are only able to supply a tiny fraction of the generation the UK needs and the effect on the marine environment is still unproven.
You are deluded. Tidal lagoons, not barriers, can supply 100% of the UKs energy needs. Find out what a lagoon is. BTW, coal is moving over to eco wood pellets from the USA. Liverpool docks are to uprate the port facilities to receive them. The massive Drax in Yorkshire is to go to wood pellets. How exactly would we regulate this supply to keep up with demand?
With current technology these tidal barriers are only able to supply a tiny fraction of the generation the UK needs and the effect on the marine environment is still unproven.
Being in the industry I have FACTS, not just crap I've read off the internet.
Lagoons, barriers etc, it makes no difference. Let's take the proposed Swansea one costing upwards of £800 million and generating 240MW on a good day, less than one generating Unit at half load in the station I work in. It is also highly unpredictable like wind power, this is why flexible coal and gas generation is more needed now than ever as someone has to take up the "slack" in generation when the wind stops blowing etc.
The National Grid now has a nightmare trying to balance the system on a daily basis due to how unpredictable it now is. Lagoons all around the UK to power 100% of the country's needs would not be feasible, they could only contribute to energy supply like wind farms do. The National Grid were warming up an oil fired station (mothballed years ago for being too dirty!) only a few weeks ago due to the fact the wind wasn't blowing and they were worried about generating capacity, and it's not even been that cold yet.
As for "Eco"wood pellets at Drax
, it takes twice the amount of wood to generate half of the electricity (i.e. the generating units currently converted can barely achieve 300MW although are designed to achieve 660MW on coal). Wood is of low calorific value. All this wood from the USA has to be cut down and brought over to the UK via big dirty diesel cargo ships. Several studies have been done showing the "Eco" wood pellet (biomass) actually generates 50% MORE pollution in the whole process than what it would do burning the coal from Kellingley pit (10 miles from Drax), the coal on which it was originally designed to burn. They are real facts, but keep on burying your head in the sand and believing your internet hype.
Rammy76 said:
Lagoons, barriers etc, it makes no difference.
There is a massive difference. Try again.Rammy76 said:
As for "Eco"wood pellets at Drax hehe, it takes twice the amount of wood to generate half of the electricity (i.e. the generating units currently converted can barely achieve 300MW although are designed to achieve 660MW on coal). Wood is of low calorific value. All this wood from the USA has to be cut down and brought over to the UK via big dirty diesel cargo ships. Several studies have been done showing the "Eco" wood pellet (biomass) actually generates 50% MORE pollution in the whole process than what it would do burning the coal from Kellingley pit (10 miles from Drax), the coal on which it was originally designed to burn.
The ships used will be amongst the largest in the world running very efficiently, hence why only deep water Liverpool can handle them. Drax is going over to wood pellets? Yes?Edited by thefuture on Wednesday 19th November 15:22
thefuture said:
Rammy76 said:
Lagoons, barriers etc, it makes no difference.
There is a massive difference. Try again.This should be good.
Edited by Rammy76 on Wednesday 19th November 15:27
thefuture said:
Besides these outstanding attributes, and although RE rotary engine concepts have proven to have acceptable fuel efficiency even under stringent emission challenges"
So... Does the wankel have "acceptable" fuel efficiency, or "dramatically better (than a piston engine)" fuel efficiency?thefuture said:
Rammy76 said:
Lagoons, barriers etc, it makes no difference.
There is a massive difference. Try again.Rammy76 said:
As for "Eco"wood pellets at Drax hehe, it takes twice the amount of wood to generate half of the electricity (i.e. the generating units currently converted can barely achieve 300MW although are designed to achieve 660MW on coal). Wood is of low calorific value. All this wood from the USA has to be cut down and brought over to the UK via big dirty diesel cargo ships. Several studies have been done showing the "Eco" wood pellet (biomass) actually generates 50% MORE pollution in the whole process than what it would do burning the coal from Kellingley pit (10 miles from Drax), the coal on which it was originally designed to burn.
The ships used will be amongst the largest in the world running very efficiently, hence why only deep water Liverpool can handle them. Drax is going over to wood pellets? Yes?Edited by thefuture on Wednesday 19th November 15:22
Drax is only going that way because of the way the emissions are measured - the transportation/pellet production don't come into it at all.
You still haven't mentioned your qualifications, or why you feel that you can challenge people who have given their credentials and facts supporting their views by merely stating assertions and attempting to insult people.
Rammy76 said:
Ok, read my above post again and explain to me HOW exactly tidal lagoons will supply 100% of the UK's power needs.
I have already explained this..."Tidal lagoons are not barrages. Think of a round dam in a shallow sea. Have two walls in the circle splitting it into three parts - three lagoons. Then have locks between each lagoon and also into the open sea outside the circle. Tides are know to the minute for centuries to come each lagoon can be filling and emptying into each other or the sea turning turbines to give 24/7 power generation.
Surplus power can used to pump water to a top dam on a hill/mountain to release when a surge in demand such as half time at the FA Cup final to flow into a lower ground level dam."
In shallow seas with a high tidal range, like all around the British Isles. tidal lagoons make lots of sense. All of the UK and Ireland's energy can be generated this way without using any fossil fuel whatsoever. Ultra clean. They can be built were flood zones are to prevent flooding from the sea, which is now a reality. Much of the east coast of England could be protected from flood and produce electricity at the same time. Much of the Irish Sea is feasible for tidal lagoons - water depth, tidal range, proximity to demand. There is a trial at Swansea in South Wales.
You have the enormous advantage of offshore tidal lagoons in the Irish Sea - the solution is scalable and repeatable as well as being long term environmentally friendly and renewable in perpetuity. Of course the scale of construction required is breathtaking. You have to quarry the equivalent of an entire large Welsh mountain and dump it in the Sea. Which probably means building a half dozen new railways and a fleet of ships. Not to mention railway bridges between adjoining lagoons and between at least one of them and land. Onshore dams on hills can be dug out to create on demand electricity flowing from high to low dam. The spoil used to create the lagoons. Ships canals can be constructed inland creating inland ports and the spoil taken by ship to the lagoon location in the sea. All sorts of knock-on constructions can be had from extracting the rock to make the lagoons.
The lagoons can be used for fish farming, rail and road bridges and leisure activities. They can lock in estuaries like the River Mersey and River Seven.
A construction of breathtaking proportions, yes. But so also is the gain. All energy will be electricity and super clean at point of burn and production. All trains can be electric and also vehicles. The UK has no option but to pursue this line of energy and be rid of the volatile Arabs and Russians and poisoning fossils fuels.
This was good.
Edited by thefuture on Wednesday 19th November 16:09
Sway said:
It is, and regardless of how efficient the ships are - the studies (which have factored all that in) have shown that the pollution will be around 50% higher than if they used the local coal.
The pollution of the UK will be far less. I have not read the study of the transportation aspect, but what about the energy extracting the coal? Has that been factored in? Probably not. What about the ash from the wood pellets as opposed to coal? But marine propulsion is getting more efficient - more efficient Stirling engines look promising here as they are used in submarines. The bulk carriers will be very large. Larger than anything made now.The port of Liverpool is wanting HMG to run HS3 and HS2 into Liverpool ASAP to hand over the existing rails to freight. Longer trains were mentioned in pellet transportation.
thefuture said:
Tidal lagoons are not barrages.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware what a tidal lagoon is, Mr Troll... we have one of those on the Estuary, too (serving Oldbury Power Station - look it up on the map, if you like).But the Swansea lagoon (I know all about that, too - I keep my boat at Port Talbot) is not the multi-tier fantasy you're masturbating over. It's just a single simple lagoon (effectively a looped barrage) which will generate electricity four times a day, on incoming and outgoing tides. And even then it's more of a vanity project for the Welsh Government than a sensible prospect for generating electricity.
thefuture said:
Of course the scale of construction required is breathtaking. You have to quarry the equivalent of an entire large Welsh mountain and dump it in the Sea. Which probably means building a half dozen new railways and a fleet of ships. Not to mention railway bridges between adjoining lagoons and between at least one of them and land. The lagoons can be used for fish farming, rail and road bridges and leisure activities. They can lock in estuaries like the River Mersey and River Seven.
Have you heard of the term 'embodied energy', Mr Troll?Edited by MintSprint on Wednesday 19th November 16:03
thefuture said:
Rammy76 said:
Lagoons, barriers etc, it makes no difference.
There is a massive difference. Try again.Rammy76 said:
As for "Eco"wood pellets at Drax hehe, it takes twice the amount of wood to generate half of the electricity (i.e. the generating units currently converted can barely achieve 300MW although are designed to achieve 660MW on coal). Wood is of low calorific value. All this wood from the USA has to be cut down and brought over to the UK via big dirty diesel cargo ships. Several studies have been done showing the "Eco" wood pellet (biomass) actually generates 50% MORE pollution in the whole process than what it would do burning the coal from Kellingley pit (10 miles from Drax), the coal on which it was originally designed to burn.
The ships used will be amongst the largest in the world running very efficiently, hence why only deep water Liverpool can handle them. Drax is going over to wood pellets? Yes?Edited by thefuture on Wednesday 19th November 15:22
Drax has converted 2 units to biomass and are now suing the government as they have now withdrawn hefty subsidies that Drax were relying in for the third conversion. The subsidies for the 2 units currently burning have amounted to over £60 million paid for by the long suffering public. That is set to triple by 2016.
So yes Drax is burning wood pellets, at a massive cost to us and the American environment. The trees being chopped down in South Carolina can take up to 100 years to grow again, how that is "sustainable" once it's burning 7 million tonnes a year I have no idea.
It's called the 'contracts for difference' scheme that is in place to keep the EU and the greens happy and give us ever increasing electricity bills.
ikarl said:
thefuture said:
BTW, the UK and Ireland can be 100% electric by building tidal lagoons around the coast. There is a trial near Swansea. If they are built then all the UK will be all electric for everything, all vehicles, trains, heating in homes, industry, etc, etc. As the lagoons are introduced, the worst polluters will be phased out first, such as filthy vehicles, heavy industry, etc. Clean natural gas usage will be last.
What a silly comment. If you think the UK infrastructure (the Grid) could handle everything being electric, you are wrong. In fact, you are so far wrong it's ridiculous. There is nowhere near enough powerlines, transformers, substations etc for all the energy we use in the UK to come through the 'plug'
MintSprint said:
But the Swansea lagoon (I know all about that, too - I keep my boat at Port Talbot) is not the multi-tier fantasy you're masturbating over.
It is trial.MintSprint said:
Have you heard of the term 'embodied energy',
Mr Troll, yes. Understand how lagoons work and what they offer besides just electricity.So, we'd have to absolutely devastate the entire planet by using enormous, dirty, earth moving machines to construct power generation facilities that aren't dirty, to replace power generation facilities that are nowhere near as bad as the amount of crap that would be generated in building these things?
You're a weapons grade tool. That you still keep coming back for more (how we've got to tidal power from your inaccurate ramblings about an engine I'll never know, although I figure it has something to do with trying to divert from the obvious lack of knowledge you have on engines in the hope you can be right at something).
You're a weapons grade tool. That you still keep coming back for more (how we've got to tidal power from your inaccurate ramblings about an engine I'll never know, although I figure it has something to do with trying to divert from the obvious lack of knowledge you have on engines in the hope you can be right at something).
Rammy76 said:
Drax currently gets its biomass through the ports of Immingham and Hull.
It is changing to Liverpool for obvious reasons as it is nearer to the USA and the facilities can already cater for very large ships. Liverpool will also supply other stations.Rammy76 said:
So yes Drax is burning wood pellets, at a massive cost to us and the American environment. The trees being chopped down in South Carolina can take up to 100 years to grow again, how that is "sustainable" once it's burning 7 million tonnes a year I have no idea.
All I have read is that the trees are fast growing. To stop ever increasing electricity bills we should go over to tidal lagoons.
thefuture said:
he wankel is not a flawed design at all - well not to piston engines. There are superior rotary designs for sure, Liquid Piston's is one. The piston engine is a completely flawed design with great pumping losses. For every power stroke three strokes that are pumping, giving great losses, in an engine with pistons violently changing directions. What! What a flawed design. The best designs have all prime mechanicals go all one way. The most efficient motors with well over 90% efficiency are electric. All goes one way.
External combustion Stirling engines, which currently use pistons, are more efficient than internal combustion engines - perfected by NASA for auto, the Mod II. But the rotary versions are even superior:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v37/v37n2...
I'll take that as "No, I have no data to back up my ridiculous assertion".External combustion Stirling engines, which currently use pistons, are more efficient than internal combustion engines - perfected by NASA for auto, the Mod II. But the rotary versions are even superior:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v37/v37n2...
Edited by thefuture on Wednesday 19th November 03:58
A wankel is very obviously still a four cycle engine, and suffers from the same kind of pumping losses as a four stroke piston engine. If you didn't realise that then you have absolutely no business trying to extol the virtues of one engine over the other and to suggest you are an engineer is laughable.
The wankel clearly IS a flawed design; it's very geometry immediately places it at a disadvantage compared to a piston engine in terms of surface area, flame path length and sealing difficulties etc. and the Liquid Piston design does not remove those disadvantages.
In addition, the Stirling engine you linked to above is not a rotary engine at all, it uses a conventional reciprocating piston to produce the output power. The displacer design has simply been changed from the more usual reciprocating action to a rotary. As far as I can see from the article no actual thermal efficiency measurements were carried out to suggest this is a more efficient design, and it's quite possible that it's actually less efficient.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 19th November 16:23
thefuture said:
It would take decades to build tidal lagoons and the grid would be uprated to suit along the way.
And, prey tell, when we're nearly broke as it is; where do we get the money to fund this? And before you bleat about 'the money we'll save', bear in mind that's 'return on investment', not 'how to get the funds to invest'.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff