[ExI] eroei forward for kennedy, p.e.
deimtee at optusnet.com.au
Mon Dec 24 04:52:15 UTC 2012
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:40:24 -0800
"spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> Carrying fuel in those big tanker rigs is a most efficient way to
> move energy. This site says a typical fuel tanker carries 4400
> gallons, and those big trucks get about 4 mpg, so 500 gallons of fuel
> takes you from Wyoming to anywhere you want to go in the CONUS, so
> total loss is only a little less than 12 percent:
> We could cut even that if we made them into self-drivers and slowed
> them down a bit. Even dropping to a steady 55 mph gets you nearly
> half again the fuel economy. If the truck is fitted with a smaller
> Diesel engine which reaches maximum efficiency at 55 mph, then we
> could double the fuel economy, so loss is only around 6 percent at
> the worst case.
If you are moving fuel on those scales, it would make sense to go for
rail for the long hauls.
In fact I think it would be economic to site the conversion plants near
rail depots and run the power cables to there. Pipe the output
directly into railway tankers and save half the transfer hassles of
More information about the extropy-chat