For you, it appears the relationship between the Davidson (northward, warm, surface) and California (southward, cold, subsurface) currents is changing. The Davidson is getting stronger and more frequent.
That is bad for a lot of reasons, as an ecosystem the PNW depends on the nutrients introduced by the California Current.
yet we have been having some decent salmon returns the past few years, think itâs because of the good snow weâve had the previous winters with cold weather for a solid month in December.
Yeah, as long as the salmon run isnât right against a Davidson over a few specific days, I guess that would not have a great deal of effect on the size of the return. The inland waterway conditions would be far more important, starting from the entry to the Salish Sea. Also bodes reasonably well for the orca population
the size of the run is more determined by
Food
protection from trawlers and offshore poaching
mortality of smolts surviving the river and making it out to sea
This year, we will see the hopeful return of the salmon which would have been born during the floods of Nov 2019 in BC. the Fraser and Chilliwack rivers flooded the entire Fraser Valley for weeks, just at the end of the salmon spawning season. nobody knows how many salmon fry survived the floods four years ago.
the poaching is going to be a huge problem. China is razing the oceans.
Letâs see, how can we make the UNFCCC COP process even more useless?
First, appoint another state oil company chief to run the thing. Check, now what?
I donât understand how/why such hosts are chosen. I feel a climate conference should hosted either by a country in serious climate condition or by a country pioneering in climate protection.
I thought there was some merit in a country like Dubai being in the rotation. They are one of the two broad groups that have to make significant sacrifices to address the problem. But Azerbaijan is just nonsense. They are actively engaged in ethnic cleansing if not outright genocide in Nagorno-Karabakh, and have never been a constructive member of the UNFCCC.
Whatâs that?
Diesel generator, which consumes a couple of tons of diesel a day to run
To produce how much electricity? I seem to recall that using a generator is twice as efficient as using an internal combustion engine directly.
Anyway, there are loads of examples of this at the moment. They install charging facilities first and then upgrade the grid to match. Itâs something to do with the grid having to be demand side led. We had a similar issue installing a data centre around 15 years ago.
sorry that simply cannot be true. youâre not considering the mechanical losses at each stage in the process of actually moving the vehicle. Anyone who said otherwise has no concept of physics.
To think that a diesel generator charging an EV battery (which will then power an electric motor to move the vehicle), is more efficient than the diesel engine running that vehicleâŚ
I canât even.
Where there might be some confusion is that a gasoline ICE is less efficient than a diesel (regardless of whether that is a generator or an ICE). There isnât much difference between a diesel hooked up to a turbine or a diesel hooked up to a transmission. The diesel hooked up to a turbine comes out a little ahead because of the nature of a turbine, but that energy still ends up having to go through a transmission.
maybe in a tank⌠not really feasible for what weâre discussing here though. Not quite sure what mechanical systems youâre comparing here?
Thermal efficiency of a diesel engine, be it connected to a generator/turbine/transmission. A diesel engine in a vehicle is delivering around 40% of energy as usable mechanical energy. A diesel generator is converting that fuel into usable electrical energy at somewhere in the 35-40% range. The loss (during storage and conversion into usable mechanical energy) may be very low, but you donât arrive at wildly different numbers. You certainly donât arrive at a diesel generator being twice as efficient as a diesel motor.
that shown mileage of charging a Mach-E off a generator is less than half of itâs ICE counterpart with the Ecoboost drivetrain.
Itâs down to break specific fuel consumption. When operating to directly power the vehicle the engine is almost never at peak efficiency. When operating the generator it will be designed to operate at that point constantly.
If you see this mapping, you want it to operate in that sweet spot at the top. Using the engine directly, it spends a significant amount of time dithering around those lines at the bottom:
Calculating on the basis of run-time and observed charge rate isnât a fundamentally sound way of doing it.
A liter of diesel has about 38,000 kJ of energy (on a HHV basis). The actual heat rate for a generator will vary against load (hence the 80% load assumption). Different generators will have different curves as well. A typical heat rate would be 10500 kJ/kWh, so a liter of diesel should produce 3.6 kWh, or 0.27 L/kWh. In practice, smaller generators are usually going to be north of 0.3 L/kWh. In straight unit terms, there are 3600 kJ in a kWh, the difference is heat loss - the generator here is converting about 35% of the energy in the liter of diesel into usable electricity.
For a diesel engine used as a motor, we have the same amount of energy in that liter of diesel. How much usable mechanical force we get from that energy is largely a function of the compression ratio. Automotive diesels tend to have a lower efficiency than some of the larger (ships), all have a theoretical maximum of 70% but automotive tend to be in the 35-40% range with 60% of that thermal energy lost to waste heat (gasoline ICE are down around 20-25%).
In optimum run state, both are going to come out to the same number, although the electrical vehicle will have some additional losses converting stored energy into mechanical energy.
From memory itâs typically about 85% efficient. Of course they donât have gearbox losses but I donât think that is too high on modern transmissions. 5%?
