This is sd's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following sd's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering, entreprenuer
Interests: diesel and gasoline engines, cars, aircraft, railroads, electric drives
Recent Activity
A bit weird but not as ugly as the Leaf or some of their other products.
The Pony Express made a big play in people's imagination but it was bankrupt in 2 years. Stopping to change tractors ever 2 hours is not even get as far as the Pony Express. Maybe if rechargeable lithium-air batteries become practical, you could replace diesel engines for long haul trucking but the best bet is to haul the trailers or containers by rail and use trucks for the first and last miles.
ECI is basically correct. This is just a neat scientific development adding to our overall knowledge which is a good thing. However, it is very unlikely that it will result in low cost hydrogen from renewable energy.
If the goal is to have long distance heavy trucking without using an internal combustion engine, this is what probably makes the most sense unless Lithium Air becomes real and even then this might be better but it will not be inexpensive. With enough battery to get the first and last few miles (kilometers), only the main highways need to be wired. In cases where the distance is long enough, it would be better to ship containers by rail. HarveyD -- This is considerably more efficient than hydrogen fuel cells, so it would require less energy and with hills, the downhill traffic would feed power back into the system to help with the uphill traffic.
I would think that it would be far better to keep the nukes running and buy less coal fired power from Nevada and Utah. But, of course, that would not satisfy the anti-nuke people in California and the winds mostly blow the pollution from the coal fired plants east away from California.
There were a few hybrid locomotives built. It does make some sense to make a hybrid switch locomotive as it spends most of it's time stopping and starting. See There was even a fuel cell version built for testing. Just for you, HarveyD :) GE built a hybrid version of their main line locomotive but that does not make much sense as you need to both store and draw far too much energy in normal operation
@ storky There are new reactor designs that will burn existing nuclear waste and will even burn depleted uranium and leave very little waste and virtually no high level waste. What waste is left can be re-burned. The traveling wave reactor requires no fuel processing and will burn natural uranium, spent fuel, depleted uranium or thorium. It is also possible to build subcritical reactors that require neutron injection to run. As a point of interest, your share of the nuclear waste from a current light water reactor for a life time of power generation would fit in a coke can.
Henrik What is the basis of your statement: "Model 3 will clearly be more efficient than the Bolt." Do you have any facts for this. From GM: They have quite a few specs including 60KWH battery energy but not a final mileage other than over 200 miles. The final mileage rating will depend on EPA testing on the production vehicle. From Tesla: Not many specs other than a 215 mile rang. I might believe that the Model 3 has a lower Cd based on the fact that it is more of a sedan and the Bolt is more of a small CUV and is taller and maybe shorter.
Clett The data is for Dubai which certainly has sunny skies and who knows what the cost of land and labor was along with the cost of finance. The lowest cost in the US was about twice that.
HarveyD, clett, et al I do not know where you got your data from. Cherry picking highly select sources? Look at Natural gas combined cycle is consistently the lowest cost while photo-voltaic is consistently the highest and wind and new nuclear are projected to be about equal with on-shore wind a little lower and off-shore considerably higher. But this does not take into account that you need backup power for either wind or solar. But my real comment was to replace burning coal with what renewable power we do have and not use use it for the hydrogen fantasy. Also, when you quote some of the European data on renewable power consider that some of this comes from burning peat which in my opinion is worse than burning coal and some comes from wood pellets imported from the US.
@Roger Pham We (in the United States) do not have grid excess renewable energy. Last year about, we got about 13.5% of our electric energy from "renewables" which was mostly hydro electric. Only about 4% was wind and less than 0.6% solar. It is far better to replace some electric power that would be generated by burning coal than trying to make hydrogen by electrolysis. I do not know why you persist with the excess renewable energy to hydrogen fantasy. Internal combustion engines will be with us for quite a while -- especially diesel engines for high continuous load applications such as trucks, tractors, construction equipment, etc.
I wonder if anyone on the site even knows why aluminum (aluminium) processing is done in Oswego, New York. Available low cost electric power from the Nine Mile 1 and Nine Mile 2 nuclear power plants.
@Roger Pham I do not know what alternative universe/fantasy world you live in. Last year, we got 4.1% of our (United States) electrical energy from wind power and about 0.6% from solar power. Counting all sources, including biomass which is questionable whether it should be considered renewable, we got a little less than 13.5% of our from "renewable" sources. The biggest part of this was hydro-electric. What renewable power that we do generate is better spent replacing power that would otherwise be produced using coal and then natural gas. It is interesting to note that in 1950 we produced 30% of our power from "renewable" sources which was almost all hydro-electric. Hydro could not grow with the demand as most of the major sources had already been used. Yes, wind power and solar will continue to grow but we have already placed wind turbines in most of the best locations. For reference you can see Also, I am glad that when I look out my window and see the leaves blowing in the wind that I do not see any wind turbines. They are not pleasant neighbors. I would far rather live near a nuclear power plant.
Not much money but I would rather see research money spent on new nuclear reactors. If we ever get to the point that there is excess clean electric power then and only then should we consider hydrogen. Most hydrogen comes from reforming natural gas and you would be better off just burning the natural gas in internal combustion engines. I know, I am going to here about using excess renewable energy for generating hydrogen but excess renewable energy does not exist and I doubt that it ever will in the US. It may exist in Iceland or Northern Quebec but even there it is better used to refine aluminum, etc.
OK, but why not go directly with a hydraulic pump instead of using vacuum to boost the hydraulic brake pressure. Direct electric actuation of the brakes would be even better. Siemens had a direct acting electric roller ramp disk brake mechanism at least 5 years ago but I am not sure what happened to it.
Reasonably impressive but I am not sure what they mean by "world’s most powerful six cylinder diesel"? The world's most powerful six cylinder diesel would be the Wärtsilä RT-flex96C with 46680 hp. The most powerful six cylinder diesel automotive diesel? The Cummins in the Ram pickup is in the same range. The most powerful 3 liter engine? I worked for a while on a 3 liter opposed piston diesel engine that was projected to be capable of 800 hp.
@CheeseEater88 I have debated whether your comments were worth answering. All I suggested was improving education and especially women's education which generally improves all aspects of life. I did not suggest any forced action. If there was better education in some of the poorer countries there would be less poverty, more purpose to life, and eventually less war. Maybe, with a bit more education and wealth, there would be less uncontrolled burning of dung, wood, and coal and less pollution. Maybe you need to relocate your head or at least think a little more before answering in the manner of your post.
One of the worst things in poorer countries is burning dung for cooking and heat. Next is burning wood in an uncontrolled manner. Then comes burning coal for heat in poorly designed furnaces. All of these were sort of OK in sparsely populated areas but not in densely populated urban areas. The long term solution is probably women's education and a lower birth rate. Good luck.
Well, I would give them credit for an amazing job of engineering and it probably helps with fuel economy although that is not what the car was primarily designed for.
"Who will be next to admit or be detected?" Maybe Nissan. Oh wait, Mitsubishi is part of Nissan. Well, maybe Toyota or Honda. Or it could be Renault. No wait, they are already associated with Nissan and therefore with Mitsubishi.
Trying to grow too fast is a sure way to go bankrupt. I am an engineer and minority owner of a 5 year old startup that builds a specialized high tech ag machine that is best described as part tractor and part electric robot. 18,000 lbs of steel that we mostly cut, bend and weld in-house. 3 years ago, we delivered 8 machines, last year 22 machines, and this year we are hoping to delivery about 50. It hurt a bit to lose sales because we could not build production fast enough but it is better than growing so fast that you fail. It is hard to add and train quality people fast enough and then you must find vendors that can supply parts on schedule, etc. I have always advocated a more careful ramp-up of production. I have a lot of respect for Elon Musk and Tesla and it is great that they have that much interest but there are limits to how fast you can grow no matter how much money you have. Every new person you hire needs some training which takes time away form the existing personnel. Even adding machines takes time for debugging, etc.
@solarsurfer If you combine CO2 with water, the only thing you get is soda water.
I think that this is overly simplistic. If you have an accident at a higher speed, the consequences can be worse as the energy involved goes as the square of the speed. However, the cars have become better at handling higher speeds and the overall safety systems have become better. I live in one of those states with an 80 mph rural interstate speed limit (and 70 mph urban interstate speed limit) and our overall fatality rate has gone down and is even lower if you consider it in terms of fatalities per mile instead of just fatalities per year.
I think that the Tesla 3 may look better than the Chevy Bolt (and a lot better than the Leaf) but the Bolt may be a bit more practical. However, in my opinion, the real advantage that the Bolt has is that it is made by a profitable dividend paying company. I give Tesla (and Elon Musk) a lot of credit for making it this far and I really hope that they make it but this is not an easy place for a start-up. I know that there are a lot of die hard Tesla fans out there and probably more than a few GM haters left that will disagree with me but it will be even harder for Tesla to make a profit manufacturing a car with a lower price point. (I would also add that one disadvantage the Bolt has is the name -- who came up with that? But that is also just a personal opinion)