This is sd's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following sd's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
sd
Utah
Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering, entreprenuer
Interests: diesel and gasoline engines, cars, aircraft, railroads, electric drives
Recent Activity
Interesting but no information on efficiency either theoretical or actual.
Should be CT6 2.0E and not CTS http://www.cadillac.com/future-vehicles/ct6-plug-in.html?eVar36=MRM_eml_cad_hr_nogm_card_en_1216_14851797902
This vehicle has a four speed automatic that they make feel like a ten speed by varying the electric motor torque. Why?? For probably less money you could buy the Cadillac CTS plug-in with about the same dynamic acceleration and top speed, etc but will run about 30 miles electric only assuming that you do not need to exceed 78 mph. If you need to go 150 mph, you will need to have the 2 liter turbo running.
SCJ: Way off the subject but most of the combustion energy from the Hindenburg Disaster came from the hydrogen and not the skin. There was also diesel fuel which continued to burn after the hydrogen had burned off. From the Wikipedia article on the Hindenburg Disaster "Modern experiments that recreated the fabric and coating materials of the Hindenburg seem to discredit the incendiary fabric hypothesis.[56] They conclude that it would have taken about 40 hours[clarification needed] for the Hindenburg to burn if the fire had been driven by combustible fabric. Two additional scientific papers also strongly reject the fabric hypothesis.[55][clarification needed]"
HarveyD: Oil companies are already a major if not the major producer of hydrogen which they get by reforming natural gas and which they use in the refinery processes. There are a few experimental fuel cell locomotives operating including one that built for BNSF but I doubt that will be any major users of fuel cell locomotives by 2025.
I was asked about this company yesterday and had looked at their web site and press releases. I will say that fuel cells make more sense than what they had originally proposed with a small turbine as small turbines are not very efficient. A smaller diesel would make more sense than a small turbine. Also from what I have seen, the vehicle should be considered a 6x6 as all wheels on the cab are powered. Anyway, I am still trying to figure out how real this company and the products are. Is their prototype fully functional as they seem to imply? They certainly seem to have some major backers including US Express and Ryder but they also have a number of major hurdles to overcome to make it to market. It will take a lot of money to scale up to produce even 5000 units a year let alone 50,000. Maybe I will do a casual drive by as I do work all that far away.
gryf: The Forbes article and the Proterra website certainly make a strong case for just running Battery Electric buses as the long term cost is lower than either straight CNG or Diesel. I do know what the average transit bus runs in a day but I doubt that it is over 200 miles. Henrik: I agree some of your points but the way you express them probably does not help your cause.
Interesting concept but the article, video clip, and their website seems to be light on specific details and heavy on hype. The concept would only work when you need to brake so it would probably works OK in urban or mountainous areas but I doubt that it would be very useful on the majority of the interstates where air drag is the major load. Off the subject -- @Gor: I am not a big fan of wind turbines and would prefer more nuclear power but your article is from some website that is blatantly anti wind turbine (We are not here to debate wind industry, we are here to DESTROY IT!) and is about as objective as some of the anti nuke groups.
Just for you, HarveyD Actually, I think that if hydrogen makes any sense as a transportation fuel, it is either for Heavy Duty Long Distance Trucking or aircraft. Also, it may make some sense for certain military applications including quiet operations, auxiliary power and drones.
Henrik Do you have a source for your statement that Tesla is going into the HD truck market? I think Tesla will be busy enough trying to ramp up car production. The best solution long distance trucking is to load the trailers or container on a train and use local trucking for pickup and delivery. There was an recent article on GCC on Orange EV which builds electric cabs for local haul.
What I find really interesting is the direct comparison between the predicted range of 500 km (311 miles) on the NEDC and 354 km (220 miles) on the EPA cycle. I guess when you move to the US, the range is only 70% of what it was when you are in Europe:) Seriously, there needs to be a consistent standard and even the EPA standard probably does not have enough high speed driving especially for the western states. A good part of my morning commute is at 70 mph and the speed limit goes to 80 mph once you are outside the urban area.
Air Products is the world’s leading hydrogen supplier and uses reformer technology. The article does not state what feed stock is used but it is probably natural gas.
They do not list the octane rating but I wonder if this would work as aviation fuel.
Honda offers a number of motorcycles with a dual clutch transmission that are capable of full automatic operation. Their offering include at least a 1200 cc 4, a 1000 cc 2, along with several 750 cc and 700 cc bikes. The dual clutch is hard to beat for both performance (there is almost no lost shift time) and fuel economy. The Ricardo setup looks like a kludged up add-on but it might weigh less.
No, it would be a bad solution for large trucks, buses, locomotives, ships or any other application that requires continuous power. Small turbines have a relatively low efficiency compared to small piston engines. Diesel engines are a better solution for the above applications. The advantages that small turbines have is low mass and the ability to use multiple fuels.
Henrik I am in favor of reducing the amount of fossil fuels that we burn with the eventual goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuels. However, that will not solve the problem in Africa. I am not completely sure of the source of the pollution in the middle east but it is probably related to burning off gases from the oil production. I am more puzzled by the plume that appears to come from Krgyzstan or Uzbekistan. Some of the problems may also be blowing dust. Anyway, more education and less poverty would help with many of these problems.
Henrik Having more electric cars is not going to solve much of the problem. Look at the map. Most of the problem is in Africa and south Asia. The problem is mostly caused by poor people burning wood and dung for heat and cooking. In India and other south Asian countries, some of the urban pollution is probably caused by small 2-stroke vehicles (tut-tuts). China has some vehicle pollution problems but burning coal for heat and power is a larger problem. My longer term solution would be largely education and especially women's education which would go a long way to helping women have fewer children and improve the economic well being of the general population. Note that this is not China's problem. China's problem is more related to trying to grow the economy too fast which required cheap power.
I am a firm believer in scientific research. However, I do not understand the concept of excess "renewable" energy. We currently get about 11 to 13 percent of our electric power generation from renewable sources and about half of that or~6.25% is from hydro which is a fairly static number. About 4 or 5 % is wind and ~1% is solar. The rest is biomass with a small amount of geothermal. Some of the biomass is probably not much cleaner than coal. The amount of hydro has remained about the same for decades. The amount of wind is growing some and solar will probably grow more rapidly for a while but we are a long ways away from having excess renewable energy See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States if you want to puzzle thru the numbers yourself. Anyway, maybe you have 6% renewable from wind and solar which fluctuates wildly requiring fast response backup power. But it is a long way from going to excess. My argument remains that if you pull wind or solar off the grid to make hydrogen, you end up needing to replace it with some other source which is probably either natural gas or coal as the nuclear plants are already running flat out all the time.
Davemart You do not get it. Maybe Iceland has enough surplus power to make hydrogen. Japan, Germany, the US, etc do not or they would not be burning coal and natural gas for power. There is no excess renewable power. Yes, you can generate methane from sewage and other waste. This was being done 45 years ago when I toured the sewage plant in Boston and they were using the methane to generate the power to run their pumps. It would also make sense to use high temperature incineration instead of land fills but that is another subject.
Davemart and HarveyD The problem remains that using "renewable" energy for hydrogen production means that unless there is really a surplus of clean power for the entire grid, taking renewable power off the grid for hydrogen production means replacing it with other power and that is often natural gas or coal. Yes, there are a few places in the world where there is a potential surplus of clean power. Norway which has a relatively small population and a lot of hydro power may be one of those places. Iceland has ample hydro power and maybe even HarveyD's Quebec. However, Germany and Japan both burn too much coal and Germany burns peat which is even worse. And even in Iceland, the power is used for Aluminum production. In Quebec, the power is added to the grid which feeds the the rest of eastern Canada and eastern US. Take this power off the grid to make hydrogen and it needs to be replaced from somewhere.
The problem of "where is the source of clean H2" remains. Hydrogen probably comes from steam reforming natural gas or coal which is not exactly clean or maybe from electrolysis of water which could be clean if the required electricity was clean. But in Japan, most of the electricity is from either burning LNG or coal. It was a bit hard to get current data but there are maybe 48 coal fired power plants or maybe they are planning 48 new coal fired plants. Anyway, it is hard to argue that this is clean power. Taking clean power away from the grid just means that dirty needs to be supplied to replace.
This looks to be a worthwhile development project. It would increase the efficiency of nuclear power plants and decrease the need for cooling water. It also decreases the size and cost of the turbo-machinery which would make it more feasible to have compact modular nuclear power plants. I would have liked more information on the temperatures at various stages in the process.
Interesting that support came from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Program Agency), China, and Russia.