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
From 0 to 1500 MW in 8 years? I doubt it although the total power is only the output of 2 moderate sized units of a nuclear power plant.
They are doing the study to determine whether to use overhead lines or fuel cells so it is necessary to wait for the results (and hope that they are weighted fairly). However, I suspect that for high density traffic, overhead electrification would b cheaper over time. The energy cost would be less and while electric overhead wires require maintenance, the hydrogen system is considerably more complex and requires the fuel cells and batteries for regeneration while the with the overhead electric regeneration is handled by just putting the energy back into the lines. Maybe, on low traffic density lines, the costs would favor hydrogen.
I racked my brain trying to come up with a even dumber idea for the generation of hydrogen. Yup, using wave energy would probably be even dumber although wave energy is available in more places. Just because the energy is available in large quantities does not make it economically feasible to harvest when the cost of the capital equipment is factored in.
It maybe the only one in their market that gets a real world range of 186 miles but the Chevrolet Bolt gets about 230 miles of real world range.
So Fisker is back from the dead for another try at the EV business.
I will have to ask some of the drivers that deliver to our company how many miles they drive in a shift but I would expect that it is less than 150 miles given that most of the speeds are under 30 miles an hour and the time it takes to unload freight. I would expect that the battery electric version of this vehicles would be able to most urban delivery requirements. Line haul is a different story.
I think a better use of this technology or a similar technology would be to generate solar power from office building windows. Lots of area and you need the glass anyway
The article is somewhat light on factual information but I doubt that you could get more than a KwHr even in a sunny location. The problem is that the roof does not directly face the sun. Maybe you could design special parking spots with a built in tracking mechanism:)
The only real question is the cost of the infrastructure. It might be cheaper than fuel cells and hydrogen. A potentially better solution would be moving containers on trains but the distances might not be long enough to be cost effective. The electrified highway solution is probably less cost effective in North America with the longer distances but containerized rail works reasonably well here over longer distances but we need to electrify our major freight rail lines. However, that is not cost effective with the contemporary low cost of diesel fuel.
Mahle builds automotive parts and does not build cars. They are big in pistons and other engine components. The range of a vehicle using their electric drive train components would depend on the size and weight of the car, the aerodynamic drag and the size of the battery pact.
Impressively low lease cost plus a high mileage allowance but a very short range for a new BEV. Certainly not a highway cruiser. Might be OK for commuting and in town use.
I hope that they improved the aesthetics. They were so ugly that you hated to park next one in case it was contagious:)
This is not going to be a cheap or energy efficient system to make Hydrogen. As mahonj suggests, it might be useful for emergency power generation and for weapon systems. It is an Army Research Lab project.
And the trains are safer than the trucks. The marine tankers may have only spilled 6000 gallons last year but one collision or grounding would change that. I am still waiting for a major LNG tanker accident. They have the equivalent of 1mega-ton TNT in energy on board or more than 20 times the Hiroshima weapon.
Liquid organic hydrogen carrier? I have to admit that my first thought was methane or liquefied natural gas which is where most of our hydrogen comes from.
I think that this is the correct way to drive most of the time. The problem is that some drivers may forget to use the brake pedal in an emergency. With a front drive only electric vehicle, at best you would get only max braking from the front wheels. What is the range for the new Leaf?
Peter_XX The electric alternators/motors probably have something around a 90% efficiency (might be a bit better) and there is also a loss associated with the required electronic drives so there is loss that occurs with each pass thru an alternator and motor. However there is also about a 2% loss thru each gear mesh assuming high quality gears and lubrication (a good assumption in this case). I counted 6 gear meshes so that is about 88% efficient from the turbine to the flywheel. Now we need to worry about turbine efficiency. In Volvo's design, the turbine is geared directly to the flywheel so the turbine speed is dictated by the engine speed. In my proposed design the turbine is allowed to run where it develops the most power. My design also allows direct engine braking with the energy being returned to a battery for later use. Now you can enlighten me as to why I am wrong. Also, I did work on an experimental opposed piston diesel about 15 years ago that was designed to have an electrically split turbo charger but I was not the thermal dynamics expert.
Mechanically interesting but also relatively complicated. If I was given the job to design something like this, I think that I would try to build an electrically separated turbo charger with the turbine driving an alternator and a motor driven compressor, a relatively small battery pack and a motor connected to the drive train. That way the compressor could driven for better power response and the turbine could absorb more power under normal driving conditions with excess power being diverted to the power train. This would also support using the power train motor/alternator in a hybrid mode during braking or going downhill.
I could understand working on fuel cells for intercity buses or long distance trucks. However, they do not make much sense for stop and go shorter distance transit buses as some of the currently available battery electric buses are already cheaper to own than diesel buses considering capital cost, maintenance, and fuel/electricity costs and are available with enough battery capacity to run all day without recharging. In Europe, most cities are connected with hgih speed trains so Fuel Cell buses might not make much sense for intercity use. Also, freight could also go by electrified railways.
JMartin Adding hydraulics would just waste energy as the electric drive train is already putting energy back into the battery on deceleration and electric motors are considerably more efficient than hydraulic pumps and motors.
Made in China competitive FC buses will be available by the end of this year. Competitive with what? Chinese made diesel buses? I doubt that. Do you have some verifiable evidence to back up you statement? I doubt that Fuel Cell transit buses will be competitive with battery electric buses anytime in the near future and maybe never as Proterra already has battery electric transit buses that are lower cost than diesel buses to operate considering capital and operating (maintenance and fuel/electricity) costs. A neighboring town, Park City, Utah just bought Proterra buses to replace their diesel transit buses. Maybe Fuel Cells will find a use for intercity buses and long haul trucks but they still have a number of obstacles to overcome.
OK. How many are they projecting to sell in the US?
Nuclear power is carbon free. While it is not renewable, the traveling wave reactors will burn existing waste including depleted uranium and waste from light water reactors. Some one figured out that we can produce enough power for the US for 700 years from the existing depleted uranium stock.
HarveyD: I think that E-P's list referred to nuclear power paranoia. Most counties are not going to be carbon free without using nuclear power.
Wait until Trump finds out that these projects make use of scientific research. He will kill them all:)