This is SJC's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following SJC's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I would rather have $1 per gallon methanol reformed running HTPEMS. I have read there is more hydrogen in a gallon of methanol than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
Tesla has confirmed via its Twitter account that the car due after the Model X SUV will be called the Model 3.
The relevance of IP problems for "sustainable mobility" is if there are problems, they will never be allowed to go to market. So much for imagining longer range..first things first.
There have been several variations by other companies. Haldor has a process, TOTAL has a direct methane to DME and Oberon has the DME to synthetic gasoline.
I was not discussing the law suit, just posting the link. Calm down and quit trying to tell people what to do, THAT is what is inappropriate.
"three of Envia’s top former executives filed a lawsuit alleging that Sujeet Kumar, the company’s co-founder and chief technology officer, created the company using intellectual property that he stole outright from Santa Clara-based NanoeXa, his previous employer. Envia claimed it had created a rechargeable lithium-ion battery for the electric vehicle market and was awarded a $4 million grant from ARPA-E, the innovation arm of the Department of Energy. General Motors invested in the company with the hopes of licensing the technology." By the way, no one is talking about the Tesla 3 announcement.
Mercury News Interview: Atul Kapadia of battery-maker Envia Systems
I wish them all the best, assuming they have the IP issues resolved.
I never said the commuter car would use diesel, it could use methanol. A 3k unit would charge the EV while it is parked at work for 8 hours, that was my point. Maybe THIS is why I have not gotten through to people for eight years on here, they don't read, they don't understand and they don't care. I just hope others from Facebook and elsewhere take the time to read people's posts.
Diesel to PEM fuel cells don't weigh a ton, the unit in the Volvo C30 can use diesel and it does not weight a TON. I thought you were the scientist with the numbers and proof?
Least cost depends on your accounting, if you don't account for oil wars and Global Warming. You seem to believe only the most profitable efforts are worth doing, but you don't do accurate accounting. YOU did the analysis on biomass energy, so nothing else needs to be said, how arrogant. This is why I ignore you and will continue to do so. You are arrogant, you think that getting an undergrad in Engineering entitles you to the final word. I have an undergrad in Economics and and MBA, but I believe in people being able to express their opinions. Telling people they are not qualified to post here is arrogant.
Tesla's much-anticipated somewhat affordable electric car will be called the Model 3.
You won't get much power out of a turbo and alternator but you can amplify the power by compressing the intake charge, hence a turbo charger. Electrification of turbo chargers can reduce lag. If you want to extract power from waste heat, use a phase change fluid, a turbine and an alternator.
$9 million over five years Exxon spent $14 million trying to convince people that Global Warming is a hoax. Exxon's annual revenue is more than $400 billion, they spend more than $10 billion per year just on oil exploration. A $10 million grant for alternative fuels is just 1/1000th of what ONE oil company spends on basic exploration for oil. I don't think that is a level playing field that can bring about the desired results.
If efficiency of only 50% upsets you then you should never have turned on an incandescent light bulb powered by a coal fired power plant. Coal plants are 30% and incandescent light bulbs are 10%, that makes about 3% overall efficiency so you would remain in the dark. As for the worn argument that biomass can not do it all, so forget it, that is obviously absurd. If we can reduce imported oil and reduce carbon emissions, it is worth doing. I believe most rational people would agree. Going from crude oil or tar sands to gasoline is not 100% efficient, but I imagine you fill your gas tank anyway.
If I have a 50 mile commute to work and I have a 70 mile range EV but there are no recharge stations, no problem. I leave the car parked in the lot recharging with an HTPEM.
If you use HTPEM the membranes are less expensive and the requirements for less CO are reduced. The balance of plant costs are less because the water created is steam, so you don't have to do a lot of water management keeping the membranes moist so they don't dry out and become damaged.
Davemart, I don't begin to understand half of your rants, but I like the spirited posting. There is no need to browbeat people to sllence them pretending you are the only scientist with "numbers". I have been on here 8 years trying to convince people to gasify biomass to synthesize fuels for use in hybrid cars as a way toward "sustainable mobility". Either people don't read, don't agree or don't care... another group thinks they are the smartest people, so once they speak others should cower in awe.
While we are on the topic of renewable energy and base load, why not tap the geothermal energy in Yellowstone? They keep saying it may blow up some day, tap off some of that energy to make power for the grid and charge EVs? When the topic comes up about transmission lines from the region, why don't we consider under ground transmission lines. There is no technical reason this can not be done and it would look one heck of a lot better.
I am not seeing a connection between oil companies and fuel cells. If oil companies wanted hydrogen, why aren't they funding fuel cell development instead playing with token algae programs in La Jolla? Oil companies with refineries use lots of hydrogen in refineries, I don't see them behind a big push to replace gasoline with hydrogen. There does not seem to be a connection that is visible or invisible, real or imagined, direct or indirect.
Just gasify corn stalks and synthesize drop in fuels. You grow the corn anyway, no extra land nor water required.
It may be China that uses hybrids and synthetic fuels. They do not have Exxon nor Chevron controlling their legislatures and they do not want to become dependent on Russia for oil.
With synthetic and biosynthetic drop in fuel blends you will have the same energy, same mileage but a cleaner engine and air than using refined fuels. If you use biosynthetic diesel in a hybrid you will get 60 mpg, cleaner engine and air with no imported oil with less CO2 emissions because you are recycling CO2 through the plants.
We should have Open Fuel Standard so that we can use methanol in engines, but using it in this is the next best thing. Methanol can be made without using crude oil, in fact we can make synthetic diesel without using crude oil. If you make it out of biomass the CO2 emitted is absorbed by the plants as they grow.
Japan could use off shore wind power to make hydrogen to use in fuel cell cars. Some would say that is inefficient, but Japan could do it and make it work. There are more considerations than efficiency. Japan has no coal, oil nor natural gas, they do have wind, sun, hydro and geothermal.