This is SJC's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following SJC's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
SJC
Recent Activity
Think of the Honda Civic hybrid layout, instead of a weak 1.3 L with 14 HP motor, you have a 1L direct inject turbo with a 40 HP motor. Performance would be better, it would be simpler but still get good mileage. Make it FFV so it can run on cellulose E85 to reduce oil imports, clean the air and reduce CO2.
"On an average basis, the engine runs at lower speed, delivers more torque, is quieter." "The engine features a direct injection fuel system, high-compression ratio of 12.5:1, cooled exhaust gas recirculation..." This is what I thought would be required for a good EREV, you need torque at lower RPM, direct injection, forced induction and/or displacement will give you that. The engine pulls at 2400 RPM and generates at least 40 kW. That allows charge sustaining and mountain modes.
It sounds like it might get 40 mpg, 40 miles electric range, be a few hundred pounds lighter and maybe a few thousand less expensive. The spy photos show a slightly longer and sleeker style. http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-chevrolet-volt-spy-photos-news Here is a guess sketch, we will know in January. http://www.carscoops.com/2014/08/future-cars-chevrolet-amped-for-next.html
RP That is what they decided, I read an article earlier that said 1L, thanks for the info. It might do "mountain mode" better :) 'Previous reports of GM using a three-cylinder engine have proven incorrect." "In non-hybrid applications, the 1.5-liter is said to make 113 horsepower and 108 lb-ft of torque" "It will take the place of a 1.4-liter unit that makes 84 horsepower and 93 lb-ft of torque, and requires premium gas for maximum efficiency. The new engine will burn regular-grade fuel." http://blog.caranddriver.com/2016-chevrolet-volt-drivetrain-details-quicker-new-engine-increased-range-and-battery-capacity/
With $400 for 12,000 electric miles, electricity is not the major cost. Add another $400 for gasoline per year or $300 for diesel in a hybrid, then you have real affordable transport. Others have said GM stated the EV in 2016 will be close to 200 mile range and sell for about $35,000. It may not be as flashy as a Tesla 3, but it will be made by a company with 80 years experience mass producing cars.
A Volt owner/journalist said he averaged about 200 MPG, but because he took the Volt on trips leaving the Tesla S at home, he averaged 100 MPG during his 3 year lease.
Reading descriptions of hybrid drives, you start to think back to the Prius, I imagine that auto makers are worried about Toyota patents. IMO once a company makes back their development expenses plus a reasonable profit, others can use the design. Patents should NOT be monopoly licenses.
1. Energy is the central element of economic growth in the developed and developing world. The drive for reliable, low-cost and plentiful energy is central to modern economic life. 2. Economic growth is required for political stability and, therefore, energy is required for political stability and for political regimes to remain in power. 3. No national leader will risk economic decline by significantly raising the price of energy. - Steven Cohen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/the-symbolic-politics-of_b_6053620.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change
Nafion is the material used in PEM fuel cells, they know how to make it, but it is expensive right now. Maybe economies of scale can help if batteries AND fuel cells use it.
...eligible feedstocks for only diesel-substitute fuel production projects. this rules out green gasoline :(
Oil used to be $5 per barrel, then $20 per barrel now $100 per barrel (not counting the present blip) so we pay more for lower quality, when you count tar sands and heavy sour crude. We ARE addicted to oil, the oil companies know this and they like it that way. Exxon made $40 billion in profits per year during the Bush years, they were satisfied. Bio synthetic fuels and hybrids are a way to use less oil. This should be obvious, we are not going to make 1 billion vehicles electric any time soon and time is a wasting as they say.
The enlightened countries know that reduced fossil fuel usage will lead to expanding economies, so they take the necessary steps, then claim they are doing it for the world. The countries that don't see this will continue to believe the only way they can have expanding economies is with increased use of fossil fuels. They will say they don't reduce usage because other countries are not.
By the way, the quote from the article on fuelcellmarkets.com "...quickest start up time (less than 1 sec)..." That is just plain wrong, they were mistaken and mislead the readers. If they were talking about a 100 watt stack it still would take longer than a second. I believe they call it critical thinking, try it some time.
It is not a challenge if you have enough batteries on board. With an engine, in a few seconds it is running, you warm it a bit and drive off slowly. You do the same with an FCV, but you need batteries to provide the heat to warm the stack before it operates. Not much different. Thinking it is just like an engine is a mistake however.
When you look at the middle east getting by with $20 oil in 2000, but needing oil above $80 per barrel by 2010 you have to wonder. They are making much more money, but they are spending much more as well.
"In 2009 Toyota achieved at start up time of 30 seconds at -20°C, which they claimed was “the best cold start capability of any FCV in the world” Page 28 second paragraph of the PDF link I posted. The article is on HTPEMs comparing to PEM, so it is relevant. So they are saying an HTPEM would take one minute and the PEM takes 30 seconds. This longer than "a few seconds".
"..brushed off a foot of snow before starting the car right up. No problem." That means he drove away on batteries while the fuel cell heated up. I made a mistake on the companies, I admit that. People make mistakes, but they should not believe something that just is not true. Believing that a large 100 kW fuel cell starts up like an engine is not true.
"..brushed off a foot of snow before starting the car right up. No problem." That means he drove away on batteries while the fuel cell heated up. I made a mistake on the companies, I admit that. People make mistakes, but they should not believe something that just is not true. Believing that a large 100 kW fuel cell starts up like an engine is not true.
"This supports the DOE/FreedomCAR target of rapid startup of a fuel cell vehicle to 90% rated power soaked at –20°C in less than 30 seconds in 2010 with less than 5 mega Joules of energy." http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy05/38760.pdf Mind you that is a TARGET which still takes more than 1 kWh of energy heating a fuel cell for 30 seconds. It DOES take more than a 'few seconds'. Consider 1 kWh is 3400 BTU and we need 10,000 BTU, it will take more energy and time than a few seconds. By the way, if PowerCell thinks that they can build thousands of PEM fuel cells that can withstand more than 1000 ppm of CO for more than 10 years, best of luck to them. When they say "rapid" startup time on their data sheets, they mean faster than an SOFC, which could take hours.
Raising 100 pounds 100 degrees takes 10,000 BTU, how are you going to heat the stack 10,000 BTU in a few seconds? An internal combustion engine has lots of waste heat in every cylinder on every power stoke of each second. A PEM has electric heaters, that takes a while.
I don't know what "links" you are talking about, that PDF you referenced says nothing of the sort. That S1 data sheet does say "*Start/stop in freeze condition needs special process..." Dave, just think about heating 200 pounds of stack from 0 degrees C to 60 degree C, how much heat energy that takes and how long it will take to do that. Now do you really think you can just cold start a large stack in seconds? The reaction will NOT take place until the stack is at 60C MINIMUM, the stack can not heat it self. If you want a definitive report on the state of the art read: http://setis.ec.europa.eu/energy-research/sites/default/files/project/docs/HIEPSFinalReport.pdf They say the best time from a cold start for a larger PEM was ONE MINUTE done by Toyota in a laboratory. So you keep thinking seconds when the reality is MINUTES.
I got my companies mixed up, the HT PEM company is Serenergy in Denmark, this is PowerCell in Sweden. PowerCell claims to have a CO tolerant PEM, but most PEM fuel cells can not even tolerate 10 ppm, they need to take 1000 ppm to take reformed liquid hydrocarbon fuels, HT PEMs can do that. Then there is sulfur, which is not a problem if you are reforming methanol, but that is another story :)
That data sheet is for a small 5 kW LT PEM, this project is based on a larger 25 kW S2 fuel cell. This company has been working on HT PEM for a while, but the S2 is described as a "CO tollerant PEM" The stack still has to be warmed to 70C minimum before starting, so it will take a while, maybe 3-4 minutes. An HTPEM starts at about 120C which takes a bit longer.