This is SJC's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following SJC's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
it is currently being cheaply produced from coal fly ash (CFA) Not only can they make bio synthetic diesel, but them make it using some of the billions of tons of coal ash.
I would not be so sure, PV operates in a narrow band, this is why it is 15-30% efficient over all. Even WITH 30% concentrated PV and positioning, you have 60% electrolysis for 18% efficiency now.
Sorghum takes half the water, half the fertilizer with TWICE the yield per acre. They can get 10 tones of dry cellulose in addition to 7000+ pounds of grain per acre with DDG as a final product. The drought will not last forever, they are already installing drip irrigation in their orchards, which farmers should have done long ago. In fact they should never have planted orchards in much of the state to begin with. The California Water Authority told them not to plant orchards in the first place, but they would not listen. Agriculture uses 85% of the water in California, they can easily get by with less and produce more if they use water more wisely. Abundance at low prices encourages waste, farmers in California are a prime example. The southwest central valley has saline soil from excessive irrigation evaporation over the years. Sorghum can grow in saline soils and recondition the land. It is annual, so they can rotate crops as well. California used to grow 470,000 acres of sorghum in 1967, now grows less than 10,000 acres, but the number is increasing every year, thanks to contracts with ethanol producers. California produces less than 25% of the ethanol it uses, but the number can double in the next 10 years using sorghum. They grow the crop to feed livestock anyway, might was well get fuel out of it as well. LESS land less water, less fertilizer and less pesticides than corn for the same yield per acre.
Roger, You are on to something there, under estimating the difficulty of the task goes beyond optimism. The "can do' attitude becomes more difficult than the first estimates.
Oil companies pay about 11% in income tax. The Calidornia Energy commission recently granted $9 million to grow sorghum for biofuels, which will create a $1 billion per year industry for the next 40 years. Just the income taxes from that grant will pay off in a short time. If the grant had not been made, the private sector would have not done it. The proof it that for decades they never DID do it.
With 60% electrolysis and 50% fuel cell, you have a 30% battery. Compare that with 70% NiMH and 90% lithium Ion. That makes H2 a REAL inefficient battery.
Could be group think blinded by beliefs. If the guys at the top think it is no problem, then it is NO problem. This has been seen at NASA and in corporations for many decades.
DME makes more sense, you can make it from biomass and run it in diesel hybrids that get 70 mpg.
It would be good to get many more E85 pumps elsewhere than the mid west and do away with the E15 idea in Chicago. We have almost 10 million vehicles that can take E85, supply that with cellulose.
A team at Cornell University... This is lab stuff at a University, a long way from production. However, being able to use lithium anodes without dendrites is a big deal, it could get us higher energy density batteries.
"the electric bus easily climbed the 14 Freeway grade which has an elevation change of nearly 4,000 feet." They can do "hilly".
If you have lots of geothermal energy, you can make hydrogen, Iceland does just that and makes lots of nitrogen fertilizer for the world. They also use the excess heat for greenhouses and grow lots of tomatoes for market. They were going to run their fishing fleets on hydrogen until the sub prime crimes wiped them out. Since a lot of CO2 comes up with the geothermal, they could make synthetic diesel to run the fishing fleet boat engines with no modifications what so ever.
They are doing it because it is the "big boys club", you don't see Mazda and Subaru in the game for good reason, it costs a fortune and it is mostly a halo program for the company. I like FCVs, but the cost and longevity are issues, fuel dispensing is as well, but not that big of a deal for many people. I personally don't want to sit on a 10,000 psi tank of hydrogen, but to each their own.
Excellent..only 17 years after PNGV cars got 70 mpg with diesel hybrids in 1999.
China is using coal to make methanol converted to gasoline, they are producing 5% of their gasoline in this way while we make ethanol from corn grain. We could make methanol/gasoline from corn stalks, but we continue down this path. Once something like corn grain ethanol gets locked in over 30 years, there is not much that can change that, farmers like it, politicians think it is great, while the Gulf suffers from fertilizer runoff. We need to start thinking of better ways, it is WAY passed time.
China is working on methanol from coal, an FCV can run on reformed methanol using an HTPEM. Oil companies have made a bundle since the price of oil quintupled in only 8 years. They used that money to buy into natural gas and now complain that the price is too low. I believe in an "all the above stratagy". It will be BEV, FCV, synthetic fuels, hybrids and more. None of them nor all of them will displace oil in any significant way for decades. The oil companies have said so in shareholder meetings and they have the data to back that up. Look at gasoline going from $1.50 to $4.00 per gallon in 8 years, people bought more gasoline than ever. Economists talks about price elasticity and demand, what kind of product to you know where you can double the price and people buy more than ever? It is a veritable gold mine and they will do whatever it takes to protect those enormous profits. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either not paying attention, ignoring the facts or both.
"the dual system boosted the performance of these engines by 15%" So 20 mpg becomes 23 mpg under ideal conditions. Considering the hardware costs versus hybrid which can get you 30 mpg, hybrid wins.
If polysulfides were not created in the first place, battery designers would not have to protect against the damage they do. There is a lot of emphasis on energy density, but less on cost, longevity, charge speed, safety and other factors. If the dual carbon design works, science can take the time required to develop lithium sulfur and magnesium. We will have a battery that can charge in 5 minutes, give us 150 mile range at a lower cost, while science is working on energy density in parallel.
The U.S. could have done many ggod things with the 42 TRILLION WASTED
The 2016 Volt will have 50 mile electric range, a 3 cylinder 1L engine and sell for $30,000. They are heading in the right direction.
We might see a combination of super capacitors with advanced batteries in the same package. The capacitor would provide power for the 10-15 second accelerations and the battery would provide the 400 Wh/kg for energy and range.
I doubt they will produce 100 million electric cars per year and neither will the world any time in the foreseeable future, not with this battery chemistry. Economies of scale only go so far, everything has limits and diminishing returns. They can not wait 20 years for redundancy, the Mean Time to Repair and Mean Time to Failure will catch them early on. All it takes is one of their processes to go down. If they lose the cathode line that supplies all the rest, it will grind to a halt. Multiply that times many key processes then you have less than a robust factory plan.