This is SJC's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following SJC's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
IMO people don't want two tanks and two fuels they have to put in the car. Car makers have said M85 is NO problem for the tank, pump, lines, injectors nor engine. The blended M85 in the tank is PROVEN to work in trials using lots of vehicles over many of years. The one drawback is shorter range. If you have a 400 mile range per tank you might get 300 miles with M85, but the Fuel is under $3 per gallon.
Off topic: "The startup EP Tender intends to solve that problem. Not by developing a bigger or a better battery but by creating a range extender on a trailer."
"They delivered outstanding rate performance (83% capacity retention at 15 C) with superior safety and stability ([similar]5% fade for 3000 cycles)."!divAbstract
Roger, The Open Fuel Standard would require FFVs to take ethanol AND/OR methanol. It has been in Congress for five years with no result. I will leave to people to connect the dots to see why. California ran hundreds of cars on M85 for years with total success. The auto makers recently said they would comply with OFS at no additional cost to the buyer. In other words a "slam dunk". Now what methanol would do to fuel station pumps is another matter. Assuming you could retrofit a tank to handle methanol you could have blender pumps to dispense M5 to M85, depending on the vehicle. There are more than 100,000 fueling stations in the U.S., static inertia is a force against change.
You can get CO2 from power plants, but there are NOX and other substances that have to be separated out. You can oxygen blow the gas turbine in peaker or combined cycle plants to get more pure CO2 out. Since you would be using it right away for fuels, there would be no need to store much of it.
(B5% capacity drop for 3000 cycles at 10 C) GOOD!
Ford sells 700,000 F150 trucks per year in the U.S. they expect sales to fall 90,000 units in 2015. $400 extra does not seem like much, but few buy the basic truck, the high end trucks are $3500 more, that is where the volume is with the V6 ecoboost engines. Truck buyers may not accept an aluminum frame on a truck, but the might also question aluminum on body panels and bed. Dents and scratches, corrosion will all be issues to the new buyer. Otis: I don't see the distinction. Steel ladder frame with aluminum panels for cab and bed is NOT the same thing as an all aluminum chassis.
Point of Interest: CO2 "one company has figured out a way to take the pollution and turn it into plastic you can hold in your hand."
Another difference is the F150 still uses a steel frame, only body parts are aluminum. The Jaguar XE uses an aluminum unibody design. I don't consider the F150 to be in the same design category as the Jaguar XE.
The 2015 Ford F-150 will start at $26,615, around $400 more than the 2014 model. High-end models will jump by as much as $3,500. (Ford Motor Co.)
It remains to be seen what F150 sales will be in 2015 and at what price. F150 is a popular model with lots of sales, will the increased mileage make up for the increase in price?
Tesla uses aluminum, Audi has used it on and off for years. It is a matter of markets and costs. It costs more to make a car with an aluminum chassis, if the customer is willing to pay for that, they might do it. This points to the idea that only high end cars that can absorb the cost will be the first candidates. Now, if the high end customer cares about an extra 2 mpg, that is the question. I think it will become the norm in high end cars to reduce the weight, but still be safe.
"At issue is a tanker, the United Kalavrvta, that arrived off the coast of Texas over the weekend. The vessel is carrying about 1 million barrels of crude oil from the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Authorities in Baghdad say that oil, worth over $100 million, is being sold without the permission of the Iraqi government." We may see more of this in the coming years from ISIS, the Kurds, some groups in Russia or elsewhere. I don't want to pin this nation's future to that kind of uncertainty.
If the world can cut carbon emissions in HALF by 2050 compared to 2000, I believe we will have done a LOT. When people say "that is not enough" they are required to come up with a way to get to 90% reduction in a realistic way, or be quiet.
Arne, I understand exponential growth, that still does not get us 100 million EVs in the world by 2035. Look at hybrids, the sales have grown but not taken over in 15 years. I said EVs being 1% of sales in 10 years, NOT PHEV. The idea is we will use alternatives, but not enough to affect the oil industry. Oil will be more difficult to get, cost more and might not be available in the quantities we want in some cases. Synthetic fuels use coal, natural gas and biomass, they can even use sequestered CO2 and wind/solar/geothermal created hydrogen. These are domestic resources, OPEC, Russia, nor anyone else can dictate.
I was being ironically sarcastic, there is NO "free market" and never was.
As much as I like EVs, the sales rate is 0.3% which might go up to 1% in a decade. This is why I recommend synthetic and bio synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuels. No oil used, cleaner, reduces OPEC's power by using domestic resources. We have more than 1 billion road vehicles in the world that have engines. It is unlikely to convert many of those to electric in the next 20 years...this should be obvious.
The Tesla battery factor will just make them in quantity, it is not for development. Toyota may be able to fund development that can be produced in quantity more than a national lab can.
The Tesla 3 will change EVs in a big way. More than a week went by after the announcement of the Model 3 with no story on here. The Model 3 announcement was probably the biggest story since the Volt January 2007.
Envia has advanced lithium, Oxis has lithium sulphur, Pellion has magnesium ion, Toyota is talking solid state and magnesium. There could be advances in EV batteries in the next 5 years.
This is the private sector, many fuel stations are owned and/or controlled by oil companies. They are required to buy blended E10, but there is NO requirement to buy E85. "Free" market ya know.
Fracking takes a lot of water, power plant cooling takes a lot of water. You can use reclaimed water for fracking and power plants. Use multistage condensers on power plants then use that water for crops. As one example, the nuclear power plant in Arizona uses 20 billion gallons per year. You could grow miscanthus for fuel in the desert with the right water management. Multistage condensers are used to make 60% of the desalinated water in the world.
"We don’t know exactly how much groundwater we have left, so we don’t know when we’re going to run out." That sort of says it all. Farmers in California's central valley were told not to plant trees because the water was now and then, the allocation depended on snow and rain fall. They planted orchards anyway and now are complaining they are not allocated enough water.