This is Darius's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Darius's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Darius
Recent Activity
Very, very important step. Much more significant than fast charging stuff. Practical wireless chwrging would enable mass charging capability at public parking locations.
That it very interesting invention indeed. But area of application could be very different. I expect metal cooled nuclear reactor designers could be interested. As for energy storage - still no CO2 or other high temperature turbines in operation. For me hard to imagine possible transformation cycles. In case using existing steam turbines storage losses will be no less 40% at the chillers and some thermal isolation losses. Therefore nothing close to hydro pump storage efficiency and simplicity.
Hard to imagine performance of such freight troleybus. What will be load of the line in case multiple electrical trucks traveling and at the same time charging their batteries? What would be cost of infrustructure?
Does ban on ICE suppose ban on hybrids including serial? May be the study assumptions are based on wrong fact of total ban? As far as I know LDVs should be electrified by 2030 but still with ICE.
I totaly agree with Engineer-Poet. Would be interesting to know what this is about. On other hand diagram is stupud since there is rationality behind regulating power consumtio by not producing fuel during day hours. Fuel production equipment standby cost could outweight power cost many many times both in money and enviromental terms.
Peter XX Diesel fuel cost is higher vs electricity at least 3 fold as well and smog within towns is anoying.
P.S. Misleading video. Good acceleration is due to powerfull enough battery but not fuel cells.
I would prefer testing CNG or DME powetrains. May be they should by hybrid. But hydrogen is total nonsense. Energy density is OK but overal process efficiency (coal or natural gas to wheels) is awfull. What a waste of energy and resources!
Fast charging cost is huge. Thats why Tesla installing them for intercity travel. The power rate for fast charging will be 3 times more of average. Wireless charging is designed for slow and night time charging. EV initial paradigm was using offpeak power. Fast charging will increase EV costs dramaticaly and in general is against EV proliferation. Wireless cgarging is briliant project and I like things are developing.
I am looking forward first manufacturer installing wireless charging. Again Nissan?
Looks like Big Oil companies like Shell, Total and others looking for positive publicity and kind of creating alternative to growing EV. Toyota management irrationaly obsessed with hydrogen. Rational way would be vice versa - transform existing hydrogen into methane and use existing infrustructure. Methane for transportation more logic solution as well.
It is significant attempt to restart nuclear power. I still believe most promising design would be breeder type generation IV SMR reactor proposed by GEN4. That would be solution for spent fuel (including existing reserves). My question is what NRC is going look into for 40 months (probably much longer)?. They are going sort those 12 000 pages in right order? It would be cheaper build deep underground facility (use some abandoned mine) and start testing SMRs one by one and see how they behave in real world conditions. In that case worst situations could be tested and recommendations developed. In other case it just bureaucratic imitation of some activity.
May be some day car solar roof will cost nothing. Then it will be reasonable to have it. I would prefer to calculate truck trailer solar roof. In case first electric truck on the road it could make some impact. But in any case those things shall become much more cheaper.
Efficiency level is simply acceptable for public charging and in fact will be higher against fast wired charging taking into account supporting infrustructure cost.
Infrustructure cost money. Therefore it's worth consider wireless charging from very begining. The wireless part could be very small fraction of overal cost but would help proliferate EV dramaticaly.
Autonomous EV taxi service without wireless charging will be not possible.
Even if plasma fusion works - will it be economic due to anticipated tremendous investment costs? It is worth studding such kind of things but it remains pure science as it was almost 30 years ago after my graduation nuclear plasma engineering. At that time some professors where confident that solution will be within automation. Prediction techniques and formulas could be implemented in analoge ir digital way. But some were more pessimistic believing only in artificial gravity confinement.
Fusion reactor is the one everybody dreams about. But development vague since no leadership and commitmet Opengamer style. Stelator project was very promising but needs manyfold fund injection, speed and relentles effort. More realistic things are happening within fission under Russian (!) leadership. They have been developing very long time fast neutron reactors (55 yers). More or less it was soviet burocratic style development with unnecessary military secrecy. Russian Sodium fast neutron reactors are in operation but they are not economicaly viable. Recently Rosatom approved Brest-OD-300 reactor construction with UN fuel and lead cooling cycle. Why it is so interesting, new and important? First of all Uraniu Nitride fuel provides possibility spend fuel be reprocessed by enrichment indefinite number of times therefore practicaly no nuclear waist. In that case Uranium utilization increases thousand fold and even existing nuclear waist could be recycled. Secondly lead cooling cycle eliminates possibility of ovrheated reformed steam blast. All bigg nuclear accidents occured due to that phisical reason. Lead cooled reactor accident risk limited to the loss of reactor itself without effecting enviroment. Main question remains - is this economical and can compete with coal? Very difficult to answer. In case make licencing smarter and better the construction cost of nuclear could be redueced in time and financialy. The thing is that to fight established burocrats very risky bussines and no businessman wants to invest taking into account public opinion. The hope was modular reactor licencing procedure applicable for the product type. In that case reactors could be mass produced without involving individual case licencing. But seems to me idea has not received necessary support.
Aggressive goal. I like it. In general speed of charging depends on battery voltage. IMO battery voltage will grow. Existing 400 V dangerous quite enough. Probably voltage will not become more deadly since it is deadly know. Do not forget CRT TV sets are using 20 000 V and have been used on mass scale for several decades. 10 kV electric motors are quite common peace of equipment.
Henrik, City taxi service with self driving cars would require charging inside city and taxi parking as well. I do not imagine not involving public authorities. Currently all Tesla charging infrustructure is intercity.
IMO in order not to clog streets and increase traffic speed separate infrastructure would be needed. Back to old PRT paradigm. But it's nothing wrong with that since it will specific to light duty self driving vehicles therefore many times lighter and cheaper of existing bridges or subways and providing the same speed as underground train. The advantage of upcoming self driving taxi service against PRT will be capability utilizing roads we have now where no traffic jams expected and carry us to the doorstep. I thing city planners should start planing now both self driving taxi charging and jumping infrastructure.
Trees, Are you not suspicious about such cost indication? Do French people are completely stupid or unimaginably rich? In reality new nuclear power price is around $0,05/kWh to $0,06/kWh. Concerning power generation cost please google and download: Program on Technology Innovation: Integrated Generation Technology Option (Electric Power Research Institute) For new power generation guys I would tell that commercially wind or solar power is better since it is much less commercially risky and requires very small financial exposure. But power price will dramatically increase due to solar or wind power like it happened in Germany. The power storage solutions are needed as well as long as share of wind or solar passes 20% share of overall power generation mix. Power storage infrastructure cost is huge and power losses during storage procedure are no less than 30%. Therefore not regulated and not disconectable power sources like wind power incur huge cost in other power system values chain parts. But for private business and entrepreneures renewables are very attractive due to small financial exposure and positive public opinion. On contrary: 1. Nuclear power suffer from prohibitive NRC regulations which double not only construction cost but incur uncertainty for construction process duration. 12 years might be not an issue. Uncertainty is an issue. 2. No research programs finance from US government or any other western government apart from South Africa. In general everything in US was terminated after 1986. No new design or fuel (like UN) application during recent 30 years. No nuclear waist application programs. 3. Nuclear power suffer from public mass hysteria although nobody died or even got sick since 1986 former USSR Chernobyl accident in oposit to coal or even gas based power generation. Coal miners die every day and lung disease due to emissions are quite common. Wind power noisy and solar power polluting a lot during manufacturing. Ask question why Ukraine both government and public are supporting new nuclear power development? Chernobyl located in Ukraine.
P.S. I made mistake. BEV's reducing power price.