This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I still don't understand. Presumably the oxidative decompostion stage would take place at a different time and place to the adsorbtion, after the heat is long dissapated.
I don't understand how the catalytic cycle requires no external energy source when part of it involves temperatures of 300C.
Change: I am going to continue to rely on proper engineering from a properly capitalised company with realistic objectives. At the system level a hydrogen fuel cell system is far more energy dense than any battery we have, and Toyota still sensibly limit their objective to ~200 miles of range. You prefer fantasies from the Tweetmeister. This will go the way of battery swapping.
sd: I think they were sufficiently clear that they were referring to the quantum flux efficiency, not solar to hydrogen. And this is just proof of principle work, having nothing to do as far as my inexpert eye can tell with the 16.2% efficient cell you mention at: It looks to me as though the same guy is simply involved in two different projects, with this one being much earlier stage, indeed just a budding idea.
Harvey: It doesn't work like that. The 114% efficiency only applies to part of the process, not the whole chain, and will probably be less in a practical commercial system. So I rely on others with more chops than me to come up with some guesstimates, although the info is likely too light even for that, but think in terms, hopefully, of another bump to 18% or so.
Crazy stuff! A long way to go, of course, with all sorts of issues of durability etc, but one wonders what that would do to the current record for solar to hydrogen of 16.2%
I forgot to add that GM tell us that there was considerable debate before they decided what speed of charging to enable in the first Bolt cars. Faster chargers and the supposed advent of the Model 3 provide incentive to move on.
I think the 2018 Bolt may well be upgraded to use faster charging, now the chargers are being built.
BYD's big battery solution would not have that downtime. I think that they are not getting the contracts because they are regarded as 'too Chinese' Hydrogen buses would also avoid that problem and refuelling at the depot is straightforward for them at good cost: 'The biggest benefit of hydrogen fuel cell buses: they emit nothing except water, said Conrad. And while compressed natural gas is less polluting than diesel fuel, CNG engines still emit some pollutants, and hydrogen is more than twice as fuel efficient than CNG and diesel engines. Electric buses are also zero-emission vehicles, but they have to be recharged every hour to two hours. But hydrogen, which currently costs about $4.63 a kilogram, for now, provides no fuel savings due to the plunge in oil prices the past year. If this experiment in Canton is a success, then the results could be cleaner air, more adaptation in Ohio and nationwide of hydrogen fuel cell technology to help accomplish the goal of zero-emission vehicles, the establishment of a vehicle hydrogen fuel cell research program at Stark State, and the development of a local fuel cell industry that would result in more high-paying jobs.' The air filtration also means that they clean the air, instead of adding more pollution to it, which BEVs don't do.
Change: I see you have now linked the Elektrek article, which you misinterpreted, not the webcast which you plainly have not studied but cited just the same, wholly erroneously. The Elektrek article says: '“These batteries are steadily improving every single year – maybe around 5% improvement in their energy density their ability to store energy in a given amount of mass. That’s probably one of the key metrics we worry about. And when we went from the Roadster to the Model S, they have improved by about 40% and when we were designing the Model 3, they were about another 30% better. That improvement just continues on every single year in the background.” The first consumer vehicle application of this 30% improvement will be seen in the Model 3 as Straubel remarks,' So your original claim that: ' 'Tesla’s next negation 2170 cell will probably have the same durability but Musk say its energy density increases by 30% and it is cheaper to produce' Is complete nonsense as I said it was.
Change: Nice attempt at obfuscation. Wave your arm towards a lengthy web cast, presumably in the hope that no one will check. But here is the transcript: So where does it say what you claim? Or are you quoting links without examining them? The answer to that one is obvious. The 30% nonsense is actually based on an Elektrek article, and was against the original Model S, not the current one. The 30% increase is already built in, with no or minimal increase in energy density at the pack level projected for the switch to 21700s or for the Model 3.
Change claimed: 'Tesla’s next negation 2170 cell will probably have the same durability but Musk say its energy density increases by 30% and it is cheaper to produce' Nope. The baseline for the increased energy density is the original Model S, not the current one. No increase is projected for the change to 21700's at the pack level. Please provide the exact quote if you wish to claim otherwise.
Arnold: Exactly right. ' The dominant paradigm is the human factors paradigm. This paradigm focuses on human information processing. While driving in the fully automated mode, drivers will experience a loss of situation awareness, due to a low workload in which not much information related the driving task has to be processed. This diminished situation awareness will not be immediately reactivated after drivers have switched to manual driving. Indeed, a multitude of studies have indicated that diminished situation awareness occurs when task demands regarding the driving task are low, due to the automatization of the driving task. There are also some studies in which it was found that situation awareness was diminished in acute threatening situations, directly after resumption of the driving task. This is even more so the case when the transition of control occurs suddenly and the driver paid no attention to the driving task just before transition of control. Studies indicate that driving performance at the operational level (the longitudinal and lateral control over the vehicle) is also affected after transition of control. ' The expectation that drivers should be ready to instantly take back control in level 2 and 3 automation is wholly unrealistic and does not accord with human capabilities.
Hi mahonj. Since a fuel cell RE is zero emission at point of use, and does not result in a change of driving characteristics or NVH, the optimum balance of the battery and RE is very different. There is no point in oversizing the battery beyond average daily use, so I would put the battery component at somewhere in the region of 10-15 KWH. Not only would this reduce weight, but batteries use a heck of a lot of energy to build them, which hits bigger battery BEVs hard in terms of lifecycle costs in energy and emissions. So there is no point lugging around or building too big a battery.
Hi Mahonj. Unfortunately the figures I have found are all a bit arm-wavy instead of giving precise data: 'They also claim that a car with a 50 liter tank of methanol and just six to 10 grams of their catalyst could power a Toyota Mirai for approximately 690 km. Also, it would cost just $15 for the methanol and $320 for the platinum, which the team suggests, might be recyclable.' Without the rating cycle used for the Mirai range etc there is no way of telling what that means. At least the fuel cell would not presumably be emitting the formaldehyde combusting it does, in an otherwise very clean burning fuel: I'd see the likely application of this though more in RE's, where methanol would be a very good fuel for a small 30 KW or so RE on a PHEV.
Elsewhere I see that Stephen Loveday is busy inventing facts on fuel cell cars: 'The Prime gets a major range upgrade, and the company is promoting the vehicle more heavily (now that it has set aside focus on the fuel-cell market, due to mounting expense and lack of charging infrastructure).' Nowhere is it made clear that that is his interpretation, based on neither Toyota statements nor the Reuters source for his article. What is true is that Mercedes is de-emphasising fuel cell cars, not Toyota.
I don't think this one has come up here, so I will mention it: 'The diagram shows the technology developed at the Technion: the oxygen and hydrogen are produced and stored in completely separate cells. According to Ms. Landman, one of the electrodes (anode) can be replaced by a light sensitive electrode (photo-anode), so that the conversion of water and solar energy into hydrogen fuel and oxygen will be carried out directly in each compartment simultaneously. Image Credit: American Technion Society. Click image for the largest view. The new process allows geographic separation between the solar farm consisting of millions of PEC cells that produce oxygen exclusively, and the site where the hydrogen is produced in a centralized, cost-effective and efficient manner. They accomplished this with a pair of auxiliary electrodes made of nickel hydroxide, an inexpensive material used in rechargeable batteries, and a metal wire connecting them. Avigail Landman, a doctoral student in the Nancy & Stephen Grand Technion Energy Program explained, “In the present article, ‘Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting In Separate Oxygen and Hydrogen Cells’ published in Nature Materials, we describe a new method for producing hydrogen through the physical separation of hydrogen production and oxygen production. According to our cost estimate, our method could successfully compete with existing water splitting methods and serve as a cheap and safe platform for the production of hydrogen.” This is not the whole of the technology, as noted previously, the vision of the Technion researchers is geographic separation between the sites where the oxygen and hydrogen are produced: at one site, there will be a solar farm that will collect the sun’s energy and produce oxygen, while hydrogen is produced in a centralized manner at another site, miles away. Thus, instead of transporting compressed hydrogen from the production site to the sales point, it will only be necessary to swap the auxiliary electrodes between the two sites. Economic calculations performed in collaboration with research fellows from Evonik Creavis GmbH and the Institute of Solar Research at the German Aerospace Center, indicate the potential for significant savings in the setup and operating costs of hydrogen production.' I have become convinced over the last couple of years that fuel cell technology is going to play a very major part one way or another in our energy future, and that those who have sought to dismiss them as 'fool cells' have proven themselves to be the fools.
Hi SJC. Apparently this method would actually take place within the fuel stack: ' This method requires less energy, and the simpler and more compact device design allows direct integration into PEMFC stacks' Lad: PEM fuel cells run at an average actual efficiency in cars of around 50%, not 40%. At least get your prejudiced claims in the right area.
Hatchet jobs by the usual suspects should not be allowed to obscure the real progress being made, or the enhancements of prospects for future emission free mobility for the hundreds of millions of motorists with nowhere at all to practically plug in a battery car. If one is absurd enough to want to talk only about current costs for an early system which will be rapidly developed with falling costs, then hydrogen is usually included in the lease price for FCEVs, so the fuel cost is zero, as against the cost of the electricity for a BEV. Some of us in northern latitudes want to be able to run a car in winter as well as summer, and to do so using mainly renewables. You can't do that with BEVs.
A battery expert comments: '@Davewmart-- "...In the paper, they report that using the additive in a Li metal battery with a 4-V Li-ion cathode at a moderately..." There are 2 "gotchas" that I see in this, one bigger than the other. First (the bigger one) is the loading weight of 1.75mAh/cm2. Many high energy cells, i.e. NCR18650B, have a loading closer to 5 to 6mAh/cm2. Lower loadings can improve cycle life dramatically. Second, mixing salts in this manner is not anything really new. Researchers (and even some in industry) have been doing this for years. I don't know much on if it was tried for Li metal, so there might be some novelty there. Not trying to take away anything from the work, which looks pretty solid. Just trying to point out things that I see at first blush.'
Change: If you ignore all losses to produce electricity and problems with storage you can come up with any figures you like. Some of us however can add up.
I think this is job done for light delivery vehicles and taxis. That would remove a huge burden of pollution from cities.
On the face of it, this sounds relatively practical. Lets hope it pans out, so many don't in batteries.
The UK Government are conducting extensive trials of through the road charging on the move: Full details of study here: IMO the costs of wiring up major roads is not excessive, and it would enable trucking to be far more efficient, as the length of trucks and their train allows several charge pads to be built in, whilst a car would only pick up on one. Initially it would only be for major highways, and only on one lane each way. Although superficially less efficient than wired charging, it would enable electric vehicles to need much smaller battery packs reducing both the energy cost of moving the vehicle and the cost of the batteries.