This is CheeseEater88's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following CheeseEater88's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Okay maybe not a terrawatt, but a gigawatt or a few is more than doable with a few billion dollars. Your original estimate of 12billion, would net a 3.5 gigawatt geothermal plant, perhaps even more with economies of scale. With 90% uptime it can rival nuclear for a base load. Also, your five minute top off wouldn't likely be a five minute top off. I'd plan for 75mph traffic, and I'd plan for 5miles increments. Also youd need about 150kw available for each vehicle on that five mile stretch. In a rush hour situation that could get interesting.
EP, I think you grossly underestimate the cost to implement charging on the go. The cost for the test mile of over head charging lines in California was much much higher $13,500,000 for one mile, where the centerlanes were electrified, not the right lanes. That's the cost today, maybe not in the future, but you were off by $100,000,000,000 Also, one thing i don't think you factored in is the load at which some of these highways would see. There would need to be new substations, perhaps high tension lines brought in along the highway, lots of infrastructure would need to change. On top of that, highway maintenance and repair costs would go up. Each mile electrified would be an ordeal, each mile would be different and have its own challenges. I'm not saying it can't be done, but i am saying there might be a better way that doesn't involve the sort of long term commitment our current highway system cannot support. We are better off spending those billions, tapping that caldera, and making geothermic electricity for as much as we can. We can probably install a huge gigawatt facility, or even terrawatt with that sort of money, thus displacing most of our electric base load dependent on coal and natural gas. We could tie in with hightension dc lines to the east coast as well.
Also a huge advantage of aluminum is our current infrastructure / incentive to recycle it. That, and we can have all of these vehicles, last 20+ years. Look at airplanes, they last decades, cars, we are limited to about 10-15 because of rust and lack of support. Electric cars could easily outlast ICEs, batteries and some of the controllers are weak links, but perhaps they can be upgradable over time from a third party(oem).
Thomas, those bolsters are very very high, not a whole lot of wiggle room for the average person, probably not enough room for even the mildly obese. Autonomous technology will spread very fast if laws allow it. Even if it cost an additional $100,000 per car, it would catch on fast in the service industry. The driver being the most expensive part, as others pointed out is not an insignificant thing, plus the fact that it replaces 3 drivers makes it that much better. I would imagine even if it cost 1million dollars additional for the car it would catch on, they would stand to gain almost $500,000 over the life of the car, just in reduced driver costs. I think the added cost is probably under $25,000. As for the ride sharing van, it's very much a prototype, likely much would change. The seats hopefully will change. I just don't feel that this would do so well. All the ride sharing companies, and many other are aggressively pursuing autonomous vehicles. We are basically there as far as technology/hardware goes, software will need tweaks for millennia, but it's probably already safer than a human at this point in time. Legislature and a fear of the unknown is holding it back. As Harvey stated, this will take some time to launch, we could easily have starter fleets of full autonomy in that time. We'll probably see our first purpose built full autonomy car debut in under ten years. Up until then, it's likely just modified versions of existing cars.
Another thought is the vapor pressure of the fuels. Here in the states ethanol blends can have higher vapor pressures, as part of it being an alternative fuel. So oil companies can blend it with otherwise inferior gasoline, it also contributed to a higher octane number, allowing for a lower octane base to be used. Other thoughts, would be that maybe one area is wealthier comparatively to other parts, leading to a disproportionate number of newer/better cars running gasoline, compared to some jalopes running around.
I'm perplexed by the information you presented lad, Usually hydrocarbon emissions are tied to ground level ozone. When you have an oxidized fuel such as ethanol, typically it drops, because of a hotter more complete burn. Is it coming from tailpipes? I'm unfamiliar with emissions equipment in that nation, but typically we've seen great results here in the states with 10% blend in. Along with other measures like evap systems and special vapor recovery nozzles. I live in one of those EPA zones. Perhaps there is something nefarious, if gasoline is that much better than ethanol, why have we in the states have so much luck with the blending, historical data going back decades contradicts the phase in of the countermeasures i mentioned above.
Also, i would like to add that hydrogen is very easy to distribute, they can add it to natural gas lines that feed homes/businesses almost everywhere in the typical urban centers. They have means of syphoning it off from the natural gas lines. Also, with these proposed new catalysts to reform hydrogen from methane. Hydrogen can be made almost anywhere with electricity and natural gas flowing to it. If they are as disruptive as they claim, i could see industry bringing large scale units online within 5 years or less. As many of the anti hydrogen crowd has expressed, reforming from methane, the current standard, is not very efficient compared to the new catalyzed process. .
I'm not really concerned with the talk of greenwashing, if it is or isn't, it's probably replacing something that was worse, before it was implemented. I really try and use all our resources in the most responsible ways: Socially, economically realistically, and environmentally. I'm not a huge fan of nuclear, but i see if it's done right its a decent carbon neutral fuel. Having said that, these "evil" private corporations that may or may not sell oil derived products are no more or less evil than any other company I have seen. We are on the verge of significantly cheaper/ more efficient hydrogen. We have a way to reform it with very little waste. Based on our current state of affairs, this turns hydrogen into a very low carbon fuel, possibly beating BEVs on the typical grid here in the states. The notion of this probably doesn't rest well with most of you on here. Having said all that. Efficiency doesn't matter. This is a waste stream that would likely go unused if it were not for Toyota, could there be better options? Sure, but they didn't present themselves. Perhaps these new hydrogen catalysts can be used to even greater effect for waste production. If we gain something, where we would have otherwise gained nothing i don't think we should be too critical. Humans generate tons of waste, if we can use that to displace other resources, while cleaning it up, i think it's a general win. I don't know the fiscal details, but i imagine, if this is either a for loss prototype, or even a revenue stream for Toyota they will benefit from this some how.
Huh? In the US two out of the top three plugins are Chevy. The first being the Tesla model S, then the Bolt then the Volt. The bolt had outsold the model S 5months this year, possibly, because we don't know much hard data from Tesla. The bolt also has been trending up in sales, it's moving almost 3k units a month now. For a car that's been out for such a short time, it's awfully close to the top spot. Contracts are also renegotiated constantly, initial contracts are just that. Most of the time negotiations happen throughout preproduction, or if volume hits higher or lower than anticipated. Unless LG is at max capacity and can't bring in more shifts, it would be silly to hold GM back. I'll try to figure out the days supply for bolts. If someone can look at the NADA and tell me that would be great. It could give you an idea of demand in the future.
Two words "up to", i mean yeah the shorter height vehicles will be better, than let's say a truck. I imagine proximity to the pad has to do with the efficiencies. It would be nice to know the average efficiency not the peak. It would be nice to have these installed flat, into the surface, so snow plows or other unforseen things like thieves would be less apt to damage them. But as you say Dave very definitive. I was surprised by the 93%. At 7.7kw it is good enough for PHEV but BEV might find it lacking. The question is what will be the cost compared to the other style of chargers?
It'll die a lot faster with gasoline particulate filters. People can barely manage owning diesel trucks with dpf and scr here in the states. semis and smaller pickups all have some issue with driver not knowing how to drive to clear the filter off. You have to get on the throttle hard, for an extended amount of time. Putting that in the hands of an uninformed populous, not just professional drivers, will be a PR disaster. Warranty replacements will be costly. Cost to own will skyrocket, and people will hold on to thier aging cars longer than ever to avoid a particulate system. We are on the cusp of BEVs becoming mainstream, 5-10years we'll probably start seeing exponential growth. Bringing a BEV to market should be an easier affair than an ICE, parts are drop in, cells are known, it's more or less packaging concerns, like weight size and cost. The cost is dropping, we'll see a decent push in the midsize car market.
I think Chevy is on pace to outsell tesla in the US. I'm surprised that more people wanting a model three haven't jumped ship. If i were in the market for a BEV I'd chose a Bolt, and i really don't like GM. Ford is launching/announcing ~ ten additional electrified(don't know if the interceptor and the cop cruisers count as one or two cars, or if they are considered the same as the existing fusion) vehicles including one fully electric between now and this time next year. Plugin hybrid full size suv and trucks are in the works. There will finally be some disruption in the next five years. If musk could ramp up and sell those 500k model 3s yearly, that would contend with existing ICEs, in a very significant way. I just wish there was more fanfare for the bolt. Chevy is likely able to match demand, even if it were much higher.
Carbon/graphine is making its way into the traditional lead acid battery to great it makes sense here. You have plates that are 100x more durable, that can deplete almost fully, and have thousands more charges than conventional lead acide, the best part is the cost isn't prohibitive. Less weight. What's great is it still was interchangeable with the conventional. Lead has two advantages over li-ion, price and it's very tolerant of 100% state of charge. So improvements to power, weight,number of cycles, and DoD would all be great things. As far as Samsung is concerned, they move fast on technology. They know from their consumer electronics division that having an advantage in the market leads to near monopoly. Samsung crushes everyone on NAND. They are some of the cheapest & fastest drives you can buy. The price has stagnated due to lack of competition, the process has gotten much cheaper yet they stillhold the floor roughly the same place as its been for the last few years. What I'm trying to express, is that if Samsung believes this will work, they will bring it to market quickly, and try to out perform thier competition in all aspects. They invest heavily in IP, and they use that to make thier revenue. Likely if they are anouncing it, they'll bring it to market relatively soon
Yeah, 27mpg isn't good. My brother can manage 26 mpg (highway cruise) in his F150, just by obeying posted speed limits. It plummets above 65mph I'm told. I used to drive 63miles one way to work, so i bought a 1.0l fiesta, and i did ~70mph, the whole way, i got nearly 40mpg, others doing similar commutes at lower speeds(55-60) were cracking into the 50mpgs.
I should add, cars run lean/rich mix all the time, like alternating, it's never ever optimal. If we didn't have catalytic converter, we could run as close to stoichometric 100% of the time, but we don't. . It's all reactionary, but cars are really good at mapping and learning trends. We gain efficiencies from the precision we are adding. Smaller injections via direct injection, faster and more power computers, more sensors, better sensors like wideband o2, hotter sparks. Look to diesels, typically in America, diesels trend most advancements, turbo chargers, direct injection, and a slew of other technologies. These much bigger, and much more expensive engines have been the proving grounds for lots of new tech. It think the truck i was reading had over 20 injections per stroke for fuel. Well probably see particulate filters, and higher pressure fuel rails in the near future on gasoline cars where emissions restrictions make it so.
You could always place more knock sensors on a car. Have more or less a three dimensional ping map. Sound takes time to travel, and if the data rate is fast enough, perhaps in a separate module, you could see which one signalled first(that and see the intensity), but the crank sensor should be enough to know which cylinder. As they are now, they are extremely accurate, and engines can pinpoint on thier own which cylinder or bank has a problem. They are used in conjunction with wideb and O2s for leaner burns. Ford uses knock sensors as more or less its go to for fuel trim. It advances timing till it knocks then backs off. That's why ecoboosts love water/methanol injection and still can take otherwise crappy fuels with very little problems. I was putting in 85/86octane in my car, the $0.80 jump to 87 was a bit steep. I also felt like when i spent the money on the 87, it wasn't really fresh, in a town of 800 people, i probably was they only one buying.
That's the funny thing about history right? We get to choose what we remember. It's amazing what we learn to be true. Indefensible actions become defendable, or vise versa. If things are as dire as everyone says, i mean i think we hit the irreversible threshold years ago according to scientists, and that's with just mans input not these recent natural events like volcanoes, we should just ration off everything, limit who gets to own cars, have air conditioners, etc. It's going to take that, and a show of force to make people comply.
Doing some quick searches, people on the internet seem to believe we would need 90mw of thrust in applications such as the 747 for takeoff. Which seems near impossible for electric. Maybe, they would launch with two fuel engines, and switch to two cruising electric engines. But then, the cargo capacity would drop. I think the 747 is alleged to use 5gals of fuel per mile. Which when you're flying so many people and things does fairly well compared to cars. But yeah, that's a lot of energy. I don't know if we'll see hydrogen planes after all. Maybe for onboard power, but nothing to power external engines.
CO2 reduced by 75% is mind boggling. Hopefully that figure factors in renewables. I think Boeings approach is to use renewables. I don't know the efficiencies of the electric turbine versus a liquid fuel powered one, but here on the ground turbines do pretty well. This is where hydrogen would have to be in order to make a dent. Even our lightest batteries might be too heavy. Especially international flights. I don't know how the reliability would play out for the electric motors. If they aren't using air bearings, it could be less reliable. Well let's hope this project figures all of this out.
Regards to the article, i don't see anything but private companies wanting to get in front of the curve, by putting in chargers that consumers would like to use, in a manner, that would make sense for consumers to use them One, you have proximity to one another. Two, you have a charger that makes sense, the 350kw charger is for customers likely wanting to make longer trips. Not everyone needs an hour long potty break every two hours. Plus, it makes business sense to sell those kwh at a faster pace, so the next guy in line can get some kwh too. Not that it is future proof, but 350kw chargers will likely last much much much longer than the 23kw and smaller charger that tax payers are funding here in the states. Three, this looks like a winning business model for them. Otherwise i don't think they would do this on thier own. I mean, most chargers are near places of business. Are you really going to stay in your car for 10-30minutes with a fast food store, or a place that sells road going necessities and knickknacks for an outrageous cost? As i said earlier, Walmart should jump on this, they would love the foot traffic. That and quick trip. The proximities of Walmart are probably good enough for most non flyover states to do something similar. We'll probably see a roll out here similar in the states, things are spread out, and there are lots of competition putting in chargers, though those are usually governments, and smaller projects, not on scale like we've seen here. One day, i see them hitting i70 even through Kansas, Kansas barely has a budget to spring for EV chargers, i believe thier transit section is in the red, despite the tolls. So likely its going to be a large federal(unlikely), or a private venture; and I'm inclined to think the latter will happen.
I think California should secede, then everyone gets what they want ;) You get $9/gasoline, and electric cars, and everyone else gets the slow road to progress. I think it will be faster when its viable. Otherwise all you get is cheap compliance cars. Don't force something so its half baked. Mass produced BEVs are still like 2-5 years out judging the progress the bolt and the model three have made. If Tesla doesn't launch the model 3 with any sorts of volume soon, it's likely to get passed by, Chevy and Ford both have competition in the works, Chevy is already working on the successor/evolution to the bolt. Plus, BEVs might actually be worse for the environment than H2 cars using the new methane reformation catalysts. I mean all is flux. Here in capitalist land, people vote with thier wallets. If people really really cared they would all be driving leafs or something, regardless of how much of an impact it might have on thier life style, but they don't. I'd laugh if the Juke or whatever it is outsold the Leaf. I also thought the continued subsidies for alt fuels and evs came under Bush. So much for innovation, this is all Bush's fault, especially when the tax credits are drying up. And clearly it benefited the rich. i believe political posturing is a joke.
As for the bus and the dishwasher... Odds are the dishwasher was cheap. Our early 90s one was probably audible from the neighbors house. The new one, you can't hear it in the same room, for most of the cycle. The trucks, most of the noise is probably coming from the radiator fan. It's like air cooled lawn equipment. So noisy. An electric fan would likely be quieter, but low speed diesels need a lot of cooling when they are working hard, so likely it was one with a viscous fluid fan clutch. Harvey it comes down ability and training to enforce. What makes it too loud, what dbl etc. If it's not a set statute, than it can easily become a burden in court. Here, window glass tint is highly regulated, and there is a set percentage, but if a cop enforces it, he needs to use a tool to check it, and it has to be calibrated on that day, and he needs to be trained to use it, otherwise it could be argued in court wasting everyone's time and money. Where I live, only the state enforces it, highway troopers make tons of revenue pulling tinted cars over, local PDs don't see it as a protect and serve statue so to speak, so they are much less likely to enforce it as its more of a nuisance in the publics eye, and they are also less able to enforce it because of the tools, and that they have better things to do.
I think it's idiotic not to use off the shelf vehicles. Almost every other delivery van i see out there is some variant of a box truck, or a sprinter type van. What does the post office do, that these other vehicles wouldn't suffice? Ford, GM almost any full line brand would probably upfit or make hybrids available in the segment just to win the contract, if it included mass produced derivatives. A hybrid, with 30miles range and plug in capability would reduce 70% of thier fuel consumption fleet wide. If they used an upfitted transit connect of something like it, they'd be fine. Even if they went with a much smaller car like a b or c class hatchback. Wind rain sleet and snow, make full ev options a hard sell, currently with the current cost of batteries. Basically anything would be better than what we have now. But it's sad that current OEMs like the big three or any of the others won't even be considered.
I mean, it's cold in Canada, so maybe they were looking at the waste heat to heat the passenger compartment... But even still, a H2 bus would have been worth while. Strict BEVs might not be the best choice in such adverse weather. A lot of heat would be needed in such a large vehicle. Maybe they are planning to capture methane from waste streams, making it renewable?
Well, it includes municipal waste, so maybe its a extra source of revenue based on its treatment, thus subsidizing the overall cost. Take the waste in at a cost, and treat it, generating another thing to sell. I could see this being profitable for big ox on thier own. But likely they received grants and subsidies to start this up, should be viable indefinitely, waste streams will only adapt, never fully go away. Imagine, profitable energy generation from municipal waste everywhere possible. Methane or even liquid alternatives could come in to play, drastically reducing the need to harvest from the earth so many resources, while possibly saving money overall.