This is CheeseEater88's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following CheeseEater88's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I'm just surprised they managed to produce so many at launch. That's a very quick EV ramp up.
GPF, would likely come after ICE leaves the mainstream of vehicles. Hybrids would also complicate the use of GPF. Regen cycles need lots of heat and a lean burn, so no typical 9th injector. GPF would cause a lot of problems for the public, DPF has its share of problems, and those wouldn't translate well to the public at large owning and maintaining them for the average of 12years, versus an often well maintained fleet with professional drivers. People cannot even be bothered to check thier tire pressure, hence why we have TPMS required now. Gasoline cars can soot yes, but they are a much more infrequent culprit. Most of the soot with gasoline can be removed by careful tuning of acceleration/throttle events. Most of the peppiness will be gone, but cars can effectively be tuned to avoid a majority of the issue. Besides, people have been tuning/chipping diesels while removing DPF at an alarming rate. Failures of these systems are expensive, it could be a $3000 cost premium for just the components. Might as well make a diesel car/truck at that point for better fuel economy.
This probably goes most against my core values, but building out a large, government backed power plant with 20 year bonds wouldn't seem irrational. Installed cost is around $2500 per kw/hr on the name plate. A stupid large geothermal plant with a name plate of 100,000Mw at $250,000,000,000 would take potentially 8-16years to pay back based on electrical rates. Assuming they can get $0.05/KwH If its $0.04/kwh then its verging on 11-31 years. Lower at $0.03/kwh would put it at 16years - never paying back. This is based on the governments data. cost of 2,500/kw, maintenance cost of $0.01-0.03/kwh and 90% capacity factor. This is green power, it also has reasonable payback periods. This plant could probably operate for >50 years. So payback, and expansion would be possible. You will likely never get approval for 600 nukes anywhere in the US, if you're lucky you might be able to build out 50. Its not popular. Towns and people would likely not want them in the backyard. I'll let you in on a secret. If you want Republicans to build out Nukes or geothermal. Make it an issue of energy independence/ national security. The Left will likely fight you on Nukes, its not a popular or understood power type, that and recent human memory of Japan, Russia, the USA, North Korea and every significant nuclear disaster or test that has ever made the news. We need to see our development of said power plants as a investment in our country. Investments that could easily pay back. I believe this would be a better use of money than wind our solar subsidies. Cost of coal is high, cost of natural gas is high, and nuclear is up there. This could lower our carbon output, and possibly make our power cheaper.
Batteries have to have some expected use of 200,000 miles, same with fuel cells or any other emissions reducing device particularly in CARB states. While cycles might not matter if the pack is large enough, it would matter in smaller applications. Needless to say, as long as there is reasonable utility at those high miles it would fall under the scope of the warranty. Another issue I see, is that car makers are not in a habit of supporting older models, typically they stop support just after 8 years of the stop of production or sooner in lower volume models. Battery packs, now a days are very unique. I mean, they are modular, but they are built to a specific model of car. Who is to say they are to support the electric car in the future with a different battery than what was given in the first place? I have helped to test and replace bad cells in a hybrid battery, but those were about 16 stacks of cells that looked like D batteries shrink wrapped together. I can't imagine the labor involved in A: designing and selling a new "safe / warrantable" pack from the OEM, or B: the aftermarket to repair such large packs. Hopefully battery management has much improved since then, it took a $500 charger, and about 5-10 charges on each cell in the underperforming pack, and the lot of batteries purchased to replaces those cells. Basically you charge and measure the discharge over several cycles to determine which cells are healthy and match the rest of the pack. Odds are these current EVs and the next generation are dead in the water when it comes to battery improvements over time. Tesla, is probably the only exception to this, they use a fairly large and similar sled layout across its models. Other makes take the battery and shoehorn it in somewhere. As long as its considered an emissions device, to tamper or alter its function, even by making it better, could prove illegal in a court of law. So, the quick response from the aftermarket would be: "Off-road use only"
Nicely summed up, I concur Rodger. We as a nation need to install 1TW of new clean power to replace our dependence on non renewables, and to lower our emissions. Wind, and solar would be a blight at that level. We will likely need to install 2TWs over the next 50years. The first to replace the near 1TW of existing non renewable combustion plants, the second to meet the demand of a growing connected world, and an electric vehicle fleet. Things are limited, land, wind, sunshine, fuel, money. If we do exploit the caldera, and we should, this could in the future, lower power rates for the whole nation, ultimately wiping out petroleum based power plants which pay tremendous costs for fuel and maintenance. It's the cheapest option, and it could also be the greenest, and safest ways of going about reducing our dependence on limited and volatile resources. Wind and solar generation mean we have to have great dispatchable power. Batteries likely will only give us mins in time of peak needs, but diesel and natural gas, or that idled coal plant will come on line and take over. Hydrogen will never get a footing as these backups will remain in play indefinitely. If we do something destruptive, that will pay dividends in the long run, we can bank on that lower cost, and level it out over time. Take out bonds, raise capital, and use falling rates to pay for the project and the interest. If we bring something like this online, and several large Nukes, like 10, to prop up our grids, and provide a safe reliable means of electricy, with abundance. We can get away from hydro carbons, and we can possibly provide electricity at such a low rate that it enables economic growth in areas of commerce/technologies, industry, and affordability for the populous. Energy and it's cost play a huge role on the economy. If energy cost go up, the cost of living goes up more than just a heating bill, or that fill up at the gas station, it affects the food on the table and nearly anything you can imagine. Imagine if we sold cheap electricity, 100% of the time, and contracted out our surplus to industry with conditions to curtail use as demand rose. We could safely over provision our grid to spur on our economy in ways that would otherwise be impractical. Like the poet mentioned, peak demand versus the base load is huge. If we were to bring the baseload much higher like I am wanting, we'd need to have people take it up. If we plan our demands, and bring online huge demands to balance out the rise and fall, to allow smaller dispatchables to take over, we could easily live in a carbon free society, even of it meant the electrolysis of water powering transportation. Industry could flourish as a result. I'm not saying we should be reckless, that gigawatt geothermal plant should be able to adjust load to meet demand too, just that we should also consider changing our paradigm. We have all this new technology. We are learning from our current uses, how we are using this electricity. If such a project were undertaken, we could use AI to plan and map our loading of the power plants, in conjunction with consumers like cars, industry, who ever need a lot of power. We can accurately predict, it's not some shot in the dark. Sure there are anomalies, but given enough data, even the outliers are predictable. The grid can self level with batteries, pumped hydro, and hydrogen production. It can also extend its grasp to its consumers, cars can charge and faster rates as surpluses come, industry, compute sectors, everyone can add information and benefit.
The reason for the large plants are scales of economy. For construction, staffing, fueling, etc. Nuclear reactors, coal boilers, just as other things can be made very modular. If you plan on future expansions from the beginning you can scale out over time at a much lower cost. I'm not saying these things should launch with crazy high name plates, but over a span of 50 years they should be growing to offset our carbon use. Hypothetically, let's say that 28% of transportation goes full electric, and while we see an overall 14% reduction in CO2, we will see a jump in electricity usage. What is going to come online to replace it? Most of our plants in my area were built in the 70s and 80s, with 70s and 80s technology. Even our nuke plant is showing its age. I'm surrounded by coal. Something needs to happen. Geothermal is highly geographically limited, and out best source is probably Yellowstone. Geothermal is cheap to run, and fairly cheap to build out. Also, for the hydrogen, it likely doesn't need to be stored at 700bar for stationary applications, so we can plant large tanks for a weeks supply. We could use silos like we have for natural gas, storing it onsite, producing it from electrolysis, or from natural gas onsite. I know nuclear isn't dispatchable, per se but Geothermal has the potential to be somewhat dispatchable. For instance if you had 100,000Mw on the name plate, you run at the typical 90% of rated capacity, and you use that power to do power intensive things like H2 from electrolysis, or mining aluminum, or something that can utilize power.Until one such artic cold snap comes along, then we divert that rainy day power to other regions. My idea is wrought with inefficiency, especially having H2 from electrolysis, but it's one that could work to provide a realistic, cheap, and mostly carbon free future. H2 has to be made some how. We need power. We have square miles of a magma chamber right below our land, that is actually due to go off in a spectacular way. Geothermal is a cheap reliable way to produce power, even is carbon neutral. Our country like everyone else's runs on energy. If we have cheap, reliable energy people start to exploit that resource. This designed surplus energy could be tied to anything energy intensive. The production of H2, pumped hydro, if we have it, we can probably find a use for it, if we plan for it. The big things in our future are computers. They are sensitive to power outages, but super computers can likely be throttled down to a sleep state/low power state if needed. Facilities that use megawatts of power might be able to take advantage of this. It not ideal for sensitive loads, but that cheaper surplus power could be matched with private backup generation, in addition to public grid backups. I'll pull up an article i found on tidal energy, there was a proposed project to capture the energy in the tides, and they figure they could capture so much they would need to find customers to use it. This is sort of how I'm envisioning the use. There will be surplus, but that can be swiftly met with some sort of planned demand. "The initial cost for the field and power plant is around $2500 per installed kW in the U.S., probably $3000 to $5000/kWe for a small (<1Mwe) power plant. Operating and maintenance costs range from $0.01 to $0.03 per kWh. Most geothermal power plants can run at greater than 90% availability" But 250billion dollars, could get us cheap near limitless geothermal. (100,000MW) Geothermal is very cheap compared to other new generation sources. Almost half that of nuclear. There is a 2016 report too, but my thumb was fat and hit the 2015. If we planned it, and offline power plants as this caldera powered one came online in stages, we could pay for the project with electricity rates, because the generation cost is almost half of coal. The consumer might not feel the cost of this project if done right.
Well we need something to fly with, and i don't even think hydrogen is the answer for that. Hydrogen could replace some onboard in cabin electricity uses, but it's likely never to get a large commercial airliner off the ground.
Infrastructure will be an issue no matter what SD our grid is some hodgepodge of wires and transformers. I'm saying take this idea, and make it huge. They predict $0.10/kwh cost. But if they could amortize it over a larger customer base, and utilize it to its max potential, let's say 25%-50% of the population in the US, it could be lower. This would have to be scared up in time to reach any such numbers as i was suggesting, but if it's planned out from the beginning, it can be cheaper in the long run. Power companies are monopolies, let the government subsidize power for most Americans via clean baseloads. Again, we could shutter, our aging coal plants, and clean up our grid with a few billion dollars; which is a drop in the bucket, and if played right,could be very profitable. they could add in an alleged 4000MWs. It's a seismically active state, they are bound to have some more resources. Yellowstone National park, not only is expected to erupt sometime soon( within the span of 200,000years) and potentially wipe life off this planet, but is appearently a very possible source of geothermal heat. We could build out a geothermal plant and take advantage of all that heat. We could put in 50,000MWs, 100,000MWs or more on the nameplate. Something big enough to really dent our carbon footprint as a nation. While it isn't in the most central area of the country, it probably is feasible to sell to several regions, heck even California could buy from it. Build it there, and high tension DC it to every other grid sector they can feasibly reach. If they can build it big enough and get enough planned utilization they can offline several other base load plants and save the world. My region uses 10,000mw and >50% of that is from coal, and we have hydro and nuclear. We don't have geothermal sources.
I'm not a nuclear scientist, so what is the projected cost of using previous spent radioactive fuel in a modern reactor? Would this not be almost free source of fuel? I've been told we have the technology to utilize older spent fuel in new reactors. What's the fuel cost of geothermal? Does it cost more to run geo or nuclear at higher output if the fuel is cheap, ordering on free? The most expensive thing to is an asset never used. We don't have to have a minimalist approach when it comes to supply, we can oversupply, and come up with ways to best use that surplus. Making fuel alternatives for the road could be one, one of many. What California should do, since thier power market is a bit in line with what the poet said, is to build out geothermal, because nuclear is a hard sell. They have assets, and could essentially provide enough for thier whole state and avoid this offsiteing of pollution.
Trucking in hydrogen is no different than any other shipment. Heck, it could be piped in. Also, if the base load was near near our typical consumption during our peak day hours, we wouldn't need much standby generation. Hydrogen makes a lot more sense for standby generation than solar or wind, diesel, natural gas, or even an all battery solution. We can design a grid where >90% of our consumption is met by a few, large carbon neutral plants. Our surplus can go to hydrogen, or other things. We need to match supply to demand, we now are trying to match supply to demand, but what if we try and match demand to supply? Over generate parts of the day, and in turn use that surplus as a means to store energy as hydrogen( or pumped hydro)to back feed into the grid at times of unexpected demand.
GDI's particulate issue really falls on how it is tuned/operated. GDI provides an extreme advantage of low end torque compared to PFI, but it does so by dumping in fuel when a user demands a lot of power. Driving habits and system tuning really play a role more so than how the fuel is delivered, overall I would say that GDI is a significant improvement over port. If we make our cars less responsive, and stop driving with our foot to the floor from stops, our economy and air quality would improve greatly. I don't think a particulate filter would be necessary, it would cause lots of issues that the general public wouldn't know how to handle. Just imagine a soccer mom being derated and forced to regen on the way to school or some other function. That and it could reduce fuel economy, and lead to more emissions.
From the Coorstek article: "Modeling of a small-scale (10 kg H2 day−1) hydrogen plant suggested an overall energy efficiency of >87%. The researchers suggested that future declining electricity prices could make PMRs a competitive alternative for industrial-scale hydrogen plants integrating CO2 capture. CoorsTek Membrane Sciences research suggests that the ceramic membranes can be a competitive technology for hydrogen production with integrated carbon capture, even at a scale required for cost-effective ammonia production. "
The coorstek scheme could sequester the CO2 rather efficiently assuming there were no other transient pollutants, and if its clean enough, we could put it to use. Its byproducts look at quick glance to be water and CO2, sure there are possibly other reactions, but methane is pretty simple to break down, you likely wont end up with anything but what is expected. The reason why I suggested geothermal and nuclear, was because they can create tremendous generation without exponential costs if sized right from the beginning. Most of the costs are really upfront on these buildings, nuclear has the added cost of being forever a target for terrorists, We need to enable buildings like these to sell to as many markets/customers as possible(reducing the cost of kwh by way of utilization). These are very very reliable base load generation. If we can start by making a smarter and much more capable grid, we can start offlining and shuttering coal, diesel and other less efficient generation. I brought up dispatchable H2 power because you don't need much grid storage if you can ramp up local backup/ dispatchable power in under 20 seconds. They could have the stacks running at 1% of capacity and ramp up in time of need almost instantly, and can be sustained indefinitely via shipments of hydrogen. As for energy storage in all the other sectors: Transportation is 28%, If we electrify the first 30 miles of travel (from the grid), we are talking maybe 9-12% has to come from other sources such as petroleum. So, that accounts for 58% of our total energy, if we have plugin hybrids capable of most short trips, and places to charge them. If we chose to store our energy in the form of H2, and produce this from advanced methods or possibly surplus carbon neutral/negative power we stand to stand to gain if we are using it to replace conventional petroleum uses. We make 9,000,000 tonnes a year of H2, transportation wouldn't need much to be rid of ICEs. New processes would make it very efficient to produce and consume in a variety of ways
If it weren't for you two arguing, most of us probably wouldn't be so well informed from your differing points of views. We have a lot of issues in the States as it pertains to our energy consumption and transmission. I don't think we can be idealists, not yet anyway. There is always something better than what we have now, but to reach out and grasp at extremes of what could be instead of working towards gradual and consistent improvement isn't going to net the results any faster. We as a nation need to bite the bullet on carbon neutral power generation. I am not talking dams, or wind, or solar(I really don't like dams). We need a baseload of Nuclear, and Geothermal. Both we can do at scale to power a large portion of the United States. The government needs to step in and raise funds for secure power generation. If the scale of these plants are big enough, and we bother updating our infrastructure, we could feasibly power most of our country from a handful of carbon neutral plants. It might take high tension DC lines, and some sort of on demand system (like dispatchable H2 to power plants with battery backup, as they can be almost instant). I think H2 should come from methane or natural gas. I don't care if its from renewables, the notion of big brother, oil, battery, or what have you is disingenuous. Its the damn retailers that really hit you below the belt, I've seen 200% markup on gasoline for a few weeks when we had oil glut. I had information on the wholesale price to the stations. The reason I think we should get it from natural gas now, and in the future is we have technology coming out that will change the efficiency and fast. It would be more energy efficient to run a car on hydrogen, than straight BEV, if the following was built: On top of that, the US has many uses for natural gas, and we are a net exporter already, we won't stop drilling or fracking because all our vehicles are electric. We frankly will never stop. We can only hope to use less of it. Oil/Hydrocarbons are an amazing substance, we frankly cannot live without it, but we don't need to burn it for power or transportation at the rates we do. We would need to have an additional 102,000 tonnes/day of hydrogen for all the cars in the US(255 million) to run on if such a thing were to occur. The unique thing is that what I listed above in that website is scalable from 10kg/hr to however big they decide they can make it, which means in most of our stations could generate onsite without much change in infrastructure to the building. There is this process too: similar but with an added benefit of making pure carbon as byproduct. Hydrogen has many uses, and likely we would never use more than 1000 tonnes/day for transportation in the US, but other consumers of it would easily surpass what is needed for transportation. We currently make about 25,000 tonnes/day with methane steam reforming. Steam reforming is very wasteful, the new processes in the articles I linked will likely take the cost from $4.50 a kg, below $2/kg., or even lower if its made on site at a station. At $4/kg H2 isn't that far off from the cost to run a gasoline car, if it falls below $2, we could really see hydrogen take off. The two technologies I listed could really tip the scales towards a hydrogen future happening sooner than later. Before this, it was more of a optimistic view point, and partly a necessity because of the limitations of batteries in cost/size/weight. These bring hydrogen from obscurity to disruptive.
So, I would wager that the same electricity used for creating hydrogen would be the same energy used to go into BEVs. The sources are probably a wash then. "Big Oil wins" people come on here and suggest drastic social change in the form of suggesting oil be phased out with a vice tax with BEVs being an alternative to our oil consumption, and it has to be done quickly and by force no matter the social and economic cost. I bring up the possible repercussions such as the mass majority cannot afford a car that parodies a gasoline car, the mass majority need a car to get to work, and a simple plugin electric isn't going to cut it yet, people won't be able to afford to consume goods. I am met with people need to move to the city, the government should subsidize lower income individuals, and people need to change thier lifestyles in a severe way. BEVs and FCs will become parody to ICEs over time. We will get to a renewable future eventually, we don't need to force it, we are trending towards it. We can only power battery electrics with electricity, but where we get hydrogen can come from many sources. I think hydrogen from electrolysis is probably not how we should use the electricity. Natural gas can be captured from several sources, even from non renewable sources it has the very potential of being greener than our current grid today powering a BEV, using advanced processes (which are still in the lab). Assuming these technologies work as described, what does it matter if we emit some CO2 to suppress the entire emissions of our entire road going fleet? Also, other harmful emissions like HCs, PM, NOx and various carcinogens come from ICEs. Fuel Cells AND BEVs can help displace this. CO2 isn't our only concern.
Davemart, i think they are shoring up emergency power applications like telecoms pretty well. I would say they are also popular in forklifts too. I think of all these technologies as a matter of when, more so than if. I don't doubt long range bevs coming, the same way i don't doubt fuel cells coming. The ICE is going fight its last days from extinction, but it's just doomed by its nature. We just saw that opposed piston engine, not many other tricks left. The recent breakthroughs we've seen alleged by hydrogen conspirators has been astounding, even claiming they can create pressurized hydrogen more efficiently from natural gas than a battery car can take electricity from the grid. It's just mind boggling as of a year ago, none of this was known. It would be nice to have a 25kwh bev with a 15-100kw hydrogen extender, for the price of a modern hybrid ice.
It's just scale of production at this point. It cost plenty of time and testing to develop new powertrains. It will save them millions of dollars doing this rather than developing new drivetrains. I'd be curious as to if this bus had 3 full leaf powertrains inside, just com linked together to drive it forward.
I don't know how i feel about AutoNation getting involved. They did buy up my favorite go to parts dealership and it's no longer the cheapest, so I'm biased. They have a huge dealer network(the biggest). they could make arrangements for a lot of things, including upfitting, financing, maintenance and sales. These are fleet first type vehicles, so they'll need a support system. (which is why Tesla might have a hard time bring it to the commercial customer.) They could quickly rival an OEM, if they had any valid design. Waymo definitely has some decent partners, hopefully they can bring something worthwhile.
I do think electrolysis is the wrong play here. I'm not exactly upset by this news, but I think it will prove a failure in time, though, they could stabilize loads of electricity with it as a large buyer in times of electric glut and low prices. (that's the only time is see this working out)
Well hopefully they have a solution that Detroit diesel failed to realize. Rings really haven't progressed too much, but spray in liners and coatings have on sidewalls of cylinders have. So they might have a trick, perhaps a certain novel way of stacking the rings, or a 3D spray pattern, or some novel material. At least it shouldn't be as troubling as a wankle as far as apex seals go. If this goes on sale, no doubt we'll see this engine tested and analyzed by the OEMs, the general public, and perhaps someone will run it through its paces quickly and we can get some real world insight. The biggest problem I see is you really can't overhaul this engine. You'd have to cut the rods just to get the pistons out after a while. I mean that's a solution, but it's interesting to think about.
Navigant reported that tesla and apple were near the bottom of autonomous cars, and GM as a leader. Ford moved from top to fourth place. Cost doesn't matter, if fleets can remove drivers, the car will pay for itself in a year, or less depending on utilization. The public will get a shot at autonomous after 2025, by then we'll have advance tracking cameras(low cost/tech) and better smaller and cheaper lidar. The NVidia solution for a processor looks complicated, i don't know if it's made to be 100% redundant, but they have two cpus and two gpus on thier board. I think AMD and Intel should get on board, both have solutions that can greatly reduce the complexity by combining chipsets. I'm optimistic, but i realize that there are several benefits that far outweigh the cost. No driver, utilization nearly 100% of the time, and greater telematics, less serious accidents. Computers can out drive humans/professionals, even on racetracks. Look who is pouring the money into this, and what thier goals are. Ford, Chevy, Uber, Waymo, and other want a taxi fleet. Volvo wants a trucking one. These are all coming to replace hired drivers. That's just the first wave. For the cost to matter, it would have to cost more than one or two drivers cost year over the lifetime of that vehicle. (which could be hundreds of thousands of dollars)
Fords body is aluminum, the frame and supports are steel... I'm not sure what you are trying to say? There was also controversy over those videos where GM during the tool box drop might have punctured thier own bed too. Also, most truck owners aren't idiots, and don't dump /throw things in the back of a truck without a liner or even with a liner. It was a gimmick, not they'll have to eat thier hat. Honda has videos too, thier composite bed is great until you have a flat.
I'm am very impressed, 37mpg on the best selling vehicle in the US would no doubt raise the CAFE, i mean even sedans or much smaller vehicles might struggle to get those numbers. The statement about being the equivalent to removing half of the cars on the road is impressive. Trucks, especially work trucks drive a lot of miles, so starting with the hungriest of all the ICEs is a smart move. I don't think they are wrong with that statement. Hopefully they get into production, not just some aftermarket add on. I hope Ford or someone reaches out and makes an arrangement. It not unheard of for other makers to put in third party engines, or even competitor engines in cars, so hopefully they make this successful. Or just develope competing technology. Smaller lighter cars could get into the upper 60mpg range if this truck can get into the high 30s. My car can break into the 50s, and there is a lot that they could do better with the powertrain. if it works, this is probably the last great hurrah from the ICE, it makes sense to use gasoline, smaller particles, less emissions worry. But they'll still likely need the equivalent of DPF or a three way catalist.