This is CheeseEater88's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following CheeseEater88's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I don't think the PM in GDI is as big of an issue in the states as it is in Europe. Different calibrations being the main difference. With GDI you can run rich for a much higher torque number at lower rpms, or use it to prime turbochargers. There is some very interesting things you can do with DI to change the engines characteristics, but certain things lead to partially burnt fuel. If tuned to avoid the PM i don't think it will be an issue, at least not any worse than port injection.
I rather them skip the 25million for education. Even if every commercial on prime time tv was promoting EVs I don't think the public would change it's buying habits that much. Any change could be within a margin of error i suspect. People buy cars namely for utility/comfort, and with cars being such a large part of the budget many wont consider EVs until they can replace the lifestyle they have with their current cars today, that and most cant afford the step up to electric. I don't know if it's wise limiting yourself to 150kw chargers. If like many on here are speculating, we'll see cars and trucks with over 300kwhs of batteries. Why not put in infrastructure to handle the future, not just something to satiate cars of today, 500kw would be better, and then you could slow the charge rate if needed. You have to think about gas stations, if 30 cars can fill up in 30mins on a normal volume station, what's it going to be like if you have people waiting 30-120mins to recharge? Will there be Charge lines like gas lines in the past? The bigger the batter the bigger the sink, meaning you could charge at a faster rate if all other things remained the same. We need to plan this EV future, not just start something that has to be replaced in 5 years. That is the only way it's going to work well. Hydrogen has 2 fill styles and that's it, but you can use either on the current crop of FCevs, battery electric cars have a variety and I think that it will hurt it in the long run not to set high standards right away. Look at SD(HC,XC) cards vs Compact flash (sd cards had to re-release every few years because of demanding devices, where as compact flash had a large capacity to begin with). HDMI vs Display Port(HDMI had to be updated several times sometimes yearly just to keep up with displays where as DP has been relatively capable from the start). Blu-ray vs HDDVD(read speeds are an issue on Blu-ray but not hddvd, but both can carry similar amounts of data as a triple layer hddvd was possible from the start, and the cost of the disc and the laser were much less than Blu-ray), there launches in technology that go mainstream popular when there are other better thought out standards in existence. Many times its the player with the most backing that win out. Bev "gas" stations will look like parking lots if we don't put a lot of forward thinking to this. Cars may very well take advantage of a 500kw charger, and hd vehicles might need 1000-2000kw.
I don't think any maker could go full on BEV semi for long haul(weight, cost, and size restrictions), so a hybrid makes the most sense. I would argue that modern diesels (within the last 5 years) are probably the cleanest thing on the road in the US if they are operating correctly(as far as ice). ( I won't vouge for the thousands of VWs at pikes peak international raceway.) If you can pull 80,000lbs and still get 6-8mpg I think that is pretty good. By comparison it makes most passenger vehicles seem wasteful. Older/defunct vehicles are the problem. Most modern vehicles will clean the air in heavily polluted areas. FC trucks are going to arrive quickly enough. If there is room in the mix for fleets to save money they will jump at the chance. Again, the way I see it, BEVs will fill in small to large, FCEVs will work their way down from large to small. They will meet somewhere in the middle with some overlap.
Video games can improve lots of traits. There is a TED talk on First person shooters and how the improve vision, awareness, concentration and several other traits. Keep your mind active, try to learn new things daily. I'm going to eventually learn guitar... I don't have the talent to just pick it up, but ill still try.
I'm excited for this. I wonder how soon to market. Lead acid chemistry is one of the few that can sustain 100% charge level for a significant period of time without stressing the cells. I'm thinking about an rv, and what that could mean for off grid power. I was looking into SLAs but this sounds like a better and hopefully cheaper option.
5000lbs is fairly low, now a days. 1/2 tons have been getting up there for towing. If this were a short route delivery truck, with a ample time for charging between routes and never really used the on board range extender it would be great. The biggest benefit of ownership would come from on board power plant for tools and such.
Also, I'd be happy if the CARB/epa started probing everything new with an exhaust pipe for NOx, HC, and PM. Those three are a major health concern, and we need to address those before we block out the sun from space to deal with global warming. (my approach, as the sun has the single greatest affect on our global temperature, we could get fancy and make a big solar array in space, then laser down the power to a receiver) Gasoline and mixed gasoline should make thier exit from most yard equipment as it's completely unregulated in most places, an hour of mowing your grass with a traditional mower is very harmful to those that breath.
Lad pick your poison, we could all be driving motorcycles and trikes because they can get 73mpg in some circumstances. The upside, lower ghg, the downside is the more pollution, and everything else that comes with driving a motorcycle. Energy isn't something to restrict to the highest bidder/ people who can afford it. (after taxing it into oblivion) There was another article on here a while back of Ford and GM discussing CO2/mile generated by tesla, and how that would play into CAFE laws. And as others point out, there are lower hanging fruit. Why go after something that is very efficient? Why not go after old homes, boats, and the older/failing vehicle population on the road. I am all for tail pipe tests. If people can't have a properly running cars... I believe a cash for clunkers round two would have various advantages to fix the average vehicle age/ poor operation by the owner. I'd like some logic to the way government addresses problems.
Odds are it will be like every other car: speed limited based on the tires, and customers will have to pay large sums to unlock its full potential from the factory (larger battery and motor) Electric cars are hard but easy. The more money that you ask for one the more appealing it can be. The Tesla Model S is a great car, but at the asking price, its not a practical choice for most of the population. 217 mph is very impressive for any car, especially for an electric. If this is an Alpha or Beta proto type and they can get help passing safety, this has a very good chance to compete on the market. I think there needs to be a new kid on the block. I feel like this is targeting a different market then Tesla. Product differentiation/marketability is going to be how electric car makers survive, speed and power will attract a following. Where startups like these guys and Tesla do well, is they bring products to market quickly with sometimes risky/not 100% proven technology. Older style automakers will quibble over the 10mm bolt holding the luggage garnish on the car. They move slower, and they are operating with incredibly small margins and huge overhead, sure they could easily build an electric car, but they would never sell as well as they would need to be a profitable line for them. What they could do, and I am surprised they haven't done it, is run an electric halo car down a production line. An electric Viper, an Electric Ford GT, or other sporty variant could sell, but again, these would likely only sell to those who already have a tesla or two in the garage.
I do hope there are fair and reasonable goals for fuel economy quotas from the government. There are several paths we can go down to make our air easier to breath. Like taking advantage of our bountiful supply of natural gas to power high efficiency power plants, or by converting waste/biomass into fuels, or by generating electricity from renewables. Bigger trucks, and other modes of transportation might do well going with a turbine setup. Turbines can burn a variety of fuel, which could lead to less processing and overall better wtw picture. By nature these turbine vehicles would be range extended BEVs. Same goes with the Fule cells, by going to hydrogen you can go directly from a renewable source to a denser/lighter than battery storage medium. You still need batteries, but you can get by with 300kwh instead of a much higher capacity for large trucks, which would lower the tractor weight, increase the range, and enable round the clock duty.
There are kits made specifically for the 3.5L ecoboost, I have the 1L ecoboost. Which leaves me looking around for a spare intake tube, or an aftermarket throttle body adapter. The nice thing is that you don't need to tune for it, and it provides tons of benefits while remaining in closed loop. Most of the performance gains (without other mods) come from timing advance, which is enabled by the cooler air charge, and less knocking. A kit all on its own might see 20% increase in performance max. Water alone can provide a benefit, and methanol or ethanol can richen the mixture(car will correct and lean out the gasoline injectors to keep close to stoichiometric, if not in WOT) and allow more advanced timing with a possibility to clean up the combustion.
I am currently looking into water/meth injection as an aftermarket modification to my car, other OEMs are looking to add something of the sort from the factory. Turbo DI motors can benefit a lot from less knock and lower i take temps. If the fuel standards don't improve, you can wager that OEMs will seek out this route. Ford and BMW and others have at least tested a Throttle body injector to deliver ethanol or a water or a water meth injection. The system acts as an octane booster, cools the air charge, and can help clean up the burn as the fuel source (menthol and ethanol) contains oxygen.
Well, they changed the requirement and the qualifications for what is an alternative fuel. Change it around again and we could have second/third generation ethanol and isobutanol be primary sources. They could also target waste to fuels in particular. There is a quota/limit by the government on what makes it into the fuels. I am a firm believer that electric BEVs in the long term will take a good chunk of the sedan/coupe c/d and smaller market. Leaving hybrids to take the rest of the field. I would be okay with a nation wide minimum of 87, or even 91 octane. The 85 octane floor in Colorado is awful, and going by my eyes and nose alone I'd say about 50% of the vehicles that I've seen in springs would fail an emissions test. No matter how good new vehicles are the polution of a few Older cars negate almost all of the progress. I am for emission and safety inspections. I think that could improve the air quality for the nation rapidly if it were rolled out in all 50 states. Even if it came with some incentive to fix or replace (like cash for clunkers did)
I'd also wager that the fin showed here is cheaper to 3d print, and faster to 3d print than making it the conventional way. You could invest in the 3d printers once, and use it across almost all of your product lines current and future. That to me sounds like a great investment. If they can control surface finish accurately with this additive tech then it is very precise. if they can do this fin, basically they are saying to the world that 3d printing is now virtually limitless when it comes to metal.
I think there could be great economies in 3d printed turbines. Its like cars, the first one cost millions, the rest are for profit. Think of what goes into the process of making it. powdered metal, possibly shielding gasses, and possibly some coolant VS machining an incredibly complex part one facet at a time with hundreds of separate operations and man hours making the one thing. 3d printed plastic is almost total waste (unless its highly complex), and anything metal that can be stamped out would be a waste (so much of the auto world). The more complex the item is, the more likely they can make it profitable by 3d printing it. I see the turbine being something they could make good money on. That part is extremely complex, and would likely have been machined from some billet piece of metal. The one with the cooling design would have likely never been machined/ made without 3d.
The funny thing I notice about regulated industries such as automobiles is how technology waxes and wanes with incentives/patents on processes. (interesting one is the refrigerant Freon, then its successors, the push to anything other than CO2 seems like a money grab to me at this point, but then again, I'd be interested in propane) Ethanol is being defunded, thus new competitors trying for alternatives. I am kind of curious as to how ETBE will affect the combustion gasses. The extra oxygen in the ethanol did help lower emissions, but it is very corrosive. So, an additive that had most of the benefits and less drawbacks could be interesting. I find it unbelievable that cars used leaded fuels well into the 20th century though. What needs to happen is a successful transition to isobutanol or something of that sort. In 20 years, the US and other developed countries might only use 20-50% of what we currently use as far as gasoline is concerned. Plug in hybrids will get the most low hanging fruit. Imagine if every car was like a volt, 20 years that is very possible with all the gigafactories and other impressive things going on in the battery world. instead of almost 600gal. for every passenger vehicle on the road, we might only use 100gal. Not perfect but significantly better, and no compromises. so with this lower usage, we could successfully switch heavily to a low yield green tech. Algae and bacteria come to mind, in waste management scenarios. petroleum will still need to come out of the ground, as it is the basis for plastics and nearly everything else we lay our hands on. But seeing how a large portion is devoted to transportation, we can start to reduce there.
I think the pipeline will be much safer and much more efficient than trucking/trains. Renewables will get to cost parody of petroleum. The replacement of all petroleum by renewable sources is inevitable; but to rush to market a replacement is a bit foolish. Things come in time. If the true cost of renewables is below that of fossil fuels, the market will trend that way, don't ever underestimate the power of greed. Wind is going to have some interesting growth. Especially places where it can be off shore.(out of sight, near big cities) Houses use a fraction of electricity EVs will use, a transition of the US vehicle fleet to EVs won't happen overnight. Things like waste to fuels, are looking to be promising. coupled with 30+mile ev range from a plug in hybrid, the net emissions can be cut drastically and the cost can still be competitive. Most trips are short after all.
Hybrid setups are ideal for fleets, lower maintenance, less overhead than full on EVs and they work well with onsight generation needs. The van and truck segment desperately need hybrids. Hybrids make more sense in larger vehicles than they do in smaller ones. Much quicker returns. Especially in vehicles that do lots of stop and go. Unfortunatly the USPS made it hard for vehicles, but UPS and Fedex, Walmart, and every other company thats invested in transportation is currently working on a long term solution. My hopes is for a transit van/expedition/F-150(and other companies equvalents) with >~30mi range EV. Biggest setback will be Gross vehicle weight. Because of the way things are taxed and licenced in the USA, car makers can only make certain cars. I'd like engineers, and carmakers, and governements to sit down together, and make a singular list of global rules and standards (especially on plugs for EVs, competing technologies really muddy up the water for consumers, it would be akin to going to the gas station and having differnet filler sizes for every grade of gasoline, and having some stations not sell your grade) I am of the philosophy of getting the masses quickly as possible. Full on EVs arent there yet. But PHEV are there, and are in the price range of comperable gasoline cars. If everyone had a 30mi range PHEV, and had a way to charge it, our gasoline consumption would drop drastically. (enough so that waste to fuels would be viable). Full EVs/H2Vs as they become viable could slowly work their way into the fold and be a seamless replacement to petroleum fuels. You don't have to run the full gambit, you can get 90% of the way there relitively easy, and in the next 20years.
I just get concerned when they say food based carbohydrates. Corn is almost nutritionally void, same with rice, soybeans have some protein. What they mean to say is our food's food. We throw out So much food each year, and dump even more in foreign countries as "aid". Which leaves the local populations unable to afford to provide for themselves. (Can't compete with free). If we could divert the plant waste, and the general waste to fuels, we could have a viable option for sustainable fuels. 30%+ of your supermarket food gets thrown away. Dents, dings, expirations, and customers cause tons of waste. Human waste is basically the next untapped potential. It has to be treated anyway. Might as well use it for something beneficial.
I agree with you in that EVs are cleaner than most ICEs, and I am looking forward to the end of ICEs. Mechanically ICEs are impressive that they even work as well and long as they do. I rather we frack, and build out CCNG plants and do away with coal. Double our efficiencies. we have several hundreds of years of NG in the US, and its only getting stretched longer as efficiencies increase. it will probably take 50 years before we significantly move away from diesel and gasoline. I'm excited for the model 3. I am even more excited for the solar roofs that tesla debuted. If America, in the name of national security, started funding solar roofs on new construction, or something as radical, it could change the course of the nation. National security is an easier way to sell the green movement. Sure, we are unlikely to use all of our Natural gas or petroleum reserves in the ground. But for the economy, and the cost of energy, you can stabilize it with renewables. Wind is at a point where it is cost competitive with coal. Solar, is but isn't. It needs large capital investments to make it really work. (People could lease panels from the government at competitive rate). The national grid needs a major overhaul. For any of this to work. the smart grid needs to happen. DC high tension lines, even 12v-480v DC delivered to point of use could save 20% of our nations electricity. (more so if our country runs on plug-in vehicles)
What about Utah? California is not an island yet. I was pretty sure California in the recent past was using some non-carbon-free electricity. Taking some external combustion process like using coal to generate steam, then transmitting it, then converting it to DC, then back to AC through the drive motor. Is no small task. Okay, so using coal, 50% efficiency, then transmission losses, then conversion losses at the charger, then losses at the battery, then losses at the inverter, then losses at the motor, then losses to friction. is telling me 305g/mile (210 at the vehicle level) for my car, and telling me 310g/mile for a new tesla. What's strange is that gap gets even wider the more percentage I stay on the highway.
I'm very confused by your statement. Its easiest to look at energy and its conservation. the Hydrogen bonds in the fuels which break apart allowing it to make water and CO2 (ideally) only have so much energy. That's a known quantity per gallon of fuel. You can look to how much power is output per given amount of fuel, and you can then deduce that x amount goes to heat/friction losses. Electric motors are in the ball park of 80-95% efficient. Gasoline and Diesel engines are about up to 40% with some eaking out some more. Gasoline cars only waste about 60-75% of the energy in. So within the realm of Gasoline engines they waste almost double the energy in, not 500% But if you look well to well, it muddies the water up a bit, especially if you have coal as a primary source of electricity. The government has a website where you can go select your car, and your mileage and compare amongst plugins and the conventional vehicle. It will also tell you how much CO2 and other things you'll generate.(In my local area, its better for the environment to drive my fiesta, than it is to own a plugin, according to them.) I personally don't agree with the import barrels of oil on there, US get close or is a net exporter sometimes. Its those darn Canadians selling us that cheap oil.
I see this being very good for range extenders like others have pointed out... biggest draw back is going to be emissions and long term durability. Not saying that emissions issues cant be addressed downstream. But if they can get those numbers out of such a small little device it will be pretty great. Range extenders for most EV style cars would have to be in the range of 20-40hp peek, which, if you are trying to power a defroster and heat the passenger compartment in the winter, that 7,500-15,000 watts of waste heat becomes a pretty valuable thing.(could be a life saver in an emergency) I do believe in Batteries, but I don't believe they will solve all our issues, there are physical constraints that disallow current and most future speculation about battery technology to exist in vehicles as we are accustom to. This is why range extenders tend to be the necessary evil. There are only a few front runners that I see, Turbines, combustion engines, and Fuel Cells, and a trailer full of more batteries, and overhead trolley lines. Near future we'll see more Volt like vehicles. Mid future trucking will move away from diesel to alternatives like hybrids comprised of smaller diesel and turbine style generators. I think in about 20 years we will have more market penetration of Fuel Cells than we do with the BEVs today. I believe still that BEV only vehicles will be rather short range 100-200 miles, and virtually absent in the workforce other than some short route box trucks. I believe that the battery technology has a long way to go before dethroning a hybrid setup.
I don't think Toyota will have any problem being relevant. I don't know why many on here have a hard time imagining automakers that existed before 1990 would have a hard time bringing a bev or some other innovation to market to save themselves. The big three and the others have decades and decades of battery research, they have countless r&d divisions, they will build the things when they feel they can sell them to the general public, not likely much before. It's one thing having a few loss leaders, but another entirely flooding dealerships with cars they can't sell. In the near term I believe we will see hybrids reach their potential. It will probably be 2025 before we see any sweeping changes with BEVs. I figure tesla will have some growing pains and ramping issues. It'll be probably after 2025 before BEVs break 10% market share. I honestly thing thier biggest contributions are not to cars but to solar and battery backup. Their powerwall is looking very enticing. And they make a strong case for their solar roof. If all new houses came with solar installed, wed have a chance to divert 15%+ of our nations energy consumption. I can't wait till oems and the aftermarket offer used batteries for home backup, 40-80kwh packs would be amazing.