This is Arnold's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Arnold's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Arnold
Recent Activity
The unanswered question here is weather these photo chemical oxidising reactions to variety of oxygen singlets' make the various 'road dust products less or more of a hazard. It would seem that something like this is working to prevent ongoing accumulation or persistence of these materials alternatively that things are in fact worse than thought. Obviously an important question.
"In ways we don't yet understand." So could be a good thing or not so good. The good news is that our efforts to build cities on the moon and Mars will possibly help solve the difficulties we face on earth? Just wanted to try the new layout!
Davemart, My understanding is in line for overhaul. You are correct to say. If they say the permeation for a given container is low to say 30 years that should be taken as given and correct. I understand that polymer coatings coatings have been used for some years. I wrongly said that it autoignites at ambient temperatures that is totally off the mark.In fact it is said to require 530oC.(500-570 )in air or oxygen mix. Flamable range 4-75% with air. My confusion between flashpoint, vapor pressure and autoignition and how that affects storage of liquid hydrogen. I hope to better understand how the lower pressure tanks that are being used relate to heat absorption and pressure rise or if it is even relevant. The whole other side of developing a safe and reliable infrastructure for transport and storage leakage from conventional and non application (hydrogen) specific containment has been demonstrated possible. There is a proliferation these days of hazardous' higher level technologies requiring comprehensive understanding and industry best practice.
Davemart, you mention a 30 year evaporation timeframe for H2.I re read because my understanding is @ 30days willgoa long way towards emptying the tank for liquefied H if not cryogenically cooled. I noticed (i think it was the KenworthFC truck) that the storage tank was twice the capacity required to store the capacity of liquid H. sothe gas was @ twice the volume or presumably 1/2 pressure. That seems to be the requirement for storage at ambient temperatures. My other inquiries into storage informed my belief that there is no real option for storage at any useful pressure/volume for transport applications over any useful time frame unless cooling is employed that is to say virtually the entire contents will discharge via over pressure valve or it will autoignite. That is a no compromise situation as I understand it no amount of insulation or vacuum will extend the storage without cooling beyond days to ~a week.. The only way to realise the full energy content is to utilise the ullage on a continious basis. This can be verified by comparing the autoignition temp and pressures that can be found on the internet. I am interested to hear more on the storage tank you mention.
Rejection of subsidies for coal and nuclear power is a win for fact-based policymaking January 10, 2018 10.39pm AEDT https://theconversation.com/rejection-of-subsidies-for-coal-and-nuclear-power-is-a-win-for-fact-based-policymaking-88832
I hope that H2 develops as a safe and affordable low-zero carbon alternative for the percentage of transport or other energy requirements that can't be met currently by known non fossil sources and with enough emphasis on the safety side H2's inevitable hiccups and disasters will be kept minimal. For cities and air pollution the payoffs are substantial but not enough to future proof without efforts in many other sectors of civics and industry. At least we as a specie have some claim to a good record of identifying the risk areas. Whether the lever operators get the right instructions is not so clear. "We see New York Mayor de Blasio has announced that New York will divest its city pension funds from the fossil fuel industry. As if that wasn’t a big enough moment on its own, there’s more. He also announced a lawsuit against some of the biggest oil and gas corporations for the damage caused by climate change." "For a city as iconic as New York" (among others)"to take a public stand in such a big way shows the tide is beginning to turn."
I am reasonably confident that this headline is obfcuse and misleading. Can anyone say from referencing the article that it refers in any way to the cost of operation per KLM? My best reading is that it refers to the cost of powertrain including storage ank of vehicles with comparable mileage. So it simply states the obvious . The only clever thing is the way it couches hints and misleading direction to confuse the main topic of interest for nearly everyone. That is the comparative cost of operation. Why they couldn't just show that a 50klm bev is cheaper to both buy and operate than a 50klm F.C. and that there is a linear relationship to distance? If you are stupid enough to pay the firewall but smart enough to be embarrassed for doing so assuming that will help you understand you will probably keep mum and the scam will achieve its objective. It seems like the fake news dept has completely in control in its objective. Tell a lie once its a lie tell a lie a thousand times and it's becomes true. It's very sad to see the methodical attempts of dumming down the conversation (esp0 in the USA. " However, the cost of the two **powertrains*** will converge quickly, and by 2040, FCEVs will be less expensive than BEVs per mile in approximately 71-88% of the LDV fleet, according to the analysis. Additionally, FCEVs will offer notable cost advantages within larger vehicle size classes and for long distances.
It is a common practice in the I.T.related industries to offer,promise and often sell technology that does not exist. Delivery deadlines can be often delayed. Large systems which were never capable of the task have been delivered into markets and there many multi million $ examples in Govt's (but not exclusively.) The tech's and programmers etc are on 'work till you drop' orders from management who expect the impossible - yesterday. The task to bring the system together on the fly might see devices that don't even exist in the imagination being developed and built at the same time as other parts of the package are being modelled refined and produced. When they say 'production ready' that comes from the managers rather than the shop floor and should be seen in the industry context. Lots of pressure on everyone seems to be the normal work environment. I suppose this reality has been common practice for thousands of years.
15 ton GVM Twin rotor single stator = No differential needed. Like this. http://icrepq.com/PONENCIAS/4.316.ZYGMUT.pdf
I could have cherry picked claims of improved safety but understanding and educating of the downside is more important than enhancing the 'Driving experience. If your eyes aren't on the road. https://phys.org/news/2015-06-digital-messages-vehicle-windshields-safe.html https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/dangers-of-driving-while-distracted/ https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/07/374250.htm
If a substantial amount of the Carbon is captured via this process to be sequestered as CF it will signal progress.
Thinking about possible xtra cost from increased requirement for processing and IPR, has led to think that there could be much greater savings owing to a reduced number of lidar still offering greater resolution.. especially if the expected ability to see around corners is realised. The number of GPS, usonic, cameras and lidars (very exe) along with processing and the associated power drain must be a big part of the costs. If each the resolution increases X factor 3 then it follows that the costs should reduce.
The actuators appear to be hydraulic rams.
For me safety ranks No 1. Hydrogen is an explosive hazard but at end use combines with o to make water. We can conclude that managing its handling will be both challenging and expensive. No 2 is energy efficiency. at end use can be competitive or superior to other fuels but will always be handicapped by losses along the production pathway. That's not to say it competitors aren't or that it won't see efficiency improvements in future.If its intended use is for energy then efficiency must be a high priority. In respect of the current practice of obtaining H from NG it is environmentally a particularly bad outcome. In respect to electolysis it is very inefficient. For combined heat and power it can be as efficient as any other fuel without the toxic emissions. It's production can absorb large amounts of electricity which could be sourced from excess or overcapacity renewable generation on an intermittent fluctuating basis. This would require overcapacity in the H production facility. We could say it 'shifts overcapacity from renewable generators to H production at a (currently) rather poor conversion factor. But if stored and used onsite for smoothing would also reduce the need to build generator overcapacity. the downside here is the need for a highly skilled workforce duplication. Currently pumped hydro is seen as the cheapest way to store surplus energy at a grid scale. no3 That it is currently seen as a necessary product for many industries it is not going away and demand is likely to grow It would appear to have potential as a transport fuel of high energy density and low toxic emission so highly desirable.It's not going away. In a word who's right who's wrong? What's the future (for transport or energy)? Iffy.
Gor will be interested to buy one.
Should read Flamibility range for: LPG-air mixtures is from 5.0% to 15.6% of NG and from 1.84% to 8.54% of LPG by volume respectively. While N.G. (methane) contains hydrogen as a component, :According to 2014 CODATA the Bohr radius has a value of5.2917721067(12)×10−11 m H is a very small molecule and will find or 'leak its way through smaller fissures or pathways at a much higher rate. A useful comparison chart for visualising can be viewed. https://sciencenotes.org/periodic-table-chart-element-sizes/
LPG-air mixtures is from 5.0% to 15.6% of NG and from 1.84% to 8.54% of LPG by volume respectively. The pictures (google) show this NG bus recently fitted with fire supression system burnt to the waterline. NSW State Transit bus explodes into flames on Flinders St Surry Hills https://www.perthnow.com.au/.../nsw/nsw-state-transit-bus-explodes-into-flames-on-fl... 5 days ago - A SYDNEY bus exploded into flames on the edge of Surry Hills and Moore Park with the flames leaping 2m into the air and smoke billowing across four ... all private and state transit buses were fitted with a fire suppression system since a bus fire in 2016 caused traffic chaos on the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
The S.A. Tesla MW battery is up and running making Musk's 100 day - or - free promise. On day one it performed the task required and supplied a substantial instant response using surplus energy from the previous nights output from the co located wind farm. The Many opponents that ridiculed the proponents were shown for what they are on day one!
4-74% is a worry. I noted GCC article that Japan recently (proposed?) amended? regulations to drastically reduce the legislation regarding locating H storage to decrease the safety zone for permitting. The red tape was deemed too onerous and severe impediment to development.
Often, when looking for a way to get around an imbroglio, I will resort to schoolboy humour. In this regard I figured they could swap the seat belt for an earth strap and faraday cage but keep the asbestos fire suit. But on the serious technical side and I agree with your observation skin penetration or folding would be explosive. It may be possible to design a short circuit protection and isolation solution. If we looked at how this material may work. I can Imagine flat panels, to ease manufacturing dimensional accuracy, of alternate layers of C fiber and resin to give a stacked capacitor. These stacks then wired together to create the storage. Technically this would deliver on the claim of a c.f. body.But realistically the major near term project outcome would be to explore the potential for c.f. 'e storage.
Did you see the recent article on GCC Lamborghini are trying to build a carbon fiber bodied supercar with the cf body as capacitor as the (only?) e storage? It took me a week to process the concept but I concluded that it should be possible to build a multilayered capacitor shell or body of this area that would certainly have phenomenal performance. I am not that well qualified to run the numbers but know just enough to feel well - a 'little weak kneed'. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/11/20171107-lambo.html "Innovative materials. To support this revolution in energy storage systems, materials and their functions have to change, too. Lamborghini aims to further develop its leadership in the design and production of carbon fiber structures and parts, enhancing its ability to develop features and functions that take lightweight materials to the next level. For this reason, the cooperation with Prof. John Hart will investigate the new manufacturing routes for carbon fiber materials constituting the bodyshell of the Terzo Millennio, which will also act as an accumulator for energy storage and enable the complete body of the car to be used as a storage system."
So I my math are unique but I'm happy enough. To argue on the basis of an immaterial technicality we aren't discussing a space mission with a landing site measured in meters, this is a discussion of real world possibilities and I will stand by the factoring in real situations every time. To simply ignore the reasoning for applying a (universally accepted and applied) derating or 'fiddle' factor makes conversation only possible for those with the hoop jumping skills of a circus performer. Chill bro.
EV driver. Your reasoning and writing style is a welcome and novel contribution. The two points I take are the affect that the rate of change in the transport mix can affect the contribution to emissions reduction from EV's. The other point being the high cost of charging infrastructure. My observation of the many new or startup industries pricing structures suggests that once mass deployment and production hits a 'critical' rate we see the cost of supply drop year on year to a point where the competition is so strong and margins so low that many suppliers leave the industry while the rest scale up. Electrical services has always been a skilled industry and while the cost structures are often high the real costs of manufacture at scale are low. It could come back to purchasing power with larger contracts having the potential to drastically cut the unit price while small lot suppliers and purchasers will necessarily remain relatively high. Once these chargers become standard in new connections as opposed to retrofits - houses buildings etc the added cost could become very minor.
E.P's reasoning 134kW power didn't sound right from a 3.5kg capacitor but this is able to be delivered for 5.4 seconds. The numbers relating to a 1,500 kg vehicle may be realised on paper but as we don't live in a perfect universe unfortunately some derating is appropriate. The combustion engine he mentions is a small 500cc, a smaller lighter four or two seat car would have no problem seeing 0 to 70 MPH in the time allowed. Then the combustion motor takes over. I would question whether the cap can absorb braking energy at rates of multiples of the max energy or 134kW. Rule of thumb for braking effort to decelerate a vehicle can be well understood by the fact that if a vehicle takes say 10 seconds to acc to 100klm /hour/over 450 meters and we need to decelerate to a stop in 45 meters,the brakes will need to absorb 10 time the energy that the motor makes to accelerate. Rule of thumb for road cars is 7-10 time the motor power. That will vary depending on many factors- I'm thinking of modest power engines taller gearing etc that still need to be able to brake as well as the vehicle in front(fingers crossed) I'm sure that E.P.s claims can be met - on paper or in a test deigned to show it can be done but just as sure that esp the braking claim will not fly on a production LDV. It is still a very useful take on the possibilities of capacitors. Not sure how this dual purpose capacitor electrolyzer could be incorporated into a motor car.
The joke/saying goes that those that can predict the future are called futurists, those that can say when are called billionaires. Absolutely batteries will improve but to what extent and the timing is less clear. The ongoing research efforts and commitment to battery development is absolutely returning substantial outcomes. The reference to "contrary to common belief" is over egging the level of belief in the scant studies that exist which could be expected as part of either statistically insignificant investigation unsupported opinion or even the lobbying and nay saying by interest and industry based opposition.