This is Engineer-Poet's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Engineer-Poet's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Harvey thinksthe hydropower which suffices for the 8 million of Quebec can be scaled to the 350 million living north of Mexico, and"biofuels" which consume 40% of the US maize crop to make about 10% of its LDV fuel (and an even smaller fraction of the energy therein) will become a "fuel of choice", rather than a gap-filler. Harvey thinks this because he can't do arithmetic.
Must the farce of clean coal find its way into every energy program? I think Kemper is going to be the last nail in that particular coffin. Decades after the Wabash River Repowering Project, Southern Company can't manage to keep a coal gasification train running. Maybe this is due to too much affirmative action hiring, but regardless of the cause it won't prompt any follow-ups.
EP diesel will cost more than 2.5 USD. Current oil prices cannot support the development of new oil fields so the production will eventually fall as it already does in the US and then the price of diesel will go up to between 3 to 4 USD per gallon. Yeah, but when? The shale drillers have run well down their learning curve, so it'll be a while before their wells deplete enough to be unprofitable. EP diesel will cost more than 2.5 USD. Current oil prices cannot support the development of new oil fields so the production will eventually fall as it already does in the US and then the price of diesel will go up to between 3 to 4 USD per gallon. The relative economics don't change based on MPG, because the electric consumption goes up based on vehicle drag.
the EV car race (plugin or otherwise) will make a large demand for base loads at night... perhaps with all that cheap solar, make the night time the high point for electricity. Have you actually worked the numbers on solar? Absorbing Germany's peak PV generation would need something like 1/2 of a Chevy Volt per capita to buffer it. This begs the question, what would everyone do when PV takes a day off? Renewables need EVs and a smart grid to work well This is the backwards thinking which pervades talk about ruinables. The advocates demand that the grid, and the economy which depends on it, be re-engineered to serve unreliable energy sources. The grid exists to serve the economy, and if ruinables ever stop meriting the pejorative they need to serve the grid and not vice versa. Ruinables need EVs, but nobody asks if EVs need ruinables. If your EV is tied down to buffer wind and PV, it can't do its primary job of getting you around. Nuclear might be needed. Nuclear is absolutely required to meet even the completely inadequate emissions targets of the so-called "Clean Power Plan". There is growing recognition that it is the only scalable, dispatchable zero-emissions energy source we have. I'm with you on the overhead wire thing, I think it could work... but its just how to go about implementing it, like how do you bill for it?? Ever heard of Speedpass?
Cummings has already built a medium duty van with -90% carbon reduction as compared to the competition of diesel or gasoline. You don't give a citation, but I will bet dollars to donuts that the ethanol fraction of the fuel was assumed to be zero-carbon. EtOH made in the USA isn't remotely so, and can't come close so long as nitrate fertilizer and distillation still come from natural gas. Electric propulsion can be powered by emissions-free nuclear power, and the farmland freed from corn-growing duty could be returned to prairie or forest as a net carbon sink.
I was thinking of something more like continuous overhead power or charging-in-motion from overhead power in a dedicated lane of the road. Suppose you have some super-battery which can charge in 10 minutes (6C). The truck slows to 45 MPH for the charging lane, so 7.5 miles long. The truck is entirely powered by the overhead plus the battery is charged. Put one of these every 100 miles, so 92.5 miles of open road between chargers. If the truck speed limit is 70 MPH, it takes 85.7 minutes to go 100 miles. Cut that by 7.5% and add 10 minutes for the charging segment and you're up to 89.3 minutes, adding 3.5 minutes per 100 miles or about 24 minutes ($8 in labor) for 700 miles. This is faster than the tractor-swap and you don't need a second fleet of tractors to sit charging while the other is on the road. Wal-Mart has been pushing drag reductions to double the mileage of tractor-trailers to roughly 13 MPG. At 13 MPG, 140,000 BTU/gallon and 45% thermal efficiency, energy consumption at the transmission is about 5.1 MJ/mile or just under 1.5 kWh (allowing for losses). 700 miles at 13 MPG is 53.8 gallons; @$2.50/gallon (about today's price where I am) this is $134.60. Buying 1050 kWh at $0.10/kWh is $105, not a huge savings. At $0.15/kWh, the savings are negative. All these numbers change with anything like a carbon tax.
CE88: There is very little lithium in seawater compared to sodium, potassium and calcium.
It is roughly 11,000 amps. It's going to be interesting to watch this to see what kind of consequences fall out over time. The advocates of ruinables are all a-flutter over the potential tripping of a single 1.1 GW nuclear plant, but the impact of 11 times that much power being lost from a 12 GW HVDC line doesn't seem to get them excited since the source is supposed to be what they favor. We will see if and how it works, hmm?
I read the words of Henrik and DaveD and wonder if they're nuts. Fast EV charging demands large amounts of power at the beck and call of the driver. Who in their right mind thinks that wind or solar can have ANY significant role in this?! The only carbon-free sources of electric power which are there when called upon are water behind a dam and uranium in a reactor.
Now THIS is progress. It makes me wonder why it took so long to be explicitly tested and acknowledged.
Harvey starts sensible and then goes off the rails. If I had nothing else to do I'd try to catalogue this to see if it's more like a propaganda effort than dementia, but my plate is already full. We've already got more than 1 way to put tractor-trailers on rails, and overhead power can run locomotives, reefer trailers and everything else. If the electricity is supplied carbon-free, the transport is carbon-free. A mere 50% improvement (1/3 reduction in emissions) is far too small and should be viewed as grossly inadequate and unworthy of serious pursuit.
A fraction of 1 cm³ of gas produced per 315 ml flask in 2 hours. Unless the reaction rate can be increased a few orders of magnitude I don't see this being worthwhile.
10^11 moles = 2*10^8 kg = 2*10^5 tons. Nothing to see here, move along.
I know all about JATO, Harvey. It doesn't address the issues raised by your silly suggestion. Now compare the fuel consumption and carbon emissions of a rocket capable of launching an aircraft to doing it the normal way, with the engine and propeller. Post your work here.
If you're such a rocket scientist, Harvey, compare the fuel consumption and carbon emissions of a rocket capable of launching an aircraft to doing it the normal way, with the engine and propeller. Post your work here. Show how your idea actually makes the problem better... oh, and also meets environmental limits for noise, smoke and the like. Or you could just stop posting ignorant nonsense.
It can't be long before this hits the market, it's too simple and looks too easy to implement.
You don't know the first thing about rockets, Harvey. Maybe medication can help you with your Tourette's, or whatever it is.
I read the paper on that and the process appeared to be very inefficient, converting perhaps 1/3 of its electric input to hydrogen (there are further losses in conversion to other fuels). However, if the CO2 in excess of what can be converted using the produced hydrogen is instead sequestered, maybe it could be a carbon-negative system. I'd have to dig into the paper again. The real problem is that the thermodynamic limit for CO2 extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere is about 20 kJ/mol, while the energy of methane is almost 900 kJ/mol; even a mol of hydrogen is almost 250 kJ. If your primary goal is to get CO2 out of the atmosphere, generating chemical fuels is an extremely energy-intensive way to go about it.
Propellers can be downspeeded if you have enough ground clearance to increase the diameter, but this also lowers the sound frequency and makes it carry further. However, there is no set number of electric motors that an aircraft has to use. Instead of one on the nose, you could easily have six on the wings. Six three-foot propellers turning the same speed as one six-foot propeller would have far less tip noise and higher Froude efficiency to boot.
The process resembles the operation of a petroleum coker, cracking heavy fractions into lighter, refinable fragments and solid carbon.
where does all the electricity come from?Nuclear power does a fine job of generating electricity. It's good for making bulk heat for almost any purpose. If you use meltdown-proof reactors like the NuScale which are safe enough to locate in the middle of cities, you could light all the lights, run all the industry, charge all the PEVs and provide all the heat and snow removal as well.
What they really need is an ultralight power source. Beamed microwaves fill that bill. You don't have to carry anything except the receiving antenna. Heavily-run air routes could be covered by beamed-power transmitters so that aircraft wouldn't need to operate engines and could fly emissions-free.
The EPRs planned for the UK will probably never be built. The design is too complex and hard to build. Finland will complete Olkilouoto but is looking to Rosatom for new business. These problems are due to the EPR design, not nuclear power. There are a number of AP1000s, among other designs, also planned for the UK. The AP1000 design has some teething pains but the first unit in China is already done with cold hydrostatic testing and will be on-line this year. By the time anything breaks ground in the UK there will be the experience of 8 units to speed things along.
That's always the best first choice. It's easy to knock off at least 50% of fuel demand with PHEVs if you've got charging available at all stops, and that cuts the size of the remaining problem in half.