This is Engineer-Poet's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Engineer-Poet's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Engineer-Poet
Recent Activity
Wireless complicates the charging problem as well, requiring the authorization system to be built into the vehicle instead of being just an RFID card (like ChargePoint) or just an electric outlet. Wick road in Bristol isn't the world, either. I already spelled out an option for the Wick roads, at least for 10% plug-in penetration: mount overhead arms on the street light poles (possibly retractable) and hang cords from those. If one space out of every 3-4 has charging available, that will do for years. When the road is repaved it'll be time to update the infrastructure.
At some point, the cost, efficiency and durability of the high-power schemes need to be compared to technologies like Busbaar and Siemens' electric highway.
One way to fix the carbon problem is to burn a fuel that has no carbon in it. The problem with that is that liquid hydrogen has a density of just 0.07, and NH3 has just 8000 BTU/lb of energy compared to about 20,000 for Jet-A.
Even 1 hour on a Level 1 charger (120 VAC, 12 A) has significant benefits. The effort should be to make such charging cheap and ubiquitous. The high-power stuff can wait until e.g. parking lots are repaved, so that trenching work doesn't incur lots of extra expense.
What I'm telling you, Harvey, is that that is price-gouging. Maybe you've got union electricians who charge an arm and a leg to do the wiring, but that is price-gouging too.
One wonders, how many parking/charging points does this vehicle have available to it?
I must agree. A PHEV drivetrain gets the most out of a battery while actually replacing liquid fuel with electricity. 75% displacement of diesel fuel allows up to 75% reduction in carbon emissions. When the engine isn't running, it isn't emitting noise either.
This means a lot less stuff on trains, and a lot less risk of wrecks, spills, fires and just plain dangers to the public at grade crossings.
I didn't train as a nuclear engineer or physicist, but I've learned to read the stuff on isotope abundances and fission probabilities well enough to get useful info out of it (not everything an expert might get, but something). Dig in those reports and even as a non-expert you'll see what they say, and what they don't say.
Of the two references of yours I checked out, one was about pumping hydrogen, and the NREL piece scarcely discusses pumping at all. The limiting fraction of hydrogen isn't mentioned, but the ranges mentioned were on the order of 10-20%, with one cited British study going as high as 25%. That's still less than 10% hydrogen by energy. Pipelines don't use positive-displacement (piston) pumps. The problem with adding hydrogen is that the density falls, and the dynamic pressure in centrifugal or axial pumps is proportional to density (½ρv²). So, your pump outlet pressure goes down at the same time that the energy density of the gas in the pipeline is falling. To make up for this you have to either add pumps or increase their speed, which the design may not allow easily or cheaply. To handle pure H2 the pump speed needs to nearly triple. DME is more of a diesel fuel. MeOH has more energy per mole of carbon and is more easily transported and stored, and the power density of an engine designed for MeOH can be much higher than a diesel. The problem with both of them is where you get the carbon.
Those who push transport of hydrogen in the NG pipeline system need to remember two things: 1. Hydrogen has about 1/3 the volumetric energy density of methane. A Hythane stream that is 20% H2 by volume has 93% of its energy in methane, only 7% from H2. 2. Hydrogen has 1/8 the mass density of methane. This changes the physical properties of the gas stream radically as the H2 content gets significant. Pumping stations designed for natural gas will not work with high-H2 streams. The cheapest way to make hydrogen is going to be to steam-reform fossil methane and just dump the CO2; the second-cheapest is to gasify coal. Consumers won't have any choice about how H2 is made. If you are looking for actual carbon-neutral fuel, hydrogen is probably one of the worst options.
Well, DaveD, nobody will tell me why. But a few months ago I made ONE comment there, and when I tried to make another comment down the same thread less than an hour later I was blocked with an error message, my original comment had been deleted, and now even my Disqus votes on comments are reversed.
So long as the perovskite panels are being made while PBSO4 battery inventories are still rising, there's no net environmental benefit. It's also questionable whether the widespread distribution of lead in panels is better than batteries and other concentrated forms for ultimate disposal. I think the same questions should be asked about CdTe.
Nothing in the article calculates the energy output as a fraction of fossil energy input to the smelting process.
There's a logical disconnect in the article itself. It presumes that recycled lead incurs none of the environmental costs of lead mining. So long as the total amount of lead in the inventory of batteries (not just for automobiles but scooters, UPSs and such) continues to go up, this assumption is false.
I've managed 32 miles electric in my Fusion Energi, with 3 miles remaining on the meter at the end. Of course, that was hypermiling to the max. If you drive 55+ MPH on a course with hills, I can see 21 miles AER. On flat ground with no wind, 25 is about the least you should see in warm weather (no A/C use).
Range anxiety mostly disappears with PHEVs. If the goal is petroleum replacement, replacing 4 ICEVs with PHEVs with 25-mile AERs is superior to building 1 100-mile EV. PHEVs benefit from widespread charging opportunities even more than EVs. Even Level 1 charging is quite beneficial (personal experience); if existing circuits were re-wired from 120 V to 240 V to permit charging at 240 V 12 A, the benefit would be increased without any costly pulling of new wire. That would be sufficient to displace at least 50% of current petroleum consumption (my experience is more than 3/4).
Roger, someone at Cleantechnica has banned me from commenting. I suspect it was Bob Wallace, but when I ask him about the issue here he does not reply.
Just to clarify, you're talking about Table 5 on this page. That table looks mighty funny to me. I can't figure out why PHEVs would require so much money for chargers ($1250 per vehicle?) when "convenience cords" are 1/3 of that and dropping fast. I also can't figure out the vehicle quantities used; are 8 million BEVs and 40 million PHEVs supposed to match the benefits (what benefits? measured how?) of 16 million FCVs? And the vehicle subsidies also seem silly; the maximum PHEV subsidy is only $3500 today, or only $98 billion for 28 million vehicles all receiving the maximum. Battery costs are dropping rapidly, and petroleum isn't getting cheaper. The "buydown" can be expected to shrink, not grow. Meanwhile, the projection is that H2 would come from SMR or gasified coal (laid out explicitly in the PDF), possibly with CCS... but as we can see from history, CCS requirements would be fought tooth and nail. The FCV is being pushed as a way to keep the coal and natural gas (now owned by Big Oil) industries alive, even if they kill us. We need to say no to hype-drogen.
And just where is drought-stricken California going to get the water to grow all this sorghum?
the stations will be subsidized by the govt so very little amortization cost In other words, the cost of the hydrogen network is transferred to the taxpayer. This is another way of saying "we can't afford it".
Bob Wallace: What, if anything, did you have to do with my banning from CleanTechnica?
14% isn't just competitive with PV (before conversion losses), it produces a storable product. This is still a ways from doing work in the field, but it's pretty darn good. Just as a way to fix carbon, it could be one answer to GHG emissions.
$100-200 million over 50,000 vehicles is $2000-$4000 per vehicle infrastructure cost. That is just to get down to similar per-mile fuel cost. How the H2 would be generated is not stated in this writeup (I don't have time to dig through the original). Home chargers for EVs are now in the $400-$600 range. Figure 1 Tesla Supercharger @ $150k per 500 vehicles adds another $300, for a total of $700-$900 total infrastructure cost per vehicle. This is likely to fall. I know Roger is into the seasonal storage aspect, but so far even Germany isn't doing that. Germany is putting H2 into its natural gas grid, with a project or two to methanate it to make motor fuel. This is the fuel equivalent of vaporware. Meanwhile, EVs do work in the real world.