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
Unfortunately, blended gasoline has a short shelf life and cleaning gummed fuel injectors is not something that new-vehicle owners expect to do regularly. Perhaps Chrysler will sell an LPG version of this hybrid someday, and the issues with deterioration and evaporation of fuel will all disappear.
The Teslas are not minivans. This is a GREAT start for PHEV minivans. The one thing I would plan within the next couple of model years is going to a 4-cylinder turbo-Atkinson instead of the much bulkier V6.
Harvey, you're starting to sound like Bas Gresnigt the liar. Here's a hint: You can take a 100% coal grid and add 10% nameplate capacity of wind at 40% capacity factor, and 5% nameplate capacity of PV at 20% capacity factor. ALL your added capacity is "renewable", but the coal-fired fraction of energy has only gone down from maybe 100% to 95%.
Renewables = solar and wind is more or less policy. Existing hydro doesn't count. Run-of-the-river policy is hit-or-miss IIUC. Wave effectively doesn't exist; decades of efforts all abandoned as unworkable. Biogas is even more limited than biomass, because it's what's left from biomass after a bunch of conversion losses. Tidal is minuscule and ecologically damaging, and the most capacity the USA can expect from geothermal is a double-handful of GW. The whole point of adopting solar and wind is that they can scale (to a point), and are the only "renewables" which can.
Hardly. Most BEVs will charge from outlets at home, not at stations of any kind. The vast bulk of the infrastructure is already in place. The cost and damage (in road accidents) of shipping bulky H2 gas, or multiples-of-electric-cost price of H2 from electrolysis at stations, destroy the economics. Ammonia already has 3x the mass-density of hydrogen that the DoE wants for H2 tankage. Absent massive subsidies H2FCVs are going nowhere, and I expect those subsidies to disappear very soon.
The "Satellite o'er the desert" blog which launched in 2008 and led to The Oil Drum tracked the progression of active wells in the Ghawar oil field as they closed in towards the center of the anticline. That oval of production wells has been getting narrower and narrower all the time. There are water injection wells outside it. There's still oil left in the rocks after the water/oil front passes, but it's not recoverable; the water prevents it from moving. The original Aramco was nationalized (stolen) with minimal compensation. Any profits from stock sales should go to jilted shareholders of the former American owners. Not that I think there's going to be much. This is obviously a desperation move on the part of the rabidly nationalistic Saudis. They know that the value of their only asset is dropping rapidly, and they're looking to sell and get out. The Saudi royal family will spend all its time in Europe and in various tax havens, not just most of it like they do now. The masses of the Arabian peninsula will be cut loose and, given that the population explosion there has grossly exceeded anything the local food supply can support, starve or be killed trying to invade countries which can actually grow things.
EV sustainer engines don't need the high peak power or broad operating range of ICEVs. They can use mechanical valve trains with cam profiles optimized for their operating point, and be turned off the rest of the time.
We can, but building out a distribution and dispensing network for a brand-new fuel that doesn't work much better than electricity just makes no sense.
Nuclear power in combination with EVs can do the deep decarbonization, and has already done so several times. Nobody has EVER demonstrated deep decarbonization with wind+solar (the so-called "renewables") alone. That is because they cannot do the job... and the fossil interests are relying on it. All of the nonsense about generating hydrogen to store energy on an annual scale is specifically to replace the energy stockpiles provided by fossil fuels and/or uranium. Replacing the services provided by nature is EXTREMELY expensive. Germany has no plans to stop burning coal before 2050: that should be all the answer you need.
It's interest to read how much hate was attributed to Trump and how the American people nevertheless embraced this man as the leader of their Nation. The people doing the attributing were literallly freaking out when he won. They projected their own intentions and feelings onto the man they viewed as the enemy. If you actually listened to Trump you got none of that. My biggest fear with Trump is that he will start a global trade war as he has said he would. If he stops the dumping of Chinese goods and levels trade with Mexico, jobs will come back to America. he will be responsible for another global depression of the economy like the one in 1929 that also was caused by a global trade war Ahistorical nonsense. Smoot-Hawley was 1930, AFTER the 20's credit bubble burst on Black Friday. The real damage was caused by FDR, who tried to run the US as a command economy and failed almost as miserably as the Soviets who were his idols. We're watching another such failure in real time in Venezuela. People are starving while once-productive farms sit idle under government "management". He can do damage to wind and solar by reversing the few subsidies they do get. Are you attributing magic powers to him? Presidents don't write legislation. The subsidies are written in law until 2020. I'd like to see them zeroed out right now so their distorting effects end, but that's not going to happen. renewables are unstoppable at this stage, especially Solar which scales down well and has become very cheap. It hasn't gotten cheap in Germany, where the capacity factor is a lousy 11% and the build rate has been cut back substantially. IIRC there was talk about applying the environmental fee to self-consumed solar power, eliminating most of the cost advantage. Batteries are still too expensive for most people to want them to replace petroleum, let alone coal for electricity or natural gas for heating. Germany is driving the fossil-free economy ever further away, and calling it "green".
Tesla has freed the Supercharger IP, hasn't it?
The Bolt carries a Tesla-class 60 kWh battery. 50 kW isn't Supercharger-league, but it's nothing to sneeze at either. It makes once-impossible trips quite practical and will get many more people to consider an EV as their only car.
Does Montréal not have the block-heater-plug pylons which are common in other parts of Canada? Those would also do for charging batteries, just slower. But if you're going to be parked for 20 hours a day anyway, 1440 watts is more than a full charge for a Leaf.
Just a nit, atmospheric CO2 is about 400 ppmv (by volume); it's thus about 600 ppm by mass. If you have an absorber which can get half of the CO2 passing through, you'd need to process ~9200 m³ of air. An absorber of 100 m² with a breeze blowing through at 2 m/s would get that in under a minute.
There is so much fossil fuel involved in the growing of grain crops for ethanol, its distillation and distribution that whether or not it is better than petroleum is a matter of juggling numbers for "byproduct credits". Nuclear and hydro are the GHG winners, because they do not throw externalities onto other generators.
LDVs sold in the USA (and likely Canada/Europe as well) travel half their lifetime mileage in their first 6 years since sale. If the current 98%+ ICEV production was instantly switched with 100% PHEVs which ran half their mileage on grid electricity, you'd cut liquid fuel consumption by 25% in just 6 years as the ICEV fleet aged out of that category. In 12 years you'd get at least 38%. My own PHEV (now 3.5 years old) runs over 2/3 of its mileage on electric power vs. liquid fuel. My calculations above are pessimistic; we would likely do much better almost immediately. Let's build the gigafactories to make everything into a PHEV.
A vehicle mfgr could easily make vehicles which emit 0.00 gCO2/km by making ICEVs which burn anhydrous NH3. The responsibility for CO2 emissions (and related taxes) would then fall on the NH3 supplier.
You've got references to the part number and a dealer, why don't you calculate the $/kWh yourself?
The Nesscap site is irritating. The press release has no link to data, the site points only to suppliers rather than actual product info, and the series datasheet linked by Digikey does not have the 3V 3400 F units listed yet. We can get useful info from that, though. The 2.7 V units achieve 5.2 Wh/kg energy density in the 3500 F size. 40% more is 7.3 Wh/kg. A 1500 kg vehicle moving at 70 MPH has about 200 Wh of kinetic energy, so a fully-hybridized vehicle able to brake from highway speed to zero with complete energy recovery would need a bit under 30 kg of those things. They appear to have more than enough power density to do the job for anything but panic-braking situations.
SJC is right, but then along comes something like anhydrous ammonia for motor fuel and all the carbon and its related air emissions become moot.
Anyone who thinks there's a way to limit the transport of electric power to a specific distance has no idea of the physics by which power transmission and distribution works.
The capacitor only has a power density of 200 W/kg. This is far lower than even old-design piston aircraft engines, which get on the order of 0.5 HP/lb, or 800+ W/kg. Light aircraft would be better off switching to a Miller cycle with turbine energy recovery to improve efficiency and cut mission weight.
Fast-charging DC with the various connection standards will be cheaper than H2 (or most anything else), and should come first. The sparsity of NGV filling stations makes it impossible for many of them to travel long distances on the interstates. I know there are places where NG service is unavailable, and it seems impractical to run major pipelines just to service a vehicle fleet that does not yet exist. This is the H2 chicken/egg problem writ small.
Methanol can be used in fractions well over 15%; before the "biofuels" push, M85 was used in pilot programs in California to fight air pollution. Methanol can be made from anything that can be turned into clean syngas. Shu's molten-salt "supertorrefaction" process appears to produce such a syngas, plus a carbon char which appears to be sequestration-ready. Even yard waste could make a contribution. At 216 lb/capita/yr each person would get about 65 lb of stable carbon char (soil amendment or possible fuel) and about 15 lb (maybe 2¼ gallons) of methanol just from their share of yard waste. It's not a whole lot but it adds up.
PHEVs with ICEs use a lot of fuel (unless used for very short trips only). Most trips are short trips, Harvey. Get a brain.