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
Methanol starts cracking to CO+H2 in the 200°C range, so I suspect that it wouldn't need a particulate filter either. DME is just the product of catalytic dehydration of MeOH.
Hmmm, pondering: Do you need a particulate filter when burning a fuel with no carbon-carbon bonds, like methanol or DME?
More pols spouting victimology poopytalk which reverses cause and effect:Major transportation corridors tend to run next to lower-income and disadvantaged communities Low-income people prefer lower rents and "servicers", and congregate next to those corridors because rents are lower and there are amenities like bus lines. Many have no jobs and don't need to be close to employers. They could live in rural areas which are just as cheap but they prefer not to.
Must be on the side of the engine not pictured here. Good, then. It occurs to me that the insta-start could be done by the balance of the drivetrain, so that's not necessarily off the table based on the engine proper.
Processes relying on fussy bugs are always going tohave to be kept under conditions the bugs like andlose energy to growing and feeding the bugs. I prefer robust catalysts.
Curious. It has a conventional starter and does not have the belt tensioner required for a belt-alternator starter. It appears it is not designed for instant-starting, so the powertrains under development don't require it. Something else it doesn't have is turbocharging. An intercooled Miller cycle might have allowed a further reduction in engine size and weight, with improved efficiency.
Curious. It has a conventional starter and does not have the belt tensioner required for a belt-alternator starter. It appears it is not designed for instant-starting, so the powertrains under development don't require it. Something else it doesn't have is turbocharging. An intercooled Miller cycle might have allowed a further reduction in engine size and weight, with improved efficiency.
Waste plastic is a particularly good feedstock, as there are few good ways to recycle many mixed monomers and laminates. I do wonder how they're handling the halogens in things like PVC and PTFE, though.
Even easier with Allam cycle, and the current cost advantage of NG over coal makes that choice a no-brainer. After Kemper crashed and burned, it seems likely that we've forgotten how to make gasifiers anyway.
You get the same thing with ethanol, and condensation occurs even in tanks filled with pure gasoline, so I don't think it matters.
The blendstocks do not include methanol, which has the highest octane by far and is the simplest to produce from a wide variety of feedstocks. Funny how that works.
Peak hours in many US areas are in the evening, just as commuters have arrived home after work and vehicle batteries would be depleted. Many drivers would want to recharge right then in order to go out later in the evening, making the "duck-belly" problem even worse. It's hard to see how V2G could work there.
The point is start-stop and coasting with engine off. Don't complain that it isn't everything. It's something, and every bit helps. Especially, every bit of electrification pushes the next stage.
The point is start-stop and coasting with engine off. Don't complain that it isn't everything. It's something, and every bit helps. Especially, every bit of electrification pushes the next stage.
Lithium from oil wells, rare earths from coal ash—when will all this abundance end and we can get back to scarcity pricing?! I think the real kick is going to come when operators start using on-site Allam cycle powerplants to export the unmarketable natural gas over electric lines, and use the CO2 for fracking and tertiary oil recovery.
Some of these results are surprising, such as the cost-per-ton of CO2 reduction from CNG and LPG vehicles. But the one that really got me is how the space between HEV, PHEV-10 and PHEV-35 is projected to narrow in all respects. The PHEV-10 is so close to HEV you might as well not bother with HEV, and PHEV-35 is barely a jump while offering major pollution reductions albeit at a slightly higher price. Looks like my SWAG now has authoritative backing.
Installed cost is around $2500 per kw/hr on the name plate. A stupid large geothermal plant with a name plate of 100,000Mw at $250,000,000,000 would take potentially 8-16years to pay back based on electrical rates. At 100 GW you are talking roughly 22% of the average electric generation of the entire country. This will require a massive capital investment in transmission lines. HVDC is the cheapest over long distances, but you're still talking about $400k/mile for a 2 GW connection. Moving 100 GW requires 50 such connections, or $20 million per mile plus converter stations at $250 million per endpoint ($25 billion total).. But the real killer is going to be finding rights-of-way, which will be fought tooth and nail. NOBODY wants a line in their back yard, and lines going thousands of miles have to pass through lots of back yards. This is based on the governments data. cost of 2,500/kw, maintenance cost of $0.01-0.03/kwh and 90% capacity factor. You can buy a nuclear power station from KEPCO for $2500/kW and put it wherever you want. You just have to be like the UAE and not have the NRC meddling with everything. This is green power, it also has reasonable payback periods. I sympathize with your desire to cool off the Yellowstone magma chamber and forestall a supervolcano eruption, but nobody has managed such a feat yet. Water is "the universal solvent" and will deposit scale on pipes which will (a) have to be controlled or removed, and (b) is certain to contain radionuclides like radium which willl have to be handled as radioactive waste (this is a problem in the oil industry also). I'm afraid there is no free lunch. You will likely never get approval for 600 nukes anywhere in the US, if you're lucky you might be able to build out 50. Its not popular. They're very popular with their immediate neighbors. Besides, 50 sites with 12 GW apiece would just about do it. If you want Republicans to build out Nukes or geothermal. Make it an issue of energy independence/ national security. Congress is in the pocket of the gas industry (which is the oil industry) and Big Gas wants nuclear and coal out of the way so it can jack up prices. The current flood of oil from fracking the best deposits won't last (depletion rates on those wells are sky-high) so the industry is buying their way into a monopoly position while it can. Congress is paid off and won't stop them.
The technology didn't exist in the 1970's. The gasifier tech appears to have two significant deficiencies:It doesn't inherently crack tars or separate ash well enough to avoid a clean-up step.It is autothermal, so energy of the feedstock is wasted instead of becoming part of the product stream.These things will cripple it compared to what is coming.
Honestly, why aren't shippers considering the lowest-emission fuel of all, bar none: uranium? A container ship the size of the Emma Maersk could accomodate 3 nuclear reactors the size of a NuScale with ease. The "mission weight" of the reactors plus their shielding water pools would be much less than the Warstila-Sulzer engines plus fuel that the ships carry now, allowing more cargo to be carried. There would be no reason to operate at less than top speed in transit, as uranium is cheaper than the cost of crew pay plus amortization. The surrounding ocean provides an infinite heat sink which prevents meltdowns. The USS Constitution was before its time, but that's no reason to refuse to acknowledge that the time for nuclear is now.
We as a nation need to install 1TW of new clean power to replace our dependence on non renewables, and to lower our emissions. Wind, and solar would be a blight at that level. US transportation demand comes to about 180 GW of electric power equivalent (ignoring improved efficiencies at the point of use), so the net average demand for electric plus electrified transport probably comes to about 600-650 GW. The problem is that this average may be hard to average. If you can't move weekday peaks to nights and weekends things are far more difficult, because capital costs in general track peak capacity. If we bring something like this online, and several large Nukes, like 10, to prop up our grids, and provide a safe reliable means of electricy, with abundance. 10 large nukes? Try 600 AP1000s, or more than 10,000 NuScales. That's what it would take. Seriously, if you can't even do the math to understand the scale of this problem you should bow out of the discussion. You need to have a clue before you can contribute anything. Imagine if we sold cheap electricity, 100% of the time, and contracted out our surplus to industry with conditions to curtail use as demand rose. This is one of the things you refuse to understand. Industry cannot do that and meet payroll and capital payments on facilities. You can't have people praying for the weather to be favorable so they'll get a paycheck.
If you plan on future expansions from the beginning you can scale out over time at a much lower cost. That planning has been made impossible by the current politico-legal-regulatory environment. That can be changed but it will take political will. For instance, if units require no electric power to shut down completely (as in walk-away safe) will the nuclear regulator get rid of the hyper-specific requirements on all the electrical gear in the plant? Do you even need a full-time on-site inspector for such a plant? SWAT-level security 24/7? What we really need is a radical reduction in the mandated costs, but the Greens have a strategy of driving those costs up to put nuclear out of business. They've been very good at it. let's say that 28% of transportation goes full electric, and while we see an overall 14% reduction in CO2, we will see a jump in electricity usage. What is going to come online to replace it? The fossil fuel companies have NG targeted for that, with fuel-oil backup. We should do better. Geothermal is cheap to run, and fairly cheap to build out. Is it? I understand that things like mineral deposits in well pipes are a problem, and most places the wells cost too much to make any profit. Perhaps you have some references you could point us to. I know nuclear isn't dispatchable, per se Nuclear is 100% dispatchable and can be ramped almost as much as you want it to; you just have to design the capability in ahead of time. It only makes sense to do so when you approach French-level nuclear penetrations, because almost everything else has higher variable costs so makes more sense to do the ramping. For instance if you had 100,000Mw on the name plate, you run at the typical 90% of rated capacity, and you use that power to do power intensive things like H2 from electrolysis, or mining aluminum, or something that can utilize power. You mean "smelting aluminum". Mining bauxite isn't terribly energy-intensive. The problem you find when you dig into such seeming-panaceas is that they don't work very well as dump loads. Take aluminum. The electrolytic cells which convert Al2O3 to metal plus CO2 from the sacrificial graphite anodes don't take well to being turned off, or even turned down very far. My understanding is that they use a layer of frozen slag to protect the cell walls and can be damaged by letting them freeze. Heating them up too much so that the protective layer melts is also bad. Until one such artic cold snap comes along, then we divert that rainy day power to other regions. And how do you deal with power lines downed by ice storms, tornadoes... or sabotage? You really need to read Road Map to Nowhere. The best form of energy storage is "fuel", and while Conley and Mahoney make a solid case for uranium fuel it's not the best thing for every purpose. Regardless, the proposed fuel reliability standard proposed by the Trump administration and rejected by the FERC has just been proven sensible and even essential by last month's New England cold snap, when fuel oil stocks fell from 68% full to just 19% in barely 2 weeks. 1) For combined power and heat or for just heating, Hydrogen's efficiency is 100%. When heat pumps can hit 350% you're at a serious disadvantage. That's really your problem; direct use of electricity is by far the most efficient, but far too costly to build out for peak demand. Meanwhile, the capacity that's cheap to leave idle against peak need is quite inefficient.
If we plan our demands, and bring online huge demands to balance out the rise and fall, to allow smaller dispatchables to take over, we could easily live in a carbon free society I wouldn't say "easily". None of this will be easy or cheap. It's doable, but absolutely not the way the Greens want to do it. Their ideal (which was drafted by others) is quite deliberately designed to be impossible. even of it meant the electrolysis of water powering transportation. Electrolysis of water is probably the last thing you should do. There are far more effective means of powering transport with zero net emissions, and everything else too. I have literally spent the last 6 months working on the numbers for this. Hydrogen has uses but no economy can be based on it. It's too costly and finicky to handle in bulk. Further, it looks like the need for the FCEV is passing. The Achates engine has already broken 50% thermal efficiency and would probably do better on methanol fuel. You could reform trucked-in methanol to hydrogen and CO2 to fill FCEVs, or burn methanol directly at similar net efficiency. Hydrogen has no advantages and a bunch of disadvantages. that gigawatt geothermal plant should be able to adjust load to meet demand too, just that we should also consider changing our paradigm. You'd need literally hundreds of gigawatt geothermal plants. Average US electric demand is around 450 GW. Total nameplate generating capacity is well over 1000 GW now (including lots of unreliables and energy-limited generators like hydro). The grid can self level with batteries, pumped hydro, and hydrogen production. I've run the numbers on those things and, save maybe for hydrogen, it's far more difficult than you think. The costs and other impacts would be literally astronomical. Imagine having to use the entire water volume of Lake Erie for pumped storage; yes, it is THAT staggeringly large.
What is adequate probably depends on the location and how critical it is to have no outage or the cost of having an outage. Maybe it is 12 hrs, maybe 3 days, maybe 2 weeks. Note that the recent New England cold snap (a) forced lots of electric generation over to oil (oil went from 2% to 36% of electric generation) and (b) depleted fuel-oil stocks from 68% of full to just 19% in 2 weeks, and that was WITH a whole lot of idle coal plants coming on-line and staying there. The minimum inventory given weather events like this should be a month. The 90-day rule that the FERC rejected suddenly looks like a really good idea. Here's the ISO report on the cold snap. Read the WHIOLE thing:
I've been told we have the technology to utilize older spent fuel in new reactors. The French and Japanese have been recovering plutonium by reprocessing spent fuel and burning the majority of it in MOX (mixed-oxide) fuel. This only works for a couple of cycles before the neutron-eating higher isotopes accumulate too much and the fuel can no longer go critical in light-water reactors. The transuranics can be consumed almost completely in fast-neutron reactors, of which we have none any more. The Russians have one BN800 that's been in commercial operation for 15 months now. Heavy-water reactors like CANDU can use "spent" light-water reactor fuel almost as-is. This scheme is called DUPIC, Direct Use of PWR fuel In CANDU. what is the projected cost of using previous spent radioactive fuel in a modern reactor? Would this not be almost free source of fuel? Uranium is too cheap to make any of this attractive. Handling spent fuel isn't cheap or easy.
Trucking in hydrogen is no different than any other shipment. Except you need 3-4x the number of trucks. The density of LH2 is about 0.07, gaseous H2 much less. The density of gasoline is around 0.75. Heck, it could be piped in. You'd need 3x the pipeage as natural gas to move the same energy. This. Isn't. Happening. if the base load was near near our typical consumption during our peak day hours, we wouldn't need much standby generation. Peak day hours are typically hot summer evenings in summer in the south, and winter cold snaps in the north. They can get VERY high, much too high to serve with base load unless you've got massive amounts of load you can defer for hours or even days. That's a tall order. We can design a grid where >90% of our consumption is met by a few, large carbon neutral plants. What's your obsession with LARGE plants? Over-centralization means more long transmission lines and all the problems involved with them, and they're vulnerable to disruption as well. Also, the bigger a plant is generally the longer construction times are and the harder it is to apply experience gained to the next plant.