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
The bolts give you positive alignment and positioning while the two halves equilibrate temperatures.
Edited and reposted because of fascist filters. EP the sun delivers every hour more energy to our planet than humanity spends in one year! Excuse my language, but so f--king what? If it isn't where it's needed when we need it, we have to go to extra effort to fix that. That effort takes labor and natural resources. It takes a lot more of those than we can afford. My area can easily have weeks of cloudy days, when the days are already short. Areas can have weeks of next to no wind. Providing a mere 24 hours of stored electricity with Tesla PowerPacks costs a whopping $10,680 per kilowatt. You need 2 days? $21,360/kW. A week? You do the math. You seem to think the sun and wind will run everything, including our cars. They can't, which you'd know if you would do the math. You've got a next-generation Leaf with a 30 kWh battery and 100 miles range (60 in winter), a 10-mile commute one-way and 250 W average load in your house. It's winter. You get good wind overnight but the next 4 days are forecast to be cloudy with winds too low to allow generation. Your share of solar comes to 100 W average during daylight, 800 Wh a day. Your net unfilled demand is 5.2 kWh/day. You could run your 6 kWh/day house loads from the fully charged car for almost 6 days if you don't drive anywhere. If you drive to work and back, you consume 10 kWh per day in addition to your 5.2 kWh net house load. You run out of power somewhat before getting back home on day 2. On day 3 all your refrigerated food goes bad, and maybe your pipes freeze. Day 4 you're still stuck, and you've been fired from your job for absence. On day 5 you might as well slit your wrists even if the sun and wind come back, because this crap is going to happen again at any other job you get. You are screwed by unreliable energy. We don’t need fossils. We DO need the nuclear. At $5.83/W, an average 750 W of power costs about $4400. That 18 kWh/day is 10 kWh for your car, 6 kWh for your house and 2 kWh left over for other stuff. It's there every day. Do we need renewables? Doesn't look like it.
Sealed housing, liquid-cooled. That beast is designed for high power density and durability.
Henrik, you can't afford enough batteries to make yourself petroleum-independent with the designated ruinables. You need to be able to charge those batteries whenever you stop. That requires generators running on stockpiled energy, not fickle flows. If you're lucky enough to be loaded with hydropower (e.g. Norway, Quebec and British Columbia), great! But for everyone else, this means relying on gas, coal... or nuclear.
Dunno, but I must correct myself: a yellow material absorbs mostly blue light. This suggests that you could have a dual-mode panel, with the blue light going to deferred hydrogen production and the rest passing through to conventional PV cells for immediate electric generation.
These studies are as pathetic as the ones that said it was over $1,000/kWh back in 2011 and would be $450/kWh in 2016. Tesla's PowerPack is currently selling for $445/kWh. Looks like it was right on target. I would rather have 100 HEVs get 40% better mileage than 1 in a 100 be a BEV and get 1% better mileage. The Gigafactories that Tesla says its site can accomodate would be sufficient to put 10 kWh into every LDV sold in the USA, making it a PHEV. I think we can skip the HEV stage now.
Nothing in the article about the cost or useful lifespan of this material (does it photodegrade?). Is it cheaper to store energy as the excited state of this stuff than as hydrogen? If so it might solve the evening-peaking demand problem, but you still need the HFC. Another problem it might solve is production rate of a hydrogen-driven chemical fuels plant. You wouldn't have to design for peak rate, you could just put the immediate excess of excited material into a tank and keep running the H2 production and reaction process into the evening. Cost is everything, though. Yellow material suggests that it absorbs red, blue and green photons. The cost per watt of output, the useful life and the thermal stability (how much cooling do you need?) are going to be the big factors.
When I stopped to realize that I was using Coal/NG-produced electricity transmitted/transported 10s of km to charge a battery that was then discharged through a resistance heater, in fact an ICE was a less wasteful solution. This. I've long said that EVs should use propane-fired engines to cogenerate heat instead of either resistance heaters or fuel-fired furnaces.
California is hypocritical, applying the $120/ton LCFS credit to motor fuels but not electric generation fuels. $120/MT CO2 is about 6¢/kWh for power generated in simple-cycle gas turbines. This would make nuclear plants wildly profitable, even if they had to dump steam to accomodate the vagaries of the unreliables (dumping steam would let them get money by providing spinning reserve). California excludes nuclear from such incentives specifically to kill it and replace it with carbon-emitting natural gas.
You get the power of one engine for the weight, complexity and cost of two! Nissan's variable-compression scheme is much better than this. One engine with the mechanical ability to get close to optimum for very different fuels beats two almost-separate engines hands down.
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.