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
At current and near-term prices for H2, FCEVs are a "pay a lot now, keep paying a lot for quite some time" proposition. Their fuel also has very spotty availability. Compared to the Tesla which can go just about anywhere by hopping from campground to campground to recharge, FCEVs are toys and will remain toys for some time. Worse, FCEVs will never be "green" until H2 from carbon-free sources is cheaper than H2 from SMR or coal gasification. That seems likely to happen around the 43rd of never.
Lithium isn't the only thing worth recovering. Finding some way of extracting the heavy metals would slash the toxicity of the remaining ash and also provide an alternative to mining them. says that "valorize" implies government support ("by a government's purchasing the commodity at the fixed price or by its making special loans to the producers.") The few million tons of nylon used per year is nothing compared to the large fraction of a billion tons of lignin in the available biomass in the USA. This is a mixed blessing; we'll never run out of raw material for nylon, but raising the market value of lignin enough to make the processing of lignocellulose profitable is going to take a lot more than just bio-adipic acid.
14.1 kWh is a Volt-class battery, but this car out-classes the Volt in every way one can think of. Especially the cabin; the battery does not intrude on the passenger space. Let's see what Audi aims for production.
The fractionation of lignin is excellent. It is a source of phenols which have a multitude of uses. I'm not finding anything on THF inhibition of yeast in a quick search. There's also the issue of wastewater treatment and recycle of CaSO4 in the case where there's no market for e.g. drywall. Not bad, though. If the sulfate could be recycled to H2SO4 by electrolysis and ion exchange (swapping 2H+ for Ca++) it would close that loop. I would love to see something about the process energy requirements. This looks like something that could be done entirely with low-pressure steam, tapped off-peak from a powerplant.
Unfortunately, this technology builds in a reliance on natural gas.
It makes one wonder how much more this vehicle's TCO is than a battery-hybrid using a 20 kW CNG engine.
This begs the question of where the protons come from. Presumably they'd have to be supplied by electrolysis, using the chalcogen as the cathode of a PEM or other cell. The downside of the photocatalyst for RE-driven schemes is that PV is costly and storage of wind power until light is available would be quite expensive. OTOH, being able to produce aqueous ammonia from nitrogen, water and electricity is a great advance. Ammonia-water mixtures have a greatly depressed freezing point so such photocatalytic panels could operate even in the cold.
A 20% CO2 (fuel) reduction is fine, but leaves money on the table. What really needs to be integrated into these concepts is micro-PHEV. A 700 Wh battery with a 30%-70% SOC window in operation could be charged to 90% off-line, an average of 280 Wh of energy. This is sufficient to drive the average vehicle about a mile. A charging connection can also be used to pre-condition the cabin for driving, saving additional fuel consumption. 280 Wh is about 12 minutes of charging on a Level 1 connection, meaning it could easily be spread out between half an hour to a work day as dispatchable demand for V2G grid regulation. Then the driver gets roughly 1 mile of fuel savings over the next several. Do this several times a day and you could get another 10% fuel savings.
CE88, your typical electric stove circuit is rated at 240 VAC 50 A. De-rated to 40 A, that is sufficient to charge a Tesla Model P85 in less than 9 hours. Using the vehicle in V2G mode for grid regulation (charging only) during the day would extend range substantially even if the circuit was only 120 VAC 12 A. This PHEV driver has cut fuel consumption by roughly 3/4 over the base ICE model. I estimate $1800 in savings thus far. We'll see what happens as the oil price war shakes out.
Oil "isn't" and "never has been" scarce; it has "just cost too much to extract". "Costs too much" should be the definition of scarcity.
Toggle Commented Feb 4, 2015 on Arctic oil on life support at Green Car Congress
Nonsense. Muslims (Barbary corsairs) were attacking US shipping and taking US citizens as hostages/slaves as soon as they stopped flying the Union Jack. Islam has always attacked everyone else; it's literally a Koranic commandment.
Nothing obvious on the site regarding charge/discharge rates or cycle life. Putting a better-than-Tesla battery in 100 liters would be impressive, I admit. It would give a Model S close to 400 miles of range. With Supercharging, that's enough to permit all-day cruising without boosts except at typical intervals for meal and bathroom breaks.
Seed oils are typically edible, and use for commodity products like fuel is damaging to the environment.
This will increase vehicle rolling resistance, increasing fuel consumption. This is especially true for hybrids which would otherwise recover their own braking energy for themselves. The net effect will be to substitute expensive petroleum for cheaper, domestic energy supplies. It's a good thing that such devices are likely to break down quickly and be abandoned.
It's been a dark age in the ME since the first age of Muslim conquest. That was when other cultures were over-run and there was a period of a couple of generations when the new populations were not Islamized and there was cross-fertilization such as translations of works into Arabic. That period ended in the ninth or tenth century. It's claimed that there are more books translated into Spanish every year than have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand. That is a dark age that has been going on since before the Enlightenment.
If you absolutely need to get diesel engines out of your cities, methanol-fueled spark-ignition engines are proven and can achieve several times the power density of diesel. On the other hand, with the recent demonstration that filtered diesel exhaust is no longer a great hazard to lungs, that may not be the best thing to prioritize. Petroleum dependence in general and vehicle noise may be better targets.
I think the perception of the charging problem is bigger than reality. There are a lot of 7200 V and 13.2 kV distribution lines out there, and these buses are more than big enough to carry their own transformers. Park next to a line, extend a boom to the overhead wires, et voila: charging wherever you and power cross paths. Pulling 7200 volts at 10 amps is 72 kW, enough for a full charge in a few hours of a layover even at a relatively random stopping point. For fixed routes, no problem: a few minutes of charging at the endpoints should keep the bus going all day.
Presumably the tax-paying commuter class will be forced out by crime, un-usable public schools and suffocating taxation, leaving California as a solid blue state of people who vote in return for their EBT and rarely have anywhere they need to go.
Meanwhile in the real world, I encountered another Fusion Energi owner today. We're both running largely gas-free using Li-ion technology that's several years old.
LHV doesn't mean low heating value, it means LowER Heating Value. It is the energy available when the latent heat of water cannot be recovered. The HighER Heating Value is when the water vapor is condensed. The difference can be substantial; the LHV for methane is 50.0 MJ/kg, the HHV is 55.5 MJ/kg. The difference for hydrogen per Roger is a full 20%. As for the economics issues, all of this is easily solved if people simply pay for what they're actually using. In the case of nuclear power, what they're getting is an always-on stream of power with extremely low marginal cost. The way to bill for this is a monthly "subscription fee" for your base load, say as a constant 300 watts 24/7 which you pay for even if you don't take it. It would be the cheapest dispatchable power you could buy, but the quantity would be limited; additional capacity could be financed by waiting lists for subscriptions. As you got to more variable demand, you'd trade off availability vs. marginal cost. If your peak demand was only 1% of the time, you'd be happy with a high marginal cost so long as the availability fee was low. Where variable renewables fit in this isn't clear-cut, but selling at a spot price would favor users who could buffer their consumption. Appliances like ice-storage air conditioners, frozen-brine freezers and heat batteries for DHW and space heating would be favored. All of these things would save people money, and could do so in at least 2 ways: levelling demand to move more consumption to the subscribed base-load amount, and scheduling demand for periods when surpluses make spot prices cheap.
You can't dial down plants that are "must run" further than the level where they can supply their essential services, even if the plants burn coal. The grid needs reserves, reactive power and load-following, and the negative-load characteristic of wind and PV means more such capacity is required, not less. Skimp, and you get failures (frequency excursions, over/undervoltage, and blackouts). Schedulable loads (like these electrolyzers) are one way of dealing with un-schedulable generation. However, the cost of the product is going to be astronomical. At Germany's wind capacity factor of less than 20%, those electrolyzers are going to be working at perhaps 12% of full capacity. To put this in financial terms, the capital (and thus interest) cost will be 8.3 times as much as if the system just ran 24/7. Then you have the cost of power. Unless the feed-in tariff isn't paid for excess generation, that power should be priced at the FIT. As of 2012, that was € 0.0893/kWh. At an energy/gas ratio of perhaps 60 kWh/kg, the power to generate one kg of hydrogen costs €5.36. It takes 3 moles of hydrogen to generate 1 mole of MeOH from CO2 (3H2 + CO2 -> CH3OH + H2O), so 1 kg of hydrogen will generate 166.7 moles of MeOH or about 5.33 kg worth (6.74 liters). At about half the energy density of gasoline, this contains the energy of about 3.3 liters of petrol, for a cost of power of about €1.60 per petrol-liter-equivalent (CO2, electrolyzers and the methanol plant not included). Since the juice alone costs well in excess of typical European pump prices with all taxes included, we can dismiss power-to-methanol as a toy of the wealthy.
The specs of anything built for an OEM are probably not published for the public.
Believe me, if you had a Ford PHEV and real (240 VAC 16 A) charging available wherever you stopped, you'd need very little liquid fuel even today. The alcohol fuel cell would just be lagniappe. By a happy accident I discovered that the Ford PHEVs take 16 amps. Some chargers only deliver 208 VAC split phase, which is 3300-odd watts at 16 amps. The chargers which are wired to full 240 VAC can deliver more than 3800 watts. This makes a significant difference in charging time. I would love to have a line to the engineers at the auto companies to see if their vehicle electronics could take 20 Hz or even pulsating DC rectified from 208 VAC 3φ. I don't expect them to let me have any such information anytime soon.
This is silly, because the 100% option is already being aimed at the Port of Los Angeles. All they need is carbon-free electricity and they're good to go.