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
You don't have to upgrade anything to get started. All you need to do is to limit the vehicle's current draw to what the circuit has to spare, and the J1772 protocol is set up to do exactly that.
While your theory sounds plausible it would still be limited by the circuit breaker panel amperage rating. Which the average traditional (HPS, MH, or Mercury) parking lot street light varies from 250 watts - 400 watts. Something along those lines, yes. Now substitute LED lamps for the others. I see a gooseneck barn light replacing whatever... 42 W. A LED area light replacing a 500 W HID equivalent: 160 W. A replacement for a 400 W MH light, using 155 W. The replacements use OTOO 1/3 the power and could be scaled down even more if desired; most parking lots are functionally over-lit. Now consider the circuit ratings. Continuous ratings are roughly 80% of peak, which is what the breaker is specified for. Your 3250 watts of old lamps is on a 240 VAC 20 A circuit (4800 W peak, 3840 W cont). You slash the 3250 W of lighting load to 1080 W by LED conversion, which gives 2760 W of excess capacity when the lights are on (the full 3840 W when off). That's almost 2 full level 1 circuits with the lights on, and more than 2 level 1 circuits when they're off. And you didn't have to pull a single inch of wire to put them in. Now look at circuits with 25 or 30 A ratings. Do you begin to see the possibilities here, already installed and waiting to be exploited?
There's also peak demand to worry about, and the fact that installing a charger won't draw enough business to pay for itself for quite some time. This is why I expect the initial trend to be a dual-purposing of existing lighting circuits, because the wiring is already there. Level 1 gets the job done.
I lost my 2.0 liter VW TDI far short of its first rebuild interval. The odometer read 156,384 miles and the efficiency I measured was every bit as good as the day I bought it; it was a long way from needing a ring or valve job. Most of that mileage was running on ULSD. I'd still be driving it today if it wasn't wrecked. That said, I'm achieving much better than 3x the fuel economy using PHEV. Level 1 charging takes ~5 hours, and that's mostly what I use. This is good enough. It wouldn't be at all difficult to put level 1 charging almost everywhere. That would be sufficient to slash gasoline consumption by 2/3, roughly 6 million bbl/d in the USA. Such a shift would devastate the oil-dependent economies.
Ethylene can be hydrated to ethanol and the reverse, so those two products should be considered equivalents. 1 molecule C2H4 (MW = 28) makes 1 molecule C2H6O (MW = 46), so 1.3 grams ethylene makes 2.1 grams EtOH for a total of 2.9 grams ethanol-equivalent. Heat of combustion of EtOH is 1300 kJ/mol, 1-propanol is 2020 kJ/mol. 2.9 g EtOH is 0.063 mol for 82.0 kJ, and 0.2 grams propanol is 6.7 kJ for a total of 88.7 kJ heat of combustion. At 24.1% conversion efficiency, this 88.7 kJ of outputs requires 368 kJ of inputs or just over 100 Wh. Thus, 1 kWh of electric input would produce roughly 28.4 grams EtOH and 2 grams propanol. A gallon of ethanol is about 2988 grams, so making 1 gallon of ethanol would require about 105 kWh of electricity. At even record-low wind power costs of perhaps 2.5¢/kWh, this would still have an electric input cost in excess of $2.60/gallon of ethanol—which is energetically inferior to gasoline. To the cost of electricity you must add the cost of extracting CO2 and the cost of the equipment, and to compare equals you must also add taxes. Electrolytic renewable ethanol from "renewable energy" is still some ways from parity. This changes if you use off-peak nuclear electricity at perhaps 1¢/kWh. The cost of energy falls to 52¢/gallon and you're looking at a serious competitor to fossil fuels—or what remains of FF demand after you've gone the cheaper route and charged batteries at 6x the round-trip efficiency.
Eliminating the organic stream headed for landfills eliminates so much else: the long settling times before stability, the methane emissions, the vast majority of the total volume. The specifics of how the waste is processed and where the process energy comes from are highly material, but unless it's done pretty badly wrong it's hard to see how this wouldn't come out as a net positive.
Replacing Li with Na in a long-life, high-energy battery basically blows oil out of the water. It becomes the high-cost energy option and stops being relevant to surface transportation. OPEC is already suffering due to low prices. A good SIB would make that situation permanent. It would be good to have the Arabian peninsula returned to its proper state of habitation by camel-riding nomads.
Am I right in guessing that the use of high EGR limits combustion temps and NOx, and the "air piston" boosts the effective compression to achieve effective ignition at leaner mixtures/lower BMEPs? The one issue I can think of that would limit this is the lean limit for ignition, absent a stratified charge. Perhaps something like corona ignition is required. This would add a lot of flexibility. The effective compression ratio can be changed on the fly with spark timing.
We shouldn't have to imagine it, we should be able to buy it.
China's moving into MeOH in a big way; it's already 4% of petroleum-equivalent consumption there. Traces of methanol are not toxic. Methanol is a natural component of fruit pectin. As always, the dose makes the poison.
With luck, the gas-price spike from Harvey will reverse this troublesome trend. It will remind at least some people that low and stable gasoline prices are an abberation over the last 40 years.
Answer: they won't get it. If shortening carbon chains leads to less PM formation, the obvious carbon-chain length to shoot for is 1 atom. This means methanol, not 4-carbon butanol. As a bonus, MeOH is easily cracked to CO + 2 H2 using exhaust heat. If this is the exclusive fuel mixture at low load and used with homogeneous combustion, the high flame speed and lack of any carbon-carbon bonds should almost eliminate PM formation (there'll be some from engine oil). The lean-limit tolerance of hydrogen should make it easy to minimize NOx as well. As you get into higher loads, direct methanol injection would cool the compressing charge to prevent preignition. You'd still have no carbon-carbon bonds to nucleate soot.
That assumes you can afford to finance a heap of electrolyzers which are idle a lot of the time.
And that's why it's greenwashing; it's intended to Make a Statement, not an actual difference.
Next step: integrated per-wheel motor/reduction units with optional clutches, designed for mounting on the suspension arms to reduce unsprung weight. This would provide 4WD/AWD options with full torque vectoring, and clutch disconnects to reduce free-wheeling losses on the un-driven axle with 4WD deactivated. I am warming to methanol over diesel. It allows a much greater power density and has no carbon-carbon bonds to nucleate soot. You can even recuperate exhaust heat to crack it to CO + H2, recycling energy back to the combustion chamber (at some cost in volumetric efficiency, but this is actually an advantage in part-throttle operation).
7,000 x 140KW = 980,000 KW which is almost a terawatt just for the Port of Los Angles! Oh for pete's sake. Despite your pessimistic assumptions that's still short of a gigawatt (innumerate much?), and per Wikipedia, Commiefornia already had almost 19 GW of PV capacity at the end of last year. The state has so MUCH that the problem of the rampdown near sunset, the "duck belly curve", is a major and growing headache. If you estimated 140,000 trucks over the state, 140 kWh/truck/day and averaged the load over 10 hours of daylight, the average load would be 1.96 GW. This is quite manageable. Charging at 105 kW average power transfers 140 kWh in 80 minutes of connect time. This is quite reasonable. Having a crapload of electric trucks sucking down electrons at their loading stops all day would be one of the best things the renewabalistas could ask for. It deals with their solar production curve. Of course, what they really need is a stone-ax-reliable supply of power for charging, but romantics are not deep thinkers. What we can expect is from 4AM - 9PM having heavy spikes as ports, store receiving, warehouses, and misc expect these trucks to arrive. Load switching on and off in 100 kW chunks isn't a "heavy spike". It's barely noticeable. You can manage this by throttling the charging of LDVs, which consume many times as much energy. Having gas turbines idling just for these spikes simply isn't practical So don't. If you've got, say, 3 hours of plugged-in time per day but only need 80 minutes to maintain a full charge, you can run the chargers at an average of less than half power. This lets you ration power when it's in short supply and direct it to the vehicles which have run down the most. if we expanded **thorium** nuclear power this wouldn't be so much of an issue. You'd replace the frequent daytime surplus with a dead-reliable night-time surplus. I rather like that myself, but until the libtard voters of Commiefornia are put on the meds and cognitive/behavioral therapy required to treat their mental illnesses the state is going to be run on policies which attempt to override the laws of physics.
If your point is to get engine noise and emissions out of urban areas, the range extender isn't what you want. Your power limitations are eyebrow-raising when Tesla's Supercharger peaks out at something around 140 kW. You'd have to taper off the charge rate as the battery filled but a 20 minute window at the dock at an average of 105 kW would still net you 35 kWh, a 25% range boost even for the 140 kWh tractor. If you could rely on doing this 3 times a day a 70 kWh tractor would be viable on a 150 mile route. I consider "renewable energy" to be a cruel joke.
The issue with biomethane in this application is that the sources tend to be more or less continuous, the demand is highly seasonal and storage is difficult at best. It really needs conversion to a liquid fuel.
Given the time for loading and unloading, there is considerable potential for charging during the working day. Perhaps there should be grants/incentives for customers to install charging connections to support this. The more charging is available, the smaller and lighter the battery can be for the same daily range and the cheaper everything gets.
This actually looks like it'll scale well. The supply of second-life EV batteries is small, but since most EV charging is done at home the need for fast charging is also small. This is completely unlike the hydrogen situation, where everything must be supplied from stations and vehicles are useless except where there's a reliable supply.
I admit that I'm not following the language in the quote, "Attempting to refute our work by recourse to the faulty lifecycle logic that our method was designed to avoid is itself but a form of circular reasoning. Our critics seem unable to let go of the assumption of a stylized circular carbon flow for biofuels, as embodied by construction in the LCA methods they espouse and in their recourse to a tautology of global carbon accounting." The language in the comments, though, makes no sense at all.
These companies are looking to manufacture demand by insisting that blenders pay a penalty if they do not buy product that is currently unavailable at anything resembling a competitive price. Sometimes this product is not available, period. They want blenders to pay anyway. Half of the problem is that the law insists that the biofuel be supplied as a specific compound, ethanol. Some feedstocks are more easily converted to methanol. We could and have supplied M85 (85% methanol/15% gasoline) which actually preceded today's E85 blend. If our flex-fuel vehicles were truly flexible we'd make the fuel systems compatible with anything from E10 to M100.
When you're doing this at a scale sufficient to actually be "renewable", something like half of your electricity is going to go through storage. Making methanol for motor fuel means even more will be. When the majority of your generation is going into these sinks, it's not "excess" any more. It's the main product, and it has to be paid for.
Make cells with 20% perforations and use them as window tinting.