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 need almost all direct radiation to get such temperatures with solar, which precludes operation in areas with significant cloudiness (even haze).
It requires very clear skies to achieve even 600°C with concentrating solar. This is well within the range of molten-salt reactors, though. Combined with an atmospheric capture system, these catalysts could achieve direct conversion of heat to carbon-neutral fuel. Almost 1% of thermal-neutron fissions in U-235 yield rhodium; the catalyst might be produced in part from high-level nuclear waste!
Henrik thinks that a HEPA filter will remove NO, NO2, CH4, CO, formaldehyde and other pollutants. What a maroon! About USD2.2 billion per unit. 6 units, about CDN2.0 billion per GW. If you believe the BBC's made-up numbers even after being given reliable sources which debunk them, you aren't smart enough to have a worthwhile opinion.
there is nothing 'early stage' about battery electric cars either, as they have been around for a century. Going on a century and a quarter, during which the superiority of electrics was acknowledged in every respect save range. What's new is high-capacity batteries and solid-state power electronics. If you are advocating no subsidy for infrastructure, bang go BEVs, as there would be no away from home charging, and PHEV's would rule. ORLY? How much is Tesla being subsidized per Supercharger bay? And how did EVs exploit the existing RV-park infrastructure for earlier trans-continental trips if it wasn't subsidized? The rest is just re-asserting your prior convictions and picking winners. It's called "observing reality". You should try it sometime. You should particularly ask questions about how multi-million-dollar stations can be amortized with a vehicle fleet that's projected to be less than 100k units on the road in 2025. Most qualified people and organisations don't agree that it is all done and dusted. Most of the "qualifications" consist of being paid to research or advocate hype-drogen. Nobody pays me for this. And I even get a new troll to eviscerate! <rubs hands> E-P has been drinking eci's kool-aid. Dude, I made the Kool-Aid in 2004. The smack was laid down by none other than the European Fuel Cell Forum.
What's "early stage" about hydrogen? It's been a widely-used industrial chemical from before the Haber process (1913). It was a mature industry by 1930. The limited distribution of hydrogen is due to economics. Outside certain chemical processes, industry and welding, hydrogen just isn't economic compared to its alternatives. Electricity beat hydrogen's distribution issues during the reign of the REA. Given the twin disadvantages of distribution and cost, H2 is not going to go anywhere against electricity for on-road vehicles unless it is subsidized rather heavily.
Having completed 15 stations in 18 months is an unprecedented achievement. I count 41.5 screens of stations in the Wikipedia list of US Supercharger stations. At perhaps 6 listings per screen, that's ~240 of them. Most have multiple stalls and no limits on capacity factor. Compare 80 stations/year, required only for LD travel, to 10 stations/year required to do anything whatsoever. One third of TrueZero hydrogen fuel is renewable So it isn't actually "zero". Is there anything about it that isn't a lie?
The Aluminum people have negotiated very low 24/7 rate (under CAN$0.0271/kWh or US $0.020/Kwh) for clean Hydro energy. They use hugh amount of energy. Who's going to pay the difference between the wind FIT or PV net-metering rate and that CDN0.0271/kWh for the aluminum smelters? Who's going to smelt aluminum where there is no hydropower? (Iceland seems to have a very good prospect of becoming the world's aluminum smelting center.) Power companies do not like to run idle or partly idle during 'off peak demand' hours and are willing to negotiate. Power companies squeezed between feed-in tariffs and "must-take" laws don't have any choice in the matter.
By the way, closing/covering the failed reactor in Ukraine will cost at least 10X times as much and a lot more collateral damages. The fuss over Chernobyl is silly. They could just pump the building full of concrete and be done with it, but they won't. 300+ early intervenants have or are dying from cancer and/or related diseases and many thousand hectares of land are still unusable. Liar. "The risk of leukaemia, one of the most sensitive indicators of radiation exposure, has not been found to be elevated even in the accident recovery operation workers or in children. There is no scientific proof of an increase in other non-malignant disorders related to ionizing radiation.". Wildlife is doing wonderfully. The "Chernobyl babushkas" returned to their homes and are happier and healthier than the evacuees. Direct and indirect repair cost is going over $100B in Japan and rising. Those are expenditures. Most of the spending, and 99% of the evacuation cost, is completely unnecessary. It is not only not doing any good, much of it is actively harmful. It is driven by paranoia, not by any real evaluation of risk. Refurbishing that old CANDU to produce unwanted energy would have cost at least 4 to 6 times more than closing it. Bruce Point refurbishments are budgeted at less than 3x the cost YOU claim just for safekeeping, and they'll produce 30 years of power 24/7 for less capital cost per kWh than wind. Maybe you can manage with hydro in Quebec, but that only works because your rainfall is good and your pop density is very low. That's not true for the rest of NA, and it probably won't continue to be true even for QC.
Maybe there is a fear of tires exploding due to malfunction or something similar... There are these things called "relief valves". The TPMS could provide warning of this as well. About differentials: I read in several places that Tesla and other car engineering firms prefer differential because you can use the full torque of your motor on curves. The differential provides the same torque to both wheels unless it is limited-slip, in which case it provides more to the inside wheel (which has less weight on it). A single motor needs a single controller or inverter, which makes it cheaper. However, with power electronics still falling in price this may not be a factor for much longer. The bigger factor will be gear reductions/transmissions; you need one per motor.
You take seriously a figure on the order of $1 million/worker to relocate redundant personnel? O_o The Bruce Point refurbishments are expected to take on the order of $2 billion/unit (CDN I assume). That's half the figure quoted for Gentilly. If Pierre Trudeau gets his refugee program through and dumps enough third-worlders on Quebec to render the PQ forever irrelevant, you'll miss that power. Good luck, you'll need it.
Are you aware just how grossly inefficient radiolysis is at cracking water?
The cost of e-energy represents the majority of H2 production cost. So how do you ever expect to get the price of H2 down below $10/kg, if you've got a floor around 2 * (10¢/kWh * 50 kWh/kg)?
I see gryf has bought into the propaganda. Here's a bit of reality to bring you down:The Dubai contract is cheap because Dubai is sunny and the power, produced when the weather allows rather than when people actually need it, isn't worth much.The German figures were for the peak generating hour on a day most business is closed, and you'll note that figures for power exports are not given. If Germany had nowhere for surpluses to go it could not accomodate so much solar and also keep its must-run generators going. Result: blackout.Compare the cost of the Boeing system to batteries, and weep.To see reality, you need to look at the little man behind the curtain. The current cost of Utility Solar means the production cost of H2 is already at the DOE 2020 goal of <$2 gge for H2. There is a lot more to production cost than the raw electric input. O&M doesn't change much with capacity factor, and capacity factors for systems running off the daily solar peaks will be in single digits for Germany.
The mandate is not as hard as one might think. Already, the Scandinavians and Germany are planning on 100% RE by 2030, at least for the grid, and 2050 for RE in all forms of energy. This is a plan, you say? What facilities will be built, where and when? What are the capital and material budgets? What will O&M take? What will cover the unreliability of the sources? All the energy industry has to do is to slow down and stop future investments into FF, and instead, use these funds for investment into RE. That's all they have to do. When Germany planned a phase-out of nuclear, it planned a host of lignite-burning plants to replace it. They're quite new, so retiring them by 2030 means paying off the stranded investment. Where is THAT budgeted? No need for extra government budget nor any extra government grants nor supports nor new gov programs... I have trouble believing you believe this. You never seemed that dumb.
You quote a completely bogus number, I call you on it, and your reaction is to go off on a completely different topic? Either you're senile, or you're a troll-bot.
I read where Germany had negative electric rates for a short period last week due to high wind and sun. Negative wholesale prices are not negative consumer rates. The consumer rates in Germany have a steep "environmental" charge added to subsidize the uneconomic and unreliable wind and solar generation. If the charging station is set up for V2G, even if it is charging-only it can be used for grid regulation. Temporary generation surpluses would go into vehicle batteries instead of running the grid frequency above spec.
the EV1 only had 1 motor, plus differential. Strange, I read once that it had a pair of them. Apparently not. There is one gadget in the EV1 that would be nice to have today: automatic tire inflation. This is not difficult. There is already a patent for a peristalsis pump built into a tire bead, to add air to the tire as the wheel rotates. When the tire is at its rated pressure, the inlet to the pump is closed. This works on any vehicle. The real question is why this hasn't caught on like wildfire.
$30 million a year just to let something sit? Harvey, even you should recognize that that number is complete nonsense.
This could well be Cobasys all over again.
I'm rather surprised that the technology of the EV-1 hasn't gone bigger. Separate motors per driven wheel eliminate differentials and free up a fair amount of room. This makes all-wheel drive a fairly simple option to add. Specific power of a motor is directly proportional to its drive frequency (rotational speed) so faster = smaller = lighter/cheaper. The ultimate outcome of this is vehicles either with in-wheel motors or small but powerful motors mounted on the suspension swing arms where they contribute very little to unsprung mass. All the space devoted to drive shafts and differential cases is freed, and wheels can be pushed to the extreme corners where they improve handling. All-wheel steering is no problem. The weight saved from shafts and gear cases goes to batteries, which can go in the vehicle floor where they don't impact usable space. The BEV is already an improvement over the ICEV, and will only get better.
I suspect that HarveyD is way up in years and isn't firing on all cylinders any more, plus he didn't work in STEM so he's not able to go quantitative even when the subject demands it. Thus, he emotes instead of thinking. Sheldon, I am one of those marathon drivers myself. I have covered 1000 miles in a day (and been totally wiped out for the next, but WTF). However, with only technologies already demonstrated, a 200-mile BEV like a Model 3 could remain in motion indefinitely with brief stints drawing power from on-road supplies. If you had a 200 kWh battery like some of the graphene-sulfur chemistries appear to allow, a few minutes per hour charging at C/1 while cruising would keep the car going as long as the driver could hold out. Add similar or faster charging during bathroom stops and you've got something BETTER than an ICEV.
Don't worry about that, Harvey; there won't be a wall except to keep all your imported mudslimes out. You can have all our BLM protestors and ethnic and gender grievance studies majors. It'll give you a chance to learn to hate them too.
Tesla alone is going to be shipping a lot more than 70k EVs in 2017. The Bolt, Focus EV, and other models will at least triple this figure next year. An estimate of 70k on-road FCEVs shipped in 2027 is hopelessly wrong. The number will either be in the millions or no more than thousands, and my bet is the latter. The EV has already closed the HFCEVs window of opportunity.