This is Engineer-Poet's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Engineer-Poet's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Engineer-Poet
Recent Activity
Harvey, the vast majority of EV charging will be done at work or at home overnight. "Supercharging" is only required for long-distance travel, which is a small fraction of the total. That's why $500 per vehicle for Superchargers goes a lot further than $900 per vehicle for hydrogen stations.
Yes, I always liked Babylon 5 too. Wait, that was a tilde in the original....
Tesla has the advantage of putting the bulk of the charging electronics in the vehicle (the motor inverters double as the charger). I don't think BMW is going to be able to compete against the Model 3. The i3 is funky-cute, which I don't think is going to appeal to the BMW set. The Model 3 will also undercut the i3's price.
Agree with Bob Wallace. Tesla alone will soon have the capacity to make half a million or more EV battery packs per year. Half a million EVs is 3% of the US LDV market, from just one company. Then there's the PHEV market. I'm proof that you can drive for weeks without burning gasoline if charging is readily available. If the average PHEV gets at 10 kWh battery pack, one Gigafactory could supply 5 million vehicles per year—roughly a third of US LDV sales. Knock off 70-80% of that fuel consumption and you make a significant dent in petroleum sales. We are at the leading edge of a wave.
I believe 90% is doable, using lots of nuclear power. I think we can get past 100% by selecting processes that incorporate carbon sequestration. France and Belgium got to ~80% carbon-free electricity in just 11 years each. We can certainly do much better than the "green" efforts have done in e.g. Denmark.
I don't recall. I know I went through a bunch of the settings a while back, but I'm no longer sure which of these features have "off" switches.
Converting food into fuel. This will not end well.
Home chargers don't cost $4000. Price tags are now starting around $400. For the price of one H2 station, you can buy on the order of 4000 PEV chargers (the technical term is EVSE). If an H2 pump operates at 30% duty cycle and vehicles occupy a pump for 5 minutes (including time to cash out, C-store visits, etc.) one H2 pump can serve 86 vehicles per day. Figuring one fill per week average, one pump serves ~600 vehicles. $1.66 million for a station with, say, 3 pumps is $920 per vehicle. Then you have the higher cost per mile of hydrogen, the burden of time required to actually go to the station (eliminated with charging at home or work), the increasing risk of becoming a victim of crime at a filling station of any kind... Electric keeps looking better and better.
Even Tesla's Supercharger is only $150,000 a pop. $46.6 million would buy 310 of them. Further, an HFCV must go to a hydrogen station to fill, but a PEV can charge anywhere there is a plug and most will do the bulk of charging at home. The PEV fleet only needs fast charging for longer trips, so the fast chargers are needed for only a small fraction of travel.
The hydrogen stations are $1.66 million a pop; the chargers, $16000. Two orders of magnitude... and I'm sure the figure for chargers is inflated. Standard chargers can be obtained for under $1000.
Yes, I think SJC has been hurt enough to shut up. Something about having had more than 7 years to find fault in the analysis (posted in 2006), and failing to do so.
Anything would work better than Ford's system in the 2013 Fusion. That system has gone off many times on non-events like very light braking down a gentle hill, and the lane-keeper thing tries to pester you into moving to where it thinks you should be, but I've never had the system go off when I was actually tired and needed a break.
Nick, nuclear power was MADE expensive by policy. Policy can be changed.
I very much doubt that a 5000 psi (700 bar) H2 tank is going to be remotely as safe to handle as a gasoline can, and I'm sure it will be many times the cost.
YOU did the analysis on biomass energy, so nothing else needs to be said, how arrogant. Arrogance is maintaining that your handwaving trumps facts, as you've just done. If you don't like my conclusion, go over my facts and calculations and tell me where I got it wrong. If you can't, you're also clueless.
If efficiency of only 50% upsets you then you should never have turned on an incandescent light bulb Holy Non-Sequitur, Batman! This is the sort of insanity I've come to expect from True Believers. If you tell them something that refutes what they have come to need to be true, they deflect with a change of subject. SJC said nothing regarding the actual available energy from biomass. I did this analysis years ago, and discovered that only direct-carbon fuel cells can provide anything like adequate energy from biomass at the point of use. SJC will blow this off. Reality loses to ideology. As for the worn argument that biomass can not do it all, so forget it, that is obviously absurd. If we can reduce imported oil and reduce carbon emissions, it is worth doing. And wrong again. Biofuels are only worth doing if they're the least-cost way to accomplish that end (because there's plenty of other stuff we need to do too). But SJC needs biofuels in his world, facts and reason be damned.
What does the equivalent of a gallon gasoline can cost you when you're filling your leaf blower with H2?
Roger, so long as RE requires support from tax credits or feed-in tariffs, neither it nor anything made from it will be cheap.
I have been on here 8 years trying to convince people to gasify biomass to synthesize fuels for use in hybrid cars as a way toward "sustainable mobility". The problem, SJC, is that the efficiency of such syntheses is generally under 50%, and the available biomass-energy is already far less than what we get from petroleum. Half of an inadequate total is an even less adequate total.
Their [Fukushima evacuees'] problems, I am certain, are much more than "political". Not much more, since the remainder is essentially psychological. The lingering radiation is far less than people endure without harm in many places around the world, and paranoia over harmless levels of radiation is a sociopolitical problem. The harm is in the paranoia and resulting policies which keep people away from homes and businesses for no benefit whatsoever. Yes, I said "for no benefit whatsoever". Edward Calabrese has been uncovering the fraud behind the adoption of the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis, commented and linked by Rod Adams. It has been demonstrated that chronic low-level radiation exposure can extend the lives of laboratory rats by as much as 30%... and this was known by 1958. The same can be said for the 31 people who lost their lives directly as the result of the Chernobyl disaster There were 40-odd deaths from prompt effects, but among the cleanup workers with intermediate exposures there were "anomalously" low levels of blood cancers. This is consistent with radiation hormesis, and inconsistent with the LNT hypothesis. Given the observed hormesis effect, the 9000 projected fatalities (based on the debunked LNT hypothesis) did not and will not occur. What is the sense, in Japan or in the US, of giving a hydrogen fuel cell car double the subsidy of a battery electric car? It's more efficient to reform imported LNG to H2 than to generate electricity to charge batteries, especially if carbon budgets preclude the use of coal.
None of the methods save hydrogen storage can do it at the required scale. Direct electrolytic production of ammonia works too. The density of energy in liquid ammonia is several times that of gaseous H2, and 50% greater than even LH2. Of course, uranium blows them all away. All human energy consumption is equivalent to fission of about 5000 tons per year. Dr Chu, as I have already indicated, changed his mind and his anti hydrogen stance. When one is energy secretary, one takes the position of the administration which appointed one to the office. Otherwise, one would not get the job in the first place.
We store energy for extended periods in huge water reservoirs with great success. Yes, Harvey. For hours and days. Weeks and months requires storage with vastly higher energy density. Perhaps dropping water into a neutron star would provide sufficient gravitational head... and given your utter imperviousness to numeric refutations of your positions, I suspect that your skull contains just such a lump of neutronium.
That's the first time I've seen anyone cite "Credo quia absurdum est" on an energy blog.
If you're using 25kBTU/hr to remove solar heat from the cabin, it means someone was a nitwit and forgot to put the sun shield up. In all seriousness, this looks good by itself and looks like it would also play very nicely with a hybrid drivetrain. Dumping excess power to the hybrid battery while the engine was off would allow it to stay off longer and reduce the periods of low-throttle (thus inefficient) operation.
Davemart, the scientists are told what to work on by the managers, and the managers take cues from government. When the government says "Thou Shalt Investigate Fuel Cells, And Oh By The Way, Here Is A Nice Pile Of Money For Your Trouble", management hires scientists to work on fuel cells. It has nothing to do with technical feasibility—look at what Japan is going to have to do to get hydrogen (reformed natural gas or gasified coal).