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
Peskanov, the part of the Nature paper outside the paywall says 70 mAh/g and a nominal 2 volts or so. That's about 140 Wh/kg. If you have access to the full paper, please quote the figures which show how that is in error.
Arguing that the electron coming from my solar array needs to go right into my battery to be legitimate is a bit of disinformation. No one in the business looks at it that way. ECI, that electron needs to go right into something. If nothing is available, the power is lost. The claim has been that EVs are key to balancing the ups and downs of wind/PV generation versus demand. If they're not actually plugged in, any claim relying on it is bogus. Charging one battery so it can later charge another battery is getting Rube Goldbergian.
This is how it is almost everywhere. I'm aware of pumped-storage systems which use overnight excess power (there's one maybe 100 miles from me), and a CAES unit somewhere down in Alabama or the like, but that power is sold. I'm aware of nobody giving it away, especially not during their peaks of production. wind turbines are often shut down because of excess. Yes, about that. Excess wind power could easily substitute for fuel in industrial process heat. Iowa has a bunch of ethanol operations, which all use heat to mash the grain and distill the product. Excess wind power could be dumped to heaters there, substituting for natural gas and avoiding the need for curtailment. Why isn't this happening? solar and wind will become cheaper and cheaper for years to come It doesn't matter how cheaply you can make something if you get zero or negative value from it. Schalk Cloete has calculated that the value of intermittent RE falls to zero at about 27% penetration on the grid. After that, it's negative due to the costs of integration. I agree with more nuclear, but you can't drive a car on uranium or thorium. 27% of the electric power generated in my state is nuclear, and about 2/3 of my driving is powered by electricity. I am driving my car on uranium, about 1 mile out of 5. If I lived in Ontario that figure would be closer to 1 out of 2.
The cost of the electricity is almost irrelevant, because it is only excess electricity that will be used. If you assume that people will invest money to produce very much electricity they can't use and just give it away, you're not dealing well with reality. in the real world there will be many ICE's around for decades I rather doubt it. How long did it take steam cars to disappear once the ICEV won the race for reliability and convenience? Much less than 20 years, I bet. If we get the 140 Wh/kg aluminum ion battery that charges in 1 minute, I expect that it will take over laptops and smaller devices in 2 years (imagine getting 2 hours of laptop power in 6 minutes), completely take over hybrid cars in the next model cycle (3 years or less) and EVs in about the same amount of time. Once an EV can charge in 10 minutes or less there will be no perceived advantage to ICEVs and the market for them will collapse. The question is where should the fuel we burn so far come from Germany has ocean front and can harvest uranium from seawater as easily as anyone else. Nuclear power can supply all the energy Germany needs, without relying on anyone or anything else.
It would be worthwhile to compare the fuel economy of the gasoline hybrid with the diesel on the same cycles. Gasoline is considerably cheaper than diesel in the USA, and getting toward parity in fuel economy would swing the economics strongly in favor of the hybrid.
Not one single word about COST. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if the public saw just what the electric power input alone for a liter of this stuff cost at wind or solar FIT rates, the Energiewende would be history after the very next election.
The ForTwo is an answer to parking problems. Its boxy shape is lousy for fuel economy, and not surprisingly my nearby eco-conscious city has swarms of Priuses but maybe a single ForTwo to be seen.
Certainly the US, following California, is rather isolated in its selection of BEVs and FCEVs in preference to PHEVs as the standard to push. That goes way, way back. The original CA emissions regulations of the 70's would have been much easier to meet with PHEV technology (eliminating many issues of throttle transients would have been a huge help), but it never got a foot in the door.
Your PV panel is useless for serving demand peaks that occur near or after sundown. Summer-peaking generation is totally out of sync with winter-peaking heating demands. So is generation that goes AWOL during cold, clear, still winter nights. If you think these things can serve all our energy needs, you appear to be a religious convert rather than a rational analyst.
So for a ridiculous expenditure on mirror fields (somewhere in a sunny area, probably far from most other industry and also probably far from water), you can make a CTL process that is somewhat less bad for the environment than conventional CTL, but still worse than petroleum fuels. There ought to be a class of schemes under the headng "lengths people will go to to avoid using nuclear energy" (which would be able to manage coal gasification far more directly and cheaply, and obviate coal in electric generation).
I seem to recall that many higher plants achieve conversion efficiencies on the order of 1%. On top of this, they create more of themselves relatively cheaply.
"In truth, nature wastes almost everything, from solar energy to seeds, and its default condition is therefore red-fanged competition for scarce resources. The resources of ecosystems are thus already spoken for; there are no lands that are not used by something for some purpose, no caches of unexploited energy piled up in the margins that we can tap without depriving other organisms, human and non-human, of their sustenance."
I think the link I provided gives a good answer to your (and mine!) question about how substantial the resource is, and the answer is clearly that it is very large, even in relation to potential uses. This extensively referenced piece by The Breakthrough Institute documents just how small the resource actually is, how much damage is done in its harvest, and how the push toward biofuels is driven by romanticism. Seriously, consider the example of Massachusetts given there. Suppose you could convert the biomass to electricity with 100% efficiency. You'd still be in a massive hole. It used waste not, crops grown for the purpose. It can be processed locally, instead of heavy mass being transported long distances. It is low temperature, reducing energy costs. Maybe that can ultimately make it successful in both economic and ecological terms, but given that the problem isn't the process but the feedstock I am betting the other way.
“If a small fraction – 2 or 3 percent – of yearly biomass production were used for sugar-to-hydrogen fuel cells for transportation, we could reach transportation fuel independence,” Zhang said. Dave, it was in discussion with you that I calculated that biomass-to-hydrogen was adequate to supply the US transportation market. More than adequate, as I recall; my calculation came out about 3x basic requirements, and the biomass cost appeared quite reasonable. But that doesn't mean that biomass-to-hydrogen would get any traction absent mandates, and there's a long way between the lab bench and industrial-scale production. In the mean time SMR would rule the roost, and the purveyors of natural gas would work to keep it that way. There's the basic issue that biomass is subject to bad growth years and is, at its root, taken from the limited productivity that nature is capable of making. We need to be careful with this, especially promoting it as a panacea. And again... what about everything else?
Biomass production is put here at 140 billion tons a year That number is unreferenced; if it's supposed to designate any kind of available quantity, color me extremely skeptical. "The Billion-Ton Vision" only found 1.3 billion tons of potential surplus in the USA, of which about half is currently available. A number 2 orders of magnitude beyond that is in the realm of fantasy. It's many times greater than the total mass of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans each year (about 30 billion tons). This only makes sense if you are talking about the total Net Primary Productivity, which produces the annual downswing in the Keeling curve. Humanity is already causing enough damage with the small fraction of NPP we divert to our own use.
At 40 Wh/kg, 2 kWh is 50 kg. If you allow operation at 60C charge/discharge rate, you still get 120 kW of power and have more than enough energy. A 40 kW sustainer (1/2 Auris engine) plus 120 kW of surge capacity allows continuous 70+ MPH cruise on level ground. I'd have to dig into numbers for CoD and such to guesstimate grade performance, but imagine the rest: you could put an induction motor on each wheel and have AWD with complete traction and stability control. 0-20 would be traction-limited to perhaps 0.9 second, 0-60 would be on the order of 4.5-5 seconds. You'd get all that and still be able to achieve 40-50 MPG. A car with that would sell like crazy.
I noticed the same thing, JRP. If the battery goes 7500 cycles without any capacity loss, it's probably good for many times that. Even if the energy density is low, this would be perfect for hybrid vehicles (if the temperature range is wide enough). Even if charging has to be limited to 30C, this means a 4 kWh battery could accept 120 kW of power during braking. It would probably be able to supply that much or more with ease. This makes a Tesla-style electric powertrain with a small sustainer engine a strong contender. Or heck, just a stop-start battery. 1/2 kWh @ 30 C is 15 kW of surge power, plenty of oomph to start and even launch assist. Suppose you get 100 Wh/kg; a 4 kWh battery would be 40 kg, not at all unreasonable. Consider how much engine weight you could get rid of by eliminating 100 kW of peak power output. None of the GCC posts on the new Auris engine mention its weight, but I'm sure it's at least 100 kg.
CE88, I'm going to put the same challenge to you that I've put to many others elsewhere: QUANTIFY this untapped potential, and compare it to what we consume. If you don't even have ballpark numbers, you are just handwaving. (The numbers people are digging up elsewhere are in the neighborhood of 10% of our energy consumption, which does a reasonably neat job of explaining why we don't already get most of our energy from waste: there just isn't that much to get.)
Supercharged, intercooled and super-expanded is the basis of the Miller cycle, no? Getting volumetric efficiency on demand by turbocharging and changing the intake valve timing and reducing compression back-work in cruise is a combination everyone's been talking about for as long as I can recall. Is this the first to hit production? The turbo would be nice to add to hybrids for NVH. My one complaint about the Fusion Energi is engine buzz when climbing hills, and a turbo engine with the torque at lower speed would address that.
It's not meaningful to speak of wind or PV "capacity". Those sources have little or no capacity value to the grid (ability to produce power on demand). The proper term is "nameplate rating".
It may surprise you, but neither the city of New York, nor the authority in charge of the Statue of Liberty, write US immigration policy either.
Whenever is it not? If we're talking about biofuels production, we need to be concerned about other things like productivity. Microflora, macroflora... I'm fine with it (in the north where winter prevents any outbreak into the wild, I'm fine with water hyacinth). Finding ways to recycle phosphorus back to farms is important in the long term.
As I recall, Lincolns or the like used to be the favorite mobster car of Japan. Perhaps Tesla could move some there, so the mobsters can green up their image.
Nobody elected Emma Lazarus to write US immigration, agricultural or industrial policy.
There's evidence that even the pre-Columbian inhabitants are not the original stock which first put the human touch on the Americas; the Solutreans may have been the first arriving from Europe, only to be wiped out by a second wave from Asia. Regardless, we have laws and a water crisis in the here and now. The people who broke the law "for a better life" can go back where they came from; there's adequate water there.