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, you don't need Level II right out of the gate. Level I will do for PHEVs.
I don't know about Europe, but such substations are thin on the ground along many stretches of freeway in the USA. I've driven stretches of road stretching 100 miles or more where the electric service is just 2-3 wires on wooden poles, perhaps 7200 volts. Where the substations are and where vehicles are likely to need to stop for a charge may not match up all that well.
How about also solar thermal energy from parabolic collectors? That requires cloudless skies. Those are relatively infrequent where large amounts of forest products can be grown. how about the waste heat of higher-temp electrolysis? Precisely what would supply the electric input for same?
Any fuel can be explosive if miss handled. 3.5% enriched UO2 won't explode no matter what you do to it. ;)
They wouldn't be charging all the time; all you'd need is storage of some kind, to buffer the power demands.
E-P is at it again. He has to insult a few times a day to be happy. I dislike people harshing my mellow by repeating nonsense they could easily have investigated and refuted in its original forum, instead of repeating it without attribution to me. I'm not sure what's worse: people who repeat false claims they should have taken a second to investigate, or people who defend those repeaters by attacking the debunkers?
If you only have 120 H2 stations in the USA, there will be huge parts of the country where H2 FCEVs simply cannot go because they are out of range. You'd have a hard time getting to that 1 in 1000 figure because of the limited usability of the vehicles. 120 Supercharger stations would go along way toward covering the US Interstate network for Tesla-class vehicles. Any NEMA 3-prong outlet is an "emergency energy port" for the average EV, including all Teslas; an electric stove or electric dryer outlet is a very good one. The country isn't covered for this yet, but it's already pretty good and very easy and cheap to make better.
Recycle the catalyst, or find a way to make one that uses something much cheaper than Pd. The other half of this is the previous use of lignin. It is currently used to provide process heat for the mill. Substituting natural gas is almost certainly worse, because it represents a net extraction of fossil carbon instead of a loop of carbon from atmosphere to trees to atmosphere. A carbon-free source of process heat is needed to drive this. Off-peak steam from nuclear plants is ideal.
Solar irradiance has been measured by satellite instruments for years. It is constant to slightly declining. The slightest bit of work with a search engine would have revealed this to you, gor. There's no functional difference between willful ignorance and stupidity.
That, my friend, is why I think electrics are going to win. Almost nobody has hydrogen available. Most people have an electric outlet on their house, in their garage, or park under a carport that would be relatively easy to wire. The H2 FCEV has a huge chicken/egg problem; the PHEV is plug-and-play.
It's funny to think of saving $550/year, when my car doesn't even consume $550/year.
I take that back. 96 billion gpy of octane-equivalent is equal to about 2/3 of current US gasoline demand, and about 30% of total petroleum demand. That's huge.
I honestly don't care if there is a 500-500 battery in the next 10 years. Seriously. I'll take a 75-75 battery and a -40°C-+105°C sodium-ion pseudocapacitor for surge power. If that battery could be packaged in the form factor used in my car, it would upgrade its range by about 50% at replacement time (probably 2018-2020). A pseudocapacitor able to take or put out 300 Wh of energy in 8 seconds would make hybrids much better. These two together would allow both hybrids and PHEVs to downsize sustainer engines by about half, slashing weight, cost and losses. Everything needs to take into account marginal returns. Once you've replaced 75% of motor fuel with electricity, you are probably better off hitting the next 15% with refuse-derived fuels to reach the 90% mark than trying to electrify the edge cases.
Biomass has a very high impact on the environment, including soil carbon. Feedstocks like MSW that otherwise go to landfills won't change anything if they are re-purposed. If $80/tonne yields a feedstock cost of $1/gallon, it means the typical yield is just 80 gallons per tonne. A gallon of gasoline is 6.17 pounds per my old data, so the yield is just 22.4% by mass. 1.2 million MT of feedstock would yield just 96 million gallons, a far cry from the ~130 billion gpy of gasoline consumed in the USA. On the other hand, if 1.2 million is a typo for 1.2 billion (I'm sure it is), that becomes 96 billion gpy. That's still less than 10% of current demand, but it's definitely able to fill significant gaps after electrification of the easy parts.
This is very big. Something as simple as integrating a CAN interface and a microcontroller with an H-bridge motor driver results in huge reductions in parts count, number of solder joints, bulk and consequent failures.
The low price per unit is striking. The Tesla Supercharger costs about $150k apiece, if memory serves. $10.5 million would only suffice to buy about 70 of them. This is an addition more than twice that size. Then again, maybe they're only a fraction of the power; charging a Leaf to half capacity in 30 minutes only takes about 25 kW.
EEStor was about barium titanate, IIRC. This is another technology that looks really good for hybrid cars, but only if they can improve the operating temperature range. Automotive systems require -40°C to about +105°C.
The papers are all behind paywalls, and I saw nothing in the abstracts that mentioned efficiency. Suppose 70% efficiency is achieved. 21 MJ of ethanol yields 14.7 MJ of electricity (roughly 4 kWh). At 250 Wh/mile, 1 liter of EtOH drives the vehicle 16 miles or roughly 60 MPG. 60 miles... on a gallon of alcohol. If you use PHEV to replace about 2/3 of liquid fuel with grid power, and go from 25 MPG to 60 MPG after cutover, you've very nearly covered demand with the 10% ethanol that's currently blended into gasoline.
You'd probably need E-100 (or even wet ethanol, since the process generates water and is obviously tolerant of it). I've never heard of an alcohol FC catalyst that also handled alkanes.
Syngas contains carbon monoxide, which is orders of magnitude more toxic (and dangerous) than methane or hydrogen. H2 and CH4 are only explosion and asphyxiation hazards; CO is a potent toxin at levels of just a few tens of ppm. It looks like someone expects to go back to coal as a partial or total replacement for natural gas, gasifying it instead of burning it in air. I see nothing good coming out of this.
Not all of it. If steam is mixed with another gas you can only recover latent heat until the relative humidity is 100%. At high temperatures or low water fractions that will leave quite a bit of vapor in the exhaust, its heat unrecoverable.
Electric production from FT seems to rely mostly on combustion of end gases rather than reforming and recycling to the FT process (there is some steam production from reforming but not much). Such generation would be costly to vary and thus not usable for tracking demand.
I find it very interesting that the price of motor gasoline has fallen a great deal, but ULSD has not.
Read the book first, Arnold. They're both treats.