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
There wasn't a ban on petroleum imports to the USA until 1960, because US imports exceeded exports starting before 1950.
This begs the question: what's the limit of the available resource, and how big a fraction of it does this project consume?
If you have an accurate model you know why something is, not just that it is. It allows you to predict the consequences of changing things. Perhaps there's some way to re-align polycrystalline graphene to make it monocrystalline. That is something that would probably be tested out in models and only then tested to see how the model reflects reality.
Just because a period is off-peak doesn't mean there will be surplus energy at that time. The peak for solar is between about 10 AM and 2 PM solar time. Most of that period is before peak hours, but the rest is mid-load and not off-peak. PV generation during the overnight off-peak period is zero.
4 kW/kg packs a 100 kW power source/sink into less than 60 pounds, a 20 kW source into 11 pounds. This high specific power looks ideally suited for regenerative braking and start-stop microhybrids. Other apps may fall out of this, such as all-electric accessories (A/C and power steering being the major two, with electric water pumps being the last one required to eliminate belt drives).
The use of starch as the raw material suggests that this material could be manufactured in bulk relatively easily and cheaply. Perhaps Li-S is now a near-term possibility.
One has to wonder how anyone could tell, Harrod. On the other hand, given the learning algorithms and GPS, it doesn't seem too difficult for the charge management algorithm to reserve battery power for the segments in the congestion zone.
Electrolytically-generated H2 is currently going for something on the order of $15/kg, if memory serves. The price goes down with economies of scale, which personal systems will certainly not enjoy. Further, the whole Hydrogen@Home notion goes against what is supposed to be the big advantage of the H2FC vehicle: fast, convenient filling. If you're going to "fuel" at home you might as well have a BEV, where your "investment" is a wall outlet. H2 needs to sell for $5/kg or less to compete with petroleum, all costs and taxes included. None of the power-to-gas schemes out there are remotely close to this. Essentially, RE-to-H2 is a scheme to turn reliable energy into a luxury good. Only the rich will be able to afford it; everyone else will go back to bicycles, iceboxes instead of refrigerators, etc.
The same light rail line which shipped the BLM mob to the Mall of America allows hundreds of petty criminals access to un-defended victims at the mall, both business and personal. Most could be kept out by ID checks and parental supervision requirements, but that would immediately be denounced as discriminatory.
Transit systems are taken over by the criminal element almost as soon as they're opened. Worse, they provide that criminal element access to territory it couldn't reach before, spreading urban blight. Any expansion of transit is destructive to society; the only beneficiaries are the banks and real-estate agents who profit from the movement of people and business to areas beyond the criminal-access zone.
49 words and not one fact to offer in support of your assertions. You really don't have to be rude here. But you have time to write insults. That says it all.
Again, nothing about cost. These news pieces need to give the per-kg cost (NOT price) of the product, including all of the power subsidies paid by electric consumers as "environmental fees".
I tried to find common ground with you, but you prefer to be argumentative... ... says the clown who entered this discussion with a claim that is utterly, totally and definitively wrong. My specific and definitive support for plug-in hybrids over all-battery EVs You realize you're talking to someone who's been driving a PHEV for almost 3 years now? Someone who has an intimate, personal understanding of the issues involved with them... especially the need for dispatchable generation to charge them at times of opportunity, which cannot be done with wind or solar? especially the Tesla 'S' and other vehicles than can justify a larger battery pack, remains absent in your unnecessarily rude counter-argument. You dance around issues because you've learned that when you pin yourself down in a false position, you get blown out of the water. Then you whine about it. Call the waaaaaambulance, we've got a severely bruised ego here! I'm done trying to learn anything useful from you. None is so blind as will not see.
Autonomous e-drive vehicles make possible "vehicle as a service" at lower cost to users. This will be picked up by youth, urban hipsters and others for whom vehicle ownership lies between unattractive and impossible. Once they are used to this, decreasing numbers will ever enter the market for vehicles. The conventional auto mfgrs will be left competing in a shrinking market, where the e-drive companies already have the future sewn up.
Substantial sitting inventories of battery packs are a deadweight loss; it makes more sense to put them straight into vehicles as they're built. However, vehicles in inventory still have batteries which need to be maintained. This argues for V2G.
you haven't demonstrated anything remotely poetic in your prose Verse is the wrong medium for this, so I don't use it. nor altered my opinion with pompously professed understanding. Your opinion is based on ignorance or dogma. You weren't argued into it, and arguing won't get you out. For a simple example of what you just don't grasp, let's assume that your PEV backup scheme is in place. Someone waves a magic wand and there are 1 million Tesla P85s out there (almost 20 years worth at current production), with full-power bidirectional grid interfaces. When the rest of the grid's generation (~450 GW average load) suddenly goes out, they are all fully charged and plugged in to take up the slack. How long would they last? 85 GWh / 450 GW = 0.1889 hr = 11 minutes 20 seconds. The sheer magnitude of the problem is so far beyond your ken, you can't grasp that your proposals don't begin to address it. All you are doing is repeating slightly-modified Green talking points. Those points were crafted by expert propagandists for best feel-good with high opacity, and you have not seen through them. Until you start digging into the facts and convince yourself that they're wrong, you're not going to.
The invention of just one battery technology that's "good enough" (Li-ion, with NiMH and NaNiCl as understudies) creates a market big enough to support much more basic research into such things. The harder people look, the faster things will be found.
Analysts are already saying that the Gigafactory will cut the cost of a Tesla P85 battery to less than $10k. It's likely under $30k today. Unlike hydrogen, electricity has the production and transportation problems licked. Storage is only required on the vehicle, not in transit. The one miracle is mostly here already. Hydrogen is dead.
But there goes your zero carbon emissions (unless you use ammonia), and the whole "fossil-free, renewable" selling point goes out the window.
Given the competing bulk and weight of hydrogen tanks vs. traction batteries, I predict that there will be no HFC-PHEV offerings by 2020. A 100 kW FC is underpowered by many driver's standards. The Model S, Leaf and other EVs are touted for their sprightly driving characteristics; FCs will be stodgy by comparison. Ceding the entire performance-vehicle category, at premium fuel prices, is the kiss of death.
Something less than 15,000 FC units in 2019, while Tesla alone sold over 50,000 EVs in 2015. Hydrogen is a decade late and a $trillion short.
Natural gas is displacing diesel fuel even in the petroleum industry. It appears Shell knows which side its bread is buttered on.
One of the irritating features of my Fusion Energi's information systems is that its "battery gauge" reads, not in kWh, but in "miles". It appears to re-estimate energy consumption per mile after every leg and re-calculate remaining range based on that. All this tells you is how far you might go if you drive the exact same speed and conditions as the last leg. It does not give you any tools to estimate how far you'll go if you drive differently, or how differently you'll have to drive to make your next stop on the remaining battery power. THAT is something you can only guesstimate from experience. What the car really needs is a kWh meter and a set of remaining ranges based on speed/energy consumption rate. It also needs a history function to go back several legs and show consumption and efficiency; right now, that information is erased after each new start.
The 230 g/kWh figure is grossly misleading because it counts low-grade heat the same as electricity. If that's the criterion, then a 95%-efficient condensing furnace counts as achieving 198 gCO2/kWh despite generating no electricity at all and requiring another electric supply to run its combustion and circulation fans. A small modular nuclear reactor like a NuScale could be placed inside a city and generate 0 gCO2/kWh and 0 air emissions while providing 47 MW(e) and ~100 MW(th). A city like Toronto, which uses boiling water for snow disposal, would be able to exploit the heat from something like NuScales very effectively.
If you tried to understand a argument contrary your own <raises eyebrow> You start with a flatly false assertion regarding hazards of energy sources, and you want to lecture ME about understanding? Your problem is that I understand your argument better than you do. It's a given that PV arrays can charge an EV battery pack off the grid. But first you need a charger capable of operating off-grid, and then a V2R capability in the vehicle (or direct DC connection to the battery) so you can get power out again. These things only exist in small pilot tests. Further, scenarios like arriving at home with a drained battery as the sun is falling will be very frequent. Empty storage + dark out + grid down = blackout, just what you claimed to be preventing. A Tesla Powerwall will supply 1 kW of juice for some hours in event of an outage, because its purpose is to sit there fully charged until needed; the EV battery doesn't and can't. it follows that even grid-tied systems in grid failure can if so designed supply household power for appliances/electronics. I think there's a better argument for making critical systems like gas furnaces power themselves, with a small power surplus able to run other basics. You could use an EV battery as a buffer but you might be able to do with a starting battery. I've argued that PHEVs offer 'dispatchable generation' off the grid using any combustable fuel including hydrogen. I like the idea of a multi-fuel vehicle engine, but have you looked at the price tag on those gas-ready kits just to be able to bolt a propane or CNG system on? I've worked in the industry; I can imagine the headaches, such as doing emissions certification. Nobody's going to go for this. PHEV as generator, sure, but first the auto companies have to provide high-current access to the battery or connections to the vehicle's inverters to provide AC power. Nobody's going to go multi-fuel just for emergencies. Your point is singularly that more power is needed by any means. You expect to be able to eliminate carbon emissions from the electric sector and convert the vehicle fleet to PEVs without a massive expansion in carbon-free generation? Specifically, dispatchable generation? If you do, you've lost it.