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
Okay, that was weird; comment disappeared. Apparently the words "doom p*rn" trigger something.
If the specific power is good enough, I see this going into marine use very quickly.
Believe me, if you can't afford hydrogen made from 20% efficient cells feeding a separate 70% efficient electrolyzer, you won't be able to afford it from a 6.2%-efficient "artificial leaf". Hydrogen has gone from being a way to patch over the massive unreliability of solar and wind power and become a religion.
How many trucks can be in a bumper to bumper 2 miles though? Let's see, what's the length limit? Say 100 feet per truck, so maybe 104 of them. Thing is, if they're that close together they will be moving slowly (unless "platooning"). If they're in line long enough, the batteries will top off before they reach the end and power demand will drop. Such fast charging requires batteries specialized for that trait; energy density will be lower. If you have continuous power over one road lane, you can use higher-capacity but slower-charging batteries and probably less of them. The cost tradeoff depends on density of vehicles on the road; the more heavily the overheads are used, the more it makes sense to put the money into infrastructure for cheaper vehicles.
Electronics do whatever voltage conversions are required. Recent models of the Prius have a DC-DC converter between the inverters and the battery. It's not unusual to have electric service that is 240 VAC 300 A, or 0.8Ω characteristic impedance. The service transformer would typically feed several homes at that rate, and probably handles a characteristic impedance as low as 0.2Ω. 750 VDC @ 750 A for the local connection? I don't see a problem; fat wires and big transformers are off-the-shelf items. Charging a BEV in motion rather than having a continuous power feed is one way to slash capital cost. I like it.
This is the answer to electrified trains. Trains as such take too long to assemble, travel and deliver their cargo. An electrified lane of road powers trucks on their individual routes, while moving the carbon consumption elsewhere (or eliminating it). Possibly the solution is roads like this with self-driving trucks which operate mostly at night. They run when humans are off work, and park at yards near their destinations. Human drivers take them to their final destinations on battery power and handle the loading and unloading, then return them to the network where they go to their next stop by themselves. A human-driven truck which goes 70 MPH for 14 hours covers 980 miles. A robot truck which goes 60 MPH for 24 hours covers 1440 miles, and has no driver to pay. If the robot truck is powered by electricity at 20¢/mile compared to diesel fuel at 25¢/mile, the robot advantage goes up by close to $3/hour. There won't be many truck drivers in the future, but they'll all be home in their own beds every night.
What good does it do you to have 100 miles of battery and 200 miles of hydrogen, when the Interstates have Superchargers all over the place but it's often 500 or more miles to the next source of hydrogen? Unless and until hydrogen is available every 100 miles or so, the whole rationale for HFCEVs is fiction. In the mean time, Superchargers can go in anywhere the grid reaches. There is no contest; the window of opportunity for hydrogen has already closed.
California’s energy landscape is changing dramatically with energy efficiency, renewables and storage being central to the state’s energy policy. This is a sick joke. California has no energy storage worth talking about, and no way to build any in time. "Efficiency" and "renewables" are grossly inadequate to cope with requirements, and AT BEST will only compensate for what's being deliberately destroyed. As we make this transition, Diablo Canyon’s full output will no longer be required. No one could write this in honesty. Another NPPs operator switching to REs based on lower cost? It is anything BUT lower cost, but the "alternatives" receive Federal subsidies. Neither do the "alternatives" pay for their CO2 emissions or for their lack of energy security. The massive natural-gas leak at Aliso Canyon also lost much of the backup energy supply for California's electric demand peaks this summer. Shutting down Diablo Canyon is equivalent to adding 3 million cars to the road. It is an environmental atrocity, a crime against humanity. Those who decided and those who have agitated for it should be arrested and put on trial. I think they are switching because the old reactor has worn out and it is to expensive to build a new one. Diablo Canyon is in beautiful shape. It is capable of running for at least 60 years of operation. In 20 years it can be looked at again, and it will probably be fine for a further 20 years for a total of 80 before neutron embrittlement becomes a true problem. To shut down one of the few remaining 24/7/365 carbon-free generators in the United States makes a mockery of "clean power". The people who insist on this while forcing nuclear off the grid are not environmentalists, they are the paid stooges of the fossil industry. I suspect there is a good likelihood that solar systems will become so inexpensive they will become common on residential and commercial buildings and that the owners will use and store as much of their self generated energy as they can and they won't even need to rely on selling surplus back into the grid although they may need to depend on the grid as backup. No freeloaders. If you want to signal your virtue with a roof-full of solar panels that can go off-line for days or months in winter, you can pay for your own backup. If pollution controls and carbon caps won't let you run an internal-combustion engine and the grid has nothing extra for you—tough, you made your choice, you suffer with it. Give me nuclear. I too am surprised that PG&E would be shutting down a NPP particularly when many experts are suggesting that more will be required so I'm mainly trying to understand the logic of PG&E who I'm sure has a better understanding of current and future conditions in the electricity business. The sister of Gov. Moonbeam sits on the board of Sempra Energy. They both should have been put on trial for treason before this decision was handed down.
$0.066 per US gallon is about $2.80 per barrel, refined and delivered. That had to be pre-1973, and the oil a high-sulfur fraction not suitable for gasoline or petrochemicals.
Methanol is a better motor fuel than gasoline anyway. Converting stranded methane to methanol turns a waste product into liquid fuel, and it's biodegradable if it leaks.
British Columbia has substantial hydro resources as well; I've drive past some of them. But I wouldn't expect an ideologue like you to concern yourself with facts. As usual, you quantify nothing and perform no analysis to see if resources are remotely comparable to needs. I wish that such debates had to be conducted within courts of inquiry, with rules of evidence that explicitly forbade such handwaving. This would get rid of the BS and get to the nitty-gritty; BSers would be penalized under contempt of court provisions, and barred from participation.
So hydrogen is going to be so labor-intensive, it won't just require service by attendants instead of self-serve, it requires a truck that delivers direct to you and all the overhead of drivers, etc. The cost of this is going to be out of sight.
Halifax also said to bring a sleeping bag and a pillow, because the motels are already booked and they'll have to put you up in hay barns and fish canneries.
Harvey, as an innumerate you are in no position to make claims about other people's veracity. If you were, you would have compared the maximum hydro potential of Quebec and the maritimes against regional continental consumption BEFORE you sounded off about it.
Wherever you got your figure for Tesla's battery costs from Tesla's cost is headed below $100/kWh in the near term as the Gigafactory ramps up. There are things Tesla can't say itself until there are more "facts on the ground", but others can. Clearly, nothing is fully competitive with ICE right now Stop changing the subject. The subject is power-to-gas, either for grid backup or FCEV. The competition for FCEV is BEV. The link I provided certainly did mention costs Only mention of costs here is €1.5m "investment", and its reported real-life efficiency figure leads to the inescapable conclusion that the effort is a scam. I am not going through an 8.5 MB PDF to show how it is no different. the conversion losses you have dredged up by ignoring all avenues of progress whilst assuming massive gains for your favourite, BEVs, would be entirely supportableCompare:BEV, $12,300 over 120k miles.FCEV, $15,600 over 120k miles plus FC powertrain.30 MPG ICEV, $12,000 @ $3.00/gallon over 120k miles plus ICE powertrain. At $100/kWH or less, higher gasoline prices make the BEV cheaper than the ICEV. The FCEV is not competitive if it has to run on RE, period. It can only compete if it has cheap hydrogen from SMR or gasified coal. There's also the detail that the <$100/kWh battery from Tesla is probably arriving in the next 2 years. That closes the window of opportunity for FCEVs, which still won't have anything like Telsa's charger network to support long-distance travel. Since the alleged POINT of FCEVs is to facilitate long-distance travel, and they will not be usable for that until a great deal more infrastructure gets built, they are unfit for purpose. The FCEV is toast. The only thing keeping it alive is government research money and mandates, meaning oil-company lobbying.
Honestly? Puerto Rico is hopeless; it would quickly devolve to Haiti if it was cut loose, and it ought to be.
Power to gas is working just fine Not one word about cost per unit. 30% losses just in conversion to H2 (33.6/0.7=48 kWh/kg input). The press release does mention that the next step is methane synthesis. Converting 4 H2 + CO2 to CH4 + 2 H2O takes 0.5 kg of H2 (24 kWH) to produce 1 kg of CH4 with a LHV of 50 MJ (13.89 kWh); if 62% of that is recoverable in a CCGT, the net efficiency is about 36%. No word on what it costs to lose 2/3 of your input energy. If you burn the E-gas in a car's ICE at 33% efficiency your output is about 4.6 kWh, less than 20% of the input energy. These schemes are toys for the rich. your dismissal out of hand of umpteen technologies for, for instance, solar to hydrogen is not supportable If these people had an energy system that can support a competitive industrial economy, they would be trumpeting it to the skies. They are completely silent on that issue, and I'm certain it's because they'd be liable for fraud if they explicitly made such claims. When they release information on the economics they do it in whispers. The whole thing is a huge scam being conducted right out in the open, Dave. There are no secret solutions, and they don't claim to have any; everything is expressed in "hopes" and "goals" that nobody can be held liable for failing to meet. Note that they assume for their longer time horizon only $125 kwh Tesla will beat $100/kWh soon. A $6000 battery in a Model 3, driven 120,000 miles over 10 years @ a generous 350 Wh/mi and 15¢/kWH, costs $12,300 for battery and energy. Your conversion from electricity to storable methane at 57% efficiency, followed by SMR back to H2 at a generous 77% efficiency, and consumed in an FCEV at 60% efficiency has a throughput efficiency of 26%. That powertrain can't offset the huge energy losses in the system even if you get it for free—for every kWh delivered to the wheels, you lose almost 3 in the handling. Figuring 1.3 kWh/mile input and 10¢/kWh average cost of electricity, the energy alone is going to cost you $15,600 over 120,000 miles. The power-to-gas schemes just don't pencil out, can't you see? They're a scam. The whole point is to keep the fossil fuel companies in the running.
Very little of the world is like Brazil, and Brazil's ability to export both ethanol and petroleum is due both to high domestic production and to very low per-capita domestic consumption—Brazil is a poor country with a low standard of living. If the USA had the same per-capita petroleum consumption as Brazil, it would be an exporter too.
The alternative to nuclear is a crapload of fossil fuels; hype-drogen is the matador's cape, an illusory target. The real question is, why is it so hard to get the public to grasp this?
Ethanol is easily made from ethylene and water: C2H4 + H2O <-> C2H5OH I understand that this is the usual industrial method for making ethanol. Like hydrogen, an ethanol economy would get most of its energy from fossil fuels.
The FC-PHEV winds up under the same pressure as the IC-PHEV: the FC part and its fuel system is costly and constrains the rest of the vehicle. As batteries improve the FC part becomes increasingly undesirable compared to a bigger battery. The real problem with the FCEV is that it's part and parcel of a political (not technical) push to an "all-renewable economy". Hydrogen is the only possible storage medium to handle the feast-or-famine availability of wind and solar, and the people behind it have taken the hydrogen hammer and decided everything looks like a nail. Issues like e.g. the pitiful presence of a couple of dozen H2 stations in the entire state of California, compared to literally millions of outlets which can feed PEVs, are simply ignored. If we don't need energy storage on the scale of seasons, the hydrogen fixation makes no sense. That opens things up much wider, and it turns out that hydrogen makes little or no sense period.
If I was in any doubt that delusional Greens were still a force to be reckoned with, I am no longer.
Propane is a substantial component of gas associated with oil and natural-gas liquids (NGLs). It's a byproduct of the hydro-deoxygenation of triglycerides to make "green diesel".
Brian, that is exactly why independent rail-capable trucks which use the rail system as just another kind of limited-access roadway are possibly transportation's next killer app.