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
Batteries and very quick charge facilities is still a problem to be fully solved. Envia silicon-anode batteries supposedly solve the battery problem today. Acela locomotives handle 5.2 MW of power through a pantograph connection at over 100 MPH today. That problem was solved years ago. tl;dr Harvey is so enamored with a gas that he can't think. Batteries current high cost has not yet been solved. Solved by using a 100-mile battery and charging it in motion every 50 miles. But you're breathing so much hydrogen your brain is hypoxic.
The handicap of the electric car has always been the short range and time required to charge the battery. In every other way it has always been superior. Now we have Li-ion coming with silicon anodes which allow charging to 80% capacity in 5 minutes, which puts charging in the same class as refueling an ICEV. Plus, you can deliver electrons to a car in motion. 5-minute charging without stopping gives you a car that NEVER has to stop until it reaches its destination. That is superior to the ICEV, and will kill it without any further developments. We will use oil for lubricants, plastics and such, but it's a dead fuel walking right now.
We're told nothing about what this costs. If it requires subsidies to be profitable (I'm sure it does), it is greenwashing, not a solution. A carbon tax instead of a subsidy would at least make it not a drain on the treasury. 14.6 million gallons-equivalent in a year compared to 9.317 million bbl/d of motor gasoline (150 billion gallons! OK, 135 billion gallons of petroleum given that it's E10) is a very small drop in a very big bucket.
The reference in the previous thread didn't note that this scheme is basically enhanced SMR. There's never any solid carbon in the process, and any that is formed would gasify to CO + H2 in the presence of steam anyway; CO + H2O then reacts to CO2 + H2. Pumping out the H2 drives the equilibrium toward CO2 + H2O as the product gas. Pushing the reaction to completion and incorporating the separation eliminates the need for a recycle gas stream or using a partially-reacted off-gas in some other process. Very clever IMO, but it still leaves the natural gas (oil) companies in the driver's seat. I think that's a mistake.
Note that "And Bri" is the latest instance of gor. All the psychopatholgy is the same.
You were banned for cause, Gor. Go away.
With about half the H2 yield per unit methane compared to SMR, the product is going to be expensive. You really do get a lot of benefit from converting C + 2 H2O to CO2 + 2 H2. But I can see the natural gas (oil) companies salivating at the idea of doubling their sales. Follow the money.
Just what we don't need: turning more of nature into monocultures to feed human demands. We need to offload our demand FROM nature. Ecomodernism now!
Harvey, don't you get it? With the ultra-quick charge and conductive charging in motion on the road, the EV becomes practical even for long-distance travel with a 30 kWh battery or even smaller. The crossover for the H2 drivetrain to be competitive is ~55 kWh. When and if H2 will be extracted from water, with ceramic membranes, with very little or no lost and without CO2, H2 cost could approach REs. Except for the 60-70% losses in the double conversion. Except for the cost of O&M on the systems. Except for the interest on the money required to buy all that hydrogen production gear. H2 is ALWAYS going to be more expensive than "renewable" electricity from which it's made. Multiples more expensive. While tiny networks with a few or even one H2 station per city get built, electricity is already everywhere. Hypedrogen is DEAD. When the subsidy money is pulled, into the grave it will go.
FINALLY the lessons of the 1970's NASA experiments on truck aerodynamics are being fully applied!
The truck can operate early in the morning and late in the evening because it's so quiet. You could easily run it 2 shifts per day, 5 AM - 11 AM and 2 PM - 8 PM. 12 hours of operation would get a lot more out of the truck.
Hola, ustedes dos idiotas. Este es un blog en inglés. Use Google Translate si es necesario.
55 kWh is about a 200-mile battery. If you can manage with a 100-mile battery, the FC will always cost more than the BEV. Hydrogen from anything other than NG or coal will always cost more than electricity. It's over. The battery car won, on EVERY count.
If you have a fast-charging battery and can get power from the road at regular intervals, the practical BEV can have a very small (100 mile or less) battery and not have to stop to recharge EVER. This is the final nail in the coffin of hype-drogen.
having a 74 kilowatt hr battery pack with a range of 310 miles = 238.7 watts per mile. So 238.7 x 500 = 119KW battery Confusing watts and watt-hours is a Gross Conceptual Error
Dynamic pressure increases as the square of speed; impulse energy doesn't have to affect turbine speed immediately to increase output, the gas just has to hit the turbine harder. Lots of press releases posted here talk about dual-scroll turbochargers fed by split exhaust manifolds and how they increase turbocharger output, especially from impulse energy at low engine speed. This suggests that several smaller turbochargers may recover more energy than one big one. It would also reduce the total size of the exhaust collectors. If there's an issue of space (the pics of diesel ship engine rooms look pretty spacious to me) printed-circuit heat exchangers are very compact. So are CO2 turbines. This suggests it's worth investigating.
I do not understand this fantasy of surplus/excess REs. It's no fantasy, it's a very real problem. The capacity factor of wind is low, and solar PV is much lower. Getting a large fraction of total energy from these sources requires that the nameplate capacity start running up against the immediate grid demand. On top of this you've got must-run generators that the grid requires to provide essential grid services. They CAN'T go off the grid to make room for "renewables". The result is surplus generation. The only way to square this circle is to have someplace to dump the excess RE, preferably somewhere that displaces fossil fuel. Molten silicon heat batteries replacing combustion heat in gas-turbine power plants are looking good right now. That would let you power the "must run" generators on something other than fossil fuels at least part of the time.
Doing the math, 750 Wh/l means my Fusion Energi's battery could be cut to half the volume while doubling the capacity to 15 kWh. This battery is a huge game-changer.
The real kicker here is the 5-minute charging time. The thing people are missing here isn't that this makes the 500-mile EV possible or the 150-mile EV affordable, it almost makes the 50-mile EV practical. The necessary element is charging in motion; you don't stop for 5 minutes to charge, you don't stop at all. Siemens has already tested conductive power via overhead wires. If you have a 4-mile charging lane every 50 miles, your vehicle just slows down to 45 MPH and tops off the battery before going off to the next one. 100 miles of range is about the upper limit of what you'd need. You can make 5x the number of 100-mile batteries vs. 500-mile batteries. This turns the EV into the petroleum-killer that much sooner. Cities will start banning IC engines and drivers will quickly appreciate the quiet and convenience of electric propulsion, driving a preference cascade to eliminate liquid fuels. And you can still fill up in the time it takes you to get in and out of the C-store. So little will change.
The speed of the initial exhaust pulse during the blowdown phase is considerably higher than 30 m/s. Marine diesels are already turbocharged. A variable geometry turbocharger with an induction or switched reluctance generator could recover the available energy from this flow. After that you'd need something like an organic rankine cycle engine to recover energy from the waste heat. You'd want something with a turbine to minimize weight and size; piston expanders will work but they will be bulkier and less efficient. Everything is either already patented or in the public domain. TEGs are not in the running. There are new regulations on the sulfur content of marine fuels. Sulfuric acid condensation may not be an issue for much longer.
The hydrogen sold at True Zero stations is transported in from facilities producing hydrogen for industrial uses. Two-thirds of this hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels, such as natural gas. Greenwashing, exactly as I predicted. Hydrogen is hydrogen, you can't tell what it came from.
“You can do a lot of things at the local level to affect housing stock that are basically equivalent or even more aggressive than the Clean Power Plan.” Because the CPP was not designed to minimize carbon emissions. The CPP, especially its criteria for "cleanliness", was designed to eliminate coal and nuclear power and designate natural gas as the winner, supplemented by whatever "renewables" were able to be profitable in the coming regime. China is looking to supply residential (and presumably commercial) space heat with meltdown-proof "swimming pool" reactors. Converting the electric grid from fossil to nuclear power would decarbonize it also. The reductions achieveable this way are radically greater than 12%. A 12% reduction should be instantly seen as grossly inadequate. We need something between 80% and 110% (net carbon sequestration). Any program which cannot deliver reductions on this scale should be instantly dismissed as a non-starter. the power-hungry sun belt cities are also the easiest to switch to solar (and wind and nuclear) If you don't have nuclear, your backup for the unreliable solar and wind is fossil. For the foreseeable future, that means natural gas (with all its attendant methane leakage).
The use of bio-methane has the added benefit of reducing dependency from fossil fuels, as it can be generated from agricultural and urban waste, sewage, or waste from the food industry. Except that the maximum possible supply of bio-methane is far less than our existing demand. Talking about bio-methane as a "solution" to CO2 emissions is greenwashing.
You also get extremely high jet speeds with steam, and thus rotational speeds. There's a reason steam turbines have so many stages compared to gas turbines; it extracts the energy in smaller steps, with lower jet speeds.