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
With today's petroleum prices at 3-4 dollars per gallon, and bound to go up in the years to come, even if Joule's price projections are off by 200% they will still be producing E-fuels cheaper than petroleum. Color me doubtful. Suppose you have an ultimate feed-in tariff as low as 5¢/kWh. If you can convert CO2 to diesel fuel at 50% energy efficiency, that's 82 kWh input per gallon or $4.10 in electricity alone. Add capital costs, O&M and taxes and you'll probably triple that, especially if you're carrying all the extra physical plant you need to make full use of peak power flows from wind or solar. You think a trucker can go across country on batteries? I think a trucker can go cross-country on rails. Put up an overhead wire for power, or segmented switchable flush third rail. And what about air travel? People used to travel by train, you know. Those things may be out of style, but they still work.
In other words, they wanted things to be "normal" again. Thing is, we're not going to have "normal" (as in 1950's-70's) petroleum prices or climate conditions during the lifetime of anyone alive today.
"Large, heavy" (~6% useful content by weight) and "expensive" epitomizes the "alternative" of H2. Anything made from "renewable" H2 is still very expensive. Energy per volume is useless if you can't afford it. Energy per dollar is a major factor until time is affected. If you can't get enough energy per unit time, other options are preferable. If volume is cheap, people won't care about low volumetric energy density. The English put town-gas bladders on their cars in WWII and couldn't have cared less about the bulk. Worry about the things that matter.
I do not see H2 listed as a GHG. That's because it's not troublesome as a GHG (though the water it oxidizes to is a GHG), but because it will generate water above the tropopause's "cold trap" and create clouds where there have never been clouds. Ice particles in the stratosphere are catalytic surfaces for ozone destruction, and high clouds in general block outgoing IR radiation.
Nobody mentioned "failure rate" until you did. Attempting to change the subject is as good as admitting that you lost the previous argument.
The "conspiracy" is all on the other side: pushing a central-fueling business model that the oilcos already own. Meanwhile, EVs make any power outlet an "electron pump". I've got nothing against hydrogen except that it's expensive and hard to handle (we're likely to see CFC-type problems from H2 leakage, since it's also stable enough to get to the stratosphere). When government keeps pushing an expensive technology there has to be a powerful interest group behind it. "Cui bono?" is sufficient to reveal who that is.
It is people who buy new who count in the market. Resale value starts counting in just 2 years, when vehicles start coming off-lease. If the used-car market puts a low value on costly-to-run FCEVs, how long will the new-car market stay strong? Especially when insurance companies pay off based on used-car values? Something like a Tesla is going to have value for a long time, and the improvement in batteries means that a refurbished car can be better than new.
No, E-P, I avoid you as much as possible. Indeed, Bob, to the point of making absurd excuses for using the ban-hammer (not that I don't sneak in anonymous comments under your radar from IP addresses you haven't logged as mine). But as long as you stand behind your act, the ridicule rifle will be loaded with snark-points and the cross-hairs centered on you whenever you're in view. Even when we work the price down to Toyota's assumed lowest price it's still going to be cheaper to drive an ICEV. Absolutely. This is why the H2 FCEV is a plaything for the "ecologically conscious", not a serious environmental measure or transportation machine. I see you're doing a lot more quantitative stuff than I recall in the past. Perhaps I've been a good influence on you.
These mild-hybrid units aren't lead-acid batteries, they're lead-carbon batteries. If NiMH loses cycle life if they're slow-charged to 100%, then the idea wouldn't work for old Priuses. But I've not got any data to say that that's actually the case.
It's good to know that Bob Wallace reads my blog and pushes my ideas. Nice going, Bob. if the city streets are ever to provide electric charging for the majority of vehicles kept ungaraged, there is no way that that can be done with charging posts and wires. Networked, autopiloted cars with robotic chargers can swap themselves in and out of charging spaces while the owners do something else. You can get a heck of a lot out of a few chargers that way.
I'd suggest you keep fighting that straw man, since it can give you all the battle your mental wherewithal is capable of dealing with.
Remember Range Fuels, and their projections of ethanol production from biomass via chemosynthesis? Refresh your memory.
You continue to say the facts are what matters yet repeatedly fall back on IF. That's correct. Right is not on the side of the majority or the minority, it's on the side of whoever has the truth. I know "truth" is a difficult concept for you, but try to follow me here. Your philosophy is all about IF; not even what IF, which would indicate a grasp on reality. You also need to work on your reading comprehension. IFs are fantasy, like "If the minority strives in the face of majority resistance to eradicate smallpox by vaccination, or kuru by eliminating cannibalism". As a matter of fact, there WAS resistance to eliminating cannibalism in Papua/New Guinea, but eventually it was halted and the prion disease kuru was wiped out. And currently there IS resistance to polio vaccination in the last few places where it is endemic, which prevents it from being eradicated just as smallpox finally was. In other words, you fell into my trap. I'd ask you if you felt foolish, but the Dunning-Kruger effect pretty much eliminates any chance of that no matter how wrong you are.
When it's still prohibitively expensive to recover CO2 from seawater, and seawater is much easier to extract it from than air, I'm going to bet that the only way this will go forward is if the carbon comes from FF power stations. Over at The Energy Collective, it's been noted that the Energiewende was supposed to be financed by the utility companies, but those very companies are being bankrupted by the Energiewende's tariffs and other policies. In short, it's on a one-way track to death. It's the same for schemes like this.
There is no real way of separating out the CCGT from the grid to use the best theoretical efficiency. That's weasel-wording. Just about everything else, save nuclear or wind, would be worse. You can't really use PV because you'd need to size all of your gear for the noon peak. And I miscalculated the CO2 cost above. To calculate equivalency to the Mirai, the Tesla should be allowed between 8 kg (for 137 kBTU of NG, assuming 100% carbon-free electricity) and 10.5 kg (coal-fired electricity @ 950 gCO2/kWh) for 50-60 miles. 137 kBTU through a CCGT @ 60% will drive the Model S roughly 63 miles. If you have carbon-free electricity for direct use the Tesla cannot be beat, period. Just the electricity required to reform and pump 1 gge for the Mirai will drive a Model S for 7 miles. being able to seat 5 adults, 2 kids in jump seats, plus baggage in the frunk is not really a sign of efficiency in cars which usually carry 1-2 people! So if you downsized to a vehicle with just 4 seats and a Mirai-sized trunk, you'd have much lower NG consumption and CO2 emissions even if you ran completely on NG.
The 30-50% SOC range is interesting for mild PHEV purposes. Presumably the 50% SOC headroom is kept to allow high-power charging during regeneration. But at vehicle start and drive-off, this is not required. Using grid power to charge a 1 kWh battery from an average of 40% SOC to 100% SOC while stopped brings in 600 Wh of energy, enough to travel roughly 2 miles. If charged at every stop, that 2 miles "free" range could be used several times a day. It could also be used for instant cabin heat and defrosting. 4 miles is 18% of the median 22-mile daily commute. Cutting another 18% off of the previous 15% savings yields a total of 30%, nothing to sneeze at.
It is stupid to "unburn" diesel, spend scandalous amounts of energy to make the raw ingredients for diesel. And then spend prodigious amounts of energy to reconstruct diesel hydrocarbon chains. All this to make a fuel you will then simply burn again. Truer words... and for climate hawks, completely wrong-headed because the fossil carbon still goes to the atmosphere.
The BEV running on electricity from NG is shown as more efficient than the H2 FCEV. All those bar graphs are a bit hard to interpret, and I don't see citations for their source calculations. Figure 14 puts CNG fuel cell vehicle slightly more efficient than the CH4-to-H2 FCEV; certainly the heat of reforming can be put to better use that way. The EV+charger using NG power is given at ~130 gCO2/km, but that's using the lowball CCGT efficiency figure of 51% given in the paper. Modern plants exceed 60%. This DOE overview shows SMR requiring 137 kBTU of NG, plus 9200 BTU of electricity, to produce and dispense 116 kBTU (1 gge) of H2. If we assume the same 60% efficiency of the electric supply, there's another 15.3 kBTU of gas burned there for a total of 152.3 kBTU input. The pipeline-to-tank efficiency is 76%. You'd need a fuel-cell efficiency of 80% to get the overall efficiency to 60%. Let's see... 116kBTU of methane @ 60% yields 68.6 kBTU or 20.4 kWh. Running at 380 Wh/mi, that yields 53.6 miles. This is roughly a tie between your 50-60 MPGe FCV and the Tesla, but the Tesla can run on anything that makes electricity while a system running on SMR is tied to NG. Plus, the Tesla Model S can seat 5 adults, 2 kids in jump seats, plus baggage in the frunk. Advantage, Tesla.
Indeed, Clett, and there's the WTW efficiency to consider. Which burns less fuel: the Mirai running on H2 from SMR, or a Telsa charged on juice from CCGT?
But what makes you think that the 10% are NOT the morons. If their views and policy prescriptions are consistent with the facts. But now that the original majority morons are fewer, are they automatically the enlightened minority. Ridiculous. Yes, ridiculous. Because you are subscribing to the majoritarian fallacy, and took no account of what the facts say. Common sense rule: The group (majority or minority) that strives to impose its will on the others, are the immoral morons. If the minority strives in the face of majority resistance to eradicate smallpox by vaccination, or kuru by eliminating cannibalism, they are neither wrong nor immoral. Now shut up and learn something instead of rearranging your prejudices.
It's much easier to cut GHGs by making vehicles more efficient than using biofuels. Hybridization is a proven way of doing this. Once you've got a hybrid, it's a small thing to top up the battery from grid power between trips; you have full control of the charging rate, so it can probably go to a higher SOC than normal operation would allow; even if you only get 1 mile of range that way, it's a mile that doesn't burn liquid fuel. You can also pre-warm the engine and pre-condition the cabin. So long as your grid power is clean, this will cut GHGs.
Nobody seems to be paying attention the capacitive through-the-steel-belt scheme. Probably too Japanese.
There appear to be 3 options:Transport the biomass to a central processing facility where hydrogen is available.Transport hydrogen to the biomass processor in the field.Make hydrogen on the spot, likely using biomass as the energy source (and losing the carbon as CO2). As always, hydrogen is the troublesome part.
in a democracy, if the people think THEY are right and you are wrong, effectively and morally, you ARE wrong. The popular vote does not change facts. Not about evolution, not about vaccines, not about toxicity, not about climate. A 90% landslide vote of morons for a faulty policy will still be morons voting for a faulty policy.