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
Wikipedia lists Quebec total hydro generation of 32.6 TWh for 2012 (roughly 4 GW average). This is less than 1/4 of US hydro generation for the same year, and roughly 0.8% of total US electric generation. Impoundment-fed hydro generation in the USA is pretty much maxed out (there are some flood-control dams which may have generation added). For some reason Harvey thinks the entire world can be Quebec if it wants to be. I'd go for letting the population of Somalia be Quebecois if they want to be, and give Harvey the reality check he needs so badly.
300 kg of a battery pack achieving 700 Wh/kg is 210 kWh. A 4C surge discharge nets 840 kW. Putting 800 kW to the ground in a 6000 lb vehicle yields a full 1 G of acceleration at 67 MPH. That is, if the tires are capable of carrying that much thrust without slipping. The sort of people who want cars with that kind of outrageous performance don't care about range. C/1 is more than enough for an every-day vehicle, including tow vehicles. A 6000 lb vehicle towing a 10,000 lb trailer up a 6% grade at 60 MPH, plus 150 lb of wind drag, takes ~120 kW.
I don't see how Roger's hybrid supercar beats the Model S P90D without being considerably more expensive. We are already at the point of outright EV superiority save for certain criteria like cold-weather range.
It would take 15 trucks carrying compressed H2 to serve the same number of vehicles which can be served by a single gasoline tanker. EVs are served by wires already in place, with no traffic at all.
@EP Sweden has decided to shot down all of their nuclear power plants and replace them with wind power You mean, they're talking about doing that. Nobody's actually got a serious plan to do it yet, and given the complete failures of the past it's likely that it wouldn't work. Norway that has some 50Gw of potential hydropower and I believe about 20Gw of installed hydropower Try 30 GW installed, much of which is already used for domestic consumption. Remaining hydro potential is small compared to current consumption so large expansions are not in the cards. That assumes that Norway wants to be Europe's storage battery. They may not want the headache.
That is progress. The opponents of renewables used to say it was only 2%. Grids require a certain amount of spinning reserve and "must-run" generators to provide essential services. Maybe 2% can be broken, but I doubt 10% can absent lots of storage. The problem is that good storage is scarce, and expanding it beyond the limited amount of pumped hydro will be very expensive. Wind, PV and hydro will produce 100% in some countries in the near future. Emphasis added. I note your weasel-wording. Norway and Quebec are essentially hydro. Iceland is hydro/geothermal. There you have "100%" without doing a thing. Now show how to do that in the USA, where large-scale hydro is already maxed out but generates less than 7% of total electric power. Large-scale hydro uses dams to stockpile energy (water). Neither PV nor wind has any way to store energy at all. Part of that equation is making all electricity production renewable. Can't be done in the USA or most industrial countries, period. Reliable grids require large energy stockpiles to ride through periods of low supply, and the only "renewable" which has this is large-scale hydro. If you have the unique conditions of geography and rainfall that allow lots of hydro, you're set. If not, there is nothing you can do about it. Wind and solar aren't doing that job because they CANNOT do the job. The complex powertrain of the old school sedans has a very sophisticated ICE made in very small numbers Amost 17 million ICE LDVs are sold in the USA alone every year. If you think this is "small numbers", you're smoking something. every time the powertrain of a class of ICE cars becomes on par with an equivalent powertrain based on batteries, those cars are toast. Only if you have the power to charge the EVs whenever they need it. Your 100% renewable (meaning 93% wind and solar) grid will have many nights when there is no local generation and days and weeks when wind, solar or both are producing well below demand. If you expect to use EVs to bank energy for the rest of the grid, think again: if every one of the 250 million LDVs in the USA was a Tesla Model 3 with 60 kWh, that would only be 15 TWh of energy storage. The USA typically consumes 15 TWh in a little over a day. What I find most "renewable" advocates are is dishonest shills for natural gas. Gas-fired turbines are the "emergency" backup for wind and PV. The schemes of the likes of Mark Z. Jacobson will produce permanent states of emergency. This is not an accident.
If you start building a nuclear power plant today, solar, wind and storage will have obviated it by the time it is ready to produce electricity. Emphasis added. Note that solar and wind are grossly unreliable and require truly massive amounts of energy buffer (storage or fossil) to provision a reliable electric grid. Despite the efforts of the likes of Sadoway to make batteries cheap as dirt, none are available at grid scale at ANY price (and prospects have been pushed back yet again). Pumped hydro takes too much volume to do too little; a week's worth of buffer for the USA requires two reservoirs each roughly the size of Lake Erie. Even chemical batteries would require on the order of a cubic mile of material. Nuclear comes with its own storage. When you button up the vessel on a commercial reactor it's got enough energy inside to run for a year and half, sometimes 2 years. In the case of nuclear submarines, the core has enough energy for the life of the boat. Now, that doesn't mean that wind and solar may not push nuclear out. That is because the law currently requires utilities to take wind and solar power even if they don't need it, and forces other generation to compensate for their surges and dips. If that law was changed, wind and solar would be MUCH less desirable. It would also make a carbon-free energy system that much more attainable, because curtailing surplus wind and PV allows the entire baseload to be handled by emissions-free nuclear instead of requiring CO2-belching gas turbines to counter their ups and downs. Denmark's wind farms produce close to 50% of the electricity used in the country. Denmark's grid emits close to 400 grams of CO2 for every kWh it provides. The nuclear and hydro grid of Sweden next door does it with about 20 grams. To be anti-nuclear is to be anti-environment.
Graph (b) shows a capacity on the order of 600-650 mAh/g, and (d) shows capacity at 2.7 A/g, implying at least 4C capability. I'd settle for 2C. 2C charging with a 500-mile battery is 1000 MPH charging, and charging-in-motion at even 1C would be sufficient for all-day cruising (800 miles in a day requires 300 miles of CIM, or 36 minutes of charging in 10 hours more or less).
The growth of solar has a hard limit at roughly its capacity factor. That's 20% if you're lucky; Germany is achieving about 11%. The oil companies (which are now substantially gas companies) know this and are promoting the hell out of "renewables" with gas as the primary ("backup") energy supply. Nuclear power is the true carbon-killer. This is why all the donor-driven "environmental" organizations are so unremittingly against it: the major donors are FF interests.
Automakers have been talking about 48V electric systems for many years; I was reading about efforts in the early 2000's. Being able to remove the hydraulic power steering pump and A/C compressor from the belt-driven engine accessories was a significant energy savings, especially at cruise. Using electric supercharging in lieu of belt-driven compressors is recent, but not particularly revolutionary. If the engine can be downsized by half and still give the same peak torque and power, it is a major savings. But it still looks like there aren't any major opportunities remaining after this; heat-recovery engines are themselves marginal, giving maybe 15-20% more.
Roger, as a PEV owner I can testify that you have it backwards: drivers will want to be plugged in ALL THE TIME they're parked. This would go double if they were getting compensated for grid services that their vehicles were providing (down-regulation). It's not difficult and it's beneficial. Why would anyone NOT want to do it?
You came up with figures almost identical to ones I calculated 12 years ago. How little some things change.
You mean the only front-running candidate who's against more wars in the Middle East?
The article does say "efficiency benefits of up to 10% compared with the previous 1.4l TSI". I'd call that quite respectable. The turbo-Miller cycle essentially captures exhaust energy and uses it to replace compression work done by the crankshaft, reducing back-work and routing it to the load instead. I've been waiting for this, as more or less the pinnacle of ICE technology. I don't think there's anywhere else to go from here, though; it's more or less the end of the line.
gor, the only reason that there are gas stations everywhere but not charging at all parking spots is because most vehicles are ICE. By the time PEVs are 10% of the fleet, charging will be everywhere.
Scribbling on another envelope.... Different sources claim the Tesla Model S battery weighs either 1200 lb or 1323 lb (600 kg). At 600 kg and assuming 85 kWh, that's 142 Wh/kg. This battery has MORE THAN 8 TIMES that much capacity (down to ~7x at 500+ cycles). Assume 1050 Wh/kg. Take 50% overhead for packaging (700 Wh/kg). Cut the weight in half. You've still got 300 kg * .7 kWh/kg = 210 kWh, more than TWICE the biggest battery option Tesla offers. Unless there is some temperature sensitivity or other show-stopper that prevents automotive use, this battery has what it takes to kill the ICE.
It's worse than that, DaveD. The nearest Supercharger to me used to be 160 miles away; now it's 50 miles. Yet there still isn't a single public H2 station in the entire state of Michigan. There are still some issues with maintenance of public EV chargers around here, but I suspect that won't be an issue when it becomes important to attracting customers.
HarveyD and gor are both Canadians. I think it's something in their media.
85% of 1.2 kWh/kg after 500 cycles is going to sell like hotcakes for personal electronics.
Honda publicly recognizes the chicken/egg problem of H2... a year after Tesla has coast-to-coast Supercharger coverage in the USA. California plans 100 H2 stations... by 2020. This is the epitome of "too little, too late".
This is the toy that is essentially 2 2-seat sailplanes hooked together with a common center wing section. If anyone was trying to make a serious carbon-free aerial people-hauler, they could get a Cessna Caravan with its engine modified to burn ammonia and add fuel tankage out on the wings, perhaps at the junction with the struts to provide more strength against downward loads during hard landings. It would go faster, have more range, and haul 3 times as many passengers.
Try 68 kW, Roger. That's well over 90 HP. My Passat TDI had only 100 kW and was adequate if not fast.
It's not just that, Roger. Every cold start has a certain pulse of emissions associated with it. If you are starting the engine all the time for moderate power demands, the only way to meet emissions is to keep the engine and catalyst hot. This means a great deal more fuel demand. I'm coming up on 1200 MPG since my last fill-up, which was the better part of 3000 miles ago. Needless to say, I'm avoiding engine starts like the plague.
I simply point out that for some folks (10, 20 30%?), the vehicle needs flexible operating characteristics that current and on the horizon batteries cannot provide and you dispute it. And the other 70, 80, 90%... they're going to be driving the market. No automaker is going to be able to make a profit on a whole different drivetrain technology to serve 10%. Neither will fuel providers. I spell out what those vehicles need to meet that criteria and you get upset. You're projecting. I pointed out to you that charging-in-motion is a solved problem (which eliminates the range issue) and you (a) made an unspecific accusation of others being upset and (b) tried to change the subject. I'd say that's the indication of a direct hit. This suggests that you are invested in hydrogen somehow. Emotionally, likely. Professionally? Are you paid to promote it? It's known that most big interests have astroturf efforts to promote their agendas. Big Oil, with its massive reserves of natural gas that are just a reforming step away from [dirty, CO2-emitting] hydrogen, knows which side its bread is buttered on. If they were going to pay people to promote their continued well-being at the cost of the planet, those people would sound just like you. If the shoe fits, wear it.
I wonder if Sheldon would be happy with infinite range? Sliding contacts are a time-tested way of transferring power to a vehicle in motion. Self-driving capabilities are already here. Combine these two and you have a way to charge an EV while it is on the road. You just have a special "charging lane", with the contacts either on the ground or perhaps within a slot in the guardrail. For ten miles or so the driver takes a breather while the car takes care of business. One of those lanes every 100 miles would let a car with a 200-mile battery cruise all day and all night. Add charging when the human element stops for refreshment, and the problem pretty much disappears.