This is Calgarygary's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Calgarygary's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
The market for diesel powered passenger vehicles appears to be collapsing. I'd expect it to accelerate. I wonder how that might affect the refining industry?
It appears to me that a large segment of consumers are going to purchase as big and as versatile a vehicle as they can afford without much regard for the carbon footprint so unless that attitude changes, the FCEV powered by solar generated hydrogen may be the best option for personal vehicles in a low carbon world. EV's may be a better solution for bus's, delivery and freight moving vehicles if the claims about the Tesla semi are anywhere's near accurate.
I'd pretty much given up on CCS, but now as the poet points out it may have new life with the Allam cycle. Good lessen not to dismiss any technology too soon.
With this series hybrid type of architecture you'd think you could very easily adapt the power generation and battery storage configurations if fuel cells and or batteries become more competitive. If they were able to sell 100,000 E-Notes in less than a year then it must be able to meet the performance needs of a fairly substantial segment of the market.
According to the NRC (natural resources canada) website, the combined fuel economy for the rx450h is 7.9 l/100km, while the RX350 L gets 11.1 l/100 km. Between 25 and 30% better fuel economy for same sized engines. Over 300,000 km life the hybrid would burn 9-10,000 fewer liters, which could translate to $12 -14,000 in Canada , which is way more than the premium you pay for hybrid drive train. The power output is probably 37 kw. The battery capacities in the Toyota hybrids are typically around 2 kwh or less.
If (or when) Exxon's researchers come to the same conclusion as Tony Seba will Exxon make it public before they began divesting of so called "stranded assets"? I doubt they will be in any great hurry to make unnecessary predictions that could negatively affect their businesses or secret strategies. I don't blame Exxon and the other big oilco's from publishing the most optimistic scenarios from their perspective because what would be the advantage in doing otherwise? My guess is that BEV's and PHEV's will be adequate in terms of price and range for 20 % of the market long before 2040, and if they are adequate for 20% then they should be adequate for 80% of the applications, and therefore if there truly is an urgency to reduce CO2 emissions then governments will be strongly compelled to implement policies and regulations that encourage the adaption of zero and low CO2 emission mobility. Some of the more freedom-loving parts of the world will be more resistant to change, but that seems like futility to me.
I'd imagine a model like the FAW Out could be popular, but I doubt whether you'd see many honkeys in a Hongqi.
Unless the owners of the trucks are getting caught exceeding emission standards and being forced to fix the problem at their own expense, I'm not sure many would want it to come to light that the trucks are failing the emissions test. Which leads me to wonder who is behind the class action?
These are impressive fuel efficiency numbers for a full size truck, but I suspect the net consequence will be that more sedan buyers will see this as a viable option that gives them the added utility of towing and hauling. I wonder how much they cost though and I wonder about their ability to meet emission standards when VW and many others have failed.
Seems to me that when it becomes more cost effective to run on batteries than burn gasoline then all vehicles will load up with as much battery power as feasible and build models with a small range extender,(ice or fuel cell) where required. If you believe Tesla's promo for its semi, then that day is not far off.
the Toshiba SCiB has been professing to have said properties for a long time. Their latest press release in October claims their batteries could deliver 320 km range and be recharged in 6 minutes. I think the downside of these batteries is energy density and cost but I'm sure there are applications where they are the solution.
the problem with having a driver is the cost. way more than any other expense. perhaps if passengers could be certified as drivers then they could take over while they ride and then turn over to another passenger when they disembark. Not really serious but maybe when certain levels of autonomy are reached?
one kg/week? if it were bitcoin that would be something but hydrogen? I probably produce that much biomethane in a week.
I realize there is a cost to the extra up-front capital that I didn't include in my calculation. Just wanted to keep it simple. At 5% amortized over 10 years a $15,000 premium might amount to around $500 per year on average but if the price of gasoline goes up faster then the payback might be faster. I'm not sure why they would want to replace the entire fleet over a short period. In current time of uncertainty a phased approach might make more sense. They are not like a fleet of fighter jets where uniformity and standardization are critical? For me though it is mainly a gut instinct because if they are to be "long life" I think I'd sooner have a fleet of primarily EV delivery vans in 2030 rather than ICE ones. By then surely that sort of app will be best serviced by an EV. It will be interesting to see what is chosen.
On average each vehicle currently uses about 900 gallons per year but according to Herman a modern ice vehicle might use say 630 gallons so at $3 per gallon the fuel cost is say $1900 while the electricity costs for a comparable EV would be say $600. That gives a savings of $1300/year on energy and perhaps another 100-200 on maintenance like oil changes and brake service. So based on those metrics there could be savings of around $15,000. After 10 years the batteries may need replacement but by then one would expect lower cost, improved batteries, whereas an ICE choice might be obsolete by 2030 (especially for applications like USPS delivery). Of course traditional style USPS delivery might be obsolete by 2030 as well. I'd think a $15 - 20,000 premium for a EV might be reasonable so long as it can do the job. This report describes a manure digester/generator system installed at a dairy farm in 1998 at a cost of $355,000. According to the report the digester produced more than 70,000 cubic feet per day(76 gj or 72.5 mmbtu) to supply a 135 kw generator. The report claims that "Payback of 5 years on investment is possible". It seems possible. The current argument seems to be that the less money that flows into the treasury the more the economy will be stimulated so isn't it possible that draining a bit might help too?
The other thing that stands out is the belief that US oil production will be increased and sustained. To make such a prediction you'd need some insight into reserves and if it is reasonable to believe that there is now that much petroleum available in the US, then you'd have to expect that there are also vast amounts of new shale and offshore reserves all around the world which will keep prices down and consumption up unless there is a determined effort to not use petroleum. Such efforts would be high carbon taxes, floor prices for gasoline or diesel or outright bans. Will be interesting to see how that plays out. In a sense Trump is right to point out that the Chinese have a vested interest in the idea of global warming because it diminishes the petroleum assets of the US and Russia while at the same time allows china to address their air pollution problems with renewable energy and export solar panels, electric cars, buses and batteries to the rest of the world
Most striking is the thick yellow line left by light duty trucks.
I have a sense that some of these Chinese companies are "the sumo wrestler in the room" when it come to talking about eating other companies lunch.
The sorts of people who can take advantage of the aux power would probably value it very highly as it might usurp the need to lug around a genset or fuel.
I often think that grocery stores with their large flat roofs and large demand for refrigeration would be ideal candidates for combining rooftop solar panels and ice storage. Checked satellite images around places like Las Vegas and it doesn't appear to be catching on just yet. Probably be more efficient on a new build as opposed to a retrofit.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that at some point in the future renewable generation capacity is so inexpensive that generators will overbuild rather that include storage. In that event there will be surplus renewable energy that can be used to produce hydrogen and the the hydrogen would be useful as a long-term backup.
I expect there won't be much hydrogen generation from renewables until renewable generation exceeds demand. Otherwise you are choosing to supply either the grid or the electolyzer with fossil generated electricity. It might make more sense to shut the fossil generator down and pay them for the electricity they might have generate.
I would expect storage in a battery to be quite expensive. At least 10 cents per kwh and probably closer to 20. But if they can make it work then we are getting closer to affordable storage batteries.