This is Calgarygary's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Calgarygary's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
It seems like they have been posting pictures of the I.D Buzz for years now. I don't understand why they just don't go out and build a few thousand which they can probably sell quite easily at any price to baby boomers who are nostalgic for the old camper vans ( I've seen circa 1980's restored vans listed for $40k+ on kijiji). This suggests to me there is a market out thee that isn't terribly concerned about price. Tesla would probably build something similar if they weren't so busy building m3's, semi's, grid storage, solar roofs while at the same time staying out of jail and fighting defamation suits.
Five years ago, anyone who predicted that oil consumption would peak in the early 2020's was dismissed as a foolish and out-of-touch environmentalist. Today, apparently serious and presumably conservative financial institutions like DNV GL predict oil consumption will peak within 5 years. Statements like these really show the pace of change is accelerating (even when it has been delayed considerably with depressed oil prices for past 2-3 years).
This sounds like something significant and yet it doesn't evoke any reaction on this site? One thousand cycles with 75% degradation should be adequate for many applications including mobility. Maybe its cost or maybe followers of battery technology have become so jaded that they need to see something commercially ready and completely spec'd before they'll show any real interest. Could it be that the most promising research is going on in private?
How much surplus renewable energy can you get? Even if you have dedicated solar and wind farms that that produce electricity at different times during the day you are unlikely to have electricity for much more than 50% of the time. In reality there would be overlap so even with dedicated sources the utilization rate of the electrolyzer would be less than 50%. If you are relying on surpluses from the grid then you have to compete with other load shifting methods like pump storage, battery storage, ice storage etc. There may be some free electricity today, but how long will that last? To make this work at any sort of significant scale, if the plant is to be reliant on cheap electricity, I expect that the capital and operational costs of the plant will need to be low enough to be cost effective at a fairly low utilization rate.
4500 cycles is an impressive number, but I find myself wondering whether you could not achieve the same results by building a a temperature controlled battery compartment (pack)? I also expect an energy cost to maintaining the temperatures at optimal using this method could be fairly substantial? There must be some BEV's currently being operated in moderate climates where the battery temperature is always near optimal and I wonder if their battery degradation in similar to what is reported in this study. 280 k miles over 4500 cycles equates to 62 miles per cycle or a 20 kwh battery pack. Most packs for BEV's will be 40+ so there would potentially be way more miles of life than the rest of the car is capable if it is built to today's standards.
Say what you want about the North American oil and gas industry, but its hard not to be impressed by its ability to innovate and improve on production costs using technology over the past few decades. I often wonder how long it would take to develop affordable EV's and other alternative mobility solutions if all the capital and expertise applied to o&g production were redirected?
If you have enough storage in the system, I'd expect that would be adequate to respond to short term spikes in demand while, weather forecasting and demand analysis could be used to anticipate shortfalls from renewable sources on a longer term basis. If you have a forecast for a period of overcast weather it should be fairly easy to calculate the solar shortfall and use the FF reserve plants to charge up the batteries and/ or top up the grid. Not sure peaker plants will be required.
I expect U.S and China will reach an agreement protecting intellectual property about the same time as roles will be reversed and it will be the west that wants to copy from the Chinese especially wrt to EV technology.
US oil production rose above 10 mbpd in February 2018 and now has reached over 10.7 mbpd at the end of May for an increase of 700,000 bpd which is more than the increased capacity of the TMPL. Gasoline produced from oilsands may take more energy to produce , but if it is being used in highly efficient Chinese/ Japanese hybrids as opposed to American trucks or SUV's doesn't that more than balance things off? Personally, I think the government's plan to buy the pipeline is questionable on economic grounds because of great uncertainty how the markets for oil will unfold in the future, but as long as there continues to be a demand for oil, why shouldn't Canada be able to participate just as Norway does? Note that oil production in America nearly doubled under the Obama administration. If he was truly trying to do something about climate change shouldn't he have done more to suppress the rise in production?
I'm more concerned about all the F150's you see weaving in and out of traffic at high speeds if their stopping distance is no better than a model 3.
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.