This is yoatmon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following yoatmon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
yoatmon
Recent Activity
@ mahonj ....but this will take about 10 years or it will cause a lot of hardship. Nature causes hardship e. g. earthquakes destroying hundreds or thousands of homes/dwellings or tsunamis that take toll of thousands of lives from one minute to the next. What you are referring to is the result of stupidity, indifference and ignorance. The difference between the two occurrences is that natural ones cannot be avoided, the other very well.
This is an old hat and nothing new. Pleas ref to: http://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Content/EN/Invest/_SharedDocs/Downloads/GTAI/Info-sheets/Energy-environmental/info-sheet-green-hydrogen-power-to-gas-demonstrational%2520projects-en.pdf?v=4 (PDF / Fact Sheet - Green Hydrogen & Power to Gas - Germany ...)
There are two main aspects of battery development that are commonly ignored. The first aspect is cell chemistry and the second is cell architecture / structure. A cell price issue definitely is Lithium; it is not rare but it is scarce. It is limited and can easily be monopolized akin to oil. That is not to my liking; is it to yours? On the other hand, Sodium cannot be monopolized; it is available everywhere worldwide. Just lately, remarkable cell advances have been achieved in Europe and Korea with this cell chemistry and underlines justified hopes that Sodium can be an appropriate replacement for Lithium. All cell/battery architectures presently available on the world market are of the 2-D (two dimensional type). Prof- Prieto has been the first to present a new, functional 3-D cell type. Her approach is truly an ingenious stroke to a brilliant solution. If everything pans out as it should, we shall have batteries unparalleled in reliability, energy and power capacity, volume and weight. Prieto's approach is still based on Lithium but I harbour the strong conviction that it is solely a question of time to determine solutions based on Sodium. I recommend a thorough investigation of all information available at: http://www.prietobattery.com/
@ Henrik The established auto industry has absolutely no interest in building either BEVs or autonomous, absolutely safe cars. The profits on a new car are marginally small. The real cash flow begins once the warranty period has expired. Maintenace, during the complete life of a car, is a steady source of income (and subsequently taxes). After expiration of warranty, repairs resulting from stress, wear and tear, and accidents are a true income boom for the car business. BEVs have an inherently low tendency towards maintenance and repair and are, hence, not a preferable business model. Autonomous cars (either BEVs or ICEs) have a very low tendency towards accidents and are an unattractive option. The most attractive car option for a dealer or MFCR is a vehicle that just manages to pass the warranty period and ensures them both a steady and high income rate once warranty has expired.
@ HarveyD Well, first of all, the Tesla / Panasonic joint venture is starting from scratch whereas a Nissan production site already existed in the UK; the Nissan investment is merely an update of the existing facility. Secondly, the Tesla plant produces everything from the primary cell to the final battery pack. As far as I know, the Nissan UK site produces only complete packs; the cells are produced in Japan and Tennessee and exported to the UK site. And finally, Tesla will have a far greater output than the UK site.
@ SJC I think you'll find an adequate answer to your question under this link. http://phys.org/news/2015-11-team-large-area-graphene-cheaper.html
Besides investing huge amounts of time and money, they must have made an exceedingly sincere effort to make the car as ugly as it is. This is an excellent design example to be avoided at any rate.
Not at all excellent! Assuming that the usable capacity is approx. 80%, that would equate to 50km/8kWh or 100km/16kWh. A TESLA has a consumption of approx. 20 to 25 kWh per 100km (depends on the driving style). Some compacts have a consumption of 10 to 12 kWh per 100km; that is excellent.
Graphene is not as exotic any more as you think. http://phys.org/news/2015-11-team-large-area-graphene-cheaper.html
@ Lad That cell you're refering to already exists take a look at: http://www.prietobattery.com/
FCs for electric vehicles is a targeted scheme of big business to keep the cash cows in their pasture. Consumer acceptance of electric vehicles is certainly not as implied in the article. There are three main reasons for apparent reluctant acceptance; these are exorbitant prices, short range and in most cases, extreme ugly design. E. g. just look at the tail end of a Leaf. If manufacturers keep production quantities so low just to qualify for compliance, not much is bound to change for the price aspect. Short range and design are intended to divert the consumer from BEVs and keep on drawing his attention conventional gas guzzlers. With the exception of TESLA and BMW, I am not familiar of any manufacturer with a honest intent on BEVs.
From the overall efficiency point of view, the FC would be an acceptable solution for home heating and power generation. However, the price of a FC is an inevitable obstacle to implementation for just about any application. The free piston design of a linear generator (FKLG) as designed from DLR would cost a mere €1,900.00 at a production qty. of 200,000 pc's. p/a. A FC will never be able to compete with a FKLG in aspects of price and life expectancy. http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10084/161_read-8869/year-all/161_page-3/
Don't be so naive and believe what Putin is talking about. His sole purpose is to retain a feeble foothold in Syria and increase his influence. The Russians got their ass kicked out of Egypt and don't want to repeat such a bleak point in history. His intention is not to help Assad but more so to help himself. Up to now, Russian attacks were aimed at Syrian rebels and not IS mongrels. Eventually he'll turn his attention to the IS as well but for the present, his main focus is turned to the Syrian rebels. In this manner, he can create social problems for Europe whilst flooding the continent with refugees and relieve the pressure on Assad. This is a twisted bargaining point to gain removal or relief of the European sanctions which are really frustrating and hurting the Russian economy. The IS is also a remote problem for Russia and, in due time, Putin will certainly focus his attention on them as well. But for the time being, one step at a time.
The Prieto battery is ready for market launch. This battery has 3-fold energy - and 5-fold power density, high cycle life and a low price. They're looking for someone to manufacture it and make the environment and public happy and content. http://www.prietobattery.com/
Bosch must be making bad jokes. Just have a look here. http://www.prietobattery.com/
@ Davemart What are you implying with AH. I think you've got your dimensions mixed up and surely mean kWh.
It's not just a case of installing ever bigger batteries in an EV but more so of increasing the efficiency of the complete drive train and all other electric devices in an EV. The e-golf e.g. has a consumption of ca. 11.8 kWh/100 km. A 50 kWh battery at a usable capacity of 80% would equate to 40 kWh. These 40 kWh would enable a distance of 40 kWh : 11.8 kWh/100 km = 338 km or 211 miles. Improving the efficiency of all electric appliances on board to the very best could amount to a total of approx. 250 miles of range and that, combined with fast charging, should be sufficient for just about every normal driver.
Every car manufacturer is in the precarious situation of ruining himself by going electric. This also applies to every sub contractor delivering to the MFGR. The maintenance of a BEV tends to nil. Most of the profits from ICEs originate from maintenance, repair, and overhaul. Going electric is certainly going to increase the ranks of unemployment. Neither MFGRs nor governments are keen on these perspectives. I'm quite content being employed in electric engineering so my personal perspectives are less effected from such perspectives. TESLA has nothing to lose, they can only win including consumers and the environment. The total switch to BEVs is not only a challenging technical task but even more so an immense social burden.
Well, I agree with Evolute Drives and here is why. A transmission is not only a speed adapter, it is also a torque converter. With a smaller e-motor and a transmission, you can reach the same torque levels as with a bigger e-motor (excepting high gear where less power and torque is needed for gliding than for acceleration). The bigger the e-motor is, the more current it'll draw under load from the battery. High power density flow is not necessarily of advantage to the battery. On the contrary, the lower the power flow the less strain is exerted on the battery. I could very well imagine that a smaller dimensioned electric motor combined with a 3-gear transmission would suffice general requirements, ease strain on the battery and improve consumption performance.
@ Mike999 I can underline every single point you made in your comment. I've posted all these points and more on many different blogs over and over again. My experience is that repeating those facts doesn't make them more appealing to Fool Cell proponents. Its similar to explaining a sight to someone who has been born blind and cannot differentiate between myriads of colours and can't perceive the overall impression received from such a view. Anyone convinced of the lies he has been fed with thousands of times is wary of the truth he encounters only a few times.
The really interesting info is skipped completely. Why?? What is the overall efficiency per m²? What do costs amount to per ltr. or kg of H2 or per driven mile?
@ Davemart I can't agree with your efficiency statement. That cannot even be reached with steam reforming of NG which would be the cheapest and most efficient but still below overall 40% and still contributing to pollution. Using REs would involve electrolysis losses, H2 compression losses, H2 pump losses, storage losses, battery losses and the rel. low effieciency of FCs. The total adds up to overall losses > 70%. In the end effect, the remaining efficiency is somewhere in the area of a run-of-the-mill gas hog. A BEV achieves more than 90%.
@ Harvey I'm making a list of all those points that enhance the fact that FCs are nothing more than a scam. - FCs will never operate without a battery. It takes at least 5 min.(+) for a FC to reach operating temperature; the drive train is supplied from the battery in buffer mode and has to be large enough to bridge that inherent idle time. - FCs are far more complex than a battery and horribly expensive to boot (batteries are expensive enough). - H2 is the smallest molecule in pure form and is almost impossible to store without losses. It'll diffuse through ceramics, glass, stainless steel, etc. etc.; the greater the pressure the higher the losses. - When using a sound mix of renewables to produce H2 (without environmental emissions), the overall efficiency of the FC is as poor as that of a gas hog. - Using the electric energy to charge a battery is approx. 4x more efficient than a FC. As I have mentioned several times in other posts, the only validity for a FC is home heating. The waste heat of the FC can be used for heating whilst generating power for home use or grid injection. The thus achieved efficiency can just be justified. THE FC IS ABSOLUTELY NOT SUITED FOR MOBILITY PURPOSES.
It's actually amusing to see that some poeple just can't break with stoneage habits.
@ Davemart You raise the impression as though you were very familiar with the local situations in Germany. How many months per annum do you reside in Germany to participate in solving problems peculiar at this latitude? Or are you a permanent resident in Germany?