This is yoatmon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following yoatmon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
yoatmon
Recent Activity
An impressive bit of engineering when compared to a conventional ICE. But compare it with this http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10084/161_read-8869/year-all/161_page-3/ and it becomes too complicated and expensive in production. This solution, as achieved from DLR, is far more simple, cheaper to manufacture and less prone to mechanical failure. The real problem, as I see it, is the involvement of Mercedes in this achievement. The unacceptable attitude of Mercedes is: "Noli turbare circulos meos." (do not disturb my circles) to quote Archimedes. To see this implemented in a mass produced BEV as a REX will more than likely take decades.
@ mahonj Just putting it mildly, I have an extremely strong dislike for monopolies. The power utilities in Europe, particularly in Germany, are all monopolies. I fervently hope, that renewables keep up - better yet - increase their pace and push those monopolies out of business. I can't wait to see all of them pushing daisies.
Theoretically, a lithium air cell would allow the highest possible energy - and power density. A lithium metal electrode bears the inherent problem of reacting with the moisture in the air leading to violent uncontrollable reactions. Various metals, among them aluminum, are foamed for specific applications. Why not foam a lithium metal plate, cover this with graphene and use it as an anode. The spaces between the atoms of the graphene cloak are so small that they do not allow the passage of a H2O molecule making the anode electrode inherently safe. However, ions and electrons are small enough to penetrate this protective cloak. The nano-pores of the metal foam would result in a tremendous surface rendering an extreme high energy density. The cathode would be the oxygen in the air. Such a design would allow a cell of low weight and volume and extremely high power - and energy desnsity. Why not?
Gor! Are you a Muslim or a convert to this hostile religious club? Your rant allows the conclusion that you're affiliated with them.
First successful attempts have been made at spinning CNTs into yarn. This yarn replaced the copper windings in the motor and resulted in considerable weight reduction and thermal losses close to nil. The CNTs are also cheaper than copper. The thermal loss reduction also enables increased mileage. How long will it take before this innovation becomes SOP?
@ EP If you're content with nominal progress, this should be of interest to you. http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/energy-engineering/safe-lithium-batteries-with-a-long-service-life.html
Perhaps this is something that Tesla should have a closer look at. http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/energy-engineering/safe-lithium-batteries-with-a-long-service-life.html
"500 cycles with initial specific capacity of 1,350 mAh/g at C/2 and a cycle decay as low as 0.09%/cycle." 500 x 0.09% = 45% or 65% capacity retention; that's still a long way to go to reach acceptable results.
Aalso, miscanthus needs neither fetilizers nor pesticides; once planted it'll endure for approx. 4 yrs. and can be harvested twice a year.
Yes, the rate at which mechanical improvements for ICEs are being churned out which could have been had some 30 to 40 years ago, is absolutely remarkable.
@ Roger Pham: To date, this is the best method yet that I've come across to store hydrogen. http://phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-liquid-fuel-atmospheric-co2.html
I,m convinced that a more viable and cheaper method as a REx would be a combination of "power to gas" (carbon neutral) and DRL's FKLG (Free Piston Linear Generator). http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10084/161_read-8869/year-all/
There have been few examples of two-stroke engines with a separate closed loop lubrication system. These are just as clean as four-stroke engines but they are more expensive to build. So what! It's cheaper to pollute, so let's just keep on polluting with conventional two-strokes.
The true reason behind behind the recommendation of R1234yf as a refrigerant is that past designs of ACs can be used without much ado. Usage of CO2 implicates new AC designs and subsequent investments. CO2 is virtually inherently safe but greed has the advantage as usual.
"Further insist on nuclear as the only viable propulsion source." You're not really being serious, are you?
@ HD Harvey, I'm proud of you; I couldn't have stated it better.
"Ultimately the renewable energy problem is really a storage problem." No, it's not a problem at all. The H2 can be used in a further catalytic process to synthesize methane which is identical to NG. Methane gas can be stored without losses for long time periods. With the right FCs, methane gas can be converted to electric power as needed. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scalable-carbon-nanotube-based-catalyst-outperforming.html http://phys.org/news/2013-06-metal-free-catalyst-outperforms-platinum-fuel.html
I would venture to say, goodbye Platinum - forever. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scalable-carbon-nanotube-based-catalyst-outperforming.html As far as H2 is concerned, I'd prefer to have it stored in form of synthetic methane (SM) which is identical to NG. The afore mentioned CNT catalyst is also tolerant to CO poisoning which Platinum is not. So low pressure SM storage offers many advantages in lieu of high pressure H2 storage. BTW, SM is also carbon emmisions neutral.
When is production launch to be anticipated?
"The e-Golf, sporting signature LED headlights, is available from €34,900 (US$47,796), including an 8-year / 160,000-kilometer (99,419-mile) battery warranty." Is the steering wheel and spare tire included in the quoted price??
@ SJC, Several approaches to metal (platinum)free FCs have been published. Here's one of them: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-metal-free-catalyst-outperforms-platinum-fuel.html
"An elementary school child can understand these things. For some reason entire regiments of renewable academics and other impractical people cannot understand it." Excellent observation! But what is the point of criticizing yourself?
@ EP Do you have even a faint idea of the cost and effort to renaturate a former nuclear plant? Proper disposal of nuclear wastes and fuel rods? A former nuclear plant is being renaturated in Germany at a forecast timetable of approx. 30 years. That'll really be cheap! All these expenses should be added to the monthly power bill of all nuclear proponents and not left up to the taxpayer in general.
A "GREAT" idea. Once this is implemented in all jet-type planes they will no loger be limited to pollution of the lower atmospheric altitudes but can pollute the upper regions as well.
Are you perhaps indirectly suggesting that it would be preferable to build coal - and gas plants, fracking and nukes instead? Has Fukushima left any impressions on you? Is it the taxpayers choice and honor to cover all expenses for renaturation of nuclear plants/sites and removal of nuclear wastes? As sure as I'm still living, I'm convinced that the operating utilities won't cough up one rotten pence to cover expected expenses. Why don't you make an acceptable suggestion of how future supplies of energy can be ensured? And while you're at that, just replace Cameron and his stooges and do it far better.