This is yoatmon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following yoatmon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
yoatmon
Recent Activity
Keep up the excellent work; I'm sure it'll lead to fruition in the end.
@Davemart Have you taken note of this yet? https://www.autoblog.com/2017/11/13/fisker-has-filed-patents-for-solid-state-batteries/
Statistically, renewables are more than just competitive - as far as price, efficiency, ecology and availability are concerned - compared to fossils (not to mention NPPs). All of us are so adapted to wasting energy at the expense of our environment that we have grown blind to what is actually happening around us. Hardly anyone considers that established forms of energy production have had time for over a century to develop. It is not possible to close that time gap with renewables within a few years. Trump and associates are wasting that valuable time to make the a. m. time gap ever more critical. Trump and his hand-picked cronies are mentally retarded Neanderthals that wish to make the stone age great again. They are not only an embarrassment for this once great nation but rather for the whole of humanity.
@ sd: Considering the overall efficiency of H2-production via REs including losses incurred at storage you'll end up below 20%. That is a pure waste of energy no matter how cheap REs will manage to be in the future.
H2 is the "escape artist" among the gaseous elements. It'll diffuse through glass, ceramics, SST, carbon- fibreglass composites etc. The higher the storage pressure, the faster and higher the losses will be. There is only one material that definitely confines H2: Graphene. The problems with a graphene storage tank are: a) horribly exoensive b) the insertion / extraction valves are the weak spot for leakage. A viable but expensive solution would be to chemically bind H2 with atmospheric CO2 to synthesize methane gas identical to NG. That would require a FC suited for gas combustion. The overall efficiency would be disgusting.
@ mahonj: Mobile application of a FC without a battery is an absolutely no-go. A battery can definitely operate without a FC but not vice versa.
@ Davemart: The image at the near top of the article depicts three variables - 1, 2 and 3. Look at V 2 (Hi Nickel) and you will see "NCM 811 and others" Discharge Capacity 185 Ah / kg @1C etc. etc..
H2 FCs are completely unsuited for application of EVs. The "well to wheels" efficiency is so horribly inefficient that its just a waste of time to even contemplate on it. The presently most economical method of H2 production is cracking NG, which in no way alleviates environmental pollution; employing electrolysis to produce H2 from H2O (water) is a waste of energy resources. A non-subsidized 100kW H2 FC is more expensive than a complete BEV with the same power rating. Additionally, H2 is an "escape artist" and cannot be stored without diffusion losses; the higher the pressure of the storage contrivance, the more rapid and higher the losses. An FC vehicle, scheduled for corrective maintenance, underlies time consuming preparation (expensive). For safety reasons, the pressure of the stored H2 must be at or below 500 PSI. A fresh fill at a station to 800 PSI must be reduced accordingly. All the pipes, valves etc. targeted for inspection must be flushed with nitrogen (inert) before pertinent work can be initiated. Who pays for all this? Of course all the H2 enthusiasts! Or maybe your friendly FC MFR?
Apropos fresh water; the oceans have been trumped. There's supposedly more garbage floating in the oceans than fish swimming in them. I.o.w. what is the difference between garbage and Trump?
Presently, our household is supplemented with two cars, a Yaris diesel and a Nissan Leaf. With two exceptions - range and design - my preference is definitely for the Leaf. With the market launch expected for September this year, the new gen. Leaf will replace both present vehicles. I can't understand why so many bank on fossil fuel guzzlers; as far as I am concerned, those vehicles belong to the stone age and that is history.
When the saying - "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" - was coined, I wonder if that certain person had a glimpse of the future as it is now being practised by Trump?
The problem could be bypassed completely if they'd implement an electrically driven turbocharger.
@ peter XX I beg to differ. In their true physical nature, the real cost of EVs is far lower than ICEs. The high prices are the result of small series production; mass production would lower an EV price below that of an ICE. Manufacturers of ICEs are used to a certain margin of profit which they can not achieve with a low priced EV. To reach that margin, the effective price is simply increased respectively.
Trump's policies meant to benefit US automotive industries (ICEs) in reality are dealing a "coup de grace".
An accomplishment that any arrogant, conceited, presumptuous and repugnant imbecilic moron would be proud of.
@ SJC Regen braking certainly contributes to a considerable reduction of those metals used in brake linings. An even greater effect would be achieved by the usage of ceramic brake linings. The reduction would not be the only positive effect; ceramics endure far higher temperatures, last much longer and are far more reliable and safer than metal additives. Of course, ceramics are also more expensive. The final question is; do you want to die younger and cheaper or older and more expensive?
What do fusion power and H2 philosophy have in common? Well, both devour immense financial assets but have not yet delivered anything usable in terms of practical applications.
@ Davemart The salvation of humanity is certainly not sought in nuclear technology of any kind incl. pebble reactors. The eminent problem of safe nuclear waste storage remains no matter what type of design is employed. Fusion power is a pipe dream or if ever - a far future event. For the time being, we would all be good advised to use available horse sense and make the best of what is available to us without endangering ourselves and future generations.
@ HarveyD H2 is extremely difficult to store without considerable losses. The only viable way is to bind H2 chemically with atmospheric CO2 to synthesize gas (methane) equivalent to NG. This modus is already being processed and exploited; it is not emissions free but emissions neutral. E.g. during the summer months, electric power - produced by a PV-system - could be employed to produce methane which is stored for usage during the winter. A FC, capable to be fuelled directly with methane could reconvert e-power and utilize the waste heat for heating and warm (hot) water. This is the only sensible method that I can conceive for utilisation of FCs. FCs are completely unsuitable for mobility purposes with the exception of hybrid solutions for aircraft and heavy equipment.
WOW! This only 5 decades too late for market launch. Nevertheless, I'm convinced of Gorbachev's statement, "He who comes too late, will be punished by life". And here is proof to that statement: http://emerginggrowth.com/the-future-is-approaching-faster-than-one-can-handle/
I know that I just keep on repeating myself when I state that, with very few exceptions, the complete Hydrogen philosophy is simply a waste of time, effort, money and overall efficiency.
@ sd: 53'= 13.462m; 8,5'= 2.159m or 13.462m * 2.159m = 29m² A current high tech. panel (Panasonic) yields ca. 220 W/m² Total power is ca. 0.22 kW/m²* 29 m²= 6.38 kW/hr * 6 hrs = 38.3 kWh and may suffice for 1 hr of truck driving.
MFRs may not be aware that the potential markets are flooded and fed up with concept cars! It's "high noon" that some of those fairy tales become "flesh and blood".
Solar tiles are absolutely non-competitive with solar cells/modules on efficiency basis. Anyone with enough space to waste on his roof can decide to employ solar tiles.
@ Henrik It was probably your intention to use the term "coffers" and not coffins. Coffins are usually used as a container for a corpse for final disposal underground. Coffers, however, implicate containers for storing large amounts of valuables or money.