This is sd's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following sd's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering, entreprenuer
Interests: diesel and gasoline engines, cars, aircraft, railroads, electric drives
Recent Activity
@Davemart, I am not sure what it cost GM to make the battery but I would guess that is under well $100 per kWhr. I do know that it costs me less than $0.03 per mile to drive based on 0.11 per kWhr and an a average of 4.1 miles per kWhr. I have driven the Bolt over 40,000 miles in about 2 years and 4 months. @charlesH. I have never driven more than about 150 miles and I have never charged using DC fast charging but GM claims about 200 miles per hour for DC fast charging so you would spend at least 2 hours. The new Cadillac LYRIQ which has a different battery chemistry will have more than 300 miles of range and charges at about 195 miles in 30 minutes so you should be able to spend less than an hour charging to drive 600 miles. @Lad, Unfortunately, it will probably take more than 5 years for the gas stations to start closing but I could believe that the value of gas/diesel vehicles will decrease as people start to realize how much they can save with electric vehicles. Also more fun to drive. Judging by the sound, I made a Ferrari try hard to keep up the other day.
Well, in my maybe not so humble opinion, I think Toyota has it all wrong. I think that GM has it right as usual along with Ford, Renault-Nissan, whatever Chrysler-Fiat became, VW, and most of the rest of the world. With a reasonable plug-in range of at least 50 miles, you still need 15-20 kWhr and you need also have all of the expense and maintenance of an IC engine. I own a Chevy Bolt and my next car or truck will also be electric. The Bolt and the Nissan Leaf are currently available with a price in the low $30K range without subsidies and the price vs performance has been falling.
Instead of writing about Fjord Blue Carpet and Unique 20" wheels, why not supply some useful data such as battery capacity, range, chargineg rates, etc.
A lot of words without much information and some rather confusing graphics. Their large current arrow looks like a short circuit path. What is the total energy storage? How far could it go on the battery alone. I assume that it is not a plug-in.
There is another almost green method of generating hydrogen from methane -- high temperature pyrolysis. You get carbon black and hydrogen without CO2. It is easier to permanently sequester solid carbon. Just use the solid carbon to backfill empty coal mines:) Hydrogen has it's use but it is a real pain to deal with and if I was asked to come up with a preferred method of generating hydrogen, it would be high temperature electrolysis using nuclear power.
@ Centurion If I could make a polite suggestion. Write your comment in Spanish if that is easier but also include a Google Spanish to English translation as more of the people reading it will be able to understand English. Google Translate version of your first post: Empty data devoid of any meaning ....... No data is given on how these 675 cycles have been achieved. At what loading and unloading rates have they been achieved? Something tells me that when they have not given those figures is that they are ridiculously low ....... They already gave other data in April of this 2021 with 400 cycles at 80% after cycling them at 0.5C / 0.5C. Enevate for example are 340wh / kg-800wh / l and 1000 cycles at 80% at 1C / 1C.
I suspect that the reason that the Porsche Taycan has a 2-speed transmission is to increase the top speed. My Chevy Bolt has enough torque starting off to break loose the front tires but is limited to 92 mph which is more than enough for normal driving but maybe not enough for a Porsche owner. It should be relatively easy to make a 2-speed transmission as the motor can be programmed to synchronize the speed to make the shift without a clutch. Anyway, still no good reason to use a traction type CVT.
Toggle Commented Jul 12, 2021 on Bosch demonstrates CVT for EVs at Green Car Congress
I meant to say: I do NOT think that you need a shifting transmission (CVT or otherwise) for a Light Duty Electric Vehicle.
Toggle Commented Jul 12, 2021 on Bosch demonstrates CVT for EVs at Green Car Congress
@ Ing. A.S.Stefanes, do you even know what eCVT is? A planetary transmission can have a fixed ratio, 2 ratios as used in most automatic transmission for ICEs, or be infinitely variable by using 2 electric motors driven at different speeds. You can even make the output go to zero and then reverse but that is not needed with electric motors. I do think that you need a shifting transmission (CVT or otherwise) for a Light Duty Electric Vehicle. The new Ford Lightning has two motors but they are separate front and rear drives. Maybe the heavy duty pickups when they come out will have a transfer case with a low ratio for hauling heavy loads off-highway. And I again will state that I think that these belt type CVTs are a cheap but bad solution for any vehicle other that maybe off-road 4 wheelers or snowmobiles as they continuously slip and wear. I know that GM looked at CVTs in the early 80's when I worked for the company that built all of their transmission lines. You could get the engines to run more efficiently but these transmissions are less efficient. Anyway, GM ended up going with more speeds in their lockup planetary gear automatic transmissions and Ford opted for dual clutch transmissions. Both of these are better solutions in my opinion.
Toggle Commented Jul 12, 2021 on Bosch demonstrates CVT for EVs at Green Car Congress
I hope that this works out as it produce baseload power with the possibility of also providing process heat. As Devemart points out, when there is sufficient renewable power to provide for some of the baseload, the nuclear plant can be used for high temperature electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen. Maybe steel can also be produced economically using direct high temperature electrolysis of iron.
@gyrf Yes, I am using the recirculate setting. I do not think that a multi-speed transmission is needed unless the 92 mph max speed of the Bolt is insufficient for your needs.
Personally, I think that this is a bad idea. Under some conditions, you get a few percent of efficiency but you have a heavier and more complicated drive train with a device that is continuously slipping and therefore continuously wearing. If there really is a need for such a device, I would go with 2 motors and a planetary gear train.
Toggle Commented Jul 11, 2021 on Bosch demonstrates CVT for EVs at Green Car Congress
Not as late to the party as Toyota. Toyota is protecting that they will still be building IC engines in 2050.
I have a Chevy Bolt. It has been over 100 deg F the past few days in Salt Lake City, Utah and I am definitely running the AC. I just checked the readings since I last had it fully charged 257 miles ago. Climate settings used 10 % of the power consumed. The total breakdown of mileage effects were +25.9 miles for technique, -1.5 miles for terrain, -24.5 miles for climate settings, +10.2 for outside temp for a net of +10 miles. Concerning the technique, I am definitely not hyper-miling. All I do is mostly use the 1 pedal technique for braking so I try not to use the hydraulic brakes. Most of my daily commute is on the interstate and I am almost always driving between 70 and 80 mph. The EPA rating for my car is 3.97 miles/kWhr but my current mileage is 4.25 miles/kWhr. So I do not know how Car & Driver got their numbers but my real range effects are as stated above.
50 % increase in range??? This makes no sense! Air conditioning does not use 50 % of available power unless you spend most of the time stopped in traffic.
Q: are we better to promote full EVs with say 50 kWh, PHEVs with say 12 kWh or hybrids with say 2 kWh? My answer would be full electric as it is the most efficient and reliable and batteries are getting less expensive and better. Faster charge rates are coming. I have a Chevy Bolt and I do not miss going to the gas station for fuel or having to change oil, etc.
"with a Faradaic efficiency of 3.868%"??? I hope that it was of educational value but is seems a long way from being a commercial venture. I think that GEVO has a much better prospect for producing isobutanol from the fermentation of corn.
If this pencils out economically, it looks like a real win. US based lithium plus other rare earth elements and 1100 MW of base load power which is worth about 6000 MW of solar or wind power.
The major question I would have is how the overall energy efficiency and overall cost compares with direct molten oxide electrolysis of iron. I suspect that direct hydrogen reduction is more advanced in terms of commercial application but uses more energy. However, direct molten oxide electrolysis may produce an iron that has fewer impurities.
I would bet against this for the light duty vehicle market. It was tried and failed in Israel a while ago. Batteries and regular recharging will work for almost all delivery services and most other light duty vehicles. Faster charging batteries are under development. Also, this requires a significant buy-in from a major vehicle producer. Not going to happen would be my opinion.
Meanwhile, Toyota is planning on still building cars with IC engines until at least 2050.
I am impressed with the relatively low price point for what you are getting -- a very capable pickup truck with lots of extra features. This looks much more usable than Tesla's Cyber Truck.
I believe that the solution is lower cost small modular nuclear reactors and if you really want to use "renewable power", use the nuclear power for high temperature electrolysis when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing and the renewable resources can provide the electric base load. When there is insufficient renewable power, the nuclear plant can provide the required base load. This is what Shearwater Energy in the UK is proposing.
They do not have much in the way of details on how they plan to make the hydrogen but from some of their graphics, it seems that they are going to use wind or solar and electrolysis. If I was given the task of designing this, I would probably do what Shearwater Energy in the UK is proposing -- use a small modular nuclear plant coupled with the wind turbines and/or solar. When the wind is blowing of the sun is shining, use the nuclear power plant for higher efficiency high temperature electrolysis and use the wind turbines, etc to provide the base load. If the wind is not providing sufficient power, use the nuclear plant for the base load. You could also use methane pyrolysis which produces hydrogen and solid carbon. Maybe this is not truly green but there is no carbon dioxide. Use the solid carbon to backfill the existing coal mines or whatever. I did see that they plan to convert the coal fired Intermountain Power Plant near Delta, Utah to a combined cycle gas turbine that will initially burn 30 % hydrogen 70 natural gas. This is a good thing as I live downwind of this facility when the wind is blowing from the south and I do not think that Utah should subject to LA's outsourced pollution. This would be a good place to put in a combined cycle nuclear plant.
If they can build a 6 mW locomotive, then it would run almost 2 hours at full power. Wabtec's diesel locomotives are rated at 4400 hp ( 3280 mW) for tractive power. Next string segments of catenary where the traffic and power usage is high and you can run without diesel or hydrogen. Maybe hydrogen fuel cell locomotives will happen but I would bet against it for 2 main reasons -- the inefficiency and cost of using hydrogen compared with straight electric and the difficulties of dealing with either high pressure or liquid hydrogen. BNSF already tried using a lower power fuel cell/battery locomotive in 2008 and gave up after a short trial period