This is Thomas Pedersen's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Thomas Pedersen's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Thomas Pedersen
Recent Activity
This is absolutely necessary. No airline can sell exclusively expensive fuel flights for the foreseeable future. But individual organizations can, as a policy, ensure than an equivalent amount of SAF i consumed, generating a market for SAF. I suppose the brilliance of blockchain is that it is auditable, meaning that you can prove the origin of the fuel and that your extra money did not just go to (Russian) scammers. (I mention Russia, because a large Danish organization purchased CO2 reduction credits in Russia that turned out to be a huge scam)
SJC, Correct. However, MTG infers prioritizing gasoline production, and I assume Exxon has tweaked the process to optimize for JET-fuel (longer alkanes) and side streams of diesel and gasoline/light alkanes. The MTG process is convenient, because it allows for easy production of methanol where it's convenient and transport it as liquid at ambient pressure and temperature to central MTG/MTJ facilities.
Is this news 6 days late..? This doesn't solve anything, as it only ads about 6% of the final kinetic energy. Maximum dynamic pressure for a normal rocket comes at relatively low altitude and speed. Imagine even higher speed at lower altitude. Going from 100 G centrifugal acceleration to zero G in that direction, but 200 G shock to the front. Why am I even arguing against this April's Fool concept? Actually, 5000 mph on a 150 ft arm is 11,500 G. The only thing holding up to that is the carbon fibre arm...
For a comparatively long-distance ferry such as this, hybrid systems make so much sense, and provides the added safety of a hydrocarbon fueled limp-home ICE if the battery system fails. I bet that once ferry designers get accustomed to to batteries, they will love their high central mass and zero variation in fuel mass, which normally needs to be pumped between tanks to ensure a level deck. A ferry of this size also typically has a port time of at least 30-45 minutes, allowing 20-80% charge each time without abusing the batteries excessively. Ferries usually have a quite persistent drone of the engine and getting rid of that should be quite calming to passengers and crew.
They can't just use grid electricity and sell the product as *green* methanol, which is essential for the business case. They may be able to source electricity from alternative R-E sources via direct PPA (power purchase agreement) but the coming RED II (renewable energy directive) actually prohibits this, unless *additional* R-E capacity (installed +/- 12 months of commissioning of the electrolysis plant) is employed. The cost of electricity is the all-dominating cost factor for eFuels and using their own solar electricity, they avoid grid tariffs. As long as there is CO2 available, the methanol synthesis process is fully capable of throttling up and down in capacity. Obviously, a small buffer of hydrogen to compensate for a small passing cloud would be feasible. I have done detailed engineering on a similar project, and there is no fundamental technical challenges.
Utilizing the considerable roof space of truck trailers would be unquestionably beneficial, but for whom? For many trailers the difficult question is who makes the investment and who benefits. This question is already answered for fleet operators who own their trailers. Mostly, the solar power can be used to reduce trailer cooling demand as well as 'hotel loads'. Retrofitting a form of emotor in the driveline would be next step but I suspect often difficult for practical applications.
Generating lift by pressing air downwards has an associated drag, which is what the propulsion has to overcome. Reducing the boundary layer with this method reduces drag and herein lies the benefit. When the ratio between lift and drag (L/D) increases, you can generate more lift with the same power.
Replacing one or two of the existing engines with hydrogen counterparts would only make sense, if you were trying to develop an engine of this size. The very large engines are almost exclusively employed on long haul flights with expensive airplanes. Until now I have only seen hydrogen-fuels planes suggested for routes up to 2,000 nm, and then without any windows after the wings, suggesting a halving of passenger capacity. Long haul flights load significantly more fuel and would have to cut the passenger count to zero to fly on hydrogen ;-) The engines tested here correspond to a smaller, regional plane. Using hydrogen makes the plane a lot less efficient. From an efficiency - and commercial - point of view, it's better to take the efficiency hit on the ground and convert the hydrogen to a hydrocarbon liquid fuel.
What's up with these Japanese companies. Are they crazy or what?!? I believe a central part of the reason is that Japan (and South Korea) has a national strategy to source energy by importing hydrogen (e.g. from Australia) and distributing the hydrogen as an energy carrier. The reason is that it is very difficult to create enough renewable energy due to geographic constraints. And they seem to be less in favor of nuclear If you already have the hydrogen, is it then better to create electricity very efficiently at central plants and charge batteries, or to charge hydrogen and convert to rotational mechanical energy within the vehicle? My sense is that it certainly becomes feasible to have hydrogen vehicles, when the energy 'starts' as hydrogen.
We see with this design that the added cost of methanol has finally made it viable to optimize ship design wrt aerodynamics as well. I have always wondered why they insisted on right-angle corners. I mean, I get that it's simpler and cheaper but even building them with sharp corners and then loosely attach 3/4 (270°) of a 3-4'' pipe section onto the corners would have helped. The energy per shipped good was already low, yet they were (nor surprisingly) able to find an additional 20% savings compared to decades if not centuries of similar ship design (steel hull, propeller propulsion). Btw did you know that if you drive your ICE car to pick up an iPhone at a store, you will have burned through more fossil fuel before the car has reached stable idle conditions than was consumed on the whole voyage from Asia by container vessel, per iPhone. About 1-2 ounces of fuel!
sd, About Shell's involvement: You may be right. However, I am convinced the large energy (oil) companies are biding their time, ready to prowl on the renewable market with their money and petrochemical experience, when the market is ready. I very much those organizations intend to die along the the use of fossil fuels just to prove a point. They're in love with fossil fuel because it has been extremely profitable. And they will remain so until it is no longer the most profitable route.
sd, If the SMR hydrogen is combined with CCS, at least 85% of the CO2 emission would be captured. If the Haldor Topsøe eSMR technology were employed to drive the process, nearly 100% of the CO2 can be captured. CO2 can potentially be sequestered at the bottom of gas fields (not fracking) for enhanced gas recovery. As a method to avoid CO2 emissions, blue hydrogen can be almost as good as green hydrogen - technically - even though it may seem 'morally inferior'. ;-)
mahonj, I'm sympathetic to your point but I tend to agree with Davemart. Not least because I live in Denmark and mainly work with PtX... :-b It's not that easy to explain why PtX is so necessary. Why can't just use wind a solar? Just plant more solar!? (most people think domestic electricity and gasoline consumption makes up the majority of energy consumption - which it doesn't) Well, in Denmark we already have the situation that peak wind production is 120% of annual average electricity consumption and wind+solar is about 140% of consumption. Yet, wind+solar is only about 10% (!) of our total energy consumption (about 50% of electricity consumption). But existing wind developers have no motivation to establish more capacity because more wind will only drive down the price of wind power for *the entire fleet*. The have said quite openly that they need more peak electricity demand - i.e. electrolysis - to warrant more wind capacity. But it just so happens that two one-gigaWatt electrolysis projects have been announced within the last 6 months, so now the tables are turning and we may end up with insufficient RE because project duration of offshore wind is longer than establishing an electrolysis plant (supposedly). I imagine a future where 70% of 'consumption capacity' is electrolysis and the rest is classical electricity consumption - half of which goes to batteries for transport. In such a scenario, classical electricity consumption will be just 10-20% of total and the times where thermal backup is in use will be minimal. In such a scenario, I would agree that using natural gas to generate <5% of annual electricity demand using natural gas would be OK. I always say: "The first 95% CO2 emissions reduction is 19 times more important than the last 5%!"
I'd be shocked, if the price is below €6,000... About needing electric bikes. Well, experience shows that when a bike ride does not necessarily have to be strenuous and sweaty in headwind or steep hills, people ride their bike about an order of magnitude more and end up getting much more exercise. Some even sell their (second) car (typically people who no longer have kids) because once they get used to getting into the 'environment' in all conditions, they loose their fear riding the bike to go and get stuff. About the gorgeous bike in the image. I really like the rear-facing camera. In Denmark where we have bike lanes almost everywhere, it's perhaps not that necessary. But I can imagine many other places where being able to see what's coming from behind will increase the sense of safety.
This is a very interesting development. And a significant blow to those who claim battery powered heavy duty vehicles aren't practical. However, afaik, 15-20 minute charging (assuming 60-80% of usable battery capacity) is quite abusive to most battery chemistries. However, this fast charging is supposed - I suppose - to be emergency charging, as opposed to more 'gentle' charging while loading/unloading - or at night. A note: I would recommend to make the charging port replaceable within the vehicles as they can be expected to suffer quite a lot of 'violence'. What do you do when your trailer plug does not connect easily: Use more force, of course. I'd imagine the same goes for HD vehicles.
Peter_XX They expect these ships to be 10-15% higher in CAPEX, and OPEX is most certainly higher. What has prompted Maersk to commission new ships now, rather than in 2028, as was their original strategy towards zero carbon emission in 2050, is market demand for zero carbon shipping. As more and more organizations, particularly those with a high $/ton and/or $/m3 retail value, such as apple, Nike, fashion, etc, adopt zero emission strategies, they realize how infinitesimal the cost of shipping is in their overall value chain. A single 40 foot container can literally hold $2bn worth of iPhone 12! If you take the bike to the electronics store to pick up a new phone, you will have spent more oil on bike tire wear than was consumed by the ship to transport it from Asia to the nearest port. OK, maybe I am exaggerating but we are within that order of magnitude. By my estimation from numbers on Wikipedia, fuel consumption per 40-foot container is about one metric ton from Asia to Europe. And one container holds 2 million iPhones, so that equates to 0.5 grams of fuel per iPhone.
mahonj, The beauty of solar panels installed on the vehicle is that they're always connected and installation is the cheapest possible. These vehicles are almost never connected to the grid while the sun is up. So it makes for cheap, tarif and tax-free propulsion energy, and provides a modest range extension.
In fully serial-hybrid mode, there's nothing keeping the ICE from operating at optimum efficiency, except perhaps from driving up a mountain. Ahh, now I see. They are comparing full load efficiencies, which is not where FC's shine the most, but ICEs do. OK then... OTOH, if there's ultimately minor difference in efficiency then use FC or ICE as you please... Switching to hydrogen removes CO2 emission from green hydrogen and moves it to central locations where it can be captured and sequestered for blue hydrogen. However, a sufficiently large battery, e.g. 200 kWh and large H2 tanks start to take up quite a bit of volume...
Dear Nissan, Please begin making hundreds of thousands of these engines to all other car manufacturers. Love, Thomas There is no information on power output, but I suppose 50 hp would be plenty for class C/D cars with a suitably large battery, like the coming generation of Mercedes C class. This car, however, sports a complicated, powerful 200 hp gasoline engine. A modern aerodynamic car with low cooling demands (due to having only a small, efficient ICE) should be able to do >100 mph with 50 hp, and significantly more in peak bursts from the battery. Another fabulous aspect of this is the fact that with such high efficiency, a just 10-20 litre gasoline tank would be able to deliver sufficient range between stops and not encroach on trunk space. This is the engine the BMW i3 REX should have had.
majonj, You are absolutely right about steel making and other hydrogen-consuming industry being more important use of hydrogen than cars - insofar as the only other option to decarbonize those industrial sectors would be carbon capture and storage. Not that there's anything wrong with CCS (my specialty) but not all locations are well suited for subterranean sequestration. The article does not mention any on-site hydrogen storage facility. An I am quite sure the steel plant cannot or is not willing to stop production when there's little wind or solar. This is why a hydrogen grid - connected to underground storage volumes - is so important to create for the future. While it is impossible to everything perfectly, the Germans are taking the correct approach; converting a steel plant to hydrogen reduction of iron ore using grid electricity for electrolysis, while waiting for 1) the grid to become 'greener' and 2) for a dedicated hydrogen network to capture and store the potential 'green hydrogen' from excess wind and solar. The alternative would have been to commit to another 2-3 decades of iron ore reduction with graphite and the ensuing CO2 emissions. Actually, after reading the article again, I am not sure whether they can in fact operate the blast furnaces on a mixture of hydrogen and carbon. If so, they could potentially change the mix according to projected renewable generation (as opposed to minute-to-minute response to wind loads). Let's not forget either that Germany has a strong hydrogen strategy for exactly this sort of purpose and large companies have a clear interest in proving their commitment to the Paris agreement and not least the national strategy. Let us hope that Thyssenkrupp is setting a precedence here wrt steel making. This is an important contribution to CO2 emissions reduction.
The Haber-Bosch process does not emit CO2. The SMR process before the H-B process, however, emits CO2 when converting CH4 + H2O into CO2 + H2. They now use an electrolytic process to wrestle hydrogen free from oxygen in water to give to the nitrogen - as well as to react with the Ox attached to it. This pretty much corresponds to electrolysis of water to make free hydrogen. What they have really devised is a way of separating nitrogen out of air using plasma activation. And it remains to be seen whether this is more efficient than cryogenic air separation... Their process: 1836 kJ/mol for the electrolysis. Energy loss (from hydrogen) in H-B process: 46 kJ/mol NH3 Additional energy consumption to produce the hydrogen: 550 kJ/mol NH3 I'm afraid I fail to see how this is an improvement.
Honestly, the need for fossil-free hydro-carbon fuels makes it a moot point to generate hydrogen from biogas. Long before any country or region has reached even 50% renewable energy input (or nuclear), i.e. with electricity as the primary energy source, there will be great excess of RE at times that could beneficially be turned into hydrogen. Some of this hydrogen could, and will most likely, be converted into synthetic hydro-carbon fuels for energy demands that cannot easily be directly electrified. That being said, I principally recognize carbon capture and sequestration of CO2 resulting from biomass as being carbon negative as the CO2 absorbed by the plants during their growth is extracted and sequestered away from the biosphere.
Arnold, The battery locomotive is a third locomotive. If the two diesel locomotives are able to pull the train without the battery locomotive, albeit with higher diesel consumption, the battery locomotive is effectively a third locomotive, adding about 50% to CAPEX and less to OPEX.
While I realize that real-life demonstrations are required, I do get a feeling of someone thinking: "So, batteries have worked fine in phones, laptops, bikes, drones, buses, cars, trucks, passenger trains and many more. I wonder if they will work in our trains..?" A question though: Does the electric locomotive eliminate a diesel counterpart (because the locomotives operate at > 2/3 power once cruise speed is achieved)? If not, 50% more locomotives to save 10% fuel seems expensive.
I suppose it will leave the crew eternally hungry, what with the permanent smell of fries onboard... mahonj, This oil would most likely have been used anyway. In Denmark we add it to biogas digesters and produce biomethane. LNG is not the most fantastic fuel, because as little as 1% spillage and/or unburnt fuel equates to a GWP (Global Warming Potential) as bad as bunker fuel, albeit with fewer emissions of pollutants (which are now mostly captured by scrubbers - and emitted to the sea locally)