This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Getting rid of marine diesel with its pollution, noise, unreliability and general hassle would be wonderful! Yachties hate having to switch a diesel engine on. Silent clean fuel cells would be a wonderful new chapter.
Its been my view for some time that new technology not development of existing ones is likely to be needed for reasonable range BEV cars to be fully competitive with ICE, especially hybrid ICE. I await further developments in this magnesium chemistry with interest.
Just one salt storage cavern currently being constructed in Nevada for hydrogen has 150 times the energy of all the battery parks in the US. Reversible electrolysers/fuel cells are now grid certified as they operate on off in as little as sub seconds. In spite of efficiency losses, since they can generate power not just store it in many respects they are a better solution than battery parks, which of course they can be combined with, to run the grid.
Carbon black is also used for tires, and quite a lot of other goods.
We now have specs on the new Mirai, which has significant improvements on the old, and lower cost:
I find this exciting. In my view the realistic way forward is to use what is practical, leveraging fossil fuels to provide cleaner energy, so avoiding much of the expense of attempting a leap to wholly renewable sources.
@matt PHEVs, hybrids, mild hybrids and FCEVs all have regenerative braking, not just BEVs. All FCEVs have batteries either lithium or NiCad to assist when a lot of power is needed for acceleration, which also work fine for regen. Mild hybrids use batteries or capacitors for the same purpose. A thumping great 50-100Kwh battery is not needed for the purpose. The ~1Kwh pack in a hybrid or an FCEV works fine for the purpose, and even a mild hybrid with its still smaller battery can work fine. Why are you attempting to critique technologies when you clearly have not take the trouble to find out how they work?
@Lad Desperate stuff when you have to resort to complete fabrications to support your prejudices. 'The downside when used in ICEs is the efficiency at best is about 25%' On what basis? Are you talking about well to wheels or something. A modern ICE engine is around 40% efficient tank to wheels, and electricity has extensive losses before it gets into the battery. 'When used as a compressed gas in a fuel cell the only residue is water; however, the efficiency is still less than 55% ' The Nexo is around 60% efficient, Hyundai say. Care to show exactly where they have got their figures wrong? ' Currently it is produced from natural gas that is reformed' Except when it isn't. For instance in 33% of hydrogen for transport in California, and all of it in places like Norway and New Zealand. 'it must be mechanically compressed to as high as 10,000 psi.' From as long ago as 2014: 'At the heart of the hydrogen fueling system is the 900-bar Linde IC 90 ionic compressor: ' Why are you posting a pack of nonsense and misstatements? Is it through ignorance or malice? Do get over your one-eyed obsession with batteries. You are behaving like a religious bigot.
The progress in hydrogen and fuel cells is way, way faster than that of batteries.
It seems to be even more difficult for others to accept that technologies can be combined in a way which optimises both, so that they are more than the sum of their parts. If ICE engines are kept in their sweet spot they do the job of providing long range without needing massive expensive batteries. And the issue of huge range reduction in the cold is solved. That will do fine until high temperature PEM or SOFC can utilise just about any fuel, including ones renewably produced, and do so with zero emissions at point of use, and indeed can leave the air cleaner than before they passed by, whilst BEVs contribute substantially to the main source of toxic emissions now, which are from non-exhaust.
The BEV only meme is false. Hybrids have a part to play in a zero carbon future too, either from renewables sources or with offset or sequestration.
I'm stocking up on food. The Head Liar and Moron in Chief has made no plans to enable trucks with food supplies to bypass the port gridlock ensuing on Brexit. There are only a few days worth in supermarkets.
As many cars are parked beside the road in the UK as those who have garages and driveways, so there is no conceivable way of providing home charging. Wealthy greenwashers are grabbing hold of maximum perks with utter disregard for the impracticality for most of the 'BEV solution' aside from the fact that the cost of the battery pack in a long range BEV still costs as much as an entire cheap ICE car. The talk of rapidly falling battery costs is not evident in sales prices, and is about as credible as the salespeople at a timeshare convention. MPs and their cronies having homes in the Barbican are getting effectively free cars with exemption from higher rate tax and the London congestion charge on the back of their alledgedly green purchases. It is regressive pork barrel politics, with a fake green veneer. Right up Boris's street. Oct 2020 sales: BEV 9,335 PHEV 7,775 HEV 11,038 MHEV Diesel 6,129 MHEV Petrol 16,023 The last category MHEV petrol grew 545.8% year on year. All new cars could be MHEV within a few years, for a tiny fraction of the money chucked at BEVs, and that would knock both noxious emissions and GHG down way more. Most toxic emissions are now non exhaust. MHEV can also recoup brake energy , and the heavy weight and massive acceleration of for instance the Tesla Model 3 make them far worse for tire and road dust.
Toyota are to do a reveal of the details of the fuel stack etc. They want to make an event of it, which is reasonable enough as they are not usually exactly publicity hogs. That will be specific about range, specifications and so on.
@gryf I rarely disagree with you, but: ' SMRs are ideal for load-following or backing up wind, even better than natural gas.' sounds a bit optimistic to me, at least in economic if not GHG emission terms. They use NG because the build costs are so low, with the main cost being fuel, which of course other than for spinning reserve which is being phased out in favour of batteries means that you only incur the main cost when it is in use. SMRs should be cheaper than the big custom jobs, but the main cost will still overwhelmingly be in the build, not in running them. You don't want to be running any nuclear installation only 20% of the time. I think it needs excess production when demand is slack to be channelled into hydrogen production for both nuclear and wind to square the circle.
Thanks gryf. That is pretty much an ideal performance curve when topped off with battery power for the use of modularity to further increase lifetime.
I was heavily critical of Tesla for their battery fires. So am I equally critical of GM now? Nope, as it was not really the battery fires I was critical of. It was the repeated cover ups by Tesla, their use of completely duff statistics to try to hide the excess fire risk so that they compared a fleet of almost new expensive saloons with every old banger on the road to falsify a low fire risk, and their tendency to try to hang any problem on the customer. I expect manufacturers to have to do recalls, especially for new technology. It is Tesla evading recalls, so for instance they are recalling cars in China to check the suspensions as they are compelled to, but not the identical cars elsewhere. They are a fundamentally dishonest organisation run by a montebank, just like Nikola. I would not buy a paperclip from Elon Musk.
'Instead of having a single large fuel cell operate at an inefficient partial load, individual HD45 power modules can be turned on/off to provide adequate power at an efficient full load.' Great use of modularity! Having most of the modules switched off most of the time should also presumably increase their lifetimes. I am a bit surprised though, as I thought the efficiency curve was pretty flat, and more efficient at low loads? Any info, anyone?
The new small reactor designs are to be factory built and delivered to site. No reason they can't be produced in as large a quantity as required, if the supposedly green innumerates don't manage their usual blocking measures, in wanton disregard of tackling climate change.
This sort of technology moves a low carbon society much nearer. For nuclear energy of major importance to the economics is the advance of hydrogen and electrolysis technology. This means that money can be made when demand is low, instead of the plant being idled. Early nuclear plants such as those in the US could not be throttled back, and so were only suitable for base load. All modern designs are flexible, but the high cost of build versus running costs mean that it is uneconomic to use them other than for base load. If hydrogen can be produced by efficient high temperature electrolysis when other demand is low the economics are way better.
It looks like we are getting there. Volvo tried to develop Level 3 but gave up on their program as they hit difficulties. This is utterly different to fake FSD which relies on cat like reflexes from an expert driver to instantly seize control, and which has wholly irresponsibly been released in beta form.
No doubt that the Legislature in California have been captured in their incentives, by Tesla et al, who after sucking them dry are shamelessly promising to abandon the State as soon as they conveniently can. It always was a lousy place to build cars, and Shanghai or Texas is where they are moving output as soon as they can.
Great news! I have been sceptical whether big battery BEVs are the best answer for light transport, preferring the Toyota and increasingly the Chinese take that for short range city cars BEVs are fine, but for long distance and big cars FCEVs are preferable. But batteries are an essential part of our low carbon future, whatever the configuration, so I am as keen on this as any battery advocate.
@Bob Niland: Here is an in depth article on the production and transport costs of various fuels, liquid hydrogen, LNG, ammonia, DME and methanol: 'Estimating boil-off cost for LNG, liquid ammonia, methanol, DME, and liquid hydrogen. • LNG tanker capital cost is 15% and 40% higher than ammonia and methanol tankers. • Transporting cost of liquid ammonia and liquid hydrogen are 1.09 $/GJ and 3.24 $/GJ. • Methanol and DME has 10% and 25% lower transportation cost than LNG. • Social cost of carbon is calculated for various energy carriers.' Its clear enough why ammonia should be preferred to LNG let alone liquid hydrogen in the big projects in Australia and Saudi, although the Japanese are also developing liquid hydrogen carrier ships, which I don't understand. I also don't get why they are looking at ammonia rather than methanol or DME, which as far as I can see look better in lots of respects. But having no expertise in the field I may have missed something in the report, or there might be heavy considerations against them which I am not aware of.