This is Emphyrio's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Emphyrio's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Emphyrio
Recent Activity
It's a good thing CATL are moving ahead commercially with Sodium Ion or we'd all be right up the creek after the whole world put all its eggs in one basket yet again - lithium. There was never going to be near enough lithium for light duty vehicles, never mind HGVs (trucks etc.) - before the clueless, deluded or plain evil "decision makers" in every industry decided they were going to lithium batterify planes, ships, trains, wind turbines, solar panels and God knows what else, with lithium unobtainium. Yes PHEVs make the most sense, a 10 kWh battery only covers 90% of daily driving needs and can be recharged overnight from a wall plug and you get 6 PHEVs for the battery capacity sitting in one BEV. That's what BMW were supporting so what happened? Hans Kruger gets shot with a sonic soliton in broad daylight to ruin his credibility and a mass Internet hatchet job whispering campaign attacks PHEVs for being "wasteful" - though they are still teh top selling electrified vehicles in Europe. Bring on the NaIon PHEV. I personally am never going to buy a lithium powered potential time bomb.
Toggle Commented May 25, 2022 on Rough road for EV industry at Green Car Congress
Poor old Mitsubishi. Repeatedly sabotaged in their effort to get the MRJ to market, including being rammed on the ground at Farnborough so it could not fly display flights. Now it's far far too late. If you really want to do something Mitsubishi please do something actually innovative and dump the tube fuselage which crumples and kills everyone in a crash and develop a lifting fuselage design as pioneered by Victor Burnelli who got exactly the same treatment as you for his entire life. Payload HIGHER than the empty weight. No other type of aircraft can do that. And it protects the occupants in a crash so they live. And at least 20% more fuel efficient. Etc.
Non-lean operation and high temperatures both increase NOx. Stoichiometric or rich combustion also increases soot. No such thing as "soot free" fuel. Soot is carbon so if it's a carbon containing combustion fuel you have to address soot. Lean combustion does that. As for compression ignition of ethanol, I would not like to be around that thank you. "Simplifying the engine’s aftertreatment system improves its reliability and reduces its cost by about 75%" is just poppycock.
I like the Airfix model though, even if a bit of a retrograde step from an electric turbofan on a BAe 146.
In October 2019 Airbus's photogeneic CTO Grazia Vittadini (who replaced short lived Paul Eremenko) inaugurated the Airbus E Systems House test facility for hybrid electric systems in Ottobrunn to much fanfare. They were in the middle of the E Fan X hybrid electric demonstrator development programme with Rolls Royce, replacing one of the engines on a BAe 146 with a 2.5 MW electric motor. The project was launched in 2017 and was supposed to fly in 2021. In January 2020 it was still all systems go for systems integration. Then in April 2020 when Covid hit and nobody was paying attention they cancelled the programme, that was supposed to be the fer de lance of Airbus' (and Rolls Royce's) efforts in clean aviation. Vittadini left Airbus shortly afterwards - the CTO is a revolving door job there. Now we see, to quote the article that "With a horizon until 2027 ..... Rolls-Royce Deutschland aims to make significant investments for the development project .. securing about 50 highly-skilled jobs ... The corresponding work will be split between .. and the new facility, that will be based at the Center for Hybrid Electric Systems Cottbus ........" Wow so what were Rolls Royce really doing from 2017-2021 on hybrid electric? Sleeping? Why don't you just move into the Airbus Ottobrunn facility? No new grants available there I suppose.
40% of the energy content of liquid H2 is used to liquefy and compress it in the first place. It occupies 4 times the volume of kerosene for equivalent energy. Cryogenic cooling to -253 deg C. Huge insulated tanks. Bloated beluga whale aircraft. Horrible safety. Every few years the aviation industry recycles a new Mcguffin to pretend they are going to do "something" about the environment. UHBR, geared fans, open rotor/ propfans, biofuels, BWB, recuperation, hybrid electric, now they are recycling hydrogen again from the 80s when it was found to be unworkable.
Is the headline and first paragraph serious? Next you'll be telling us that the main contributor to emissions from cars is - people driving cars.
What is the range of an ATR 72 going to be fuelled by gaseous hydrogen and how many seats will be lost? Liquid hydrogen takes up 4 times the volume of kerosene so with gaseous - you will be down to a sixth of the range, maybe less, even with fuel cells and electric motors. As for "no known alternative technology" the statement would be funny, as Mr Eremenko either has the ability to keep a straight face while enunciating one of the biggest "economical with the truth" nesses of all time or is like most people woefully ignorant of the truth, if the consequences of 100 years of suppression of real science and innovation had not been so tragic - but it was meant to be. And is. Try a self running supercritical CO2 heat engine operating through the critical point Mr Eremenko - oh no, contravenes the hallowed "Second law" of Thermodynamics dreamt up at a time when the most advanced machine on the planet was a Puffing Billy. Steam engines. Still using them today. Ilya Prigogine must still be shaking his head in despair.
Class 7-8 trucks get about 5 -6 mpg or a sixth of a US car so with a battery say 0.5 miles per kWh since they mostly travel at highway speeds - even that is probably generous. So even for only 100 miles range they need a 200 kWh battery. Weighing at least a tonne. These trucks travel 80,000 miles a year or 1600 miles a week. When I last looked, about 280,000 Class 7 and 8 trucks were sold in the US every year, probably less now. How many super super chargers would be needed every 100 miles, to cater for the 2.3 million of these heaviest trucks trundling along on US highways?
I like the chart summarising EV vs eVTOL battery requirements - way higher. As I say in my post on the Vertical Aerospace article, neither the FAA or EASA are going to certify batteries until they have real world reliability test data to demonstrate achievement of required MTBF. They can't use automotive data to do that. Simulation will not be allowed. 2030 at best is optimistic.
Neither the FAA or EASA are going to certify batteries until they have real world reliability test data to demonstrate achievement of required MTBF. 10 to the minus 9. Simulations are not acceptable. The eVTOL people are makig noises of using automotive data - where the power demands are way lower and eVTOL are talking of replacing the packs 4 times a year - compared to never for a car. How can the two environments be comparable? Not. Plus battery tech keeps changing - which one specifically are each eVTOL company going to certify? Plus your best specific energy candidate, LiS from Oxis has just gone down the tubes.
I watched a webinar presentation from a German company developing the same thing, H2 conversions for commercial vehicles. The top question asked was - NOx. They said existing catalytic converter technology will work, so there will be no increase in NOx over diesel. Since Dieselgate I expect the regulators at least here in Europe will be hot on that and the converters have it as a top priority.
And if you could possibly stop the truck manufacturers designing what should be the pointy end like a brick your H2 and electrons would go a lot further.
This is excellent what Hyundai are doing, really pioneering the future of HGVs. If they and the other truck manufacturers could be bothered to improve atrocious truck aerodynamics and get the Cd down to an intelligent number that would be even better.
I was surprised to see Scania on the other hand have stopped fuel cell work and intend to focus on BEV trucks. So their 29 tonne truck has a 300 kWh battery and range of 150 miles - 0.5 miles per kWh. And going to 500 kWh or more in their 40 tonne trucks. 10 cars worth. Where do they think the lithium is going to come from? Meanwhile Oxis Energy are going bankrupt so their goes 16 years work on Lithium Sulphur which had reached a claimed 400 Wh/kg and no cobalt or nickel. As for motors, there's no good reason not to use induction motors. That's what the EV1 used. Bill Moore made a very interesting observation in his book about what he saw when he tested the EV1 on the freeway.
Pye in the sky. A King Air burns c.a. 500 lbs/hr at cruise (250 kts) = 2700 kWh/hour (of fuel). 35% efficient so 950 kWh needed at 100% efficiency. Electric would be 85% efficient from electrons to propulsive power so needs 1100 kWh/hour = 2.2 tonnes of Oxis battery per hour at even an optimistic 500 Wh/kg. 4.4 tonnes of battery for 2 hours cruise, plus reserve. MTOW of a 7 pax C90 = 4600 kg. Non starter. Even with a cleaner, lighter airframe how much can you improve? Well if they went BWB/ lifting fuselage they'd reduce drag 20% at least, have radically better payload to emty weight ratio and have more wing room for batteries - I'd say the standard wing and fuselage design has no chance with battery power. May have some chance with a fuel cell and high pressure gaseous H2, not done the numbers.
This is another reason why LiIon batteries with NMC cathodes are, to put it mildly, unsuitable for use in EVs. Apart from the increasing risks of thermal runaway as they push specific energy to the limit, the reliance on cobalt sourced from these disgusting child slave labour operations makes me puke. Reason enough not to buy an EV with a LiIon battery that currently are being recalled every week because they spontaneously explode. They are too sensitive to overcharge - one cell goes weak below 3.6 V and bingo, it overcharges and goes into thermal runaway. How many recalls are we seeing? Endemic. Plus that Norwegian ferry with a 2000 kWh battery that exploded in 2019 and the Alice aircraft with a 3600 kWh battery that exploded in January. It does not bear thinking about. What are the "engineers" doing this thinking? They are not. Just doing what everyone else is doing so they hide behind that instead of taking professional responsibility for this unsuitable "technology". Would they burn diamonds in a thermal power station if their bosses told them to, just because it is technically possible? So Tesla are now adopting LiFePO4 as if it is something new when it was what the whole industry was supposed to be going to use in the first place 15 years ago - i.e. Valence Technology and A123 Systems. But Tesla's Chinese Model 3 with LiFePO4 weighs 200 kg more than NMC. So all the manufacturers prioritised performance over safety and are now between a rock and a hard place. Should have stayed with Zebra and NiMH and developed those.
So the Chinese read "The Trouble with Lithium", rubbed their eyes and pinched themselves that such highly valuable market intelligence was put out for free and ran with it - massively subsidising CATL and buying up as much primary Li production as they could to go from nowhere to practically total market domination and control in less than 10 years while the West as usual sat there doing nothing important. The only reason that report was put out for free was because the author could not sell it because the UK and western Stasi have blocked and hijacked his communications for 20 years, child's play with our all digital comms systems, destroyed his business and reduced him to penury for "knowing too much". So the Chinese laugh, take the information which was put out to try and put the world on the right EV track - not lithium - and dominate the west in yet another arena, impoverishing the west further and creating further fertile ground for Stasi recruitment of the unemployed and underclass - reduced to those conditions by allowing China to industrially destroy the west in the first place.
Not before time. Lithium is such a marginal resource it should never have been used beyond electronic devices etc. To wreak all that environmental destruction for a marginal resource that cannot meet more than a fraction of societal road vehicle requirements in the name of Green Cars is completely unacceptable. As for Cobalt, it was never supposed to be used for EV batteries: when the EV revolution started in 2005 LiFePO4 batteries were supposed to be used for safety reasons and cycle life. As well as limited cobalt supplies. As well as the vile conditions in which cobalt is produced in the DRC - totally incompatible with so called "responsible" EVs. The problem was of course LiFePO4 had little better energy density than NiMH. When Tesla was a niche startup maybe it was acceptable for them to use nickel-cobalt cathodes - but it isn't acceptable for any EV manufacturer to be using that now. But you cannot get rid of the cobalt entirely. Which gives them a massive energy density headache. Which is why LiIon should never have been used for EVs in the first place. Now I read history rewriting headlines on Cleantechnica saying LiFePO4 is the future as if nobody had ever thought of it before. Never heard of Valence Technology and A123 Systems who were the leading players in EV LiIon in 2005 and for the next few years?
110 kt LCE locked out - about a third of current annual global lithium carbonate production gone south. EVs are looking good.
We all knew fast charging reduces battery life and this system does not solve the problem since all it does is stop charging as the internal resistance rises to let the resistance fall again - which is going to slow down the charging rate! Well anyone could have worked that one out. As for the Model X referred to above with 317k on the clock, without a complete teardown and inspection of the battery we have no idea what condition it was in. There's no magic solution to the battery conundrum.
"A Giant Stride for the Future of Electric Transportation - Plug In Hybrid Electric Sprinter Prototype Expansion Program" - EPRI, 2004 In 2004 - 05 EPRI built and tested 5 PHEV Sprinters with "20 - 30 mile range" in an alliance with the Daimler Chrysler Sprinter Van Business Unit making "significant investment". Evaluation period 2006-07 with final report in January 2008 Well, they've certainly made giant strides in the intervening 11 to 15 years .
" find their vehicle in a crowded parking lot with Car Finder and remote horn and lights" Except when a hundred owners are looking for their car it will be bedlam. A French review I read on the PHEV version got 55 km AER on an out of town road trip (Paris to Chartres), normal driving style, before the ICE had to take over. It seems to be a very efficient car.