This is Emphyrio's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Emphyrio's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
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.
Stock manipulation stunt. First we go down, then we go up. Someone made a packet on put options. Why is this charade permitted to continue?
Use teh solar power to reduce zinc ore and the oxide to zinc and you have a closed zinc fuel cell energy cycle, zero or low carbon: The European SOLZINC project has built and tested a Solar Thermal Reactor in Israel which can reduce Zinc Oxide to Zinc metal by solar power. An array of mirrors focuses sunlight onto a collector which then directs the concentrated light into the reactor chamber containing Zinc Oxide and beech charcoal. The temperature reaches over 1600 deg C. The charcoal reduces the oxide to Zinc metal. If the charcoal is produced from sustainable forests, the net CO2 emissions would be zero. If the temperature is raised somewhat more, Zinc Oxide will thermally dissociate into Zinc metal and Oxygen under the action of heat alone, without the need for carbon. This higher temperature can be achieved in the SOLZINC reactor.
All attempts to introduce high speed trains in the USA have been sabotaged by the climate saboteurs. As with so many other things, the USA is decades behind Europe - socially, environmentally, politically, civilisationally. Such a shame. The real American Spirit got Shanghaied a long time ago.
Nuclear – is that what is meant by “what works”? The leading edge EPR reactor in France has cost €10.9 billion so far and rising for a 1.65 GW plant. CO2 heat pumps running from the air, not the ground, have a CoP of 4 under worst case conditions, up to 8 in better conditions. 77% of domestic energy use in France is on space heating and water heating and 31% of the TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION in Europe is for the same – domestic space heating and hot water. Every single CO2 heat pump installed will cut that by 75% minimum. If they had given away for free 2 million heat pumps for that €11 billion, 10% of French households, cutting their water and heating energy use by a factor of 4 they could have shut down 6 of the existing 900 MWe nuclear reactors – superfluous to requirements, instead of wasting it on building yet another NPP. If every household in Europe had a CoP 4 heat pump, Europe’s Total Energy Consumption - Total – would be reduced by 23%. A Quarter. What makes more sense – burning more coal and gas and generating more nuclear waste, the most toxic substances ever known when every dollar and euro spent could instead cut energy consumption by a factor of 4 to 8?
"Consumer Reports urges all drivers to pay close and consistent attention to the driving task," What has happened to the world? "Not driving with due care and attention" is a criminal offence in the UK - not an optional extra.
The new head of EDF has just stated that the cost of building the 1.6 GW EPR reactor will be 10.5 billion euros with entry in service now 2018 at the earliest. Original cost: 3 billion euros, commissioning supposed to be 2012. The London Array offshore wind farm (1 GW) was 1 billion euros to start, increased to 2 billion. So the EPR is 3.3 times as expensive as offshore wind, never mind onshore wind. The DLR study for the Desertec project showed that a negligible chunk of the Algerian Sahara Desert alone could power all of Europe with solar thermal - something like a quarter of Algeria could power the entire world. Solar Thermal is NOT intermittent - heat is stored in molten salt for night-time generation. Archimedes destroyed the Roman fleet at Syracuse with parabolic mirrors - massive energy available for free. The human race must be stark raving mad, off its rocker, collectively hallucinating, criminally negligent and insane not to be using solar thermal power to solve all of its electrical power needs. Safe, fuel free, reliable, robust, long plant service life, low maintenance, simple technology to drive steam or supercritical CO2 or ORAC turbines. An NPP is a kettle to boil water. That's all. So instead of using a parabolic mirror - let's use radioactive decay. As I said - humanity is mad and worse the "engineers" who should know better are all criminally negligent only interested in their miserable jobs rather than doing what is technically and professionally correct. Oh nimble technicians, yes you should hang your heads in shame. (WH AUden paraphrase).
Very simple. The anode is SnC or carbon, with Na atoms intercalated into it, or the anode is a sodium metal plate, just like a LiIon or Li metal battery. On discharge the Na atoms then enter the non-aqueous electrolyte next to the anode, which already contains sodium chlorate, like LiF6 in a LiIon battery. The cathode is like the “air cathode” membrane in a ZnAir or LiAir battery that communicates with the outside environment, which allows oxygen to enter from the air and react with the lithium ions. Except in this case the cathode membrane communicates with seawater and the seawater is the cathode. So just as in a LiIon where the Li ions intercalate into a solid cathode (LiFePO4 etc.), in this case they “intercalate” into seawater. Then when you want to recharge, instead of having a fixed and declining supply of Na ions in a solid intercalation cathode, (declining because they become more and more bound into the matrix over time) you have a limitless and mobile supply of Na ions from the seawater cathode to recharge the anode. So this is very cheap since it replaces the expensive LiIon cathode material with seawater. No need for lithium mining extraction either and purification to high levels to prevent battery reliability problems – you can just make the battery in a discharged state and charge it by sticking it in seawater, to provide the Na ions which then move through the carbon paper and cathode membrane and intercalate into the anode – battery charged up and ready to go. You could use it in a marine application with the cathode membrane simply on the side of a ship etc in contact with the water or in a car/appliance etc with a sealed compartment full of seawater or just NaCl solution. What an excellent idea!! Very simple and cheap.
Emphyrio is now following The Typepad Team
Apr 5, 2013