This is peskanov's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following peskanov's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
peskanov
Recent Activity
I am skeptical about onboard CO2 capture. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just take the CO2 from the air when synthesizing the fuel? You avoid the cost of onboard capturing and transporting the CO2 back. Also skeptical about the use of fuel cells when you have methanol as fuel and need to generate several MW of power. At those capacities, you have many options with efficiencies higher than 50% which are potentially cheaper and more robust. Like diesel engines, combined cycles, or experimental setups like humid air turbines or super critical CO2 cycles.
mahonj, energy is mostly spent climbing to cruising altitude and reaching cruising speed, so electrifying the runway is not that useful. Not much energy is spent until take off. For electric airplanes, I think one can assume battery energy densities much higher than 166 wh/kg. Probably higher than 200 wh/kg. Car batteries are heavier, but cost matters more in cars...
I wonder what's the problem with VW not selling electric sedans in Europe. Maybe they want to avoid comparisons with Tesla Model 3? Unfortunately you can only see SUV and quasi-SUV EVs on the market now.
Car brands would like to completely outsource battery production, but that's not competitive at this point of the game. They need to get hold of battery production capacity, and even of minerals to feed those production lines; or they will loose too much profit margin to compete with BYD or Tesla. Keeping all lithium sources outside of Europe does not seem sane at all. I feel European brands will end very badly.
Toggle Commented Jun 15, 2022 on Far from Finished at Green Car Congress
I find somewhat intriguing the fact that ammonia projects for ships always rely on reciprocating engines. Fuel cells are ignored. Is it a price problem, or a reliability/lifespan problem?
Slipping rings are graphite based and seem to have a very long life (unlike brushes). Don't know much about the heat problem; one advantage of wound rotors is you can regulate the field as you wish (unlike permanent magnets). As a consequence, they are more efficient in the lower torque area. I have a bit of experience with forced air rotor cooling an it seems to work pretty well, although it can be noisy. In any case, not every electric motor must have Tesla-like power specs! :D
My preferred electric motor type. Unfortunately, only Renault and Mercedes are using them, as far as I know. There is no real need for neodymium in the new electrified world; maybe only for aviation.
Tesla is always late, but also Tesla always delivers (well, FSD could be an exception to that, lol). Also, Tesla delivers, but usually the price is higher than announced. Scania and Volvo are not publishing prices, which I suspect are probably very high. Both companies lack their own battery production lines, and lack the expertise in batteries and high power electronics. I am not sure they will be able to compete with BYD and Tesla.
624 kwh and fast charging at 0.5-1C...these are good specs for an electric semi, a step in the right direction at least! Unfortunately, no info on the lifespan of the battery or price of the truck. Competing with BYD and Tesla is going to be though.
@electric-car-insider.com, While I sympathize with your view, I fear current fast development of EVs and current lack of standards/lack of documentation situation will make current EVs unsupported in a decade. I would support and buy an open-source EV, where battery size & interface is standarized, and same for inverter, motor and charger. That would make economic add long life EVs possible. But I just don't see that happening.
Davemart, Neodymium in motors are optional. Wound motors like the ones used by Renault and Mercedes work just as well, they are just more difficult to manufacture. I think you overrate Toyota knowledge on batteries. They are certainly not Panasonic. Toyota studied existing NiMH chemistries in the 90's and developed them for serial hybrids, kudos to them. But they did nothing more in the field for the next 20 years. They have some patents, made some claims (in Magnesium batteries, with no results) and avoided Li-ion like the plague. Now they are alone using NiMH. Any similar use is covered by LTO today, and cheaper. But they refuse to change. Call me an optimist, but I really believe $50/kwh (or it's equivalente after inflation gets stabilized) is at hand, at least for LiFePo4 and Lithium-manganese flavours. Dry cell technology already has the potential to move us there.
@electric-car-insider.com, while this is interesting, there is a limit where higher lifespan means nothing. Most cars go to heaven around 300k km, even with an engine in working order. Very long lifespan batteries are very interesting for heavy duty vehicles, like forklifts, quarry trucks, buses, trains...
Davemart, I could be wrong with the Toyota's battery, but usually NiMH needs Ce, La, Nd. All of them classified as rare earths. That's one of the reasons NiMH are so expensive (plus the large use of Nickel of course). Again; what's your targe price for batteries, at which point do you consider them acceptable for general use in transport? $50/kwh? $30? $10?
Davemart, Toyoda says Li-ion EVs can't scale, but still insist in using a rare earths battery (NiMH) in all Toyota's hybrids and now FCEVs. I have a serious problem understanding his vision. Criticizing subsidies is fine, but I want to know where is your threshold for $/kwh. Because the LiFePo4 price I mentioned is happening now, without subsidies. At some price point even the most ardent BEV critic have to admit it makes sense economically. I just happen to think we are already there.
Davermart, Toyoda does not seem to be much of a visionnaire lately. After the hit against the Li-ion cartel (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Sanyo) in 2016, competition has lowered the cost to $80-100/kwh. Specially for LiFePo4. While $80 is still higher than ideal, you don't need to go much lower to fix the transportation problem. Keeping there consistently would be enough. Li-ion has been (for years) cheaper than the NiMH solution (Toyota's obsession) for years. Lithium is a problem, but I think is overrated. Lithium was not a significant part or Li-ion cost in the past; the large price rise is changing that situation; but, for how long? As the price rises, mines are opened fast. Lithium is a totally underdeveloped resource, there was never too much of a use of it.
Gryf, this thing seems like a solution looking for problem.
No info on pressure or capacity...
This is a perfect case of use for electric trucks, but the battery seems really small. I wonder what happened with Balqon, who pioneered this product a decade ago.
Davemart, they compare the carbon footprint this car with the Megane E-TECH; but they tell us this concept car has a lot of recycled plastic or biosourced plastic, so we don't really know how much of the carbon reduction comes from the build materials and how much from the medium-sized-battery+fc combo. I find this kind bombastic announcements rather confusing, but I guess it comes with the type of business. I agree with you about FC range extenders using a better energy carrier than pure H2, like methanol. I think I would even prefer ammonia to pure H2, despite ammonia toxicity. Those 700 bar tanks of H2 make me really uncomfortable.
This a hydrogen car concept that makes sense to me. It's a BEV using FC as range extender. You use electricity on your daily drives, but can use hydrogen for travelling. However I find the 75% carbon reduction figure dubious. It seems to me they are comparing their car with a random one with unfavorable carbon footprint.
Davemart, thanks for pointing out the Nexo article. I guess the argument about FCEVs cleaning some air can be defended successfully; I am not too optimistic about tire & brake particles being cleaned by them, though. My understanding is that you don't need HEPA filters for 3-5 micrometres particles. That would be ok for diesel particles (<1 micrometer) but we were talking just tire&brake. IMHO both problems should be addressed at regulation level. I am pretty sure safer alternatives can be pushed, especially on brake pads technology. Fortunately brake particles will mostly disappear in a world of electrified cars, no matter the type (hybrid, BEV, FCEV), due to regen braking.
Davemart, nearly 100% of current road transit in cities is ICE based, and all of them filter as much air as an FCEV (I guess even some more, due to lower efficiency). Tire pollution is there, therefore this air filtering is not working as stated by many "modern diesel cleans the air" advocates. You could argue ICE filters are far inferior than FCEV ones. However, I see tire and brake particulate is 3-4 micrometres, which seems to match the cellulose filters used currently. My guess is cars take the air far from the ground level in order to avoid sucking too much dirt, and probably tire and brake particulates tend to fall fast to ground. Honestly, I would like to see some evidence confirming your thesis. I find it too hypothetical.
Davemart, Toyota Mirai: 1900 KG Tesla Model 3 (superior specs compared to Mirai): 1800 KG I fail to see how the H2 cars are going to reduce tire related emissions.
For mobility? Natron is selling a very low energy density chemistry right now. Do they have something different for EVs or hybrids?
No info on lifespan or charge/discharge rates. What a pity. I was not aware of organic cathodes, are they really promising?