This is bman's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following bman's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
bman
Camerons Pocket
retired banana grower
Interests: lurker
Recent Activity
Fine as far as it goes. Really should include LFP chemistry. Australia is now importing Tesla model 3 with with LFP and Canada also soon. BYD is also entering the market with LFP and are claiming 140wh/kg at the pack level.
G ood to see something other than coal ,sugar and methane coming out of Qld. 160-170 wh/kg would be very good for LFP. Right now the Tesla model3 SR coming into Aust. has LFP cells and BYD is shipping several models all with LFP "blade" cells. It all comes down to price and with a cathode of aluminium and chlorine it could be cheap. One thing not mentioned is that it does not overheat so no pack cooling. Seems like a nobrainer for hybrids or even F1.
No mention of the planned capacity of this new proposed plant. We know Tesla has a planned capacity of 3000GWA by 2030 and VW is aiming for 240GWA by 2030. No mention of GMs aspirations.
No mention of making their own cells. They are going to struggle.
From this article it is stated that they are removing one ton of CO2 for each ton of H2. However wikipedia states that for producing H2 by steam reforming of LNG ,which is what is happening here (because it is cheapest), between 9 and12 tons of CO2 is produced for each ton of H2 (depending on quality of feedstock). Nothing green going on here. It would simpler ,cheaper and cleaner to take the CH4 ,compress it and run it through an ICE. Say like the NissanEpower unit.
You have to understand we do it differently here in Oz. The biggest and best lithium mine in the world. the Talison mine in WA has been sold to a Chinese(state) company who see no advantage in value adding in Oz, This is customary here. The iron ore, coal, gas,aluminium etc are all majority owned by "offshore" entities. We have a prime minister who has a lump of coal as a pet rock. The government has changed the rules so that gas producers can use funds set aside for alternate energy. The government cannot agree that global warming is caused by humans.
No mention of ground breaking date, or when production might begin.
Roger Pharm Thank you for your well crafted comment. The 70% efficiency for 150degreeC FC is stated as a target. Ive seen cell startups "targeting " 400wh/kg for years now. I truly hope both come true but I reckon the batteries might get there first.
Roger Pharm First luv your work Roger. But this time youve strayed into fanciful territory. Claiming that FCs are 3X as efficient as turboprops is a bit of a stretch. We know that PEMs are ~50% efficient at best and that energy must then be translated to motive power via an emotor , a loss of another 10% so 45%. The present F1 engines are claiming >50%. Toyotas 4 cylinder engine claims to have efficiency >40%. Big diesels are also getting ~45%. But I do agree that PEMFCs would be more efficient than turboprops. The real problem is liquid hydrogen. I get flashbacks of the Challenger disaster. Handling the stuff at -250 to-260 degrees C, in a commercial setting, nup. If you really must have FCs ,then go for SOFCs with a liquid fuel. Not really green but you could call it biofuel.
Davemart I agree the engineers are not morons. They are doing what they are being paid to do. I am sure they can probably build a hydrogen fueled plane. The question is why. To provide 700bar hydrogen at the small airports this plane is aimed for is problematic. Hydrogen will always be expensive(unless made from fossil fuels). With the incremental increase in energy density and the drop in price of batteries hydrogen may have a niche position but cannot compete in the market place without financial help or the use of fossil fuels. As sd relates in a lower comment there is a 9 seater with a range of 420 miles running on batteries and they planning to fly the hydrogen Malibu 300 miles.
Claiming 300 to 500 mile range. Could do that with batteries a lot cheaper and simpler. Boris might have been sold a pup here.
If Nikola is considered a bit dodgy then this one is very dodgy.
Hey mahonj . These are still high temp (>750 degrees C) ,so not suitable for LDVs . Could perhaps work for long distance trucks or work boats. There is a lot of cheap sugar around here. But as you allude ,best to stay away from Au and Pt.
Wow. $500million for 3o,ooo sensors. That's getting on for $20,000 per unit. Well done Velodyne!
Thanks for the reply EP. Yes a printer is a complex and expensive machine but so is a press and dies(and the heated steel). The NUMMI plant is said to have a floor area of 5.5m sq ft enough for 50,000 car sized beds. Now you wont use that many , but you might have a few thousand of various sizes(making wheels/doors ,whatever). The "printers" might be the ones using light to catalyze the composite, faster and a fair finish. They would be cheaper when made in the thousands(perhaps many thousands). And you save a couple of tons of co2 for every ton of steel not used.
I cant agree EP. The footprint of the printer is not much bigger than the object being made so there are many. Very little human intervention is needed. Modifications and new designs are quickly and cheaply implemented. A great way of using some of the CNTs being electrolytic produced from CO2 ala prof. Licht. Strong light and wont rust.Lovely.
Does that price include the 70000RMB($10000) government bonus?
Hey Harvey If you lived inside the tropics {like I do,and over40% of the population and increasing} you would not be so preoccupied with cold temperatures. Roll out the BEVs and save the expensive ,FCEVs for a niche market.
Hey Harvey. China is approaching 30m LDVs /yr. If they had the same appetite for autos as here in Australia they would be approaching 70m. Long way to go.
For ship propulsion would not high temp fuelcells running on LNG be a nobrajner?
Appears to be cathode material?
I thought the problem with thermoelectrics was lack of efficiency. The system on the Mars Rover was only 6% efficient. The same with thermoelectric cool boxes.Cheap but inefficient.
Come on Harvey.That is simply not correct. Viable BEVs are available now, while FCEVs are not. BEVs are not suited to everyone(if you live in a very cold place and don't have access to a home charge point) you may be more suited to a hybrid. BEVs will always be more efficient, simpler and don't need the always problematic reliance on a large production/dristrbution industry. Didn't someone say FCs were a solution looking for a problem.
Carbon materials should be coming on strong by 2030-2040. Being able to produce carbon nanotubes from CO2 is a gamechanger.
They don't quote energy density (around 6wh/kg?) or price. Allways thought would suit f1 or lemans series but didn"t happen.