This is Engineer-Poet's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Engineer-Poet's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Refueling outages for US plants average a lot shorter than 2 months. Watts Bar #1 did it in 27 days. But you hint at something interesting, even if you phrased it unclearly. Given the ability to run different units at different power levels, ones with fresh fuel could be used as the "swing" producers (high reactivity makes it easier to change power level quickly) and ones with more burned-up fuel could be operated to hit maximum burnup just in time for their refueling, getting the most out of every gram. Units are refueled one at a time, so the unit coming back on-line becomes the new swing producer. You might vary how many fuel loads you replace in a given maintenance interval. For instance, a 12-pack plant operating on a nominal 4-year cycle would change about 3 cores a year, but you might be able to defer a change to the next outage if you're not consuming as much fuel as you expected. Nuclear fuel is also compact, so it doesn't matter much if you order a new core that you wind up not needing for another 6 months. It just means you order one less for the next refueling.
Which is silly. The incremental cost of nuclear electric power is close to zero, as fuel is changed on a schedule rather than by burnup. Failing to run the plant as much as possible is wasting money. It makes more sense to find dump loads for excess power to at least extract some modicum of value from this capability than to waste it entirely. As I've suggested before, using electric heat to replace the burning of fuel at the Total refineries is just one of the many ways to get more out of the capital investment of those plants. As a bonus, such interruptible loads can make better use of "renewables" too.
Imagine, the basic unit started at 50 MW(e). This is the SECOND uprate.
Unlike PEM electrolyzers, this process doesn't seem to have any sensitivities to power cycling. That may make it attractive for intermittent power supplies, especially "renewables". Further, there are no precious metals involved so it may be cheaper per watt.
As an energy source, poor. Only available during certain times of year and in certain places. As an environmental remediation measure, looks pretty good. Ameliorates a problem and may even pay for itself with the product. I hope to see more of this.
Since the network uses 100% renewable energiesSuch language should be prohibited by law. An on-demand charging system uses the at-the-moment mix of whatever is supplying the grid. So-called "renewables" put energy into the grid when they are available, not when they are needed. They do not, because they CANNOT, supply the needs of electric vehicles.
A perfect commuter car for lots of commuters. Let's hope that charging opportunities let said commuters use them.
Even $50/mo is only about $2.50 per working day. The cost of commuting is usually several times that; $2.50 won't even cover bus fare, and that's another out-of-pocket expense. I imagine that those households which are working from home (and still have jobs) are doing quite well.
I recall when the announcement of the archaea-based electro-methane process hit GCC. Now it's going commercial. Glad to see it. Seriously.
As I recall, the water from The Geysers has a substantial lithium content. Given the new technology for recovering it (90% vs. historical 30%, IIRC) California could become a substantial producer at minimal cost.
Bah. Touch screens are dangerous as they cannot be operated by feel. They should be prohibited by law in vehicles.
That's a foregone conclusion, Lad. But right now we have neither the cost nor the production capacity to make everything an EV. The current "sweet spot" is either HEV or PHEV, and I have noticed that PHEV battery pack sizes are on the upswing.
Heh. About time. But will China, Korea and Japan go along?
I have a bone to pick with this article. The key improvement in hybrid power systems is NOT regenerative braking; I have seen massive improvements in fuel economy when running at constant speed with almost no braking at all. The major improvements are from two factors:Improved base engine efficiency from e.g. Atkinson cycle operation.Elimination of operation at low BMEP, where frictional losses are large compared to power output.
It makes a huge difference in volumetric hydrogen density as well. The ultimate target for CH2 systems is a mere 50 grams per liter. A liter of MeOH is a nominal 792 grams, which reforms to as much as 148.5 grams H2. Methanol is also by far the easiest room-temperature liquid fuel to make from syngas. If you can make syngas from renewable carbon like crop wastes, you can make carbon-neutral methanol.
This is actually not bad for hydrogen "storage". 50 grams of MeOH + H20 yields 6 grams H2, or 12%. If you can get the water by capturing the FC exhaust, that goes up to 18.75%.
Ridiculous rates like 12¢/minute make no sense for anything but DC fast charging. For a PHEV taking 208 VAC at 16 amps, that's over $2/kWh.
I think it fallacious to dismiss or downrate technologies on the grounds that they may not be a total solution for the whole world.More relevant and realistic is to look at whether they can provide a cost effective alternative at good scale. I think you just re-stated my point. If this is a solution that only works in Iceland, it's only worth so much investment. If it's something that works anywhere you've got e.g. a nuclear power plant (and requiring heat at 100°C pretty much says it will), it's got much wider applicability and is worth much more investment. If you can economically combine it with something like this electrolytic CO2-to-EtOH cell you've got a way to replace many fossil fuels. You just have to have cheap enough energy to feed the process. This really does come down to the price of energy. Nuclear heat is pretty cheap, but the elecric power to convert CO2 to fuels is several times more so. There's a similar relationship for PV, and wind generates almost no waste heat. You're going to need both.
This sounds an awful lot like a next-generation pseudocapacitor, but of course we won't know until the info is released.
Interesting. Acetic acid is CH3COOH, which could be rearranged into CH4 + CO2. Perhaps there are other metabolic pathways which can convert acetate into e.g. fatty acids. Those are fairly easy to decarboxylate and turn into pure hydrocarbons in the diesel and jet fuel range. I note that these bacteria are going to cause trouble for underground H2 storage in anything with carbonate minerals. The bacteria will use acetic acid to free CO2 from the rock to metabolize it, forming a large and growing sink for hydrogen. The only really suitable reservoirs for hydrogen are probably solution-mined cavities in salt deposits.
15 seconds is a couple of times the typical 0-60 time of LDVs currently for sale. Perfect for hybrids.
If all the world was Iceland, we could run everything on hydropower and grow bananas in geothermal-heated greenhouses through the dead of winter. This might work for one small piece of the global economy. What do we do for the rest of it? Are there enough sources of mid-grade waste heat that doesn't generate CO2? Maybe using PV fields to heat water as well? If not, this thing is clever but a dead end.
Indeed, mahonj. The utter refusal to promote such proven solutions is proof that our pols are either fools or in the pockets of the fossil fuels lobby.
You ignore that nitrate fertilizers generate N2O, which is a strong and persistent GHG.