This is JamesDo88039200's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following JamesDo88039200's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
This is the way.... Combined with something like this. JP8/5 will happily burn in a modern diesel the military does this every day. Add in 5% FAO biodiesel and it has a good or better lubicity as nunber 2 fuels. No need for crazy high pressure H2 tanks just plastic tanks and regular high efficiency diesels. With modern DPF and SCR diesels are as clean as any other engine cleaner than any gas turbines and much cleaner than older petrol engines. There is a reason diesels are used underground in mines where people have to breathe vs petrol engines which would kill everyone in short order. Even propane engines are banned from mines the cleanest spark engines of them all. Although you see LPG for lifts inside large warehouses in the regular. Their smell is a dead giveaway. With DPF/SCR diesels are scentless. Also a good portion of the world still cooks and lights homes with kerosene far off the grid I personally go this far off grid a few times a year and also to Latin America and or Africa for pro bono water drilling work as a geologist briging fresh water to disadvantaged people's. Having an endless supply of kerosene is good for humanity. The oceans will never run out of CO2 nor water for hydrogen all that's needed is energy , nuclear is the obvious choice for the navy and any first world country already in the nuclear club. Add in some desal for good measure green up some desert coast lines with cattle and sheep and goats. Milk ,meat and leathers all in critical need in large regions of the world.
Lurking is right, economics is king in a free market not mandated by governmental fiat. It doesn't matter if H2 is only 1% efficient if you can produce a Kg of it for under $4 delivered at pressure to the tank that already equal to a gallon of petrol in many parts of the world. Burning that in a H2 ICE the cost per km would be identical or less than what the EU pays now. That's all that will matter the added convenience of a 5 min fill time or less vs 30 min at a fast charger is just a bonus. Plus you can store hydrogen for long periods of time in salt domes or aluminum lined tanks. Electric is use it or lose it unless you have massive grid scake storage cells those need to be under $50 kwh to even hope to be economically viable. If you have cheap h2 turn it into liquid methanol or ethanol using captured CO2 both store at STP and both are great high compression ICE fuels. Get the CO2 from seawater its loaded with it 150 times more than air and with OTEC type power plants you can have it for 35 euro per ton its a byproduct of OTEC power arguably more valuable than the net power of the otec system itself.
10/120 and 10/unlimited I wonder how that works? If you drive 24000 per year not hard to do in a huge metroplex commuting does the battery warranty outlast the other car parts warranties or does it all end at 120k when its reached first before ten years. If it's truly ten and unlimited on the battery then these would be perfect high mileage commuter cars especially if you have free charging at work. The VF8 looks nice.
What people need to realize is that we have a population problem. There simply is not enough resources to support 4 billion people at a USA standard of living and energy consumption levels let alone 8 billion. 4 billion people burning oil at EU not American per capita rates takes our 47 year reserves and turns them into less than 10. Oil is far to valuable as plastics,medications, lubricants, fertilizers and adhesives vs burning it to the sky. The big boys in oil know this and are moving to go to a system of mine once use many with lithium and probably sodium plus Iron phosphates and Prussian white/blue as the cathodes. With batteries you mine once and endlessly recycle the metals this is how you can have 8 billion people at a a middle class standard of living. Nuclear power is absolutely needed as well. For the rural and off grid biofuels plus synthetic fuels are needed for the energy density plus storeability. Since most people by 2050 will be in dense urban areas the vast majority of people can use urban centric transport systems. Autonomous ubers and evtols air taxis will.change the urban playing fields. When Toyota releases their 700+ mile solid state rapid charging car with at least 500 cycles life on the cells that will be the point most myself included add a pure EV to the stable of vehicles in the multicar garage. I use my trucks for truck stuff sometimes far off grid so I will need a range extended diesel powered version if you want me to go electric trucks. Otherwise I will keep my existing fleet and maintain them indefinitely not hard to do with commercial grade engines. 50+ years is not unreasonable for a engine block and heads. I'll be dead by than. Now fueling those diesels. Biomass based synthetic diesel, CO2 capture plus nuclear H2 > FTsyn diesel or algae based biodiesel is ok by me as long as it stores in 100 gal tanks for at least a month and has 35+Mj/L and is not Gucci expensive.
Gryf thanks for the links this is exactly what I want. A 65% reduction in diesel use plus a 100 ish mile all electric range would economically justify selling the F250 before it's EOL depreciation cycle. Plus the added essentially free benefits of zero cost solar charging. Using electric tools rather than diesel small engine ones is also a plus. The range extender will without doubt be more efficient than a small single cyl diesel engine powered equipment. Cleaner and quieter as well. Nothing is going to beat diesel in energy density for decades to come if ever. Only metal air fuel cells or hybrid fuel cell batteries can come close to 38MJ/l with diesels now getting 45% BSFC or more that's only reachable in theory by a few metal air cells . ALL other battery technology this is not possible by the laws of physics. Plus the short refuel time at 10 gal per min flow rates at 100,000+ retail points. Even higher at private or wholesale fuel depots 10 gal/min is fed regs but only at retail pumps. I can fill my 100 gal bed tank in three min at the wholesale off-road diesel depot. 100 gal diesel = 3800mj that's 1055kwh in raw energy and close to 500kwh in usable work. No battery tech ever is going to match that density in 660lbs of mass stored in a plastic tank the size of a large ice cooler. Certainly not rechargeable in 3 min either and walk away safe with no loss of energy for 6+ months at a time.
Small fast reactors with liquid salt storage systems is the answer. Natrium is one of a few concepts for this. Wyoming is getting the first one at a former coal in any site going to reuse the sub station and probably the turbines too. Fast reactors burn spent fuel down to fission ashes no need for millions of years of storage just a few hundred years of dry cask. You go from 96% remaining fuel and a 1% burnrate from raw uranium to 95% burn rates nearly a 100x increase in available energy from the same mined mass. They also burn every actinide so no long term transuranium products outside the fuel cycle. With liquid salt storage systems you can load follow a grid that is loaded with intermittent solar / wind plus have peaker capacity if desired. A 300MW reactor could be a 500MW peaker if it could store its off peak output from the night times. Another use would be process heat via the salt circuit for industry,desalination or district heating. Added plus is salt is not reactive with water and sodium salts are non reactive with molten sodium as well. It's win win to have a salt loop between your liquid sodium coolant and steam turbines or supercritical CO2 which is also reactive with molten elemental sodium. France is already going the full reprocessing with sodium fact modular reactors there was a post on this site about that a year or so ago.
I should have been more clear. Dodge already has a relationship with Cummins and the 5.9 six cylinder is of legend in the States. Cummins already sells a EPA tire 2 bin 5 spec diesel here the 3.9L 4cyl 170hp/400+ftlbs this is exactly what I would want in this truck. Why? Because I have a slew of other diesel powered equipment, bed tanks with pumps that are diesel not gasoline rated. Plus diesel is 30% more dense per gallon in energy content, stores for months without going stale. The fact that you can drop a lit match into a bucket of diesel and it won't burn let alone explode is also a huge plus for diesel. I have zero interest in a gasoline powered truck and never will own one. My current F250 replaced a Dodge ram 2500 5.9 so I have much love for Cummins already. The F250 was $10000 cheaper than an comparable Dodge so it got the spot its 7.3 power stroke is a beast. I fully expect it to go 500,000 miles or more. Not having to cart around a diesel genset plus a slew of smaller diesel powered equipment would be a plus for contractors/homebuilders. Since I already own solar panels having a 145 mile all EV truck would mean grocery getting and Friday Saturday night trips to the entertainment district in the city would cost me zero in fuel costs. Come on Dodge put a small diesel as an option for this. You already have a T2B5 EPA approved one here in the USA.
This is the way...please put a small European sized 4cyl diesel in this @130_150kw run it at its BSFC peak only to charge the pack and you should be in the 40 mpg range. Bidirectional power is a huge plus for those of us who actually use a truck for truck jobs. Having 50 amps @240V on tap anywhere opens up a whole host of working modes. No more gas powered air compressors for framing or roofing or spray painting. Same for DC arc welders and TIG welders those both need 240v. Having 7kw of 120v means 14amp chain saws two of them at once or a chain saw and a log splitter. No more 2cyl fumes only one central power source that's diesel or gas powered and no $$$ battery packs for each tool. 100ft extension cords are cheap. With a bed tank and 100gal of diesel you would have days of job time while roaring the climate control in the cab for the boss man or thousands of miles of range. While in town you could do all your grocery getting on plug power at one third the cost per mile of gasoline. Or in my case charge off solar panels and not pay the power company at all. 145 miles is enough for a 40 mile round trip average commute at less than 50% DOD if they are using LFP cells that means tens of thousands of cycles till end of life. LFP love shallow cycles.
These cell scream put me in a hybrid. You only need 1-2kwh usable capacity in a Prius/Corolla sized hybrid. The low kwh/kg is meaningless at those pack sizes one overweight passenger would exceed the difference between Lion and these cells two or three to one. Having a 20C discharge capability and extended life is what screams use me in hybrids. Remember the total energy needed to accelerate or decel a Prius sized car to 60mph is only 500 ish what hours total. From 60 to 100 is similar for passing on the highways. Similarly a 20kwh pack would still be light enough to put in a plug-in hybrid for a 40+ mile range before you kick over to the ICE optimized for a single operating point. 3200 x40 is 128,000 miles make the packs modular so when a cell reaches 80% you take that cell or cells out not the whole pack sodium cells will only go down in prices so pack refurbishment shouldn't be a long term issue.
Green hydrogen has to be stored either at high pressure in certified dedicated pressure vessels or liquefied at cryogenic temperatures and also stored in expensive certified vessels. Then you have to modify your engines and turbines to use this expensively.stored fuel. The density of hydrogen is one third by storage volume so you need larger tanks vs liquid fuels. Liquids on the other store at room temp and pressure in cheap plastic tanks and have triple the volumetric density. Your tanks will be 1/3 the size for equal amounts of total energy stored. Liquids can be used as is in virtually all existing engines and turbines. No need for 10000psi or 4 degrees above absolute zero cryogenic storage tanks. No need to build out a vast network of fuel stations with those two expensive storage requirements just use the 150,000 existing liquid fuel points. Even at $6 per gallon it makes better economical sense to burn synthetic fuels in a ICE vs the cheapest model 3 tesla that math is here. $9 per gallon is break even for a VW passat vs model 3 tesla both driven till 150,000 miles. Liquids store easy, pump fast , it takes less than a min to fuel a hybrid for a 500 mile range. Yes H2 gas takes a few min for refill into a very expensive carbon fiber 10,000 psi tank. Why do all that just put liquids in a plastic tank and go about your life. H2 is a problem looking for a solution. Green H2 makes sense for use to make liquid synthetic fuels and then into a hybrid car, hybrid semi truck or aircraft. Seawater is a better source of CO2 vs air but it's not the cheapest or the easiest those are going to be solid waste streams , biomass, or dedicated off gas from other processes already in use. Industrial CO2 is $60 ton forget air capture it's a lost cause. For far cheaper you could just retort any carbon containing material from solid wastes to sewerage sludge to dredging spoils , manures, or.grow seaweed algae or kudzu. Ask Raven to retort it for you to CO2 or CO and H2 gas. Probably as cheap would be to retort it without added steam in the Raven process and you get 1/2 CO and solid carbon +ash bury that carbon + ash in desert climate landfills seal the top with plastic or clay and you just went carbon negative with the carbon locked away for tens of thousands of years vastly cheaper than air capture ever will be. The 1/2 CO from the process has value to.offset the cost of burial.
Efficiency rarely matters in the chemicals industry. Economics is what matters. If you have a source of cheap electrons such as off peak or better yet curtailment wind energy at one cent per kWh or at times negative in Texas. Or off peak or better yet on-site dedicated nuclear power.ask the S.Koreans to build you a candu reactor for $2800 kw fuel it with the cheapest source of BTU heat energy on the planet aka natural uranium. Candu can make 2 cents per kWh to the busbars on-site. Either way it doesn't matter if it takes 36 or 36+7 kWh to make a kg of butanol that's less than 45 cents per kg which is near 1:1 per liter just in energy alone it's only $1.70 per gallon. Given that butanol can be used directly in existing ICE and hybrid engines with an order of magnitude higher energy density than batteries. Butanol is liquid at room temperature, has low vapor pressure and is hydrophobic. The ideal liquid energy storage medium. In a previous post I showed mathematically that even at $9 a US gallon it makes better economical sense to burn synthetic fuels in a 5 passenger mid sized VW luxury vehicle vs the cheapest used Model 3 Tesla over a total driving lifetime till both vehicles reach 150,000 miles. The math is here. The math gets even better for a hybrid using a 2022 Prius at 58mpg vs a 2022 model 3 both used and both with similar miles on them synthetic fuels could be in the $11 US gallon range and over a 100,000 mile life you come out ahead with the ICE why? The BEV is 20,000 dollars more expensive you can buy an ENORMOUS amount of synthetic fuels for 20 grand. This says nothing of the advantages of having a 500+ mile range in any weather conditions brutally hot or Arctic cold. At the US fuel pump limit of 10 gal per min a Prius takes less than a min to put the 9 gallons it needs to cover 500 miles. That fuel will sit for months or years and unlike a BEV wont lose 2% per day or more in self discharge. There is no substitute for liquid density that is physics and it's the immutable laws of physics that liquids will always be denser than lithium or any other battery. Only metal air fuel cells can come close and no one has ever make one rechargeable nor will they likely ever will again it's physics.
This is exactly what I mean a pipeline network for CO2 from biological bulk sources these guys are talking 15million metric tonnes per year that a lot of propane for trucks, locomotives and LDV hybrids to burn cleanly with zero/zero/zero criteria emissions. Cummins already has commercial zero mix,zero pm2.5,zero VOC engines that use methane or LPG. Plus off gas grid homes who don't want to cook with crap electric stoves. Crawfish boils, clam bakes, BBQ grills,BBQ smokers, feed a large group 5 burner Blackstone griddles all need propane why not have clean burning 100% sustainable propane.
Also the CO2 doesn't have to come directly from the air. You could use CO2 from a ethanol plant where half of the carbon in the grain ends up as fermentation off gas. << this source alone is millions of lbs per year the USA males billions of gallons of ethanol per year. You could also use landfill CO2 off gas or anaerobic sewerage plant off gas. Every city in the USA has both a landfill and a sewerage plant. Go to Kingsford or any other charcoal maker and use the gasses coming off their retorts it's nearly all CO2. Every one of those sources is far FAR less than $600 tonne some are cost negative as in they pay to dispose of the off gas. For far less than. $600 a tonne you can take any old waste biomass or municipal solid or construction wastes and retort it to solid ash and carbon dioxide or monoxide there are well over a billion tonnes per year of crop and biomass wastes with comparable amounts of MSW. Air capture is the last place you should be trying to price CO2 at. The market value for industrial CO2 is currently $60_75 per tonne delivered in tankers less if you have rail access or pipelines to a bulk source. Like a ethanol plant.
Oxxy is one of the industry leaders in CO2 enhanced oil recovery methods it's little wonder they want the tech to produce the needed CO2 on-site or very near by their injection points. Exxon just bought Denbury THE industry leader in CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Turns out in most cases the amount of CO2 injected for recovery of one bbl is greater than the amount released by burning that bbl. It's win win for OXY and XTO. I personally have done work with Denbury as a petroleum geologist and also as a hydro geologist they are one of DFWs best liked companies in "the industry". XTO is sadly going to corporate culture nightmare them into a soulless shell of their former selves.
Getting CO2 from the air is always going to cost a small fortune due to its low concentration of ~400ppm by volume. Seawater has 150 times as much and is also 800 times denser. Here is a group that shows you can get bulk CO2 from seawater in the 35 euro per tonne range. The US Navy is also using seawater to make jet fuel with the carbon source being the seawater. The Navy has already made jet fuel this way and flown a microturbine powered drone on it. Turns out that the CO2 is free in the Navy version of electrolysis machine since the H2 voltage potential is higher the CO2 all comes out before you get a gram of hydrogen. In short air capture is a lost cause seawater is the way to go and since it's in equilibrium with the atmosphere you can never deplete it.
Mahonj, This is a recent biomass to liquid yields paper. Not sure about the gross USA production. There is a DOE study from 2016 called the billion tonne report. For perspective there is 900 million acres of farmland in the USA that's not including rangelands(grasslands,grazinglands, or scrub brush) nor forests. The potentials of the forests and grasslands are expense. That also doesn't include the semi arid lands nor the actual deserts. There again massive potential for biomass growth with the right species and human help. Add in saline / brackish aquaculture in the arid lands such as algae or drip irrigation of salt tolerant succulents. There will likely never be a shortage of biomass it's what is the cost per gigajoule vs drilling a hole in Saudi Arabia. China and India have to get on board for any real progress on leaving geological carbon to have meaning. Look up the agave biomass project in Mexico.they have proven that Agave Weber can produce 100+ tonnes of biomass per year on semi arid lands on a 5 year rotational cycle.
Class 4_8 truck's are 20% of the fleet and use 45 billion gals gasoline equivalents per year. Why GGE? To normalize petrol use and diesel to a common energy point. Biomass to liquid yields are in the 100 to 200 gal ethanol equivalent per tonne. Ethanol is 24MJ/L gasoline is 34.6/L a ratio of 1.4:1 so you would need 63 billon gal of ethanol equivalent to equal 45 billion GGE. At a low end of 100gee you need 630 million tonnes of waste biomass per year since the USA makes over a billion tonnes of waste biomass per year yes there is enough just in the wastes. You can also cover shipping 6.4 billion GGE, aviation 18.7 BGGE, rail 4.1 BGGE. The elephant in the room is Light duty vehicles they use a massive 120 billion GGE per year those alone would take 1.2 billion tonnes per year of biomass waste won't cover that you would need to grow dedicated energy crops on a massive scale. Or electrify the LDV for all drives shorter than 40 miles that alone would.cover 96% of all drives. Leave the long distance drives to hybrids using only 4% of the previous total that's like 4.8 billion GGE perfectly do able with biofuels. Plug in hybrids are the answer to the short far problem.
Disks are usually out inside the wheels where airflow for cooling is maximized those disks are in the industry standard position. Go look inside the wheels of your car the disks will be just inside the wheel rim right on the hubs. Why? That's where the airflow is the greatest to cool the disks that can run into the 500+ degree range during heavy braking. Jaguar had a number of models that mounted the disks to the differential in the center line of the car. I owned such a model a V12 XJ Vanden the rear disks had a nasty habit of overheating and glazing over or sticking the pads melted to the disks due to their location and lack of airflow. Theses ZF axles look perfect to do a diesel electric hybrid like a locomotive but with a super capacitor for braking regen. Run the diesel at peak efficiency to charge the supercap then shut down for a few miles of travel and also while coasting. Regen allow braking energy to the supercap. Mileage should go up at least 30% in some cases 60% or more. Take a F150 sized truck put one of these 200kw on the rear axle. Put in a small 100kw 3cyl clean diesel hooked to a 100kw generator use a high density axial flux generator with induction coupling to the rotor so no rare earth elements are needed for perm mags. Run that little.engine hard at 80% rated load and 45+% BSFC Eff. Then shut it down and draw power from your supercap for a few miles. Only run the diesels at its peak BSFC point make up the rest of the power needed from the supercap for acceleration. Modern ultracaps are approaching nickel metal hydride cells in energy density but with hundreds of thousands of full discharge cycles. These researchers have ones coming in at lithium ion densities at lower current per gram of material at a realistic 25 A per gram they would be in NMHyd levels so a 4 kwh pack is around 50kg. A F150 sized truck in driving has been returning 2.7 miles per kwh not towing a load at 50_65 mph avg speeds. So a 4 kwh ultra capacitor would take it 10 miles. To charge that cap you.need to run that little 3cyl at 80kw for 4.15 minutes then you can shut it down. That takes into account the 1.3MJ per minute you use to move at an avg 60mph with a 2.7 mile per kwh economy of use. If you were sitting at a stop light it 3 min while stationary with an 80kw net output into a 4kwh pack. So a 4/10 duty cycle at a steady 60mph to keep the engine at its peak bsfc point. Less when you include the added regen energy. The other choice is to run the engine continuously while at motorway speeds in that case it needs to put out 22kw which is one fifth it's rated output modern diesel BSFC maps show that's in the 30_35% range depending on rpm vs torque load point. Why point that out because you could parallel hybrid the vehicle by driving the front tires using a simple differential and single speed reduction gearbox. You actually loose mpg doing this at light loads since you could saw tooth duty cycle run the engine at its peak bsfc point like above. The benefit of parallel hybrid comes in under heavy loaded condition where now you need 50 to 80kw to pull the load on a continuous basis at speed. This is smack in the middle of the minimum BSFC heart for this sized engine you could gain 3_5% better energy efficiency by skipping the generator to inverter to motor path and just go crankshaft to single reduction gear to wheels. The added benefit is four wheel drive at all times the engine is clutched to the wheels. In addition to having the ability to.engine compression (Jake) brake down long and steep inclines this is critical feature for truck's under heavy load descending grade. when the pack is full you either have to friction brake or engine brake this holds true for every ICE truck as well down grade it's friction brake or engine brake. BEV truck's if the pack is near full charge and they head down hill and regen fills the pack is they must friction brake the whole rest of the way down this is potentially a life threatening situation. As no engine compression braking is possible in a pure BEV truck. There should be a mandate for resistance banks like on alocomotive for BEV truck's to be able to dump charge via those banks to heat and keep using regen down a grade continually. Otherwise the friction brakes can and will overheat and a runaway truck is guaranteed at that point been there done that in a ICE truck with no Jake brake had to use the runaway truck gravel pull out and nearly ran off the curves on the way to it.
They talk about the truck total cost ownership I wonder that the lifetime TOC is including the H2 gas or LH2 over 1,000,000 miles which is the typical diesel class 8 lifetime before overhaul. On a mile vs mile basis. This is the key economic point that trucking companies base their decisions on and one that is the key net profit driver. Biodiesel vs conventional diesel is only 25% or less more expensive so the TCO per mile even in an area that mandates carbon taxes or low carbon fuels has to compete with biodiesel or synthetic diesel made from biomass or renewable energy and atmospheric or bioCO2. The Germans are big into the latter Audi being a big player. H2 is well over $4 kg for fossil H2 from methane steam reforming and $6+ from renewables the equal energy content in liquid diesel is less than $3 in Texas right now with biodiesel B100 at 3.50 gal if you can find it most is B5 or B20. From an air quality standpoint modern clean diesels are so clean there is no legitimate reason to oppose them. There are zero/zero/zero (zero NOx, zero PM2.5, zero VOC)EPA certified diesels available now . SOx is determined by the fuel standards currently 15ppm so as close to zero as one can economically get. Biodiesel is zero ppm sulfur. EPA cert 0/0/0 even up to the size of railroad engines. Cummins has an entire line of 0/0/0. So the argument of diesel being an air quality hazard is moot with 2020+ cert engines even 2010 EPA limits are in the ppm or micro gram ranges. The 2027 standard is chasing the last single digit ppm levels which are moot with a 0/0/0 engine good job EPA your work here is done. So the point now is which is cheaper to own and run over the expected lifetime and therefore generates the.most profit for the business entity which the firm as a due diligence and legal responsibility to its owners the shareholders to do.lowest TCO is where the investment must go by corporate law.
As a real user of truck's one who tows large loads ,long distances, and also stays off grid for weeks at a time. I can attest to the absolute need for the energy density of liquid fuels. With diesels being the technological leader in efficiency ,durability and economic cost of use. Diesels can approach and exceed fuel cells in efficiency. Fuel cells are most efficient at near peak load around 90% of rated power they fall off rapidly in either direction from there and are very expensive due to the platinum needed for use plus the reformer to convert liquid fuels into pure hydrogen gas. Diesels use liquid fuels directly, use a tiny fraction of precious metals relative to fuel cells for the exhaust catalysts and achieve 48% efficiency or better at 80% of full load with a broad efficiency area around that point just view any modern turbo diesels BSFC vs load map there will be a vast 40+% area over a wide range of rpm and torque. Batteries are not even in the same technical league their energy density is two orders of magnitude less than liquid fuels even including the weight of the ICE gen set. If CO2 is a thing you worry about then biofuels are the way to go. With regenerative agriculture methods those fuels can be carbon negative with the roots and biochar being sequestered and all the carbon in the fuels being atmospheric not geological carbon. Clear Flame can convert any standard diesel to run purely on alcohols doesn't matter which one, methanol,ethanol,isopropanol,butanol all work and all can be made from biomass or syngas from wastes. Biomethane and synthetic natural gas from syngas are in this class as well. For short range return to depot type trucking CNG/RNG makes a lot of economic sense. For long distance, heavy loads grid work liquid fuels are the only choices even metal air fuel cells would not have the energy density nor the power density needed. 55 gal of diesel is over 2 megawatts worth of raw energy there is no substitute. You could make synthetic diesel like the Germans did can syngas with equal or better energy density that syngas can be from biomass or municipal wastes or sewerage sludges so it's carbon is biomass sourced.
For true users of trucks in their designed purpose. Namely towing large loads, going off tarmac for extended periodic time far off grid. Such as to a drill site or a mining site. There is no substitute for the density of liquid fuels. Clean diesels are the most energy dense form of remote energy. A single gallon of diesel contains over 146MJ per gallon. Modern diesels can hit 48% efficiency and virtually zero criteria emissions of PM2.5 ,NOx,SOx,VOCs there is no reason to oppose modern clean diesels from an air quality standpoint. There are places where the air coming out of a modern diesel is cleaner than the air going in when measured by those above criteria emissions. Why? Because the catalysts clean the intake air along with the combustion chamber products to a point where the levels are less than the incoming ambient pollution how's that for technology. If it make one feel better use biodiesel the result is the same. You cannot two 6000+ lbs over hundreds of miles then stay off grid at a mine or rig site for two plus weeks all the while running climate control and generators with batteries it is not possible by the laws of physics. You can do this with diesel and is done every day in many places in the world. Part of the 6000lb load would be 55gal drums of fuel each holding more than a 2.2MWh of energy. Clean diesels should be embraced for the services they provide that there is no technical means of duplicating at equal weigh, density, cost ,or ease of use. Physics dictates this not political or emotional desires.
Pls pls put this PHEV 2.0L set up in the 2024 Camry. 66km is 40 'Merican miles that's exactly the max average commute distance in the States. One pedal drive and auto stop go following mode will sell like hotcakes in metros like DFW where for a solid 4 hours each day the whole motorway system is gridlocked in creep creep.creep traffic. The other features wanted would be radar cruise control which is stock on new Toyota Camry and brake hold at stop lights also stock when the radar cruise is active. I just leased a 2023 Prius for two months it had both stock. So convenient in DFW grid lock. Hands free motorway lane center following is also requested. The 2023 Prius had lane centering and curve following but required one hand on the wheel every 30 seconds turn that annoyance right the F off. It's only bureaucratic tomfoolery that mandates a single finger of contact on the wheel when using the lane centering the tech is solid by now. Still no mention of Flex fuel capability but they should Flex fuel every HEV and PHEV from the factory so any alcohol biofuels can be used.
I forgot to point out why you would want to load follow at high continuous speeds vs a saw tooth charge discharge pattern at peak efficiency. Batteries are much MUCH more expensive than apex seals and any rebuild costs. Lithium ion batteries have a limited charge discharge cycle life 1000 to 3000 cycles to 80% DOD is typical. It makes more sense to keep the number of cycles down while cruising at motorway or exurban speeds. To cover 850km got a uncommon distance in the States in a single day. I personally do 900+ every two or three weeks each way. That's ten charge discharge cycles if you have a 85km range in the pack. The other choice is to use the pack at each end of the journey when in the urban areas and then run the engine in load following mode keeping the pack at 80% full until you get to the stop and go urban portion of the trip. Load following in the motorway would be in tbe 20 to 50kw range right near the heart of peak BSFC. For people like myself who make regular long distance trips and also go off grid at the end of those trips for days at a time having a 50+kw generator on site makes for a perfect match. Can run computers ,test equipment and most importantly climate control in a 24/7 basis with extra fuel in jerry cans or 55 gal drums in a trailer towed behind this kind of SUV is a compelling case.
Given that a EV uses about 250_350 watt hours per mile. The run time on the generator will be done at peak efficiency which for most ICE engines is centered around 75% of peak power. The BSFC minimum point is a bullseye around that 75% of maximum output point. This engine was designed for 54kw so 75% of that is 40kw running the engine at its peak BSFC eff. point. Taking an avg 300 watt hours per mile that implies 16kWh of usable charge in the battery for an 85km(53mile) range. 40kw of output charges 16 kWh in 24 minutes or 4/10 of an hour call it 30 min to account for charging losses. Put another way one hour of charging yields 106 miles of range. The frame will rot out well before the engine fails due to apex seal wear. Even older rotary engines using direct injection oil into the intake ports could go 5000 hours before the seals let go. That's well over 500,000 miles if used only as a series hybrid charging the pack probably from 20% DOD to 80% where that range is equal to 16kWh. Given how cheap apex seals are and rebuilding a rotary is easy process only three moving parts and a set of seals. The more logical way to use the engine is to allow it to load follow while at continuous speeds a vehicle uses around 25kw to move at motorway speeds that is less than 50% of the peak output apex seal wear is directly proportional to rpm and engine load in BMEP. Lowering either cuts the wear rates in kind. Half the rpm and load more than doubles the lifetime. engines have a broad area around the BSFC peak that is still near peak efficiency and stratified charge engines excel in this area they run throttleless and lean with or without high levels of EGR. Running this engine at 2500 or less rpm and 25kw would probably still return great mileage numbers. The fact that they chose 4700rpm as the peak when rotary engines can and do rev to 9000+ rpm shows they purposely down graded its peak horsepower rating using a more normal test point of 6500rpm this rotary should be making well over 100hp per liter of sweep area. 13B carbonated engines routinely returned 130+ hp per liter and turbo gen 3 rotary could be boosted into the 200+ range per liter Mazda designed this generator for the long haul.
Rotary engines don't have to be inefficient all the way back in the 1980s NASA did a funded study for rotary engines in aircraft to replace turboprop and leaded fuels. Those stratified charge engines beat diesels on a grams per kWh / BSFC. The key points are you absolutely must use direct injection and you also must not mix oil with the fuel. These Mazda engines are direct injection and they also have 2.5mm apex seals plus side wall oil ports that keep the oil out of the airflow. Those oil ports were patented also in the 1980s they extend the life of the apex seals 5 times vs gas/oil mixing. With larger 2.5mm seals these engines will see well over 20,000 hours of use on a larger 2.5mm sized seal. The total usable height of a apex seal is contingent on its width the ratio is fixed due to harmonic bending and coupling to the springs holding the seal to the wear face. Wider seals allow taller seals which gives more wear surface length and also a wider wear surface for more surface area. Typical 2mm apex seal wear rates are in the 0.007" per 100 hour of full power use. With direct oil port side wall lube those rates drop by 5x and with 2.5mm seals with 125% the surface are the should be at least 25% less. I have raced RX7s off and on for decades my first car was a Gen1 RX7 and I have owned all three gens over the years. I have rebuilt over half a dozen rotarys by my own hands they are a passion of mine. Apex seal wear is the limiting factor for any rotary motor the side and corner seals are bathed in oil from the oil cooling of the rotor most last two or three rebuilds. Mazda is also using plasma coatings on the wear surface these can be very strong think tungsten carbides or polycarbonate diamond I would expect those coatings to last well past 20,000 hours of full power use. Mazda is using a system similar to this patent United States Patent 3814555 NASA direct injection data.