|
Post by huon on May 20, 2019 14:21:39 GMT 9.5
Apologies, but I couldn't resist putting this one up: There Is Tesla, And Then There Are Automotive DinosaursThe article may be a little over-the-top, but I especially like the conclusion: "Working in nuclear energy permits me the fun of saying that I have a nuclear-powered Tesla. Thank you to Exelon Nuclear for free charging and for encouraging your workforce to go green. This view below best sums up the future in my mind. We have solar, wind, and the LaSalle County [Nuclear] Station in the background."
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on May 21, 2019 15:20:25 GMT 9.5
I quite agree! Owners of a nuclear powered electric vehicle can claim moral superiority over those who own a coal powered electric vehicle. But considering that lithium is itself ultimately a pollutant, owners of an ICE vehicle running on nuclear powered recycled hydrocarbons could trump them both.
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on May 21, 2019 23:19:27 GMT 9.5
I don't think that's quite going to happen, Roger. Any ICEV is going to have issues with both engine-out and evaporative pollutant emissions, plus very high losses in conversion from non-chemical primary energy to any sort of liquids and then back again. Losses in hydrogen are pretty bad too. The BEV is going to have major inherent advantages, particularly if "renewables" are not mandated and reliable electric power is available 24/7.
If cost of batteries drives many long-range users to PHEVs, there at least will be a large reduction in the number and emissions of cold starts from short trips.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on May 22, 2019 10:15:25 GMT 9.5
EP, are you saying that it (recycled hydrocarbons) hasn't happened already because it has been too expensive so far? In that case, you're quite right. It has to become cheap enough to compete with the fossil-sourced hydrocarbons industry that we have today. Even the most crooked EV salesman would admit that there is a saturation point beyond which the traffic on our roads, airways and seaways continues to require – and demand – liquid hydrocarbons. After all, there is no form of energy storage cheaper or more convenient than a tankful of diesel fuel. The pushback will be immense, unless technology and priority can evolve to make recycled hydrocarbons more desirable than their fossil equivalent. The Fischer-Tropsch process for synthesising hydrocarbons was cheap enough to enable the Wehrmacht to thunder back and forth across Europe, but it needs a little updating. Well, a lot of updating. Currently, it starts with hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The mention of "hydrogen" makes many environmentalists genuflect and stop thinking. However, instead of adding hydrogen, we need a process that subtracts oxygen and adds nuclear electricity.
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on May 22, 2019 11:25:18 GMT 9.5
EP, are you saying that it (recycled hydrocarbons) hasn't happened already because it has been too expensive so far? In that case, you're quite right. It has to become cheap enough to compete with the fossil-sourced hydrocarbons industry that we have today. I'm saying that truly recycled hydrocarbons (reclaimed from atmospheric carbon) are too expensive, period, if you are starting from electricity as your energy source. You can get OTOO 75% generator-to-wheels efficiency with a BEV. If you try to use electrolytic hydrogen as your storage medium, that efficiency drops to something on the order of 40%. If you make hydrocarbons, you lose roughly another factor of 2. The upshot is that it's cost-effective to generate 133% of your at-the-wheels transportation power needs as electricity, but it gets very expensive if you have to generate 500% of it. There are ways around some of the losses, but those pathways are limited and cannot replace anything close to our current petroleum consumption. The efficiency of batteries is going to make them the go-to option for energy storage for the first 20-50 miles no matter what you use for the rest, and most vehicles travel less than 25 miles per day, let alone per trip. If you serve 2/3 of all transport energy consumption with batteries charged from the grid, the cost and losses of the remaining 1/3 matter a whole lot less. It's also going to put a lot less burden on whatever is chosen to supply that remaining 1/3, so options that are off the table at 100% are very much in play at 33%. My personal opinion is that power-to-alcohols is easier, cheaper and thus better than hydrocarbons, but I'm willing to listen to anyone who has information suggesting otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jun 21, 2019 9:12:30 GMT 9.5
"Eviation's all-electric Alice airplane coming to US regional airline Cape Air by 2022" electrek.co/2019/06/18/eviation-electric-cape-air/This electric plane, just unveiled at the Paris Air Show, is designed to carry nine passengers up to 650 miles (1046 km) at 276 mph (444 kph).
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jul 5, 2019 7:22:37 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 13, 2019 7:26:08 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Oct 13, 2019 9:37:25 GMT 9.5
Thanks for the heads-up. Living nearby, I was able to nip down and help cheer them on. There were lots of little kids, wanting to see the funny cars, but no teenagers seeking hope for the future. An hour or so after sunrise on a sunny day, it is not yet too hot for the families, but it will be an uncomfortable day for the drivers.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 15, 2019 6:28:02 GMT 9.5
it was a treat, RC, to have your eye-witness report. I'll bet many teens around the world are following the race online, especially in the Netherlands. The lead cars are almost halfway down the continent, nearing Alice Springs. Two Dutch teams are in the lead, but nipping at their heels are teams from Belgium, Germany, USA, and Japan. Racing will resume in a couple of hours. www.worldsolarchallenge.org/dashboard/mapAddition (7 hours later): The Vattenfall Solar Team has a good twitter feed with pictures: twitter.com/vattenfallteam?lang=en
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 17, 2019 9:08:37 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 18, 2019 14:03:30 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Nov 4, 2019 8:49:40 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Nov 10, 2019 7:03:21 GMT 9.5
EP, are you saying that it (recycled hydrocarbons) hasn't happened already because it has been too expensive so far? In that case, you're quite right. It has to become cheap enough to compete with the fossil-sourced hydrocarbons industry that we have today. I'm saying that truly recycled hydrocarbons (reclaimed from atmospheric carbon) are too expensive, period, if you are starting from electricity as your energy source. You can get OTOO 75% generator-to-wheels efficiency with a BEV. If you try to use electrolytic hydrogen as your storage medium, that efficiency drops to something on the order of 40%. If you make hydrocarbons, you lose roughly another factor of 2. The upshot is that it's cost-effective to generate 133% of your at-the-wheels transportation power needs as electricity, but it gets very expensive if you have to generate 500% of it. There are ways around some of the losses, but those pathways are limited and cannot replace anything close to our current petroleum consumption. The efficiency of batteries is going to make them the go-to option for energy storage for the first 20-50 miles no matter what you use for the rest, and most vehicles travel less than 25 miles per day, let alone per trip. If you serve 2/3 of all transport energy consumption with batteries charged from the grid, the cost and losses of the remaining 1/3 matter a whole lot less. It's also going to put a lot less burden on whatever is chosen to supply that remaining 1/3, so options that are off the table at 100% are very much in play at 33%. My personal opinion is that power-to-alcohols is easier, cheaper and thus better than hydrocarbons, but I'm willing to listen to anyone who has information suggesting otherwise. The excellent discussion above by Roger Clifton and EngineerPoet anticipates the following news: A Danish developer of methanol-powered fuel cells will work with a Chinese electric car company to produce a methanol-electric car. www.greencarcongress.com/2019/11/20191109-blueworld.html
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Nov 10, 2019 7:26:33 GMT 9.5
They're not using power-to-alcohols, though, and the efficiency of the fuel cell is lower than some engines like Achates. Still, as an alternative that truly leaves petroleum behind and is probably cleaner than any combustion engine, it is a darn good start.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Nov 12, 2019 6:33:35 GMT 9.5
Yes, EP, a darn good start indeed. Closer to home (in the US) Toyota will be unveiling its RAV4 plug-in hybrid at the Los Angeles Auto Show next week. If it has an all-electric range of around 25 miles, then it will be able to operate emission free most of the time for most owners. Because the RAV4 is currently the top-selling car in the US, a plug-in version is an important development. www.motortrend.com/news/2021-toyota-rav4-plug-in-hybrid-photos-info/
|
|
|
Post by huon on Nov 21, 2019 8:17:20 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Nov 23, 2019 15:23:49 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 17, 2019 7:52:56 GMT 9.5
Researchers in Australia develop low-cost water-splitting catalyst that offers comparable performance to platinum Green Car Congress Dec 16, 2019 www.greencarcongress.com/2019/12/20191216-suryanto.htmlThis appears to be a major development as it promises to lower the cost of producing hydrogen from water. In the article's comments section EngineerPoet rightly points out that storage remains a problem. But on-site production at gas stations and truck stops, with modest hydrogen storage, might work nicely.
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Dec 17, 2019 9:26:02 GMT 9.5
EngineerPoet rightly points out that storage remains a problem. But on-site production at gas stations and truck stops, with modest hydrogen storage, might work nicely. Only if you have a 24/7 source of electric power to keep refilling the too-small storage; liquid hydrogen has a density of just 0.07, so it takes almost 4 gallons of LH2 to store the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline and you don't have to liquefy gasoline or put cryogenic insulation around its tank. The entire point of hydrogen is to make a "renewable economy" feasible by storing vast amounts of energy to endure the long dead spells of wind and solar. Your H2 station generating on-site can't store weeks and months of demand as it would have to. This only works if you have a 24/7 supply of electric power like nuclear... and if you have nuclear, uranium is your "storage" and you can go with batteries and avoid the huge conversion losses of hydrogen. Hydrogen is a solution looking for a problem. It hasn't found one yet.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 18, 2019 11:01:16 GMT 9.5
EP-- After reading your comment and doing a little extra investigating I now more fully appreciate the challenges hydrogen faces. Steven Chu, the former Energy Secretary once said that for hydrogen to succeed four miracles had to happen first--in production, distribution, storage and fuel cells. He further noted that such a profusion of miracles was unlikely, sainthood only requiring three. But there are still some true believers around, including the people at Nicola Motor. Perhaps they can work a miracle or two, at least for trucks. Here is a short, easy article about Nicola: www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/budweiser-beer-nikola-hydrogen-electric-semi-truck/
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Dec 19, 2019 9:22:43 GMT 9.5
I now more fully appreciate the challenges hydrogen faces. That's way too charitable, IMO. I'd say "the difficulties hydrogen creates." One of the difficulties is horribly low round-trip efficiency and high cost. I'll let Wikipedia do the talking: €0.14/kWh for storage on top of 2.5x the cost of energy input doesn't sound like "affordable", and what 40% efficiency does to your EROI shows that you can't run civilization that way. Maybe the fast-fill and energy storage features can outweigh the cost of generating 2x or more as much electricity as you get to your motor for specific applications like trucking. But if your "storage" is uranium and your "fast fill" is an overhead line you put up a pantograph to catch for a few miles every 60 so you don't even have to stop, hydrogen starts looking like a bid for the fossil fuel companies to stay in the game when electricity stands ready to shove them out. My latest commment at GCC spells that out in more detail. I looked at the stakeholders of Nikola and didn't find any obvious fossil interests, but any time a vulture capital firm like ValueAct is involved (let alone on the board) you have to be ready for spoilers. It's too easy for them to launder money and conceal interests.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jan 2, 2020 11:24:28 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jan 29, 2020 15:15:38 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Apr 1, 2020 9:42:56 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Apr 28, 2020 6:49:24 GMT 9.5
Faradion receives first order for sodium-ion batteries for Australian market 23 Apr 2020 Green Car Congress www.greencarcongress.com/2020/04/20200423-faradion.htmlIf sodium can be used for stationary applications, more lithium will be available for vehicles. Engineer-Poet has a supportive comment.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Apr 28, 2020 20:13:11 GMT 9.5
A decisive advantage of using sodium over lithium lies in the end-of-life of the battery. If lithium is rare we should not be spreading it across a living environment that has evolved in its absence. Sodium is everywhere, most soils have a layer (above the water table) where sodium chloride concentration is enhanced, so a spillage of sodium is more innocuous than lithium. However we should ask, what is the corresponding anion that gets spilled with it? We should call out the sales-spin in the article where it says that sodium replaces cobalt. Cobalt?! There is no way in the world that sodium could possibly replace cobalt as the charge-active ingredient in a so-called "lithium" battery. It is not the lithium or sodium that changes oxidation state but the unmentioned cobalt. Cobalt is the dirty secret behind the spread of these fashionable batteries. Manufacturers get the cheapest cobalt from mines in the Congo, where child labour is infamously exploited. Cobalt is much rarer than lithium in the environment and is correspondingly more toxic at the end of the life of the battery. The article would impress us more if they were to find a replacement for cobalt, say iron.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jul 17, 2020 16:11:03 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 17, 2020 2:16:00 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 18, 2020 3:02:08 GMT 9.5
|
|