No matter how much money is spent, it doesn't mean a solution will be found for this goal.
.... au contraire, my pathetic little contrarian, there will be multiple solutions to high density, affordable, long-life electrical storage.
and there are 100, if not 1000s, of researchers working on fuel cell improvements
http://gas2.org/2015/10/17/linde-bri...-cell-bicycle/
I'm only saying money doesn't always solve a problem. It may or may not allow that goal to be achieved. To say it will solve the problem with certainty is misguided.
what you're saying is that basic research, nano-tech research, physics/chemistry research, prototypes fabrication by 1000s of researchers doesn't take a LOT of $100Ms.
LOL...
No, I'm not.
Just that it may or may not give the results they are striving to achieve.
Ford Motor Company Revealed As Funder of Climate Denial Group ALEC
Ford Motor Company, despite its much-hyped commitment to the environment, has been quietly funding the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group widely criticized for its promotion of climate change denial and for its opposition to the development ofrenewable alternatives to fossil fuels.
A Ford spokesperson, Christin Baker, confirmed the ALEC grant to the Center for Media and Democracy/PRWatch, but said that the funding was not intended to be used by ALEC to block action on climate change.
“Ford participates in a broad range of organizations that support our business needs, but no organization speaks for Ford on every issue. We do not engage with ALEC on climate change,” said Baker.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/08/ford-fund-climate-denial-alec/
ALEC is a point man for the VRWC, Ford dude.
NOTHING that ALEC pushes benefits Human-Americans or the environment.
So what ALEC programs does Ford's $Ms support?
A Car Dealers Won’t Sell: It’s Electric
So why are only about 330,000 electric vehicles on the road? One answer lies in an unexpected and powerful camp of skeptics: car dealers. They are showing little enthusiasm for putting consumers into electric cars.
Some buyers even tell stories of dealers talking them into gas cars and of ill-informed salespeople uncertain how far the cars can go on a charge or pushing oil changes that the cars do not need. And industry officials themselves acknowledge a hesitancy to sell cars that may not suit drivers’ needs.
In a speech this year, the former chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, a trade group, said that tougher fuel-economy regulations could mean pushing cars on consumers that were about as enticing as broccoli, when they really wanted “low-calorie doughnuts” like fuel-efficient gas cars. The former chairman, Forrest McConnell, cited a survey finding that 14 percent of buyers cited fuel efficiency as the most important factor in buying a car.
Industry insiders and those who follow the business closely say that dealers may also be worrying about their bottom lines. They assert that electric vehicles do not offer dealers the profits that gas-powered cars do. They take more time to sell because of the explaining required, which hurts overall sales and commissions.
Electric vehicles also may require less maintenance, undermining the biggest source of dealer profits: their service departments.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/01...lers.html?_r=0
The Big Problem With Electric Cars: They're Too Reliable
A salesperson “can sell two gas burners in less than it takes to sell a Leaf,” he said. “It’s a lot of work for a little pay.”
He also pointed to the potential loss of service revenue. “There’s nothing much to go wrong,” Mr. Deutsch said of electric cars.
“There’s no transmission to go bad.”....Jared Allen, a spokesman for the National Automobile Dealers Association, said there wasn’t sufficient data to prove that electric cars would require less maintenance.
But he acknowledged that service was crucial to dealer profits and that dealers didn’t want to push consumers into electric cars that might make them less inclined to return for service.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...e-too-reliable
Ford to spend $4.5 billion by 2020 on electric vehicles
Fields said 40% of nameplates globally will be electrified by the end of the decade, up from 13% now. They will be a mix of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and full battery-powered electric vehicles.
Among the plans is an update to the Ford Focus electric vehicle coming at the end of 2016 for North America and Europe. It will have an improved range of 100 miles and can reach 80% of its charge in 30 minutes, considered the maximum length of time consumers will easily tolerate.
The current Focus Electric has a range of 76 miles and can be fully charged in 3.5 hours with a 240-volt outlet. Getting to an 80% charge takes about 2.5 hours.
Even with a 100-mile range, it's still a far cry from the Chevrolet Bolt electric car's 200 mile range that General Motors plans to show next month at the 2016 CES electronics show. The Bolt is expected to go on sale in 2017.
Tesla is working on its 200-mile Model 3 electric car, and Audi has an SUV in development for 2018 that aims to travel 300 miles between charges.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...ntech+Media%29
Somewhat confusingly, all the majors also have FCV projects, prototypes, even production deliveries.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles Get $35 Million From US Energy Dept.
If you ask the US Energy Department, hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles are on the verge of a major commercial breakthrough.
You’ll get a somewhat different answer from battery electric vehicle experts, but the fact of the matter is that the Energy Department is going with its gut.
Earlier this year, the agency launched a $35 million round of funding for advancing hydrogen technologies for fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), and last week it doubled down with another $35 million offer covering 4 key areas of interest.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/13/hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-vehicles-get-35-million-us-energy-dept/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29
hmm, it looks like VW, etc cheating on diesel emissions puts a huge dent, even destroys, diesel as ever being a clean transport fuel, esp now that EVs and FCVs are approaching.
Not true.
e-diesel will be free of imperatives, and burn clean.
not true
"Commercially viable E-Diesel ... Laboratory and fieldtests have demonstrated over 41% reduction in PM, 27%reduction in CO, andand 5% reduction in NOx from a HDdiesel engine"
5% ain't much reduction. Overall is cleaner than standard diesel, but not "burn clean" at all.
That's probably using a non computerized system and no cat.
Link please.
You are an idiot.
If you read it, and are too stupid to understand it... you are an idiot.
If you were told by some charlatan to parrot what they believed, you are an idiot.
What they are calling e-diesel is not what Audi is making.
You are an idiot!
Audi e-diesel is too complicated.
Once they've split water with renewable energy, stop there, use the hydrogen in FCVs.
Seems really stupid to keep pushing complex, high-maintenance, internal combustion engines, when EVs and FCVs are on the horizon.
and what is the eROI on Audi e-diesel, even if some of the energy in is wind,solar?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-13-2015 at 05:48 PM.
It's not stupid at all. It all has to do with the density of power. You can hold more power per cubic liter in diesel and per kg than in batteries, or most other fuels.
what is the eROI on Audi e-diesel?
EVs' and FCVs' energy storage and conversion is gonna approach/equal/beat liquid fuel density to a point of irrelevance of energy density, and drive hyper-reliable electric motors, not a complicated internal combustion, polluting engine.
You are right in the short term about reliability. It is correct that the electric motor is more reliable and not polluting. However, batteries, as good as they are, don't have the power density of fuel. They also have a limited half-life, in that after x number of years, they only hold half the charge.
I would have bought a Tesla by now if I wasn't concerned about having to buy a new battery pack every 4-6 years.
As for fuel cell vehicles, I remain skeptical of technology solving it's problems until I am proved wrong otherwise. If we go to fuel cell vehicles, it needs to be with methane or some other more easily compressible fuel. Not hydrogen. Hydrogen is a great way to store energy, but I consider moving hydrogen storage units, at freeway speeds, a greater danger than nuclear power plants.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-14-2015 at 06:33 AM.
how much would one spend in gas, oil, internal combustion maintenance, and time lost on all of that, in 4 - 6 years?
you're assuming, wrong as always, that current battery technology (density, charging time, life time, etc) will be the same for future battery technology.
I'm not one to normally go by works outside of of science journals, but since you mention eROI, I searched and found this:
They claim the eROI must be 7 or more to be viable.
I'm surprised they show nuclear as having a higher eROI than hydro power. This strikes me as giving caution to the accuracy of the article, but then maybe I'm wrong in assuming hydro power is more efficient than nuclear?
Now I am more inclined to believe this paper for a hydro power to nuclear relationship:
I didn't find a link to the eROI of e-diesel, but if it's 15% of the energy is loss like I read to making it, then at best, it's about 16.15, which is better than fuel from fossil fuels like gasoline or diesel with it's required pollution controls.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-14-2015 at 07:11 AM.
Wrong.
You are assuming that I am assuming what your confirmation bias tells you.
I love the idea of electric vehicles. I think that is where we are heading in the future. I just don't see it as viable, now. At the same time, I think intermediate steps will be excess wind and solar energy, when supply is greater than demand, will by stored as hydrogen, then used as convention turbine generation or fuels cells for higher demand times.
I don't think eDiesel will develop past a high cost "fad." But it might become another important intermediate step.
At some time in the future, I do expect that both battery technology, and PV cell efficiency will grow to a very viable cost point, severely reducing the demands of fossil fuels.
I don't think that any type of fuel cells will every be cost effective as small units. I see the necessity of zero, or next to zero contamination, in both the air and hydrogen as too costly to achieve. To my knowledge, they have not yet developed a separation membrane that remains viable with contamination.
no natural gas anywhere
Solar-powered hydrogen production with improved efficiency
CPV technology generates electricity by using mirrors or lenses to focus an intense beam of sunlight onto tiny but highly efficient solar cells.
The researchers used the most efficient CPV modules currently available, with an efficiency of around 31%.
They used a InGaP/GaAs/Ge three-junction solar cell at the sunlight focus point inside the CPV.
The EC cells, which provide the means for splitting water, were then connected in series to the CPV modules using copper wires.
The team placed their combined device outdoors, and fed pure water into the EC cells. They found that their device was able to produce hydrogen at an efficiency of 24.4% – the highest level of solar-to-hydrogen efficiency yet achieved.
Sugiyama and Fujii believe the direct connection between the high efficiency CPV modules and EC cells optimized the energy transfer from sunlight to hydrogen, and that further improvements of both components and their connecting parts will enhance the efficiency still further.
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-solar-p...fficiency.html
how about "pure water" produced by evaporating/distilling water with concentrated solar?
Pure water is always an issue in heat exchange. At least a million a year of my business in service work is directly due to water impurities in the heat exchange process.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
