AND 
Guest Post: GM Advanced Technology Product Plan Update
First of all, let me express my thanks to Lyle for creating and supporting the best EV community on the web, and for letting me guest post on the homepage.
I recently had the opportunity to exchange emails with Rob Peterson, Volt / Advanced Technology PR Manager at General Motors regarding GM’s future product plans. Given that the Converj was cancelled, then possibly resurrected, I wondered if there were any other changes to previously stated product plans at GM.
Rob’s first and best response regarding current / new alternative fuel / propulsion systems was: “Right now, we are only working on the ICE variant” of the Voltec propulsion system. Certainly, until GM gets the Volt’s wheels on the road, this should be their only integration effort. Given that they are combining electric and flex fuel (gasoline / E-85) technologies in a single product, that is saying a lot.
In parallel, GM continues to work on fuel cells and improved ICE’s, like the HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition), which combines the best parts of spark and auto ignition systems. Rob also stated that GM is “intrigued by the potential of natural gas”, which is in line with their restructuring filings listing natural gas as a possible development option in the future. He concedes some techs require new infrastructure and all need continued cost reduction.
As for my favorite, the rotary engine, Rob stated: “a rotary engine – which theoretically makes sense, because it operates efficiently at specific bandwidths – is at a clear disadvantage, having not been a part of the powertrain portfolio for automotive purposes for some time and without the benefits of generational learnings that typically drive down the cost of technology”.
In short, GM is going to play it safe / smart by concentrating on internally developed Voltec, advanced ICE and fuel cell technologies.
209 Responses to “Guest Post: GM Advanced Technology Product Plan Update”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:25 am
Hey Jason – good post.
I personally think that fuel cell work is a waste of time, but not being an engineer, and not having access to all the data, maybe I am completely wrong on this.
I just hope that their other work does not take away resources from the Voltec programs…..
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 am
Having grown up in a small town, we had just 10 police patrol cars. Two of these were natural gas powered. This was back in 1970.
Locally, here in Southern California, the newest natural gas powered vehicles are owned by the USPS. Yes, I have contacted the California EPA and asked that the the State switch to EREV.
In the meantime, focus on getting the Volt and the follow up Volt truck on the road. Then measure cunsumer acceptance and produce additional models accordingly.
=D~
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:38 am
I concur. Fuel cell work is a waste of time now.
Natural gas also doesn’t impress me for the same reason.
No infrastructure. It is very difficult to hit the ground running with either one of these.
Nice post, Jason. Thank you for taking the time.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 am
It seems that GM has a clear head on that one, nothing fancy, just what they said they would do. But thay are also knowing that time changes so the door is not closed for ohter approaches.
Good for the Volt, good for GM…
NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:42 am
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but from what I’ve read, the total system efficiency of cracking Hydrogen, transporting it, and then using it in a fuel cell is much lower than simply generating electricity for use in a battery.
I saw a 2 year old episode of NOVA last night where Tom and Ray from Cartalk look over the new Volt which GM “May be producing a few years from now.”. The car was, at that time, described as being able to use either fuel cells or an ICE to charge the batts (Why you would need a hybrid fuel cell/battery power train is beyond me.). I’m glad we’ve gotten over that, even if it was cool to see the old prototype again.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:51 am
That is what I was thinking too Lunoir. Stick with what you know for the beginning, and keep an open mind for the future. Well done.
Also, good post Jason. Thank you!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:54 am
Great job on the guest post!
Oh and Dave K,: TEN police cars? That’s either a convention in a big city (around here).(lol)
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:00 am
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:10 am
(click to show comment)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:10 am
My impression was that one would replace the ICE+fuel tank with the fuel cell + hydrogen storage vessel. In both scenarios the battery provides a reserve in which to store power from the regenerative braking system as well as provide access to the cheaper grid power.
The only reason to replace the ICE in a series hybrid is that it has fewer if any harmful emissions at the point of use and energy is not lost as heat in combustion.
If INEXPENSIVE on-board battery range increases to between 300 to 500 miles AND destination charging is available (a goal I think offerings from GM, Nissan, Tesla and Toyota can foster) then the ICE and fuel cell are no longer needed.
Until then a plug-in battery with a range matched to the most frequent trip length, plus an ICE+ gas tank for when that trip length is exceeded is the cheapest solution (though currently out of reach for many).
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:12 am
While there are not many natural gas filling stations there is a significant back end infrastructure already in place in many areas of the country to deliver natural gas to any location in a city to supply homes/business for heating. Any gas station in my area could add nat gas pumps for the cost of the equipment. No need to create distribution networks, storage, pipelines, etc…
So IMHO nat gas is MUCH better than Hydrogen. Plus hydrogen is really nothing more than a gas battery. That is you have to input energy to make it so that you can convert it back to energy in the fuel cell.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 am
Sean,
Regarding fuel cells, you are quoting old numbers. Not only are the efficiencies of dissociating water molecule much higher, the materials / costs to do so are much lower. Similarly, fuel cell efficiencies ate higher and costs ate cheaper. As for hydrogen transport, water and sunlight / electricity are already prolific, so hydrogen can be generated on site at fueling stations and more likely, right at home.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 am
For someone so dismissive of GM products and domestic automakers in general you certainly spend an inordinate amount of time here.
Are you a missionary?
May I show you a Ford Fusion Hybrid?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 am
Natural gas works great for fleets since they have a central location to refuel. It burns clean and the engines last longer. Very low cost fuel.
Natural gas refueling at home is an expensive proposition, the equipment needed to compress the piped-in natural gas is expensive and has expensive periodic maintenance required.
Hydrogen fuel cells are a no-go idea if you have to compress and store hydrogen.. extremely in-efficient and expensive way to store energy, and perhaps even dangerous.. After all, think of Hydrogen Bombs
Hydrogen generation from a storable liquid/gas like ammonia might also work, and recent work about generating hydrogen from a urea solution is very interesting. You could generate enough electricity from a 5lb block of urea and lots of water to travel about 2400 miles.. urea is cheap and totally biodegradable.. and no you should not use pee.
This all assumes the cost and durability of the hydrogen fuel cells ever becomes cheap enough. Toyota, GM and Honda all insists the price will come down with mass production.
The other option for range extender fuel cells are SOFC (solid oxide fuel cells), these devices can turn any hydrocarbon liquid into electricity…things such as ethanol, wet ethanol, gasoline, diesel and methanol..lots of work going on to improve these devices.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:18 am
There are a couple of reasons they would have a battery in a fuel cell car: Fuel cells are expensive so you want to use as small of one as possible – Similar to why the Volt engine only puts out 1/2 the power of the pack. Instead you would use the battery to provide the extra boost during acceleration. Second you can not recapture energy using a fuel cell while you can with the battery.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:18 am
from the article – ‘Rob also stated that GM is “intrigued by the potential of natural gas”, which is in line with their restructuring filings listing natural gas as a possible development option in the future. ‘
—————
Natural gas, which can be processed into liquid propane, is still a hydrocarbon and only contains about 75% the energy of gasoline. I’d rather see it used at a power plant to create electricity where there’s more control of the process vs. transporting around more than it already is.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:20 am
Herm
Good info!!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 am
Jason
Are you aware of any ongoing projects aimed at on-board reformation of gasoline to draw out the hydrogen or would a reversible fuel cell system be more compact and easier to deploy?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 am
Actually, I bought one of those little fuel cell car toy science kits. A fuel cell can produce hydrogen if current is flowed into it. With my toy car, if I turned the wheels, it would store the energy. It may be better to use caps with batteries, if such a feature would make a fuel cell too expensive.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:33 am
Even if hydrogen were readily available, which is a ways off if ever, I read somewhere this week that there is not enough platinum available for 1 million fuel cell vehicles at this time.
I think unless can get the cost way down on the cells themselves, it will be a loss.
Zel
And Remember GM:
Jacksonville Fl, 54 mile commute round trip, 110v 20a plug at work to recharge and designated parking spot. Just saying I will volunteer. Really.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:37 am
Jim, I agree that as GM’s Peterson says above, “Right now, we are only working on the ‘ICE variant’ of the Voltec propulsion system.” Their primary challenge has to be to get the cost out of Voltec in the near term and distractions like natural gas or fuel cells won’t help do that.
But the way any prudent R&D managers avoid such distractions while still not ignoring the possibility of future breakthroughs is to make any more advanced research work completely separate activities. At the risk of igniting a firestorm of negative comments, I’ll venture that GM (& many others) are funding continued research on things like DEFC (direct ethanol fuel cells). Why? 1) because progress is being made in dramatically reducing the cost of fuel cells, 2) cellulosic ethanol appears to offer hope of a low cost (and low pollution) breakthrough, 3) ethanol is far more practical to carry aboard a vehicle than hydrogen, and 4) we already have the technology and much of the infrastructure for distributing ethanol. And remember that the DOE has recently renewed R&D funding of fuel cells —so I have to wonder if breakthroughs we don’t know about in DEFC technology and/or cellulosic ethanol, for example, might be their rationale for the renewed funding?
OK, OK, I’ve suited up in my best fire retardant duds, so let me have it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22774/
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:40 am
The US has a huge amount of natural gas, its ok to use it for transportation, its also renewable… I could see large propane tanks used in semi trucks to power the SOFC and drive the electric motors on the wheels… and even with 75% of the power content of gasoline you would still come out way ahead with a serial BEV drivetrain.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:40 am
Jason,
Have they gotten around the compression of the Hydrogen necessary to carry a “tankful of gas” around?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:44 am
Andy,
While I agree with you that NG is better than Hydrogen, work is still required to complete an infrastructure. With lack of funding, who knows when that will be completed.
Electricty, gasoline, and E85 are best for now.
However, I do recognize that we are also missing a quick charge infrastructure.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:55 am
I’ve read some interesting work about some nano-materials which store more hydrogen at much lower pressures. (Sounded like a big hydrogen-sucking sponge.)
Another interesting one was the scientist who draws hydrogen water using a gallium-aluminum alloy
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:55 am
There are military and industrial applications for reforming petroleum based fuels to create hydrogen rich fuels used in fuel cells. Rooster posted this example in the Environmental Issues forum:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123034855
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:57 am
Zel,
There are now platinum / nickel alloys which are just as effective as pure platinum, while being more resistant to carbon poisoning. Moreover, there are metamaterials with the same properties of platinum, but use no platinum at all, which can now be used a substitute. Here is but one example:
http://www.platinum.matthey.com/media_room/1062166504.html
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 am
Jason and ShockMe,
Here’s a recent article from MIT re hydrogen fuel cells that is reducing the platinum needed:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23348/?nlid=2323
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:03 am
I love my CNG Ford Crown Vic. I have had it now for about a year and have never had an issue with fueling. I have two stations nearby in the San Fernando Valley and even on longer trips I have been able to find stations. I have constant range anxiety with my Ford Ranger EV as its eight year old batteries are giving me a range of 26 miles. I love it too but have to wait for electric technology to reach my driveway
The CNG Crown Vic runs so clean. With 120,000 miles on the car, when I change the oil it looks as clean as when I put the oil in. The CNG engine has been totally reliable. I love knowing I have not been buying Middle East gas for the last year as I wait for my Volt which is still probably two years away realistic before one will be available to me.
GM keep working on the Fuel Cells. That technology will mature only if money is made available to develop it. I can’t believe how short sighted the Obama administration is cutting funds to Fuel Cells.
I work in Aerospace where we are constantly working on things that will go in production the next few years but we are also working on things that may change the world but may not see the light of day for twenty for thirty years. To not work on things for the next generation is why we do not have battery technology to support our electrics today.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 am
Jason, can you expand on the rotoray engine concept a little, and explain potential applications? As a non-techy I see “operates efficiently at specific band widths” and think, ’sounds like a better ICE for the Volt to me.’ Or am I missing something critical?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 am
Problem with Natural Gas cars is if we used it for all cars, then the demand would drive up the price (including cost of heating homes and water) and we’d be running into ‘peak natural gas’ issues in a very short time. Natural Gas should be limited to use as it is not a long term (50-100 years) solution.
I have no idea why car companies would even pursue technologies that aren’t sustainable. Electricity is the only current sustainable technology because we won’t run out of fuel to generate electricity if we spend the next 30 years building wind, solar, geothermal and Hyro generating capacity to replace Coal, Oil, Natural gas.
Fast charging batteries (or ultra capaciters) will eventually make all these other technologies irrelevant anyways. Even if that takes 20 years, that is stil the path to follow.
The only other thing that makes sense is on limited access roads to have a ‘hot lane’ where you can drive and charge at the same time.
Americans will never go back to horse and buggy or be happy with getting around on just public transportation. So the evolution of transportation is already in place. At least until someone invents a safe nuclear reactor for under $5,000 and under 500 pounds for the whole gizmo that can pump out 100 KW or more of juice.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
You can even make the fuel cell SMALLER than what the car requires to cruise at 70mph, you would just have to start it the moment you start your long trip (not wait until the battery is empty).. it would not give you unlimited range like the Volt but you could size it to give you 400-800 miles of range in one day of driving.. such a smaller fuel 15kw cell should cost a lot less than a 50kw one would.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:13 am
T. Boone Pickens, The King of Dry Oil Wells, has been meeting with
congress to promote the use of Nature Gas to supplant foreign petroleum used by our large truck fleets to distribute produce around the nation. There is legislation that will put the needed infrastructure in place. T. Boone Pickens believes we need a national project like the Eisenhowers Highway System. Generation of electricity by wind turbines is a major part of his plan. Visit his web site at:
http://www.push.pickensplan.com/
IMHO, his plan is a good one. It require the backing of our government as well as industry. It appears that the administration is finally in agreement of what Pickens has been saying and his moving ahead with funding for much of his plan to get the nation off of foreign oil.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 am
Tom,
Sounds like you don’t think nuclear is cost effective or safe. To me nuclear is a key element to weaning away from coal (and I’m smack dab in the middle of THE coal regions).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:18 am
Why Diesel is not included in this equation too? Clean and more fuel efficient that all ICEs. Diesel is already available at most gas stations through out the country, just bring the Opel diesel technology over please GM.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
Kdawg, a friend of mine once headed the engineering group at a large (1.4 Gigawatt) FPL power plant on the St. Johns river not far from where I live in Florida. He assures me that the plant’s huge gas turbines are extremely efficient (there’s never any odor of natural gas, burned or unburned, when driving right by it). I can’t believe any ICE could approach the thermionic efficiency of gas turbines*, so I fully agree with you. We should all lobby our local power companies (and perhaps our local politicians) to do as FPL started doing years ago and “repower their old coal or oil burning plants with natural gas”!
* FPL also captures the heat from its gas turbines to power its steam turbines, further improving the plant’s overall efficiency
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
Take a look at Pickens Plan for the use of Natural Gas:
http://www.push.pickensplan.com/
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
We do have nuclear reactors that weigh less than 500 lbs and pump out far more than 100KW, although for a very, very short time.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:25 am
Nuclear – no CO2.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:25 am
Jason,
Thanks. This is why I come here at least twice a day. 1 for information and 2 to see if Statik poked his head in.
Zel
And Remember GM:
Jacksonville Fl, 54 mile commute round trip, 110v 20a plug at work to recharge and designated parking spot. Just saying I will volunteer. Really.
Plugging for a Plug-In!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
I’m more interested in whether they see any potential for micro-turbines.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:34 am
Decided to do a little search. Here is an electric bus charging Li-ion batteries with a turbine being tested in NYC.
What do you think?
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/mta-tests-sleeker-bus-with-turbine-engine/
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 am
The cost has to be right for a semi truck to convert to propane, it has 65% of the volumetric energy density of diesel (ethanol has 55%) so the tanks have to be larger (and some safety issues) but emissions control should be a lot simpler/cheaper.. durability of a quality engine on propane should be outstanding and oil life is much longer. Propane is also a high octane fuel, about 110, so high compression ratios and turbos are well suited to it. The evaporating liquid propane can even be used to cool the air in the turbo intercooler, dramatically increasing the power of the engine.
It may be a good fuel cost wise for semi trucks..and high diesel prices affect the cost of everything that gets delivered by truck.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
nasaman,
Not a flame, but I think the thrust of the article (from GM’s view) is that they are concentrating on what they know best (and have experience with) in order to GET THE VOLT’S WHEELS ON THE ROAD! (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
nasaman:
No flame posting from me.
I guess my only problem with all the fuel cell talk is that for as long as I can remember, it has always been “just a few more years away”. It almost begs the comparison to EESTOR.
If there are some secret defense or DOE hi-tech labs that have figured it out, that is great, but if not, there has to be a point where you come to the decision that it is just not a viable technology for automobiles.
As a pratical matter, I would rather see that development money put into photovoltaic cell research to get them to a price point where they could be on every roof top. Think of the problems that would go away if the majority of us became 50% energy independent!
JMHO
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
i agree with you about replacing the old coal burning plants with cleaner fuels but not natural gas. I back the Pickens Plan! Currently, electric generating plants use natural gas to produce 20% of our electricity. T. Boone Pickens suggests that that 20% of natural gas be used to fuel large transporters for which battery power in insufficient. He proposes replacing the natural gas for electricity generation with wind and solar power. We are already seeing new wind farms crop up all over the United States. But we have no other fuel than hydrocarbons to fuel our transport fleets. The Picken’s Plan is environmentally and economically sound; NG is a cleaner burning fuel than diesel – it is a domestic source of energy; creation of electricity by solar and wind power are clean, free and will create many new jobs (has already); technological advances are close to giving us an energy source to power transport fleets in the future. His plan is logical when you consider the switch to electricity us our motive power for transport around the nation. His plan includes government backing of a Smart Grid and new high voltage transmission lines. I suggest reading what he has to say about the subject at his website:
http://www.push.pickensplan.com/
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 am
Interestingly Consumer reports just did a survey…(I will post it seperately but it is counter to what the under bridge inspector stated…
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090903/AUTO01/909030346/1148/rss25
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
Playing it safe with fuel cells? Thanks for the laugh! Oh, if GM needs some help with CNG or LNG they can head out to Thailand and other third world countries that have it running very nicely. It’s even cheaper than gasoline in many places!
I guess there’s still federal funding for fuel cells and as long as that holds up, might as well take advantage of it. Besides, a huge percentage of that funding is spent on the electrification systems which can be used on E-REVs, BEVs, hybrids, etc. It’s win win. Thanks, Uncle Sam.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 am
(click to show comment)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
let me do an example of a smaller fuel cell (or genset) as a range extender.
From the Tesla charts we know many of these vehicles will require 22kwh to cruise at 70mph on level ground.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/
lets say we have a Leaf type BEV with a usable battery capacity of 17kwh, to that we add a 15kw fuel cell (or honda generator).. total now is 32kwh of capacity.. if you started the fuel cell at the start of your trip you could travel at 70mph for 32/22 or 1.45 hours, a distance of 102 miles.. after that you would have to slow down to 60mph once the battery was depleted.
The battery would continue charging if you stopped for a break.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 am
“Regarding fuel cells, you are quoting old numbers. Not only are the efficiencies of dissociating water molecule much higher, the materials / costs to do so are much lower. Similarly, fuel cell efficiencies ate higher and costs ate cheaper. As for hydrogen transport, water and sunlight / electricity are already prolific, so hydrogen can be generated on site at fueling stations and more likely, right at home”
Really? Can we see those references? Imagine, things changed right under my nose! It’s all now possible! Yea! -sarcasm-
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 am
No argument, Tag or Jim! Just another thought: Unlike ICEs, fuel cells are absolutely silent —and this could be a major advantage on the battlefield (like stealth aircraft are for the airforce). I’d be very surprised if the Pentagon isn’t funding at least some limited, advanced, highly-classified fuel cell R&D in the hope of someday converting Hummers to “Whisperers”. We won’t hear anything about it, of course, if it’s Top Secret.
/ BTW, Jim…. I’m 100% with you on steering more R&D money into photovoltaics!!!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
Posted as a troll reply, but here it is again.
A consumer reports study shows that 89% of new car buyers would consider a north american car.
It asys that CR was “surprised” at the results andthe number being that high (despite their best attempts I guess)
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090903/AUTO01/909030346/1148/rss25
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:00 am
Tom,
…..Fast charging batteries (or ultra capaciters) will eventually make all these other technologies irrelevant anyways. Even if that takes 20 years, that is stil the path to follow.
I couldn’t agree more. All of the prevalent green technologies, (i,e, wind, solar, hydro) produce electricity. I live in the windy west and my state now has approximately 4 wind farms capable of 50 MW each. The problem with all of the green technologies is their intermittent nature. The lack of energy storage,(any efficient energy storage) has always been the Achilles heel that has held these back.
Reliable and cheap U.C.’s will have a revolutionary and profound effect on all sectors, including transportation.
I realize that I am new to this forum, and I can hear the sound of weapons being cocked as I write this, but I do believe that U.C.’s are coming. I will not mention the “EE” word for fear of immediate immolation, but necessity has always been the mother of invention. All of these new EVs are creating a huge “necessity” which will be addressed by the next great inventor, whoever he or she may be.
The “youhaveheardallofthisbefore” P.E.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 am
THE best thing to do is to make a car run a car on CNG or LPG like the chevy spark on india and many other cars. america has lots of natural gas. so we can make the best use of them
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 am
This past weekend, my family and I drove to New Brunswick NJ to drop off my daughter at Rutgers College. As we drove out of a restaurants parking lot we saw an Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle drive by. We waited at a red light side by side and my kids were so excited to see the future of automobiles being driven on the road running next to us. I felt so happy to think some day all vehicles will spew no toxic gas. Future generation will wonder why past generation would make a suicide vehicle that could kill a person if they closed themselves in a garage and let the engine running. The Equinox had NY plates and my kids wondered if there was a hydrogen fueling station in NJ.
Yes, it was silent as it drove off. The future looks pretty good.
NPNS!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Nuclear isn’t necesary Tag. Look at
http://www.push.pickensplan.com/
T. Boone has gotten congress to listen to his plan to temporarily use NG to power our transport fleets until technology discovers a way to produce the large amounts of power needed for these trucks. He proposes wind power replace the 20% NG used in our electric power plants. The U.S. has become the world leader in Wind Power production of electricity; in the last year, we moved ahead of Germany to take first place. All sorts of wind farms are under construction or planning stages. Although Pickens doesn’t mention solar energy, it to is a green source of power and it is free. Don’t get me wrong about nuclear: there is the ITER project, an internation effort to build a fusion reactor;
http://www.iter.org/default.aspx
Technology is moving fast forward. The Chernobyl Disaster was unfortunate in that the United States was testing a new type of reactor that shuts down without human control when going into the critical stage. It was a success but the disaster set the nuclear industry on its heals. Now that we need to end our addition to oil, nuclear is an option but it should be used as a last resort and research should move ahead to give us a safe economical fusion reactor. We have the technology to produce electricity through solar and wind generation. They are free and cleaner sources of energy.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
I’ve read a lot on Picken’s plan since last summer. Its good that at least someone has a plan. I could maybe see semi-trucks using CNG, but why dont we improve our rail system? I dont think it would be smart for GM to push for ICE cars that run on CNG. Stick w/electric drive. If they still want to use CNG, mabye use it to power the car’s generator efficiently (basically the Voltec system). That could be what Rob was referring to, but I read it differently.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
I am driving a Ford fusion hybrid. The only thing I don’t like is how it looks! Give it an A minus!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:19 am
LRGV,
Just yesterday it was reported that even Pickens is backing away from his plan. I believe it had to do with failure to gain the rights to pipe all that gas from the fields to the plants. The same concerns about transporting electrons from solar and wind fields. IMHO we need to get off our collective duffs and get some nuclear plans approved and in service, as it’s been decades since that’s happened. If Europe can do it, so can we.
Just my two cents, other than it DOES relate to where we get the electrons for transportation.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:19 am
I believe it was MotorTrend magazine that reported 2013 would be the year the C7 Corvette would be introduced, but no confirmation that it would wear the “Stingray” name plate.
Oh, please, please, please, PLEASE… make that the year we get a Chevy version of the EREV Converj..!!!
Name suggestions:
“E-Shark”
“Mako”
“Stinger”
“Thresher”
I could hold out to 2014, but I’m not getting any younger.
Let’s get moving on this ASAP!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Perhaps you should consider starting FORD-Fusion.com and post all your helpful advice there?
Oddly enough though I agree on the looks. How sad is it that this is the best looking Hybrid currently in production?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 am
Sorry…missed edit time..81% not 89
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
For an around town car this might ‘just’ be possible.
But you ’still’ end up with ‘range worries’ with this sort of arrangement.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 am
I’ve spoken to quite a few people who said they would prefer to buy an American car. There are a lot of people willing to give GM and Ford, at least, another chance. Most Americans are, bottom line, patriotic. And, all things being equal, we’d rather support American industries. And I don’t think John Q public had any idea how integral GM and Ford were to the American economy before the bailout hearings.
But they have to deliver product-wise. If Americans don’t like what we see at the dealership, or the reliability reports stop improving, patriotism won’t be enough. My uncle said he didn’t buy a new car this year because he’s waiting and hoping that the American car companies will close the gap with the Japanese. So, this is your chance GM, don’t waste it.
By the way, I haven’t spoken to anyone (at least offline) who said they wouldn’t consider a GM car due to the bailout.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 am
I work in the power generation industry, and our use of natural gas to “turn the lights on” is insanity. The most efficient use of natural gas is to either cook our food or heat our homes.
Anything other use than these two things is a fool’s errand.
Contrary to popular belief, the United States does NOT have huge reserves of natural gas to sustain automotive, home, and electrical generation. Pricing for natural gas will climb well above today’s pricing. Watch it happen!
The only reason natural gas generation is relatively cheap right now compared to other sources is exactly because it ISN’T being used in large quantities for baseload generation…yet.
Natural gas generation is dedicated to peak power generation only. Imagine the disaster-waiting-to-happen when we try to apply it to automotive use as well.
People rail at the oil companies, which, most of the time, I attribute to conspiracy theory. Well, I can almost hear the howls of consternation when the same will be said for natural gas (if used for transportation).
Ol’ T. Boone Pickens hoped to capitalize on this boondoggle, by trying to couple wind with natural gas use…because of the general public’s misinformed perception of natural gas.
To give you an example of where electrical generation costs are currently, see the following:
Natural Gas – $0.0162/kWh
($4.75/MMBtu avg., $3.08/MMBtu to $6.42/MMBtu, EIA, 6/25/09)
Nuclear – $0.02/kWh
Coal – $0.05/kWh
Wind (subsidized) – $0.07/kWh
Residential Electricity Costs – $0.10 to $0.12/kWh
(depending upon utility, region of country, and seasonal variations)
Wind (unsubsidized) – $0.12/kWh
Solar (unsubsidized) – $0.22/kWh
Notes:
1 W = 1 J/s
1 kW = 1000 J/s
1 kWh = 1000 J/s x 3600 s = 3.6 MJ ≈ 3412 BTU
Monthly, Single-Family Residence, Energy Consumption ≈ 550 kWh to 1200 kWh (depending upon demand and seasonal variations)
GM should avoid natural gas for transportation purposes at all costs – whether for direct combustion or use in fuel cell applications.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
Was that a conversion? I thought the only CNG car being sold was the Honda Civic?
Contrary to your experience, the people I know who have CNG Civics have home chargers because they found the public stations too slow and unreliable. Being able to charge at home is a benefit as well, but it is a slow process to compress the gas.
Being able to use the HOV lanes is a big benefit!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 am
Amen, Tom!
There companies like Altairnano, a lithium titanium oxide battery manufacturer and others that are often mention hear, porudcing large battery packs to store the energy produced by wind and solar until it is needed on the grid. Ultracaps and the like will also fulfill this need in the future. I like you believe that the investment in these technologies will pay the way to a better future with free and clean solar and wind energy.
That “EE” word should we an eye catcher this month. There is supposed to be an announcement coming out this month about current production of a working prototype. At last! I am hopeful that this is not another come-on in the saga of “EE”. Science fiction of the past has often become real; space travel, man on the moon are but a few examples. Research at the University level often results in our next jump forward as I hope is the case for “EE”.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
Don’t you know that Americans don’t quit in the face of adversity ? In fact, we just get more determined. Try your lectures on your countrymen in Dijon or Cannes – they share the same mindset that you have been cursed with.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
I bet the cost of these little guys is the issue.
It can’t cost more than a couple thousand dollars to put the 1.4 into the volt for GM.
How much would a turbine be? THAT is the question.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
Electricity is the only current sustainable technology
Bio-fuels are imminently sustainable, renewable, and more easily stored than electricity.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
I’m thinking an over-the-road truck would need to use LNG (liquefied natural gas) rather than compressed natural gas, for range. This could also have an intercooler advantage.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a diesel genset for Gen 2 or 3 of the Volt but for now it makes sense to keep it as simple as possible and get it into production.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
Perhaps you should consider an acronym, like Tagamet’s:
ARGM:
JFFFMCRTOHTVTAPAWTRADPS.
hmmm; on second thought, maybe not.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Let me make it really easy for everybody who only tunes into reality occasionally. There are only 4-5 existing distribution systems in the country that supply volumes of products conveniently everywhere in the US:
1) Electric Grid
2) Water systems
3) Liquid fuels
4) Telephones
5) Maybe cable/sat/cellphone
You can only power cars on Electricity and Liquid Fuels. That really should end most discussions on the issues. But it never does so here’s some more simplification:
Energy “density” in storage. And by density you have to include what it takes to actually contain/bottle/hold the fuel. Suddenly Hydrogen and Nat Gas are kind of annoying when you want to travel significant distances.
Liquid hydrocabons that we use now are SOOOO convenient. Remember, there were 100+ years of trial and error that settled on these fuels for use..it ain’t coincidence. Stable at room temperature and standard pressures and CHOCK full of energy, you just have to love hydrocarbons. Batteries are a distant runner-up and getting better, but the others aren’t even on the BOARDS. Ignite 1 gallon of hydrogen (at standard temp and pressure) and you get a fun pop but not enough heat to boil a thimble of water. With one gallon of gas I can cook lunch for the 4th infantry.
A five year old can safely carry 10 miles of gasoline/diesel in a plastic container…try and carry 10 miles worth of hydrogen in a thick steel pressurized gas container. Every lug propane/gas container for your bar-b-que? Consider what it would take to power a car. Then consider where you get your bar-b-que gas…not exactly at every corner up where I live. Can I siphon some nat gas for you if you have run dry on the side of the road? Gonna run your lawn mower on a lil’ hydrogen you just pour in?
So can we all stop wasting time on fuel cells and nat gas and tell t-boone pickens or buffet or whoever that really, it is going to be liquid hydrocarbons or electricity in personal vehicles. And it will still be liquid hydrcarbons in long hual rigs for the next 50 years easily.
rant over
end
list
run
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Herm, just to let you know, SOFC isn’t really an option. The operating temperature is way too high. I’ve worked with SOFC’s and the big issue has always been cycles. Turning an SOFC off and on multiple times wears them out quickly and is time consuming. Continuous stationary power generation is great as the SOFC can run all the time and all of the high temperature heat can be used for heating or to drive refrigeration cycles. However, since an advanced SOFC may only push 30-40% efficiency running off hydrocarbon fuels, other ICE technologies make more sense. It is true that an SOFC can get very high efficiency using hydrogen, especially if we use the waste heat for something useful, but if you are going to supply hydrogen then PEM fuel cells are the way to go.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 am
bobo,
HCCI is a “best of both worlds” between diesel and gasoline, so that is why it is pursued instead of simple gasoline or diesel.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
Hi all,
Thanks to Jason for his post.
IMHO, what is overlooked in the NG plan is that you need to compress the NG like you do for LPG or H2.
A cost/benefit analysis by a master’s degree student on this subject tree years ago was not at all encouraging. The (economic and environmental) costs of the compression were far too high.
Regards,
JC NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 am
MarkinWI,
Here is THE site for a state of the art rotary engine:
http://www.rotapower.info/
Their rotary ICE and compound rotary ICE are perfect for EREV applications, because, when they maintain constant speeds, they are very, very efficient with ultra low emissions. I understand that GM must play it safe / smart, but it does leave them vulnerable to competitors who use these engines as range extenders.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 am
nasaman: If I flamed you for mentioning Hydrogen, would you be able to see it?
But seriously, assuming that there were no difficulties making or storing hydrogen (huge assumptions), the addition of a battery would take a lot of heat off of the hydrogen distribution infrastructure, since it would only be used for trips longer than the battery’s AER capacity. It wouldn’t solve a lot of problems, and gasoline is still the best “second” fuel; but it needn’t wait for ‘a hydrogen station on every corner’ to happen.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Hi Tag
And there is the Desertec initiative too, see :
http://www.desertec.org/
Regards,
JC NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Ford has implemented a micro-turbine as a range extender, which achieved 70 – 80 mpg in charge sustaining mode. The only problem is that they are currently $50,000 apiece.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
I’d be surprised if anyone on this board would be unhappy if the magic fairy dust with unicorn horns EEStor cell appear!
We’ve just gotten to the point where it sounds much to much like a dead end.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
I think batteries will have many important allocations but they still need to be charged by something. Something that remains to be built in most cases (wind, solar, nuclear, wave, coal etc.). Eventually there would be more demand than current generation capacity can produce.
Batteries are a hugely important piece of the puzzle but not the only piece.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
Don’t forget compressed air – air is everywhere
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
Many of our MARTA transit buses in Atlanta us CNG. They have gas compressed in high-strength plastic tanks above the interior roof which span the width of the cabin; a line of them back to front covers most of the top of the bus (there’s a nice fairing to cover them up). They sound like they have diesel engines, but there’s no trace of soot.
However, there is just one place in the Atlanta metro area where one might fill up a car with CNG, and it’s not in a nice part of town. I know of a normally mild-mannered, peaceful-minded owner of a CNG car who bought a gun to carry on the seat whenever he goes there.
Again, the difference between fleet and individual use is a huge one.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
Excellent! I know I am going to choke up when I see my first Chevy Volt, Tesla Roadster, Fisker Karma, Aptera 2e/h. I already get a kick out of seeing the little Smart FourTwo’s and Myer’s NmG’s running around my area.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
I run into people who don’t like GM anymore because of the bailout. The backlash is real at least for some.
I for one hope that Americans will give them a second chance. It would be great IMO for Ford and GM to both gain market share at the expense of Toyota and Honda….
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
Darn, I forgot to ask about a compressed air range extender …
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
Hopefully everyone will recognize that a Volt running on a fuel cell would be a full EV just not a BEV (battery electric vehicle). Whether the electricity is being supplied by a battery or a fuel cell or a genset, the Volt would always be an EV.
To add to your point, cellulosic ethanol is one breakthrough — the ability to cost effectively separate plant sugars and carbohydrates from the lignans that protect them — away from being cost competitive with gasoline. And that seems to be happening, at least at Mascoma, which is a company which GM has invested in:
[citation removed because of posting issues]
Moreover, since ethanol is a liquid which can be distributed using the existing infrastructure — tank trucks and gas pumps that are used for gasoline can be used for ethanol — it can more or less replace gasoline without an expensive retrofit. Finally, it’s renewable and sustainable and could replace 100% of the gasoline we use for transportation using existing surplus agriculture land without irrigation.
The question I have for you would be: Why use a fuel cell? Wouldn’t it be simpler and less expensive to simply use cellulosic ethanol in a combustion engine? Would a Malibu running on cellulosic ethanol be superior to a Volt being powered by a cellulosic ethanol fuel cell? IOW what would be the advantages and disadvantages of using a fuel cell or an iCE?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
Whatever they do for Volt now will build proficiency and experience which will still be useful when future power options materialize: Fuel cells are just a source of electricity. The motors, controllers and batteries (if any) won’t know the difference.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
Natural gas is a wonderful means of heating ones home. Using more gas turbines will drive up the cost to heat a home with gas, as it already has.
Go nuclear.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Based on everything I’ve read, wind and solar are not scalable to the extent necessary at this point. Natural gas power plants are. Am I wrong?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
Not that I’m a true believer, or anything; but my understanding is that Natural Gas itself is a much more potent “greenhouse gas” than CO2; something like 50 times more powerful.
If you have the choice between burning Natural Gas or releasing it into the environment, you would be much better off ‘warming-wise’ to burn it and make the less-potent CO2.
There are many natural sources of Methane which have been harnessed for power; at places like landfills and sewerage plants, which would otherwise be released. Only the gas’s value as a fuel makes this cost-effective.
Seems to me that there is a case to be made for the increased usage of Natural Gas, from a strictly environmental standpoint.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
Tagamet:
I sure hope so! LJGTVWOTR!!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
That pretty much answers the micro turbine question.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
That’s funny!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
You nailed it EXACTLY!!!
To give you some numbers for the specific energy (MJ/kg) of various fuels and electrical storage devices, see the following:
Clock Spring (or Torsion Spring) = 0.0003 MJ/kg
Standard Capacitor (0.3 F to 0.6 F) = 0.002 MJ/kg
Lead Acid Battery = 0.11 to 0.18 MJ/kg
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) Battery = 0.22 to 0.43 MJ/kg
Lithium Ion Battery (Present Energy Density) = 0.4 to 0.6 MJ/kg
Lithium Ion Battery (Predicted Energy Density, 2nd generation) = 0.54 to 0.9 MJ/kg
Ultracapacitor (31 F from EEStor, 2008) = 1 MJ/kg
Lithium Ion Battery (with nanowires, 3rd generation) = 2.54 to 2.72 MJ/kg
Gasoline Benchmark (20% maximum ICE efficiency) = 9.9 to 10.6 MJ/kg
Wood (dependent upon water content, higher water/lower energy) = 10.42 to 16.2 MJ/kg
Lignite Coal = 14 to 19 MJ/kg
Anthracite Coal = 32.5 MJ/kg
Bituminous Coal = 23 to 35 MJ/kg
Ethanol = 27 to 30 MJ/kg
Gasoline (47.5 MJ/kg average) = 46.5 to 48.3 MJ/kg
Methane (Natural Gas) = 50 to 55.5 MJ/kg
Boron = 58.9 MJ/kg
Ultracapacitor (99 F/g to 135 F/g @ 36 V from Graphene Energy, 2009) = 64 to 87.48 MJ/kg (over 3,566 km or 2,216 miles for the same mass in an EV)
Hydrogen = 143 MJ/kg
Enriched Uranium (3.5% U235 in Light Water Reactor) = 3.456 TJ/kg
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
DonC:
My understanding is the ethanol is not compatible with the existing petroleum product pipeline system because of corrosion and/or other issues. So it has to be trucked everywhere, which substantially increases the energy requirements from source to tank.
And the trucks tend to run on diesel at the moment, which cancels out a percentage of the petroleum savings.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Oh, I’m sure there are people who feel that way. I live in NYC, where most people are liberals, which means we’re more comfortable with government intervention. The big question is which is the larger group? And will GM be able to capitalize on the people who are suddenly willing to give them a second chance? I don’t have the answer.
I’m also hoping that the survey means that more people will give them a second chance. After all, It worked for Lee Iacocca in the 70s.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
We should have been making natural gas available for vehicles when oil was at $150 per barrel. I wonder how many times this will have to happen again before people wake up.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Jason,
Very good report. It is really great Lyle is opening up the home page to some of us who may have input to/from GM or other technology companies in and out of the automotive field. This was an excellent topic and you presented it very well. I hope to see more articles published here by you. Thank you again.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
What kind of engine does Honda use in its generators? Seems like if this was the best design for this type of application, that’s what they would use.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
That can be your next topic to discuss with GM. Or speak with the developers in France and India. Stretch those lines of communication.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
I think there are a lot companies working on methanol fuel cell etc.
http://www.oorjaprotonics.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=44
If they can use the fuel cell technologies for natural gas then it may be a lot efficient ( i herd fuel cells are 83% efficient ) .
Lot times i wondered is there a fuel cell which can use conventional gas (petrol ) and create electricity.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Noel,
You got to that before I could hit the “send” button.
Thanks,
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am
I don’t trust Boone Pickens any farther than I could throw him. The “Pickens Plan” is all about making money for Boone, at the expense of anybody who gets in his way.
You have been warned, LOL.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Wind power already produces over 1% of US electricity. In case that sounds piddly, consider just how high that number really is in kwh: much higher than any single power plant. This number may double in the near future (or may already have), and will continue to get more significant with time.
The main criticism of wind energy is the obvious one of what to do when it’s calm. Even the windiest places in the country have some intermittentcy. There have been power failures in parts of Texas due to a sudden becalming of wind generators. Critics say that keeping a coal or gas-fired ‘baseline’ powerplant on ’spool-up standby’ uses as much fuel as not using wind turbines in the first place.
There has been at least one high-profile attempt to dampen the intermittent power from a wind turbine using giant sodium-sulfur batteries. The advantages of this chemistry over Li/Ion include lower costs per kwh due to more plentiful sources of the necessary materials. Disadvantages include the need to be kept at several hundred degrees centigrade: which is much easier in giant form-factors (lower surface area to mass). Recent developments in the field may make a larger-scale application easier (by allowing operation at lower temperatures).
Of course, solar has the similar issue of what to do when it is cloudy, or at night. Using batteries with photovoltaics offers similar benefits as for the wind turbines.
There are solar collection schemes which store the sun’s heat for use when the sun doesn’t shine, but it would only be economic to use on a very large scale; and even with the heat storage, are best sited out in the desert.
By extension, eventually baseline power itself might become unnecessary: you’d have enough battery capacity to turn the entire grid into a kind of Volt: absorbing energy when it is available to use when it isn’t.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
Astroturfing, IMHO. Ignore it and maybe it will go away.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
Check out the Mercury twin , it looks different and better .
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/10/review-2010-mercury-milan-hybrid/
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Here is a new one in the news today:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23348/?nlid=2323
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
The word is series , not serial.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
N Riley,
For those articles I write that don’t apply to GM-volt.com, you can check out my own webpage at:
http://www.jason-hendler.mainstreetautos.com
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Electrification of the auto should be the priority of GM. The biggest benefit is that eventually all or most households, apartment buildings and commercial buildings can become the power source via solar panels. No need for “gas stations”!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
I am not a fan of propane for personal transportation purposes in cars and light duty trucks (pickups), but I can see some clear advantages for semi-tractor trucks. It would take a year or so for major truck stops to add the necessary tanks and pumps to their locations. Propane can be delivered by truck of piped into some truck stops that are close to supply points. There are plenty of propane suppliers located all over the country that could be the local supplier to those truck stops. One down side is that the price of propane would sky-rocket thereby making is much more expensive as a home heating/cooking fuel. This is a major source of home heating/cooking in rural areas. I use natural gas for winter time heating and to heat water in my water heaters. I am assuming even natural gas, LPG and propane would see price increases as a result of more usage of propane or LPG in trucks. What is the real difference in propane and LPG?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 am
I am a member of Pickens army to spread the word on renewalbe energy and the need to get off of foreign oil, and I do not believe that Pickens has entirely abandoned his plan for the Panhandle wind farm. The problem lies with the transmission of the 1,000 megawatts the wind farm would initially produce.
If you read the article in the New York Times,
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/pickens-drops-plan-for-largest-wind-farm/
you get the impression that he has given up entirely. Referring to their source of information at dallasnews.com:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/industries/energy/stories/DN-pickenswind_05bus.State.Edition1.19e1daf.html
you will see that he has diverted the turbine construction to new locations near the transmission lines. “The Texas regulators have approved a $4.93 billion wind-power transmission project, providing a major lift to the development of wind energy in the state.” This project will bring transmission lines as far as the Panhandle but won’t be completed until 2013. Pickens had planned on finishing the first stage by 2011. His plans to build the transmission corridor himself fell short when the price of NG dropped and his financial backers withdrew.
In light of these developments, he has paired back his plans but has not given up on them. When I find out more I will fill you in. France is using Plutonium breeder reactors to fuel Plutonium reactors; I do not want to see us do the same when there is a perfectly good choice. True, it will take time to get the transmission corridors in place to move the electricity from the farms to urban areas but so will building new reactors. The Texas project is a model for other states: Texas is unique in that it has its own electricity grid. “All other states fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to any transmission proposals.” However, if the administration moves toward an Eisenhower highway like project, and gets the backing of Congress, we could see the needed infrastructure rapidly developed.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
The main expense, other than precision manufacture (which is a whopping big one, don’t get me wrong) are the heat-resistant materials required. Perhaps some work in advanced ceramics or carbon nanomaterials could attack some of this cost issue. The military is keenly interested in the devices due to small size and low weight. You can be sure some thought is being given to this, somewhere.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
The President of Audi says the Volt will fail because it’s a car for idiots and there aren’t that many idiots!
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/audi-president-chevy-volt-is-a-car-for-idiots/#comment-119917
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
GM made an early commitment to the Wankel, or rotary engine, back in the late ’60s, early ’70s; the ill-fated Monza was intended to use one. Very late in the auto’s development, blow-by and wear problems on the rotors forced a last-minute substitution of a conventional engine. This led to, among other things, an internal bulkhead with a hole cut in it for access to one of the spark plugs, and other hasty modifications which made the car “crap-tastic” for it’s owners and mechanics.
It is probably still too soon to say “rotary engine” at GM.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
LRGV and JC,
While both are fine initiatives, it feels like the proponents of green technologies are the same group of people who fight against the transmission lines to distribute the energy. No?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
I think I need to use a different term than energy density in light of the fact that in the true definition, energy density is energy per mass…and Hydrogen gets 143 MJ/kg. But a kilo of hydrogen is probably the size of my house.
I think we all want to feel when we say “density” in this context is a quantity per volume …it is more “real world” density would be energy per mass per volume…something like MJ/kg/liter. In which case the gasses above would show more of their hassle-factor.
Since my brain is old and I haven’t taught science in 20 years, somebody please shout out with the unit I am looking for…
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
The problem with what you support is there won’t be any petroleum in fifty years.!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
Do I see a mid day thread swap coming?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
Jason,
Hydrogen generation on site with photovoltaic FC is known 10 years ago. But infrastructure to make hydrogen on site would be much more expensive than electricity generatio on site many times.
And again – why you need hydrogen for plug-in if you are going to fill your tank once per month. What are economics behind moving from gasoline/ethanol towards hydrogen and intalling billion dollar worth infrastructure to save thousand of dollars not using gasoline?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Audi President Has Verbal Jolt for Volt
Predicts the Chevy hybrid will fall flat with consumers
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=1247701
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
I still like the Wankel. Power to weight ratio is much better. Efficiency to pass smog sucks a$$ though.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
I am in agreement with those who think government funding is driving the interest in fuel cells. Although GM and others have working prototypes in field trials, they are too expensive and too large for personal transportation uses at present. I can understand the desire to develop fuel cells for transportation uses but I see a lot of inefficiencies in the use of fuel cells. I would rather use the research money to advance cleaner generation of electricity and the increase of electricity generation. Plus, better batteries that are cheaper, hold more power and are much smaller. Using fuel cells for large equipment power may be a solution to replace large diesel generators and such, but I remain dubious of the cost savings and efficiency of a fuel cell for cars and light duty trucks versus BEVs, ER-REVs and ethanol power ICE vehicles. But I know advances will be made as research continues and I am not one to rule out the possible future break through that may find us all driving vehicles with fusion reactors powering the wheels or some other source of cheap and widely available fuel. Who knows what the future holds.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
Totally agree there bro!
Everyone who buys a VOLT or BEV or Plugin car should use that $7500 rebate to put towards a Solar package to their home. That’s the ultimate drive free.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
Sorry. Wind power kills migrating bird populations. Solar panels shade far too much of the planet, depriving plants of needed sunlight. Without these plants, herbivores lose their food source, and their predators must move with them, or die. CNG, LP, gas, diesel, ethanol – all bad, due to C02. Nuclear? Radioactive waste, with no place to store it. Even breathing is bad – you produce C02 when you exhale. And cow farts – don’t get me started.
As you see, there is no way to please everyone when it comes to energy production. The only truly unwise course is to put all of our eggs in one basket, energy wise. We need a balanced approach, so if it is cloudy, or winds are calm, or CNG or LP prices spike, or a reactor problem happens which takes a reactor offline for maintenance, we have enough energy coverage to limp along during a crisis.
————————————————-
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” – some British guy I saw in a movie.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Tagemet,
Quantum tech supplies 10 kpsi systems to the major automakers, so that they achieve the 300 mile range desired by customers from a single “fill up”:
http://www.qtww.com/products/haft/hydrostorage.php
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
Ditto on ABG…
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/03/audi-of-america-president-calls-chevy-volt-a-car-for-idiots-s/
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
SteveK9,
Great find – I missed this article. Yes, large vehicles are a great application for “micro-turbines”, as the cost of the turbine is small compared to the overall price of the vehicle. I could see these configurations used in tugboats and meritime shipping as well.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Honda may be one of the vendors requesting a quote for some of those 900,000 motors that have been RFQ’d.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Not to create panic, but, has anyone noticed the cast of the sun’s shadow has changed from the summer of 2008 to the summer of 2009? I am pretty sure it has changed.
Anyone had to re-adjust their back yard sun dials this spring? If so, please state your geographic location.
If the earth’s axis, in relation to its orbiting around the sun, has changed then it would make sense for everyone to be producing and compressing their own hydrogen in appropriate amounts, with a pause during the sleeping hours. Think of all the extra jobs that would be needed, which would fill the void in oil extraction and refinement industry job losses. Countries that have natural gas pipelines could start the at-home-process right away and then convert them in the future to compress hydrogen.
China this week has purchase 60% of an oil sands company in Alberta, Canada, and they say they will extract the oil by steam on the spot, whereby pipes are inserted into the oil saturated ground and steamed with water and then collected with pipes. This would illuminate lots of jobs by not needing huge caterpillar trucks and refining of oil sands. Manufacturing in earth moving equipment would go down; thus, creating jobs for making-and-compressing-at-home-hydrogen for every home around the world could not only be counterbalanced but economically favourable.
Before we go off into this direction we need to know if extracting the extra iron needed for at-home-compressors from Canada’s arctic rock that contains 60-70% iron per mass will change the earth’s access. For instance, does the amount of the earth’s surface iron location have any affect on the location of the earth’s pole? Does Greenland have the same type of rock as does Canada’s arctic? This could simply be answered by knowing whether or not the earth’s magnetic pole has any factor in determining the earth’s axis in relation to it’s orbit around the sun. Any non-job-dependent readers here have concrete information?
I just read an article that the melting ice caps changed the earth’s axis, supposedly according to a new scientist “the influx of fresh water from shrinking ice sheets also causes the planet to pitch over”. (Some of these “credited” scientists need to get some used-car-grease under their fingernails.)
Strange how that could happen, since more ocean water would stabilize the earth like monster truck tires are balanced with a handful(s) of sand or a cup(s) of water. Honestly, think about it. Having less ocean water would allow a greater chance of an earth wobble, but there is far too much water for that to happen regardless of how much ice is formed in the north and south poles. If it were possible then cutting canals through continents would solve the problem, such as Panama, but that is not necessary since the earth’s oceans makes its way around the world.
When is my first generation Chevy Volt going to be ready for bow tie tweaking?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Sadly, yes, but certainly a competitor will snap up the opportunity.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 am
He’s just mad because the genset isn’t Diesel…..lol
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
One of my older brothers makes the machined internals for both large static turbines and micro-turbines. The number of passes to create complex geometries in some of these beasts from solid blocks of expensive materials is insane.
The toolmaker crews he manages work 3-shifts to keep their customer supplied. I’d put one in my car if security wouldn’t tackle me in the parking lot while I carried it out.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
CaptJackSparrow,
The rotary engines from Moller pass the ultra low emissions standards:
http://www.rotapower.info/
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
I have seen both sides of the argument concerning GM and the bailout. Some people are really upset about all the bailouts and GM gets some good hits because of their failings in the past to develop and produce vehicles equal to or superior to foreign vehicles. It is an argument that is rooted in self responsibility for a lot of people I talk to. Most says that companies should exist on their own accord. Succeed or fail based on the products they produce.
I would suspect, as LauraM has indicated, that if you took a survey of people living in the large population centers versus those living in the “fly-over” parts of the country, you would see a wide separation on the bail-outs between these two “groups” of people. I can understand both views. I culturally stand with those that say a company is no better than an individual where personal responsibility should be the key to a person’s advancement in life. If a person takes personal responsibility for his successes as well as failures they learn from it. If they expect someone else to “clean-up after them” there is no motivation to do better. Someone would always be there to catch them and fix what is wrong, if only temporarily until the person messes up again and again. Companies are no different than people since they are owned by, managed by and employees people. It is a more complex “organism”, yes, composed of multiple individual with different degrees of personal responsibility that function as a “whole unit”. Each “organism” (individual or corporate) are expected to accept responsibility for its actions. IMO
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:45 am
About time we here something fun from you Dag. I was worried your face was stuck in a permanent scowl.
Well done!
I hear there are no health issues at all for people in range of them too. Until people out-of-range come a bit closer.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Right next to my office building is a puiblic CNG filling station that closed 5 years ago due to lack of interest. I would be willing to bet that the local gas company would re-open it in a second if there were more CNG vehicles on the road (we have CNG buses here in D.C. too).
I have been following the developments of Picken’s Plan over the last few years. It has always started with Wind Turbines and Solar to generate the 20% of electricity currently being generated using natural gas. Early on in the plan, the natural gas was targetd for all vehicle types. After GM announced the VOLT, the plan was modified to only use CNG for trucks.
As for me, having been in the military, I see a huge advantage to limiting the amount of oil being imported. To this end, I support the electrification of the automobile, the use of locally produced natural gas for a motive force, and drilling anywhere will it will not directly lead to the extinction of animals.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Nice put a VOLTEC drivetrain in that all-aluminum mako shark concept I saw years ago. That would be sweet and light too!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
I want some of that Koolaid you been drinking. Why don’t you stop going to the gas station today, you can do it if you wanted to. I thought so, you are just a lot of hot air. Action not words lame ass.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
You have to replace some gaskets and seal but I thought that this was no big deal and in fact some pipelines were already transporting ethanol. No?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
I am in agreement with that, kdawg. In my uneducated opinion we would be much better off using all the sources of clean energy available, like natural gas, to generate electricity that we can power our homes, cars, businesses and store in storage sources, like batteries, for later use.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Please, hydrogen is no less dangerous than gasoline.
Again, the grid will require dozens of new consistantly operating power plants (ie not wind farms) for electric cars. Fuel cells are the future in some form. Considering there a few thousand fuel cell vehicles operating world wide, and zero ‘bombs’ going off your statement must be mired in electric ‘Kool Aid’ thinking. Also, the cars have to be tested to some level before being released into the public.
Fuel cells is the future green fuel.
Grow up Herm.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
Another Doofus Alert:
The major major problem with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) currently being used around the country is this: IT HAS NO RANGE !!!
Hopefully this will sink into that super dense and tiny brain of yours.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
Their Ultra expen$ive too.
These guys from diyelectriccar are talking about building a genset…
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/why-there-no-board-generatorsi-35557p8.html
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Fuel cells are not a waste of time. That is a very small minded sentence. You show me how we are to afford dozens of new power plants to field an electric fleet? Fuel cells do not require a massive infrastructure to built and maintained. Fuel cells will be $$$ feasible at the same time the Volt supposedly will be.
To be honest fuel cells would/should replace gasoline engines in the Volt, before they completely run your car.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
last I read hydrogen is 5 years off. The platinum replacement should be found by then too.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
No chance of any of your CNG fantasies actually happening. None. Just try to drive across this country on Natural Gas only…you will not make it to your destination..DOOFUS.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Jason,
I knew that the tanks existed, I was just concerned about how much energy it took to get the H2 INTO the tank at that pressure.
Shock Me posted about some nanomaterials being looked at with lower pressures.
Be well,
Tagamet
/I’ll bet statik is pulling his hair out.
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
He is right though… scary news for GM loyalists…
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I am not sure where to start… don’t you know they figured out how to make hydrogen gas at the station itself? 5+ years ago? Before you rant, you might want to read a bit more.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
A Hydrogen bomb is a nuke. Hopefully you were joking when you made reference to this with hydrogen being dangerour?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
There is enough petroleum for well over 100 years. There is a guy who also figured how to use microbes to make fuel grade oil. If we want, we will never run out of oil…
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
GM must take what it has in hand – money being no object – and make it the very best. The Smart Car 1.0 L three cylinder turbo engine is an excellent bench mark. The logic of priority is evident: If GM stands to increase its loss per VOLT say 15% by upping ER efficiency to world class competition; it will gain invaluable EV engineering credibility. If GM makes its priorities minimizing its loss per VOLT at the expense of ER efficiency – the EV could bomb.
We share Fritz’s goal of a 2010-2011 repayment effort. Certainly commendable. But not at the risk of bombing out.
As for ER candidates outside the conventional R-ICE, isn’t this something GM evaluates on-going? (In any case the rotary-just no way- oil consumption to start with.)
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The grid’s backup battery is sitting in your car!
Couldn’t the electric company pull the top 20% of your
battery to power the grid — still leaving u 80% to get groceries, and pay you peek rates. 6kwh per household from a 30kwh pack.
I realize the inverter and electronics would be a little ‘tricky’ and the danger to electricians getting electrocuted because they didn’t realize your car is powering the circuits but still.. seems a waste to leave those packs unutilized.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Whoa, here… I owned three Mazda RX7’s which used the Wankel rotary engine. Relatively small, good power, smooth operation all improved upon by the Japanese auto manufacturer after GM gave up. As I recall, the biggest draw-back then was fuel economy. Fuel economy was not really an issue for a sports car (not to mention significantly lower prices for gasoline).
Bottom line, they are nothing new. Just advances in technology for improvement IMHO.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
There are many places where natural gas and propane are now being burned in large quantities only for heating. If more people/industry would use co-generation (like the Capstone systems) to produce *both* electricity and heat we could significantly reduce the amount of coal burned and reduce the argument that electric cars burn coal indirectly.
Power plants throw away 100% of their waste heat. Much of the generated electricity is used by electric water heaters, furnace blowers, baseboard heaters, and heat pumps.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
No. You ARE correct about the term and use of “energy density”. You got it right.
While specific energy is (typically) expressed in terms of mass (MJ/kg), it can also be expressed in terms of volume (MJ/L).
Also, the thing most people don’t realize is that the internal combustion engine (ICE), a marvel of engineering that has served us well for over 100 years, is at most 20% efficient.
That is to say the energy delivered to the wheels as torque has lost 80% to 83% of the energy available in the fuel. That’s why I gave the “Gasoline Benchmark” figure, while gasoline’s specific energy is much higher (average 47.5 MJ/kg).
This is the figure (about 10 MJ/kg) that electrical energy storage devices must reach in order for EVs to “match” the range offered by ICE autos (500 km or 300 miles) – unless, of course, EVs carry more (storage) mass.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Yet another reason why we NEED an earth elevator. Like a giant hulu hoop it will keep ol-mother-earth regular.
Oh, wait this is the Chevy Volt site.
sry
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Saying everything is bad does nothing to improve the situation. Wind, Solar, CNG, & LP are all clearly superior to the existing coal infrastructure.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Hydrogen bombs are a little different animal. They use nuclear fission to fuse hydrogen molecules.
Hydrogen’s only claim to fame is just that you can refuel quickly with it and it offers decent (though not great) range. As a fuel its terrible compared to electricity or fossil fuels. And remember, when we look for alternative fuels, we need something that the entire world can use, ie Cambodia, Djbouti, whatever, because maybe not now, but eventually, every country will become “developed”.
H2 vs Electric
Distribution
H2: Has to be physically carried to each vehicle via expensive compressed, tanker trucks and/or cooling. Current oil pipelines wouldn’t work. Special hydrogen pipelines wouldn’t work for several reasons, not the least of which is that they would have to be special metal that would make an infrastructure of sufficient magnitude prohibitively expensive. I’ve heard some say a hydrogen pipeline would be impossible, but I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and just say “too expensive by an order of magnitude”. Imagine building the Alaskan Pipeline except all over the country (and the world for that matter) except they have highly volatile hydrogen.
Electric: infrastructure for distribution is already there in almost every country. Transporting electricity 100 miles to 2,000 electric refueling stations is practically free.
Refueling Infrastructure
H2: to date, almost none whatsoever, they cost many millions to build, they need special high pressure storage tanks
Electric: They need a cable (expensive, I’ll grant you that, but not millions of dollars) and can be installed almost anywhere there’s power.
Making fuel:
H2: Usually made with natural gas (why not just use straight natural gas in your car?) and then using electricity, it is compressed or cooled to liquid state. Using electrolysis, it uses 6 times as much energy as natural gas, plus the compressing/liquifying energy. The only reason the people driving Claritys can afford is that it’s subsidized by the government.
Electric can be made using solar panels at home, or with just about any fuel.
Cost:
H2: Notoriously expensive by about 10 times what it needs to be.
Electric: There are electric vehicles in production now that cost less than $20,000 in China. Eventually the US will get the prices down as well.
Reliability:
H2: Fuel cells don’t last very long
Electric: Brushless electric motors will last for millions of miles.
Sustainability:
H2: There is literally not enough platinum produced a year in the world to supply even the US’s auto demand, let alone all of the other uses for platinum.
Electric: Even lithium is derivable from the sea for a doable cost.
____________________________________________________________
BTW, Nice post Jason! Exciting we have so many people participating in the home page articles now!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Those nanomaterials exist, but they are extremely expensive. Also, I don’t know if enough of that material has been collected in one spot to verify its use to store a large volume of hydrogen, as in the automotive application.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Thanks for the link.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Actually, “proven reserves” (those accessible with present-day drilling technology) gives the United States at least another 100 years of oil (possibly as much as 300 years), based on year 2000 rate of annual (national) consumption.
This is largely the result of a recent discovery (2007) of the Bakken oil field in the Dakotas extending up into Saskatchewan. Likewise, the Canadians only need a crude spot price of around $40/barrel to break even in extraction costs for their tar sands venture.
The “proven reserves” of this find (Bakken oil reserve) doesn’t highlight the “known reserves” (those identified but presently inaccessible to today’s drilling technology) by the USGS.
The idea of “peak oil” is highly questionable at best.
The strength of the EV lies in the fact that electrical energy (as opposed to chemical or kinetic/mechanical) is the only form of energy that can be transmitted hundreds of miles instantaneously to the end user. That’s something an ICE auto can’t claim.
The United States’ electrical infrastructure has been in place for at least 40 years since rural electrification began more than 60 years ago.
We’ve been ready for the advent of the EV for at least 20 years or more.
The concept of going to get fuel (or charge) isn’t relevant to the EV, and discussions of “charging stations” only serve to inhibit the public’s acceptance of the EV. This is because the public is conditioned to think they must “go and charge” their EV, and that will only make them wary of an EV.
We must not perpetuate that thinking. The public must understand that their homes (or the homes of relatives and friends, as well as businesses) are available to them. They must understand that charge availability is everywhere.
There is no more “burning/consuming fuel to go GET fuel”, as we must do today.
Regardless, this oil discovery has definitely changed the dynamics of global oil resources. The United States can now boast of one of the largest finds in the world right smack in the middle of our country.
A friend put it quite succinctly when he said that he easily sees a “grab and hold” economy for the EV’s introduction. In other words (and as Bioldieseljeep pointed out), certain industries will remain petroleum based.
The likely candidates are construction, agriculture, trucking (heavy haul), airlines, and freight rail systems, whereas everything else goes electric – especially personal transportation (commuting).
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
In a way yes. Once all the loyalists and new tech adopters have been satisfied, who’s left to buy $43,000.00 car in this economy?
I sure as he11 can’t, I havent drank enoigh MGD to recycle the cans and bottles to afford one.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
DonC
No, see:
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sep06/keep.htm
BUT
http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=55&parentid=29
If you had a pipeline within which zero water intruded you could do it I guess.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
That aircraft generator they post is pretty cool. 108/216 VAC at 400CPS, aka Hz for a 30KW and i’m guessing peak power.
Nice.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
-1. But if you’d provide some numbers and had an argument that didn’t require me to agree that I have a “super dense and tiny brain”, I might actually think you had a point.
I seem to remember than CNG conversions for gasoline vehicles often get <200 miles per fill, but it’s been a while since I researched them. Plus, a vehicle that was designed for CNG (instead of being converted with a kit) might do better.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
You are mixing watts (for the fuel cell) and watt-hours for the battery. The 17kwh spec for the battery means that it can deliver 17kw for one hour before it is dead. The 15kw fuel cell can deliver 15kw as long as it has fuel.
Batteries, especially Li-po are known for the high charge/discharge rates. In model airplanes you can get batteries that can discharge at 20C which means 20 times as much current for 1/20th of the time. This is why the 16kwh (only 8kwh actually used) volt battery pack can drive the 120kw electric motor all by it self and is also why the ICE only needs 55kw…
So with that lets get back to your example. If you were consuming 22kw to maintain 70mph and the fuel cell put out 15kw you would be 7kw short. At 17kwh battery could produce 7kw for 2.4 hours (17kwh/7kw). In 2.4 hours @ 70 you would cover 168 miles…
I’m not sure how you arrived at the 60mph on fuel cell alone however…
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Why would you want to reform gasoline on-board?
You still have to get the gasoline from the oil well to the vehicle, and you still have the CO2 emissions right on the vehicle, where the carbon couldn’t be sequestered….
I do appreciate the coolness-factor, though.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I heard hydrogen was 15 years away, 20 years ago….
And fusion power, and the Moller Air Car, too….
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Why not use some of that pressure-energy to power the car, too? Send the hydrogen through one of those little compress-gas powered piston engines that powers the Tata Nano, then send it to the regulator, and on to the fuel cell?
I ran the back-of-the-napkin numbers for using compressed air to power my Ford Ranger. It seemed like a pain in the @$$, but the energy-density was surprisingly competitive with lead-acid batteries. Especially if I insulated the tanks and kept the heat-from-compression in there…. It sounded like a great idea until I realized that it would still be electric powered (since that’s how I power my air compressor), but that the electric motor would stay at home.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Larry,
You skipped nuclear. The newest plants use spent “old reactor fuel” and produce a cupful of waste.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Propane =/= LNG
Propane is liquefied petroleum gas, sometimes called LPG. Liquefied natural gas is just that: methane which has had it’s temperature lowered to the point of making it a liquid. It’s a different molecule; a much simpler one. If you put gaseous methane in a balloon, it will float. If you put gaseous propane in a balloon, it will sink. This is what makes it a greater hazard in trailers and remote country homes: When leaked, it sinks to the floor, where most pilot lights are located.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Thanks, Jason. I was not aware of (or let it slip my mind) your web-site. It looks interesting. I will definitely bookmark it. Maybe Lyle will be so kind someday as to provide a link on the header of each of gm-volt’s pages to sites like yours or as least to a page listing available sites like yours.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
The electric car has been “10 years away” for over 50 years.
In this case, hydrogen has to solve multiple problems: efficient creation, distribution, safe storage and expense.
I give it 20 years, at minimum.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Luke,
That’s the point – compressing the H2 to 5K or 10KPSI uses a ton of energy.
The physics don’t change.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I’m for portable micro-nukes. That’s right nuclear power inside your car. It’s doable. It’s safe. Let’s do this.
- The Glow Worm
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Personally, I could easily switch to CNG if anybody besides Honda made a production car. There are 7 public CNG stations in my area (30 mile radius).
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/locator/stations/
There are 100 years of natural gas in North America that we know of. Enough to run pretty much all vehicles plus current usage. The newer discoveries are one reason the price is so low compared to other fuels.
Also, methane (the main component of natural gas) is a sustainable fuel. We wouldn’t be switching to just another dead-end fuel. There are off-the-grid folks using animal waste reactors and some major companies (like J&J) using methane from land fills to run their factories. These are not plans, they are doing this right now.
(Full Disclosure: My house is sitting on top of the Barnett Shale. I would gain some mineral lease and production $$ from more drilling.)
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Something very wrong with the title. Mixing GM and Advanced Technology in the same sentence is wrong on so many levels. Do yourselves a huge favor and buy Rising Sun or Korean, their quality cannot be denied. See ‘yall on the road.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The only electrification you are likely to see is when I tase you bro.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
This is a very smart man. I would be very afraid if I were a Voltard . I personally would classify most Volt wannabe owners slightly above the idiot level. That would clearly indicate you are all imbeciles. I hope you all feel better about yourself today knowing that you are surely better than the common idiot. Have a nice one.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
U B Wrong. Hydrogen Fuel Cells are awesome, absolutely no doubt about it. Most Fuel Cell haters are just ill informed and/or unedgumecated.
Fuel Cells FTW
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“Plus hydrogen is really nothing more than a gas battery. That is you have to input energy to make it so that you can convert it back to energy in the fuel cell.”
Uhh.. that’s precisely why it’s good.
Natural gas, oil and the likes will not last forever.
A fuel we can CREATE is the next best alternative if you want to quickly be able to take that energy with you (until ultra-fast charging is available for batteries)
Natural gas and oil are the exact same thing. Only, that energy was put in there millions of years ago by plants. Once it’s gone, you’re going to have to wait to harvest your crops and extract their energy if you want to keep on the fuel route.
it’s either that, or batteries + quick charge, or hydrogen if you’re wanting to drive significant distances.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Dream On NukeBoy. Ford and GM gain market share ?
WTF Rock Are You Living Under ?
The Facts are your worst nightmare.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
What about Geothermal?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
That is not a bad idea Capt Jack. I just wish my state would offer some incentives to use wind and/or solar to generator home power. I realize that we as individuals should not wait on the government to do something for us and that is the way I feel most of the time. I would like to do something like wind and solar, but just lack the resources to do it at this time.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
This is a friendly reminder to all the feeble minded people posting on this site to immediately remove the propeller from your dunce cap and step away from your computer, take your medications, and thank me in the morning. There will be no charge for this session.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
MGD FTW MGD FTW
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I agree that we should diversify our electricity sources. However, I think when it comes to cars, there’s a definate advantage for everyone to move to one source. It will simplify the infrastructure.
If everyone has an EV-there will be a lot of charging stations. If everyone has a CNG engine, we’ll need CNG stations. Ditto for biofuel. Ditto for hydrogen. If we have three types of cars, that means three types of infrastructure. Gas stations will have to invest in multiple fuel types, which raises their cost of operation. And, may make things more inconvenient for the customer.
Additionally, auto repair people will have to train longer to learn how to fix multiple types of cars. I don’t know how different a biofuel engine is than a gasoline engine, but I’m pretty sure there are significant differences with CNG engines and/or hydrogen fuel cells that they will have to learn about. That will raise the cost of repairs.
WIth the plug-in hybrids, we can use charging stations, and the existing gas stations (which can or cannot be switched to biofuel).That way, we can take advantage of all the infrastructure possibilities. That’s a major advantage IMHO. There will be higher costs than with just gasoline (or biofuels). But it’s better than with five different types of engines.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
kdawg,
Oh, and geothermal (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Did I also mention after you spend the $7500 for a PV set for your home, you get another rebate from the State (don’t quote me, some are diff) and Feds. Sortof like double dipping on rebates.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
The ZERO-EMISSION age is upon us. There is absolutely no room for the Volt in the new zero-emission economy. I hereby propose all Volts be denied entry into our cities. We don’t need Volt pollution in our cities. Support us now.
The Volt is NOT a Zero-Emission vehicle. It would be an abomination to release this monster upon the unsuspecting American public. How many people must get cancer from Volt exhaust before you people come to your senses. Stop this madness. Stop the Volt NOW We can do this.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
But how many of them will actually let that determine their car buying decision? And how many of them will go to Ford vs. Toyota and Honda? It would be ironic if GM suddenly started doing much better on the coasts only to lose market share in the mid-west and south. Although I’m not sure they currently have the product to appeal to those markets, they are working on it. It might help their margins though if the liberals on the coasts are willing to pay the same price for a GM car they currently do for a Toyota or Honda.
About personal responsibility–it would be one thing if we thought the company to take their places would also be an American company. And manufacture as much in the US as GM does. But we all know that won’t happen. And it’s not worth standing on principle, at least to me, given the negative consequences for the whole economy.
I also have a huge problem with calling GM’s failure one of “personal responsibility” when the government basically tied GM’s hands behind their back for years. At least IMHO. If you give a chess player two extra queens, is the other player responsible for losing the game? And, honestly, the whole concept doesn’t make too much sense for a corporation anyway. Because who’s responsible? Bob Lutz? Rick Wagoner? Roger Smith?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I think that is peak.
I’m assuming that the PF factor of .75 on the data tag for the generator tells us that this generator is not particularly efficient, but I don’t really understand it.
http://s117.photobucket.com/albums/o42/jaynethecat/Range%20Extender%20Stuff/?action=view¤t=8bfb_1.jpg
http://www.generatorguide.net/watt-acpower.html
http://www.smps.us/power.html
/Wonder what the top secret volt generator’s efficiency is?
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Efficiency matrix, p. 3.
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:z9OaKl-hkcYJ:www.controlledpwr.com/whitepapers/input_calculations.pdf+pf+power+factor+vs.+efficiency+rating&hl=en&gl=us
Don’t understand yet how pf and efficiency relate but they seem to be roughly equivalent:
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
When a business weighs all the main pluses and minuses of natural gas vs gasoline and diesel (and electric), the forecastibility of the cost is very important, and nat gas spot prices currently fluctuate too much for many businesses to commit to it. If they can’t lock in an acceptable forward price for some material percentage of the forecasted needs, then they ain’t gonna take the risk, when other reasonable alternatives exist.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Very well put. Too many people are stuck on efficiency numbers, when consumers care more about convenience. Long recharge times are inconvenient, which is why EREV’s will outsell BEV’s until batteries can be recharged in 5 minutes.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
>DonC Reply:
>September 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
>Was that a conversion? I thought the only CNG car being sold was >the Honda Civic?
I bought my 1996 Ford Crown Vic at a Government auction. In Southern California there are a number of them running around as they have been police cars, taxis, and government vehicles. I think they were converted for Ford by a company in Texas from about 1996 to 2002 (?)
I find it totally practicle. The price of natural gas at the SoCalGas pumps and at Clean Energy pumps has been consistanly about two thirds of what gasoline sells for here. The pumps are a little quirky at first but after getting the hang of it takes me about three minutes to fill. I know it is a stop gap but at least I’m not depending on gasoline. My range in the city is about 140 miles. Highway about 200 miles. 120,000 miles on the car. 7000 miles on my Ranger EV. I am afraid that this year 2000 technology level the CNG was more practicle. I still love the EV, just can’t drive it as much.
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
No, no, no!!! How many times do I have to tell you? Tinfoil hats are the fashion statement here. I mean, if this thread doesn’t prove it, what does it take?
Maybe, just maybe, brazing rod pyramid hats may be acceptable.
Propeller dunce caps? NEVER!!
Back under the bridge with the lot of you! NOW!!
(Quote)
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261288.html
Here is a link to an article with a 5 min video of GM’s HCCI engine over at Popular Mechanics web site. The article was published in April of 08.
Kindly,
Denise
(Quote)
September 4th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Engines running on propane almost always have a device called a converter that uses coolant from the cooling system to run through one side of the converter (providing heat for phase change of propane from liquid to vapor) and liquid propane (nominal 100 psi) from the storage tank, through a filter/lock-off device, to the inlet side of the converter and then exits the converter at less than one psi vapor pressure. Usually, the converter will only give up fuel when there is a negative pressure at the end of the outlet hose from the converter. These devices vary in size from the size of a really big hamburger (forklift engine) to about the size of a big apple pie (big V8).
I gotta go……now I’m hungry.
(Quote)
September 4th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Propane vapor has 250% the btu content per cubic foot as natural gas,at the pressures normally used in residences. Propane can be made to go from a vapor/gas to a liquid by compressing it to 110 psi @60 F or so, a relatively easy task, and stored in metal tanks less than 3/8″ thick. Specific gravity is a little more than 1.5 (butane is around 2.0, natural gas is around 0.6). Propane liquid weighs about 4.25 pounds per gallon. You could find out more at National Propane Gas Assoc. website—maybe, I’ve been out of the business for 10 years or so. It’s a great fuel, how well it competes with it’s primary opposition (electricity) usually depends on whether you’re paying six cents or twenty-six cents per kW.
(Quote)
September 4th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Hi Guys, I’m going to step into this firestorm about Natural Gas by stating I’m from Alberta, Canada. And no, I’m not a greenie or environmentalist. And yes, that’s right, I live where most of you folks (I’m assuming most of you are Americans) get your oil from, and yes I know that AB produces ever-increasingly ‘heavy, dirty’ oil. We also have pretty good amounts of Nat.Gas from what I remember last time. For those advocating for Nat.Gas, I’ll tell ya right now, you’re better off going for Solar (PV or thermal) or some other novel technology. The fact of the matter is, though AB gov’t doesn’t want to let the cat outta bag (and no I’m not a conspirary theorist lol), the conventional oil deposit in my province has peaked a long while back…don’t ask for quotes & references since I don’t have any. This is a feel that I get plus what I’ve seen happening over 16 years of living here, as well as general sentiments & comments from people living here. Same things has been happening with Nat.Gas, too. As the time goes on, I’ve seen more & more Nat.Gas installations trying to pump out to the last bit of gas, as if they know the END is near. We are currently developing more of the oil sands, but I personally don’t put a lot of faith in it. A lot of folks here are acting like ostriches, sticking their head in the oil sands and pretending it’s business as usual, but the reality is, our environment is totally getting raped. We once boasted pristine lakes & rivers, but because of oil sands, our beautiful northern landsape is turning into big mining pits & toxic tailing ponds, which are btw leaking into surrounding water systems, destroying all components of the ecosystems in the area. Yes, we get money from it but at what expense? I personally want to move to British Columbia, once I save up enough money & secure a job since I really don’t see a future in my province. And I’ve practically grew up & lived here all my life. Yes, you can quote all the quotes you want, but if an all-my-life Albertan (me, plus I know a host of others) want to move outta here and wanna bet our future in some other place, should you place your bets on AB & its fossil fuels for your future?
If you are somehow advocating that here is enough petroleum in the wells for another century or so, please read the latest petroleum fuel usage around the globe as well as NA. Please don’t use year 2000 figures; they are almost a decade ago. The fact of the matter is our gasoline & other petroleum usage has sky-rocketed since year 2000. And please don’t even think for a minute that recent economic slump around the world really cut down the usage. I don’t have time to look up the exact figures, but with some of the emerging economies like India, China, etc., the oil usage is up & WAY up and it’ll only continue to grow worse. And novel schemes like the microbes, great, I wish we can fund more efforts like that, but they are not yet mature enough techs to be used in large mass-scale settings, and honestly I believe or limited time & resources should be used for a bit more concrete & firm proven techs like Solar power generation be it thermal or PV.
What I’m trying to tell you all is, don’t bet your money in any fuel scheme this is based on fossil fuel or hydrogen (derived by electrolysis or from fossil fuel.) If some of you think well, we can harness the energy of the Sun to generate hydrogen, let me ask how you are going to store meaningful amounts of H2 generated. Pressurized or liquified, it takes up a LOT of energy…again that’s if you could generate any meaningful amount of H2 in the first place. Plus, it MIGHT (and that’s a big MIGHT) be able to satify a significant portion of your energy needs, but not completely. I don’t think you can have a better source of hydrogen to get over our addiction to oil from either straight from fossil fuel or electrolysis on a mass scale (honestly…you can’t think significant portion of NA households will adopt DIY H2 generation @ home). However, there’s a growing concern in not only AB but around the world about availability of fresh water. So electrolysis is clearly out of question & so is any source of H2 gas from fossil fuels.
If your goal is not to be a devout follower of your favorite tech but to ultimately solve the energy crisis, H2 in any form will be realistically too late, too expensive by a long shot. If we want to do this & transform our energy networks, we have to use not only mature or near-mature technologies that are also realistic & viable in short term, and by that I mean within the next 2 decades.
(Quote)
September 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
[Re-posted from above]
Hi Guys, I’m going to step into this firestorm about Natural Gas by stating I’m from Alberta, Canada. And no, I’m not a greenie or environmentalist. And yes, that’s right, I live where most of you folks (I’m assuming most of you are Americans) get your oil from, and yes I know that AB produces ever-increasingly ‘heavy, dirty’ oil. We also have pretty good amounts of Nat.Gas from what I remember last time. For those advocating for Nat.Gas, I’ll tell ya right now, you’re better off going for Solar (PV or thermal) or some other novel technology. The fact of the matter is, though AB gov’t doesn’t want to let the cat outta bag (and no I’m not a conspirary theorist lol), the conventional oil deposit in my province has peaked a long while back…don’t ask for quotes & references since I don’t have any. This is a feel that I get plus what I’ve seen happening over 16 years of living here, as well as general sentiments & comments from people living here. Same things has been happening with Nat.Gas, too. As the time goes on, I’ve seen more & more Nat.Gas installations trying to pump out to the last bit of gas, as if they know the END is near. We are currently developing more of the oil sands, but I personally don’t put a lot of faith in it. A lot of folks here are acting like ostriches, sticking their head in the oil sands and pretending it’s business as usual, but the reality is, our environment is totally getting raped. We once boasted pristine lakes & rivers, but because of oil sands, our beautiful northern landsape is turning into big mining pits & toxic tailing ponds, which are btw leaking into surrounding water systems, destroying all components of the ecosystems in the area. Yes, we get money from it but at what expense? I personally want to move to British Columbia, once I save up enough money & secure a job since I really don’t see a future in my province. And I’ve practically grew up & lived here all my life. Yes, you can quote all the quotes you want, but if an all-my-life Albertan (me, plus I know a host of others) want to move outta here and wanna bet our future in some other place, should you place your bets on AB & its fossil fuels for your future?
If you are somehow advocating that here is enough petroleum in the wells for another century or so, please read the latest petroleum fuel usage around the globe as well as NA. Please don’t use year 2000 figures; they are almost a decade ago. The fact of the matter is our gasoline & other petroleum usage has sky-rocketed since year 2000. And please don’t even think for a minute that recent economic slump around the world really cut down the usage. I don’t have time to look up the exact figures, but with some of the emerging economies like India, China, etc., the oil usage is up & WAY up and it’ll only continue to grow worse. And novel schemes like the microbes, great, I wish we can fund more efforts like that, but they are not yet mature enough techs to be used in large mass-scale settings, and honestly I believe or limited time & resources should be used for a bit more concrete & firm proven techs like Solar power generation be it thermal or PV.
What I’m trying to tell you all is, don’t bet your money in any fuel scheme this is based on fossil fuel or hydrogen (derived by electrolysis or from fossil fuel.) If some of you think well, we can harness the energy of the Sun to generate hydrogen, let me ask how you are going to store meaningful amounts of H2 generated. Pressurized or liquified, it takes up a LOT of energy…again that’s if you could generate any meaningful amount of H2 in the first place. Plus, it MIGHT (and that’s a big MIGHT) be able to satify a significant portion of your energy needs, but not completely. I don’t think you can have a better source of hydrogen to get over our addiction to oil from either straight from fossil fuel or electrolysis on a mass scale (honestly…you can’t think significant portion of NA households will adopt DIY H2 generation @ home). However, there’s a growing concern in not only AB but around the world about availability of fresh water. So electrolysis is clearly out of question & so is any source of H2 gas from fossil fuels.
If your goal is not to be a devout follower of your favorite tech but to ultimately solve the energy crisis, H2 in any form will be realistically too late, too expensive by a long shot. If we want to do this & transform our energy networks, we have to use not only mature or near-mature technologies that are also realistic & viable in short term, and by that I mean within the next 2 decades.
(Quote)
September 4th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Sam Y,
I really appreciate the straightforward (and first-hand experience) answers you gave, especially as they relate to hydrogen and natural gas.
I agree with you 100% about avoiding hydrogen or natural gas for transportation or (baseload) electrical generation. The only disagreement I have with you is regarding photovoltaics (PV).
Solar irradiance at Earth’s upper atmosphere is approximately 1.37 kW/m^2. At Earth’s surface, this value falls to 1 kW/m^2.
For the sake of convenience, let’s assume we could convert 100% of that energy (at the surface) to electrical output, which we can’t.
Currently, we can convert (using commercially available solar panels) at most 30% of light to electricity, but like I said, for convenience, let’s assume 100% conversion efficiency.
We’re only going to get 1 kW/m^2 from solar for about 4 to 5 hours per day (between 10 AM and 3 PM) in some latitudes.
Now, compare this to either a coal-fired plant or a nuclear reactor:
— Nuclear and coal plants have footprints that are typically 600 m x 600 m to 700 m x 700 m – inclusive of material handling AND switchyards.
— Nuclear and coal plants (typically) have generation capacities ranging from 1 GW to 4 GW per those areas mentioned above, and are available 24/7.
— Therefore, Nuclear and Coal have energy densities between 3 kW to 11 kW per square meter depending upon size and configuration of plant. That’s 3 to 11 times more power per square meter than Solar can provide – again, assuming we could convert 100% light to electricity.
— Nuclear and Coal become even more impressive using real-world values that only allow for 30% conversion of light to electricity with solar. Nuclear and coal’s power footprint (kW/m^2) skyrockets to 10 and 36 times more power per square meter than Solar.
The United States (as I imagine Canada does) possesses 300 years worth of coal reserves. Likewise, the U.S. only has 2% of the world’s uranium, that’s enough to run our current land-based reactor fleet (105 reactors) for an estimated 20,000 years.
Of course, we would be happy to trade with Canada for their HUGE uranium reserves, of which Canada and Australia combined possess over half of the world’s uranium…assuming nuclear fusion doesn’t become viable anytime soon.
Of course, my money is on Polywell fusion (Santa Fe, NM) or Dense Plasma Focus Fusion (more simply, Focus Fusion in Lawrenceville, NJ). These two forms of inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion are entirely aneutronic.
IEC fusion is the only form of fusion to NOT utilize a heat transfer step required with Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF) or other forms of Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF).
IEC fusion is a DIRECT nuclear to DC electrical conversion. The only byproducts of the p-B11 reaction are (3) He4 atoms + 8.57 MeV – no neutrons.
I’ve also been following some of the work being done by General Fusion, Inc. in Burnaby, BC. You might want to have a look at them as well. Think of General Fusion’s effort as the “steampunk” approach to fusion.
Regardless, coal, fission, or fusion electrical generation is the way to go.
Those are reliable, efficient, and inexpensive electrical generation methods…or some will be very soon, and I haven’t even touched on how horrendous the costs associated with solar are compared to nuclear, gas, or coal generation.
(Quote)