Featured Solid State Battery 10 Minute Charge Toyota - Lets Go Places

Are you thinking for propulsion or other small systems on the aircraft?

 

interesting theory - but the never ending lobby quest to drain tax dollars for hydrogen car subsidies is glaring evidence that every car manufacturer does highly questionable acts.
.

 

Not propulsion as much as getting rid of lead-acid batteries. In larger planes, backup electrical power.

Bob Wilson

 

The 787 famously has Li-Ion batteries.

 

The narrative that hydrogen development starting with personal transport won't serve any benefit for commercial & industrial is falling apart. There are very real challenges to ending diesel use.

 

Indeed. For example, a combine harvesting corn or similar can consume 300kW continuously 20 hours a day with essentially no breaks and all out in the middle of a field with no access to charging infrastructure, not that it would help much.

 

I was thinking of just replacing aircrafts' current batteries. Li-ion might work for short range EV planes, but I suspect we'll need something like fluorine ion batteries for air travel. Alternate fuels are more likely.

The advances made with improving generations of FCEV cars will apply to fuel cells for trucks and other uses, but that doesn't need public funding in trying to jump start a market to sell FCEV cars.

We'll need green hydrogen to decarbonize many important things that have nothing to do with transportation. Get it competitive with fossil hydrogen, and it might work out for transportation. If the costs of transporting it, and filling car tanks can be lowered. Otherwise, green ammonia, green methane or green methanol will be made for transportation, all of which can fuel an engine or fuel cell. Replacement e-fuels for gasoline and diesel are even possible; Porsche is even building a plant for e-gasoline in Chile, though i don't see them being adopted for general use until a majority of cars are PHEVs.

Until then, we have options for reducing diesel use. Portions of the supply can be substituted with bio and e- fuels, or switch more trucks to natural gas. How many trucks that can see a big improvement from a hybrid are a hybrid now? Most commercial trucks aren't doing long hauls. A PHEV or BEV will work for those uses.

The agricultural sector is one of the smallest sources of green house gases in the US; transportation is almost three times higher. The emissions will spike around planting and harvesting. That equipment will adopt whatever the trucking industry adopts, though ammonia is already available to farmers. The daily use tractor can be a PHEV or BEV.

 

lol
So you are going to put a $2M hydrogen refueling station on the farm and truck liquid hydrogen in to meet it, to power your harvester? Doesn't make much sense unless you want to bankrupt the farmers or the government.

Now this is last mile stuff. You could instead put a 80 kwh battery (sized for the hp requirement) on the sucker and downsize that engine from what 13L to something more standard like 6L reducing costs and maintenance and pollution. You could further reduce pollution and co2 by changing to it a miller cycle flex fuel engine from diesel and running it on renewable methanol and ethanol blends that could be distilled in the local farm area. Tech is available today.

 

The lack of understanding here is astonishing.

The off-highway use of diesel isn't insignificant, and it can't really be replaced by the same technologies that can be used by on-highway trucking.

Construction equipment, earth moving equipment, farm equipment and ships are essentially NEVER near a source of grid power when in use. On-highway trucks are near grid power almost all the time. See a difference there?

You need a fundamentally different method of accomplishing these activities and that basically involves easily transportable sources of massive amounts of energy. Batteries suck. The best batteries on the horizon suck. They are not going to work for this.

 

Why do people apply prototype costs to in-production products?

No, you can't. Those tractors often use 80-90% of the full power of the engine virtually 100% of the time. And if you need 6MWh a day, an 80kWh battery is a drop in the ocean.

Bio-diesel is a possibility. BEVs are not.

 

maybe because every 10yrs since the 1970's the hydrogen industry/lobby touts hydrogen 'practicality' - "in just 10 more years" .... that somehow magically - in (the next missed) 10 years we will be able to overcome the law of thermodynamics & be able to get more energy out, than what we put in?
Maybe costs will come down .... around the time cheep/practical cold fusion comes to town.
And thank you once again for reminding us how when folks disagree here - it MUST be because WE have astonishing lack of understanding ...
So say the Narcissists ...
.

 

Why do you make up random crap? No one every seriously claimed that.

DOE's goes for electrolysis was 50kWh/kg. Since the HHV of hydrogen is around 39kWh/kg, that's not "more energy out, than what we put in".

Maybe batteries will become good around the same time.

Fuel cells + gaseous hydrogen tanks are around 1,000Wh/kg. What current-day battery can match that?

 

Besides electrolysis?
+ kWh energy to compress into tanker/haulers
+ kWh energy to recompress into station tanks
+ kWh energy delivery truck fuel
+ kWh energy to re-chill the compressed gas
+ kWh energy maintenance of 690 bar compressor
+ kWh energy bleed-off losses
Other energy too. It's not just the electrolysis.
That's why an EV, much less a Hybrid Toyota is more efficient than hydrogen cars
.

 

Are you claiming that farms don't have electric service? A dairy farm can consume has much as a factory, and some even produce electricity.

My suggestion wasn't for the combines or large tractors that run all day when they are needed. It was for the smaller tractors used for smaller jobs. A farmer isn't going to spend the fuel to run the big one for those tasks.

As for the big jobs, why would a farm pay for hydrogen storage and distribution, when it can simply expand its ammonia storage? It has a higher energy density than liquid hydrogen, and doesn't require bulky fuel tanks on the equipment. Solid oxide fuel cells should have no issue with using it as fuel, and ammonia engines are under development.

Pre-existing infrastructure for transport, and ease of handling are reasons methanol and ammonia are more likely for shipping than hydrogen.

 

'

Where in that process did anyone say anything like, "more energy out, than what we put in"???

And PHEV H2 cars are not less efficient than BEV cars. I've explained in detail why in the past.

 

They don't. Farm houses, farm workshops, farm sheds and so on do, farm fields do not.

I know all about this, since I work in this industry.

Then you changed the subject I brought up, which was combines (and other such equipment like tractors pulling planters or doing tillage, silage mowers, sprayers, etc.).

Are you aware that ammonia is made from natural gas?

By volume, not by mass.

Have you ever seen or worked with a solid oxide fuel cell?

If we're going to make liquid fuels from sources other than oil, natural gas or bio sources, hydrogen (or syngas) in the first step for most of them.

 

The cost is over $5M per station in japan and they have built over 100. Prices are going up in california. The promise of prices going down needs to come down to facts now in 2020. In 2009 CARB thought prices would be much lower by now. They are higher. Why give false low cost estimates to completely change to a technology that looks like it is inappropriate. Are we supposed ignore current data and keep the bad predictions of over a decade ago? This seems to be a wierd argument. Even though prices have not fallen as predicted, if we build hydrogen infrastructure away from population centers costs will drop like a rock.

So I guess that battery in a prius does nothing because it supplies none of the energy. Seriously though, if it really is at 90% power 100% of the time then that engine is undersized and pollution would decrease and efficiency increase with a battery buffer. My educated guess is the engine is governed at a very low max speed and the need to keep hydraulic fluid pressurized keeps it humming at what seems like 90%. You tell me. Further like a diesel electric trains are close to 40% more efficient than diesel hydraulic trains. The motive drive would be much more efficient going to eclectic motors than the hydrostatic transmission these combines currently use, and then hydraulics can be dedicated to places where they make more sense than electrics. . 6L was for flex fuel, and a 6L flex fuel can be designed efficiently to run at the peak power of these 13.5L beasts. I really don't know how big a volume diesels need to run efficiently or what the load would be if you replaced hydraulics with electrics where it made the most sense. Easiest change though is adding that big battery buffer and motors where appropriate, and use current fueling technology. I believe with the untaxed diesel that is going to remain the fuel, but why not make them more efficient.

Please read and think! I was proposing a phev diesel or phev flex fuel type operation to reduce pollution and maintenance costs not a bev. The flex fuel would require a change of engine and fueling type but could greatly reduce carbon dioxide if using renewable methanol as part of its blend. The beasts you are talking about take hundreds of gallons of diesel for a full tank. Imagine the cost and the tanks of the equivalent of probably 150 Kg of hydrogen. Its really a non starter, when renewable methanol can be made much cheaper and the vehicle would cost much less.

Methanol is the first step in upgraded fuels. This can of course be made from hydrogen and renewable electricity, but if we are talking about near farms plant material can be converted to methane or methanol with catalysts, enzymes or a process involving organisms like yeast or bacteria. Methanol can much more cheaply be transported in a truck or pipeline than hydrogen.

Explain why hydrogen would make sense on the farm, when they are having trouble with it in much easier environments. Fork Lifts and space ships seem to be the best use of hydrogen fuel cell technology, as the price of fuel doesn't mater much, and fueling infrastructure only needs to be built where used.

 

15 years ago, Li-ion batteries were over $1,000/kWh and looked then and now as inappropriate.

Hydrogen is energy dense and storable. Batteries are not.

No, these engines are designed to run at high settings most of the time. That's where they're efficient.

A car hybrid works well because the average engine power is 5-10% of full.

Not very educated.

Almost none of this power is for hydraulics. Almost all is for running the header and the separation systems mechanically.

Have you ever mowed a lawn? Everyone who has knows that tall or wet grass drastically bogs down the engine in the mower. Now imagine mowing a strip 40 feet wide instead of 22" wide, that strip being composed of 8 foot tall stalks of corn rather than 6" of grass, having to thresh the corn kernels from the ears, having to pump the separated kernels to a bin and direct the rest of the plant elsewhere, then chop the rest of the plant into small pieces and distribute it around that 40' wide swath. Now do it at 6-10mph instead of the 2-3mph you walk behind a mower.

That takes a TON of raw power to do.

Trains have to be able to run over a wide speed range. Combines often have mechanical transmissions and run over a narrow speed range for normal operation (4-10mph).

Most of this power is mechanical, not hydraulic. Construction equipment could benefit a lot, farm equipment wouldn't.

The only thing that would help with is the ability to use ethanol instead of diesel or biodiesel.

The advantage is, you can fuel it in the field from a tender, they way they do now with combines.

I seriously doubt making Methanol from solar or wind is cheaper.

Bio diesel is good too.

Because it can be made on the farm and stored underground the way we store natural gas now - in quantities unimaginable by electricity storage devices.

I don't have an issue with bio-sources of liquid fuels. I have an issue with batteries - they suck. And I own a whole lot of them and have since 1986.

 

And they regularly leave tractors parked in fields?

I specifically wrote daily use tractor in the post you originally quoted. Would light duty have been better? Not every tractor job requires the huge ones.

Are you aware of how ammonia is made? Hydrogen and nitrogen are mixed together at high temperatures. The hydrogen concurrently comes from where nearly all our hydrogen does, natural gas.

Green hydrogen will happen. Not for cars, but for fertilizer. That's another hurdle to hydrogen for transportation, when green hydrogen gets cheap enough, the industries already using it will call dibs.

I said energy density, not specific energy.

Space is an important consideration for design. The gen1 Mirai has a range of over 300 miles. How far would a Prius go on the 30 plus gallons of gas the Mirai's tanks can hold? Liquid hydrogen is close to ammonia, but the insulation will make the tanks bulkier, and the ammonia won't require venting..

I know they run very hot, and I know it is what Nissan is using in their FCEVs. I also know PEM fuel cells need high purity hydrogen; the research grade we have in the labs, which adds to the cost of the fuel.

And also ammonia.

Moving hydrogen around is so costly that there is serious consideration in converting it into ammonia, and then stripping it out when it gets where it is needed. Japan is buying blue ammonia just to strip the hydrogen out for power plants now.

 

No, they regularly use them in fields.

I'm talking about the big ones.

Yes.

So does the heat - that's the part you're missing. And that's a big part of the problem.

It had better happen for more than that. The math doesn't work otherwise.

Many people mix the two together.

That's just patently false.