Welcome to the Energy Blog


  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

    Jim


  • SUBSCRIBE TO THE ENERGY BLOG BY EMAIL

After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum

Statistics

Blog powered by Typepad

« FYI: Safeway Converts Fleet to BioDiesel | Main | FYI: Huckabay Ridge Now Producing Renewable Natural Gas from Manure at Full Capacity »

January 22, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b5da69e200e54fee29288833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Renault-Nissan and Project Better Place to Supply Israel with Recharging Grid and Electric Vehicles:

Comments

Josh H

Also important to this plan is the fact that Israelis pay over 70% in import fees on cars. This makes life hard for Israelis, but lets the government play with as many car incentives as it wants to.

Jim Holm

The type of terrain is also important. Battery powered cars and mountains are a poor combination.

Cyril R.

Depends on the battery. Cheapo lead acids or poorly engineered cars could cause trouble. But then that's true for any vehicle.

Kit P

“This comes in response to the Israeli State's challenge to migrate the country's transportation infrastructure to renewable sources of energy.”

Another stupid plan and it is just a matter of time before the stupid folks in California will demand that we be just a stupid as the idiot politicians in other countries.

I would suggest that a better plan would be to reduce the demand for making electricity with fossil fuel first. The cart is before the battery so to speak.

Harvey D

Cyril:

A lower cost Super Caps + Lead battery combo such as the Ultra Battery may give very acceptable performances at 30% of the cast over LI-ON.

A combo using Super Caps + Firefly batteries may even be better yet.

There are many more acceptable ESSUs being developed.

Jack Mastbrook

Is anyone familiar with the new capacitor electrode technology, XXXX Carbon©?. This is a process for coaxing extremely large surface areas (and conductivity) from activated carbon.

xxxx's revolutionary high surface carbon technology offers significant advantage over currently available technologies. Therefore, for most applications, the company’’s competition promises to come from other companies developing high surface carbon capacitive deionization related technology. Most of these are using Aerogel carbon, developed by Lawrence Livermore Labs. The current surface of aerogel is approximately 400 m2/g as compared with 2,000 m2/g for xxxxxx Carbon©©. The current quoted cost for aerogel carbon is approximately $150/kg as compared with production cost of $10/kg for xxxxxx Carbon©©.

Capacitors are direct power storage devices. At present, metal-carbon composites are being manufactured in the automotive industry as a means of leveling the power draw in future electric cars. Such materials combine aluminum sheets and activated carbon in various configurations. The best in class capacity demonstrated to date is rather inefficient, storing a mere 7-10 kilowatt hours per kilogram of material. Given the cost of such materials, supercapacitors based on those materials are simply out of the question from an economic perspective, and the internal combustion engine continues to reign until the supercapacitor problem is solved.

xxxxx Carbon has in laboratory studies produced 7.5 kilowatt hours per kilogram of material in a 2 cubic inch capacitor (rather minuscule in size by XXXXX's standards). This was accomplished with a modest surface area grade of xxxxx Carbon by xxxxx standards (1200 square meters per gram). xxxxx has manufactured much higher surface area carbon monoliths (2100 square meters per gram), and that higher surface area carbon has a higher power storage capacity. Because of the lightness in weight of xxxxx Carbon, supercapacitors built from xxxxx Carbon are considerably lighter than metal-carbon capacitors and therefore are ideally suited for mobile and transportation applications in which onboard weight is a prime consideration. This is not to be discounted. One of the primary markets for supercapacitors is the automotive market, a market that absolutely craves lightness in weight. Another is the airframe market, which craves lightness in weight even more.

We are presently working with overseas investors on desalination, and will soon be working with overseas electric and hybrid vehicle developers. We are still open to new investors in certain technological areas/

This site is not intended to be a place where companies can promote their products and thus the name of the company has been x'd out. Jim

Cyril R.

I would suggest that a better plan would be to reduce the demand for making electricity with fossil fuel first. The cart is before the battery so to speak.

How about adding large low temperature steam turbines running on the waste heat of coal fired plants? Even subcritical coal fired plants have rather high exit temperatures.

The capital investment is relatively low because most of the existing balance of plant equipment could be used. Electrical output would increase 1/3 or more so that allows a high rate of return. A bit more O&M because of the added turbine, but fuel costs and cooling water use would go down.

More power but not more fuel use. The extra power could be used to e.g. charge the EV's.

Harvey I also want to see a supercap/Firefly 3d2 combo. Preferably plug-in though, because Firefly's aren't much of an improvement in a parallel non-plugin, as we've seen in the other post they can go 100k miles, and replacing regular lead acids after that would be a relatively small cost.

Cyril R.

7500 Wh/kg? Jack are you serious?

Derek Petrie

The comment that "the objective of zero emissions will be achieved" is wrong. As other people have commented the electricity has to be made first and this done by burning coal or liquid fuels. I dont know if the overall efficiency of fossil fuel to nergy to the car wheels is more or less than the petrol engine which is the real objective.

David Stone

Derek,

the overall efficiency is much higher, but even if it weren't, it would still be better.

1. even the perfect ice will never be harmless.
2. fossil fuels will eventually be practically exhausted.
3. toxic fumes are discharged where many poeple live, and very concentrated.
4. electricity can be generated from many different sources.

Changing from a dirty to a clean source would in one go change all evs at once.
When ice tech changes, it takes years before the old tech is off the road.

Jack Mastbrook

Cyril, this is a serious patented process which has been tested in UAE and Canada. The inventor is Dr. Carl Nesbitt of Michigan Tech.

If you are familiar with activated carbon and capactitive deionization you will know the value of having a highly porous, conductive surface to remove ions from water. The DOE has fully endorsed the process.

Because of these properties, xxxxx Carbon makes the Ultracap feasible NOW.

I would be glad to forward more information if you are at all interested. Or, look up the patent and DOE papers on Capacitive Deionization.

Jack Mastbrook

Cyril,

I got knocked of the blog thread, somehow.

Yes, this is serious technology. Activated Carbon already posesses large surface ares. The XXXXX Process uses pulverized activated carbon and treats it with a Hot Isostatic Press and creates more porosity and vastly improves the conductivity of the carbon.

I would be glad to send you more info, or you can look up the patent and the DOE study on capacitive deionization.

Thank you for your interest.

Jack Mastbrook, Torrance CA

Kit P

“How about adding large low temperature steam turbines running on the waste heat of coal fired plants? Even subcritical coal fired plants have rather high exit temperatures.”

Already done Cyril, several stages of low pressure steam turbines are standard design for steam plants in the US as with most of the world. I am not sure why China's coal plants are typically 1/3 less efficient than ours. I am not sure what you mean by high exit temperatures.

China is in a desperate situation with the supply of coal at plants and winter is not over by a long shot yet. Japan had record production and just bid $18/MMBTU for LNG on the spot market. South Africa has an extreme electricity shortage.

The point I want to make here is that every EV advocate is just about clueless where the energy will come from. Maybe someday electricity will be produced when and where you need it using magic wand and pixie dust. There is a possibility that I will find the fountain of youth and live long enough to see it.

Jack Mastbrook

KitP

Kit, did you see my lengthy blog to Cyril? This high storage and light wt. capacitor could easily collect enough solar energy to charge the batteries on EVs.

Kit P

Jack, you must not have been reading this blog very long if you do not know how I treat con artists. So no I did not read you post closely initially. Before suggesting that someone is not legitimate, I do look closely. The giveaway was “We are presently working with overseas investors ....”

Jack is a con artist.

Paul H.

Hello! Kitp, my wife and I are converting a $200 car to Electric. The conversion will be about $3000. It will go about 40 miles on a charge. We will have 2 of them. You can get a solar charging thing for the house to recharge the car (no inverter) for about $900. It will recharge the car in a day or so. We will stagger which car we will drive, so we won't need solar batteries, and will run by the sun. It can be done now. There exists a path. People just won't take it because they don't feel like it. It's not particularly difficult. Unequivocally zero emissions. But our power is Hydroelectric here in the northwest anyway.

So, it's not that it can't be done, but that people won't do it.

Jack Mastbrook

Kip, that is very disapointing that you are not open to what we have to say. This is a legitimate itellectual property, crafted by resepected people in the energy field.

I am not trying to con anyone. I just want the world to know than there is some new technology that may solve some of the problems we are encountering.

No, I am not one of the "in people" on your website.

For your information I am a retired R&D manager from Xerox and have many intellectual properties under my belt. I AM NOT A CON ARTIST. Just read the patent and pay attention to some new ideas.

I just do not understand eletist thinking. Why not try to invite new thinking into you life. Any new technology requires investment. We just happened to find some open thinking people overseas.

Open up and let some new thinking come in without prejudging someone.

With due respect

Jack Mastbrook

Jack Mastbrook

Kip, what are your credentials? Why would "working with oveseas investors" make me a con artist?

Just let me understand your thinking. I am open to your ideas, just step up to the plate and be truthful. Do you just not want new people on the website, or what?

Perplexed!

Cyril R.

Already done Cyril, several stages of low pressure steam turbines are standard design for steam plants in the US as with most of the world.

That's the high temperature turbine, yes often multi staged. I'm thinking more about a large low temperature turbine such as those used in some nuclear powerplants. Perhaps with a heat exchanger into a seperate boiler. At that temperature range, heat exchangers are affordable (commodity stainless steel would do fine).

I am not sure why China's coal plants are typically 1/3 less efficient than ours.

China's are slightly less efficient than the US's right now, but that's not what I said. Just that electrical output can be increased at least 1/3 (and possibly up to 2/3 in some cases) by putting the waste heat to use. China's plan is to increase the average electrical efficiency of their coal fired plants from around 30% now to 50% by 2020. Modern supercritical plants are 45% efficient and even though they cost slightly more, the lifecycle cost is lower due to lower fuel use. Adding a nuclear turbine will increase capital costs a bit, but the fuel costs would be even lower due to increased efficiency (60+%).

Waste heat turbine. Think of it as a powerplant that:

*has low capital costs
*has no fuel costs
*actually saves cooling water rather than use any
*has no additional emissions
*has a very fast build time.

I am not sure what you mean by high exit temperatures.

The T low. Almost all coal fired plants have T lows suitable for large low temperature nuclear turbines.

The extra power could be used to charge the EV's. So driving the EV's wouldn't cause any additional emissions.

Stephen Boulet

Looking at the patent (application number 670932) titled "Consolidated amorphous carbon materials, their manufacture and use", I see a claim of an energy density of "7 Wh/kg based on electrode materials only, and 3.5 Wh/kg if one takes into account the weight of the electrolyte, separator and current collector", and "power density based on the CAC electrode material is estimated to be 23 kW/kg".

Stephen

Kit P

Cyril, I suspect you are repeating something that you have read but do not understand. Could you provided a specific example of a coal plant that does not have a low pressure turbine?

To my knowledge, all thermal steam plants (coal, nuclear, solar) that use condensing turbines have low pressure turbines.

Here is a link to a GE marketing brochure. I am not endorsing GE, it is just easier to spell.
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/steam_turbines/en/downloads/steam_brochure.pdf

Cyril R.

Kit P: not pressure, temperature. The final temperature of all coal fired plants is actually quite high. Instead of going into the condenser, the feed can first go to a heat exchanger (or high pressure pump if the turbine is direct flashing?) and into a separate boiler for a specialized nuclear turbine.

Kit P

Cyril does not have a clue about steam turbines and it is obvious he did not read the link I provided. He is confusing his terms. He may be thinking about gas turbines, CCGT, or cogen plants it is hard to figure out what the clueless are thinking when they continually suggest to experienced engineers how to design power plants.

The final temperature of cooling water is the same for a nuke plant or a coal plant. Steam enters the turbine at high pressure. The turbine blading converts the thermal energy to mechanical energy. Steam exits the low pressure turbine into a condenser that is maintained at a very low pressure, typically 28 inches of vacuum. The steam is condensed to water (condensate) by flowing over the outside of tubes with cooling water inside.

The cooing water could be ocean water, lake water, or water from a cooling tower. The energy rejected can be calculated multiplying the flow rate of cooling water by the temperature increase and a constant for the heat capacity of water. The pint here is the nuke and coal plants are the same in this respect.

Cyril calls this rejected energy “waste heat of coal fired plants” because he is ignorant of the principles of mechanical engineering. There is no wasted energy in cooling water of a coal or nuke just as there is no wasted energy coming from the radiator of your car.

Waste is a recourse not properly used. The demand for warm water is very low nest to power plants and the supply is very large. There are no low temperature turbines that use 100 degree F. water to make steam plants more efficient.

You can not make coal plants more efficient by adding magic turbines not to say that low pressure turbines are not really cool. However, you can make a some sort of processing plant more efficient when 150# process steam is extracted from stages of a HP turbine.

Cyril R.

The steam is condensed to water (condensate) by flowing over the outside of tubes with cooling water inside.

Before that is done, add something like a VVER in between. Extract more heat. Get more power. You get, stupid Kit P? Me change language. Better fit you IQ. Trolls not smart. Everyone know. Speak to troll simple from now.

Kit P

Paul H, sorry I did not reply to your post sooner. I do not have a problem telling me what they did. I am just a little skeptical of what people are going to do when it is extremely impractical. Your car will not go 40 miles on a charge, it will not be emission free. It will most likely have the highest environment impact of any POV in the PNW because you are wasting huge amounts of resources to indulge a whim. It is not that people won't do it, people should not do it until research show there is a clear benefit.

Paul H's electricity is not coming from hydro it is mostly coming from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. It is winter right now in the northwest. There is lots of excess hydro electricity in the spring and yearly summer that is sent to the southwestern US.

I think it is great when people make protecting the environment a ethical value. However, ethical values are useless without the knowledge to support those values.

So Paul, when you get all done let us know how it worked out. I hope spend some time researching the life cycle of batteries and solar panels.

Kit P

“Extract more heat. Get more power.” what seem intuitive to Cyril is in fact 100% wrong in this case. When more heat is removed in the condensation than is necessary to condense the steam, the condensate is subcooled. While a certain amount subcooling is a practical necessity, extracting more heat in the condenser only results in more energy needing to be added in the boiler. Therefor you would get less power.

Nucbuddy

Cyril R. wrote: Before that is done, add something like a VVER in between. Extract more heat. Get more power.

Heat is not an energy resource, Cyril. There is no energy potential in something hot. A difference between hotness and coldness, however, is an energy resource.

Try to get power from only one pole of a battery, without completing any kind of circuit. It won't work, and -- for the same reason -- neither energy nor power can be extracted from heat. Some kind of a heat-circuit needs to be completed before any energy or power can be extracted. Your proposed scheme of tapping the middle of an existing heat-circuit would simply interfere with that circuit.

Your proposed scheme is a way to try to get something for nothing. It won't work because one cannot tap the middle of a heat circuit without interfering with it.

What happens when you are taking a shower and someone flushes the toilet? The shower water suddenly gets really hot, doesn't it. Do you know why? The answer is that the toilet-flush tapped the cold-water circuit you were using for your shower, interfering with that circuit. If one could truly get something for nothing, as your proposed scheme implies, then your shower-water would stay the same temperature when the toilet is flushed.

Cyril R.

When more heat is removed in the condensation than is necessary to condense the steam, the condensate is subcooled. While a certain amount subcooling is a practical necessity, extracting more heat in the condenser only results in more energy needing to be added in the boiler.

Of course the cooling system needs to be adjusted for the lower temperature it will receive. This is not a huge engineering problem; for example lower the flow rate of cooling water. Using less cooling water is actually a good thing.

Typical condensing temperatures for the feed would be, as you mentioned around 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

However, the T low of typical Rankine cycles used in most coal fired powerplants in the world today is actually higher than 500 degrees Fahrenheit.

My idea was to use some of this temperature gap. Like an extra bottom cycle. The large low temperature nuclear turbines seem suitable for this purpose. Some of them operate at just 480 degrees F. It would require overcoming the pressure difference. For example a heat exchanger between the original cycle and the new bottoming cycle, with the primary feed returning to the original steam drum afterwards, and the heat transfered to a second boiler for the nuclear turbine, which in turn will afterwards send it's feed water to the condenser. Condensation temperature would be the same but with much less volume of cooling water needed due to the lowered temperature at which the feed now comes in.

An alternative approach would be to increase the pressure with a high pressure pump but I'm not sure if that will work very well considering the near vacuum pressure.

Cyril R.

Nucbuddy I didn't got your comment untill now but my last post probably clears things up for you.

Nucbuddy

Cyril R. wrote: My idea was to use some of this temperature gap.

Indeed. That is what I told you. You are trying to tap the middle of a heat circuit, and, hence, you are trying to get something for nothing.

Cyril R. wrote: Nucbuddy I didn't got your comment untill now but my last post probably clears things up for you.

You think that I needed something cleared up? What makes you think that? It was already perfectly clear that you are simply proposing a run-of-the-mill over-unity (perpetual motion) scheme. Your latest (longer) post continues to make that abundantly clear, but not any more clear than it already was.

Cyril R.

Indeed. That is what I told you. You are trying to tap the middle of a heat circuit, and, hence, you are trying to get something for nothing.

No, just trying to increase the delta T.

You think that I needed something cleared up?

More than one thing buddy. More than one thing. Increasing the delta T is very different from over-unity.

Cyril R.

The main thing to keep in mind is that some of these nuclear turbines, such as the VVER, are very different than conventional Rankines typically used in coal plants today.

Cyril R.

It was already perfectly clear that you are simply proposing a run-of-the-mill over-unity (perpetual motion) scheme. Your latest (longer) post continues to make that abundantly clear, but not any more clear than it already was.

You need to show your math. The scheme I propose does not allow anywhere near 100% electrical efficiency (more like 45-60%), and as such is not a perpetual motion scheme.

Nucbuddy

Cyril R. wrote: just trying to increase the delta T.

If you are trying to increase the delta T., you might want to try actually doing that, rather than decreasing it -- as you have (apparently unintentionally) proposed.

Kit P

“The main thing to keep in mind is that some of these nuclear turbines, such as the VVER, are very different than conventional Rankines typically used in coal plants today.”

Cyril R persists in making false statements. Low pressure condensing turbines for nuke and coal plants are almost identical. The properties of low pressure steam are the same in Russia

Nucbuddy, the shower water does not change temperature during a flushing event at any house that I have lived in for the last 20 years. The pressure regulating feature that keeps the temperature constant, cost about $25 dollars more. Of course you knew that.

Nucbuddy

Kit,

Well, it used to be a great gag on sitcoms.

Paul H.

Hi Kit! It won't go 40 miles on a charge? But it will. Not with lead-footing it, though. I researched the solar panels. They should last about 25 years. Lead Acid batteries last about 3 years, and are then recycled. So, zero emissions! There is no other way to spin it! Does it use a thousand gallons of gas equivalent (like if I drove those 3 years) to recycle 12-14 batteries? I find that exceedingly unlikely, although I have not yet researched it. hehe.

Washington state gets about 80% of it's electricity from Hydro. (in 2002. That was the first site I found. I figure it is similar today)

KitP, you are a whippersnapper! Electric cars are good! Not bad! Solar power is practical and good and zero emissions, except for every 25 years when you need to use a miniscule amount of energy to make a new panel or 2.

Kit P

Paul H, except for

“I researched the solar panels.”

your statements are inaccurate. He is what is going to happen. You are going to buy a bunch of stuff and never make it work. So let me carefully analyze your folly so you do not do more harm to the environment than good.

First let us discuss emissions. If you live in the PNW, your air quality should be very good. The only environmental impact therefore would be ghg. The ghg emissions for producing and transporting the solar panels to you will only reduce ghg based on how much you reduce the amount of gasoline you use. It does not matter how long the solar panels last. What matters is how long you use the solar panels. We need to know if Paul H has a 25 year plan to drive is car at night and charge the battery during the day.

Then there is the Catch 22 of EVs.

“Does it use a thousand gallons of gas equivalent (like if I drove those 3 years) to recycle 12-14 batteries?”

If you do not drive very much (like me) then an EV might be practical but gosh Paul I am not the problem. If you are an energy pig like Paul using 'thousand gallons of gas quivalent (like if I drove those 3 years)' an EV might be very impractical.

I am not sure why Paul brought up electricity generating mix in the PNW like he knew what it was and contributed to it. When I lived in the PNW, my electric bill said 50% of my electricity came from coal. With all the those huge hydroelectric plants and the that huge nuke, how could those electrons from coal plants swim up the wire to get to my house?

Which brings me back to my original point. Wasting energy charging batteries is very stupid way to reduce ghg when it increases ghg emissions. So slick, let the PV panels be used to reduce electricity demand where the there is a good solar resources by professionals.

Paul H.

I'll be charging car batteries with the solar cells, during the day.

I drive about 30 miles per day. (a little over a gallon of gas for my current car for in-city driving) 1.1 gal/30 mi * 365 days/year * 3 years > 1000 gallons! 30 miles per day I guess is being an energy pig, compared to a 3rd world country, but it's normal here.

With using the EVs each day (alternating them), gas usage will probably be reduced to 1 drive per month. I'll be using about 1000 gallons less of gas every 3 years.

Traveling around town using the power of the sun that was trapped yesterday is better than burning gasoline. Buying new solar cells every 25 years is totally inconsequential.

80% of Washington energy is from Hydro. Maybe you were part of the 20%.

Kit P

“I'll be charging car batteries with the solar cells, during the day.”

Thank for sharing such a brilliant plan. I was beginning to think Paul H was really stupid in stead of just plain stupid. Paul I drive less than 15 miles a day but the only time my car sits in the sun is at work. So to start with I produce 100% less ghg commuting than Paul. Again, Paul what is your plan for charging your batteries. Since You did not provide a detailed plan, I can assume he does not have one. Does Paul H think his EV will last for 25 years or he will not figure it is a bad idea within a week?

“80% of Washington energy is from Hydro. Maybe you were part of the 20%.”

Well Paul, keep repeating meaningless statistics while failing to grasp the overarching concept and I will keep using the word stupid with your name.

In the US, 70% of the electricity is generated with fossil fuel. Increasing the demand for electricity bu charging batteries will only increase ghg. Solar cells are a limited resource right now. In the hands of Paul H solar panels will more dust than solar energy.

There is no difference between converting an old car to an EV making into a hot rod. That is okay, I have hobbies too. This what bothers me:

“People just won't take it because they don't feel like it. It's not particularly difficult.”

After Paul has done it, he can tell the rest of us how easy it was.

used jones

the only means in which humankind can reduce its carboon footprint to the necessary amount to actually cease all forms of global warming is if we all stopped breathing. to reduce carbon footprint to the 0% that has been suggested means we cannot produce any carbon dioxide.
the most effective means to help the environment is to begin planting more trees, focus more on renewable fuels that are not ethanol and maybe; I dont know, car pool?
Nissan is pretty good when it comes to hybrid technology and cars are wasteful. In many senses it comes down to the people who drive cars compared to the vehicles themselves. we should focus on cars that fit our needs not feed our wants.

banya

Hi, my online name is "banya." I have 2002 Nissan Elgrand (mini-van) and I love it very much. I would like to talk with car enthusiasts all over the world.
I'd like to link to the blog.
"Car Mania Blog banya"
http://car-mania-banya.blogspot.com/
Thanks,Thank you add to the sense.
banya

Fabio

Hi theres a great tuning expo sport and info cars at http://www.rankingtuning.com

WhichBurner

hey lets face it the israelis aint finding it easy to get oil off the neigbours. and it'll help the planet

Renault Service

Interesting Blog, with some interesting facts. Just to let you know you can get your Peugeot serviced and Save 50% off the main dealer price. Get Free Collection, Free Delivery and a Free Wash and Vac at http://www.servicingstop.co.uk/renault_service.html Great Blog by the way ;0)

Grant

Electric powered push-bikes are also increasingly popular. Probably incorrect to call them push-bikes any more...

sealed lead acid batteries

Very informative and well written. It'll be interesting to see the developments in the coming years!

Battery Resurrection

New deep cycle lead batteries are quite expensive, but you can recondition old one quite easily at home.
Check out this interesting site: http://diygreenenergy.net/battery-resurrection-guide

Batteries

I recently came across your post and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that it caught my interest and you've provided informative points. I will visit this blog often.

Thank you,

merchant services

This will help lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .




Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles