Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

louis · 2021-11-02 20:04:09

Well I think you should rediscover your optimism.

Battery charge electricity is not 40 times more expensive than hydrocarbon fuels even if it's 40 times less dense. It's probably something like twice as expensive. But when you have, in some parts of the world, electricity produced from solar power coming in at 50% or less of the cost of hydrocarbon fuels like gas and coal, then you can link them to batteries and still produce cheap electricity.

Cost, not energy density, in my view is nearly always the real arbiter.

I think we are seeing lots of game-changing moments coming along. A few years back no one thought that lithium batteries had a role to play in smoothing electricity generation against demand. Now pretty much everyone accepts it does.

Using green hydrogen to generate electricity is in reality not much different from using methane to do the same. The issue is: can we drive down the price substantially in terms of producing hydrogen from electrolysis and storing it? I really can't see anything standing in the way of huge cost reductions in production and use of green hydrogen, using green energy. There are plenty of issues with using green hydrogen in the home or in vehicles. But at grid scale, the issues are really those of cost.

The fact the Danes are backing green hydrogen is for me a strong influencing factor as they have tended to back the right horses all along.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
I thought the same thing 20 years ago. Over time, my excitement has been tempered by historical reality. Historical reality says there are vanishingly few "game changing" technologies. 20 years later, batteries are still 40 times less energy-dense than hydrocarbon fuels. I know I sound like a broken record, but orders of magnitude have meaning. You can't power a heavy duty truck or a ship or an aircraft in a practical way, using an energy storage medium that's 10 times less energy dense than liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The universe is trying to tell us something, but some people refuse to accept the message because they don't like what it means.
The message thus far, is as follows:
Oxidation chemical reactions involving Hydrogen produce at least 1 order of magnitude more energy output per unit weight of fuel than any electrochemical reaction that we have successfully tested in a lab to date.
We've been doing chemistry and electrochemistry experiments for a lot longer than I've been alive. We have allocated supercomputers and AI programs capable of computational chemistry, to solving the battery problem. Thus far, we have very little to show for all of the effort. We have lots of interesting results, but no dramatic technological improvements. Sooner or later, we need to accept that gasoline is useful due to it's dramatic energy density improvement over batteries.
13,000Wh/kg (gasoline) vs 300Wh/kg (best commercial Lithium-ion batteries)
33,600Wh/kg (gasoline) vs 600Wh/kg (projected solid state Lithium-ion batteries- "next 5 years")
Even if we actually double that figure for batteries in the next 5 years, batteries can't hold a candle to gasoline, never mind Hydrogen, in the volumetric and gravimetric energy density departments. We have a slightly less utterly impractical battery at that point.
I'm a lot less skeptical of Hydrogen energy storage than batteries for grid scale operations and heavy vehicles.
Current batteries are 1/2 of a heavy duty truck cargo load for equivalent range.
Projected batteries are 1/4 of a heavy duty truck cargo load for equivalent range.
There's an upper weight limit on all existing roads. We're not about to re-surface every road in America because battery trucks weigh more than the road can support, especially when Hydrogen trucks and trains can weigh LESS than existing machines.
Nobody will buy more trucks that are double the cost and there aren't enough truck drivers, as-is.
All I want is a practical solution for similar cost to what we have now. If it's a little more or a little less, no big deal. A 10% cost increase is not the end of the world. Double the price or more is a serious problem.
You keep telling me about how costs are being reduced, but none of that is reflected in the prices consumers pay. In short, something doesn't add up here. Technologies that actually cost less don't wind up more expensive for the consumer. If they do, then no matter how theoretically cheap they are or should be, they're actually more expensive for the person footing the bill. The working class and the poor can't afford yet another considerably more expensive solution to their existing transportation and basic necessity problems.
I don't care what word games you try to play with the fact that a Tesla Model 3 is more than double the cost of a Mazda 3. It's a more expensive car with less range and adding up all the gasoline and engine maintenance, the Tesla Model 3 is still no less expensive to operate over time, as compared to the Mazda 3. Since most Americans never keep a car for more than 3 years, let alone longer, whatever perceived economic benefits having lower cost fuel bills brings with it will never be seen by the original owner. That assumes they don't raise the price of electricity sky-high to cover revenues not generated from gasoline taxes.
Will Chinese battery electronic cars change that paradigm? Perhaps, but that remains to be seen.

kbd512 · 2021-11-03 13:42:33

Louis,

The cost of battery electronic vehicles greatly exceeds the cost of gasoline powered vehicles, which is why they're subsidized by the federal government to the tune of about $10,000. By your own assertion that cost wins, they're still non-competitive with gasoline.

Sticker Price at the Dealership:
Mazda 3 - $20,000
Tesla Model 3 - $50,000

The $30,000 differential buys 500,000 miles of travel in the form of gasoline at $3.00 per US gallon. Each gallon of gasoline can provide 50 miles of range.

The electricity then adds more cost to the battery electronic Tesla Model 3.

500,000 miles * 350Watts per mile = 175,000,000Watt-hours = 175,000kiloWatt-hours

$0.10 (10 cents per kWh- and it's already more than that here in Houston, TX, using "green energy") * 175,000 = $17,500

California pays $0.20 per kWh.

UK currently pays more than $0.30 per kWh, so 175,000kWh costs $52,500

Whenever the power companies advertise a rate lower than $0.10 for "green energy", they conveniently forget to include all the fees they tack on for maintenance and power delivery. Before you assert that it's not the cost of the power, let me remind you that power is only yours to use after it's been delivered to your home or vehicle, so save the disingenuous argumentative nonsense.

Electricity Prices by State

$50,000 of the Tesla's cost I have to pay up-front, meaning at the time of purchase, which means I need a much bigger car loan at a higher interest rate, because banks want their money back. I can get a $20,000 loan for little to no interest.

$17,500 buys a complete replacement Mazda 3, so I can afford to have 2 gas vehicles and enough gas to drive 500,000 miles in 10 years.

Oil changes aren't that expensive, and by using synthetic oil, they don't occur very often, so $3,000 for 50 oil changes, at $60 a pop.

Tires and brakes are going to be similar in cost, but will favor the lighter and cheaper and more common gasoline powered vehicle.

I'll rediscover my optimism when you rediscover basic math.

I'm backing "green in my own wallet", rather than "putting my green in someone else's wallet to subsidize their green ideology".

louis · 2021-11-03 18:51:08

This EV - joint Chinese-GM venture (sounds pretty Chinese though!) - is totally outselling Tesla in China and I think is already getting healthy sales in Europe and North America.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56178802

An EV for under $5000!

Tesla is obviously going for the gas-equivalent automobile but there are other business models e.g. a tidy little urban run-around that can do 90% of what you use a car for. For a young couple with no or only small children, something like the Hong Guang Mini EV probably meets their needs and will be much cheaper to run and maintain.

My longer term optimism re EVs is that I think electric roads are going to win out, so battery size can be much smaller. That in turn will reduce pollution from tyre burn (due to lower weight on the tyres) and substantially reduce cost of EVs - possibly by as much as 50%).

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
The cost of battery electronic vehicles greatly exceeds the cost of gasoline powered vehicles, which is why they're subsidized by the federal government to the tune of about $10,000. By your own assertion that cost wins, they're still non-competitive with gasoline.
Sticker Price at the Dealership:
Mazda 3 - $20,000
Tesla Model 3 - $50,000
The $30,000 differential buys 500,000 miles of travel in the form of gasoline at $3.00 per US gallon. Each gallon of gasoline can provide 50 miles of range.
The electricity then adds more cost to the battery electronic Tesla Model 3.
500,000 miles * 350Watts per mile = 175,000,000Watt-hours = 175,000kiloWatt-hours
$0.10 (10 cents per kWh- and it's already more than that here in Houston, TX, using "green energy") * 175,000 = $17,500
California pays $0.20 per kWh.
UK currently pays more than $0.30 per kWh, so 175,000kWh costs $52,500
Whenever the power companies advertise a rate lower than $0.10 for "green energy", they conveniently forget to include all the fees they tack on for maintenance and power delivery. Before you assert that it's not the cost of the power, let me remind you that power is only yours to use after it's been delivered to your home or vehicle, so save the disingenuous argumentative nonsense.
Electricity Prices by State
$50,000 of the Tesla's cost I have to pay up-front, meaning at the time of purchase, which means I need a much bigger car loan at a higher interest rate, because banks want their money back. I can get a $20,000 loan for little to no interest.
$17,500 buys a complete replacement Mazda 3, so I can afford to have 2 gas vehicles and enough gas to drive 500,000 miles in 10 years.
Oil changes aren't that expensive, and by using synthetic oil, they don't occur very often, so $3,000 for 50 oil changes, at $60 a pop.
Tires and brakes are going to be similar in cost, but will favor the lighter and cheaper and more common gasoline powered vehicle.
I'll rediscover my optimism when you rediscover basic math.
I'm backing "green in my own wallet", rather than "putting my green in someone else's wallet to subsidize their green ideology".

SpaceNut · 2021-11-03 19:16:08

The china GM vehicle is being made with subsidized low cost labor which is not the case for the Tesla being made by Musk. Just add up the cost for replacement parts and then you will see that the parts in the vehicle is and are being reduced in there use as a total sell able unit.

It was 2004 when I did my first designed charging for the Lithium ion batteries which would cause shorting the the cells and fire which was very hard to put out. These were being used in a self contained breathing apparatus when Desert storm was happening.

louis · 2021-11-03 19:37:55

Tesla does manufacture its vehicles in China:

https://www.electrive.com/2021/06/09/te … -in-china/

Whether China is using its infamous methods to secretly subsidise the SAIC model, I don't know but if so, the European and American consumer will benefit from the subsidy.

There's no evidence that EV batteries are more dangerous than ICEs which catch fire all the time.

SpaceNut wrote:

The china GM vehicle is being made with subsidized low cost labor which is not the case for the Tesla being made by Musk. Just add up the cost for replacement parts and then you will see that the parts in the vehicle is and are being reduced in there use as a total sell able unit.
It was 2004 when I did my first designed charging for the Lithium ion batteries which would cause shorting the the cells and fire which was very hard to put out. These were being used in a self contained breathing apparatus when Desert storm was happening.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-03 20:04:26

In the last year along the highway I drive daily has been 2 burnt signs from the vehicles that have caught fire from oils and transmission fluid fires along side of the road. But that does not mean that battery fires are a thing of the past.

Tesla started manufacturing cars at its Shanghai Gigafactory in China Mar 2, 2021 but when the 25% tariffs on imported Chinese electric vehicles imposed put the breaks on by May 11, 2021

From the wiki its final assembly of shipped in parts, so that is the higher cost of the vehicle....

kbd512 · 2021-11-03 20:49:43

Louis,

Sounds great, but that "no kids" thing doesn't apply to most people over 25.

I'm still waiting for one of these things $5,000 electronic cars to show up over here.

The electric roads are unlikely to be practical for cities filled with hundreds of thousands of cars, but we'll see.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-03 21:15:42

I remember when the smart car was introduced at $3,000 from India as it sold for $13,000 instead once they became available

kbd512 · 2021-11-04 10:07:48

SpaceNut,

That was my point. The cheapest vehicle sold in America is around $10,000 or $12,000. Anyone who thinks they're going to sell that thing for $5,000 over here, is not dealing with reality. They'll at least triple the price, at which point it makes far more sense to get a much more capable vehicle that seats four people for the same or less money. If it happens, then great. I'll be one of their first customers at $5,000. If it ends up being $15,000, then there are much more practical vehicles available for that kind of money.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-04 18:52:43

Here is another of those cheap cars in a Yugo which was as well advertise to be low cost....so this has been a persistent made over sea that once the reality of emissions and other set in that the car is no long cheap.

kbd512 · 2021-11-04 20:55:57

SpaceNut,

We can make cheap and reliable cars here in America by sourcing the most efficient engines from available supplies, then using simple / cost effective / low embodied energy welded steel tubing for the chassis with CarbonX fabric wrapped foam panels to keep the elements out. The tubing could be sprayed with Cerakote and it would last for decades without rusting. I guess the problem is that there's not much to break on one of these all-manual vehicles, so there's not much money to be made selling spare parts.

All the major manufacturers really seem to want to do is to load up every vehicle with more and more pointless electronic gadgets / sensors / gizmos that cause production prices to skyrocket while making recycling non-profitable or utterly impossible, despite the fact that half of that electronic nonsense won't be functional in 5 years time or less. It's a rolling arcade game for people who are dazzled by computer games, but it's not a car.

Calliban · 2021-11-08 05:48:45

Not getting the time that I once did. I will try and reply to this in more detail later. But there is a lot to talk about on this topic, more than can be covered in one post.

Long-range battery-electric vehicles will always be more expensive to manufacture than ICE powered vehicles of equivalent range because of the high embodied energy of the battery. There is literally no way around that, using any technology that we have now or are likely to have in the future. Gasoline is something that nature provides for free, aside from the cost of pumping it out of the ground and refining it. A battery is something that has to be made. Batteries have low energy density compared to liquid hydrocarbons and need to be manufactured from high energy cost materials, like polymers and highly reactive alkaline metals. Again, it will be technically difficult to produce a battery that rivals the recoverable stored energy density of liquid fuel. In both cases, the energy comes from a chemical reaction between two reagents. In the case of a hydrocarbon, all of the stored chemical fuel reacts with oxygen from the air, to yield mechanical power and heat in an engine. Batteries require substrates to contain the reagents in cells and need to be configured in ways that make them regenerative. What this means is that in terms of mechanical energy stored per kg of mass, battery systems will always be at least an order of magnitude poorer than diesel or gasoline.

The low energy density of batteries aggrevates the problem of energy efficiency by making the car heavier, which pushes up frictional rolling resistance. Tesla tried to mitigate the problem as much as possible in the design of the model 3 by making as much of the car as possible out of composites and reducing drag coefficient about as low as it could go for an athwart seating arrangement. But an ICE powered Tesla would probably get good fuel economy because the car shell is optimised in terms of weight and air resistance.

Utilisation factor is key to the economics of a battery in any situation. Having a smaller battery with a higher number of charge-discharge cycles per year, will result in a lower marginal cost per kWh stored than a larger battery with poorer utilisation. This suggests that plug-in hybrid vehicles provide a much greater cost benefit than pure EVs. If people insist on having long range when purchasing a vehicle, then this provides the best compromise solution because it allows electric power to meet a large proportion of the energy needed for shorter duration trips (which often dominate total millage) whilst retaining the energy density benefits and low purchase cost of a fuel tank. The other option is to compromise on range. For most people, most of the time, a 50-mile range electric vehicle would meet their day-to-day needs. In this case, Li-ion batteries may be compact and light enough to remove from the vehicle and charge indoors at a plug socket, overnight. If you need to make a longer trip, you hire an ICE powered vehicle. Most EV purchasers, are middle class buyers with plenty of money. They are buying these vehicles to use for day trips, with an ICE waiting in the drive for less frequent long-range trips.

One of the things to remember when considering lifetime cost of BEVs is that electricity is not taxed in the way that vehicle fuels are. In most European countries, tax accounts for two-thirds of the price of liquid fuels. EVs are subsidised in most countries as well, as is the charging infrastructure. For this reason, EVs can appear locally attractive to consumers with enough money to cover their purchase cost, even if they are an inferior solution overall. This sort of thing is what economists call market distortions and it can tip consumer behaviour in favour of options that they wouldn't consider otherwise.

One of the key metrics going forward is rising energy cost of energy and its impact on industrial countries and consumers. Whilst we have yet to see dramatic declines in fossil fuel production, the EROI of these fuels is falling. This has been going on for a long time, since the early 1970s, but the trend has accelerated since the turn of the century. We have been faking economic growth in most of the OECD since the 1990s. What this means for the average person, is declining discretionary income as the essentials of life consume a rising proportion of their pay check. Governments are seeing rising deficits, which they are funding by either increasing debt or inflating currency volume. At some point, we are going to reach a discontinuity. Governments may not be able to afford to subsidise pet technologies. At the consumer level, taxes are going rise and things like tax credits will diminish. In the future, most people will be able to spare even less for high cost items like cars than they can today. But cars are important Status symbols and most people want to own one. In my opinion, this is likely to favour products that are cheap for people to buy. It may be that a small ICE, with a low upfront purchase cost, will be a more affordable option for most people than a Tesla that costs 30-50K. The liklihood is that the average number of miles driven per year will decline. These things could end up being ornamental status symbols for most people. Greenhouse gas emissions will declineas people continue to get poorer. We have been getting poorer since around 2005 and that trend is going to continue.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-08 07:29:20)

Calliban · 2021-11-08 08:17:15

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
We can make cheap and reliable cars here in America by sourcing the most efficient engines from available supplies, then using simple / cost effective / low embodied energy welded steel tubing for the chassis with CarbonX fabric wrapped foam panels to keep the elements out. The tubing could be sprayed with Cerakote and it would last for decades without rusting. I guess the problem is that there's not much to break on one of these all-manual vehicles, so there's not much money to be made selling spare parts.
All the major manufacturers really seem to want to do is to load up every vehicle with more and more pointless electronic gadgets / sensors / gizmos that cause production prices to skyrocket while making recycling non-profitable or utterly impossible, despite the fact that half of that electronic nonsense won't be functional in 5 years time or less. It's a rolling arcade game for people who are dazzled by computer games, but it's not a car.

This idea aligns far better with the affordability constraints that most people face. Disposable income is declining for most people in the OECD. A small, lightweight and fuel efficient vehicle that is cheap to build and cheap to run, is what people need, not some idealistic all-electric vision handed down to them by the wealthy political class. Electronic gadgetry, air conditioning, seat heating, etc, are all things that most people are prepared to forego in my opinion, especially if it makes the difference between being able to afford a car and going without.

Can we build a compact car that will seat four people, provide a cruising speed of 60mph, achieve fuel economy of 100mpg and cost <$10,000 to buy new?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a769/3374271/

Reducing weight is the easiest way of improving fuel efficiency at town driving speeds. According to the article above, a 10% reduction in weight reduces lifetime fuel consumption by 7%. Carbon fibre composites on a steel chassis, as Kbd512 suggested, could ultimately halve the weight of a vehicle. But it is relatively expensive at present. Glass fibre composites, better steels and plexiglass would save a lot of weight. My guess is that weight savings will be achieved by cutting a car down to its bare essentials and generally making it smaller. It means building an engine and drive train that are relatively simple. Back in the early 1980s, my parents drove a Daihatsu Domino. It could just about reach 70mph on the motorway with my mum and dad, my brother and I packed into it, with its tiny 500cc petrol engine screaming its guts out. But it got 70mpg. And it got all four of us from SE England to Southern Spain and back for our summer holidays for several years running. It did this cheaply, mainly because it was small, simple and weighed 1000lb. And it did so without any computer controlled injection or breaking energy recovery. Could we apply 2021 technology to produce an enhanced version of it to achieve 100mpg? I think this would work better for most people 10 years from now, than something like a Tesla. You are more likely to be driving something like a Fiat Panda in 20 years time, than you are a Tesla 3.

The world 10-20 years from now is going to be poorer than the one we know now. That isn't a popular opinion, but the facts of life rarely are. We need solutions that allow society to keep working with less disposable income. A smaller, lighter, simpler and cheaper petrol or diesel car is the way to go. To enhance fuel economy in urban traffic, some kind of braking energy recovery and launch assist would be advantageous. It can also help reduce the required engine power. That means storing relatively small amounts of energy in a way that is efficiently recoverable, without added too much weight and design complication to the vehicle. What is the cheapest way of doing that? There are lots of options. A small battery, super capacitors, flywheel, hydraulic accumulator, compressed air reservoir, a spring? Hydraulic Accumulator is probably technically easiest. It is also very efficient at recovering braking energy, though it is relatively heavy. A car weighing 1000kg with four passengers, accelerating to 40mph, needs about 160KJ of energy. A steel shell hydraulic accumulator capable of storing 160KJ would weigh around 120kg (1.4KJ/kg or 6.3KJ/litre). If the accumulator can store enough energy to assist acceleration, then a small car could be produced with an air cooled, single cylinder petrol or diesel engine providing enough power for a 60mph top speed. An engine like that maintains a relatively large cylinder size (which is good for combustion efficiency) and minimises pumping losses, which helps maintain efficiency. But vibration can become a problem.

You could produce a car like that for <$10,000 and it would do 100mpg when averaged over life. It would be easy to repair and keep going for a 20+ year life. Just don't expect to be driving it like a Formula One racing car. This is a car most suitable for casual urban driving, in which speeds rarely exceed 40mph and cramped conditions are tolerable for short journeys.
****************************************************************************

PS. My favourite quote of the day, unfortunately from another forum:

"Most people don’t fancy working in the lithium mines of Mordor for a handfull of rice a day, so that Sauron can ride around in an EV."

I think this sums up the problem with BEVs. If you want something that will replicate the performance of an ICE, then you need a battery with a lot of capacity and a high energy density. That is expensive to do. And a lot of energy and material resources are invested producing a battery like that. On the other hand, a 50 mile range BEV with a top speed of 50mph, is technically easier and cheaper. Ordinary people could afford something like that. But the range limitation is a big limitation. People will accept it if they have no choice, or no choice that they can afford. But if you have a small hybrid ICE car that does 100mpg and costs about the same upfront, then there is a choice. Even if gasoline reaches $10/gallon, a small car like that would still be affordable to most people. And at $10/gallon, we could fuel it with biomass derived methanol.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-08 10:25:01)

kbd512 · 2021-11-10 11:24:14

Calliban,

I don't know if we can feasibly achieve 100mpg, but we can certainly produce a simple yet highly functional machine that's much better on gas, still accelerates quite well to the maximum legal speed limit, and is so durable that we won't constantly expend more and more energy to replace existing copies with those of a newer model year, every few years. The constant churn of newer / faster / better technology has utterly failed to deliver on any energy use reduction. There is no advanced technology we've come up with that's actually reduced energy consumption. That's pretty remarkable, wouldn't you say?

For the money spent, simple carbon steel tubing is some of the lightest, most durable, and most crash-worthy stuff we've ever invented. It's not high-speed / low-drag like carbon fiber, and probably not something engineers will collect awards and accolades over, but like so many other engineering projects, if the goal is to simply get the job done for minimum cost, a little bit of well-shaped steel work wonders.

I think a very large bore single cylinder diesel, based upon existing industrial / marine diesel engine hardware like the Cat 3508, should provide enough torque to accelerate a 4,000 pound vehicle to 75mph. An air reservoir 5 to 10 times that of the single cylinder's displacement would provide turbocharging capability. It's not common practice to turbocharge single cylinder engines due to valve timing, but Indian university researchers have proven that it can be done. India's farming practices are so sensitive to price increases, that it turns out a single cylinder turbocharged engine is more cost effective to produce and operate than a two cylinder non-turbocharged engine.

If turbocharging of single cylinder engines proves problematic, then a two cylinder turbocharged V-twin type engine would certainly work. I don't see the problem, though. They took a single cylinder diesel and found that an air intake plenum, what they called an "air capacitor", of 7 times the cylinder's displacement, was optimum for a medium-speed diesel agricultural engine.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-10 18:37:02

The popular mechanic is capable to be applied to all hybrid and straight battery ev's to improve baseline mileage costs via portable solar panels being deployed when parked for extend time periods. The max daily whr's will pile up with selecting the perfect collection location.

kbd512 · 2021-11-10 19:14:57

SpaceNut,

If it was ever practical to recharge cars with solar panels carried in the vehicle, then all battery electronic vehicles would come with solar panels. Since none of them do, we can easily conclude that it's not practical. The ones with the little solar panels mounted on their roof are used to power air conditioners or fans, because available battery capacity is so limited compared to what's required to drive down the highway with the AC running.

Where would you find a "perfect location" to set up solar panels during the winters in New Hampshire?

Weren't you the one telling us about the foot of snow piled up on top of and around your house?

How well do solar panels work with 1 inch of snow piled on top of them, never mind 12 inches?

SpaceNut · 2021-11-10 19:32:43

Snow does not block all of the light but does lessen it until its cleaned off. You must clean off the vehicle before use on the roads any ways.
Large parking lots in the open are the spot to be in. Panels are not out all of the time as you pull them out when in a parking spot.

kbd512 · 2021-11-10 20:31:42

SpaceNut,

Cleaning off a vehicle can take a half hour in the winter, just to clear the windows.

How long will it take to clean off solar panels encrusted with ice and snow, that have at least 10 times the surface area of a car's windows?

The large parking lots in the open are filled with cars here. If all or even half of them are electric, you're going to have to find some other place to set up all those solar panels.

Calliban · 2021-11-11 07:14:38

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
Cleaning off a vehicle can take a half hour in the winter, just to clear the windows.
How long will it take to clean off solar panels encrusted with ice and snow, that have at least 10 times the surface area of a car's windows?
The large parking lots in the open are filled with cars here. If all or even half of them are electric, you're going to have to find some other place to set up all those solar panels.

Putting solar panels on a vehicle roof isn't necessarily a bad idea, if weight limits can be adhered to. It is just that the benefits of doing so are limited. A few square metres of panels will deliver somewhere between zero and 500 watts of power, depending upon location, time of day, time of year, presence of snow, etc. If the panels are used to charge the battery in a hybrid vehicle, it would reduce parasitic burdens on the engine and will marginally reduce fuel consumption over the vehicle liftime. This benefit is real and valuable, but must be balanced against increased weight, increased complexity and cost. It may provide positive benefits against those criteria, it may not.

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-11 09:31:39

We are badly off topic if we are talking about removing snow from solar panels.

The purpose of this topic (as I understand it) is to celebrate and to learn about the work of a single human being in the field of reverse-combustion.

I re-read the original post of kbd512, and decided to see what (if anything) Google might find about the gent kbd512 is showing us:

Rob McGinnis
Founder, CEO, Prometheus Fuels
Verified email at prometheusfuels.com - Homepage
ElectrofuelsnanotechnologyCNT membranescatalysismolecular factories
TITLE
CITED BY
YEAR
A novel ammonia—carbon dioxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination process
JR McCutcheon, RL McGinnis, M Elimelech
Desalination 174 (1), 1-11 1101 2005
Desalination by ammonia–carbon dioxide forward osmosis: influence of draw and feed solution concentrations on process performance
JR McCutcheon, RL McGinnis, M Elimelech
Journal of membrane science 278 (1-2), 114-123 943 2006
Energy requirements of ammonia–carbon dioxide forward osmosis desalination
RL McGinnis, M Elimelech
Desalination 207 (1-3), 370-382 632 2007
Standard methodology for evaluating membrane performance in osmotically driven membrane processes
TY Cath, M Elimelech, JR McCutcheon, RL McGinnis, A Achilli, ...
Desalination 312, 31-38 381 2013
Global challenges in energy and water supply: the promise of engineered osmosis
RL McGinnis, M Elimelech
Environmental science & technology 42 (23), 8625-8629 344 2008
Pilot demonstration of the NH3/CO2 forward osmosis desalination process on high salinity brines
RL McGinnis, NT Hancock, MS Nowosielski-Slepowron, GD McGurgan
Desalination 312, 67-74 314 2013
A novel ammonia–carbon dioxide osmotic heat engine for power generation
RL McGinnis, JR McCutcheon, M Elimelech
Journal of membrane science 305 (1-2), 13-19 278 2007
Osmotic desalinization process
RL McGinnis
US Patent 6,391,205 223* 2002
Osmotic separation systems and methods
RL McGinnis
US Patent 9,039,899 54 2015
Forward osmosis membranes
R McGinnis, G McGurgan
US Patent 8,181,794 43 2012
Utility scale osmotic grid storage
R McGinnis, A Mandell
US Patent 8,795,525 38 2014
Making high quality frac water out of oilfield waste
NR Hutchings, EW Appleton, RA McGinnis
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition 37 2010
Large-scale polymeric carbon nanotube membranes with sub–1.27-nm pores
RL McGinnis, K Reimund, J Ren, L Xia, MR Chowdhury, X Sun, M Abril, ...
Science advances 4 (3), e1700938 30 2018
Forward osmosis separation processes
RL McGinnis, JE Zuback
US Patent 9,248,405 25 2016
Multi-stage column distillation (MSCD) method for osmotic solute recovery
RL McGinnis, M Elimelech
US Patent 8,246,791 25 2012
Medicament injection apparatus
RF Veasey, R Woolston, SA Day, CN Langley
US Patent 8,523,827 23 2013
Spiral wound membrane module for forward osmotic use
RL McGinnis
US Patent 8,815,091 22 2014
Osmotically driven membrane processes and systems and methods for draw solute recovery
RL McGinnis
US Patent 9,044,711 21 2015
Forward Osmosis Separation Processes
RL McGinnis, M Elimelech
US Patent App. 13/000,198 20 2011
Ammonia-Carbon Dioxide Forward Osmosis Desalination
JL McCutcheon, RL McGinnis, M Elimelech
Water Conditioning & Purification 19 2006

This forum already contains a significant number of posts about the physics/chemistry of reverse-combustion, and it appears that kbd512 may have shown a pathway to learn a great deal more.

The immediate need facing the population of Earth is to eliminate the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels.

We humans have been living on the yolk of the egg given to us by Ma Nature, and it is ** long ** past time we get off our collective duff and start "earning our keep" by making the hydrocarbons we need for an efficient civilization by pulling waste chemicals from the environment and repurposing them.

The fact that a vanishingly small number of humans understand what needs to be done, let alone how to do it, is part of the challenge.

This is social problem! It is ** not ** a technical one.

Since this forum is a (admittedly small) cross-section of the human population, it will be interesting (to me at least) to see if any members of the group (aside from kbd512) are able to demonstrate understanding of the solution (apparently) offered by Rob McGinnis.

We have seen that we (group) are starting from a bottom rung. We have the opportunity to climb, individually and collectively.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-11 10:35:45

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
Cleaning off a vehicle can take a half hour in the winter, just to clear the windows.
How long will it take to clean off solar panels encrusted with ice and snow, that have at least 10 times the surface area of a car's windows?
The large parking lots in the open are filled with cars here. If all or even half of them are electric, you're going to have to find some other place to set up all those solar panels.

Think a roof carrier covering to put the pull out panels in during the night and under weather conditions of a storm.

These can be fixed rigid or flexible on a roll for deployment to make use of to provide daylight energy to the batteries for increased mileage.

It takes less than 15 minutes to remove snow covering even with a storm piling up over night on my parked outside vehicle.

Panels could have a window defrost system similar to the back wind or a vehicle to remove ice if there is any on the panels.

kbd512 · 2021-11-12 21:24:56

tahanson43206,

tahanson43206 wrote:

We are badly off topic if we are talking about removing snow from solar panels.

The reason all of these posts go off-topic is because you must explain the complete context in which a technology or tool is used. That will always delve much deeper into whatever topic you're discussing. There's no such thing as "technology in a vacuum". Louis is very enamored with solar panels, so we end up talking about his favorite technology more often than not. I'm fine with this because I don't have anything whatsoever against solar panels. What I take great umbrage to is a total lack of results, or exceptionally poor results per dollar / energy input expended, and a total lack of understanding of the nature, scope, or scale of a particular problem.

Making cutting tools from Material X vs Material Y has no meaning without understanding the mechanical properties of both materials, the ease of manufacture, and the context in which those tools are used to benefit humanity. If you don't understand that Material Y is 10 times more expensive and energy-intensive to obtain and isn't half as durable as Material X, then the discussion is devoid of context. If money (ultimately energy) is no object, then Material Y may seem like an ideal solution without knowledge of its drawbacks. Long story short, there's a reason most knives are made from Iron alloys, rather than Aluminum or Titanium alloys or ceramics. It's not a cosmic coincidence or manufacturers conspiring to give us sub-optimal cutting tools. It's math, physics, and engineering, forever and always.

The chances of us seeing, within our lifetimes, a battery that comes within an order of magnitude of the energy density of gasoline, are much closer to zero than our chances of a giant asteroid wiping us out. I don't care if anyone accepts that fact. It is a fact and that fact must be dealt with. The basic math and counting deniers will continue to deny all basic math and historical evidence, because they've collectively bought into an ideology that's made false promises to them, but none of that will change objective reality. You or anyone else can choose to construe that as scathing criticism or you can choose to take off the ideological blinders and see that it's accurate criticism.

tahanson43206 wrote:

The purpose of this topic (as I understand it) is to celebrate and to learn about the work of a single human being in the field of reverse-combustion.

The purpose of this topic is to propose a technologically viable way to use solar and wind power to produce the fantastic amount of energy that heavy moving vehicles require, while minimizing the amount of additional CO2 generated, by recycling the existing atmospheric stock of CO2 to produce more of that energy-dense liquid fuel that does such a great job of moving machines about in the brisk manner we've become accustomed to.

I don't celebrate gasoline anymore than I celebrate electricity. I celebrate all the good things that energy, in all its forms, has provided to humanity. I also want all future generations of my people to benefit at least to the degree that I have, or to an even greater degree than I will ever know, from plentiful energy, available whenever they need to use it.

Present technological limitations, and likely fundamental "the way the universe works" limitations, dictate that oxidation reactions involving Hydrogen produce at least 1 order of magnitude more power output per unit weight than electrochemical reactions inside batteries. This little objective fact has major design implications for moving machines. It dictates which technologies work best and doesn't care about what I want or that something is theoretically possible.

tahanson43206 wrote:

This forum already contains a significant number of posts about the physics/chemistry of reverse-combustion, and it appears that kbd512 may have shown a pathway to learn a great deal more.

Dr McGinnis demonstrated with real working hardware, that electrochemistry is a much more energy-efficient way of making liquid hydrocarbon fuels. I merely "re-tweeted" the results from his work, in hopes that smarter men than I will use it as a way of generating energy for moving machines without adding to our CO2 emissions.

tahanson43206 wrote:

The immediate need facing the population of Earth is to eliminate the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels.

The immediate need facing humanity is to generate enormous quantities of energy to improve rather than detract from our quality of life, without further increasing emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 within Earth's atmosphere, eventually melting all the polar ice and raising sea levels at a much faster rate than natural processes alone have historically done it.

Eliminating the use of liquid hydrocarbon fuels won't help achieve that. It will help mass murder tens to hundreds of millions of the poorest people on the planet through energy poverty. For elitists who fancy killing their fellow humans to solve their energy problems, that might be acceptable to them. Such a course of action will never be acceptable to me, because I look upon that as true evil.

Given enough time, all of the polar ice will melt naturally, as has already happened numerous times in Earth's past, that will ultimately raise mean sea level by a matter of tens of meters, and eventually large numbers of people who have opted to live near large bodies of water, will be forced to seek higher ground. There's nothing catastrophic to humanity about that. It's very inconvenient, but we have the tools and technology and golden opportunity to build on higher ground, especially if we start now. OCD personalities have this absurd idea stuck in their heads, that the Earth should never change from whatever idyllic notion they fixated on.

The underlying problem is that we've helped that process along at a rate beyond what Earth has experienced over the past few million years. It's a thermal inertia issue. The ball is very heavy and hard to get moving, but once you start moving it, it doesn't immediately stop because you stopped pushing on it. Now that the ball is up to speed, it will continue rolling long after we're all dead. Adding a little bit of additional velocity to the ball doesn't matter much. Short of expending all available energy to stop it, the ball will not stop. Think about how much energy was embodied in all the liquid hydrocarbons we've burned.

The time for damage control was during the 1950s to the 1970s, when almost nobody was the least bit concerned about the problem we were creating for ourselves. Those who truly cared about the environment wanted to use nuclear power to produce sufficient energy without so much burning of hydrocarbons, but the anti-humanists' hatred of humanity prevented us from doing that. The people who opposed nuclear energy were literally opposed to giving people more energy to work with over their fears of what we would do with so much energy that had so little impact on Earth's environment, so they organized a highly successful fear-based propaganda campaign to keep their fellow humans in energy poverty to continue wreaking havoc on Earth's environment, so they wouldn't be out of a job. To wit, these evil clowns make money by terrorizing ignorant people to make them fearful of having and using energy.

tahanson43206 wrote:

We humans have been living on the yolk of the egg given to us by Ma Nature, and it is ** long ** past time we get off our collective duff and start "earning our keep" by making the hydrocarbons we need for an efficient civilization by pulling waste chemicals from the environment and repurposing them.

We don't owe anything to the space rock we live on, to other species, or to the fictitious personification of nature, but we do owe it to ourselves and to future generations to clean up our act so that this planet remains habitable for many future generations of humanity.

tahanson43206 wrote:

The fact that a vanishingly small number of humans understand what needs to be done, let alone how to do it, is part of the challenge.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

The number of people who truly understand the engineering they're advocating for is likely 1/10th of 1% of the human population.

tahanson43206 wrote:

This is social problem! It is ** not ** a technical one.

Creating energy that's done in a way with a commitment to recycling is entirely a technical challenge. I've never met anyone who opposed recycling. It's understood that there's only so much of any given resource available, and the more you can reuse that resource, the more you benefit from it.

We recycle every type of metal, plastic, cellulose-based (paper and fiber) product, so why not CO2 as well?

Outside of ideology, is there anything wrong with recycling CO2 and H2O into new liquid hydrocarbons if we have a low-energy and therefore low-cost way to do it?

tahanson43206 wrote:

Since this forum is a (admittedly small) cross-section of the human population, it will be interesting (to me at least) to see if any members of the group (aside from kbd512) are able to demonstrate understanding of the solution (apparently) offered by Rob McGinnis.

There's simply no interest in solving energy problems whenever the solution doesn't mesh with "green energy" ideologies or agendas.

tahanson43206 wrote:

We have seen that we (group) are starting from a bottom rung. We have the opportunity to climb, individually and collectively.

We have the opportunity to accept that starting off with an enormous energy density advantage has historically proven decisive when powering lots of large and heavy moving machines, which describes virtually all modern passenger vehicles, trucks, trains, ships, and aircraft.

Compact passengers cars are now more than 3,000 pounds. Large SUVs are near 6,000 pounds. The new battery electronic Hummer trucks and SUVs will weigh in excess of 9,000 pounds. The H1 Hummers were already 8,000 pound behemoths. Frankly, it's getting a little ridiculous. You almost need a commercial driver's license to operate some of these battery powered trucks and SUVs while towing a boat, due to the combined GVWR.

Compact cars with all-manual controls and mechanical engines were the same weight or lighter in the past, despite being physically larger and containing more steel (however poorly utilized for crashworthiness, or how poorly compensated for in modern designs by simply making them heavier by using even more steel), because there wasn't much to them, structurally speaking.

Now they cram in so much plastic and electronic gadget nonsense that they manage to make battery electronic subcompact cars weigh as much as full size regular cab pickup truck. If modern vehicles were lasting significantly longer and requiring less costly repairs, then maybe there's a point to the increased weight and complexity, but since that's not happening at all, manufacturers are simply driving up the cost, which mandates higher production volume, which in turn increases cost due to the need to make them faster. It's a vicious cycle that's spiraling out of control.

A 1969 Dodge Dart has a curb weight of 2,711 pounds with an all-cast-Iron 225cid slant 6 or 318cid small block V8. Exterior dimensions are 195.4" L by 69.7" W by 53.7" H.

A Tesla Model 3 has a curb weight of 4,250 pounds. Exterior dimensions are 185" L by 73" W by 57" H.

Variants of the old Dodge Darts modified for drag racing, using a 100% stock 475 pound cast iron Slant 6, with fiberglass hoods and trunks, can be as light at 2,200 pounds. That's a compact car with enough interior volume to comfortably seat 4 American-sized adults.

If you're willing to deal with welding of steel tubing, and we have no shortage of the stuff, then a steel tubing Dodge Dart variant with a modern all-Aluminum 100hp 4-cylinder Audi diesel engine and fireproof fabric-over-foam, body panels would come in around 1,800 pounds. 100hp per ton still provides excellent acceleration. The vehicle's crashworthiness will be as good or better than sheet steel, especially at absorbing crash energy when struck and not intruding into the passenger compartment. You're surrounded by thermally and electrically insulating fabric that inhibits burning, the steel is protected by a high temperature ceramic aerospace coating that will not easily flake off or allow corrosion to begin, and the road noise is minimized by the foam and fabric. It won't cost a fortune to make, either, if all electronic toys are deleted and manual steering / braking / starting are used. Parts that don't exist can never be broken. You can install as many of your own electronic gadgets as you desire, but we won't force consumers to pay for expensive gimmicks.

This is the first car made out of plastic, and it's 78 years old today!

Yes, that was a 4 seat car with a tubular steel chassis and a 100hp Ford Flathead V8, which is a hefty 550 pound chunk of cast iron.

Can we do better today with lighter all-Aluminum inline engines with more steel / weight in the chassis of the vehicle to increase crashworthiness?

I should certainly hope so.

Riveted Aluminum sheet metal, never welded, or forged Aluminum parts, is used successfully in aircraft construction to counteract well-distributed tensile loads while remaining stiff enough to not deform under load. Aluminum fairs poorly in compression and shear, as compared to steel. There are a lot of point loads / compressive loads / shear loads in motor vehicles, basically through the wheels and into the chassis. This is where steel really shines. After Aluminum deforms under load, you can toss the part, because it's trash. More importantly, it's trash that costs at least 3 times as much as steel, because it consumes at least 3 times more energy to make.

We will minimize but not obsess over fastener count, the way Sandy Munro does, as it relates to automotive design. While I understand the engineering premise behind what he's noting about failures with fasteners, it's equally true that parts costing absurd sums of money to eliminate a handful of fasteners is mostly about trying to speed up assembly / reduce manufacturing costs associated with designs that are already far too complicated to begin with.

In comparing our Tesla Model 3 with a Mazda 3, we determined that the Mazda 3 was only using double the energy to push a vehicle down the highway. Now we have a vehicle that weighs less than half as much, and while that does not automatically mean it will only use half as much energy at the same speed, due to aerodynamic drag, overcoming the drag force generated at 75mph starts to become a much greater portion of the total power requirement.

That said, total energy usage will be very comparable to a Tesla for equivalent capability, except that this "modern" Dodge Dart won't require a bunch of new solar panels or wind turbines or electrical power distribution infrastructure to be manufactured / installed / maintained. In closing, a light weight / high efficiency combustion engine powered vehicle will use less total energy to fabricate and operate than the Tesla, up to some ridiculously high number of miles that the Tesla's battery will never achieve.

kbd512 · 2021-11-13 05:49:10

It occurs to me that even I keep trying to apply aerospace technology to this vehicle design, to the detriment of cost and fabrication problems for very minor fuel economy benefits. Instead of 4130 tubing, we should probably stick with 1018 DOM tubing or something similar. There's far less risk of heat embrittlement or changes to the temper from welding, it costs substantially less, and the weight benefit from the thinner walls possible with 4130 for equivalent strength to 1018 is minor compared to the durability benefits and ability to absorb crash energy through deformation.

The same applies to the idea of using a much heavier and more complex liquid-cooled diesel engine instead of a much cheaper / lighter / simpler air-cooled gasoline motor cycle engine.

The more we attempt to optimize for fuel economy, the greater the cost. The underlying idea here was an affordable / practical / economical to operate vehicle for the masses, while still meeting crash test certification. At 43mpg, that Harley-Davidson Milwaukee 8 engine is looking better and better. If someone drives 250 miles per week, even assuming $5 per gallon gasoline, that's $29/week or $1,508/year. Over 10 years, that's about the same as the price of a Tesla battery. Figure on 3 oil changes per year, and that's still $76/year or $760 over 10 years.

That kind of vehicle is truly affordable and practical. It's also a real 4-seat / 4-door car with a curb weight less than 1/3 that of a Tesla, requiring no major electric grid upgrade projects, though it does presume continued investment in wind or solar to synthesize gasoline.

All told, our current national average fuel economy for passenger vehicles is 13mpg, because fewer and fewer can afford the investment in newer gimmick-laden vehicles that cost as much as a small house. If the majority could be convinced to drive practical vehicles like these to work and on errands, then that represents a 3X reduction in motor gasoline consumption. If we stick with motorcycle engines and racing bucket seats, then we can also make slightly less powerful 6-seater minivans if we add a third row. It won't be as fancy or have fold-down seats like a Dodge Minivan, but it will have very similar performance to the original with an upgraded 121hp version of the Milwaukee 8.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-13 18:18:48

We keep coming up with the bullet points of how we construct, materials used ect. but its still not dropping the price or the need for speed as the places we work are usually not near where we live..

kbd512 · 2021-11-13 18:26:48

Let's pin down some weights for major component in this 1018 Cold-Drawn Seamless (CDS) tubular chassis vehicle:

600lbs - 357 feet of 1.75"OD / 0.095" Wall 1018 / 1020 mild steel tubing; $332.01 at Stock Car Steel's website (we'll probably use more than one diameter of tubing for weight optimization, but this is the largest and most expensive stuff we'll use)
200lbs - Ford F-250 window glass ( 2 front windshields and 4 front passenger windows; we're going to use suicide doors for the rear to latch both doors to the pillar between the front and rear row of seats )
225lbs - 5 full size steel wheels and tires
104lbs - 4 lightweight Mazda Miata brake assemblies
72lbs - 6 NRG padded GFRP full-headrest bucket racing seats built to accept 4 or 5 point harnesses $1,860
30lbs - 6 Braum Racing 4-Point Harness (latch still operates like a normal passenger car seat belt) $600
200lbs - 121hp Harley-Davidson Milwaukee-8 131cid V-twin engine and transmission
60lbs - Ford Mustang Lightweight Manual Steering Column and Rack
9lbs - EPA / CARB compliant 12 gallon polymer fuel tank
72lbs - 12 gallons of gasoline
16lbs - All-steel door hardware (interior / exterior handles, locks, and latching mechanisms)
40lbs - Unidirectional Carbon or Kevlar fabric (NOT composite) over foam panels for body panels / skins)
100lbs - Misc (headlights / tailights / blinkers / wiring / floor mats)

That puts us at 1,628lbs for a 6-seat wide body (as wide as a Ford F250) vehicle, meaning this vehicle will comfortably seat 6 passengers, 3-abreast. With a 700 pound load (mom and dad plus 4 kiddos), we're still at 104hp/ton. That's as good as or better than a 4,000 pound car with a V6 or battery electronic drive train and a 200hp engine. The NRG seats have a passenger weight limit of 240lbs or 265lbs, I forget which it is. You have electric window defrost and 2/40 AC, but no heat until I can devise a way to provide that without increasing weight too much. No radio, no electronic gimmicks, no "power everything", just a simple functional vehicle that burns a lot less gas idling in traffic, with reasonably peppy performance up to 75mph. We'll have to devise some mechanical hardware to manually adjust seat height and throttle / brake pedals to accommodate differently-sized drivers.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2021-11-02 20:04:09

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#27 2021-11-03 13:42:33

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#28 2021-11-03 18:51:08

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#29 2021-11-03 19:16:08

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#30 2021-11-03 19:37:55

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#31 2021-11-03 20:04:26

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#32 2021-11-03 20:49:43

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#33 2021-11-03 21:15:42

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#34 2021-11-04 10:07:48

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#35 2021-11-04 18:52:43

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#36 2021-11-04 20:55:57

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#37 2021-11-08 05:48:45

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#38 2021-11-08 08:17:15

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#39 2021-11-10 11:24:14

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#40 2021-11-10 18:37:02

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#41 2021-11-10 19:14:57

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#42 2021-11-10 19:32:43

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#43 2021-11-10 20:31:42

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#44 2021-11-11 07:14:38

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#45 2021-11-11 09:31:39

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#46 2021-11-11 10:35:45

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#47 2021-11-12 21:24:56

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#48 2021-11-13 05:49:10

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#49 2021-11-13 18:18:48

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

#50 2021-11-13 18:26:48

Re: Prometheus Fuels Lower Cost Than Fossil Fuels

Board footer