Fixing Americas car industry

kbd512 · 2023-03-09 21:12:25

SpaceNut,

Our "next energy" looks an awful lot like a much smaller LFP cell (half of what's inside a normal Tesla) with a cell they've optimized for slowly charging the primary LFP battery (the claim of an "anode free" battery is directly contradicted by Our Next Energy's own indication that the anode is a very thin layer of Lithium, they simply use a different anode material not optimized for high discharge rate), which means after that first 150 miles, the car's ability to perform the way it does using LFP cells is significantly reduced. Durability is no better than the existing LFP cells.

What does Gemini weigh?

Why are all the pertinent details always missing when the manufacturer knows full well what those are?

I don't see any "fundamental reinvention" of the battery here. It's a LFP cell with a different kind of Lithium battery (higher gravimetric energy density by sacrificing power density) included along with a normal LFP used to actually power the vehicle. Their LFP technology is 150Wh/kg, and the same old cell chemistry that it's always been.

Liquid air heated to 0C is 140Wh/kg. If it's heated to 100C instead of 0C, it provides more power.

Our Next Energy's Aries II 103kWh LFP vehicle battery weighs 687kg. It was lovingly crafted with the finest child slave labor from Africa and China that communism can buy. For a small extra fee, your battery can arrive with little bits of dead children. As an added bonus, we'll ensure that you can never again drink the ground water where the metals for the battery were made.

Forget about liquid air, though. Let's talk about something far easier to store, like plain old hot water and a refrigerant loop containing something like Freon. This revolutionary new battery technology, Waterium-Hoton, uses an advanced Hydrogen-Oxygen chemistry cell. It's a competitor to Lithium-ion that costs about 3 pennies per US gallon here in Houston. It's non-toxic, can be added to your morning coffee or tea of choice, dishwasher safe, recyclable using an advanced new mechanical process called "draining the tank", and every day of the year Americans use more than 300 billion US gallons of it. It's sold in all grocery stores near you. In the event of a crash, Waterium-Hoton's advanced cell chemistry works to suppress fires.

Q = mc∆T
Q = 600kg * 4.184kJ * (100°C - 50°C)

50°C = Hottest temperature recorded in Arizona

At 50°C, Q = 125,520kJ = 34.9kWh
At 20°C, Q = 200,832 = 55.8kWh

As the ambient temperature goes down, Waterium-Hoton battery technology actually provides more usable energy. Don't be fooled by our competitors lame attempts to copy our patented hot water technology using their inferior H2Oium-Steamon cells. Waterium-Hoton provides superior energy density. Ask for it by name in stores near you.

SpaceNut · 2023-03-26 18:02:33

Some how I missed this post on "Waterium-Hoton" a term I had not heard of until you posted about it. Of course, the search returned Pokemon z information?

As far as the use of Freon I have seen expansion system generation of power from solar heat sources in the past so it similar to that in a way.

Of course, the current craze seems to be solar cells for an EV to make use of stuck all over the flat surfaces.
College students develop sun-powered car that literally ‘eats’ air pollution as it drives: ‘We pulled it off’

Then again, a name brand in the act is Kia is unveiling an all-new, solar-powered SUV with panels on its hood — here’s when you can get your hands on it

kbd512 · 2023-03-26 21:38:48

SpaceNut,

Lithium-ion battery technology is a mish-mash of Lithium, Cobalt, Manganese, Carbon, Aluminum or Copper, Iron, and plastic.

Waterium-Hoton battery technology uses very hot water, surrounded by a steel pressure vessel.

If you ever want to own an affordable EV that's built for people of ordinary means, then that's going to be a hot water tank and radiator assembly which drives a turbine to produce power. You put electricity into the water using an electrical resistance heater (a stainless steel wire inside the hot water tank). The water inside the tank gets really hot, around 250C, which is much hotter than the normal boiling point of water. A pipe containing an inert gas, such as Nitrogen or Carbon Dioxide, is run through the hot water tank to absorb heat energy from the hot water. That hot gas then flows through a radiator assembly, exchanging heat with the atmosphere, thus inducing flow into the gas. That flowing gas enters a power turbine to generate power to move the vehicle.

Waterium-Hoton battery technology uses abundant water and steel, which is both dishwasher-safe and non-toxic. The colder it gets, the more range your vehicle has. Waterium-Hoton batteries can be recharged an infinite number of times and always hold the exact same amount of charge, so long as the hot water is raised to the same initial operating temperature. Waterium-Hoton batteries self-discharge faster than Lithium-ion batteries, but unlimited cycle life makes this a non-issue.

A Waterium-Hoton battery can be drained of its charge until it's completely dead, an infinite number of times, with zero effect on subsequent vehicle range or battery life. So long as you can supply the electricity to reheat the hot water, Waterium-Hoton batteries will always be recharged to 100% of their initial rated capacity.

kbd512 · 2023-03-27 08:40:22

You cannot keep sinking 100 barrels of oil, in the form of natural gas and diesel fuel, into making metals-based batteries that store 1 barrel of oil in terms of equivalent energy. There isn't enough oil on the planet to do that. To replace oil consumption using batteries equates to consuming 100 years of oil production / consumption, at present rates, for a complete replacement of oil and gas with batteries. Unlike oil extraction, which allows you to extract more oil, extracting metals for batteries doesn't allow you to extract more metal to make more batteries. None of the machines that run on batteries are sufficiently powerful to extract metals at the rates required to actually build an inventory of battery metals. That's why all of those mining machines run on diesel fuel. We've had batteries longer than internal combustion engines and the people who run mines are not stupid. If running all of their machinery on batteries could reduce production costs, they'd do it without a second thought.

SpaceNut · 2023-04-09 14:05:27

Electric Vehicles Aren’t the Climate Change Solution we Were Promised

There are other downsides to the EV revolution that go beyond pollution. Private electric vehicles are expensive to buy at a time when more Americans are below the poverty line than ever. Worse yet, government spending on EV infrastructure has diminished the focus on more wide-reaching mobility solutions.
Even the most sustainably-sourced EV takes up more physical space and resources than robust public transportation infrastructure. The problem with this lies in its inefficiency. Forcing buyers to choose between overpriced electric vehicles and underfunded public transportation isn’t just environmentally short-sighted, it further divides the haves from the have-nots.
Dependence on private vehicles is a detriment to our people, economy, and environment, whether those vehicles use gasoline or electricity. The solution to this problem isn’t a simple one – but it doesn’t have to be.

We know that all electric vehicles are not the answer and that part of the solution is lower carbon fuels.
We also need to educate on battery safety and disconnecting for crashes to junk yards.

Company devises ingenious plan to use old lithium-ion batteries from broken-down EVs: ‘These batteries work very well’

Batteries that once powered Hondas and Nissans can now contribute to the California power grid. The old EV batteries can charge up to 85% of their original capacity. It’s a unique way to maximize renewable sunlight and utilize the growing amount of EV batteries entering the market. The company is working to include Chevy and Tesla battery packs in the system. There’s a layer of technology in place, including software, that can work with the different batteries. Safety is among the chief concerns.
B2U’s system is called SEPV Sierra, which uses the company’s patented tech to successfully reuse about 1,300 batteries, Electrek reported in February. Last year, this process generated more than $1 million in revenue from sunlight power sold back to the grid.

tahanson43206 · 2023-04-09 14:23:43

For SpaceNut re #305 and use of retired automobile batteries ...

It is good to see the revenue fed back into the grid, but I'm curious to know how far the investors are from breaking even.

The investor community takes bets all the time, but some have to pay off to allow the cycle to continue.

My guess is that this niche has a chance of success, because there are going to be a steady flow of batteries retiring from mobility service.

If Mars_B4_Moon catches this request, please keep a watch for news about this particular company / technology.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-04-09 14:40:37

This is the basis for Elons power wall

https://www.b2uco.com/

just built with used lesser cost to construction parts

RobertDyck · 2023-04-09 15:10:11

SpaceNut: There are other battery technologies. For stationary use, there are deep-cycle batteries that don't use lithium. They're heavier, but that doesn't matter for stationary use. These other technologies permit deeper cycle (deeper discharge), longer life, and lower unit cost. Battery technology has come a long way, it isn't mature yet, so it's still changing.

SpaceNut · 2023-04-09 17:18:37

Agreed there many types in the rechargeable realm.

https://www.technologyreview.com/topic/ … echnology/

10 Most Advanced Battery Technologies That Will Power the Future

One-minute battery swaps are spurring EV adoption in Asia

Similar to bbq propane tank exchange.

kbd512 · 2023-04-09 18:33:43

SpaceNut,

We can have EVs, but they can't be made from non-abundant or incredibly energy-intensive stuff that we simply do not have enough of. If we find a large asteroid almost entirely comprised of a Lithium-rich ore, then maybe we have the material if we can work out how to grab it and bring it back to Earth. Extracting Lithium from sea water requires even more energy than present methods, which must come from somewhere.

I keep trying to steer this idea / conversation towards abundant materials and simple methods which don't require strip mining or clear-cutting the planet, but we keep going right back to dead-end electro-chemical batteries which don't last long enough to matter and probably never will within our lifetimes. Electronics and electro-chemical batteries are limited-life devices which tend to work perfectly or not at all. Due to how we presently make battery packs, and especially electronics, the entire device has to be scrapped. That's the unsustainable part.

Powering a flashlight, laptop, cell phone, or intermittent use power tool using a battery is one thing. Trying to power motor vehicles and entire electric grids using batteries is something else entirely. It's not feasible to do using existing resources and technology. We need viable substitutes, or this electric-everything fantasy won't happen. Furthermore, EV ("Electric Vehicle") needs to actually mean what it stands for. All the present EVs are Electronic Vehicles. Electronic Vehicles are not sustainable. A car used to drive to work and get groceries containing more microchips than a supercomputer, along with an extreme multiple of the total lines of software that the Space Shuttle required, is pure nonsense.

tahanson43206 · 2023-04-09 19:31:54

For kbd512 re topic but not about batteries....

Your creativity sometimes yields memorable posts ....

Here is a snippet that I am offering in support of a proposition that might not be feasible... an all-plastic automobile with a few diamond parts ...

Diamond Bearings 101 | ChampionX
www.championx.com › diamond-technologies-education › diamond-beari...
Diamond bearings consist of precision machined polycrystalline diamond surfaces that run relative one to another. In operation diamond bearings may act as dry ...

It is perfectly understandable for an engineer on Earth to consider metal for structures such as axles, because metal is relatively abundant at the present time.

However, 3D Printers are coming along at a fast pace, and attempts have already been made to 3D Print components of cars, such as the outer body panels.

The challenge I'm tossing out is for anyone in the forum who might like the challenge, to design a serviceable family vehicle (or a farm vehicle as a precursor) that is made entirely out of plastic or pure carbon.

Set aside the challenges of making parts for the moment. What I'm inviting is creativity around the theme of an all-plastic/carbon automobile able to carry a family of four 500 miles through rain, snow, summer heat and a side trip on a gravel road.

Some members of this forum have railed against modern conveniences like wind shield wipers and latching door handles. This is an opportunity to design a vehicle that is serviceable and made without metals.

(th)

kbd512 · 2023-04-10 02:24:11

tahanson43206,

My response presumes that total cost matters to some degree, so material selections were made based upon them already being used for or suitable for a specific application. The vehicle in question has to be a fully functional passenger vehicle. That means advanced composites or engineering plastics will be used only when cheaper materials have too many undesirable characteristics. Any use of novel materials or fabrication methods is limited by cost.

Chassis / Passenger Compartment / Doors / Hood / Trunk: PET honeycomb panels mixed with chopped Carbon Fiber reinforcement / fiber-filled plastic (not a fiber fabric based composite which uses epoxy resins, which is both very costly and very time-consuming to produce; Chrysler Corporation has proven these bodies can be popped out of an injection mold in less than 3 minutes, ready for assembly)

Windows: Lexan / polycarbonate (already used in cars outside of America, but also for race cars and aircraft) with embedded CNT wiring heating elements for defrosting (American regulations for highway cars requires the use of tempered safety glass with a bonded Copper resistive heating element, but other countries use Lexan and some kind of tough plastic coating to contain shards of Lexan)

Windshield Wipers: Nylon arms and blade holders, rubber blades (as-is conventional design, albeit some wiper arms are still made from coated steel or Aluminum instead of nylon; neither is less functional or less costly to produce, so it seems to come down to manufacturer preference and/or cost to them from their specific supplier, but I've seen both used)

Wiper Motors: A small low-pressure air compressor / air piston connected to the engine which pressurizes a solenoid cylinder that flips the windshield wiper arm back-and-forth (Corvettes from the early 1980s or late 1970s used a vacuum-based system to operate lots of accessory systems on the vehicle, such as the windshield wipers and pop-up headlights)

Light Bodies: Polycarbonate lenses and nylon bodies with a Mylar internal coating to reflect light (as-is solution)
Lights: CNT-based liquid polymer LEDs or OLEDs (not presently used for vehicle lights)
Wiring for Lights: CNT with Tefzel / ETFE insulator (CNT is novel conductor, but Tefzel is a very common insulator for aircraft wiring)

Wheels: CFRP (this is still mostly race car technology slowly making its way into road-legal sports cars and high-end luxury cars), center-lock design using a CF-filled PEEK lock / retainer (to provide the toughness required of the mechanism locking the wheel to the axle)

Suspension: CFRP axles / shock absorber bodies / tie rods / control arms / disc springs (in place of coil springs), PTFE bushings

Tires and Door / Trunk Seals: synthetic rubber mixed with Carbon black (the "as-is" solution)

Brakes: RCC (Reinforced Carbon-Carbon; also still predominantly used in race cars and aircraft, but many sports cars now use them and the price is coming down; superior to Iron for heat dissipation rate and weight, which is why aircraft and race cars use them)

Door / Hood / Trunk Latches: CF-filled PEEK ( instead of having one steel latching stud, we would either use multi-point locking mechanisms or much larger bearing surfaces, meaning a door latching stud might be as big as your thumb and the latch itself would also need to be much larger)

Seats: CFRP for weight reduction, aerogel plastic foam padding, nylon fabric (these are all existing commercial products, sometimes combined into one product and available as aftermarket seats for racing or sports cars)
Seat Belts: Nylon (as-is solution)
Seat Belt Latches: Nylon friction locks instead of metal latches (the seat belt no longer works quite the same way, in that it doesn't latch closed per se, rather it's snugged about your body after wrapping around a stud or cleat secured to the seat itself; this allows for some movement, but then a friction lock restrains the occupant from further movement- same basic concept as a dog leash that chokes the dog if it tries to pull you over, but different execution)
Sound Deadening: polymerized aerogel foam (not presently used in cars, but used in some aircraft)

Bearing Surfaces: PTFE or PEEK
Bearings and Bearing Races: RCC
Bearing Lubricants: PTFE laden greases

Engine (massively de-rated Wankel design or Liquid Piston inverted Wankel, so a Mazda 13b-sized engine that makes 50hp at most):
Polysulfone engine block with RCC liners (the bearing surface)
Rotor: RCC with RCC seals
Eccentric Shaft: CF-filled PEEK
Gearing: CF-filled PEEK (there are gears on the rotors and side plates in the Mazda design)
Spark plugs: RCC body and insulator with a CNT electrode
Intake Manifold: Nylon or polypropylene (as-is solution)
Hoses: EPDM rubber (as-is solution)
Radiator: CF-filled Nylon with free Carbon Fibers embedded into the plastic to transfer heat (NASA's lightweight radiator design)
Oil Pan: CF-filled Nylon (as-is solution from a growing number of automotive manufacturers)

Transmission Casing: CF-filled PEEK
Transmission Gearing: CF-filled PEEK
Shifting: Pneumatic tap-shifter

Fuel Tank: HDPE (as-is solution for nearly all OEMs these days)
Fuel: gasoline (as-is solution)

The engine (at least $50,000 worth of RCC), brakes (about $20,000 per set), and transmission (CF-filled PEEK is very expensive) would each cost as much as an entire car based upon the insistence of not using any metal. The rest of the materials would cost less than an equivalent amount of metal. The chassis, accessory systems, lights, and wiring are all both doable and economically favorable. CFRP wheels cost about $10,000 per set, but they're about half the weight of Aluminum. Your car would be exceptionally light for its size, but it's also using quite a bit of aerospace or racing technology that's still not remotely affordable for the average consumer. Getting rid of the requirement to eliminate all metal from the engine, transmission, and brakes would make the car drastically less expensive.

SpaceNut · 2023-04-23 14:40:40

So much for the fancy Telsa EV vehicles as EV Charging So Bad In CA Owner Goes Back to Gas: Here’s Why

I'm ready to trade in my electric car. Here's why

New project aims to change how we power EV batteries forever: ‘The biggest source of lithium carbonate in the US’

kbd512 · 2023-04-23 16:10:52

SpaceNut,

Up to this point in human history, all energy sources are additive in nature. They increase or augment energy consumption. They do not decrease energy consumption at all. The only people who think otherwise are either intellectually dishonest or their scope of thinking / consideration doesn't extend beyond the tailpipe of the vehicle. Creating all the Copper, Cobalt, Aluminum, Lithium, Carbon, steel, and electronics for these new battery electronic vehicles doesn't reduce energy consumption one little bit. That is why the cost keeps going up. Energy, regardless of source, costs real money to generate and store.

I've heard multiple honest and real intellectuals (people with advanced engineering / science / ecology degrees who work in industry), some of whom actually design and sell photovoltaic or wind turbine or battery pack installations, state the exact same thing Calliban and I have been stating. The overriding goal behind government mandates for battery electronic vehicles and photovoltaics and wind turbines is to price the poorer people out of the energy market entirely. They know this is what will happen and they don't care. It's a ll a bout controlling every aspect of the economy, energy usage, and who gets to participate.

This is why people in the Biden administration just laugh at people who ask them where the power and materials are supposed to come from or refuse to even respond to questions. Those people know what their actual objectives are, and the part they won't say out loud is that their intent is to ensure that only the wealthy people have energy availability. This is why people like John Kerry never practice what they preach. He thinks he's better than you and deserves to travel around in a private jet and limousine while all those "little people" can either come up with the money for a battery electronic vehicle or walk. You will own nothing and be happy. Everything else is a smoke screen for that statement of their beliefs about people and energy. They don't care about ecology or lifting everyone up. They're quite content with that state of affairs, because they don't view poorer people as being "worthy" of existing.

There's a specific "order of business" to electrification.

1. Figure out how to generate enough input electrical power without running out of raw materials.

2. Figure out how to mine / refine / transport those materials without going gangbusters on emissions or destruction of the natural environment.

3. Figure out how to electrify the entire grid without running out of materials or energy.

4. After Steps #1 through #3 are completed, then figure out how to electrify transportation, because the physics of how this works or doesn't work hasn't changed and never will. As Calliban stated, back in the real world electric vehicles are trains / trolleys / cable cars. Road cars / trucks / ships / aircraft are the mos technologically challenging applications, so those should've been addressed last.

5. While Generation #1 of this electrification technology is in the process of breaking down, there must be a plan for developing and deploying Generation #2, without the benefit of all the energy and resources consumed to create Generation #1. This is where ultimate sustainability comes into play.

The failure to follow that rather simple but profound "Order of Business Plan" is what has led to the wildly unsustainable solutions presented, such as burning wood and corn Ethanol and calling that "green", electronics laden with toxic chemicals, various non-recyclable amalgamations of materials required for wind turbine blades / photovoltaics / electro-chemical batteries, and policies which deliberately attempt to exclude poorer people from having access to badly needed energy.

What's been presented thus far looks an awful lot like a "we're going to control every aspect of your life plan". Some people want to be told what to do under every conceivable scenario, because they're looking for a government / corporate structure to take care of them, as if they're still children. Some of us know that whatever is in the best interest of someone we've never met, is probably not also in our best interests. A lot of the disagreement about what to do stems from this aspect of "The Plan". This assumes that there is some kind of "Master Plan", which is more sophisticated than "let's kill all of the poor people". I don't think there is, which is what bothers me.

I think cars should be an affordable personal belonging for everyone who wants to own one. As such, I think they should be durable, reasonably efficient, and long-lasting. One of my personal goals is to determine how to do that using electricity. I don't think an ever-increasing amount of electronics and electro-chemical batteries are the answer. I think delicate and high-embodied energy materials which pose extreme challenges for recycling are technological dead-ends when it comes to storing energy for motorized transport.

With respect to battery electronic vehicles, I've seen three things meaningfully increase in my lifetime:
1. Realistically achievable range under ideal operating conditions
2. Overall vehicle complexity
3. Increase in total cost in absolute terms (materials / energy / labor)

Electronics have followed a different route because miniaturization of electronic components became possible:
1. Realistically achievable computing power
2. Overall complexity
3. Decrease in total cost in absolute terms (materials / energy / labor)

Motorized transport devices are not computers. What applies to computers is not applicable to transportation. It's always been that simple.

SpaceNut · 2023-04-23 16:44:45

Even if you only consider 60% of US population in that area of energy poor being priced out; that would cause the US to fail as we creep into not being able to work and requiring more help than the US can afford to give in all of its programs. Meaning that less will be contributing taxation towards these programs.

kbd512 · 2023-04-23 19:02:02

SpaceNut,

Exactly. The current "plan" (all of the Democrats and at least half of the Republicans) is deliberate demolition of the American industrial economy. At some point, we must acknowledge that it's not stupidity on the part of our politicians. Their actions amount to deliberately subversive criminal activity intended to destroy America from within. If it was sheer stupidity at play, then by random chance at least some of their policies would accidentally reduce the cost of living and ease the burden on the average American citizen. None of their policies have done any such thing, so it's deliberate destruction. They're criminal subversives. We need to treat them that way unless and until their actions demonstrate otherwise.

Why do politicians need to be forced to do the right thing? Almost all of them don't have any tangential connection to what it means to be an average / ordinary American trying to navigate their way through life. That's why. They get elected by hook or by crook, they go up there, and almost all of them are immediately corrupted by the cabal of criminals who are the only permanent part of "the American system". The media, which is bought and paid for by the same corporate interests who fund their campaigns, are in on it. Ever seen CNN or Fox News provide any real pushback on America starting our next war or mass usage of experimental medical technology without informed consent? No? Me neither. They get off on that because they're psychotic. Every so often someone develops a conscience, but then their only option is to quit. That's why I quit watching all of them, for the most part. I'm not playing along with this obvious farce / pack of lies, regardless of which political party holds power. They're a bunch of evil conniving lying thieves with megalomania, and they're hellbent on ruining America. If they want to prove otherwise, then they can quit engaging in the activities that ruin us.

SpaceNut · 2023-04-24 18:37:39

We thought that Telsa was going to be the answer but being an expensive toy as it came from Elon Musk but it's corrupted in just the same way as all of the others. These manufacturing companies care nothing about volume just an equation of sales for profit.

kbd512 · 2023-04-25 11:51:16

SpaceNut,

They care about selling you on their idea. Whether the idea has merit, or not, is irrelevant to them. They want you to buy into it- lock, stock, and barrel. Why would anyone ever believe Elon Musk or Tesla or SpaceX is any different? They're in business to sell a product and make a profit. I've yet to see an altruistic company. It's all about the money. It always has been. Anyone who thought otherwise was only deluding themselves. To what end? That's what I'd love to know. Why is some specific idea more appealing than actual reality?

I could care less if anyone else copied every good idea I ever had, verbatim, and made billions of dollars with it. That's probably why I'll never be a millionaire or billionaire. The money is irrelevant to me. Too little causes problems, but so does too much. I want the usable / affordable / sustainable end product. I'm not interested in all the nonsense related to sales. There's almost nothing that I've ever bought from anyone based upon what they said to me- maybe a friend recommending a dish he thought was good from a restaurant, but that's as far as it goes.

I'm trying to determine if there's anyone else out there, besides myself or Calliban, who understands that we can have some of these nice things, like electric cars, at more affordable prices, but we need to be very realistic about what we're asking for and very deliberate in how they're built and operated to see any net benefit.

I can't drop another $50K to $100K on a battery electronic car. My days of spending mad money on cars are over. The money I have is now tied up in my house and solar array. I can't even think about retirement because the job market and stock market keep wiping us out. It's not as if I can go, "Ta Da! Electric car purchased. Nirvana achieved.", either. Reality quite clearly doesn't work that way. Every time my wife or I acquire a new machine, it's a new bill, a new set of annoyances, and a new set of problems to solve and things to learn about. I never owned a pool before moving into this house, nor did I ever want one. After we bought the house, I had to learn about pools. Sometimes having it is a lot of fun, but most of the time (about 99% if we're being honest) it's just extra work and money.

Anyway, that's why I value simple but low cost things that happen to work, and the machines are not objects of affection for me. I like it when they work, as anyone would, but they're annoyances more often than not. Buying into something more expensive and complex and less able to be repaired does not rank very high on my list of priorities right now.

Calliban · 2023-04-25 15:35:33

The thing that prevents Greens and like minded idealists from ever achieving anything practical is ideological purism. You could build these people a car that gets 100+ mpg over its lifetime. Let's say we use a blend of synfuel and fossil diesel as well and reduce overall emissions by 90%. They still won't want it because it isn't the elegant 100%, ideologically pure solution that they want. Instead of settling on 90% of something, they would rather have 100% of nothing. That is the way these people think. It is a spiritual quest for them. It is why they would never be satisfied getting energy from nuclear reactors, no matter how safe they were or however closed the fuel cycle is. It isn't a perfect solution from their point of view, hence it is no good at all.

What ends up happening is that the world continues to use technologies that are past their sell by date, like coal burning powerplants, whilst we all wait for Greens to build their ideologically perfect solutions. These solutions are never practical in real life. The Greens therefore end up perpetuating problems like climate change, by pushing unworkable energy and transport solutions and refusing to accept compromises that do not satisfy their 'feelings'. So dirty and unsustainable stuff ends up getting used for longer while we all wait for things to get bad enough for these people to pull their heads out of their asses. There are tentative signs that this might actually be hapoening in some European countries. But the German Greens are determined to test their ideas to destruction.

Getting back to the topic of road vehicles. One technology that we havn't heard much about lately is the free piston ICE. This received quire a lot of attention when oil prices went to the moon prior to the shale revolution and zero interest rate policy. It woukd have been a very light and power-dense spark ignitiin engine. I suspect this has been sidelined because car companies are caught in the headlights of the brilliant but ultimately doomed idea of an all-electric automotive future. But cost, resource shortages and environmental impact of mining, tells us that the all-electric dream is even less sustainable than the hydrocarbons it is intending to replace. What is needed in practice is a solution that achieves reductions in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, whilst also maintaining affordability and avoiding unsustainable metal resource demands. The best option that I can see is some kind of hybrid. We could do this without any need for battery technology. An onboard flywheel could store enough energy for short trips and power the vehicle drive train hydraulically. The lightweight, free piston ICE would charge the flywheel when its energy dropped beneath a preset minimum. When the vehicle parks, the flywheel could be charged using an electrical supply, or even using LP compressed aur from a mechanical wind turbine.

This is a non-electric hybrid solution, that could none-the-less achieve a very large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Given that most car journeys are short, stored energy in the flywheel could provide the power source for the majority of the miles driven by the vehicle over its lifetime. The reduced amount of fuel that is consumed by the ICE, could be synthetic fuel produced from captured CO2 or liquid ammonia.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-04-25 16:02:01)

tahanson43206 · 2023-04-25 18:27:23

For Calliban re #319 and specifically the flywheel concept ...

A rotating flywheel would have a pronounced gyroscopic effect if it were mounted in anything other than a three axis gimballed mount.

What physical dimensions and mass would you estimate would be required to store energy for a family car to travel 50 miles in a day?

Would a volume of a cubic meter be sufficient?

Where would you mount the flywheel assembly in the vehicle?

(th)

Calliban · 2023-04-26 02:31:34

TH, the most often touted solution for dealing with the gyroscopic effect of flywheels is to couple two counter-rotating units together. This provides a unit with no net angular momentum. The energy storage density really depends upon what the flywheel is made of. Wiki gives a value of 5.3MJ/litre, presumably for a carbon fibre composite flywheel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

I think real systems will have much lower energy density. This is something that works much better as part of a hybrid drive system, where the flywheel can capture braking energy and provide launch assist. Flywheel powered 'gyro' buses have been used in the past. These used alloy steel flywheels and charged up the flywheel at regular bus stops. This avoids the cost of electrifying the entire bus route with trolley cables. However, historical vehicles were quite heavy which pushed up energy consumption per km. With glass or carbon fibre flywheels, we could do much better today. Wood epoxy laminates are also an option that provides better energy density than steel, due to superior specific strength.

If we wanted a mass producable vehicle that could get people across town (50km range) without straining the Earth's resources to breaking point, then flywheels are a strong contender. Fibre wound spindle flywheels do not produce large fragments when they fail. Instead, we end up with a container full of molten sand. Flywheels are capable of very rapid charging and have effective lifetimes of 100,000 - 10 million cycles. It is likely that the car would wear out before the flywheel. This makes flywheels a much better investment than batteries for automotive and grid energy storage.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-04-26 02:43:02)

tahanson43206 · 2023-04-26 06:25:43

For Calliban re flywheel energy storage ....

The bearings used for flywheels mounted as you described would be subject to torque as the vehicle moves in the real world.

The counter rotating design reminds me immediately of one of the competing Large Ship designs!

kbd512 wrote a series of posts about a design for a spin off of Large Ship that had habitats counter rotating on a common axle. The bearings for that design could be supplemented by magnetic force at the outer rim, so that the torque on the bearings is less severe than it would otherwise be.

My design for a spinoff of Large Ship was based upon a design by a Spanish Professor for a balanced gyroscope system with the two counter rotating habitats mounted on parallel axles held in place by an external framework. Once again, the torque on the bearings could be reduced by applying magnetic force at the rims of the habitats.

In the earlier posts on this subject, you have hinted that you thought the systems could be built without an electric component. I hope you will develop those ideas further.

At the same time, it seems quite reasonable to employ electricity as the mechanism to spin up flywheels for this application, and to draw energy from the store.
By using electricity you would reduce the number of moving parts, and since electric driven wheels are now well established in the market place, your flywheel replacement for the existing battery packs your flywheel concept could be installed as a direct replacement for batteries.

In any case, I hope that a member finds the time to develop this idea further, including developing and building small test systems that could be demonstrated in a working model car. This forum is chock full of ideas, but very little (that I know of) has moved beyond speculation and hand waving.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-04-26 06:33:08

For Calliban (primarily - others welcome)

The idea of using flywheels for energy storage for existing electric vehicle designs is an extension that might make sense in the existing market place.

Flywheels can hold energy to supplement a battery. Power can be drawn from a flywheel system until it is exhausted, at which point the battery would still be available to get the vehicle home or to a charging station.

It should be possible to build a table of comparisons of flywheel vs battery storage systems of various kinds.

The risk of destruction (RUD) of the flywheel is (or can be) comparable to the risk of fire in a battery system.

Any energy storage system has risks. The risks must be recognized and handled appropriately.

(th)

kbd512 · 2023-04-26 10:17:22

tahanson43206,

A "spin-off" of the large ship design...

I like that. It was merely an acknowledgement that gyroscopic precession is real and powerful when it comes to an object of that mass spinning in space. RobertDyck seemed to want to ignore the issue, but I calculated the force generated by the ship and it was huge, would've required an extreme amount of stabilizing gyro electrical input power to overcome. I proposed an alternative, not because I wanted an alternative design or disliked his design or wanted to call it "my design", but because reality would make it impractical. Ownership is very important to some people, but having a functional solution is what's most important to me. I lost interest because it was clear we weren't talking about a practical design any longer. In short, I loved his design, but physics gets a vote over what works and what doesn't. Practical engineering drives what will work the way you want it to. At least acknowledge that fact.

I like the flywheel design even more than my proposals, because it will be more efficient. I also note the historical problems we had with these power delivery systems for mobile applications. Materials to contain a flywheel failure are still required, regardless of what the flywheel is made from. Kevlar could drastically reduce the weight of the containment system. A flywheel could very well be worth the trade-offs. Flywheel powered electric vehicles were used as far back as the 1950s in the form of city buses. They could only travel a few blocks before they needed to be recharged, so the routes they could travel were strictly limited. CFRP change how far a flywheel powered vehicle can go. There was no commercial use of CFRP in the 1950s and 1960s when this was first tried, so the flywheels were steel or Aluminum. To get significant energy density (50km of range), you still need considerable flywheel mass and extreme flywheel speeds. Any slight manufacturing defect will result in failures. Testing CFRP structures for voids or defects (places where the resin didn't properly bond the CF together requires some fairly expensive tools, but an automotive manufacturer can easily afford them. Custom CFRP bike frame shops can afford them, for example.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-04-28 05:45:18

Colorado governor signs tractor right-to-repair law opposed by John Deere

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 … ohn-deere/

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2023-03-09 21:12:25

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#302 2023-03-26 18:02:33

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#303 2023-03-26 21:38:48

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#304 2023-03-27 08:40:22

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#305 2023-04-09 14:05:27

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#306 2023-04-09 14:23:43

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#307 2023-04-09 14:40:37

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#308 2023-04-09 15:10:11

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#309 2023-04-09 17:18:37

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#310 2023-04-09 18:33:43

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#311 2023-04-09 19:31:54

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#312 2023-04-10 02:24:11

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#313 2023-04-23 14:40:40

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#314 2023-04-23 16:10:52

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#315 2023-04-23 16:44:45

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#316 2023-04-23 19:02:02

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#317 2023-04-24 18:37:39

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#318 2023-04-25 11:51:16

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#319 2023-04-25 15:35:33

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#320 2023-04-25 18:27:23

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#321 2023-04-26 02:31:34

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#322 2023-04-26 06:25:43

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#323 2023-04-26 06:33:08

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#324 2023-04-26 10:17:22

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#325 2023-04-28 05:45:18

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

Board footer