thomas201
Eastern Panhandle WV
Senior Member
Joined: 08/21/2014
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
 Offline
|
So much wheel spinning on EVs, what if they are not the right path forward? The biggest problem with renewable power and EVs is storage, the second is storage, and the third is storage. Another path is carbon capture from the atmosphere (using amine scrubbing like nuclear subs and carbon dioxide from natural gas) then splitting hydrogen from water, followed by building whatever hydrocarbon you need.
The US Navy is hard at work on this project, since it avoids storage of large amounts of jet fuel, and the difficult job of resupply of jet fuel at sea to the carriers. After all fire kills ships. The Fords were built with a very large excess electric generation capacity for this reason and many others.
Porsche now has a pilot project running in South America, Porsche syn fuel
This will work wherever you have cheap electricity and water. The products are put right into refinery feeds. No need to rebuild the approximately 1.5 Billion cars in the world. Solves storage, no worry about hydrogen embrittlement, recycles carbon dioxide, we use the existing liquid fuel distribution system. Transparent to the car/truck owner.
|
shelbyfv
TN
Senior Member
Joined: 02/18/2006
View Profile
|
Campfire?![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/huh.gif "huh")
|
pianotuna
Regina, SK, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 12/18/2004
View Profile
Offline
|
thomas201 wrote: Another path is carbon capture from the atmosphere (using amine scrubbing like nuclear subs and carbon dioxide from natural gas)
There is only one carbon capture commercial power plant in North America at Estevan Saskatchewan.
It is a 150 megawatt plant and uses 50 megawatts to run the carbon capture. It was designed to capture 65% of the CO2 but appears to miss that goal by a LOT--about 35 to 40% is captured. That is when it is working.
The CO is being sold to North Dakota to pressurize oil wells. The power company has faced fines for not meeting production targets.
There is a catalyst in use--and the fly ash from burning coal contaminates it.
Bottom line we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can.
Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, 556 amp-hours of Telcom jars, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.
|
thomas201
Eastern Panhandle WV
Senior Member
Joined: 08/21/2014
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
Them boys at the coal plant chose a poor technology. Better to scrub it and make calcium sulfate (sheetrock). Works fine at thousands of natural gas processing plants (me) and on subs (BIL, nephew and son). You always have to pick the right technology for the problem.
|
wildtoad
Blythewood, SC
Senior Member
Joined: 06/05/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
“ Bottom line we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can. ”
I’m still waiting on a plan detailing how the world is going to do that, but I’d settle for one for the USA. There has been little attention paid on how to replace all the products (thousands of them) that are dependent on oil, coal, nat gas. Replacing ICE cars and trucks is the low hanging fruit and will take 30-50 years to accomplish unless the fed’s require all ICE vehicles be taken off the road and/or gas/diesel stations be closed.
At the end of the day, assuming we are GROSS carbon neutral (none of the “net neutral” junk) Mother Nature is still going to go through warming/cooling cycles.
Tom Wilds
Blythewood, SC
2016 Newmar Baystar Sport 3004
2015 Jeep Wrangler 2dr HT
|
|
|
time2roll
Southern California
Senior Member
Joined: 03/21/2005
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
Not a low cost solution as stated in the link. Basic EV is going to be lower cost long into the future even if some applications will require liquid hydrocarbon fuel at higher cost.
2001 F150 SuperCrew
2006 Keystone Springdale 249FWBHLS
675w Solar pictures back up
|
blt2ski
Kirkland, Wa
Moderator
Joined: 03/15/2001
View Profile
Offline
|
One thing I've noticed. It takes many versions, ea getting things better to realize true progress.
Saw a comparison to Wright brothers plane, to walking in the moon. Took 66 years.
We have a few more years/decades for EV or hydrogen power to be truly usable etc like ICE rigs. I'm positive things will get there. When, not if.
Marty
92 Navistar dump truck, 7.3L 7 sp, 4.33 gears with a Detroit no spin
2014 Chevy 1500 Dual cab 4x4
92 Red-e-haul 12K equipment trailer
|
FishOnOne
The Great State of Texas
Senior Member
Joined: 02/12/2011
View Profile
Offline
|
blt2ski wrote:One thing I've noticed. It takes many versions, ea getting things better to realize true progress.
Saw a comparison to Wright brothers plane, to walking in the moon. Took 66 years.
We have a few more years/decades for EV or hydrogen power to be truly usable etc like ICE rigs. I'm positive things will get there. When, not if.
Marty
Battery technology has been around for decades and good progress has been made, but still lacks the energy density to store enough energy to tow loads the distance equivalent or better to ICE vehicles at highway speeds. Hydrogen fuel cells have been around longer than batteries and packaging density is an issue as well.
'12 Ford Super Duty FX4 ELD CC 6.7 PSD 400HP 800ft/lbs
"250k Miles"
'16 Sprinter 319MKS "Wide Body"
|
valhalla360
No paticular place.
Senior Member
Joined: 08/19/2009
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
The biggest issue with EVs is they keep trying to claim it can match ICE and then build overpriced models that exceed requirements while still failing to match ICE.
Probably 60-80% of light/medium duty trucks are used in daily runs of under 200 miles (often less than 100-150mile) and then go into a storage lot for many hours each night where it would be fairly simple to recharge them. That's well within the capability of EVs and the smaller you go with the battery, the closer it gets to the cost of an ICE.
Even if the Tesla 500mile semi turns out to be true, it's still not going to solve long haul trucking because you have to recharge it while the ICE trucks are back on the road making miles.
Carbon capture is really just a feel good green washing. On a scale to have a meaningful impact would be massive and the energy to power it would far exceed any benefits.
The best return on the dollar spent by a long shot is in increased efficiency but better windows and lights don't get snazzy marketing campaigns.
An important item people forget about is fuel is only a portion of what we use crude oil for. If we were to cut fuel consumption in half, all the other products that use oil as a feed stock would skyrocket in cost. Take asphalt concrete as an example. It's relatively cheap but we use a lot of it for building and refurbishing roads. If we cut the supply in half, road construction costs would probably quadruple. It would also cause more damage to cars/trucks as road maintenance is put off.
Tammy & Mike
Ford F250 V10
2021 Gray Wolf
Gemini Catamaran 34'
Full Time spliting time between boat and RV
|
Tvov
CT
Senior Member
Joined: 07/19/2003
View Profile
|
pianotuna wrote:
....
Bottom line we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can.
Why?
_________________________________________________________
2021 F150 2.7
2004 21' Forest River Surveyor
|
|
|
