www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You




Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI News/Tech

TDI News/Tech This Forum is for the posting of TDI news related items.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 23rd, 2018, 22:47   #136
nwdiver
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Eunice
Fuel Economy: 320wh/mi; ~90mpge
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [486] View Post
And now I just spent two hours bumbling around wikipedia
great

Says 1% at 700KV but 5% at 250kv, which would be pretty dang significant from africa to northern finland (where it's night for all of winter)
no info on what the major distribution voltages are in europe, though I'd imagine they're as bad about standardization as every other human being is.
Glad I was able to kill a little misinformation

For transcontinental transmission... if that ever makes sense. HVDC can be used. It has losses of ~3% per 1000km. But we have a LONG way to go before local generation exceeds local demand to the point that electricity travels >500km before being consumed...

Like I said. Most losses occur in conversion HV => LV or AC => DC; NOT distance.
nwdiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 00:16   #137
turbobrick240
Veteran Member
 
turbobrick240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: maine
Default

Yeah, China is using 1100 kV HVDC transmission lines on some massive hydro electric projects far away from major population centers. Lots of advantages to hvdc for long distance and underground/water power transmission.
turbobrick240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 01:36   #138
Dan C.
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: WA
Default

I had a Tesla Model S for awhile. Didn't like the intrusion Tesla has with the car. Felt like it never was *my* car; I was only borrowing it from daddy.

Sold it to a friend, he got in a wreck--not his fault--and Tesla bricked it. Turned it off. The drama surrounding getting 'made whole again' by the at fault's insurance company was 11 months. 11 months and no way to even buy it back and fix it himself. Tesla refused to allow access to technical data and refused to sell the parts.

Makes VW kinda look like Santa Claus, really.

Not to mention the elephant in the room--how do we build and discard all these batteries?
__________________
'97 B4 Passat 397k sold!
'09 Jetta 6M 200k VW bought back Jan '17!
'05 E320 CDI fast fast, wrecked! rebuilding into a project hot rod

'15 Passat SEL Premium DSG
Dan C. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 01:44   #139
nwdiver
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Eunice
Fuel Economy: 320wh/mi; ~90mpge
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan C. View Post
Not to mention the elephant in the room--how do we build and discard all these batteries?
... not much of an 'elephant' really... and orders of magnitude easier than the problems posed by our petrol addiction...

Where Batteries are born

How Batteries are reborn .... eventually... since... Tesla Batteries Last Forever (Basically)


Last edited by nwdiver; October 24th, 2018 at 02:02.
nwdiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 06:50   #140
wxman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: East TN, USA
TDI(s): Other Diesel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwdiver View Post
'Our long-term North American agreements with waste services companies ensure us a consistent supply of MSW feedstock, which eliminates the pricing volatility in our feedstock.'

That's the asterisk in this plan. Globally we use 80M barrels of oil. That's 3.2B. BILLION with a B gallons of hydrocarbons... EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. Diverting Municipal waste to fuel won't even scratch the surface of that addiction. It's a distraction... not a solution....
MSW is just one example of non-fossil feedstock.

One study took a look at costs for FT diesel fuel from biomass. According to that study, production costs would be roughly equivalent to current production costs for fossil diesel fuel (~$2.10/gallon, pre-tax) at sufficient scale. The cost of feedstock was assumed to be $61.20/dry ton of biomass.

According to NREL, there is the potential of nearly 500M tons of waste biomass by 2022 at <$60/dry ton (agriculture wastes and forest wastes ("logging residues and other removals, unused primary mill residues, secondary mill residues, and urban wood waste"), Tables 2&3).

Based on the yield of the Red Rock Biofuels' FTD process (15.1M gallons from 136,000 dry tons of forest wastes, or about 111 gallons/dry ton), there is sufficient waste biomass feedstock to produce over 50B gallons/year of FTD fuel, which would be cost-competitive with fossil diesel.

This doesn't include the Fulcrum municiple-waste-to-fuels, which could amount to as much as 15B gallons/year extrapolated across all landfill wastes in the U.S. And if algae becomes cost-competitive, you can add another potential 50B gallons/year. That's just production in the U.S.

According to EIA, total U.S. consumption of middle distillate (diesel, jet fuel, and home heating oil) is about 88B gallons/year, if my math is correct. So there is *potentially* enough biomass to displace a large portion of fossil middle distillate fuels at competitive prices without ANY crop oils whatsoever, and without federal tax incentives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwdiver View Post
URL="http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/study-msw-waste-us-energy-potential/"]If 100% of MSW was diverted to energy it would cover ~12% of our electricity needs. Converting to liquid hydrocarbons is even less efficient. It's a distraction.[/URL]
So you're against utilizing MSW for fuel even if it significantly reduces the rate wastes are being landfilled just because it's a "distraction"?
wxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 10:09   #141
flee
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Fuel Economy: 40-ish
Default

That nwdiver pointed out a meaningful fact doesn't make him 'against' anything, IMO.
__________________
2002 Jetta GLS TDI wagon, 2012 Audi A3 TDI S-Line
flee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 10:15   #142
nwdiver
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Eunice
Fuel Economy: 320wh/mi; ~90mpge
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
So you're against utilizing MSW for fuel even if it significantly reduces the rate wastes are being landfilled just because it's a "distraction"?
No... by all means... use all of it. Utilize the crap out of it (literally). But the first place it needs to go is the sector not easily electrified which is aviation. And the aviation sector alone would absorb all of the biofuel we can cost effectively produce without even noticing it was ever there.

The point is that it's not a viable alternative to electrifying transportation if we have any desire at ACTUALLY address our addiction to oil. The numbers simply aren't there. It's a distraction to maintain the status quo.

First Principles; Which energy source(s) should we tap? Electrifying transportation also carries the bonus of instantly reducing the energy cost per mile by ~70%....




Last edited by nwdiver; October 24th, 2018 at 10:52.
nwdiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 17:42   #143
wxman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: East TN, USA
TDI(s): Other Diesel
Default

Aviation uses ~26B gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) per year per EIA. I've shown that all of that plus all on- and off-road diesel fuel and home heating oil (~88B gallons/year) could be fully displaced by biofuels, based on NREL's "Billion Ton Study," much of that at competitive prices to fossil fuels.

There's also development work being done with "oil cane." Oil cane with 20 percent oil in the stem, grown on under-utilized acres in the southeastern United States, could replace more than two-thirds of the country’s use of diesel and jet fuel (Huang, H., Long, S. and Singh, V. (2016) “Techno-economic analysis of biodiesel and ethanol co-production from lipid-producing sugarcane,” Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref.). Fuel produced by oil cane is projected to be competitive cost-wise with fossil diesel. That's on top of the potential of >50B gallons/year from waste biomass (FTD), 15B gallons/year from municipal solid wastes, >50B gallons/year from algae. That would take up a large chunk of not only jet and diesel fuel, but gasoline consumption as well.

...In two papers — published today [October 4,2018] in the journals Environmental Research Letters and Joule — Harvard University researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius....

I fully agree that we need to transition off petroleum. I respectfully disagree that fully electrifying the ground transportation system is the only solution and biofuel should be/needs to be included in that goal.
wxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 19:51   #144
nwdiver
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Eunice
Fuel Economy: 320wh/mi; ~90mpge
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
Aviation uses ~26B gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) per year per EIA. I've shown that all of that plus all on- and off-road diesel fuel and home heating oil (~88B gallons/year) could be fully displaced by biofuels, based on NREL's "Billion Ton Study," much of that at competitive prices to fossil fuels.

There's also development work being done with "oil cane." Oil cane with 20 percent oil in the stem, grown on under-utilized acres in the southeastern United States, could replace more than two-thirds of the country’s use of diesel and jet fuel (Huang, H., Long, S. and Singh, V. (2016) “Techno-economic analysis of biodiesel and ethanol co-production from lipid-producing sugarcane,” Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref.). Fuel produced by oil cane is projected to be competitive cost-wise with fossil diesel. That's on top of the potential of >50B gallons/year from waste biomass (FTD), 15B gallons/year from municipal solid wastes, >50B gallons/year from algae. That would take up a large chunk of not only jet and diesel fuel, but gasoline consumption as well.

...In two papers — published today [October 4,2018] in the journals Environmental Research Letters and Joule — Harvard University researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius....

I fully agree that we need to transition off petroleum. I respectfully disagree that fully electrifying the ground transportation system is the only solution and biofuel should be/needs to be included in that goal.
The wind piece is pure nonsense. It's right there in the study itself; 'Then, they covered one-third of the continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius' Aside from the fact that 0.24C is a bargain compared to the 1C we've already caused not the mention the 2C we're headed towards we'll never be 100% wind because solar.
Those fantastical biofuel numbers have never been achieved and represent only a small fraction of the real picture. For example Joules technique required CO2 feed stock from a power plant so the output would have been limited. Those numbers also ignore the terrible EROEI of biofuel... some barely >1. Wind and solar are ~3x higher than biofuels. Similar to nuclear power biofuel only marginally pencils out on paper if you ignore some of the fundamentals. In reality they're both thermodynamic and economic nightmares.
If the biofuel future is so bright why is the US only producing enough to meet ~5% of aviation needs? Why has biofuel output only increased ~3x since 2000 compared to 35x for wind and >100x for solar?
The reality is that clean energy powered EVs is actually cheaper than petrol and wind/solar is now actually cheaper than gas. Aside from MWS feedstock which is extremely limited biofuels cannot compete with oil economically and economics matters.
Then... on top of ALL that... without a fleet of EVs how would you propose buffering wind and solar? It's a synergistic relationship. Wind and Solar enable clean EVs and EVs enable more wind and solar.

Last edited by nwdiver; October 24th, 2018 at 20:01.
nwdiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 21:44   #145
Tin Man
Veteran Member
 
Tin Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Coastal Empire
Fuel Economy: 51/40/30 TDI PD, 42/37/32 535d, 52/46/42 XE 2.0d
Default

Fascinating conversation and important to our future. I'm still lacking time/energy to dive into the science and data. Here is an interesting analysis of this topic in a research paper:

Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar

Quote:
A number of analyses, meta-analyses, and assessments, including those performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the International Energy Agency, have concluded that deployment of a diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies makes a transition to a low-carbon-emission energy system both more feasible and less costly than other pathways. In contrast, Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060–15065] argue that it is feasible to provide “low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055”, with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.
It's a very interesting analysis that seems to come to the conclusion that current projections of cost and performance are not realistic or sustainable (me: especially if other things like poverty get in the way). It also highlights to me how simple variations in figures/Math and unsupported assumptions can cause havoc in any argument.

TM
__________________
'16 535d, '17 XE 2.0d, '04 NB TDI PD DSG
"We see things not as they are, but as we are."-- H. M. Tomlinson
"Once I make up my mind, I'm full of indecision."-- Oscar Levant

Last edited by Tin Man; October 24th, 2018 at 21:56.
Tin Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 21:55   #146
nwdiver
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Eunice
Fuel Economy: 320wh/mi; ~90mpge
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Man View Post

It's a very interesting analysis that seems to come to the conclusion that current projections of cost and performance are not realistic or sustainable if other things like poverty get in the way. It also highlights how simple variations in figures/Math can cause havoc in any argument.

TM
I'm excited about the potential of scaling power to gas via the sabatier process but this is just a REALLY inefficient battery. It would allow us to store energy on an effectively limitless scale. This step of the transition is only viable as we progress from ~80% => 100% clean energy and have massive curtailment events of wind or solar. Electrifying everything as much as possible is a crucial step to achieving even ~80% clean energy.

EVs would provide the bulk of daily-weekly buffering while CH4 will allow for seasonal long-term energy storage... and rocket fuel.
nwdiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2018, 22:01   #147
Tin Man
Veteran Member
 
Tin Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Coastal Empire
Fuel Economy: 51/40/30 TDI PD, 42/37/32 535d, 52/46/42 XE 2.0d
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwdiver View Post
Electrifying transportation also carries the bonus of instantly reducing the energy cost per mile by ~70%....



Somewhat evident that "facts" get mixed in with assumptions and oversimplifications to try and prove a favored scenario.

My take on futurism is how badly it has performed in the past for us.....

TM
__________________
'16 535d, '17 XE 2.0d, '04 NB TDI PD DSG
"We see things not as they are, but as we are."-- H. M. Tomlinson
"Once I make up my mind, I'm full of indecision."-- Oscar Levant
Tin Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2018, 08:56   #148
wxman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: East TN, USA
TDI(s): Other Diesel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwdiver View Post
The wind piece is pure nonsense. It's right there in the study itself; 'Then, they covered one-third of the continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius' Aside from the fact that 0.24C is a bargain compared to the 1C we've already caused not the mention the 2C we're headed towards we'll never be 100% wind because solar....
]
It also says "...The Harvard researchers found that the warming effect of wind turbines in the continental U.S. was actually larger than the effect of reduced emissions for the first century of its operation...."

Jacobson assumes 50% wind and 45% solar in his 100%-renewable-by-2050 scenario. Even 50% wind-generated electricity will potentially cause unintended climate effects. And as the study mentions, even solar has SOME climate effects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwdiver View Post
...Those fantastical biofuel numbers have never been achieved and represent only a small fraction of the real picture. For example Joules technique required CO2 feed stock from a power plant so the output would have been limited. Those numbers also ignore the terrible EROEI of biofuel... some barely >1. Wind and solar are ~3x higher than biofuels. Similar to nuclear power biofuel only marginally pencils out on paper if you ignore some of the fundamentals. In reality they're both thermodynamic and economic nightmares....
I'm talking about the POTENTIAL of biofuel. Biofuels from wastes already pencil out cost-wise as I've highlighted, even without any tax incentives.

Potential biofuel production from non-food-crop feedstocks (per NREL's "Billion Ton Study"):

Forest and agricultural wastes - 488M dry tons/year X 111 gallons FTD/dry ton = 54B gallons/year @2022 (most of that is cost-competitive with fossil fuel)
Algae - 58B gallons/year of bio-oil X 85% (0.85) yield = 49B gallons/year
Non-food crops - 564M dry tons X 111 gallons/dry ton = 62B gallons/year
Oil cane (not included in NREL crops) - two-thirds of 88B gallons/year (current middle distillate use) = 59B gallons/year
Used cooking oil - 3B gallons/year (per EPA) X 0.85 = 2.5B gallons/year
MSW-to-fuels (extrapolated to all U.S. landfill wastes) - 15B gallons/year

Total - ~241B gallons/year; total U.S. fuel consumption per EIA - ~235B gallons/year

So there's potentially enough biomass feedstock to displace ALL fossil fuel currently used in the U.S.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nwdiver View Post
...If the biofuel future is so bright why is the US only producing enough to meet ~5% of aviation needs? Why has biofuel output only increased ~3x since 2000 compared to 35x for wind and >100x for solar?...
The biofuels-from-wastes facilities are not yet completed. The collapse in crude oil prices also slowed growth in biomass-based fuels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwdiver View Post
The reality is that clean energy powered EVs is actually cheaper than petrol and wind/solar is now actually cheaper than gas. Aside from MWS feedstock which is extremely limited biofuels cannot compete with oil economically and economics matters.
There's at least one study that disputes that claim without tax credit incentives (which are now starting to expire) - …LCDs ranged from 26 per mile for conventional gasoline ICEVs to 38 per mile for long-range BEVs using electricity derived from solar energy….

Again, biofuel produced from feedstock at <$60/dry ton is already competitive with fossil fuel.



Solar energy is stored in biomass-based fuels too.

Last edited by wxman; October 25th, 2018 at 09:20.
wxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2018, 11:01   #149
nwdiver
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Eunice
Fuel Economy: 320wh/mi; ~90mpge
Default

I responded in the EV thread...
nwdiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Concept Car: VW unveils Diesel Electric Hybrid Twin-Up! Terrific-In-Tahoma TDI News/Tech 19 December 8th, 2013 18:23
VW looking at a "mild hybrid Jetta" for California candrews4tdi General VW Discussion 0 January 31st, 2007 12:32
Auto supplier believes in diesels V TDI (Diesel) Emissions 0 February 15th, 2005 08:13
Auto supplier believes in diesels !!! (link ) HAMMERFALL General VW Discussion 0 February 15th, 2005 07:01
VW Brings Diesel Mild-Hybrid Concept to Shanghai BrandonH TDI News/Tech 0 October 14th, 2004 14:43


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 17:13.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.22724 seconds with 12 queries
[Output: 142.27 Kb. compressed to 121.73 Kb. by saving 20.54 Kb. (14.43%)]