Energy : Production, Storage, Efficiency, Solutions

Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
10,528
Location
Pacific N.W.
My last set of tires, I bought Michelin all season touring 80,000 mile tread warranty.
I think that the high tread warranty probably is a result in part due to low rolling friction.

Low rolling resistance tires make a lot of sense and even more so now with fuel rising to all-time high prices. But as with most everything there is a tradeoff, e.g. stopping distance and wet road handling. Also, it's not a good idea to increase tire PSI over the posted amount on your vehicle's door jam. Doing so can diminish the contact area between the tire and where its rubber is supposed to meet the road. Sometimes being able to stop in a ten foot shorter distance is the difference between having only cartoon eyeballs or a CRASH!
 

KITROBASKIN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
5,502
Location
New Mexico, USA
Consider glossing over the hyperbole and suspend concerns regarding unknowns:


New Atlas did a follow up article posing questions by readers to the point man at Quaise Energy.


Curious to hear members' take.

Related article describing non-contact drilling method:

 
Last edited:

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
Consider glossing over the hyperbole and suspend concerns regarding unknowns:


New Atlas did a follow up article posing questions by readers to the point man at Quaise Energy.


Curious to hear members' take.

Related article describing non-contact drilling method:


I'm related to the primary person that _salvaged_ the BP fiasco, probably the best petroleum (drilling) engineer on the planet. Have asked him for his opinion.

Sounds interesting... and at its core (haha pun intended) it's nuclear power.

I would expect if you are boring with an energy device, the rock should be vaporized. However, as it makes the trip UP the borehole it will cool and deposit on the inside of the borehole.

The other angle is energy density. You need a LOT of boreholes, heating a LOT of thermal fluids, to makeup for the output of a power plant.

They raised several million in round A funding so they've convinced someone to throw in.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
Consider glossing over the hyperbole and suspend concerns regarding unknowns:


New Atlas did a follow up article posing questions by readers to the point man at Quaise Energy.


Curious to hear members' take.

Related article describing non-contact drilling method:

This is both intriguing, and very promising. Honestly, it's almost like something straight out of Star Trek. There are of course the issues turbodog mentioned, with the primary one being the sheer number of boreholes you'll need to make, say, a 1 GW power plant. But once the holes are drilled, that's it. You have the power forever, with no need to deliver fuel, no radioactivity, no interruptions. This is better than fusion in my opinion, if we can get it to work.
 

KITROBASKIN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
5,502
Location
New Mexico, USA
I'm related to the primary person that _salvaged_ the BP fiasco, probably the best petroleum (drilling) engineer on the planet. Have asked him for his opinion.

Sounds interesting... and at its core (haha pun intended) it's nuclear power.

I would expect if you are boring with an energy device, the rock should be vaporized. However, as it makes the trip UP the borehole it will cool and deposit on the inside of the borehole.

The other angle is energy density. You need a LOT of boreholes, heating a LOT of thermal fluids, to makeup for the output of a power plant.

They raised several million in round A funding so they've convinced someone to throw in.
Anyone concerned about premature cooling of our planet's core? Will human, or any life exist on Earth in 90 billion years? How about the continued release of heat into our atmosphere?
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
Anyone concerned about premature cooling of our planet's core? Will human, or any life exist on Earth in 90 billion years? How about the continued release of heat into our atmosphere?
Not really for two reasons. One, the amount of extra heat which would be released from the Earth's core above and beyond normal, with even terawatts of geothermal power, will only increase the cooling rate by a few tens of percent, if that. About 0.1 watts per square meter of geothermal heat escapes from the surface. Doesn't sound like much, but over the entire planet that's 0.1 x 675,474,983,468,576 m², or 67.5 terawatts. Right now the Earth gets by with about 10 terawatts of generating capacity. That might add perhaps 20 terawatts and change to the rate of cooling, assuming 50% thermal efficiency for the power plants. The Earth will be gone long before it cools down enough to solidify the core, even if we had hundreds of terawatts of geothermal plants.

Second, the existing generators put far more waste heat into our atmosphere now than geothermal generation would.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,580
Location
Dust in the Wind
A former coworker was faced with about $15k for a new AC for his rather large home. He chose instead to hire a contractor to dig some trenches under his yard at X feet deep and install plastic pipes and a fan system instead. The biggest cost (he said) was an anti mold-mildew system involving UV lighting and some kind of de-humidity system that he says collects humidity in a tank he pumps out from time to time and waters his roses with.

I have not talked to the guy in several years but back around 012 he said it worked great. Basically the pipes are buried where the earth stays in the 60 some degree range all summer and winter. He said he got the idea from his parents basement staying cool all summer.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
A former coworker was faced with about $15k for a new AC for his rather large home. He chose instead to hire a contractor to dig some trenches under his yard at X feet deep and install plastic pipes and a fan system instead. The biggest cost (he said) was an anti mold-mildew system involving UV lighting and some kind of de-humidity system that he says collects humidity in a tank he pumps out from time to time and waters his roses with.

I have not talked to the guy in several years but back around 012 he said it worked great. Basically the pipes are buried where the earth stays in the 60 some degree range all summer and winter. He said he got the idea from his parents basement staying cool all summer.
I saw a video on you-tube where someone ran well water in copper tubes in front of a box fan. Apparently it kept the whole house cool. The water wasn't wasted. After it passed in front of the fan to absorb some heat in the house he used it to water his lawn and garden. I looked for it but couldn't find it. Probably used the wrong search terms.

In my area if you go down about 20 feet it's a constant ~55°F. That would be great for cooling in the summers. Geothermal heat pumps work on that principle, rejecting heat to the ground which is a generally warmer in winter, cooler in summer, than the ambient air.
 

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
The 'cool' water pipe doesn't get low enough to keep humidity down. Bet he's growing some really nice mold/mildew in his house.
 

Poppy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
8,452
Location
Northern New Jersey
Obviously, the way one drives can have a dramatic impact on fuel milage. Personally I avoid jack-rabbit starts. I suppose that my throttle rarely sees more than 25%. I look ahead for changes in the speed of traffic, and for the condition of traffic lights. As soon as I see it turn yellow I take my foot off of the accelerator, I may even tap the brake a little. I want to still be doing about 30 mph by time the light turns back to green. No sense in racing to the stop light and then having to overcome the static inertia of being fully stopped.

I am also gentle on my transmission. Hard accelerations, and hard shifting between gears, must stress the trans, I really don't know, but, when I brought my '99 Crown Vic in for a transmission oil change, at 230,000 miles, my trans mechanic commented... do you know how uncommon it is for these 4R70W transmissions to have this many miles on them? I never had a problem with it. At 260,000 the car was rear ended and went to its grave.

I now have a 2008 Grand Marquis with a 4R75E trans with 269,000 miles on it, with absolutely no problems. It was my dad's car, that went to my brother (who put the bulk of highway miles on it) and then to me. The three of us drive similarly. Its a highway cruiser, so comfortable, it is a shame they don't make them anymore. Unbelievably the service interval for the trans is 200,000 miles! So it has only been serviced once. Oil and filter change.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
10,528
Location
Pacific N.W.
... Personally I avoid jack-rabbit starts. I suppose that my throttle rarely sees more than 25%. I look ahead for changes in the speed of traffic, and for the condition of traffic lights. As soon as I see it turn yellow I take my foot off of the accelerator, I may even tap the brake a little. I want to still be doing about 30 mph by time the light turns back to green. No sense in racing to the stop light and then having to overcome the static inertia of being fully stopped.

Only old people possess this wisdom ...... and damn few of us to boot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hsa

orbital

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
4,353
Location
WI
+

Being a big motorsports fan, the first event of the season is the Dakar Rally
{extreme endurance race through the desert/mountains/mud over a couple weeks}

Audi brought a new race truck prototype that used a four cylinder TFSI motor to provide the high voltage energy for an electric race vehicle.
It's not a traditional hybrid in that the ICE* engine only generated electricity for the electric motors to use.
.. there is also batteries to be a buffer/aid the electric generation.

For consumer vehicles, scale that down from the Audi prototype truck
I really see this being an excellent solution for EV cars; in that you could have basically a motorcycle engine proving the electrical generation for an electric vehicle = with all the torque that an performance that electric gives.
One would never get that performance from a motorcycle engine for a car/truck alone.

Audi won stages & i f not for a couple suspension failures, they may have won the Dakar outright...

*ICE Internal Combustion Engine
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
+

Being a big motorsports fan, the first event of the season is the Dakar Rally
{extreme endurance race through the desert/mountains/mud over a couple weeks}

Audi brought a new race truck prototype that used a four cylinder TFSI motor to provide the high voltage energy for an electric race vehicle.
It's not a traditional hybrid in that the ICE* engine only generated electricity for the electric motors to use.
.. there is also batteries to be a buffer/aid the electric generation.

For consumer vehicles, scale that down from the Audi prototype truck
I really see this being an excellent solution for EV cars; in that you could have basically a motorcycle engine proving the electrical generation for an electric vehicle = with all the torque that an performance that electric gives.
One would never get that performance from a motorcycle engine for a car/truck alone.

Audi won stages & i f not for a couple suspension failures, they may have won the Dakar outright...

*ICE Internal Combustion Engine
You basically just transposed the system used on diesel locomotives since the 1930s to automobiles. Only difference is diesel locomotives need a constant huge output, so they have very large engines. I've always been puzzled myself why automobiles use huge engines which output many times the average power the car needs, and have a highly complex multi-gear transmission. A 20 to 30 HP engine running more or less at peak output at all times, turning an alternator charging a small battery (small by EV standards but still much larger than a starter battery), and powering the wheels with electric motors, seems to be a much better system. The engine can run at its peak efficiency, more than negating the losses in the alternator/battery which are in excess of those in a mechanical transmission. The battery can provide bursts of power 5 to 10 times what the engine produces. Electric motors of 100 HP or so aren't very large, even 50 years ago. When you account for the low-end torque, and not having a limited power band, an electric motor produces acceleration equal to an ICE of perhaps twice the HP. The only thing which might suffer under this system (maybe) is top end speed. You'll only go as fast as the engine output gets you. However, 30 HP is enough to run most vehicles at the highest legal speeds in the US of 75 or 80 mph. If you want/need to go faster, better aerodynamics would be the ticket. That would get you well into the triple digits.

That said, the aforementioned system would have been the way to go until we had batteries of suitable energy density to give vehicles adequate range. Now we're better off just having a large battery and no engine at all. But until perhaps 10 years ago, the system you described should have been how most automobiles were made. The general idea is to size the engine to cover only the average power needs (including accessories).
 

orbital

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
4,353
Location
WI
...

That said, the aforementioned system would have been the way to go until we had batteries of suitable energy density to give vehicles adequate range. Now we're better off just having a large battery and no engine at all. But until perhaps 10 years ago, the system you described should have been how most automobiles were made. The general idea is to size the engine to cover only the average power needs (including accessories).
+

I'm sure the energy management is very complex, in that it likely has two battery banks, one powering the Audi,,
while the ICE engine is charging the other battery bank.

The system probably transitions between battery banks seamlessly.

..that's my guess
 

scout24

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
8,869
Location
Penn's Woods
Sounds a lot like the Chevy Volt. The Tesla crowd wouldn't go for it, the Prius crowd won't go for it, but it makes far more sense for the most used case than straight ev, with potentially better mileage than the Prius.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
+

I'm sure the energy management is very complex, in that it likely has two battery banks, one powering the Audi,,
while the ICE engine is charging the other battery bank.

The system probably transitions between battery banks seamlessly.

..that's my guess
Not sure how it works but keep in mind the general system you mentioned was feasible with 1930s era technology. Modern microprocessor and solid state control would merely enhance the efficiency.
 

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
... I've always been puzzled myself why automobiles use huge engines which output many times the average power the car needs, and have a highly complex multi-gear transmission. ...

Because you are conflating horsepower and torque.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
Because you are conflating horsepower and torque.
I'm well aware of those complications. Having ICEs directly driving the wheels is a bad idea precisely because their torque versus RPM curve is very poorly matched to a vehicle which has a wide speed range. The only way around that is complex multi-gear transmissions which create their own set of problems. The better idea is exactly what orbital described. Let the ICE operate at its optimal RPM and load most of the time. Use an electric motor which can develop its full power over a wide speed range to drive the wheels. Use a battery as a buffer between the ICE and electric motor. Another advantage of this system is electric motors happily produce way over their rated HP for short periods. You can go 2 or 3 times over for a few seconds, perhaps 30% or 50% over for a few minutes. That means you can size the motor at the same power output as the ICE, more or less, but you'll have several times that for quick bursts of acceleration.

If you connect an ICE directly to the wheels, then it needs to be able to develop whatever peak power you need, even if the continuous power needs are far less. End result, grossly oversized engines. ICEs directly propelling a vehicle only make sense in applications where the power/torque requirements are fairly constant, like airplanes. Or sometimes ships, although even those tend to have electric motors turning the propellers, using power from an alternator connected to the engine.

I think what happened with automobiles was in the beginning (early 1900s) a generator/motor system wasn't really feasible. So they used multigear transmissions instead, despite this being more or less a kludge. After that, those kept being used out of force of habit. I don't recall the automakers ever looking at electric drive for most of the rest of the 20th century. Hybrids were a step in that direction, but overly complex using both the engine and an electric motor to drive the wheels. As I said, we could have done the motor/generator thing by the 1930s. We could have gotten it to work well by the 1940s/1950s. There ARE some complications with the system which had to be solved for diesel locomotives to enable the traction motors to put down the engine's full power over the entire speed range (look up field weakening). But by 1950 or thereabouts those problems were largely solved.
 
Last edited:
Top