Comments for The Green Optimistic | The Green Optimistic http://www.greenoptimistic.com Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:31:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.1 Comment on $10,000 to Hack the Tesla Model S, No Winners So Far by NeilFarbsteinhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/23/10000-hack-tesla-model-s-winners-far/#comment-41818 Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:31:40 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48654#comment-41818 disasters in the making

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Two – Fuel Cell Vehicles are Expensive by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/23/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-two-fuel-cell-vehicles-expensive/#comment-41816 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:53:35 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48657#comment-41816 Video (Someone took down the video but the article still there) below of what is happening in California at municipal wastewater treatment plants using fuel cell technology to produce 3 value streams of electricity, hydrogen and heat all from a human waste! This is pretty impressive in my opinion for hydro-refueling infrastructure.
Google:
“New fuel cell sewage gas station in Orange County, CA may be world’s first”
“It is here today and it is deployable today,” said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project.
Also nice advertisement of the Hyundai “Tuscon” FCV.  Google:  Hyundai “Tuscon” Fuel Cell Vehicle.$499 per month w/ FREE FUEL & FREE MAINTENANCE (of course for people who live in the designated parameters) … Impressive though… Emitting only Pure Water out of the tailpipe!!!
I think fuel cell technology solves a few problems at once and nobody ever talks about the Cost $$$ in health care savings with respect to the air we breathe?  $$$ BILLIONS!!! if not $Trillions…
Nice article!

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth Two – Fuel Cell Vehicles are Expensive by weaponhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/23/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-two-fuel-cell-vehicles-expensive/#comment-41815 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:30:30 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48657#comment-41815 Incorrect. The DOE study looks at POWER output of a fuel cell stack. You can’t compare power output of a fuel cell vs energy storage of a battery cost. They are not 1 to 1 comparison.

]]>
Comment on Oceans Reduce the Rate of Climate Change But Only Temporarily, Study Says by KelfinPlanckhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/04/08/oceans-reduce-climate-change/#comment-41812 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:54:45 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=35849#comment-41812 After founding Magnetic Power Inc in the mid-eighties, Mark Goldes and MPI proceeded to develop most of the fraudcraftings which would serve as Goldes’ offerings in fraudcraft for the next thirty years, not only at MPI, but also at Chava Energy LLC, and at his so-called “Aesop Institute.” Goldes’ partnership with Hagen Ruff, the other Co-founder (as well as CEO) of Chava Energy LLC, gave the Goldes-MPI fraudcraft a new lease on life, and accordingly it may now be termed most properly the “Goldes-Ruff Fraudcraft.” For the past five years or more, while serving as a Co-founder and a Chief Officer of Chava Energy LLC, Goldes used his mgoldes @ chavaenergy dot com email address as his Aesop Institute email address as well, at least until his very recent ejection from Chava Energy. In practice, Goldes made continual use of Aesop Institute to bring investors to Chava Energy, which for five years has based its pretenses on nearly all the same fraudcraft used by Goldes at Aesop Institute. The common fraudcraft included the fraudcraftings of pretended development of water-fueled “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, of generators supposedly powered by Zero Point Energy, of “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor” energy storage systems, and of strictly ambient heat engines – along with endless false claims that these concepts were currently being “prototyped,” and would soon provide wonderful alternatives to fossil fuels.
For five years, Hagen Ruff allowed Mark Goldes, a Co-founder as well as a Chief Officer of Chava Energy, not only to use his mgoldes @ chavaenergy dot com email address to solicit loans to Goldes’ so-called “Aesop Institute,” but simultaneously to solicit loans to Aesop Institute and investments in Chava Energy in the course of discussions and communications with prospects who had reached Goldes by way of aesopinstitute. In effect, Ruff allowed Aesop Institute to become a fund-raising extension of Chava Energy. Starting in 2009, if not before, Goldes posted thousands of fraudulent comments advertising the aesopinstitute website and promoting the Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings on dozens of different websites. On Huffington Post alone, as the user “Overtone,” he posted over three thousand such comments. When people contacted Goldes after visiting the aesopinstitute website, they would learn from Goldes not only about Aesop Institute but also about Chava Energy, and Goldes would solicit loans to Aesop Institute or investment in Chava Energy, whichever the prospect preferred, at the same time. This was his standard practice for years. By allowing this entangling of Aesop Institute with Chava Energy LLC, Ruff has incurred responsibility not only for the false and fraudulent pretenses of Chava Energy, but for those of Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” as well. For this reason, although neither the Kenneth Rauen strictly ambient heat engine pretense nor the Boris Kondrashov self-powered turbine pretense have been directly used or presented by Chava Energy, as they have by Aesop Institute, they still deserve full recognition within the ensemble of Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings.
For five years since it was founded, Chava Energy LLC tried to promote itself chiefly by means of false and fraudulent claims and pretenses, that it was developing “revolutionary energy breakthroughs,” including “Fractional Hydrogen” engines utilizing nonexistent states of hydrogen, magical Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and magnetic generators supposedly harnessing Zero Point Energy.
An “MPI Overview And Summary” produced by MPI in late 2008 actually lists Hagen Ruff as the Chief Executive Officer of MPI, as well as a Director of MPI; Mark Goldes, who had been the CEO of MPI for two decades, is listed only as Chairman. This document also shows that a major component 0f the Goldes-Ruff Fraudcraft was already well developed in 2008: namely, the fraudulent pretense that the worthless “revolutionary breakthroughs” claimed by Goldes and Ruff could provide alternatives to fossil fuels and thereby shift the global economy “from one dependent on fossil fuels to one that exists on clean, fuel-free, distributed power” and thereby “help offset the consequences of global warming.” At the time when Hagen Ruff, as CEO of MPI, allowed this and many similar statements to be included in the 2008 “MPI Overview,” MPI was claiming among its “breakthroughs” all but one of the seven fraudcraftings – all but Kondrashov’s self-powered air compressor, which
Goldes discovered in 2013. Ruff and Goldes knew perfectly well that not one of MPI’s six claimed “breakthroughs” represented anything more thanan empty pretense.
If Chava Energy’s claims regarding their pretended Revolutionary Breakthrough development of “Fractional Hydrogen” “SPICE” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, “Ultraconductor” wire, “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems,” and Zero Point Energy harvesting “MagGen” generators were not false and fraudulent, why did Hagen Ruff suddenly remove those claims from Chava’s website?
In fact, all of those fraudulent claims came originally from the very same source: Chava Energy Co-founder and Chief Market Research Officer Mark Goldes, and Goldes’ previous company, Magnetic Power Inc.
We do find and state that Hagen Ruff’s Chava Energy LLC has made a great many utterly false and fraudulent claims and statements, showing very unscrupulous dishonesty, on the matters of “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and “MagGen”
generators that supposedly harness Zero Point Energy. Chava Energy’s claims and statements regarding “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems” were also false and dishonest in various ways.
The relentless and pervasive dishonesty, fraudulence, and unscrupulousness, that characterized Mark Goldes’ use of his company Magnetic Power Inc for over twenty years prior to the founding of Chava Energy LLC, has also characterized Mark Goldes’ and Hagen Ruff’s use of Chava Energy LLC and Aesop Institute since 2009.
If there had ever been any chance at all that Chava Energy LLC could be transformed into an honest and honorable company despite its five-year specialization in fraudcraft, that chance was wiped out by Hagen Ruff’s most recent communications, in which he embarked on some brand new pretenses, no less ludicrous than his fraudcraft of “Fractional Hydrogen.” He now wants to pretend that his very active Co-founder, Mark Goldes, the very same person who has been his Chief Liar for five years, was actually never a part of Chava Energy, at all! And he also now wants to pretend that none of Chava Energy’s fraudcraftings came from Mark Goldes or MPI – even though, in fact, they all did – every one of them.
http://intlphysicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/category/goldes-ruff-fraudcraft/

]]>
Comment on Fuel Cell Vehicle Myth One – Fuel Cell Vehicles “Burn” Hydrogen by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/22/fuel-cell-vehicle-myth-one-fuel-cell-vehicles-burn-hydrogen/#comment-41810 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:33:23 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48640#comment-41810 Video (Someone took down the video but the article still there) below of what is happening in California at municipal wastewater treatment plants using fuel cell technology to produce 3 value streams of electricity, hydrogen and heat all from a human waste! This is pretty impressive in my opinion for hydro-refueling infrastructure.

“New fuel cell sewage gas station in Orange County, CA may be world’s first”

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315

“It is here today and it is deployable today,” said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project.

2.8MW fuel cell using biogas now operating; Largest PPA of its kind in North America

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2012/october/28-mw-fuel-cell-using-biogas-now-operating-largest-ppa-of-its-kind-in-north-america

Microsoft Backs Away From Grid

http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2012/11/20/microsoft-backs-away-slowly-from-the-grid/
Hyundai “Tuscon” Fuel Cell Vehicle$499 per month w/ Free Fuel & Free Maintenance from Hyundai!!! (pure water for exhaust)https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/
Toyota joins California Hydrogen Push in Station Funding – Bloomberghttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-01/california-awards-46-6-million-for-hydrogen-car-stations.html

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41808 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:49:21 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41808 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace

“it’s about operating costs and performance.”

Electricity is cheaper than H2 made with electricity and gasoline/diesel.

EVs, PHEVs, and FCEVs are all EVs and have the battery/electric motor ability to accelerate quickly.  

Using H2, even as range extender fuel means creation of a H2 infrastructure.  That’s major capital that would have to be spent.  If we used H2 range extenders then the cost of H2 would have to be very high in order to cover the infrastructure.

Actually, I’d bet the ratio of long range driving days vs. lower distance days is lower with pickups.

Pickup trucks are less popular based what I’m seeing on the road – lots of four door sedans with no lids over their trunks.  Those things are not pickups in my book.  ;o)

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41807 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:07:36 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41807 Bob Wallace “Remember how Detroit gave their market to Japan because they couldn’t understand that many buyers wanted fuel efficiency and quality?”
That certainly is the popular account of what happened. 

While the consistent lack of quality was definitely an example of a business failure, it could be argued that it was mostly due to an approach that emphasized big advances over incremental gains. A bad process rather than a lack of effort or concern (at least to some degree).

But as far as letting Japanese automakers have the compact car segment, it wasn’t about a failure to listen so much as it was about profits. As you likely know, the hard cost of building a $15k economy car is only slightly lower than the hard cost of building a $50k large SUV…the R&D costs are basically the same from one engine to the next, one platform to the next, etc., the factories cost the same, the workers are paid the same, etc.

American automakers didn’t ignore consumer interest in small, efficient vehicles so much as they didn’t see much value in participating. SUVs and trucks generate considerably more profits (they always have), and that’s as good a reason as any to focus on that business.

But to the main point – Why are pickups and SUVs going to use fuel cell stacks when using gas or ethanol would be just as easy? – it’s about operating costs and performance. A truck with an electric powertrain is going to pull a trailer far better than an ICE, and that’s a selling point for truck/large SUV buyers. A truck with an FCV is also likely to have a lower operating cost (assuming gas prices don’t fall off a cliff), and that’s something truck buyers (particularly fleet buyers) care about. Finally, I’d argue that FCV pickups would be less costly up-front than the relatively exotic options that are currently gaining steam, like expensive twin-turbo direct injection engines, small diesels with expensive emissions control systems, all aluminum bodies, etc.

I’d also argue that pickups would be even more popular than they are now if someone could make the fuel costs more palatable.

In any case, I see FCV powered pickups being far more likely than BEV pickups in the future. ESPECIALLY if remote hydrogen generation systems become reasonably cost-effective (rural truck owners would LOVE the ability to generate their own fuel and would likely pay a premium).

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41806 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:00:52 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41806 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace

It’s often the case that auto manufacturers are the last to know what the public wants.  Remember how Detroit gave their market to Japan because they couldn’t understand that many buyers wanted fuel efficiency and quality?

SUVs seem to be leaving us.  They’re being replaced with “crossovers”.

There’s another option for larger pickups – PHEVs with either a ICE of fuel cell range extender.  

But consider this further problem for H2 fuel cells.  If pickups drove 50% to 75% on electricity and cars moved to ~100% electricity, where is the market for H2 that would pay for the infrastructure?

Why wouldn’t we simply use something easier to market such as ethanol or gasoline?  We could tolerate ~12% of our driving with petroleum and still easily hit the 2050 40% to 70% CO2 emission decrease.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41805 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:51:15 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41805 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace Brian Keez

” a 50kWh battery pack is awfully small”

Tesla 265 miles with an 85 kWh pack.  3.1 miles per kWh.  50 x 3.1 = 155 miles, plus more miles due to less weight.

The ‘threshold of acceptability’ for an EV that can be reasonably driven all day long is around 175 miles, my guess.

Drive 175, charge 20 minutes, drive 155, charge, drive 155.  485 miles with an acceptable number of breaks.  More range would be welcome, but most people would consider that a reasonable range based  on fuel savings.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41804 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:45:45 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41804 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace

I suppose it depends on how one defines “fully committed”.  

Companies that are selling EVs include not only Tesla and Nissan, but Ford, GM, Daimler, BYD (and a few other Chinese manufacturers), Fiat, BMW, Citroen, Mitsubishi,  Renault, and Volkswagen.   As well as some minor companies.

How many companies will be selling FCEVs in 2015?

Car companies are not the ones investing in battery research.  Battery companies are doing that.  Most car companies have already invested enough to produce at least one EV model.  

Musk is not doing battery research.  He’s building a massive battery plant (or plants) that will scale up current technology in order to bring prices down.  And he’s designing his plant(s) so that they can switch technologies as better batteries emerge.

I agree that most car manufacturers are holding back on EV manufacturing numbers.  They’re likely waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting of battery price reduction.  Nissan is the exception with their own battery plants.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41803 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:44:37 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41803 Bob Wallace As unbelievable as it seems, an ICE built on an established modular platform as a $3-4k cost all in (that includes amortizing R&D costs). The trick is to build hundreds of thousands of the same engines. That’s how you get the ridiculously low prices on all components, etc.

As for refill time (aka range anxiety) being a red herring, I’m not convinced. A lot of automakers seem to think it’s a deal breaker, and they’re in the business of determining car consumer preferences.

Finally, I haven’t mentioned this previously, but it’s incredibly important: Battery packs don’t seem like they’ll work for trucks and large SUVs. They offer too little range, they detract from the vehicle’s performance due to their considerable weight, and – most importantly – a payload ruins their performance. I can’t pull my boat with a BEV pickup, because I can’t get all the way to the reservoir and back without stopping for a charge.

Thus, even *if* BEVs are cost competitive with ICEs, they won’t work for trucks and SUVs without considerable improvements in energy density and cost reductions. A car buyer can get by with a 60kWh battery pack, but a Tahoe or F150 buyer is going to want 3-4 times that capacity…and the cost of that vehicle will be considerably more than a 100kW fuel cell stack and a couple of hydrogen storage tanks.

FCVs are definitely going to have a role in the future. The only question is, are they going to dominate all production (my guess) or are they just going to own half the market (trucks and SUVs).

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41802 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:34:35 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41802 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace Brian Keez

13,000 miles per year.  1,083 miles per month.  36 gallons of fuel with a 30 MPG vehicle.  $120 at $4/gallon.

$3k – $4k for the engine.  Plus fuel, cooling and exhaust systems?

” a 60kW fuel cell stack will cost $3000 or less by 2017 - assuming high production volumes (500k units, if I recall)” 

EV manufacturers have stated that once EVs reach the 500k units per year (or a bit higher) EV prices will drop to ICE levels.

I don’t think any of us can guarantee that EV or FCEV prices will drop to or below that of ICEs.  Both might.

As long as FCEVs don’t fall significantly below the price of EVs then fuel costs will kill them.  Refill time is a red herring.  For FCEVs to dominate they will have to be quite a bit lower priced, EVs are cheaper and more convenient to drive.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41801 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:34:04 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41801 Bob Wallace If this is truly the cost difference between fully charged and half charged (7 cents vs 15 cents), we’re talking about the price of a cup of Starbucks coffee each day (assuming 50% vs. 100% charge on a 85kWh battery pack). A lot of people won’t think twice about it.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41800 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:27:39 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41800 Bob Wallace You might not be aware, but the only automakers fully committed to BEVs are Tesla and Nissan. All the other majors are either a) invested in FCVs b) hedging their bets or c) waiting to see who wins.

To my knowledge, Toyota, BMW, Honda, Hyunda/Kia, VW, GM, Ford, and Daimler are all invested in FCV to the tune of a few billion. That’s not a lot of money in the auto industry, but it’s not like these companies are willing to throw that kind of cash around on a whim.

We can argue whether or not these automakers are band wagoners or innovators or whatever, but money talks. I see a lot more new cash invested in FCVs than BEVs…that’s not a good sign for the future of the BEV.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41798 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:23:34 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41798 Bob Wallace Brian Keez So a 50kWh battery pack is awfully small – I’m assuming it’s 60kWh or bust for any decent range BEV car.

However, to address your question, it’s my opinion that powertrain costs for the typical vehicle represent 15%-20% of MSRP, and that about half of these costs are the same for BEVs, FCVs, and ICEs (all cars need axles, transmissions, drive shafts, etc of some kind or another). Thus, we’re talking about roughly 10% of a vehicle’s asking price goes towards the ICE.

NOTE: I know I said “my opinion” here, and a lot of people are going to discount this statement precisely because it is my opinion. All I can say is that this is my wheelhouse (I run an automotive parts marketing company and have some good contacts).

The bottom line is that an auto manufacturer’s cost for a basic ICE (and I’m talking about a mass produced engine based on a modular family) is $3-$4k, with some hybrids and diesels stretching up to twice that amount. If a battery pack is going to be $7k, it’s going to be at a $3-4k cost disadvantage (wholesale), which is a $5-8k disadvantage retail. 

To put that retail cost difference in terms that consumers will care about, a BEV is going to cost $150-$250 more per month to buy than an equivalent ICE…and $150-$250 buys an awful lot of gasoline. Not to mention, an ICE doesn’t have any range limitations, doesn’t require an expensive home charging system, doesn’t need to be plugged in every night, etc.

As for FCVs, the NREL estimate is that a 60kW fuel cell stack will cost $3000 or less by 2017 (see myth #2 here – https://parts.olathetoyota.com/fuel-cell-myths.html), assuming high production volumes (500k units, if I recall). This means that FCVs are already cost-competitive with ICEs at scale – we’re just waiting for hydrogen fueling infrastructure. And NREL says the fuel cell stack cost could be as low as $1800 at that volume (especially if catalyst cost savings keep coming).

…which is why Toyota dropped BEVs and has gone full bore with FCVs. The math is already better, and we haven’t even begun to see the refinements automakers will make.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41797 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:23:00 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41797 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace

I suspect we agree “in theory” but disagree only on details. 

Some drivers will be more ‘risk takers’ than others.  One driver with a 25 mile daily routine might set their minimum to 50 miles and another to 100 miles.

Rural drivers will be no different.  A RT to the grocery store is 150 miles for me.  A RT to the mail box (box, not Post Office) is 7 miles.  My charger would learn/be taught that I need a minimum of 30 miles which would take me to a friend’s house for dinner or to the expensive country store if I have to have milk.  And that somewhere 7 to 30 days after I go to town I’ll need a full 200 mile charge.

There’s still dispatchable load for the utilities to use even in my rural case.

Obviously there will be a few people who need to be fully charged every day.  They’ll have to pay full price.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41796 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:04:49 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41796 Bob Wallace Agree wholeheartedly that dispatchable load has value, but I don’t know that your “average” consumer will appreciate the value if it limits their options. City residents will probably be OK with it, but suburban and rural residents probably won’t go for it. What if there’s a traffic jam? What if I want to run across town for dinner? Etc. Etc.
I guess I’m agreeing with you in theory, but I have my doubts about consumers embracing the idea of even *more* limited range in exchange for a small price discount.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41795 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:45:24 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41795 sporkmarketing LoneWolffe

So 90% of all EV drivers would disable their smart chargers in order to enjoy 15 cents per kWh charging rather than 8 cent charging?

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41794 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:42:14 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41794 sporkmarketing

#2.  With an EV there’s no need to stop for a charge except on the rare day one is on a long trip.  And then the stop (based on Tesla’s superchargers) is more like 30 minutes.  That’s your meal/pee/check your messages stop that you’d need to do after filling hydrogen tanks.

I agree that FCEVs came out of car companies, not fuel companies.  Some years back we simply didn’t have the battery technology we have today and H2 FCEVs looked like our best way to get off petroleum.  But batteries did improve.

Take a look at the number of car manufacturers who are marketing or about to market an EV.  Then count the number of car manufacturers who are about to market a FCEV.   That’s telling.

Then subtract out all the FCEV manufacturers who started their fuel cell program several years ago to get the number of manufacturers who are now jumping on the FCEV band wagon.  Are there any?

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41793 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:34:05 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41793 sporkmarketing Brian Keez

” $120/kWh, which makes a 200 mile range battery pack about twice as expensive as an ICE.”

Does it?  At $120/kWh a 50 kWh battery pack would be $6k.  Can you build a decent sized ICE and its support systems (fuel, exhaust, cooling) for $3k?   

To get FCEVs down to ICEV prices would mean some very significant fuel cell cost drops.  Who is in a position where they can realistically say fuel cell prices will drop faster than battery prices?  It’s going to take a lot of manufacturing volume to bring fuel cell prices down and there won’t be any FCEVs in showrooms until 2015.  Getting to 100,000 vehicle per year volumes won’t happen in two years.

I agree that purchase price is very important.  But as important are monthly costs.  If someone is paying twice as much per mile to drive a FCEV that will make up for some of your hypothetical monthly lower FCEV payments.  (And I really doubt FCEVs will reach ICE levels sooner than BEVs.)

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41792 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:23:16 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41792 LoneWolffe sporkmarketing Bob Wallace What if you got that dreaded midnight emergency and your gasmobile tank was close to empty?

Set a minimum charge that gets you to the hospital, your ailing relative’s house, or whatever midnight emergency you can imagine.  

What if the garbage company paid people for their neatly bagged garbage set out on the curb on the appointed day?

Utilities are likely to pay for dispatchable load.  And pay enough so that if you need to use a ‘supercharger’ once in a while you’d still be well ahead.

And, remember, if you get a late night call telling you that you’re going to need to drive further than expected the next day you could call your car and tell it to fully charge.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41791 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:56:45 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41791 Bob Wallace sporkmarketing Come to think of it, that’s how Tesla markets its cars. If you look at the “monthly price” on the page, that includes “refueling savings”, dropping the payment below what you’d actually pay in cash to Tesla. The savings come from somewhere else, the utility company. Perhaps true enlightenment, on the part of potential BEV owners, is seeing those savings’ impact on the whole cost per mile.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41790 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:52:52 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41790 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace Yes, but I’m talking a few years down the road when we have affordable ~200 mile range cars.  

Some people have 5, 10, 20 mile normal driving days.  Having a 50 mile charge (with a rapid charger not far away if their plans change) will be fine with them.  That leaves the utility 150 miles of charge to use to spread load over days. 

The average US driving day is under 40 miles.  Someone with a 50 mile normal day might set a 100 mile minimum and let the utility determine how much of the last 100 is charged.

If the wind is going to be high on Tuesday night then use that extra supply to charge a bunch of EVs above the owner-determined minimum charge.  That then gives the utility the ability to skip charging those EVs for a few nights.  (150 reserve miles would last a 20 mile a day driver a week.)

If drivers want to fully charge their car each night, that would be an option.  But they wouldn’t get whatever the utility was offering for serving as dispatchable load (probably lower charge rates).

Dispatchable load has value.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41789 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:44:29 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41789 sporkmarketing LoneWolffe true, perhaps it wasn’t the best example. mostly, i was thinking about how people’s minds have to change. still, there’s trash everywhere in the world, a testament to how many people’s minds have YET to change.
it will require a great leap for BEV owners to accept grid-based charging structure.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41788 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:40:22 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41788 LoneWolffe I’m sure that you could put 100 BEV owners in a room and convince 90 of them that they should let the power grid set their vehicle’s charge level.
I’m also sure that, as soon as all 90 of these “enlightened” consumers got home, they’d plug in their cars and disable the smart setting so they got their charge. :)

While I appreciate your point about pollution (I’ve seen this myself in Central America), but I’m not sure it’s a good analogy. Part of the reason that most people in the USA don’t dump trash in public places is the fear of getting ticketed. Until we make it illegal to charge your BEV however you like, all consumers are going to give themselves permission to break the rules.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41787 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:33:37 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41787 @weapon In order:

1) True, but irrelevant. Consumers don’t make transportation choices based on emissions or efficiency. If they did, we’d all use bikes and public transportation. :)

2) Range problems are easily solved – just fill up! That’s the point of FCVs…you don’t have to stop and pick your nose for an hour (or more) while you wait for a charger. You just pump some more hydrogen in the tank and keep on trucking. Additionally, you can expect Toyota’s US model to have a longer range and a lower asking price too.

3) See point #2 – range isn’t an issue. Just refill the tank.

“FCVs are just a distraction by the fossil fuel industry” – I see this sentiment all the time, and all I can do is shake my head. Tens of billions of dollars have been committed to this “distraction” by companies that have absolutely nothing to do with fuel production. If Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, VW, Ford, GM, etc. are all mineral companies bent on perpetuating natural gas production, they’ve done an amazing job of disguising themselves as car companies that make their bones building what consumers love.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41786 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:30:33 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41786 sporkmarketing Brian Keez Actually, upfront pricing goes far beyond BEVs, but every form of technology. There’s two reasons to buy a Tesla, iPad, or Bulova: 1) technological superiority, or 2) it’s cool.
For the rest of us, who can’t afford those things, we’re left with Toyota, Android, and Timex.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41785 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:24:20 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41785 Brian Keez This is a common argument, but it’s based on a logical fallacy. Specifically, consumers (en masse) don’t care about efficiency – they only care about cost.

While most BEV advocates assume that the vehicle’s up-front costs will continue to fall, the predictions seem to be that battery packs will be pricey for the immediate future. The rosiest predictions for Tesla’s gigafactory are $120/kWh, which makes a 200 mile range battery pack about twice as expensive as an ICE.

FCVs, on the other hand, are likely to be cost-competitive with hybrid ICEs by the close of the decade (a VW exect recently told Automotive News he thought hybrid ICEs and FCVs would be cost-competitive by 2017). If a gasoline gallon equivalent amount of Hydrogen is identical in cost to a gallon of gas, FCVs will be slightly more appealing, as they’re more fuel efficient than gasoline.

But if a gge of hydrogen is 20-30% lower than gasoline – and an FCV is cost comparable to a hybrid ICE (which seems to be the industry’s feeling), consumers will see FCVs as the cheapest option.

Will they care that BEVs are more energy efficient? Only if a BEV can be cost comparable to a hybrid ICE, and I see no one making that prediction.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41784 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:21:34 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41784 sporkmarketing Bob Wallace You’re absolutely right, consumers are not logical. Still, we need to adjust our thinking.
For example, on a somewhat unrelated note, where I live in Perú has an appalling sense of how to dispose of trash. It freaks me out every time I see people dump trash into the river, everything from household trash to auto parts and televisions. And then they have the nerve to complain about the contamination that the mines are effecting.

The same use to be true in developed countries, such as the United States, and now it is illegal to dump trash in the river. “What? You mean I have to put it in a bag and wait for someone to pick it up? I have to pay for someone to pick it up? I have to pay for bags?” We adjusted.

BEV owners will learn to adjust, as long as their cars are charged. On the other hand, I do wonder about the dreaded midnight emergency, where you might need to get into your car and go somewhere. Because it’s not the normal routine, might you end up with an uncharged, and therefore useless, BEV in that emergency situation? Of course, that’s the 80/20 or 99/1 rule, right? I wonder how that might be addressed.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by sporkmarketinghttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41783 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:13:09 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41783 Bob Wallace I understand the grid benefits of selective vehicle charging, but I can tell you as a veteran of the auto industry that people who plug in their cars are going to expect them to be charged, at least until a car with a 50% charge can go a couple hundred miles.

Quite frankly, this is why I find a lot of the conversations about BEVs so difficult. BEV fans are sort of oblivious to the realities of consumer behavior. Consumers are knowingly going to plug in a car that might not be charged? Consumers are going to accept the notion that they can’t charge their long-range EV for days because the grid was at capacity? Consumers only care if they have enough battery range to get home (aka minimum range)?

I appreciate the logic, but consumers aren’t logical. They never have been. Any predictions about BEVs that don’t reflect consumer behaviors and norms are – at best – exceedingly optimistic.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41780 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:46 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41780 Got an interesting email from Toyota, and I thought I’d share it with everyone:

Hi Benji,

I know The Green Optimistic is dedicated to providing information about green technology and I wanted to respond to your article <URL snip> where you ask if FCVs might be better than EVs. 

We think so and here arehttps://parts.olathetoyota.com/fuel-cell-myths.html.

If you find our list interesting, we are hoping you will share it on your site as a resource for readers. Additionally, we’re hoping our list might generate additional conversations or even debates on the topic.

Thanks for your time!

Sincerely,
Taryn with Olathe Toyota Parts Center

Seems like some pretty neat information, and I’ll be posting on this topic over the next couple weeks. Looking forward to your feedback!

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41781 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:46 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41781 Got an interesting email from Toyota, and I thought I’d share it with everyone:

Hi Benji,

I know The Green Optimistic is dedicated to providing information about green technology and I wanted to respond to your article <URL snip> where you ask if FCVs might be better than EVs. 

We think so and here arehttps://parts.olathetoyota.com/fuel-cell-myths.html.

If you find our list interesting, we are hoping you will share it on your site as a resource for readers. Additionally, we’re hoping our list might generate additional conversations or even debates on the topic.

Thanks for your time!

Sincerely,
Taryn with Olathe Toyota Parts Center

Seems like some pretty neat information, and I’ll be posting on this topic over the next couple weeks. Looking forward to your feedback!

]]>
Comment on Breakthrough Battery Technology for Gadgets and EVs in the Making at J-CESR by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/21/breakthrough-battery-technology-gadgets-evs-making-j-cesr/#comment-41779 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:31:11 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48610#comment-41779 Good work Mila; can you get Prof. Crabtree to give you a progress report?  I believe battery technology is the “New Transistor of the Century,”  the next “Trillion Dollar Baby” and the “Hope of the Planet.”

]]>
Comment on How to Build a Backyard Biogas Plant by RobertSamitahttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/03/14/how-to-build-a-backyard-biogas-plant/#comment-41778 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:50:57 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/index.php/2008/02/10/how-to-build-a-backyard-biogas-plant/#comment-41778 its wonderful since it touches the life of men

]]>
Comment on Cheap and Efficient Thermoelectric Material Turns Waste Heat Into Eectricity by NeilFarbsteinhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/18/cheap-efficient-thermoelectric-material-turns-waste-heat-eectricity/#comment-41771 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:54:41 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48592#comment-41771 Vulvox’s innovation
will enable energy storage of intermittent photovoltaic and wind power. 
The patent pending Vulvox system
is expected to cost 7.69% as much as pumped
hydroelectric storage, its least expensive competitor and 2.7% as much
as
compressed air storage. Cheap electrcity
storage systems are desired by the renewable power industry and
government
smart grid programs. It will stabilize the
electricity grid and help prevent blackouts and brownouts. It can store
intermittent
renewable energy including wind power, solar
power and tidal energy, and later release the electrcity when it is
desirable,
such as at peak periods when air conditioner
use rises on hot summer days. It can store electricity for vehicle
battery recharging
stations. It can store electricity generated
by Stirling dish solar energy collectors making that form of solar
energy available
around the clock instead of during daylight
hours. Utility scale electricity storage will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions
and slow or reverse damage to the environment
that excess carbon dioxide is causing.
As already stated it will
provide
bulk energy storage for utilities – shifting
large amounts of energy from excess production times to peak usage times
and that will enable storage of cheap
electrcity generated during off peak hours to be sold during peak demand
periods. It
will also enable lower usage of expensive
auxiliary power generators used during peak demand periods and it will
replace them
with cheap regenerated energy generated
overnight  and stored by our system.
According to a Lux research
report released May 29, 2008-
“Bulk
energy storage for utilities – shifting large amounts of energy from
excess
production times to peak usage times –
presents the biggest potential opportunity of all markets studied: If
even 10%
of installed wind power plants adopted
large-scale energy storage, the market would hit $50 billion.”

Our electricity
storage system beats its closest competitor by a factor of 15 times.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210133507.htm

Contact Neil Farbstein,  President of Vulvox for R&D partnership and patent licensing details.

http://vulvox.tripod.com/id28.html

http://vulvox.tripod.com

]]>
Comment on Researcher Offers Hope for Understanding Universe’s Unlimited Dark Energy by Anthony Proladhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/01/16/researcher-offers-hope-for-understanding-of-universes-unlimited-dark-energy/#comment-41770 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:51:44 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=31510#comment-41770 M.T. Keshe declares that “in the beginning” there is PLASMA – which comprises magnetic fields of various strengths.
Those of similar strength entangle to form neutrons (which decay to produce electrons and protons), the HYDROGEN atom, and so on.
The Keshe reactor duplicates the reactions occurring at the core of the planet. The simplest element, HYDROGEN, holds the “secrets”.
After confirming that Gravity is a consequence of interacting magnetic fields, he created a reactor that produced “lift”.
See “keshefoundation”.

]]>
Comment on Researcher Offers Hope for Understanding Universe’s Unlimited Dark Energy by Anthony Proladhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/01/16/researcher-offers-hope-for-understanding-of-universes-unlimited-dark-energy/#comment-41769 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:44:07 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=31510#comment-41769 DARK MATTER – STRING THEORY
Iranian nuclear engineer has created PLASMA REACTORS following discoveries regarding Matter, “Anti-matter”, and Dark Matter.
These discoveries have also led to the creation of Gravity powered craft.
 See”keshefoundation”

]]>
Comment on Nokero’s N182 Solar Light Bulb Is World’s Brightest and Most Affordable by NaatTurnerhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/01/nokeros-n182-solar-light-bulb-worlds-brightest-affordable/#comment-41768 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 05:10:44 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48245#comment-41768 July saw the launch of,
Another great and practicable invention out of Africa this year,
The Solar powered light,
coming just a few months after Ghana’s Etic Group invention of the Atmospheric Water Generator,
the Ugandan Onelamp is an application which is pertinent to and in the price range of ordinary folk.
Though the Onelamp is aimed at the 7:5 million Ugandan schoolers, 
it’s market lies throughout Africa and across the globe wherever issues of poverty and 
infrastructure affect matters of lighting.
Being able to gain 8 hours light at a time is a great asset of the Onelamp.
Onelamp’s nobility is enhanced in that it takes people away from using dangerous, dirty and polluting kerosene,
Kerosene “fumes kill an estimated 1.5 million women and children in Africa 
every year more than half of them below the age of five”,
solar power is renewable and non pollutive.
We should all where possible help in the promotion of this product.
Onelamp is contactable through
Email: info@onelamp.ug
http://www.onelamp.ug//
Regional Office: Plot 53 Lubas Road, Jinja, Uganda
Telephone: +256 – 434 660 875
Wholesale http://www.nokero.com/dealers/application.
Etic Group’s Atmospheric Water Generator,
Extracts water out of the air by way of a condenser,
through a process called reverse osmosis.
Contact http://eticgroupint.com//
A larger copy of the picture -
http://api.ning.com/files/826oIv68Xgj*m71BtVVt8KZDu1HILDPj5em-mhnWnr1omPZq6bXtus-mx*biUkqE*EBDKplfyVbIPMMHid8tzATduu9peo0F/Onelamp.jpg

]]>
Comment on UK Students from Brighton Turn Waste Into an Amazingly Livable House by bentleyyhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/06/25/students-brighton-turn-waste-livable-house/#comment-41766 Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:30:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48148#comment-41766 thanks for sharing that

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Powered Bike by bentleyyhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/01/29/hydrogen-powered-bike/#comment-41764 Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:29:09 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/index.php/2008/01/29/hydrogen-powered-bike/#comment-41764 thanks alot

]]>
Comment on New Catalyst for Electrolysis Reduces Costs by 97% and Increases Hydrogen Production Fourfold by Thermospecialisthttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2010/05/19/gridshift-electrolysis-catalyst/#comment-41763 Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:27:40 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=7670#comment-41763 The First Law of Thermodynamics states that if an amount of energy is applied to a system to bring it into an other condition (H2O split to H and O) the same amount of energy must be removed from the system  to bring it back in the original condition ( combustion of H and O to H2O) . Hence, at 100% efficiency, no net energy can be taken out, as it then would have come out of nothing. That means that all the energy that would drive a car, doesn’t come from the Hydrogen, but from an other energy source … yes, the electricity grid, powerd by fossil fuels. HYDROGEN IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE !

]]>
Comment on Dogs Rescue Birds from Being Burnt by Ivanpah’s Solar Panels by crustaceanhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/16/dogs-rescue-birds-burnt-ivanpahs-solar-panels/#comment-41758 Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:44:38 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48549#comment-41758 My apologies. A more careful reading shows that the story isn’t made up, and that there is apparently some representation being made that recovering all the bird carcasses can inform a plan to reduce bird mortality. All well and good, but the problem is that plan will necessarily require modifying the operation of the facility, i.e., curtailing its operation, which gets to the heart of the issue that the technology is primitive, inefficient, and does far more environmental damage than efficient technologies that are compact and comparatively harmless to wildlife. Ivanpah is a “do it because we can” project and an example of environmental narcissism stomping all over the environment.

]]>
Comment on Dogs Rescue Birds from Being Burnt by Ivanpah’s Solar Panels by crustaceanhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/16/dogs-rescue-birds-burnt-ivanpahs-solar-panels/#comment-41757 Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:12:01 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48549#comment-41757 This is sheer nonsense. The FWS report had nothing to do with birds being burned by coming in contact with the mirrors. It was about birds being incinerated in mid-air when they fly inadvertently into the superheated air surrounding the tower-mounted boilers. The dogs’ job is to recover the carcasses, not to chase birds away from boilers that are more than 400 feet above ground, where dogs can’t go. Either the reporter is totally committed to defending this environmentally destructive, primitive technology, or she didn’t read any part of the FWS report and simply made this up.

]]>
Comment on Dogs Rescue Birds from Being Burnt by Ivanpah’s Solar Panels by Rico Reedhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/16/dogs-rescue-birds-burnt-ivanpahs-solar-panels/#comment-41755 Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:53:04 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48549#comment-41755 Mila, the wrong picture headed this article so it shows a bird on a PV panel which could never burn a bird while the story is about concentrator mirrors.
Sunshine!
Rico

]]>
Comment on Dear Tesla Motors Fans, “You Have to Resolve This On State Level.” Sincerely, The White House by beepeehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/15/dear-tesla-motors-fans-resolve-state-level-sincerely-white-house/#comment-41754 Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:29:38 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48531#comment-41754 Free enterprise, Competition, and then Antitrust – in that order.  Worked for Standard Oil and ATT.  Though EV’s are still tethered to the AC grid (the reason for abandoning the EV1 in California), auto manufacturers should just “belly on up to the bar” and build better and more EVs.  After all, the engineering secrets are all out and open to the public.  It’ll lower gasoline consumption on one hand, but increase the use of the AC grid (and slightly increase oil consumption on the other hand – if the EV1 killers where correct).

]]>
Comment on EPA Suggests Actually Testing Automobile Fuel Economy by beepeehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/15/epa-suggests-actually-testing-automobile-fuel-economy/#comment-41752 Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:10:44 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48534#comment-41752 Who is the EPA – the
Feds. . . .  and who does the Federal
Govt work for?  Not the “people” any more
(but for Big Business a la ‘trickle-down’ to the people).  That is essentially why the auto industry
gets a break, and has been doing so since the beginning.
The latest, egregious
‘favor’ to the AI, was to permit an enormously printed average mpg’ figure (at
10 x larger size), centered directly between the much smaller ‘city mpg’ and the ‘highway
mpg’ on the automobile MSRP ‘sticker’. 
Egregious because, in the absence of real world testing, the prominent ‘average
mpg’ figure is based on simple math, but derived from mpg figures that are, at
best, guesstimates themselves.  Not to
mention that the arrangement makes the city/highway figures less or not
noticeable at all.  The previous gift to the AI
was permitting it’s ‘caveat emptor’ phrase, “Your Mileage May Vary”.
All of this being
said, regardless of the mpg accuracy, there are quite a few (really nice cars)
with city mpg numbers well below the 20 mpg mark, and they’re selling like
hotcakes.  And you can trust me, these
cars are NOT getting the ‘sticker’ mpg. 
Not because the sticker is wrong, but regardless of the cost p/gallon,
these cars are not being driven at 55mph (or an otherwise reasonable speed).  In 1973 (I think), arguably the  most comprehensive law ever passed, mandated
that 55mph would be the National Speed Limit. 
Comprehensive because, though not intended, the reduction in speed
(along with rigid enforcement) saved over 10,000 lives in it’s first year.
Gasoline is King, or
is big business King, take your pick (or are they one-in-the-same?).  BTW Ford/Lincoln will be sending me a
check for my 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid because it’s 47/47mpg is not obtainable.

]]>
Comment on Big Oil Behind Blocking Use of Ethanol? Say It Isn’t So! by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/14/big-oil-behind-blocking-use-ethanol-say-isnt/#comment-41745 Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:30:37 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48511#comment-41745 @J Matthis Ethanol blends between 5% and 10% have been in the fuel system for years. the result being somewhere between 3% and 8% reduction in gasoline consumption. Considering that national ethanol-blended gasoline consumption for 2013 was about 134.51 billion gallons, and 10% of that was ethanol, that’s theoretically a 10% cut in petroleum imports. On the other hand, I think I read somewhere that US-owned petroleum reserves are providing more of our petroleum than ever before.
As I responded to another commenter: “it’s OUR addiction to fossil fuels. Big Oil is just our enabler”

]]>
Comment on Big Oil Behind Blocking Use of Ethanol? Say It Isn’t So! by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/14/big-oil-behind-blocking-use-ethanol-say-isnt/#comment-41744 Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:21:38 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48511#comment-41744 newpapyrus Well, corn isn’t the only source of biofuels, to be sure, as practically any fast-growing plant can serve the purpose, and it’s not exactly new, either. The Ford Model T got 26 mpg on ethanol, albeit slower than today’s transportation.
Personally, I don’t think the problem is biofuels or gasoline, it’s OUR addiction to fossil fuels. Big Oil is just our enabler.

]]>
Comment on Big Oil Behind Blocking Use of Ethanol? Say It Isn’t So! by newpapyrushttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/14/big-oil-behind-blocking-use-ethanol-say-isnt/#comment-41743 Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:48:13 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48511#comment-41743 Using food to make fuel is simply a bad idea. Using urban and rural biowaste to make methanol makes more sense. Plus bio-methanol can easily be converted into carbon neutral gasoline. 

Marcel

]]>
Comment on Flare: The Most Time-, Cost- and Energy-Efficient Cooking Pot by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/14/flare-time-cost-energy-efficient-cooking-pot/#comment-41742 Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:07:38 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48493#comment-41742 Rico Reed Well, first things first. Teflon and other non-stick coatings are only toxic if you burn them. If you’re using the cookware properly, it won’t burn, so that problem is out of the way. I’ve had an Anolon Advance Ultimate Pan for over five years now, and no sign of burnt or flaking non-stick coatings… http://www.amazon.com/review/R182KF1KWLR0ZW/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
The only thing I wonder about with this Flare pan is quantifying gas savings versus the $100 price tag. The science seems sound, but I’d love to try it.
Honestly, I really miss my Lodge 12″ cast-iron skillet, but my wife doesn’t care for the weight of the thing.

]]>
Comment on Flare: The Most Time-, Cost- and Energy-Efficient Cooking Pot by Rico Reedhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/14/flare-time-cost-energy-efficient-cooking-pot/#comment-41740 Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:08:51 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48493#comment-41740 This looks a bit gimmicky and I know I don’t want to be eating off either aluminum or the latest version of teflon coating.  We have greatly reduced our cooking energy by buying a magnetic  induction cooktop.  They can draw as many watts as regular resistance heating when on high but they are so fast they are on a lot less.  The bonus is that the kitchen or even the stove top its self do not get hot.  Only magnetic cookware can be used and only about half the kinds of stainless steel are magnetic.
If you have not covered them before I could write an article.
Aloha!
Rico

]]>
Comment on Big Oil Behind Blocking Use of Ethanol? Say It Isn’t So! by J Matthishttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/14/big-oil-behind-blocking-use-ethanol-say-isnt/#comment-41738 Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:16:33 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48511#comment-41738 I have no love for big oil but I may love less using food stock to produce a product that is bad for the planet. Face it folks the use of ethanol was done to give farmers another revenue stream at the expense of the american people. I’m not saying farmers don’t have a hard time they do but most of it is caused by big government in the first place. There is a simple reason why I don’t want ethanol in my gas. First I’ll point out that water and gasoline do not mix. The gasoline will float on top of the water. Gasoline stations know this and the tanks that hold the gasoline are designed with this in mind. When you purchase gasoline it does not come from the bottom of the storage tank. All fuel tanks sweat and water condenses and sinks to the bottom. Now with the introduction of ethanol blended with the gasoline you actually end up with a higher octane equaling compound, this in and of its self is great but the result outside the lab is very different. On one end of the ethanol molecule you have the gasoline but on the other you have water. The water that was in the bottom of the tank, the water that condenses out of the air etc, etc,.so where in the lab it’s all great but in reality you are just buying more water. The result actually is the fact that your car runs like crap and doesn’t go as far on a gallon of fuel (because it’s got more water in it). So the premise that big oil resists the blending of ethanol is a big joke. They actually sell more fuel because of the ethanol, because once it’s mixed with the water it becomes a poor substitute for plain gasoline. I’ts a facade in order to take advantage of the american people, people believe by using locally grown biofuel  they are reducing green house gases and our dependence on foreign oil. Wrong it’s just a scam it will not have any affect on either one. Because we use ethanol without the proper infrastructure (storage tanks) we will purchase more foreign oil to compensate for the loss in efficiency. Water doesn’t burn well in my engine how about yours?

]]>
Comment on The BMW i3 – Everything but the Range by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/11/bmw-i3-everything-range/#comment-41737 Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:56:04 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48478#comment-41737 Ladson LoneWolffe Still a conundrum, but I believe it’s a fun vs range thing… http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/14/bmw-i3-vs-nissan-leaf-bang-vs-buck/

]]>
Comment on Schematic of How to Build a Magnetic Motor by Cece Murphyhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/07/17/how-to-make-sandeep-acharya-magnetic-motor/#comment-41732 Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:01:55 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=479#comment-41732 As much as you claim this isn’t possible, many people have tried and failed many times, but once they found the right combination, they realized that they never failed, but instead found multiple ways NOT to do it, and only needed 1 way to do it…
So anyone who is up for the adventure, I’m open to trying, Just let me know if you want to move forward!!!

]]>
Comment on Schematic of How to Build a Magnetic Motor by Cece Murphyhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/07/17/how-to-make-sandeep-acharya-magnetic-motor/#comment-41731 Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:58:22 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=479#comment-41731 @Bill I’ll take you up on your offer!!! I’ve been looking into this idea for a while, and REALLY WOULD LOVE to find a way to actually launch a Hummingbird Motor, and a Sundance Generator, (If you look these up on google, you will find the scam I am talking about, but I want to believe that the concept is true, I’ve seen evidence that Tesla did create something like this, and I’d like to bring it to reality, and offer it on a small scale, Household and small business like scale…

]]>
Comment on The BMW i3 – Everything but the Range by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/11/bmw-i3-everything-range/#comment-41729 Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:27:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48478#comment-41729 LoneWolffe Ladson Good, I would like to see someone quantify some of the differences; all too often we get…”it’s expensive; but, worth the money” kind of opinion thing.  Enjoy your journalism and your site..

]]>
Comment on The BMW i3 – Everything but the Range by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/11/bmw-i3-everything-range/#comment-41727 Sat, 12 Jul 2014 00:01:02 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48478#comment-41727 Ladson I’m not really sure how to interpret that one. Just taking a quick look at the specifications, (i think i’m going to write this up on monday), the i3′s motor is 150% more powerful than the LEAF’s, and also has a smaller battery by 2 kWh. I have to find specs for the upcoming LEAF, which is supposed to be better than the 73-mile EPA range.

]]>
Comment on Idénergie’s River Turbine Generates Energy from Flowing Water by timetrvlrtedhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/07/idenergies-river-turbine-generates-energy-flowing-water/#comment-41726 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:56:21 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48376#comment-41726 I’m pleased that run-of-river power generation is not dead yet! I live in British Columbia (Canada). Over 90% of our power is generated by big hydro dams, most built in the ’60′s. Hydro dams are no longer popular with the voters here because so much of the environment is damaged in building them. 

What makes small run-of-the-river power generation desirable for us is that our huge, under-populated Province can not supply electrical power to many very-isolated native villages in the northern interior without using diesel generators and flying in drums of diesel fuel. The same situation exist throughout the north of Canada and Alaska.

]]>
Comment on The BMW i3 – Everything but the Range by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/11/bmw-i3-everything-range/#comment-41725 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:15:40 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48478#comment-41725 The i3 is a puzzle; it weighs 500 lbs less than a Leaf; 2700 lbs compared to 3200 lbs.  Yet, this advantage seems small perhaps lost somewhere in the design.  Is it driveline friction, a less efficient motor, motor controller? a larger frontal area? miscalculated CD? What?  Perhaps the Nissan components of the Leaf are better engineered than the Bosch components.  It would be interesting to put them both on a dyno and compare their efficiencies at various speeds.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41724 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:33:53 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41724 LoneWolffe Ladson Bob Wallace I see a whole industry in after market overhauled battery packs; here is a site just waiting for the opportunity.  Experience based on OEM ICE parts suggests the better price is not at the dealer.http://www.btcpower.com/products-and-applications/electric-vehicle-charging/#ev-phev-battery-refurbisment-program

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41723 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:58:07 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41723 Bob Wallace LoneWolffe Ladson Sent him another email and see what kind of information he can provide.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41722 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:54:41 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41722 LoneWolffe Ladson Bob Wallace From your link – “According to scientist and engineer Mark Quarto, the same NiMH conditioning technology can also be applied to Li-Ion (lithium-ion) battery packs”.

What this guy has is speculation.  I don’t see any data.  Let’s see some rigorous lab work before we join him in speculating.

]]>
Comment on Mantra Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Prototype is Cheaper by Stevehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/03/24/mantra-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle-prototype-cheaper/#comment-41721 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:50:52 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=46611#comment-41721 Mr. Jerer,
I am curious – what is the waste product of the reaction in the MRFC ? Traditional PEM fuel cell produces electricity and water – hard to beat as far as low toxicity goes .

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41720 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:50:42 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41720 LoneWolffe Bob Wallace Ladson I’m pretty sure density is the issue.  At one point there was a company talking about flow batteries for cars and you’d got to the “gas” station to have your liquids exchanged.  I don’t think that’s gone anywhere.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41719 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:59:44 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41719 Ladson Bob Wallace LoneWolffe As far as keeping one on the road, I’m still asking this new company, The Hybrid Shop, if their AR&D battery conditioning technology can be applied to pure electric vehicles. If they can restore 90-95% of a hybrid battery without part replacement for 33% the cost of a new hybrid battery, who says The Hybrid Shop can’t apply the same thing to an EV battery? http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/05/20/hybrid-shop-reduces-hybrid-battery-waste/

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41717 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:56:46 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41717 Bob Wallace Ladson LoneWolffe Flow batteries also don’t self-discharge. I’d have to take a look and see the energy density. What prevents it from going into an EV? It can’t be more flammable than gasoline or hydrogen, right?

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41716 Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:03:30 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41716 Bob Wallace Ladson LoneWolffe Right you are; We are just glad to have Nissan quote a price.  Up until this point there was a lot of uncertainty about what one would pay to keep a Leaf on the road.

If you like flow batteries and believe in them, have at it.  I like all batteries, especially those that will help clean up the planet and reduce pollution.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41715 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:52:31 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41715 Ladson Bob Wallace LoneWolffe $270/kWh is for the battery pack.  It doesn’t include the control electronics and other ‘stuff’.  

The price for flow batteries is all inclusive.  Hard to make a direct comparison.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41714 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:45:57 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41714 Bob Wallace Ladson LoneWolffe As Leaf drivers know, myself included, Nissan has priced a replacement battery at about $270 a kWh; however, that’s for a replacement trade in and not for an over-the-counter buyers.  In any case, I think the high-cycle, flow battery using vanadium extracted from power plant fly ash is huge, especially when you realize there are mountains of the stuff just waiting to pollute our major rivers.  Kind of begs the question of just how valuable processing environmental waste really is.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41713 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:29:56 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41713 Ladson Bob Wallace LoneWolffe I just ran across this on line.  Kind of long, but interesting…

“FREMONT, CA–(Marketwired – Jul 9, 2014) – Imergy Power Systems, a pioneer in advanced storage systems, has achieved a fundamental milestone in energy storage by developing an exclusive process for producing high-performance flow batteries with recycled vanadium from mining slag, oil field sludge, fly ash, and other forms of environmental waste.

The achievement will have a number of significant impacts on the growing energy storage industry. Other manufacturers of vanadium flow batteries build their devices with virgin vanadium extracted from mining. It must then be processed to a 99% plus level of purity. Through an extensive R&D program, Imergy has developed a way to produce flow batteries with vanadium at a 98% purity level that can be harvested from environmental waste sites.

By extracting vanadium from slag, Imergy will lower the cost of obtaining and processing vanadium — the principal active ingredient in many flow battery electrolytes — by 40% relative to competitors. As a result of this technology and other developments, Imergy will be able to lower the cost of its flow batteries from $500 a kilowatt hour, already an industry benchmark, to under $300 per kilowatt hour.

Imergy’s flow batteries from low-grade vanadium will also be capable of storing more energy per kilogram than conventional vanadium flow batteries by more than twice, giving cell phone operators, solar power plant developers, microgrid owners and other customers more flexibility and capacity for managing outages, curbing peak power or reducing demand charges.”

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/imergy-power-systems-achieves-technological-breakthrough-energy-storage-flow-batteries-1927965.htm

While lithium-ion batteries are expected (and may already be) below $300/kWh the price of storage depends on cycle rate.  The more frequently a battery is cycled the lower the cost per kWh – capital is recovered quicker.

Lithium-ion batteries would be very expensive for long term storage, applications where they might only cycle a few times a year.  With flow batteries more tanks and liquids (relatively cheap) can be added to a storage facility.  That can provide cheaper ‘deep’ storage.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41712 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:23:57 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41712 Bob Wallace Ladson LoneWolffe Price and energy density are the factors in these decisions.  If EV traction batteries can be reduced in cost, and they will be, grid buffering can be accomplished easily and will provide for smoothing out the various renewable electricity inputs.  That will delete the so called fossil fuel base load need in plant power management.

The point is not if traction batteries can be used; but, that A battery will be available for this application.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Not as Dangerous as Previously Thought – Sandia National Laboratories by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/09/hydrogen-fuel-dangerous-previously-thought-sandia-national-laboratories/#comment-41711 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:00:07 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48441#comment-41711 Mick Segal This is a nice experiment and from a scientific standpoint laudable; but, for the mass market that would be needed by millions of electric cars augmented by range extender fuel cells, not very promising.  At present, only the oil companies can supply that mass market need for hydrogen by heating reforming and compressing oil and natural gas.  Oil companies are in control of the U. S. energy market and hydrogen will ensure they will continue to control the price of automotive fuels.  Stick around and watch: “Hydrogen is Big Oil’s New Gasoline.”

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41710 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:56:29 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41710 Ladson LoneWolffe I doubt that EV batteries will play a role in grid storage (while they are in the car).

There are large scale storage solutions which should be much cheaper than EV batteries.  Flow batteries and pump-up hydro, for example, can provide storage at a price we’re unlikely to see with car batteries.  

Car batteries will probably play some role once they are removed from cars.   Even when it’s time to send that rusty old EV to the crusher there’s likely to be more than 50% of battery life left.  And since real estate for battery placement is low cost utilities (and businesses) can get a few years of service from these batteries before they are recycled.  Nissan is already planning on using removed Leaf batteries at their building sites.

The grid role for EVs (and PHEVs) is likely as dispatchable load.  Cars spend about 90% of their time parked.  If plugged in with a ‘smart charger’ the utility can turn on charging when supply exceeds demand and turn off charging when demand is challenged.  As long as the driver’s minimum range is present when they get in they should be happy to let the utility determine the actual time of charging in exchange for very attractive kWh prices.

With higher range (~200 mile) EVs it will be possible for utilities to skip charging for multiple days for some drivers.  Someone with a normal 30 mile driving day might set a 50 mile minimum.  That leaves the utility 75% of the battery to recharge when supply is high or the ability to skip up to five days if there’s a long cloudy/windless period.  Dispatchable load is very valuable to grids.

Offer lower than regular grid charging and a fixed number of free “supercharger” rapid charges if their plans change and I think many will be willing to play.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41709 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:38:59 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41709 LoneWolffe Ladson That breakthrough will be the “Better Battery,” which will allow low-cost buffering storage for the grid and at the local grit edge, in addition to providing a sorely needed significant increase in the range of electric cars.  The cost of solar cell and wind are trending downward and upward in efficiency.  So, these technologies are moving slowly in the right directions to offset fossil fuel usage.  Also, there is a whole new world of other alternative energy generation relatively untapped, among these is geothermal, wave and river generation.  

Disrupting the firmly entrenched rich fossil fuel industries is proving to be a difficult task.  What is amazing is they have decided to use their financial power to fight the changes rather than join in the movement and use their money to advance the technologies and to share in the profits.  I fear the reason is they would rather retain their control of the current energy market than participate in competing in a new market. 

The “Better Battery” will happen.  Right now there are many laboratories working to develop it and they all realize the market will be huge; estimated to be in the multi- trillions of dollars.  Among the labs working on this development is the one I think has the best chance to bring the high-density battery to market. That is the DOE’s JCESR project at Chicago University, run by Professor Crabtree.  I think the best competitor to the oil industry is Crabtree’s battery produced by Elon Musk’s Giga Factory.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Not as Dangerous as Previously Thought – Sandia National Laboratories by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/09/hydrogen-fuel-dangerous-previously-thought-sandia-national-laboratories/#comment-41708 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:34:07 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48441#comment-41708 Video (Someone took down the video but the article still there) below of what is happening in California at municipal wastewater treatment plants using fuel cell technology to produce 3 value streams of electricity, hydrogen and heat all from a human waste! This is pretty impressive in my opinion for hydro-refueling infrastructure.
“New fuel cell sewage gas station in Orange County, CA may be world’s first”

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315

“It is here today and it is deployable today,” said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project.

2.8MW fuel cell using biogas now operating; Largest PPA of its kind in North America

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2012/october/28-mw-fuel-cell-using-biogas-now-operating-largest-ppa-of-its-kind-in-north-america

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Not as Dangerous as Previously Thought – Sandia National Laboratories by Mick Segalhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/09/hydrogen-fuel-dangerous-previously-thought-sandia-national-laboratories/#comment-41707 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:33:44 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48441#comment-41707 Hyundai “Tuscon” Fuel Cell Vehicle$499 per month w/ Free Fuel & Free Maintenance from Hyundai!!! (pure water for exhaust)https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/
Toyota joins California Hydrogen Push in Station Funding – Bloomberghttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-01/california-awards-46-6-million-for-hydrogen-car-stations.html

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41706 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:29:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41706 Ladson We need some groundbreaking solar-hydrogen technology to commercialize quick. something cheap and efficient to knock Big Oil on its @$$. something tells me we won’t see it anytime soon, because Big Money seems to have its way most of the time.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41705 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:01:08 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41705 Oil companies see Hydrogen as the new Gasoline; they create hydrogen by heating, reforming and compressing oil and natural gas, almost the same as refining oil for gasoline.  Hydrogen allows them to maintain their control of the U.S. fuels market and to continue to set the price of fuels.  Fuel Cell Vehicles are their creation to counter plugin battery electric vehicles which derive their fuel from the grid and local renewables.  Where battery electric cars give you independence and freedom; hydrogen means you are controlled by Big Oil and they can continue their environmentally destructive processes of mining oil and gas.

“Mining oil and gas is a dangerous and nasty business that requires paid political and legal protection so oil companies can pollute and damage health, water, air and land.”

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Not as Dangerous as Previously Thought – Sandia National Laboratories by Ladsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/09/hydrogen-fuel-dangerous-previously-thought-sandia-national-laboratories/#comment-41703 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:15:11 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48441#comment-41703 Serving hydrogen at gas stations is all part of oil company’s plan.  Oil companies see Hydrogen as the new Gasoline; they create hydrogen by heating, reforming and compressing oil and natural gas, almost the same as refining gasoline.  Hydrogen allows them to maintain their control of the U.S. fuels market and to continue to set the price of fuels.  Fuel Cell Vehicles are their creation to counter plugin battery electric vehicles which derive their fuel from the grid and local renewables.  Where BEVs give you independence; hydrogen means you are controlled by Big Oil and they continue mining oil and gas and polluting.

“Mining oil and gas is a dangerous and nasty business that requires political and legal protection so companies can pollute and damage health, water, air and land.”

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41702 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:38:52 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41702 LoneWolffe Bob Wallace Much is made of range, and EVs will need to get well over 100 mile ranges in order to gain wide market acceptance.  I used 200 miles, the number could be lower but probably doesn’t need to be higher.  (That’s a “threshold of acceptance” number, more range would be fine but not required.)

Americans seem to think that they need a car that will take them hundreds of miles without stopping but, in fact, we use that ability rarely.  Take a look at how few of our driving days pile up even 150 miles.

People may stop to charge more often on a >150 mile trip with an EV but they won’t be stopping any of those other days to fill their tanks.  They will simply park and charge.  (I suspect we would quickly move to wireless charging.)  The small inconvenience of long distance stops will be outweighed by the larger convenience of routine charging.

Musk has stated that the material cost for lithium-ion batteries is less than $100/kWh and that he can get the battery price down close to $100/kWh with mass production.  That’s what is needed for an affordable, “200 mile range” EV.  He seems to have a route staked out.  

Toyota could possibly gets sales volumes up and prices down but they’re still stuck with higher operating costs.

Either way, it looks like we’ve got a way to get off petroleum and cut our carbon emissions.  It’s going to be interesting to watch how things play out.

]]>
Comment on World’s Largest Floating Solar Power Plant Under Construction in Southern India by sivadasanhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/04/worlds-largest-floating-solar-power-plant-construction-southern-india/#comment-41701 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:30:29 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48356#comment-41701 Good to engage in R&D.. Floating plants are CSP, a high end tech which may end up in big problems in course of time. Learn from the link http://bit.ly/15Hwhk8. Claims of promoters are to be analysed in detail.
Read a concept paper  http://bit.ly/StoOiU. Read an informative article dated 1.1.2013 by Mr.Sonal Patel http://bit.ly/1f2sspv. Reproduce here his statement “Other players include French company Sky Earth, which has operated a pilot project in the south of France since February 2011 and is now DEVELOPING 12-MW and 4-MW projects in that region.
Associated drawbacks of floating solar plants have also already been established. Aside from cumbersome maintenance and repair, concerns have been voiced about solar energy concentration levels on a rocking platform. Then there are ecological and cost concerns.”
Read a report from Japan 11.7.2013 http://bit.ly/1dmrrYx
Report from Singapore 8.8.2013 http://bit.ly/15uhlQw
Small size R&D plants could have been monitored for a few years for satisfactory operation before venturing into large size plants. Let not India jump into untested technology and provide chance to perpetuate scams.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41700 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 14:37:09 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41700 Bob Wallace That’s what people don’t realize. They look at the “short range” but never realize that they’ll almost never use it in one trip. The main thing, even for people that realize this and can accept the minimal limitations, if cost.
The question is, who’ll make it first? It seems that it’s the Toyota FCV and the Tesla Model “E” vying for this spot. Toyota’s HFC technology is top-notch, and doesn’t count on mass-production for the price. Tesla’s whole business plan relies on the economics of scale to get battery prices down.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Bob Wallacehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41698 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 06:26:26 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41698 H2 FCEVs might dominate if EV batteries don’t drop enough in price to make 200 mile EVs affordable.  (About the same price as a same-model ICEV or FCEV.)

With 200 mile range and rapid charging one could drive all day and arrive just a few minutes later, if later at all, as someone driving a FCEV.  

Drive 200, charge 20 min, drive 180, charge, drive 180.  Do the eat/pee/walk the dog/check messages/nap stuff during charge breaks.  A 560 mile driving day.

Someone driving a FCEV will stop 5 minutes to refill and some of those other 35 minutes doing the eat/pee/walk the dog/check messages/nap stuff

If we get affordable 200 mile EVs then they will win because they will cost 2x less per mile to operate.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41697 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:46:04 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41697 Brian Keez LoneWolffe thanks for the link. i’ll check it out

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Brian Keezhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41696 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:12:18 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41696 LoneWolffe Brian Keez ‘A Cost Comparison of Fuel-Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles’ by: Stephen Eaves*
, James Eaves -  http://www.metricmind.com/data/bevs_vs_fcvs.pdf  I haven’t researched it in a while but there are other sources and it just adds up when you look at the entire process to turn H into electricity.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41695 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:32:12 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41695 Brian Keez Where did you get your figures from? I’ve been meaning to crunch the numbers, but I just haven’t had the time.

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by Brian Keezhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41694 Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:14:03 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41694 To back-up ‘weapon’ – A contrast in ‘upstream emissions’ between an EV and FCV;

60 kWh
to the wheels of a 100% BEV requires 79 kWh of electricity.
60 kWh to the wheels of a fuel cell vehicle requires 202 kWh
of electricity.  Very expensive and wasteful.
FCV’s will keep the
consumer in the exact same, overly expensive position we are in today

]]>
Comment on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles May Be the Future by weaponhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/08/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-may-future/#comment-41692 Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:52:48 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48413#comment-41692 The answer is BEVs will win by a long shot.
There is a few mistakes that should be noted.
1) Fuel Cell Vehicles upstream emissions is comparable to gasoline vehicles when not using renewable energy. (Which based on Fuel Cell lobby request that 90% of funding go to fossil fuel based refilling seems to be the case). Even on renewable energy, Fuel Cells are worse than BEVs in emissions due to worse efficiency.
2) The range of the Toyota FCV is yet to be seen, so far the only numbers Toyota published are based on the Japanese JC08 test is 435 miles.

Tesla has not taken the JC08 test, and Toyota FCV has not taken the EPA test so we can’t compare directly, but there is another vehicle that has taken both.
The Nissan Leaf 2013 model has 75 miles EPA range and 141 miles in JC08 test. If we apply the same formula to the Toyota FCV based on the Leaf, when/if it takes the EPA test (I say IF because Toyota first needs to get an NHTSA safety exemption to even sell in the US). The Toyota FCV will most likely have an epa range of 232 miles. (They might use a bigger tank for US market to make it 265 miles just to be competitive)

3) FCVs are far more limited by range. Why? BEVs will get to 400wh/kg. But will safety laws allow FCVs to go over 10,000psi compression?

FCVs is just a distraction by the fossil fuel industry. They know the cheapest way to make hydrogen is through fossil fuels and that is what they will push.

]]>
Comment on Refrigerating Carbon Emissions Might Be the Solution to Effective Carbon Capture and Storage by David Willsonhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/04/24/refrigerating-carbon-emissions-might-solution-effective-carbon-capture-storage/#comment-41691 Tue, 08 Jul 2014 18:21:39 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=47161#comment-41691 When
the Feed CO2 concentration is sufficiently high (eg > 60%), pursuant to the
so-called Inverse Lever Rule CO2 can indeed be captured via refrigeration with
a very low energy and capital cost. In fact, in the Permian Basin area
of West Texas, for more than thirty years CO2 has been separated by
refrigeration from natural gas produced in the context of longstanding Enhanced
Oil Recovery programs. The largest of these refrigeration plants separates more
than five million tons of CO2 each year. This is therefore a fully-proven
process which importantly has a high tolerance of SO2 – an important
consideration for CO2 capture for a coal-fired power plant. By comparison, the
amine capture process currently favored for CCS has only rarely exceeded 1.5
million tons/year of capacity at a single plant, and has a tolerance of SO2 of
just a few ppm – a level that has never been scrubbed to by any known
commercial process on a sustained basis (for a short duration pilot test the
amine solution can of course be repeatedly replaced, which is very expensive
and creates an awkward environmental disposal problem).
Quite separately, in the Permian Basin gas
separation membranes have also been used for more than thirty years to increase
the CO2 concentration. The largest of these plants processes more than ten
million tons of CO2 each year, so this is another fully proven process (which
again has a high tolerance of SO2).
Moreover, in more than one plant gas
separation membranes and refrigeration are used together at the same location in
an optimal way. It therefore seems that the Gas Processors are very far ahead
of the people in Brussels who provide funding.
I have been studying these plants (and many
others of direct relevance to CCS and beneficial CO2 use) in detail for more
than seven years now. Their performance is impressive, and it is quite
surprising they have not been embraced for CCS.
If you would like to learn more about these
plants and their implications for low cost CO2 capture and beneficial use,
please find me via LinkedIn: David Willson, Stanbridge Capital.

]]>
Comment on Weird but Green: Donkeys Carry Solar Panels to Charge Shepherds’ Smartphones by NeilFarbsteinhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/04/donkeys-carry-solar-panels-charge-shepherds-smartphones/#comment-41689 Tue, 08 Jul 2014 04:08:09 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48352#comment-41689 40 mule team not so wierd

]]>
Comment on New Renewable Energy Sharing System Monitors Energy Consumption of Entire Neighborhoods by ray from bristolhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/07/new-renewable-energy-sharing-system-monitors-energy-consumption-entire-neighborhoods/#comment-41686 Mon, 07 Jul 2014 22:22:14 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48381#comment-41686 “Is it too hard to go to the moon, eradicate smallpox or end apartheid? Is it too hard to build a computer that fits in your pocket? No? Then it’s not too hard to build a clean energy future, either.” http://clmtr.lt/c/Juu0fz0cMJ

]]>
Comment on A REAL and WORKING Magnetic Motor Spinning Indefinitely by veto64http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/02/06/real-working-magnetic-motor/#comment-41681 Sun, 06 Jul 2014 10:41:50 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=32750#comment-41681 i would like to buy a small moter like this for fun.
is there anywhere a site where i can buy those small devices.
i don’t have the time to do the handicrafts by myself.
thanks for link

]]>
Comment on How To Build a UFO-like Anti Gravity Spacecraft by Earthling Powerhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/03/05/how-to-build-an-ufo-like-anti-gravity-spacecraft/#comment-41680 Sun, 06 Jul 2014 06:55:54 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/index.php/2008/02/10/how-to-build-an-ufo-like-anti-gravity-spacecraft/#comment-41680 Why hasn’t someone tried to make such a machine yet. On a small scale in a garage or lab. If it actually works, then it could be quickly shared with the world before getting removed of the net by ‘big brother’ are there any rough plans out there?

]]>
Comment on Scientists Use Solar Panels to Extract CO2 from the Atmosphere by ray from bristolhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/04/scientists-use-solar-panels-extract-co2-atmosphere/#comment-41679 Sun, 06 Jul 2014 01:21:30 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48349#comment-41679 “Carbon dioxide has increased about 40 percent in the atmosphere since the 1750s, due to pollution from dirty energy like coal, oil, and gas. The result is a warming climate.” http://clmtr.lt/c/Jq30cd0cMJ

]]>
Comment on How To Build Chas Campbell's Gravitational Engine by Kurt Gminderhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/02/10/how-to-build-chas-campbells-gravitational-engine/#comment-41677 Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:16:01 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/index.php/2008/02/10/how-to-build-chas-campbells-gravitational-engine/#comment-41677 There is a kind of super inertia thus a moving mass, a
brake pulse can be removed without this mass is slowing proportional. This
phenomenon is called Reynolds number which plays only in the 1/150 sec range.
Thus, water is really briefly as hard as concrete. Turnaround a bicycle, let a wheel
running and brake it off with a wooden style, then try to slow down the wheel
with pulsed short timed strokes of the cane in the opposite direction, you have
a lot to do – that is this type of free energy

]]>
Comment on Scientists Use Solar Panels to Extract CO2 from the Atmosphere by NeilFarbsteinhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/04/scientists-use-solar-panels-extract-co2-atmosphere/#comment-41676 Sat, 05 Jul 2014 13:07:22 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48349#comment-41676 its efficiency is too low to make it practical

]]>
Comment on Scientists Use Solar Panels to Extract CO2 from the Atmosphere by Chimelhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/04/scientists-use-solar-panels-extract-co2-atmosphere/#comment-41675 Fri, 04 Jul 2014 19:02:20 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48349#comment-41675 That’s grand, extract carbon dioxide from the air and transform it into formic acid that decomposes naturally into the much more toxic carbon monoxide. What will scientists think of next? Grow beef so it can be fed to yeasts and produce proteins that we can eat?

]]>
Comment on Ekocycle: Coca Cola’s 3D Printer that Recycles Bottles, at Home by LoneWolffehttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/02/ekocycle-3d-printer-coca-cola/#comment-41674 Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:22:39 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48294#comment-41674 the only thing that could make this better is being able to feed a clean plastic bottle into the back of this, and print something out of that.

]]>
Comment on Giant Mobile Green Machine Turns Deserts Into Agricultural Fields by NeilFarbsteinhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/02/giant-mobile-green-machine-turns-deserts-agricultural-fields/#comment-41672 Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:10:13 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48301#comment-41672 NASA is wasting our money on unrealistic  junk.

]]>
Comment on Chevy Volt Owners Want More, Will General Motors Deliver? by Kevinhttp://www.greenoptimistic.com/2014/07/01/chevy-volt-owners-want-will-general-motors-deliver/#comment-41671 Thu, 03 Jul 2014 21:59:48 +0000 http://www.greenoptimistic.com/?p=48273#comment-41671 I’m surprised at @AmazingChevVolt’s 80 mpge. I average 4 miles per kilowatt and pay 11.06 per Kilowatt. At today’s gas price of $3.60 that equates to just over 130 mpge. I haven’t been to a gas station in 4 months, running 100% on electricity during that time.
In the next Volt I would also like to see more range, but the one thing I believe will get the most attention is if they can meet or exceed the mpg in the Prius when running in generator/hold/gas mode. If you drive 100+ miles per day on a regular basis, the best economic choice right now is the Prius. If the next model Volt can get 55+ mpg versus the current 38 mpg, it eliminates the Prius as ever being a better option and would sell more cars.

Most consumers seem confused about mpge and what it could mean for them. My commute is 35 miles round trip and I am able to run on electricity 100% of the time for my commute. The only time I need the generator is when I have to go somewhere outside of my regular commute and don’t have time to charge.More mpg in generator mode would not make a big difference to me, but would allow GM to compete with the popular Prius.

]]>