I think that you are SPOT ON!!! The virute-signalling will fall victim to reality.
I think that you are SPOT ON!!! The virute-signalling will fall victim to reality.
I missed the turbine suggestion.
The industry BTDT. They are considerably more expensive than diesel engines, and have the exact same emissions problems. Unlike airplanes, the weight advantage is very muted. So I don't see that every happening.
And, frenchy, just having a diesel + electric motor does not equal hybrid- you need a way to store energy to make a combination of EV and ICE - aka hybrid powertrain. The diesel electric is just understanding how they are loaded. Same goes for ships that are also diesel electric.
ICE hybrids will be developed quite a bit, and until batteries are so cheap that a 100mile pack is less expensive than an entire ICE powertrain- hybrids will make financial sense. People forget that the constant improvement of batteries also helps hybrids be better at their jobs, too.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:The biggest problem is large quantities H2 plus atmospheric levels of oxygen is explosive.
And that's different than any HC fuel, how? Well, other than H2 having less energy than HC fuels, which is why HC fuels are used for thermobaric bombs....
Hopefully GM isn't going to GM and nuke it after a less than a year run. I'm looking at you 4.2 turbo Blackwing.
Appleseed said:Hopefully GM isn't going to GM and nuke it after a less than a year run. I'm looking at you 4.2 turbo Blackwing.
For a second there, I thought you were going to bring up the 1988 Fiero.
alfadriver said:AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:The biggest problem is large quantities H2 plus atmospheric levels of oxygen is explosive.
And that's different than any HC fuel, how? Well, other than H2 having less energy than HC fuels, which is why HC fuels are used for thermobaric bombs....
It's kinda the point of HC fuels, really :)
alfadriver said:I missed the turbine suggestion.
The industry BTDT. They are considerably more expensive than diesel engines, and have the exact same emissions problems. Unlike airplanes, the weight advantage is very muted. So I don't see that every happening.
You don't think a turbine series-hybrid could make sense? I figure this would allow the turbine to run at peak efficiency feeding power into the electric powertrain which might improve efficiency and emissions. I suppose the point of this not being massively better for a super-heavy land vehicle than doing the same with a diesel ICE is a valid one though...
Jaguar did a show car a while back with microturbines - the C-X75 (catchy name, seems a little Mazda to me). The turbines were generators to top up the battery pack, which had a 68 mile range that could be extended to over 500 with the generators. I really wish they'd moved forward with the idea. From my limited understanding, turbines aren't good at rapid throttle response but they're pretty well suited as an APU. Jaguar also pointed out they are tolerant of a bunch of different fuels, don't need water cooling or oiling which makes them more compact for packaging. The ones used in the car were 94 hp and 77 lbs each. I can see Alfa's point about cost vs weight, though. Just make the vehicle a foot longer and jam an Onan gennie in there instead.
I still want to hear a semi making a turbine noise as it rolls past on the interstate, though :)
Keith Tanner said:alfadriver said:AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:The biggest problem is large quantities H2 plus atmospheric levels of oxygen is explosive.
And that's different than any HC fuel, how? Well, other than H2 having less energy than HC fuels, which is why HC fuels are used for thermobaric bombs....
It's kinda the point of HC fuels, really :)
It's just people that don't know what they are talking about pointing out that something is different, and somehow bad.
No a turbine doesn't make sense. You need diameter to make it efficient.
I drive an electric car. I want my next people mover to be electric. I don't ever want to deal with an ICE for daily driving duties ever again. I don't want to ever have to replace a catalytic converter, replace a fuel pump, replace a timing belt, motor mounts, torque converter or clutch ever again.
But I think the prediction of the demise of the ICE is overblown, despite proposals and legislation seemingly to the contrary.
I do not believe the driving cause is the grid, or precious metals, or anything like that. I believe that a large enough population will simply want an ICE. They might get more expensive and more difficult to find gasoline for, but I do not think any of us will live in a world where they cannot be purchased and driven on the road.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
From a potential efficiency point, yea, it makes sense. From a cost and fuel availability standpoint, it doesn't. 20 years ago, a handful of cruise companies tried to make the turbine work, but they didn't last more than one ship series. Gas turbines don't have the same operating windows, too- which was one of the problems 60 years ago. But these days, emissions are also super expensive to meet- they have the same problems that diesels do, but GT's can't do some of the basic solutions diesels do.
Lastly, the cost of a single speed, super high efficiency gasoline motor is so cheap. Like super cheap.
alfadriver said:AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:The biggest problem is large quantities H2 plus atmospheric levels of oxygen is explosive.
And that's different than any HC fuel, how? Well, other than H2 having less energy than HC fuels, which is why HC fuels are used for thermobaric bombs....
HC fuels are less explosive. That's why the exploding car is a Hollywood thing and not a reality thing. Pure H2 in vast quantities is a Hindenburg thing. But what do I know? H2 with as little as 6% O2 is explosive. The atmosphere with lots of pure H2 is explosive AF to put it in parlance you might understand.
I'll try to teach you all while you need big power plants and large generators typically cooled by H2 to maintain a power grid, etc, but we all already know I'm the dumbest guy in the room and you green energy gurus got it all figured out.
Yah, I'm a lot more worried about that H2 than the other parts of power generation.
Keith Tanner said:Jaguar did a show car a while back with microturbines - the C-X75 (catchy name, seems a little Mazda to me). The turbines were generators to top up the battery pack, which had a 68 mile range that could be extended to over 500 with the generators. I really wish they'd moved forward with the idea. From my limited understanding, turbines aren't good at rapid throttle response but they're pretty well suited as an APU. Jaguar also pointed out they are tolerant of a bunch of different fuels, don't need water cooling or oiling which makes them more compact for packaging. The ones used in the car were 94 hp and 77 lbs each. I can see Alfa's point about cost vs weight, though. Just make the vehicle a foot longer and jam an Onan gennie in there instead.
I still want to hear a semi making a turbine noise as it rolls past on the interstate, though :)
But Jaguar was using the X designation way back with the 1948 introduction of the XK 120 -150 XKE XJS etc. right up to current production.
So move over Mazda ;-)
But yes I'd love to see a Jaguar with the stunning style the XKE had in 1961 and a small turbine APU charging a smaller sized battery
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:alfadriver said:AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:The biggest problem is large quantities H2 plus atmospheric levels of oxygen is explosive.
And that's different than any HC fuel, how? Well, other than H2 having less energy than HC fuels, which is why HC fuels are used for thermobaric bombs....
we all already know I'm the dumbest guy in the room
Correct, the adults are talking. There are already MASSIVE amounts of H2 out there used in industry, it is not a problem that doesn't already have a solution.
tuna55 said:No a turbine doesn't make sense. You need diameter to make it efficient.
I drive an electric car. I want my next people mover to be electric. I don't ever want to deal with an ICE for daily driving duties ever again. I don't want to ever have to replace a catalytic converter, replace a fuel pump, replace a timing belt, motor mounts, torque converter or clutch ever again.
But I think the prediction of the demise of the ICE is overblown, despite proposals and legislation seemingly to the contrary.
I do not believe the driving cause is the grid, or precious metals, or anything like that. I believe that a large enough population will simply want an ICE. They might get more expensive and more difficult to find gasoline for, but I do not think any of us will live in a world where they cannot be purchased and driven on the road.
Tuna.
I don't think you understood where I was going.
That's the trouble with the internet. I I explain every detail it gets too long and if I don't ••••••.
There are small light even cheap turbines out there. As someone else has pointed out they are not fuel sensitive. the Navy is using Biofuels. Don't need coolant. Are efficient in that unlike an ICE engine don't have 1 stroke in 4 being a power stroke. They are continuously rotating.
Down side, they prefer steady state, which is exactly what you want in a generator power unit.
The one proposed by Jaguar made 68 hp and only weighed 77 pounds.
Now we can have lite battery units that only go 50-70 miles on a plug in charge. But with a small tank of fuel can reach 500 miles.
The battery driving an electric motor can give the needed torque and acceleration a Turbine lacks.
frenchyd said:Tuna.
I don't think you understood where I was going.
That's the trouble with the internet. I I explain every detail it gets too long and if I don't ••••••.
There are small light even cheap turbines out there. As someone else has pointed out they are not fuel sensitive. the Navy is using Biofuels. Don't need coolant. Are efficient in that unlike an ICE engine don't have 1 stroke in 4 being a power stroke. They are continuously rotating.
Down side, they prefer steady state, which is exactly what you want in a generator power unit.
The one proposed by Jaguar made 68 hp and only weighed 77 pounds.
Now we can have lite battery units that only go 50-70 miles on a plug in charge. But with a small tank of fuel can reach 500 miles.
The battery driving an electric motor can give the needed torque and acceleration a Turbine lacks.
It would work, but it's a question of whether it can be made efficient enough (and emissions and noise concerns solved cost effectively enough) to make it practical.
In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
Transporting Hydrogen is kind of a pain in the ass. On a large scale its transported in pipelines, not much political capital in those these days. In a tanker you have to liquefy it and keep it super cold.
There is a bunch of hydrogen used a year, related to something like gasoline, its not even on the same planet.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
The Hindenburg didn't explode, it just burned. Heck, it didn't even combust like it was mixed with air.
H2 make a terrible fuel for an ICE.
In reply to frenchyd :
Cheap is very relative. I'd wager a 70hp ice is considerable cheaper. More so when you factor in emissions.
Plus there is that synthetic gasoline that Porsche is working on which they claim will produce less emissions than evs. The question will how expensive it will be ofcourse.
In reply to tuna55 :
Back to why a turbine. They've been around for well over a 100 years. The Titanic was driven by a steam turbines
The latest super aircraft carrier uses steam turbines. OK let's not use nuclear power, just yet ( maybe fusion someday if••••) The Navy is using biofuels in their jets. So- Peanut butter, cooking oil etc. ? As is well known turbines aren't fussy about fuel.
Connect That to a generator sending electricity to a battery. Drive the vehicle with an electric motor a small light battery will give 50-70 miles of plug in range before the turbine fires up and gets you another 500 miles of range. Pull into that switch grass station and fill up your tank with denatured ethanol. Or if peanut butter is on sale, peanut butter. ( just because I like saying peanut butter) Heck if they ever figure out how to deal with Hydrogen we can burn that.
I've got to say I love ICE because it's based on steam engines which are fascinating to watch. The idea of those parts flying around at 20,000 rpm in a Formula 1 engine just tickles the Rube Goldbergness in me. If one stroke in 4 is a power stroke and peak power is when the crankshaft is 90 degrees to the direction of the piston movement. Is my math wrong when a 100 horsepower 4 cylinder engine makes at that point Over 1000 horsepower?
I don't care. Rube Goldberg. Ya just gotta love it.
In reply to alfadriver :
Re- Calculate it with volume efficiency's of millions. And more than a century of development.
I think a really big run of turbines is 20 at a time?
While I love the stop start return stop start return of a piston. Going up and down a cylinder. Watching valves dance to the tune played by the camshaft. Sparks magically appearing at the right moment which has to vary based on what the throttle pedal is telling it. Oh, and then we have water pumps and oil pumps and gears chains or belts, flywheel to retain motion. Plus fuel. A certain kind of fuel. The engine is more efficient with higher octane fuel but then the cost of fuel goes up offsetting the efficency.
Plus a way to put the right amount of fuel in. Webers are beautiful, real artistic but not cheap. Nor is EFI. And now we are talking about development. Carbs? Well they are cheaper but then••••••
alfadriver said:In reply to frenchyd :
Cheap is very relative. I'd wager a 70hp ice is considerable cheaper. More so when you factor in emissions.
Ignoring the fact that the mustached Corporal tried very hard to develop just that fuel a while back and in the past 80 years it hasn't happened yet.
You still are talking about basically a High tech steam engine. With all its inefficiencies.
rslifkin said:frenchyd said:Tuna.
I don't think you understood where I was going.
That's the trouble with the internet. I I explain every detail it gets too long and if I don't ••••••.
There are small light even cheap turbines out there. As someone else has pointed out they are not fuel sensitive. the Navy is using Biofuels. Don't need coolant. Are efficient in that unlike an ICE engine don't have 1 stroke in 4 being a power stroke. They are continuously rotating.
Down side, they prefer steady state, which is exactly what you want in a generator power unit.
The one proposed by Jaguar made 68 hp and only weighed 77 pounds.
Now we can have lite battery units that only go 50-70 miles on a plug in charge. But with a small tank of fuel can reach 500 miles.
The battery driving an electric motor can give the needed torque and acceleration a Turbine lacks.
It would work, but it's a question of whether it can be made efficient enough (and emissions and noise concerns solved cost effectively enough) to make it practical.
Great points. Driving a fixed RPM generator helps a lot. On or off at peak efficency.
Regarding noise and pollution. If not used for thrust the waste of a turbine could be captured and reused. Just like they do on submarines. And those submarines are really really really quiet. I mean you can hear a fish fart a mile away but you can't hear a submarine when it's right behind you.
Please ask me how I know. Please?
alfadriver said:In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
The Hindenburg didn't explode, it just burned. Heck, it didn't even combust like it was mixed with air.
H2 make a terrible fuel for an ICE.
I happen to agree but if they get it working it will work on a turbine too!
You'll need to log in to post.
