New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

What country are you referring to ?

The USA? lol. Where does it get below -30? I thought even Illinois or Minnesota don't really go below -30. You should be able to store a lithium titanate at -40F=-40C.

I've only lived on the East Coast for 2 years but the coldest I saw was -5F in NYC and -19F in Vermont in mid-January 2019. 2020 winter was much warmer than that.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

The USA? lol. Where does it get below -30? I thought even Illinois or Minnesota don't really go below -30. You should be able to store a lithium titanate at -40F=-40C.

I've only lived on the East Coast for 2 years but the coldest I saw was -5F in NYC and -19F in Vermont in mid-January 2019. 2020 winter was much warmer than that.

I lived in VT for 24 years. I've seen -30 more times than I care to remember. I've seen -15 living right on the border of what is historically considered "The South".

Tesla states in their manuals to not expose the vehicle to -20 or below for more than 24 hours. I would assume because it damages the batteries or puts too much strain on the heating elements attempting to keep the batteries warm enough to prevent damage.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

It's not about driving the cars in the cold and losing range per se, it's about them sitting in the cold for an extended period, ie the batteries freezing and becoming uselessly damaged. If hydrogen vehicles suffer the same issues, the whole thing is a non starter unless you live in a temperate climate.

Then batteries in hydrogen cars would be just as bad. Im sure there is a solution to keep the batteries warm. The simplest solution is storing cars indoors.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Coincidentally, I ran across this article today. Not necessarily automotive related, but various infrastructure happenings.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...first-shipment

It would be interesting to know how they produce everything and capture the carbon.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

I lived in VT for 24 years. I've seen -30 more times than I care to remember. I've seen -15 living right on the border of what is historically considered "The South".

Ah well, I'm from California, and the lowest I saw outside Tahoe was 27F in 20+ years Typical winter day around SF is like...55F.

I just did a little research, apparently Tesla's coolant freezes at -30C = -22F, but if you leave the car plugged in, it'll warm the coolant to keep it liquid. The batteries themselves can be stored safely at -40, but of course you have reduced power and no charging capability below 0C. Apparently they use propylene glycol instead of ethylene glycol, which stays liquid a few degrees colder.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Emissions and fuel economy standards are completely different -_-

You can still buy a gas guzzling Mercedes G or Bentley today but those engines are very clean in terms of toxic emissions.

Koenigsegg badges don't make aluminum and steel magically lighter...the intercooler and turbo are going to be at least 50lbs alone, and even a carbon fiber crank case 2L long block would weigh well over 100lbs.

Yes, but the RX8 had the fuel economy of a V8 F150, while also failing Euro 5 standards, which means it is producing more emissions per mile than other vehicles in its class, so this is bad bad. For instance, it got 22 hwy at best and the 86 gets 34, so it take over 50% more gas to go the same distance, so whatever it produces in emissions, you could add 50% more emissions. The G Wagon is exempt from the gas guzzler tax because light duty trucks and SUVs are exempt, which is stupid.

Yes, Koenigsegg makes stuff magically lighter. One way they do this is through the use of exotic materials like titanium and carbon fiber. Another way is with 3D printing their turbos and other parts using a honeycomb structure like below, and also using variable geometry turbo that allows for a much smaller and lighter turbo than having a big turbo without the veins. In the case of the 3-cylinder, they are just using two small turbos sequentially I believe instead of one big turbo. Another way is with their Freevalve engines that lack cams, cam chains, cam gears, etc. and eliminates the need for a wastegate, precat on the exhaust manifold, throttle body and other things.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Then batteries in hydrogen cars would be just as bad. Im sure there is a solution to keep the batteries warm. The simplest solution is storing cars indoors.

Well, that's going to be an issue for a large percentage of the car buying public in cold regions.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Ah well, I'm from California, and the lowest I saw outside Tahoe was 27F in 20+ years Typical winter day around SF is like...55F.

I just did a little research, apparently Tesla's coolant freezes at -30C = -22F, but if you leave the car plugged in, it'll warm the coolant to keep it liquid. The batteries themselves can be stored safely at -40, but of course you have reduced power and no charging capability below 0C. Apparently they use propylene glycol instead of ethylene glycol, which stays liquid a few degrees colder.

jeffgoldblumwellthereitis.gif

I think I said earlier in the thread to purchase stock in extension cord companies. The future with plug in ev's is going to be hilarious.

[serialk11r]

The RX8 had horrible fuel economy, but a rotary with higher rotor temperatures will dramatically reduce the unburned HCs and bring fuel efficiency near piston engines (at the cost of torque). It's been documented by Paul Moller's research. A mild hybrid system can make a hot running engine usable at low revs. If I ever have too much money, I'm going to have some aluminum side housings and zirconia coated titanium rotors made for the Renesis and run it at 11000rpm XD

Do you really think Koenigsegg Freevalve is much lighter than a cam driven system? There are separate actuators over each valve (which are very powerful because they need to open the valve in 1ms), plus the air source consumes a huge amount of power. He says "we can remove the throttle body to save weight", but throttles were never heavy to begin with. Likewise, do you really think the 3d printed turbo is that light? It's still a huge amount of steel. Also notice the crankcase isn't even carbon fiber.

The 70kg claim is probably the long block + the turbo + intercooler. It almost certainly does not include accessories, motor-generator, radiators, or the exhaust.

Anyways, yes electric motors should be able to get near 10hp/kg like Lucid Motors says with very high speed motors. Motorcycle engines do around 4hp/kg. Rotaries can do around 6hp/kg. If you need a very large amount of power, electric motors will be lighter. If you need a modest amount of power, then gasoline can still win since the fuel tank is so light.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

In the case of the 3-cylinder, they are just using two small turbos sequentially I believe instead of one big turbo.

I think you meant "in parallel" based on the pictures?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It would be interesting to know how they produce everything and capture the carbon.

Found this more related to Australian efforts, but it helps with background info. I think SA is just capturing the carbon from the traditional method of production.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...without-carbon

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

Well, that's going to be an issue for a large percentage of the car buying public in cold regions.

Why is that?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I think you meant "in parallel" based on the pictures?

All the exhaust of the 3 cylinders via 3 exhaust valves is going to one turbo at low rpms then all the exhaust via 6 exhaust valves goes to both turbos at high rpms. This is one of the benefits of Freevalve, which is the ultimate control of the system without the need for butterfly valves or other complicated actuators.

https://www.koenigsegg.com/gemera/ti...-giant-engine/

Quite simply, one turbo is connected to three exhaust valves – one from each cylinder. The second turbo is connected to the other three exhaust valves. During low rpm and part to high load, all exhaust gasses are pushed to only one turbo, by only opening one exhaust valve per cylinder – thereby doubling the exhaust gases to that turbine. When adequate boost is reached, the second exhaust valve is opened to start the second turbo.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

The RX8 had horrible fuel economy, but a rotary with higher rotor temperatures will dramatically reduce the unburned HCs and bring fuel efficiency near piston engines (at the cost of torque). It's been documented by Paul Moller's research. A mild hybrid system can make a hot running engine usable at low revs. If I ever have too much money, I'm going to have some aluminum side housings and zirconia coated titanium rotors made for the Renesis and run it at 11000rpm XD

Do you really think Koenigsegg Freevalve is much lighter than a cam driven system? There are separate actuators over each valve (which are very powerful because they need to open the valve in 1ms), plus the air source consumes a huge amount of power. He says "we can remove the throttle body to save weight", but throttles were never heavy to begin with. Likewise, do you really think the 3d printed turbo is that light? It's still a huge amount of steel. Also notice the crankcase isn't even carbon fiber.

The 70kg claim is probably the long block + the turbo + intercooler. It almost certainly does not include accessories, motor-generator, radiators, or the exhaust.

Anyways, yes electric motors should be able to get near 10hp/kg like Lucid Motors says with very high speed motors. Motorcycle engines do around 4hp/kg. Rotaries can do around 6hp/kg. If you need a very large amount of power, electric motors will be lighter. If you need a modest amount of power, then gasoline can still win since the fuel tank is so light.

It is probably just the long block that weighs 70kg, but the exhaust manifold is probably titanium, the turbos are 3d printed (if the GT2 RS' pistons could be 3D printed 10% lighter than imagine what Koenigsegg could do with the turbos that are hot, but not under huge loads), the longblock is a dry sump, the intake manifold is short and partially carbon fiber, etc.

The Freevalve eliminates a lot of size and weight. The head size is smaller because of the compactness of the system, so that alone reduces a lot of weight in the head. The cams, VVT/gear system, timing pulley, timing tensioner, timing cover, etc are all removed. There is no wastegate and not throttle body. All of this adds to an extremely light system, but of course the car is millions of dollars, so it would be.

That is all I was saying.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Found this more related to Australian efforts, but it helps with background info. I think SA is just capturing the carbon from the traditional method of production.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...without-carbon

I think it is clear from that article that hydrogen is clearly not an ideal solution. Essentially they are making ammonia like they make 4% of the hydrogen in the world--with a type of electrolysis-style process. If the energy from this process comes from green sources then it is a green process. The advantage might be the easier storage and shipping of ammonia. One problem is that it isn't green to ship and then truck ammonia around the world.

Converting hydrogen into ammonia only to convert it back again might seem strange. But hydrogen is hard to ship: It has to be liquefied by chilling it to temperatures below −253°C, using up a third of its energy content. Ammonia, by contrast, liquefies at −10°C under a bit of pressure. The energy penalty of converting the hydrogen to ammonia and back is roughly the same as chilling hydrogen, Dolan says—and because far more infrastructure already exists for handling and transporting ammonia, he says, ammonia is the safer bet.

Eventually the ammonia has to be converted to hydrogen. I don't know if this "cracking" can happen in a car, but it seems like it couldn't because of the size, and perhaps the conversion rate is too slow to deliver enough hydrogen to a car, so it isn't like a car could be filled up with ammonia. At 15kg per day, the reactor is making 0.625kg of hydrogen per hour, and the Mirai has a 5kg tank, which can take it 300 miles, which at 65mph is 4.6 hours of driving, and this means the Mirai is using about 1kg per hour of driving. Considering it would take energy to convert the ammonia to hydrogen, there would be a need for two to three reactors to make the hydrogen needed to power the Mirai per hour of highway driving. Obviously that isn't possible, but if they could miniaturize that then that would be pretty sweet because liquid ammonia is much more hydrogen dense than compressed hydrogen gas.

That last step—stripping hydrogen off ammonia molecules—is what Dolan and his colleagues are working on. In a cavernous metal warehouse on the CSIRO campus that has long been used to study coal combustion, two of Dolan's colleagues are assembling a 2-meter-tall reactor that is dwarfed by a nearby coal reactor. When switched on, the reactor will "crack" ammonia into its two constituents: H2, to be gathered up for sale, and N2, to waft back into the air.

That reactor is basically a larger version of Giddey's membrane reactor, operating in reverse. Only here, gaseous ammonia is piped into the space between two concentric metal tubes. Heat, pressure, and metal catalysts break apart ammonia molecules and push hydrogen atoms toward the tube's hollow core, where they combine to make H2 that's sucked out and stored.

Ultimately, Dolan says, the reactor will produce 15 kilograms per day of 99.9999% pure hydrogen, enough to power a few fuel cell cars. Next month, he plans to demonstrate the reactor to automakers, using it to fill tanks in a Toyota Mirai and Hyundai Nexo, two fuel cell cars. He says his team is in late-stage discussions with a company to build a commercial pilot plant around the technology. "This is a very important piece of the jigsaw puzzle," Cooper says.

The fine print with all this is still the idea that electricity is produced, and instead of being stored in batteries to be used, it is converted to ammonia then converted back to hydrogen then converted in the car to electricity to charge a car battery or the electric engine, which is inherently inefficient and adds more complexity.

I'm sure there is a place for hydrogen and ammonia in the future for certain applications. It just doesn't look that great right now.