Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: LENR adoption in transport

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    LENR adoption in transport

    Transport is by far the most difficult application to squeeze LENR into but it is the only credible new energy source that has a shot at getting there. Domestic and industrial applications usually have the benefit of a grid to smooth out consumption, no significant space or weight restrictions and in the case of domestic relatively low electric/heat requirements, which makes it ideally suited for CHP generators.
    By contrast transport is constrained in many of these dimensions.
    The below table should give an overview of the constraints each segment faces, in order of likely adoption:

    [attachment=0:3vdl3pj1]t.png[/attachment:3vdl3pj1]

    Marine
    Adoption there will be easy: lots of space, a history of using novel power in the military (nuclear subs/warships/aircraft carriers), very high utilization rates will mean that this segment will convert as soon as practicable. If civilian applications are considering nuclear reactors then LENR will be a no-brainer.

    Cars
    Any future vision of automobiles will have to include robocars - if you look at the rapid pace of development and the constantly falling costs of technology the odds of this coming through in the next two decades are very high in my mind. Other people have done a lot of detailed analysis on this so I won’t go into detail here. Nicolas Chauvin of lenr-cars has interesting ideas but misses this aspect entirely in his vision.
    The reason this is relevant here is because robocars will change car usage greatly: more driving will be done as everyone is a passenger and can just sit back and relax/sleep. Add in zero fuel cost and demand will rise even more. Distances travelled will also go up as many trips will be overnight: at 80mph/130km/h average speed an 8 hour overnight trip creates a radius of 640miles/1040km.
    To outline power requirements for LENR in cars it’s helpful to do some simple maths: taking the Tesla S as a normally sized saloon car the 85kWh model at 55mph/90km/h has a range of 265 miles/426km. This gives us a consumption per of 200Wh/km. This speed is usually the most efficient point for a car, consumption rises after this point. As energy consumption rises with the square of speed let’s assume that at 80mph/130km/h we get 400Wh/km. Designing for unlimited range at that speed would therefore require 400Wh/km while covering 130km in that hour, 0.4kWh/km*130km/h=52kW.
    Going with existing technology only this 65 kW turbine fits this power envelope. Its electrical efficiency is 29% and I think that with 1000C from a Hot Cat we could get similar numbers. The required thermal energy therefore is 224kW. If the latest COP figures of 12 are true the required drive power would be 19kW, leaving 46kW for driving, almost matching the requirements above.
    The thermal requirement divides into 16 14kW hot cats. The total weight of such a package would be 130kg for the generator+16*4kg for the hot cats or 200kg, in line with normal engines. Space is also not an issue and could fit a normal engine bay.
    However there are challenges:
    • Heat rejection: in an ICE a lot of the heat rejection is done via the exhaust, so there will be an engineering challenge of removing 159kW of heat. Better turbines at up to 50% efficiency (JTEC, SCO2) could reduce this challenge.
    • Battery requirement: Ecat drive vs. SSM however probably won’t be an issue given the number of units in the car, which would ensure that most of the time a majority of them are in ssm. A battery would still smooth out dips but for this purpose does not need to be very big. However, startup time is a major issue. If startup time is measured in hours the battery would have to be very large and this would not be economical. The only way to deal with it would be to keep it running 24/7, not an option if parked in a garage and also noisy.
    • Running costs: given the number of hot cats the marginal cost for the recharges isn’t negligible anymore; however given the likely hours of use this may never be required. Mass production should make these very cheap as well over time.
    • All-weather / shaking robustness: nobody knows yet how these modules would behave under extreme external temperatures and how the shaking from the bumps in the road will affect performance.
    Fuel taxes that help finance road building and maintenance would need to be replaced by tolls as part of this transition. With advancing technologies and robocars this would be very easy and accurate to collect, with differential pricing to spread usage. The entire field, not just highways could then be handed to private companies. Given the natural monopoly operators would enjoy governments should still regulate the sector to ensure safety and set pricing caps but largely step back from providing this kind of infrastructure.
    A lot of the points made on Brad’s site about robocars talks about not owning vehicles and having the right sized vehicle for the right job in the name of efficiency and lower emissions – I think that with near-zero marginal cost a lot of these arguments go away. Outside city centers people like to know that they have a car exclusively available to them at all times and that it can take them to pretty much wherever they want within a large radius without any further bookings. That freedom is psychologically important and will continue to drive car ownership.
    In a slightly more distant future with robocar roads only and more advanced software and even better LENR “engines” cars could speed up all the way to 150mph/250km/h, if safety at these speeds is comprehensively established. If trains can do this on purpose built tracks why shouldn’t ultra-safe cars either…
    Demand for short haul air travel is likely to reduce considerably – travelers pressed for time would still pay a premium to get there fast but driving will become more and more viable as the all-in time balance constantly shifts in favor of driving.

    Trucks/trains
    A lot of points about cars will apply to trucks and trains as well. Adoption should happen faster though as due to high utilization rates the economic rationale is much bigger. An interesting technological demo here is Wrightspeed’s drop-in hybrid part for trucks.

    Aviation
    Given the catastrophic consequences of technological failure it will be a long time before aviation will be using LENR for propulsion though electrical systems could see this sooner. Unmanned and military planes however have less strict safety requirements and could be the pioneers in this area. In the meantime synfuels could bridge the gap and make this mode of transport zero emission as well.

    Space
    Personally not that interested, Earth should be our priority!

  2. #2
    Tech-watcher/Admin AlainCo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    VILLEJUIF, FRANCE
    Posts
    2,376
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 21 Times in 18 Posts

    Re: LENR adoption in transport

    I agree mostly.

    about people stuck to personal car, it can chaneg if the new mode is practical. Not having to park, and to go and find the car is nice in cities (where you can walk half a km to reach your car). For loggage, there should be integrated baby seat, easy cargo load... maybe standardized, so loading can be easy.

    People will not change car ownership without a clear advantage. It shoul be much better. It is typical for revolutionaly technology (see jed rotwhell book, CF and the future) to be restricted to few niche where it is a breakthrough, and not practical for others... then it became better and catch all the market. Robotcar rental can do that with LENR.

    People will drop their own car when their taxi is always ready like in new york, cheap, fast, helpfull, with all included for all the family, and all the usage, all the range. If not, they will keep a home car.
    In rural zone, good management and planning of those taxi, plus highspeed highway could make them useable too...
    (hey bob, I've called the taxi, it will be there in 5 minute... just 20km to go from the city car station. hurry up and prepare the luggages)...

    for space, classic nuclear thermal with liquid oxygen enhancement... will work much better, without risk, compared to fission.

    about slow response of e-cat, Defkalion show that you can trigger the reaction in few seconds, and control it over few minutes... throttling is not so straight, but with some hybrid mode, it is perfect. and who knows how easy to control could be Brillouin reactor! maybe seconds to start and stop.
    “Mainstream science will discover LENR in the Wall-Streat Journal” (me, quite infuriated)
    “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
    "Heureusement que Galilée n’a pas suivi le consensus de son époque, car la terre n’aurait pas tourné !" (Claude Allégre)
    See my raw tech-watch on
    http://www.scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: LENR adoption in transport

    In inner cities car ownership involves as lot of a hassle and cost as you describe so shared ownership will be the norm, robocars just make it easier and cheaper. Outside dense urban areas robocars will make shared ownership easier but it will be up to the individuals to make the choice.
    How much market share shared ownership will get will depend on peak time availability and costs: LENR cars will hopefully cost the same or even less than current vehicles, making it a choice, not a necessity.

    It's great to see Defkalion making good progress - they look like serious contenders and they have an edge in controlling the reaction. If we add all the latest research together we may just get very high COP AND quick response time.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Mons Belgium
    Posts
    162
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: LENR adoption in transport

    Quote Originally Posted by ajb
    LENR cars will hopefully cost the same or even less than current vehicles, making it a choice, not a necessity.
    in Europe the engine cost is 1/4 of the car total cost
    BUT the cost of "turbine + generator + big radiator + electric motors" will more expensive than a gasoline or diesel engine produced in great number
    I think that a synthetic fuel made with the help of LENR technology is the cheaper solution at short delay

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: LENR adoption in transport

    As far as cars...within a year or two or three, we will likely see huge breakthroughs in battery technology. Technical advances that could make trips of many hundreds of miles possible per charge. A recharge could take only a couple minutes.

    In this scenario, there is no need for an on-board LENR unit. Locally placed LENR generators would supply the required electricity at recharge stations and homes.

    That's what I see happening.
    "Matter is not made of matter." -- Hans-Peter Dürr

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: LENR adoption in transport

    Here is a new patent application (June 2012) for a "Vehicle Propulsion System".

    http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120159951

    It basically comes down to a steam turbine turning an electric generator which supplies power to electric motor(s). There is no mention of LENR as a fuel or heat source (for good reason, I imagine). But, everything else seems to be in place to make for an LENR car.
    "Matter is not made of matter." -- Hans-Peter Dürr

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: LENR adoption in transport

    I agree that battery tech is progressing fast but it’s still a long way from being cost competitive with ICE so it will take more than a few years to get there. The latest breakthrough is coming from Envia: 400Wh/kg, up from 240Wh/kg for current tech, costing $125/kWh, from above $200/kWh currently.

    To match the typical ICE range you probably need 300 miles/500km. At an average 400Wh/km this requires a 500kg battery pack at $25000, only suitable for ultra-premium cars.

    To top it all you’ll need to build up the charging infrastructure at large expense, not trivial for the fast charge given the very high currents required here.

    Meanwhile it seems as if the lower efficiency car generators such as the one used in the Chevrolet Volt aren’t as expensive as the $1000/kW as in stationary higher efficiency applications as they seem to manage to fit a 53kW generator into $40000 car (even though they’re losing some money on each one).

    Between the large expense of large expensive battery packs, long charging times, range anxiety and the requirement to build out a large charging infrastructure versus just slapping a few LENR modules together and driving a generator I think the autonomous approach wins the day.

    Even if electrical takes off in the developed world there large parts of the world have unreliable grids, periodic blackouts and general lack of infrastructure where this autonomy will be very welcome.

    Maybe we shouldn’t focus so much on cars at this point as utilization there is far lower than in commercial vehicles where LENR adoption will make more economic sense at this early stage of development – the knowledge gained there will soon trickle down to personal transport. The Wrightspeed modules show that even with normal fuel large savings can be achieved. With fuel costs stripped out the equation becomes even better.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    438
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 15 Posts

    Re: LENR adoption in transport

    Why not just use the steam for powering the drivetrain? thermo-electric devices could take care of the batteries for lights etc. It could also be good for refrigerated trucks. not sure how to use the energy generated during a vehicle's 'standby' mode, e.g. overnight. plugging the system into a building would seem to be getting very complicated.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLs78GsWWkM

    remember the previous record was 127mph over 100 years ago
    Great liars are also great magicians.
    Adolf Hitler

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Mons Belgium
    Posts
    162
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: LENR adoption in transport

    Quote Originally Posted by drew
    Why not just use the steam for powering the drivetrain? thermo-electric devices could take care of the batteries for lights etc.
    steam + turbine are good for base load power not for variable load
    if you use steam for the drive train you need a big gear-box and a big cooling system for the steam

  10. #10
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    438
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 15 Posts

    Re: LENR adoption in transport

    This looks a promising companion to lenr!

    http://www.dearmanengine.com/cms/

    Dearman writes of coupling his engine with a small internal combustion engine for a heat source, but even a warm-cat would do, although hotter would be better
    Great liars are also great magicians.
    Adolf Hitler

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •