Sitran johdossa näkyy istuvan enemminkin korvavaloporukkaa, sosiologeja,
foliohattuja, helppoheikkejä sekä käärmeöljykauppiaita.
Pojimmiltaan kyse on sähkön polttamisesta, kun ennen poltettiin hiiliyhdisteitä
saadaksemme sähköä, joka joissain sovelluksissa tuottaa 98% hyötysuhteen.
"First they lose 30% in the electrolysis. Then it looks like they want to trade 8 hydrogen atoms for 1 methane molecule. This is less efficient than the carbon monoxide step described by the energy research centre over here:
http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2005/rx05194.pdf
They get 88% max efficiency for carbon monoxide methanation but Audi's idea is to use CO2 obviously that is completely 'burnt' already so there's less efficiency there. Probably another 25-30% losses in this CO2 methanation of the hydrogen. Too bad the efficiency goes down with increasing temperature, because at high temperature at least the reactor could be cooled with steam to drive a turbine and get some electricity back.
Then the absurdity really bites in, Audi suggest burning the stuff in a 25% efficient combustion engine. Which is like, burning electricity!
So we get 0.7x0.7x0.25 = 12.25 percent efficiency.
(Audi talks about fuel cells but they're not that much more efficient, and cost an arm and a leg. They really want to just build internal combustion engines of course and use fuel cells as pathetic excuse for the non-innovator they are on alternative mobility).
foliohattuja, helppoheikkejä sekä käärmeöljykauppiaita.
Pojimmiltaan kyse on sähkön polttamisesta, kun ennen poltettiin hiiliyhdisteitä
saadaksemme sähköä, joka joissain sovelluksissa tuottaa 98% hyötysuhteen.
"First they lose 30% in the electrolysis. Then it looks like they want to trade 8 hydrogen atoms for 1 methane molecule. This is less efficient than the carbon monoxide step described by the energy research centre over here:
http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2005/rx05194.pdf
They get 88% max efficiency for carbon monoxide methanation but Audi's idea is to use CO2 obviously that is completely 'burnt' already so there's less efficiency there. Probably another 25-30% losses in this CO2 methanation of the hydrogen. Too bad the efficiency goes down with increasing temperature, because at high temperature at least the reactor could be cooled with steam to drive a turbine and get some electricity back.
Then the absurdity really bites in, Audi suggest burning the stuff in a 25% efficient combustion engine. Which is like, burning electricity!
So we get 0.7x0.7x0.25 = 12.25 percent efficiency.
(Audi talks about fuel cells but they're not that much more efficient, and cost an arm and a leg. They really want to just build internal combustion engines of course and use fuel cells as pathetic excuse for the non-innovator they are on alternative mobility).
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.