How jet-powered garbage trucks can save the world | Ian Wright | TEDxChristchurch
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 чер 2024
- As founder of Wrightspeed, cofounder of Tesla Motors and creator of the X1 (the fastest street-legal electric vehicle in the world), Ian Wright has already ushered in an era of electric transportation. Now, Wright has turned his attention to the least efficient, heaviest, most wasteful vehicles on the road: garbage trucks. In this informative presentation, Wright explains how, when it comes to making vehicles more efficient, we've been asking the wrong question all along.
Credit: The New Zealand Broadcasting School
As founder of Wrightspeed, cofounder of Tesla Motors and creator of the X1 (the fastest street-legal electric vehicle in the world), Ian Wright has already ushered in an era of electric transportation. Now, Wright has turned his attention to the least efficient, heaviest, most wasteful vehicles on the road: garbage trucks. In this informative presentation, Wright explains how, when it comes to making vehicles more efficient, we've been asking the wrong question all along.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
I love watching these old Ted talks. Great ideas that generally go no where.
Pre recession, everyone was crazy
I watched this a year back and again today. I come from Christchurch. I'm proud and impressed to see this.
@Mark Rowland. Are there any turbine electric buses or trucks actually operating in New Zealand?
This man is doing great things!
I've always thought that hybrids were a good concept, but gas/ electric was definitely not the best way to do it. Thanks for the talk, and sharing your thoughts on the matter!
Awesome ideas and wonderful humor and insights, thanks so much for putting forth your knowledge.
M1 abrams,the American main tank, is a turbine hybrid. Definitely should’ve mentioned that I think.
This is genious! Would love a hydrofoil yacht with this technology!
Wow. That is a compelling presentation!
Now we're talkin'! 🔥
Brilliant Idea! This needs to happen! Share it.
Brilliant presentation...
Not widely heard of, but a useful chunk of innovation. Yay.
This is the best solution I've herd of so far. There are breakthroughs is battery technology and solar power, but non of them issue the actual problem so straightforward like this. Probably this man should work hand in hand with the developers of demission technology developers who trying to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. If they could patent a full circle of manufacturing one of the greatest problems of our century could be solved.
Excellent, bloody excellent!
I am impressed by the competence of the speaker.
Here is an explanation of the soot a diesel engine must emmit, and why a gasturbine does not, producing a clean combustion.
The high compression in a diesel engine produces a combustion temperature exceeding 1000 °C.
The combustion of carbon above that temperature produces carbon monoxide, no carbon dioxyde. Only after the expanding gas cools below 1000 °C the Bouduard process converts two CO molecules to a single CO2 molecule, leaving one carbon atom unburned, for lack of oxygen, this is what is called soot.
There are some advantages to it, namely the carbon adheres to the wall of the cylinders, greatly reducing friction and wear, typical for diesel engines.
On the gasturbine, on the other hand, the turbine inlet temperature is in the order of 900° C or lower. The combustion in the combustion chamber may locally exceed 1000 ° but there is a lot of oxygen to completel burn all carbon residues resulting from the Boudouard process. Further the gaseous fuel contains more hydrogen, producing the blue combustion. Shown in the photos is a well designed combustion chamber, resulting in a clean exhaust, provided no sulfur dioxide is in the fuel .
I am stunned by the low viewers number of this talk. At a time when most are talking and wishing for an electric car, this talk is already 3 years old! I'm a firm believer in jet powered generators, especially those running on bio-fuels or organic waste by-products.
It's the perennial genius problem. Can he find twelve people that are smart enough to listen and also smart enough to agree with him?
This makes sense. I am looking forward to the prototype. I hope it works.
The life of all ground based turbine engines can be greatly extended by using steam. The change of state creates a huge energy advantage and that vapor would exit the turbine at extremely low temperatures compared to being purely driven by flame. Exhaust velocity can also be recovered in the same step that WATER, from the steam, would be recovered. Of course it's not easy and the unit would be bigger but I think the savings would be substantial. Don't forget about the BESLER STEAM AIRPLANE ! !
Excellent!
Inspiring. Innovative. Intelligent. I want that powertrain in my car too. Tiny turbine. Tiny battery pack. I can see it already. Will need a good muffler though.
By adding a recuperator, a low pressure ratio gasturbine efficiency can be greatly improved
The turbocharger based designs are best suited for that improvement. Moreover the noise is muffled effectively , addressing your concern directly, C Yesso.
All what I said I can prove by the thermodynamic cycle analysis and plotting the entropy-enthalpy diagram. The approach of using a recuperator is being used by Solar engines , based in San Diego.
On a larger scale. No reason , not to realize it on a small version, with some small loss of efficiency .
That is being genius: seeing a problem from a different perspective and find a solution thanks to that.
Brilliant, this is how you do clean, long range heavy duty applications.
This is really great technology..... i really want to support this guy... wheres the company located or website?
Outstanding
Very impressive. Nice dry humour too.
Beautiful genius 👏
Brilliant.
what about earthmoving equipment and other low speed specialised machinery
I am thinking about farm eqipment. Tubines will run on biofuels.
Both of those would be amazing applications, especially farm equipment that needs to run all day without stopping. At the moment batteries aren't there yet for these types of application (although there are niche applications that would work, and do), but this could be an amazing bridge technology until they are.
The only reason why I would suggest they go away eventually is that it's yet another part of the drivetrain to maintain. It has the same problem as fuel cells - you are essentially running a battery electric vehicle, but with small batteries that are regularly topped up by an onboard generator. This is the reason BEV's are so compelling, the maintenance is an order of magnitude lower than ICE vehicles, and adding a range extender removes some of that advantage.
But no diesel engine etc to mess with either...
2021 where is it or why was it shot down,it sounded good
Why has this not been done?
Maybe because of jet noise?
Cool idea, but what a bout the training for the mechanics that have to work on it and the cost of the batteries
It looks like the design of that turbine could be improved by preheating the air between the compressor and combustion chamber with the exhaust gas.
Price to repair and maintenance costs
If I had lots of money I would totally invest in something like this.
At least share the knowledge, that's the best we can do.
Shaddap and get back to yer cooking...
@@gnsarathbabu there are billions of us we have trillions to quadrillions of dollars
This is how we the people change the world 🌎 crowd fund it
Good idea. Might work well for two decades, until batteries have a higher energy density. OR until fuel cells happen, which are more efficient in converting fuel into energy.
Fuel cells ("fool cells") are an insanely inefficient way to power cars or trucks.
It takes more energy to extract hydrogen and pressurize it into a tank, than what you get back.
They also require expensive and dangerous filling stations.
It's a *lot* easier, cheaper and safer to install an EV charger, than a hydrogen filling station.
And, with hydrogen, you'd still have to drive to a filling station and wait in line.
With an EV, you plug it in, when you get home and forget about it.
Oh, and would you want to drive a car, with a high-pressure hydrogen tank?
I really don't think that hydrogen / fuel cell cars have much of a future.
It's a gimmick, promoted mainly by Toyota, to try to distract from the fact that they had their ass handed to them, by Tesla...
lnpilot Have a second look at them. They are used in boats and expensive yachts already, because they are very reliable, as long as you have clean fuel on-board. The good ones use ethanol or methanol. As far as we know, the industrial ethanol is very cheap to produce. The fuel cells are OK, and getting better.
epSos.de Fool cells are not an efficient or practical source of mobile power, at the scale of cars (especially compared to ever-improving batteries).
It's insanity to extract the hydrocarbons, store them in a tank, run them through the fool cells, just to get electricity, enduring great losses at every step, when you could just store the electricity directly in a battery.
And you still depend on hydrocarbons, you can't charge from solar power and so on.
*Totally defeating the purpose*!
Toyota is pretty much the only company trying to push fool cells for cars, because they've lost the EV battle against Tesla.
They claim fool cells will be popular.
They also claimed, with their "infinite foresight", that Li-ion batteries would never be viable for cars. See how that worked out for them...
lnpilot Yes, the hydrogen fuel cells make no sense in cars that are outside of Japan, but the fuel cell technology is not limited to hydrogen, it can be applied to natural gas, to ethanol. It is possible to have renewable sources of fuel for the fuel cell. Have a deeper look into the technology, fuel cells are not about hydrogen, there is more to them than you would expect.
epSos.de BTW, I've had a Model S for over 3 years. I haven't been to a "filling station", in over 3 years.
I would rather go back to dial-up internet, than to a gasoline, or fool cell car.
If you drive a Tesla for a few months, you will understand what I mean...
A couple of times a week, I plug in the car when I get home, and forget about it.
It takes 10 seconds and costs 3-5 times less than filling up a gasoline car.
No driving to filling stations, no waiting in lines.
There's also a Supercharger half a mile from me, next to the grocery store and restaurants.
I can get a free charge while shopping, or having dinner.
It has been getting busy, as *everyone and their dog has a Tesla around here*...
(but, Tesla is building more Superchargers and they are making them faster...).
In contrast, I've never seen a single fuel cell car, and I live in California.
That should tell you what *actual drivers* think of the EV vs. fuel cell debate...
Ok, The Toyota Mirai is absolutely hideous, so it's not entirely fair to compare it to the Model S...
;)
I've been following fuel cells for decades. I'm an electrical engineer, so I've been looking into the technical details too.
You can't even compare EVs with "fool cell" cars.
It's not even a contest.
Are you a Toyota Mirai PR person, by any chance?
;)
How this video has only 17k view....
Hang in there Marc.
hybrid between gas turbine and steam turbine is a really efficient thing to do
At one stage there were busses in Chch like this, turbine engine, batteries and electric motors. I saw them on trademe a few years back, sold as scrap. What happened there?
It is a well known fact and easy to explain why a gasturbine has a lousy thermal efficiency compared to diesel engines. On top of that diesel engines are cheap to build, are extremely durable and with a turbo charger are very compact. And when using a 2-stroke diesel even more compact. The idea of using a gasturbine in trucks is the personal opinion of the presenter but this is absolutely not shared by the manufucturers of large trucks with decades of experience to optimize their trucks and engines.
didn't even occus to me that i might have to swim xD
I thought commercial jet planes have a auxiliary turbine power engine independent to the main engines. What about the turbine noise on the road? Also what fuel in 50 years time?
I see where Techrules took the idea.
Honestly when this idea reach market maturity it will sell like hot cakes.
I would love to see how the turbine's energy is converted into electricity... Also, some ballpark numbers relative to where and how "losses" are incurred during conversion. If I was to guess, I'd say it's a hybrid transformation process. 1) Bottleneck Thrust. 2) Peltier/T.E.G. Integration. 3) *Rotating Kinetic Energy Heat Sink*. 4) Fluid Heat Transfers. (Not necessarily in that order.) Anyway, I love what your doing and wish you and those like you to be successful in your passions. The world is changing fast, we can't let greed or power arrest humanity's adaptability. Adapt or Die vs. Survival of the Fittest P.S. Id really like to brainstorm with you, assuming this message finds you. Thanks again for your work!
I know this comment is 3 years old but you could also just bolt a generator directly onto the turbocharger shaft via a gear reduction, like they do in F1 powertrains
@@Byefriendo all good except there is no turbocharger shaft remember, they got rid of the Diesel engine completely in this scenario - hence why the turbocharger has now become a standalone turbine ;)
Can it run on ethanol?
Very cool tech with huge potential
0.5%
its now 7% PHEV
Where is this guy nowadays?
How noisy would this thing be?
Like the Viscount DART engines.
big rv, large pickups and vans, ships oh wait the ships do this
So where does the fuel come from for your engine ?
I'd ask the same. The Chrysler '63 Turbine car could run on anything, so I thought he'd mention biodiesel.
Why not make tubo electricity generators if it's a better way to generating electricity?
that's what the more elaborate combined cycle NG power plants do.
Makes nothing but sense.
What does a microturbine electric generator that runs on natural gas cost? It seems strange to me that we heat our homes with natural gas without having it do any other work first. (electricity generation)
Yes ! ! it would be Extremely efficient to simply hook a heat exchanger to the turbojet and heat your house while generating much cleaner electricity than coal fired plants. It would be most cost effective in northern states and all of civilization above USA. AWESOME suggestion!
I'm not an engineer so this is just a layman suggestion but I have spent a lot of time comparing heat exchangers, oil boilers and gas recently before I bought a new heating system. Oil and gas boilers tend to only heat water to about 60 degrees. Neither of this temps are high enough to generate steam because we don't want steam. We use hot water in our heating systems. So I suspect the reason nobody does it would be because we'd first have to heat up our water an extra 40 degrees to get the steam to power the turbine, then cool it back down 60 degrees before we could send it off around the central heating system. Nobody wants 90 degree water coming out the taps. Now we can bleed some of that heat back into the cooler water coming from the heaters and get some efficiency there but not huge amounts. Say the incoming water is 10 degrees we'd need to use almost twice as much energy to get to 100 than we would 60 and there'd be more inefficiencies there, I just don't see it as a likely cost efficient way to generate power.
@@daemonbyte It's easy. have a variable control valve or variable speed pump. this will control the flow into the ... wait a minute. i think u confuse this with a steam turbine. there are gas turbines too u know. also, u can have the working fluid free of the circulating fluid, meaning the water in your heat exchanger can be indendent of any other water here. so y does it have to turn into stea,m?
@@poknatinpokkers5289 because I didn't see another way to heat water and spin a turbine. But I guess your idea is to use a gas turbine and then use the hot air to heat the water to 60 for the heating system after it's been through the gas turbine? That could work although I suspect there's a reason nobody's done it I'd be interesting in seeing the figures.
Robert Neve If you are talking about heatening the house and water. The most cheapest and cleanist way is ground thermal. It will cost a little bit more but pays it self back under 10 years. They drill hole in the ground and it is working like heatpump. And in the sumer you can allso vool your house with it. I can tell more if you like:)
He's already installing these in semi trucks!!
Why didn't this concept take off?
cause its nonsense, from the first minute. jets replaced reciprocating engines in planes because there lighter, and planes need to be light. Trains, boats and trucks still use pistons cause there, cheaper, rev better and are more fuel efficient
Turbo compound natural gas spark ignition hybrid with pre-heated catalyst probably cheaper and more efficient & cleaner than small, cheap & simple turbine. (I know that large, very complex and very expensive turbines ARE very efficient; not the same)
Cool look at that you got a turbocharger engine now where's the regenerator?
i like this guy
11:00 "...plug-in vehicle market in the US is stuck at 0.5%...": This speech was in 2015. In 2022Q2 the EV market share was 12.6%. That's 25 times what they were "stuck at" in 2015. And that share is increasing at a rate averaging 10% per quarter. At that rate, the EV market share will be over 50% by 2026.
Although I don't agree with all his facts ( ex. Britain is now producing more power from wind turbines than coal ) elements of his talk are very compelling.
This was in 2015, and he was probably quoting stats from 2014 or 2013... the 40 he quoted on coal for the US dipped to 30 last year (2017)
A good intermediate stage, very similar to Tesla semi with individual motors. (Battery supply shortage)
Might still be practical for next 8 years, but that’s short life for new technology.
Ian Wright should have kept his Tesla stock, he sold before the boom.
How this video has only 60k views
Turbine Electric..... interesting.
Please invent a garbage-powered garbage truck. That will be powerful.
+mhtinla Here you go: inhabitat.com/toronto-waste-truck-runs-on-natural-and-bio-gas/
Run Dual fuel system on the diesel engines using C.N.G. as the primary fuel and only a small amount of diesel to ignite the C.N.G. this is a simple conversion, cheaper to run, cost effective and by far much safer.Bottom line this is a very big improvement over the Battery topped up by turbine system. theoldbear Long Time Red Seal Heavy Duty Mechanic
theoldbear1943 > yeah, but where do you get C.N.G. from? It's still mostly from fossil fuel and you're still not solving the problem of starting and stopping every 60ft - which is what is killing the efficiency of these trucks' operation. Plus you have the maintenance costs and the cost of the engine replacement which is much higher.
Someone get Penguinz0 on this.
Good presentation. His turbine electric hybrid truck pollutes at point of use, in front of people's lungs. But for large road vehicles the turbine hybrid is the answer. It is also suitable for buses. But we do not see them in volume. There has been a successful trial by Alstom in Germany of hydrogen powered fuel cell trains. It is zero emissions at point of use, apart from water. The UK is organizing a test near Alsom's Liverpool technology centre.
Why in the world would you want a fuel cell train? An electric train does not even need batteries as it can get the power from the rails or overhead lines and send generated power from slowing down back into the grid. Using hydrogen to store electricity is very inefficient.
@@bobo888bobo
The hydrogen creates electricity as it is needed via an on-board fuel cell. It has *range* and zero emissions. BTW, in Germany they now have a hydrogen fuel cell is operation taking fare paying passengers. Also Liverpool's Merseyrail metro later this year will trial battery/electric trains that run on 3rd rail and batteries on electrified lines. This extends the rail network onto track that was unviable to electrify. The batteries can be charged via the 3rd rail when on electrified track.
This is fascinating, i really hope it becomes successful. Elon Musk has that Steve Jobs aura about him hence he can create a strong brand and sell electric cars and convince people they're saving the planet all the while they're not saving any money; however, i think he's doing a great job as those people buying electric cars now are really helping push the technology forward and forcing other manufacturers to innovate and make more affordable electric cars; a technology like this jet-engine powertrain however has so many applications.
Even in London it would have been far superior for the bus upgrades, instead they went with this hybrid thing that ended up not being that good (funnily enough by a company called Wrightbus), fortunately it was a trial hence wasn't the whole fleet only a few, but i'd much rather see them utilising something completely different like this jet technology. Someone from WrightSpeed should be contacting the London mayor, in fact, i might do it myself.
Heavy Goods Vehicles are something Tesla can't do much about until there's a battery revolution which won't happen within the next decade or more, so i really hope this jet-engine technology catches on.
6:42 - he states it will run 10,000 hours, after that what happens, does the jet engine generator die? Isn't that roughly 5 years of heavy use?
And what type of batteries are they using? Lithium? Something else?
Ok, found the answer, what he meant was it runs 10,000 hours before needing a service, which is incredibly impressive. Surprised he didn't make that point clearer and go into more as the need for such little maintenance alone will save enormous amounts of money. Pretty impressive technology.
".... he states it will run 10,000 hours, after that what happens, does the jet engine generator die? Isn't that roughly 5 years of heavy use?"
"Black box" unit replacement, that's what happens. Easily implimented if the vehicle is designed around this powertrain from scratch.
I doubt they swap out engines on jets like that, though for uptime, and with a small enough capital cost for the turbine, it might make sense to have a few spares laying around to recondition while new or reconditioned ones go back into the vehicle. That way the vehicle keeps going while the turbine is being reconditioned.
They do rebuilds based on inspections and yes, they do sometimes just pull the entire engine and put a new one in....
Just use some element 115
wouldnt it be smarter to jetpower the loading stations?
Didn't work in locomotives. ??
if it's all about operating cost, why not build a garbage trick that burns trash?
They will fly & travel back in time...like 'Back to the future' :)
Assuming it works like you said .I would buy an ev with a turbine range extender if it is affordable. I can not afford a Tesla.
the problem is the efficiency of the battery
+Alex Turlais which is constantly improving and will gain a tremendous leap in efficiency once were off lithium.
CaptainDave True
+I am Your Father This whole system is so much more efficient than typical diesel drivetrain that it doesn't matter.
idontcare80 yes, but objectively lots of energy is still lost. less than before, but still.
+I am Your Father You know a better way to massively improve the efficiency of these vehicles?
Yet Capstone has been around for awhile and not that successful , the efficiency of turbine is not so good and there are expensive
In 2015, this wasn't a bad idea. But battery technology has come a long way and it's still accelerating. Large, rechargeable, high energy batteries are still in their infancy and there are many breakthroughs being seen in labs around the globe. Their cost per kWh has come way down over the last decade and by 2025, will probably be cut in half again making fully electric trucks and cars much more economical than any fossil-fueled vehicles, including hybrids. If you read all the latest literature on all the advancements in the works, you'll see that fully electric transportation is the future. And renewable energy in the form of solar and wind will take over as well. Maybe fusion energy will finally become a reality later on too. Oil will switch to being used only for lubricants, making plastics, etc. and we'll finally stop polluting our world by burning it which only wastes it. Coal will no longer need to be mined at all.
Although this was aired in 2015, little changed, electric semi is still not in production, and coal still made over half of power generation. We probably will still be talking about it 7 years from now.
Coal is 50% of electricity power generation in England? Nope. It is in single percentage figures with the coal burners being phased out. On many days no coal is burnt at all.
I don't know how to think in HP and miles, can't you convert it to kilowatts and kilometres?
+elfboi523 1 hp is roughly 750w so 4hp 3kilowatts
miles are 1600m 1.6km - 5m=8km 10m=16km
illumicon Yes, I know that, but it's hard for me to do the conversion while listening to the talk. It would be great if there were subtitles with metric units.
so pull up a browser window and type somethign like this: "convert 92 hp to kilowatts" "convert 127 miles to km" and it'll solve the math for you - same works in reverse, and vast number of conversion units are supported... Cheers.
I like that he's built a better generator and can see lots of potential but lost me when he chose to be negative about pure-electric cars, if he needs to do that to sell his tech, it raises suspicions about his tech
He's one of the founders of Tesla. Don't you think he sees both sides of the situation and is choosing to pursue applications away from the limiting factors of the pure EV due to space constraints ?
@@lylestavast7652 Yes he is one of Teslas founders, but he's also comparing cars to trucks which is disingenuous.
98% on past tech, 2% of his time describing the new, there was not much beef in this presentation ... Please spend more time detailing your proposal and tech
Electric motors do not need transmissions. Perhaps a 4:1 (or whatever is chosen) reduction gear. He wasn't clear on this. Regardless, a fascinating concept!
The problem is you need a very large, heavy, expensive motor to be capable of launching a 60,000lb truck on a 25% grade as well as go 75mph. In an application like this, a multi-speed transmission is a better option.
@@-EnginerdYou probably also need to invest in ear muffs or ear plugs.
Given this is 4 years old I guess it never took off. Anyone know why?
Many many reasons. It turns out it's difficult to design a turbine range extender, a 4 speed eAxle, power electronics, battery modules, aux. systems, etc. with a skeleton crew and a shoestring budget.
No one mentions jet noise levels.
1: 11:00
This aged well, all though it's funny how much worse it's gotten.. Why aren't these e axles in everything yet?
He didn't include the cost of battery replacements, which, in this case, would be tens of thousands. I once considered buying the GM Volt until I found that a replacement battery from the factory cost $34k at the time, not including installation. Battery degradation and replacement cost are two of a few major obstacles that keep me from buying an EV.
They manufacturers of electric vehicles, along with our politicians, tout the “zero emissions” of electric vehicles. However, as I’ve learned from Ted talks, the carbon footprint produced in manufacturing an electric vehicle, including Tesla, is large enough the zero emissions is offset. The best alternative, which I drive and learned from Ted talks, is an HEV. However, be aware that many of the hybrid vehicles do not come with a spare tire. Bummer!
2: 6:42
So if my local garbage trucks which already run on landfill recovered bio-methane, clean burning fuel, were to run on his trucks than the savings would be exponentional. Agricultural Combines are even worst. Using his system the direct price of food comes down.
the amount of available bio-mass methane the is unproduced but possible.. is huge... however piping it to central power plants and simply having electric garbage trucks would be more efficient, and far cleaner.
So! When is the next entrepreneur who's going to offer an extension turbine generator for my Tesla? (that would fit in the trunk)
prob. never, only chinese, but they will be 1000% profit, since they need to be made specifically to a single car.
I agreed the turbine engine burn alot cleaner. But is not clean I have spend hours cleaning aircrafts after each flight of those carbon soot.
Some turbines run cleaner than others.
depends on the fuel you feed it.
Only the politicians will stop it.
If this turbine engine Generator is so great, why not power our cities with them ? Here in Kalgoorlie we have three Gas Turbine Generators in our local Power station ....
Too good, makes too much sense so it will be ignored. I believe engineers deliberately ignore the GT preferring "new technology" BEVs and hydrogen.
Engineers? They don't run companies and rely on budget and freedom to R&D on the goodwill of business management and marketing monkeys in suits.
EV and Hydrogen are trendy and that's what is pushed by political ideologues, the other monkeys in suits, controlling by pen and tax what is "Right or Wrong".
The "Freedom is Slavery" thing comes to mind.
Though engineers need constrains so they don't tank companies with R&D, like Mazda almost did with the Wankel shenanigans, we shouldn't trust every aspect of technical decisions to bureaucrats in the "Ivory Towers", in government or business.
Trust me! I'm an engineer! 😅
Even before College and I think High School, I was thinking about Diesel-electric locomotives and mining equipments. They use Diesel engines with an electric generator, while electric motors provide incredible torque on demand directly to the wheels with minimal or no power transmission mechanical mechanism (which weighs a lot and has losses). Similar concept for different types of engines and fuels. I also remember being fascinated by turbine cars and thinking about the issues.
A lot of people out there, with and without fancy degrees, are thinking about such things, but we don't have the freedom or resources to explore the possibilities.
@@chaoswarriorbr That's some statement, thanks for taking the time.
10k hours is only a year a half to 2 years. doesn't seem very econimcal.
Doesn't seem economical? As compared to what?
I bet he wish he kept his Tesla stock a little bit longer.
this is the real game changer not tesla
@ There is always more than one solution to a problem. In this case Weightspeed doesn't even offer a solution for cars but for commercial trucks (as in not pickup trucks), whereas Tesla produces cars (yet). At the moment I think Wrights solutions for trucks is way more feasable and reasonable, but development doesn't stand still. There might be better batteries in the future which make full electric trucks more feasable. And as battery technology and production improves, which means lower cost and higher capacity, a range extender for an electric car make even less sense.
The economy of scale.
Chrysler already produced a jet engine car. It could run on anything that a match could lite, including tequila
Use hidrogen and you can still use the Piston engine and you only have water vapor and you can breathe the air coming out of the exzost so why don't they cut to the chase and quiet wasting all of this mterels you only change your oil every 50.000 miles because it finely wore out the engine will last for 2 or 3 thousands of miles with out having to rebuild it thair is no carbon to make dirt in an engine so wats the hold up
Wankel rotary engines when run on hydrogen are 23% more efficient than using gasoline and near zero emissions. Maybe a better way to replace the turbine. Worth assessing. BTW, many companies make rotary engines, not just Mazda.
As of 2020, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming of natural gas, partial oxidation of methane, and coal gasification.
This energy intensive process releases six times more CO2 than it produces hydrogen.
Pretty much, 95% of hydrogen is essentially a fossil fuel.
So. If there's any leftover cleanly produced hydrogen, I'd say it's better to just be used in the existing hydrogen-hungry industrial processes. We don't need more consumers of hydrogen.
Wankel or turbine... Same outcome... In this regard
H extracted from water is the future. Fast electrolysis is a suppressed tech / Stan Meyer and several others have shown it to work
Enh. jototo's puppetmeaters want ZERO petroleum. What will the turbine burn? I worked at a coal fired power plant near St. Louis in the mid-nineties. When I was in the control room, the operator would show us how much cleaner the air leaving the stack was compared to pure atmosphere it was taking in. So not only doesn't coal burning pollute, it actually scrubs the air cleaner. Sure there are trade offs to mine the coal and transport it, but nothing is workout compromises. Except alternate energy. That's a pure compromise.
Where did the CO2 produced from burning the coal go, if it was not going up the stack?
@@pauleohl Scrubbers collect it and it gets reburned at such high temperature it changes the molecular structure of the soot. Same as vehicle catalytic converters and dpf on diesels. We've had the cleanest burning, most affordable energy production for over 50 years but they can't control the proletariat with clean, affordable energy as close as the light switch in your living room. Behold the "alternative" energy scam.
@@bigblocklawyer Are you unaware of the difference between soot and CO2 gas?
@@pauleohl Yeah. Don't do any research, just keep mouth breathing.
I wonder what ever happened to this idea ?