Solar frickin' Radweg, Erftstadt/Liblar (Germany)

[ogden]

The pickups point forward? One has to assume the designers know what they are doing (they are after all competent enough to have got it working) but that kind of surprises me.

No problem at all. High speed (>300 km/h) trains are fine with forward-facing pickups. Electric delivery trucks with charging on highways is not bad idea at all. We need to fight pollution in cities and this is one step in right direction.

I think flow battery could be ultimate solution. It may be good for grid energy storage and may solve charging inconvenience for electric vehicles as well. - You drive into gas electrolyte station and during few minutes swap/replenish electrolyte of your electric car to get > 300 km range. I would love such future.

[madires]

They do testruns all over Germany right now for these electric trucks

https://youtu.be/uY68wHQQeC8

eHighway test tracks:
#1: freeway A5 near Frankfurt/Main, 5km, in operation
#2: freeway A1 near Lübeck, 25km, first tests planned for end of 2019
#3 interstate B462 between Kuppenheim and Gernsbach, 6km, planned for 2020

[madires]

There are some cities in Germany where the buses are powered by this (e.g. Solingen). Similar to a Straßenbahn (tram) but without the rails. I know Solingen and they are using this for >50 years. See pic (lend from Wikipedia) attached.

Yep, they are called O-Bus and there's even a museum (http://www.obus-museum-solingen.de/). In the past we had more O-Bus lines, like in Frankfurt/Main until late 50ies.

[nctnico]

A similar thought crossed my mind. What we see now are all kinds of fragmented solutions to replace a universal type of fuel (coal, gas and oil which are easy to distribute and transport). Ultimately the solution has to be a universal energy carrier which can be used & transported world wide. Ethanol and hydrogen come to mind.

While many humans are starving around the globe, planning to grow (more) crops just to get fuel does not sound like good idea. BTW biofuels are already  (pdf doc) impacting food industry even in US: "Using corn for ethanol increases the price of U.S. beef, chicken, pork, eggs, breads, cereals, and milk more than 10% to 30%." What good will be fuel for your car if you will be dead due to starvation?

You are way behind. Several companies have 3rd generation bio-fuels working. 3rd generation bio-fuels are made from the parts of plants we don't eat. So instead of impacting food production the 3rd generation bio-fuels make food cheaper because more of the plants is used.

It is widely known that hydrogen is one of most inefficient way to transport electrical energy. "a hydrogen car is roughly 19 to 23% efficient, which is way, way lower than a modern diesel engine"

Efficiency doesn't matter. Costs of storage, transport and infrastructure does and that is where hydrogen wins big time. Also hydrogen conversion gets more efficient all the time so your numbers are out of date.

[SiliconWizard]

3rd generation bio-fuels are made from the parts of plants we don't eat. So instead of impacting food production the 3rd generation bio-fuels make food cheaper because more of the plants is used.

Hem. Give us evidence that this is true. That we can actually produce a significant quantity of biofuel (and not an insignificant one just to prove that it works) without actually requiring more resources than if we didn't produce it. I don't buy that. Or again maybe the quantities are so insignificant that it has no practical use.

Open to witnessing solid evidence though.

[Domagoj T]

Efficiency doesn't matter. Costs of storage, transport and infrastructure does and that is where hydrogen wins big time.

Sorry, what?
Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to transport and store, and there is no existing infrastructure to do either of it.
Energy density of even liquefied hydrogen is much lower then dino juice, not to mention it's cryogenic which brings all sorts of problems. Did you know that, in a given volume, there is more hydrogen in petrol then there is hydrogen in pure hydrogen, and it's not even a close match? Yeah, it's that bad.
If you don't liquefy it (in order to avoid cryogenics), energy density goes even further towards abysmal.
Hydrogen leaks. Even if you make your fittings and valves as good as they can get, hydrogen will leak through the walls of the container. It just leaks.

[SiliconWizard]

Hydrogen is effectively stored in water and in much of all organic matter. It is even known to be the main element in the whole universe if I'm not mistaken. If only we had a cheap way of extracting it when needed. All this potential energy all around us in almost infinite quantity, and we're still unable to really tap into it, or in very feeble attempts if you think about it.

And yes, unfortunately, petrol is still one of the easiest container we have at disposal, while being reasonably safe and easy to use.

[james_s]

There is the problem with hydrogen, it's not so much "stored" in water as water is already burned hydrogen. To "un-burn" the hydrogen you have to pour energy back into it to split the hydrogen from the oxygen and then you get some of that energy back when you burn it. You can't harvest hydrogen from the environment and extract energy from it, it's not a fuel, it's an energy storage medium.

Fossil fuels have already stored energy originating from millions of years of solar energy, they are useful as fuels because they have a tremendous amount of energy stored up in them ready to be extracted easily. The problem of course is that we are consuming them many orders of magnitude faster than they were created.

[hendorog]

Storage is the problem for PV, and hydrogen is just another form of storage.

To mitigate that, either spend a heap of money on storage, or simply put PV panels on top of things which can consume the energy generated, when it is generated.
The other thing required is scale. Small scale PV on a residential roof is an inefficient use of capital. You spend 10K and get 4K worth of panels - and that is if you are smart and lucky and that's without any storage.

So don't bother with a small train station roof. Instead look for the right roof space.

Industrial/factory buildings and EV's are two places which fit this criteria.
Factories, and their on-site warehouses, because they have enormous, relatively flat roof areas, and they consume a lot of power during the day.
EV's, because they are mass produced and they have storage built in already so don't need to consume it immediately.

[nctnico]

Efficiency doesn't matter. Costs of storage, transport and infrastructure does and that is where hydrogen wins big time.

Sorry, what?
Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to transport and store, and there is no existing infrastructure to do either of it.
Energy density of even liquefied hydrogen is much lower then dino juice, not to mention it's cryogenic which brings all sorts of problems. Did you know that, in a given volume, there is more hydrogen in petrol then there is hydrogen in pure hydrogen, and it's not even a close match? Yeah, it's that bad.
If you don't liquefy it (in order to avoid cryogenics), energy density goes even further towards abysmal.
Hydrogen leaks. Even if you make your fittings and valves as good as they can get, hydrogen will leak through the walls of the container. It just leaks.

You make it sound like hydrogen is some kind of new material which is difficult to handle but that simply isn't true. Hydrogen is used a lot in the (petro)chemical industry so the technology to store and transport it is already there. Several of the big oil companies are seriously investing in getting a hydrogen infrastructure going. If you look deeper into hydrogen and take storage and transport costs into account then hydrogen suddenly makes a lot of sense.

[nctnico]

3rd generation bio-fuels are made from the parts of plants we don't eat. So instead of impacting food production the 3rd generation bio-fuels make food cheaper because more of the plants is used.

Hem. Give us evidence that this is true. That we can actually produce a significant quantity of biofuel (and not an insignificant one just to prove that it works) without actually requiring more resources than if we didn't produce it. I don't buy that. Or again maybe the quantities are so insignificant that it has no practical use.

Open to witnessing solid evidence though.

Google Cellulosic ethanol and EPA. There are several industrial scale plants up & running in the US from several different companies. In total several billions of dollars have been invested. 3rd generation bio-fuels are certainly not vapourware.

The EPA has set the production target at 540 million Gallons or cellulosic ethanol for 2020:
https://biofuels-news.com/news/ethanol-industry-reacts-to-epas-proposed-biofuel-targets-for-2020/
However it seems the Trump 'administration' is hampering further growth of Cellulosic ethanol.

[ogden]

Several companies have 3rd generation bio-fuels working. 3rd generation bio-fuels are made from the parts of plants we don't eat. So instead of impacting food production the 3rd generation bio-fuels make food cheaper because more of the plants is used.

It does not matter - biofuel is manufactured from plants/crops we eat or not because nobody follow food industry regulations growing biofuel crops anyway. Biofuel manufacturing takes land and water resources. In result both becomes more expensive for food industry. Biofuel takes away farmers as well - they often convert from food to biofuel manufacturing because it is more profitable and less risky.

[edit] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

[SiliconWizard]

Google Cellulosic ethanol and EPA. There are several industrial scale plants up & running in the US from several different companies. In total several billions of dollars have been invested. 3rd generation bio-fuels are certainly not vapourware.

Well, it's all nice, but none of this tells me that it's actually environmentally friendly and sustainable. Just because billions of dollars are invested doesn't mean it is.
I think Total has also invested large amounts of money in developing biodiesel fuel from palm oil: https://www.energy-reporters.com/environment/total-ready-to-open-palm-oil-plant/
I'm not sure this kind of agriculture is really environmentally friendly either.

The EPA has set the production target at 540 million Gallons or cellulosic ethanol for 2020:
https://biofuels-news.com/news/ethanol-industry-reacts-to-epas-proposed-biofuel-targets-for-2020/

Cool, I can also set nice targets. Promises only commit whoever listens to them as a wise saying goes.
Now how far exactly are we from this 540 million gallons target less than 1 year from the goal? Just curious.

However it seems the Trump 'administration' is hampering further growth of Cellulosic ethanol.

Well, Trump is a naughty boy and all, but that will certainly be a convenient excuse to explain why they didn't reach the above target.
 

[james_s]

I think ethanol only really makes sense when it is produced from otherwise wasted food. If you have a bad crop, expired or a surplus of stuff that will go bad before it gets anywhere to be consumed then it likely makes sense to turn it into fuel. It's also probably worthwhile to keep developing the technology because it's possible that the economics will change as fossil fuels become more scarce. I don't think it's going to be a huge contributor to our future energy needs though, just one small part of a larger puzzle.

[nctnico]

Cool, I can also set nice targets. Promises only commit whoever listens to them as a wise saying goes.
Now how far exactly are we from this 540 million gallons target less than 1 year from the goal? Just curious.

That is in the link. This year's production is set at 420 million gallons. The hold-up is in the US government not adhering to it's own ethanol blending rules which in turn prevents investments in new factories. IIRC the US could produce about 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol (and doubling it's ethanol production) without needing to use any extra farm land.

[nctnico]

Several companies have 3rd generation bio-fuels working. 3rd generation bio-fuels are made from the parts of plants we don't eat. So instead of impacting food production the 3rd generation bio-fuels make food cheaper because more of the plants is used.

It does not matter - biofuel is manufactured from plants/crops we eat or not because nobody follow food industry regulations growing biofuel crops anyway. Biofuel manufacturing takes land and water resources. In result both becomes more expensive for food industry. Biofuel takes away farmers as well - they often convert from food to biofuel manufacturing because it is more profitable and less risky.

[edit] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

Look at the date of that article  It literally is old news. The EU has already started to ban bio-fuels which consume too much land.

[ogden]

Look at the date of that article  It literally is old news. The EU has already started to ban bio-fuels which consume too much land.

Save that facepalm for yourself, kid. Article you forgot to mention better be up-to date. I do not see how ban of cultures could solve any of the problems listed in that "old" article. After that ban biofuel farmers suddenly will give-up their land for pastures and food prices will drop or what? 

[edit] EU/EC did not *ban* anything. Read carefully: "The limits will affect the amount of these fuels that can be taken into account when calculating the overall national share of renewables and the share of renewables in transport."  https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-19-1656_en.htm

[edit] Here's fresh article for you that tells how hypocritical are EU "renewable" energy policies allowing import of South American biofuels that are known as environmentally unfriendly due to massive deforestation:  https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/mercosur-deal-opens-door-south-american-biofuels-while-palm-oil-biodiesel-use-reaches-record.

[Marco]

After that ban biofuel farmers suddenly will give-up their land for pastures and food prices will drop or what?

If they can't sell the oil they are more likely to grow food.

The limits will affect the amount of these fuels that can be taken into account when calculating the overall national share of renewables and the share of renewables in transport.

Without the implicit subsidy of being counted towards emission goals, vegetable oil is not an interesting source of fuel.

Just because the duties are removed on ethanol and soy changes nothing about the recast of the renewable energy directive phasing out the use of food and feed crop biofuel.

[ogden]

After that ban biofuel farmers suddenly will give-up their land for pastures and food prices will drop or what?

If they can't sell the oil they are more likely to grow food.

LOL, no. They will simply start to grow "non-food" cultures to manufacture biofuels that are not restricted, on the *same* fields where rapeseed or corn grew before. Most likely will swap between cultures to better manage fertility of the soil. Currently EU biofuel average is 5.2% of volume, yet we already see it's impact on food industry. Target is 10% meaning huge potential of growth. Very unlikely that "they can't sell the oil"

Without the implicit subsidy of being counted towards emission goals, vegetable oil is not an interesting source of fuel.

Right. Biofuel subsidies are damaging food industry which in result requires subsidies as well.

[nctnico]

Look at the date of that article  It literally is old news. The EU has already started to ban bio-fuels which consume too much land.

Save that facepalm for yourself, kid. Article you forgot to mention better be up-to date. I do not see how ban of cultures could solve any of the problems listed in that "old" article. After that ban biofuel farmers suddenly will give-up their land for pastures and food prices will drop or what? 

[edit] EU/EC did not *ban* anything. Read carefully: "The limits will affect the amount of these fuels that can be taken into account when calculating the overall national share of renewables and the share of renewables in transport."  https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-19-1656_en.htm

[edit] Here's fresh article for you that tells how hypocritical are EU "renewable" energy policies allowing import of South American biofuels that are known as environmentally unfriendly due to massive deforestation:  https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/mercosur-deal-opens-door-south-american-biofuels-while-palm-oil-biodiesel-use-reaches-record.

But this is about bio-diesel. I only wrote about ethanol. There is no future for diesel anyway (at least in Europe) so this problem solves itself.

[SiliconWizard]

But this is about bio-diesel. I only wrote about ethanol. There is no future for diesel anyway (at least in Europe) so this problem solves itself.

Well, I hope you are right about that. I wouldn't be that sure unfortunately.

The infamous Mercosur deal will certainly not help in that goal.
Total is also not investing in biodiesel for nothing, and the economy around diesel and diesel engines has become so big that I'm not holding my breath here... 

[ogden]

Look at the date of that article  It literally is old news. The EU has already started to ban bio-fuels which consume too much land.

Save that facepalm for yourself, kid. Article you forgot to mention better be up-to date. I do not see how ban of cultures could solve any of the problems listed in that "old" article. After that ban biofuel farmers suddenly will give-up their land for pastures and food prices will drop or what? 

[edit] EU/EC did not *ban* anything. Read carefully: "The limits will affect the amount of these fuels that can be taken into account when calculating the overall national share of renewables and the share of renewables in transport."  https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-19-1656_en.htm

[edit] Here's fresh article for you that tells how hypocritical are EU "renewable" energy policies allowing import of South American biofuels that are known as environmentally unfriendly due to massive deforestation:  https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/mercosur-deal-opens-door-south-american-biofuels-while-palm-oil-biodiesel-use-reaches-record.

But this is about bio-diesel. I only wrote about ethanol. There is no future for diesel anyway (at least in Europe) so this problem solves itself.

Article about biodiesel import was just side note Talking about ethanol: where's link to article that proves your statement: "The EU has already started to ban bio-fuels which consume too much land"?

[edit] Also please provide info about "There is no future for diesel anyway (at least in Europe)", for all kinds of transportation including ships and railway locomotives.

[Marco]

LOL, no. They will simply start to grow "non-food" cultures to manufacture biofuels that are not restricted

There currently isn't any fast growing energy dense high oil percentage non food/feed crop for them to transition to. It's strange they said food or feed crop at all in the new directive, but it will do for now.

[ogden]

There currently isn't any fast growing energy dense high oil percentage non food/feed crop for them to transition to. It's strange they said food or feed crop at all in the new directive, but it will do for now.

As @nctnico pointed out it is not about oils of rapeseed or palms but ethanol. EU discourages to use grain and corn for ethanol production in favor of Cellulosic ethanol made out of fibrous parts of plants/trees. Problem with Cellulosic ethanol manufacturing currently is high price of enzymes needed to break cellulose into simple sugars. Technology is not there yet. AFAIK big plants of Cellulosic ethanol were shut down in US and Germany.

[SiliconWizard]

Yeah it's still very expensive to produce and does not make economic sense.

With all those attempts and failures, I'm starting to think we'll have working nuclear fusion before any of these alternatives come to fruition.