New Energy Vehicles (NEVs) in China


FairAndUnbiased

Junior Member
Registered Member

Comparison Of Source Codes Proves Xpeng Didn't Use Tesla IP​

XMotors and the former Tesla employee at the center of the allegations both issue statements.​


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Of Source Codes Proves Xpeng Didn't Use Tesla IPXMotors and the former Tesla employee at the center of the allegations both issue statements.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Defamation lawsuit incoming...
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
54 billion gallons from a bioethanol process. Who said anything about bioethanol? The process proposed was a gasification + hydrogenation process. that's not bioethanol by any means.

My mention of ethanol is actually more valid than your mention of methanol, because
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on the amount of ethanol recoverable from the US's non-food biomass. (For those who are losing track of this debate: the amount isn't anywhere near enough to replace the US's consumption of gasoline sustainably, and doesn't even begin to address the country's vast consumption of the other fossil fuels.)

In contrast, you drew methanol from thin air and then used it in BS calculations.


My response is yes, there is a scalable source of renewable carbon: biomass. You gasify and hydrogenate the biomass to produce methanol. This is an energy positive process.
And my reply is that you failed to demonstrate the existence of a scalable source of renewable carbon. As far as I know, no one has independently verified your claim of 100 billion tons of carbon available each year. The article I cited, by the Union of Concerned Scientists, indirectly contradicts your claim.

Thus your entire case fails. Producing hydrogen is vastly better than using biomass, if we want renewability.

And consider China's point of view. Should the country bet its future on an unverified (and probably unverifiable) claim of a hundred billion tons of carbon in a single paper? Or should the country plan on using obviously abundant resources, like solar power and seawater?
 

FairAndUnbiased

Junior Member
Registered Member
My mention of ethanol is actually more valid than your mention of methanol, because
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on the amount of ethanol recoverable from the US's non-food biomass. (For those who are losing track of this debate: the amount isn't anywhere near enough to replace the US's consumption of gasoline sustainably, and doesn't even begin to address the country's vast consumption of the other fossil fuels.)

In contrast, you drew methanol from thin air and then used it in BS calculations.

And my reply is that you failed to demonstrate the existence of a scalable source of renewable carbon. As far as I know, no one has independently verified your claim of 100 billion tons of carbon available each year. The article I cited, by the Union of Concerned Scientists, indirectly contradicts your claim.

Thus your entire case fails. Producing hydrogen is vastly better than using biomass, if we want renewability.

And consider China's point of view. Should the country bet its future on an unverified (and probably unverifiable) claim of a hundred billion tons of carbon in a single paper? Or should the country plan on using obviously abundant resources, like solar power and seawater?
it is clear that you lack the chemistry and thermodynamics knowledge to even understand the point made. In addition you are either supremely lazy or being intellectually dishonest.

first,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The citation is [6]. Here is the full searchable quote. Why are you saying it's my claim?
The total live biomass on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is about 550–560 billion tonnes C,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the total annual
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of biomass is just over 100 billion tonnes C/yr.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
second, the original argument was:
Yes, you could burn the methanol directly. But methanol (CH3-OH) has carbon in it. Are there any scalable sources of renewable carbon? (There's a reason the English switched to coal: they probably preferred to burn wood, but their forests were almost gone.) Getting carbon from the atmosphere is impractically slow: I believe I said upthread that carbon dioxide is 0.04% of air.

Natural gas is methane (CH4). So it's the same problem: a scalable source of renewable carbon.
The reply was yes, there is a scalable source of renewable carbon: biomass. This biomass as a source of carbon is used to combine with renewable hydrogen. It was demonstrated to be an energy positive process.

I don't get what's so controversial about this. You asked a question about hydrogen conversion to liquid fuel. I gave you a correct technical answer: yes, you can convert hydrogen to liquid carbon containing fuel in an energy positive process. You then went off on a tangent about completely unrelated processes like natural production of fossil fuel or bioethanol.
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
it is clear that you lack the chemistry and thermodynamics knowledge to even understand the point made. In addition you are either supremely lazy or being intellectually dishonest.
It is clear that you have little left but insults. It's a sign of a loser.


first,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The citation is [6]. Here is the full searchable quote. Why are you saying it's my claim?
It is your claim because you cited it and based your argument on it.


The reply was yes, there is a scalable source of renewable carbon: biomass.
And my answer is that your claim (of 100 billion tons of carbon available annually) is unverified, as far as I know. And I cited
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that indirectly contradicts your claim -- and this article's determination that the biomass available is vastly inadequate is consistent with a paper by another scientist, as described in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. On the other hand, your claim is so wildly different that I frankly don't believe it.

And you completely ignored what I said about China's point of view:
And consider China's point of view. Should the country bet its future on an unverified (and probably unverifiable) claim [in a single paper] of a hundred billion tons of carbon [available each year]? Or should the country plan on using obviously abundant resources, like solar power and seawater?
 
Last edited:

FairAndUnbiased

Junior Member
Registered Member
It is clear that you have little left but insults. It's a sign of a loser.



It is your claim because you cited it and based your argument on it.



And my answer is that your claim (of 100 billion tons of carbon available annually) is unverified, as far as I know. And I cited
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that indirectly contradicts your claim -- and this article's determination that the biomass available is vastly inadequate is consistent with a paper by another scientist, as described in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. On the other hand, your claim is so wildly different that I frankly don't believe it.

And you completely ignored what I said about China's point of view:
That is not an insult, that is a question of how you present your points of view. if you presented your views in a more clear way maybe there wouldn't be the question of whether they're misrepresented.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


You cited two non-peer reviewed opinion papers and even in those papers, the 680 million tons (680 billion kg) mentioned in your paper from Union of Concerned Scientists is still enough for my estimate for 137.83 billion kg biomass required per year, so even that citation doesn't actually disprove anything I said.

Finally, you claim that this is a binary choice:
And consider China's point of view. Should the country bet its future on an unverified (and probably unverifiable) claim [in a single paper] of a hundred billion tons of carbon [available each year]? Or should the country plan on using obviously abundant resources, like solar power and seawater?
when it is not. Hydrogen utilization without carbon means that it will be a gaseous fuel with low volumetric energy content. I was offering only a method of utilizing hydrogen so it is a liquid fuel. If it were up to me, I wouldn't even bother with hydrogen for the vast majority of vehicles outside ships and planes, which can utilize renewable methanol with the proposed biomass to gas process that uses hydrogen.

Again, my proposal is a way to actually use hydrogen as a liquid fuel to solve the volumetric energy density problem, assuming that solar has already solved the question of getting the hydrogen.

From my understanding of your source, and your goal, we are not in total disagreement. The sole source of disagreement is whether the carbon used to convert hydrogen to methanol can come from biomass or not. I say it is possible, and provided some evidence in favor of that conclusion.
 

AF-1

New Member
Registered Member
Will current electricity shortages and blackouts in China affect sales of EVs and their normal usage?
 

Top