Category Archives: Engineering

Difficult or inconvenient data about electric vehicles

photograph of a MDI Airpod 2.0The embodied carbon (i.e. the greenhouse gas emissions produced by its manufacture and assembly) of a typical small (compact) battery electric vehicle (BEV) is about 14 tonnes CO2 compared to about 7 tonnes CO2 in a compact internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) [see brusselblog.co.uk for overview of estimates from several sources].  This is mainly a result of the embodied carbon in the batteries.  My compact ICEV does about 50 mpg and we drive about 8,000 per year so we burn 160 gallons per year and one gallon generates about 9 kg CO2; thus, the carbon emissions from my ICEV are about 1.4 tonnes CO2/year. Hence, with our driving habits, building and using a compact ICEV car for five years is equivalent, in carbon emissions (= 7 + (1.4 x 5)), to just building a small electric car.  This does not account for the carbon footprint of electricity generation for the electric car which will not be zero and be dependent on how the electricity is generated; nor is recycling of your old vehicle included.  If you already have a ICEV car then your additional emissions resulting from its continued use will take about a decade to be more than buying a new electric car though by buying an electric vehicle you will move the pollution away from where you live and work.  If you buy an electric SUV, as about 45% of new car purchasers do worldwide [see IEA data], then many more years will be required to acheive a net reduction in carbon emission because the embodied carbon in an electric SUV can be five to ten times more than a compact ICEV.  The challenge for engineers is to develop vehicles that have both zero emissions in use and also zero embodied carbon.  Meanwhile, the bottom line is to use public transport whenever possible but if you need a car then have a small one and keep an electric one for much longer than an internal combustion engine vehicle – neither helps achieve net zero.

Image: the MDI Airpod that runs on compressed air [see ‘Hot air is good for balloons but cold air is better for cars‘ on May 19th , 2021.

Predicting release rates of hydrogen from stainless steel

Decorative photograph showing electrolysis cellThe influence of hydrogen on the structural integrity of nuclear power plant, where water molecules in the coolant circuit can be split by electrolysis or radiolysis to produce hydrogen, has been a concern to engineers for decades.  However, plans for a hydrogen economy and commercial fusion reactors, in which plasma-facing structural components will likely be exposed to hydrogen, has accelerated interest in understanding the complex interactions of hydrogen with metals, especially in the presence of irradiation.  A key step in advancing our understanding of these interactions is the measurement and prediction of the uptake and release of hydrogen by key structural materials.  We have recently published a study in Scientific Reports in which we developed a method for predicting the amount hydrogen in a steel under test conditions.  We used a sample of stainless steel as an electrode (cathode) in an electrolysis cell that split water molecules producing hydrogen atoms that were attracted to the steel. After loading the steel with hydrogen in the cell, we measured the rate of release of the hydrogen from the steel over two minutes by monitoring the drop in current in the cell, using a technique called potentiostatic discharge.  We used our measurements to calibrate a model of hydrogen release rate, based on Fick’s second law of diffusion, which relates the rate of hydrogen motion (diffusion) to the surface area perpendicular to the motion and the concentration gradient in the direction of motion.  Finally, we used our calibrated model to predict the release rate of hydrogen over 24 hours and checked our predictions using a second measurement based on the hydrogen released when the steel was melted.  So, now we have a method of predicting the amount of hydrogen in a steel remaining in a sample many hours after exposure during electrolysis without destroying the test sample.  This will allow us to perform better defined tests on the influence of hydrogen on the performance of stainless steel in the extreme environments of fission and fusion reactors.

Source:

Weihrauch M, Patel M, Patterson EA. Measurements and predictions of diffusible hydrogen escape and absorption in cathodically charged 316LN austenitic stainless steel. Scientific Reports. 13(1):10545, 2023.

Image:

Figure 2a from Weihrauch et al , 2023 showing electrolysis cell setup for potentiostatic discharge experiments.

Entropy has taken its toll

Decorative imageI am on vacation so this is the third in a series of ‘reprints’ from my archive of more than 570 posts.  It was published in July 2014 under title ‘Engineering archaeology‘.  Entropy has done its bit and repainting of our railings is long overdue.

Last week I spent a relaxing day painting the old railings in front of our house. Since I am not a painter and decorator by trade the end result is not perfect but they look much better in shiny black than two-tone rust and matt black.   One of the fleurs de lis on our railings had been knocked off when either we moved in or the previous occupiers moved out.  It’s a way of life being an engineer, so the shape of the failure surface on the broken railing was bugging me while I was painting the rest.  You would expect wrought iron railings to be ductile, i.e. to deform significantly prior to fracture, and to have a high tensile strength.  Wrought iron’s properties are derived from its very low carbon content (less than 0.25%) and the presence of fibrous slag impurities (typically about 2%), which almost make it a composite material.  It was historically used for railings and gates.  However, my broken railing had exhibited almost no deformation prior to fracture, i.e. it was a brittle failure, and the fleur de lis had broken in half on impact with the stone flags.  So on one of the rainy days last week, when I couldn’t paint outside, I did a little bit of historical research and discovered that in the late 1790s and early 1800s, which is when our house was built, cast iron started to be used for railings.  Cast iron has a high carbon content, typically 2 to 4%, and also contains silicon at between 1 and 3% by weight.  Cast iron is brittle, i.e. it shows almost no deformation prior to fracture, so the failure surface tends be to flat and smooth just like in my fleur de lis.

This seems like a nice interdisciplinary, if not everyday, engineering example.  It would be vandalism to go around breaking iron railings in front of old buildings.  So, if you want Everyday Engineering Examples of ductile and brittle behaviour, then visit a junk shop and buy an old china dinner plate and a set of cutlery.  The ceramic of the china plate is brittle and will fracture without deformation – have some fun and break one!  The stainless steel of the fork and spoon is ductile and can be easily bent, i.e. it is easy to introduce large deformation, in this case permanent or plastic deformation, prior to failure.  In fact you will probably have to bend the fork back and forth repeatedly before it will snap with each bending action introducing additional damage.

The more curious will be wondering why some materials are ductile and others brittle.  The answer is associated with their microstructures, which in turn is dependent on their constituents, as hinted above.  However, I am not going to venture into material science to explain the details.  I have probably already given materials scientists enough to complain about because my Everyday Engineering Examples are not directly analogous at the microstructural level to wrought iron and cast iron but they are more fun.

Update on position of AI on hype curve: it cannot dream

Decorative image of a flowerIt would appear that I was wrong in 2020 when I suggested that artificial intelligence was near the top of its hype curve [see ‘Where is AI on the hype curve?‘ on August 12th, 2020].  In the past few months the hype has reached new levels.  Initially, there were warnings about the imminent takeover of global society by artificial intelligence; however, recently the pendulum has swung back towards a more measured concern that the nature of many jobs will be changed by artificial intelligence with some jobs disappearing and others being created.  I believe that the bottom-line is that while terrific advances have been made with large language models, such as ChatGPT, artificial intelligence is artificial but it is not intelligent [see ‘Inducing chatbots to write nonsense‘ on February 15th, 2023].  It cannot dream.  It is not creative or inventive, largely because it is very powerful applied statistics which needs data based on what has happened or been produced already.  So, if you are involved in solving mysteries (ill-defined, vague and indeterminate problems) rather than puzzles [see ‘Puzzles and mysteries‘ on November 25th, 2020] then you are unlikely to be replaced by artificial intelligence in the foreseeable future [see ‘When will you be replaced by a computer?‘ on November 20th, 2019].  Not that you should trust my predictions of the future! [see ‘Predicting the future through holistic awareness‘ on January 6th, 2021]