Obrist: After the Tesla Model 3 as Hyperhybrid follows “Liquid Strom”

Obrist: After the Tesla Model 3 as Hyperhybrid follows

Obrist Powertrain, an Austrian engineering office claims in January 2020 that you can bring the widespread Tesla Model 3 with double range and significantly cheaper on the road. For this purpose, the company made a hyperhybrid car from the pure electric car, as the Austrians describe the vehicle. Even before the IAA 2021 you go a step further and gives you to understand that in the future you put on “liquid electricity” to stop climate change.

First briefly to the “Obrist Mark II”, behind which the converted Tesla Model 3 hides. With regard to the drive system, from the point of view of the OBRist, it is decisive between normal plug-in hybrids (parallel hybrid) and hyperhybrid (serial hybrid). Thus, the Hyperhybrid ® drive strand not only reduce CO2 emissions during operation, but also the emissions in production and recycling, using a small, powerful Li-Ion battery. Such a battery is compared to a pure electric car battery in which the weight of the battery can achieve up to 600 kg, in size, weight and in particular costs reduced.

With the vehicle Mark II, the CO2 emissions in operation were drastically reduced to a real consumption of 2 l / 100 km and 7 kWh. “A model in the style of today’s Tesla Hyper Hybrid should be around 18 worldwide.000 Euro can be sold “, as the NZZ in April 2021 gives to understand. But for Obrist, Mark II only represents an intermediate in the direction of CO2 reduction.

“Reducing global emissions is not enough to stop climate change. We need to be negative C02. With afuel we create that.”- Thorsten Rixxmann, Director of Communication

Because instead of relating the driving energy from a 500 or more kilograms weighing battery, weight and price of the power store should remain low – and partly replaced by “liquid electricity” in the form of synthetically manufactured methanol. Obrist itself refers to this fuel as afuel® (emethanol) and has already made a deeper thought, as can be produced.

Obrist: After the Tesla Model 3 as Hyperhybrid follows Obrist

The AFUEL® is to be produced by solar energy, hydrogen from the water electrolysis and CO2 directly from the atmosphere. All processes that exist today, but not yet or only partially interconnected are merged with obrist. Obrist sees AFUEL® as a first choice, as this is easier to store and transport, because, among other things, it could set existing infrastructure (transport, gas stations, etc …). The fuel is to be produced in huge power plants in sunny areas of the earth directly by the sea. These factories works similar to the natural forest. Emethanol is created by the connection of hydrogen with CO2. The entire process is supplied by green electricity, which is recovered from large photovoltaic fields.

Obrist: After the Tesla Model 3 as Hyperhybrid follows Obrist

“The Modern Forest”, as the manufacturing plant is designated by Obrist, consists of a huge solar panel field, a water treatment plant, an electrolysis station, a CO2-air filter system and the emethanol synthesis system. By integrating a CSENKE system in which CO2 is converted into a solid form, even the possibility of producing a CO2-negative fuel is generated. As the company requires, in this plant from two kilograms of seawater, 12 kWh solar energy and 3.370 kilograms of air conclusively a kilogram of AFUEL® and 1.5 kilograms of oxygen. In addition, 1.38 kg CO2 are reduced. Based on the fact that the ideal manufacturing location “both water and solar energy are available in abundance, the depiction of the efficiency chain is not crucial”, as Obrist of the NZZ to understand.

Obrist: After the Tesla Model 3 as Hyperhybrid follows Obrist

For the implementation you need a little courage and corresponding financial resources. Who knows, maybe Obrist at the IAA 2021 in Munich finds appropriate prospects for the project.

Related articles

Please follow and like us:

7 thoughts on “Obrist: After the Tesla Model 3 as Hyperhybrid follows “Liquid Strom””

  1. Funny ideas has this obbrist, everything sounds fascinating. He could also spice the broadcast with the mouse.
    That these things are all for a long time we will not reveal him, which are usually different, like rangeextender or methanol fuel cell.
    Why he always speaks of weight reduction at Tesla, nobody knows, completely. M3 is already one of the slimest, he would rather send a Taryce or the many otherwise elaborate cars for pleckure.

    Reply
  2. Yawn. Is there already with the Gumpert Nathalie. Question: What will be out of the SYN. Methanol in the hybrid model 3 in the conversion into electricity? Answer: CO2 and H2O. We have not won anything. That would be satire then. Why then do not directly load the electricity from wind and sun into the battery and save all this effort with the large industrial multiple conversion of fabrics. Here are eerie losses and costs. I do not really understand the meaning. Maybe for planes and trucks could make sense.

    Reply
  3. As the company requires, in this plant from two kilograms of seawater, 12 kWh solar energy and 3.370 kilograms of air conclusive A kilogram of AFUEL® and 1.5 kilograms of oxygen.

    I have tried to calculate.

    Graphic: PV surface 2.000 m x 5.000 m = 10.000.000 m²
    (Germany – CA. 7.5 m² PV area per 1000 kWh a year).
    Africa – generous with only 3 m² PV PRO 1.000 kWh a year.
    10.000.000 m² / 3 x 1.000 = rounded 3.333.333.333 (kWh per year).

    501.300 tonnes of emethanol = 501.300.000 kg.
    3.333.333.333 kWh / 501.300.000 kg = rounded 6.65 kWh per kg of emethanol – Does not fit 12 kWh / kg.

    Numbers in the graphic – If “Afuel” is meant emethanol, then the PV system has been calculated far too small, because the PV surface would have to be twice as big.

    A small detour to methanol in a fuel cell.

    Methanol miracle leaves 800 km Electric: But many details are still unclear

    ..

    The energy requirement is huge: a liter of methanol has only about half the energy content with around 5 kWh (exactly said: condensing value) of one liter of gasoline. The production of one liter of methanol devours with current-based processes but about 12 kWh current. Extrapolated on the tank of Nathalie (65 liters) So with 60 percent methanol are stuck over 450 kWh electricity In a single filling. To classify this energy quantity: a purely electric Porsche Taryzan 4S thus moves up to 1.700 kilometers wide, one Hyundai Ioniq over 2.500 kilometers.

    (Source: Efahrer.chip.DE – 31.05.2021)

    With a methanol fuel cell would be well used twice (eco-) current, similar to vehicles with a hydrogen fuel cell.

    Back to methanol in an internal combustion engine.

    The idea with the liquid stream

    ..

    … with the 17 kWh battery ..

    Thanks to small battery to 1580 kilograms reduced vehicle weight ..

    ..

    In everyday traffic, the car is to achieve 100-kilometer consumption values of 2 liters of methanol and 7.3 kWh of electricity, and this from summer 2021, when the internal combustion engine is optimized for methanol.

    ..

    In the company Obrist based in Lustenau near the Swiss border ..

    (Source: NZZ.ch)

    2 liters of methanol (around 5 kWh per liter) about 10 kWh energy content at 50% efficiency would be 5 kWh plus the 7.3 kWh from the battery, together 12.3 kWh / 100 km at 1.580 kg vehicle weight?

    If from the 17 kWh battery (if 17 kWh gross, then approx. 15 kWh net) still 15 kWh are added, then you would go to 20 kWh at 100 km and that would be rather realistic. But how high is the consumption of methanol still the first 100 km when the battery is empty?

    My conclusion: The whole thing is right and back not or back. it was nice.

    Reply
  4. It is always the same idea, just packed slightly differently.
    Sure, the models of Tesla belong to the vehicles with the best CW values. That makes the bill a bit better. But basically it remains mischief old men.

    Reply
  5. It is interesting how much the ideology grille of many BEV drivers prevents a neutral assessment of other concepts. It would all be good to breathe deep twice, and to remember what it’s all about:

    To prevent CO2 emission, ideally to reduce, preserving the social peace and preserving prosperity.

    It is completely utopian a world without CO2 emissions to realize, the technology change of individual mobility has relatively little share. Producing industry, agriculture, living space heat, goods transport – here tons of exajoule of energy needed inside, which are not fully covered by directly available renewable energies.

    Obrist advocates purely electric vehicles, this also makes it more sensible if these are sufficient, but also searches for ways and compromises there fossil drives to replace where it does not allow costs, infrastructure or requirement profile otherwise.

    He thus clearly applies a BEV with the one exception that, if necessary, a renewable, climate-neutral, simply synthetically produced, easily transport and storable fuel is used, and sets here to emethanol, which in many areas of fossil fuels (emit the additional CO2 ) could prevent. The idea is not new, but whose implementation has never been implemented so consistently.

    Pure H2 produces a variety of challenges and disadvantages that are physically conditioned. Methanol is the most appropriate H2 carrier, has a high energy density, is liquid and influence under atmospheric conditions, as well as DMFC and PEMFC with ref. equally suitable. Methanol does not produce ethical dilemma such as biologically generated ethanol (keyword builders for food).

    The concept of Obrist is about an absolute minimum reduced serial hybrid. This is a BEV with maximum efficiency-trimmed lifting piston engine, with the slightest possible local emission as well as a minimum of moving parts and costs for power generation, if there is no green alternative, or the circumstances do not allow it to access it. We speak here of 5-10% of the total route in vehicle life. These can not be easily deleted without replacement or replacing them with alternatives such as train or public transport. To discuss whether the individual reasons are justified is idle.

    The required primary energy of the concept offers over the entire vehicle life approximately parity to pure Bevs what is due to the circumstance that the production of the larger battery is essential to produce the generator. It is an urban fairy tale that would be exorbitantly higher at 5-10% operating time of the total energy demand.

    For the cost of the EMATHANOL ZVG (CostBrakedown 950EUR + KAT), a FuelCell is not to produce profitable, has only small advantages in efficiency and is much more sensitive when the energy source should be contaminated. The lifting piston engine can be preferable from pragmatic motives in this case still some time of a FC.

    The concept does not take renewable energies in Europe in Europe, should not replace BEVs and globally give much more people the opportunity to make their own mobility CO2 more compatible.

    The idea is not new, but not per se absurd or wrong. Some clever minds have shown the advantages of a methanol-based energy industry, including George A. Olah.

    And that’s why I ask the critics:
    What is so bad at this vision so bad that this is only ridicule?

    A convinced Bev driver

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Jomei Cancel reply