Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Wed 01 May 2019, 01:38:28

Outcast_Searcher wrote:There's no reason hydrogen couldn't be produced lots of places. You're right -- just electricity and water can do it. However, to do it at scale takes a lot of power and that isn't cheap. It comes back to economics. Until fuel cells are CHEAP, the incentive to create a widely available and convenient public hydrogen supply doesn't exist. Until that happens, fuel cells are a non-starter (outside parts of CA where govt. provides more incentives than elsewhere in the US) since without convenient hydrogen, no economic fill-ups, and game over.

Yeah, I hear you. I haven't looked in a while: it's still the case that fuel cells are the main expense in a hydrogen car? Of course thermodynamics means hydrogen may always be more expensive in certain sized vehicles because electricity to hydrogen to liquid hydrogen back to electricity is so awfully inefficient compared to just electricity to battery to electricity again. But as we have seen, battery sizes in larger vehicles like long-haul heavy trucking and agricultural equipment is probably prohibitive. That's why I said in an emergency, they might even go down the hydrogen BURNING route - not that it's better for energy efficiency, but maybe it's cheaper to burn hydrogen (and waste more hydrogen) than to try and be more efficient with it if the fuel cell is vastly too expensive? But 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other. It's all more expensive than oil. For now.

One thing though -- if the electricity to crack the water to produce the hydrogen isn't green (solar, wind, etc), i.e. if it's done with natural gas, then that's not any better than charging BEV's with electricity produced from natural gas (or worse, coal).

Absolutely! Also, did you ever see the links to these studies?

NREL studies show we can convert about a third of our cars into EV's without requiring a single extra power plant if we turn all our baseload plants up to full and charge at night. This would mainly be light vehicles like family cars and light trucks. “For the United States as a whole, 84% of US cars, pickup trucks and SUVs could be supported by the existing infrastructure”
http://tinyurl.com/y6b6s7nx

This means that we can charge about a third of today's vehicles for "free" on today's electricity grid without building a single new power plant. Another study confirms that "the grid has enough excess capacity to support over 150 million battery-powered cars, or about 75 percent of the cars, pickups, and SUVs on the road in the United States." Technology Review August 2013 http://tinyurl.com/y3qvtv5k


To me, as you say, this is all technically viable now. The remaining big item is for the tech. to get good enough to make things like fuel cells and BEV's truly as good or better than ICE's or HEV's in terms of economics. I think it's just a matter of time. There will be a transition period, even when the economics is clearly favoring green tech, since ICE's don't suddenly become worthless (despite bizarre Musk claims), though their resale value could diminish significantly.

Yeah, and who knows? Maybe we'll end up with some niche e-diesel aka "Blue Crude" trucking sectors while most light vehicles go electric. Some already think e-diesel could be economically viable.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/synthetic-diesel/


Of course, the doomers will object that since it's not all economic today, it "can't happen", it "won't work", etc. No one rational ever claimed a major transition like changing the bulk of the global vehicle fleet could happen over night. Huge physical and economic constraints must be dealt with to mostly transition such a huge fleet of vehicles.

But some things CAN and historically HAVE happened 'overnight.' Well, in a decade anyway. France went from 8% nuclear to 3/4 nuclear in a decade. They were burning OIL for electricity when the 70's oil crisis hit, and without large fossil fuel reserves went nuclear, big time. At one point they were building 15 reactors a year. (The other quarter of their grid is hydro.) I guess a nation just has to want it bad enough. Anyway, it's interesting to note that Dr James Hansen has calculated that the world needs to build 115 GW of reactors a year to clean up electricity by 2050 for a world of 10 billion people. On a reactors / GDP basis that is slower than the French build out rate. In other words, if we get the political will we know it is technically viable to clean up electricity fast enough because one nation has already done it.

But oil? A third of vehicles would charge on that grid, as per the studies above. That's a whole THIRD done and dusted!

So we 'just' have to replace 66% of our oil. If Big Oil decided to get into e-diesel, and this paper is correct, then e-diesel is competitive and the cost of building the new nuclear reactors for heavy vehicles is already included in the money we are already paying Big oil.

Clever city planning and public transit and New Urban programs could reduce the amount of transport energy we use per capita, but I'm not counting on it. If we got serious, I can see us easily building a standardised reactor fleet of 115 GW a year (which the French already beat) and the extra reactors required to charge all the cars and crack all the e-diesel we need to replace 66% of our oil. The total is probably between 150 GW and 160 GW a year. It seems doable.

But then, you never know. In 2016 the world voted for both Brexit and Trump.
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby evilgenius » Sun 12 May 2019, 09:25:36

You know, I was just wondering, what's the state of intermittent electrical lines along roadways that can be used to recharge vehicles as they roll? I don't mean powering up all of a nation's roadways. You only need so much of a length at a time in order to recharge a set of batteries as you go along. You can use the batteries to travel the distances between the gaps where the highways don't allow for recharging. I'm thinking overhead lines, like you see with electric buses or rail, only useful for semis and/or cars that run on batteries. I've been in my car, using my phone to get around. The phone's activity was a lot for the phone. I've simply plugged it into the cigarette lighter to recharge it as I went along, so that I knew it wouldn't run out before I was done. Overhead or embedded roadway lines would accomplish the same thing, for a vehicle's batteries. Of course, it would have to operate under some sort of standard. It'd be awfully hard to pull it off if every vehicle manufacturer tried to do it a different way. Is anybody working on it?
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2655
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 12 May 2019, 20:30:09

evilgenius wrote: Overhead or embedded roadway lines would accomplish the same thing, for a vehicle's batteries. Of course, it would have to operate under some sort of standard. It'd be awfully hard to pull it off if every vehicle manufacturer tried to do it a different way. Is anybody working on it?

Seems like a good idea, if it can be done economically. But, it seems to me this would need to be a government run thing or a government cooperation with industry (like building/maintaining roads), as how else would the providers be paid?

I'm not aware of this being done yet, because the economics seem daunting vs. having people charge at public charging stations -- but it could certainly extend vehicle range if it worked well.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 13 May 2019, 09:44:24

Elonroad system is being tested in Sweden but even greenies are tearing down the concept in the comments

I think history has already turned the page here. Big battery packs and ubiquitous fast charging is the clear winner.

There's really no way to count on any infrastructure beyond what private industry can provide due to how dysfunctional (and hostile to green tech) our government is. And we're lucky for Dieselgate as we might not have seen the CCS DC fast-charge buildout happen in the US otherwise, or not nearly as fast and aggressive.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2767
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Thu 16 May 2019, 01:31:20

asg70 wrote:I think history has already turned the page here. Big battery packs and ubiquitous fast charging is the clear winner.

Just imagine no more oil wars, no more smog - well only minimal smog if we have to have e-diesel, and sustainable home grown energy. Who woulda thunk it?
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 16 May 2019, 03:55:51

At least in this country, most of the "baseline" power plants are coal plants. Maximizing their use would increase carbon emissions. The nuclear baseline power and hydropower baseline power plants would not increase carbon emissions, but are probably running at 100% already.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby asg70 » Thu 16 May 2019, 09:52:38

eclipse wrote:
asg70 wrote:I think history has already turned the page here. Big battery packs and ubiquitous fast charging is the clear winner.

Just imagine no more oil wars, no more smog - well only minimal smog if we have to have e-diesel, and sustainable home grown energy. Who woulda thunk it?


I can imagine quite a bit, but it's going to be a long road still before EVs completely displace gas cars. Sort of like in the early 1900s when Model Ts were coexisting with horses on roads. Just a lot of inertia to shake off.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2767
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Fri 17 May 2019, 23:00:27

Except maybe for trucking? There are electric highways in Germany where hybrid trucks can whip a cable-car like connector to the overhead charging lines for 10km.
https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicf ... =2&theater

I'm wondering where this tech could go, and how many of these lines you would need to fast-charge a truck for the next 100km? Would you end up with a situation where trucks could go 100% electric with this if they were spaced at the right ratio, and instead of just driving the truck for that 10km, also fast-charged it? I don't know what the efficiency losses are with a cable-car whip verses a dedicated fast-charging port, but Tesla cars charge at 400km per hour, or 100km every quarter hour. So if a truck starts its day fully charged and has a range of say 400km, I wonder how many of these electric highways it would need to connect with to recharge enough to stretch the truck range out to a normal day's drive? What are truck drivers doing every day, 1000km?
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 19 May 2019, 07:46:53

Trolley assist(overhead electric lines for vehicles) is already used in some ultra heavy applications like mining trucks. There you have several situations that make such an option more attractive: steep grades(which consume more fuel), short distances(which limit the needed capital expenditure), and high initial fuel consumption(large vehicles hauling large loads). However even with all of those factors coming together it is still often cheaper to go the diesel route:

Trolley assist is a system in which haul trucks in open pit mines are propelled by electric energy along a designated haul road segment. This can lead to high savings on fuel costs, productivity, CO2 emission and engine life, but is associated with limitations on mine planning. The purpose of this thesis is to determine how trolley assist can be accommodated into strategic mine planning, in view of optimizing the Net Present Value (NPV). This was investigated by assessing the impact of relocating the trolley infrastructure on the mine schedule and NPV, using GEOVIA Whittle for a theoretical case study concerning a Ghanaian gold mine. The outcome of the case study was that a diesel only scenario yielded the highest NPV, meaning that the operational savings of trolley assist were not high enough to offset the required capital investment. The results of the case study did not deliver enough support for the hypothesis that incorporating trolley assist in the long-term mine plan is key in achieving an increased NPV with trolley assist. Nevertheless, it is clear that the feasibility of trolley assist is not a simple offset between capital investment and operational savings. Most limitations of this research resulted from the complexity of the Ghana Gold block model and the poor availability of detailed cost data.
Study on the Impact of Trolley Assisted Haul Trucks on Strategic Mine Planning in Open Pit Mines

Of course that particular mine might have not been a good match for trolley assist because of it's complex layout and trolley assist has been used for decades in other mines. But again, these are short roads where the capital expenditure is low. Stringing these up along hundreds of thousands of miles of highways doesn't sound economically feasible. Perhaps it might work for a handful of select routes: heavy truck traffic, steep grades, strict local ordinances against emissions, etc. It seems neither the mining trucks nor the test electric highway in Germany utilized batteries in their cases to keep capital costs down. All needed energy was supplied directly from the overhead lines and excess energy from braking was dumped back into the lines.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4506
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Tue 21 May 2019, 03:47:20

Trucking and agriculture will either run on new super-batteries, hydrogen, or we can crack e-diesel (and jet fuel) out of seawater.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/synthetic-diesel/

HERE'S A WEIRD ONE! Dr James Hansen says another contender is burning powdered boron metal which we then recycle. It only burns if the vehicle takes a bottle of oxygen along with it!
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/boron/

We have plenty of options to replace oil. The main thing is to start the nuclear assembly lines sooner rather than later, and get the ball rolling!
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby lpetrich » Tue 21 May 2019, 20:49:11

Synthetic diesel | Eclipse Now - electrolysis and Fischer-Tropsch synfuels. I'm tempted to yawn, because that is old news to me. Very, very old news. It is completely feasible, and IMO it is a valuable technology, but the problem is doing it cheaply enough to compete with fossil-fuel hydrocarbon fuels. That video stated that the typical cost of its liquid hydrocarbons is about $3 - $6 per gallon. So it's almost there.

The video in that link also had a misunderstanding about the release of carbon dioxide from burning these fuels. It would not be a net addition to atmospheric CO2 because it uses atmospheric CO2 to make its fuels. It may have an alternative form of CO2 capture that captures it from seawater, but the net result is transfer of CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere.

Boron | Eclipse Now - I'll believe it when I see it. Needing a bottle of oxygen is the same problem is needing a bottle of hydrogen. Also, the boron oxide has to be refined to boron with close to 100% efficiency, otherwise, one will end up with big losses of this chemical element. It is also necessary to burn it in an enclosed chamber, to keep the boron oxide from leaking out. That means an external combustion engine like a steam engine.

If you want an internal combustion engine, hydrocarbon synfuels and similar ones like ammonia and methanol are your best bet.
User avatar
lpetrich
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu 22 Jun 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Wed 22 May 2019, 01:59:37

lpetrich wrote:Synthetic diesel | Eclipse Now - electrolysis and Fischer-Tropsch synfuels. I'm tempted to yawn, because that is old news to me. Very, very old news. It is completely feasible, and IMO it is a valuable technology, but the problem is doing it cheaply enough to compete with fossil-fuel hydrocarbon fuels. That video stated that the typical cost of its liquid hydrocarbons is about $3 - $6 per gallon. So it's almost there.

But that's the big difference, isn't it? It's getting CO2 from seawater instead of the air because CO2 in seawater is 28 times more concentrated. Yes, when it's burned it goes back into the air and then eventually back into the water. I just thought the idea of the navy producing this at sea for logistical reasons made sense, and then of course so much good tech comes from the military.

Boron... I'm inclined to agree with you, but it was an interesting alternative. And unlike fuel which goes stale, the boron could sit there for years.
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby lpetrich » Wed 22 May 2019, 04:31:04

eclipse wrote:Boron... I'm inclined to agree with you, but it was an interesting alternative. And unlike fuel which goes stale, the boron could sit there for years.

I've never heard of hydrocarbons going stale.

Boron has a further problem. It is a solid with a high melting point: 2075 C. Being a solid means that it can be awkward to handle.
User avatar
lpetrich
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu 22 Jun 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Battery Technology Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Fri 24 May 2019, 03:23:45

Boron is a powder. Fuel goes stale, check it out.
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney

Nissan Leaf batteries can outlast the cars

Unread postby dolanbaker » Sun 09 Jun 2019, 16:49:03

https://electrek.co/2019/05/24/nissan-l ... tlast-car/
Nissan claims the batteries in its Leaf electric cars will last 22 years, an estimated 10-12 years longer than the average life of the car itself.

Nissan reached its conclusions based off of data from the 400,000 Leafs it has sold in Europe since 2011, managing director of Renault-Nissan Energy Services Francisco Carranza said at the Automotive News Europe Congress this week.

“We are going to have to recover those batteries,” Carranza said.

Nissan is considering a number of options for reuse. As one example, it already has a 3 megawatt storage system at Amsterdam’s Johan Cryuff Arena, which uses 148 new and used Leaf batteries.

The company also offers home solar panels and battery options, and like other carmakers such as Honda, it’s looking at ways to use its electric car batteries to store electricity from the grid and return it at the proper times, with revenue back going to the car owners. The company has been testing some form of vehicle-to-grid systems for years.


Just goes to show that we are still learning about the longevity of the current generation of batteries. A lot of which can be put down to discovering the optimum battery management systems and only charging when necessary and never overcharging or discharging beyond specific values.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Planned obsolescence, one of the largest contributors to the man made element of climate change, but the one least discussed: dolanbaker
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests