This is msevior's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following msevior's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Harvey, I believe most of the costs are capital purchases to buy the equipment and expertise to build automated factories. Low cost, unskilled labour is definitely not needed.
Very interesting indeed. One weeks worth of water from fracking gives enough lithium for 200 EVs. Given that 1 barrel/day of crude oil supports about 7.5 cars and assuming the well supplies 1000 barrels/day this implies the well supports 7500 cars. So over the course of a year the well supplies enough lithium to make 10,000 EV's, more than replacing the gasoline cars that need the oil. So fracking could turnout to be a very sustainable form of mining!
I wonder if the US Navy are interested in this? They have all these nuclear powered aircraft carriers and need fuel for their planes. If this technology works at scale they may not need support tankers.
Davemart they've used their insane stock price to generate and spend cash like crazy to actually build > 500,000 BEV's/year. No other company is within an order of magnitude of that. Succeed or fail there's no doubt in my mind they've been influential.
Some but not that much (maybe 3-4 cents out of the 30 cents). It's mostly rent-seekers taking advantage of poor government market models. Self generation and local storage is about the only way consumers can push back against them.
Actually, retail electricity prices in Australia are so high (> 30 cents/KWhr) that PV+battery storage makes financial sense in many parts of the country. 6 KW PV + Powerwall 2 costs around $16K fully installed. The battery system is 10K$ of that. Although the payback is marginal, many people are so sick of the electricity retailers they're already willing to pay. A further 30% reduction in a 14 KWhr battery would see large scale adoption in the home storage market and even greater PV penetration. Over 15% of households have some PV installed already.
Herman, I was really worried about peak oil between 2006 and 2010. Now I only worry about global warming. There are more than enough fossil fuels to triple or quadruple our current atmospheric CO2 concentration.I suspect the price of oil will drop in the 2020's as fuel efficiencies continuously improve. Hopefully petroleum will go the way of whale oil as its uses are replaced with better technology.
Dr. Strange, actually I've been a bono-fide member of the open-source community since 1994. I run Linux on all my servers and use it on laptops and PC's where-ever possible. However many of the most useful PC programs don't have a Linux version. Linux on the PC could have been like Android and now AGL. Free and a first class citizen of as a target for 3rd part developers. Oh well, at least it's a much smaller target for hackers and malware authors :-)
This is what the Personal Computer Industry should have done! Congratulations to the AGL members. This will enable rapid advances for in-car computer systems.
Roger: The assumed utilization rate is 70%. Most European wind sites are lucky to get 25%. The best middle-East solar sites get 30% for their sub-3 cent per KWHr production. So that doubles the cost of the renewable generated H2. I think the economics would stack up in places like Texas, Quebec and the Pacific-NorthWest where electricity prices are stably low for long periods of time.
Roger, you neglect the capital cost of the electrolyser. This kills the economics of renewable generated H2. This is particularly the case since you can't run the electrolyser 24/7 because of the intermittent electricity source. On the hand, interest on the capital accumulates all the time. On the other hand the economics of thermally enhanced H2 production using high temperature nuclear reactors looks good, except for the problem of proving the long term safety of the new class of reactors needed (and their capital cost!). Nothing is easy.
The USA consumes around 140 billion gallons of gasoline each year. This 19 Billion gallons is getting to be an interesting number. At 6% compound growth, biofuels will amount to around 30% of liquid fuel consumption by 2030. In combination with increased fuel economy standards and EV take-up, the USA could well be on a steep downward trajectory in liquid fossil-fuel consumption by 2030.
This is quite impressive. Tesla are now a 100,000 cars per year company with ~$10 Billion/year in revenue. This is not insignificant. With this track record, a further factor 2-5 increase in capacity with the release of the model 3 seems not impossible.
Actually, I think this is seriously encouraging. They have a genuinely new chemistry Li-S, with a real product targeting a genuinely interesting energy density of 300 Wh/Kg. The ceiling on this technology is much higher than 300 Wh/Kg. This is a real company to watch.
Thanks for the link Nick Lyons BTW its: I'll check them out in detail. Another very interesting company developing Molten Salt technology is TransAtomic It looks like transatomic biggest issue is corrosion from their LiF salt coolant. It's one of the big issues listed in the ARPA-E request for information.
Henrik, thanks for the numbers on the ratio of input cost of raw Lithium compared to the cost of the batteries made by them. BTW I used to be worried about "Peak-Oil" but I don't anymore. Compared to that, Lithium is no concern whatsoever. It's not like it's consumed. It can be endlessly recycled.
This article is a good example of why Biofuels cannot be the main energy source of propulsion for travel. British Columbia has probably the world's greatest ratio of forests to people. Yet even it's forests are projected to only meet 10% of the Provinces needs via forest waste. To get a larger share they'd have to use whole trees. So in B.C. its a choice between wood or fuel...
Havey, your statement is just not true. If it was, people would be investing like crazy in it and making money as they undercut the fossil fuel/nuke companies. Here we read about new advances in technology on a weekly basis with very few, (actually none so far) who actually get to market their factor 2 - 10 improvements. That said, I think there is a good chance Tesla will actually succeed at making batteries good enough to get a non-trivial fraction (> 10%) of home PV's generating electricity without government subsidies. My personal hope is that numerous molten-salt nuclear reactor concepts get a good chance of actually building working technology with funds like this. For example if the vision of is full-filled the energy problems of humans will be substantially changed. Their technology is truly scalable and sustainable into the very long term (> 10^6 years on Earth). Likely needs a few billion dollars though and so far they've received about 4 million.
I used to be a believer in "Peak Oil" where resource constraints will push the price of Oil to a point where the world economy could no longer grow. I no longer think this will happen. Now I think a substantial increase in Oil price will push a greater fraction of the world's auto transport to various types of EV's at a higher rate than would otherwise occur. There is no doubt at all that there is more than enough lithium to supply the EV's, especially since it can all be recycled at the end of battery life.
Kalendjay, sd, Lets hope the private sector comes through... Burns nuclear waste or runs through all the Uranium inventory starting from 1.8% U235 enrichment. If they pull it off its CO2-free Energy forever and our next challenge will be how to regulate the waste-heat from 9 billion humans living "Western" lifestyles.. I haven't kept track of all the various Molten-salt reactor proposals around the world. I guess it's close to a dozen, some of them with very large state funding (like China). I think there's reasonable chance of one them coming though. Meanwhile better PV's means more demand for high performance batteries which we need for transportation. Here in Australia its now obvious that we need batteries to continue to scale PV. Utilities now buy electricity back at genuine wholesale prices (4 cents per KWHr) so people want to use their solar power to reduce their purchases of retail electricity (which often costs over 30 cents per KWHr). Hence, batteries! There's plenty of room for good ideas in different technologies.
This is crazy. Their round-trip efficiency is at best 50%. (60% in a combined cycle plant to make electricity and 80% at electrolysis.) I think real-world they would much more likely get less than 40%. They're better off making it into liquid fuels which they can sell back to consumers with over 60% tax on the cost. Mannstein, they'd better ramp up real quick or in a few years they're expensive RE will be dumped all over Europe at zero or negative cost. It really looks like a slow motion disaster that almost everyone in Germany seems unworried about. I guess I must be wrong...
Bob, point me to a link that will sell me PV + storage at 8 cents/KWHr. My calculations are that my new house PV+storage will come in at around 20 cents/ KWHr. Thanks! BTW in my part of the world exporting electricity from PV's earns me 6 cents/KWHr.
TransAtomic could use this money to hire some laywers to help with the regulatory hurdles. I wonder if that qualifies for a grant?
"28.5% in 2014. We should see 40% achieved before long." My search of the internet shows 25% but no worries. My internet search also found that one day in April a good 75% of the power used in Germany was generated by Renewables. OK great but now lets imagine that Germany's ANNUAL contribution from renewables will rise to 40%. So there will be a significant number of days when well over 100% of power will be generated by renewables. What will happen to that power? Who gets the economic benefit for it? France can turn off its Hydro and turn down it's nukes and pay nothing for the nice electricity from Germany. German consumers will off course keep paying their 0.30 euro's per kilowatt hour. French consumers will pay 0.20. Sounds like a good deal to me :-) The amount of free electricity for the rest of Europe will continue to increase as the German Renewable Industry keeps building their solar and wind plants. Interesting times ahead.
Bob, have you visited Beijing? Replacing their coal power stations with Nuclear would dramatically improve the environment in their big cities. China at least is almost certainly going to adopt Nuclear in a large way given its substantially cheaper cost and much better environmental impact. Of course they'll put in RE where it makes sense as well. The capacity factor of wind in China is 0.2 - 0.25 so this will be less than total power generated than the 140 GW nuclear capacity. Good luck to Germany. As I said, they're currently in the fortunate position of neighbours who can absorb their overcapacity and supply their under capacity as needed. Which is good because their RE resources are not that great. Look, here is a back of the envolope calculation for Germany to see what I'm talking about. Solar in Germany has 12% insolation at best. To generate 100% of their electricity via solar they'll need to install 8 times their nominal power needs. Of course there are times when all that power is available, so they'll need to export (or store) 7 times the entire current generation capacity of the country. Wind in Germany has 0.2 to 0.25 capacity factors but they're already running up against land constraints. Still that's 4-5 times their national productive capacity. Germany will need grid-scale storage on a scale many orders of magnitude bigger than anything done so far. Getting to even 40% RE on an annual basis will be a huge achievement for the country.