This is mds's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following mds's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity “Calmac: The Ice Age Returns to Offices” - May 2009 “Calmac’s massive ice makers are gaining favor as a way to cut power bills.” Ice Energy “Using thermally efficient, off-peak power to produce and store energy for use the next day, Ice Energy’s Ice Bear is the industry’s first energy storage solution specifically developed for small to mid-sized commercial buildings, and is applicable to both new construction and existing facilities.” “Designed and tested for optimal performance in operation with Ice Bear distributed energy storage systems, Ice-Ready™ Rooftop units (RTUs) are available from leading manufactures Trane, Carrier, York and Lennox.” “Calmac: The Ice Age Returns to Offices” - May 2009 “Calmac’s massive ice makers are gaining favor as a way to cut power bills.” “IceCycle: A Retrofit” - October 2009 “IceCycle has a new retrofit version of the peak load-shaving ice-cooled air conditioning systems made by companies like Calmac and Ice Energy.” Mentioned in article above. They achieve savings on HVAC energy use with smart software controls. mds “Optimum Energy ‘replaces energy, with software intelligence’ by reducing energy consumption and operating costs with no impact on occupant comfort.” “can reduce HVAC energy usage by 30-60% for decades to come” Integrate them with solar and sell them as systems. There has to be a lot of people who would like to be protected from being cooked now and in the future. A good service to provide. A good market.
"Holy spot price batman, makes PV look like a bargain." Solar combined with ice storing air conditioning systems, like the Ice Bear unit, are a complete solution for this problem. Add a small storage battery to drive the air conditioning fan (far lower power than the cooling condenser pump) during late evening or all night and you have a solution to keeping cool even if the power fails. You don’t have to cool the whole house to stay safely cool in a heat wave, just one or two rooms. Just a thought about solving the problem more economically. Better insulation and geothermal can certainly help by reducing the size of the cooling problem.
Sorry, it should say: ...even as NEW technologies and innovations are coming to the market that will drive the cost of solar below current electrical prices?
The EIA is good at keeping statistics, but not good at making projections. Here again they are making linear predictions of growth. World solar PV production grew from 140 MW per year in 2000 to 15 GW per year in 2010, a growth factor of 100x, or 10,000%. All of a sudden this exponential growth is going to level out and become linear? ...even as no technologies and innovations are coming to the market that will drive the cost of solar below current electrical prices? That is a silly prediction. At a minimum Solar PV production will grow 20x this decade, to 300 GW per annum. Baring an eruption of the Yellowstone super-volcano, an astroid impact, or a world wide thermo-nuclear war 2020 the world will be producing a Tera-watt of PV panels every 3 years, or more. (wikipedia - 2008 world energy consumption was at the rate of 15 TW) 2030 Solar will be cheaper than coal and will already be a significant source of our energy. 2050 Solar will be the dominant source or our energy. It is the largest source of energy available to us. When it gets cheap enough hold onto your hat. It is growing exponentially NOT linearly. It may not seem possible or likely, but it is actually already unavoidable long as we don't have a world wide apocalypse.
HarveyD, "ICE vehicles can be improved but they will be phased out by the middle of the current century." I agree for light trucks and cars, with the caveat that E-REVs (Series PHEVs) may still be in used. We will cut out half our oil use but we still need alternative sources or solutions for long-haul trucking, airlines, and industrial uses. Reel$$, The developing world is a problem, but this is already changing. China and India are already adopting wind and solar. This will accelerate. They will not be the early adopters of EVs and PHEVs because of the new-tech price premium. This will change with increasing economies of scale and then they will adopt faster than the USA.
I agree with about everything posted since my initial comment. Treehugger, I apologize for coming on so strong. We agree. Continued research and development support is needed for liquid fuels. Electric transport cannot do it all. Engineer-Poet, Thanks for the response. I agree 3PeaceSweet has it right. That's why I think ethanol needs to be phased out in favor of 100% blendable or alternative fuels. Butanal, biogasoline, biodiesel, bioGTL, etc. Reel$$ and SJC, I agree that: "The goal should be just what is happening now. The steady transition to electrification via EV and PHEVs that CAN use E85 or blends." and "This either/or discussion makes no sense, it is an AND deal." Although, I do think Harvey has a point about the food for fuel problem. The increased cost of corn has already been a problem in Mexico and we should be supporting a food export market. We don't have enough exports. Cellulosic and algae will help solve this problem as this technology marches on. HarveyD, I agree but am not as optimistic as you. I believe EVs and PHEVs will be cost effective and will be taking off in sales volumes by 2020. I don't think there will be enough EVs or charging stations by then to transition to all EVs. I think battery prices will drop by then, but I'm not sure they'll drop enough to make 300 mile EVs economical. I'd love to be wrong on that. I also doubt hydrogen will have any role to play in transport, especially by 2020. Several tough problems there. Nocera's electrolysis may make hydrogen useful as low cost long-term storage for solar and wind by then. I think fuels, hopefully more biofuels, will continue to play a role for heavy trucking, planes, plastics, and fertilizers for some time into the future. Some of these, plastics and fertilizers, may always require a source of carbon based fuels. (Although I don't like to say "always". You can see trends, but that only lets you make educated guesses about the relatively short term future. When will fusion come to pass?))
Engineer-Poet, "The irony is that EVs and PHEVs make the target even less attainable" I don't agree. What makes you say this?
Mannstein and Harvey have it right imho. Butanol, biodeisel, and biogassoline from non-food sources including farm waste, bioGTL, dry-land energy crops, and algae. ...and EVs/PHEVs with increase solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear. ...and may the best technologies come to dominate. Treehugger said: "long range with heavy load like trucking that consumes almost half of the oil consumed in US." That is FALSE. Light trucks and cars account for 50% (actually it might be closer to 60%), heavy trucks and airliners account for something like 20%, and industrial use (plastics, fertilizers, etc) account for the remainder. Look it up or provide a source. He also said: "In is not tomorrow that you are going to power a 30 Tons truck over 500miles with batteries." Now that I can agree with. So! This doesn't take away from getting light trucks and cars off oil! Again, Treehugger shows he's a naysayer in disguise. Want us to go back to a pastural existance? Not me. Lower population, sure. Farming the land by hand? No thanks.
E-P Thanks for your response farther up. Maybe we will both be partially right and lowered EV/PHEV vehicle costs will combine with reductions in battery costs to make electric vehicles fully cost competitive. In any case, I think this is coming before the end of this decade if not sooner. I do expect to see some models, like the Aptera, with lighter/stronger body materials and increased aerodynamics. These vehicles, especially the one or two person versions, will not need as large a battery to achieve the same performance. This means lower cost.
"Consumers are often observed to use discount rates above 10% in practice, so battery pack costs significantly below $400/ kWh may be needed to drive mass consumer adoption unless gasoline prices rise." I disagree. I think there is an over-focus by most on the cost of the battery. What about the rest of the car? EVs and Series-PHEVs will be much cheaper to build than ICEVs when reasonable economies of scale are reached. This is still my favorite EV/PHEV link: “Technology Levels Playing Field in Race to Market Electric Car” - January 2009 “Mr. Wang, the 42-year-old Chinese entrepreneur, compares the simplicity of building electric cars to the simplicity of a digital watch. ‘Anyone can design and produce digital watches, but it's virtually impossible for a newcomer to match the precision of a Swiss wristwatch,’ Mr. Wang says.” “Indeed, BYD's all-electric e6, has just two motors (45 parts each), one powering the front axle and the other the rear, and two gearboxes (60 parts each) to go with each of the motors. That means the whole system has 210 primary parts, excluding nuts and bolts. In comparison, BYD's F6, a gasoline-fueled vehicle, has a total of 1,400 powertrain parts: a V6 engine composed of 840 parts and a transmission with 560 parts.” BYD may have bailed on the F3DM and may be bailing on the F3e now, but that is because their market will not support the initial high price of a new-tech vehicle. The point made in this Wall Street Journal post still stands: A vehicle with 210 parts is going to be much cheaper to build than one with 1,400 parts at similar production levels, even if the battery is expensive. ...and I'm hard pressed to believe battery prices will not drop well below $400/kWh by 2020. EV and Series-PHEVs are much simpler mechanically than ICEVs. They will be cheaper to build in the relatively near future, even with current battery technology that will support prices <$500/kWh. The battery is not the only difference and those other differences are going to win the game. E-P, Normally I agree with you, but I have to disagree with both your points: 1. 210 parts will be cheaper than 1,400 in spite of the battery, as stated above. 2. To my knowledge Fire Fly never published deep-cycle-life numbers. I’m guessing they ran into a problem there. The ability to deep-cycle is critical for an EV or PHEV battery. Please correct me if I'm wrong. See also: - January 2009 “Wall Street Journal confirms our Case for Electric Cars: A Lower Barrier to Manufacturing”
You are quite correct. Using 2007 numbers from wikipedia: 71.9 million vehicles produced per year. 809 million vehicles on the road. 9% of 71.9 = 6.5 million. 100*(6.5/809) = 0.8% ...BUT there is not an either/or, one-size-fits-all, solution for the short term. Alternative fuels (as you point out), better HEVs, higher mpg ICEVs, and Natural Gas vehicles, will all be part of the picture along with EVs and E-REVs, particularly in the short term (next 10 to 20 years). We could cut corporate welfare subsidies to the well developed and already profitable fossil fuel industry and have enough money to support all of these without increasing taxes. (Maybe we could get rid of corporate welfare to other large businesses and financial speculators and banks while we're at it.) Long term (20 to 30 years) EVs and maybe E-REVs are most likely to be the answer to limited fossil fuels and CO2. This is because they will cost less (fewer parts) and because solar-electricity is the most cost effective fuel you can grow on land. Further, PV requires no water and is best grown on rooftops and in the desert. It does not compete with our food supplies. The only likely alternative fuel competitor to EVs is algae. This is not ready for prime time yet and will also take time to scale. Even then it is difficult for me to see how it will compete with PV supplied EVs, given the cost reduction curves PV and EVs are both on. One more point, part of the predictions above are overly conservative, imho. Do any of you really believe EVs and E-REVs will only have 22% by 2030 if 9% is achieved by 2020? No way, we’ll be past the point of “economic obviousness” to steal a phrase Travis Bradford used about PV. The 22% is a product of the human tendency toward linear thinking. The growth will be exponential and will reach something more on the order of 50% by 2030. This will mean 5% per year replacement rate and still increasing, not to mention the effect on the larger problem of new vehicles in China and India where this transition to electric will happen faster. It is my belief we’ve started into a fundamental technical and economic transition, a disruptive growth transition, for EVs, solar, and LED lights. They’re not independent and will each assist the other.
“Plug-in electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles, have the potential to make up 9% of US auto sales in 2020 and 22% in 2030 (1.6 million and 4 million vehicle sales respectively), according to research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). However, achieving such growth level will be dependent on two key factors: aggressive reductions in battery costs and rising gasoline prices.” I think they have the right idea for the wrong reasons. The cost of the battery is almost immaterial. EV and E-REVs are far simpler mechanically than ICEVs. They are nowhere near the scale of production of ICEVs yet. As production levels increase the cost of these vehicles will "drop radically". Go ahead and tell me they will continue to remain expensive. I’d like to file such a nay-sayer comment for later. GM’s EV1 in 1980s: $300,000 Tesla’s Roadster in 2000’s $100,000 Nissan’s Leaf in 2010’s $30,000 GM’s Volt in 2010’s $40,000 Trend is MORE CHOICES, BETTER CAPABILITIES, and CHEAPER. Please stop quoting $1,000/kWh. I doubt any manufacture is putting a Li-ion battery in their E-REV or EV with a cost close to this. It's preposterous to propose this when AA Li-ion batteries can cost less than $400/kWh and some prismatic Li-ion cells already cost less than $400/kWh. (No, I don't care what the DOE says.) The $1,000/kWh has to be coming from prototype or first item type production. Certainly, current technology can already deliver Li-ion batteries for EVs at less than $500/kWh when better competition is in place and production levels are sufficient. Treehugger thinks he’s a critical optimist, but he’s really a nay-saying pessimist. Just ask yourself: Sales of what are increasing faster in China, fuel assisted or battery assisted bikes? Gasoline fuel is more expensive and less available than electricity. What is a three-wheeled bike with a roof against the rain and a plastic wind-shield? I say it’s a car in China. EV transport is not going to happen in China and India. It is already happening there. Look at the most likely cost trend for electricity from: coal, wind, nuclear, solar, hydro, waves, currents, natural gas, and geothermal. Lots of sources are going to bring reduced cost electricity. Solar in particular will continue to decline in cost this decade, see the price trend graph included here: - August 2010 “Welcome to the Revolution: Emanuel Sachs and Frank van Mierlo” The popular new ice cream flavor is “yes pecan”. Figure it out Oilhugger.
Also, production of purified Si increased dramatically and ultimately the cost dropped to below where it started up from. Silicon is very plentiful. Lithium is not as plentiful, but it is still very abundant. Claims of lithium scarcity are nonsense, same as claims of silicon scarcity were. Also, Lithium itself is only a small fraction of the cost of a Lithium battery, so an increase in the price does not affect the price of the Lithium battery much.
SUMMARY of Li Ion cycle data from internet sources: A123 – FePO4 – 87% good after 3,700 cycles at ?% DOD - ?Wh/kg (M1 battery is 108 Wh/kg) (in production) Altairnano – TiO2 – 85% good after 15,000 cycles at ?% DOD – 90 Wh/kg (reproducible results? DOD level) (Low production.) EnerDel/Ener1 – TiO2 – 95% good after 1,000 cycles at ?% DOD - ? Wh/kg (working on production? Not clear.) EnerDel/Ener1 – NMC/HC (NiMnC/HC?) – ? at ?% DOD - ? Wh/kg (in production? Not clear.) Lithium Technology Corp – FePO2 - 80% good after 3,000 cycles at ?% DOD – ? Wh/kg (in production) Advanced Battery Technology – Lithium Polymer (chemistry?) - ?% good after 4,000 cycles at ?% DOD – ? Wh/kg Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd – MnO2 - ?% good after 3,500 cycles at ?% DOD – 160 Wh/kg (going into production AND plans to increase production) Toshiba (SCiB battery) – TiO2 – 90% good after 3,000 cycles at ?% DOD - 50 to 67 Wh/kg (good for 6,000 cycles) (going to full production) April 2009 Toshiba (SCiB battery) – TiO2 – 80% good after 6,000 cycles at ?% DOD - 50 to 67 Wh/kg (up to 10,000 cycles) (150,000/month production) LiFeBATT – FePO4 - ?% good after 1,500 cycles at ?% DOD - ? Wh/kg (3 year or 1,500 cycle warranty) (in production) E-One Moli Energy Ltd - Mn2O4 – 80% good after 1,200 cycles at ?% DOD - ? Wh/kg (Exclusive contract with Milwaukee tools.) (Older version has been in production for many years) Thunder Sky – chemistry? - 2,000 cycles at 80% DOD 3,000 cycles at 70% DOD 62.5 to 75 Wh/kg (in production) Valence Technology Inc. - chemistry? - 90% good after 1,800 cycles at 100% DOD? – 77 to 85 Wh/kg Electrovaya – FePO2 – ?cycles at ?% DOD – 110-130 Wh/kg Electrovaya – MnO2 – ?cycles at ?% DOD – 170-210 Wh/kg Electro Energy - chemistry? – 500 cycles at full? DOD – 185 Wh/kg (aiming for 400-500 Wh/kg) (500 is not enough cycles for E-REVs) Sanyo - chemistry? – ?cycles at ?% DOD – 90 Wh/kg New Research from Japan – FePO4 - 1,100 cycles at Full 100% DOD – 165 Ah/kg (at 3 Volts? 495 Wh/kg?? mds) SK Energy - Mn2O4 – 70% good after 5,000 “full” cycles “at 5C” at ?% DOD - ? Wh/kg (going to full production) June 2009 SK Energy - Mn2O4 (P135 cells) – 70% good after 9,000 cycles; 85% after 5,000 cycles at ?% DOD - 138 Wh/kg (in production) SK Energy - Mn2O4 (P200 cells) – 95% good after 3,000 cycles at ?% DOD - 138 Wh/kg (in production) LTC - FePO4 - ?% good after 3,000 cycles at 80% DOD - 90 Wh/kg Boston Power - CoMn – 2,000 cycles at 90% DOD, 1,000 cycles at 100% DOD – 180Wh/kg (small batteries for laptops in production) 9 companies with Li Ion batteries that can support 3,000 cycles or more. This may not be fully up to date or accurate, but it paints a picture. Fully capable Li batteries from several sources will be available for short range EVs and E-REVs. E-REVs offer all of the advantages of EVs with none of the range anxiety. The cost will drop will increased volume of production. The market will explode, as will the competitive pressure and R&D spent to achieve long range EVs.
From Davemart’s link: Mr. Keizoh Honda points out that energy density (Wh/kg) and power density (W/kg) are only “one aspect of the discussion”. There is a tendency to discuss high energy density as the only critical factor. In fact, less than 100 Wh/kg is plenty sufficient for short range EVs and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, E-REVs. This is true if you have sufficient depth of charge performance and CYCLE LIFE! …and in colder areas low temperature performance. 78% of USA drivers travel less than 40 miles a day. That means these drivers can reduce their fuel oil use by over 90%, even if they are driving an SUV E-REV. …as long as it can get 40-50 miles all-electric and 40-50 mpg in charge sustaining or series-hybrid mode. This represents a HUGE reduction in fuel oil use! (90% x 78% x 60% for light trucks and cars = 42% reduction) Short range EVs will eliminate fuel oil use by light trucks and cars in places like Israel, Hawaii, and the Caribbean where short range driving is the only requirement. Toshiba’s SCiB battery is going to meet this need for short range EVs and E-REVs AND they will have competition from others! Mr. Honda claims Toshiba will be shipping a 20 Ah 100 Wh/kg battery this fall. Hopefully they will indicate the Cycle-Life performance for that particular battery. At this point high Cycle-Life, Lower COST, and, in cold climates, Low Temperature performance are more important than energy density. Short range EVs and E-REVs are here now. A discussion of high energy density batteries for long range EVs, or when this will happen, is like arguing over how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. It will happen but it’s a little early to predict how and when, imho. Maybe we’ll end up using H2 or AE fuels for longer range travel. Who really knows at this point?
...for CST "Solar energy is free but the large area of land is not." Desert land and damaged land is not expensive. "Solar energy is free but the collectors are not." CST collectors are also continuing to get cheaper. "Solar energy is free but the transmission lines are not." Same for any centralized power. "Solar energy is free but the hydroelectric dams are not." Thermal storage is not free but is relatively cheap. Price of all fossil fuels are increasing and will continue to increase. Trends are clear and so is long term investment advantage.
@HG "Solar energy is free but the large area of land is not." It is if it's solar PV or solar hot-water on your roof. "Solar energy is free but the collectors are not." True, but their price is dropping and promises to keep doing so. "Solar energy is free but the transmission lines are not." No transmission lines for panels on your roof. "Solar energy is free but the hydroelectric dams are not." Eh? Solar is already below end-of-grid-parity in Hawaii and continuing to drop in price so it will be below end-of-grid-parity soon in S. Cal. Sales to home owners hoping to cut their electric bills will increase dramatically. Solar PV is the cell phone of the power industry. CST needs to have storage because this will be it's only reasonable use when solar PV is done invading the market. This project is a wise investment.
from Solar Revolution by Travis Bradford ..."one-third of the earth's surface is covered by sun-rich deserts, creating a potentially vast amount of energy resource. Some 4 percent of which (just over 1 percent of the total land area of the world) would meet the entire world's energy needs from these sources at today's efficiency levels." Seems like we could find room to build plenty of solar power and still have plenty of environmentally protected areas in the desert.
Boeing was one of the investigators. The MIT team design outperformed theirs. Maybe they did add something to the current state of knowledge on efficient large aircraft design. Not that studies aren't commisioned by our government when it does not make sense.
Is there any measured data on the expected deep cycle life of these batteries? Description is only in very general terms.
Too embarrassed to put down an mpg number? Compared this sucker to E-REV version of F-150 here: all-electric range of 52 miles and 32 mpg after that in series-hybrid mode ("charge sustaining mode"). "equals or exceeds the performance of the 4.6L V8 Ford powertrain originally installed in the vehicle. The converted pickup has a towing capacity of 6,500 lbs" Oil is back up to $80/barrel and we're still spending 100's of billions and lives on war to keep it that low. Anyone care to speculate on the smart choice and where things are going in the future based on this comparison and information? E-REVs rule. ICEVs drool. 25% improvement is not enough to compete.
...and this will all happen with $3/gallon gas. The price will increase when the economy begins to recover and will accelerate the change over. The Prius was evolutionary. E-REVs will be revolutionary. Hang onto your hat.
Boy rocket scientists. Yes, to gain wide acceptance hybrids will have to be price and performance competitive, besides having a high mpg. Still the Prius is selling just fine thanks and this not be happening according to this study. They are still not price competitive. What happens when an E-REV like the Volt drops to a comparible price with a three figure mpg? E-REVs are the same as series-PHEVs and are far simpler mechanically than a series/parallel HEV like the Prius. Also, batteries will drop in price. I'd say give it five years, not ten like the Prius, and the advantage will be clear. E-REVs will be priced better. The debate will be over and the only question will be: What percentage of EVs? This study is like IBM executives saying there's almost no market for a $20,000 home computer. Well that was then. Things are different now.
2,000 cycle life at 90% DOD is not stellar, but 180kWh/kg makes up for this. This energy density is higher than most I have information on. If they can keep their production costs down they might have a real winner here. How often will most EV or EREV users do a 90% discharge anyway?