Where is the CRASH!

[GRG55]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Finally, a discussion on iTulip I can really contribute to! Hurray.



Here's a chart (from my own website, http://cycle9.com) showing lifetime costs for different available battery chemistries:
For more info about where the numbers came from, see here.

The bottom line is that when the the auto manufacturers switch to LiFePO4 (which they are presently researching), the lifetime of the batteries will be at least 12X more than lead acid, and even much better than the NiMH currently used in the Prius. (I owned a Prius from '02-'06, great car, but not good for offroad driving).

Morgan

Thanks for this post. Any sort of viable electric transport is going to need a battery system much better than today's options in terms of cost, resource use, lifecycle, ability to hold a charge when dormant, and especially weight (takes a lot of energy to move the weight of the batteries around). I assume these are comparatively light if you are using one on an electric assist bike.

[mcgurme]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Thanks for the welcoming.

I buy into your thesis that this is likely the next bubble to form. I'm just not sure that it will be possible for it to make the difference that it needs to, before the stranglehold of expensive oil stops the bubble in its tracks. I am fully in line with Lukester on this. Our economy is entirely dependent on cheap energy, facilitating every medium of monetary exchange. I see the end of cheap oil as being a like a wet blanket on the FIRE economy.

Great post and welcome.

The thesis of the Next Bubble for a radical transformation of US energy infrastructure is that managing demand destruction during a debt deflation will demand it. Else the US could wind up in a demand deficit situation like Japan's, except that a chronic demand deficit for a net debtor like the US is currency deprecatory and inflationary.

We agree that pure electrics will require massive government investment. (See What Killed the Electric Car.)

The old nuclear "not in my back yard" goes out the window in the crisis and with new, safer nukes.

Oil demand in OECD countries has been declining since 2004.

[GRG55]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

You should also look at this European (Finnish) technology using chargeable air aluminum battery - Ab Europositron Oy

This is turning into a great thread on this topic! Now we just need to make sure that Big Oil, powerful politicians and General Motors don't find out about this, or they will crush all this innovation dead... :p :rolleyes:

[mcgurme]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Thanks for this post. Any sort of viable electric transport is going to need a battery system much better than today's options in terms of cost, resource use, lifecycle, ability to hold a charge when dormant, and especially weight (takes a lot of energy to move the weight of the batteries around). I assume these are comparatively light if you are using one on an electric assist bike.

GRG, these batteries are about 1/3 of the weight of lead acid. The pack I use on my bike is about 10 lbs, and it carries about 1/4 of a KWH (plenty for a trip of up to 20 miles). For comparison, my old lead acid pack (which I still occasionally use just to remind myself) is over 30lbs, and carries about the same practically usable charge. Both make up for themselves on the bike, but the bike is a lot more fun to ride without the extra 20 lbs of the lead acid. (And even though I own 4 other non-electric bikes, the e-bike is generally the most fun to ride!)

Regarding the ability to hold a charge, it is worth considering that usually people don't leave an EV around unplugged for weeks or months on end. With my bike batteries, I just plug them in when I get home and they stay plugged in until the next use. The (smart) chargers automatically cut off when the battery reaches a full state of charge.

Rajiv: that air/aluminum battery looks great, I wonder how long it will take to become a real product?

[Rajiv]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Rajiv: that air/aluminum battery looks great, I wonder how long it will take to become a real product?

I have been keeping an eye out for this company since it won the Frost & Sullivan Technology Innovation of the Year Award in the field of battery technologies in 2005 --

They appear to be still trying to raise money as per their web site by appealing directly to investors -- as opposed to going to VCs see Plan for financing for the year 2007 and tentative schedule

[GRG55]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

GRG, these batteries are about 1/3 of the weight of lead acid. The pack I use on my bike is about 10 lbs, and it carries about 1/4 of a KWH (plenty for a trip of up to 20 miles). For comparison, my old lead acid pack (which I still occasionally use just to remind myself) is over 30lbs, and carries about the same practically usable charge. Both make up for themselves on the bike, but the bike is a lot more fun to ride without the extra 20 lbs of the lead acid. (And even though I own 4 other non-electric bikes, the e-bike is generally the most fun to ride!)

Regarding the ability to hold a charge, it is worth considering that usually people don't leave an EV around unplugged for weeks or months on end. With my bike batteries, I just plug them in when I get home and they stay plugged in until the next use. The (smart) chargers automatically cut off when the battery reaches a full state of charge.

Rajiv: that air/aluminum battery looks great, I wonder how long it will take to become a real product?

Re: Highlight above.

Understand that is the case, but converting masses of people to any alternative type of vehicle will require creating a vehicle that generally allows as many current behaviours and habits to remain, and meets as many current expectations of their vehicles (shaped from decades of using internal combustion powered autos) as possible to remain unchanged. That's the way to get the fastest acceptance.

For example, many more people have and use computers in their cars than use PCs. Why? Because the computers in their cars didn't require them to learn a new way to drive a car, or make any adjustments to the way they use them. Same key, same gas and brake pedal, same instruments, pretty well the same everything (I have long maintained that if auto makers had put computers in their cars that are as difficult to use as PCs, buyers would have demanded the computers be removed).

Electric cars will be subjected to the same tests, including the ability to park it at, say, an airport for a week or two in a New York winter, and it better run when the owner gets back from her business trip. Otherwise, no sale. Right now airport parking lots don't have plug ins, smart chargers, etc.

On another thread there was a video slamming various nefarious interests for "killing" the electric car...apparently a few iTulipers believe that some sort of conspiracy is responsible for the fact there aren't millions and millions of EVs being sold right now. The fact is that the automakers can keep a small, experimental test fleet on the road, give it lots of attention and keep the drivers contented. But until they can assure the vehicles can meet the expectations of masses of drivers, can be used in pretty well all the same ways, are just as convenient, and just as reliable, and just about as cheap to manufacture and maintain (or why would most people convert?) it's just a low volume niche for folks who can afford the higher entry cost and want something different. I understand that Toyota was subsidizing the cost of each Prius they sold (not sure if volumes are now sufficient to have overcome that).

There's all sorts of interesting design issues with an all-electric car. Does anyone know how they heat the passenger compartment and defrost the windshield in winter climates like Minnesota? What sort of power drain does that entail and what does it do to the range of the car? How about other fairly high power drain accessories like air conditioning or even, just running the wiper motor continuously on a rainy day on a long trip?

But it sure looks like the battery technology is progressing more quickly now.
And I sure appreciate the insights you and Rajiv and the others are providing.

[mcgurme]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Re: Highlight above.

Understand that is the case, but converting masses of people to any alternative type of vehicle will require creating a vehicle that generally allows as many current behaviours and habits to remain, and meets as many current expectations of their vehicles (shaped from decades of using internal combustion powered autos) as possible to remain unchanged. That's the way to get the fastest acceptance.

For example, many more people have and use computers in their cars than use PCs. Why? Because the computers in their cars didn't require them to learn a new way to drive a car, or make any adjustments to the way they use them. Same key, same gas and brake pedal, same instruments, pretty well the same everything (I have long maintained that if auto makers had put computers in their cars that are as difficult to use as PCs, buyers would have demanded the computers be removed).

Electric cars will be subjected to the same tests, including the ability to park it at, say, an airport for a week or two in a New York winter, and it better run when the owner gets back from her business trip. Otherwise, no sale. Right now airport parking lots don't have plug ins, smart chargers, etc.

On another thread there was a video slamming various nefarious interests for "killing" the electric car...apparently a few iTulipers believe that some sort of conspiracy is responsible for the fact there aren't millions and millions of EVs being sold right now. The fact is that the automakers can keep a small, experimental test fleet on the road, give it lots of attention and keep the drivers contented. But until they can assure the vehicles can meet the expectations of masses of drivers, can be used in pretty well all the same ways, are just as convenient, and just as reliable, and just about as cheap to manufacture and maintain (or why would most people convert?) it's just a low volume niche for folks who can afford the higher entry cost and want something different. I understand that Toyota was subsidizing the cost of each Prius they sold (not sure if volumes are now sufficient to have overcome that).

There's all sorts of interesting design issues with an all-electric car. Does anyone know how they heat the passenger compartment and defrost the windshield in winter climates like Minnesota? What sort of power drain does that entail and what does it do to the range of the car? How about other fairly high power drain accessories like air conditioning or even, just running the wiper motor continuously on a rainy day on a long trip?

But it sure looks like the battery technology is progressing more quickly now.
And I sure appreciate the insights you and Rajiv and the others are providing.

GRG,
I agree with you for the reasons that electric cars haven't been adopted in the past. I also don't buy much into the conspiracy theories. (BTW - the reason I bought a Prius was not because it saved me money in the short term, but because it a) set an example that others followed, and b) sent the message to Toyota to continue investing in the technology).

But I posit that the equation will change when gas gets more expensive, particularly above $5 per gallon. Even with $3 gas, the "inconvenience" of the things you mention will for many people balance towards continuing with an expensive ICE based car as opposed to worrying about these things. But even now, in my local community (a college town), I see far more people biking, even in cold weather, than I did two years ago. So gas prices have been causing a shift in behavior, and I believe that the higher the price of gas, the more "inconvenience" people will be willing to put up with from the alternative solutions. As Fred pointed out above about nuclear reactors and the NIMBY syndrome, behaviors change in a crisis. I know I sound like chicken little (and actually, I'm an optimistic person), but I think we're headed for just such a crisis.

Cheap oil has promoted a culture of convenience that isn't likely (in my opinion) to be replicated by the alternatives, any time soon. I believe that we as a society will find alternatives as oil runs out, but I also think those alternatives will of necessity force people to change behavior and expectations from where they are currently at. More and more people will be doing things like car sharing (e.g. Zipcar - even though I own a car, I have used Zipcar and it works well), living closer to town, biking, walking, and etc. It is likely that a small segment of the population will be able to continue their present modes of driving behavior unchanged, but that will be confined to the very well off. This is the way it is for most of the rest of the world (only the rich people own and drive cars regularly), and eventually I think we will join them (as opposed to them joining us).

Besides, I actually think that we will be better for it when the masses are forced to change behavior. There is an epidemic of obesity in this country due to our convenience culture. It would not hurt most people to get out and do more walking and biking to get around. People often ask me "isn't biking dangerous?" My answer is simple. Being sedentary is far more dangerous, the number one killer is still heart disease, number two is cancer, and there is strong evidence that both can be reduced by regular exercise (for more on this, see this page). (Besides, per mile, biking is no more dangerous than driving a car. The three most dangerous things one can do on a bike are riding on the sidewalk, riding against traffic, and riding without lights at night - each is easily avoidable).

Anyway, I calculated how much difference it would make if 1/3 of the US population replaced 2 x 15 mile car trips per week with a bike trip, i.e. only biking when the weather was nice. This would save 5.5 billion gallons of gas, annually (for the calculations see this).

The bottom line is that I agree that it is good that people are further researching technologies that improve convenience (I consider electric assist bikes to be one such convenience), but I also think that the expectations will have to shift, so these two converge somewhere in the middle, to solve the oncoming energy crisis.

[Rajiv]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

BTW I have a couple of these electric beauties coming in - should be good for around town use. Click on the images for more information on them



and

[GRG55]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

For any wind power freaks out there, here's something interesting...

This is from a study a couple of years ago undertaken by the Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) which is an organisation under the Continental European transmission system operators.


At the time of the study Europe had 50% of the worldwide installed windpower capacity. Now the interesting part (data based on a large sample of wind generators feeding the E.ON grid)

• an average of 20% of the total wind power capacity in the control area was available for electricity generation over the year.
• for two thirds of the year less than 20% of the installed power generating capacity was actually available for electricity generation;
• for one third of the year less than 10% of the capacity was available :eek:
• In northern Europe the periods of maximum extended (not daily) peak loads occur during winter cold spells and summer heat waves. Both conditions occur during periods of stationary or quasi-stationary air masses - ie no wind. Just when you need it most...
• And the most damning conclusion for those that actually believe the increasingly popular line that wind power is the "cheapest" form of generation: "Back-up capacities from other power plants have to be kept in reserve for cases of total generation outages of Wind Power Plants (e.g. summer heat waves)..."

That's 100% back-up (I verified that using my HP calculator, eh). Maybe in northern Nevada we can do it with geothermal, and with solar in Mojave, but in most of the continent I am having a difficult time understanding how we do this without coal, or natural gas, or nukes, or more hydro dams, or something else. But then that may be just my petroleum gearhead, spreadsheet-induced non-creative environment-destroying linear thinking we are so famous for.

The study concluded that the benefit from wind power was the displacement of carbon emitting power generation with "clean" energy when the wind conditions allow it to be available. Of course it went on to enthusiastically recommend massive additions to the wind power capacity in Europe (but was strangely silent on the duplicate capacity additions required).

Here's one thing that does not appear to have been much influenced by the bursting of the housing bubble, the collapse of global trade, the debate over insolvent vs illiquid banks, and the transition from Bush to Obama in D.C.

The need to back-up windpower...

Scottish Power says Britain needs backup for wind

Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:50pm BST

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain, which aims to install about 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost as much backup power generation for calm weather periods, an executive from Scottish Power said on Wednesday.

The government is relying heavily on the growth of wind power to meet tough European Union renewable energy targets and promises another 525 million pounds in support for offshore wind as part of Wednesday's budget.

But the more wind turbines Britain erects the more conventional plants it will need.

"Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup," said Rupert Steele, regulation director at the Scottish arm of Spain's Iberdrola, one of the world's largest wind farm operators...

...Steele said wind farms usually had a load factor of 30 percent, which meant they provided 30 percent of named plate capacity over the year.

[goadam1]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

What a gas to read this now. As a newbie, I can look back and see all the personalities. Fred posts something opaque. Mega panics. Touchring looks to China. Lukester talks about peak oil. Metalman keeps the faith. Etc...

[GRG55]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Every so often this issue seems to pop up somewhere in the world...

For any wind power freaks out there, here's something interesting...

This is from a study a couple of years ago undertaken by the Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) which is an organisation under the Continental European transmission system operators.

At the time of the study Europe had 50% of the worldwide installed windpower capacity. Now the interesting part (data based on a large sample of wind generators feeding the E.ON grid)

• an average of 20% of the total wind power capacity in the control area was available for electricity generation over the year.
• for two thirds of the year less than 20% of the installed power generating capacity was actually available for electricity generation;
• for one third of the year less than 10% of the capacity was available :eek:
• In northern Europe the periods of maximum extended (not daily) peak loads occur during winter cold spells and summer heat waves. Both conditions occur during periods of stationary or quasi-stationary air masses - ie no wind. Just when you need it most...
• And the most damning conclusion for those that actually believe the increasingly popular line that wind power is the "cheapest" form of generation: "Back-up capacities from other power plants have to be kept in reserve for cases of total generation outages of Wind Power Plants (e.g. summer heat waves)..."

That's 100% back-up (I verified that using my HP calculator, eh). Maybe in northern Nevada we can do it with geothermal, and with solar in Mojave, but in most of the continent I am having a difficult time understanding how we do this without coal, or natural gas, or nukes, or more hydro dams, or something else. But then that may be just my petroleum gearhead, spreadsheet-induced non-creative environment-destroying linear thinking we are so famous for.

The study concluded that the benefit from wind power was the displacement of carbon emitting power generation with "clean" energy when the wind conditions allow it to be available. Of course it went on to enthusiastically recommend massive additions to the wind power capacity in Europe (but was strangely silent on the duplicate capacity additions required).

Here's one thing that does not appear to have been much influenced by the bursting of the housing bubble, the collapse of global trade, the debate over insolvent vs illiquid banks, and the transition from Bush to Obama in D.C.

The need to back-up windpower...

Scottish Power says Britain needs backup for wind

Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:50pm BST

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain, which aims to install about 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost as much backup power generation for calm weather periods, an executive from Scottish Power said on Wednesday.

The government is relying heavily on the growth of wind power to meet tough European Union renewable energy targets and promises another 525 million pounds in support for offshore wind as part of Wednesday's budget.

But the more wind turbines Britain erects the more conventional plants it will need.

"Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup," said Rupert Steele, regulation director at the Scottish arm of Spain's Iberdrola, one of the world's largest wind farm operators...

...Steele said wind farms usually had a load factor of 30 percent, which meant they provided 30 percent of named plate capacity over the year.

Dead air

The Ottawa Citizen July 12, 2010

...Time for a reality check. Consider wind power, one of the most celebrated sources of renewable energy. The province boasts that nearly 1,100 million watts (or megawatts) of electricity can come from the many wind turbines scattered around Ontario, and that more is coming. The province has signed a $7-billion deal with Samsung to build and install turbines, and we pay a preferential price for electricity from wind.

All this wind power means less reliance on coal and gas, right? Not so fast.

Remember last Wednesday, that brutally hot day? Around lunchtime, the wind turbines that on paper can deliver near 1,100 MW were actually producing only 14 MW. That still sounds like quite a lot, until we compare it to the day's peak demand of 24,660 MW. Wind was supplying less than one-tenth of one per cent of the province's demand, which is pretty feeble. Coal and gas supplied 600 times more.

Wind is fickle. Sometimes it blows, sometimes it doesn't. And the times it tends to ease off are frustratingly on those stifling summer days when we need it most, the days when Ontario's power demand is at its highest.

We're not sure whether there's a technical term for wind too light to turn those expensive turbines, but sailors have a good word for it. They call it dead air.

[gnk]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

We're not sure whether there's a technical term for wind too light to turn those expensive turbines, but sailors have a good word for it. They call it dead air.

Dead air... I like that - perfect condition when I go fly fishing.

[reggie]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Every so often this issue seems to pop up somewhere in the world...

Do you have a link to the material in your first quote box? Thanks.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Do you have a link to the material in your first quote box? Thanks.

The iTulip search function brings it up: http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...7803#post17803

P.S. -- Perhaps you sought a link to the original paper, not to GRG55's first mention of it. See further http://www.entsoe.eu/fileadmin/user_...wind-power.pdf

[we_are_toast]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Sorry, but these arguments only hold water if you take a snapshot of today and believe we have an infinite amount of fossil fuels, that can be accessed cheaply, forever into the future. ALL energy in the very near future will be expensive. The only questions are; which ones may likely experience supply shortages and price boom/bust cycles? There is no question that looking out a decade and more, that solar/wind will be far more reliable and considerably cheaper than almost all fossil fuels.

The implication that more power plants will be necessary because of wind and solar, is a bit ridiculous. We will continue to need fossil fuel power plants at the rate we would if we had no wind and solar, but they will operate far below the average capacity they currently operate at. Yes, it will make them more expensive, but it will be far, far, cheaper than being deluded into believing that fossil fuels will be the same price as now, and even available, well into the future.

People often simply don't understand the concept, or often simply misrepresent the concept of Alt-E. Alt-E doesn't mean 100% wind or solar, everywhere, all the time. It means a wide variety of energy sources, wind/solar/methane/non food ethanol/methanol/biomass/nuclear... and fossil fuels as we transition to a non fossil fuel economy. To pick one Alt-E source in a location that isn't suited for that source, and then criticize the entire source as a failure reflects either a very low knowledge of the diversified Alt-E concept, or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Here's the 1st backup that will be used to improve the cost effectiveness of intermittent power sources.