frflyer

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Renzo

"Nuclear and coal are for base load generation. Solar and wind should be pursued to supplement base load generation. My problem is that people take it as dogma that solar and wind are somehow a panacea, when in reality they can only supplement not replace existing coal, gas and nuclear plants-and then only in areas with a lot of sun or wind. (Ergo we shouldn't use tax dollars to put solar panels on roofs in Seattle.) "

I don't think anything is a panacea.

You are ignoring the fact that CSP (solar thermal) can be base load power, if it has heat storage, like molten salt. And it is inexpensive and low tech. So low tech we could have done it 100 years ago.

Many people think nuclear is a panacea also. I disagree.
I will admit to not knowing much about nuclear technology. My biggest opposition to nuclear power is that it's a stepping stone to nuclear weapons. If not, then why are we worrying about Iran now? Imagine similar scenarios happening all over the world. How do you control that? Why encourage it when there are alternatives?

The thorium technology which John Lounsbury comments on does sound very promising and I have no problem with developing that. My point is that we have alternatives that can be deployed now, that are clean, inexpensive and quick to build. Money for research for things like thorium reactors, but commercialization money for technologies that are ready now.

So much depends on where you stand on global warming. If the scientists are right, which I believe to be so, then we don't have time to wait for these types of development. Use them when they are ready, but in the meantime, deploy what we have.

I stress solar thermal because it can be base load power, and because it doesn't need batteries to store energy.
In short, it is not intermittent if it has heat storage, which is far more efficient than storing electricity in batteries.
It's a proven technology with 9 small pilot plants built in the late 80s and early 90s putting out 355 MW in California. Now plants are that big each. It's unique among renewables for the above reasons, therefore should be a priority. It can displace coal plants.

It can even desalinize water while making power, which may not be applicable in our southwest, but applicable in other parts of the world like North Africa, the Mid East, India etc.

www.salon.com/news/fea...

www.solarserver.de/sol...

climateprogress.org/20.../

And if you are worried about spending tax dollars, lets eliminate the $39 billion annually for oil. 90 years of subsidies? Why?
Nuclear has had 50 years of subsidies.

Concentrating PV solar can also be designed to provide hot water and electricity at the same time. At least that is what Zenith Solar of Israel is doing. I think they've hit on a winning idea.
Of course this is new and falls more in the category of future solutions. But It's not rocket science to add the hot water idea to CPV.

According to Zenith Solar:

"An ordinary photovoltaic cell, which is 10 by 10 centimeters, normally produces one watt of electricity. We managed to extract more than a thousand times more - 1,500 watts. In this way, the cost of a cell is 1,500 less, becoming almost nothing."

"No one has ever produced so much electricity from a solar cell at this strength."

"In conventional CPV systems, the excess heat generated in the solar cell needs to be removed to avoid damaging the cell and to maintain high efficiency of electricity conversion. ZenithSolar utilizes the heat generated at the solar cell receiver to provide usable hot water heating, improving overall solar power conversion efficiency to 75% ."

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Renzo

PHEVs as far as I know, do not have limited range, ony limited electric mode range. You will still be able to operate on fuel.
You won't get stuck because the battery is low.

"The Administration and green evangelists are letting the somewhat fantastical "perfect" solutions of PHEV, wind and solar power get in the way of practical, less expensive "good" solutions like CNG vehicles, improvements on internal combustion, and nuclear power."

Renzo, solar thermal and wind are developed proven technologies that can be deployed right now. This agrees with what John says about using the tools we have and using more advanced ones as they become available. Nuclear is not ready now and takes forever to build. Same for coal with CCS.

The thorioum technology you mention is all well and good but it won't help us now.
We need to reduce emission now, AND ten to twenty years from now. Solar and wind are not perfect, but they are what we have to make serious progress toward lowering emissions.

CNG vehicles use natural gas about half as efficiently as power plants do. It is far more efficient to use the gas to make power and run electric cars or PHEVs.

"The time to plan and construct a coal-fired power plant without CCS equipment is generally 5–8 yr. CCS technology would be added during this period. The development time is another 1–3 yr. Thus, the total planning-to-operation time for a standard coal plant with CCS is estimated to be 6–11 yr. If the coal-CCS plant is an IGCC plant, the time may be longer since none has been built to date."

"..... based on the most optimistic future projections of nuclear power construction times of 4–5 yr5 and those times based on historic data,64 we assume future construction times due to nuclear power plants as 4–9 yr. Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant ranges from 10–19 yr."

"The median construction time for reactors in the US built since 1970 is 9 yr."


"For CSP, the construction time is similar to that of a wind farm. For example, Nevada Solar One required about 1.5 yr for construction. Similarly, an ethanol refinery requires about 1.5 yr to construct. We assume a range in both cases of 1–2 yr. We also assume the development time is the same as that for a wind farm, 1–3 yr. Thus, the overall planning-to-operation time for a CSP plant or ethanol refinery is 2–5 yr. We assume the same time range for tidal, wave, and solar-PV power plants."

www.rsc.org/delivery/_...

And solar thermal and wind will provide power much cheaper than new coal with CCS or new nuclear plants.

Power from new nuclear is estimated at 12-17 cents/kWh. Solar thermal can match that now, with prices falling to half that in a decade or so. Wind is already much cheaper.