nakedjaybird

PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal

Thomas Brennen - actually, the old, comfortable path is very rewarding; the questions are: for whom, and how long???

Change for the sake of change is not necessarily beneficial; but, change to fix what is broken --- now, that's beneficial.

Knowing what's really broken is the key!!!!!

The rest is floundering, which looks very familiar.

PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal

Let's make that Dr. Chu.

PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal

Der Chu - are you listening??

PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal

JIC - regarding HYBRIDS ......

nakedjaybird: Comments (609) Follow

Fred Linn (and John) - as some of us know, in the near future (I'll tell you more after I've finished acquiring my positions - selfish greedy little me!), the ONLY ONBOARD STORED ENERGY in hybrid vehicles will be a small GRASS TANK refillable at every yet existing refueling pump dedicated to renewable non-food-chain-threate... BIOFUELS which will be burned in a NO-MOVING-PARTS BURNER (non-ICE) while capturing 70-80% of the energy in solid-state direct conversion THERMIONIC DEVICES for the electric drive HYBRID. Possibly, just possibly, they may be an onboard quick charge/discharge device, but small at best, and more than likely NOT an electrochemical device (why bother with all that messy manufacturing stuff to then contend with its charge/discharge inefficiencies). This market will grow in concert with the an exaggerated biofuels market (assuming aircraft demand does not cause an initial delay in the available biofuel supply).

Then, look out! As you well know, the first 10% reduction in crude consumption has already arrived (for the second time - the first being 1973!). So the world is awash in crude all the way to zero - while the folks continue to play their pricing games.

But the replacement market for the new hybrid vehicles need only grow at a few percent a year to make huge new markets for much stuff, while the crude traders die with buggywhips in their hands.

Aug 30 03:14 PM |Report abuse| Link | Reply 00

PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal

Dave Marsh - hey, I've got a novel idea for you; another Gov't program called "Nukes for Clunkers" (the coal type). That way the coal generators will be equally or overly compensated and won't have to totally waste their assets already sunk (not to mention the uproar and lobbying we'd see from the whole coal mining industry).

But, hey, maybe we can also compensate them somehow too.....we'll call it "OBAMASIZED".

Hey, even better, let's dismantle, ship and reconstruct all the US coal fired plants in China (and then sell China all of our coal - you know, why keep it - we'll never use it!! Everyone will be pleased!!). And then we can also export all our clean coal technology, services and equipment - help the trade imbalance.

That's what we should have done with all the auto clunkers instead of just squashing them - China could have used the vehicles til they wore out - (and helped keep the world oil demand up!); they're going to get the scrap iron, regardless!!!!

Marsh said- "John's last sentence about will power goes equally for nuclear power. It is not cost prohibitive when done properly, only when re-starting a dormant program as we have here. China is building 45 reactors, and twenty or so other countries are building nuclear plants also. I believe John spends time in France, where they derive >80% of their power from nuclear, have the cleanest air in Europe, and if they are not laughing at us, they should be. One hundred fifty two-unit plants could eliminate coal-burning completely. Staggered over twenty-five years it's completely possible, as is restarting fuel reprocessing which will close the loop on the nuclear fuel cycle, and qualify nuclear power as largely renewable. Onl then will your EVs become CO2 free and not "plugged into a lump of coal." Grid-scale storage for intermittent wind and solar is not going to be economically viable in our lifetimes, if ever. Storing a single ten-hour night's worth of power from a single two-unit nuclear plant (e.g. Diablo Canyon - two 1100 MW reactors) would require 22,000 Megwatt-hrs of storage, i.e. 22 million kilowatt-hrs. Even at $100/kW-hr, that's 2.2 trillion dollars. How absurd. No amount of Rube Goldberg "smart grid" shell-gaming will get around this. We need nuclear power to make things like pure EVs - largely recharging at night - viable over the long haul. As has become all too common, the rest of the world is passing us by, and we will deserve our fate. Step up to the plate Energy Secretary Chu." Aug 30 11:24 AM

Alternative Energy Storage Stocks: Review and Outlook

john = re. Toshiba's battery. Nothing strange about fast charge rates (2C) for significant portions of a recharge; especially up to the 80% charged region which is when inefficencies cause more substantial heating and gassing. Fourty years ago we were recirulating and cooling the electrolyte to achieve fast recharges for 20 kwhr batteries.

Alternative Energy Storage Stocks: Review and Outlook

John - I don't recall you ever mentioning Toshibas battery:

www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic...

Alternative Energy Storage Stocks: Review and Outlook

John - I have not heard you talk about Toshiba's battery:

www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic...

Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance

John- We must not lose sight of this chart - it is the one from which our energy policy should be developed.

USEnFlow02-quads.gif

Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance

John - AEI should practice what you preach "you are going to tell us what IS, not what MIGHT BE". I believe their presentation is very indicative of the handle our Government has on the energy issue (sources and uses both - and everything inbetween and after!). NOT GOOD!

Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance

John - I reviewed the whole presentation; I do believe the "Gaseous" components are indeed shown and visible for 2007 and 2015 as small as they are; and, my guess is, they are also included in the other years but are too small to be visible. Makes one wonder. However, their assumptions must say that "Gaseous" driven vehilces are going to be few - and they go on to prove it (predictably).

I have greater issues with their charts, specifically #11, which shows just WIND generated electrical power in 2030 being greater than all electrical generation of 2007 (>100 quads).

What's more troubling, they show all electrical generation at >400 quads in 2030, 4x today, and still show now reductions in all liquid fuel consumption: hence, no reduction in "burning" as we switch to the electric economy. Something smells.

Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance

PS: John - unless it's in their definition of "Light-Duty" - which is possible, as most of those applications will likely be fleet service and not in the hands of the conumer.

(along with pressurized/compressed... was liquified/synthetics, etc.).

Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance

John - it's possible (I'm assuming) that 'Gaseous" includes pressurized/compressed... etc., gases be they propanes, methanes, hydrogen, etc. I doubt (hopefully) this astute crowd preparing the chart would overlook such.

Alternative Energy Storage Needs to Take Baby Steps Before It Can Run

John - pleased to hear that I'm preaching to the choir, but is that really the same audience you preach to??

Actually, something seldom, if ever, mentioned in these same discussions, is the FACT that for the past 40 years what we have been doing is raising the standard of living in many nations by buying their crude (and other products) while we continue our addiction to crude (and consumption).

That's one of the "good" things we've paid for while not doing anything significant about our crude addiction, and a "sacrifice" that Houston made in addition to not building any new refining capacity and drilling (which was also on purpose, and rightfully so, regardless of putting all the blame on regulators).

So, first, we HAVE BEEN been raising the standard of living around the world for years (and not just thru handouts which generally don't get to the ultimate target).

Secondly, we have not destroyed our standard of living yet, but we certainly have some flawed policies and practices that bring us closer to the sickening and destructive class structure of many nations we are helping (and some we are not helping).

Alternative Energy Storage Needs to Take Baby Steps Before It Can Run

PS - John: if you take a look, we just removed about a $2/gal gas tax for all Americans.

So what would we rather do? Give our money to foreign oil gurus, or deveop better methods without needing crude?

We just showed everyone in the US that we still are willing to consume about the same amount of crude at $140/barrrel as $40/barrel - except for a slight hint that the natives were being stirred. And in their restlessness were starting to demand that some changes be made. In fact, it may have been part and parcel to the election of a diffenent kind of president.

History may prove that a different politician may have been what the people needed and wanted for many years.

So, let's impose that gas tax now and keep the momentum going for getting off of crude- for good.