Reinhart-Rogoff A Week Later: Why Does This Matter? [View article]
That is what R & R seek to argue. For a rebuttal of this gloss by the guy who laid bare the error, see: http://read.bi/13xiGHT
'Indeed, in the most recent period of 2000-2009, which in almost all cases will be the most relevant set of experiences with respect to current policy debates, average GDP growth when public debt is above 90 percent of GDP is higher than when the public debt/GDP ratio is between 60 and 90 percent. The findings in our paper are clearly not consistent with the notion that we consistently observe a sharp fall-off in economic growth when the public debt/GDP ratio exceeds 90 percent. As for the misconceptions concerning causality, I encourage people to read the contribution by my professor Arin Dube. His treatment of the topic is highly readable and offers strong evidence that causality runs from slow growth to high debt.
There is not one word in our paper which suggests that a high level of government indebtedness is never a problem. It would be absurd to think that governments never have to worry about their level of indebtedness. The aim of our paper was much more narrowly focused. We show that, contrary to R&R, there is no definitive threshold for the public debt/GDP ratio, beyond which countries will invariably suffer a major decline in GDP growth. The implication for policy is that, under particular circumstances, public debt can play a key role in overcoming a recession. The current historical moment, with historically high rates of mass unemployment in both the U.S. and Europe and with interest rates on U.S. Treasury bonds at historic lows, is precisely the set of circumstances under which we would expect public borrowing to have large positive effects, with comparably fewer costs. Moreover, it is precisely the set of circumstances under which we expect austerity to have substantial negative effects.'
Tesla Patent Applications Reveal Next Generation EV Technology [View article]
They had a hybrid program when they started going for a small battery car. They are not the only ones to feel that battery prices have not dropped as fast as once hoped.
If you wish to dismiss their own statements, you need some evidence, not a mere contrary supposition.
Tesla Patent Applications Reveal Next Generation EV Technology [View article]
VW have created an entirely new platform, the MQB, to allow the installation of many different power sources, including battery electric, plug in hybrids, natural gas and fuel cells.
They are investing billions in this, and are simply approaching from a different angle to Tesla.
They will have numerous battery electric and plug in hybrids on the road over the next few years, with their opinion being that Volt-like plug ins are the way to go at the moment.
The battery Golf is however due in 2014, with plug in hybrids to follow, including Audi's.
They are serious about electrifying transport all right.
Tesla Patent Applications Reveal Next Generation EV Technology [View article]
Since you have a chemistry degree you really should read more critically. This work was aimed at small batteries for laptops and such, where cost is not so critical, and the author's tell us that they can get high specific power, but not along with high specific energy. Now maybe something similar will come along for car batteries, or maybe this can be developed into something like that, but this is not it. State of the art are the Panasonic batteries used in the Tesla, and progress in higher energy densities, which is what you need for cars, has been slower than many of us had hoped. That is why the likes of Toyota have now decided to restrict their battery car, the IQ electric, to compliance car numbers, and go for fuel cells.
Tesla Patent Applications Reveal Next Generation EV Technology [View article]
25% of high power batteries are not needed. Fuel cell cars have exactly the same issue that the cells don't like being revved up to provide extra power for acceleration. However acceleration events are brief, and a ~1.5kwh battery pack covers it fine and allows for regenerative braking etc.
Will The EV Market Follow The Hybrid Trend A Decade Later? [View article]
A fair and balanced article.
The wild cards in the expansion of BEVs and plug in hybrids are fuel cell cars, which several manufacturers are intending to start in limited mass production in the next few years, which overcome range limitations whilst remaining zero pollution at point of use, and more radically the electric highway.
The steps to this are the introduction of contactless charging for electric vehicles, so that you simply park in the right place and your car is charged, just as you do with your phone or toothbrush, and that is being trialled by several manufacturers right now, with names such as Condutux-Wampfler to the fore: http://bit.ly/ZYiCUu
Amazingly however the numbers seem to work to power cars and buses in motion, and that is being researched by several groups: http://bit.ly/ZtZzdE
Expect early trials in buses, which follow fixed routes.
Full introduction of this technology would mean that main roads would be electrified, and battery packs would only have to be big enough to cover local journeys.
Will it happen? I don't know, but it bears watching.
Coal Bed Methane: The Next Shale Gas Revolution? [View article]
Thanks for the article. It is however a bit of a hodge-podge of different numbering systems.
We go from billion cu feet per day, to trillions of total production ever in the US, and then are told that: 'Coal bed methane production in the Asia region is expected to reach 98 billion cubic meters by 2020'
So we have now switched to cubic meters, and given no idea if this number is per year, or total cumulative production by 2020, or whatever.
Finally, as casual reader might imagine that China has only around twice the total reserves compared to the cumulative US production to date, until realising that the switch from cu ft to cu meters is responsible.
There are around 35.3 cu ft to a cu meter, so to put the numbers on some sensible and comparable basis global production of 5.8 bn cu ft per day is around 60 bn cu meters per year, which is an easier number to compare to the US total cumulative production of 566bn cu meters (20 trn cu ft)
So Chinese reserves of around 36.8 trn cu meters is a massive supply of gas compared to annual current world production, and even US total cumulative production.
That still leaves me with no idea what the 98 bn cu meters of Asian production (by 2020?Up to 2020?) represents.
Are Utilities Done Switching From Coal-To-Gas? [View article]
Yeah, once all those scientists get true religion then they will 'realise' that fracking for natural gas is dirtier than coal.
Of course, in fact very little ground water contamination has been found.
Most of the problems are from ludicrously inadequate regulation in some states for the disposal of waste water, not from heavier than water fracking fluids somehow miraculously making their way up through thousands of feet of rock to the much higher levels were groundwater is extracted.
Residual issues are from splitting of the casings, which is a rare accident and they can be sealed, at the higher levels where the ground water is drawn from.
Have a look at the map. I have nothing against hydro or geothermal, but it is crazy to compare a country such as Iceland with c.600,000 people to even my own country, the UK, with 60,000,000 on a not much hugely land area. Iceland is also situated on the mid Atlantic rift, and so has loads of shallow hot water, heated by volcanism. Similarly Norway has a low population, and lots of mountains, so is exceptionally favourable for hydro power.
They simply do not scale to provide power everywhere.
I don't know where you have got the notion that nuclear is the most expensive energy source, but it is completely untrue, and is simply nutty Greenpeace rhetoric.
France uses nuclear for 75% of its electricity, and it is some of the cheapest in Europe.
Reduced output than that expected from fracking would have the effect of further raising natural gas prices in the US, as signed export contracts have to be fulfilled.
'Nearly 2m homes in the UK will be heated by shale gas from the US within five years, under a deal agreed on Monday that is likely to be the first time major exports of the controversial energy source are used in the UK.'
'Grid-level system costs are the costs above plant-level to supply electricity to the grid. Broadly these comprise costs for additional investments to extend and reinforce transport and distribution grids, as well as to connect new capacity; and the costs for short-term balancing and the maintenance of long-term secure electricity supplies.
The study considers six technologies in detail: nuclear, coal, gas, onshore wind, offshore wind and solar. It finds that the so-called dispatchable technologies - coal, gas and nuclear - have system costs of less than $3 per MWh, while the system costs for renewables can reach up to $40 per MWh for onshore wind, $45 per MWh for offshore wind and $80 per MWh for solar. The costs for renewables vary depending on the country, technology and penetration levels, with higher system costs for greater penetration of renewables.
Currently, the report notes, these costs tend to be unacknowledged and are absorbed by consumers through high network charges and by the producers of dispatchable energy through reduced margins and lower load factors. Failing to account for system costs is, NEA says, "adding implicit subsidies to already sizeable explicit subsidies for variable renewables." Moreover, as long as this situation continues, the agency says, dispatchable capacity will not tend to be replaced at the end of its operating life and security of supply will thereby be weakened further. In the shorter term, nuclear can be expected to fare better than coal or gas because of its low variable costs. In the longer term, however, nuclear could find itself "disproportionately" penalised when investment decisions need to be made because of its high fixed costs. Paradoxically, the introduction of variable renewables in systems that currently use nuclear energy are likely to lead to a future increase in carbon emissions as higher-emitting fossil fuel choices are more likely to be used as back-up.
The report recommends that system costs need to be made as transparent as possible to ensure they are fully considered in future electricity planning, and that regulatory frameworks should work to minimise system costs and ensure they are internalised. The value of dispatchable low-carbon technologies - such as nuclear - in complementing the introduction of variable renewables needs to be more effectively recognised, with steps taken to ensure that nuclear and other dispatchable low-carbon technologies remain economically sustainable. This could be achieved through a market-based framework including a combination of capacity markets, long-term contracts and carbon taxes.
Finally, the report recommends that resources should be developed to enable flexibility in future low-carbon systems. This could include developing the load-following abilities of the dispatchable low-carbon technologies such as nuclear, expanding storage capabilities and increasing international interconnections.'
Reinhart-Rogoff A Week Later: Why Does This Matter? [View article]
For a rebuttal of this gloss by the guy who laid bare the error, see:
http://read.bi/13xiGHT
'Indeed, in the most recent period of 2000-2009, which in almost all cases will be the most relevant set of experiences with respect to current policy debates, average GDP growth when public debt is above 90 percent of GDP is higher than when the public debt/GDP ratio is between 60 and 90 percent. The findings in our paper are clearly not consistent with the notion that we consistently observe a sharp fall-off in economic growth when the public debt/GDP ratio exceeds 90 percent. As for the misconceptions concerning causality, I encourage people to read the contribution by my professor Arin Dube. His treatment of the topic is highly readable and offers strong evidence that causality runs from slow growth to high debt.
There is not one word in our paper which suggests that a high level of government indebtedness is never a problem. It would be absurd to think that governments never have to worry about their level of indebtedness. The aim of our paper was much more narrowly focused. We show that, contrary to R&R, there is no definitive threshold for the public debt/GDP ratio, beyond which countries will invariably suffer a major decline in GDP growth. The implication for policy is that, under particular circumstances, public debt can play a key role in overcoming a recession. The current historical moment, with historically high rates of mass unemployment in both the U.S. and Europe and with interest rates on U.S. Treasury bonds at historic lows, is precisely the set of circumstances under which we would expect public borrowing to have large positive effects, with comparably fewer costs. Moreover, it is precisely the set of circumstances under which we expect austerity to have substantial negative effects.'
Reinhart-Rogoff A Week Later: Why Does This Matter? [View article]
GIGO.
Tesla Patent Applications Reveal Next Generation EV Technology [View article]
They are not the only ones to feel that battery prices have not dropped as fast as once hoped.
If you wish to dismiss their own statements, you need some evidence, not a mere contrary supposition.
Tesla Patent Applications Reveal Next Generation EV Technology [View article]
They are investing billions in this, and are simply approaching from a different angle to Tesla.
They will have numerous battery electric and plug in hybrids on the road over the next few years, with their opinion being that Volt-like plug ins are the way to go at the moment.
The battery Golf is however due in 2014, with plug in hybrids to follow, including Audi's.
They are serious about electrifying transport all right.
Tesla Patent Applications Reveal Next Generation EV Technology [View article]
This work was aimed at small batteries for laptops and such, where cost is not so critical, and the author's tell us that they can get high specific power, but not along with high specific energy.
Now maybe something similar will come along for car batteries, or maybe this can be developed into something like that, but this is not it.
State of the art are the Panasonic batteries used in the Tesla, and progress in higher energy densities, which is what you need for cars, has been slower than many of us had hoped.
That is why the likes of Toyota have now decided to restrict their battery car, the IQ electric, to compliance car numbers, and go for fuel cells.
Tesla Patent Applications Reveal Next Generation EV Technology [View article]
9 hours at 90kw provides 810kwh
You can recharge an 85kwh battery using a 90kw charger in less than an hour, or an hour allowing for losses.
Tesla Patent Applications Reveal Next Generation EV Technology [View article]
Fuel cell cars have exactly the same issue that the cells don't like being revved up to provide extra power for acceleration.
However acceleration events are brief, and a ~1.5kwh battery pack covers it fine and allows for regenerative braking etc.
Will The EV Market Follow The Hybrid Trend A Decade Later? [View article]
The wild cards in the expansion of BEVs and plug in hybrids are fuel cell cars, which several manufacturers are intending to start in limited mass production in the next few years, which overcome range limitations whilst remaining zero pollution at point of use, and more radically the electric highway.
The steps to this are the introduction of contactless charging for electric vehicles, so that you simply park in the right place and your car is charged, just as you do with your phone or toothbrush, and that is being trialled by several manufacturers right now, with names such as Condutux-Wampfler to the fore:
http://bit.ly/ZYiCUu
Amazingly however the numbers seem to work to power cars and buses in motion, and that is being researched by several groups:
http://bit.ly/ZtZzdE
Expect early trials in buses, which follow fixed routes.
Full introduction of this technology would mean that main roads would be electrified, and battery packs would only have to be big enough to cover local journeys.
Will it happen?
I don't know, but it bears watching.
Coal Bed Methane: The Next Shale Gas Revolution? [View article]
It is however a bit of a hodge-podge of different numbering systems.
We go from billion cu feet per day, to trillions of total production ever in the US, and then are told that:
'Coal bed methane production in the Asia region is expected to reach 98 billion cubic meters by 2020'
So we have now switched to cubic meters, and given no idea if this number is per year, or total cumulative production by 2020, or whatever.
Finally, as casual reader might imagine that China has only around twice the total reserves compared to the cumulative US production to date, until realising that the switch from cu ft to cu meters is responsible.
There are around 35.3 cu ft to a cu meter, so to put the numbers on some sensible and comparable basis global production of 5.8 bn cu ft per day is around 60 bn cu meters per year, which is an easier number to compare to the US total cumulative production of 566bn cu meters (20 trn cu ft)
So Chinese reserves of around 36.8 trn cu meters is a massive supply of gas compared to annual current world production, and even US total cumulative production.
That still leaves me with no idea what the 98 bn cu meters of Asian production (by 2020?Up to 2020?) represents.
Are Utilities Done Switching From Coal-To-Gas? [View article]
Of course, in fact very little ground water contamination has been found.
Most of the problems are from ludicrously inadequate regulation in some states for the disposal of waste water, not from heavier than water fracking fluids somehow miraculously making their way up through thousands of feet of rock to the much higher levels were groundwater is extracted.
Residual issues are from splitting of the casings, which is a rare accident and they can be sealed, at the higher levels where the ground water is drawn from.
Nuclear Power Versus Wind Power [View article]
I asked no such thing, and your claiming that I did is as ludicrous as the proposition.
I have no more time to waste on whatever else you have written, nor do I propose reading anything further by yourself.
Good day to you, sir.
Nuclear Power Versus Wind Power [View article]
I have nothing against hydro or geothermal, but it is crazy to compare a country such as Iceland with c.600,000 people to even my own country, the UK, with 60,000,000 on a not much hugely land area.
Iceland is also situated on the mid Atlantic rift, and so has loads of shallow hot water, heated by volcanism.
Similarly Norway has a low population, and lots of mountains, so is exceptionally favourable for hydro power.
They simply do not scale to provide power everywhere.
I don't know where you have got the notion that nuclear is the most expensive energy source, but it is completely untrue, and is simply nutty Greenpeace rhetoric.
France uses nuclear for 75% of its electricity, and it is some of the cheapest in Europe.
Nuclear Power Versus Wind Power [View article]
Nuclear Power Versus Wind Power [View article]
http://bit.ly/YA8mOA
This, presumably, is just the start, and means that the only way for US NG prices is up - way up.
Nuclear Power Versus Wind Power [View article]
The study considers six technologies in detail: nuclear, coal, gas, onshore wind, offshore wind and solar. It finds that the so-called dispatchable technologies - coal, gas and nuclear - have system costs of less than $3 per MWh, while the system costs for renewables can reach up to $40 per MWh for onshore wind, $45 per MWh for offshore wind and $80 per MWh for solar. The costs for renewables vary depending on the country, technology and penetration levels, with higher system costs for greater penetration of renewables.
Currently, the report notes, these costs tend to be unacknowledged and are absorbed by consumers through high network charges and by the producers of dispatchable energy through reduced margins and lower load factors. Failing to account for system costs is, NEA says, "adding implicit subsidies to already sizeable explicit subsidies for variable renewables." Moreover, as long as this situation continues, the agency says, dispatchable capacity will not tend to be replaced at the end of its operating life and security of supply will thereby be weakened further.
In the shorter term, nuclear can be expected to fare better than coal or gas because of its low variable costs. In the longer term, however, nuclear could find itself "disproportionately" penalised when investment decisions need to be made because of its high fixed costs. Paradoxically, the introduction of variable renewables in systems that currently use nuclear energy are likely to lead to a future increase in carbon emissions as higher-emitting fossil fuel choices are more likely to be used as back-up.
The report recommends that system costs need to be made as transparent as possible to ensure they are fully considered in future electricity planning, and that regulatory frameworks should work to minimise system costs and ensure they are internalised. The value of dispatchable low-carbon technologies - such as nuclear - in complementing the introduction of variable renewables needs to be more effectively recognised, with steps taken to ensure that nuclear and other dispatchable low-carbon technologies remain economically sustainable. This could be achieved through a market-based framework including a combination of capacity markets, long-term contracts and carbon taxes.
Finally, the report recommends that resources should be developed to enable flexibility in future low-carbon systems. This could include developing the load-following abilities of the dispatchable low-carbon technologies such as nuclear, expanding storage capabilities and increasing international interconnections.'
http://bit.ly/TBY1g6