Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
"...if the objective is to minimize battery use...then...."
The objective should be to optimize the benefits to be derived from both batteries and ICEs (or its equivalent) within economic, national security, and environmental / resource constraints.
80% of drivers drive less than 50 miles a day. A battery large enough to satisfy that range would use no gasoline, would provide the satisfying performance of an EV, the convenience of plugging into a home charging station, and would reduce the economic and environmental costs associated with a larger battery that would be needed only infrequently for longer distance driving needs.
The ICE could provide electrical power in the event of a power outage, could overcome range anxiety by utilizing the existing fueling station infrastructure for quicker more convenient refueling during longer trips that are typically more discretionary in nature, could lead to more efficient engine designs since the generator would only be required to generate electricity rather than direct mechanical propulsion under a wide range of loads, and could use its waste heat to provide heating for the passenger compartment as well as temperature maintenance for the battery. Plus, since the generator would be used only infrequently, repair costs would be reduced, and the useful life of the vehicle could be extended, thus reducing waste.
This is still not a panacea for all energy / transportation issues, including traffic congestion, but should generally be a more economical and practical alternative than a pure EV at this time, especially if optional battery sizes were available.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
"As societies, we seem simply incompetent at making cost - risk trade-offs in the case of extremely rare by enormously catastrophic risks."
Randy, I'm in complete agreement with you in this regard. In fact, I think you have understated the problem. There have been more once in a million year catastrophic events in the past ten years alone than "anyone thought possible" -- or did they? Some of these risks are obvious, its just a question of when. So, I object to them being called "Black Swan Events" to justify why nothing was done to address them proactively. At the same time, I recognize that the ability to do so is often more easily said than done.
But, if there is truth to this last statement, we need to ask ourselves why, and what can be done to overcome those obstacles. This may take different forms under different scenarios such as:
Individuals hiding behind the corporate veil taking tremendous risks with OPM to generate immense profits for themselves with impunity;
Politicians kicking the debt can down the road for decades, opting for political expediency and stable disequilibrium instead;
Corporations vulnerable to cyber attacks taking inadequate precautions to protect themselves against cyber attacks because they believe the government would bail them out after the fact at a much greater cost--to taxpayers....
This theme seems to have been vaguely explored at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year, as evidenced by their newly coined term, "Resilient Dynamism." In addition to taking measures to keep debt in check, we also need to find ways to achieve economic growth, and to do so within the constraint that the measures taken don't introduce unacceptably high levels of exposure to vulnerabilities that could quash the benefits of that growth, or shift the risks away from those who stand to gain the most from the potential upside of these undertakings.
That may seem to run contrary to one of the purposes of corporations, which is to provide limited liability for shareholders in order to encourage risk taking, but I think these competing concerns can be reconciled.
In the meantime, so many risks have remained unaddressed for so long, uncertainty has become rampant with repercussions that can be more impactful to investors than the fundamental factors unique to the companies in which they have invested. This uncertainty also acts as an impediment to higher risk, long-term investments of the kind needed to achieve sustainable economic development, rather than phony, debt-induced economic growth serving only to post positive GDP numbers in the hope that this will restore confidence and rekindle "animal spirits."
As explained by Harvard Professor Clay Christensen, the innovation balance has shifted toward "efficiency innovation" and away from "disruptive innovation." The former leads to job cuts, and the lack of the latter limits new job opportunities. We're left with positive GDP and earnings growth, but growing public debt and still high unemployment levels (which are even higher than advertised if you take into account declines in the labor participation rate.)
I think interventions by governments and central banks, including foreign governments engaged in state capitalism that can sometimes reach as far as sponsoring cybertheft and disrespect for intellectual property rights, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I would rather see disruptive innovation initiated by Elon Musk and other entrepeneurs like him rather than the government, and I would prefer the market to evaluate the merits of these disruptive innovations rather than the government picking the winners. If that's hampered by market interventions by foreign governments, let's put an end to them rather than replicating their actions, and trying to solve every problem through monetary policy. Something's wrong when people in the remotest parts of the world know the name of the Federal Reserve Chairman, and have never even heard of the USTR, much less the head of the USTR.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
By sheer coincidence, I received some junk mail today peddling a subscription to an investment newsletter. It touts the stock of a company called American Graphite Technologies (AGIN) by claiming first that existing manufacturing limitations limit the ability to satisfy high demand for graphene, and then adds that AGIN owns an interest in a patent-pending graphene mass production process. Anyone familiar with this?
A separate "article" in this flier claims that Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute engineers recently found a special way to manipulate graphene paper to greatly increase a lithium battery's overall power density. It also claims that the RPI team's "breakthrough experimental battery charged 10 times faster and lasts 10 times longer than conventional lithium ion batteries.
Then there is the recent announcement by Argonne Labs about a new silicon graphene anode.
Graphene, graphene, graphene...what's all the fuss about?
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Randy, it wasn't long ago that I was singing the same song. But, there is a difference between:
government spending on projects requiring more capital than the private sector can raise, and that would also yield benefits that a private company couldn't convert into revenues that would compensate them for their various costs and risks taken; and
Government subsidies for particular industries with unproven technologies that are competing with other industries to achieve similar goals, and both industries are able to raise needed capital and to charge the users of the technology for the use of their technology.
In the latter instance, the government subsidies serve only to effectively pick winners, and maybe only temporarily if they can't compete when the subsidies are removed. This may feel good for awhile to all those enjoying "free lunches" but it can be harmful in many ways. For example, there is the disruptive effect when the punch bowl is removed, e.g., companies going out of business, causing losses to investors, unemployment and damage to the careers of those who thought they were employed in a viable industry but weren't. Secondly, because capital has been misallocated only in those countries "benefitting" from government largesse, it can reduce global competitiveness relative to foreign competitors who developed a lead in the use of, and rights to, more sustainable technologies.
Typically, the relative merits of competing technologies are best sorted out by the market, and when markets are distorted by artificialities, they don't function properly. With respect to transportation and energy, I would like to see more competition on both the supply side and the demand side, but we're more likely to get there by encouraging competition than by stifling it by propping up certain industries, no matter how popular they may be among constituents of whichever political party is holding the purse strings at the time.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
In all fairness, if the government offers a credit, and someone was going to buy the car anyway, how much sense would it make to not claim the credit. My point is that angst over this topic may not be best directed toward those who claim the credit, rather than those who advocate the credit.
For awhile, I actually fell in both camps. i claimed the credit when I bought my Volt (and used it to offset the tax on a Roth IRA conversion scaled to match the credit), and then devoted a lot of attention toward circumstances in which government spending of this nature could make sense, e.g., when the size of the expenditures requires more capital than that which could be raised by the private sector, and/or the return on that capital couldn't be fully captured by the private sector, at least not within the maximum 3 to 5 year time horizon relevant to most investors, because much of the benefit would accrue to society at large for which private companies couldn't collect revenues that would compensate them for their costs incurred and risks taken.
The interstate highway system is an example of this. However, it is possible for car manufacturers to raise the capital needed to build cars, and to collect revenues from direct users of those cars (buyers), so government subsidies in this case can do more harm than good. They can distort market forces and lead to the misallocation of capital to economic undertakings that otherwise wouldn't make sense. This feels good for awhile, especially to those who enjoy the temporary free lunches, but it can lead to painful outcomes when the artificialities are removed leading to the bursting of asset bubbles, bankruptcies of companies, unemployment of workers, and a lag in global competitiveness because we've been going down the wrong paths.
Look at what happened to the tax shelters popular in the 1970's when the tax loopholes were removed by the 1987 Tax Act,
and what happened to housing when artificially low interest rates and unrealistic government programs encouraging non-sensible lending led to a housing bubble that almost collapsed the global financial system when the punch bowl was [temporarily] removed and the bubble burst. (True, a poorly regulated financial system--that doesn't always fit neatly within a public sector vs. private sector construct--played a role as well, but that was largely due to a correct bet on the part of some greedy bankers that market discipline wouldn't be allowed to be imposed (nor would legal discipline be imposed on those personally responsible who profited immensely from this debacle).
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Thanks Randy. I see a distinction between the level of competency relative to plant designs and the level of competency relative to waste disposal sites, but I get your drift.
Is it not possible that we will ever get some competent adults to run and regulate the Nuclear power industry in the US?
Its my understanding that the Manhattan Project was an amazing example of competency in that it led to the production of a nuclear weapons industry the size of the automobile industry in a very brief period of time, but there was no Manhattan Project scale of effort to dispose of all the waste that was created as part of that nuclear weapons development effort. So, it may be decades before that cleanup effort is even underway. Does that doom the nuclear power industry as well? It seems to me that even if everything else is handled well, unless a solution is found to the problem of what to do with the existing nuclear waste, there will continue to be great resistance to nuclear power in this country. How viable are proposals to use new plants with new technology to further process that waste?
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Current generations are laughing at those who preach what they want to believe rather than what they know, which is often very little.
Solar panels are not free.
Batteries remain the achilles heel of EVs. Liquid Fuels have a far higher energy density and are not as adversely affected by temperature extremes.
EVs also rely on rare earths, and China's monopoly over rare earths is a much greater risk than the OPEC oil cartel.
More EVs on the road does nothing to address traffic conditions and costly urban sprawl.
Nuclear energy can produce both electricity and liquid fuels from recycled carbon.
You can be you, but don't refer to yourself as we. If markets were allowed to work, markets can sort these issues out better than any single one of us standing on a soapbox ever will.
Losing money through bad investments is a more relevant and controllable risk for each of us to be concerned with.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
First, you have to understand that a lease is a form of debt, and that most people can't actually afford to take on more debt.
Second, you have to understand that making lease payments equal to your current electricity bill doesn't absolve you of your $25,000 to $40,000 liability, and it is risky to commit to a 2.5% annual price escalation over 20 years.
Third, you have to understand that the government is effectively subsidizing the companies leasing the panels and the government can't exactly afford more debt either.
Fourth, you have to understand that the electricity from the solar panels can only be routed to the grid, not used for whatever you might want to use it for, and the grid could just as easily be powered by new forms of cleaner, safer nuclear energy if those technologies weren't being shut out by subsidies for more expensive forms of energy.
If you take away the subsidy, the rest becomes a matter of personal choice, but I would caution homeowners to read the fine print so they know what they're getting themselves into.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Randy, you're a really smart engineer, but sometimes you say things that reflect thinking that is obviously distorted by ideology.
The Tesla is not powered by sunlight.
Driving on public roads at speeds less than 130 MPH is not equivalent to driving "slow" nor does it destine one for a dull and boring existence. My co-worker belongs to the Monticello Raceway, and several of my friends take their project cars to a drag strip. Their kids are not usually in the car when they do so, and they paid for their cars and their racing club memberships themselves.
I would prefer that our government not subsidize either exciting, interesting toys, or whatever you think of as mundane crap.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Dave, does that mean you agree that the $7,500 credit is unecessary? If so, taxpayer dollars would probably be better spent elsewhere. I think the availability of this credit has become such a politically charged issue, that it actually HURTS Tesla sales. Rather than attempting to justify it based on comparisons to similar incentives made available for certain heavy trucks and SUVs or arguments based on broader social goals, just pull the credit and sell the car as a car rather than as the poster child for some sort of a green technology movement.
Most of the people making noise on that front aren't willing to put their money where there mouths are, anyway. For example, after years of arguing their case, many just took for granted the truth of their claim that GM conspired with "big Oil" to kill the electric car. they claimed that there was huge pent-up demand for EV's and that it was all the fault of the Big Three, and Big Oil, and Big Government, that we remain so heavily dependent upon oil for our critical transportation needs. But, now that EV's are available, they're not exactly jumping off the shelves are they. Some people will always prefer to just blame and complain, and others will become so fed up with them that they'll form opposing political views that can sometimes be just as rigid.
Take the politics out of the picture and you won't lose too many greenies because few of them would step up to the plate anyway, and other potential buyers who just like these cars may not be so afraid to be seen in one. That won't guarantee success, but it may help to reduce the risk of guaranteed failure. Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
The objective should be to optimize the benefits to be derived from both batteries and ICEs (or its equivalent) within economic, national security, and environmental / resource constraints.
80% of drivers drive less than 50 miles a day. A battery large enough to satisfy that range would use no gasoline, would provide the satisfying performance of an EV, the convenience of plugging into a home charging station, and would reduce the economic and environmental costs associated with a larger battery that would be needed only infrequently for longer distance driving needs.
The ICE could provide electrical power in the event of a power outage, could overcome range anxiety by utilizing the existing fueling station infrastructure for quicker more convenient refueling during longer trips that are typically more discretionary in nature, could lead to more efficient engine designs since the generator would only be required to generate electricity rather than direct mechanical propulsion under a wide range of loads, and could use its waste heat to provide heating for the passenger compartment as well as temperature maintenance for the battery. Plus, since the generator would be used only infrequently, repair costs would be reduced, and the useful life of the vehicle could be extended, thus reducing waste.
This is still not a panacea for all energy / transportation issues, including traffic congestion, but should generally be a more economical and practical alternative than a pure EV at this time, especially if optional battery sizes were available.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Randy, I'm in complete agreement with you in this regard. In fact, I think you have understated the problem. There have been more once in a million year catastrophic events in the past ten years alone than "anyone thought possible" -- or did they? Some of these risks are obvious, its just a question of when. So, I object to them being called "Black Swan Events" to justify why nothing was done to address them proactively. At the same time, I recognize that the ability to do so is often more easily said than done.
But, if there is truth to this last statement, we need to ask ourselves why, and what can be done to overcome those obstacles. This may take different forms under different scenarios such as:
Individuals hiding behind the corporate veil taking tremendous risks with OPM to generate immense profits for themselves with impunity;
Politicians kicking the debt can down the road for decades, opting for political expediency and stable disequilibrium instead;
Corporations vulnerable to cyber attacks taking inadequate precautions to protect themselves against cyber attacks because they believe the government would bail them out after the fact at a much greater cost--to taxpayers....
This theme seems to have been vaguely explored at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year, as evidenced by their newly coined term, "Resilient Dynamism." In addition to taking measures to keep debt in check, we also need to find ways to achieve economic growth, and to do so within the constraint that the measures taken don't introduce unacceptably high levels of exposure to vulnerabilities that could quash the benefits of that growth, or shift the risks away from those who stand to gain the most from the potential upside of these undertakings.
That may seem to run contrary to one of the purposes of corporations, which is to provide limited liability for shareholders in order to encourage risk taking, but I think these competing concerns can be reconciled.
In the meantime, so many risks have remained unaddressed for so long, uncertainty has become rampant with repercussions that can be more impactful to investors than the fundamental factors unique to the companies in which they have invested. This uncertainty also acts as an impediment to higher risk, long-term investments of the kind needed to achieve sustainable economic development, rather than phony, debt-induced economic growth serving only to post positive GDP numbers in the hope that this will restore confidence and rekindle "animal spirits."
As explained by Harvard Professor Clay Christensen, the innovation balance has shifted toward "efficiency innovation" and away from "disruptive innovation." The former leads to job cuts, and the lack of the latter limits new job opportunities. We're left with positive GDP and earnings growth, but growing public debt and still high unemployment levels (which are even higher than advertised if you take into account declines in the labor participation rate.)
I think interventions by governments and central banks, including foreign governments engaged in state capitalism that can sometimes reach as far as sponsoring cybertheft and disrespect for intellectual property rights, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I would rather see disruptive innovation initiated by Elon Musk and other entrepeneurs like him rather than the government, and I would prefer the market to evaluate the merits of these disruptive innovations rather than the government picking the winners. If that's hampered by market interventions by foreign governments, let's put an end to them rather than replicating their actions, and trying to solve every problem through monetary policy. Something's wrong when people in the remotest parts of the world know the name of the Federal Reserve Chairman, and have never even heard of the USTR, much less the head of the USTR.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Where's Thorium?
Maybe we should be asking,
Who is John Galt?
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
A separate "article" in this flier claims that Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute engineers recently found a special way to manipulate graphene paper to greatly increase a lithium battery's overall power density. It also claims that the RPI team's "breakthrough experimental battery charged 10 times faster and lasts 10 times longer than conventional lithium ion batteries.
Then there is the recent announcement by Argonne Labs about a new silicon graphene anode.
Graphene, graphene, graphene...what's all the fuss about?
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
government spending on projects requiring more capital than the private sector can raise, and that would also yield benefits that a private company couldn't convert into revenues that would compensate them for their various costs and risks taken; and
Government subsidies for particular industries with unproven technologies that are competing with other industries to achieve similar goals, and both industries are able to raise needed capital and to charge the users of the technology for the use of their technology.
In the latter instance, the government subsidies serve only to effectively pick winners, and maybe only temporarily if they can't compete when the subsidies are removed. This may feel good for awhile to all those enjoying "free lunches" but it can be harmful in many ways. For example, there is the disruptive effect when the punch bowl is removed, e.g., companies going out of business, causing losses to investors, unemployment and damage to the careers of those who thought they were employed in a viable industry but weren't. Secondly, because capital has been misallocated only in those countries "benefitting" from government largesse, it can reduce global competitiveness relative to foreign competitors who developed a lead in the use of, and rights to, more sustainable technologies.
Typically, the relative merits of competing technologies are best sorted out by the market, and when markets are distorted by artificialities, they don't function properly. With respect to transportation and energy, I would like to see more competition on both the supply side and the demand side, but we're more likely to get there by encouraging competition than by stifling it by propping up certain industries, no matter how popular they may be among constituents of whichever political party is holding the purse strings at the time.
What Does Tesla's Late Form 10-K Filing Mean For Investors [View article]
What Does Tesla's Late Form 10-K Filing Mean For Investors [View article]
What Does Tesla's Late Form 10-K Filing Mean For Investors [View article]
What Does Tesla's Late Form 10-K Filing Mean For Investors [View article]
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
For awhile, I actually fell in both camps. i claimed the credit when I bought my Volt (and used it to offset the tax on a Roth IRA conversion scaled to match the credit), and then devoted a lot of attention toward circumstances in which government spending of this nature could make sense, e.g., when the size of the expenditures requires more capital than that which could be raised by the private sector, and/or the return on that capital couldn't be fully captured by the private sector, at least not within the maximum 3 to 5 year time horizon relevant to most investors, because much of the benefit would accrue to society at large for which private companies couldn't collect revenues that would compensate them for their costs incurred and risks taken.
The interstate highway system is an example of this. However, it is possible for car manufacturers to raise the capital needed to build cars, and to collect revenues from direct users of those cars (buyers), so government subsidies in this case can do more harm than good. They can distort market forces and lead to the misallocation of capital to economic undertakings that otherwise wouldn't make sense. This feels good for awhile, especially to those who enjoy the temporary free lunches, but it can lead to painful outcomes when the artificialities are removed leading to the bursting of asset bubbles, bankruptcies of companies, unemployment of workers, and a lag in global competitiveness because we've been going down the wrong paths.
Look at what happened to the tax shelters popular in the 1970's when the tax loopholes were removed by the 1987 Tax Act,
and what happened to housing when artificially low interest rates and unrealistic government programs encouraging non-sensible lending led to a housing bubble that almost collapsed the global financial system when the punch bowl was [temporarily] removed and the bubble burst. (True, a poorly regulated financial system--that doesn't always fit neatly within a public sector vs. private sector construct--played a role as well, but that was largely due to a correct bet on the part of some greedy bankers that market discipline wouldn't be allowed to be imposed (nor would legal discipline be imposed on those personally responsible who profited immensely from this debacle).
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Is it not possible that we will ever get some competent adults to run and regulate the Nuclear power industry in the US?
Its my understanding that the Manhattan Project was an amazing example of competency in that it led to the production of a nuclear weapons industry the size of the automobile industry in a very brief period of time, but there was no Manhattan Project scale of effort to dispose of all the waste that was created as part of that nuclear weapons development effort. So, it may be decades before that cleanup effort is even underway. Does that doom the nuclear power industry as well? It seems to me that even if everything else is handled well, unless a solution is found to the problem of what to do with the existing nuclear waste, there will continue to be great resistance to nuclear power in this country. How viable are proposals to use new plants with new technology to further process that waste?
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Solar panels are not free.
Batteries remain the achilles heel of EVs. Liquid Fuels have a far higher energy density and are not as adversely affected by temperature extremes.
EVs also rely on rare earths, and China's monopoly over rare earths is a much greater risk than the OPEC oil cartel.
More EVs on the road does nothing to address traffic conditions and costly urban sprawl.
Nuclear energy can produce both electricity and liquid fuels from recycled carbon.
You can be you, but don't refer to yourself as we. If markets were allowed to work, markets can sort these issues out better than any single one of us standing on a soapbox ever will.
Losing money through bad investments is a more relevant and controllable risk for each of us to be concerned with.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Second, you have to understand that making lease payments equal to your current electricity bill doesn't absolve you of your $25,000 to $40,000 liability, and it is risky to commit to a 2.5% annual price escalation over 20 years.
Third, you have to understand that the government is effectively subsidizing the companies leasing the panels and the government can't exactly afford more debt either.
Fourth, you have to understand that the electricity from the solar panels can only be routed to the grid, not used for whatever you might want to use it for, and the grid could just as easily be powered by new forms of cleaner, safer nuclear energy if those technologies weren't being shut out by subsidies for more expensive forms of energy.
If you take away the subsidy, the rest becomes a matter of personal choice, but I would caution homeowners to read the fine print so they know what they're getting themselves into.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
The Tesla is not powered by sunlight.
Driving on public roads at speeds less than 130 MPH is not equivalent to driving "slow" nor does it destine one for a dull and boring existence. My co-worker belongs to the Monticello Raceway, and several of my friends take their project cars to a drag strip. Their kids are not usually in the car when they do so, and they paid for their cars and their racing club memberships themselves.
I would prefer that our government not subsidize either exciting, interesting toys, or whatever you think of as mundane crap.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Most of the people making noise on that front aren't willing to put their money where there mouths are, anyway. For example, after years of arguing their case, many just took for granted the truth of their claim that GM conspired with "big Oil" to kill the electric car. they claimed that there was huge pent-up demand for EV's and that it was all the fault of the Big Three, and Big Oil, and Big Government, that we remain so heavily dependent upon oil for our critical transportation needs. But, now that EV's are available, they're not exactly jumping off the shelves are they. Some people will always prefer to just blame and complain, and others will become so fed up with them that they'll form opposing political views that can sometimes be just as rigid.
Take the politics out of the picture and you won't lose too many greenies because few of them would step up to the plate anyway, and other potential buyers who just like these cars may not be so afraid to be seen in one. That won't guarantee success, but it may help to reduce the risk of guaranteed failure. Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words.