The end of gasoline/diesel powered cars?

[dimreepr]

On 4/20/2019 at 2:00 AM, Moreno said:

Nissan promises to release later this year a new version of the LEAF with claimed range up to 226 miles. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/03/20190304-leaf.html

I wasn't able to find an exact official specs on the 62 kWh battery, but some sources claim it weights around 300 kg. If this is true, then problem of a normal plug-in hybrid is almost solved. We can cut battery in half (150 kg) and obtain a hybrid with decent range of 113 miles. Maybe some additional not very large set of a high power batteries (similar to Lithium-titanate) will be needed to compensate for the power peaks. I wonder how Nissan was able to achieve that energy density and what kind of materials and rare metals they use. If this type of batteries could be produced at moderate price we are on the verge of plug-in hybrid revolution.

Cars aren't really the problem, it may take a while and a few sacrifices to convenience but we seem to be getting there. The problem is much more insidious than the exhaust pipe of a car. The only effective answer, to what I imagine this thread is about, is a greater sacrifice than just convenience and comfort, we need to consider and accept the true cost of an economy that refuses to add, or ignores, the column in the ledger labelled "The future"; and that includes the artificially cold/warm place you choose to drink the artificially hot beverage that keeps you awake long enough to balance the books.

What we  really need is... Hope: that technology can evolve fast enough to cope or enough of us survive to tell the tail.      

[Moreno]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

How do you get the aluminum powder, preserve it, and make it oxidize in a controlled fashion? How much energy does this release?

1) Aluminum oxide smelting.

2) Store it in hermetic boxes. Possibly in wet form to reduce risk of ignition.

3) An Aluminum-air galvanic cell.

4) Aluminum energy density is 31 MJ/kg, 84 MJ/L

Edited May 24, 2019 by Moreno

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

1) Aluminum oxide smelting.

2) Store it in hermetic boxes. Possibly in wet form to reduce risk of ignition.

3) An Aluminum-air galvanic cell.

4) Aluminum energy density is 31 MJ/kg, 84 MJ/L

Is this process net energy positive?

[Moreno]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Is this process net energy positive?

Of course not. But even at the current electricity prices and EV efficiency could be quite competitive with gasoline.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

Of course not. But even at the current electricity prices and EV efficiency could be quite competitive with gasoline.

If the electricity is from e.g. coal, you’ve just shifted the greenhouse gas problem.

[Moreno]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

If the electricity is from e.g. coal, you’ve just shifted the greenhouse gas problem.

Do you think nuclear, hydro and renewables can't solve the problem? Moreover, Aluminum can be smelted in remote areas where cheap renewables are available and later transported to the cities in powdered form. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Moreno

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Do you think nuclear, hydro and renewables can't solve the problem? Moreover, Aluminum can be smelted in remote areas where cheap renewables are available and later transported to the cities in powdered form. 

Which means you have transportation issues. Multiplied by ~1.5 over gasoline, owing to the lower energy density. And then more than doubled, because you have to pick up and transport the oxide, too. 

[Moreno]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Which means you have transportation issues. Multiplied by ~1.5 over gasoline, owing to the lower energy density. And then more than doubled, because you have to pick up and transport the oxide, too. 

I don't think that the costs of gasoline transporting constitute huge part of gasoline price at the gas bar. The same probably goes with Aluminum. Neither I expect huge costs for picking up the oxide. (if it has to be picked up at all).

Edited May 25, 2019 by Moreno

[Moreno]

Because EVs are more efficient you may require fewer kg of Aluminum per km than kg of gasoline.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Moreno said:

I don't think that the costs of gasoline transporting constitute huge part of gasoline price at the gas bar. The same probably goes with Aluminum.

Gasoline is net energy positive. You start out with inherent profit potential.

9 hours ago, Moreno said:

Neither I expect huge costs for picking up the oxide. (if it has to be picked up at all).

So it's just dumped? No, somebody will recycle it, since that's cheaper than making new aluminum (which takes a bit of energy)

[Moreno]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Gasoline is net energy positive. You start out with inherent profit potential.

So it's just dumped? No, somebody will recycle it, since that's cheaper than making new aluminum (which takes a bit of energy)

1) Nuclear, hydro and geothermal energies are also net energy positive. Aluminum is just a way to store this energy.

2) Aluminum oxide dropped on the roads will be not much different from common sand and will be quickly blown out by the wind. An interest in recycling may appear only if entire heaps of it will start to collect in the large cities. I'm not sure there going to be any principal difference in price of Aluminum from recycled Aluminum oxide and bauxite ore.

[Fuad]

On 2/21/2019 at 11:42 AM, Moreno said:

Doubtful. The total proved reserves of Lithium are 16 mln. of tons. It would be sufficient just for 160 mln. of vehicles at 100 kg of Lithium per vehicle.

 

 

There is only 2% of lithium from total weight of batteries. Max 20 kg per vehicle, even less

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Fuad said:

There is only 2% of lithium from total weight of batteries. Max 20 kg per vehicle, even less

We could always go hydrogen fuel cell, but that's way out of date.

If were going to sit on a bomb, does it matter why it explodes?

[Fuad]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

We could always go hydrogen fuel cell, but that's way out of date.

Recently had article explaining that Li soon should be replaced by sodium (Na). It solves deficit, cost and environmental problems in their root.

Hydrogen? Is big problem from generating, logistics and safety. Electric is near future.

[flyerdave01]

As for the future of electric vehicles of all types I believe that sodium batteries may play a greater roll in 10 years time. A greater problem to replacing ice engines will be the amount of electricity we will have to generate when oil and gas starts to run out. We will require huge amounts of electrical power not only for transport but for every thing on our planet, homes, factories, schools, public buildings, shops (if any are left) and most of our heating/ air conditioning.

I have serious doubts about the current infrastructure being able to cope with the vast amounts of power that will be needed in about 30 years time when the oil is used up. The current theory when oil reserves run out is 2052 so not very far ahead. We will certainly require much more cables under our streets and at the moment nuclear power stations may be the only real answer.

Edited June 2, 2019 by flyerdave01
added text

[Ken Fabian]

7 hours ago, flyerdave01 said:

I have serious doubts about the current infrastructure being able to cope with the vast amounts of power that will be needed in about 30 years time

Most current infrastructure will be replaced over that time as well as a lot more built - no matter which energy and emissions choices we make or fail to make. It is almost a given that whatever we do will be much more, at scales never seen before. Markets will reveal our limits as we approach them (even if foresight doesn't work) - if some important resources can't supply demand then the price goes up and other options will look better.

7 hours ago, flyerdave01 said:

...at the moment nuclear power stations may be the only real answer.

Market forces (even without the conflicted politics) are against massive growth of nuclear - it is now cheaper to build solar and wind in most places; without clear overriding long range government policy plus lots of subsidy support it won't happen. The World Nuclear Association thinks we could reach 25% of global electricity with nuclear by 2050 - with strong US and other government backing for emissions reductions and strong carbon pricing to make it competitive with coal and gas; neither look likely and the same people who continue to claim we should build nuclear rather than Renewables tend to be the same ones who oppose strong climate policies like carbon pricing and policies that make fossil fuels less competitive. And even with strong government support, it is not the best and cheapest solution that advocates seem to believe. Wind and solar will reach that 25% target within the next decade, even with conflicted climate and energy politics. Electrification of transport - based around energy storage - complements intermittent and variable wind and solar supply, with charging cheapest when power is cheapest and an increasing ability to use smart management systems to take advantage of that.

[flyerdave01]

There are a number of very large problems with Solar and Wind.

Solar works moderately well in the daytime during summer months but in winter it provides next to nothing in terms of power and nothing at night and that is when power is required the most. Even EV's have less range in winter than they do in summer. Battery storage will help but colossal amounts will be required for winter and night time use. what plans are being made for this? Not a lot. 

Britain is blessed by being one of the most windy nations on earth but many other nations get far less wind and so generation is not as much. Wind turbines can only operate between certain wind conditions. Too much wind and they have to switch them off, too little wind and they produce much less power.

We are already reliant on the French, who have much more nuclear power,  when our own grid cannot produce enough now. What will this be like as everyone wants to recharge their vehicles and heat the home as well all at the same time. What about the massive amount of energy that industry will require and commercial transport too. What about ocean going ships and the vast amount of energy they will need. There is a converted car ferry running on electricity in Scandinavia that has 10 mega watt connections when in port and it only travels about 4 KM between ports..  

In winter you can forget solar and if there is no wind or there are gales the wind turbines will not produce much either.

That's why there has to be other sources of electrical power generation available and this needs planning now not in 30 years time and the way our politicians are handling Brexit I don't have much hope in achieving what is required. Either we have coal burning or nuclear power stations. I can see no other alternative at the moment.   

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, flyerdave01 said:

There are a number of very large problems with Solar and Wind.

Solar works moderately well in the daytime during summer months but in winter it provides next to nothing in terms of power  

 Solar panels actually become more efficient as the temperature drops, and if there is snow around to reflect light, PV power can be higher.

It's a problem if the panels get covered with snow, but "next to nothing"? Nope.

https://news.energysage.com/solar-panels-in-winter-weather-snow-affect-power-production/

https://discover.agl.com.au/energy/solar-power-in-winter/

"Solar panel performance can drop by 2% to 15% during winter, depending on a number of factors"

[Ghideon]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

"Solar panel performance can drop by 2% to 15% during winter, depending on a number of factors"

I wonder if that takes longer/shorter days into account?

Example; in Stockholm there is 6 h of daylight per day in December and 18 h in June*.  

 

https://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/sweden/stockholm/2018/june

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

I wonder if that takes longer/shorter days into account?

Example; in Stockholm there is 6 h of daylight per day in December and 18 h in June*.  

 

https://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/sweden/stockholm/2018/june

 

Total energy will take a hit from length of daylight but the post I was replying to specifically mentioned power.

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

specifically mentioned power

Which I obviously failed to note! Thanks for clarifying. 

[flyerdave01]

However, I was talking about overall power output. Sorry if this was not clear.
I still think that solar panels are a great idea but there is no way they are going to provide current needs let alone future requirements.

I have no idea what plans are in place, if any, but I do know we are talking considerable amounts of electricity.

The average house in England currently uses about 4kw of electricity per day. Most UK houses are heated by gas and many cook by gas too. If you exchange the gas used for electricity the average kw usage goes up to 11kw per day and this does not take into account charging an ev.

Someone in authority and with the ability needs to sit down and workout the actual required consumption that we will need if everything goes electric. Then work out where it will come from. If a small ev has a 48kw battery bank just imagine what a 40 ton HGV will require.

Do we have our heads in the sand?

 

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by flyerdave01

[Moreno]

On 5/30/2019 at 10:45 PM, Fuad said:

There is only 2% of lithium from total weight of batteries. Max 20 kg per vehicle, even less

So, you propose to use 1 ton Li-ion batteries in each vehicle? Can you imagine their cost and size? I rather thought about Li-air or Li-Sulfur if they well be ever suitable to use them in cars.

8 hours ago, flyerdave01 said:

Either we have coal burning or nuclear power stations. I can see no other alternative at the moment.   

There is plenty of hydro and geothermal energy in remote places (for example in Iceland or Siberia), it is just inconvenient to transmit electricity from there. I think using Aluminum as an energy carrier may help to solve this problem. It could be smelted on place and Aluminum powder transported by cargo vessels. I think subcritical nuclear reactors (those which use particle accelerators) may create a backbone of power generation in the nearest 100 years. They are quite safe, can burn Thorium, Uranium of any kind and even nuclear waste. And remain quite a few waste after them.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, flyerdave01 said:

However, I was talking about overall power output. Sorry if this was not clear.

I think you mean energy, not power.

4 hours ago, flyerdave01 said:

I still think that solar panels are a great idea but there is no way they are going to provide current needs let alone future requirements.

By themselves, perhaps not. But that’s an objection to a straw man.

4 hours ago, flyerdave01 said:

I have no idea what plans are in place, if any, but I do know we are talking considerable amounts of electricity.

The average house in England currently uses about 4kw of electricity per day.

No, kW is power. It’s a rate of energy use. “4kw of electricity per day” makes no sense.

UK households use a bit less than 13 kWh per day (kilowatt-hours. Power*time gives energy) US is about 32

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption

 

 

[Ken Fabian]

FlyerDave - I disagree. The (getting old) "solar and wind can't work at large scale" claims are collapsing in the face of real world evidence to the contrary. Not suited to everywhere of course but most of the world's population lives in places where it can. Most new electricity generation being deployed in the world is now solar and wind. Long running electricity generators are investing in them in preference to coal or gas or nuclear for sound economic reasons, and because they do work - and to some extent to avoid potential liability for emissions in the future. Including in France. They are not stand alone technologies - not sure any technologies are - and backup based on various kinds of storage as well as network interconnections and demand management will increasingly be a feature of grid networks that have growing amounts of them. Being based around energy storage, EV's can be a useful complementary technology that moderates demand variability within such a grid and better aligns it with variable energy availability. It is not uncommon for current EV owners to charge them using their own rooftop solar. Obviously this has limitations - yet I can foresee having an electricity supply contract that accommodates EV charging elsewhere within a nation's electricity grid, effectively allowing me to use my home PV contributions (with some surcharge) wherever I am. Car parking with EV charging I expect. It is likely to be a source of reserve storage for PV fitted homes - and vice versa. And home and EV storage may well be an emergency reserve for grid management to draw upon, under suitable contractual arrangements.

What a climate responsible low to below zero emissions grid will look like is still uncertain but for a number of sound reasons wind and solar look likely to be prominent. Some nuclear is likely to be a feature but closer examination shows it is not the simple or effective or low cost emissions solution it is so often presumed to be.