GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, kshithij Sharma said:

If we are speaking of installing batteries to increase sustainability, then we are not really talking economics but conservation. When govt is willing to spend billions on solar and wind energy, electrification of routes should not be a real problem, at least in the key routes of connectivity.

Now coming to batteries, the LFP batteries have longer lifecycle but definitely not 4000 cycles. It is more like 2000 cycles in practical scenarios. The test done in the article you quoted shows 2C rapid discharge in strict test conditions to show inflated efficiency whereas in most scenarios, one does not discharge batteries that quickly. So, self discharge and degradation becomes a serious issue and in practical situations and the life is reduced. LFP batteries have about 2000 cycles while good quality NMC batteries can have 1200-1500 cycles. However, LFP batteries is not preferred in locomotives because

• LFP batteries have high self discharge rates which increases as they grow older.
• LFP batteries lose lot of energy and sees rapid voltage drops in low temperatures.
• LFP batteries have 25-30% lower energy density than NMC batteries which means more number of batteries for same capacity.
• LFP batteries are difficult to recycle and hence causes wastage of scarce Lithium.

NMC batteries are also flawed in terms of rapid battery degradation. But it does not have problems in temperatures, density and recycling. 

In these applications the batteries are not stored with a charge for long periods. Self discharge is irrelevant.

LFP issues in low temperatures are being rapidly solved. Tesla's LFP battery just outperformed their NCA battery in a sub zero road test: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-s-new-lfp-battery-truly-shines-in-sub-zero-temperatures-looks-like-a-winner-178846.html

LFP energy density as to size and weight is not an issue in large industrial equipment. As to "more batteries" that becomes an issue of cost and 1KWh of LFP costs less than 1KWh of NCA/M.

LFP batteries are being recycled and lithium isn't actually that scarce.

You have it backwards on discharge rate and degradation. 2C discharge does not show inflated efficiency. Discharging batteries more slowly decreases degradation. Below chart shows the estimated number of cycles for our Lithium Iron Phosphate battery cells (LFP, LiFePO4) according to the discharge power and DOD figures. Level of power in C-Rate (1C rate means full discharge or charge in 1 hour, 2C is the same but in half an hour)

https://www.powertechsystems.eu/home/tech-corner/lithium-iron-phosphate-lifepo4/

As to road electrification, the ideas previously presented about catenary over limited sections of track to recharge the locos in motion sounds like a good plan for going fully electric. However right now the talk is about replacing the diesels with green hydrogen.

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

It is impossible to have 300+ GW coal projects in the first place as the current total coal capacity (31-dec-2021) in India is 210GW. Why would India add 150% of its current capacity? Indian electricity generation is not increasing more than 5% a year for the last 10 years.

It is a fact that coal is a primary source of energy in places where it is most abundant fossil fuel. China, India etc have abundant coal and very limited oil and gas. Hence coal is used as primary energy source. USA started shale drilling which made natural gas production abundant and hence decided to scale down coal to avoid wastage of natural gas. If USA had not obtained that much natural gas, it would have continued increasing coal production. This has nothing to do with clean energy but simply sudden influx of cheap and easily obtainable gas.

If India starts importing LNG, then its electricity prices will double as imported LNG will be much more expensive than domestic coal. So, India will never substitute coal with gas. However, if India finds a massive 100+ TCF reserves of natural gas, then it will decrease coal consumption in favour of gas.

Lithium batteries have cycle life of 2000 cycles which will last 5-6 years. Life will decrease as storage temperature increases. Trains don't stop for long times every 7-8hours. It only stops for long when there is loading activity. Else, the stops are short. Moreover, batteries make no sense when trains are already running on electric lines. For example, in India 72% railway lines are electrified and it is expected to reach 100% electrification by 2023-24. What purpose will batteries serve when entire railway tracks are electrified? It will be an utter waste of money and resources. If India can do it, the any other country can also electrify rail completely which makes having batteries on trains an absurd idea altogether. Think before you speak.

https://www.financialexpress.com/infrastructure/railways/indian-railways-green-target-check-out-the-progress-made-on-100-electrification-mission/2409268/

 

The coal production in India and China are already rising rapidly. In fact the coal production in China and India never dipped since 2014. The only exception has been Covid pandemic but that can't be considered as dumping of coal. China's coal has remained stable for last 7 years whereas Indian coal actually increased by 25% or about 150 million tonnes in last 7 years. The reason why global coal production declined is because of USA & Germany coal production. USA coal production fell by 45-50% or about 430 million tonnes since 2014, German coal production fell by 40% or about 80 million tonnes since 2014. The 200 million tonne reduction in coal production is because of this reduction in USA & Germany. This is only an exception rather than a norm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production

Nope. Coal never passed saturation. Only USA and Germany coal production declined and this is primarily driven by the massive gas boom in USA in the same period. If USA had not seen the gas boom, the coal production would continue to rise. Coal is still the big thing in countries which lack oil and gas. It is simple logic that coal being a solid is much more difficult to extract than oil and gas.

It also found the overall coal fleet was underutilised, averaging 55 per cent capacity utilisation. This is the key information. Everything else is just supporting information. Obviously, when the capacity utilisation is just 55%, it does not make sense to build more plants. Coal plants can run at 90% capacity even after considering maintenance and downtimes. 55% is too low.

Indian coal plants already have 210GW capacity and another 35GW is in pipeline, mostly to replace the ageing plants. Current Indian consumption including captive power generation is 1.6TWh and non-captive generation is 1.4TWh. If we do a simple math, we will find that the generation capacity of 210GW plants is 210*24*365/1000 = 1.8TWh. This is more than the total consumption including captive electricity. Now, India also has a good amount of generation from other sources like nuclear, hydro and renewables and actual capacity utilisation of coal plants is even less. Below is the actual electricity generation (including captive generation) by source:

 

The coal plants are generating only 1TWh energy which is only at 55% capacity. Including maintenance and downtimes, coal plants can generate at 90% capacity. This means India can generate upto 1.62TWh electricity just by coal plants meaning there is buffer to increase generation by 60% coal power without adding a single plant. Considering the average increase of 5% yoy in future, it will mean that no more coal plants will be needed till 2030 simply due to overcapacity.

The role played by non-hydro renewables is minimal - only 8.5% of non-captive electricity - from wind and solar. Even with increased renewables, this will only go upto 20% at best after which it will become difficult to stabilise the grid. So, the halt in coal power plant construction is mostly because of overcapacity and only partly due to renewables or "Green energy". The solar and wind energy even when stabilised at 15-20% of total electricity, it will only be enough to satisfy 2 years of 5% electricity consumption growth. This is why India still has ongoing 35GW of coal plant construction projects, mostly to replace old and inefficient plants. If the intention was phasing out coal plants, these plants would have been retired instead of replaced

Not true. LNG is difficult to be used as fuel for locomotives. India tested using CNG powered engines for trains and realised that CNG engines don't provide enough torque for heavy loads. So, LNG can't really be used to power locomotives. However, CNG can power ships using modified turbofan engines. CNG cars are a reality, however. So, if there is real intent to use natural gas in transport, passenger vehicles is the first place to start.

India trials with CNG

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Railways-starts-first-train-that-chugs-on-CNG/articleshow/45892086.cms

https://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/indian-railways-advances-natural-gas-locomotives-0521

Rationalising overcapacity is definitely not an indicator of seriousness. Even the greatest critique of renewables would not recommend increasing coal power generation capacity which is already severely underutilised at 55%.

I would add that LNG locomotives can be designed to add a little diesel whenever that might be needed. Some trucks use that design now. I dispute that LNG engines cannot do the job, but thanks for your references. LNG powered ships are usually designed as bifuel and are able to use diesel if desired. 

Thanks for your fine contribution to our forum, we hope to see more off your content! I am not an engineer and do not pretend to be one. I am just a self educated natural gas proponent that started nine years ago during the last supposed "energy crisis" in the West. Back then ethanol and cellulose was being considered for energy. A little later the news of the shale oil and gas came out to the knowledge of the general public. It had been rumored, for years, that the resources were available. 

I think that India should look offshore for its methane hydrates. There should be great finds available but the mining technology has not been developed yet. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Read my edited comment about the coal business

As for 'politically forced exports of US gas' look at where Europe gets it's gas from - it doesn't buy much from the US.  Only about 5% of the natural gas that Europe uses comes from the US, and half of that goes to Turkey, and the UK which only count as European in a generous definition.  It's getting some extra right now due to it's crisis, but under normal circumstances the cumulative amount is very small. The earnings for the US amount to ~ 0.2% of US exports, and about 0.02% of the economy as a whole.  Those aren't the sorts of numbers that move politicians to 'force' anyone to do anything.  

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47136

Note that Europe is ~ 2.5 BCF/day.  

Subtract Turkey (not an EU member, and may or may not be in Europe) and the UK (withdrawn from the EU) and you realize that Europe isn't a big market for US natural gas.  

Seen from the opposite perspective, the US is a tiny supplier of gas to Europe.  This is where Europe gets LNG from:

The US provides ~ 30% of european LNG imports (again still including the UK and Turkey which are about 1/2 of the total)

That sounds significant, but then look at where Europe get's its gas from in for ALL sources, not just LNG  : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339028291_Edouard_Lotz_Could_US_LNG_challenge_Russian_Gas_within_the_European_Union_in_the_long_term

US supplies are all part of the LNG section, and we can see from the very first chart I posted, that current US supplies to Europe are running at ~ 2.5 BCF a day (with a generous interpretation of what counts as Europe)

This places European reliance on the US for natural gas at 5% of total supply, or more like 3% if you only take Europe to be EU members.  That's not significant to Europe.

The 2.5 BCF a day earns the US exporters ~ $4 per 1,000 scf, which works out to about $4 billion a year - that's right now with current extremely high natural gas prices.  The rest of the value is taken up in shipping costs, liquifaction costs, etc.  The US exported about $2 trillion in goods and services in 2021 (a terrible year for obvious reasons) so natural gas makes up 0.2% of US exports. The total US economy was just over $20 trillion. It's not enough money to matter for the US. 

So, it seems that Europe needs to develop more pipelines to suppliers other than Russia. Countries which are reliable suppliers that will not use energy as a Sword of Damocles hanging over Europe. Let Russia compete fairly.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

6 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So, it seems that Europe needs to develop more pipelines to suppliers other than Russia. Countries which are reliable suppliers that will not use energy as a Sword of Damocles hanging over Europe. Let Russia compete fairly.

The problem is that there isn't anywhere else with a sufficient source of gas to change matters appreciably.  Algeria and the rest of North Africa are close enough, but don't have enough gas to really counter Russia.  The North Sea, and Netherlands at one time did, but no longer have the capacity.  Iran and Iraq have the production capacity, and could pipeline gas through Turkey, but there are massive political problems from start to finish along that route, to say nothing of the financial and technical barriers - Most of the produced gas in Iraq and Iran is simply burned off because they don't even have gathering systems for it.  The only 'real' competition used to be coal, but that is getting shut down, so Europe needs to develop a serious alternative.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

The problem is that there isn't anywhere else with a sufficient source of gas to change matters appreciably.  Algeria and the rest of North Africa are close enough, but don't have enough gas to really counter Russia.  The North Sea, and Netherlands at one time did, but no longer have the capacity.  Iran and Iraq have the production capacity, and could pipeline gas through Turkey, but there are massive political problems from start to finish along that route, to say nothing of the financial and technical barriers - Most of the produced gas in Iraq and Iran is simply burned off because they don't even have gathering systems for it.  The only 'real' competition used to be coal, but that is getting shut down, so Europe needs to develop a serious alternative.  

Since LNG has become so highly priced it seems that Turkey should be offered help to set up the infrastructure it needs. There is also offshore natural gas off Israel and Egypt. Cyprus also.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/gas-finds-in-the-mediterranean-spark-partnership-between-rival-nations.html 

 

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In these applications the batteries are not stored with a charge for long periods. Self discharge is irrelevant.

Not true. Self discharge does not mean discharge over months but discharge over hours and days. There have been many cases where people left their Tesla in airport with 30-40 miles of charge left only to find it discharged after 1 week's trip. After 1000-2000 cycles, the batteries will self discharge in a matter of 1 day or two which has great significance. The test condition in the article does not show this as it is a simple charge and discharge without any pause/hold.

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

LFP issues in low temperatures are being rapidly solved. Tesla's LFP battery just outperformed their NCA battery in a sub zero road test: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-s-new-lfp-battery-truly-shines-in-sub-zero-temperatures-looks-like-a-winner-178846.html

LFP energy density as to size and weight is not an issue in large industrial equipment. As to "more batteries" that becomes an issue of cost and 1KWh of LFP costs less than 1KWh of NCA/M.

Even Tesla did not make any announcement about any advanced LFP designs. So, there is no real advancement. We can't be sure whether this test was reliable at all as many times the battery indicator suddenly drops from 15 to 0 implying that the meter is not accurate. Since Tesla has not announced any R&D on LFP battery advancement, I really don't see how you claim that! Also, LFP size if important in transport sector as it will increase space and loading. A train with 3 wagons of battery will now need 4 wagons battery for example.

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

LFP batteries are being recycled and lithium isn't actually that scarce.

Nope, the recycling of LFP is too difficult that it is not done. It is possible but infeasible.

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You have it backwards on discharge rate and degradation. 2C discharge does not show inflated efficiency. Discharging batteries more slowly decreases degradation. Below chart shows the estimated number of cycles for our Lithium Iron Phosphate battery cells (LFP, LiFePO4) according to the discharge power and DOD figures. Level of power in C-Rate (1C rate means full discharge or charge in 1 hour, 2C is the same but in half an hour)

https://www.powertechsystems.eu/home/tech-corner/lithium-iron-phosphate-lifepo4/

I agree that faster discharges are bad for battery but when we are comparing 2 batteries, then the relative efficiency can be inflated using this method taking advantage of relative differences in self discharge. Also, the above chart does not appear to be practical. At 80% depth of discharge, it shows 9000 cycles! Assuming 1 cycle a day, this would mean 25 years of daily cycling. Most of the consumer cellphones undergo 80% depth of discharge as most people charge their batteries once it gets too low. But we don't see phone batteries lasting even 5 years and in most cases last just 3-4 years (1000-1200 cycles).

[Eric Gagen + 713]

42 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Since LNG has become so highly priced it seems that Turkey should be offered help to set up the infrastructure it needs. There is also offshore natural gas off Israel and Egypt. Cyprus also.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/gas-finds-in-the-mediterranean-spark-partnership-between-rival-nations.html 

 

Turkey is also an LNG importer, so it’s no assistance to Europe.  Israel is a natural gas exporter, but its setting up long term contracts with Egypt, which has sufficient domestic demand to use all of its domestic production and all of Israel’s export capacity too.  Cyprus is not explored much yet, because it’s disputed at gunpoint between Turkey and Greece.
 

 LNG is always more expensive than pipeline gas due to the cost of liquefaction and transport.  It’s not insurmountable - Japan and South Korea get all their gas by this route.  Pipeline gas from Russia to Europe was historically very cheap because the Russians had no other places to sell to.  Now that they have pipelines to other places (China) and LNG export capacity of their own, the Russians won’t sign new deals with Europe on the same terms as the old ones.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I would add that LNG locomotives can be designed to add a little diesel whenever that might be needed. Some trucks use that design now. I dispute that LNG engines cannot do the job, but thanks for your references. LNG powered ships are usually designed as bifuel and are able to use diesel if desired. 

Thanks for your fine contribution to our forum, we hope to see more off your content! I am not an engineer and do not pretend to be one. I am just a self educated natural gas proponent that started nine years ago during the last supposed "energy crisis" in the West. Back then ethanol and cellulose was being considered for energy. A little later the news of the shale oil and gas came out to the knowledge of the general public. It had been rumored, for years, that the resources were available. 

I think that India should look offshore for its methane hydrates. There should be great finds available but the mining technology has not been developed yet. 

Ron ive posted a link below that explains a bit about engines and their source of power. Most importantly it is how a engine ignites and captures that power.

It's all about the fuel and how it burns/explodes , or how one can control/capture that energy release. 

Gas burn very fast, think along the lines of a jackrabbit. It's very unstable...Boom is very easy and extremely fast and very destructive.

Diesel burns very slowly, like a tortise,  very slow and stable. It goes Boom very slowly releasing pressure as it ignites...Ever wonder why deisles are so heavy..bomb shelters...lmao

What Is The Flashpoint Of Gasoline Vs. Diesel Fuel?

 

https://kendrickoil.com/what-is-the-flashpoint-of-gasoline-vs-diesel-fuel/

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-not-diesel-fuel-burn-in-gasoline-engine-and-vice-versa

 

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Turkey is also an LNG importer, so it’s no assistance to Europe.  Israel is a natural gas exporter, but its setting up long term contracts with Egypt, which has sufficient domestic demand to use all of its domestic production and all of Israel’s export capacity too.  Cyprus is not explored much yet, because it’s disputed at gunpoint between Turkey and Greece.
 

 LNG is always more expensive than pipeline gas due to the cost of liquefaction and transport.  It’s not insurmountable - Japan and South Korea get all their gas by this route.  Pipeline gas from Russia to Europe was historically very cheap because the Russians had no other places to sell to.  Now that they have pipelines to other places (China) and LNG export capacity of their own, the Russians won’t sign new deals wotj Europe on the same terms as the old ones.

I am referring to pipelines for natural gas not LNG from the Mediterranean but LNG could be used while they are built. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Not true. Self discharge does not mean discharge over months but discharge over hours and days. There have been many cases where people left their Tesla in airport with 30-40 miles of charge left only to find it discharged after 1 week's trip. After 1000-2000 cycles, the batteries will self discharge in a matter of 1 day or two which has great significance. The test condition in the article does not show this as it is a simple charge and discharge without any pause/hold.

Even Tesla did not make any announcement about any advanced LFP designs. So, there is no real advancement. We can't be sure whether this test was reliable at all as many times the battery indicator suddenly drops from 15 to 0 implying that the meter is not accurate. Since Tesla has not announced any R&D on LFP battery advancement, I really don't see how you claim that! Also, LFP size if important in transport sector as it will increase space and loading. A train with 3 wagons of battery will now need 4 wagons battery for example.

Nope, the recycling of LFP is too difficult that it is not done. It is possible but infeasible.

I agree that faster discharges are bad for battery but when we are comparing 2 batteries, then the relative efficiency can be inflated using this method taking advantage of relative differences in self discharge. Also, the above chart does not appear to be practical. At 80% depth of discharge, it shows 9000 cycles! Assuming 1 cycle a day, this would mean 25 years of daily cycling. Most of the consumer cellphones undergo 80% depth of discharge as most people charge their batteries once it gets too low. But we don't see phone batteries lasting even 5 years and in most cases last just 3-4 years (1000-1200 cycles).

You keep making claims with no evidence.

The batteries will not discharge in one day, that is a ridiculous claim, and locomotives will not be expected to sit even a day without being charged either through cable or regen braking. 

"Super B lithium iron phosphate batteries (LiFePO4) don’t require active maintenance to extend their service life. Also, the batteries show no memory effects and due to low self-discharge (<3% per month)... https://www.super-b.com/en/lithium-iron-phosphate-batteries/benefits-lithium-batteries

Phones don't use LFP nor do they have the advanced battery management technology used in vehicles. I have presented multiple reports showing the long life of LFP. The burden is now on you to show evidence that LFP degrades as fast as you claim. Your personal incredulity is insufficient.

LFP recycling is not technically more difficult, the issue is that the base components aren't very valuable. However this is being changed by law in China and soon elsewhere. So much so that the hottest new LFP battery the Blade Battery is designed to reduce the cost of recycling:

The Blade Battery emerged after China in 2018 began to make EV manufacturers responsible for ensuring batteries are recycled. The country now recycles more lithium-ion batteries than the rest of the world combined, using mostly pyro- and hydrometallurgical methods. https://www.science.org/content/article/millions-electric-cars-are-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries

 Large nations are beginning to make EV manufacturers responsible for ensuring batteries are properly recycled. New types of batteries, such as the Blade Battery, are designed for easy dismantling. https://dug.com/recycling-electric-batteries-is-tough-but-it-has-to-be-done/

So yes LFP is being recycled in large quantities, or will be when they finally start to die which is a long ways off.

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

35 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ron ive posted a link below that explains a bit about engines and their source of power. Most importantly it is how a engine ignites and captures that power.

It's all about the fuel and how it burns/explodes , or how one can control/capture that energy release. 

Gas burn very fast, think along the lines of a jackrabbit. It's very unstable...Boom is very easy and extremely fast and very destructive.

Diesel burns very slowly, like a tortise,  very slow and stable. It goes Boom very slowly releasing pressure as it ignites...Ever wonder why deisles are so heavy..bomb shelters...lmao

What Is The Flashpoint Of Gasoline Vs. Diesel Fuel?

 

https://kendrickoil.com/what-is-the-flashpoint-of-gasoline-vs-diesel-fuel/

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-not-diesel-fuel-burn-in-gasoline-engine-and-vice-versa

This is related to what I was referring to:

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_natural-gas.php  

 

 

 

 

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

27 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I am referring to pipelines for natural gas not LNG from the Mediterranean but LNG could be used while they are built. 

There won’t be any built as per the present plan, because there isn’t enough gas left over to put in them.  There IS a pipeline from Israel to Egypt, but there isn’t enough leftover to supply Europe too. Discover a lot more gas in the Eastern Med where conditions look good for it in the Levant (Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Cyprus) or Egypt or Turkey and it would start to make sense. Otherwise this region doesn’t have anything to sell to Europe.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Nearly all US locomotives are propelled by diesel-electric drives, which emit 35 million tonnes of CO₂ and produce air pollution causing about 1,000 premature deaths annually, accounting for approximately US$6.5 billion in annual health damage costs. Improved battery technology plus access to cheap renewable electricity open the possibility of battery-electric rail. Here we show that a 241-km range can be achieved using a single standard boxcar equipped with a 14-MWh battery and inverter, while consuming half the energy consumed by diesel trains. At near-future battery prices, battery-electric trains can achieve parity with diesel-electric trains if environmental costs are included or if rail companies can access wholesale electricity prices and achieve 40% use of fast-charging infrastructure. Accounting for reduced criteria air pollutants and CO₂ emissions, switching to battery-electric propulsion would save the US freight rail sector US$94 billion over 20 years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00915-5

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

48 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 

Yes I understand, your pointing out different types of fuel distribution. That is only 30% of the dynamics. 

1. Fuel distribution.

2. Fuel ignition timing (lighting off the bomb)

3. Compression rato...the environment that releases the maximum efficiency 

4. COMBUSTION Huston we have a go. It's all about combusting one fuel to reach its maximum potential.

 

 

 

 

 

Each type of fuel has different combustion qualities. Each fuel type must be compressed and llit at different times. If one does not time each fuel for maximum combustion efficiencies you end with a dud or a bomb.Each fuel type is quite different.

Now that's just a small part of the process. Each fuel type requires different tech to make it all work...metals...electronic processing weight etc etc etc. A One size fits all only ends up in misery. A bit like integrating green power into existing power network's. A total Hodge podge of expensive parts.

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

7 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

That's not significant to Europe.

The 2.5 BCF a day earns the US exporters ~ $4 per 1,000 scf, which works out to about $4 billion a year - that's right now with current extremely high natural gas prices.  The rest of the value is taken up in shipping costs, liquifaction costs, etc.  The US exported about $2 trillion in goods and services in 2021 (a terrible year for obvious reasons) so natural gas makes up 0.2% of US exports. The total US economy was just over $20 trillion. It's not enough money to matter for the US. 

 

Its 10BCF, not 2.5BCF of LNG equivalent as I already posted up thread... You are 5 years out of date.  Still a fart in a windstorm compared to what Europe/Asia need.  One would require, ~3000 of the newest largest LNG tankers + facilities for them, to offset what Russia provides... Assuming the USA even has enough NG. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

34 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Yes I understand, your pointing out different types of fuel distribution. That is only 30% of the dynamics. 

1. Fuel distribution.

2. Fuel ignition timing (lighting off the bomb)

3. Compression rato...the environment that releases the maximum efficiency 

4. COMBUSTION Huston we have a go. It's all about combusting one fuel to reach its maximum potential.

 

 

 

 

 

Each type of fuel has different combustion qualities. Each fuel type must be compressed and llit at different times. If one does not time each fuel for maximum combustion efficiencies you end with a dud or a bomb.Each fuel type is quite different.

Now that's just a small part of the process. Each fuel type requires different tech to make it all work...metals...electronic processing weight etc etc etc. A One size fits all only ends up in misery. A bit like integrating green power into existing power network's. A total Hodge podge of expensive parts.

 

 

 

All I know is what I have heard from experienced individuals who have been very happy with the results of converting gasoline engines to natural gas or alcohol burning engines. I have plenty of references to prove that it works. Compression changes are one of them. There are hundreds of thousands of such engines working all over the world. Are you trying to deny that?

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

All I know is what I have heard from experienced individuals who have been very happy with the results of converting gasoline engines to natural gas or alcohol burning engines. I have plenty of references to prove that it works. Compression changes are one of them. There are hundreds of thousands of such engines working all over the world. Are you trying to deny that?

Each person is entitled to his or her's opinion, if there are 100's of thousand who are happy as a clam with their conversions so be it.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

There won’t be any built as per the present plan, because there isn’t enough gas left over to put in them.  There IS a pipeline from Israel to Egypt, but there isn’t enough leftover to supply Europe too. Discover a lot more gas in the Eastern Med where conditions look good for it in the Levant (Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Cyprus) or Egypt or Turkey and it would start to make sense. Otherwise this region doesn’t have anything to sell to Europe.

https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/regions_of_interest/Eastern_Mediterranean/eastern-mediterranean.pdf I am an optimist. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Each person is entitled to his or her's opinion, if there are 100's of thousand who are happy as a clam with their conversions so be it.

 

I trust you have seen that the Chinese are the largest users and developers of natural gas trucks. We have the best technology for it, and the natural gas. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

20 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

https://www.investors.com/research/ford-stock-buy-now/

Ford stock raced higher in 2021 and into the new year, but retreated sharply in the market correction and has only rebounded modestly.

Bottom line: Ford stock is not a buy now.

Tesla Loses $199 Billion In Two Days — Is Elon Musk To Blame?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-loses-199-billion-two-191524081.html

GM Delivered Only 26 EVs In Q4 2021, Including Just 1 Electric Hummer

Tesla's CEO Elon Musk notes that GM has some room for improvement.

Ford’s CEO just made a convincing case to break his company up and go full EV

 

During Thursday’s earnings call, chief executive Jim Farley inadvertently put forward a forensic case for why his internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles could be spun off into a listed company separate from its activities in zero-emission battery electric vehicle (BEVs) to unlock greater value for shareholders.

When pressed whether the legacy ICE operations should be carved out to quarantine the growing electric connected car business from potential stranded assets, Farley told investors not to worry: He’s already running the two as if they were. https://fortune.com/2022/02/04/ford-earnings-electric-vehicles-spin-off-jim-farley/

Those ICE vehicles are a problem for their stock price.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nearly all US locomotives are propelled by diesel-electric drives, which emit 35 million tonnes of CO₂ and produce air pollution causing about 1,000 premature deaths annually, accounting for approximately US$6.5 billion in annual health damage costs. Improved battery technology plus access to cheap renewable electricity open the possibility of battery-electric rail. Here we show that a 241-km range can be achieved using a single standard boxcar equipped with a 14-MWh battery and inverter, while consuming half the energy consumed by diesel trains. At near-future battery prices, battery-electric trains can achieve parity with diesel-electric trains if environmental costs are included or if rail companies can access wholesale electricity prices and achieve 40% use of fast-charging infrastructure. Accounting for reduced criteria air pollutants and CO₂ emissions, switching to battery-electric propulsion would save the US freight rail sector US$94 billion over 20 years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00915-5

Obviously not a serious post.

"At NEAR-FUTURE battery prices"...some joke, an undefined rambling.

"If environmental costs are included"....costs which no one has ever defined....a complete laugh.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

10 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I trust you have seen that the Chinese are the largest users and developers of natural gas trucks. We have the best technology for it, and the natural gas. 

Unless the Chinese have raided GM engineering tech who cares. Geez GM lol that hurts just thinking about them...but I do have a affinity for there big blocks.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Obviously not a serious post.

"At NEAR-FUTURE battery prices"...some joke, an undefined rambling.

"If environmental costs are included"....costs which no one has ever defined....a complete laugh.

Haha, you clearly didn't bother reading the actual paper, published in Nature and linked in the post.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You keep making claims with no evidence.

The batteries will not discharge in one day, that is a ridiculous claim, and locomotives will not be expected to sit even a day without being charged either through cable or regen braking. 

"Super B lithium iron phosphate batteries (LiFePO4) don’t require active maintenance to extend their service life. Also, the batteries show no memory effects and due to low self-discharge (<3% per month)... https://www.super-b.com/en/lithium-iron-phosphate-batteries/benefits-lithium-batteries

Phones don't use LFP nor do they have the advanced battery management technology used in vehicles. I have presented multiple reports showing the long life of LFP. The burden is now on you to show evidence that LFP degrades as fast as you claim. Your personal incredulity is insufficient.

LFP recycling is not technically more difficult, the issue is that the base components aren't very valuable. However this is being changed by law in China and soon elsewhere. So much so that the hottest new LFP battery the Blade Battery is designed to reduce the cost of recycling:

The Blade Battery emerged after China in 2018 began to make EV manufacturers responsible for ensuring batteries are recycled. The country now recycles more lithium-ion batteries than the rest of the world combined, using mostly pyro- and hydrometallurgical methods. https://www.science.org/content/article/millions-electric-cars-are-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries

 Large nations are beginning to make EV manufacturers responsible for ensuring batteries are properly recycled. New types of batteries, such as the Blade Battery, are designed for easy dismantling. https://dug.com/recycling-electric-batteries-is-tough-but-it-has-to-be-done/

So yes LFP is being recycled in large quantities, or will be when they finally start to die which is a long ways off.

 

 

 

What is a long way off is the adoption of widespread EVs, still just a tiny blip of total vehicle stock. The second hand ICE market is much larger than the new ICE market, and combined they reduce the EV market to a pin prick.

You are still meandering around the edges, nothing of substance.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

What is a long way off is the adoption of widespread EVs, still just a tiny blip of total vehicle stock. The second hand ICE market is much larger than the new ICE market, and combined they reduce the EV market to a pin prick.

You are still meandering around the edges, nothing of substance.

The post is about locomotives. Though the attributes of LFP batteries in EVs are the same. Real economists understand emerging growth technologies and disruption. At the very least they understand investment functions and right now all the investment is going into EVs, not ICE.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey