How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Tesla battery research group unveils paper on new high-energy-density battery that could last 100 years

 

 

Single crystal Li[Ni_0.5Mn_0.3Co_0.2]O₂//graphite (NMC532) pouch cells with only sufficient graphite for operation to 3.80 V (rather than ≥4.2 V) were cycled with charging to either 3.65 V or 3.80 V to facilitate comparison with LiFePO₄//graphite (LFP) pouch cells on the grounds of similar maximum charging potential and similar negative electrode utilization. The NMC532 cells, when constructed with only sufficient graphite to be charged to 3.80 V, have an energy density that exceeds that of the LFP cells and a cycle-life that greatly exceeds that of the LFP cells at 40 °C, 55 °C and 70 °C. Excellent lifetime at high temperature is demonstrated with electrolytes that contain lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) salt, well beyond those provided by conventional LiPF₆ electrolytes.

https://electrek.co/2022/05/24/tesla-battery-research-paper-high-energy-density-battery-last-100-years/

Research "paper"?

Read the fine print, Jay, something which you never do in your gloss-over blurbs.

"The paper describes a nickel-based battery chemistry meant to compete with LFP battery cells on longevity while retaining the properties that people like in nickel-based batteries, like higher energy density, which enables longer range with fewer batteries for electric vehicles."

This is nothing but some "chemistry" in the lab, nothing in tangible or finished form. It is so far just some basic initial lab work, no new batteries or vehicles. Practical problems have not been addressed or studied. 

Back to the drawing board.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Research "paper"?

Read the fine print, Jay, something which you never do in your gloss-over blurbs.

"The paper describes a nickel-based battery chemistry meant to compete with LFP battery cells on longevity while retaining the properties that people like in nickel-based batteries, like higher energy density, which enables longer range with fewer batteries for electric vehicles."

This is nothing but some "chemistry" in the lab, nothing in tangible or finished form. It is so far just some basic initial lab work, no new batteries or vehicles. Practical problems have not been addressed or studied. 

Back to the drawing board.

Yes, it is a research paper that shows their lab findings.

The practical problems that you worry about have been solved with LFP. This research takes  it a step further.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

25 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

We need much more CO2 to increase agricultural productivity to supply food for the extra mouths which now exist, and more CO2 to increase the supply of oxygen for the new mouths to breathe in.

Without food and without oxygen, you would not have the strength to babble on with your usual nonsense, Jay.

What would happen to the planet without your pearls of wisdom?

The extra mouths that exist are already being fed and they can be fed on much less CO2. Population is peaking now but of course you have no knowledge of reality.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Population is peaking now

Actually no it isnt!

Most studies predict a peak of between 9.7 - 9.9 Billion by 2050-2064 depending on which predictions you believe.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2020/07/17/world-population-expected-to-peak-in-just-44-years-as-fertility-rates-sink/?sh=28e31ea2372a

https://sdg.iisd.org/news/world-population-to-reach-9-9-billion-by-2050/

Currently its 7.9 billion, so another 2 billion or so to go! That a lot of extra mouths Jay that dont already exist!

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Actually no it isnt!

Most studies predict a peak of between 9.7 - 9.9 Billion by 2050-2064 depending on which predictions you believe.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2020/07/17/world-population-expected-to-peak-in-just-44-years-as-fertility-rates-sink/?sh=28e31ea2372a

https://sdg.iisd.org/news/world-population-to-reach-9-9-billion-by-2050/

Currently its 7.9 billion, so another 2 billion or so to go! That a lot of extra mouths Jay that dont already exist!

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

And then the population will start declining. The plan is to just stop carbon increases by 2050-2060. Increasing CO2 concentrations do not infinitely increase plant growth:

But the IPCC adds that the CO₂ effect has a greater impact on wheat and rice, than on corn and sugarcane.

Photosynthesis in wheat and rice relies more on CO₂ in the atmosphere, while corn and sugarcane rely more on “internal cycling” during photosynthesis, Jerry Hatfield, the director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Laboratory for Agriculture and The Environment, explained to us over the phone.

In other words, increased CO₂ doesn’t boost crop yield equally across the board.

Hatfield, who was also part of the IPCC process that received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and who currently serves on an IPCC special committee, also explained to us that the positive impacts of CO₂ may “reach a point of diminishing return,” or “saturation,” in the future. What does that mean?

Right now, the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is just over 400 parts per million, according to NASA. (For comparison, before 1950, the level of CO₂ hadn’t surpassed 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years.)

Hatfield told us that plants would reach CO₂ saturation at around 550 to 600 ppm, at which point more gas “won’t be as beneficial.”

In an email, Frances Moore, an assistant professor studying climate change’s impact on agriculture at the University of California, Davis, put it this way: “My research does show that higher CO2 concentrations are beneficial to crops, but this effect quickly declines at higher and higher concentrations because plant growth becomes limited by other nutrients.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/co2-friend-foe-agriculture/

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

50 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And then the population will start declining.

So you now agree with me that population hasnt peaked and that will be 30-40 years away, thanks.

Regarding Co2 levels (which I made no comment on) yes they have been circa 300ppm for hundreds of thousands of years but prior to that were 6 or 7 times the magnitude of todays levels. Complex life still evolved and flourished, the earth didnt become a dried up wasteland and it wasnt Armageddon as the climate change brigade would have you believe we are 10 years away from. Havent you noticed its always 10 years away?

Edited May 25, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

38 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

So you now agree with me that population hasnt peaked and that will be 30-40 years away, thanks.

Regarding Co2 levels (which I made no comment on) yes they have been circa 300ppm for hundreds of thousands of years but prior to that were 6 or 7 times the magnitude of todays levels. Complex life still evolved and flourished, the earth didnt become a dried up wasteland and it wasnt Armageddon as the climate change brigade would have you believe we are 10 years away from. Havent you noticed its always 10 years away?

Yeah the dinosaurs loved it. But we aren't dinosaurs. Humans evolved with it less than 400ppm.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

32 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yeah the dinosaurs loved it. But we aren't dinosaurs. Humans evolved with it less than 400ppm.

True but it doesnt mean humans wouldnt have evolved regardless

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

12 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

True but it doesnt mean humans wouldnt have evolved regardless

It very well could mean that humans would not have evolved:

 "it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO₂ concentrations."

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO₂ concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found." 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It very well could mean that humans would not have evolved:

 "it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO₂ concentrations."

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO₂ concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found." 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

We'll never know Jay

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

16 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

We'll never know Jay

But we do know that humans aren't likely to do well with those CO2 levels that you are saying won't be a problem.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yeah the dinosaurs loved it. But we aren't dinosaurs. Humans evolved with it less than 400ppm.

And the correlation between higher CO2 and earth temperature was negative. In other words, the usual nonsense about CO2 causing global warming is disproved by earth history.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

But we do know that humans aren't likely to do well with those CO2 levels that you are saying won't be a problem.

No, higher populations of humans require more rice and wheat, the crops which benefit most from higher CO2 levels.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

14 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It very well could mean that humans would not have evolved:

 "it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO₂ concentrations."

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO₂ concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found." 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

That is at least four times higher than the alleged current levels, which are not specified as to location.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

On 5/24/2022 at 11:41 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes, it is a research paper that shows their lab findings.

The practical problems that you worry about have been solved with LFP. This research takes  it a step further.

 

Still just chemical work, nothing concrete for transportation. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

36 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Still just chemical work, nothing concrete for transportation. 

Well LFP batteries that last over half a million miles are certainly concrete. Half of all new Teslas already use them.

The average US person drives 14K miles per year so that is on average 35 years of life.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That is at least four times higher than the alleged current levels, which are not specified as to location.

The well established current level of  global outdoor CO2 is 420ppm  and increasing rapidly. 1400 is just 3.3 times higher.

If you read the article you would know that the immediate concern is indoor concentrations which run considerably higher than the outdoor baseline.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The well established current level of  global outdoor CO2 is 420ppm  and increasing rapidly. 1400 is just 3.3 times higher.

If you read the article you would know that the immediate concern is indoor concentrations which run considerably higher than the outdoor baseline.

"Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, the global average amount of carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (blue line) has increased along with human emissions (gray line) since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750."

So in nearly 300 years of industrialisation the world has added 140ppm of Co2 in the atmosphere from what was an all time low level in earths history of 280ppm. To suggest we are going to reach 1400ppm any time soon is crazy even though as you would expect it is increasing rapidly due to greater global industrialisation. However with the drive for renewables, EV's, carbon capture projects etc this isnt likely in the next few centuries, if ever, unless of course there are massive supervolcanic eruptions and then we wont really care about much at all!

If as you keep espousing Jay the world is going renewable energy and EV's, which I also think will happen rightly or wrongly then what is the problem?

It may well be far more beneficial for the world and life in general to have Co2 at levels around the 600ppm in any case.

Even the worst case scenarios for human health suggest sustained levels at 1000ppm are detrimental and some as high as 5000ppm.

The below is by far the worst case scenario I could find by any study anywhere and is not indicative of the mainstream viewpoint.

https://airqualitynews.com/2019/07/10/co2-affects-human-health-at-lower-levels-than-previously-thought/

Edited May 26, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Boat + 1,323]

On 5/24/2022 at 11:41 AM, specinho said:

 

we could probably have a look at the highlights........ and realize

1. we ara extrapolating the demand ( of energy, of housing, of almost everything), as modern statistics or modelling software teaches us to

2. we know we do not have unlimited resources of raw meterial for the ideal changes ( e.g. all EVs, batteries, hydrogen power, nuclear power etc) we intended but we insist each of them is the only way...........

What if, there are alternatives e.g. the way we think, the way we find solution, the way we create and not follow blindly with trends............??

We know extrapolation with statistics and software posts a risky situation i.e. GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. The baseline data, variable used, etc determine the outcomes. With method of  trial and error, we can possibly get all kinds of outcomes, from down to earth science to the way we want it to be known. We can CREATE scenes that make things seem very serious to be of concern........... to get attention and/or fund, yes? When we deviate from facts and common sense, change truth to suit our so called scientific calculations, we might be leading the crowd onto a path of fruitless pursue, worse, with much unwanted side problems................

This brings us to a reflection on new energy stations built after 1960s or 70s...... Could anyone recall how many newly added since then?

For a small remote country with name unknown to many, if not most, western citizens of monolingual, there might have not been any new construction announced over the past 60 years despite heavy development increasing demand drastically over the decades. This country was aided to build them. Hence, other countries with more advanced engineering works might have done the same somewhere. Could this mean, due to the foresight of the pioneer generations, the old settings might have more than enough energy that could sustain the needs even decades later?

This brings us to a point to ponder:

What if, we could cut random massive construction projects that of low demand and may be overpriced? What if we control how many permit to be allocated so that the demand is always below the capacity of energy supply?

What if, population could be self regulated if we do not encourage random behaviour?

Not sure if the following image or info is correct, but if it is, you might know why controlling wanted and unwanted pregnancies of random sex don't always work...

 

 Someone mentioned in a feedback to a newsletter received that this world works by COPYing good models; duplicating successful acts of a person by others etc......... At the beginning, this method worked fine, executed with the right attitude by those mostly struggled in lives, but aided to prosper with the right person(s) or network. No one could succeed on one own........ yes?  When it turns out 99.9% of us are merely copycats,  we rarely find genuine solutions to problems faced. We rush into trends because free money is there and there is no responsibility required to the outcomes. If it works, fine. If it doesn't, nobody might care enough to ask or to know..........

What if, anything started with finite resources might not be a good idea is true? Then batteries, hydrogen, limited sunlight, dwindling wind etc could run out if we do not know how to regenerate or sustain the sources...... What would become the left over batteries, equipment etc that could no longer be reused, renewed or needed to be recycled?

What if, there could be other alternatives, genuine and functional, awaiting to be tested out? Why must we shut the doors to possibilities because the trends and money are in the few technologies created in the 50s and yet to be adopted by us 80 years later? What are we thinking and doing, diverging but focus seperately with closed minds?

Putin is killing off population with high wheat and corn prices. We’ll have to see how many millions will be lost before we can judge resource depletion accurately. Interesting with India and China buying Russian FF, why is there a shortage of FF? Why are grains high? Speculation? Harvest isn’t for months. Smells like a scam. Anyhow there are like over a dozen countries that depend 100% on the Ukraine, Russia or both. Also there are many poor countries that approx 85% of the poors income goes towards food. The war has caused many commodities prices to double. Sensing a problem. Putin will get the credit for the needless attack. We could ship those poor to Russia. They need population due to the drink and little sex. Anyhow, will anybody rent them a boat yet? I see the holes all over the fields suggesting poor accuracy from a lack of chips? Can the Russians flip a McDonalds  burger without American management. Let us know. 

[Boat + 1,323]

On 5/24/2022 at 11:41 AM, specinho said:

 

we could probably have a look at the highlights........ and realize

1. we ara extrapolating the demand ( of energy, of housing, of almost everything), as modern statistics or modelling software teaches us to

2. we know we do not have unlimited resources of raw meterial for the ideal changes ( e.g. all EVs, batteries, hydrogen power, nuclear power etc) we intended but we insist each of them is the only way...........

What if, there are alternatives e.g. the way we think, the way we find solution, the way we create and not follow blindly with trends............??

We know extrapolation with statistics and software posts a risky situation i.e. GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. The baseline data, variable used, etc determine the outcomes. With method of  trial and error, we can possibly get all kinds of outcomes, from down to earth science to the way we want it to be known. We can CREATE scenes that make things seem very serious to be of concern........... to get attention and/or fund, yes? When we deviate from facts and common sense, change truth to suit our so called scientific calculations, we might be leading the crowd onto a path of fruitless pursue, worse, with much unwanted side problems................

This brings us to a reflection on new energy stations built after 1960s or 70s...... Could anyone recall how many newly added since then?

For a small remote country with name unknown to many, if not most, western citizens of monolingual, there might have not been any new construction announced over the past 60 years despite heavy development increasing demand drastically over the decades. This country was aided to build them. Hence, other countries with more advanced engineering works might have done the same somewhere. Could this mean, due to the foresight of the pioneer generations, the old settings might have more than enough energy that could sustain the needs even decades later?

This brings us to a point to ponder:

What if, we could cut random massive construction projects that of low demand and may be overpriced? What if we control how many permit to be allocated so that the demand is always below the capacity of energy supply?

What if, population could be self regulated if we do not encourage random behaviour?

Not sure if the following image or info is correct, but if it is, you might know why controlling wanted and unwanted pregnancies of random sex don't always work...

 

 Someone mentioned in a feedback to a newsletter received that this world works by COPYing good models; duplicating successful acts of a person by others etc......... At the beginning, this method worked fine, executed with the right attitude by those mostly struggled in lives, but aided to prosper with the right person(s) or network. No one could succeed on one own........ yes?  When it turns out 99.9% of us are merely copycats,  we rarely find genuine solutions to problems faced. We rush into trends because free money is there and there is no responsibility required to the outcomes. If it works, fine. If it doesn't, nobody might care enough to ask or to know..........

What if, anything started with finite resources might not be a good idea is true? Then batteries, hydrogen, limited sunlight, dwindling wind etc could run out if we do not know how to regenerate or sustain the sources...... What would become the left over batteries, equipment etc that could no longer be reused, renewed or needed to be recycled?

What if, there could be other alternatives, genuine and functional, awaiting to be tested out? Why must we shut the doors to possibilities because the trends and money are in the few technologies created in the 50s and yet to be adopted by us 80 years later? What are we thinking and doing, diverging but focus seperately with closed minds?

You must have missed the massive overbuild of solar that brings electricity costs to a few cents. Then we mine dumps with the Newly employed. Cars are going aluminum so don’t buy anything steel. There is a new round of tech for solar and different battery tech. No worries, just need a few years to ramp up. Just think, almost free ac. Hint, in Texas move north in the winter. They don’t do electricity to good. They into building a wall when sites for illegals to get picked up for daily work go unchecked. They get $15 a meal and a ride to the pickup spot. But Abbot praises the police for getting them border crashes. That’s profile talk for getting brown people. Even though there are millions of legal brown citizens. But yea, tech will have summers covered. Till the hurricanes hit from Climate Change. Lol

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

"Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, the global average amount of carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (blue line) has increased along with human emissions (gray line) since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750."

So in nearly 300 years of industrialisation the world has added 140ppm of Co2 in the atmosphere from what was an all time low level in earths history of 280ppm. To suggest we are going to reach 1400ppm any time soon is crazy even though as you would expect it is increasing rapidly due to greater global industrialisation. However with the drive for renewables, EV's, carbon capture projects etc this isnt likely in the next few centuries, if ever, unless of course there are massive supervolcanic eruptions and then we wont really care about much at all!

If as you keep espousing Jay the world is going renewable energy and EV's, which I also think will happen rightly or wrongly then what is the problem?

It may well be far more beneficial for the world and life in general to have Co2 at levels around the 600ppm in any case.

Even the worst case scenarios for human health suggest sustained levels at 1000ppm are detrimental and some as high as 5000ppm.

The below is by far the worst case scenario I could find by any study anywhere and is not indicative of the mainstream viewpoint.

https://airqualitynews.com/2019/07/10/co2-affects-human-health-at-lower-levels-than-previously-thought/

CO2 is increasing at an exponential rate. It has increased by 50 ppm in just the past 20 years. In the previous 20 years it only increased by 30 ppm. 100 ppm of that 140 ppm total increase has happened since 1960.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Billyjack + 58]

The posts of the flock of the Church of Warming add credence to Bonhoeffer's contention, 

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well LFP batteries that last over half a million miles are certainly concrete. Half of all new Teslas already use them.

The average US person drives 14K miles per year so that is on average 35 years of life.

There have to be commercial realities developed, which often proves to be the end of the road.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

34 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

There have to be commercial realities developed, which often proves to be the end of the road.

You just can't comprehend that long life LFP batteries are already in mass use. Half of all new Teslas already use them as well as half of all Chinese EVs. And of course I have to remind you that China is the largest EV market in the world.

"half of Tesla's vehicles are now installed with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries.

Tesla's shift is actually following and in turn enhancing the market trend. In the China market, according to statistics from the China Automotive Power Battery Industry Innovation Alliance, the share of domestic LFP batteries in the installed power battery capacity has increased from 38% in 2020 to 52% in 2021, and the has surpassed that of ternary material batteries."

https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101816603/Installed-Capacity-of-LFP-Batteries-Likely-to-Grab-60-of-Market-Share-by-2024/

Edited May 26, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

It may well be far more beneficial for the world and life in general to have Co2 at levels around the 600ppm in any case.

Even the worst case scenarios for human health suggest sustained levels at 1000ppm are detrimental and some as high as 5000ppm.

Nearly all housing, schooling, business etc has a CO2 level of 1000ppm and often higher currently, and to get LEED certification etc, air tightness is even higher so such buildings will have even HIGHER CO2 levels.