Marina Schwarz

U.S. Shale Output may Start Dropping Next Year

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, NWMan said:

the above chart / conversation assumes that electric vehicles are going to be power by an other energy sources - not oil and gas.  What is this energy source that within 14 years it will replace 40 million barrels equivalent of oil and gas?

NWMan,

This is a focus on oil.  The energy would come from natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, and coal.  Note that from tank or battery to wheel, a BEV is far more efficient (fewer energy losses). Combined cycle natural gas has up to 60% conversion of primary energy to electric power, so overall energy used may be reduced, in the case of solar and wind, losses are far lower than thermal power production as in fossil fuel or nuclear.  Widely dispersed highly interconnected wind and solar requires very little backup (maybe 10% of average load over an annual period on average), natural gas, vehicle to grid, pumped, hydro, fuel cells, and batteries as well as demand side pricing to reduce peak loads can easily provide the other 10% once wind and solar capacity ramp up to replace coal and natural gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Dennis,

My opinions do tend to change over time, as I get additional information.

Heck, back around 2014 or so I was all gung ho and pretty darn vocal about U.S. Shale Oil making America Energy Independent.  I've since modified my opinion about that over the years, as a certain Mike S. and Enno and a few others presented some disheartening facts to counter the Mainstream Media and Wall Street hype.

Anyway, my current views are I tend to see roughly $70 Brent and $50 WTI for this year.

For background, here is one of my old comments from May 2018:

My view on oil prices are pretty clear.  I've been pretty consistent about my views on oil prices since 2015.

But since I'm new to this forum, guess I need to reiterate.

In 2015 and 2016 I commented ad nauseum (mostly on the new defunct Oilpro forum) that I would be happy if oil was a stable average around $50 to $60, but closer to $50.  

In 2017, I changed my view and comments to I would be happy if oil was a stable average around $50 to $60, but closer to $60.  

This year, I changed my view and comments to I would be happy if oil was a stable average around $65.

And I would be happy if oil was a stable average around $70 for 2019.

Note that I think the value of the US Dollar will be devalued a bit later this year and early next year as the PetroYuan starts gaining international acceptance.

So in real terms, I'm actually hoping for oil prices to average $65 for 2018 and 2019.

$100 oil is not sustainable long term.  $300 oil is just nuts.

Excessively high oil prices would kill global economies, and crash oil prices all over again.

Thanks Tom,

From that comment I had $65/b in my head, in that comment when you say "oil Price", which price do you mean?

As you well know there are many, I focus on Brent others use WTI, the spread has generally been about $10/b in recent years rather than $20/b.  Do you expect this relatively stable spread (2012-2018), to shift to $20/b?  If so why? 

Note I mostly agree with your prediction through 2020, but I think we might see oil prices approach $100/b by 2025, but possibly prices will go down after that as BEVs ramp up (though my recent scenarios are far too optimistic and should be considered a lower bound for demand for oil.)

Edited by D Coyne
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wastral said:

BEV's leveling the grid.  WHat hogwash.  Walk out to your vehicle and it is drained of energy.... Hell no.  Or plug in when you go into work, except you find that neighbors section had clouds over it and your section got drawn down and now getting home is a nice walk. 

OH yea, we will "solve" this with software.... Yea, and you know what EVERY user will do?  TURN IT OFF so their vehicle has full charge when THEY want to use it.  

Utopia... unicorns farting rainbows and humanity will become goody-2-shoes... ah what a sweet dream. 

Wastral,

Those that feed into the grid from their vehicles would be paid a premium, it will be a simple choice, maybe the car is sitting in the garage not being used while away on vacation or after home from work (battery could be used during peak then recharged overnight.)  This is not rocket since, what we have here is a lack of imagination.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, shadowkin said:

So long as the C suite of shale companies get their golden parachutes I’d bet on the oil continuing to flow at full throttle.

Yes, it would appear that the US shale oil phenomena is now too big, and too important, to fail. Good news for everyone involved in the shale oil "revolution," maybe not so good news for our kids when we hand them the bill...

https://www.oilystuffblog.com/single-post/2019/03/18/Shale-Oil-and-US-Foreign-Policy

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Wastral,

Those that feed into the grid from their vehicles would be paid a premium, it will be a simple choice, maybe the car is sitting in the garage not being used while away on vacation or after home from work (battery could be used during peak then recharged overnight.)  This is not rocket since, what we have here is a lack of imagination.  :)

What we have here is not lack of imagination, but rather lack of understanding of human nature.  No one is going to play software twiddle twaddle BS for 20 cents.  They are going to park, get out and go to work.  They are NOT going to plug in, set software parameters, and then go to work and do the same when they go home.  You do not make products that are SLOWER, less efficient, and cumbersome expecting people to USE THEM!  The problem with people like you and all of your utopian BS is you always forget basic ECONOMICS.  Economics is based on human nature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, David Jones said:

If you want to talk about unicorns and rainbows, it would be more applicable to the idea that fossil fuels will flow forever. It's almost entirely certain that this is not going to be the case (it takes in the order of 100'000 years for these to form naturally) and thinking that it is, will expose humanity to a dead end/cliff edge scenario down the line.

Sigh... there is this thing called the ocean with methane hydrates... You know, that giant blue wet thing that sucks up all that CO2 and turns them into methane hydrates...  You use a tube and suck them up around 2000m down.  Methane is 100% renewable.... with the right infrastructure. 

That is if we even understand how oil/NG are made to begin with.  No matter where we have drilled on earth we have hit methane, water, carbon...  Shale rock just happens to have the best porosity to hold those hydrocarbons in gas/liquid form due to their structural lattice spacing. 

As for cars and range/charging.... Sigh... we have no new battery tech on horizon for power to weight density.  We can dream, but that is what they are, dreams.  Lithium-ion NMC has been known and around for 40 years. I have been able to buy the exact same power to weight LI-ion batteries going on 20+ years now.  The only thing that changed is their longevity as we have learned how to charge them properly and we have increased their C rating which is nice... though this part was obvious as we got rid of the thin film flimsy packets mostly other than the flat cells for cell phones and the like. 

As for charging speed, this is a matter of simply creating higher DC voltage in battery packs with current battery tech.  Double the voltage, halve the charging time.  The main reason they have not:  Going past 600V you run into massive insulation problems as plastics do not work anymore(break down quickly as in a couple years or less).  So what happens in a crash... Insulators past 600V(not plastics) are mostly all brittle.  We already have car fire problems with the Teslas during crashes.  There is a reason everyone ran to plastics 70-->80 years ago.  Now ceramics have improved, but that is what we would be looking at, ceramics.... in a crash.

Second reason they have not gone to high DC voltage is safety.  High DC is much more dangerous than AC, but this can be addressed by design with safety pull tabs before opening battery.  Just increases cost.  Not a barrier.  Gets back to crashes and people working on cars though.

Third reason they have not gone to high DC voltage is efficiency.  Upvolting something is not efficient.  Why packs were made for standard 240V.  To efficiently go to 480V AC, EVERY home service entrance cable would have to be changed along with EVERY transformer in the world...  Or suffer the inefficiency.....  Adding an additional cost of 10% loss.   Of course every business etc would have to be upgraded to handle all these cars that now must be plugged in.... Good luck with that. 

Edited by Wastral
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wastral said:

What we have here is not lack of imagination, but rather lack of understanding of human nature.  No one is going to play software twiddle twaddle BS for 20 cents.  They are going to park, get out and go to work.  They are NOT going to plug in, set software parameters, and then go to work and do the same when they go home.  You do not make products that are SLOWER, less efficient, and cumbersome expecting people to USE THEM!  The problem with people like you and all of your utopian BS is you always forget basic ECONOMICS.  Economics is based on human nature. 

Wastral,

Masters degree in economics, I know plenty.  Consumers respond to prices, this is basic economics.  I own a Tesla Model 3, best car I have ever owned.  Do you have difficulty with plugs?  I do not.  :)  At work most people don't have the option to plug in, but if they did they might choose to do so.  The software will be an app on a smart phone.  Set times battery can be used and times when charging occurs.  In most cases people do not need the full battery to get home from work.  In my case work is only 10 miles from home and battery is typically at about 240 miles of range when I get to work, about 200 miles of this could be shared (about 50 kWhr), if I am paid 40 cents per kwhr to provide peak power (because grid is short on power), that would be about 20 bucks, some may choose to take the 20 bucks, others might leave it.  It is a simple economic choice.  Each human is different and has a different set of personal preferences, that is intermediate microeconomics, perhaps you have studied it, I used to teach the subject in graduate school.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Sigh... there is this thing called the ocean with methane hydrates... You know, that giant blue wet thing that sucks up all that CO2 and turns them into methane hydrates...  You use a tube and suck them up around 2000m down.  Methane is 100% renewable.... with the right infrastructure. 

That is if we even understand how oil/NG are made to begin with.  No matter where we have drilled on earth we have hit methane, water, carbon...  Shale rock just happens to have the best porosity to hold those hydrocarbons in gas/liquid form due to their structural lattice spacing. 

As for cars and range/charging.... Sigh... we have no new battery tech on horizon for power to weight density.  We can dream, but that is what they are, dreams.  Lithium-ion NMC has been known and around for 40 years. 

As for charging speed, this is a matter of simply creating higher DC voltage in battery packs with current battery tech.  Double the voltage, halve the charging time.  The main reason they have not:  Going past 600V you run into massive insulation problems as plastics do not work anymore(break down quickly as in a couple years or less).  So what happens in a crash... Insulators past 600V(not plastics) are mostly all brittle.  We already have car fire problems with the Teslas during crashes.  There is a reason everyone ran to plastics 70-->80 years ago.  Now ceramics have improved, but that is what we would be looking at, ceramics.... in a crash. 

Second reason they have not gone to high DC voltage is safety.  High DC is much more dangerous than AC, but this can be addressed by design with safety pull tabs before opening battery.  Just increases cost.  Not a barrier.  Gets back to crashes and people working on cars though.

Wastral,

So far methane hydrates are not economically competitive, soon PV solar costs will fall to a level that shale gas will no longer be competitive either.  In the areas with the best solar resources, new natural gas power plants can no longer compete, meanwhile PV solar costs continue to fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, D Coyne said:

The energy would come from natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, and coal

I thought the whole idea was to get rid of coal, nuclear and gas (a hydrocarbon).  Wind, solar and hydro are all renewables but the issue is generating this energy anywhere near the usage point.  People say we currently generate 2%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Wastral,

Masters degree in economics, I know plenty.  Consumers respond to prices, this is basic economics.  I own a Tesla Model 3, best car I have ever owned.  Do you have difficulty with plugs?  I do not.  :)  At work most people don't have the option to plug in, but if they did they might choose to do so.  The software will be an app on a smart phone.  Set times battery can be used and times when charging occurs.  In most cases people do not need the full battery to get home from work.  In my case work is only 10 miles from home and battery is typically at about 240 miles of range when I get to work, about 200 miles of this could be shared (about 50 kWhr), if I am paid 40 cents per kwhr to provide peak power (because grid is short on power), that would be about 20 bucks, some may choose to take the 20 bucks, others might leave it.  It is a simple economic choice.  Each human is different and has a different set of personal preferences, that is intermediate microeconomics, perhaps you have studied it, I used to teach the subject in graduate school.

YOur solution is opposite economics... MORE expensive power... Listen to yourself man.  And your math sucks.  A 50KWh battery has a capacity brand new of 40KWh.  Some of which was used getting to work and who says it was charged overnight?  Most likely not, as people will not plug in if they do not have to.  An older battery will have 20KWH useable and last I checked you have to do errands before going home which your wife calls you to do or pick up the kids and you need an extra 50miles, not your 10...  Reality is you can play with about 10KWh of the battery.... Yea, bravo... you can make a $1 a day if you plug, unplug every day....  Yea right, as if a business is going to install a $10,000 dollar upgrade for $1 a day... want to go to the extreme?  $2.  Not your $20. 

Progress in society happens when CHEAPER, more robust solutions occur, not more expensive, time consuming, more complex solution trying to find a problem occur. 

You are also pretending that charging/discharging your battery does not cost you.... Uh... Battery life...  Great you just doubled the number of cycles which means your battery life just got cut in half.  Brilliant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

59 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Sigh... there is this thing called the ocean with methane hydrates... You know, that giant blue wet thing that sucks up all that CO2 and turns them into methane hydrates...  You use a tube and suck them up around 2000m down.  Methane is 100% renewable.... with the right infrastructure. 

That is if we even understand how oil/NG are made to begin with.  No matter where we have drilled on earth we have hit methane, water, carbon...  Shale rock just happens to have the best porosity to hold those hydrocarbons in gas/liquid form due to their structural lattice spacing. 

As for cars and range/charging.... Sigh... we have no new battery tech on horizon for power to weight density.  We can dream, but that is what they are, dreams.  Lithium-ion NMC has been known and around for 40 years. I have been able to buy the exact same power to weight LI-ion batteries going on 20+ years now.  The only thing that changed is their longevity as we have learned how to charge them properly and we have increased their C rating which is nice... though this part was obvious as we got rid of the thin film flimsy packets mostly other than the flat cells for cell phones and the like. 

As for charging speed, this is a matter of simply creating higher DC voltage in battery packs with current battery tech.  Double the voltage, halve the charging time.  The main reason they have not:  Going past 600V you run into massive insulation problems as plastics do not work anymore(break down quickly as in a couple years or less).  So what happens in a crash... Insulators past 600V(not plastics) are mostly all brittle.  We already have car fire problems with the Teslas during crashes.  There is a reason everyone ran to plastics 70-->80 years ago.  Now ceramics have improved, but that is what we would be looking at, ceramics.... in a crash.

Second reason they have not gone to high DC voltage is safety.  High DC is much more dangerous than AC, but this can be addressed by design with safety pull tabs before opening battery.  Just increases cost.  Not a barrier.  Gets back to crashes and people working on cars though.

Third reason they have not gone to high DC voltage is efficiency.  Upvolting something is not efficient.  Why packs were made for standard 240V.  To efficiently go to 480V AC, EVERY home service entrance cable would have to be changed along with EVERY transformer in the world...  Or suffer the inefficiency.....  Adding an additional cost of 10% loss.   Of course every business etc would have to be upgraded to handle all these cars that now must be plugged in.... Good luck with that. 

I'm sorry but you are clearly not up to date with your info in terms of batteries. Batteries are approaching 300Wh/kg (Maxwell for instance have demonstrated this) and there's a good chance that there will be 500wh/kg battery tech by 2030. We'll se how well ICEVs hold up against that considering that they can't hold their ground even against 250wh/kg battery powered vehicles in the relevant cases where longer range EVs are available to compete. Also, I'd like you to list all the fires that a Tesla vehicle has suffered. I'm willing to be that there are less than 20 such occurrences over the last 10 years so you are discussing a very rare eventuality as if it's a common everyday occurrence. The chances of experiencing a fire in an ICEV are likely greater.

Edited by David Jones
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Wastral,

So far methane hydrates are not economically competitive, soon PV solar costs will fall to a level that shale gas will no longer be competitive either.  In the areas with the best solar resources, new natural gas power plants can no longer compete, meanwhile PV solar costs continue to fall.

When oil was at $100, methane hydrates were about to start being harvested by Japan.  As for your PV... Look at a solar map someday and then look at the worlds population.  If you live in SW USA/Mexico, the Sahara Desert, middle east, S. Africa, or the Atacama desert, yea with a huge helping of $$$.  Anywhere else?  Dreams are nice. 

Give ya a hint: Germany has by nameplate capacity enough solar for 75% of their country.  Reality: Obtain 6% and give away another 1% to neighbors(can't use it because of peaking).

So, here in the REAL world, assuming we have a battery solution which we do not, you need 10X rated nameplate capacity.  True, Germany is far north with winter.  So, lets call it 5X-->10X.  Or you could go to ANY of offgrid youtubers and simply watch their video's on solar and how much is required....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David Jones said:

I'm sorry but you are clearly not up to date with your info in terms of batteries. Batteries are approaching 300Wh/kg (Maxwell for

And current Lithium is 250 and has been so for a LONG time...  So one of us "clearly not up to date with your info"

Of course that is not what you actually get after you add reality: Battery case, BMS etc. 

The 500... HAHAHAHA, one layer of graphene which cannot take a current... ok.  The world is waiting, and has been waiting for multi layer graphene for structures(far more $$$) and batteries for many decades now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

17 minutes ago, Wastral said:

And current Lithium is 250 and has been so for a LONG time...  So one of us "clearly not up to date with your info"

Of course that is not what you actually get after you add reality: Battery case, BMS etc. 

The 500... HAHAHAHA, one layer of graphene which cannot take a current... ok.  The world is waiting, and has been waiting for multi layer graphene for structures(far more $$$) and batteries for many decades now. 

Please provide some reference about your assumption that 250wh/kg has been the norm "for a long time". You are simply throwing out random, self generated "facts". As far as I'm aware, research has shown that battery energy density improves at an average rate of about 3-5% annually. Maybe you consider a couple of years to be a while? When considering a couple of decades, your statement is clearly false. You can actually see an example of this wh/kg improvement on the Tesla Roadster vs the Model 3. The Roadster in 2008 is generally considered to have about 120wh/kg, the Model 3 is closer to 170wh/kg at the pack level. That is >40% increase. Assuming that the car industry will indeed be pushing forward with EVs as they have mentioned (this seems more likely based on recent developments), much greater R&D efforts will be made on a global scale to improve energy density.

Regardless of the eventuality of a 500wh/kg energy density for the batteries in 2030, another 40% increase by 2028 is well within the normal battery development rate. That means a Model 3 equivalent in 2028 would have about 325*1.4=455miles of range. Well above the average car range of ICEVs.

Edited by David Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Jones said:

Please provide some reference about your assumption that 250wh/kg has been the norm "for a long time". You are simply throwing out random, self generated "facts". As far as I'm aware, research has shown that battery energy density improves at an average rate of about 3-5% annually. Maybe you consider a couple of years to be a while? When considering a couple of decades, your statement is clearly false. You can actually see an example of this wh/kg improvement on the Tesla Roadster vs the Model 3. The Roadster in 2008 is generally considered to have about 120wh/kg, the Model 3 is closer to 170wh/kg at the pack level. That is >40% increase. Assuming that the car industry will indeed be pushing forward with EVs as they have mentioned (this seems more likely based on recent developments), much greater R&D efforts will be made on a global scale to improve energy density.

Sigh... Lithium-ion in lab has always been 250, but it appears you were grown yesterday and haven't actually used the old squishy thin packs which get far higher Wh/kg.  Once again, there is this thing called REALITY of battery cases, fuses, BMS.  Tesla simply did what any manufacturing engineer would do, made a new cell which optimized weight of battery case to capacity.  In this case, a slightly larger cell which minimizes the case weight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Sigh... Lithium-ion in lab has always been 250, but it appears you were grown yesterday and haven't actually used the old squishy thin packs which get far higher Wh/kg.  Once again, there is this thing called REALITY of battery cases, fuses, BMS.  Tesla simply did what any manufacturing engineer would do, made a new cell which optimized weight of battery case to capacity.  In this case, a slightly larger cell which minimizes the case weight. 

I suggest you stop sighing and instead spend some time looking at available research on the subject or provide some evidence to support your claims. Anyone can check what I have said, on the other hand there is no discernible evidence to corroborate your statements. Here is what a 2 minute search revealed:

https://arena.gov.au/blog/arenas-role-commercialising-big-batteries/

This also displays the cost reduction.

Here is the information on Forbes if you prefer:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/04/01/why-energy-storage-may-be-the-most-important-technology-in-the-world-right-now/

So according to the chart 250wh/kg has been around since about 2014. That's probably based on lab results so the lab results at 300wh/kg are likely to lead to vehicles with such energy densities by 2025, maybe even earlier.

Edited by David Jones
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

37 minutes ago, David Jones said:

I suggest you stop sighing and instead spend some time looking at available research on the subject or provide some evidence to support your claims. Anyone can check what I have said, on the other hand there is no discernible evidence to corroborate your statements. Here is what a 2 minute search revealed:

https://arena.gov.au/blog/arenas-role-commercialising-big-batteries/

This also displays the cost reduction.

Here is the information on Forbes if you prefer:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/04/01/why-energy-storage-may-be-the-most-important-technology-in-the-world-right-now/

So according to the chart 250wh/kg has been around since about 2014. That's probably based on lab results so the lab results at 300wh/kg are likely to lead to vehicles with such energy densities by 2025, maybe even earlier.

Poor baby, now that you are what? 25 years old, you think because you finally discovered a battery in the last couple of years because Musk became your buddy, that this tech hasn't been around for 20+++ years.  Power density has been known for a very long time.  Getting a working solution which can be crashed, does not explode and catch fire is another story.  I still keep most of my Li-io batteries outside and have done so for 2 decades now.  Had 2 burst and one catch fire.  NMC which IS new, solved the durability problem, but its Wh/Kg sucks compared to the old cells.  What you are claiming as "advances" are only advances for NMC which is catching up with old lithium. 

Kid, world did not start yesterday.  Cathode/Anode will get better.  theoretical maximums are still that until a new chemistry is developed.... and none on horizon

Since you LOVE headline BS... Boeing, 787. 2005 settled on the battery had problems later.... do you think they invented it?  HAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 

Been using Lithium-ion in RC airplanes going on 25 years now.  Power density has actually gone down, Charge rate gone up, but the batteries are safer.  Hell, you can't even buy the flimsy lithium ion single cells anymore. 

Same damned song and dance. 

Edited by Wastral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

56 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Poor baby, now that you are what? 25 years old, you think because you finally discovered a battery in the last couple of years because Musk became your buddy, that this tech hasn't been around for 20+++ years.  Power density has been known for a very long time.  Getting a working solution which can be crashed, does not explode and catch fire is another story.  I still keep most of my Li-io batteries outside and have done so for 2 decades now.  Had 2 burst and one catch fire.  NMC which IS new, solved the durability problem, but its Wh/Kg sucks compared to the old cells.  What you are claiming as "advances" are only advances for NMC which is catching up with old lithium. 

Kid, world did not start yesterday.  Cathode/Anode will get better.  theoretical maximums are still that until a new chemistry is developed.... and none on horizon

Since you LOVE headline BS... Boeing, 787. 2005 settled on the battery had problems later.... do you think they invented it?  HAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 

Been using Lithium-ion in RC airplanes going on 25 years now.  Power density has actually gone down, Charge rate gone up, but the batteries are safer.  Hell, you can't even buy the flimsy lithium ion single cells anymore. 

Same damned song and dance. 

Insults, taunting and capital letters, same song and dance indeed but not the way you seem to think. You're completely wrong about my age btw, I've been around for quite some time.

What exactly was it that you did not comprehend in that chart that is posted above or do you somehow think that your subjective experience is more valid than actual research on the matter? The red line in the graph seems perfectly visible. I don't think I ever said that lithium-ion started yesterday.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612614/a-long-awaited-battery-that-could-cut-ev-costs-may-finally-be-near/

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/26/24m-ships-first-high-energy-density-semi-solid-state-batteries/

http://s21.q4cdn.com/566123494/files/doc_presentations/Corporate-Presentation-August-2018.pdf

According to the above, there are at least 2 different companies that have reached >250wh/kg in the lab and are working towards higher densities. I wonder what your definition is for "on the horizon".

Since you are talking about planes (comparing toys to EVs really but let's not get off track), here is the opinion of a professional in the Aerospace industry:

https://www.mro-network.com/engines-engine-systems/how-batteries-need-develop-match-jet-fuel

Some of what is said above:

[For example, all-electric propulsion for a 12-passenger aircraft flying a 500-nm mission would require battery power density capability to improve by a factor of approximately six times, says White. “We expect this to continue to improve, since so many companies are investing in battery research and development,” he says. “In fact, current projections show the power density of batteries improving by a factor of three times over the next 10 years.”]

[“The technology has improved rapidly over recent years due to investment by automotive players to develop electric vehicles (EV),” he says. “Future production of EVs is also expected to lead to continued advancement in technology, improvement in densities and reductions in cost.”]

Edited by David Jones
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn.....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Wastral said:

BEV's leveling the grid.  WHat hogwash. 

Actually, to a large degree than can level the grid. The why.

BEVs typically charge in the wee hours in the night when the grid strains to unload electricity. They consume during the hours when the grid is maxed out. To they serve to load shift.

You can also set up EVs to be storage that feed the actual grid. It increases the cost of a charging station, really kind of silly for most. 

So theoretically it works to level the grid. I don't buy that, but it is a bit of load shifting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, David Jones said:

blah blah, unicorn farts

The chemistry determines its power density.  Difference between lead acid, gel, AGM, Carbon Foam... All have have ~ same power density, some are slightly better than others.  By the way, Firefly Carbon Foam batteries are the best in the world in terms of $$$/KWh with high cycle life and are 50% cheaper than Lithium..

Here in reality(Does not have new NMC(200+ Wh/kg.): https://www.batteryspace.com/li-ionsinglecell.aspx

We have been using lithium poly for 25 years at over 200Wh/kg. 

Theoretical for lithium chem is around 250.  You can dance around this number +/- 30%, but no new chemistry on horizon

PS: learn how to read.  A capacitor is not a battery. 

 

Edited by Wastral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

24 minutes ago, Wastral said:

The chemistry determines its power density.  Difference between lead acid, gel, AGM, Carbon Foam... All have have ~ same power density, some are slightly better than others.  By the way, Firefly Carbon Foam batteries are the best in the world in terms of $$$/KWh with high cycle life and are 50% cheaper than Lithium..

Here in reality(Does not have new NMC(200+ Wh/kg.): https://www.batteryspace.com/li-ionsinglecell.aspx

We have been using lithium poly for 25 years at over 200Wh/kg. 

Theoretical for lithium chem is around 250.  You can dance around this number +/- 30%, but no new chemistry on horizon

PS: learn how to read.  A capacitor is not a battery. 

 

Lol, it's like your brain is frozen in time. Apparently, your opinion and some random website that sell standard market batteries is more accurate about the current state of research on batteries than the actual articles assessing this as well as an Aerospace military contractor, Collins Aerospace president for power and controls

Edited by David Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, David Jones said:

Lol, it's like your brain is frozen in time. Apparently, your opinion and some random website that sell standard market batteries is more accurate about the current state of research on batteries than the actual articles assessing this as well as an Aerospace military contractor, Collins Aerospace president for power and controls

Yes, far more relevant as THEY are the ones selling batteries to Collins Aerospace.  That and a subject called Chemistry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wastral said:

Yes, far more relevant as THEY are the ones selling batteries to Collins Aerospace.  That and a subject called Chemistry

Yes, because you are an insider at Collins Aerospace and know their purchasing strategy.

Either way, it looks like I'm just talking to a wall here so there's no point in wasting more time on this "conversation". We will see what happens by 2025. My bet is that we will have EVs with ranges approaching or even exceeding 400 miles by then.

You can argue your delusions on what has happened during the last decades in terms of wh/kg all you want but you cannot argue an increase in range with lower price for the vehicle. Ultimately, that's what counts regardless of how it was achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Jones said:

Yes, because you are an insider at Collins Aerospace and know their purchasing strategy.

Either way, it looks like I'm just talking to a wall here so there's no point in wasting more time on this "conversation". We will see what happens by 2025. My bet is that we will have EVs with ranges approaching or even exceeding 400 miles by then.

You can argue your delusions on what has happened during the last decades in terms of wh/kg all you want but you cannot argue an increase in range with lower price for the vehicle. Ultimately, that's what counts regardless of how it was achieved.

What? You finally admitted reality?  $$$ is what matters?  Damn, did the unicorn farts get blown out the airlock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.