EV Breakthrough?

From a recent article on this site:

Battery Breakthrough Solves Major Electric Car Problemhttps://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Battery-Breakthrough-Solves-Major-Electric-Car-Problem.html

I find this hard to believe. After all the millions of dollars spent on battery research, a simple coating is a 'breakthrough' in the EV realm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it is true. 

Time will tell I guess. If it is some opinions on this forum start to seem luddite. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

From a recent article on this site:

Battery Breakthrough Solves Major Electric Car Problemhttps://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Battery-Breakthrough-Solves-Major-Electric-Car-Problem.html

I find this hard to believe. After all the millions of dollars spent on battery research, a simple coating is a 'breakthrough' in the EV realm?

This issue around coatings on electrodes has been known about for years. The breakthrough is a solution that has longevity. 

If they resolve this one on Aluminium - air batteries it will be bye bye ICE in 10-20 years time because those batteries can hold 2kwh /kg. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I hope it is true. 

Time will tell I guess. If it is some opinions on this forum start to seem luddite. 

Now now. 

I was confidentially informed on forums like these a decade ago that wind and solar would never supply more than 1% of global electricity.....

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Battery Breakthrough Solves Major Electric Car Problemhttps://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Battery-Breakthrough-Solves-Major-Electric-Car-Problem.html 

I find this hard to believe. After all the millions of dollars spent on battery research, a simple coating is a 'breakthrough' in the EV realm?

Its hard to make any evaluation from the article. It doesn't say what cost advantage the battery has - how much cheaper would it be than an ordinary battery and at what cost/benefit to the battery's performance. It just says this approach makes the battery better and we're given the impression that the improvement is significant. Well, okay, let's suspend judgement until these guys and their backers produce something for the market.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickW said:

I was confidentially informed on forums like these a decade ago that wind and solar would never supply more than 1% of global electricity.....

Yes, at the time no-one really suspected that green mania would result in such an enormous subsidies, both direct and through legal mandates, for wind and solar.. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Yes, at the time no-one really suspected that green mania would result in such an enormous subsidies, both direct and through legal mandates, for wind and solar.. 

The subsidies are just to even up the score card because fossil fuels don't adequately cover externality costs such as damage to health and the environment

On the subject of fossil fuel subsidies want to have a guess at how much govt subsidy went into the building of oil infrastructure, particularly pipelines, propping up the coal industry, and best of all the dinothorian sums pumped into nuclear? 

Finally many forms of renewables don't need subsidy - particularly solar. Even in the UK solar can stand on its own two feet - in the case of domestic installations there just needs to be fair access to the grid (similar to what I had in WA) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickW said:

On the subject of fossil fuel subsidies want to have a guess at how much govt subsidy went into the building of oil infrastructure, particularly pipelines, propping up the coal industry, and best of all the dinothorian sums pumped into nuclear? 

Finally many forms of renewables don't need subsidy - particularly solar. Even in the UK solar can stand on its own two feet - in the case of domestic installations there just needs to be fair access to the grid (similar to what I had in WA) 

Again, sorry, but this is mostly fantasy. When you see estimates of "subsidies" for fossil fuels those compiling such estimates are forced to put in stuff like supposed damage to the environment and tax concessions available to all industries and the like. There is no need for the government to prop them up, and never has been. If renewable industries don't need subsidies then great, why not stop assistance to them? We can agree on that. Stop the feed in tariffs and assistance that has resulted in large numbers of domestic installations then see what happens? Leave it with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, markslawson said:

Again, sorry, but this is mostly fantasy. When you see estimates of "subsidies" for fossil fuels those compiling such estimates are forced to put in stuff like supposed damage to the environment and tax concessions available to all industries and the like. There is no need for the government to prop them up, and never has been. If renewable industries don't need subsidies then great, why not stop assistance to them? We can agree on that. Stop the feed in tariffs and assistance that has resulted in large numbers of domestic installations then see what happens? Leave it with you. 

First point - I have never argued that renewables didn't need subsidy to gain the economy of scale to compete with FF. With wind and particularly solar we have seen the equivalent of Moores Law at work reducing the cost of a watt of capacity as production scales up to the point where solar and onshore wind are now broadly comparable in cost to fossil fuels. EV's are now getting similar support on the same basis in many jurisdictions.

Oil and Gas got major help from governments in its early days - the building of refined products pipelines across countries were largely undertaken with public funds. The Oil did not have to fund these directly. Coal has been heavily assisted, particularly in Europe to help manage the decline. Nuclear - well that sector has huge subsidy as we all know.

In the UK feed in tariffs are gone for new installations. I don't object to that however the government could at least permit the sale of surplus power at wholesale prices and give domestic consumers the VAT back on installations (as they do to businesses). One way of getting round the free export quandary is to fit a diverter to send surplus power to a hot water cylinder - that's what I'm going to do.

As said before the full externality costs of fossil fuels (I'm primarily talking health here) are not adequately costed. I know this being OIl Price .Com there will be a flat of denial that airborne NOX, particulates, Mercury, Chlorine compounds, Cadnium, Arsenic, Uranium, hydrocarbons, tropospheric Ozone, Sulphur Dioxide, respirable silicates etc etc etc have any health effects but in the real World there is a general acceptance (based on science) that these substances have negative health effects on exposed populations.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2019 at 3:22 AM, NickW said:

If they resolve this one on Aluminium - air batteries it will be bye bye ICE in 10-20 years time because those batteries can hold 2kwh /kg.

If that happens(we can all hope as reliability of everything will massively increase), airplanes become viable leaving only LONG range aircraft which will require Kerosene.  That and ships. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0