New battery technology will be great – if it is viable

As the owner of an electric car, I’m very focused on the energy density, cost per kWh, longevity, and performance of batteries. The technology of batteries is phenomenally primitive, so you’d think there’d be low-hanging fruit out there. However, I am even more aware of the flood of press releases that, in the end, serve as little more than grantsmanship.
I’ll delve into this study, mainly because of the credibility that WUWT has achieved with me. But I’ll do so with low expectations and high skepticism. That said, cheap, effective , high-performance energy storage would definitely be a game-changer of historic importance, be it grid-level or portable.

The first thing to point out is that these batteries have a very low energy density, although actual figures are not provided, and are not suitable for automobiles. The second problem is that
batteries can displace energy from one part of the day to another, but that doesn’t solve the unreliability characteristics of solar or wind energy. These power sources can die off for days or weeks, far beyond the storage capacity of any battery system, and even if there existed a large capacity, exactly how are you going to replenish it and at the same time provide power from the solar/wind source? While in a desert solar power be pretty much guaranteed, but it only takes a couple of cloudy days to require backup power generation capacity. In general, if a renewable source is interrupted, that means your system is not providing enough energy. Batteries don’t solve that problem, since they cannot generate electricity by themselves. I would say that , at most, storage systems prevent the grid operator from having to throw away power or power
controllable sources up and down, but a lot depends upon the percentage that comes from renewable sources – the greater the percentage, the bigger the problems.
Now for some REALLY exciting battery news – here we’re talking Ryden dual carbon (eventually organic) cotton batteries from Japan Power Plus and a Japanese university after 7 years of development.
http://powerjapanplus.com/
These batteries , which have an energy density equal to current li ion batteries used in Tesla cars, are the answer to every prayer (except perhaps cost, which will not exceed current batteries
but is otherwise unknown). These batteries can be recharged 3000 times before they even begin
to detriorate (if in a auto with a 300 mile pack, would last over 900,000 miles before beginning to deteriorate), can be recharged 20 TIMES FASTER THAN lithium batteries (in a couple of minutes) , can be discharged completely without damaging the cell (which destroys a Tesla battery pack) ,
allowing greater actual capacity, are impossible to catch fire or explode (don’t require heavy metal container) , do not vary thermally when charged or discharged (don’t need a cooling system, as Tesla uses and can accept 100% of electricity fed to them , unlike the 85% that actually gets into a Tesla battery ). Team TAISAN of Japan, which has won LeMans races
and worked with electric cars, is now about to test the batteries in a go-kart in August, followed by
testing in one of their race cars. It won’t be long before the world will know whether we have a
perfect battery or not with the Ryden. Price may be,as usual, the killer, but if the battery pack can be quickly recharged, then you can get by with a lot smaller battery pack. The Tesla Model S
battery pack , for example (cost – around $38,000) holds 85 kWhrs and can do 250 miles around town, but on the highway roughly 210 miles and requires over an hour at a super charger station to recharge. It has actually too much capacity for around town driving but not so much for an extended trip. A fast recharging battery would allow the owner to get by with a smaller battery
pack. And since the Ryden can be fully discharged without harm, a Ryden battery with the same nominal capacity as a Tesla battery actually has 10% more usuable capacity and 10% greater
driving range. Here’s hoping it works as advertised and is not too expensive. If cheap enough,
that’s the end of gas powered vehicles, by and large.

I was looking at UK power generation grid statistics today and noticed the massive swings in wind generation statistics between Summer and Winter. So my question about these batteries is how big would they actually be to smooth out the flow from wind generation. Of course you would have to store the power for several months!! Does this really make sense?

Col Mosby says:
June 25, 2014 at 6:52 pm
“If cheap enough,
that’s the end of gas powered vehicles, by and large.”
Although I confess I didn’t read the article in detail, I didn’t see any discussion of vehicle range vs temperature which restricts range in cold climates. I also assume all specified ranges are without the use of auxiliary equipment such as air conditioning which can also significantly restrict range. Niche markets already exist for electric vehicles and will in all probability expand. Unless I missed something in these discussions, IMO nothing here gives reason to believe electric vehicles will significantly expand beyond niche markets in the foreseeable future.

The first thing to point out is that these batteries have a very low energy density, although actual figures are not provided, and are not suitable for automobiles.
I didn’t see any mention of cars, so it doesn’t surprise me.
batteries can displace energy from one part of the day to another, but that doesn’t solve the unreliability characteristics of solar or wind energy. These power sources can die off for days or weeks, far beyond the storage capacity of any battery system
Perhaps true, but depending on the specifics on this kind of battery, it could still (at least theoeretically) have a big impact on the dispatchability issue, if not, say, an extended period of calm winds.
even if there existed a large capacity, exactly how are you going to replenish it and at the same time provide power from the solar/wind source?
If I understand the question correctly, the battery gets replenished during times of high production (i.e. at night with wind) and discharged during times of high demand. Wouldn’t the purpose be to level out short-term production fluctuations? Yes, I realize that longer-term fluctuations are a different issue, but “dispatchability” has a major short-term component, no?

And what would be the cost and land area taken up to store a few weeks worth of energy equivalent to the output from a power station?
Hard to imagine this being a big issue given the application to renewables. Surely there’s enough room within most windmill farms for them.

Price may be,as usual, the killer, but if the battery pack can be quickly recharged, then you can get by with a lot smaller battery pack. The Tesla Model S battery pack , for example (cost – around $38,000) holds 85 kWhrs and can do 250 miles around town, but on the highway roughly 210 miles and requires over an hour at a super charger station to recharge. It has actually too much capacity for around town driving but not so much for an extended trip. A fast recharging battery would allow the owner to get by with a smaller battery pack.
Sorry, but this is an issue that I am quite deeply familiar with.
There are 168,000 gas stations in America. There are 100 Tesla “superchargers,” most located along interstate freeways. The car’s range to prudent refill is anywhere from 160 miles to 220 miles depending on weather. And a lot less if the temperature is below zero.
Yes, Tesla’s $100,000 car has a great range for around town. More than adequate in most cases. But when it comes to road trips, it’s a very different story, the promotional excursions by enthusiasts notwithstanding.
EVs currently occupy a very small niche of enthusiasts, early adopters, and status-symbol display. To become viable city commuter vehicles, they need much bigger batteries than today’s 24 kWh battery in the Nissan LEAF, the largest selling EV. In my view, a minimum of 60 kWh is needed — and at a far lower cost per kWh than today’s models.
The publicity and niche enthusiasm for EVs has greatly outstripped the practical realities. As the owner of an EV and a standard gas-powered vehicle, I am aware of the differences and similarities in great detail. Electric power is about three times as efficient as gasoline power, because not nearly as much energy is coverted to heat and sent out through the engine, tailpipe, and radiator. However, the cost of batteries is sky-high, and the energy density is very low.
This includes Tesla’s halo car, whose basic difference with a Nissan LEAF is a much bigger battery and therefore a far higher sticker price. EVs are a game of battery energy density and cost, period. We’re not there yet, as far as the mainstream car market is concerned.

“The batteries last for about 5,000 recharge cycles, giving them an estimated 15-year lifespan,” “Lithium ion batteries degrade after around 1,000 cycles, and cost 10 times more to manufacture.”
In terms of watt-hour/$, lead acid is a fraction of the cost of lithium ion. In other words, they start out by comparing themselves to the most expensive (in terms of energy stored for a given amount of money) instead of the least expensive, to create the impression of a quantum leap when none exists. Not to mention that if they actually had something as viable as they claim, they’d be quietly patenting their $1 Trillion dollar idea, not publishing papers about it. My expectation is that this is press release to secure more funding by creating the impression of a quantum leap where none exists.
This is right up there with the MIT under water spheres. Lotsa hype but when you look at the actual numbers, nothing but an academic exercise with zero practical value. I’d LOVE to be wrong about this. I just don’t think I am.

I did not read the article, but so far in the comments there are very few numbers. If this really works, the cost will probably drop considerably, and the efficiency will increase somewhat. But for right now, what is the capacity in kilowatt hours per kilogram? Yes, include the fluids and the hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery
Here is a decent starting point. Note that in terms of energy stored per kilogram, Lithium Ion beats lead acid hands down. But in terms of energy stored per dollar, lead acid is 2.5:1 or better than Lithium. Bulk storage for wind farms is NOT about energy/kilogram, it is about energy/dollar. So why didn’t they compare themselves to the lowest energy/dollar technology?
One can conclude that they are either too incompetent to understand which economics are important for this application, are that they are being deliberately misleading. I allow that there may be other options, I just can’t think of one.

If you read the conclusions in the paper, they use words like “This opens up the door for research…” and ” We have demonstrated the feasibility…”.
Having read so many promises of energy breakthroughs, I share the skepticism expressed by Anthony and others. It sounds like the research is not anywhere finished and more $$$ are needed. DUH
For those who believe that these batteries connected with electricity from an intermittent wind turbine will replace gasoline powered cars, the grid is already under stress with the shutdown of reliable high density electricity coal powered and nuclear plants just to meet current demand. Also as indicated , private companies have developed over a number of years an extensive refueling grid for the gas and diesel powered auto/truck to travel all over the country. Are you willing to invest a Huge amount of tax dollars to replace a system that is working quite well?
Finally having gone through 1 week or more power outage, 2 times in the last 3 years, I think I’ll stick to a gasoline engine for my main vehicle. Does anyone report the miles in an electric vehicle in a cold climate when the heater is blasting, the wipers and lights are on driving home from work in a snowstorm which might take 3 hrs to make a 30 minute trip?

During December and January In the valleys of southeastern Washington state we can go weeks with no wind and heavy fog from temperature inversions. To tide us over, batteries accompanying our wind farms would match the size of large water tanks.

So, Jake, I suggest you use your wisdom to make the technology of batteries “phenomenally UNPRIMITIVE”. Have you ever even built a battery from scratch, you know specify/buy some materials (hint, there is basically one column in the table of elements that contains good materials for batteries, perhaps you could expand the table by discovering “Light Lithium”), process them, assemble them, charge them up, do some life testing ???? I suspect NOT.
No need to “suspect” anything. I never claimed I could do it. I’m just carping from the sidelines, like any good American.
Disclaimer, I do not now and never have designed a battery, I have designed systems that use batteries, and I believe the battery designers when they tell me I cannot pack the power output of a modern electrical power plant into my pocket in a AA battery. But, those guys are so “primitive”, HECK ONLY THE WHOLE WORLD (well those of us fortunate enough to have a modern electrical system) HAVE BEEN RELYING ON THEIR ELECTRICITY FOR A CENTURY OR SO
You seem vehement. And condescending. Do you live in London?

Finally having gone through 1 week or more power outage, 2 times in the last 3 years, I think I’ll stick to a gasoline engine for my main vehicle. Does anyone report the miles in an electric vehicle in a cold climate when the heater is blasting, the wipers and lights are on driving home from work in a snowstorm which might take 3 hrs to make a 30 minute trip?
At this point, I wouldn’t rely solely on an EV for more reasons than one. Mine wouldn’t go for 3:30 even at the height of summer. In any case, the answer to your question is — between 1.5 and 2 miles per kWh.
I like my EV, but I would never, ever portray it as anything more than an in-town runabout. That much said, as an in-town runabout in Seattle, it really does do the trick. Trust me, this is not to try and order anyone to get one. The long story is longer, and waaaaaaay too boring, so I’ll end here. Bottom line: I ain’t smug about it at all.

Bart says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:01 am
I’m not any kind of authority on battery tech. However, it seems to me that there is a commonly overlooked hazard to these type things. I.e., how do you ensure that massive amounts of stored energy do not get released suddenly, with catastrophic effect?

That can be a serious consideration with batteries and capacitors, once they start to store seriously useful energy densities. Ask Boeing.
Such self-discharge cannot readily occur with the type described here because it is of the flow-cell type which requires an active movement of reacting chemicals which can be stored well apart: A sealed tank of fuel cannot burn without oxygen [hydrocarbons are a marvellous high-density way of storing energy for as long as required].
In this case there is also a large amount of water already present. That which makes it less useful and less ‘interesting’ also makes it safe from a fire/explosion point of view.

Redox flow batteries are not a new idea. Only suitable for grid storage. There are several inorganic chemistries. Organic quinones are a newer idea, first published by Harvard some months ago.
There are no grid stabilizing flow batteries in operation without massive federal subsidies as experiments. They are quite expensive (cost more than convention [peak] load [gas] turbine) and the numerous pilot scale facilities have suffered from severe reliability problems.
There will be a chapter on this in the forthcoming book, based on the California grid storage mandate (1.2 Gw installed by 2020) for which no commercial technologies yet exist. And the way the mandate was written, the Eagle Crest pumped storage proposal is excluded, despite using abandoned mines (utter waste land) and being less than 10 miles from an existing transmission line corridor (no additional land use impact). Chapter is titled California Dreaming.

Brian S says: June 26, 2014 at 4:47 am
I have not yet seen pumped storage mentioned on WUWT as an energy storage option .
_________________________________
Been mentioned several times.
Pumped storage is efficient and simple. Dinorwig is the UKs largest, and it cost a fortune to build. It gives 5 gwh on discharge. The trouble is, we would need 5,000 Dinorwigs, to power the UK for a couple of weeks.
Several problems with that.
a. One Dinorwig nearly bankrupted the energy corporation, let alone 5,000 of them.
b. The greens forced Dinorwig to be built inside a mountain, quintupling its cost.
c. Everywhere you want to build a Dinorwig, the Greens will find an endangered species.
d. There are simply not enough mountains in the UK – especially if Scotland votes for independence.
e. The greens support Scottish independence.
f. The biggest hurdle for creating pumped storage systems, is the Greens.
.
Someone also mentioned the power generation requirements for going to electric transport. As a general rule of thumb, you need to double your electrical generation capacity, to run all your surface transport by electrical power.
But do remember that neither electricity not hydrogen is a power source. So all electric vehicles are currently oil, nuclear, coal or gas powered (with 2% renewables). And since the generation of electricity from fossils is hardly efficient, most european turbo-diesel powered cars are MORE efficient than any electric vehicle. My turbo diesel saloon car, is about 10% more efficient than any electrical vehicle – especially when the ambient temperature goes below zero and you try using the heating systems (my diesel car’s heating is via waste energy, so does not reduce propulsionary efficiency).
And please also do note that the efficiency analysis of electric vehicles by Professor David MacKay (the UK government’s energy advisor) is a compendium of lies and disinformation. Prof MacKay says that electric vehicles are 5 times as efficient as fossil fuelled vehicles. But the deliberately deceitful professor has negated to take power station and transmission inefficiencies into account. he has been notified of his error, and admitted his (deliberate) error many years ago, but has declined to rectify and update his briefing paper to UK politicians.
Let me say it here. Professor David macKay is a charlatan and a fraud, who is seeking to deliberately mislead British politicians. Please note – this statement is nothing to do with Mr Anthony Watts nor with WUWT. It is my statement and my accusation. I have said it before, and been threatened with court action by Prof MacKay, but no action has ever been taken. So where is your action, Prof MacKay? You are a charlatan and a fraud, and I am happy to see you in court.
Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis

For mobile applications I think Mr Wright at wrightspeed.com has the “right” idea (I know, groan, but I couldn’t resist). Electric motors have some nice features like max torque at the low end (to get moving) but range has always been a problem. Put in a diesel generator and you have unlimited range. Use the sun and wind to generate diesel which will store for a considerable time. I know you would lose more energy in the extra conversion step but it beats trying to store electricity.
For stationary applications where size can be huge why not use the nickle-iron that is mentioned above?

I thought we were supposed to use the area between the windmills for farming and ranching?
Ever been to a windmill field?

I meant to add one more thing. There are 250 million passenger vehicles in the United States. Full conversion — implying the 13,000-mile annual mileage scenario — would thus entail an electric power demand increase of about 25%. I might also point out, however, that it would also entail a reduction of 60% in the use of oil, the 60% being the share of U.S. oil converted into gasoline. I don’t have the number for diesel.
On the diesel front, I’d expect long-haul trucks to continue to burn diesel. But that, of course, would depend on the specifics of battery development. Again, this is all assuming a battery breakthrough. Frankly, I don’t see one coming of the sort that would crack the market wide open. Lots of press releases, but not a lot of new products out there.

A few additions about the numbers in my last post.
1. They come from the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department. EPA fuel economy numbers were originally somewhat inaccurate but have gotten much better in recent years. Energy Department forecasts tend to stink, but their production data is highly reliable.
2. The fuel economy numbers are best understood as year-’round averages, taking into account the use of on-board climate control. Obviously, this will vary in a country as vast and climactically diverse as the United States, which is to say that the results for Los Angeles would be very different than those for Minneapolis. Here in Seattle, my “dead of winter” EV fuel economy is just under 70 miles per gallon equivalent, versus top of spring/summer fuel economy of just under 140 miles per gallon equivalent.
3. When I compare hydrocarbon to electric propulsion, I omit the energy costs prior to refining, and within the refinery — with one exception that I get to in a moment. I do this because the data isn’t available, and because it would have to be applied on both sides of the equation anyway. The exception is the amount of electricity used to refine gasoline. This has been hotly debated in EV circles, so I nailed it down by examining production figures in detail. A gallon of gasoline turns out to “contain” 0.78 kWh of electricity from sources external to a refinery — either purchased electricity or fuels turned into electricity in turbines located at the refinery. It winds up being a trivial factory, but since I did the research I do include it in “mpg-e” numbers.
The idea that a diesel (or gasoline) vehicle is “more efficient” than an electric one because electricity is generated by fossil fuels is interesting. True, we can expect that electric power plants convert coal, gas, and uranium-plutonium to electrons at less than full efficiency, but we can also expect that refineries lose a great deal of energy in the distillation process. If you have sources that compare one to the other, I’d love to see them.

Let’s assume the batteries are toxic. So what?

I didn’t see one word about energy density, in Wh / kg or Wh /m^3.
Energy density is discussed throughout the study.

I think fuel cells are a real joke. As for batteries being primitive, well, other than lithium-ion, we really haven’t had much by way of breakthroughs. Maybe we never will.
As for transmission losses, most of the U.S. windmills are in three places: the Columbia River, California, and Texas. A fair amount of Columbia River hydro (not sure how much of its wind power) goes to Los Angeles. If the lines from the converter at The Dalles, for instance, lose 18%-23% on the way to L.A., I’d be interested in seeing something that would substantiate it, i.e. a link. I’d note that one-third of suburban Seattle’s electricity comes from a big coal plant 900 miles away in Montana, so I suppose we could assume similar transmission losses there.
In any case, I am not a fan of windmills. I think they’re an ugly blight, and at the very least I want them sited in places with no scenic value. But I think conflating them with transmission losses is misleading, just as it would be bogus to argue against Puget Sound Energy’s coal plant because it’s so far away.

Something else about wind and EVs.
I don’t see any inherent connection at all. I look at the grid and its sources. I view EVs as another appliance that gets plugged in. If there were 100 million or 250 million of them, I think much of the charging would be done at night, and perhaps that could be more likely satisfied by wind, but once the electrons are in the system they’re not labeled.
As I wrote earlier, we’re not going top have 100 million (or more EVs) without big advancements beyond lithium-ion, and I tend to think that if that happens, we’ll also see movement at the grid level. Which would mean little, if any differentiation between power sources depending on time of day. Grid-scale storage would enable “night-time solar” and “day-time wind,” regardless of when the energy was generated.

The downside is the energy density will be at best a tenth of a tankful of liquid fuel, so it would make little sense for vehicles, since the tank would have to be ten times bigger than your gas tank is now. With lots of extra weight to carry around.
A couple things to remember.
1. An electric vehicle gets 3 to 3-1/2 times the mileage as an equivalent gas car. So the “10 times” becomes 3 times.
2. Acceptable commuter car range is half that of a full-service car, maybe even less. So now we’re down to a battery that’s maybe 50% bigger than a gas tank.
If the performance characteristics were acceptable, i.e. rate of current flow, speed of recharging, then (at least in theory) this battery sounds like a potential quantum leap for EVs. Devil’s in the details, of course.

However, most people will plug them in as soon as they get home from work, so they will begin charging in the evening when the residential electric demand is approaching it’s evening peak.
I’ve owned an EV for 19 months. Please believe me when I say this is not some exercise in smugness. I’m a car nut and a curious sort, and got the thing in a bankruptcy close-out sale. Anyway, the earliest I can ever recall plugging it in is 5:30 p.m., but it’s much more common to plug it in at 10 or 11 p.m.
If we get 100 million of them out there, I think the re-charging patterns will change. It would depend heavily on battery capacity and recharge rates. Today’s new EVs will charge off of an electric dryer circuit at a rate of about 6.5 kWh per hour, which will fill today’s Nissan LEAF from 20% to 100% of capacity just over 3 hours.
I think the commuter car market will need a battery of at least 60 kwh — and much cheaper than today’s batteries — to go mainstream. If we had a cheap 60 kWh battery, an 80% charge would be a 7-1/4 hour charge, and would last for a year-’round average of 140 miles. Which means that a typical commuter would recharge it maybe three times every two weeks. Probably overnight, and probably from the electric dryer circuit (240v, 30 amp rated).
Anything larger than that would need special wiring, or one of those Tesla “super chargers.” I don’t think widespread commuter car adoption, presuming 60 kWh batteries, would change current charging patterns much — 90%+ of charging is done at home, off of 240 volt wiring.
What would change things would be general purpose EVs with larger batteries and therefore longer ranges. At that point, you’d see a spread of those Tesla-style “superchargers,” which today are few and far between and exist mostly for promotional purposes. Put people in EVs all over the place, and you’d see more high-power daytime charging. But that’s all theoretical, because I really don’t think we’re going to see EVs in the general purpose car market for quite a while.
But I do think we’ll see then 60 kWh battery in the next five or six years, and at a lower price. I think commuter EVs will start becoming mainstream in the ’20s. If the battery we’re commenting on is real and could be adapted for EV use, it sounds like it’d be a pretty big deal.

Your “source” is a .gov website. They are NOT trustworthy with regard ANY information from this administration on ANY “factoid” promoting or promoted for/by/or from ANY of their energy management schemes.
Oh please. I own an EV, remember? The EPA fuel economy numbers are solid. There are some variations, of course, given the large regional climactic variations. And the DOE production numbers are reliable. An anti-government screed is no more credible than, say, the b.s. we’ve seen from the climate alarmists.
If you want to take issue with the EPA and DOE numbers I’ve been citing, I’m happy to listen, but you will have to come up with more than you cynicism about the Evil Gub’mint.

With all due respect, i find it very condescending that someone who has never even attempted to build a battery is quite sure that all the other folks that attempted said task only came up with “primitive” solutions. You admit that you have not and probably cannot build a battery, but you are quite smug asserting that those folks that attempted this “primate task” have FAILED.
And you also assert that these folks are “dummies” since they are way too stupid to look for the “low hanging fruit”
I plead Guilty As Hell to not being able to build a battery, but Innocent As The Pure Driven Snow to calling anyone “dummies.” The “primitive” label was meant to be purely descriptive, and not in any way judgmental. I am very, very grateful for the fruits of honest science and engineering. Now: Have I bowed and scraped and walked backwards enough for you?
I have never lived in London (fine city that it is, and hopefully always will be; “Our finest hour…” Winston somebody…)
Let’s Make A Deal: You don’t throw Churchill westward, and I don’t throw “we saved your asses” eastward. 🙂

Noaaprogrammer said:
“During December and January In the valleys of southeastern Washington state we can go weeks with no wind and heavy fog from temperature inversions. To tide us over, batteries accompanying our wind farms would match the size of large water tanks.”
Jake J said:
Call me wrong — please — but last time I looked, they were weren’t sticking the windmills in valleys. But if I’m wrong and they are doing that, what’s wrong with “the size of large water tanks” once you’ve ruined the landscape?
I’ll oblige: Jake, you are wrong. Valleys have rims over which wind may readily flow when present. River gorges through mountain ranges experience winds when the ranges momentarily separate significant pressure differentials. The Stateline Wind Farm which I see from my house in the Walla Walla Valley was one of the earliest (2001) large scale wind farms, and is destined to be the largest wind farm in the world with 365 turbines when completed. The farm is fed by winds from the Columbia Gorge.
(I’ll concede your comment “what’s wrong with ‘the size of large water tanks’ once you’ve ruined the landscape?” as I left out the qualifying phrase: “further ruining the landscape.”)

@SciGuy, very interesting! Thanks. If you have something “official,” I’d love to see it. This is not an to deflect or be dilatory. Rather, what you’ve provided is sufficiently important to want a second source. Thanks very much for the link.
By the way, with “solar photovoltaic,” it looks like they combined thin-film and silicon. Ther silicon-based cells are somewhere near 25% from what I understand, with thin-film about half that.

If you can’t store enough to never require a fossil plant to be in backup, what have you done except tear up more land and chop/fry more birds?
So you have a problem with frying birds?

Jake J:
At June 26, 2014 at 9:22 pm you say

Let’s Make A Deal: You don’t throw Churchill westward, and I don’t throw “we saved your asses” eastward. 🙂

OK. So, in addition to proclaiming your ignorance of technology, you also proclaim your ignorance of history and you insult many warriors – including Americans – who gave their lives for THEIR countries.
You get full marks for consistency.
Richard

george e. smith says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:22 pm

I didn’t see one word about energy density, in Wh / kg or Wh /m^3.
Ho hum, nothing to see here.

While energy density would be essential for a mobile power source to power a vehicle, it would not be essential for a stationary system to store industrial quantities of power. In an industrial system, if you need another acre, you can buy another acre. It affects the economics, but area would not be the expense that drives the economic analysis.

Jake J:
At June 27, 2014 at 10:30 am you say

@richard, you must be a Londoner! 🙂

Nope. I think that when the Almighty created the cosmos He made it stratified.
At the top He put Heaven with all the angels.
Below Heaven He put the Earth with all its people.
Below the Earth He put Hades with all the fallen angels.
And at the bottom, to hold the whole thing up, He put Greater London.
Richard

p.s.: I don’t wish to imply a lack of discipline on renewables. I’m just not sure that conversion rates necessarily compare well the fossil fuels and uranium. I think they need to be looked at somewhat differently.
Costs of inputs vs. value of output, i.e. “net present value,” is one parameter.
Another would be “net energy budget” — do you invest more energy in building, placing, and using a solar panel, wind turbine, or dam than you derive from it?
From what I understand, crude oil and uranium do very well on those parameters; wind does pretty well; solar positive, but less so. Conversion rates would obviously have a significant bearing on these calculations, but I still balk at the idea of, say, “scoring” a solar panel as 25% and a wind turbine at 35% and a dam at 90% for inclusion in an overall efficiency calculation for all electric generation. It seems like mixing apples and oranges.

@sciguy54, I’m interested in answering an efficiency question. Really, that’s all. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
In this case — same as when I talk to “EVangelists” who regard EVs as a holy grail solution to whatever ails them — I use the U.S. energy mix. This is a vast country with lots of variation. I could completely skew the numbers by using, West Virginia (all coal) or Seattle (all hydro and wind). What I’m trying to do is look at the question as if EVs were to become “mainstream” — distributed all over the place — at the current generation mix.
Yep, it’s theoretical, but I think it’s an o.k. question to ask. In doing so, I’m quite purposely avoiding any kind of value judgments about the fuels. Good God, that’s all everyone ever does here in Seattle. The question for virtue becomes nauseating. So for a brief, shining moment, I’ve decided to do my damndest to be clinically nerdy about it. 🙂

For the moment, the closest I think I’ve gotten is that EVs are 34% efficient and gas cars are 21% efficient, when the powerplant losses and refinery losses are accounted for. Diesel? Closest I can get is 31% efficient.

@ george e smith … let me try it a different way.
For EVs, I calculated the efficiency at the power plant level (44%), then multiplied it by the efficiency between the plug and wheels (77.5%) to get 34%.
For gas cars, there’s the efficiency at the refinery level (86%), multiplied by the efficiency in converting gasoline’s energy to motion (24%) to get 21%.
This assumes that a gas car is equivalent in performance (other than range) to an EV of similar size and weight.

One more thing. I re-checked, and refinery efficiency for gasoline production is 88%, not 86%. But I’ve been rounding to the nearest 1%, so the rounded numbers don’t change.

I’d like to point out that the research itself did not make the “non-toxic” claim. The press release did. It is easy to imagine the following:
1. The press release authors looked through the research — which is a difficult read for a non-specialist — and saw the mention of lower toxicitity; called the researchers; then overstated the case in the press release. It would appear, anyway, that while not being “non-toxic,” that this battery’s materials are a lot less toxic than other batteries.
2. The researchers never saw the press release before it went out, or were too busy to read it carefully.
In any case, I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to dismiss the research because of the overstated claim in the press release. I could change my opinion, of course, but that’s how it looks to me.

California is moving to a per mile road tax to replace gsoline taxes – Canada already has an inter provincial agreement raising the price of diesel so users pay comparable to gasoline per mile road taxes. With taxes equalizing costs, there are no advantages to electric except low end torque – for high end sports cars.
Three things.
1. If the per-mile tax is the same for all cars, then it won’t make much difference. My EV’s untaxed fuel cost in Seattle is 3.6 cents a mile, vs. 11.2 cents a mile for an equivalent gas car before the state’s gas tax.
2. Will CA offer a break for fuel economy, as current gas taxes do? In Washington State, EVs pay a $100 flat fee to make up for lost gas taxes, which is actually a big penalty relative to equivalent gas cars. If there’s a differential, and if EVs are evaluated on their mpg-e, they’ll do even better than if each mile driven pays the same tax.
3 The real danger of per-mile taxation is that it opens the door to all kinds of mischief with regard to time-of-day tolling and penalties for people who drive “too much,” etc. There are a significant contingent of a car-hating urbanists who simply do not want people to drive at all.