Electric car thread

[octave]

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

whose chemical composition is resistant to rapid exothermic decomposition.

Many EV manufacturers such as Tesla are moving towards  LiCo02 Lithium iron phosphate batteries. This should allay your fears.

 

Lithium iron phosphate battery

 

Personally, I would happily own a car with a Lithium-ion battery because the statistics suggest that fires are rare and that IC car fires (even spontaneous fires happen at a  greater rate.   US probes Hyundai, Kia recall into 6.4 million vehicles over fire risks

 

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

That " car heater " is so Old .

Don't they know we went " liquid fuel " years ago . LoL

spacesailor

[kgwilson]

You present people with verifiable facts and they still rabbit on about EVs bursting into flames or the risk is too high. Almost everyone has a lithium battery powered mobile phone not to mention the laptop & tablet plus a multitude of other battery powered tools, toys, watches & other items but put it in a car and that's different. Never mind the fact that they don't spontaneously combust, have a safety rating thousands of tomes better that the petrol or diesel car they currently drive. The world of battery powered and electric everything is here, like it or not.

[octave]

BYD breaks ground on its first sodium-ion EV battery plant

 

Less energy density but a third of the price.   

 

 

[Litespeed]

2 hours ago, octave said:

BYD breaks ground on its first sodium-ion EV battery plant

 

Less energy density but a third of the price.   

 

 

A perfect example of why batteries will not be the big problem we face. It's acceptance by the naysayers that holds us back.

 

These far cheaper packs mean home,farm, vechicle and other stationary applications become very affordable and will only keep getting better.

It could also mean electric mining equipment and trains become far more viable. Weight of packs can be a absolute advantage, they need weight added anyway- eg loaders,tractors excavators etc.

Also big developments are coming in ultra high density solid state batteries.

 

Technology is not the issue it's the politics and vested interests that are the greatest threat.

[pmccarthy]

The first electric locomotives were used underground in Australia in 1902. Most of the ore mined underground in Australia was hauled using lead-acid batteries until the 1970s. That technology was very mature. So it can be done.

[old man emu]

8 hours ago, Litespeed said:

Technology is not the issue it's the politics and vested interests that are the greatest threat.

I think it's about time we identified the faceless men we call the "vested interest".

 

At first thought, you'd think that the Leader of the mob was the petroleum corporations. But I think we have been led down the garden path and made to think that every drop of crude oil becomes petrol or diesel fuel. The unit of crude oil production is the "barrel" which contains 160 litres of crude oil. Of that it is usual to produce 75 litres of petrol and 45 of diesel. That's 3/4s of it. The other 1/4 goes elsewhere, like the wide variety of plastics and even things in our food. If EVs took over, there would still be a need for petroleum-based products for vehicles (tyres), or the chemical engineers could develop other useful products. Of course the reduced demand for petroleum fuels would hurt the producers for a few years, but they'd evolve as they have always done and remain profitable.

 

Another member of the mob has to be the vehicle manufacturers. Right now the big US manufacturers as closing down their EV production lines for simply basic economic reasons - the products of those line are not selling. It's no use making widgets if no one wants them. The vehicle manufacturers have shown that it does not take them long to respond to marketplace demands. Give them a demand and they will supply.

 

I can accept that the Western Economic model is based on short term profitability, and since the controllers of the petroleum and vehicle manufacturing sectors have been indoctrinated into that model, it will require a generational change in the mindset of places like the Harvard School of Business to instil the wisdom of obtaining smaller profit for longer as against the greed of large profit over the short term.

 

As for the politics of EVs, we have lived long enough to know that political decisions can be based on the whims of the people. Now, the whim of the people is being formed by Mankind's contribution to what might be natural planetary change, and the people's recognition that maybe they should sacrifice a bit of pleasure to contribute to the future survival of the species and to do their duty towards their lesser cognisant co-inhabitants.

[octave]

8 minutes ago, old man emu said:

The unit of crude oil production is the "barrel" which contains 160 litres of crude oil. Of that it is usual to produce 75 litres of petrol and 45 of diesel. That's 3/4s of it. The other 1/4 goes elsewhere, like the wide variety of plastics and even things in our food. If EVs took over, there would still be a need for petroleum-based products for vehicles (tyres), or the chemical engineers could develop other useful products. Of course the reduced demand for petroleum fuels would hurt the producers for a few years, but they'd evolve as they have always done and remain profitable.

 

This is true. We will probably continue to drill for oil for many years to come.   As you point out many of the things we use are made from crude oil.  Many of the chemicals, drugs, etc that we rely on come from oil. Oil is a remarkably useful substance, so why burn it if we don't have to?    The fact is that oil reserves are finite and whether you believe it or not releasing all the CO2 built up over millions of years in a few hundred years is a bad thing.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's a heap of sulphur in crude oil. About 9%. It's fairly benign till it's burned (in mainly Ship's Engines. Causes ACID rain and local air problems. Supposed to not be used near the shore. Nev

[onetrack]

The sulphur in crude oil is being extracted almost totally today, because it's a valuable by-product. The refineries have sulphur recovery sections and the process is called hydro-treating.

The sulphur extracted from oil is largely used to make sulfuric acid, which is needed for many industrial processes. It's stupid to just burn it and send it out into our atmosphere.

[kgwilson]

The petrochemical industry has an important role to play even though we need to reduce a lot of the plastic rubbish we produce. The thing is by using this energy as fuel it can be used once and then it's gone with the resultant pollutants remaining in the atmosphere, acidifying oceans and a myriad of other things not conducive to a healthy environment. We need to just stop burning stuff or we will eventually all be stuffed.

[kgwilson]

On 11/02/2024 at 9:13 PM, octave said:

BYD breaks ground on its first sodium-ion EV battery plant

 

Less energy density but a third of the price.   

 

 

Sodium ion batteries have been in development for some years and at the beginning of 2024 had managed to get just over 160 Wh/kg at the battery pack level compared to the best NMC batteries approaching 300 Wh/kg. Sodium comes in at 1/3 of the cost of lithium and the batteries operate better at low temperatures reducing the need for battery heating. The tradeoff is less energy density but at much lower cost.

 

Since the announcement in January of the first Sodium battery powered EV the Chinese JAC the price of lithium began to decline and has been on a downward trend ever since dropping 78% in the last year. Some of the price drop can be attributed to over production and lower demand.

[spacesailor]

Haven't our" Hearing aid " batteries been " salt ' for many years.

spacesailor

Edited February 13 by spacesailor
Ai changed my Word

[octave]

18 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Haven't our" Hearing aid " batteries been " salt ' for many years.

spacesailor

 

I think most non-rechargeable hearing aid batteries are zinc-air batteries and rechargeable hearing aid batteries are lithium-ion.

[old man emu]

Where does this solution fit into the Zero Emissions search?

 

Ironically, it still doesn't reduce the carbon footprint involved in making a vehicle and its power unit. That's something we will never overcome.

 

 

[onetrack]

Hydrogen and ammonia are a dead loss for fuels, they can't be produced in the quantities required. This all comes back to the Japanese Govt and Japanese industry spending literally trillions on trying to ensure Japan has energy supplies from multiple sources, so they can't be starved of raw materials, as the West did to them in WW2.

The Japanese Govt has initiated a special dept funded to the tune of multiple billions that is charged with finding reliable sources of alternative energy. They try to couple this search in with the "green" slant, but they're also happy to keep using "clean" coal and nuclear power, too.

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, onetrack said:

Hydrogen and ammonia are a dead loss for fuels, they can't be produced in the quantities required.

Hmmm. That's what they said about batteries.

[spacesailor]

The same  was said about the early IC vehicles. 

No clutch and dirty fuel . Made them hard to drive .

Even had to ' invent ' a coat to keep that dust of your clothing. 

spacesailor

[onetrack]

Below is a "Rah-Rah" report by the Minerals Council of Australia, booming up the opportunities for mining companies to get on the Ammonia and Hydrogen bandwagon.

But - the same simple problems remain, and they're problems of monstrous size, and no-one is addressing them, or putting their money where their mouth is. They all want assistance, both Governmental and financial.

Who is going to provide the massive levels of finance to crank up an entirely new energy source - that must be manufactured? At least with oil, you drill a hole in the ground and simply pump it out.

 

1. There's a doubling of hydrogen production required by 2030, and a sixfold increase in production required by 2050 to meet decarbonisation targets (figures from the document below).

2. The energy requirement to produce these hydrogen manufacturing increases is more than the entire current energy production levels of the whole of Europe. So, monstrously increased levels of electrical energy production are required.

3. There's no roadmap for assistance in this "energy advance" being put in place, or funded, by any Govt.

4. There's no infrastructure to store or deliver hydrogen to the end users. It all has to be built from scratch.

5. Hydrogen is lousy stuff to store and transport. It's exceptionally explosive. Hydrogen gas floating around will explode in the open air, if ignited.

 

Repeat all of the above for ammonia, and add in the need to develop systems that use it as fuel. At least hydrogen can be used in current IC engines, with modifications.

 

https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Australias-emerging-hydrogen-and-ammonia-industry_REPORT.pdf

[Litespeed]

I won't knock the idea of hydrogen production as part of the solution but it's  not a universal answer. 

 

It is all dependant on the market,location available resources etc to be economically viable but most importantly environmentally viable.

 

Sadly anything the minerals council does is to  put out a hand for government subsidy and to do variations of the same shit and now call it green like clean coal and doing hydrogen from fossil fuels.

 

 

If done carefully and with long term goals in place that are environmentally and socially sustainable it can work.

Aviation is a prime example, for long haul flights hydrogen will be the key technology as hybrid with batteries. The form the hydrogen comes in as energy is the ❓. Different solutions for different circumstances will be the end result but money will be gambold in many directions, sadly we often just repeat the same shit and dilute any benefits to the rich 🤑. That's the issue...

 

As we transition to new energy forms and start to repair the harm fossil fuels and mining has done, it's vital we change the paradigm both environmentally, socially and economically. 

 

For the vast number of humans getting energy is a burden of life, of work and sacrifice just to have heat to cook, lighting and a way to travel. The rich investor does not feel any environmental or social costs and can move to nicer climes in a private jet.

 

Now is the time to systemically change the way we do energy generation and use in all its forms. It's also the time for the benefits to be socialised as a normal expectation of a modern society. What you do with your cheap abundant energy is up to you. Not a part of the genetic lottery.

 

 

Power just like water should be a social right and resource, not the plaything of big business. It should be in public hands and no speculated on markets that see our resources as a private gain to sell overseas at dirt cheap prices , when the actual owners of the resource, ie us pay a fortune and business can't afford energy intensive industry.

Once government was about the social and economic development of the country as a fundamental driving force.  

 

Energy in the form of oil and gas, has been fundamental to every war in the 20th and so far the 21st century. It's also the cause of large amounts of political and social instability. The whole world freaks out over the red sea passage and it's mainly about the oil price.

 

If a country can be largely independent energy wise by sustainable means, it does not need to suffer the ups and downs of politics and profiteering. But the policy must be right to get there.

 

Currently most of the wealth involved in the energy and Mining sector all bleeds overseas, bar the essential workers and small contractors, it all heads offshore generally and pays bugger all tax.

 

We need to change to a nation owned energy system, for public not private benefit and economic benefits cycling through the economic lives of community. Not on non productive assets of the super rich. 

 

Your normal home should be solar, battery, car  and all linked to a community system. Power for your car/ute farm etc is owned by the landholder. Any excess is banked and returned when needed and only priced for sharing not speculative profits.

 

If everyone had basically no power or fuel bills, that would be a step change for society. It's not as hard as it seems and can be done, if we are brave against vested interests.

 

But it's all in the mindset of what's possible, we just have to want a new paradigm on society and where does the benefit go to, the many or the few?

 

If as a nation we spend $100 billion plus on power assurance, reliability and new storage, generation- the government investment must be for public not private benefit.

 

Edited February 14 by Litespeed

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

Who is going to provide the massive levels of finance to crank up an entirely new energy source - that must be manufactured? At least with oil, you drill a hole in the ground and simply pump it out.

Yes.. Oil is cheaper to turn into energy - its a "buy now, pay later" thing.. the deferred costs will come home to roost.

 

Edited February 14 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

This new fuel should/ could be used to replace the ' fossil fuel ' in those Old power-stations . Most have rail lines bringing in coal.  Why not the new fuel .

spacesailor

PS : how about ' removing ' the power-bill threshold ' ,  that's stops most pensioners,  getting the grant .

IE more rooftop panels,  at no extra cost .

Edited February 15 by spacesailor
A little more !

[kgwilson]

Coal fired power stations can only burn coal. There are dual fuel plants that have gas as an alternative but this causes greenhouse emissions and again is a non renewable. Most of the fossil fuel plants are already past their use by date and keeping them going a a very expensive exercise from a maintenance and fuel cost basis let alone their extreme CO2 emissions. Solar and Wind supplemented by battery storage is by far the least expensive even allowing for new transmission lines, as well as pumped hydro are the only viable alternatives. Nuclear is just too expensive with a very long lead time and then we have to work out what to do with the radio active waste.

 

Now of course there is opposition from farmers out West who aren't keen on transmission poles on their properties so have become the rural equivalent of urban NIMBYs. Most though are happy to have Wind Turbines on their land when they can get 30k annually for each one they host.

 

South Australia is the jewel in the Australian renewable energy crown. They are producing all of their energy requirements from renewables most of the time now and at times have become a net exporter  of power to Victoria & NSW.

[spacesailor]

This new fuel is said to

TO be " co2 " free . 

None polluting .

spacesailor

[old man emu]

Way back when, towns used to have their own power generating stations. I suppose the generators were steam driven, but that is a moot point here. With the amount of wind and sunshine we get around my place, I reckon that a renewable generations system could be developed to power the town. It still doesn't fulfil the electricity needs of those living out of town who not only need domestic supply, but power for running farming infrastructure.