Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

[hidetheelephants]

TransverseTight said:

I had thought of a similar scam a few years back. If you get paid for exporting electricity... why not just ask your neighbour to run a 13 amp lead over the fence and pay him the 16p /kWh and get your 41p FiT. not worth it now as the FiT is less than the cost of the electricity.

Let us know how you get on with that; you may be disappointed.

[Blib]

TransverseTight said:

Someone mentioned earlier about rare minerals for batteries. Which ones are those? I've done some reading in the past and although rare, it's going to be a while before we get supply contraints.

The same could be said for oil and gas.

[The Don of Croy]

Blib said:

TransverseTight said:

Someone mentioned earlier about rare minerals for batteries. Which ones are those? I've done some reading in the past and although rare, it's going to be a while before we get supply contraints.

The same could be said for oil and gas.

Whilst channel hopping last night I chanced across the NHK HD documentary on Neodymium magnets - apparently a Japanese discovery - whose uses are growing year by year worldwide, especially in electric motors (replacing armature windings was one example - cuts weight by a half with no loss in power).

For use in electric motors, however, the neodymium loses it's magentic force alarmingly over 200 deg C. This can be countered by the use of a rare earth mineral currently found only in China, and they have banned exports. All I can remember is it began with a 'd' but the pronunciation was sufficiently blurred as to render it incomprehensible.

However, the Japs are working on the problem (reduction in 30% of the additive but no nearer an alternative).

[jurbie]

TransverseTight said:

Someone mentioned earlier about rare minerals for batteries. Which ones are those? I've done some reading in the past and although rare, it's going to be a while before we get supply contraints. Even with LiIon theres 3 or 4 competing chemistries. And recycling. And Toyota still insist on NiCad for the Prius. Aluminium Air batteries look a nice future option for oil companies to sell for people on longer trips as they need replacing. So somewhere to sell them from near roads. Like petrol stations.

Rare earth metals, they're not rare in the sense of scarce more that they are scattered about a lot so difficult to extract. I don't know about batteries but Neodymium is definitely required in electric motors so everything from EV's to wind turbines. There is lots of it about although mostly in Chine so we're not likely to run out but it is mixed up with loads of other stuff and the only way to extract it is a fairly long and toxic chemical process.

The problem is that you then have lots of toxic waste to dispose of and the environmental regs in China aren't the best so they've managed to create a 5 mile wide toxic lake.


Here is a fairly detailed Daily Mail link you can no doubt scoff at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-13...

then once you're done here is a Guardian link saying much the same thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/ra...

[Silver Smudger]

Silver Smudger said:

TransverseTight said:

Silver Smudger said:

Silver Smudger said:

TransverseTight said:

Battery costs I dealt with a few pages back. They are coming down 7% per year. Which put another way means they halve every 10 years. Energy density which affects the weight is increseing 8% a year. Or doubles every 8 years.....

TransverseTight said:

.....I've just dug up an XLS off my dropbox that shows if a theoretical battery costs £10,000 now, in 2020 its £6,470, 2030 £3,131 and 2040 £1,516. I think the i3 battery costs about £12k. So you can see how over time the market will shift.

Anything in your xls to demonstrate how battery tech development has been, is now, and always will be, linear?

It's not linear. That's the average.

1st graph I cam across on google...



Cost reductions are dependent on new tech or efficiency in existing tech.

They might go 2% 1 year as they get ROI on a plant and able to drop prices, or some new anode tech comes on stream dropping it 15%. Or they work out a cheaper electrolyte mix saving 4%. Etc etc.

Definitely not linear, and not consistent across manufacturers or chemistries.

Looking at that graph, it would appear that the curve is nearly levelled out now. How do you justify the predictions you gave for 2040? It seems to me that the improvements are getting harder to come by every year

ETA - That graph is titled Projected Costs - How old is it, and how are we doing against those projections?

I'm just popping this back in here again, seeing as you are still making predictions, I'd still like to know why you think this-

TransverseTight said:

I've been posting a lot on EVs Main problems are they are a bit too pricey till about 2019 / 2020.

TransverseTight said:

What is interesting is that in probably 5 years time, we won't need subsidies for solar - it will make sense to install it as it will cost the same as buying off the grid. The best part being that you won't face any price rises for the electric. All you need then is an in house battery storage system to get you through the night and bob's yer uncle.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Transverse is either a certifiable nutter or a green industry saboteur/propagandist, sadly he's ruined this thread with irrelevant garbage, which I think was actually the intention.

[bodhi]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Transverse is either a certifiable nutter or a green industry saboteur/propagandist, sadly he's ruined this thread with irrelevant garbage, which I think was actually the intention.

Judging by the rampant narcissism and complete inability to take criticism, I think he might actually be Elon Musk himself. It would certainly explain his Tesla fixation.....

[hidetheelephants]

Guybrush said:

Interesting that the left are bothering the USA by using the same climate 'argument' tactics worldwide - CNN use the same language to try and brainwash the easily manipulated, for example, introducing the founder of The Weather Channel as a "Denier"...

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/11/03/baloney-weathe...

Now the GOP are in charge of both chambers in the US Congress I think the brakes may be applied quite sharply to anything resembling 'climaggeddon OMG!' legislation.

The Don of Croy said:

Blib said:

TransverseTight said:

Someone mentioned earlier about rare minerals for batteries. Which ones are those? I've done some reading in the past and although rare, it's going to be a while before we get supply contraints.

The same could be said for oil and gas.

Whilst channel hopping last night I chanced across the NHK HD documentary on Neodymium magnets - apparently a Japanese discovery - whose uses are growing year by year worldwide, especially in electric motors (replacing armature windings was one example - cuts weight by a half with no loss in power).

For use in electric motors, however, the neodymium loses it's magentic force alarmingly over 200 deg C. This can be countered by the use of a rare earth mineral currently found only in China, and they have banned exports. All I can remember is it began with a 'd' but the pronunciation was sufficiently blurred as to render it incomprehensible.

However, the Japs are working on the problem (reduction in 30% of the additive but no nearer an alternative).

Rare earths are not rare; there's plenty of them around and about, the US has plenty, as do India. The problem with extracting and processing them, in the US at least, is that they are almost invariably accompanied by Thorium, which in US law is a radiological hazard and a proliferation risk(it's neither really); it's such an intractable problem that rare earth ore is being dug up in the US and exported to China for refining. There are efforts to change the relevant laws in the US, but actually getting anything useful done in Washington is quite hard, and impossible to do quickly(the relevant lobbying has been going on since about 2008).

[turbobloke]

hidetheelephants said:

Now the GOP are in charge of both chambers in the US Congress I think the brakes may be applied quite sharply to anything resembling 'climaggeddon OMG!' legislation.

Some coverage:

Powerful Green Lobby Defeated In US Midterm Elections As Republicans Win Control Of US Senate

For Tom Steyer and other environmentalists, $85 million wasn’t enough to help Democrats keep the Senate blue or win more than a single governor’s mansion in Tuesday’s toughest races. The billionaire’s super PAC and other green groups saw the vast majority of their favored candidates in the battleground states go down to defeat, despite spending an unprecedented amount of money to help climate-friendly Democrats in the midterm elections. The outcome brought gloating from Republicans and fossil-fuel supporters even before the results rolled in and raised questions about whether greens can fulfill their pledge to make climate change a decisive campaign issue in 2016.
Andrew Restuccia, Politico, 05 November 2015

Climate Change: This was one of the dogs that didn't bark in the 2014 election, even after liberal billionaire Tom Steyer spent an estimated $70 million to promote the issue and a new UN IPCC report on Sunday warned of "severe, pervasive, and irreversible" global warming that will worsen without environmental policy changes. Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, said a GOP-led Congress is more likely to try to stop Obama's Environmental Protection Agency from imposing new regulations on power plants than endorsing any additional steps to reduce U.S. carbon pollution. Said Brulle: "I am not an optimist about us doing anything - I think it looks bad for political action on climate change in any way."
Will Bunsch, Philadelphia Daily News, 05 November 2014

The $12 million that the United States Senate has allocated to UN climate agencies is expected to be among the first casualties [after] Republican take control of the chamber following Tuesday’s midterm elections. The current Senate bill on funding for state and foreign operations includes $11,700,000 for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). However, the House version of the bill passed by a Republican-controlled sub-committee, states that “none of the funds in this Act may be made available for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”
Denis Fitzgerald, UN Tribune, 04 November 2014

[Irish]

"Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who won re-election yesterday by 40 points, stands out as unique. Consider what the right-wing lawmaker told Voice of Christian Youth America in 2012 about his latest book against global warming.

“[T]he Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

The 20-year Senate veteran believes climate science can’t be real because it conflicts with his interpretation of a phrase in the Old Testament.

I mention this because, as a result of yesterday’s election results, Inhofe is slated to become the new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee."

Right then - America is an odd place.

[turbobloke]

Irish said:

"Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who won re-election yesterday by 40 points, stands out as unique. Consider what the right-wing lawmaker told Voice of Christian Youth America in 2012 about his latest book against global warming.

“[T]he Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

The 20-year Senate veteran believes climate science can’t be real because it conflicts with his interpretation of a phrase in the Old Testament.

I mention this because, as a result of yesterday’s election results, Inhofe is slated to become the new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee."

Right then - America is an odd place.

That sure is an odd perspective but In God They Trust. Not in Gaia...

We have our own, and as it's on the believer side (Gaia type) it all cancels out in the bowels of the universe

The IPCC former chief scientist Sir John Houghton, a Brit, wrote in 1996 that climate change is a "moral issue" and that he agreed with the World Council of Churches "which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets (i.e. Kyoto at that time) and for the public at large to accept the necessary consequences."

The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will, according to Houghton, "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference."

[Beati Dogu]

The Don of Croy said:

For use in electric motors, however, the neodymium loses it's magentic force alarmingly over 200 deg C. This can be countered by the use of a rare earth mineral currently found only in China, and they have banned exports. All I can remember is it began with a 'd' but the pronunciation was sufficiently blurred as to render it incomprehensible.

Probably Dysprosium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysprosium

[turbobloke]

Beati Dogu said:

The Don of Croy said:

For use in electric motors, however, the neodymium loses it's magentic force alarmingly over 200 deg C. This can be countered by the use of a rare earth mineral currently found only in China, and they have banned exports. All I can remember is it began with a 'd' but the pronunciation was sufficiently blurred as to render it incomprehensible.

Probably Dysprosium

There's also neodymium which is possibly the most commonly used, but not alone (Nd2Fe14B) and samarium used with cobalt (SmCo5). In sintered NdFeB magnets Dy or Tb can be added to replace neodymium to preserve magnetic performance at high temperatures.

[Jasandjules]

Irish said:

The 20-year Senate veteran believes climate science can’t be real because it conflicts with his interpretation of a phrase in the Old Testament.

Soo, one belief system trumps another one. Neither has any sound scientific basis, so fair is fair I guess.

[mondeoman]

Just thought of this - first cold, calm spell of the season, demand going up to 44GW, and wind power, you know, mankinds saviour, is contributing a mahoosive 1.6GW. And solar is nowhere to be seen.

And we're bringing in 3GW from the french and dutch.

[steveatesh]

turbobloke said:

There's also neodymium which is possibly the most commonly used, but not alone (Nd2Fe14B) and samarium used with cobalt (SmCo5). In sintered NdFeB magnets Dy or Tb can be added to replace neodymium to preserve magnetic performance at high temperatures.

TB, I've finally got you sussed.

You're not human at all but Cassandre from Red Dwarf, the humanoid computer that knows everything! I know you can predict the future too, so what's the numbers for the lottery next week?

Do I get my five pounds?

[turbobloke]

steveatesh said:

turbobloke said:

There's also neodymium which is possibly the most commonly used, but not alone (Nd2Fe14B) and samarium used with cobalt (SmCo5). In sintered NdFeB magnets Dy or Tb can be added to replace neodymium to preserve magnetic performance at high temperatures.

TB, I've finally got you sussed.

You're not human at all but Cassandre from Red Dwarf, the humanoid computer that knows everything! I know you can predict the future too, so what's the numbers for the lottery next week?

Do I get my five pounds?

For a minute there it looked like you thought Tb was TB

As for the lottery numbers, if only

The mundane part of this is that all aspects of climate fairytales, and the Spawn of Gaia in their various forms such as electric cars and windymills, are of interest and I prefer to keep as informed as time allows.

It's a long time ago but iirc I had some direct contact with the above as a lab demonstrator at uni via the Mössbauer Effect and Mössbauer isotopes. Happy times nursing a few gamma rays.

[TransverseTight]

Two things why the constant speclation on my motives? I don't think there's a need to make assumptions on who and what I'm doing here. For all I know all the naysayers on here could be paid climate FUDers considering you seem to have a lot more time to spend posting than I do. For the record I'm a freelance software tester, via my own ltd company, started of life doing electrical and electronic enginnering (hence the love of EVs), but moved into sotware development as I found that more interesting than hardware. I've also spent 10 years working on energy billing systems for both domestic and commerical customers so do a lot of reading on industry magazines and websites.

I've bought EVs into the political debate as I do see them as offereing load balancing service in future. This is irrespective of climate change policy, the daily swing bewteen evening and night time use means we always will have variable loads on the grid regardless of what source is inputting.

I actually come on here rather than just going on EVs owners forums as there's a lot of people opinion I repsect. If I ignore the uselles daily mail reader comments, there's obvsiouly a few people who know their stuff, and have spent lots of time reading up on the issues. More so than you gets on typical news paper feedback comments.

So that out the way.. I will drop it if you don't want to discuss the possibility of using EVs to balance the grid loads. However I do see the climate debate as a widier reaching energy debate and would be sad if you don't want to discuss energy issues wih me just becuase I have different viewpoints on some things. I think you can learn more from people who have different opinion if you are willing to listen. I do see a lot of the "Green converted" type people who just can't stop spouting what on here you call "The Teams" opinion. Personally I don't see myself as a memebr of the team, just as spectator forming my opinion based on what I have read. Liking EVs and alternative power doesn't make me automatically think it is cheaper or more cost effective. The same as a V8 isn't cheaper or more cost effective than a 2.0D to run, but no one is saying we should ban them.

As an example of how I can learn by coming on here - as opposed to Greenpeace website... There were questions about rare metals. I didn't know the answer so went and did some digging. Apparently this is a problem only for DC motors. AC Induction motors use currents to create the magnietic field - which can be varied to get better efficeincy. Now without wanting to look like a Tesla employee... here's an article from Telsa chief power engineer that explains a bit more.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/induction-versus-d...

PS The reason I keep using Telsa as an example... give me a list of car manufacturers who make EVs that have high performance motors? Exactly.

I've begrudingly ordered an i3 as at the current time I can't afford a Telsa. Plus I don't really like the look of the i3. But having driven one decided actually it's a bloody good car for my needs. I've got a 10 year X-Trail as a second car for longer trips and carrying lots of stuff, and having lived with a Nissan Juke for 2 years, don't think the i3 will be a compromise and is probably just as polarising on looks as the Juke is :-)

Edited by TransverseTight on Wednesday 5th November 23:39

[TransverseTight]

Silversmudger.. I will try and anwwer you questions more fully, but it takes a while to get back the info from figures in my head. I'm currently packing up the house/completing security and referneces for a new job and looking after a 9 month old.

Quick answer is plot a graph of a 7% year on year decline and the slope does flatten based on the start numbers on the axis. However costs are still halving every 10 years. The graph I used earlier wasn't anything specfic other than to show how the 7% average isn't actually constant, it comes in lumps and bumps. The premise then being that a battery that now costs £10,000 will cost £5,000 in 2024 and £2,500 in 2034 assuming no new superior tech comes along. (Solid state LiIon being one).

As regards to progress... here are panasonics cell specs a - a variant of the 3.4V cell which is used by Telsa. (Yeah them, again!)

http://news.panasonic.com/press/news/official.data...

Note this is 5 years old so expect you might be able to find something more up to date.
12.2Wh in 46g = 265Wh/kg.

I guess where I'm heading with the debate... can we make the climate debate go away for cars at least, if better tech comes along that is cheaper than the fossil fuelled equivalent. I acknowlege that on genreation the issue is not so simple. But on EV use.. if we swappeed the most of the fleet between now and 2050, we make transport itself fossil free (and better to drive as batteries get lighter), and what makes the electricty for cars to charge can be swapped over time. Personally a couple of dozen nukes would suit me.

I do realise there will always be specialist vehicles that aren't suited to EV propulsion... eg. track day cars, long distance HGVs etc, but that doesn't mean for daily drivers and parcel delivery vans they aren't suitable.

Edit - just to add the last bit on future costs. Came across an article that estimated the current i3 battery to cost $11,000. Or £6,875 in english money. This is consistent with a figure I saw for a leaf battery replacement of £6,500. If you apply the 7% decline to that, in 2019 it would be £4782. Why is that significant? Well currently the i3 cost about £3,000 more than an 120d. I think given some time to develop everything and get the costs down - not just batteries, then I think the differencce will disappear. It still won't suit everyone having a shorter range but a lot of people will consider it. I'm going to be doing 120 miles a day in mine, so at the higher end of daily mileage. Hence why it's a no brainer - the fuel saving will be a lot. Yes - I could buy a 3 year old Ford Fiesta 1.6D to save actual real money, but that would be boring. Besides the 1.6D doesn't have 170hp or drive itself in traffic jams.

This doesn't take into account grants... but personally I'm a bit skeptical of grants, my guess is when the run out, the manufacturers will suddenly find they can actually sell the car for £5,000 less than they did before! Due to "scale efficinecies" or something like that.

Edited by TransverseTight on Thursday 6th November 00:33

[TransverseTight]

Last one from me today... Smudger was asking about solar being competitive with grid in 5 years.
The "magic" price point is from memory $1/watt - or 66p/watt.

This is just the first hit of google so a bit old, more time might get different numbers.
http://www.achrnews.com/articles/128014-nov-4-2014...

They are already hitting $2/watt now and declining at 12-19% per year. Based on Moore's law of semi conductors this isn't suprising as they are silicon wafer based. And why the Solar speculative bubble saw off SiGS panels and so on - as they just ended too far behind once they tried to scale.

Taking the low end decline... the numbers look like this...

Year $ 12.00%
2013 2 0.24
2014 1.76 0.21
2015 1.55 0.19
2016 1.36 0.16
2017 1.20 0.14
2018 1.06 0.12

What this means is we are soon to enter a market transformation period where solar is cheaper than fossil fuels, but doesn't work at night. It's more predictable than wind, but still needs storage. The combination with EVs makes good sense.

If you think about it, we'll have excess electricity in summer as you'll need to size solar arrays to deal with winter not summer production. So what could you do with all that energy? Make hydrogen with electrolysis?

[edit]
better numbers here...

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/feed-in-...

They only just started collecting installed cost data for FiT!??? Seriously? That's an Epic fail considering the whole point of the market intervention is supposed to drive down the cost of installs. Currently Averaging £2,020/kW installed for < 4kW systems. £1660 for 4-10kW and £1330 for 10-50kW system. Definetely worth checking in on once a year.

Still it's a lot cheaper than 5 years ago when a 4kW system was over £16,000 (from memory).

Edited by TransverseTight on Thursday 6th November 01:17