The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
ksBecause the Panasonic based Li-ion tech which Tesla has deployed and still is using and manufacturing is precisely the same as that from 2015.
Wiring a shedload together with electronics to maintain/monitor charge and condition is one thing but the fundamental physics places limitations on the energy stored by any one cell.
To provide GWh of storage based upon Li-ion tech is a stretch which Panasonic acknowledge.
There may be breakthrough tech on the horizon or under wraps, but that is not what Tesla is using as of 2018.
Wiring a shedload together with electronics to maintain/monitor charge and condition is one thing but the fundamental physics places limitations on the energy stored by any one cell.
To provide GWh of storage based upon Li-ion tech is a stretch which Panasonic acknowledge.
There may be breakthrough tech on the horizon or under wraps, but that is not what Tesla is using as of 2018.
Ali G would need to respond, and indeed has done so a minute ago, but having read the 'update' nothing has changed as yet. No sell-by date. Exactly as Ali G pointed out.
This coverage would do well to look beyond energy density to the degree that manufacturing techniques of present or future (unrealised) technology is energy intensive - or not.
Unless the new tech batteries which we don't yet have can be manufactured in far less energy intensive ways, the same mullering of EROEI will take place when the batteries are used as a so-called storage "solution".
This coverage would do well to look beyond energy density to the degree that manufacturing techniques of present or future (unrealised) technology is energy intensive - or not.
Unless the new tech batteries which we don't yet have can be manufactured in far less energy intensive ways, the same mullering of EROEI will take place when the batteries are used as a so-called storage "solution".
Here is what Toyota tell us about their legally required recycling process.
It includes a section about recycling batteries, notably Lithium based batteries, that tells us ... not very much about the fiscal success of the process. But that is to be expected really since they have outsourced it so it is probably not something that affects their accounting directly.
https://www.toyota-europe.com/world-of-toyota/feel...
Out of interest, does anyone know if all of this recycling, as demanded by political policy, is really beneficial?
Are cars more expensive because of it or less expensive?
For example the oft mentioned (in policy circles) Carbon Capture and Storage (aside: Note that is CCS is not referred to a Co2CS) is showing little if any sign of existing on an industrial scale that could be economically applied to FF based electricity generation or any other form of FF based power supply.
But people still keep talking about it as if it is just a cost to add to the investment burden if any FF based electricity generation developments are to be agreed in the next 10 years.
At this point I think it fairly safe to assume that the constant "we have nothing against FF as long as it is carbon neutral via CCS" statements is nothing more than a mealy mouthed way of saying "they are not going to happen". So much for balance. But more to the point - so much for the credibility of any future "promise" of technology that does not exist today or that does exist today and has done for some time - but not at a commercial scale of viability.
If anyone, especially a politician, wants to speculate and promise that it will be available in 30 years time - no problem. That is so far into the future politically speaking that everyone will understand it is merely speculation and grandstanding.
It they want to promise a ubiquitous and widely deployed solution that does not exist today but will in 10 years ... then I think we can assume with 97% probability that they are lying but hoping to get lucky should something appear to appear out of the blue.
It includes a section about recycling batteries, notably Lithium based batteries, that tells us ... not very much about the fiscal success of the process. But that is to be expected really since they have outsourced it so it is probably not something that affects their accounting directly.
https://www.toyota-europe.com/world-of-toyota/feel...
Out of interest, does anyone know if all of this recycling, as demanded by political policy, is really beneficial?
Are cars more expensive because of it or less expensive?
For example the oft mentioned (in policy circles) Carbon Capture and Storage (aside: Note that is CCS is not referred to a Co2CS) is showing little if any sign of existing on an industrial scale that could be economically applied to FF based electricity generation or any other form of FF based power supply.
But people still keep talking about it as if it is just a cost to add to the investment burden if any FF based electricity generation developments are to be agreed in the next 10 years.
At this point I think it fairly safe to assume that the constant "we have nothing against FF as long as it is carbon neutral via CCS" statements is nothing more than a mealy mouthed way of saying "they are not going to happen". So much for balance. But more to the point - so much for the credibility of any future "promise" of technology that does not exist today or that does exist today and has done for some time - but not at a commercial scale of viability.
If anyone, especially a politician, wants to speculate and promise that it will be available in 30 years time - no problem. That is so far into the future politically speaking that everyone will understand it is merely speculation and grandstanding.
It they want to promise a ubiquitous and widely deployed solution that does not exist today but will in 10 years ... then I think we can assume with 97% probability that they are lying but hoping to get lucky should something appear to appear out of the blue.
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 11th February 19:46
RobDickinson said:
Nothing has changed in 3 years apart from the format, size, chemistry, price and production quantities.
But apart from that it's still identical..
I would assume that the Panasonic spokesperson would have known enough to take those likely developments into account at the time they were speaking. It's not THAT long ago.But apart from that it's still identical..
LongQ said:
RobDickinson said:
Nothing has changed in 3 years apart from the format, size, chemistry, price and production quantities.
But apart from that it's still identical..
I would assume that the Panasonic spokesperson would have known enough to take those likely developments into account at the time they were speaking. It's not THAT long ago.But apart from that it's still identical..
Not asking you specifically LongQ!
The distance between point centres for London and New York changed since I started typing. Same game.
LongQ said:
I would assume that the Panasonic spokesperson would have known enough to take those likely developments into account at the time they were speaking. It's not THAT long ago.
Who knows what he was allowed to say or informed about? The new tesla cell is 50 more volume, but twice the current and cheaper. Lots of talk about newer cells later this year too.
Generally lithium batteries are doubling in power density every 10 years but this seems to be accelerating and that's ignoring any new breakthrough which there are many in the lab.
turbobloke said:
Which of those five changes is/are game changing? That's the context here.
Not asking you specifically LongQ!
The distance between point centres for London and New York changed since I started typing. Same game.
It's all together. Not asking you specifically LongQ!
The distance between point centres for London and New York changed since I started typing. Same game.
If you look at the P100d battery, in 10 years you'll have more current and half the weight and probably a third of the cost.
So mid 2020s a P100d will weight 1700kgs (instead of 2200kgs) or have 200kwh
RobDickinson said:
turbobloke said:
Which of those five changes is/are game changing? That's the context here.
Not asking you specifically LongQ!
The distance between point centres for London and New York changed since I started typing. Same game.
It's all together. Not asking you specifically LongQ!
The distance between point centres for London and New York changed since I started typing. Same game.
If you look at the P100d battery, in 10 years you'll have more current and half the weight and probably a third of the cost.
So mid 2020s a P100d will weight 1700kgs (instead of 2200kgs) or have 200kwh
It they are not running viable test mules in cars now it's going to be a while before they hit the streets.
Whether the developments that people think they need today will be the developments that are actually necessary in the future is a moot point. Personally I doubt it.
If the major deployment of electrical battery technology is grid related - and the requirement there if politicians keep heading for legislated 100% "renewable" generation will be far more significant than it would be for electrified personal transport - the development direction is likely to be rather different to better suit rather different requirements.
More to the point, if that IS the route that is followed unless things change to a significant degree the cost of that concept relative to what the economy that needs to support it can in fact support, will very likely introduce a need for a very different balance of personal expenditure.
People, especially the younger generations it seems, are getting used to renting their lives as they deem necessary. The existing model is likely to be irrelevant in 20 years time. No matter whether Paddy's beloved future lowest bids for renewable energy contracts are taken up just as they are, modified or dropped entirely because "something better is coming along", there will at some point b a change in direction and the overall costs will start to rise even at the point of submission for contracts.
But those comments mainly apply to Europe where no matter what happens the planet will hardly notice the effect.
Meanwhile LEGO shows how to work the Renewables commitment industry.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/...
Just a shame that all that effort and energy goes into making plastic bricks and plastic is the next target for product obliteration. Will LEGO end up competing with the Biomass burners for supply of wood in order to re-invent themselves?
Should Drax, having been bitten once by the move to burning imported biomass, consider its options for buying and burning unsold LEGO bricks instead? (With CCS fitted, obviously.)
RobDickinson said:
That's with development of the current lithium technology as it goes, it's pretty predictable.
New tech from the labs will speed things up possibly..
"Possibly".New tech from the labs will speed things up possibly..
I'm not sure that the sort of solid and reliable electricity supply and grid that Paddy's Brave New World of Technology requires can be certain to happen with future "possiblies".
But if one relies upon them and they don't happen, then what?
Expensive knee jerk solutions that cripple the economy?
Or is there some other strategy available that serves up miracle solutions?
Meanwhile, remind me, what is the purpose of all this?
Is there really something tangible beyond virtue signalling and International Corporates (or rather their leadership) buying 21st century Indulgences at someone else's expense?
From the mouth of Tesla (which must be right)
Gigafactory
Looking forward to upgrading to magic v2.0 next year - Hogwarts best get bizzy.
Gigafactory
Musk said:
To achieve its planned production rate of 500,000 cars per year by 2018, Tesla alone will require today’s entire worldwide supply of lithium-ion batteries.
Musk said:
The factory’s planned annual battery production capacity is 35 gigawatt-hours (GWh)
Barely scratching the surface of what will be required to solve intermittency on a global level.Looking forward to upgrading to magic v2.0 next year - Hogwarts best get bizzy.
Ali G said:
From the mouth of Tesla (which must be right)
Gigafactory
AFIk that was when construction started (2014?) that single plant was to at least double the worlds battery capacity.Gigafactory
Musk said:
To achieve its planned production rate of 500,000 cars per year by 2018, Tesla alone will require today’s entire worldwide supply of lithium-ion batteries.
Musk said:
The factory’s planned annual battery production capacity is 35 gigawatt-hours (GWh)
There are a lot more plants being built around the world now
I think thats just outdated.. esp considering its talking about 2018 in the future tense.
AFIK when the work started on the plant the worlds lithium battery capacity was about 35gwh, so the gigafactory planned to double that.from wiki:
"Output goals
As of 2014, the projected capacity of Gigafactory for 2020 was to have been 35 gigawatt-hours per year of cells as well as 50 gigawatt-hours per year (5.7 MW) of battery packs.[15] Production could be equivalent of supplying 500,000 Tesla cars per year.[19][87][113] When finished, the factory is planned to produce more lithium ion batteries in a year than were produced in the entire world in 2013."
Though..
"Tesla expects that Gigafactory 1 will reduce the production cost for their electric vehicle battery and Powerwall and Powerpack packs by 30%. Its projected capacity for 2018 is 50 (GW h)/a of battery packs, and its final capacity upon completion was, as of May 2016, planned to be 150 GWh/yr of battery packs.[33] This would enable Tesla to produce 1,500,000 cars per yea"
AFIK when the work started on the plant the worlds lithium battery capacity was about 35gwh, so the gigafactory planned to double that.from wiki:
"Output goals
As of 2014, the projected capacity of Gigafactory for 2020 was to have been 35 gigawatt-hours per year of cells as well as 50 gigawatt-hours per year (5.7 MW) of battery packs.[15] Production could be equivalent of supplying 500,000 Tesla cars per year.[19][87][113] When finished, the factory is planned to produce more lithium ion batteries in a year than were produced in the entire world in 2013."
Though..
"Tesla expects that Gigafactory 1 will reduce the production cost for their electric vehicle battery and Powerwall and Powerpack packs by 30%. Its projected capacity for 2018 is 50 (GW h)/a of battery packs, and its final capacity upon completion was, as of May 2016, planned to be 150 GWh/yr of battery packs.[33] This would enable Tesla to produce 1,500,000 cars per yea"
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Ali G said:
It's Tesla's own site - if they can't be bothered to update it why are they expected to have much credibility - the 500,000 by 2018 was their claim which they failed to meet!
is that you saying you posted twaddle ? or admitting it could be wrong ?
You put it up there for all as 'evidence' of your cause
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff