Batteries: Today's Energy Solution

[Sigmetnow]

Germany:  Mercedes-Benz turns a closed coal power plant into energy storage system using electric car batteries

8.96 MW/9.8 MWh project using a total of 1,920 battery modules installed in Elverlingsen on the site of the former coal-fired power station that was built in 1912 and recently shut down.
...
The project is going to be used for primary balancing power on the German grid, which has added a significant amount of renewable energy in recent years.

https://electrek.co/2018/06/21/mercedes-benz-turns-coal-power-plant-into-energy-storage-electric-car-batteries/

[Bob Wallace]

First, EV batteries are not going to need replacement after five years.  There's a good chance EV batteries will not need to be replaced at all.  In fact, they may still have usable life after the car body has fallen apart.

Tesla has said that Model S drivers should have no problem reaching 200,000 miles with good capacity left.  Not many engines and transmissions last 200k.

Yes, we'd have to build a lot of battery factories to reach 100% EV.  I think Elon estimated 90 to 100 gigafactories.  And I think we're somewhere in the four to five gigafactory range at the moment.  Tesla is completing one, LG Chem is building multiple plants that sum up to about 1 GF, China (IIRC) has about 3 GF capacity.

Panasonic has announced they will soon start on a GF separate from their Tesla supply.  Tesla is planning on factories in China and Europe starting construction fairly soon.  New Tesla factories will manufacture batteries and cars at the same site.  One of the head people recently left Tesla to start his own GF.  Other companies like Sanyo are ramping up.  We could have as many as 10 GF builds underway or soon to commence right now.

If you think back to when the first long range EV was sold that's only five and a half years.  Less than six  years from proof of concept and we're seeing massive battery manufacturing capacity underway.

Between EVs and other battery powered vehicles, solar power, wind power, and storage we may be looking at the most massive technological transformation in history.

[numerobis]

Batteries for consumer devices are almost irrelevant at this scale.

Grid and car batteries are warrantied to last 8-12 years, and likely would still have usable life for a good while after. Once retired, it will likely be worthwhile to take the packs apart, test the cells, and reuse the still-good cells. The dead cells will need recycling.

All that is still being developed because there aren’t many expired car batteries yet.

[Sigmetnow]

+1 for Bob’s and numerobis’ comments.

Musk has indeed said the world only needs about 100 gigafactories to get completely off fossil fuels.  Tesla will be building three more (China, Europe, North America, with new car factories) in the next few years.  Battery recycling will definitely become a thing; as Musk has said, you have your ingredients right there, why go to the expense of mining more?  Early batteries no longer performing well enough to power a vehicle are being used in stationary storage products by several automakers.

Battery technology — and battery management software — keeps improving, meaning less battery materials are needed to build a battery, and smaller batteries will perform as well as bigger batteries did just a few years ago.  Tesla has already reduced the amount of cobalt in its batteries from 8% to about 2%.

Degradation of newer, thermally-managed battery packs looks quite low, and we see estimates of batteries lasting 500,000 miles.  Tesloop has a Model X running daily shuttles with over 300,000 miles on the original battery.
https://twitter.com/tesloop/status/1002641861842853888

It is unwise to assume the world will need to replace ICE vehicles with EVs on a one-to-one basis.

Model 3 Battery: the most energy dense pack in the industry. We do the math to confirm.
https://insideevs.com/new-tesla-model-3-battery-details-images-released/

Tesla battery degradation at less than 10% after over 160,000 miles, according to latest data
https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/

Tesla battery data shows path to over 500,000 miles on a single pack
https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/

[Bob Wallace]

And many pluses to you, Sig, for all the news you bring to this site. 

I learn new stuff daily by reading your posts.  It's too bad you aren't more widely distributed.  So many people have little idea of what is happening in their world today.

[Sigmetnow]

And many pluses to you, Sig, for all the news you bring to this site. 

I learn new stuff daily by reading your posts.  It's too bad you aren't more widely distributed.  So many people have little idea of what is happening in their world today.

Thank you so much, Bob! 

I appreciate all your efforts to include positive perspectives, as well.

[Bob Wallace]

Positive perspectives are only useful when they are true and based on evidence.

Otherwise it's the compelling mysticism of a High Priest or Godman Guru at work. :-)

If you don't like to see people thinking creatively just read something else.

If you see someone thinking creatively based on an impossible then point out the flaw.

[Bob Wallace]

Just use the ignore function.  That will save you time and, apparently, be better for your mental health.

Personally I intend to continue to talk about solutions and potential solutions.  What I have no time for is doomers who aren't interested in looking for a way out of the mess we're in.

[Bob Wallace]

Most people are not going to change their lifestyles appreciably in time to avoid extreme climate change. 

We either find low carbon ways to allow people to live pretty much as they now do or we fail.

If you think I'm wrong then you tell us how to get people to give up fossil fuel energy without a replacement.  If you've got a good idea that sounds workable I'll get behind it and help you implement it.

Balls in your court, Sleepy. 

[oren]

Sig I want to join Bob in his kudos to you.
As to AL and Sleepy (and a couple of other posters), you both seem to have some kind of personal vendetta against Bob W. It is really tiresome ro read, especially as it it is often spread over many threads.
Bob is an optimist. He is focusing on ways that could mitigate the problem we are creating for ourselves, wihout focusing on how these ways are not "enough", as he realizes that better/faster more drastic solutions are not expected to be implemented due to people's selfishness, a basic human trait unfortunately.
I myself am a pessimist, as I think all these (nice) solutions will be too slow to avoid a civilizational collapse mid-century. But I still read Bob's posts with interest and don't bash him in every other post I write. And I note a 5% chance of success is better than none.
Bottom line, I think this Bob-bashing behavior is really childish. He is hopeful, you are not. Why ruin the forum over this difference?

[Hefaistos]

...He is hopeful, you are not. Why ruin the forum over this difference?

Bob is not only hopeful, his perspective is also helpful.
Forum wont be ruined, our excercises here are just skirmishes and maybe it's even one of the major roles of this forum to have those kind of discussions. They are quite helpful to see where the frontiers of argumentation will be in the coming decades, as the climate effects caused by BAU and AGW becomes ever more evident. Bob is in the 'green BAU' folder.

[Bob Wallace]

Thanks, but I don't like being put in the green BAU folder.

The energy business is undergoing massive change.  A revolution.  Old businesses are being destroyed and new businesses emerging.

Transportation, at least ground transportation, seems to be entering a great disruption.

I do see great difficulty in changing individual's lifestyle.  I see, to some extent, "lifestyle as usual".  Because of that it's my opinion we have to change much of the business that underlies our lifestyles.

[wili]

I understand your position, Bob. But do you see how, by giving up on lifestyle changes, you are kind of helping to fulfill that prediction?

You may be underestimating what a strong statement it would be to those around you and others if you, for example, became a vegan, or gave up flying, or scaled way back on car use, especially if you also advocated for the same.

I was just thinking about how much our failures are primarily moral or intellectual; or whether they are primarily failures of imagination, or just laziness...I think they are all of these and more.

But we also have not just too many such failures, but also too much 'success' in other areas that I think have a very large impact: our success at rationalizing our way out of making personal changes at the same time that we are advocating for systemic changes, whether political or more market oriented.

Just a thought.

[Bob Wallace]

I minimize my driving.  I drive less than 50% of the average American.  I don't own any petroleum powered "toys" such as boats or planes.

I reduce, reuse, and recycle.  I've been an organic gardener for 40+ years and eat little meat.  Meat, for me, is pretty much a seasoning.

I'm off the grid, producing about 95% of my electricity with solar.  I've been off the grid for about 30 years.

When I travel I use public transportation about 99% of the time.

I do fly some but purchase carbon offsets for air miles and my other carbon sins.   

I walk the walk to some extent.  But I'm not willing to be part of the 0.00001% wearing the "I'm perfect" hairshirt. 

But enough about me.  Most other people are not going to sacrifice in order to fight climate change. 

People will buy more efficient ICEVs, and eventually EVs, because they save money.  Lower CO2 output is something they might appreciate but that will not have been the big driver.

People will insulate their houses and move from oil/gas furnaces to heat pumps in order to save money.  Lower CO2 emissions are just the prize in the Cracker Jack box and many care nothing about the prize.

[wili]

Good on you!

No, I mean it.

Sooo, any thought on going vegan or moving in that direction?

[numerobis]

I mostly agree with Bob’s ultimate pessimism about human nature. I disagree in the details, which makes for policy disagreement (eg I think walking/cycling friendly dense urban infrastructure is important and I dislike car culture, regardless of the drivetrain).

[numerobis]

But I see even with in-laws, who have been out protesting since youth, how much people end up with the default option. They still have a few incandescent bulbs!

[Bob Wallace]

Good on you!

No, I mean it.

Sooo, any thought on going vegan or moving in that direction?

I tried soy and almond milk and found them lacking.  Cheese and eggs are my main protein sources.  I was a vegetarian for about 12 years and missed the taste of meat plus I was a PITA for others who had to cook around my diet.  (Just had houseguests, one who is a vege.  Adds a whole other level of effort.)

I'm looking forward to lab grown meat.

[numerobis]

Cows are the animal that’s problematic.

Other factory-farmed meats, milk, and eggs are only slightly worse than vegetables. And on Bob’s scale you can grow your own chickens carbon-neutral on dinner scraps and grubs (it doesn’t scale to a modern city).

Where I live, I’m moderately certain that imported large-farm beans are worse per calorie or per unit protein than local seal or fish.

[TerryM]

Cows are the animal that’s problematic.

Other factory-farmed meats, milk, and eggs are only slightly worse than vegetables. And on Bob’s scale you can grow your own chickens carbon-neutral on dinner scraps and grubs (it doesn’t scale to a modern city).

Where I live, I’m moderately certain that imported large-farm beans are worse per calorie or per unit protein than local seal or fish.

Couldn't agree more.
What happened to the battery discussion?
Terry

[Bob Wallace]

Membranes between threads seem to have gotten more permeable lately.

Feels to me that there are some 'newly arrived' who haven't taken the time to read many of the discussions/threads and want to talk about things that have already undergone discussions elsewhere. 

Perhaps they need to glance back through a few pages of threads to see if what they want to say already has a discussion started.

[Sleepy]

Sig I want to join Bob in his kudos to you.
As to AL and Sleepy (and a couple of other posters), you both seem to have some kind of personal vendetta against Bob W. It is really tiresome ro read, especially as it it is often spread over many threads.
Bob is an optimist. He is focusing on ways that could mitigate the problem we are creating for ourselves, wihout focusing on how these ways are not "enough", as he realizes that better/faster more drastic solutions are not expected to be implemented due to people's selfishness, a basic human trait unfortunately.
I myself am a pessimist, as I think all these (nice) solutions will be too slow to avoid a civilizational collapse mid-century. But I still read Bob's posts with interest and don't bash him in every other post I write. And I note a 5% chance of success is better than none.
Bottom line, I think this Bob-bashing behavior is really childish. He is hopeful, you are not. Why ruin the forum over this difference?

Who's bashing who?
Bob is constantly making sweeping bullying accusations about other people, just like the last one right above (#781), looking for someone to bite. That is trolling. That is also how this last one got started. I have ignored his bullying and trolling comments many more times than I care to remember, but it's at least three years. I've been reading here since 2013 and registered the first time in 2014.

[Neven]

In my view we need the positivism. I enjoy reading about the latest in green(er) technology.

But at the same time we need to be realistic and agree that a western lifestyle steeped in consumerism cannot ever be provided sustainably. Just because we don't have a solution on how to wake up a critical mass to this fact, doesn't mean we have to shut up about it and be happy with what is in large part greenwashing. I try to wake up the masses through Arctic sea ice loss, but I don't know how to make them see the underlying roots of the system we live in.

That's something I've learned from this Forum, unfortunately.

[Sleepy]

I agree to exactly 100%.

[Sigmetnow]

For me, it’s also a matter of mental health.  I won’t spend my life bathed in stress hormones because “Everything’s fvcked.” 

If the bad news is, “There’s nothing to eat but mud,” and the good news is, “There’s lots of mud,” you can choose whether you view your life situation positively or negatively.  My background leads me to believe that things will change, most likely in completely unexpected and previously unimagined ways — and dwelling on negativity simply closes the mind to the development of better things.  ‘Thinking positive’ doesn’t mean I am unaware of, or unimpressed by, negative things.  It means that moving forward requires thinking beyond them. I view them as a driver of innovation, a cliff to climb, not a swamp to wallow in or hold us back.

[Hefaistos]

... things will change, most likely in completely unexpected and previously unimagined ways — and dwelling on negativity simply closes the mind to the development of better things. ...

Spot on.

[Bob Wallace]

deniers, skeptics, incrementalists and realists

Would you please define those groups? 

Climate change deniers, I assume.  A small and shrinking group found mainly in a couple of countries. 

I don't know how you're using the other terms.  Differently than how I use them.  In my use I'm all three.

As a scientist by training and nature I try to stay slightly skeptical.  I don't accept claims but ask for proof/data.  I don't treat a single breakthrough study's results as "the facts".   

I recognize that progress is almost always incremental.  Very, very seldom does one event solve a major problem but we build toward the solution over time.

As a realist I try not to cling to what isn't working and turn toward what is working and what offers a logical, reasonable chance of working.

How are you using the words?

[oren]

Discussions should be about what we should do about it, like now. We still have some time, not much but some to avoid the worst outcomes, maybe I'm the most positive old fart in here?

Always the biggest question is who are the "we". Had humanity been united and organized together, the problem would probably be solved already. So thinking in terms of global "we" doing something is indeed a very positive sort of thinking, unfortunately.

[oren]

You are certainly right, humanity should declare war on the problem. In a "wartime economy" the problem could be fixed very fast. I just can't see how it will happen. It feels that human unity is deteriorating rather than progressing.

[Bob Wallace]

incremental change is not enough

Please give a non-incremental solution to climate change.

Give us a way to stop global warming that consists of one single step. 

[magnamentis]

You are certainly right, humanity should declare war on the problem. In a "wartime economy" the problem could be fixed very fast. I just can't see how it will happen. It feels that human unity is deteriorating rather than progressing.

humans will unite only once the enemy is in front of their city walls and there is no fog to omit that fact.

condition ONE is certainly fulfilled while there is A LOT of fog in various forms which is why i'd name it SMOG. Not only one ingredient but many many and each of them is too small or well camouflaged that a majority would try to get rid of it.

[Bob Wallace]

humans will unite only once the enemy is in front of their city walls and there is no fog to omit that fact.

This is a very important fact.  We need to keep it in mind.

[Neven]

[Bob Wallace]

Squirrels and bunny rabbits are not causing global warming.  It's us.

I'll posit that it's human nature that's causing global warming.  It's not possum nature.

[Neven]

Of course, I posit it's possum nature. 

[Sigmetnow]

Then I’ll posit that we are all living in a computer simulation, so what does it really matter, anyway? 

[Neven]

It matters. Which pill do you take, the blue one or the red one? 

[Bob Wallace]

That's Easy :- Ban the use of (thermal) Coal globally with only 3 years notice to prepare for the Shock Therapy.

Right, Donald.  You've got it all figured out.

[Neven]

If your name was Rosa Parks you'd still be sitting at the back of the bus.

But the bus would be powered by batteries!

Did you see how I brought that one back on topic? 

[Bob Wallace]

Here's the thing, Lurker.

There is no reasonable way to stop the use of coal. 

Your solution, well, I told Neven that I would try to curtail my disdain for ....

[oren]

Me, I'm flexible, so I have another solution for consideration.

Ban the use of (thermal) Coal giving 4 years notice everywhere except in the United States.

Great solution. But how? Who is doing the banning?

[Sigmetnow]

This has been mentioned once or twice before, here.  Looks like it may begin to see wider use in buildings in warm climates.  Storing cold, rather than heat.

A California Startup That Cools With Ice Raises $40 Million

Ice Energy, a California firm that uses chunks of ice to cool buildings, has secured $40 million in financing from private equity group Argo Infrastructure Partners LLC.

The bulk of the funding will help pay for a storage project for Edison International’s Southern California Edison utility, Ice Energy Chief Executive Officer Mike Hopkins said in an interview.
...
Ice Energy, based in Costa Mesa, California, makes refrigerator-sized systems that freeze water at night when electricity prices are low and uses it to provide cooling during the day when rates are higher. They’re installed on the roofs of commercial buildings and connected to air conditioning systems. When switched on, they cut down on buildings’ electricity demand and free up supplies for utilities to use.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-26/a-california-startup-that-cools-with-ice-raises-40-million%5B

[Shared Humanity]

humans will unite only once the enemy is in front of their city walls and there is no fog to omit that fact.

This is a very important fact.  We need to keep it in mind.

Yes and given the very long feedback loops between increased CO2 levels and climate change, if we wait until the enemy is at the gates, we're "dead men walking".

[Shared Humanity]

incremental change is not enough

Please give a non-incremental solution to climate change.

Give us a way to stop global warming that consists of one single step.

1). All of humanity finally recognizes the obvious and has this guide all of their actions.

We are all facing a rapidly approaching existential crisis. (Deep down inside, anyone paying attention already understands this. This is the source of our discomfort and disquiet as we go about living our lives.) We have, at most, 3 decades to avoid our self destruction which will play out over the ensuing century. The enemy is all sources of CO2 emissions and these emissions are inextricably interwoven into the very fabric of our civilization as currently organized.

The step, you see, is not technological. It is intellectual, emotional, sociological. We need to come to the realization that each of us individually and all of us collectively are driving humanity to the brink of extinction. We need to see the humanity in all around us and recognize that our healthy future is absolutely dependent on theirs (the health of the entire biosphere as well). We need to undergo this single transformation in thought and understanding and then act accordingly.

Yes, radical, not incremental and absolutely necessary or as you might say, "Magical Thinking" but nothing less than this will save us.

[Shared Humanity]

If your name was Rosa Parks you'd still be sitting at the back of the bus.

But the bus would be powered by batteries!

Did you see how I brought that one back on topic? 

Let me help too.

I consider coal to be nature's battery...been charging for hundreds of millions of years. So we are already battery powered.

See? Problem solved!

[Bob Wallace]

"Great solution. But how? Who is doing the banning?"

The People, obviously, via their Govts at the UNFCCC.

Anyone who breaks ranks the most powerful nation on this planet sends them a gentle reminder by way of Cruise Missiles - 3 strikes you're out with a Nuke missile. iow SOP for the US to get their own way.

Mr. Lurker

This used to be a place where people had rational and thoughtful discussions of how we might avoid extreme climate change.

It looks like you have both the ability and desire to destroy what was for some unknown reason.

Sad.

[Bob Wallace]

humans will unite only once the enemy is in front of their city walls and there is no fog to omit that fact.

This is a very important fact.  We need to keep it in mind.

Yes and given the very long feedback loops between increased CO2 levels and climate change, if we wait until the enemy is at the gates, we're "dead men walking".

Correct.  IMHO.

Our best chance is that technology continues to advance at a rapid rate, bringing us cheaper and cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels.  And we accelerate our switch to renewable energy for economic reasons.

I expect the greater population to increase its concern about climate change as years flow by, we get hit by more extreme weather events and rising sea levels, and as deniers die off.

As concern rises then there should be a push on utilities and governments to quit fossil fuels.  If the math works in favor of EVs there will be no logical reason for utilities and governments to support fossil fuel (other than economic self interest on the part of individuals).

If wind and solar LCOEs drop to ~$0.01/kWh as some in the industries predict and EVs become 20% cheaper than ICEVs to purchase then we may not need public pressure. 

Obviously we need to do all we can to increase public concern as the economics might not turn out to be enough.

[Bob Wallace]

"Give us a way to stop global warming that consists of one single step."

1). All of humanity finally recognizes the obvious and has this guide all of their actions.

Setting aside the low probability of that happening soon enough it would still take incremental steps to reach a fossil fuel free world.  We still have to go through the same steps of gradually replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy.  We'd just do it faster.

[Bob Wallace]

We need to come to the realization that each of us individually and all of us collectively are driving humanity to the brink of extinction.

And here we encounter something about which I cannot be optimistic.  Enough people realizing and making changes.

We certainly need to.  We also need to quit smoking, quit over drinking, lose weight, get more exercise, watch less junk TV and do something educational, invest for our retirement, get our oil changed on schedule....

Some of us live in a bubble of "aware" people who also walk their talk.  That's probably a very small percentage of the world's people.  Go to the mall or non-hipster bar and see how many people look like they are aware, awake, and adopting.

I think it extremely important to assume we have to solve the climate change problem without relying on a vast number of individuals to change their lifestyles in order to avoid wide scale disaster.

[Shared Humanity]

Here's the thing, Lurker.

There is no reasonable way to stop the use of coal. 

Yes, you are correct. But when faced with an impending existential crisis, it is essential that we become unreasonable.

We are all going to die because......reasons.