Plantagenet wrote:Morgan Stanley just proclaimed that Lithium batteries are the "new oil."
evilgenius wrote:Ski areas are delaying their openings, in Colorado.
Plantagenet wrote:If you just look at tailpipe emissions then EVs seem like a no-brainer.
But if you actually think it through and do a detailed analysis of the total carbon footprint of an EV vs an ICE car it turns out that building an EV releases about 70% MORE CO2 than building a comparable ICE vehicle, and running an EV on carbon intensive electricity generated exclusively from burning coal or oil isn't much cleaner then running an ICE car.
As a result some studies even suggest switching to EVs won't have much an effect on the world's carbon footprint and hence won't save us from future greenhouse warming.
Plantagenet wrote:Morgan Stanley just proclaimed that Lithium batteries are the "new oil."
lithium-batteries-are-the-new-oil-says-morgan-stanley
The world economy ran on oil for the last 150 years. Now the world economy is switching to lithium to power a new world EVs, starting with EV cars but expanding to EV planes, boats, helicopters, etc.
Many many people got rich in the past by exploring for oil, developing oil fields, refining oil, selling oil, and manufacturing things that ran on oil.
In the future people will get rich by exploring for lithium, developing lithium mines, refining and selling lithium, and manufacturing all kinds of EVs that run on lithium EV batteries.
Lithium is the new oil.
Cheers!
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Outcast_Searcher wrote: clearly, over time, electricity production will become MUCH more green, which will make the lifetime CO2 footprint strongly favor EV's.
Tanada wrote:
Ridiculous! Lithium batteries are simply energy storage devices. While we can synthesize petrochemical fuels that are drop in replacements for Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel or Gasoline these substitutes are al based on an abundant natural fuel set of organic molecules.
There is no analogous Lithium battery supply in nature that we are simply imitating with synthetic production. Lithium batteries are a wholly technological storage system and in point of fact hold far less energy density than an equal volume of synthetic diesel fuel even using that synthetic molecular blend to power a poorly efficient ICE vehicle instead of an electric motor vehicle.
Plantagenet wrote:Tanada wrote:
Ridiculous! Lithium batteries are simply energy storage devices. While we can synthesize petrochemical fuels that are drop in replacements for Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel or Gasoline these substitutes are al based on an abundant natural fuel set of organic molecules.
There is no analogous Lithium battery supply in nature that we are simply imitating with synthetic production. Lithium batteries are a wholly technological storage system and in point of fact hold far less energy density than an equal volume of synthetic diesel fuel even using that synthetic molecular blend to power a poorly efficient ICE vehicle instead of an electric motor vehicle.
I don't think Morgan Stanley is saying that a lithium battery is a precise analogue to oil in the sense of lithium batteries being a power source---- because of course they aren't a power source.
I think the idea is that lithium batteries are the essential limiting factor on developing a new economy without fossil fuels.
Just as you can't have the modern oil-based economy without huge amounts of oil, you can't move to a fossil fuel free economy without a huge supply of lithium batteries.
Morgan Stanley's premise is that if you want to invest in the future fossil fuel free economy you should invest in the lithium battery supply chain.....lithium mines, lithium mining support and technology, lithium battery production, EV cars, etc. etc.
Cheers!
Plantagenet wrote:Tanada wrote:
Ridiculous! Lithium batteries are simply energy storage devices. While we can synthesize petrochemical fuels that are drop in replacements for Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel or Gasoline these substitutes are al based on an abundant natural fuel set of organic molecules.
There is no analogous Lithium battery supply in nature that we are simply imitating with synthetic production. Lithium batteries are a wholly technological storage system and in point of fact hold far less energy density than an equal volume of synthetic diesel fuel even using that synthetic molecular blend to power a poorly efficient ICE vehicle instead of an electric motor vehicle.
I don't think Morgan Stanley is saying that a lithium battery is a precise analogue to oil in the sense of lithium batteries being a power source---- because of course they aren't a power source.
I think the idea is that lithium batteries are the essential limiting factor on developing a new economy without fossil fuels.
Just as you can't have the modern oil-based economy without huge amounts of oil, you can't move to a fossil fuel free economy without a huge supply of lithium batteries.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
evilgenius wrote:Plantagenet wrote: lithium batteries are the essential limiting factor on developing a new economy without fossil fuels
Are you saying that you distrust the markets, when it comes to the establishment of the lithium based world?
Tanada wrote:Lithium batteries are a wholly technological storage system and in point of fact hold far less energy density than an equal volume of synthetic diesel fuel even using that synthetic molecular blend to power a poorly efficient ICE vehicle instead of an electric motor vehicle.
Tanada wrote:
That is exactly the false premise I am talking about Plantagenet! Are lithium batteries useful? Sure are, they can be used to store electricity at a reasonable cost within certain limits.
However as is so often the case in the last few decades people who want to "improve the situation" get tunnel vision focusing on their one and only preferred solution and discounting every other possibility as the enemy of their chosen fixation.Synthetic diesel/jet fuel is a real world thing that does an excellent job of storing energy in a chemical form that drops straight into our existing infrastructure without requiring new disruptive technology to flourish.
Tanada wrote:
Back in the 1960's the USN had a grand plan for moving all carrier task force ships to being independently nuclear powered so they could cruise without need of constantly being tied to the logistic chain of fossil fuel tankers refilling the tanks on all the support vessels every few days. The effort failed for two reasons. When the cost of fossil fuels dropped in 1986 Congress shifted the navy back to burning oil in all their new ships with the exception of the carriers and submarines. There was even a push for fossil powered carriers at the same time. In the 1990's the smaller navy ships with nuclear power along with half the submarine fleet were scrapped decades before they were needing to be scrapped and the number of active nuclear carriers was cut in half. The other related problem was carrier aircraft burn many tons of jet fuel so even in the all nuclear fleet they were still tied to tanker ships providing fossil fuels.
The new synthetic fuel proposal breaks that tanker dependency when or if the Congress decides to get off its inaction and implement it. The way it works is pretty simple, Navy fossil ships are all adjusted to burn the same fuel in their GT engine systems as the aircraft on the carriers burn so there is a unitary fuel type needed. The concept is brilliant in its simplicity, the nuclear carrier uses its excess energy capacity to power up a synthetic fuel manufacturing plant deep inside the ship. It takes in sea water which has large quantities of dissolved CO2. It pulls out CO2 and H2O which go through synthesis steps to form medium chain Hydrocarbons in the same range as the fossil fuels the GT engines on the smaller ships and aircraft burn. The synthetic fuel is continuously pumped into the onboard tanks. As each escorting ship gets down to half a load it pulls along side and gets topped up.
This makes the entire task group independent of fossil fuel tankers which are on the close order of 60% of the logistic chain for ships in combat and closer to 75% for ships on patrol duty. The rest of the logistics chain is food, weapons and spare parts and the weapons and spares use go up substantially in combat conditions.
Tanada wrote:However as is so often the case in the last few decades people who want to "improve the situation" get tunnel vision focusing on their one and only preferred solution and discounting every other possibility as the enemy of their chosen fixation.
Synthetic diesel/jet fuel is a real world thing
Pops wrote:Tanada wrote:However as is so often the case in the last few decades people who want to "improve the situation" get tunnel vision focusing on their one and only preferred solution and discounting every other possibility as the enemy of their chosen fixation.
Synthetic diesel/jet fuel is a real world thing
Tanada, I may be completely misreading this but I don't see a nuke renaissance, let alone one designed to make artificial diesel to run the same old 20% efficient ICEs. Some poll showed 80% of people in the US are good with more Solar, 70% more wind, but only 40% with more nukes—and that's without tying them to ICEs.
ICEs were great at 100:1 eroei, you could waste 80% at the wheel and still have enough to propel a 3 ton land shark and every economy in the world. Why go to the expense of wasting whatever percent of energy is wasted to make fake diesel just to waste 80% more in an ICE?
The fix for personal driving—14k miles per year— is to not drive 14k miles per year. Whose idea was it to drive 40 miles per day? I've had better customer service with everything from banks to social security to hot water heater warranty, since reps are working from home during the pandemic. Everyone is chill, you can tell the difference in attitude. Of course that is my hobbie horse.
I don't have any problem with nukes as soon as they figure out what to do with the waste but the ICE has gotta go. EVs are simple and efficient as long as we don't try to make them just like a Coup de Ville. In my little town I could drive a golf cart for 90% of my trips if it had a good heater.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
The beauty of it is the synthetic diesel does not require the use of nukes, you can do it with hydroelectricity, Solar PV electricity, Solar Thermal electricity, Windmill electricity, Geothermal electricity etc etc.
Pops wrote:Tanada wrote:Tanada, I may be completely misreading this but I don't see a nuke renaissance, let alone one designed to make artificial diesel to run the same old 20% efficient ICEs.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests