...Or, 4.2 years with 100 similar factories !
....assuming they are not all dedicated to EV battery production, which is the main driver of battery production plant proposals so far .
...Or, 4.2 years with 100 similar factories !
Why? We have 141 refineries in the US and 1500 coal mines - and we still manage to build all those stadiums and theme parks. Surely we can manage to add a few dozen battery factories.
Many of them WILL be dedicated to EV battery production. Which is almost as good; EV's are mobile batteries that can charge at selectable times, and thus serve as a sink for all that "unreliable" wind and solar power.
Yep. And the thousands of children who work the African diamond mines so that people can feel good about buying their fiancees a big "symbol of love." And the thousands of children (and adults) who die in the US every year because people want their cheap coal power.
Yep. By those standards, thousands of people are getting in the way of coal nowadays. We just have to sacrifice them to get cheap power - for the good of the economy, of course. Sorry about your dead child, but he was getting in the way.The whole thing reminds me of Ozzie Zehner's point that peoples mind frame is like the AI from Hal9000 in the movie 2001 a space odyssey movie https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=16m7s where the computer decides to kill the humans on the spaceship to achieve the goal of the mission because they were merely getting in the way.
If that array kills a hundred tortoises, and allows a coal mine that kills thousands to shut down, we (and the tortoises) are better off.No one seems to blink an eyelid at the real world statistics on solar generation and size that prove you need a solar farm that's about 600km2 to replace a single power-station. Even if that solar farm is going to kill tortoises in the USA desert or Koala habitat in Queensland.
I don't like your idea of covering the ocean and wiping out all sea life.Or the latest idea of just covering the ocean and wiping out all sea life
It's a lot more ethical than coal, where you just toss the problems over the fence and ignore the people it kills.So South Australia's big Tesla battery that could charge hopefully 100 Tesla trucks is still completely unethical.
Ref ..J Petersen ..investment analysist/researcher......The simple and inescapable reality is that even if the battery industry abandons high cobalt LCO chemistry in favor of lower cobalt NCM and NCA chemistries, global cobalt supplies cannot support total worldwide production of more than a few million short-range EVs (under 100 miles) or a couple million long-range EVs (over 200 miles) per year.
In other words, without a battery technology breakthrough or a cobalt production miracle, EVs can never account for more than a few percent of the global car build or make a relevant scale contribution to CO2 emissions reductions. So, the billions of dollars flowing into ill-conceived EV schemes with inadequate supply chains will be incinerated in the next bonfire of the vanities.......
He's probably pushing lead-carbon again; I've seen a resurgence of them at solar/storage shows.jimw1960 wrote: ↑Dec 21, 2017 4:27 pmPetersen is a con artist. He suckered hundreds of people into buying stock in Axion, a maker of lead-carbon batteries, and they all lost their money. Turned out he was selling his own stock at the same time he was convincing others to buy big. Then he rustled up a bunch of investors in a company called E-Power, who tried to build an hybrid class 8 truck that ran on Axion's batteries. Those people all lost their money, too. The past two years he has been pushing this idea of cobalt shortages being the death of electric vehicles. Not sure what his angle is on this, but you can bet there is one.
Yes, and they are commercially available, but i think its significant that most of the major players in grid storage ....Panasonic, Samsung, LG , Tesla, ..are all running with a cobalt formula ?
But from the same linked article....jimw1960 wrote: ↑Dec 21, 2017 3:30 pmWind power generation capacity in Texas now exceeds that of coal power capacity. Several coal plants are to be closed next year.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/win ... coal-texas
....its those tricky little details like "Installed NAMEPLATE Capacity",.... Compare to real generation capacity that always trip people up !......But capacity is one thing, electricity generation is another. In the first ten months of 2017, wind generated 17.2 percent of power in the state, and coal 31.9 percent, according to ERCOT.......
Yep. Right now it's cheap, and the formulation is well known, so why not?
And a lot of the industry (Glencore, Benchmark Mineral Intelligene) is predicting that cobalt will NOT be in such short supply that it will cripple the industry. So someone's wrong.But that doesnot mean he is always wrong or that his sources are wrong (industry experts) or the other industry professionals who have been quoted previously .....are all wrong.?
Jil wrote: ↑Dec 18, 2017 5:01 amSorry to come again but please stop using old data for solar energy.TheBeastie wrote: ↑Dec 01, 2017 2:41 amTopaz Solar Farm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm ) in the desert of the USA. 25km2 sized. 2016 generation: 1,265,805MWh (great year 2016, 2017 looks to be a lot lower)
Average power 144MW = (1,265,805MWhours / 8760_hours_in_a_year)
Average coal or nuclear power station: average output 3927MW = (34,402,000MWh / 8760)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluel_Nu ... ower_Plant
3927MW / 144MW = 27 times more power.
25km2 x 27 = 675km2 of land covered in solar panels to generate the same average power (if you have a super huge battery as well, that will require a lot of land and a lot of energy to dispose of once used)
The ratio easily achievable today is 1 MWp/ha for solar fixed tilt, and 0.5 MWp/ha for single-axis trackers (the technology mainly used in countries with high irradiation).
In the first case, with average irradiation you can count on 1500 MWh/MWp/year of energy produced, in the second case (trackers) 2000 MWh/MWp/year. With 99.5% availability. For nuclear and coal plants, it's more around 90%.
So it makes for fixed-tilt 150 GWh/km2/year, and for trackers 100 GWh/km2/year, for average sites (for Nevada with high irradiation it will be more).
If you compare to a nuclear or coal plant of 4000 MW with 90% availability, the equivalent production of 31,500 GWh will require between 200 and 300 km2 of land (and probably 50% less for Nevada). Not 675. By the way what surface of land does require a 4000 MW plant for coal mining ?