New battery technology

[IanD]

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/startup-aims-to-tackle-grid-storage-problem-with-serverracksized-battery

 

Could be another pie-in-the-sky money pit, but if it gets to market they're promising 1kWh=$120 2kg 0.6l this year (details from white paper, snip attached) with further advances in future -- can also charge at 5C assuming you've got a hefty enough power source.

 

So a 30kWh battery bank for narrowboat electric propulsion would cost about three grand, weigh 60kg, and occupy about 20l of space -- that's 2/3 the cost of lithium, more than 3x the capacity by volume, more than 6x the capacity by weight. And could be charged from flat in 12 minutes, assuming you had a 150kW power feed -- which after all, is what the high-power car chargers are going to deliver, so the charging stations will exist, they would just need to be on the canal network as well as on the road network...

 

This is getting to the point where electric propulsion could be much more compact than diesel -- everything would fit in the last couple of feet of the hull, allowing a trad stern with immediate step down and no engine room, gaining something like 4 feet extra usable length inside the boat -- and not that much more expensive, with all the silence and pollution advantages.

 

All that would be needed to make this work would be the charging infrastructure... <sigh>

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by IanD

[Richard10002]

I still worry about how all this power is being generated. All the current solutions with vehicles seem to be to move the "source" of the power from the vehicle itself to a central "power station", which is either nuclear, coal, gas, oil, or similar. Some of it might be solar, wind, tide, hydro, but not much and, given that we only have one atmosphere, presumably whatever/wherever the source of the power, the pollution gets mixed up in the atmosphere and climate change continues at the same rate.

 

I guess it is probably a good thing that the pollution is moved out of cities and residential areas, but it doesn't seem to be a solution to climate issues.

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

I guess it is probably a good thing that the pollution is moved out of cities and residential areas, but it doesn't seem to be a solution to climate issues.

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I still worry about how all this power is being generated. All the current solutions with vehicles seem to be to move the "source" of the power from the vehicle itself to a central "power station", which is either nuclear, coal, gas, oil, or similar. Some of it might be solar, wind, tide, hydro, but not much and, given that we only have one atmosphere, presumably whatever/wherever the source of the power, the pollution gets mixed up in the atmosphere and climate change continues at the same rate.

 

I guess it is probably a good thing that the pollution is moved out of cities and residential areas, but it doesn't seem to be a solution to climate issues.

Yes the power has to be generated, but even if it comes from fossil fuels the overall "well-to-wheel" (or "well-to-propellor" in this case) efficiency is better than diesel, probably about half the energy use for both narrowboats (diesels idle in locks and are inefficient at typical 3kW/4hp power levels) and cars (regenerative braking) -- and the pollution is moved away from people. If the power comes from renewables (in the future...) the picture obviously changes.

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Not many people breathe the chimney output 600 feet up where the pollution is emitted -- and there's about half as much overall anyway (see above)...

Edited July 19, 2019 by IanD

[Richard10002]

38 minutes ago, IanD said:

Yes the power has to be generated, but even if it comes from fossil fuels the overall "well-to-wheel" (or "well-to-propellor" in this case) efficiency is better than diesel, probably about half the energy use for both narrowboats (diesels idle in locks and are inefficient at typical 3kW/4hp power levels) and cars (regenerative braking) -- and the pollution is moved away from people. If the power comes from renewables (in the future...) the picture obviously changes.

Not many people breathe the chimney output 600 feet up where the pollution is emitted -- and there's about half as much overall anyway (see above)...

Agreed! It's not a bad thing, merely not quite as good as is being made out. In addition, it doesnt solve the nuclear waste issue, or the waste battery issue, which strike me as a problems been kicked into the very long grass, to be dealt with by our great great grandchildren.

 

I saw a TED Talk about ten years ago by a Dutch guy who said that we didnt need to worry about fossil fuels and climate change because, in 50-100 years, technology will have changed and things will have been invented/improved to the point where we no longer need to burn fossil fuels or use nuclear. IIRC he was talking about renewables, and his ideas seem to have been poo poo'd for some reason.

 

I have since wondered why the Sahara Desert, (and similar), has not been covered with solar panels, every powerful tidal gate filled with rocking floats and underwater turbines, (obviously with allowances for shipping), and so on.

 

I guess there must be reasons  

[BruceinSanity]

57 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I still worry about how all this power is being generated. All the current solutions with vehicles seem to be to move the "source" of the power from the vehicle itself to a central "power station", which is either nuclear, coal, gas, oil, or similar. Some of it might be solar, wind, tide, hydro, but not much and, given that we only have one atmosphere, presumably whatever/wherever the source of the power, the pollution gets mixed up in the atmosphere and climate change continues at the same rate.

 

I guess it is probably a good thing that the pollution is moved out of cities and residential areas, but it doesn't seem to be a solution to climate issues.

Quote

Low carbon electricity’s share of generation increased from 50.1 per cent in 2017 to a record high of 52.8 per cent in 2018, driven by growth in renewable generation due to increased capacity.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/791297/Press_Notice_March_2019.pdf

 

”Low carbon” means nuclear + renewables. From the same document:

 

Quote

Of electricity generated in 2018, gas accounted for 39.4 per cent whilst coal accounted for only 5.0 per cent. Renewables share of electricity generation increased to 33.3 per cent in 2018 - a record high - with 111 TWh electricity generated from renewable sources, as a result of increased capacity. Nuclear generation’s share declined slightly on 2017, due to reactor outages and required maintenance.

 

[Johny London]

Things are changing slowly, because the people who have money in oil also have a lot of influence. Not till they have a way of getting their money out of oil will we truly move forward - it's happening though - notice petrol stations rebadged as "energy" now?

 

At least moving the generation to centralised places (power stations) it's easier to quantify and control the pollution and I think a more efficient approach anyway. One step closer.

[Richard10002]

31 minutes ago, Johny London said:

Things are changing slowly, because the people who have money in oil also have a lot of influence. 

Now there’s a surprise! People with loads of money either stopping something good happening, or making something bad happen, because they would lose money.

 

Thus extremely inefficient, (or a complete waste of time and effort), to try to solve the problems, until, (as you say), these guys have been given something else to make their billions from?

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Now there’s a surprise! People with loads of money either stopping something good happening, or making something bad happen, because they would lose money.

 

Thus extremely inefficient, (or a complete waste of time and effort), to try to solve the problems, until, (as you say), these guys have been given something else to make their billions from?

It's unfair to just blame the oil/gas/coal companies; the simple fact is that fossil fuels are a cheap source of energy that modern societies have evolved to use. We're all hooked on the availability of cheap intensive energy, especially for industry (making "stuff") and transport (cars/boats/ships/planes), and renewables + batteries are less convenient/suitable for many purposes.

 

Given the CO2 emissions it shouldn't be possible to fly away for the weekend for 50 quid or less, but lots of people love doing it and will carry on doing it until the cost goes up massively.

 

Until there's some big (and worldwide) financial penalty for burning fossil fuels, the shift to renewables won't be as quick as it could be. But any government proposing this on its own would be shot down because it would increase prices for goods/food/travel and most people don't like that, they'd rather keep their cheap polluting stuff ?