phasing out of fossil fuels - programme

[1st ade]

12 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But competition laws (national) are pretty much as effective as a fishing net against a torpedo. Hence why most European countries, inc UK, are troubled by the likes of Amazon. There a a bit than can be done when a multi national does physical business in a country but not when it is all on the internet.

You'll know when Amazon are about to launch EV Charging in your area....

 

 

 

... as they will be doing a deal for electricity to your home for Amazon Prime customers the week before

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, phantom_iv said:

 

National grid is a private company these days ? Last time I checked, there wasn't national water distribution - there were only local private monopoly-holding companies. Road and railway infrastructure takes longer, costs more and is worse maintained in general than many other comparable companies. E.g. go to France. Yes, it is state owned there, but they're better at it it seems. I'm not saying state ownership is necessarily a bad thing in itself, we just seem to do it really badly in this country.

 

As for railway provision in remote areas being worse pre-grouping, there's a lot of places that had a railway connection before nationalisation that don't have one now.

 

Ultimately, the key to successful privatisation is competition. Without competition private companies have no incentive to keep prices low, as their customers have nowhere else to go. The days of duplicated railway lines into major urban areas did at least provide competition for better services and lower prices for customers, compared to these days of insufficient capacity.

 

Regaring EV charging points, yes, I do believe private companies will do a better job than the government of rolling them out. Because eventually if they make them too expensive / too hard to use / too unreliable customers will simply go elsewhere. With a government-run monopoly if you don't like the service / it's too expensive / too unreliable then tough. You'll have to live with it as you have no alternative. And the people running it will still have a job regardless of how incompetently they do it so what's their incentive to make it actually work well? Same as in the NHS there seems to be zero incentive to provide a good standard of care to your patients and actually look after them, because patients have nowhere else to go. Complain and you're told, "it's free, what did you expect?"

Everyone I know with electric cars have home chargers, however the 2 Tesla owners never use them other than for warming/cooling the car, both make use of free supercharging on the motorways

[Alan de Enfield]

The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret

 

The race is on to find a steady source of lithium, a key component in rechargeable electric car batteries. But while the EU focuses on emissions, the lithium gold rush threatens environmental damage on an industrial scale

 

The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret | News | The Guardian

 

Long article but some interesting facts and details.

 

 

[peterboat]

4 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

Not well timed that comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/08/coventry-woman-90-first-patient-to-receive-covid-vaccine-in-nhs-campaign

 

I know the vaccine creation was privately led, but the approval and national roll-out has been led by the public sector.  And a huge well done to all those involved. ?

 

Also look at the value for money provided by the NHS compared to US private health insurance. 

 

Most daily users of the railways favour renationalisation, because they can see what a disaster privatisation has been.

 

Public funding can work, but we like to moan about the times it's gone wrong.

The oxford vaccine received £65 million in additional funding  earlier this year along with 1.2 billion dollars from the Yanks, so countries can pull together when the chips are down

[IanD]

42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret

 

The race is on to find a steady source of lithium, a key component in rechargeable electric car batteries. But while the EU focuses on emissions, the lithium gold rush threatens environmental damage on an industrial scale

 

The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret | News | The Guardian

 

Long article but some interesting facts and details.

 

 

Nothing which exploits natural resources is going to be ideal or cost-free, the question is -- is it better than what we have now?

 

It's not as if oil/gas doesn't cause environmental damage on an industrial scale or pollution, is it?

 

The current generation of lithium batteries are by no means perfect, there are issues with extraction and processing of lithium and cobalt among other things. But compared to burning fossil fuels the overall impact on the planet is much smaller, which is what matters.

 

It's likely that by the time BEV get really widely adopted there will be other battery chemistries which don't rely on relatively rare and difficult-to-extract elements and have less environmental impact, for example switching from lithium to sodium (small amounts of this may possibly exist in the seas) -- so long as volumes are small you can use nasty stuff, when they are huge you have to find better alternatives.

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret

 

The race is on to find a steady source of lithium, a key component in rechargeable electric car batteries. But while the EU focuses on emissions, the lithium gold rush threatens environmental damage on an industrial scale

 

The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret | News | The Guardian

 

Long article but some interesting facts and details.

 

 

Alan oil has caused so much environmental damage over the years and still does  coal has done the same. The difference is lithium once processed into a battery provides storage for clean energy for years, oil and coal always produce pollution from mining it to using it and it cant be cleaned up or ever be called clean 

[cuthound]

19 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret

 

The race is on to find a steady source of lithium, a key component in rechargeable electric car batteries. But while the EU focuses on emissions, the lithium gold rush threatens environmental damage on an industrial scale

 

The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret | News | The Guardian

 

Long article but some interesting facts and details.

 

 

 

This is why I believe that aluminium air batteries will eventually become commonplace.

 

Unlike lead acid or l-ion batteries they are primary cells, and cannot be recharged, but they are virtually 100% recyclable (easily, like lead acid but unlike l-ion batteries).

 

Aluminium air batteries have a much higher specific energy are much more than l-ion batteries 1300-8000W /kg compared to 250-340w/kg, so batteries can be smaller and lighter. However they will need to be standard sized to make changing them quick and easy. 

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246802571730081X#:~:text=The aluminum–air battery is,-ion batteries (LIBs).

 

However they are unlikely to be commercially available until the investment in l-ion batteries has been fully exploited.

 

I saw a practical demonstration of an aluminium air battery in 1985 and im sure they have improved since then.

[IanD]

4 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

This is why I believe that aluminium air batteries will eventually become commonplace.

 

Unlike lead acid or l-ion batteries they are primary cells, and cannot be recharged, but they are virtually 100% recyclable (easily, like lead acid but unlike l-ion batteries).

 

Aluminium air batteries have a much higher specific energy are much more than l-ion batteries 1300-8000W /kg compared to 250-340w/kg, so batteries can be smaller and lighter. However they will need to be standard sized to make changing them quick and easy. 

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246802571730081X#:~:text=The aluminum–air battery is,-ion batteries (LIBs).

 

However they are unlikely to be commercially available until the investment in l-ion batteries has been fully exploited.

 

I saw a practical demonstration of an aluminium air battery in 1985 and im sure they have improved since then.

And did you also read about the energy costs needed to recycle/recharge the batteries? And the fact that you need local stocks and a countrywide distribution network for both new and used batteries, plus the factories to recycle them?

 

As a niche product in small markets where high energy density is the over-riding requirement and practicalities like these can be ignored -- like aviation and the military -- they may have some success. But there are very good reasons they haven't been widely adopted for the mass market and probably never will be, the ones I gave above are just two of them.

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

And did you also read about the energy costs needed to recycle/recharge the batteries? And the fact that you need local stocks and a countrywide distribution network for both new and used batteries, plus the factories to recycle them?

 

As a niche product in small markets where high energy density is the over-riding requirement and practicalities like these can be ignored -- like aviation and the military -- they may have some success. But there are very good reasons they haven't been widely adopted for the mass market and probably never will be, the ones I gave above are just two of them.

 

Offset by the need not to install a charging infrastucture, having a initial range of 1000 miles plus and not needing to replace £1000's of batteries as the cost of recycling al/air batteries is peanuts.

 

Extant fuel stations and garages could be used for battery changing stations as they are already set up.for delivery and collection.

 

https://www.automotivelogistics.media/electric-vehicles/al-air-a-better-battery-for-evs/40079.article

 

If a BEV with a range of 1000 miles was on sale now it would wipe out the existing BEV market.

Edited December 9, 2020 by cuthound
Clarification

[peterboat]

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Offset by the need not to install a charging infrastucture, having a initial range of 1000 miles plus and not needing to replace £1000's of batteries as the cost of recycling al/air batteries is peanuts.

 

https://www.automotivelogistics.media/electric-vehicles/al-air-a-better-battery-for-evs/40079.article

 

If a BEV with a range of 1000 miles was on sale now it would wipe out the existing BEV market.

I dont think it would mate Lithium batteries have potential to last a million miles why bother with what in essence is an upgraded duracell?

[cuthound]

11 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I dont think it would mate Lithium batteries have potential to last a million miles why bother with what in essence is an upgraded duracell?

 

A million miles over what time period?

 

All batteries are chemical devices and wear out because of use, environment and time. All three are variables, so a million miles would only be achievable over a short timeframe, in ideal temperatures and gentle usage.

 

Why bother, much kinder to the environment because aluminium and are are cheap, commonly found and readily available compared to lithium.

Edited December 9, 2020 by cuthound

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Offset by the need not to install a charging infrastucture, having a initial range of 1000 miles plus and not needing to replace £1000's of batteries as the cost of recycling al/air batteries is peanuts.

 

Extant fuel stations and garages could be used for battery changing stations as they are already set up.for delivery and collection.

 

https://www.automotivelogistics.media/electric-vehicles/al-air-a-better-battery-for-evs/40079.article

 

If a BEV with a range of 1000 miles was on sale now it would wipe out the existing BEV market.

So if they can recycled "for peanuts", please provide evidence for this.

 

Reversing an electrochemical reaction -- like, recycling the battery materials back to their new state -- is normally very energy-intensive.

 

It this is different for aluminium-air batteries, I'll eat my hat ?

[peterboat]

5 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

A million miles over what time period?

 

All batteries are chemical devices and wear out because of use, environment and time. All three are variables, so a million miles would only be achievable over a short timeframe, in ideal temperatures and gentle usage.

 

Why bother, much kinder to the environment because aluminium and are are cheap, commonly found and readily available compared to lithium.

Better tell Tesla then because they have done it already, it will make life very difficult for all the legacy car makers 

[cuthound]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

So if they can recycled "for peanuts", please provide evidence for this.

 

Reversing an electrochemical reaction -- like, recycling the battery materials back to their new state -- is normally very energy-intensive.

 

It this is different for aluminium-air batteries, I'll eat my hat ?

 

Read the article in the link. The bit on recycling says.

 

"Jackson has got Al-air battery depletion covered, too. A discharged Al-air battery would simply be replaced with a recycled one which could be sold at supermarkets and convenience stores; swapping an empty battery for a new, fully charged one would take about 90 seconds, he claims, and would be accomplished at a refuelling machine serving multiple ‘swap stations’.

It might seem wasteful to take out a car’s battery once it reaches the end of its range; what happens to all the batteries that are removed instead of recharged? Jackson has given careful consideration to this aspect and developed what seems like a feasible model for reverse logistics. In fact, the only component which is spent is the ‘fuel’ – the aluminium plates, which can be recycled.

Jackson explains: “The process will be automatic and the waste hydroxide will be recovered and returned to the aluminium infrastructure that already exists, where it will be reprocessed into aluminium metal using the low CO₂ (inert anode) process developed by Rusal.”

While rechargeable Li-ion batteries can cost tens of thousands of pounds to replace, Jackson says that ‘refuelling’ by swapping a drained Al-air battery for a recycled one at the end of its 1,500-mile range is vastly cheaper, taking into account materials, logistics, labour and other factors. “You only pay for the miles you drive and you only pay seven pence per mile,” he states."

The electrolyre is drained & refilled with new, then tbe remains of the aluminium plates are  removed and new installed. Finally the used electrolyte and aluminium plates are sent for recycling.

[IanD]

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

Read the article in the link. The bit on recycling says.

 

"Jackson has got Al-air battery depletion covered, too. A discharged Al-air battery would simply be replaced with a recycled one which could be sold at supermarkets and convenience stores; swapping an empty battery for a new, fully charged one would take about 90 seconds, he claims, and would be accomplished at a refuelling machine serving multiple ‘swap stations’.

It might seem wasteful to take out a car’s battery once it reaches the end of its range; what happens to all the batteries that are removed instead of recharged? Jackson has given careful consideration to this aspect and developed what seems like a feasible model for reverse logistics. In fact, the only component which is spent is the ‘fuel’ – the aluminium plates, which can be recycled.

Jackson explains: “The process will be automatic and the waste hydroxide will be recovered and returned to the aluminium infrastructure that already exists, where it will be reprocessed into aluminium metal using the low CO₂ (inert anode) process developed by Rusal.”

While rechargeable Li-ion batteries can cost tens of thousands of pounds to replace, Jackson says that ‘refuelling’ by swapping a drained Al-air battery for a recycled one at the end of its 1,500-mile range is vastly cheaper, taking into account materials, logistics, labour and other factors. “You only pay for the miles you drive and you only pay seven pence per mile,” he states."

The electrolyre is drained & refilled with new, then tbe remains of the aluminium plates are  removed and new installed. Finally the used electrolyte and aluminium plates are sent for recycling.

But none of this answers the very simple question I asked -- how much energy does the whole process including recycling take?

 

If it's much larger than the resultant energy stored in the new battery -- which is likely -- then the whole thing is a non-starter for widespread adoption because the energy consumption would be much higher than rechargeable batteries.

 

I notice that the article carefully avoids any mention of this, and I suspect this is the reason why -- primary cells (non-rechargeable batteries) are usually horribly energy-expensive even if they can be recycled to save raw materials.

Edited December 9, 2020 by IanD

[TheBiscuits]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

I notice that the article carefully avoids any mention of this, and I suspect this is the reason why -- primary cells (non-rechargeable batteries) are usually horribly energy-expensive even if they can be recycled to save raw materials.

 

Mainly because they don't have it working yet - it's a demonstration with known flaws:

 

However, Rong at IHS says the technology is still at an early stage and that the major challenge lies with the air cathode. “The sluggish efficiency of the oxygen reduction reaction is the barrier for its application. Other problems include CO2 reaction with alkaline electrolyte producing carbonate precipitates, water evaporation to open air [electrolyte dry-out] and electrolyte penetration into the pores of the air cathode.”

 

I do like the handwaving about EROEI:

 

Jackson explains: “The process will be automatic and the waste hydroxide will be recovered and returned to the aluminium infrastructure that already exists, where it will be reprocessed into aluminium metal using the low CO2 (inert anode) process developed by Rusal.”

 

Aluminium recycling is a very energy intensive process, so just he is talking about chucking the aluminium back into the existing recycling stream as somebody else's problem.  In fairness such streams do exist, as it's easier and cheaper to recycle Aluminum than it is to extract it from ores. 

 

Interestingly, they are comparing it to the Tesla 100kWh battery and at these quoted prices works out around 15p/kWh which is about the same cost as grid electricity.  That's a lot less than I can generate my own electric from a diesel engine, so can we ask them to install all their battery swap machines canalside please?

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by TheBiscuits
removed a stupid bit!

[Alan de Enfield]

8 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Mainly because they don't have it working yet - it's a demonstration with known flaws:

 

There are developments of the Alu-Air battery making it re-chargable. Think of it like the C19 vaccine - if enough people work on it it WILL happen.

 

If that works out it should be a 'game changer' :

 

Short extract (full report here : Recent Developments for Aluminum–Air Batteries | SpringerLink )

 

It's all way beyond me - I suppose if I understood it I'd be making them.

Rechargeable Al–Air Batteries

Aside from the use of Al–air batteries as primary batteries, studies have also been conducted to explore the possibility of creating rechargeable Al–air batteries. In general, the creation of rechargeable Al–air batteries is challenging and can provide large breakthroughs in this field because Al possesses a large theoretical capacity. And although many researchers have reported the creation of rechargeable Al-ion batteries, few studies have reported rechargeable Al–air batteries. Despite this, researchers are actively researching rechargeable Al–air batteries, particularly using ionic liquid or deep eutectic solvents as electrolytes (Fig. 16) [13, 196, 202, 203]. Al–air batteries that use chloroaluminate ionic liquid as the electrolyte exhibit Lewis acid–base chemistry comparable to Brønsted acidity in water, and similar to the control that proton concentration exerts over chemistry and electrochemistry in aqueous solutions, chloroacidity is the major determinant of speciation, reactivity and electrochemistry in ionic liquids. As for Al–air batteries, the composition of the melt determines chloroacidity in which as the chloride donor undergoes stepwise Lewis acid-base reactions with acidic AlCl₃, chloroaluminate anions form according to the following equilibrium reactions:

Cl−+ AlCl3→ AlCl−4k=1.6×1019Cl−+ AlCl3→ AlCl4−k=1.6×1019

(11)

AlCl−4+ AlCl3→ Al2Cl−7k=1.6×103AlCl4−+ AlCl3→ Al2Cl7−k=1.6×103

(12)

Al2Cl−7+ AlCl3→ Al3Cl−10k=1.0×10Al2Cl7−+ AlCl3→ Al3Cl10−k=1.0×10

(13)

Here, at < 0.5 mol fraction of AlCl₃ in the room temperature liquid melt, the only anions present in significant quantities are Lewis bases Cl⁻ and AlCl₄⁻, making the melt basic. And at AlCl₃ mol fractions greater than 0.5, as was used in our study, the only anions present in appreciable amounts in the liquid were AlCl₄⁻ and Al₂Cl₇⁻. This is a crucial factor because the electrodeposition of Al can only occur from Al₂Cl₇⁻ through the following reaction [204]:

4Al2Cl−7+3e−→ Al +7AlCl−44Al2Cl7−+3e−→ Al +7AlCl4−

(14)

Therefore, it is hypothesized that Al₂Cl₇⁻ can function as a charge carrier in Al–air batteries. The overall electrochemical reactions in aqueous solution electrolytes are described in the above section and for rechargeable Al–air batteries, suitable ionic liquids must be applied as an electrolyte in the battery to permit the deposition of Al [205]. Overall, the theoretical voltage of Al–air batteries with an ionic liquid-based electrolyte can be speculated in which the following reactions occur upon discharge:

 

 

 

[cuthound]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

But none of this answers the very simple question I asked -- how much energy does the whole process including recycling take?

 

If it's much larger than the resultant energy stored in the new battery -- which is likely -- then the whole thing is a non-starter for widespread adoption because the energy consumption would be much higher than rechargeable batteries.

 

I notice that the article carefully avoids any mention of this, and I suspect this is the reason why -- primary cells (non-rechargeable batteries) are usually horribly energy-expensive even if they can be recycled to save raw materials.

 

And how much energy is expended mining lithium and manufacturing lithium batteries?

 

As al/air batteries hold more energy for a given weight less will be needed to be extracted in the first place.

 

Finally 90% of lithium ion batteries are not currently recycled because of high energy and labour costs, she was re cycling aluminium is an established process.

[cuthound]

50 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There are developments of the Alu-Air battery making it re-chargable. Think of it like the C19 vaccine - if enough people work on it it WILL happen.

 

If that works out it should be a 'game changer' :

 

Short extract (full report here : Recent Developments for Aluminum–Air Batteries | SpringerLink )

 

It's all way beyond me - I suppose if I understood it I'd be making them.

Rechargeable Al–Air Batteries

Aside from the use of Al–air batteries as primary batteries, studies have also been conducted to explore the possibility of creating rechargeable Al–air batteries. In general, the creation of rechargeable Al–air batteries is challenging and can provide large breakthroughs in this field because Al possesses a large theoretical capacity. And although many researchers have reported the creation of rechargeable Al-ion batteries, few studies have reported rechargeable Al–air batteries. Despite this, researchers are actively researching rechargeable Al–air batteries, particularly using ionic liquid or deep eutectic solvents as electrolytes (Fig. 16) [13, 196, 202, 203]. Al–air batteries that use chloroaluminate ionic liquid as the electrolyte exhibit Lewis acid–base chemistry comparable to Brønsted acidity in water, and similar to the control that proton concentration exerts over chemistry and electrochemistry in aqueous solutions, chloroacidity is the major determinant of speciation, reactivity and electrochemistry in ionic liquids. As for Al–air batteries, the composition of the melt determines chloroacidity in which as the chloride donor undergoes stepwise Lewis acid-base reactions with acidic AlCl₃, chloroaluminate anions form according to the following equilibrium reactions:

Cl−+ AlCl3→ AlCl−4k=1.6×1019Cl−+ AlCl3→ AlCl4−k=1.6×1019

(11)

AlCl−4+ AlCl3→ Al2Cl−7k=1.6×103AlCl4−+ AlCl3→ Al2Cl7−k=1.6×103

(12)

Al2Cl−7+ AlCl3→ Al3Cl−10k=1.0×10Al2Cl7−+ AlCl3→ Al3Cl10−k=1.0×10

(13)

Here, at < 0.5 mol fraction of AlCl₃ in the room temperature liquid melt, the only anions present in significant quantities are Lewis bases Cl⁻ and AlCl₄⁻, making the melt basic. And at AlCl₃ mol fractions greater than 0.5, as was used in our study, the only anions present in appreciable amounts in the liquid were AlCl₄⁻ and Al₂Cl₇⁻. This is a crucial factor because the electrodeposition of Al can only occur from Al₂Cl₇⁻ through the following reaction [204]:

4Al2Cl−7+3e−→ Al +7AlCl−44Al2Cl7−+3e−→ Al +7AlCl4−

(14)

Therefore, it is hypothesized that Al₂Cl₇⁻ can function as a charge carrier in Al–air batteries. The overall electrochemical reactions in aqueous solution electrolytes are described in the above section and for rechargeable Al–air batteries, suitable ionic liquids must be applied as an electrolyte in the battery to permit the deposition of Al [205]. Overall, the theoretical voltage of Al–air batteries with an ionic liquid-based electrolyte can be speculated in which the following reactions occur upon discharge:

 

 

 

 

Yes thst was mentioned in the first article I linked to, but I didn't major on it because rechargable al/air batteries are pretty much theory at the moment.

 

The simple fact that al/air batteries can potentially hold 40 times as much energy, weight for weight, compared to lithium ion makes them a future contender.

 

However lithium air batteries have the potential to hold 50 times as much energy as current lithium, but the limiting factor will be the future scarcity of lithium compared to aluminium.

Edited December 10, 2020 by cuthound
To remove a space masquerading as a letter.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

And how much energy is expended mining lithium and manufacturing lithium batteries?

 

As al/air batteries hold more energy for a given weight less will be needed to be extracted in the first place.

 

Finally 90% of lithium ion batteries are not currently recycled because of high energy and labour costs, she was re cycling aluminium is an established process.

You're still missing the point completely.

 

The energy cost of manufacturing a lithium battery has to be paid once when it's made, this is than amortised over several thousand charging cycles over at least ten years lifetime. This cost is is included in all the "lifetime CO2 burden" calculations, which show they come out way ahead of ICE with at least 3x lower emissions over lifetime including manufacture and recycling/disposal.

 

A primary battery like Al-air has to pay the (high) energy cost every time it's recycled, which is hundreds of times over the same period even allowing for several times longer range. Even if this recycling energy cost is only equal to the stored energy -- and it could easily be bigger, such numbers are carefully not mentioned and recycling anything with Al in is famously energy-intensive -- then it doubles the CO2 emissions, which immediately puts it out of the running for volume applications like BEV.

 

This is the fundamental reason why rechargeable batteries have replaced primary ones in power applications, and I see no evidence that Al-air is any different. No amount of "working on it" will change basic chemistry and thermodynamics, undoing the chemical reaction that generates power in a primary cell is always difficult and lossy and always will be.

 

The paper mentioning recharging is pure theory, there's no proposal of how (or whether) it can be put into practice.

Edited December 10, 2020 by IanD

[Mike Todd]

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

You're still missing the point completely.

 

The energy cost of manufacturing a lithium battery has to be paid once when it's made, this is than amortised over several thousand charging cycles over at least ten years lifetime. This cost is is included in all the "lifetime CO2 burden" calculations, which show they come out way ahead of ICE with at least 3x lower emissions over lifetime including manufacture and recycling/disposal.

 

A primary battery like Al-air has to pay the (high) energy cost every time it's recycled, which is hundreds of times over the same period even allowing for several times longer range. Even if this recycling energy cost is only equal to the stored energy -- and it could easily be bigger, such numbers are carefully not mentioned and recycling anything with Al in is famously energy-intensive -- then it doubles the CO2 emissions, which immediately puts it out of the running for volume applications like BEV.

 

This is the fundamental reason why rechargeable batteries have replaced primary ones in power applications, and I see no evidence that Al-air is any different. No amount of "working on it" will change basic chemistry and thermodynamics, undoing the chemical reaction that generates power in a primary cell is always difficult and lossy and always will be.

 

The paper mentioning recharging is pure theory, there's no proposal of how (or whether) it can be put into practice.

But you have not addressed the point I made in an earlier post that the calculations should not be limited to the carbon issues but also extend to the 'costs' of obtaining the raw materials and any other impacts.

 

As the article in the Guardian that someone quoted, Lithium has big negative impacts on the communities where it is extracted. It is also likely to be fairly limited - a site is being examined down here in Cornwall - as yet it has not been picked up for its impact, perhaps because we have had many stories about ideas for exploiting the ground that have never come to fruition, including restarting tin mining, that folk turn a deaf ear! Given the history of environmental impact from previous generations of mining (which were on a scale quite modest by modern extraction techniques, perhaps we should be more worried than we are.

 

The ethical issue, however, is to consider a situation in which developed countries achieve their green credentials by processes that impact badly on third world countries with little money and even less clout. Perhaps we should start to campaign for requiring countries, especially those with money, to be self sufficient in energy and that importing energy becomes 'a bad thing'.

[IanD]

29 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But you have not addressed the point I made in an earlier post that the calculations should not be limited to the carbon issues but also extend to the 'costs' of obtaining the raw materials and any other impacts.

 

As the article in the Guardian that someone quoted, Lithium has big negative impacts on the communities where it is extracted. It is also likely to be fairly limited - a site is being examined down here in Cornwall - as yet it has not been picked up for its impact, perhaps because we have had many stories about ideas for exploiting the ground that have never come to fruition, including restarting tin mining, that folk turn a deaf ear! Given the history of environmental impact from previous generations of mining (which were on a scale quite modest by modern extraction techniques, perhaps we should be more worried than we are.

 

The ethical issue, however, is to consider a situation in which developed countries achieve their green credentials by processes that impact badly on third world countries with little money and even less clout. Perhaps we should start to campaign for requiring countries, especially those with money, to be self sufficient in energy and that importing energy becomes 'a bad thing'.

I'm not disputing your point about the cost -- however measured -- of obtaining raw materials. Of course this should be applied to everything, not just to lithium batteries to make them look bad...

 

But as I said no technology is cost-free, the question we should be asking is -- when all these things are considered, even though it has downsides is it better than what we have now and the alternatives?

 

Right now lithium-battery-powered BEV are the best option we have even including all costs and raw materials and manufacturing and disposal/recycling and all the other things that BEV-haters keep harping on about. they're certainly far better than ICE and fossil fuels for total lifecycle and emissions costs. Lithium is not ideal or unlimited and neither is cobalt, but they're the best we have today and there's a huge amount of work going on to come up with better battery chemistries with lower environmental impact -- but to be useful they also have to be efficient, mass-produceable and cost-effective.

 

Exactly the same question should be asked whenever somebody starts promoting a sexy new technology, whether this is hydrogen power or aluminium-air batteries -- both of which come out badly when everything is taken into account, without ignoring inconvenient facts like overall efficiency (hydrogen) or the energy needed for recycling (Al-air batteries).

 

And of course it's also true that we should be working to reduce energy usage as well as increasing transport efficiency, but the two aren't mutually exclusive, we need to do both.

Edited December 10, 2020 by IanD

[phantom_iv]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Right now lithium-battery-powered BEV are the best option we have even including all costs and raw materials and manufacturing and disposal/recycling and all the other things that BEV-haters keep harping on about. they're certainly far better than ICE and fossil fuels for total lifecycle and emissions costs. Lithium is not ideal or unlimited and neither is cobalt, but they're the best we have today and there's a huge amount of work going on to come up with better battery chemistries with lower environmental impact -- but to be useful they also have to be efficient, mass-produceable and cost-effective.

 

It was interesting watching Tesla's "battery day" a few weeks ago where mr Musk and co were showing off their new battery which they plan to produce in the next few years. It'll be zero Cobalt, and fully recyclable, so eventually they hope to get to the point where pretty much all their raw materials come from recycling old batteries. 

 

Until then they're also getting into the mining business and have come up with a process to extract Lithium from clay deposits, of which they've bought a load in Nevada for just this purpose, with the intention of returning the used clay to the ground when they've got the Lithium from it.

 

Interesting to see how much of this comes off as they say it will, but there is certainly potential for innovation in how these raw materials are extracted and reused. 

 

Of course the Lithium mining industry says he's bonkers. But people said that when he started making electric cars and reusable rockets...

[Sea Dog]

15 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

so can we ask them to install all their battery swap machines canalside please?

Oh great - more service moorings for inconsiderate gits to overstay on. Unlike water points, you won't to be able to cruise on to the next one either!

 

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, phantom_iv said:

 

It was interesting watching Tesla's "battery day" a few weeks ago where mr Musk and co were showing off their new battery which they plan to produce in the next few years. It'll be zero Cobalt, and fully recyclable, so eventually they hope to get to the point where pretty much all their raw materials come from recycling old batteries. 

 

Until then they're also getting into the mining business and have come up with a process to extract Lithium from clay deposits, of which they've bought a load in Nevada for just this purpose, with the intention of returning the used clay to the ground when they've got the Lithium from it.

 

Interesting to see how much of this comes off as they say it will, but there is certainly potential for innovation in how these raw materials are extracted and reused. 

 

Of course the Lithium mining industry says he's bonkers. But people said that when he started making electric cars and reusable rockets...

IIRC Tesla's "cobalt-free" battery is actually LiFePO4, cheaper then Li-ion and cobalt-free but also lower energy density. It's being made in collaboration with CATL and will initially be mainly for the Chinese market and others where low cost is more important than absolute maximum range.

 

I'm sure that Tesla are working hard on all aspects of BEV batteries because they're seen as the industry leaders, their business depends on it, and they don't cannibalise their own ICE business by coming up with better BEV. Most of the other car companies are being dragged kicking and screaming into BEV because they've got a huge amount invested in ICE which is cheaper to make with higher profits.

 

So if anyone is going to come up with big advances in battery technology it's likely to be Tesla, especially since Musk isn't scared of doing things new or differently. It's not long since everyone was saying his ideas for vertically landing and re-using rockets were bonkers and would never work, now it's so commonplace -- at least for SpaceX, everyone else is *years* behind -- it doesn't even get a mention in any news about SpaceX launches.