phasing out of fossil fuels - programme

[phantom_iv]

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

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.

 

The CATL batteries may be Cobalt-free but are quite low performance. I was thinking of the forthcoming 4680 cells (https://www.electrive.com/2020/09/23/tesla-battery-day-tabless-4680-cell-and-in-house-production/) which will be using a high-Nickel cathode in place of Cobalt.

 

 

[IanD]

57 minutes ago, phantom_iv said:

 

The CATL batteries may be Cobalt-free but are quite low performance. I was thinking of the forthcoming 4680 cells (https://www.electrive.com/2020/09/23/tesla-battery-day-tabless-4680-cell-and-in-house-production/) which will be using a high-Nickel cathode in place of Cobalt.

 

 

The 4680s are a more space/cost/power efficient version of their existing cells, they may have reduced cobalt content but it's still not zero. "Cobalt-free" is on their roadmap, of course it's already there with the CATL batteries and they'd undoubtedly like do this for the high-performance ones as well but haven't got a way to do this -- yet...

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

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.

Can you point me to a study that shows lithium is the best option taking into account the impact and costs of raw material?

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Can you point me to a study that shows lithium is the best option taking into account the impact and costs of raw material?

There's a shedload of info comparing the lifecycle costs and CO2 emissions of lithium-ion BEV with ICE (or hydrogen, or methane...) and the conclusion is always the same.

 

All raw material extraction has costs; for BEV this is lithium and cobalt to build it, for ICE it's oil to run it. Neither is free, both have some unpleasant environmental consequences -- but BEVs save many tons of CO2 over lifetime, which tends to settle the argument.

 

If you go and search for yourself then you won't question any link I provide as being possibly biased ?

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by IanD

[cuthound]

On 09/12/2020 at 19:39, 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 ?

 

According to this article, the cost is £60. 

 

https://leasing-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/leasing.com/car-leasing-news/with-a-1500-mile-range-is-an-aluminium-air-derived-battery-the-solution-to-range-anxiety/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fleasing.com%2Fcar-leasing-news%2Fwith-a-1500-mile-range-is-an-aluminium-air-derived-battery-the-solution-to-range-anxiety%2F

 

Not much more (£10) over 1500 mile than the cost of rechaging a Tesla every 5 times every 300 miles, according to this article, although 10p per kWh seems  cheaper than most domestic supplies. Many would consider this a small price to pay for the convenience of time saved by not having to recharge every 300 miles.

 

https://evchargingsolutions.co.uk/ev-charging-costs/

Edited December 11, 2020 by cuthound
Phat phingers

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

According to this article, the cost is £60. 

 

https://leasing-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/leasing.com/car-leasing-news/with-a-1500-mile-range-is-an-aluminium-air-derived-battery-the-solution-to-range-anxiety/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fleasing.com%2Fcar-leasing-news%2Fwith-a-1500-mile-range-is-an-aluminium-air-derived-battery-the-solution-to-range-anxiety%2F

 

Not much more (£10) over 1500 mile than the cost of rechaging a Tesla every 5 times every 300 miles, according to this article, although 10p per kWh seems  cheaper than most domestic supplies. Many would consider this a small price to pay for the convenience of time saved by not having to recharge every 300 miles.

 

https://evchargingsolutions.co.uk/ev-charging-costs/

It says that the cell "costs £60 to make" -- presumably from virgin aluminium which has already been extracted, refined and smelted.

 

It also says "However, this waste material can be cheaply recycled back into aluminium, so the circle is completed." without providing any cost in money or energy to do this.

 

"Jackson and his company Metalectrique point out the aluminium recycling process of smelting is usually powered by hydroelectricity, so it’s also much kinder to the environment by using renewables" is another way of saying that recycling the battery consumes a lot of energy, but that doesn't matter if it's "free" -- which in terms of overall energy efficiency makes nonsense of the idea.

 

It's a publicity puff article by somebody trying to sell their technology. Have you asked yourself why it it's so wonderful and clean and green the car companies aren't all over it like a rash, biting his hand off?

 

The answer is that overall it's hugely wasteful of energy compared to rechargeable batteries, and since improved energy efficiency (which means lower C02 emissions) is the #1 priority, the mass market for BEVs won't touch it with a bargepole. Exactly the same reason why hydrogen/fuel cells for vehicles hasn't taken off...

Edited December 11, 2020 by IanD

[phantom_iv]

12 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

According to this article, the cost is £60. 

 

Not much more (£10) over 1500 mile than the cost of rechaging a Tesla every 5 times every 300 miles, according to this article, although 10p per kWh seems  cheaper than most domestic supplies. Many would consider this a small price to pay for the convenience of time saved by not having to recharge every 300 miles.

Running costs of 8p /mile? (from the article) No thanks. Today's Teslas will do sub-2p per mile easily. 

[IanD]

From Wikipedia:

 

"The total fuel efficiency during the cycle process in Al/air electric vehicles (EVs) can be 15% (present stage) or 20% (projected), comparable to that of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEs)"

 

Total cycle efficiency for BEVs is around 60%.

 

So if you start from nice clean renewable energy, Al-air primary cells use 3x as much of it (projected in future) as lithium secondary cells.

[Ronaldo47]

There is an article on "Alternative Traction" in the September 2020 edition of "Modern Ralways". At page 25 it has this to say about hydrogen power using fuel cells under the section heading "Dirty Hydrogen": 

 

".... until hydrogen is produced by electrolysis using renewable energy, a DMU [diesel multiple unit] will generate less CO2 than its hydrogen-powered equivalent on a 'wheel to wheel' comparison. Although we refer to hydrogen 'fuel' cells, when produced by electrolysis hydrogen is not strictly a fuel but a 'vector' used to transfer electrical energy. 

 

Electrical energy used to separate the hydrogen from water is stored in the gas and is then released in the fuel cell on the vehicle. This is a very inefficient process. As David Shires has calculated, 3.4kW of electricity is needed to produce 1kW at the traction motors of a fuel cell powered train. " 

 

It seems that substantial batteries are still required to replicate a DMU's performance.  This is said of one of one of the prototypes that is said to have EMU [electric multiple unit] performance:  

 

"This clearly depends on using the batteries for acceleration, as fuel cells like an even-paced life. 

    You can't open the controller and expect a fuel cell to go from 'idle' to 'max power' in seconds like a diesel engine or battery. So the multiple 35 kW (26 hp) fuel cells run at sensibly constant power with the batteries providing the grunt for acceleration. " 

 

While a canal boat motor does spend most of its life at a constant speed, there are times when a burst of acceleration is absolutely essential, so there will be a similar requirement for the occasional high power burst. 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Ronaldo47
Typos

[mrsmelly]

16 hours ago, phantom_iv said:

Running costs of 8p /mile? (from the article) No thanks. Today's Teslas will do sub-2p per mile easily. 

Do electric cars retain their full sales value for life? Is there no depreciation to be added to that figure? My last two ice cars I have sold for more than I paid for them after thousands of miles so as they were old there is no depreciation. Depreciation is a very large cost especialy in top end priced vehicles.

[ditchcrawler]

9 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

There is an article on "Alternative Traction" in the September 2020 edition of "Modern Ralways". At page 25 it has this to say about hydrogen power using fuel cells under the section heading "Dirty Hydrogen": 

 

".... until hydrogen is produced by electrolysis using renewable energy, a DMU [diesel multiple unit] will generate less CO2 than its hydrogen-powered equivalent on a 'wheel to wheel' comparison. Although we refer to hydrogen 'fuel' cells, when produced by electrolysis hydrogen is not strictly a fuel but a 'vector' used to transfer electrical energy. 

Isn't that what the Country is aiming for , 100% renewable energy from solar, wind and wave

 

Electrical energy used to separate the hydrogen from water is stored in the gas and is then released in the fuel cell on the vehicle. This is a very inefficient process. As David Shires has calculated, 3.4kW of electricity is needed to produce 1kW at the traction motors of a fuel cell powered train. " 

 

That sounds about the same as a diesel engine, 3Kw of fuel in to get one Kw of power

 

 

 

[phantom_iv]

38 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Do electric cars retain their full sales value for life? Is there no depreciation to be added to that figure? My last two ice cars I have sold for more than I paid for them after thousands of miles so as they were old there is no depreciation. Depreciation is a very large cost especialy in top end priced vehicles.

True, but that wasn’t the cost for comparison vs replaceable batteries. However ICE cars also have significant depreciation on new models - I doubt electric ones will be radically different. Yes batteries will degrade over time but so do engines etc 

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Do electric cars retain their full sales value for life? Is there no depreciation to be added to that figure? My last two ice cars I have sold for more than I paid for them after thousands of miles so as they were old there is no depreciation. Depreciation is a very large cost especialy in top end priced vehicles.

Tim as time gets closer to 2030 you will be buying ICE cars cheaper than chips! I suspect the running of them will be like burning buckets of 50 pound notes every hour! It cost me 12.50 last Saturday to do some business in Richmond on Thames because it was a diesel powered vehicle! As time goes on it will be like that all over the country with emissions taxes 

[Ronaldo47]

It seems that the economics of hydrogen are based on the presumption that there will be cheap excess power available from renewables to perform electrolysis. However, if all the other additional electrical loads, such as electric heating and over-night electric car battery charging,  actually happen, there will be considerably less cheap off-peak power available for electrolysis.  

 

A family friend who works in the water industry recently mentioned their concerns at the robustness of the grid. They have made their own investigations and if all the government's targets are actually met and the remaining coal-fired power stations are taken off-line, fear that the grid will be unable to cope with bad weather events.  Coincidentally, in today's "Any Answers" on BBC Radio 4 , one of the phone-in contributors who used to work in the electricity industry and had been involved in grid  planning, expressed similar concerns. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Ronaldo47
Typos

[Up-Side-Down]

6 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

It seems that the economics of hydrogen are based on the presumption that there will be cheap excess power available from renewables to perform electrolysis. However, if all the other additional electrical loads, such as electric heating and over-night electric car battery charging,  actually happen, there will be considerably less cheap off-peak power available for electrolysis.  

 

A family friend who works in the water industry recently mentioned their concerns at the robustness of the grid. They have made their own investigations and if all the government's targets are actually met and the remaining coal-fired power stations are taken off-line, fear that the grid will be unable to cope with bad weather events.  Coincidentally, in today's "Any Answers" on BBC Radio 4 , one of the phone-in contributors who used to work in the electricity industry and had been involved in grid  planning, expressed similar concerns. 

I totally agree – it's gong to be very challenging indeed. However, in extremis, we are often at our best and with such high stakes to play for I'm optimistic that we will actually meet the challenges. But it's going to be a pretty close, damn near run thing!

[nb Innisfree]

18 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

There is an article on "Alternative Traction" in the September 2020 edition of "Modern Ralways". At page 25 it has this to say about hydrogen power using fuel cells under the section heading "Dirty Hydrogen": 

 

".... until hydrogen is produced by electrolysis using renewable energy, a DMU [diesel multiple unit] will generate less CO2 than its hydrogen-powered equivalent on a 'wheel to wheel' comparison. Although we refer to hydrogen 'fuel' cells, when produced by electrolysis hydrogen is not strictly a fuel but a 'vector' used to transfer electrical energy. 

 

Electrical energy used to separate the hydrogen from water is stored in the gas and is then released in the fuel cell on the vehicle. This is a very inefficient process. As David Shires has calculated, 3.4kW of electricity is needed to produce 1kW at the traction motors of a fuel cell powered train. " 

 

It seems that substantial batteries are still required to replicate a DMU's performance.  This is said of one of one of the prototypes that is said to have EMU [electric multiple unit] performance:  

 

"This clearly depends on using the batteries for acceleration, as fuel cells like an even-paced life. 

    You can't open the controller and expect a fuel cell to go from 'idle' to 'max power' in seconds like a diesel engine or battery. So the multiple 35 kW (26 hp) fuel cells run at sensibly constant power with the batteries providing the grunt for acceleration. " 

 

While a canal boat motor does spend most of its life at a constant speed, there are times when a burst of acceleration is absolutely essential, so there will be a similar requirement for the occasional high power burst. 

 

Instant power can be provided by super capacitors, its predicted that these will augment EV batteries to give and receive bursts of power for acceleration and regeneration. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by nb Innisfree

[Mike Todd]

On 10/12/2020 at 18:31, IanD said:

There's a shedload of info comparing the lifecycle costs and CO2 emissions of lithium-ion BEV with ICE (or hydrogen, or methane...) and the conclusion is always the same.

 

All raw material extraction has costs; for BEV this is lithium and cobalt to build it, for ICE it's oil to run it. Neither is free, both have some unpleasant environmental consequences -- but BEVs save many tons of CO2 over lifetime, which tends to settle the argument.

 

If you go and search for yourself then you won't question any link I provide as being possibly biased ?

 

I have  looked at quite a number of reports on the economics of lithium vehicle batteries including those that claim a life-cycle basis. However, most only look at the comparison once the battery has been produced (ie from purchase through to disposal) I am not sure of the provenance of this one, bit it does seem to say that the analysis of the total global impact, including social issues and the environmental impact on poor countries does not exist, and only one does so on a modelling basis, ie not 'real' data.

 

However, I repeat again that we also need to check the implications of any energy source from the perspective of its ethical impact,. including whether it exacerbates or alleviates the entrenched advantages or disadvantages of rich v poor countries.

 

Much better progress has been made by ethical investors in seeking improvements in the way in which petro chemical operators behave.

[peterboat]

19 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I have  looked at quite a number of reports on the economics of lithium vehicle batteries including those that claim a life-cycle basis. However, most only look at the comparison once the battery has been produced (ie from purchase through to disposal) I am not sure of the provenance of this one, bit it does seem to say that the analysis of the total global impact, including social issues and the environmental impact on poor countries does not exist, and only one does so on a modelling basis, ie not 'real' data.

 

However, I repeat again that we also need to check the implications of any energy source from the perspective of its ethical impact,. including whether it exacerbates or alleviates the entrenched advantages or disadvantages of rich v poor countries.

 

Much better progress has been made by ethical investors in seeking improvements in the way in which petro chemical operators behave.

How about we all survive against the world being destroyed by emissions from what the oil companies sell us?

[IanD]

25 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I have  looked at quite a number of reports on the economics of lithium vehicle batteries including those that claim a life-cycle basis. However, most only look at the comparison once the battery has been produced (ie from purchase through to disposal) I am not sure of the provenance of this one, bit it does seem to say that the analysis of the total global impact, including social issues and the environmental impact on poor countries does not exist, and only one does so on a modelling basis, ie not 'real' data.

 

However, I repeat again that we also need to check the implications of any energy source from the perspective of its ethical impact,. including whether it exacerbates or alleviates the entrenched advantages or disadvantages of rich v poor countries.

 

Much better progress has been made by ethical investors in seeking improvements in the way in which petro chemical operators behave.

There are plenty of comparisons which include at least the energy cost of manufacturing (and recycling/disposing of) the batteries, otherwise it would be meaningless. The environmental impact for both batteries and oil (indeed, anything that involves using natural resources) is obviously negative but difficult to define/measure. Saying that lithium batteries have a terrible environmental impact is a straw man argument, especially when this is never compared to the (huge) environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction.

 

It's true that we do need to look at all this but we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; we could spend ten years carefully investigating how bad lithium mining is while in the meantime carrying on burning fossil fuels instead, which is doing something which definitely has a massive (but known) environmental impact instead of something where we might not know the exact impact but which is certainly far lower.

 

It's like tobacco companies saying "Oooh, we don't have enough data to be sure of the risks of e-cigarettes so you might as well carry in smoking tobacco" -- the unknown is whether e-cigarettes are 90% or 95% or 98% or 99% safer than tobacco, even if we don't know the risks within a factor of 10 the worst-case is still far lower. BEV vs. ICE is just the same...

Edited December 13, 2020 by IanD

[Murflynn]

21 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

 

 

A family friend who works in the water industry recently mentioned their concerns at the robustness of the grid. They have made their own investigations and if all the government's targets are actually met and the remaining coal-fired power stations are taken off-line, fear that the grid will be unable to cope with bad weather events. 

That doesn't seem logical to me.

I have worked in the gas supply industry and my understanding is that gas-fired power stations (specifically gas turbines) are the most versatile source of power and can fire up in minutes to support the grid.

In the medium term I would expect the predictable load will be fully met by renewables plus nuclear, and gas turbine stations that have been constructed largely in the past 20 years will be on standby, ready to provide power to meet non-predicted events.

I see no future for coal-fired (steam turbine) stations.

[Ronaldo47]

I think the point they were concerned about is that, taking the government's zero carbon objective literally, with the consequence that all energy should come from renewables, the gas - powered generating stations would also be closed. 

 

I don't know what the efficiency of the current gas turbine power stations is, there weren't any when I was at university studying electrical engineering in the 1960's.  Our studies incuded thermodynamics,  and at that time the thermal efficiency of a conventional coal-fired power station was about 25%. A school-friend who became a chemist was  working at a local power station (West Thurrock) when it started burning natural gas from Algera which the North Thames Gas Board was obliged to buy under a long term contract. Algerian gas was different from the domestic product so a pipeline was laid to Thurrock so it could use it. On methane Thurrock had achieved an overall efficiency of almost  40%, the best in the country by a long head, but eventually it reverted to burning coal (under political pressure according to my friend).   As further proof of the fact that you can't trust politicians' figures (if any were needed),  the official reason for the power station's closure that appeared in our local paper was that it could not be converted to burn natural gas! 

 

Few people these days appreciate that the decision to switch to natural gas was made long before the discovery of North Sea Gas, and was to have been on the basis of importing cheap liquified gas by tanker from Algeria (and later the USA) to terminals at Canvey (and Liverpool for the US gas).  The fortuitous discovery of North Sea Gas lead to a radical re-design of the originally North-South pipeline network when construction was still at an early stage to include East-West branches.  I doubt that imported gas would still have been so cheap in the energy crisis of the 1970's. 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Ronaldo47
Typos

[Murflynn]

1 hour ago, Ronaldo47 said:

 

 

I don't know what the efficiency of the current gas turbine power stations is, there weren't any when I was at university studying electrical engineering in the 1960's.  Our studies incuded thermodynamics,  and at that time the thermal efficiency of a conventional coal-fired power station was about 25%.

 

the current generation of gas turbine stations operate on the combined cycle (CCGT) principle with thermal efficiency of 60% or more.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Murflynn

[Ronaldo47]

Thanks, quite an improvement. 

 

[cuthound]

16 hours ago, Murflynn said:

That doesn't seem logical to me.

I have worked in the gas supply industry and my understanding is that gas-fired power stations (specifically gas turbines) are the most versatile source of power and can fire up in minutes to support the grid.

In the medium term I would expect the predictable load will be fully met by renewables plus nuclear, and gas turbine stations that have been constructed largely in the past 20 years will be on standby, ready to provide power to meet non-predicted events.

I see no future for coal-fired (steam turbine) stations.

 

The problem is not so much lack of capacity but the reduced abity to maintain frequency within limits when the grid is supplied by lots of small power stations rather than a few larger ones.

 

The old large steam plant was very resistant to frequency drop caused by the sudden increase in load due to its inertia.

 

Last year's grid failures were caused by several small plants dropping off grid because the rate of change of frequency  (rocof) was greater than their protection devices were set to cope with.

 

I suspect the long term solution is to allow wider frequency limits so that the many small plants don't drop off grid so readily on sudden load changes.

[peterboat]

15 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

The problem is not so much lack of capacity but the reduced abity to maintain frequency within limits when the grid is supplied by lots of small power stations rather than a few larger ones.

 

The old large steam plant was very resistant to frequency drop caused by the sudden increase in load due to its inertia.

 

Last year's grid failures were caused by several small plants dropping off grid because the rate of change of frequency  (rocof) was greater than their protection devices were set to cope with.

 

I suspect the long term solution is to allow wider frequency limits so that the many small plants don't drop off grid so readily on sudden load changes.

I am sure I read somewhere that devices were going to be installed that would keep the grid in frequency, I thought it was a huge spinning wheel but of course I could have been dreaming?, the article said these and large scale battery storage would resolve the problem