The next big thing...

Ok everyone this is the VERY VERY VERY important part



http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c2046e9d-ce11-4115-af06-9737c3f6f232

------------------------

So why am I posting this? Because if this is true than in the next few weeks the world is about to CHANGE!! If this is true everyone from Obama, to Bush, to Some Mayor of a Village deep in a Jungle in South America. Will use it in a political way. If this is true Oil stock will tank almost as fast as DOW is tanking. If this is true Zenn will be almost #1 for cars overnight.

And most importantly if this is true the energy storage crisis will have ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEstor

Now in case you have been living under a renewable rock, You know that one of the main things holding back massive investment and production of renewable energy is storage. Lead-Acid batteries are somewhat cheap but extremely toxic, Extremely dangerous, and Extremely inefficient. In WW2 if you ran low on batteries in a sub you were screwed because you could not just pop up for a quick charge. You had to sit up there for hours with one engine going full blast into the dynamo. Oh and before you say Li-Ion do not forget the CRAZY situation with that tech right now. Which basically put is that the battery industry had NO idea what demand was coming and built plants mostly to make laptop batteries and rechargeable AAs so you could play your Gameboy over and over again. When one laptop battery factory went down due to a fire the whole laptop industry was in chaos... And that means huge prices putting it away from the poor.

EEstor is going to solve all that because it is cheap, and easy to charge, light, and packed with energy density.

Just a note to American auto. At this point I would STRONGLY suggest you at once abandon all carbon burning sedans and light trucks and go EV because once this comes online NOBODY is going to be buying those wallet frying devices.

If this battery is a proven technology, it has to go into mass production. It has to be licensed and put into an automobile. It has to go through rounds of testing.

This wouldn't hit the market for years.

While it would be incredible, nothing would change any time soon.

I'd love to see it be true, and then a conversion kit to make my Escape Hybrid become a Plug-in Escape Hybrid with superior batteries. That would be an excellent holdover until fully electric vehicles are available.

Mass production will happen by 2009 and the rounds of testing is exactly what has been going on for over a year.

2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN

Wrong.. The knowledge that this is around will break the back of Oil propaganda. Oil prices would fall.

It would be insane for one to think conversions will not happen. Even tho the engines and their parts are expensive.. Because of the cost of metal and high quality materials these days car frames will only grow in value. Hell before we know it we will likely see a Model T cruising along that has been converted to EEstor.

Tho in my view I hope the first conversions will prioritize hummers and other sub 10MPG SUVs. We have GOT to get them off oil Fast and the people that run them are often rich enough to afford the conversion. Again the worth of frames.


Overall it is not going to be all that long before these are produced in enough quantities to start putting a dent in CO2 production. Now I know what you are going to say next which is what about the fact that EEstor does not generate energy. But keep in mind that the processes to get the energy from say coal are MUCH more efficient, Clean, and safe than your 4-6 piston engine. So overall its a slight loss in CO2 emissions.

I can appreciate the enthusiasm, but oil will stay expensive for... well, it'll just stay that way.

So. The Hundred Dollar Bet -- loser donates it to DU. You on?

The bigger challenge then is building a superfactory to chrun out these things at a rate the world could use to convert the fleet.

"Lead-Acid batteries are somewhat cheap but extremely toxic, Extremely dangerous"

You forgot to mention that everyone that drives a car on this planet most likely has one of those extremely toxic, dangerous batteries under the hood.

A better battery is NOT the solution, however helpful it might be. Alternative energy sources that *can* supplant fossil fuel usage might be a solution. Last time I checked (which was like today), the sum total of alternative energy isn't even on the same scale as petroleum for energy production, especially in that coveted Happy Motoring department.

It is MUCH different from the HUGE and HEAVY banks of lead acid batteries on some EV cars.

I do applaud a better battery. But that does not address the fundamental question: How do we replace the energy that oil has given us so cheaply for the past 100 years?

Easy answer. You cannot replicate the boom of the now depleting hydrocarbon era without preparing for it decades in advance. And we have *clearly* not done that.

Sure, great battery. Lets give it to 300 million americans in their new electric cars (obviously a best case scenario). They buy their cars all at the same time and wake up the next morning, and go to work, and come home. And then, they all plug them in at the same time, so they can happily go to work the next day. TO BE SURE, I HAVE NEGLECTED TO MENTION THE BREAD DELIVERY TRUCKS TO ALL OF OUR SUPERMARKETS. JUST A CAVEAT.

I'm guessing some kind of critical failure will happen, in the "NOT ENOUGH ENERGY DEPARTMENT".

#1 Normal driving distance is not 200 miles per day it is more like 50. Therefore people will be plugging in pretty charged packs.

#2 because many high load areas charge extra for peak hour energy. Many in those areas will wait till Letterman comes on before plugging in their cars.

#3 Many people will obviously elect to get the external charger so that they can insta charge their vechicles because of some perceived notion they cant wait. So these units would sit slowly charging during off peak.

There is plenty of coal BTW and I much rather see Coal use grow greatly (Until Solar Thermal and Thin Film Solar make it too expensive) to power these fleets than see gas continue to be consumed at a great rate.

Again I say this because the net C02 is far less. The pollution is generated where it is MUCH better handled (Scrubbers and other capture technology) Also keep in mind that these batteries are light. The motors get the weight from the motor coil and not the huge hunk of metal that is a modern engine.

And keep in mind this http://www.emc2fusion.org/ when it comes like the energy problem is solved.

We could shift our entire *personal transportation* load to EV without adding more infrastructure. Critics inevitably fail to take into account the dramatic inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine and the extremely high efficiency of the EV.

And their interest looks to be increasing lately. There could be something to this...

At the same time, they adhere to the "zero transparency" approach, and keep delaying their product launch while issuing repeated press releases about how close they are to shipping. It undermines my confidence.

ZENN seems to think they've got something, but they can continue to sell their cars with or without EEstor tech. So they don't necessarily have any skin in EEstor's game. I've been wondering for a while how much ZENN has been allowed to learn about EEstor's IP.

You don't screw lockmart over. You just don't as a contract with them is like having a contract with the queen of Spain in the age of sail.

So while there may be delays the technology is not going to vanish as long as Lockmart has interest. For that I am confident in its ability to reach market.

Besides you don't call a peer review team to look at a broken cell..

for these to become available. The first time he emailed and talked to them they said then it would be around 3000 bucks for what he was looking for, 132 volts. So I would say that its been at least 3 years.

Seriously this battery is going to be in HIGH demand. ZENN and Lockmart are the ones with the locked price contracts. Others will have to pay out the rear end for one of these.

This is a game changer if it hits the market.

As described, it is the holy grail of fossil fuel foes. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Do you know of any possible supply constraints that might impact widespread deployment?

the problem is, if a significant portion of the population ditches their gas car and gets an electric, this will increase electricity demand, which will cause the price of electricity to go up and also increase CO2 emmissions from power plants, and possibly cause the idiots in Washington to freak out and build more nuclear power plants.

we have to go to the root of the problem which is energy production. we need a solar/hydrogen economy and we need to start taking steps towards that, yesterday.

We don't need any additional capacity in the grid to switch to EV. It would decrease carbon emissions significantly wven with the present energy mix. The two problems (transport & changing grid mix) are related and the solutions must operate in tandem. EV's provide the inexpensive storage needed for large scale penetration of renewables into the grid systm.

Just yesterday I heard the director of Renewable Energy Vermont on the radio explaining the fact that a switch to EVs would mean a significant increase in electricity demand. It's true.

It is true that the electric motor is MUCH more efficient than the internal combustion motor. However, a coal fired power plant is NOT much more efficient than an internal combustion engine.

Switching to EVs only moves the point of pollution from the car to the power plant. Saying we just need better batteries is not true. If you start plugging in millions of EVs you are going to start putting tons more CO2 into the air because still today our electricity comes from coal and other fossil fuels. we need to switch our energy sources to renewables. then EVs would be great! but then again so would hydrogen cars. same story there. hydrogen cars are NOT zero emission vehicles, unless you plug in to a solar electrolyzer.

#1 The coal plant is the one with the EPAs eyes on it.

#2 The coal plant is MUCH less pollution per mile driven than the tiny engine can manage.

#3 Political: The demand for energy raises coal prices which again gets Thin Film solar and wind the breakthroughs needed for more widespread deployment.


I dont care about fission. If they want to blow money on another reactor than thats fine.

Switching to EV is what we want to do.

"Just yesterday I heard the director of Renewable Energy Vermont on the radio explaining the fact that a switch to EVs would mean a significant increase in electricity demand. It's true."

OK so far as it goes, but you're interpretation of it's significance is wrong. The concept of "baseload" power is often greatly misunderstood. Most people think it is a term related to the minimum amount of steady power required to meet constant demand on the grid. Actually, baseload power is that amount of power that is most economically produced at a steady state. This is related to the technology of generating from coal or nuclear. It is easier, and more profitable, to deal with regular overnight dips by keep the turbines spinning when demand drops than to shut them down and restart them. So we routinely produce large amounts of unused power. The increased demand from a transportation fleet will be largely met by the use of this previously produced but unused power. That is where the batteries come in, I'll get to that in just a moment...

"It is true that the electric motor is MUCH more efficient than the internal combustion motor."
True.

"...a coal fired power plant is NOT much more efficient than an internal combustion engine."
Actually it is, so this is not true. The average efficiency of the average internal combustion drive automobile is close to 12% while the average thermal efficiency of a coal plant, including line losses, is closer to about 38%.


"...switching to EVs only moves the point of pollution from the car to the power plant..."
Again, not true (see the first claim you made). Your conclusion doesn't follow even if all your predicates were true. Just the efficiency differential is enough to make a reasonable person refrain from reaching the conclusion you've arrived at. Why would you dismiss it in such an out of hand fashion if you weren't bent on reaching a predetermined conclusion?


"...Saying we just need better batteries is not true...."
Yes, it is true. To continue from the first point above. The batteries are used to store the excess power generated by the system. There is hardware and software that allow the driver to program the car with information related to preferences. These preferences control the buying and selling of the electricity in the car's batteries. So, if I drive 30 miles round trip each day, but I have battery storage for 150 miles of driving (just in case), then I might want to buy that cheap electricity at night, store it in my batteries, and then sell 100 miles worth back to the utilities during peak demand during the day. This "peak shaving" by storage is great since it allows the movement of electricity to meed demand not only across space, but also across time. This 4 dimensional distribution capability is the key element in cost effective use of renewables to totally displace both fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Now, no offense meant, but the objections you are throwing up are a standard set of arguments that are pushed by the right wing. I'm not saying you are a right winger (I often fail to make this point clearly enough) but you are, in fact, presenting the point of view that is "message managed" by the right wing think tanks. Their intent is to stop the use of renewables to replace fossil fuels and they have no interest in the truth and accuracy of the message they use to do this. The misinformation related to renewables and their capabilities is intentionally created and disseminated by the very same people as created the misinformation campaign against global warming - and for exactly the same reasons.

If you don't believe me, I encourage you to go to http://www.heritage.org/ and search for some of the topics we've discussed. You'll most often find them in relation to discussions about nuclear energy or the folly of climate change.
You may also want to see what sourcewatch has to say about them: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation

I'd also strongly urge you to make use of this website as a starting point for accurate information related to the various energy technologies. http://www.ucsusa.org/

I'd especially recommend you read this. It is proof of the efforts by fossil fuel interests to spread the disinformation I'm talking about: http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=smoke+mirrors+hot+air&submit=Search

Scroll down to choice #8 and download the entire 1.8Mb file titled Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science



This is also a decent description of the role of storage.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9977209-54.html

As I stated at the beginning, the problem with EVs is not batteries. I drove an EV 20 years ago, it had a bunch of 6V golf cart batteries in it and it drove just fine. Sure, we can increase the range and efficiency with better batteries, but the ones we have now work. And if we suddenly switched to all EVs we'd probably see more nuclear power plants popping up. That's McCain's plan anyway. My response was mainly to disagree with the notion that we just need better batteries and then EVs will save the world. They are a piece of the puzzle, but only part of the solution. And batteries are not the one sticking point preventing all the problems from being resolved.

peace

But that functionality wasn't comparable with cheap petroleum. Now, we could have done as europe and asia, increased the price of petroleum through the use of taxes, and given other incentives to switch to electric. If we had, battery technology might possibly be further along now.

I can also understand your worry about nuclear plants being the solution pursued. If McCain wins, that is a given. However, in addressing climate change, the shift to EVs is a vital step both because it provides the grid storage needed to switch the grid to renewables AND because of very large reduction in fossil fuel use it represents. If you look at total energy use in this country: it can be measured in BTUs with a "quad" equaling 1 quadrillion BTUs. We use, in all sectors combined, just over 100 quads per year. Moving to battery electric for the personal transportation sector will reduce that number to about 80 quads per year.

Does that perspective make it clear?

In less than 5 years it wont be cost effective even with more subsidies the ones on the books now are likely the last to be built.

I've been to Europe six times in the last two years. In fact, the reason I go there is that I am working with a German company in Munich (Smart Fuel Cell, AG) developing a direct methanol fuel cell for certain US applications.

As everyone knows, the price of fuels, both gasoline and diesel, are much higher in Europe. Yet, I haven't seen any great breakthroughs in EVs or battery technology. We would all seem to suspect that higher fuel prices would incentivise EV development. I was at an alternative energy fair in the Marienplatz in Munich about a year ago, and though I saw some electric motorscooters and a couple of golfcart type EVs, I saw nothing worthy of the open road, much less the autobahn.

Why do you think the market in Europe, even with the incentive of higher fuel prices, hasn't developed better EVs?

And the economy is built around those prices and ours are not. Therefore, There have been little incentive as long as the texas tea flowed.

Here long distances to work is a norm.. Extremely long cargo truck runs are very normal. Etc..

.... looks just like Dallas, Chicago, or Houston to me. Lot's of people driving to work in stop and go traffic. Would seem like they have more of an incentive to develop EVs than us.

First, we have to recognize that there is an entrenched power structure that works actively to preserve the present system; not just here but around the world.

Second is interpreting the anecdotal experience accurately. Those people driving probably have an option to use public transport if they wish. They prefer the added expense of driving. When viewed across the range of all persons requiring transport, the existence and use of an efficient public transportation network, the people you saw diving represent a much smaller portion of the potential road using population than would be the case in a similar scene at almost any urban area in the US. Where there only perhaps 5% use highway transport on a routine basis (I'm making the stats up as an example) here 95% might use the highways. Since those there are using the highways by choice when there is a less expensive alternative, we can assume they are not a pressure group to drive infrastructure change. The same goes for those commuting. There is little incentive from that group because the high fuel prices are not impacting them as significantly as they would with no public transport.


The third relevant point would be that lead acid only works for a very small percentage of our automotive "wants" even though it has an ability to meet most of our basic transportation needs when viewed from a statistical perspective. So past technologies didn't invite change. Factor in new technologies in lightweight materials and batteries and the equation changes.

So emerging markets sensitive to the energy price of transportation for future growth and economies dependent on automobiles for transport while lacking infrastructure that offer alternatives would seem to be reasonable places to look towards for innovation in this field.

Just my opinion.

EV's, even those powered from coal burning plants, would have significantly reduced CO2 output compared to an equivalent number of internal combustion vehicles.

See - 'Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks'

Also, a study done by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (DOE) showed that up to 84% of our current light vehicle fleet could be powered electrically with no additional capacity added to the grid.

See - 'Mileage from Megawatts'

Adding to that is weight. Yes Heavy gel batteries would make up the gap but Light EEstor batteries will mean overall the car is lighter, the motor of course is MUCH lighter. and half of the side expensive crap on cars does not need to be installed. Further reducing weight.

For instance no longer need a starter battery.

Keep in mind one of the basic laws about batteries..

Batteries tire quickly pushing heavy stuffz

Which is when there is the least amount of demand on the electric grid. Do you know what happens to the unused electricity at night? Nothing. It's wasted - as there is no storage mechanism in place.

A large increase in electric vehicles will actually utilize this previously wasted energy, by storing it up at night, and using it during the day.

By the time that electric car usage overtakes the energy supply, we will hopefully have increased our green energy production to compensate.

edit: Just saw this thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x157868 . There is a good info link on grid storage there.

There are two parts to this solution.

The center is the problem witch is Grid load due to AC use in the home.

The end side is this battery because it uses the power the companies are desperately trying to sell at 2 AM in the morning. Those extra profits for them mean they will want to invest in the other part of the solution.

The other part of the solution deals with the big problem itself which is the BIG hog AC units which almost singlehandedly bring Grids to their knees. SOLAR!!!!

Reduced gas costs mean people may have an opening to install a 10 thousand dollar Thin Film solar system with an EEstor battery. Its perfect because at times where the AC is most needed the Solar system is best suited to blunt some of its impact.

when capacity currently goes unused. Also, there are more solar and installations going online all the time.

I like what I've been hearing about EEStor, but let's see the numbers, then see them actually do some production before we start exclaiming the world is changing.

Have a look at the news.

140 USD for Oil Economy responds with a HUGE drop. Truckers are starting to give up hope and try to find other work.

That is what I call a death Spiral. And extremely fast downfall of price raising in a deadly economic game of who goes first. The truckers or the businesses.

EEstor has done its part by not having a flashy website, By not being the ones generating the hype. By letting peer review in.

But I gurandamtee ya that because LockMart is involved with this they will not fail. The amount of win this would give Lockheed for their military applications would put them so far ahead of Boeing it is laughable. I hope one has not forgotten the plans to put a missile intercept Laser on the F-35 in the future. That requires a hell of alot of storage.

Have faith. Its all we got left in an economy in a death spiral.