This changes everything (maybe)

[Ohmess]

I have often wondered if I was missing something in the massive, worldwide push to electric cars.

Battery technology is not improving at a fast enough pace, and requires too many finite and very messy raw materials to justify a worldwide coordinated change.

On the other hand, if we could either massively improve electric transmission (and thereby massively reduce transmission losses) or alternatively vastly improve our ability to generate electricity, this changeover makes a lot more sense.

Perhaps this is what I was missing: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericma...gh-may-be-announced-tomorrow/?sh=1182adc81a80

 

[Gary Knox]

Chris,

Yep - energy production fusion has been a scientific search for how many decades now? I remember it being postulated in the late '50's, when I was in search of my Physics degree (one of the 10 other P majors has been a key guy at L Livermore since he went to U of C at B for his doctorate). Glad they have finally produced more power than was required to generate the reaction. Probably won't be available for automotive propulsion in my lifetime (or maybe even yours, as you are much younger!!). Hope the research continues and it becomes a reality for commercial electrical power production over the next decade or so.

Gary

 

[tmh]

Star Trek and the quest for dilithium crystals. I was never clear why they couldn't use the replicator to produce unlimited quantities of dilithium crystals.
Nuclear energy still seems like an answer for relatively clean power.

 

[boonies]

It is interesting how interest in nuclear power has shifted once again. In the 80's & 90's momentum was against nuclear for a variety of reasons. I was a California resident at the time and there were ongoing demonstrations against the PG&E's Diablo Canyon plant that was finishing construction. I seem to recall that there was an independent generator in the Sacramento area that closed the nuclear plant and transitioned to fossil fuel in the 90's. And of course spent fuel storage remains problematic as the national disposal facility has never opened.

It seems as through nuclear is being discussed again, but problems remain. As Gary said, the fusion solution wont be commercially viable in my lifetime, but hopefully soon as demands for clean, affordable electric power are continuing to grow.

 

[autokunst]

They figured out this exact solution back in 1996.

 

[Ohmess]

DOE announcement is short on facts and long on statements from politicians, but it does appear that the folks at Lawrence Livermore have created a controlled fusion reaction that produced more energy than the laser used to initiate it.

DOE National Laboratory Makes History by Achieving Fusion Ignition

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today announced the achievement of fusion ignition at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)—a major scientific breakthrough decades in the making.

www.energy.gov

I hope development and implementation of this technology can continue apace.

 

[Norm!]

This is a huge milestone. I’ve followed the progress of fusion experiments since I worked there at LLNL in the mid 70s. (No, I’m not a physicist.) Even then, they were building a series of laser and magnetic energy concentration schemes, each more powerful than the previous one as they hoped to soon reach the break even point.
The first implementation will undoubtedly be a power plant near a large electric power source. Besides achieving a stable positive energy output, they need to get the cost of a plant down to a level that is commercially viable. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another fifty years.

 

[Norm!]

Here’s an article that gives a much better explanation of what they achieved. It’s not break even when you include all of the facility’s energy use.

Scientists achieve a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Here’s what it means. — National Geographic

A U.S. lab has successfully sparked a fusion reaction that released more energy than went into it. But there’s still a long way to go toward fusion as a clean energy source.

apple.news

 

[jefflit]

Battery technology is not improving at a fast enough pace, and requires too many finite and very messy raw materials to justify a worldwide coordinated change.

Why do you say that?

Regardless of what a friend of mine who works at a major vehicle manufacturer says ("there are liars, damn liars, and battery suppliers")...

Battery technology has been improving at a quite steady pace that has already made EVs viable today. If the pace continues at current rates, and there is no reason to believe it won't, we will be able to have vehicles with longer ranges than fuel tanks allow, with charge times not that far off a refuel and mini-mart run. Or lighter and smaller batteries with ranges similar to today, or both. The chart below shows just how steady progress has been (density has almost tripled since 2010), and how dramatically costs have fallen (down 87% from 2010-2019). That's crazy good progress. Certainly not Moore's Law good and perhaps not fast enough but not bad.

As for the mess getting the metals currently used -- yes, that is an issue. However, one of the most comprehensive studies on the environmental impact of different vehicle types, commissioned by the European Union in July 2020, found that electric vehicles "have significantly lower environmental impacts across all vehicle types." The study analyzed a range of environmental impacts from life-cycle stages of different vehicles, including vehicle and battery manufacturing, fuel and electricity production, as well as decommissioning. Regardless, there is a ton of research into alternative battery chemistries that very likely will lead to more sustainable raw materials. Witness lithium-sulphur, sodium-ion, sodium-sulfur, solid-state, liquid metal, zinc-ion, graphite, etc. Efficient, portable energy storage has been a long term problem but, personally, I wouldn't bet against a lot of determined smart minds.

Plus, oil is very messy and the thousands of kilograms of oil consumed by gasoline vehicles are not recyclable, unlike battery metals and most other car components. More than 90 percent of the mined materials used to make electric vehicle batteries are recyclable. Researchers have successfully tested closed-loop recycling with electric car batteries, a type of recycling in which the item is turned into more of the same thing, like recycling paper that eventually is produced into more paper. Researchers found that recycling car batteries on a large scale was "very promising." As electric vehicles become more popular, the battery-recycling market could expand, mitigating some of the demand for the original raw materials.

Not that I'm against fusion, or old dino-fueled cars,. Just sayin...

 

[Arde]

Here’s an article that gives a much better explanation of what they achieved. It’s not break even when you include all of the facility’s energy use.

Scientists achieve a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Here’s what it means. — National Geographic

A U.S. lab has successfully sparked a fusion reaction that released more energy than went into it. But there’s still a long way to go toward fusion as a clean energy source.

apple.news

Yep, I learned that they build larger lasers...

Though the article teaches through a lawyer, Zoe Lofgren, how it works, and another lawyer explains that the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, open new frontiers in science, and enable progress toward new ways to power our homes and offices in future decades,” said U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell (CA-15), even though LLNL was founded in 1952 under Republican Eisenhower, and nuclear testing was banned in 1963 under JFK.

This latest achievement is particularly remarkable because NIF used a less spherically symmetrical target than in the August 2021 experiment,” said U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-19).

Then I learned that net-zero emission is being attributed to Biden in "NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship Program and will provide invaluable insights into the prospects of clean fusion energy, which would be a game-changer for efforts to achieve President Biden’s goal of a net-zero carbon economy".

Fortunately the achievement also rubs on our esteemed VP:

U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to supporting our world-class scientists—like the team at NIF—whose work will help us solve humanity’s most complex and pressing problems

but then I get the cynical feeling that they are passing the hat for future budgets:

NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby. “I would like to thank the members of Congress who have supported the National Ignition Facility

And of course if Schumer is astonished there must be something there: “This astonishing scientific advance puts us on the precipice of a future no longer reliant on fossil fuels but instead powered by new clean fusion energy,” U.S. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer said...That’s why I’m also proud to announce today that I’ve helped to secure the highest ever authorization of over $624 million this year in the National Defense Authorization Act for the ICF

(If I were Schumer's speech writer I would find a better word than precipice to describe the future).

And the lawyers high fives go on: “After more than a decade of scientific and technical innovation, I congratulate the team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the National Ignition Facility for their historic accomplishment,” said U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA).

which could help fuel a brighter clean energy future for the United States and humanity,” said U.S. Senator Jack Reed (RI), the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“This monumental scientific breakthrough is a milestone for the future of clean energy,” said U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (CA).

Hey, I thought that political propaganda was against the rules here . Just saying.

 

[HB Chris]

I prefer the kinder, gentler version of Arde who doesn’t feel the need to always stir the pot.

 

[Norm!]

Arde, I think you are mostly quoting from the DOE announcement posted by Ohmess, not the National Geographic one I posted. Ohmess noted the political fluff and went on to talk about the achievement. The lack of substance was why I added the NG article.
I am used to this particular political sickness that no politician is resistant to regardless of affiliation. When I was City Engineer of a large city, I was responsible for design and construction of multiple facilities from fire stations to bridges. No politician can resist the chance to congratulate themselves at ribbon cuttings. At the city level they did a good job of remembering to also congratulate the staff and contractors who actually did all the work. The higher the political level, the less substance, details and credit given to those who did more that vote to approve the project. The DOE article did push that practice to new heights.

 

[dang]

I think EV is the future (and that fusion stuff too) but as far as the overall carbon footprint of EV vs ICE I have a different viewpoint. Most of the conversation surrounding vehicle carbon footprint happens with people who live in a different bubble. I see people every day struggling to have personal transportation. Owning a 20 year old vehicle that can get them to work every day is all they want, but I don't see the modern EV filling that need. Right now it seems to me the best thing for a carbon footprint is for the vehicle to stay on the road as long as possible, extending that initial impact. That will change at some point, but the older EV's I see would never be a consideration for that market.

 

[Markos]

They figured out this exact solution back in 1996.

Who knew? I thought it was 1997:

 

[autokunst]

Who knew? I thought it was 1997:

Rocky vs ham-and-egger. Sorry for the obscure Bob's Burgers reference.

 

[bavbob]

Lithium batteries are a long way off from having a viable way to recycle them despite the fact that so many say they are close (eledest son is a chemist in the field). Also, roughly 70% of electricity used by American households still originates from fossil fuels. The only benefit of an electric car stems from emissions and sadly, I bet that the number of newly created Four-way stops and (here in Ma) the proliferation of no turn on red signs despite clear view of traffic, negate the current benefit of an electric car.

WRT politicians, they seem to be able to become economists, engineers, physicians and business people all in 3 years of law school while it takes the rest of us way longer just to become one. Ignorance and arrogance are the worst combo and is rampant in politics.

 

[Dick Steinkamp]

Lithium batteries are a long way off from having a viable way to recycle them

Redwood Materials has been doing it for a few years now

Redwood Materials, Inc. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They break ground early next year on a much bigger facility

Redwood Materials announces $3.5 billion EV battery recycling plant in South Carolina

Redwood received $226 million in taxpayer-funded incentives.

www.theverge.com

There will be other players. Cheaper to recycle than mining, transporting the ore then processing it into the battery components.


Yep only about 30% of our electricity comes from renewables. But that was 10% just a few years ago. The ratio is changing rapidly as power companies and consumers realize producing electricity from wind and the sun is much cheaper...no fuel needed


The biggest benefit of an EV for me is that is costs $5 to fill up at night in my garage to go 260 miles. The same amount of gas for a 25 MPG ICE would cost $40 at $4/gallon and require a trip to a gas station. The range of my EV works for me, but not for everyone....yet.

 

[boonies]

The biggest benefit of an EV for me is that is costs $5 to fill up at night in my garage to go 260 miles. The same amount of gas for a 25 MPG ICE would cost $40 at $4/gallon and require a trip to a gas station. The range of my EV works for me, but not for everyone....yet.

Same here. It is my wife's daily and she really likes pulling into the driveway and filling up overnight. We schedule the charge for off-peak times so we are buying power at the lowest rate and have the 220v charge cable outside for a quick connect when we pull in the driveway. Can go days without a charge, but rarely wait that long. Agree, the rane is not for all, but it works for our use case. We have the Audi Q7 for longer (or larger hauls).

 

[adawil2002]

Rocky vs ham-and-egger. Sorry for the obscure Bob's Burgers reference.

Ham-and-egger is an old wrestling term from the Carney days, meaning don't pay attention to them.

Regarding fusion. The Sun has been doing that for a few years & even at 93 million miles it can still burn people. Messing with atoms can be dangerous, they make up everything.

 

[Oldbmwcoupes]

I’ve been seriously considering not building or installing an ICE in my “drive train void” 2002 to (aka Guppy). I look at used Tesla stuff when I have a few interweb moments and dream about retirement, and having time to enjoy myself building the car to my liking. I’ve been feeling the inevitable electric switch we will all soon be faced with in the next 5-15 years, depending on where we live.
As a point of (un)interest for many of you. Our general aviation industry is also on the brink of some changes with regards to a switch to a fuel alternative that gets rid of 100 Low Lead fuel. We’ve seen a dynamic shift in training aircraft to completely electric in more progressive environments. Electric power works very well as it has lower maintenance costs and most flights in the early training stages are in a small pattern only around the airport. As such, we are seeing more and more hybrid electric planes make their way across the pond to us. We’ve had cheap and abundant fuel that has kept us flying and training many of the worlds pilots.
My long winded wind up is merely to say that whether we like it or not, changes are about to overtake many facets of the transportation world. I personally would like to stay with, or ahead of, those changes. These types of breakthrough advances, however small they may be in actuality, push us just that much further down the path of a shifting energy world. I hope that we can legitimately find real world solutions to out global energy demands and be safe and earth friendly in the process.