TL=8 Batteries

[Condottiere]

Ventilation appears to be important, in one form or another.

 

[casquilho]

Ventilation appears to be important, in one form or another.

That or seasonal flooding is an issue.

 

[Spinward Flow]

 

[Spinward Flow]

 

[Spinward Flow]

 

[Spinward Flow]

 

[Spinward Flow]

Choose logically. Solar at ground level isn't a viable base load source.

Nope. Still non-competitive with nuc and others.

That's has nothing to do with physics and reality. That is a manipulated market. Not a free market. Both places BAN nuc power.

Huh.

 

[Spinward Flow]

 

[Spinward Flow]

Choose logically. Solar at ground level isn't a viable base load source.

Nope. Still non-competitive with nuc and others.

So? That's has nothing to do with physics and reality. That is a manipulated market. Not a free market. Both places BAN nuc power.

Well would you look at that ...

Guess those TL=8 batteries aren't so useless after all ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Well.
Isn't that interesting to see ...

 

[atpollard]

... but MY ROOF still faces NORTH!
(with lots of little gables to the south)

So my world roots for Pebble Bed and Fast Breeder reactors.

 

[Spinward Flow]

 

[Spinward Flow]

Choose logically. Solar at ground level isn't a viable base load source.

Still non-competitive with nuc and others.

So? That's has nothing to do with physics and reality. That is a manipulated market. Not a free market. Both places BAN nuc power. Have you HEARD?

Well ... that's interesting ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

500wh/kg solid state ...

 

[mike wightman]

• Petrol: Approximately 13,100 Wh/kg
• Diesel: Approximately 12,600 Wh/kg

Still a long way to go to be a replacement for real fuels.

 

[Spinward Flow]

• Petrol: Approximately 13,100 Wh/kg
• Diesel: Approximately 12,600 Wh/kg

But ... what is the carnot + mechanical cycle efficiency of converting that energy density into useful work?

For most (modern) internal combustion engines, it's in the 16-25% range (some are better, some are worse).
Oh and those wh/kg numbers you cite ... don't include the mass/weight of the internal combustion engine that does the energy extraction to useful work process. So the FUEL might be energy dense, but the entire POWERTRAIN is not ... when you add up everything that goes into that powertrain.

Meanwhile, for electric vehicles, the efficiency of converting energy density into useful work is in the 87-91% range (some are better, some are worse).

Here, I'll even cite my source for that information (from 12 Aug 2022) in a publication called Motortrend ... (so what would they know about this topic, eh? )

Spoiler alert, electric vehicle drive trains keep getting more and more efficient since the (now 2 years old) article I'm citing here was published, so anyone who needs a salt shaker ... read 'em and weep.

There's a reason why the MINING INDUSTRY is moving away from petroleum powered vehicles to electric ones.
Don't want to take my word for it?
What about the word of the operators themselves.

Still a long way to go to be a replacement for real fuels.

Let me guess.
There are people who think that electricity (and the storage of it in batteries) "isn't real" ... unlike the way that petroleum and coal products are "real" ...

Might you be one of those people?

Also, once batteries reach 400+wh/kg, things like electric aviation applications reach a tipping point that will start to outcompete internal combustion powered aviation in a wider variety of routes and applications ... so be careful with your presumptions.

 

[mike wightman]

It's energy density for the fuel.

How heavy are your electric motors, how efficient are they?

Taking into account the mass of the motor and battery how does that compare with a petrol engine and fuel tank?

Batteries have a long way to go before they catch up to fossil fuels as energy storage devices.

But to answer some of your questions - a modern family car petrol engine is getting 30% efficiency, so while electric motors are more efficient, from a pure power to mass ratio the petrol engine + fuel wins by an order of magnitide. And if more research was put into engine efficiency technology that number would rise.

That said the hybrid engines are the most efficient in a way since they combine the best of both. A petrol/electric hybrid is the most sensible choice from an energy/mass density to efficiency comparison.

 

[atpollard]

That said the hybrid engines are the most efficient in a way since they combine the best of both. A petrol/electric hybrid is the most sensible choice from an energy/mass density to efficiency comparison.

Stop that ... this is the NEW MILLENIUM: the age of ALL or NOTHING! there is no room for "middle of the road" thinking in this 'Brave New World'.

 

[Spinward Flow]

so while electric motors are more efficient, from a pure power to mass ratio the petrol engine + fuel wins by an order of magnitide.

The best selling car on the planet (the Model Y) says otherwise.

And if more research was put into engine efficiency technology that number would rise.

But at what price?
Internal combustion technology in automotive applications is "so mature" that at this point you can spend billions of dollars on research to squeeze out less than +1% in efficiency gains.

By contrast, electric vehicle batteries and motors are "nowhere near as developed and mature" of a technology, so you're seeing MUCH more return on investment into research in these technologies. So unlike ICE powertrains, where the learning and manufacturing curves are more or less played out ... electric powertrains are just getting started and are only going to get (MUCH!) better from here.

That said the hybrid engines are the most efficient in a way since they combine the best of both.

Actually, hybrids are the WORST of both.

Here are the statistics for FIRE RISK between the three types of powertrain.

Electric powertrain (Tesla specifically): 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles sold
ICE powertrain: 1530 fires per 100,000 vehicles sold (61.2x more than Tesla)
Hybrid powertrain: 3475 fires per 100,000 vehicles sold (2.27x more than ICE) (139x more than Tesla)

Remember, for this statistic, lower is better.

And if you want to know where I got that information from ... here is the youtube link (cued to the relevant time point).

Still think hybrids are the "best of both" ...?
I don't.

 

[Condottiere]

Costs will determine adoption.

Whether production, infrastructure, ownership, and/or environmental.

Incidence of spontaneous combustion might be inverse to fool proofing the vehicle.