Losing our Energy Slaves

12 03 2015

Just found this brilliant video that explains the energy cliff really well.  Share widely…..  if they don’t ‘get it’ after seeing this, they’re too stupid to bother with!

Advertisements

Actions

Information

53 responses

12 03 2015
mikestasse

That video reminds me of the day I had my “oh shit” moment and everything became crystal clear……..

12 03 2015
Anthony William O'brien

I have a few problems with the 600 million in 2100. Firstly it assumes our biosphere is as healthy today as it was hundreds of years ago. Secondly it assumes the agricultural knowledge, that was passed from father to so over many generations is intact and remains intact. Thirdly it assumes a willingness of the serfs to be serfs.

I am learning that my knowledge on how to grow food is rather woeful.

13 03 2015
Don

It’s not just the knowledge on how to grow food under those conditions; it’s also the knowledge of how to do thousands of things that needed to be done to allow the growing of food. I have mined my 100 year old father’s memory along with other older people for all the information I can on how things were done in times past to allow people to prosper. One old uncle who is long dead explained how he used to log timber in places where it is not possible (as opposed to, not permitted) to log today. Our current civilization has substituted brute force for intelligent processes. I have passed this knowledge on to my children where possible, as they understand something of its value.

15 03 2015
Eclipse Now

“Even uranium won’t deliver energy at the end of the century.”
Um, dude, no. When just the UK’s nuclear waste could power her for 500 years, and America’s nuclear waste could power her for 1000 years, one can see that this statement is retarded and downright dishonest. Or has this ‘expert’ not heard about the old, old technology of breeder reactors? Has he not read about new Russian designs on older technologies that are being built and operating today? Has he not heard about China’s efforts to make standard water reactors cheaper than coal, let alone much CHEAPER reactors with alternative cooling (sodium or fluoride) that don’t require difficult, high-pressured water reactor cores? Normal pressure cores allow the reactor core itself to be mass produced. But the Chinese are not even waiting on this: they’re gearing up to mass produce high-pressure water reactors that will be official GenIV waste-eating nukes within 7 years.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/china-seriously-looking-at.html

The French already showed that it is possible to mass produce nuclear electricity, and pushed out 75% of their grid in just 11 years. (The rest is hydro). We can do the same.

Breeder reactors use 99% of the energy in uranium, not the 1% of today’s once-through cycles. With this comes an enormous increase in EROEI taking nuclear power away from the standard return of 75 into the hundreds, maybe even thousands. At that kind of EROEI uranium from seawater becomes economical, and then we’re talking about hundreds of millions into a BILLION of years of fuel!

It’s just BORING to hear ignorant nuclear denialists quote stupid sound bytes to try and dismiss this technology! It’s as boring and predictable as the Medieval Warm Period climate deniers harp on about. It’s ignorant, dishonest, not a little tinfoil-hat and quite childish!

But efforts are underway to make nuclear power even cheaper than China’s mass produced water reactors or France’s older reactors.

When we replace a water cooling with either sodium or fluoride, we don’t have to use high pressure reactors. Sodium cooled Integral Fast Reactors and fluoride cooled Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors both work fine at normal room pressures. That means the reactor vessels can be broken down into parts, mass produced, and assembled on a production line. Now imagine that instead of that huge single cast reactor core, manufacturing a nuclear power plant is more like building a Boeing jet. Robert Hargraves estimates nuclear factories where a 100MW LFTR comes of the line every day for just $200 million. Ten of these would equal a gigawatt of power at $2 billion dollars, cheaper than coal!

So, back to your video’s claim that “Even uranium won’t deliver energy at the end of the century.” This will only be true if we actually crack fusion. Other than that eventuality, fission can provide all the power we will ever need, pretty much forever. Integral Fast Reactors and LFTR’s are *already* the only ‘forever’ machines we’ll ever need! But the reality is that we’ll probably invent even better ones!

15 03 2015
mikestasse

The economy is already screwed……. there will be no future nuclear power. Just like there won’t be any renewables or FFs. The party’s OVER….

15 03 2015
Don

Eclipse now,
I have seen your posts before on this site and you always seem to look at one aspect of our predicament, that being energy supply and nuclear at that, while ignoring the many others. I know this article deals with energy but solving that problem alone will still leave a myriad of others, each one of which has the capacity to bring our civilization down. Having read the 1972 study ” The Limits to Growth” and follow up studies 30 and 40 years later that indicate we are following the BAU trajectory I would reject your overly optimistic beliefs.

15 03 2015
Eclipse Now

Hi Don,
yes there are a myriad of other problems, but there are also a myriad of other solutions. Energy is the key to them all. With enough energy and prosperous economies, we might just have the time to learn to value our national parks and biodiversity, clean up the climate, stop toxic leaks, practice green chemistry, grow food in our deserts, rebuild rainforests (we can produce mature forests in 10 years!) and rebuild soil. It’s doable, and there are a whole host of technological, economic, and cultural policy solutions we can implement. Of course, one nuclear war could ruin your whole day but that becomes less likely if we burn nuclear warheads for energy. (Google “Megatons to Megawatts” to learn about how America already burned 16,000 bombs worth of old Soviet warheads to get 10% of their electricity, which is like running Australia on old Russian bombs!)

15 03 2015
Eclipse Now

PS: Megatons to Megawatts: like running Australia on old Russian bombs FOR 20 YEARS! (Sorry that I forgot the time period in the previous post).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

25 10 2016
Ertimus Waffle

You don’t understand what he is saying, dreams don’t equate to the real world. The only reality is how efficient oil is compared with all other forms of energy.

25 10 2016
Eclipse Now

The energy in the nuclear bond in uranium and thorium atoms is 2 MILLION times more dense than the chemical bond in oil. That’s why, despite requiring a massive capital intensive power plant, huge mining requirements, and energy intensive processing requirements, nuclear power plants *still* have an EROEI of around 75! How energy efficient do you want to get?

25 10 2016
mikestasse

IF we went on an energy efficiency drive, we could close down 80% of all power stations, without ever building another nuke……

25 10 2016
Eclipse Now

Hang on, that sounds like someone who’s a ‘believer’ in renewables now? When did this happen? I thought society was doomed, run for the hills, buy tinned food and ammo. Sorry, but I’m with Dr James Hansen. Believing in renewables is like believing in the Easter Bunny. Also your kind of ‘energy efficiency’ is known by another name. It’s called the Third World, and most people are trying to leave it.

25 10 2016
mikestasse

And one other thing…… decommissioning the existing nukes will bring governments to bankruptcy. There will be no money to buy new nukes. AND, if you watch https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/do-we-have-five-years-left/ you will realise that within five years, the world as we know it will grind to a halt, there will be no surplus energy for all your wet dreams….

As Ertimus Waffle said, dreams don’t equate to the real world.

25 10 2016
Eclipse Now

PS: Two more facts you need to consider:

1. Only 12% of the energy in oil translates into forward motion in an Internal Combustion Engine, compared to electric cars which are about 3 times as efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

2. NREL have calculated that their grid already has enough spare capacity to charge over 80% of American family cars, without a single new power station or upgrade.

“For the United States as a whole, 84% of US cars, pickup trucks and SUVs could be supported by the existing infrastructure, ”

How? Because about 43% of them are charged at night! (Page 10 of the NREL PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1).
https://eclipsenow.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/phev_feasibility_analysis_part1.pdf

Given EV’s are 3 times more energy efficient *and most* can charge on electricity we are currently *wasting*, by what possible measure do you call oil more “efficient”? Seriously? Wow. Just wow.

25 10 2016
mikestasse

Cars are not the problem, trucks are. Alice Friedemann calculated that just to run California’s trucks along just the 23 miles from the port to the main distribution centre would cost 1% of all of California’s electricity generation if they were electric….. and America has 95 million miles of roads!

26 10 2016
mikestasse

Generation IV ‘fast breeder’ reactors have long been promoted by nuclear enthusiasts, writes Jim Green, but Japan’s decision to abandon the Monju fast reactor is another nail in the coffin for this failed technology.

Fast neutron reactors are “poised to become mainstream” according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA). But data provided by the WNA itself gives the lie to the claim.

The WNA lists eight “current” fast reactors, but one of those reactors hasn’t begun operating and another (Monju) has just been put out of its misery. Let’s say there are six ‘operable’ fast reactors (one isn’t operating but might in the future ‒ hence the term ‘operable’). Here’s the historical pattern based on WNA tables: 1976 ‒ 7 operable fast reactors; 1986 ‒ 11; 1996 ‒ 7; 2006 ‒ 6; 2016 ‒ 6.

Of course there’s always tomorrow: the WNA lists 13 fast reactors projects under “active development” for “near- to mid-term deployment”. But a large majority of those 13 projects ‒ perhaps all of them ‒ lack approval and funding. Few if any will get off the ground.

Fast reactors aren’t becoming mainstream. One after another country has abandoned the technology. Nuclear physicist Thomas Cochran summarises the history: “Fast reactor development programs failed in the: 1) United States; 2) France; 3) United Kingdom; 4) Germany; 5) Japan; 6) Italy; 7) Soviet Union/Russia 8) U.S. Navy and 9) the Soviet Navy. The program in India is showing no signs of success and the program in China is only at a very early stage of development.”

https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/26/the-nuclear-debate-the-slow-death-of-fast-reactors/

26 10 2016
Eclipse Now

Indeed Mike! New technologies always have an *expected* failure rate when trialling them. Remember Edison and the light bulb? How many models of ‘car’ have failed? There are *thousands* of ways to do nuclear reactors.

Before we discuss fast breeders, please note that I said we have decades and decades of fuel left for conventional reactors. Nothing new needs to be invented, we just need to build it. Like today’s passively-safe AP1000’s. They’re a great, safe, simple reactor, and can run on conventional fuel for decades. You seemed to bypass that bit and jump straight into complete bias and ignorance against fast breeders, when what I actually said is we can run the world for a LONG time on today’s technologies if we just build them out.

Not only that, but FAST REACTORS ARE NOT EVEN MY FAVOURITE BREEDER REACTOR! Molten Salt Reactors are my favourite, especially this next one. Got 2 hours? It’s like a history of nuclear power in one hit. You’ll like it. Grab a coffee.

New Matilda’s piece. Wow. Biased much? The EBR2 test reactor ran successfully for decades, and GE’s S-PRISM reactor is based on it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II

It was so successful, GE have gone beyond physics prototyping and testing, and are now ready to commercialise to the first country that will let them. The UK nearly gave them permission to build this!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)

What does the New Matilda piece say? Just “Germany, the UK and the US cancelled their prototype breeder reactor programs in the 1980s and 1990s.”
D’uh! Yes, they did. Why? Dumb politicians. That sentence from New Matilda tersely summarises an entire political debate as badly as saying “The late 1930’s to mid 1940’s was a tense time in Europe.” It’s that flippant and inaccurate. The EBR2 program passed all the Fukushima styled power outages with flying colours. Why did Clinton shut down the funding? FUD around ‘plutonium’. Some people worry about transuranics breeding through the plutonium stage. What if the plutonium is siphoned off for bombs? At Argonne National Laboratory, they use pyroprocessing, and it grabs all the transuranics together. It does not separate out bomb-grade plutonium — it cannot. That requires radically different plutonium sorting equipment, something any government inspector would immediately recognise. The pyroprocessing room is so radioactive technicians don’t even go in there. It’s all enclosed with glove boxes and robotic arms. You can’t walk in there and grab a little waste for your briefcase as not only would the alarms go off, you would start to dissolve on the way home. All that radioactivity from various transuranics and fission products is locked in the room for reprocessing. Eventually, under video surveillance and the supervision of peers, the transuranics are extracted and fed into breeder rods, placed around the edge of a breeder reactor (like wet logs placed around a fire to ‘dry out’) where they can soak up spare neutrons and convert from ‘fertile’ to ‘fissile’. Then they’re ready to burn. That’s nuclear waste into fuel! We could run America for 1000 years on the stored nuclear waste America already has and the UK for 500 years on her waste! The final waste product is fission products, and that gets melted in with ceramics to create ceramic plates that are buried for 500 years and then is safe.

In other words, Clinton was WRONG for shutting down the EBR2 program. We’d probably already have S-PRISMs everywhere if not for that regime giving into technically inaccurate FUD!

There’s also a very simple reason breeder reactors of all kinds are not as prevalent as they could be: it’s a new technology that is not economical yet because we have so much abundantly available uranium! It’s just *cheaper* to mine and refine new uranium and throw it in a conventional reactor, as the New Matilda piece itself explains. (In the Russian comments).

Where New Matilda has a go at Russia for “only” announcing two BN1200’s, I was delighted and amazed that they were even doing that! They’ve JUST built a BN800, a full scale industrial strength reactor, but they could have sat on that development for a decade or so and continued testing. I am delighted that they’ve announced TWO whopping great new BN1200’s! The stuff they will learn building and running those!

And all today’s light water reactors just make the perfect fuel for both fast reactors and thermal reactors like MSR’s.

26 10 2016
mikestasse

It’s funny how nearly all your posts go straight to the trash folder where I have to dutifully fish them out in the interest of free speech…..

26 10 2016
Eclipse Now

It’s funny how you have to get my stuff out of the trash folder? Wow. That’s a fact-filled post there Mike. How about answering the NREL post that concludes that over 80% of our driving could be charged on today’s grid, or the fact that most of our driving is well under the range of existing EV technologies, or the fact that Tesla HAS bought the price of EV’s down from the luxury to family car range? What about the FACT that your New Matilda grossly oversimplified the history of the entirely successful EBR2 trial, and that GE’s S-PRISM is based on it and ready to go. How about the FACT that Russia even built a BN-800 that reached criticality this year, and that it IS going to eat Russia’s nuclear waste, and that despite the apparent ‘downturn’ in fast breeder reactors, Russia’s going to build two WHOPPING great new BN-1200’s that also eat nuclear waste?

“Fuel for breeder reactors could even be made from nuclear waste, which from an ecological point of view is a priceless advantage…..Humankind has already produced so much nuclear waste that it would take decades, if not hundreds of years to process and recycle it. ”
http://rt.com/news/188332-mox-nuclear-fuel-production/

It’s funny how you get personal when you want to avoid the inconvenient truths.

26 10 2016
Ertimus Waffle

I can remember the same fantasy stories back in the 1950’s when scientists told the world that nuclear power was so cheap to produce that they wouldn’t have to meter it’s use. The same problem as now take away the governments nuclear weapons programs which subsidized the whole nuclear process and no one could have afforded the energy. Another commercial problem not covered here was the insurance of nuclear power plants, at one time no insurance company would insure a nuclear power plant. I expect that governments now cover the majority of any costs incurred with a reactor melt down like the ones at Fukushima which are expected to cost more than a Trillion dollars to fix and the cost is still rising. With a production line of nuclear power plants and even a .05% chance of a melt down the costs incurred could send the world broke let alone countries trying to clean up this type of disaster.

20 03 2015
gbell12

Eclipse has presented ideas and facts – let’s not pounce from a point of ideology. Here it is 2015, and I bet almost all the people from the Sydney Peak Oil message boards would be shocked at the price and quantity of plain ol’ oil that’s around today. Maybe even Mike is.

I’m just saying, let’s examine facts from both sides and acknowledge uncertainty. I’m invested in a collapse scenario playout, but I’m sure not convinced I’m right.

20 03 2015
mikestasse

I have to admit, I never saw the oil price collapse come……. but it’s not a good sign, because it’s a sure sign the global economy is on the verge of collapse, probably accelerated when the fracking companies all go tits up…. and who knows what will happen once all the storage tanks are full. Will the price collapse even more?

20 03 2015
Eclipse Now

Oh come on Mike! Breeder reactor technology has been known about for decades: Nixon killed thorium’s MSR in the 70’s! But we don’t even need them yet because there is so much cheap uranium still in the ground. Not only that, once you have a high EROEI electricity source you don’t really need all that much oil, and what liquid fuels you do need CAN be replaced with synfuels. But how much will we need when this is happening? From an article about the chance Elon Musk has to become the world’s first trillionaire:
“Tesla is creating a Gigafactory battery factory which would enable Tesla to produce batteries for 500,000 electric cars per year. Elon Musk has talked about making many Gigafactory battery factories.”
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/interesting-plausibility-that-elon-musk.html

20 03 2015
Eclipse Now

This article seems to indicate Americans normally buy 12 to 14 to 16 million cars a year.***
http://business.time.com/2012/01/11/americans-are-expected-to-buy-a-million-more-cars-in-2012/
12 million electric cars a year is only 24 Gigafactories. Are you really suggesting that the world’s only superpower can’t build 24 factories?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/interesting-plausibility-that-elon-musk.html
*** (Remember that I prefer New Urbanism & ecocities, and would love to see Americans cut back to at least a quarter of the cars they currently drive which is not impossible given some of the car ownership trends in Portland and Manhattan. They just need to realise that ‘car’ does not automatically mean ‘good life’.)

20 03 2015
mikestasse

The world’s only superpower can’t even maintain its road infrastructure…… nearly half the USA’s bridges are past their use by date and most of them are unsafe……

20 03 2015
Eclipse Now

PS: *please* don’t be cliche and argue that they’ll never afford 24 Gigafactories because of the “inevitable economic doom” blah blah blah. America would save $6 TRILLION dollars a decade by building these and NOT importing oil! Instead of buying oil from overseas, they could be paying Americans to build electric cars and American nuclear power plants & hydrogen & other synfuel plants to power their trucking; and YES, that might even include recyclable, ‘rechargeable’ powdered BORON! (The last time I mentioned this you just laughed. Until you realised that serious scientists like Dr James Hansen thought it might be a contender, depending on what actually works out to be cheapest).

20 03 2015
mikestasse

So HOW do you build all those cars without oil? Did you know building an EV releases 60% of all the emissions building and running an oil powered car before you even drive it?

21 03 2015
Eclipse Now

Hi Mike,
They won’t build the gigafactories without oil full stop, they’ll build them with either today’s cheap oil (who really knows how long today’s prices will last) or tomorrow’s government rationed oil in an emergency war-time economy. (America built the interstate highway system on something like a *quarter* of today’s economy!)

21 03 2015
mikestasse

I have a question for you Eclipse…… IF Musk is so clever, and we both agree solar power won’t cut the mustard in the future, WHY are his gigafactories all solar powered instead of nuclear?

21 03 2015
Eclipse Now

Because Musk started solar-cities and simply *believes* that solar will be the future, and *believes* that storage will be easy to solve technically, and probably doesn’t even know about counting the overall EROEI of an entire wind & solar & STORAGE system. (Storage kills renewable EROEI dead: even Heinberg agrees with that).

I said he was smart. I didn’t say he was perfect, or an expert in every single field he’s involved in. He founded Solar Cities, the American solar PV lease-back system that’s increased solar takeup enormously. I actually like solar for reducing daytime load on the grid and reducing some of the peak supply issues and gold plating of the grid for a measly few hours a year. But of course if I had to choose one category of energy, it would be nuclear: high EROEI, waste-burning, SAFER than solar (more people die falling off rooftops per terrawatt than have died from nuclear, including Chernobyl) and BASELOAD!

Remember, once America starts going down the home-grown nuclear EV road, they’ll save $600 billion a year by not importing oil, and another $300 to $500 billion a year in particulate health deaths by not burning coal! (Harvard study on particulate health impacts). That’s a $TRILLION dollars a year!

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money! American politicians have let big coal buy them out. That’s insane given that coal kills, changes the climate, and costs so much more than clean nukes. If they’d only let big nuclear and EV’s buy them out, they’d solve their climate contributions and health care crisis and economic crisis all in one hit!

21 03 2015
mikestasse

So he’s not that smart after all…..

21 03 2015
Eclipse Now

No, I guess making his first billion by founding Paypal, then founding Space X (which has cut the cost of space travel to ONE THIRD of the old Space Shuttle), then founding the Solar Cities program, then founding Tesla motors (that are scaling up to 500 thousand EV’s a year to drop the cost of batteries 30%), all of which has him on the cards to become the world’s first trillionaire, all, in your eyes, make him “not that smart after all.”

Get back to us when you’ve founded your own internet bank empire, electric car empire, solar power empire, and space transport empire. Elon wants to be the ultimate conservationist and have a whole *city* on Mars by the 2040’s!

Sorry, what’s your claim to fame again? Oh yeah. You had a tree-change and started a blog. That’s never been done before. 😉

21 03 2015
mikestasse

You don’t have to be smart to be famous. Wealth is no sign either. I have no desire to be rich or famous, both trivial pursuits…….

21 03 2015
Eclipse Now

The other thing that strikes me as disingenuous about your typical “How are you going to do that without oil?” schtick is that it’s just so untrue to peak oil theory. The oil’s not going to run out overnight. It’s going to become more expensive. For *decades*. Like thumb screws that are slowly and gradually wound up tighter and tighter, the quest for alternatives to oil will gradually become more and more urgent. There’s time.

It’s also self-regulating. When high oil prices hit the economy, the economy slows down a bit and people don’t consume as much oil. Just look at the GFC. Americans stopped consuming 25% of their oil without a single bit of oil-saving legislation being passed! Note that they’re not a quarter of the way back to the stone age. Europeans use half the oil per capita than America. They’re not half the way back to the stone age. Economies can and will function on less oil, and when alternatives take over they can and will function with NO OIL!

So don’t trot out the entirely anti-science, anti-geology, anti-peak oil “How ya gonna do it without oil, huh?” meme at me when we have decades and decades of oil left, including all those disgusting brown-tech options ROEOZ always said would never amount to anything. Boy, you guys got that wrong didn’t you?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/us-crude-oil-production-hits-new-post.html

21 03 2015
mikestasse

Oil will NEVER run out…….. but that doesn’t mean it won’t become unavailable.

21 03 2015
Eclipse Now

So how long till it is unavailable? Do tell? I remember you predicting us being well over the energy cliff by now, and here we are, 11 years later and America’s producing more and more alternative oil each year! There is talk about them joining OPEC!

21 03 2015
mikestasse

Errrr…. I hate to tell you but we already ARE over the energy cliff. Repeat after me: FRACKING! Production has NOTHING to do with the energy cliff. The cliff is all about using lower and lower ERoEI energy to produce even lower ERoEI energy.

The cliff is here.

23 10 2016
Ertimus Waffle

Queensland has solved the oil problem with its new breed of university educated lawyer politician building the future generation Ethanol plants to supply all Queensland’s fuel needs. ROLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

23 10 2016
Eclipse Now

Tesla’s already in the country, selling electric cars. Niche energy markets will solve this, with EV’s doing family trips, recyclable boron powder or hydrogen doing trucking, or a bunch of other useful carrier fuels transmitting all that high EROEI power from nuclear to vehicles. It’s not hard. We could have done this decades ago. As I told Mike — over a decade ago. I guess some people just like to bitch.

25 10 2016
25 10 2016
Eclipse Now

Well, I don’t have a Crikey account but this article was interesting.

>In my experience, the causal relationship for success is simple and devoid of neuroticism:

>Success is due to people believing in the mission.

>When people believe in the value of what they’re working on — whether it’s saving people’s lives, keeping people safe or fed, keeping the lights on, making the world’s best cupcake, or building something fantastic, innovative, or beautiful — they work harder, more conscientiously, and more cooperatively. They’re curious and notice things outside of their specific work tasks. They carefully consider risks and externalities.

>People who believe in the mission regularly go above and beyond to ensure its success.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/18/tesla-gigafactory-1-will-succeed-fail/

26 10 2016
mikestasse

Sounds more like blind HOPIUM.

26 10 2016
Eclipse Now

At one stage there were 2 oil cars on the road, sure sounds like a game changer. That ‘energy skeptic’ post is utterly retarded, I feel dumber for even glancing at it. You simply DON’T compare oil energy density to battery energy density because an ICE wastes oil energy crazy bad, whereas EV’s are 3 times more energy efficient. They’re lighter. They don’t have to carry an ICE!
Sorry, but 95% of the day to day commuting we do could be met by EV’s. Not that I WANT that because eventually, with population growth, our cities would end up in gridlock. At least there would be no smog, but gridlock’s a terrible time waster and more trains and trams could fix that.

26 10 2016
mikestasse

They’re lighter. They don’t have to carry an ICE!

LOL…… they carry batteries instead!

Model S curb weight: 1,961 kg (4,323 lb) (60) 2,085 kg (4,597 lb) (60D) 2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (70D) 2,108 kg (4,647 lb) (85) 2,188 kg (4,824 lb) (85D) 2,239 kg (4,936 lb) (P85D)

Similar sized Commodore: 1,690–1,825 kg

26 10 2016
Eclipse Now

Hi Mike, I’m surprised at the car weights. Thank you for correcting me, as years ago I read a paper about the attempted weight efficiencies but Tesla look like they’re going for more distance by adding more batteries. So here’s the deal. It’s STILL retarded to compare the ‘efficiency’ of oil at 15% of all that energy translating to forward momentum when electric cars are 3 times more efficient.

“The same month, the Renault-Nissan Alliance, the top selling all-electric vehicle manufacturer, passed the milestone of 300,000 electric vehicles sold worldwide,[27] and global Tesla Model S sales passed the 100,000 unit milestone.[28] The Tesla Model 3 was unveiled on March 31, 2016 and more than 325,000 reservations were made during the first week since bookings opened, each customer paying a refundable US$1,000 deposit to reserve the car.[29] As of 31 March 2016, Tesla Motors has sold almost 125,000 electric cars worldwide since delivery of its first Tesla Roadster in 2008.[30]”

So in one week Tesla blitzes in orders the total accumulative EV sales of the Renault Nissan Alliance. No wonder they’re completing their gigafactory in stages, as their growth is amazing, and they want to stay cash-flow positive all the way.

25 10 2016
Eclipse Now

Yeah, so while you laugh at Tesla, and whatever their faults (real or imagined), the price point and power density of batteries is already quite functional for 95% of our driving needs. Check the graph at this article. They’ve bought the technology to market, and spurred on an international quest for new and better batteries.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/18/tesla-gigafactory-1-will-succeed-fail/
Some models even have battery swaps that replace the battery at twice the speed it takes to pump fuel into an old ICE car. But who knows? Tesla may rise and fall spectacularly. They have been very aggressive in building such an enormous plant. He seems to be playing the long game though, starting with higher end luxury cars and bringing the price down gradually as the volume of his batteries increases. But hey? Maybe electric cars are not the long term solution. Maybe boron is, or something else we have not considered. Energy efficient cities can, public transport can, electricity can, bikes can, bicycles can, and boron can. The one story that I’m NOT buying is that nothing can replace oil. There are simply too many other possibilities.

26 10 2016
mikestasse

Not everyone agrees with you re batteries…..

http://energyskeptic.com/2013/battery-energy-density-too-low-to-power-cars/

So far, I’ve seen TWO Teslas on the road……. sure sounds like a game changer.

26 10 2016
Eclipse Now

Also, you never replied to the NREL study so I’ll post it again.

NREL have calculated that their grid already has enough spare capacity to charge over 80% of American family cars, without a single new power station or upgrade.

“For the United States as a whole, 84% of US cars, pickup trucks and SUVs could be supported by the existing infrastructure, ”

How? Because about 43% of them are charged at night! (Page 10 of the NREL PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1).
https://eclipsenow.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/phev_feasibility_analysis_part1.pdf

Once we stop burning oil and start moving to electric cars we’ll have a reason to run all power stations at maximum capacity all the time. The Amory Lovins claim that “we just don’t need baseload generators at night because there’s no demand at night” will sound as absurd to the average citizen as it already does to the experts that disagree with him.

3 01 2017
Ertimus Waffle

There’s a hell of a lot of assumptions there and if the average household goes over to using solar panels for their daylight power then you would need more base load power when everyone was charging their cars at night. I would love to see the figures and the breakdowns of this system done by a skeptic not a believer.

3 01 2017
Eclipse Now

Good point Ertimus Waffle: this is one of the main contradictions of renewables advocates.

WEANING OFF OIL
1. We’re going to charge about half our electric cars at night on excess nightime baseload power supply when business closes down for the day!
(Page 10 of the NREL study below).
http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ei/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf

2. We’re NOT going to really do anything at night because… who needs power at night? Amory Lovins says the requirement for baseload electric power is a myth, and there’s no real need for power at night. Except for running fridges and hospitals and night transport and some industries and replacing *half* our family car oil on the *existing* grid with night time electricity according to the study above!

Note: if the *huge* spare night-time capacity of a baseload grid can only charge *half* the fleet, then no baseload at night means we must charge the *whole* fleet during the day. Just how many times over are we going to build out the grid again? How are we going to charge all those EV’s? Are we going to double the grid? Triple it? Quadruple it? No. Watch Amory’s ‘efficiency gains’. We’re going to *halve* our electricity supply according to Amory. While replacing oil. Pull the other one, it plains jingle bells.

15 01 2017
Ertimus Waffle

This is like saying in it’s most simplistic bottom line form we don’t need cars because we have horses, donkey’s, buses, trains, planes, feet, asses, ships, boats but what form of transport does everyone use???? That’s right cars,
cars, cars,
Obviously we could build so much renewable energy generating capacity that no base load power stations would be needed again but it would be the equivalent of putting a super computer in your car to run the EMS and for what gain and at what cost. I look at my own solar panel system and grimace at how inefficient it is for the cost and the return. For the twelve hour’s of sunlight I am lucky to get a 42% return and that’s on a perfect day. Over a year that would drop to an average of around 25%. So using rough estimates I would need to have four times the capacity I have now to reach a base of 100% and then for the days the sun doesn’t shine and taking every other factor into account I would say that I need around 4 times the amount of solar panels I have now with a back up battery system that is only going to last at best twenty years. The maths and the mind boggling transmission system that would still be needed to supply all the other infrastructure in our society with electricity would be astronomical in cost.
There isn’t any magic to why we have the system we have now to generate and supply cheap electricity, it works and the power is cheap take those two necessities away and we might as well return to gas light and wood stoves. It’s all right for the scientists to keep coming up with untried theories and modeling but if they fail what then??????? More taxpayer $$$$$$$$$$$$$ that these people don’t have to come up with.

15 01 2017
mikestasse

Instead of getting four time the capacity, you could always quarter your consumption….. or more, depending on your consumption!

https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/more-power-of-energy-efficiency/

And look into Nickel Iron batteries……. known to have lasted at least 85 years…….

https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/why-i-chose-nickel-iron-batteries/

15 01 2017
Ertimus Waffle

The standard response, use less power, well I only use about 13.5 KwH a day of which 4KwH is for hot water leaving 9.5 KwH for cooking, refrigeration, lighting, television, computer, I have reduced just about everything I can and would like a so called expert to tell me how to reduce my electricity consumption even more without returning to the dark ages. By the way I am a electrical technician and worked in the electricity generation area for over thirty years including programming Scada and PLC operating systems and at one stage running a base load power station.
So Nickel Iron batteries are the answer are they, having been working in the electrical industry for over fifty years I would be a little skeptical at any electrical componentry or equipment lasting longer than twenty years and any parts or service being available after ten years which is the industry standard these days even for million dollar variable speed drives and most high end equipment. I cannot wait for the truck driver with a $20,000 renewable energy system powered by solar panels charging Nickel Iron batteries when the computer controlling the whole system gets hit by a lightening strike raising causing a voltage spike on the earth potential above the negative voltage of the control power boards or even a simple battery fault that wont reset. I am sure there will be do it yourself classes at Bunnings to fix your Power Walls or you could call a technician who will charge you $295 an hour to find the problem and hopefully the original company the system was bought from is still in business for parts.
Gone will be the days when the average electricity consumer only had to reset a $20 circuit in their power board.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s