----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan M" <[email protected]>
To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?


>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of xponentrob
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:21 PM
>> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
>>
>> If one wants to make direct comparisons of a type of batteries
>> capabilities,
>> one has to go no farther than a hardware store or Lowes or Home Depot.
>> I've been using cordless drills for a couple of decades. They were once
>> using Ni-Cad batteries, until the Nimh batteries swallowed the market. 
>> The
>> Ni-Cad and Nimh battery packs were pretty much the same size and 
>> performed
>> about the same, only Nimh had a slight edge in most categories. In the
>> last 2 years Li-ion batteries have begun to take over the market.
>> The battery packs are smaller and lighter, but deliver more power
>> and torque and do it for longer with a shorter recharge time.
>> In short, Li-ion are starting to dominate the market and it is a market
>> that has requirements that has similarities to the requirements in Auto
>> applications.
>
> I agree with your methodology, but wish to add one thing: cost.  The added
> cost for modest energy densities is not a big factor, but at $4.27 per Wh,
> it means a lot if one needs a lot of watt hours.  In the case of power
> tools, the use isn't as much as one thinks,
>
> My memory is that the Tesla uses these batteries, and its price tag has a
> lot to do with how expensive they are.  I think we'd need a factor of 10
> reduction in price/Wh before they are commercially feasible for Joe and 
> Joan
> commuter.  But, I would not necessarily rule that out; because the 
> evidence
> for research on the techniques indicates that there may be some room for
> improvements both in storage density and price per battery.

The Tesla is not the best example one could use. I think the Heuliez Will is 
a better example of an electric vehicle that is just about there. The price 
should be around 27-34K (when it hits market) and the car can do 0 - 60 in 
around 10 seconds with a top speed of 87MPH and has a range of248 miles. It 
is not as sexy as the Tesla, but it is much  more of a reply to peoples 
needs than the Tesla and costs should go down as more are manufactured.
The Chevy Volt looks to be similarly placed, though it is a series hybrid.



>
> The other factor is that we will either need to switch to nuclear power 
> for
> virtually all of our electricity or find a very efficient high volume 
> energy
> storage system to match with wind.  Right now, power grids can count on 
> only
> 5% or so of the rated capacity of wind farms.  Pairing them with natural 
> gas
> plants makes this reasonable, but then we are burning fossil fuels to get
> the electricity.  That's slightly better for the environment than 
> gasoline,
> but far worse than high tech biofuels that might come on line in 5-10 
> years.
>
> So, in the short term, I'd argue for building nuclear plants, finding ways
> to make batteries denser and cheaper, and biofuels from non-food sources
> which produce aviation fuel far more efficiently than ethanol is produced,
> developing high efficiency massive energy storage, and a raise in the gas
> tax.
>
> But, you've heard that before. :-)
>
True, and I am in agreement with you most of the time on this subject.
But I must caution against accidental hyperbole. The Tesla is a high end 
sports car. Using it as an example  with regards to commuting is a bit over 
the top. Understandable, since it has about the highest profile (among 
potential consumers) of any BEV, but the car was designed to show 
possibilities and capabilities,not to be a mainstream or even a commuter 
vehicle.

xponent
Compacts Maru
rob

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to