The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The j1772 protocol only allows for 1 way power flow.
CCS, same thing.
Still there is the problem of the cost of the unit which is not cheap.

Yer not listening to the words I'm typing. I'm saying the hardware is mostly all there. The additional hardware needed to flow the other direction is minimal.

[oil pan 4]

Then there is the slight problem of every utility entity has its own set of standards for feeding power on to the power grid.

The hardware already exists. Setec and nissan already have chademo to grid units.
No price on the nissan built one. The setec unit is somewhere around $5,000 and only puts out 3kw.

[freebeard]

Re: The discussion for the last few hours about vehicle-to-grid.

I made a post a while back, found it and pointed to it again, but I can't find it now so here's this:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=software%20defined%20electricity

Software Defined Electricity uses real time data sliced very finely to modulate the grid with, ideally, super capacitors. Rather than a centralized solution it would be distributed and used to suppress local spikes in demand. Acting in concert this would calm the grid so that a backup power plant isn't triggered repeatedly.

This would extend to the vehicles being able to contribute not by not draining the battery back to grid, but by modulating the recharge rate enmass.

Given the nano-second response time required , everybody gets new hardware. I read the Tesla bought the supercapacitor company for some 'dry electrode' technology they hold.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Re: The discussion for the last few hours about vehicle-to-grid.

I made a post a while back, found it and pointed to it again, but I can't find it now so here's this:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=software%20defined%20electricity

Software Defined Electricity uses real time data sliced very finely to modulate the grid with, ideally, super capacitors. Rather than a centralized solution it would be distributed and used to suppress local spikes in demand. Acting in concert this would calm the grid so that a backup power plant isn't triggered repeatedly.

This would extend to the vehicles being able to contribute not by not draining the battery back to grid, but by modulating the recharge rate enmass.

Given the nano-second response time required , everybody gets new hardware. I read the Tesla bought the supercapacitor company for some 'dry electrode' technology they hold.

The best option for both grid storage and cars is a combination of caps and batteries.

Imagine an EV with 40 kWh of batteries and 10kWh of supercaps. Way less total capacity than a 80 kWh battery pack. But you could add 10 kWh in a minute, drive a bit while the car charges its battery from the ultracaps, then take another blitz charge, etc until you have enough combined range to reach your destination. You can do a road trip and hardly lose any time charging, and do that at random locations as long as those are well within the battery range.
Every blitz charge adds 20% to the range (assuming the ultracaps are drawn empty).

At conventional fast chargers it would work the other way round. As long as the batteries can take its full output all goes into the battery, once that gets too hot the remainder charges the caps so the car uses maximum charge current until the caps are full.

In driving the ultracaps would do the bulk of the high current demand like accelerating and regenerative braking.
The battery would need way less cooling and could therefore be cheaper and lighter.
Tesla may have a winner strategy here.

[oil pan 4]

The fake super capacitor battery bank will be useless for highway driving.
The only thing that is going to get you further down the road is more kwh.
10kwh will barely last 35 miles of highway driving.
Tesla cars seem to be able to take a charge rate of over 100kw no problem.
Plus I saw an article from tesla saying that charging much faster than the current 135kw super charger is impractical.

[redpoint5]

Yeah, a 10 kWh supercap bank would be room-sized.

AllDarc was hyping some technology that was both a supercap and battery, but then went silent on it.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy

If Germany can do it, with about as much sun as Alaska, then almost any place can do it.

That is a big "if" that remains to be seen. And everyone keeps saying "renwable energy" when they should mean to say rebuildable electricity. Which electricity is only 20% of total energy n Germany. The solar PV capacity factor is 12% there. They state that they will shutter 12 GW of coal and 8 GW of nuclear by 2022. Which would take something like nameplate capacities of 20 GW wind and 50 GW solar. In 3 years? And build new interconnections from the offshore North to the factories in the South.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Remember how I said the global warming movement will collapse on its self by 2022, this is the beginning of the end.
If they aren't willing to pay for it then they don't really believe in it.

It's not necessarily believing or not believing. It comes down to hard economic facts. As energy gets more remote from depletion (oil price was $20/ barrel, minus a few price shocks, for the periods between 1960 and 2000 where it briefly went to $10, and is now $50 and will only go up), and carbon taxes raise the price of goods further, the middle class all over the world are getting left behind and cannot afford to pay any more for all of the embodied energy in the food and goods that they need. Yellow vests.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

And again, you are referring to a single flawed survey to make your argument.

Changing to renewable energy will pay for itself in a short period of time - this is based on data: Our 100% Clean Energy Vision - The Solutions Project

But the Roadmap To Renewables makes no pragmatic assessment of what this scale of build out looks like on the ground or how much it costs. It is just wishful numbers with no substance. Fossil fuels have spoiled us with an energy bonanza so large that it is not reasonable to think that rebuildables (that require fossil energy for their mining,manufacture, transport, and construction) can even replace half of what we are using.
.
.

.
.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Nuclear costs even more than coal. Who's going to pay for it?

Wind based on land in the least expensive way to generate electricity, and it is growing faster and faster.

Storage is cheap - even if you use lithium. It pays for itself in a short period of time. Even with conventional sources, we need storage.

There is not that much Lithium in the world. Keep in mind the scale of what we are trying to replace. Half of what we use (from a 2:1 efficiency improvement) for 18 hours would need 136 TWh of batteries. I will let someone else figure out how many 1,000s of GigaFactories this requires to get it all built and then rebuilt every 20 years.
.
Scale
.
Things will be much smaller after fossil fuels leave us. Simplify now and beat the rush.