octave

I like the idea of flywheels; after the oil shocks of the 70s flywheel research was often in the news.

 

Simple technology, no complex energy conversion. Just a composite flywheel spinning at high speed in a vacuum chamber under the floor of your car or bus, linked to a generator.

 

We don't hear much about them lately.

 

Came across this video, you may find it interesting.

I like the solar car race but I wish there was a category for  more normal cars, by which I mean 2 seats and in principle able to be registered.

 

I would also have an electric car race with solar recharge and more than one battery pack allowed, as an associated event .

 

This concept car was designed and built by members of a team that one the solar race 3 times. Not pure solar though. 

I like the solar car race but I wish there was a category for  more normal cars, by which I mean 2 seats and in principle able to be registered.

 

I would also have an electric car race with solar recharge and more than one battery pack allowed, as an associated event .

 

The battery for the SA grid cost us 40 cents per watt-hour, which is just under half of what you get from hobbyking, but that battery was so big it cost millions.

 

I couldn't find a price for a replacement 64kWh battery for the Kona, but guess it would be about $40,000. This guess leaves the cost of the rest of the car at over $20,000 which is reasonable. This is better than my hobbyking figures, but not by so much that the argument changes.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.interestingengineering.com/tesla-puts-price-on-model-3-battery-module-replacement-around-5000-7000

SO at $1 per watt-hour, or $1000 per kWh, or $60,000 for 60 kWh,

 

Actually for around this price you can pretty much buy a 60kw battery pack wrapped up in a Hyundai Kona EV

I wish your graph was right Octave. It indicates to me that my 0.1kWhr battery in 2018 should have cost $17.60.

 

Instead I paid over $100.

 

I bet you can't actually buy a 1kWhr for $176 .

 

To be fair we may comparing retail price with price to manufacture. But the more important point is that the cost of battery storage is reducing rapidly.

Imagine a giant flywheel spun up by solar power and slowed by consumption. If no rpm limit, it could store a months worth of sunshine for two days of use. Can we do it with chemicals? Yes, one day. If we could kick uranium or thorium atoms up to a higher activity then use heat from decay when we need it. I am confident it will happen, but not in my lifetime. 

 

I guess I am more of a techno optimist than you are. 

There is no reason to believe that progress will not continue at the pace it has in the recent past and in all likelihood it will increase.  

New York, spot the 1 car among the horses.

[ATTACH]50430._xfImport[/ATTACH]

13 years later ,spot the 1  horse among the cars

[ATTACH]50431._xfImport[/ATTACH]

I wish your graph was right Octave. It indicates to me that my 0.1kWhr battery in 2018 should have cost $17.60.

 

Instead I paid over $100.

 

I bet you can't actually buy a 1kWhr for $176 .

 

Bruce you cant necessarily equate small batteries with

I wish your graph was right Octave. It indicates to me that my 0.1kWhr battery in 2018 should have cost $17.60.

 

Instead I paid over $100.

 

I bet you can't actually buy a 1kWhr for $176 .

 

The price of a small battery may not directly relate to large batteries.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/07/envision-energy-says-ev-battery-cell-costs-will-fall-below-50-kwh-by-2025/#:~:targetText=In general terms%2C the current,be around %24190 per kWh.

"At the Stanford Global Energy Forum last month, Lei Zhang, founder and CEO of Envision Energy, made an extraordinary pronouncement. He said the cost of manufacturing EV battery cells would fall below $100 per kWh by 2020 and would be less than $50 per kWh by 2025 according to Driving, a Canadian automotive news site.

The conventional wisdom is that when the price for EV battery cells falls below $100 per kWh, that is when electric cars will become price competitive with conventional cars and the EV revolution will go into hyperdrive. We can’t know for sure, but many industry observers believe Tesla is very near that threshold for the battery cells it manufactures at its Gigafactory 1 in Nevada, if it has not already crossed over it. In general terms, the current industry standard for EV battery cells is believed to be $145 per kWh. 

Today my wife and I are in our solar powered van. We can watch tv or do most things we want. Gas for cooking. The two things we can’t run are the microwave and the aircon, neither matters today. A step change is needed to make us fully solar.

 

In 1990 we built a house in the bush off the grid.  We paid $590 for each of our 60 watt panels. A 60 watt panel (if you could be bothered buying one this small)  is  $156.  Bear in mind given inflation $590 is an enormous amount.  The enormous advances in technology will mean that in the near future it will not matter whether you understand climate science or not, it will just be cheaper and more efficient.  

https://thedriven.io/2019/11/15/australias-sea-electric-takes-massive-order-for-100-electric-trucks/?fbclid=IwAR0uBimZW57ST-9Tre1v9VhllaxW0NuaAXpnIWUncJUFPmxG6srQMluJNyM

Here's the problem: there is no cheap battery. My Jabiru uses an 8.4 amp-hour battery at 13.2 volts and cost just over $100. Now 8.4 amps for 1 hour at 13.2 volts is 110 Watt-hours.

 

So I paid about $1 per watt-hour and it was real cheap, most pay 4 times as much. ( they get better control-stuff built into the box though )

 

SO at $1 per watt-hour, or $1000 per kWh, or $60,000 for 60 kWh, the  idea is real expensive.

 

The world is crying out for a battery which will store electricity for a few cents per kWh, I wish I could invent one.

 

Battery prices are falling rapidly.

[ATTACH]50429._xfImport[/ATTACH]

I am just having a solar system  installed at my place and did consider a tesla powerwall but decided against it as it is not quite there yet on a purely economic basis. (about $8000 for a 14kw powerwall plus installation)   The prices are falling and efficiency is increasing.  For some people they are already economic.     Note I did say I could foresee a time in the near future.    I did live for 20 years on a bush property with no mains electricity, in this case battery plus solar was economically superior. 

It is easy to think that the rapid technological progress if the 20th and early 21st century some how has reached an end but people are not great at predicting the future.    IBM   thought there would be an extremely limited market for the computer now we all have one in our pocket.  

Vehicle to grid is already beginning used.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/vehicle-grid-technology-revving

What we need is to produce our electricity as needed locally.

 

I strongly agree with this.  One reason I am not a fan of nuclear (as it is done at the moment) is that it is very centralized and gives control to large corporations.   I can see a time where  all houses will have solar and storage and perhaps a suburb that is interconnected whereby power is automatically traded between households.  I also see a place for EV vehicle to house. In my case being semi retired and doing some work from home I find my car (not an EV at this stage) sits idle.  A 60kw battery would provide power at peak times or evenings quite easily and maintain enough range for my use.

Yeah, both. Fires and ice, neither is evidence of anything. Weather is not climate.

 

Individual events are not evidence but trends are.

The fire season in both hemispheres is getting longer is it not?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/11/04/forecasters-california-fire-season-could-last-into-december-expect-more-large-blazes/

Again I am going to stick with overwhelming majority of scientific consensus on this until there is convincing evidence to the contrary is published and peer reviewed.   

Today I watched the press conference by these guys. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/11/14/fire-chiefs-bushfires/           Now  deniers usually claim that climate change is a scam by people who want to overthrow the economic system or scientists who are merely trying to get research dollars (of course research dollars could also be gained from the fossil fuel industry).  These guys have don't have either of these motives as far as I can see.  The one I am fairly certain is that a denier will come up with a rationalisation as to why these people are speaking out.  It must be hard work being a denier, having to dismiss The majority of the worlds scientific organisations and the majority of scientists in favour of the odd contrarian.

The northern hemisphere is in the grip of an early and intense winter weather. It has been described as unprecedented. In North America the weather has been compared to January, with 97 local low temperature records set for November. Interesting.

 

I am guessing you see this as some kind of evidence that climate change is a hoax.   Cherry Picking is common tactic amongst deniers.  If you believe an instance of record cold is significant in itself then surely you would also attach the same importance other extreme events such as the fires in California.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/11/04/forecasters-california-fire-season-could-last-into-december-expect-more-large-blazes/

I reckon the greens really don't understand the latest stuff on nuclear energy, where the radioactive waste and thermal runaway problems have been overcome.

 

Bruce as I have said many times here I am not philosophically opposed to nuclear.  I believe it is drawing a long bow to suggest that the only impediment to nuclear power in this country is the greens.  I would strongly suspect that if a nuclear power station or waste facility were to be proposed in the most politically conservative location in Australia that opposition would not be only from greens but from local residents.  

The impediments to building a nuclear power facility in Australia are are more complex than "it would be a goer if only the greens would us".  There are countries around the world where what the public want or not are not an impediment to what the government does.  Are there any countries who derive all of their power from nuclear? If not an if it is so cheap and easy then why not? 

I am quite interested in all sorts of technologies including nuclear but I am not sure what the new technologies regarding waste processing are, perhaps you could enlighten me.

I have posted the above clip before, it is not anti nuclear but it does highlight some of the present problems.

I am all in favour of researching new so called small modular reactors and I am especially interested in research into travelling wave reactors which are supported by the Gates foundation.

I am most definitely not a fan of large reactors such as Hinkley Point C which has become enormously expensive and behind schedule and involves large overseas corporations to build.

I don't think that any one technology will be the answer.  Nuclear is unlikely to happen here anytime soon and far from the greens being the biggest impediment I would suggest that the biggest impediment is the coal loving conservatives.  Nuclear only makes sense in terms of climate change mitigation but these very same people say there is no problem. 

We are quite happy with the place my father went into.  Of course he would rather be at home but this is not possible.  Since he went in life has improved for them. My mother visits every day and can stay overnight if she wishes.   He is treated very well but it does help that he does not have any dementia and other than some medical needs is affable and liked by the staff.   If I was to criticize anything it would be the low staff ratios on weekends. Well meaning staff with too much work.   My father's only complaint is that although they serve a glass of wine three days a week he is not impressed with the quality.  We are putting a bar fridge in his room which we will ensure is stocked with his favourite NZ sav blanc.

Less frail residents come and go from the facility as they please.

Nev like you I have no wish to end my days in such a place however in my father's case his life has improved. Earlier this year we visited (we live in a different state) and in the middle of the night we could hear my mother trying to take care of him and him crying an saying "I don't know what you want me to do" pretty sad to hear.    After weeks of this my mother pretty much lost it and gave up. Now he is reasonably happy and they spend the day together watching TV or reading or he will surf the net on his beloved Ipad (not bad for 91).    In this case aged care was literally a life saver.

To inject a few facts into the discussion the cost everyone pays in aged care is $51.63 per day which is the basic daily fee, this equates to 85% of the aged pension.  There is a second fee which is the care fee which is means tested and is between $0 and $252 a day, In my fathers case he pays $10 a day  Any extra costs are on a fee for service basis for extras. My father pays a few dollars a week for wine.

There is a lifetime cap  on the care fee of $27754 per year or $66610.  

You can pay for the accommodation fee (fully or partially) by paying a RAD which is around $300000 more or less but depends on the particular place. This is refunded in full when you "leave" to you or your estate   What happens here is that the interest from your RAD pays for some or all of the accommodation fee.   

I reckon the current situation with old folks homes is a great example of people wanting more from governments than they are prepared to pay for.

 

They want to dump their oldies yet have them taken good care of without cost to themselves and their inheritance.

 

It would be easy to fix: increase the charges for those who don't want to do voluntary work. This would take more backbone than is available I fear.

 

Bruce we have just navigated this system. My we put my father into an aged care facility because my mother could no longer look after him.  When you suggest that people "dump their oldies yet have them taken good care of without cost to themselves and their inheritance."  I wonder if you are aware of the costs?  If someone were to be trying to preserve their inheritance they would try to keep their loved one at home.   Even basic aged care takes pretty much all of my fathers pension and their savings will be eventually eaten into down to I think $49500 each.  Their house is protected until my mother inevitably goes in when the house will become an assessable asset.

It is a complicated system too get your head around but basically since 2014 people have been required to substantially contribute to their aged care.

And although followers of this newer belief (pledging loyalty to the 'word' multiple times daily)

 

I don't think the majority of muslims do this.  I am not sure of the figures but I would also suspect the majority don't go to mosque or even read the Koran. My friend and colleague I mentioned is in every respect a modern western woman.  There are according to the last census 604 200 people who identify as muslim in Australia.  They do not all go to mosque or where funny clothing and they certainly don't all pray many times a day or even at all.   It is quite right to ensure that disaffected youths do not for into radical behaviours including the white supremacist nutjobs .

If 604200 Australian Muslims have it in for us they are not doing a particularly good job at it.   We of course need to be cautious who we let in the country but we must also avoid hysteria and paranoia because we know where that leads.

I am against any large scale religious input to government, and here is a group that have that documented goal as part of their belief

 

I don't see a great deal of evidence of that.  I don't believe I heard much during the same sex marriage debate although certainly I imagine conservative Muslims would have been against. I did see the Australian Christian Lobby trying to influence government and the inquiry into religious freedom etc.

It all depends on which philosophy they believe in.   If you read the Karan, you will see the basis that they live by.   Its not a pretty story and espouses world domination, murder, racism etc etc on almost every page.   The pity is that the ideas have not been altered to suit modern times.   The beliefs are medieval, elitist, criminal, arrogant and mysoginistic min the extreme.  Therre are good and bad in all walks of life, but not many follow a missive that dictates the ideas of the Koran.   Read it then argue for it.

 

Actually I have read some of it also I have read most of the bible, mainly in order to further my arguments against all religions. 

Deuteronomy 17

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Deuteronomy 13:

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

To use an example from my own life I have a colleague who is Iranian although she refers to herself as Persian. She holds a Doctorate in music is a concert pianist teacher and author. In her spare time she climbs mountains. The very reason she is here is because her family as so called intellectuals escaped from Iran.  Her birth certificate says muslim but this is automatic. She has no interest in changing our way of life or committing acts of violence and yet she is sometimes treated with suspicion by more paranoid folks.  My point is not about the people in the camps or levels of immigration it is about being rational.

So the massive attrocities in the middle east, involving country populations is trhe actions of a minority in respose to the teachings of a book by a desert dwelling, paedophilic, drug taking  slave trader.  OK, terrorism, drug trade gangs and selling, shooting on the streets of sydney etc etc is the actions of a minority so why do the majority not take action to clean these crimes etc up.

 

Why don't majority of men  ensure that their fellow men don't rape and murder young women walking home as has happened all too often here. The fact is that criminal acts are perpetrated by criminals.  I don't assume that my chinese friend is a member of a drug triad and I don't believe the Italian down the road is part of the mafia although of course there is an exceedingly small chance that they could be.  In the end it is about relative risk. My assumption is that your perception risk is greater than mine. I try to stay rational.  

What if you told a feminist that you believed that all women were prostitutes because all hetero women use their sexual attributes to secure what they need for their own survival and that of their offspring?

 

Well of course I would not say that because this is not my experience in my personal life and I would not for the reasons I explained, to extrapolate from the behavior of a few to the a group as a whole is really is not my style.  I try to take people as I find them I my assumption is the you probably do too.

The perennial problem is that a tiny minority, usually locally-born children of immigrants, can be easily radicalised.

 

I do take that point and I also understand that you are not necessarily making broad judgements although some do.  The argument often goes like this, a tiny number may want to do us harm and the vast majority do not. I can't know which are the tiny majority so I am entitled to treat the whole pool of people as being potentially dangerous.  The trouble is that this principle applied to other things may be troublesome.  A feminist once said to me that men are rapists, I of course said I am not, she replied that whilst that may be true she could not tell which men were potential rapists and which were not. This of course is true but a society that slides into thinking that there are genders, races, religions (and I say this as an atheist) or any other group, could end up on a slippery slope to bad things.  The notion that we can predict behaviour of an individual from some wider generalization that may even be partially true risks possibly punishing the innocent whilst failing to detect the  people with malicious intent.  Jails are full of people with poor levels of education but this tells me nothing about the neighbour who is inarticulate or poorly educated.

The issue of the people overseas now is very tricky and to me at least not black and white.

Do those Bible Belt religious zealots, instruct their followers to kill.

 

Do they allow their follows to leave & become Moslem.

 

Do the Moslems allow their followers to become Christian.

 

I think I can live with ALL Christian zealots, without fear of even Stoneing for adultery.

 

Lots of  Chistian zealots come door knocking, to this day, I have not seen One Armed &ready to kill, like they do overseas.

 

spacesailor

 

If the vast majority of Australian muslims wanted to do us in it would have happened by now.  We too easily fall for stereotypes. I would suggest that most Australian muslims don't  attend the local mosque just as most nominal christians don't attend church. My neighbours (until recently) were lovely people and to my knowledge did not attend mosque. She wore a scarf although often would not be wearing it. He started fasting for ramadan but stopped because he came down with the flu so obviously not too committed. As far as I can see they were only muslim to the degree that many would say they were christian. I understand that you personally may fear and loathe them but I think it is misplaced. Personally I fear radicalism where ever it comes from.

Getting back to climate change.

Exxon is being taken to court for knowing about climate change in the 1980s from its own scientist but suppressing it's own studies and actively misleading the public and politicians.  This is not unlike the tobacco industry and like the tobacco industry  cannot get away with this forever.

Some time ago I posted  documents from Shell detailing the evidence of it's own experts.

http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/

Dr. Martin Hoffert did work for Exxon in the 1980s and this is what he has to say now.

And for more context a slightly longer version. (but with irritating background music)

It should be interesting to follow the court case.