I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/

It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo

On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/

It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth having. In
the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs (like, for example, a
single layer atomic structure like graphene, but an insulator) it's
getting close to physical limits, although cost will continue to come down.

The performance improvement in phones and the like will come from lower
consumption chips. I don't see the same applying to EV motors.

On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/


It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts applications
such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth having. In
the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs (like, for example, a
single layer atomic structure like graphene, but an insulator) it's
getting close to physical limits, although cost will continue to come down.

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion

Yep, that was a very interesting story. More interesting than nuclear
fusion stories.

I dunno how much is hype, but if not it could be significant. With
massively quicker charge times it might be possible to reduce battery
capacity too. Maybe charge at traffic lights etc, with smart infrastructure.

Plus I hardly every drive more than 50 miles in one go.

Chris Hogg wrote:
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

If you don't compare it to computers, it's not so bad. Think of other
fields: are there washing machines that improved their water use by 50%? Are
there planes that got 50% more fuel efficiency?

It is after all a chemistry problem, and you don't make 10x improvements in
those overnight.

As mentioned, an EV going from 200 miles range to 300 miles range is
definitely worth having, and could be the tipping point for some people.

Theo

On 25/05/2021 17:52, Theo wrote:
I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/

It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo


It's a good roundup of *some* of the different lithium ion chemistries
and how things haven't *really* been improving at all, and how that
impacts applications such as phones and EVs.



--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/

It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

My reactions exactly

As I say, back in the noughties my first lithium flight packs were
lighter than any on sale today. But they couldn't do very high currents
Today cells with 2-3 times the *power* density, are available - but the
energy density is actually less...


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
The performance improvement in phones and the like will come from lower
consumption chips. I don't see the same applying to EV motors.

Again one is pushing at the limits: even in chop terms flops per watt is
running into barriers. The best way forward is probably 'low power
*algorithms* - software written to minimise CPU usage.

As far as cars go it isn't going to get much better without different
battery *technology*.

We have seen what EVs could be with a battery that doesn't yet exist.
And wont. What we need is a complete re-evaluation in the way we do
things, like whether or not private transport is allowed to continue.
Greens will be batting for that. Only Party Zils in special lanes
allowed for the virtuous


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 26/05/2021 10:33, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion


Yep, that was a very interesting story. More interesting than nuclear
fusion stories.

I dunno how much is hype, but if not it could be significant. With
massively quicker charge times it might be possible to reduce battery
capacity too. Maybe charge at traffic lights etc, with smart
infrastructure.

Plus I hardly every drive more than 50 miles in one go.

Airliners hardly ever experience more than 1.5G loading.
Do you want to fly in one that *can't* experience more than 1.5G loading
without the wings folding?

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 26/05/2021 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:33, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion



Yep, that was a very interesting story. More interesting than nuclear
fusion stories.

I dunno how much is hype, but if not it could be significant. With
massively quicker charge times it might be possible to reduce battery
capacity too. Maybe charge at traffic lights etc, with smart
infrastructure.

Plus I hardly every drive more than 50 miles in one go.

Airliners hardly ever experience more than 1.5G loading.
Do you want to fly in one that *can't* experience more than 1.5G loading
without the wings folding?


A better example: There's no point having an airliner that can perform
aerobatics safely, as that is not what it is used for.

Besides that, the only real need for a car that can do more than 50
miles is to attend a funeral the other side of Ireland at incredibly
short notice.

On 26/05/2021 13:30, GB wrote:
On 26/05/2021 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:33, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion





Yep, that was a very interesting story. More interesting than
nuclear fusion stories.

I dunno how much is hype, but if not it could be significant.
With massively quicker charge times it might be possible to
reduce battery capacity too. Maybe charge at traffic lights etc,
with smart infrastructure.

Plus I hardly every drive more than 50 miles in one go.

Airliners hardly ever experience more than 1.5G loading. Do you
want to fly in one that *can't* experience more than 1.5G loading
without the wings folding?


A better example: There's no point having an airliner that can
perform aerobatics safely, as that is not what it is used for.

A considerably worse example.

Airliners in severe turbulence can and have been stressed right up to 5G
limits. And survived, not without injury or damage however

Their passengers are still here

A barrel roll is an aerobatic manoeuvre that most airliners can execute
safely as it is low positive G stress. MUCH lower than turbulence

We don't build technology for the average, we build it for the worst case.

Besides that, the only real need for a car that can do more than 50
miles is to attend a funeral the other side of Ireland at incredibly
short notice.

Or to drive to see a relative who needs looking after who has broken
their leg 200 miles away

NHS: "the patient died because all our ambulances were on charge after a
major RTA had flattened their batteries, and a study by an ArtStudent„¢
showed that their average daily usage was less than 200 miles, so that's
all the batteries they have".

National Grid: "The country experienced a complete blackout because the
wind wasn't blowing anywhere, and it was overcast with a solar eclipse,
despite the fact that *on average* it should have been OK, an
ArtStudent„¢ said so"

Fukushima Director: "We were only going to build a sea wall 2m high
because an ArtStudent„¢ said that is the *average* height of waves".

Are you an ArtStudent„¢, GB?



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 26/05/2021 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:33, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion



Yep, that was a very interesting story. More interesting than nuclear
fusion stories.

I dunno how much is hype, but if not it could be significant. With
massively quicker charge times it might be possible to reduce battery
capacity too. Maybe charge at traffic lights etc, with smart
infrastructure.

Plus I hardly every drive more than 50 miles in one go.

Airliners hardly ever experience more than 1.5G loading.
Do you want to fly in one that *can't* experience more than 1.5G loading
without the wings folding?


I was recently looking at climbing equipment, generally specified as
safe up to loads of 25KN, I suspect I fell for the hype and cheaper 12KN
would have been fine for me.

However car range is different.

There are two factors. The main factor of range is how often I'm willing
to stop to refuel. With Lithium Ion batteries the problem is long
charging times, people want bigger capacities because they don't want to
stop from an hour to recharge. If they can recharge in minutes they
would be more willing to stop.

The car battery analogy to your example is the power reserve I need to
get me to a recharging station in case of emergency. Where I live I
would expect recharging stations to be closely spaced, requiring little
emergency capacity.

On 26/05/2021 15:09, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:33, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion




Yep, that was a very interesting story. More interesting than nuclear
fusion stories.

I dunno how much is hype, but if not it could be significant. With
massively quicker charge times it might be possible to reduce battery
capacity too. Maybe charge at traffic lights etc, with smart
infrastructure.

Plus I hardly every drive more than 50 miles in one go.

Airliners hardly ever experience more than 1.5G loading.
Do you want to fly in one that *can't* experience more than 1.5G
loading without the wings folding?


I was recently looking at climbing equipment, generally specified as
safe up to loads of 25KN, I suspect I fell for the hype and cheaper 12KN
would have been fine for me.

However car range is different.

There are two factors. The main factor of range is how often I'm willing
to stop to refuel. With Lithium Ion batteries the problem is long
charging times, people want bigger capacities because they don't want to
stop from an hour to recharge. If they can recharge in minutes they
would be more willing to stop.

That is just one problem. The other problem ins fundamental and insoluble.

How much extractable and viable lithium is there in the world?

If there isn't enough we will need another form of secondary energy
storage. They would not have revived and been hyping up 'hydrogen' if
there was any prospect that batteries would work.

When that doesn't work either, some bushy-tailed ArtStudent„¢ will have a
lightbulb moment and say 'why don't we make renewable diesel fuel?'

Which is precisely what I reckon will happen.

Burn that with *pure* oxygen and hey presto - no NOx!, just CO2 and
water. Collect the CO2 and water and feed it back to your syndiesel plant...


The car battery analogy to your example is the power reserve I need to
get me to a recharging station in case of emergency. Where I live I
would expect recharging stations to be closely spaced, requiring little
emergency capacity.

But its the journey that is to somewhere that you *dont* live that is
the problem.

Your argument is as circular as a long playing record

--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/


It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries and
how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts
applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth having. In
the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs (like, for example,
a single layer atomic structure like graphene, but an insulator) it's
getting close to physical limits, although cost will continue to come
down.

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion




Interesting.

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station effectively
deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps are all going.
So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of "refuelling" times
recharging stations are going to need fairly substantial grid
connections as we reduce the present battery charging rate restrictions.
Or else be connected to a hydrogen grid with some big fuel cells. Either
way, there are significant infrastructure questions on top of any basic
technology solution.

Also, most of the demand for charge will be during the working day.
Petrol stations have very efficient storage so although the capital (the
pumps) is under utilised, it doesn't screw the economics because these
are cheap.

On 26/05/2021 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 15:09, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:33, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion





Yep, that was a very interesting story. More interesting than
nuclear fusion stories.

I dunno how much is hype, but if not it could be significant. With
massively quicker charge times it might be possible to reduce
battery capacity too. Maybe charge at traffic lights etc, with smart
infrastructure.

Plus I hardly every drive more than 50 miles in one go.

Airliners hardly ever experience more than 1.5G loading.
Do you want to fly in one that *can't* experience more than 1.5G
loading without the wings folding?


I was recently looking at climbing equipment, generally specified as
safe up to loads of 25KN, I suspect I fell for the hype and cheaper
12KN would have been fine for me.

However car range is different.

There are two factors. The main factor of range is how often I'm
willing to stop to refuel. With Lithium Ion batteries the problem is
long charging times, people want bigger capacities because they don't
want to stop from an hour to recharge. If they can recharge in minutes
they would be more willing to stop.

That is just one problem. The other problem ins fundamental and insoluble.

How much extractable and viable lithium is there in the world?

If there isn't enough we will need another form of secondary energy
storage. They would not have revived and been hyping up 'hydrogen' if
there was any prospect that batteries would work.


Stop. No one sane is suggesting batteries for grid long term energy
store. The most they would be used for on the grid is very short term
smoothing.

Hydrogen is a possible candidate for long term (seasonal) energy store.
It is ballpark economic (i.e. within an order of magnitude).

When that doesn't work either, some bushy-tailed ArtStudent„¢ will have a
lightbulb moment and say 'why don't we make renewable diesel fuel?'


Biodiesel? It doesn't scale, but we do do it.

Which is precisely what I reckon will happen.

Burn that with *pure* oxygen and hey presto - no NOx!, just CO2 and
water. Collect the CO2 and water and feed it back to your syndiesel
plant...


A field of rapeseed? Or one of those fusion plants, that are on the
verge of being on the verge of... being very expensive.


The car battery analogy to your example is the power reserve I need to
get me to a recharging station in case of emergency. Where I live I
would expect recharging stations to be closely spaced, requiring
little emergency capacity.

But its the journey that is to somewhere that you *dont* live that is
the problem.


Eh? No, you have charging infrastructure.

Your argument is as circular as a long playing record


The are spirals, aren't they?

On 26/05/2021 17:29, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26 May 2021 at 15:30:21 BST, newshound
wrote:

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station effectively
deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps are all going.
So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of "refuelling" times
recharging stations are going to need fairly substantial grid
connections as we reduce the present battery charging rate restrictions.

Yes yes, I've made this point a number of times. Good to see you've been
paying attention.

Yes but it is *particularly* relevent to a link that says "charge
anxiety over, new battery charges 60 times faster".

On 26/05/2021 11:06, Theo wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

If you don't compare it to computers, it's not so bad. Think of other
fields: are there washing machines that improved their water use by 50%? Are
there planes that got 50% more fuel efficiency?


Actually I would not be surprised if washing machines had not done that,
and aero engine efficiency improvement is probably in double digits over
a decade. And gas turbines have been around for more than 70 years.

On 26/05/2021 15:30, newshound wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/


It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries
and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts
applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth having.
In the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs (like, for
example, a single layer atomic structure like graphene, but an
insulator) it's getting close to physical limits, although cost will
continue to come down.

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion




Interesting.

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station effectively
deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps are all going.
So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of "refuelling" times
recharging stations are going to need fairly substantial grid
connections as we reduce the present battery charging rate restrictions.
Or else be connected to a hydrogen grid with some big fuel cells. Either
way, there are significant infrastructure questions on top of any basic
technology solution.

yes, but they are really not show stoppers.

Also, most of the demand for charge will be during the working day.
Petrol stations have very efficient storage so although the capital (the
pumps) is under utilised, it doesn't screw the economics because these
are cheap.

I am sure a fast motorway charge will not come at domestic rates

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 26/05/2021 15:36, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 15:09, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:33, Pancho wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion






Yep, that was a very interesting story. More interesting than
nuclear fusion stories.

I dunno how much is hype, but if not it could be significant. With
massively quicker charge times it might be possible to reduce
battery capacity too. Maybe charge at traffic lights etc, with
smart infrastructure.

Plus I hardly every drive more than 50 miles in one go.

Airliners hardly ever experience more than 1.5G loading.
Do you want to fly in one that *can't* experience more than 1.5G
loading without the wings folding?


I was recently looking at climbing equipment, generally specified as
safe up to loads of 25KN, I suspect I fell for the hype and cheaper
12KN would have been fine for me.

However car range is different.

There are two factors. The main factor of range is how often I'm
willing to stop to refuel. With Lithium Ion batteries the problem is
long charging times, people want bigger capacities because they don't
want to stop from an hour to recharge. If they can recharge in
minutes they would be more willing to stop.

That is just one problem. The other problem ins fundamental and
insoluble.

How much extractable and viable lithium is there in the world?

If there isn't enough we will need another form of secondary energy
storage. They would not have revived and been hyping up 'hydrogen' if
there was any prospect that batteries would work.


Stop. No one sane is suggesting batteries for grid long term energy
store. The most they would be used for on the grid is very short term
smoothing.

Why are you changing the subject?
I am talking about hydrogen for vehicles b ecause batteries wont work

Hydrogen is a possible candidate for long term (seasonal) energy store.
It is ballpark economic (i.e. within an order of magnitude).

When that doesn't work either, some bushy-tailed ArtStudent„¢ will have
a lightbulb moment and say 'why don't we make renewable diesel fuel?'


Biodiesel? It doesn't scale, but we do do it.

No. Not biodiesel


Which is precisely what I reckon will happen.

Burn that with *pure* oxygen and hey presto - no NOx!, just CO2 and
water. Collect the CO2 and water and feed it back to your syndiesel
plant...


A field of rapeseed? Or one of those fusion plants, that are on the
verge of being on the verge of... being very expensive.
Bog standard nuclear power or sur[plus wind power



The car battery analogy to your example is the power reserve I need
to get me to a recharging station in case of emergency. Where I live
I would expect recharging stations to be closely spaced, requiring
little emergency capacity.

But its the journey that is to somewhere that you *dont* live that is
the problem.


Eh? No, you have charging infrastructure.
' where you live'. you said.


Your argument is as circular as a long playing record


The are spirals, aren't they?
not round the edges



--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 26/05/2021 17:29, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26 May 2021 at 15:30:21 BST, newshound
wrote:

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station effectively
deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps are all going.
So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of "refuelling" times
recharging stations are going to need fairly substantial grid
connections as we reduce the present battery charging rate restrictions.

Yes yes, I've made this point a number of times. Good to see you've been
paying attention.

And I have also said that its no worse than a railway substation to feed
a railway line

Its predictable in terms of time cost and technology. Either its
commercially viable or it isn't but technically its standard crap


--
€œwhen things get difficult you just have to lie€�

€• Jean Claud Jüncker

On 26/05/2021 18:01, newshound wrote:
Actually I would not be surprised if washing machines had not done that,
and aero engine efficiency improvement is probably in double digits over
a decade.

Bless!

Quite the ArtStudent aren't you?

Gas turbine efficiency as such us where it was from the get-go - about
37%. Once you have made the transition to high bypass turbofans, that's
pretty much it.


--
€œwhen things get difficult you just have to lie€�

€• Jean Claud Jüncker

On 26/05/2021 20:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 18:01, newshound wrote:
Actually I would not be surprised if washing machines had not done
that, and aero engine efficiency improvement is probably in double
digits over a decade.

Bless!

Quite the ArtStudent aren't you?

Gas turbine efficiency as such us where it was from the get-go - about
37%. Once you have made the transition to high bypass turbofans, that's
pretty much it.


Missing the point. We were not discussing GT thermal efficiency, we're
talking about fuel per passenger mile. Which goes down with each new
Trent (composites and aerodynamics helps too).

On 26 May 2021 at 20:12:33 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
wrote:

On 26/05/2021 18:01, newshound wrote:
Actually I would not be surprised if washing machines had not done that,
and aero engine efficiency improvement is probably in double digits over
a decade.

Bless!

Quite the ArtStudent aren't you?

Gas turbine efficiency as such us where it was from the get-go - about
37%. Once you have made the transition to high bypass turbofans, that's
pretty much it.

That still leaves room for aerodynamic improvements, plane weight improvements
and reducing the number of engines. So he may be right about overall
passenger carrying cost minimisation over recent years.

--
Roger Hayter

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/05/2021 15:30, newshound wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/

It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries and
how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts applications
such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth having. In
the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs (like, for example,
a single layer atomic structure like graphene, but an insulator) it's
getting close to physical limits, although cost will continue to come
down.

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion



Interesting.

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station effectively
deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps are all going. So,
to achieve equivalent performance in terms of "refuelling" times
recharging stations are going to need fairly substantial grid connections
as we reduce the present battery charging rate restrictions. Or else be
connected to a hydrogen grid with some big fuel cells. Either way, there
are significant infrastructure questions on top of any basic technology
solution.

yes, but they are really not show stoppers.

Also, most of the demand for charge will be during the working day.
Petrol stations have very efficient storage so although the capital (the
pumps) is under utilised, it doesn't screw the economics because these
are cheap.

I am sure a fast motorway charge will not come at domestic rates

But what matters is how it compares with the cost of petrol.

On 26/05/2021 15:30, newshound wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/


It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries
and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts
applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth having.
In the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs (like, for
example, a single layer atomic structure like graphene, but an
insulator) it's getting close to physical limits, although cost will
continue to come down.

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion




Interesting.

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station effectively
deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps are all going.


If you say a good pump can deliver 50L/min, and petrol has an energy
density of about 35MJ/L, that's 1,750 MJ/min so divide by 60 to get a
delivery rate of ~29MW.

So if you allow for the inefficiencies of the IC engine you could say
you would need an electrical delivery rate of ~10MW per pump for an
equivalent fill rate.

So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of "refuelling" times
recharging stations are going to need fairly substantial grid
connections as we reduce the present battery charging rate restrictions.
Or else be connected to a hydrogen grid with some big fuel cells. Either
way, there are significant infrastructure questions on top of any basic
technology solution.

They could also have substantial local "batteries", to smooth out the
delivery spikes a bit.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 26/05/2021 21:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26 May 2021 at 20:10:00 BST, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/05/2021 17:29, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26 May 2021 at 15:30:21 BST, newshound
wrote:

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station effectively
deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps are all going.
So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of "refuelling" times
recharging stations are going to need fairly substantial grid
connections as we reduce the present battery charging rate restrictions.

Yes yes, I've made this point a number of times. Good to see you've been
paying attention.

And I have also said that its no worse than a railway substation to feed
a railway line

Its predictable in terms of time cost and technology. Either its
commercially viable or it isn't but technically its standard crap

True, but think how many petrol stations there are doing this. Practically
every supermarket branch.


And that all happened over a period of years. In fact there are many
less petrol stations than there used to be.

Look: to 'do electric cars' requires a 3:1 grid upgrade give or take.
So you are looking at massive amounts of cable laying - probably
underground and probably at the 33kv level for major charge points
rather than 11kv anyway...

Well we have seen fibre optic cable go from the lab to something a bog
standard openreach engineer can install...once the roads have been dug
up... in less than 40 years.

IF there is a good reason to do it, infrastructure can be laid down and
pay for itself.

Telegraph, telephone, railways, canals, paved roads, electricity grid,
Internet, gas grid, water supplies, sewage systems - all were
inconceivable but got built anyway.

So I have no problem with charging electric cars. If it needs to be done
it can be done. What can't be done in my opinion is to make batteries
sufficiently good to fully replace fuel, and indeed there are severe
limitations on the supply of lithium to do it.

That is the critical question - not charging. To wit "Can we develop a
battery that is good enough, cheap enough (especially in how much energy
it takes to manufacture) and does not exhaust available resources?"

My claim is that we cannot, at least with electrochemical batteries.

God saw fit to give us hydrocarbon fuels and an abundance of Oxygen, he
did not see fit to give us a decent method of storing similar quantities
of energy in batteries.

It is a bummer, but that is the reality we have to deal with.

If we had decent batteries, all else necessary would be possible.
Trouble is we don't, and we almost certainly never will.

If the wind blew steadily and constantly windmills would be a reasonable
way to generate electricity, trouble is it doesn't, and never will.

If it were sunny day and night, solar panels would be a reasonable way
to generate electricity, trouble is it isn't, and never will be.

If we had a containment system that could keep a plasma hot enough and
at high enough pressure to sustain nuclear fusion, we could have access
to huge amounts of carbon free energy, Trouble is, we don't, and ther is
no guarantee we ever will have.

As an engineer, technology has to pass several tests. None of which are
applied by ArtStudents„¢

1/. Is it theoretically possible ?
2/. Is it practically possible?
3/. Is it cost effective compared with other ways of achieving the same
ends?

The world is awash with clever ArtStudent„¢ ideas that fail one or more
of these criteria.

Universal electric cars are probably a great example.

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 26/05/2021 20:35, newshound wrote:
On 26/05/2021 20:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/2021 18:01, newshound wrote:
Actually I would not be surprised if washing machines had not done
that, and aero engine efficiency improvement is probably in double
digits over a decade.

Bless!

Quite the ArtStudent aren't you?

Gas turbine efficiency as such us where it was from the get-go - about
37%. Once you have made the transition to high bypass turbofans,
that's pretty much it.


Missing the point. We were not discussing GT thermal efficiency,

you never made that clear

we're
talking about fuel per passenger mile. Which goes down with each new
Trent (composites and aerodynamics helps too).

Aerodynamics and materials outside the engine dominate. The engines
themselves are scarcely any more efficient at all. Lighter possibly.
delivering power in a slightly more useful way perhaps

Your point was that engine efficiency had advanced in double digits. I
am saying that engine *efficiency* has hardly changed,. The engines are
a bit lighter, and fine tuning of bypass ratios improves efficiency a
bit, but all the advances in aircraft design have come from slightly
better aero and better materials, and electronics, not massively better
engines.


Moore's law fits the introduction of new technology: asymptotic advance
towards 'as good as it gets' is the norm for mature technology.
Aircraft, jet engines, steam engines, car engines...electric motors and
batteries - all these are 'mature technology'

I have a server based on a mid noughties entry level motherboard and a
desktop that is based on 2015 entry level tech . A decade between them.
Back in the 90s that would have meant 100 times better performance. In
this case its barely 4.

Computers are now mature. Moore's law has ceased to apply.

Electric cars and batteries are mature technology. Moore's law does not
apply.



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 26/05/2021 21:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 May 2021 at 20:12:33 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
wrote:

On 26/05/2021 18:01, newshound wrote:
Actually I would not be surprised if washing machines had not done that,
and aero engine efficiency improvement is probably in double digits over
a decade.

Bless!

Quite the ArtStudent aren't you?

Gas turbine efficiency as such us where it was from the get-go - about
37%. Once you have made the transition to high bypass turbofans, that's
pretty much it.

That still leaves room for aerodynamic improvements, plane weight improvements
and reducing the number of engines. So he may be right about overall
passenger carrying cost minimisation over recent years.


yes, but that is not 'aero engine efficiency'

we were discussing car batteries, and he was using that example to imply
that car batteries would likewise improve. In fact he and you do the
exact opposite. By pointing out that the best way to imnprove electric
car range would be - and is - to work not in the battery but on vehicle
weight, aerodynamics and drag reduction in all possible ways, as well as
regenerative braking...

....Because battery efficiency ain't going anywhere,


--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On 27/05/2021 00:50, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/05/2021 15:30, newshound wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/


It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries
and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts
applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth having.
In the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs (like, for
example, a single layer atomic structure like graphene, but an
insulator) it's getting close to physical limits, although cost
will continue to come down.

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion




Interesting.

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station
effectively deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps
are all going. So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of
"refuelling" times recharging stations are going to need fairly
substantial grid connections as we reduce the present battery
charging rate restrictions. Or else be connected to a hydrogen grid
with some big fuel cells. Either way, there are significant
infrastructure questions on top of any basic technology solution.

yes, but they are really not show stoppers.

Also, most of the demand for charge will be during the working day.
Petrol stations have very efficient storage so although the capital
(the pumps) is under utilised, it doesn't screw the economics because
these are cheap.

I am sure a fast motorway charge will not come at domestic rates

But what matters is how it compares with the cost of petrol.

That will be determined by politics


--
€œThere are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isnt true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.€�

€”Soren Kierkegaard

I think what they need to look at is the number of cycles and their ability
to still be as good ten years on, this is particularly the case for those
running vehicles.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/

It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

--

Chris

On 27/05/2021 08:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 27 May 2021 at 07:38:58 BST, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/05/2021 21:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26 May 2021 at 20:10:00 BST, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/05/2021 17:29, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26 May 2021 at 15:30:21 BST, newshound
wrote:

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station effectively
deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps are all going.
So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of "refuelling" times
recharging stations are going to need fairly substantial grid
connections as we reduce the present battery charging rate restrictions.

Yes yes, I've made this point a number of times. Good to see you've been
paying attention.

And I have also said that its no worse than a railway substation to feed
a railway line

Its predictable in terms of time cost and technology. Either its
commercially viable or it isn't but technically its standard crap

True, but think how many petrol stations there are doing this. Practically
every supermarket branch.


And that all happened over a period of years. In fact there are many
less petrol stations than there used to be.

fewer

:-)


Look: to 'do electric cars' requires a 3:1 grid upgrade give or take.
So you are looking at massive amounts of cable laying - probably
underground and probably at the 33kv level for major charge points
rather than 11kv anyway...

Sure, but then that will also require a 3:1 increase in the number of power
stations. Where's the planning for that?

Buried in the small print at defra

Last white paper had IIRC 65GW of new nuclear in the footnotes and
headlined 120GW of pointless wind

With Carrie Symonds running Britain's energy policy, it will stay in the
footnotes for a while...


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 09:50:28 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/05/2021 00:50, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/05/2021 15:30, newshound wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/

It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries
and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts
applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth having.
In the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs (like, for
example, a single layer atomic structure like graphene, but an
insulator) it's getting close to physical limits, although cost will
continue to come down.

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion



Interesting.

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station effectively
deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps are all going.
So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of "refuelling" times
recharging stations are going to need fairly substantial grid
connections as we reduce the present battery charging rate
restrictions. Or else be connected to a hydrogen grid with some big
fuel cells. Either way, there are significant infrastructure questions
on top of any basic technology solution.

yes, but they are really not show stoppers.

Also, most of the demand for charge will be during the working day.
Petrol stations have very efficient storage so although the capital
(the pumps) is under utilised, it doesn't screw the economics because
these are cheap.

I am sure a fast motorway charge will not come at domestic rates

But what matters is how it compares with the cost of petrol.

That will be determined by politics

Not with the price of petrol and unlikely with the price of the recharge.

On 27/05/2021 08:05, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I think what they need to look at is the number of cycles and their ability
to still be as good ten years on, this is particularly the case for those
running vehicles.

It's going to be massive problem for the second-hand market. I was
reading up the other day on fast charging of EV batteries.

It appears that the manufacturers warrant the batteries for various
periods 5 years, 7 years or whatever. The more rapid charges someone
does, the shorter the battery life, so they have included software that
limits how many times a battery can be fast charged.

Don't do it often, no problem, do it often and the system will
eventually stop you fast charging, on at least some occasions, to
protect battery life and prevent in-warranty failures.

However, they are balancing convenience against warranty claims, so
allowing the maximum number of rapid charges for an acceptable number of
warranty claims, therefore a second-hand vehicle, that is just out of
warranty, could be very close to battery failure, depending upon how it
has been used. So you could buy a 5 year-old car and within months have
it written off as uneconomic to repair due to battery failure.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 19:43:13 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

On 27/05/2021 10:43, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/05/2021 00:50, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/05/2021 15:30, newshound wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/


It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion
chemistries and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts
applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over
1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth
having. In the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs
(like, for example, a single layer atomic structure like
graphene, but an insulator) it's getting close to physical
limits, although cost will continue to come down.

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion




Interesting.

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station
effectively deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps
are all going. So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of
"refuelling" times recharging stations are going to need fairly
substantial grid connections as we reduce the present battery
charging rate restrictions. Or else be connected to a hydrogen grid
with some big fuel cells. Either way, there are significant
infrastructure questions on top of any basic technology solution.

yes, but they are really not show stoppers.

Also, most of the demand for charge will be during the working day.
Petrol stations have very efficient storage so although the capital
(the pumps) is under utilised, it doesn't screw the economics
because these are cheap.

I am sure a fast motorway charge will not come at domestic rates

But what matters is how it compares with the cost of petrol.

That will be determined by politics

Not with the price of petrol and unlikely with the price of the recharge.

Oh purlease.

70% of the cost of petrol is politically generated duty.

I can buy heating oil that would run my car for 40p a litre. its £1.30
in the pumps as road fuel

the difference is political.
If the government decided to tax vegetarian food instead of petrol it
could be less than 50p a litre



--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 27/05/2021 11:17, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2021 19:43:13 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/05/2021 00:50, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/05/2021 15:30, newshound wrote:


I am sure a fast motorway charge will not come at domestic rates

But what matters is how it compares with the cost of petrol.

That will be determined by politics

Not with the price of petrol and unlikely with the price of the recharge.

I thought the price of petrol was mostly determined by politics,
specifically by how much tax is imposed by Govt.

Of course. Joey is blowing off through his arse


--
€œThe urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.€�
€“ H. L. Mencken

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 May 2021 19:43:13 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/05/2021 00:50, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/05/2021 15:30, newshound wrote:


I am sure a fast motorway charge will not come at domestic rates

But what matters is how it compares with the cost of petrol.

That will be determined by politics

Not with the price of petrol and unlikely with the price of the recharge.

I thought the price of petrol was mostly determined by politics,
specifically by how much tax is imposed by Govt.

But they aren't likely to change the way they do that once EVs are common.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/05/2021 10:43, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/05/2021 00:50, Joey wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/05/2021 15:30, newshound wrote:
On 26/05/2021 10:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2021 21:22, newshound wrote:
On 25/05/2021 19:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 May 2021 17:52:19 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

I came across this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...der-your-nose/

It's a good roundup of all the different lithium ion chemistries
and how
things have been improving of late, and how that impacts
applications such
as phones and EVs.

Theo
" That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over
1.5
times what they would have held a decade ago."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Not exactly Moore's Law, is it. Of course it is still worth having.
In the absence of real physics/material breakthroughs (like, for
example, a single layer atomic structure like graphene, but an
insulator) it's getting close to physical limits, although cost
will continue to come down.

Funny you should mention that, but:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...an-lithium-ion



Interesting.

I forget the numbers, but doesn't a motorway petrol station
effectively deliver tens of megawatts of power when its fuel pumps
are all going. So, to achieve equivalent performance in terms of
"refuelling" times recharging stations are going to need fairly
substantial grid connections as we reduce the present battery
charging rate restrictions. Or else be connected to a hydrogen grid
with some big fuel cells. Either way, there are significant
infrastructure questions on top of any basic technology solution.

yes, but they are really not show stoppers.

Also, most of the demand for charge will be during the working day.
Petrol stations have very efficient storage so although the capital
(the pumps) is under utilised, it doesn't screw the economics because
these are cheap.

I am sure a fast motorway charge will not come at domestic rates

But what matters is how it compares with the cost of petrol.

That will be determined by politics

Not with the price of petrol and unlikely with the price of the recharge.

Oh purlease.

70% of the cost of petrol is politically generated duty.

But that isnt going to CHANGE with fast chargers added.

I can buy heating oil that would run my car for 40p a litre. its £1.30 in
the pumps as road fuel

the difference is political.
If the government decided to tax vegetarian food instead of petrol it
could be less than 50p a litre

On Fri, 28 May 2021 03:39:48 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
dennis@home to senile know-it-all Rodent Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID: