Lithium batteries, not worth it...

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/04/2023 15:21, Jim Jackson wrote:

On 2023-04-16, Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
On 4/16/2023 6:51 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/04/2023 16:36, Ed P wrote:
Lithium will become passe in a few years as other materials do a
better job.
The one thing the laws of chemistry have to say, is that nothing exists
or can exist that will do a better job than lithium.

Which means the whole battery powered world is a bust. It cant be done.
Parts, yes, All? No.


That sounds dumb to me. Silver is a better conductor of electricity but
yet we use copper. \"Better job\" means cost efficiency. sustainability,
and adequate performance.

You are wasting your time - nuance doesn\'t work with him. Like a lot of
people here, reason goes out of the window as soon as certain buttons
are pushed.

You are wasting your time - nuance doesn\'t work with him. Like a lot of
people here, reason goes out of the window as soon as certain buttons
are pushed.

The fact that Lithium occupies a position in the periodic table that
makes it THE best metal to use in battery chemistry, in terms of energy
density, makes no sense to someone who has no concept of inorganic
electrochemistry, yet will gaily parrot the received unwisdom of the
great renewable fraud.

Anyone can repeat a lie. Understanding the current \'truth\' of science
and applying it to every day problems is far far harder.

--
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:22:13 +0100, Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

On 2023-04-14, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:49:40 +0100, Frank <\"frank \"@frank.net> wrote:

On 4/13/2023 11:57 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Are you greenies nuts?
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/385430139122
Nearly 3 grand for a battery with the same capacity of two deep cycle
lead acid batteries costing £150?

As it is EV\'s with lithium batteries weigh about about a half ton more
than ICE vehicles. Would be interesting to see what they would weigh
with a lead battery.

I worked out I could extend the range of a small EV by 120 miles with 250kg of Lead Acid. That\'s the weight of three adult male humans. Which you can put in the back of a car without breaking it.

Adding weight to an EV doesn\'t use much more power. It uses more to accelerate, but you get more back from braking. It uses more to go uphill, but you get more back going downhill. When going at a constant speed, the air resistance is what matters, which is unchanged. You just need stronger suspension.

It increases the rolling resistance. increases resitive losses in
the electrical system too

Which are all negligible compared to air resistance. Why do you think 56mph is a magic figure for all cars?

https://youtu.be/upVQ1gEyT9Y?t=98

\"At a steady 56, it slips along quietly for over 750 miles on one tank of petrol\".

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:14:29 +0100, Cindy Hamilton <hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-04-16, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

far flung outbacks of the UK

I love your dry, British sense of humor.

http://www.undertheraedar.com/2011/01/exactly-how-big-is-united-kingdom.html

And yet we\'ve achieved so much. Most of the world speaks the language we invented.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:51:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2023 16:36, Ed P wrote:
Lithium will become passe in a few years as other materials do a better
job.
The one thing the laws of chemistry have to say, is that nothing exists
or can exist that will do a better job than lithium.

Utter bullshit. Nothing can be better until we think of it, right.....

Which means the whole battery powered world is a bust. It cant be done.
Parts, yes, All? No.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:36:02 +0100, Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

On 4/15/2023 4:30 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:>.

People working on \'renewable technology\' are completely wasting their
time and your money.
You make a lot of sense. Eventually the sun will burn out, no sun means no wind so there goes two potential sources of energy. Why fiddle with it?

It hasn\'t delivered anything in 20 years and it never will. Every single
great white hope turns out to be a business basket case.

Renewable energy was only ever a virtue signalling move by the EU to
sell German windmills to gullible governments. And get their electorates
to pay for it.

Again, thanks for pointing this out. Just as the airplane and

Airplane, ROTFPMSL! Do you also say airdrome? Airfoil?

automobile never advanced, nor will other sources of energy.

If you want to reduce emissions, its a bust. Its made no difference
whatsoever.

Our grandkids and great grandkids will be driving EVs, thank to the
effort made today.

I very much doubt it.

Horse and cart if the Greens get their way.
The horse shit can be burned for fuel. Another great benefit!

My neighbour\'s wood burning stove smells bad enough. Do not suggest such things to him.

There is only one substitute for hydrocarbon fuel and that is nuclear
power. And its going to be massively hard to remodel industry to use
that, and its a dead cert there wont be enough lithium to make the EVS
from/ Zil lanes only for the Party apparatchiks. Everyone else gets to
cycle.

Lithium will become passe in a few years as other materials do a better
job. Besides cycling is a healthy thing to do.

Shall I cycle 500 miles to my Aunt\'s house this summer?

Or bite the bullet and start manufacturing diesel.

Diesel what? Engines? Fuel? Or do you want more offspring of Vin Diesel?

The fuel obviously.

The problem is all the engineering effort and tax payer money is going
into the dead end of \'renewables\' instead of working out how an all
nuclear electric society will work

They only blow up one very 10 or 20 years.

More important, they will help us with evolution.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade2537

Uranium is just as rare as other things.

We need thorium ones or something.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 09:45:35 +0200, Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid>
wrote:

On 16 Apr 2023 05:08:55 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:


More sunlit uplands full of fairy farts and unicorn shit

Wrong attribution... I never wrote bullshit like that.

You ONLY write bullshit like that and worse than that, you abnormal senile
Yankee bigmouth!

I might gently suggest that you are repeating yourself.

 

[Peeler]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:22:26 -0700, John Larkin, another obviously brain
dead, troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered:

Not everybody pays the taxes, but it\'s still tough going with so much
competition.

WTF has your endless senile shit got to do with the three ngs you keep
trashing, you abnormal troll-feeding senile shithead?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:46:36 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:14:29 +0100, Cindy Hamilton <hami...@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-04-16, alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

far flung outbacks of the UK

I love your dry, British sense of humor.

http://www.undertheraedar.com/2011/01/exactly-how-big-is-united-kingdom..html
And yet we\'ve achieved so much. Most of the world speaks the language we invented.

It\'s just another Germanic dialect with a lot of vocabulary taken from French. As a language it isn\'t anything special.

The English contribution to it is isn\'t exactly dominant either.

It is spoken by a lot of people - more than Chinese, which may have a common writing system (which is hard to learn and hard to retain), but is actually a bunch of mutually incomprehensible spoken languages.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 06:18:40 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 4/16/23 03:34, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 06:04:36 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:40:52 -0400, Ed P wrote:


The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421
ppm as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to
the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV6r0njkjxk

It doesn\'t mean shit to a tree.

Actually they like it.  As you would like more oxygen.


Oh, you really want to freak out the greenies. Tell
them that mature trees, A.K.A. \"Old Growth\", use as
much oxygen as CO2. CO2 in the day to create
sugars; oxygen at night to create proteins. Zero
sum game.

Read \"Finding The Mother Tree.\" Cool book.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:58:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2023 01:40, Ed P wrote:

The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421
ppm as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to
the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

And you know this because? That period also coincides with the end of
the little ice age, and we know that mildly warming oceans outgass lots
of CO2 until the organic life catches up with it

CO2 levels have flailed violently over past millions of years, with no
humans around.

 

[Scott Lurndal]

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

On 16/04/2023 12:16, alan_m wrote:


Not to mention the carbon cost of all the helicopters land rovers and
service boats needed to access them

Leaving aside carbon-neutral synthetic fuels made from agricultural waste
and atomospheric carbon capture, which are perfectly viable alternatives:

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/17/electric-helicopter-makes-historic-flight/
https://www.engadget.com/californias-first-electric-short-hop-ferry-launches-in-2024-210137422.html

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:00:43 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:58:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2023 01:40, Ed P wrote:

The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421
ppm as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to
the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

And you know this because? That period also coincides with the end of
the little ice age, and we know that mildly warming oceans outgass lots
of CO2 until the organic life catches up with it

The last part is key. Organic life uses what\'s there. Things auto-level. Climate change won\'t kill us. Wasting money on stopping it will.

Plants will adapt to using more CO2 to grow faster. Farmers and ag
colleges will breed them to do that.

 

[Scott Lurndal]

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

On 16/04/2023 14:22, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2023-04-14, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:49:40 +0100, Frank <\"frank \"@frank.net> wrote:

On 4/13/2023 11:57 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Are you greenies nuts?
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/385430139122
Nearly 3 grand for a battery with the same capacity of two deep cycle
lead acid batteries costing £150?

As it is EV\'s with lithium batteries weigh about about a half ton more
than ICE vehicles. Would be interesting to see what they would weigh
with a lead battery.

I worked out I could extend the range of a small EV by 120 miles with 250kg of Lead Acid. That\'s the weight of three adult male humans. Which you can put in the back of a car without breaking it.

Adding weight to an EV doesn\'t use much more power. It uses more to accelerate, but you get more back from braking. It uses more to go uphill, but you get more back going downhill. When going at a constant speed, the air resistance is what matters, which is unchanged. You just need stronger suspension.

It increases the rolling resistance. increases resitive losses in
the electrical system too

He is of course talking bollocks, otherwise a 30 tonne truck would use
the same amount of fuel as a 2CV
Heavy vehicles use massive amounts of energy to accelerate or go up
hills which you do not all get back in the reverse direction, and the
rolling resistance is not far off proportional to the weight.

You do understand that an electric motor can be used as a braking
system, recovering energy which is stored in the batteries.

Every time you use the disk brakes, energy is lost that will never be
recovered, too.

Trucks have been using engine braking for decades to save wear on
the brake system; the same concept
applies to electric trucks, and as a bonus, that energy produced
by the motor while braking can be stored for subsequent use.

https://www.notateslaapp.com/tesla-reference/1051/how-tesla-s-regenerative-braking-works

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:12:17 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:51:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid..invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2023 16:36, Ed P wrote:
Lithium will become passe in a few years as other materials do a better
job.
The one thing the laws of chemistry have to say, is that nothing exists
or can exist that will do a better job than lithium.

Utter bullshit. Nothing can be better until we think of it, right.....

Lithium has an atomic weight of seven - its the third element in the period table and the first one that can e used in a battery, which means that it weightless than anything else per unit charge. You also get a fairly high output voltage from lithium cells. \\\\

It\'s got a lot going for it.

Which means the whole battery powered world is a bust. It can\'t be done..

Parts, yes, All? No.

Wrong. There a more potential lithium ores than we now mine,and we haven\'t found all the de[posits of the ores that we currently mine.

The price per ton peaked last November

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium

but has gone down by a factor of three since then. New mines are a lot of the reason for the fall.

Minerals markets are prone to this sort of excursion. A high price opens up old - more expensive mines - and once they are producing again the price falls.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:37:50 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:58:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2023 01:40, Ed P wrote:

The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421
ppm as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to
the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

And you know this because? That period also coincides with the end of
the little ice age, and we know that mildly warming oceans outgass lots
of CO2 until the organic life catches up with it

CO2 levels have flailed violently over past millions of years, with no
humans around.

Not exactly true.

The most recent big excursion was 55 million year ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

and seems to reflect volcanoes erupting through methane deposits.

There certainly weren\'t any humans around then, but the current excursions are clearly all our own work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:14:29 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
<hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-04-16, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

far flung outbacks of the UK

I love your dry, British sense of humor.

http://www.undertheraedar.com/2011/01/exactly-how-big-is-united-kingdom.html

A place seems bigger when the roads are so slow.

 

[Paul]

On 4/14/2023 12:04 PM, Ed P wrote:

On 4/14/2023 10:49 AM, Frank wrote:
On 4/13/2023 11:57 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Are you greenies nuts?
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/385430139122
Nearly 3 grand for a battery with the same capacity of two deep cycle lead acid batteries costing £150?

As it is EV\'s with lithium batteries weigh about about a half ton more than ICE vehicles.  Would be interesting to see what they would weigh with a lead battery.

One problem with price is demand.  Currently lead is a commodity and most of it is available as recycle from depleted batteries.  Even if price were equivalent there is probably more cost in manufacture of lithium batteries needing additional materials and more complexity of manufacture.


lithium batteries are just a passing phase of technology.

The future will be either graphene, aluminum or silicone anode.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/04/1066141/whats-next-for-batteries/
This year could be a breakout year for one alternative: lithium iron phosphate (LFP), a low-cost cathode material sometimes used for lithium-ion batteries.

There have been a number of alternative types proposed
and tried in the lab, but they don\'t necessarily have the
cycle count. Maybe a battery with a silver electrode, would
give 1000 cycles. Whereas the Lithium ones are around 5000 cycles.

Each battery type has a spider diagram.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356607419/figure/fig4/AS:1095492909961218@1638197271676/Spider-chart-for-different-technologies-Lithium-ion-batteries.png

Some artists are better than others.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarvar-Nengroo/publication/330752778/figure/fig2/AS:721033036304385@1548919080625/Spider-chart-for-the-different-battery-chemistries.ppm

The spider diagram notes the characteristics in graphical form. It\'s because
of the spider diagram, and having to \"optimize six parameters at the same time\",
that we\'re not buried in battery alternatives. Yes, there is battery hype,
to encourage venture capital investment. But generally the things are
announced, before their spider diagram is production ready.

Paul

 

[SteveW]

On 16/04/2023 01:21, T wrote:

On 4/15/23 07:01, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Until they start taxing it through the roof like alcohol and tobacco and petrol.

Tax it too much and the black market returns.

Where did I hear most of the cigarettes in the UK
are black market?  I could be wrong.

Certainly a local shop was recently raided, as it was selling black
market cigarettes from a hiding place behind a set of pull-out shelves.

 

[Scott Lurndal]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> writes:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:00:43 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:58:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2023 01:40, Ed P wrote:

The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421
ppm as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to
the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

And you know this because? That period also coincides with the end of
the little ice age, and we know that mildly warming oceans outgass lots
of CO2 until the organic life catches up with it

The last part is key. Organic life uses what\'s there. Things auto-level. Climate change won\'t kill us. Wasting money on stopping it will.

Plants will adapt to using more CO2 to grow faster. Farmers and ag
colleges will breed them to do that.

Up to a very small point, consider:

1) There aren\'t enough plants to absorb excess CO2 at the rate
required to match the current (or future) excess emissions.

2) As mentioned, plants need CO2 to live, but give them too much
and the vital nutrients they produce, become depleted. These
include iron, zinc, and vitamin C.
3) Overall, FACE experiments show decreases in whole plant water
use of 5-20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences
for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture
levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2 (Leakey et al. 2009).
[ed. increasing the potential for flooding, landslides, et alia]
4) Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including
calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under
elevated CO2 (Loladze 2002; Taub & Wang 2008)
5) With elevated CO2, protein concentrations in grains of wheat,
rice and barley, and in potato tubers decreased by 10 to 15 percent
in one study.



https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

 

[Peeler]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:24:33 -0700, John Larkin, another obviously brain
dead, troll-loving senile asshole, blathered:

You ONLY write bullshit like that and worse than that, you abnormal senile
Yankee bigmouth!

I might gently suggest that you are repeating yourself.

Repetition is the teaching method of choice for retards, seniles and similar
idiots!