Lithium batteries, not worth it...

[Peeler]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:15:47 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
dennis@home to retarded trolling senile Rodent:
\"sod off rod you don\'t have a clue about anything.\"
Message-ID: <uV9lE.196195$cx5.41611@fx46.iad>

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:09:42 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Marland answering senile Rodent\'s statement, \"I don\'t leak\":
\"That¢s because so much piss and shite emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a Wanker.\"
Message-ID: <gm2h57Frj93U1@mid.individual.net>

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 14/04/2023 23:43, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:14:20 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 4/14/23 10:11, Frank wrote:
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.

Yes, there are a lot of technologies being looked into.  Something like
sodium would be much cheaper and not have the flammability concerns even
though only slightly heavier.

Natural gas fuel cells come to mind.

Fuel cells have been the thing of the future since 1838. Car makers
keep promising hydrogen fuel cell cars but don\'t deliver.

Seems to me that an NG fuel cell car would make more sense than
hydrogen. I suspect that fuel cells aren\'t very practical.


Very high internal resistance. Fine for low current, useless for power

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:37:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
\"Shit you\'re thick/pathetic excuse for a troll.\"
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1@news.mixmin.net>

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 15/04/2023 00:38, Ed P wrote:

On 4/14/2023 6:14 PM, T wrote:

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.

Yes, there are a lot of technologies being looked into.  Something
like sodium would be much cheaper and not have the flammability
concerns even though only slightly heavier.

Natural gas fuel cells come to mind.

Also, gasoline engines continue to become
more efficient and less polluting.

Yes, been many advances.    Fact is, not in our lifetime, but in the
future, oil will run out.  It will get expensive as it get harder to
find and process.

Fortunately there are people working on renewable technology to keep
that from becoming a big problem.  Long way to go, but working towards in.

The great thing about academic science and engineering is, that given
the laws of Nature as currently understood are not being broken, it
tells you a little about what might be possible and an enormous amoiunt
about what is impossible.

People working on \'renewable technology\' are completely wasting their
time and your money.

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.

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.

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.

Or bite the bullet and start manufacturing diesel.

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


--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 15/04/2023 03:27, rbowman wrote:

with declining costs for renewable electricity,
in particular from solar PV and wind,

ROFLMAO!

More sunlit uplands full of fairy farts and unicorn shit

--
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 15/04/2023 03:41, rbowman wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:42:48 -0400, Ed P wrote:

Coal will run out too, but much longer time than oil. Coal fired cars
are not very practical yet.

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

You chase blue sky technologies while ignoring those developed over a
hundred years ago.

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

\"Towards the end of World War II the United States began heavily financing
research into converting coal to gasoline, including money to build a
series of pilot plants. The project was enormously helped by captured
German technology. One plant using the Bergius process was built in
Louisiana, Missouri and began operation about 1946. Located along the
Mississippi river, this plant was producing gasoline in commercial
quantities by 1948. The Louisiana process method produced automobile
gasoline at a price slightly higher than, but comparable to, petroleum-
based gasoline[8] but of a higher quality.[citation needed] The facility
was shut down in 1953 by the Eisenhower administration, allegedly after
intense lobbying by the oil industry.\"

Gee, imagine that! Surprisingly Germany was forbidden by treaty to
continue perfecting the processes. Can\'t have them shortchanging the
Anglo-American energy producers -- then as now.

Gasoline from coal was very prevalent during the apartheid embargo years
in S Africa. SASOL made a lot of it along with ethanol from maize waste.
Low octane blend that worked OK at 5000 feet in the Transvaal and Vraistaat.

And still is, though the pointy headed greentard wiki editors cant help
adding in their bit


*Secunda plant*

\"The Sasol plant in Secunda produces 160,000 barrels of fuel from coal
every day, which is used to power buses, planes, and automobiles in the
country. The plant is both the largest coal-to-liquids plant and the
largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.\"


--
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

 

[Frank]

On 4/15/2023 12:51 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:17:46 +1000, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 4/14/23 07:51, Frank wrote:
On 4/14/2023 1:14 AM, T wrote:
On 4/13/23 21:35, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:57:37 +0100, Commander Kinsey
CK1@nospam.com> 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?

Or.... £446 for 100Ah, when you an get a 130Ah lead acid for £75:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114677041217


But, But, But, But lithium batteries rape the earth
to extract the lithium and are a nightmare to
recycle so they are considered green!!!!
 I have seen analysis of ores coming out of Peruvian lead mine.
There is nothing green there and it is a nightmare compared to
lithium salts with all the other heavy, toxic metals along with the
lead.

And the water used is not toxic to the point of not
being able to be used for a very, very long time.
You know that will eventually, with some palm
waxing, be flushed into the rivers.  Oppps,
how did that happen???

No relevant rivers with most of our heavy metal mines.

It has been a problem with one mine in PNG.

The lead is full of other heavy metals where I assume lithium is full of
other alkali metal salts like sodium. Lithium mining probably requires
more water.

I see that lithium is more abundant than lead but the problem is supply
and demand. Lead has been in use for many years and easily recyclable
where the lithium business has just taken off.

As a chemist, I would not have large lithium batteries in my house. If
a charged battery ignites you cannot extinguish it and there goes your
house. Gasoline in ICE vehicles has high energy but requires oxygen
whereas in EV\'s all the energy is self contained.

 

[Fredxx]

On 14/04/2023 14:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:59:07 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 4/14/2023 12:35 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:57:37 +0100, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com
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?

Or.... £446 for 100Ah, when you an get a 130Ah lead acid for £75:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114677041217

A leisure battery is 200 cycles,

A leisure battery is over 1000.

Once again you do yourself no favours through showing your own ignorance
on the subject.

LiPo is 5000-7000 cycles.

Not what I\'ve read.  More like 1500 for basic Lithium, and LiPo is a
piece of shit:

If you were capable of reading you would be aware there are different
classes of lead acid battery, some only capable of 80 charge / discharge
cycles, and then only to 50%.

You\'re clearly lacking the comprehension skills to understand that
Lithium, if treated well can typically last in excess of 3,000 cycles.
Look at some of the batteries classed as NCC class A.

<snip selective prejudice/>

That means the Lithium battery lasts 25x as long, for 6x the price.

7x.

It\'s coming down in price. You just need to look further.

And I don\'t like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_polymer_battery#/media/File:Expanded_lithium-ion_polymer_battery_from_an_Apple_iPhone_3GS.jpg

Which, thankfully is a rare event. You can also get burns from battery
acid and now the primary source of acid in acid attacks.

 

[Fredxx]

On 14/04/2023 20:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:58:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 14/04/2023 13:59, Paul wrote:
On 4/14/2023 12:35 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:57:37 +0100, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com
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?

Or.... £446 for 100Ah, when you an get a 130Ah lead acid for £75:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114677041217

A leisure battery is 200 cycles, LiPo is 5000-7000 cycles.

no, it really isnt

Indeed.  I checked some EVs, they guarantee the battery will still hold
a reasonable charge (80%) after 100,000 miles.  Assuming a full charge
is about 150 miles, that\'s well under 1000 charges, nevermind 5000-7000.

Quite, that\'s a guarantee. In practice the battery will last many time
the distance.

> He\'ll be quoting discharging it by 20%, which is obviously cheating.

If you compare with a lead-acid you daren\'t go below 50%. Is that
cheating too?

 

[jim.gm4dhj]

On 14/04/2023 20:53, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:50:06 +0100, jim.gm4dhj
kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On 14/04/2023 12:42, Brian Gaff wrote:
I find this hard to believe unless the Lithium one has been priced
wrongly.
The power weight and size density is far better in Lithium cells than in
Lead acid ones. It depends if size and weight and max current are an
issue
or not.

when things are out of stock they stick up the price to keep the
advert open

When I see shit like that I report them.  Another pet hate is selling a
variety of things at say £20, £30, £40, but having a spare washer for
£1.  So I\'m hunting for the device by cheapest first, and encounter
loads for \"£1 to £40\" listed first.  \"Search and browse manipulation\", 5
seconds to report them.

THAT IS a pain in the arse

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:30:46 PM UTC+10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/04/2023 00:38, Ed P wrote:
On 4/14/2023 6:14 PM, T wrote:

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.

Yes, there are a lot of technologies being looked into. Something like sodium would be much cheaper and not have the flammability concerns even though only slightly heavier.

Have you never seen a sodium fire?

Natural gas fuel cells come to mind.

Also, gasoline engines continue to become more efficient and less polluting.

Twaddle. It has to burn to CO2, and that is creating a problem, and one that is getting rapidly and progressively worse.

Yes, been many advances. Fact is, not in our lifetime, but in the future, oil will run out. It will get expensive as it get harder to find and process.

Fortunately there are people working on renewable technology to keep that from becoming a big problem. Long way to go, but working towards in.

Renewable technology is fine. No more progress actually required - though we can expect a lot more of it.

We just need a lot more solar panels and wind turbines than we\'ve made so far. We are making a lot more of both, but it takes time.

> The great thing about academic science and engineering is, that given the laws of Nature as currently understood are not being broken, it tells you a little about what might be possible and an enormous amount about what is impossible.

It has told us a lot about what might be possible, and we\'ve exploited quite a lot of that, and - as we get to know more - other possibilities will show up. \"Impossibilities\" are less interesting.

> People working on \'renewable technology\' are completely wasting their time and your money.

Not the opinion of the Australian electricity generating industry. They won\'t invest in anything else, give or take a few grid scale batteries and some pumped hydro storage, because renewables produce electric power more cheaply than any other source.
They don\'t produce it exactly when you want it, but grid storage dealks with that.

> 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.

Total nonsense.

> 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.

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

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

A bizarre assertion, and a total lie.

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

I very much doubt it.

You are a gullible sucker for climate change denial propaganda. It does lead you to make fatuous assertions.

Horse and cart if the Greens get their way.

This is an imaginary Green Party that only exists in climate change denial propaganda. It is true that engineering a population crash that would allow the tiny residual human population to get by with Stone age technology would reduce CO2 emissions, but it\'s not a solution that any Green Part anywhere has advocated.

> There is only one substitute for hydrocarbon fuel and that is nuclear power.

Solar cells and wind turbines are doing fine at the moment, and delivering power more cheaply than you can get by burning hydrocarbons. We need more of them, and they are being manufactured rapidly.

Nuclear power plants seem to take a lot longer to put together, and they aren\'t cheap, and the don\'t offer cheap electricity.

> 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.

There\'s quite a lot of lithium being mined, and when the price started to go up many more deposits became worth mining, to such an extent that extent that price went down quite a lot recently.

Or bite the bullet and start manufacturing diesel.

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.

Sensible people do invest in getting their electricity from the cheapest possible source. Gullible twits believe what the fossil carbon extradtion industry tries to tell them.

I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
...than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

He did have a bit more sense than you seem to have.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 15/04/2023 13:11, Frank wrote:

As a chemist, I would not have large lithium batteries in my house.  If
a charged battery ignites you cannot extinguish it and there goes your
house.  Gasoline in ICE vehicles has high energy but requires oxygen
whereas in EV\'s all the energy is self contained.

Not that lithium batteries contain incombustible lithiumn *salts*. It is
the electroytes that go \'poof\'.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:37:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 15/04/2023 03:41, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:42:48 -0400, Ed P wrote:

Coal will run out too, but much longer time than oil. Coal fired cars
are not very practical yet.

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

You chase blue sky technologies while ignoring those developed over a
hundred years ago.

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

\"Towards the end of World War II the United States began heavily financing
research into converting coal to gasoline, including money to build a
series of pilot plants. The project was enormously helped by captured
German technology. One plant using the Bergius process was built in
Louisiana, Missouri and began operation about 1946. Located along the
Mississippi river, this plant was producing gasoline in commercial
quantities by 1948. The Louisiana process method produced automobile
gasoline at a price slightly higher than, but comparable to, petroleum-
based gasoline[8] but of a higher quality.[citation needed] The facility
was shut down in 1953 by the Eisenhower administration, allegedly after
intense lobbying by the oil industry.\"

Gee, imagine that! Surprisingly Germany was forbidden by treaty to
continue perfecting the processes. Can\'t have them shortchanging the
Anglo-American energy producers -- then as now.

Gasoline from coal was very prevalent during the apartheid embargo years
in S Africa. SASOL made a lot of it along with ethanol from maize waste.
Low octane blend that worked OK at 5000 feet in the Transvaal and Vraistaat.

And still is, though the pointy headed greentard wiki editors cant help
adding in their bit


*Secunda plant*

\"The Sasol plant in Secunda produces 160,000 barrels of fuel from coal
every day, which is used to power buses, planes, and automobiles in the
country. The plant is both the largest coal-to-liquids plant and the
largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.\"

Every time one of those morons says greenhouse gases, say plant air supply.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 03:27:25 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:43:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Fuel cells have been the thing of the future since 1838. Car makers keep
promising hydrogen fuel cell cars but don\'t deliver.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/toyota-unveils-its-first-new-
hydrogen-car-in-a-decade-to-go-on-sale-this-autumn/2-1-1433307

The fly in the ointment:

https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen

\"Supplying hydrogen to industrial users is now a major business around the
world. Demand for hydrogen, which has grown more than threefold since
1975, continues to rise – almost entirely supplied from fossil fuels, with
6% of global natural gas and 2% of global coal going to hydrogen
production.\"

\"While less than 0.1% of global dedicated hydrogen production today comes
from water electrolysis, with declining costs for renewable electricity,
in particular from solar PV and wind, there is growing interest in
electrolytic hydrogen.\"

Someday. Maybe. Gaseous hydrogen storage presents many problems. Carbon
fiber vessels have helped somewhat. BMW played around with liquid hydrogen
although it was for an ICE dual fuel engine. Besides the problem of it
boiling off, what could go wrong with Joe Sixpack filling his pickup with
a -423 F liquid?

Why are you imagining him with a sixpack?

I doubt it\'s any more dangerous than LPG.

 

[John Larkin]

On 15 Apr 2023 02:27:25 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:43:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Fuel cells have been the thing of the future since 1838. Car makers keep
promising hydrogen fuel cell cars but don\'t deliver.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/toyota-unveils-its-first-new-
hydrogen-car-in-a-decade-to-go-on-sale-this-autumn/2-1-1433307

The fly in the ointment:

https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen

\"Supplying hydrogen to industrial users is now a major business around the
world. Demand for hydrogen, which has grown more than threefold since
1975, continues to rise – almost entirely supplied from fossil fuels, with
6% of global natural gas and 2% of global coal going to hydrogen
production.\"

\"While less than 0.1% of global dedicated hydrogen production today comes
from water electrolysis, with declining costs for renewable electricity,
in particular from solar PV and wind, there is growing interest in
electrolytic hydrogen.\"

Someday. Maybe. Gaseous hydrogen storage presents many problems. Carbon
fiber vessels have helped somewhat. BMW played around with liquid hydrogen
although it was for an ICE dual fuel engine. Besides the problem of it
boiling off, what could go wrong with Joe Sixpack filling his pickup with
a -423 F liquid?

My neighborhood Shell station has a hydrogen fill-up thing. I\'ve never
seen it used.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 23:15:19 +0100, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

> [snip of more base64 garbage by \"T\"]

Is that the idiot who uses pretty colours for his text?

 

[Scott Lurndal]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> writes:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:14:20 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 4/14/23 10:11, Frank wrote:
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.

Yes, there are a lot of technologies being looked into.  Something like
sodium would be much cheaper and not have the flammability concerns even
though only slightly heavier.

Natural gas fuel cells come to mind.

Fuel cells have been the thing of the future since 1838. Car makers
keep promising hydrogen fuel cell cars but don\'t deliver.

Seems to me that an NG fuel cell car would make more sense than
hydrogen. I suspect that fuel cells aren\'t very practical.

Natural gas is CH4. What happens to the C? It\'s turned into
CO2, of course - which just makes the problem worse.

 

[Scott Lurndal]

Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> writes:

On 4/14/2023 6:14 PM, T wrote:

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.

Yes, there are a lot of technologies being looked into.  Something
like sodium would be much cheaper and not have the flammability
concerns even though only slightly heavier.

Natural gas fuel cells come to mind.

Also, gasoline engines continue to become
more efficient and less polluting.

Yes, been many advances. Fact is, not in our lifetime, but in the
future, oil will run out.

Maybe not in your lifetime, but certainly in the lifetime of your
children. And it will _never_ \'run out\', but it will become very
expensive (more than it\'s worth as a fuel) to extract the remaining
amounts.

That\'s the energy trap - since it takes energy to make energy
(see EROI - Energy returned on Energy Invested), there comes a
point where you don\'t have enough energy to develop the next
source.

Discussed here: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

A very accessible introduction to the physics of energy
(for an educated layman) and the difficulties in maintaining
the historic exponential growth in energy production/consumption.

It will get expensive as it get harder to
find and process.

indeed.

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:48:03 +0100, Dim.gm4dhj, the brain dead,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered again:


> THAT IS a pain in the arse

You two brain dead shitheads should know something about being a pain in the
arse!