# The end of gasoline/diesel powered cars?

## Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, koti said:

The panels are cheap but the batteries are still a big a hit for the pocket. A decent single 18650 battery costs around 4-5 bucks when you buy bulk and you need ~7000 of them to get an 85kWh pack which I presume would be the territory needed for a household...so youre looking at ~25K USD for energy storage which after 10 years is scrap (runs down below 50% capacity) Unfortunately energy storage is still a privilege for the wealthy.  ﻿﻿

If somebody has air conditioner with 3-5 kW running for 9 hour per day, must pay 0.63 zl/kWh (if I found correctly price of electricity in the Poland) * 5 * 9 = 28.35 zl / 3.76 zl/usd = $7.54 per day * 30 days/month =$226 per month. That's quite a lot for Polish customer. It's something like 50% of entire minimal net income per month of single person in Poland.

If somebody has electric heated floor at colder months running all day long, also has very high bills for it.

These bills would all be gone, if person would place solar panels at the roof, even without connecting panels to the grid nor investing in power storage (somebody who has air conditioner & electric heated floors has very high power consumption of self made electricity! So it's unlikely he or she has any serious surplus to sell to the grid, unless will turn them off of course).

I don't have air conditioner nor electric heated floors (there is central heating) and my month electricity usage is 176 kWh. Mentioned by you battery pack with 85 kWh would last for... two weeks of my usage.. If somebody used to have solar panels in enough quantity to run air conditioner @ 5 kW and decided to switch it off, would get check instead of bill (if connected to the grid).

In EU you can get 50% refund of cost of thermo heating/protection of walls of building or house. If he or she decide to add also solar panels on the roof, it goes even up to 80%.

From 25k usd mentioned by you, owner of the house has to pay \$5k from his or her own pocket.

##### Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 1:30 AM, Moreno said:

I'm talking about energy that Lithium releases in ideal conditions reacting with air and forming Lithium ...oxides. In Li-ion, Li-sulfur, etc. batteries Lithium produces even less energy than that (per kg), by definition, so you need to account to use even more Lithium per km (that vehicle passes) than in Li-air batteries (if they will be ever suitable for use in EV vehicles).

Reacting with atmospheric oxygen and releasing energy is not equal to one electrochemical element with one side as Li may accumulate. It is totally different physical, chemical and electrochemical basics.

On 6/11/2019 at 7:49 AM, dimreepr said:

1/ Whats the problem with generation? It's very easy, electric + water.

2/ Logistics is just a matter of infrastructure; there's a reason we swapped canals for railways. And we already drive/walk/live/sleep with the potential of death by fire.

3/ Hydrogen fuel cell is already here and well understood.

And since we could easily power our homes with the car, when were not out driving, it doesn't matter if renewable (solar/wind) energy is intermittent because water isn't.

No, the big problem is, once it's up and running, there's little profit for the investors.

1. If we have electric, what is reason to go for hydrogen? It decreases overall total efficiency of our tasks sch as transport, climate control, etc.....

2. As highly permeable gas, hydrogen requires another level of infrastructure which means expensive.

3. Using hydrogen as fuel for transport means low efficiency vs electric motors (>95%) from any point  of view

1st argument is covering all cons. There are no sense to generate hydrogen from electric power. And in reality it is not easy process as seems .

##### Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 9:34 AM, koti said:

he Burbank friend on the other hand sends his surplus energy back to the grid and is getting payed for it. I ron’t know how it is in the other states but in California it seems its a great idea to go for solar. Here its a nightmare, they will excise tax you to the point it doesn’t make financial sense to do it unless youre wealthy and stubborn.

Sometimes the issue are seemingly simple things. In many places in NA you have either automatic readers for electricity or at least semi-regular readings. I am not sure how it is in Poland but in Germany I remember that they used to do yearly readings. It was discussed for a while to sell surplus energy from private solar systems, but since there is no real simple mechanism to figure out when and how much surplus was actually sold at a given time it was a bit of an issue. I am not sure how things have evolved from there, considering that solar panels have become more and more attractive over there.

##### Share on other sites

Reacting with atmospheric oxygen and releasing energy is not equal to one electrochemical element with one side as Li may accumulate.

It is quite similar. In metal-air fuel cells or batteries a metal reacts with oxygen and releases energy. In idealized case it releases as much energy as if we just burn this metal on air. Some of such batteries can be even rechargeable. For example Zinc-air. There are some experiments on Li-air. Other batteries are similar. In Li-Silfur Lithium reacts with Sulfur instead of Oxygen, in Li-ion it intercalactes into a host material (typically an oxide). But the basic principle is no different from Li-air. Obviously Li-air battery going to give more energy per weight of Lithium than Li-ion because reaction with Oxigen is more energetic one than reaction of intercalation.

Edited by Moreno

##### Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Moreno said:

It is quite similar. In metal-air fuel cells or batteries a metal reacts with oxygen and releases energy. In idealized case it releases as much energy as if we just burn this metal on air. Some of such batteries can be even rechargeable. For example Zinc-air. There are some experiments on Li-air. Other batteries are similar. In Li-Silfur Lithium reacts with Sulfur instead of Oxygen, in Li-ion it intercalactes into a host material (typically an oxide). But the basic principle is no different from Li-air. Obviously Li-air battery going to give more energy per weight of Lithium than Li-ion because reaction with Oxigen is more energetic one than reaction of intercalation.

Li-ion battery is energy (electric) storage but not energy source.

In case you use endothermic chemical reaction energy from Li plus Oxygen (or Sulfur, F, etc.) and get Li2O, you should use same amount energy to split this molecule to get metallic Li.

Li-ion battery is storing electric energy of outer source and works on different level of lelctrochemical energy storing - much less than Li burning with Oxygen.

There are two absolutely different physical principles of electric energy accumulators and endothermic chemical energy release burning of metal.

There is also one principal point - efficiency of electric motors vs internal combustion engines (thermodynamic cycle) where electric motors have .90% efficiency vs max 25% of ANY type of thermodynamic machine. It is why future is electric.

##### Share on other sites

Li-ion battery is energy (electric) storage but not energy source.

In case you use endothermic chemical reaction energy from Li plus Oxygen (or Sulfur, F, etc.) and get Li2O, you should use same amount energy to split this molecule to get metallic Li.

Li-ion battery is storing electric energy of outer source and works on different level of lelctrochemical energy storing - much less than Li burning with Oxygen.

There are two absolutely different physical principles of electric energy accumulators and endothermic chemical energy release burning of metal.

There is also one principal point - efficiency of electric motors vs internal combustion engines (thermodynamic cycle) where electric motors have .90% efficiency vs max 25% of ANY type of thermodynamic machine. It is why future is electric.

So what are you trying to prove me and what is your point? Any metal-air battery is rather an energy storage device than an energy source. There is no pure metal in nature, typically, with exception of the midgets, you need to take energy sourse somewhere to get free metal or recharge metal-air battery. Thermodinamically efficiency of metal-air batteries can approach efficiency of Li-ion batteries very closely, the differences are rather chemical than thermodynamical. My point was that you need more kg of Lithium to save the same amount of energy in Li-ion battery than if you would make react Lithium with air in idealized conditions, so knowing how much energy does Lithium-Oxygen reaction releases gives you a starting point to estimate how many kg of Lithium you will need in a typical car which runs on Li-ion batteries (quite a many).

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moreno said:

So what are you trying to prove me and what is your point? Any metal-air battery is rather an energy storage device than an energy source. There is no pure metal in nature, typically, with exception of the midgets, you need to take energy sourse somewhere to get free metal or recharge metal-air battery. Thermodinamically efficiency of metal-air batteries can approach efficiency of Li-ion batteries very closely, the differences are rather chemical than thermodynamical. My point was that you need more kg of Lithium to save the same amount of energy in Li-ion battery than if you would make react Lithium with air in idealized conditions, so knowing how much energy does Lithium-Oxygen reaction releases gives you a starting point to estimate how many kg of Lithium you will need in a typical car which runs on Li-ion batteries (quite a many).

Your point is clear. My point is that energy stored by 1 kg Li by electrochemical method (battery storage) is not equal to chemical energy released burning 1 kg Li using Oxygen. Both in theoretical ideal approach.  So, any type of Li-X battery can not store same amount of energy released by same   amount of Li burned  by Oxygen due to different nature of processes.

##### Share on other sites

Your point is clear. My point is that energy stored by 1 kg Li by electrochemical method (battery storage) is not equal to chemical energy released burning 1 kg Li using Oxygen. Both in theoretical ideal approach.  So, any type of Li-X battery can not store same amount of energy released by same   amount of Li burned  by Oxygen due to different nature of processes.

I agree on that. Thermodynamically there is no difference if we burn Lithium on air with help of fire or if we "burn" it in electrochemical element. In idealized case it should release the same amount of energy. But practically efficiency of metal-air fuel cells (as well as any other batteries) never get close to 100%.

Edited by Moreno

##### Share on other sites

There is better usage for Lithium than batteries.. If Lithium-6 is disintegrated, it decays to Tritium, which can be used in fusion reactors.

Additionally it is exothermic reaction yielding 4.8 MeV energy.

Lithium-7 also can be disintegrated to Tritium but this reaction is endothermic.

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sensei said:

There is better usage for Lithium than batteries.. If Lithium-6 is disintegrated, it decays to Tritium, which can be used in fusion reactors.

Additionally it is exothermic reaction yielding 4.8 MeV energy.

Lithium-7 also can be disintegrated to Tritium but this reaction is endothermic.

This is nuclear physics and works in absolutely other level of nature and energy.

But ii is the best we may imagine up to date.

##### Share on other sites

This is nuclear physics and works in absolutely other level of nature and energy.

But ii is the best we may imagine up to date. ﻿

If electric cars industry, and solar panels industry, etc. will utilize Lithium for their hundred of millions of accumulators, there will be less fuel for future fusion power plants (and eventually will cause growth of Lithium price on trade exchange markets).. It would be wiser to pick up such element in advance which won't cause collision of businesses in the future.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sensei said:

If electric cars industry, and solar panels industry, etc. will utilize Lithium for their hundred of millions of accumulators, there will be less fuel for future fusion power plants (and eventually will cause growth of Lithium price on trade exchange markets).. It would be wiser to pick up such element in advance which won't cause collision of businesses in the future.

OTOH, if fusion requiring lithium ever achieves an economically viable state, the demand for battery storage will probably go down and free up existing lithium that would be contained in the products.

Fusion reactions release a lot more energy than chemical ones, so the demand for Li would be smaller, and for the same reason, would support higher extraction costs, so it would be economical to get Li from sources for fusion that would not be viable for batteries.

##### Share on other sites
Just now, swansont said:

OTOH, if fusion requiring lithium ever achieves an economically viable state, the demand for battery storage will probably go down and free up existing lithium that would be contained in the products. ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Once every house and apartment skyscraper will get their own solar panels on the roof and walls, it will be really hard to get them out, if people accustomize to free and clean energy source for their private properties. Fusion power plants will be for business and government needs.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sensei said:

If electric cars industry, and solar panels industry, etc. will utilize Lithium for their hundred of millions of accumulators, there will be less fuel for future fusion power plants (and eventually will cause growth of Lithium price on trade exchange markets).. It would be wiser to pick up such element in advance which won't cause collision of businesses in the future.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

OTOH, if fusion requiring lithium ever achieves an economically viable state, the demand for battery storage will probably go down and free up existing lithium that would be contained in the products.

Fusion reactions release a lot more energy than chemical ones, so the demand for Li would be smaller, and for the same reason, would support higher extraction costs, so it would be economical to get Li from sources for fusion that would not be viable for batteries.

In general, all required elements are on the floor. Li will be replaced Na and all practically unlimited natural resources make available to generate all our needs. Now, mankind in transition stage of technological upgrade and we learn step by step. All industry and lifestyle in transition based on new principles.

Very exciting.

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Once every house and apartment skyscraper will get their own solar panels on the roof and walls, it will be really hard to get them out, if people accustomize to free and clean energy source for their private properties. Fusion power plants will be for business and government needs.

A solar panel on the roof of a skyscraper will not provide for the needs of the building or city transportation. You have multiple floors in a building, and only roof space equal to the top floor area. You might be able to further develop transparent panels in place of windows, but that only works for part of the building.

Cities are going to need an external supplier of energy, and it won't matter to people (or business or government) what the mix is of wind, solar or fusion (or any other "green" source) as long as the cost is competitive.

Solar is now cheap and if the storage technology is there, the demand for fusion won't be. As I said, the lithium requirement for fusion is small relative to the battery demand for an equal amount of energy. And if the demand for fusion is there, the cost of lithium probably won't be the main factor in the price of the electricity. Similar to coal and gas, there's a large part that's the cost of the plant, paid for over a number of years.

##### Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, swansont said:

Fusion reactions release a lot more energy than chemical ones, so the demand for Li would be smaller, and for the same reason, would support higher extraction costs, so it would be economical to get Li from sources for fusion that would not be viable for batteries.

In the worst scenario, Lithium is omnipresent in oceanic water with concentration between 0.1 ppm ... 0.2 ppm. Facilities for desalination of seawater could/should be extended to extract different kinds of elements normally dissolved in sea water, including Lithium. And extract Deuterium from D2O/DHO (will be needed for fusion). The less Deuterium in drinkable water the better.

Tesla's 3250 mAh @ 4.2 V battery has 0.975 g of Li (according to Internet data). There is needed ~ 7k such batteries to have 100 kWh. And it's over 7 kg of Li per house. 500 millions of houses worldwide would require 3.5e+9 kg of Lithium.

Edited by Sensei

##### Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The less Deuterium in drinkable water the better.

Why?

A few billion years of evolution has equipped us to deal with the amount normally present.

##### Share on other sites

In general, all required elements are on the floor. Li will be replaced Na and all practically unlimited natural resources make available to generate

Why Sodium? It is difficult to store. It cannot be stored on open air and will explode on contact with water.

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moreno said:

Why Sodium? It is difficult to store. It cannot be stored on open air and will explode on contact with water.

What is purpose to keep Sodium as pure metal? Actually, Na one of the most common elements and today's race for rare elements should stop> We are simply did not find proper use of each element yet. Just personal point of view .

In general, all is simple in our life but we as human make them difficult.

##### Share on other sites

What is purpose to keep Sodium as pure metal?

So, what kind of battery do you think of?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moreno said:

So, what kind of battery do you think of?

Any. Elements exist as cations and anions but electrode might be even graphite. F.e. Li or Na as chemical elements has almost absolutely same properties.

##### Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 9:28 PM, Fuad said:

1. If we have electric, what is reason to go for hydrogen? It decreases overall total efficiency of our tasks sch as transport, climate control, etc.....﻿

2. As highly permeable gas, hydrogen requires another level of infrastructure which means expensive.

3. Using hydrogen as fuel for transport means low efficiency vs electric motors (>95%) from any point  of view

1st argument is covering all cons. There are no sense to generate hydrogen from electric power. And in reality it is not easy process as seems .

If we have "electric" why spend so much on fusion? It seems to me the cons of battery power in transport is answered with fuel cells; efficiency is far less important when the only by-product is water. And you're going to have to explain "climate control" in a little more detail, please.

##### Share on other sites

Any. Elements exist as cations and anions but electrode might be even graphite. F.e. Li or Na as chemical elements has almost absolutely same properties.

Sodium-ion batteries have even lower energy density than Li-ion, what cannot solve the quest.

Edited by Moreno

##### Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 7:59 AM, Moreno said:

Sodium-ion batteries have even lower energy density than Li-ion, what cannot solve the quest.

In case mass is not critical Na may replace Li due to almost no limit for presence and cost.

On 6/14/2019 at 7:49 AM, dimreepr said:

If we have "electric" why spend so much on fusion? It seems to me the cons of battery power in transport is answered with fuel cells; efficiency is far less important when the only by-product is water. And you're going to have to explain "climate control" in a little more detail, please.

Efficiency is only matter in overall industry.

Climate control I meant simply HVAC as one of the main consumer of the generated electric power. To spend it for hydrogen generation does not make any sense.

BTW, managing hydrogen is very difficult and dangerous business. Recent FT article is good one from real world.

##### Share on other sites

You've got to be a subscriber to see it.

## Create an account

Register a new account