Viability of renewable energy

[Greg Boyles]

Graham Palmer, industrial engineer from Melbourne

 

Similarly, consider the proposed use of concentrated solar-thermal for electricity - all solar technologies rely on collecting very low density intermittent energy over a very large area - a solar thermal plant requires 15 times the concrete and 70 times the steel as a modern nuclear plant to deliver the equivalent quantity of energy - both materials with a significant environmental footprint - and constructed on massive allotments in remote desert locations far from industrial and demand centres, subject to the vagaries of climate, cloud cover and sand storms.

 

Renewable energy technologies will continue to get more efficient and cheaper. But taking a diffuse, intermittent, energy source and converting it into a reliable power source is not merely a case of stumbling upon a novel solution, or a project to be solved with the modern equivalent of an Apollo space program. These are inherent obstacles that will always remain as characteristic issues regardless of how cheap the basic generation technologies might become. Consider the technical brilliance of the Concorde passenger airliner - to some aviation observers of the early 1970s, it seemed perfectly obvious that the future of commercial aviation would be supersonic, but innovation was still not capable of undoing the physics of supersonic flight - both the supersonic boom and a substantial fuel consumption penalty compared to a Boeing 747 were inherent problems that undermined the Concorde's business case for its 27 years of subsidised operation. For those with eyes to see it, there are indeed striking similarities with today's energy debates.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

And...?

[Greg Boyles]

And...?

 

 

And is anyone prepared to comment on this assessment of renwable energy?

 

Although more solar energy falls on each square metre of ground than is currently generated...............

 

Is the EROEI of solar voltaics voltaics and wind energy etc considerably less than is assumed when you take into consideration the construction, maintenance and replacement of the infrastructure compared to oil refineries, rigs and power stations etc.

[Externet]

The energy return on investment to build a petroleum refinery is not the only to consider; for that to work the industry must also have in place the investment of successful prospection, drilling, extraction and transportation of petroleum to the refinery and later the transportation and distribution net for the finished products.

 

..."a solar thermal plant requires 15 times the concrete and 70 times the steel as a modern nuclear plant to deliver the equivalent quantity of energy"...

 

Where did you get those figures of concrete and steel ?

And are you ignoring the equipment costs inside a nuclear plant which is not only concrete and steel ?

 

Plus, same for nuclear energy; for that to work, that industry must also have in place the investment of successful prospection, mining, extraction and transportation of minerals to refining them which is not simple nor inexpensive. Worth mentioning the eternal growing costs of disposal and security at final storage for spent material. Leaving the health risks aside.

 

Solar concentration heliostat fields are a very good way to produce energy, without saying they are the perfect choice. If there was a perfect choice, that would be the one supplying our energy needs.

 

Geothermal is perhaps better than heliostat fields; works 24 hours with no environmental impact at a minimal acreage with no concrete and no steel beyond the typical needs. And few pay attention to it.

[Greg Boyles]

 

Where did you get those figures of concrete and steel ?

And are you ignoring the equipment costs inside a nuclear plant which is not only concrete and steel ?

 

 

 

Graham Palmer, industrial engineer from Melbourne, Okhams Razor, ABC Radio 621

[Phi for All]

It sounds like a pro-oil propaganda piece. Stacking solar against nuclear is a no-brainer since you can easily make people afraid of nuclear.

 

Of course solar has its limitations. But it still doesn't have the kind of R&D money it needs to overcome many of those limitations. Once it has that, advances are practically guaranteed.

 

The campaign seems to be focused on the impracticality of large arrays. Put those down successfully and you kill solar efforts for at least another 20 years. But the small scale, micro-power aspect of solar is what really threatens the established markets, and I think that's why it's always met such opposition. Oil, nuclear, coal are all impractical on an individual basis, but how much more research would be necessary to bring the cost down on a single family dwelling solar array? Last time I checked, I could power my house (in a sunny state) for about US$18,000 with panels that were only 12% efficient. Couple this with the purchase of a fully electric car and now the utility and oil companies are threatened with extinction. If I purchase some DC powered appliances, I use even less power and can go off the grid completely.

 

The only thing stopping me is the hope that the costs will come down drastically if this technology is embraced and more R&D is funded to make it a reality. Better efficiency and mass-marketing coupled with high demand will mean my investment is recovered much more quickly. But the propaganda scares people off and the established market lobbies squelch any funding while their technologies, which have been around for a hundred years and more, continue to get government subsidies.

[Greg Boyles]

It sounds like a pro-oil propaganda piece. Stacking solar against nuclear is a no-brainer since you can easily make people afraid of nuclear.

 

Of course solar has its limitations. But it still doesn't have the kind of R&D money it needs to overcome many of those limitations. Once it has that, advances are practically guaranteed.

 

The campaign seems to be focused on the impracticality of large arrays. Put those down successfully and you kill solar efforts for at least another 20 years. But the small scale, micro-power aspect of solar is what really threatens the established markets, and I think that's why it's always met such opposition. Oil, nuclear, coal are all impractical on an individual basis, but how much more research would be necessary to bring the cost down on a single family dwelling solar array? Last time I checked, I could power my house (in a sunny state) for about US$18,000 with panels that were only 12% efficient. Couple this with the purchase of a fully electric car and now the utility and oil companies are threatened with extinction. If I purchase some DC powered appliances, I use even less power and can go off the grid completely.

 

The only thing stopping me is the hope that the costs will come down drastically if this technology is embraced and more R&D is funded to make it a reality. Better efficiency and mass-marketing coupled with high demand will mean my investment is recovered much more quickly. But the propaganda scares people off and the established market lobbies squelch any funding while their technologies, which have been around for a hundred years and more, continue to get government subsidies.

 

How do you know that Graham Palmer is a mouth piece of the fossil fuel lobby?

[Phi for All]

How do you know that Graham Palmer is a mouth piece of the fossil fuel lobby?

Nice. We go from, "It sounds like a pro-oil propaganda piece" to "Graham Palmer is a mouth piece of the fossil fuel lobby". Well spun.

 

He doesn't have to be working for them for his words to be used as propaganda. Everything he said is technically true, but his arguments are obfuscations; they mask the fact that we don't really know what direction solar research will take. As was pointed out, his figures on concrete and steel failed to take other nuclear costs into consideration. And a third of his quote attempts to link solar energy to the failed Concorde. It's very typical of propaganda to use logical fallacies as arguments. This is a combination of Poisoning the Well and Guilt by Association. Solar power doesn't have inherent flaws like sonic booms or hideous fuel usage, but the Concorde was a long-term investment that failed, so it makes a very vivid comparison that brings investment in solar into question without any real validity.

[Externet]

... Last time I checked, I could power my house (in a sunny state) for about US$18,000 with panels that were only 12% efficient. Couple this with the purchase of a fully electric car and now the utility and oil companies are threatened with extinction. If I purchase some DC powered appliances, I use even less power and can go off the grid completely.

 

The only thing stopping me is the hope that the costs will come down drastically if this technology is embraced and more R&D is funded to make it a reality. ...

 

Hello Phi.

We are already there for a modest dwelling consumption. Now if 24 hour air conditioning/heating to extreme comfort levels are desired; we are not there yet.

That $18K cost is mostly installation labor and markups. Panels are under $0.50 per Watt production costs. When I tried to buy panels at a factory in silicon valley by walking-in their offices; found that all production was exclusively sold to Germany, no sales to the public.

So a plain guy trying to do the thing, finds that cannot buy the US product from the factory across the street; but pushed to buy chinese

[Phi for All]

Hello Phi.

We are already there for a modest dwelling consumption. Now if 24 hour air conditioning/heating to extreme comfort levels are desired; we are not there yet.

That $18K cost is mostly installation labor and markups. Panels are under $0.50 per Watt production costs. When I tried to buy panels at a factory in silicon valley by walking-in their offices; found that all production was exclusively sold to Germany, no sales to the public.

So a plain guy trying to do the thing, finds that cannot buy the US product from the factory across the street; but pushed to buy chinese

Hey Externet!

 

Yeah, I noticed that. I have a facility I can ride my bicycle to that manufactures solar panels. I even pursued a job there hoping I could get some at a discount. But they didn't need anyone to sell their product. Everything they made was already sold to other companies, some in the US and some overseas.

 

I use natural gas for heating, and I don't really use my air conditioning. I'm a fan fan myself, and fans run great on DC current, and last longer than fans that run on AC. Partial infrastructure exists for DC appliances because of the recreational vehicle industry.

 

Personally, I think having a PV array that powers a block of homes would be the most efficient use. You wouldn't need to push the current a long way and you spread out the expense of installation. Am I right in thinking you could have panels on ten homes, which then run the power to a single inverter and then back to each home?

[Greg Boyles]

Nice. We go from, "It sounds like a pro-oil propaganda piece" to "Graham Palmer is a mouth piece of the fossil fuel lobby". Well spun.

 

He doesn't have to be working for them for his words to be used as propaganda. Everything he said is technically true, but his arguments are obfuscations; they mask the fact that we don't really know what direction solar research will take. As was pointed out, his figures on concrete and steel failed to take other nuclear costs into consideration. And a third of his quote attempts to link solar energy to the failed Concorde. It's very typical of propaganda to use logical fallacies as arguments. This is a combination of Poisoning the Well and Guilt by Association. Solar power doesn't have inherent flaws like sonic booms or hideous fuel usage, but the Concorde was a long-term investment that failed, so it makes a very vivid comparison that brings investment in solar into question without any real validity.

 

I beg to differ.

 

He is comparing the hideous fuel usage of the concorde to the hideous infrastructure requirements of solar thermal and voltaics etc.

 

It is a reasonable comparison to make. On what basis are you arguing that the comparison is a logical fallacy?

 

You would appear to be mainly attacking Graham Palmer's credibility rather than addressing his argument.

 

I am sure that the advocates of the concorde would have argued similarly about its benefits and economic viability. But in the end they were proven wrong as the concorde is dead and no one has any plans to implement another regular (as opposed to novelty for the rich)supersonic airline service.

[Phi for All]

He is comparing the hideous fuel usage of the concorde to the hideous infrastructure requirements of solar thermal and voltaics etc.

But everything that could replace fossil fuels will have a hideous infrastructure requirement. Oil has had a hideous infrastructure requirement. How could you possibly think any global energy alternative wouldn't?

 

It is a reasonable comparison to make. On what basis are you arguing that the comparison is a logical fallacy?

Despite what you claim, he is not "comparing the hideous fuel usage of the concorde to the hideous infrastructure requirements of solar thermal and voltaics etc.". He quite clearly states:

 

Consider the technical brilliance of the Concorde passenger airliner - to some aviation observers of the early 1970s, it seemed perfectly obvious that the future of commercial aviation would be supersonic, but innovation was still not capable of undoing the physics of supersonic flight - both the supersonic boom and a substantial fuel consumption penalty compared to a Boeing 747 were inherent problems that undermined the Concorde's business case for its 27 years of subsidised operation. For those with eyes to see it, there are indeed striking similarities with today's energy debates.

He doesn't mention infrastructure, he mentions "both the supersonic boom and a substantial fuel consumption penalty compared to a Boeing 747". Inherent problems with the Concorde, problems that solar doesn't have compared to oil. The fuel consumption bit has nothing to do with infrastructure, it's an acknowledgement that the Concorde would quickly lose its viability as fuel prices rise.

 

You would appear to be mainly attacking Graham Palmer's credibility rather than addressing his argument.

Please show me where. I pointed out that some of his claims lacked validity. This is not personal.

 

I am sure that the advocates of the concorde would have argued similarly about its benefits and economic viability. But in the end they were proven wrong as the concorde is dead and no one has any plans to implement another regular (as opposed to novelty for the rich)supersonic airline service.

It's just as invalid an argument when you use it.

[swansont]

And is anyone prepared to comment on this assessment of renwable energy?

 

Although more solar energy falls on each square metre of ground than is currently generated...............

 

Is the EROEI of solar voltaics voltaics and wind energy etc considerably less than is assumed when you take into consideration the construction, maintenance and replacement of the infrastructure compared to oil refineries, rigs and power stations etc.

 

!

Moderator Note

I don't see how this is a discussion of science. It sounds a lot like politics, so either get on to discussing science or drop it.

[Greg Boyles]

But everything that could replace fossil fuels will have a hideous infrastructure requirement. Oil has had a hideous infrastructure requirement. How could you possibly think any global energy alternative wouldn't?

 

Well presumeably oil infrastructure is not, or at least has not, been hideous compared to the amount of energy profit that has been delivered by oil. Perhaps that is changing as oil becomes harder to find and extract.

 

Despite what you claim, he is not "comparing the hideous fuel usage of the concorde to the hideous infrastructure requirements of solar thermal and voltaics etc.". He quite clearly states:

 

 

He doesn't mention infrastructure, he mentions "both the supersonic boom and a substantial fuel consumption penalty compared to a Boeing 747". Inherent problems with the Concorde, problems that solar doesn't have compared to oil. The fuel consumption bit has nothing to do with infrastructure, it's an acknowledgement that the Concorde would quickly lose its viability as fuel prices rise.

If he is not making that comparison then why would he bother even mentioning the concorde. If he was not then the concorde issue would be totally irrelevant.

 

I will rephrase the comparison I believe he is making.

 

He is comparing the economic viability of the concorde to the economic viability of solar voltacis and thermal. At the heart of the economic viability of the concorde is its fuel consumoption and at the heart of the economic viability of solar votaics and thermal is the massive infrastructure requirements.

 

I once found a website where the author did some rough calculations on how much solar voltaics would be required to entirely replace the US's current annual oil consumption.

 

The estimate was an area the size of Malasia packed solid with solar voltacis would be required. Not counting future growth in energy consumption.

 

Would the total global oil infrastructure, if packed side by side, add up to an area the size of Malasia? I seriously doubt it would come any where near it.

[Externet]

... Am I right in thinking you could have panels on ten homes, which then run the power to a single inverter and then back to each home?...

 

May work; the trick is to have the panels in 'series' to pump the DC on higher voltage, no 12V or alike.

Perhaps 20 x 12V panels in series per house to make 240V would reach in better shape with less losses half a block away to the neighborhood inverter.

A problem is who would take care/maintenance of such community inverter station ? We do not need another 'insurance' entity "by the low contribution of $$ every month, we will maintain the unit in good working order, just give us your credit card number". And always some neighbor cannot pay dues that month, plus some accounting would be requiered. Would eat the savings.

That is if you can convince all ten neighbors to jump onto the project. Very hard.

 

Each owner with their own small system and their own maintenance could work too. The way it is being done currently.

But as long as installers of the system keep after wringing wallets to the extreme, any decrease in panels cost won't be beneficial.

If the panels were free (or already yours stacked in your garage); ask an 'specialist installer' for an estimate. Still a shocking bill.

The inverter and interface to the mains -as for peak demand of the house- is a bunch of cheap chinese silicon parts in a box. But the price they want you to pay for it still reflects the wallet wringing style.

[Phi for All]

Well presumeably oil infrastructure is not, or at least has not, been hideous compared to the amount of energy profit that has been delivered by oil. Perhaps that is changing as oil becomes harder to find and extract.

Scientifically, your equation is imbalanced. Solar hasn't had 100+ years with which to establish its energy profit delivery.

 

If he is not making that comparison then why would he bother even mentioning the concorde.

To give an example of an industry that was innovative but ultimately undone by the required physics, and to try to tie that to renewable energy.

 

If he was not then the concorde issue would be totally irrelevant.

I think it is irrelevant in this instance. If solar had some kind of physics problem, like the panels caused blinding glare, and used a material that was becoming scarcer and more costly to procure, then the comparison would be valid. But it's not.

 

I will rephrase the comparison I believe he is making.

 

He is comparing the economic viability of the concorde to the economic viability of solar voltacis and thermal. At the heart of the economic viability of the concorde is its fuel consumoption and at the heart of the economic viability of solar votaics and thermal is the massive infrastructure requirements.

 

I once found a website where the author did some rough calculations on how much solar voltaics would be required to entirely replace the US's current annual oil consumption.

 

The estimate was an area the size of Malasia packed solid with solar voltacis would be required. Not counting future growth in energy consumption.

 

Would the total global oil infrastructure, if packed side by side, add up to an area the size of Malasia? I seriously doubt it would come any where near it.

Again, infrastructure is required by any energy alternative. If we had been getting our energy from seawater somehow for the last 100 years and we were talking about switching over to petroleum, petroleum would still have to build an infrastructure against what seawater already had.

 

You used the Malaysia comparison before and were corrected; I'll remind you here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Current_consumption

Oil is about 12 PHw, or 12 x 10^12 kWh. Solar can generate more than 1 kWh/m^2 each day in the southwest, and there are 10^6 m^2 in 1 km^2. That gives about 33,000 km^2 of area; which is roughly one-tenth of Maylasia. (Maylasia being slightly larger than New Mexico) It's also roughly the area covered by buildings in the US.

Once again, you're trying to replace all oil overnight with today's solar technology. It's an unfair argument and it's a bad scientific assessment. That's not going to be the reality.

[CaptainPanic]

My main problem with the piece in the OP is that it is not a comparison of solar vs nuclear.

The author takes some random figures, and compares those. Looking only at concrete and steel of the actual power plants is pointless. Solar panels require a number of other materials for construction (silicon). And nuclear power has a whole range of additional penalties which aren't listed here, the biggest of which is the storage of the spent nuclear material for thousands of years (how much concrete, steel and energy does it cost to build, operate and maintain a safe bunker somewhere underground for the storage of tons of nuclear material for many thousands of years??).

 

The comparison to the concorde is totally flawed. The fact that solar energy is a diffuse and intermittent energy source has nothing to do with fundamental physical limitations. Nature itself has solved the problem (plants seem to thrive on solar energy)... all you need is to make the solar panels cheap enough to make it worth it. There is no fundamental limitation, and nature itself proves that.

 

So, as far as I'm concerned, this comparison is not at all complete. It is nothing but an advertisement for nuclear (or fossil) energy.

[swansont]

I once found a website where the author did some rough calculations on how much solar voltaics would be required to entirely replace the US's current annual oil consumption.

 

The estimate was an area the size of Malasia packed solid with solar voltacis would be required. Not counting future growth in energy consumption.

 

Would the total global oil infrastructure, if packed side by side, add up to an area the size of Malasia? I seriously doubt it would come any where near it.

 

Several problems with this. As Phi pointed out (as I had earlier) the goal is not to replace all oil with solar electric. US electrical use has gone down in the last several years

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12

as has oil

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2

so the assumption of future growth may not be good — we're becoming more efficient.

 

Also, if you are replacing oil with electric, you need to acknowledge that electric vehicles are much more efficient than gasoline-powered engines. Each kWh of oil requires less than 1 kWh of electric to replace it.

[Greg Boyles]

Again, infrastructure is required by any energy alternative. If we had been getting our energy from seawater somehow for the last 100 years and we were talking about switching over to petroleum, petroleum would still have to build an infrastructure against what seawater already had.

 

You used the Malaysia comparison before and were corrected; I'll remind you here:

 

 

Once again, you're trying to replace all oil overnight with today's solar technology. It's an unfair argument and it's a bad scientific assessment. That's not going to be the reality.

 

But again swansont you are denying the point that the infrastructure requirements for current renewable energy sources, except perhaps geothermal, are so much more massive than that required for oil.

 

To use an anology, the conversion from horse power to fossil fuel power was perhaps like climbing Mount Hotham as far as infrastructure requiements. But conversion from fossil fuel power to solar and wind power is more like climbing Mount Everest.

 

And with declining oil production we will have less surplus energy available to acheive it. With the current global population it may well be simply unacheivable.

 

I don't question that solar and wind energy has a big role to play in our energy future, but I do question the assumption it can replace fossil fuels at our current population and consumption levels.

 

Also, if you are replacing oil with electric, you need to acknowledge that electric vehicles are much more efficient than gasoline-powered engines. Each kWh of oil requires less than 1 kWh of electric to replace it.

 

But current and forseeable battery technology is not more efficient than oil. And electric vehicles cannot operate without batteries.

 

I could fill my tank with petrol and probably make it most of the way from Melbourne to Sydney.

 

Even with the most efficient battery technology to date, how far would you get with a full charge.......in a standard passenger vehicle.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

You are making the wrong comparison: electric vs cars now, instead of electric now vs cars when they were first adopted. How far could you get in a car during the first decade of cars? There were no highways and the roads were not built for cars — they were built for horses and horse-drawn vehicles. I think your analogy is exactly backward — the infrastructure was much worse during the early adoption of automobiles. What about railroads? There was zero infrastructure for railroads when they started out. Plane travel? Airports are a significant infrastructure. All of those build-outs took decades before becoming a dominant mode of transportation and continue on today. Why hold electric cars to another standard?

 

You're dismissing the technology because it's not an instant replacement, but since nobody has claimed that it would be, it's just a straw man argument.

[Greg Boyles]

You are making the wrong comparison: electric vs cars now, instead of electric now vs cars when they were first adopted. How far could you get in a car during the first decade of cars? There were no highways and the roads were not built for cars — they were built for horses and horse-drawn vehicles. I think your analogy is exactly backward — the infrastructure was much worse during the early adoption of automobiles. What about railroads? There was zero infrastructure for railroads when they started out. Plane travel? Airports are a significant infrastructure. All of those build-outs took decades before becoming a dominant mode of transportation and continue on today. Why hold electric cars to another standard?

 

You're dismissing the technology because it's not an instant replacement, but since nobody has claimed that it would be, it's just a straw man argument.

 

I am not the one who brought electric cars into this debate - I merely responded. You are building a strawman.

 

Why don't we compare apples with apples?

 

How many tonnes of steel did it take to build all the railways across the world? How long did it take?

 

How many tonnes of steel did it take to build all the oil rigs, refineries and roads etc across the world? How long did it take?

 

How many tonnes of steel will it take to build all the solar infrastructure required to entirely replace fossil fuel infratsructure? How long will that take? How many years of economically viable fossil fuel production is there left?

[CaptainPanic]

But current and forseeable battery technology is not more efficient than oil. And electric vehicles cannot operate without batteries.

 

I could fill my tank with petrol and probably make it most of the way from Melbourne to Sydney.

 

Even with the most efficient battery technology to date, how far would you get with a full charge.......in a standard passenger vehicle.

The distance on one tank / battery charge has nothing to do with efficiency. Don't mix that up. Anyway, the action radius of the electric cars is increasing rapidly, and charge time is decreasing quickly. I agree that current technology isn't ready, but I think it's coming soon.

 

Regarding efficiency: The electric car is at least as efficient as an internal combustion engine... how much more efficient it is depends on how the electricity is generated (and not on the car, which is really efficient).

[swansont]

I am not the one who brought electric cars into this debate - I merely responded. You are building a strawman.

 

But you did respond, and in your response you made a claim. I am rebutting that. That's not a strawman.

 

 

Why don't we compare apples with apples?

 

How many tonnes of steel did it take to build all the railways across the world? How long did it take?

 

How many tonnes of steel did it take to build all the oil rigs, refineries and roads etc across the world? How long did it take?

 

How many tonnes of steel will it take to build all the solar infrastructure required to entirely replace fossil fuel infratsructure? How long will that take? How many years of economically viable fossil fuel production is there left?

 

So do some research and get back to us on this. Give us the facts. It's your claim = your burden of proof.

[Phi for All]

But again swansont you are denying the point that the infrastructure requirements for current renewable energy sources, except perhaps geothermal, are so much more massive than that required for oil.

I would think that any difference in infrastructure requirements would be offset by the fact that the energy is renewable, it doesn't require massive tankers risking massive spills requiring massive cleanup, and it won't get harder and harder to find. And at a certain point, space-based solar technology could take all the collection problems off-planet, where collection will be 144% better.

 

But current and forseeable battery technology is not more efficient than oil. And electric vehicles cannot operate without batteries.

I doubt the "foreseeable" part. When GM tested its first electric car 15 years ago, the range was about 70 miles. The 2012 Tesla Model S can go 300 miles on a charge.

 

I could fill my tank with petrol and probably make it most of the way from Melbourne to Sydney.

 

Even with the most efficient battery technology to date, how far would you get with a full charge.......in a standard passenger vehicle.

The oil and gas people use this same argument, and so many people listen to it, ignoring the fact that IC engines have had more than 100 years to get where they are today. It's an unfair argument. Since the Tesla Model S could take you 300 miles of your 565.2 mile trip to Sydney right now, how many years of aggressive research do you think it will take before it can go the whole way? And remember, if you get stuck in traffic on the Hume, your IC car will still burn fuel while the electric car won't.

[John Cuthber]

"I could fill my tank with petrol and probably make it most of the way from Melbourne to Sydney.

 

Even with the most efficient battery technology to date, how far would you get with a full charge.......in a standard passenger vehicle. "

 

Who cares?

OK, it's going to be a pain in the neck swapping battery packs (recharging them is too slow to be a sensible option) but it's not that big a deal.

OK so you have to stop a bit more often.

Does that matter?

It's something like 900Km and 10 hours.

Are you not going to stop for a pee anyway?

 

The problem is that we don't have the infrastructure or technology set up yet.