New battery technology - Dual-carbon

On Tue, 20 May 2014 03:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 09:56:51 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

I can't take these happy, happy stories about revolutionary technogies. Remember "fuel cells" for things like cameras, running on alcohol for weeks on one charge? Whatever happened to them?

I don't know what happened to the cameras but I drank the alcohol.

:-)

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Thanks for admiting it, I was expecting jonas to blame me ;-)

I'm waiting for thos lithuim-air batteries to take off well they'll be light with all that air in them.


Reminds me of a guy who, in the days long past when Christchurch was
debating the construction of a road tunnel through the hills to
connect the city to the port of Lyttleton, wanted to supply people
with pedal-powered hydrogen balloons to go over the top of the hills.
He had a solution to the problem that these balloons would have
considerable air drag as a result of their size. He wanted to use
compressed hydrogen to reduce the size of the balloons to that of a
back pack.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/20/2014 6:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2014 03:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 09:56:51 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

I can't take these happy, happy stories about revolutionary technogies. Remember "fuel cells" for things like cameras, running on alcohol for weeks on one charge? Whatever happened to them?

I don't know what happened to the cameras but I drank the alcohol.

:-)

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Thanks for admiting it, I was expecting jonas to blame me ;-)

I'm waiting for thos lithuim-air batteries to take off well they'll be light with all that air in them.


Reminds me of a guy who, in the days long past when Christchurch was
debating the construction of a road tunnel through the hills to
connect the city to the port of Lyttleton, wanted to supply people
with pedal-powered hydrogen balloons to go over the top of the hills.
He had a solution to the problem that these balloons would have
considerable air drag as a result of their size. He wanted to use
compressed hydrogen to reduce the size of the balloons to that of a
back pack.

Didn't he realize that people had to be really careful with hydrogen. It
can easliy combine with Oxygen to form dihydrogen monoxide. A chemical
substance that has killed, probably hundreds of thousands of people.
Indeed Aliso Viejo, a suberb in Orange County CA, was seriously
considering a ban on its use in cleaning fluids, based on its danger to
human life.



--
PeterN

On Tue, 20 May 2014 22:38:32 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/20/2014 6:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2014 03:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 09:56:51 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

I can't take these happy, happy stories about revolutionary technogies. Remember "fuel cells" for things like cameras, running on alcohol for weeks on one charge? Whatever happened to them?

I don't know what happened to the cameras but I drank the alcohol.

:-)

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Thanks for admiting it, I was expecting jonas to blame me ;-)

I'm waiting for thos lithuim-air batteries to take off well they'll be light with all that air in them.


Reminds me of a guy who, in the days long past when Christchurch was
debating the construction of a road tunnel through the hills to
connect the city to the port of Lyttleton, wanted to supply people
with pedal-powered hydrogen balloons to go over the top of the hills.
He had a solution to the problem that these balloons would have
considerable air drag as a result of their size. He wanted to use
compressed hydrogen to reduce the size of the balloons to that of a
back pack.

Didn't he realize that people had to be really careful with hydrogen. It
can easliy combine with Oxygen to form dihydrogen monoxide. A chemical
substance that has killed, probably hundreds of thousands of people.
Indeed Aliso Viejo, a suberb in Orange County CA, was seriously
considering a ban on its use in cleaning fluids, based on its danger to
human life.

Members of various New Zealand governments have bitten hard on the
bait of dihydrogen monoxide under several different of its various
possible names. See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0110/S00444.htm
for example.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014.05.19, 17:41 , RichA wrote:

Still fifty TIMES less efficient by weight than gasoline and FAR more
expensive, if they are considering putting it in cars.

Gasoline can only be burned once.

Operating an electric car from mains, in Quebec, is 1/5 - 1/3 the cost
for energy v. gasoline. (That accounts for charge/discharge
inefficiencies and electric motor inefficiencies).

Recently we are paying about $1.40 - 1.45 per litre for regular so the
figures above are very conservative - they come from a time when
gasoline was around $1.25 - $1.30.

Electricity, meanwhile, goes up about 5% every 3 years or so (though we
did see a higher "adjustment" recently). On the basic home rate we're
at $0.0541 / kWh for the 1st 30 kWh / day; thence $0.0778 / kWh. There
was a ~4.3% bump beginning in April to those rates.

A huge breakthrough in nano carbon structures for energy storage is
forecast. If that comes through, then the energy densities will go up
tremendously while the charge time comes down at the same time.

--
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

On 2014.05.19, 17:03 , Eric Stevens wrote:
http://powerjapanplus.com/about/news.html

"Power Japan Plus Reveals New Ryden Dual Carbon Battery"

New battery design balances the need for cost competitive energy
storage that is energy dense, reliable, safe and sustainable"

When I see that old "balances" claim I want to see a detailed
specification, trade space chart and use experience before buying into it.

--
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

On Wed, 21 May 2014 17:23:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.05.19, 17:41 , RichA wrote:

Still fifty TIMES less efficient by weight than gasoline and FAR more
expensive, if they are considering putting it in cars.

Gasoline can only be burned once.

Operating an electric car from mains, in Quebec, is 1/5 - 1/3 the cost
for energy v. gasoline. (That accounts for charge/discharge
inefficiencies and electric motor inefficiencies).

Wait until tghey start taxing electricity for motor vehicles. It will
come.

Recently we are paying about $1.40 - 1.45 per litre for regular so the
figures above are very conservative - they come from a time when
gasoline was around $1.25 - $1.30.

Electricity, meanwhile, goes up about 5% every 3 years or so (though we
did see a higher "adjustment" recently). On the basic home rate we're
at $0.0541 / kWh for the 1st 30 kWh / day; thence $0.0778 / kWh. There
was a ~4.3% bump beginning in April to those rates.

A huge breakthrough in nano carbon structures for energy storage is
forecast. If that comes through, then the energy densities will go up
tremendously while the charge time comes down at the same time.

Electricity usage will go up (so too do the emissions) and taxes will
come.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014.05.21, 18:33 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 17:23:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.05.19, 17:41 , RichA wrote:

Still fifty TIMES less efficient by weight than gasoline and FAR more
expensive, if they are considering putting it in cars.

Gasoline can only be burned once.

Operating an electric car from mains, in Quebec, is 1/5 - 1/3 the cost
for energy v. gasoline. (That accounts for charge/discharge
inefficiencies and electric motor inefficiencies).

Wait until tghey start taxing electricity for motor vehicles. It will
come.

Probably - since that revenue would go towards roads/highways, etc.
Still, the base will be cheaper and far cleaner - at least in Quebec.


Recently we are paying about $1.40 - 1.45 per litre for regular so the
figures above are very conservative - they come from a time when
gasoline was around $1.25 - $1.30.

Electricity, meanwhile, goes up about 5% every 3 years or so (though we
did see a higher "adjustment" recently). On the basic home rate we're
at $0.0541 / kWh for the 1st 30 kWh / day; thence $0.0778 / kWh. There
was a ~4.3% bump beginning in April to those rates.

A huge breakthrough in nano carbon structures for energy storage is
forecast. If that comes through, then the energy densities will go up
tremendously while the charge time comes down at the same time.

Electricity usage will go up (so too do the emissions) and taxes will
come.

Quebec is a bit unique in terms of power source: nearly 100% hydro-power
(wind is a growing slice). And a very profitable chunk of that is
exported to NY, VT, ME, MA, NB and some to ON. Very little in the way
of emissions.

Renewable: 35 GW (Hydro) + 5.5 GW (Hydro) in Labrador + 1.4 GW wind +
other (1.2 GW).

Thermal: 0.7 GW.

So the thermal "slice" is tiny and dormant most of the year and active
from about Jan - Mar depending on weather. That's also the period where
HQ imports thermal power from NY and mixed power from Ontario (the
later, up to 1.2 GW) has helped reduce thermal imports from NY and helps
Ontario get rid of its excess winter wind power. (In the summer, that
line runs the other way with Quebec helping s/w Ontario in the hot summer).

Quebec's "heritage" pool of power is also subject to rate caps. Covers
about 165 TWh/year.

Quebec also has exploitable natural gas (fracking) currently under
moratorium (some small exceptions) and some offshore oil as well. One day.

--
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.