This is all very encouraging and in particular batteries role in solar
Two interesting data points to that end
1) The "duck curve" for CA is almost neutral - eg the timing imbalance between peak demand and solar power generation - battery utilization is the most straightforward solution here
- https://twitter.com/baker_edmund/status/1750644294673748366
2) There has been a massive decline in rooftop solar applications in CA since solar energy reimbursements dropped - https://twitter.com/thomasopeters/status/1750920941868347539 - some of that is potentially pent up demand, but I think illustrates the role state policy has to play in moving towards "renewables"
Yesterday we peaked out at 3GW discharging rate, and 4GW charging rate. We are plowing ahead in the transition to utilizing all of our excess solar! We peak at 25GW expected today, so we have a little ways to go but it's incredible how far and how fast they're replacing everything. Clean air FTW! Thanks sun!
Given the dramatically lower costs of utility-scale solar vs. residential rooftop solar, is it not better at a society level for state policy to incentivize utility over residential solar? Utility-scale battery installations likewise should be much cheaper.
State policy is fundamental to the entire green revolution. None of it would have been possible without nations incentivizing it. Eventually once the entire energy generation/consumption cycle is entrenched and we are all dependent on it, they can safely take away the incentives.
It's a bit like changing the tires on a moving bus. Somebody had to pay for the new tires and wheels, and the support truck to run along side the bus, and the extra fuel, and a discount for the new tires, etc. Once the new tires are on the bus can keep driving without support.
That duck curve tweet is disingenuous. That curve in the tweet is for the lowest net load day (net load is actual load or usage minus generation from renewables). In 2023, if you took the day that had the least amount of net load, yes, it was almost entirely covered by solar power. That does _not_ mean the claim made in the tweet that California is run totally by solar power from 10am-4pm every day (today at 11:56 AM PST, it's about 51% run by solar power). California's grid has enough good things going for it that we don't need to lie about it.
Regarding price, leading manufacturers are already selling at a price below what was always understood as the point where EVs win in terms of economics:
If ubiquitous and cheap charging infrastructure is not being priced in, which is still a blocker for many.
For example, I cannot reasonably run lengths of 110v extension cords down the block to charge a car overnight, and acquiring my own house with a garage is dramatically more expensive than any fuel savings. :p
This is a great set of charts and analysis, although I have two problems with it.
1. On the chart of energy density, I'd like to see the the energy density of petrol for comparison. It's much higher, and even though extrapolation is dangerous, I'd like to see how long it could take to reach parity given some of the different forecasting models they mention. Specifically regarding their mention of air travel, I'd like to know what the minimum viable energy density would be for a vessel's fuel source, because my current understanding is that commercial air travel powered by electricity is not feasible.
2. They mention S-curve adoption, but that reaches a horizontal asymptote eventually, it doesn't go up forever. I'd like to see more analysis on where we think we're at on the S-curve, and why. I'd like to see a guess on where it levels out displayed on that chart, instead of the arrow simply pointing at the sky. If nothing else, show where the chemical limit might be based on current battery technology.
I want to displace fossil fuels and reduce pollution and slow the greenhouse effect as much as possible. I think transparency and realistic expectations need to be part of the transition. The more information available to markets, the more efficiently they can work towards the goal. I find it very difficult to get answers to these types of questions when discussing renewable energy generation and storage. I'm sure part of it is my own ignorance on where to look, which is why I ask: especially here, hopefully an expert can see this and quickly point me in the right direction.
> I'd like to see the the energy density of petrol for comparison.
Petrol's higher energy density doesn't matter as much as people think.
Electric vehicles are around four times as efficient as petrol. In a petrol car, only 20% of the energy is converted to motion. In electric cars, this is around 80% (with some variation dependent on regenerative braking). I wrote about this extensively in a previous article: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-en...
The mention of air travel was strange. I wasn't aware of anyone who thought long range flight would ever be electrified. At least not without some fundamental breakthrough.
S-curves are hard to predict. Basically every time someone attempts to do it, they are way off. This [0] is a neat paper that addresses the question. We've blown past every single prediction.
I'm a little surprised by that energy density chart. Who's selling batteries that carry 500 Wh/kg? Those are research prototype numbers; I think that Amprius and the gamma-sulfur people have hit (or passed) that mark. But cars and cellphones have been using the Ni-Mn-Al-Co oxide family of cathodes for a decade. The recent large-scale development has been bringing on LiFePO4 which actually accepts a lower density in exchange for lower cost and longer life.
That doesn't discredit the predictions, but I don't think that the connection they're trying to draw between energy density and market demand really holds water. The development of higher density batteries is good for certain applications like that ground-effect electric seaplane, but it isn't necessary for cars or grid storage, where the first case is mostly viable already and the second is concerned with the cost outlook and the self-discharge rate.
I think Amprius are further along than you might think, ready to scale commercial production, not research prototype. Super neat factory tour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Hd4HfH1ss
There are a few go-kart places here, I hadn't been there for a few years, and now I learned that they all switched to electrical. Much quieter, no fumes, works great indoors
This is why I say electricity revolution is coming and a lot people and countries are going to be shell shocked by it. Solar and wind electricity costs are also decreasing at a similar rate.
It’s already here, it’s been here for a decade, renewables are a mature industry. They’ve already effectively destroyed the economics of coal, and natural gas is next.
Chart #2: Top Tier Energy Battery Density vs. Battery Cost.
That seems like an odd comparison to me. Is it normal to compare the Top Tier Anything to the Average of another thing?
Top Tier Car 0-60 Times vs Average Car Costs? IDK, it doesn't seem to contain any REAL information. Shouldn't the comparison be the costs of the SAME cars and not include cars that aren't top tier?
Stationary systems for grid scale storage have amazing options - e.g. Form Energy - that needn't rely on power density benefits of Lithium chemistries. I wouldn't be surprised to see this sector dominate the GWh/yr chart in the next 6 years.
Take 25% of the money spend on EV batteries and instead spend it on domestic solar panels. I cannot stand the smugness of people who will pay $$,$$$ for a car but won't spend $,$$$ on the thing to make power for that car. Even batteries. The net carbon saved by in-home battery+solar is far more than putting batteries in the family car. The car runs a few hours a day. A total off-grid solar+batteries domestic system saves carbon 27/7.
In other words, (Honda civic IC + home solar/batteries) saves more carbon than a Tesla with no actual power generation capacity. But that just isn't fashionable.
It'll probably be a while before you see them widely available, much less in small consumer devices. eVTOL and other battery aircraft can't really work without this level of density so I imagine they'll consume all available supply (at premium prices) for a while.
Batteries are great, but some of those charts look off.
Where are they getting batteries that are 500Wh/kg for commercial applications? Even state of the art NMC cells in the 21700 and 46800 form factors barely scrape at 300Wh/kg, and everything else (LFP) is significantly below that number.
For real. I’m trying to diy a battery now with 304ah lifepo4 cells and it works out to 125wh/kg. Doesn’t seem like even 300wh/kg will trickle down to the public anytime soon.
Also, battery-powered >=737-size passenger airplanes (also not so sure about trains and cargo ships) will need at least a revolution in battery technology - batteries won't do, they're just too heavy for the little energy they output:
I doubt there’s any reason why trains couldn’t run on batteries. Anything that either stops and then starts again before refueling, or goes down and then up again before refueling, should be compatible with batteries due to regenerative braking. Trains have both of those properties.
Planes have neither of those properties which is what makes them hard to run off batteries.
Cargo ships also wouldn’t seem to have a problem. My understanding is that the drag on a hull increases sub-linearly relative to displacement. So a 10% increase in displacement might only increase drag by 1%. So it’s unlikely the weight penalty of batteries would be prohibitive.
Given these trends, what is the predicted year that we'd expect the last fossil fuel burning power plant to be greenlit for construction in China, India, and the US?
Follow-up: At what point is continued operation of existing coal become uneconomical (to simplify the question assume decent solar generation locations are available/ grid connected nearby).
As a point of interest, for particular types of investors, underneath all the hoo-rah of the charts
How fast will batteries continue to grow and improve? The answer is a lot faster than today’s consensus view.
isn't exactly true in reality for the billion+ dollar end of the resources market who expected battery demand to be much much higher than it is, leading to temporary(?) setbacks such as:
What's behind the drastic downturn in nickel and lithium prices, and what does it mean?
You probably want kWh_e (electric) instead of kWh_t (thermal), and probably should include the weight of the engine/transmission. Diesel is better still, but not quite the same gap.
[+] [-] aresant|2 years ago|reply
Two interesting data points to that end
1) The "duck curve" for CA is almost neutral - eg the timing imbalance between peak demand and solar power generation - battery utilization is the most straightforward solution here - https://twitter.com/baker_edmund/status/1750644294673748366
2) There has been a massive decline in rooftop solar applications in CA since solar energy reimbursements dropped - https://twitter.com/thomasopeters/status/1750920941868347539 - some of that is potentially pent up demand, but I think illustrates the role state policy has to play in moving towards "renewables"
[+] [-] radium3d|2 years ago|reply
Yesterday we peaked out at 3GW discharging rate, and 4GW charging rate. We are plowing ahead in the transition to utilizing all of our excess solar! We peak at 25GW expected today, so we have a little ways to go but it's incredible how far and how fast they're replacing everything. Clean air FTW! Thanks sun!
[+] [-] LUmBULtERA|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xbadcafebee|2 years ago|reply
It's a bit like changing the tires on a moving bus. Somebody had to pay for the new tires and wheels, and the support truck to run along side the bus, and the extra fuel, and a discount for the new tires, etc. Once the new tires are on the bus can keep driving without support.
[+] [-] meandthewallaby|2 years ago|reply
You can look this up for yourself: https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso
[+] [-] bsder|2 years ago|reply
People also learned that the cheap Chinese solar cells die in 5-10 years and aren't worth installing unless your electricity costs are really high.
[+] [-] Tade0|2 years ago|reply
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/01/ev-lfp-battery-price-w...
The recent price war in China is a testament to that.
[+] [-] Terr_|2 years ago|reply
If ubiquitous and cheap charging infrastructure is not being priced in, which is still a blocker for many.
For example, I cannot reasonably run lengths of 110v extension cords down the block to charge a car overnight, and acquiring my own house with a garage is dramatically more expensive than any fuel savings. :p
[+] [-] sixstringtheory|2 years ago|reply
1. On the chart of energy density, I'd like to see the the energy density of petrol for comparison. It's much higher, and even though extrapolation is dangerous, I'd like to see how long it could take to reach parity given some of the different forecasting models they mention. Specifically regarding their mention of air travel, I'd like to know what the minimum viable energy density would be for a vessel's fuel source, because my current understanding is that commercial air travel powered by electricity is not feasible.
2. They mention S-curve adoption, but that reaches a horizontal asymptote eventually, it doesn't go up forever. I'd like to see more analysis on where we think we're at on the S-curve, and why. I'd like to see a guess on where it levels out displayed on that chart, instead of the arrow simply pointing at the sky. If nothing else, show where the chemical limit might be based on current battery technology.
I want to displace fossil fuels and reduce pollution and slow the greenhouse effect as much as possible. I think transparency and realistic expectations need to be part of the transition. The more information available to markets, the more efficiently they can work towards the goal. I find it very difficult to get answers to these types of questions when discussing renewable energy generation and storage. I'm sure part of it is my own ignorance on where to look, which is why I ask: especially here, hopefully an expert can see this and quickly point me in the right direction.
[+] [-] thelastgallon|2 years ago|reply
Petrol's higher energy density doesn't matter as much as people think.
Electric vehicles are around four times as efficient as petrol. In a petrol car, only 20% of the energy is converted to motion. In electric cars, this is around 80% (with some variation dependent on regenerative braking). I wrote about this extensively in a previous article: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-en...
[+] [-] Spinnaker_|2 years ago|reply
S-curves are hard to predict. Basically every time someone attempts to do it, they are way off. This [0] is a neat paper that addresses the question. We've blown past every single prediction.
[0] https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/energy_transition_paper-INET...
[+] [-] Phenomenit|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonebrunozzi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonymet|2 years ago|reply
Diesel 12.7 kWh/kg
[+] [-] malfist|2 years ago|reply
Once the oil is used it's gone. Batteries can be recharged
[+] [-] scythe|2 years ago|reply
That doesn't discredit the predictions, but I don't think that the connection they're trying to draw between energy density and market demand really holds water. The development of higher density batteries is good for certain applications like that ground-effect electric seaplane, but it isn't necessary for cars or grid storage, where the first case is mostly viable already and the second is concerned with the cost outlook and the self-discharge rate.
[+] [-] martythemaniak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kccqzy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inasio|2 years ago|reply
There are a few go-kart places here, I hadn't been there for a few years, and now I learned that they all switched to electrical. Much quieter, no fumes, works great indoors
[+] [-] xbmcuser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbgerring|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deadeye|2 years ago|reply
That seems like an odd comparison to me. Is it normal to compare the Top Tier Anything to the Average of another thing?
Top Tier Car 0-60 Times vs Average Car Costs? IDK, it doesn't seem to contain any REAL information. Shouldn't the comparison be the costs of the SAME cars and not include cars that aren't top tier?
What am I not getting?
[+] [-] simonebrunozzi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beambot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Anth-ny|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|2 years ago|reply
In other words, (Honda civic IC + home solar/batteries) saves more carbon than a Tesla with no actual power generation capacity. But that just isn't fashionable.
[+] [-] thelastgallon|2 years ago|reply
Electric vehicle battery prices are falling faster than expected: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38304405
[+] [-] letuv|2 years ago|reply
So far the best I found are around 250 Wh/kg (for the whole powerbank).
[+] [-] cperciva|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martythemaniak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antisthenes|2 years ago|reply
Where are they getting batteries that are 500Wh/kg for commercial applications? Even state of the art NMC cells in the 21700 and 46800 form factors barely scrape at 300Wh/kg, and everything else (LFP) is significantly below that number.
[+] [-] futevolei|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DrNosferatu|2 years ago|reply
Also, battery-powered >=737-size passenger airplanes (also not so sure about trains and cargo ships) will need at least a revolution in battery technology - batteries won't do, they're just too heavy for the little energy they output:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_energy_stora...
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|2 years ago|reply
Planes have neither of those properties which is what makes them hard to run off batteries.
Cargo ships also wouldn’t seem to have a problem. My understanding is that the drag on a hull increases sub-linearly relative to displacement. So a 10% increase in displacement might only increase drag by 1%. So it’s unlikely the weight penalty of batteries would be prohibitive.
[+] [-] zizee|2 years ago|reply
Follow-up: At what point is continued operation of existing coal become uneconomical (to simplify the question assume decent solar generation locations are available/ grid connected nearby).
[+] [-] cbmuser|2 years ago|reply
> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy
[+] [-] choeger|2 years ago|reply
And they think there'll be 800Wh/kg in 2030? Wasn't that well beyond what's needed for medium-range electric flight?
Is that even possible, chemically speaking?
[+] [-] cbmuser|2 years ago|reply
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
[+] [-] londons_explore|2 years ago|reply
Where can I learn more? Can I buy these 500Wh/kg batteries today?
[+] [-] iSnow|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defrost|2 years ago|reply
What's behind the drastic downturn in nickel and lithium prices, and what does it mean?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-26/examining-the-drastic...
TLDR: Despite high expectation demand didn't meet ramped up supply at the raw material end.
[+] [-] bejebus8|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DFHippie|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonymet|2 years ago|reply
Diesel 12.7 kWh/kg
[+] [-] chris_va|2 years ago|reply