A paradigm shift is under way

[polarbear]

The Porche 918 costs nearly a million bucks, seats only two, and is slower to the legal limit than is the P100D Tesla. Overall, the Tesla is a better car, and will be running long after the Porche is scrap metal in a junk yard.

That`s because it`s a Porsche not because it uses the "joint strike force" engineering concept. The much cheaper VW hybrids use the same system. I picked this video because it`s a lot easier to find one for super cars being pushed to the limit by a well known race car driver than for a touring/family sedan.
And that`s what matters, the limits be that airplanes motorcycles or cars. Way below the limit it won`t matter if its a quality product or a lemon. Unfortunately there are a lot of lemons because many brands aim for the slice of the market which has no clue what`s what on the drive train & engine. They fall for accessories like rear view video cams, self activating brakes in case the driver is too busy checking her mascara, self parking for people that should not even qualify for a drivers license and most importantly a GPS that knows all the drive throughs for food coffee and beauty parlors. And cars like the Prius are smack in the middle of this category.
No way would a guy who knows what`s what on a car buy a lemon like that.
Don`t forget with the exception of super cars like the McLaren, Porsche etc hybrid or all electric cars exist only because of government red tape. These governments won`t admit openly that they intend to shut down the production of internal combustion engine powered cars and force you to buy only what they allow you to have.
Their strategy is to slowly poison free enterprise at a pace that conceals the act of industrial sabotage while pretending to have a strategy for innovation....innovation limited of course by the bureaucrats to matters that serve their political agenda.
Yes there is a paradigm shift and it is political. Not just in the US but also in Europe. Brexit is just the tip of the ice berg in a swamp that is being drained

 

[80zephyr]

If we could convert every car in America to electric today, what would be the effect on our CO2 output?

A reduction of 6.4%

There is no magic bullet. Probably never will be.

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

Car Emissions & Global Warming
Transportation is one of the largest sources of US global warming emissions.
UCS
Our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

In total, the US transportation sector—which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and freight—produces nearly thirty percent of all US global warming emissions, more than almost any other sector.
***

Overview of Greenhouse Gases and Sources of Emissions.
Key findings from the 1990–2014 U.S. Inventory include:
In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
U.S. emissions increased by 1 percent from 2013 to 2014.
- Feb 23, 2017
(U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014)

So what is my denial, exactly? Most electricity(65%) is produced from fossil fuels. Using coal or natural gas to produce the electricity to power an electric car helps us how, exactly?

Your link says nothing about how an electric car stacks up against a gas powered car.

My statement stands. Sorry.

Mark

Really?

All-Electric Vehicles

• Energy efficient. EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

Studies show what studies show. Reality is what it is.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Anybody who thinks we can control the climate has got a screw loose.........

Anyone who moronically imagines that human activities are not profoundly affecting the Earth's climate has all of their screws loose.

Glaciers expand and contract. Why is it that when 8 American planes landed on Iceland during WWII, that they had to dig down 260 feet to recover them 46 years later?

Mark








If only there were empirical evidence to show it. Wow. What a concept. "Belief" vs fact. Religion vs science. Your post shows the religious nature of climate alarmism better than anything I could have ever posted. Thank you.

Oh my, here we go again, flap yap ignoramus using the words 'empirical evidence' as if the fool actually knows what that means.

The alpine glacial retreat worldwide is well recorded.

USGS Glacier Studies: Regional Effects

Sperry Glacier extent in 1913

Sperry Glacier extent in 2008

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park

In Glacier National Park (GNP) some effects of climate change are strikingly clear. Glacier recession is underway, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, around the end of the Little Ice Age. Most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, measurements of glacier area indicate that there were 25 remaining glaciers larger than 25 acres. There is evidence of worldwide glacial glacier recession (1,2) and varied model projections suggest that certain studied GNP glaciers will disappear between 2030 (3) to 2080 (4). USGS scientists in Glacier National Park are incorporating standardized methods and emerging technologies to understand glacier-climate interactions to advance the understanding of alpine glaciers and to provide a scientific foundation for land managers.

Citations: (1) Oerlemans, 1994, Science | (2) Roe et al., 2016, Nature Geoscience | (3) Hall and Fagre, 2003, Bioscience | (4) Brown et al., 2010, Global and Plan

Global glacier retreat

 

[80zephyr]

If we could convert every car in America to electric today, what would be the effect on our CO2 output?

A reduction of 6.4%

There is no magic bullet. Probably never will be.

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

Car Emissions & Global Warming
Transportation is one of the largest sources of US global warming emissions.
UCS
Our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

In total, the US transportation sector—which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and freight—produces nearly thirty percent of all US global warming emissions, more than almost any other sector.
***

Overview of Greenhouse Gases and Sources of Emissions.
Key findings from the 1990–2014 U.S. Inventory include:
In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
U.S. emissions increased by 1 percent from 2013 to 2014.
- Feb 23, 2017
(U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014)

So what is my denial, exactly? Most electricity(65%) is produced from fossil fuels. Using coal or natural gas to produce the electricity to power an electric car helps us how, exactly?

Your link says nothing about how an electric car stacks up against a gas powered car.

My statement stands. Sorry.

Mark

Really?

All-Electric Vehicles

• Energy efficient. EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

What we need from you is to prove what we say is incorrect. I posted a link. Your turn.

Mark

 

[polarbear]

If we could convert every car in America to electric today, what would be the effect on our CO2 output?

A reduction of 6.4%

There is no magic bullet. Probably never will be.

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

Car Emissions & Global Warming
Transportation is one of the largest sources of US global warming emissions.
UCS
Our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

In total, the US transportation sector—which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and freight—produces nearly thirty percent of all US global warming emissions, more than almost any other sector.
***

Overview of Greenhouse Gases and Sources of Emissions.
Key findings from the 1990–2014 U.S. Inventory include:
In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
U.S. emissions increased by 1 percent from 2013 to 2014.
- Feb 23, 2017
(U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014)

So what is my denial, exactly? Most electricity(65%) is produced from fossil fuels. Using coal or natural gas to produce the electricity to power an electric car helps us how, exactly?

Your link says nothing about how an electric car stacks up against a gas powered car.

My statement stands. Sorry.

Mark

Really?

All-Electric Vehicles

• Energy efficient. EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

Who cares how many % of the next to nothing power of an EV gets to the wheels.
A tank of hydrocarbon fuel has way more power for way more time than you could stay alert behind the wheel ( example long haul trucks) and is way cheaper than the EV way of doing the same thing. It is idiotic to undermine an entire industry and the existing infra structure with regulations forcing people into EVs that need an infrastructure to make it practical but does not even exist.
You might as well do away with Jet transport planes because they are not as "efficient" as helium balloons and throw the maritime shipping industry back into medieval times forcing them to use more "fuel efficient" sail ships

 

[bripat9643]

If we could convert every car in America to electric today, what would be the effect on our CO2 output?

A reduction of 6.4%

There is no magic bullet. Probably never will be.

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

Car Emissions & Global Warming
Transportation is one of the largest sources of US global warming emissions.
UCS
Our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

In total, the US transportation sector—which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and freight—produces nearly thirty percent of all US global warming emissions, more than almost any other sector.
***

Overview of Greenhouse Gases and Sources of Emissions.
Key findings from the 1990–2014 U.S. Inventory include:
In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
U.S. emissions increased by 1 percent from 2013 to 2014.
- Feb 23, 2017
(U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014)

So what is my denial, exactly? Most electricity(65%) is produced from fossil fuels. Using coal or natural gas to produce the electricity to power an electric car helps us how, exactly?

Your link says nothing about how an electric car stacks up against a gas powered car.

My statement stands. Sorry.

Mark

Really?

All-Electric Vehicles

• Energy efficient. EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

Who cares how many % of the next to nothing power of an EV gets to the wheels.
A tank of hydrocarbon fuel has way more power for way more time than you could stay alert behind the wheel ( example long haul trucks) and is way cheaper than the EV way of doing the same thing. It is idiotic to undermine an entire industry and the existing infra structure with regulations forcing people into EVs that need an infrastructure to make it practical but does not even exist.
You might as well do away with Jet transport planes because they are not as "efficient" as helium balloons and throw the maritime shipping industry back into medieval times forcing them to use more "fuel efficient" sail ships

Don't worry. Trump put an end to Obama's "clean power plan." We are spared that for at least another 8 years.

 

[polarbear]

@ OldRocks having different opinions is okay by me and if you are interested in making a no nonsense wind turbine power system for your residence then make the blades the same way I did.
They are strong enough so that it is not even necessary to trim the blade tips. If you leave the entire fan-out you get so much torque in a 10 kmh wind that you can not prevent the driveshaft from turning with a 2 foot pipe wrench!!!
(Be aware of that when you install the prop and a breeze is blowing...make sure you lock the prop with a tow rope or a chain)
And the WindBlue PMA is the best choice. No cogging (!!) from a dead start when there was no wind for a short time....+ the option to stay with 3 phase ac from the mast down and then rectify to DC...= less power loss due to wire length and you can push way more amps using a forced air cooled rectifier pack close to the battery bank. Use deep cycle marine batteries and connect them to the inverter with a solid copper power bus.
About the cogging. That is a real problem with some generators especially when your battery bank is depleted and it draws all the amps it can get....and the damn thing will not turn till the wind speed is way past the speed where a non cogging unit would have produced power all the while.
No such problem with the WindBlue
I know you can weld so it would be an easy project for you and you will regret why you waited so long to build it once you see it in operation

 

[polarbear]

If we could convert every car in America to electric today, what would be the effect on our CO2 output?

A reduction of 6.4%

There is no magic bullet. Probably never will be.

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

Car Emissions & Global Warming
Transportation is one of the largest sources of US global warming emissions.
UCS
Our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

In total, the US transportation sector—which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and freight—produces nearly thirty percent of all US global warming emissions, more than almost any other sector.
***

Overview of Greenhouse Gases and Sources of Emissions.
Key findings from the 1990–2014 U.S. Inventory include:
In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
U.S. emissions increased by 1 percent from 2013 to 2014.
- Feb 23, 2017
(U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014)

So what is my denial, exactly? Most electricity(65%) is produced from fossil fuels. Using coal or natural gas to produce the electricity to power an electric car helps us how, exactly?

Your link says nothing about how an electric car stacks up against a gas powered car.

My statement stands. Sorry.

Mark

Really?

All-Electric Vehicles

• Energy efficient. EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

Who cares how many % of the next to nothing power of an EV gets to the wheels.
A tank of hydrocarbon fuel has way more power for way more time than you could stay alert behind the wheel ( example long haul trucks) and is way cheaper than the EV way of doing the same thing. It is idiotic to undermine an entire industry and the existing infra structure with regulations forcing people into EVs that need an infrastructure to make it practical but does not even exist.
You might as well do away with Jet transport planes because they are not as "efficient" as helium balloons and throw the maritime shipping industry back into medieval times forcing them to use more "fuel efficient" sail ships

Don't worry. Trump put an end to Obama's "clean power plan." We are spared that for at least another 8 years.

Nah I`m not worried just annoyed and I hope it`s 8 years, not just 4.
The part that annoys me the most is when Gov officials take credit for the innovations people have to come up with to comply with regulations that are designed to disallow the things we explored and have every right to use as we see fit. They deserve the credit for it as much as a jail warden does for the zip guns and other weapons and seemingly impossible prison escapes crafty inmates came up with in prison.
People came up with a lot of ingenious ideas during the prohibition years as well and no politician took the credit for any of that stuff...as Dems do now for the technology we were forced to resort to during the CO2 prohibition era.

 

[bripat9643]

If we could convert every car in America to electric today, what would be the effect on our CO2 output?

A reduction of 6.4%

There is no magic bullet. Probably never will be.

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

Car Emissions & Global Warming
Transportation is one of the largest sources of US global warming emissions.
UCS
Our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

In total, the US transportation sector—which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and freight—produces nearly thirty percent of all US global warming emissions, more than almost any other sector.
***

Overview of Greenhouse Gases and Sources of Emissions.
Key findings from the 1990–2014 U.S. Inventory include:
In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
U.S. emissions increased by 1 percent from 2013 to 2014.
- Feb 23, 2017
(U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014)

So what is my denial, exactly? Most electricity(65%) is produced from fossil fuels. Using coal or natural gas to produce the electricity to power an electric car helps us how, exactly?

Your link says nothing about how an electric car stacks up against a gas powered car.

My statement stands. Sorry.

Mark

Really?

All-Electric Vehicles

• Energy efficient. EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

 

[RollingThunder]

A tank of hydrocarbon fuel has way more power for way more time than you could stay alert behind the wheel ( example long haul trucks) and is way cheaper than the EV way of doing the same thing. It is idiotic to undermine an entire industry and the existing infra structure with regulations forcing people into EVs that need an infrastructure to make it practical but does not even exist.

And the denier cult moron, ol' poop4brains, once again lies through his teeth.

The new batteries discussed in the OP.....besides being solid-state, non-flammable or explosive, not requiring rare and expensive materials, like Lithium, much longer lasting (more charge cycles), and significantly cheaper to manufacture.....have three times the energy density of the current lithium-ion batteries, which can now take a Tesla about 300 miles.....so the range on a single charge with the new batteries will be close to three times as far.....which is much farther than a full tank of gasoline can take the same sized gas-guzzler car.

Electric motors are way more efficient at converting the energy used into forward motion and the cost per miles is less with electric than gas, even at today's utility rates and gas prices......gas prices will keep rising and electric rates will decline as more and more renewable solar and wind energy gets integrated into the grid.........and electricity is fast becoming something people can make for themselves with solar and wind energy and battery storage systems......greatly lowering the cost per mile to drive compared to the constant never ending drain of refilling a gas tank.

 

[Darkwind]

Lithium-Ion Battery Inventor Introduces New Technology for Fast-Charging, Noncombustible Batteries

AUSTIN, Texas — A team of engineers led by 94-year-old John Goodenough, professor in the Cockrell School of Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and co-inventor of the lithium-ion battery, has developed the first all-solid-state battery cells that could lead to safer, faster-charging, longer-lasting rechargeable batteries for handheld mobile devices, electric cars and stationary energy storage.

Goodenough’s latest breakthrough, completed with Cockrell School senior research fellow Maria Helena Braga, is a low-cost all-solid-state battery that is noncombustible and has a long cycle life (battery life) with a high volumetric energy density and fast rates of charge and discharge. The engineers describe their new technology in a recent paper published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.

“Cost, safety, energy density, rates of charge and discharge and cycle life are critical for battery-driven cars to be more widely adopted. We believe our discovery solves many of the problems that are inherent in today’s batteries,” Goodenough said.

The researchers demonstrated that their new battery cells have at least three times as much energy density as today’s lithium-ion batteries. A battery cell’s energy density gives an electric vehicle its driving range, so a higher energy density means that a car can drive more miles between charges. The UT Austin battery formulation also allows for a greater number of charging and discharging cycles, which equates to longer-lasting batteries, as well as a faster rate of recharge (minutes rather than hours).


All of that, and low cost. If this can be mass manufactured, the ICE is dead.



Germany and Norway leading the way.

Now you add what Tesla is doing with home solar and energy storage, and we are going to see a paradigm shift in how we generate and distribute electricity in the 21st Century.

Looks promising. The prediction of the death of the ICE is premature.

I hope this pans out. I would love a battery that will allow Me to go off the grid.

 

[bripat9643]

Lithium-Ion Battery Inventor Introduces New Technology for Fast-Charging, Noncombustible Batteries

AUSTIN, Texas — A team of engineers led by 94-year-old John Goodenough, professor in the Cockrell School of Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and co-inventor of the lithium-ion battery, has developed the first all-solid-state battery cells that could lead to safer, faster-charging, longer-lasting rechargeable batteries for handheld mobile devices, electric cars and stationary energy storage.

Goodenough’s latest breakthrough, completed with Cockrell School senior research fellow Maria Helena Braga, is a low-cost all-solid-state battery that is noncombustible and has a long cycle life (battery life) with a high volumetric energy density and fast rates of charge and discharge. The engineers describe their new technology in a recent paper published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.

“Cost, safety, energy density, rates of charge and discharge and cycle life are critical for battery-driven cars to be more widely adopted. We believe our discovery solves many of the problems that are inherent in today’s batteries,” Goodenough said.

The researchers demonstrated that their new battery cells have at least three times as much energy density as today’s lithium-ion batteries. A battery cell’s energy density gives an electric vehicle its driving range, so a higher energy density means that a car can drive more miles between charges. The UT Austin battery formulation also allows for a greater number of charging and discharging cycles, which equates to longer-lasting batteries, as well as a faster rate of recharge (minutes rather than hours).


All of that, and low cost. If this can be mass manufactured, the ICE is dead.



Germany and Norway leading the way.

Now you add what Tesla is doing with home solar and energy storage, and we are going to see a paradigm shift in how we generate and distribute electricity in the 21st Century.

Looks promising. The prediction of the death of the ICE is premature.

I hope this pans out. I would love a battery that will allow Me to go off the grid.

There's no such battery, and there never will be.

 

[Darkwind]

Lithium-Ion Battery Inventor Introduces New Technology for Fast-Charging, Noncombustible Batteries

AUSTIN, Texas — A team of engineers led by 94-year-old John Goodenough, professor in the Cockrell School of Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and co-inventor of the lithium-ion battery, has developed the first all-solid-state battery cells that could lead to safer, faster-charging, longer-lasting rechargeable batteries for handheld mobile devices, electric cars and stationary energy storage.

Goodenough’s latest breakthrough, completed with Cockrell School senior research fellow Maria Helena Braga, is a low-cost all-solid-state battery that is noncombustible and has a long cycle life (battery life) with a high volumetric energy density and fast rates of charge and discharge. The engineers describe their new technology in a recent paper published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.

“Cost, safety, energy density, rates of charge and discharge and cycle life are critical for battery-driven cars to be more widely adopted. We believe our discovery solves many of the problems that are inherent in today’s batteries,” Goodenough said.

The researchers demonstrated that their new battery cells have at least three times as much energy density as today’s lithium-ion batteries. A battery cell’s energy density gives an electric vehicle its driving range, so a higher energy density means that a car can drive more miles between charges. The UT Austin battery formulation also allows for a greater number of charging and discharging cycles, which equates to longer-lasting batteries, as well as a faster rate of recharge (minutes rather than hours).


All of that, and low cost. If this can be mass manufactured, the ICE is dead.



Germany and Norway leading the way.

Now you add what Tesla is doing with home solar and energy storage, and we are going to see a paradigm shift in how we generate and distribute electricity in the 21st Century.

Looks promising. The prediction of the death of the ICE is premature.

I hope this pans out. I would love a battery that will allow Me to go off the grid.

There's no such battery, and there never will be.

Not what I am discussing. Never is a very long time and not something I'm willing to subscribe to.

I have absolutely no problem if we can develop a battery that will take us off petroleum as a means of transportation and as a means of harnessing energy such as solar for our own personal use.

I am into hydroponic gardening and that requires a significant amount of power. Power that I would rather not have to pay for. The same with much of My house, though I live in a bad part of the country to actually think that I can go solar and off the grid. However, I am not locked to this location either.

So, I'm always rooting for something to come along to accomplish this. I don't do it out of some misguided notion of global warming, but because I like the idea of renewable energy that is sustainable.

Are we there yet? No.

Will we be? Yes.

So I say this looks promising. Even if it pans out as well as they say, it will be decades before the ICE is done away with. I'll be dead and won't care anymore.

 

[RollingThunder]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

 

[Darkwind]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

You clowns always leave that part off.

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anybody who thinks we can control the climate has got a screw loose.........

Anyone who moronically imagines that human activities are not profoundly affecting the Earth's climate has all of their screws loose.

If only there were empirical evidence to show it. Wow. What a concept. "Belief" vs fact. Religion vs science. Your post shows the religious nature of climate alarmism better than anything I could have ever posted. Thank you.

Oh my, here we go again, flap yap ignoramus using the words 'empirical evidence' as if the fool actually knows what that means.

The alpine glacial retreat worldwide is well recorded.

USGS Glacier Studies: Regional Effects

Sperry Glacier extent in 1913

Sperry Glacier extent in 2008

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park

In Glacier National Park (GNP) some effects of climate change are strikingly clear. Glacier recession is underway, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, around the end of the Little Ice Age. Most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, measurements of glacier area indicate that there were 25 remaining glaciers larger than 25 acres. There is evidence of worldwide glacial glacier recession (1,2) and varied model projections suggest that certain studied GNP glaciers will disappear between 2030 (3) to 2080 (4). USGS scientists in Glacier National Park are incorporating standardized methods and emerging technologies to understand glacier-climate interactions to advance the understanding of alpine glaciers and to provide a scientific foundation for land managers.

Citations: (1) Oerlemans, 1994, Science | (2) Roe et al., 2016, Nature Geoscience | (3) Hall and Fagre, 2003, Bioscience | (4) Brown et al., 2010, Global and Plan

Global glacier retreat

Indeed it is. Even your dear wiki knows that the vast majority of the melting occurred before man could have ever had an influence on the retreat. But that's a fact and we all know you religious nut jobs don't do facts.

Twentieth century climate change: Evidence from small glaciers

1. Mark B. Dyurgerov*† and
2. Mark F. Meier*‡

Abstract
The relation between changes in modern glaciers, not including the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, and their climatic environment is investigated to shed light on paleoglacier evidence of past climate change and for projecting the effects of future climate warming on cold regions of the world. Loss of glacier volume has been more or less continuous since the 19th century, but it is not a simple adjustment to the end of an “anomalous” Little Ice Age. We address the 1961–1997 period, which provides the most observational data on volume changes. These data show trends that are highly variable with time as well as within and between regions; trends in the Arctic are consistent with global averages but are quantitatively smaller. The averaged annual volume loss is 147 mm⋅yr−1 in water equivalent, totaling 3.7 × 103 km3 over 37 yr. The time series shows a shift during the mid-1970s, followed by more rapid loss of ice volume and further acceleration in the last decade; this is consistent with climatologic data. Perhaps most significant is an increase in annual accumulation along with an increase in melting; these produce a marked increase in the annual turnover or amplitude. The rise in air temperature suggested by the temperature sensitivities of glaciers in cold regions is somewhat greater than the global average temperature rise derived largely from low altitude gauges, and the warming is accelerating.

Twentieth century climate change: Evidence from small glaciers

The full article is available at no cost at that site.

 

[Old Rocks]

And the whole time the fruit loops are telling you how solar and wind do not work, the utilities are installing it by the giga-watt. And not building anymore coal fired plants. Who's not winning? LOL

 

[RollingThunder]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...

Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.

You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?

Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).

However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.

Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”

The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”

...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.

It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.

But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(source)

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?

In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.

Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.


(source)

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly know "ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.

As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.

 

[bripat9643]

And the whole time the fruit loops are telling you how solar and wind do not work, the utilities are installing it by the giga-watt. And not building anymore coal fired plants. Who's not winning? LOL

They're installing it because

#1) they are often mandated to do so by state governments.

#2) They receive massive government subsidies for doing so.

Otherwise, they wouldn't. It only increases to the cost of power to their customers.

 

[SSDD]

The OP is just more bullshit...here is a study of the studies that have claimed that renewables are viable by people who actually believe humans are causing climate change...they find no credibility in the claims that renewables will ever amount to anything more than a hobby.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/S1364032117304495

“While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible. Of the studies published to date, 24 have forecast regional, national or global energy requirements at sufficient detail to be considered potentially credible. We critically review these studies using four novel feasibility criteria for reliable electricity systems needed to meet electricity demand this century. [N]one of the 24 studies provides convincing evidence that these basic feasibility criteria can be met. Of a maximum possible unweighted feasibility score of seven, the highest score for any one study was four. … On the basis of this review, efforts to date seem to have substantially underestimated the challenge and delayed the identification and implementation of effective and comprehensive decarbonization pathways.”

“Our review of the 100%-renewable-scenario literature raises substantial concerns. The widespread assumptions of deep cuts in primary energy consumption defy historical experience, are generally inconsistent with realistic projections, and would likely raise problems for developing countries in meeting goals of poverty alleviation.”

“The remaining feasibility gaps lie in the largely ignored, yet essential requirements for expanded transmission and enhanced distribution systems, both to transport electricity from more sources over greater distances, and to maintain stable system operations. Fürsch et al. suggested that a cost-optimized transmission network to meet a target of 80% renewables in Europe by 2050 would demand an additional 228,000 km of transmission grid extensions, a +76% addition compared to the base network. … Rodríguez et al. [83] concluded that to obtain 98% of the potential benefit of grid integration for renewables would require long-distance interconnector capacities that are 5.7 times larger than current capacities. Becker et al. found that an optimal four-fold increase in today’s transmission capacity would need to be installed in the thirty years from 2020 to 2050. An expansion of that scale is no mere detail to be ignored.”