|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 24, 2014 23:38:25 GMT 9.5
threshold dose used in the 1930s ... 2 mSv/day. Basically everywhere in the Ukraine [and Belarus?] is lower than that and thus habitable. However there are some ... Forest ...20 mSv/day So rangers - and poachers - who spend only 2.4 hours in forest areas of 20 mSv/day would thus be safe. Early after the evacuations from Fukushima, an area up to 20 mSv per year, not per day, was re-designated as safe to work in but not to reside, that is for only half a day at a time. When a similar area (of limit 20? mSv/a) was designated as safe for children to return to school but not reside, public outcry reversed the decision. The appropriate duration for a meaningful "accumulated dose" would seem to be a day, judging by radiologists' advice to radiotherapy patients. According to the Wikipedia entry on using radiation to kill cancers: "The total dose is fractionated (spread out over time) for several important reasons. Fractionation allows normal cells time to recover, while tumor cells are generally less efficient in repair between fractions." and "typical fractionation schedule for adults is 1.8 to 2 Gy per day, five days a week." As the dose is photons, that means 1800 to 2000 mSv each day in the locality of the tumour is needed to kill it, a thousand times the 1930's guideline. Considering that the daily dose to the tumour is in thousands of millisieverts while the surrounding tissue recovers each day from hundreds of mSv, it appears that a day is about the time it takes to repair even heavy radiation damage. However, replenishing the body's fighting reserves must take longer, as the same article indicates: "and you may need extra sleep or rest breaks over the next few days". We should be careful not to take this example too far. 1000 mSv in say a few minutes, once a day, isn't a chronic dose at all. The 2 mSv/day is for constant, chronic radiation. And 1000 mSv is also much larger in total dose, even if 1% ends up in healthy tissue you get 10 mSv/day which is well into the bad health effects area if chronic (primarily reduced life expectancy though oddly enough not much more due to cancer). The 2 mSv/day chronic radiation appears a fairly hard limit, insofar as that is possible with radiation effects on biology in current scientific understanding. For instance dogs irradiated continuously with 3 mSv/day showed a few percent reduction in life expectancy. That's a significant bad health effect. It's hard to use the prompt exposure of gamma ray treatment patients because most of them are old or have other illnesses and thus have reduced life expectancy. Definately if you recover from a fatal cancer, with or without radiation therapy, that is not something you shrug off with a single good night sleep!
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 24, 2014 23:26:14 GMT 9.5
I'm not failing to comprehend the urgency. My plan is to power countries with nuclear power like France has done. France has gotten to 80% nuclear power in just 15 years. That's much better than countries with renewables plans such as Germany who are failing utterly to power their country with wind and solar. In stead they guzzle just as much fossil fuel as they did before they threw a hundred billion to wind and solar.
Denmark - this is mostly powered by fossil fuels, and they can export power to Scandinavia and such, where reliable fos fossil and hydro plants are. That doesn't work when all of Europe is in the same boat - trying to power Europe with 80% wiind and solar is something entirely different than powering one of its tiniest members with a small fraction of power from wind.
"Yes, that's true. It looks that without an order of magnitude cost reductions we won't be able to use batteries for this kind of storage."
Now you see what I'm afraid of. Batteries are very conventional things, conventional chemical products, we can't expect order of magntitude cost reductions.
we need a week of nation sized storage, and we need it fast. We needed to solve the climate problem 50 years ago, and we didn't bother. So we let it get worse. And we're still letting it get worse: energy consumption will at least double, even with the best of energy efficiency technology, over the next several decades.
The time for 20% solutions is long past due. In 1990 we needed an 80% reduction. Factor 5x less. We've dabbled with marginal energy sources such as solar and wind, resulting in a continued need for reliable fossil generators, resulting in increased emissions. So now, we need a 90% cut. Factor 10x less. By 2050, we need a 95% cut. Factor 20x less. That is very difficult. We can't dabble with 1.2x less plans with wind and solar, we need the 20x reduction plan.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 24, 2014 19:30:11 GMT 9.5
"You are nitpicking, a pathetic attempt at diversionary argument, not winning the argument." You are nitpicking, because as soon as you've seen that $200/kWh makes sense you started with interest rates, operation costs, etc. "You planning on making the battery last 800 years?" No I don't, but 3000 cycles makes about 10+ years of lifetime. Also note that Murphy's numbers are if everything was electrified with renewables, not just coal. No, you are still failing to comprehend the enormity of the problem. $200/kWh batteries make sense in some markets - for a few hours of storage. What we need is ONE WEEK. So multiply your cost/kWh accordingly (since battery system cost scales almost proportionally to the dominant cost, battery capacity) I've shown you that nuclear would cost 7x less than the battery IF SOLAR AND WIND GENERATORS COST NOTHING - and - IF the optimistic cost projections pan out.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 24, 2014 3:29:35 GMT 9.5
"There are a lot of false claims out there and should be addressed. Particularly nuclear blindness prevents people to objectively assess potential of renewable energy and that should be addressed."
The reverse is true. People are negatively blind to nuclear and positively blind to the downsides and issues with solar and wind. You clearly have not read BNC or you would be well up to date.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 24, 2014 3:24:50 GMT 9.5
"You planning to replace battery every year?"
You planning on making the battery last 800 years?
"Also include health and climate costs. "
Absolutely, I did. That's why I compared nuclear which has much, much lower health and climate cost than a 336 billion kWh toxic manganese dioxide battery. Nuclear at today's price is 7x cheaper than the battery at future price.
"3000 cycles is minimum and is guaranteed, and they've reached 5000 cycles in the lab and battery is still working.'
Addendum: 3000 cycles is guaranteed by a small startup company. If it goes bankrupt, so does your guarantee. Even if you use 5000 cycles or even 10000 it doesn't change the argument. You are nitpicking, a pathetic attempt at diversionary argument, not winning the argument.
"Lithium battery is also somewhere in this ballpark."
Then it is in the same pathetic loser situation that I have now repeatedly demonstrated.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 24, 2014 3:02:59 GMT 9.5
Slight correction: US coal consumption is 10x bigger, so 800 years etc.
But perhaps it is more realistic to compare nuclear at this power level of 2 TWe that Tom Murphy assumed.
Modern nuclear is around $5/Watt, so 10 trillion USD.
Already we see that the nuclear GENERATION fleet has a total cost 1/7th that (67 trillion) of a speculative future battery STORAGE tech fleet. And that DOESN'T INCLUDE THE COST OF THE WIND AND SOLAR GENERATORS YET.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 24, 2014 2:05:26 GMT 9.5
"So what? Fossil fuel costs are even higher." Nope. US coal consumption of 80 million tons/year for example, at $100/ton, yields 8 billion/year. Not 67000 billion. That would take about 8000 years of coal consumption to get the price of the battery. In energy equivalents, still thousands of years of coal consumption to pay for the battery. 0.25 kWh = energy not $$$. Pay attention!! "No it doesn't. At $200/kWh and 3000 cycles storage costs are $0.06/kWh." Apart from the above fact that you are not paying attention or are just confused about $ and joules. This figure of yours is... Wrong, interest rate is not zero. You've got to triple that, about. Plus add cost of wasted energy in the battery. Add operational and maintenance cost, staffing costs... You won't get under $20 cents/kWh. "There are good reasons to avoid nuclear power, ranging from costs to safety, proliferation and inadequacy to address climate issue." That's funny because all of those arguments you put up are WRONG or IRRELEVANT to nuclear power. Maybe you don't read Bravewclimate? but you do post on the forum, pretty weird guy you are.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 24, 2014 1:55:41 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 23, 2014 23:57:42 GMT 9.5
Just to be clear on this as well: the Aquion battery stores around 0.25 kWh from the figures, you would need some 1300 BILLION of those batteries for the nation sized battery. And those aren't button-cells!
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 23, 2014 23:52:55 GMT 9.5
gigaom.com/2014/07/20/behind-the-scenes-of-aquion-energys-battery-factory-the-future-of-solar-storage/"Aquion is now selling its first battery stack product, the S-10, for $850 per stack (2 kWh each). Seven or eight battery units make up a stack. Twelve stacks make up a module, which runs for around $11,000. At those prices out of the gate, Aquion is selling its batteries for below $500 per kWh — on par with lead acid batteries, but they last longer without degrading and are guaranteed for at least 3,000 cycles. If the batteries are charged and discharged, say, once a day, they should last for more than eight years. Those prices are just the beginning. Aquion’s goal is to drop its prices below $350 per kWh by the end of 2015 and to make them progressively cheaper after that, getting the cost under $200 per kWh by 2020." At current price, this Aquion nation sized battery would come in at 336 billion kWh * 400 = 134400 billion USD. That's 134 TRILLION dollars. At the future price of $200/kWh, 67200 billion USD. 67 TRILLION dollars. And you have to buy that every 10-15 years or so. All this to avoid having to deal with our ideological and unscientific resistance towards nuclear power.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 23, 2014 23:46:01 GMT 9.5
Environmentally friendly batteries? What, it provides polar bears with cellphone batteries so they can chat about the weather with their polar bear mums? There is no such thing as environmentally friendly batteries. They are substantially burdensome on natural resources and ecological space in many ways.
If it needs billions of tons of manufactured chemicals to provide nation sized batteries, then it is NOT environmentally friendly. Most you could say is its less environmentally insulting than burning coal forever.
Please do not mistake tiny startups putting a drop in the bucket with something that works on a scale of say a few hundred kWh per person for 7 billion people.
Batteries have fundamental energy density limitations. You can increase a factor of 10 over lead acid but not a million. With nuclear, you have that factor of a million. Its basically a fully charged battery that lasts years and can power cities reliably for all those years.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 23, 2014 19:59:30 GMT 9.5
Tom Murphy's conclusion certainly isn't 'ain't gonna happen' but that scaling lead batteries can't solve the storage problem. He explicitly repeats it in the comments: "Keep in mind that this post explicitly explores one possibility, and makes no claim that adequate storage is impossible." That is just a politically correct end statement of the author to not make enemies. If you consider the quantitative results, this conclusion is highly inconsistent and contrary to the data. In fact at one point Tom Murphy mentions that lead acid is the devil we know, and other storage techs have similar order of magnitude problems. Which is to say, the several orders of magnitude away from any sort of economic feasibility. I'll leave it up to readers to draw their own verdict. Read the article on the nation sized battery and judge for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 22, 2014 23:43:54 GMT 9.5
...you will always need fossil backup no matter how much storage you have. The more insurance a renewable economy installs, the more outages it evades, the less prepared it will be when happenstance eventually brings the angry climate indoors. Insurance? What a tactical euphemism for burning fossil fuels! I must congratulate you on your marketing skills. You could probably sell a refrigerator to a polar bear!
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 22, 2014 23:24:32 GMT 9.5
It is an artifact of the false notion that radiation and cancer are linearly and cumulatively linked. Grossly throwing in all DNA enzyme repair and cell protection mechanisms, even ignoring high school and college level biology, doesn't bother the LNT folks in the slightest. If you believe no dose is safe and you can add x dose per person in y sized population to get xy "collective dose", then yes, dose per year - actually dose per lifetime - makes sense.
If, however, you're living in the real world, then you will notice that everything else has limits per day or per hour. A box of aspirin, a bottle of beer... all have prescriptions of don't take more than x amount per hour or per day. And no self respecting, scientific health organisation would divide the amount of alchol produced per year by the lethal dose to calculate a death toll of alcohol worldwide!
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 22, 2014 22:38:44 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 22, 2014 0:36:57 GMT 9.5
Can someone help me convert mrem's to Sieverts and tell me if this article says we can move back into Chernobyl or Fukushima?... or what fraction (in English) we're looking at now? Are they still two or five or five hundred times too radioactive for the EPA (not the guys here who still might feel the EPA is being radically over-cautious). 100 rem = 1 sievert. So, the new proposed standard of 500 to 5000 mrem/year would be 5 to 50 mSv/year. Still too low, 50 mSv/year is under 0.14 mSv/day. I encourage everyone to think about dose per day units. There is no point in considering any toxin on a per year basis, how much beer do you take per year, that's not very relevant, unless you want to scare people, how much do you take per day is what affects your health. (think about taking one glass a day for a year or taking nothing all year and then 365 glasses on Christmas!). And use scientific units like Gray and Sievert. Rem is pointless, and just makes everything 100x larger and scary. Micro is completely scaremongering inflation of figures, use millisieverts. The link from Dr. Jerry Cuttler shows a threshold dose used in the 1930s that is very safe. It is 2 mSv/day. We know this to be a safe dose from actual exposed human, dog, and fruit fly populations. Not some silly theoretical LNT model, but real experiments, some Basically everywhere in the Ukraine is lower than that and thus habitable. However there are some patches of forest close to the Chernobyl reactor and of course the reactor itself which are above 2 mSv/day. The Red Forest is the worst affected area with spikes of 20 mSv/day though most of it is much less. 20 mSv/day of Cs-137 and Sr-90(which is what the contamination in the red forest is for >>99%) would take about 100 years to get down to the safe level of 2 mSv/day, though most of the forest would be safe in less than 50 years. Just about everywhere else is still being needlessly condemned. Good read on the nuclear radiophobia: nuclearradiophobia.blogspot.nl/2011/07/nuclear-power-and-radiophobia.html
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 20, 2014 16:48:14 GMT 9.5
The answer is simple. Weather is a natural process, which follows log normal distribution of events. As such it is always possible to get a worse weather situation. 3 week lulls of wind in winter across europe are very rare but not impossible. But so are 4 or 5 weeks so you will always need fossil backup no matter how much storage you have.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 19, 2014 1:28:34 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 19, 2014 1:26:44 GMT 9.5
And wind and nuclear and all non-coal fuels are growing at a tiny fraction of the growth rate of coal in China!!! Don't omit that important point. Further, don't omit the point that almost all power comes from reliable sources such as nuclear, coal and hydro in China. Thus a tiny amount of wind can grow fast without running into problems. Again, you're completely missing the big picture. China is coal-powered. It won't replace with wind because wind is fickle. What you get is coal plants running slightly less efficient and thus emitting more toxins, more PM10, more CO2, per kWh, for every kWh of fickle wind they must accomodate. As for 20% solutions, that doesn't scratch the problem. Coal use is growing so fast we need a 90% solution in China, a few more decades of growth and we need 95% solution. If all countries achieve 30% renewables, we will end up with MORE emissions due to economic and population growth. www.energytrendsinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Coal-Consumption.png?00cfb7
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 18, 2014 19:52:21 GMT 9.5
Methanization can be 0.8 or higher (insiders say overall process can be improved to about 0.4-0.45), but I get your point. But if everything was governed by capacity factor then we wouldn't have so many cars. Cars are parked most of the time. They have capacity factor less then 10%. But we still use them. Not a relevant comparison. Cars aren't needed more than 10% of the time for most; yet they are expected to be there 100% of that 10% of the time. If the car doesn't start once a week, its unreliable. Solar isn't there in the winter. Not exaggerating - a 100 Watt solar panel in Germany in december generates 1 to 2 Watts of average power. The alternatives - actually what we have today, the baseline nuclear, gas, coal and hydro plants - don't have this downside. If you could choose between a car that works 350 days in the year or one that only starts 35 days in the year. Which one would you choose? The renewables enthusiasts seem to like their equipment more the less reliable it gets, unlike most other people. What if your car starter motor would not work when its cold? Then it would not get you to work the entire winter! Solar is like that. Wind is more available in winter but even more fickle than solar at the same time, plus on the grand scheme of things wind would not be enough, solar PV is basically what you look for. We're talking about a future German demand of say 100 GWe, needing 1000 GW peak solar PV. That costs $1 trillion at $1/Watt installed. The truth is, if solar PV would operate at 90% rather than 9% we would not be having this discussion. We would all be solar powered and the nuclear and coal and gas people would have left the building long ago. Again, the energy problem is not confined to Germany. Its not even a bit player on the grand scheme of things. We need solutions that are cheap and practical enough for the Chinese to stop building coal plants.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 18, 2014 15:14:41 GMT 9.5
Batteries are not competitive for this particular task. Power-to-gas would be better suited (gas grid and gas turbines are already in place). A quick calculation: German gas grid = 200+TWh of gas storage capacity. That's enough. What is needed is electrolysers and 200TWh of additional electricity to make methane. At €80/MWh (an estimation for long term wind and solar cost, could be lower) electricity would cost €16 billion per year. Cost of electrolysers is more of a guesswork. Companies say it's about 1200€/kW and could get to 600€/kW in the future. How much you'd need? At 33% capacity factor then about 70GW of electrolysers. That sums up to 42€ billion (I took 600€/kW). Let's say lifetime of one electrolyser is 10 years (a guess), that gives about 4€ billion per year. Let's give another 2€ billion per year for maintenance. That sums up to about 22€ billion per year for storage. It looks doable (Germany's GDP is in trillions). There are additional costs (gas turbines, grid maintenance), but first estimates go in 'it's possible' ballpark. If it were that cheap, Germany would not be building coal plants. Sanity check people. Electrolyser efficiency: 0.7. Methanization efficiency: 0.7 (guess?) (n.b. you didn't consider a capital cost here, it is substantial and not done on any large scale today either) CCGT efficiency: 0.6 multiply gives 0.29 cycle efficiency (not even counting gas transport inefficiency). This is too low. For instance, with 80 euros/MWh power, 80/0.29 = 275 euros/MWh of stored energy. That's too expensive. If not for Germany, then certainly for countries like China who have 20-30 euros/MWh coal power. This is the storage conundrum. Storage techs that are efficient are too expensive, the ones that are affordable are made too expensive by poor efficiency. A Watt of solar power is already at a factor of 9x disadvantage in Germany in terms of kWh per year productivity over nuclear and coal. If you then divide by 0.29 the disadvantage factor becomes 31. So you'd need 31 Watts of solar power to match 1 Watt of nuclear power. All because we are ideologically opposed to nuclear.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 18, 2014 7:52:56 GMT 9.5
35 TWh of utility grade storage, at $200/kWh, would cost 7000 billion $. That's $7 trillion. As in, terra-dollars.
Not bloody likely.
much more likely: endless fossil fuel lock-in for the majority of Germany's power supply.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 15, 2014 0:03:09 GMT 9.5
Now I'm being asked if anyone is seriously recommending that people move back in. The poster is not questioning whether or not the air contains equivalent background radiation, but whether people should move back and start digging: digging to build houses and lay foundations and do plumbing and even a little backyard farming and chooks. Digging. Moving stuff around. Won't that stir it all up again? Don't see why not. Cs-137 is troublesome because the most likely daughter product decays with a hard gamma. Stirring it up makes little difference. Say, a few mm of soil on it (sediment since 1986) makes little difference in the gamma dose. Cs137 doesn't bioaccumulate, biological half life is 2-3 months only, so its for all intents and purposes an external dose and it comes from gamma rays (from barium direct gammas and secondary Bremsstralung). The actual beta ray itself doesn't get through shoes and clothes (in fact a short distance of air stops it) though it will increase if you stir buried Cs137. Still, even a 10x increase in dose rate from stirring would not be any risk to health. According to researcher Jerry Cuttler, there's a sort of turning point in health effects above 2 rad/day. www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Presentations/Guest-Speakers/2013/20130625-Cuttler-CNSC-Fukushima-and-beneficial-effects-low-radiation.pdfThe worst areas near Chernobyl are below 0.005 rad/day above background. Finland background at 0.02 rad/day.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 12, 2014 17:56:36 GMT 9.5
An update on this that I posted on another forum: Peak background radiation today in the region appears to be 25 microR/h, that's 2.2 mSv/y. The red area. Since this only measures gamma radiation it accurately describes the cesium contamination dose rate. Well actually no, about half that peak dose appears to be natural, so likely we're talking about roughly a 1 mSv/year peak from Chernobyl contamination in the worst affected areas today. 2.2 mSv/year is below the average natural background radiation of the world, due primarily to ubiquitous radon. chornobyl.in.ua/en/radiation-background-ukraine.htmlSo, for talking points, you can say that the worst contaminated areas are considerably less radioactive than all of Scandinavia. Oddly enough there is no plan yet to evacuate and condemn Sweden, Finland and Switzerland, as their natural background radiation is worse than the worst areas around Chernobyl.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 8, 2014 22:52:22 GMT 9.5
This is, beyond any shadow of doubt, nonsense.
It doesn't work.
Whether its a scam or just a bunch of crazies depends on the motivations of the people behind it.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 8, 2014 21:15:23 GMT 9.5
Just came across this excellent read on Chernobyl: users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/freshman_seminar/Radiation/publications/chernobyl,%2010%20years%20after_health%20consequences.pdf It has data on dose rates of the restricted area. Between 70 and 400 mSv in 70 years which is 1.1 to 5.7 mSv per year. This is a typical background radiation level!! So by the Chernobyl evacuation and condemnation standard, pretty much all of Europe should be condemned and evacuated based on natural background radiation levels! All of Scandinavia is worse than the highest value of the restricted area around Chernobyl! Pretty shocking.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 2, 2014 19:16:27 GMT 9.5
The 20000 year or hundred thousand year or whatever other variations there are, these are just uninformed or deliberate scaremongering. The fact is that virtually all (>99% today if I recall correctly) of the contamination around Chernobyl is from Cs-137, and yes that has a half life of 30 years, actually slighly shorter due to environmental diffusion (erosion, covering up with sediment, dust and other natural processes). The longer half life stuff, almost all of that is actually still in the reactor building. It isn't mobile, even without a sarcophagus or containment, because it isn't volatile. This longer half life stuff like 20000 years doesn't even contribute a major dose in the actual reactor building itself, that is almost all from shorter lived fission products like Cs137 and Sr90 etc. So it is not fair to use the 20000 year number because this contributes a negligible amount to the dose you'd get. But it is reasonable to state that the reactor building and generally the plant site itself would not be a safe shelter even in 200 years time assuming it is not decomissioned. But that's not important because it is a tiny restricted area. The surrounding countryside is perfectly safe to live in today, not 200 years from now, today, so it is needlessly condemned. The scale of the radiophobia is almost unbelievable, here is a decent reference for more reading on it: www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Observations_Chernobyl.pdfAccording to the LNT model with 'collective dose', roughly 1 million people a year are being killed from the feeble natural background radiation around us. That's absurd, the reason why this number is calculated is due to a very silly calculation method that just lumps all invidual doses together and then divides by the lethal dose. For example if you drink 365 glasses of beer in one day you'll almost certainly die. So, the LNT model says if a group of 1000 people each drinks one glass of beer a day, all of them will be dead by the end of the year. I'm not joking, that's what this ridiculous model actually states! We all know the real number is zero deaths since no one will be killed by a one glass of beer a day consumption, not in a year, not in 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Feb 24, 2014 6:49:53 GMT 9.5
Erich Schneider has estimated it at EROEI of 22 spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fuel-from-the-seaThis is with older performance figures... the absorbents have improved in the last few years. We are only starting out with this tech, it is all still at lab scale and has not benefitted yet from large commercial scale up efficiencies.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Feb 22, 2014 19:39:46 GMT 9.5
This is a silly conclusion from Stanford. If currently identified reserves, which are a small fraction of what's geologically out there, are enough for billions of Nissan Leafs, then there is plenty of lithium. Lithium doesn't burn out, unlike coal, oil and gas. It does not rust away like steel. It is fully recyclable. Even if it is burned in incinerators or buried in landfills, those ashes and landfills will make good mining resources. Burned lithium isn't actually burned up, it is just oxidized lithium that is fully recoverable. No one bothers to identify resources that cost 100x as much to extract. Exploration costs money, so it needs some kind of return or strategic importance to a large mining company. According to this, chemeng.env.kitakyu-u.ac.jp/research/Lithium-e.pdfLithium from seawater costs only a few thousand JPY/kg and you only need a few kg per Nissan Leaf. So we are talking under $100/Nissan Leaf to get an infinite supply of lithium from the sea. Come on. Even if the researchers are off by a factor 5 (it happens sometimes) this is under $500/Nissan Leaf. If Li offers but the slightest weight/performance advantage it will be chosen at this small cost penalty, over competing, lower performance battery chemistries. And bearing in mind that seawater is almost certainly the most expensive resource, compared to just looking for lower grade terrestrial resources. This running out of lithium nonsense is in the same vein (ie, way out there) as running out of uranium arguments.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Feb 7, 2014 0:59:29 GMT 9.5
I'm surprised that Sod is not banned from this board yet. He's consistently shown no interest in science and analysis, and consistently demonstrated ignorance, belief system bias, and rejection of any evidence contrary to his myopic worldview.
Moderator?
|
|