A Reality Check for Wind Power Investors [View article]
John - - -
I just read your March 23 article on challenges for energy storage: seekingalpha.com/artic... You have detailed chart which shows all the storage processes commonly discussed.
This all brought me back to the question of how energy storage is defined. To me, all fuel based systems (fossil and nuclear) are ultimately energy storage vehicles. Also, geothermal is stored energy. Traditional hydro is a special case of pumped hydro, with Mother Nature doing the pumping.
This all comes back to my questions about generation management. How much can be gained by classifying traditional hydo and fuel based systems as storage (secondary generation) and solar and wind as variable output primary generation?
Based on what I have read over the several years, I expect that the use of solar and wind are still limited in such a process to a small percentage of production, but that small number might be many times the minute levels derived from these sources today.
Back to my previous comment, I'm looking for an economic analysis and a mechanism to follow the generation and grid system economics as we move forward. I think we may not know what we don't know yet. It is important to be able to specify what you don't know before you can be efficient in learning.
Someone may be able to fill me in on this subject and maybe there will be a response from a reader.
A Reality Check for Wind Power Investors [View article]
John - - -
Great discussion topic and good analysis in the article. I have tried to read most of the comments and I have not seen anybody broach the subject of using hydro as an energy storage proxy to smooth the unreliable wind powered generation. In your graph it appears that the hydro production is operating independently of wind power production.
Why not defer sufficient hydro production to fill in for low wind production? This seems to be an attractive generation management process as long as hydro production exceeds wind. It would probably become problematic when wind capacity exceeds hydro capacity and production smoothing would then require other co-generation facilities.
I would like to see analysis of co-generation systems management and learn if that can provide any economic advantage. I can see that there is little to question about the environmental advantages of such management, but what are the capital and operating costs comparisons?
Again, this is an outstanding article that raises many issues.
PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal [View article]
John Petersen - - -
Thank-you for keeping the latest in front of usd.
The McKinsey chart was eye-opening. I am reminded though, as I read the comment stream, that the debate often evolves to two sides: (1) the views of those grounded in the present and (2) the visionaries.
The McKinsey chart is an excellent snapshot. But it is no more. It is a snapshot with a time stamp. The snapshot in 10 years will be radically different, and in 20 years totally changed again. For those who wonder what I am talking about, think about what would have been the 10-year plan for computer technology in 1975, then 1985 and again in 1995. The three plans would seem to have come from different planets.
I think that making even five year projections for utility energy, as well as transportation energy, is particularly difficult at this time. I do think that nuclear energy expansion in the U.S. is not a difficult thing to support because it is a relatively small portion of our electrical generation capacity currently and we can always use it through plant end of life, even if other generation technologies become more widely utilized.
It would be interesting to know what assumptions went into the McKinsey analysis. I doubt that they included the ancillary costs (such as environmental) of each of the options, because no one knows (as far as I can determine) how to do that in Euro or dollar terms. However, whatever the assumptions, many will be totally obsolete and incorrect in a few years. (Refer to my computer technology analogy.) The menu for cost of carbon reduction is a moving target. I expect the target is moving far faster than most of us can imagine today.
Li-ion Battery Technologies: Understanding Their Development Path [View article]
John - - -
I think Isaac was suggesting that you construct an index (perhaps in consultation with Charles and Tom). It could be the basis for one of the ETF sponsoring companies to start a new broad based ETF.
I think that is a great suggestion. You should look into it.
A Very Smart Plan for Federal Smart Grid Grants [View article]
Road Runner - - -
Since John P. has not answered your question yet, I believe the main advantage of the lead-carbon batteries is about 10x cycle life over the traditional lead-acid batteries. Thus, with the $500 dropping to $250 vs. $200, you are paying for fewer replacement maintenance events over time.
John P., please correct and add to my comment (if necessary) when you read this.
I have reviewed the Hyperion Power Generation information. Here's a summary:
1. The will make portable nuclear power generation units.
2. They expect to have a "couple of delivery dates available" in 2013.
3. They are privately funded (that's why they are not on your radar, John).
4. Units are cylindrical, about 1.5 meters in diameter and 3 meters tall.
5. Units are ... "Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail."
6. Units cost $25,000,000 to $30,000,000.
7. Units produce 25MW for 5 years before they are "recharged" at the factory. That translates to $0.57 to $0.69 per kwh. This is 4-7 times what most in the U.S. pay for electricity. (I pay $0.10 in North Carolina.) I don't know how much the Hyperion cost for the first five years is increased by delivery, installation and "secuirty detail" costs. Also, there is no information given by Hyperion on how much the cost might be reduced in five year periods after the first (recharged periods).
Li-ion Batteries: A Speculative Field of Dreams [View article]
realist2 - - -
You answered after I started my comment and before I posted it. Thanks.
Can you clarify what your vehicle is? Is it self built? At 368 lbs weight, including passenger, it sounds like a minimalist scooter. How do you like changing weather conditions?
Li-ion Batteries: A Speculative Field of Dreams [View article]
realist2 - - -
Please answer John Petersen's question. I'd really like to know.
John Petersen - - -
Don't dismiss the posibility that the American definition of a desirable car might change. Someday the idea of driving solo a 3000 pound behemoth to work may go out of style. Maybe the change will come with a mixture of an SUV and a 2-4 passenger sub-compact per household may become a standard situation. And then we may evolve to empty nesters with only the sub-compacts. There is a demographic outlook to support that scenario.
There is the issue of safety. A sub-compact colliding with an SUV has definite problems. However, an SUV colliding with an 18 wheeler has an even bigger problem and we have come to live with that exposure.
My point is that change in customer preference may happen over time. Once such a change starts, it could accelerate rapidly. The start up would be the slow part.
All that said, keep up the great work in reporting on energy storage.
Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage [View article]
John Petersen - - -
I can only echo the praise of other commenters. You have so expanded my horizons in the energy storage business and in getting a much better understanding of the various technologies.
Will the Audacious Bailouts for Alternative Energy Happen? [View article]
Nick the Greek Socrates - - -
If it is true that genius is not recognized in its own times, you are a genius. I can't make heads or tails out of your comment. But then, maybe I'm the one who is not a genius?
battman - - -
You said: " I don't think oil goes up anywhere near $ 100.00 for many years to come."
You will be correct only if we have a depression (a recession that lasts more than 3 years). If there is a recovery starting in 2010 or early 2011, oil will quickly rise to the cost of new production plus some profit margin. Many oil fields in production over the past decade are now in decline and the current average cost for new production is in the area of $70 to $80. Only if consumption continues to decline will we not need new production and new production will not occur unless the market price exceeds the cost. That formula is very close to $100.
While you may hope that your prediction is accurate, I hope it is not, because it can only happen if we have shrinking GDP for years to come.
Thanks for the list and comments. I agree with your decision to sel CZZ. Ethanol may offer some trading opportunities, but, long term, doesn't make economic sense to me, even the cheapr sugar cane ethanol from Brazil.
Lithium Unicorns and Alternative Energy Storage [View article]
John Petersen - - -
Thanks for this article. It addresses a question I posed a couple of weeks ago in another comment. When you look at the abundance of lithium in the earth's crust, it is similar to lead, nickel and other metals. The question then is cost of recovery. I see that is now under discussion. Good job.
A Reality Check for Wind Power Investors [View article]
I just read your March 23 article on challenges for energy storage: seekingalpha.com/artic... You have detailed chart which shows all the storage processes commonly discussed.
This all brought me back to the question of how energy storage is defined. To me, all fuel based systems (fossil and nuclear) are ultimately energy storage vehicles. Also, geothermal is stored energy. Traditional hydro is a special case of pumped hydro, with Mother Nature doing the pumping.
This all comes back to my questions about generation management. How much can be gained by classifying traditional hydo and fuel based systems as storage (secondary generation) and solar and wind as variable output primary generation?
Based on what I have read over the several years, I expect that the use of solar and wind are still limited in such a process to a small percentage of production, but that small number might be many times the minute levels derived from these sources today.
Back to my previous comment, I'm looking for an economic analysis and a mechanism to follow the generation and grid system economics as we move forward. I think we may not know what we don't know yet. It is important to be able to specify what you don't know before you can be efficient in learning.
Someone may be able to fill me in on this subject and maybe there will be a response from a reader.
A Reality Check for Wind Power Investors [View article]
Great discussion topic and good analysis in the article. I have tried to read most of the comments and I have not seen anybody broach the subject of using hydro as an energy storage proxy to smooth the unreliable wind powered generation. In your graph it appears that the hydro production is operating independently of wind power production.
Why not defer sufficient hydro production to fill in for low wind production? This seems to be an attractive generation management process as long as hydro production exceeds wind. It would probably become problematic when wind capacity exceeds hydro capacity and production smoothing would then require other co-generation facilities.
I would like to see analysis of co-generation systems management and learn if that can provide any economic advantage. I can see that there is little to question about the environmental advantages of such management, but what are the capital and operating costs comparisons?
Again, this is an outstanding article that raises many issues.
PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal [View article]
Thanks for your comment in reply. I was hoping you wouldn't tell me to go read the whole report. I'll bookmark it for later. (Sigh.)
PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal [View article]
Thank-you for keeping the latest in front of usd.
The McKinsey chart was eye-opening. I am reminded though, as I read the comment stream, that the debate often evolves to two sides: (1) the views of those grounded in the present and (2) the visionaries.
The McKinsey chart is an excellent snapshot. But it is no more. It is a snapshot with a time stamp. The snapshot in 10 years will be radically different, and in 20 years totally changed again. For those who wonder what I am talking about, think about what would have been the 10-year plan for computer technology in 1975, then 1985 and again in 1995. The three plans would seem to have come from different planets.
I think that making even five year projections for utility energy, as well as transportation energy, is particularly difficult at this time. I do think that nuclear energy expansion in the U.S. is not a difficult thing to support because it is a relatively small portion of our electrical generation capacity currently and we can always use it through plant end of life, even if other generation technologies become more widely utilized.
It would be interesting to know what assumptions went into the McKinsey analysis. I doubt that they included the ancillary costs (such as environmental) of each of the options, because no one knows (as far as I can determine) how to do that in Euro or dollar terms. However, whatever the assumptions, many will be totally obsolete and incorrect in a few years. (Refer to my computer technology analogy.) The menu for cost of carbon reduction is a moving target. I expect the target is moving far faster than most of us can imagine today.
Li-ion Battery Technologies: Understanding Their Development Path [View article]
I think Isaac was suggesting that you construct an index (perhaps in consultation with Charles and Tom). It could be the basis for one of the ETF sponsoring companies to start a new broad based ETF.
I think that is a great suggestion. You should look into it.
A Very Smart Plan for Federal Smart Grid Grants [View article]
Since John P. has not answered your question yet, I believe the main advantage of the lead-carbon batteries is about 10x cycle life over the traditional lead-acid batteries. Thus, with the $500 dropping to $250 vs. $200, you are paying for fewer replacement maintenance events over time.
John P., please correct and add to my comment (if necessary) when you read this.
Axion Power: Time Is Right for Gas Guzzlers to Dual Mode EV Conversions [View article]
You keep on producing great articles and the reader comment stream is outstanding.
Thanks.
Long Live the Cleantech Revolution [View article]
I have reviewed the Hyperion Power Generation information. Here's a summary:
1. The will make portable nuclear power generation units.
2. They expect to have a "couple of delivery dates available" in 2013.
3. They are privately funded (that's why they are not on your radar, John).
4. Units are cylindrical, about 1.5 meters in diameter and 3 meters tall.
5. Units are ... "Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail."
6. Units cost $25,000,000 to $30,000,000.
7. Units produce 25MW for 5 years before they are "recharged" at the factory. That translates to $0.57 to $0.69 per kwh. This is 4-7 times what most in the U.S. pay for electricity. (I pay $0.10 in North Carolina.) I don't know how much the Hyperion cost for the first five years is increased by delivery, installation and "secuirty detail" costs. Also, there is no information given by Hyperion on how much the cost might be reduced in five year periods after the first (recharged periods).
The web site is www.hyperionpowergener...
Huge Incentives for Energy Storage in Today's House Bill [View article]
I have to assume you would also remove the $4B a year in subsidies to the traditional energy sector?
Li-ion Batteries: A Speculative Field of Dreams [View article]
You answered after I started my comment and before I posted it. Thanks.
Can you clarify what your vehicle is? Is it self built? At 368 lbs weight, including passenger, it sounds like a minimalist scooter. How do you like changing weather conditions?
Li-ion Batteries: A Speculative Field of Dreams [View article]
Please answer John Petersen's question. I'd really like to know.
John Petersen - - -
Don't dismiss the posibility that the American definition of a desirable car might change. Someday the idea of driving solo a 3000 pound behemoth to work may go out of style. Maybe the change will come with a mixture of an SUV and a 2-4 passenger sub-compact per household may become a standard situation. And then we may evolve to empty nesters with only the sub-compacts. There is a demographic outlook to support that scenario.
There is the issue of safety. A sub-compact colliding with an SUV has definite problems. However, an SUV colliding with an 18 wheeler has an even bigger problem and we have come to live with that exposure.
My point is that change in customer preference may happen over time. Once such a change starts, it could accelerate rapidly. The start up would be the slow part.
All that said, keep up the great work in reporting on energy storage.
Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage [View article]
I can only echo the praise of other commenters. You have so expanded my horizons in the energy storage business and in getting a much better understanding of the various technologies.
Thanks again.
Will the Audacious Bailouts for Alternative Energy Happen? [View article]
If it is true that genius is not recognized in its own times, you are a genius. I can't make heads or tails out of your comment. But then, maybe I'm the one who is not a genius?
battman - - -
You said: " I don't think oil goes up anywhere near $ 100.00 for many years to come."
You will be correct only if we have a depression (a recession that lasts more than 3 years). If there is a recovery starting in 2010 or early 2011, oil will quickly rise to the cost of new production plus some profit margin. Many oil fields in production over the past decade are now in decline and the current average cost for new production is in the area of $70 to $80. Only if consumption continues to decline will we not need new production and new production will not occur unless the market price exceeds the cost. That formula is very close to $100.
While you may hope that your prediction is accurate, I hope it is not, because it can only happen if we have shrinking GDP for years to come.
10 Green Energy Gambles for '09 [View article]
Lithium Unicorns and Alternative Energy Storage [View article]
Thanks for this article. It addresses a question I posed a couple of weeks ago in another comment. When you look at the abundance of lithium in the earth's crust, it is similar to lead, nickel and other metals. The question then is cost of recovery. I see that is now under discussion. Good job.