4 ms·

ICEs have a lot of life left in them yet. Hydrocarbon fuels are energy-dense and easily transported, stored, and transferred. It will be a long time before ever

by avhon1 6y ago

ICEs have a lot of life left in them yet. Hydrocarbon fuels are energy-dense and easily transported, stored, and transferred. It will be a long time before every use case can be practically and economically covered by electric motors.

henearkr 6y ago
Electrons are energy-dense and easily transported, stored, and transferred. That's probably what a lot of people have missed about the technological revolution that just happened. > ICEs have a lot of life left in them yet. > [...] > It will be a long time before every use case can be practically and economically covered by electric motors. Let the near-future prove you wrong on both statements ;) The maximum density of Li-metal batteries [edit: still an immature tech] is around 14 MJ / kg, whereas gasoline is the highest energy-density fossil fuel at 47.5 MJ / kg. This is not a huge gap at all.
- jhoechtl 6y ago
  More than three times higher sounds like a massive advantage to me? Or say 330%. That's huge!
- jabl 6y ago
  Wikipedia says energy density of Li ion batteries is around 0.5 MJ/kg, which is about 100 times less than hydrocarbon fuels. And no, electricity isn't easily stored nor transmitted compared to hydrocarbons. Electricity, of course, does have a number of major advantages which is why we use it.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    Yes electricity is more easily transmitted than fuel. Compare: pipeline vs electric line. And no I'm not speaking of Li-ion. Sorry but I was speaking about Li-metal, a still immature technology. So that weakens my argument. On the other hand, that shows that the path to improvement is huge, and could why not surprise us by becoming better density than fuel.
    - jabl 6y ago
      > Yes electricity is more easily transmitted than fuel. Compare: pipeline vs electric line. Lets do that. High voltage electricity transmission has losses about 4% per 1000 km (HVDC somewhat less, but is a point-to-point system so less flexible than the common AC transmission). By comparison the pumping power required for transporting liquid hydrocarbons is less than 1/10th of that. Also, a high voltage transmission line is an eyesore requiring about 50m wide right of way, whereas a pipeline of equivalent capacity needs a much narrower corridor. I'm not saying we shouldn't go for electricity, but we need to be frank about the upsides and downsides. (Most experts seem to agree that in order to decarbonize our societies the basic recipe is to 1) Clean up electricity generation. 2) Electrify everything.) I used Li-ion for the battery comparison, since that is the best rechargeable battery technology that actually exists. I'm highly skeptical that a new battery technology with two orders of magnitude better energy density is possible. It's very hard to get anywhere close to the energy density stored in the chemical bonds in fuels. Or, well, yes we do know of fuels with better energy density than chemical fuels, namely nuclear fuels.
      - henearkr 6y ago
        I could be wrong, but seems like a pipeline is extremely hard to build, with lots of volume of material, concrete or steel. It seems lighter and easier to build an HV electric line. I see HV lines everywhere, but very few pipelines. Also, pipeline operations (leakage etc) seem a PITA. That was my idea behind thinking electricity is easier. However, the sheer ratio {transport energy} / {transported energy} is indeed in favor of pipeline, as you mentionned. -- I found that you can bury HV lines: https://retasite.wordpress.com/burying-high-voltage-lines/ https://retasite.wordpress.com/burying-high-voltage-lines/ I found that it costs between $2.9 million and $13 million per mile to build a new pipeline, whereas it costs $285,000 per mile for a HV line and $1.5 million per mile if you build it underground.

by avhon1 6y ago

henearkr 6y ago

Electrons are energy-dense and easily transported, stored, and transferred. That's probably what a lot of people have missed about the technological revolution that just happened. > ICEs have a lot of life left in them yet. > [...] > It will be a long time before every use case can be practically and economically covered by electric motors. Let the near-future prove you wrong on both statements ;) The maximum density of Li-metal batteries [edit: still an immature tech] is around 14 MJ / kg, whereas gasoline is the highest energy-density fossil fuel at 47.5 MJ / kg. This is not a huge gap at all.

jhoechtl 6y ago
More than three times higher sounds like a massive advantage to me? Or say 330%. That's huge!
jabl 6y ago
Wikipedia says energy density of Li ion batteries is around 0.5 MJ/kg, which is about 100 times less than hydrocarbon fuels. And no, electricity isn't easily stored nor transmitted compared to hydrocarbons. Electricity, of course, does have a number of major advantages which is why we use it.
- henearkr 6y ago
  Yes electricity is more easily transmitted than fuel. Compare: pipeline vs electric line. And no I'm not speaking of Li-ion. Sorry but I was speaking about Li-metal, a still immature technology. So that weakens my argument. On the other hand, that shows that the path to improvement is huge, and could why not surprise us by becoming better density than fuel.
  - jabl 6y ago
    > Yes electricity is more easily transmitted than fuel. Compare: pipeline vs electric line. Lets do that. High voltage electricity transmission has losses about 4% per 1000 km (HVDC somewhat less, but is a point-to-point system so less flexible than the common AC transmission). By comparison the pumping power required for transporting liquid hydrocarbons is less than 1/10th of that. Also, a high voltage transmission line is an eyesore requiring about 50m wide right of way, whereas a pipeline of equivalent capacity needs a much narrower corridor. I'm not saying we shouldn't go for electricity, but we need to be frank about the upsides and downsides. (Most experts seem to agree that in order to decarbonize our societies the basic recipe is to 1) Clean up electricity generation. 2) Electrify everything.) I used Li-ion for the battery comparison, since that is the best rechargeable battery technology that actually exists. I'm highly skeptical that a new battery technology with two orders of magnitude better energy density is possible. It's very hard to get anywhere close to the energy density stored in the chemical bonds in fuels. Or, well, yes we do know of fuels with better energy density than chemical fuels, namely nuclear fuels.
    - henearkr 6y ago
      I could be wrong, but seems like a pipeline is extremely hard to build, with lots of volume of material, concrete or steel. It seems lighter and easier to build an HV electric line. I see HV lines everywhere, but very few pipelines. Also, pipeline operations (leakage etc) seem a PITA. That was my idea behind thinking electricity is easier. However, the sheer ratio {transport energy} / {transported energy} is indeed in favor of pipeline, as you mentionned. -- I found that you can bury HV lines: https://retasite.wordpress.com/burying-high-voltage-lines/ https://retasite.wordpress.com/burying-high-voltage-lines/ I found that it costs between $2.9 million and $13 million per mile to build a new pipeline, whereas it costs $285,000 per mile for a HV line and $1.5 million per mile if you build it underground.