High oil prices fuel development of new hybrid batteries

BBB, check this out:
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion battery

That's fascinating, DrewDad. This could be the solution to storing power from small scale solar electric installations, if price and durability make them practical. In automotive use, there remain problems beyond science and engineering

Now if we can just get the paranoid to stop fearing Nuclear Power; we could actually accomplish what Kyoto never would have.

roger wrote:

That's fascinating, DrewDad. This could be the solution to storing power from small scale solar electric installations, if price and durability make them practical. In automotive use, there remain problems beyond science and engineering

Nonsense. Check out the Tesla link I posted. It performs and is priced like a Ferrari, but all new Tech is expensive. They're already planning a more mainstream ride... and they can't build the sports car fast enough to meet demand. Electricity is here.

I'm looking forward to an onslaught of battery improvements. It's been predicted to be the next big thing since I was in high school.

Now if we can just get the paranoid to stop fearing Nuclear Power; we could actually accomplish what Kyoto never would have.

roger wrote:

That's fascinating, DrewDad. This could be the solution to storing power from small scale solar electric installations, if price and durability make them practical. In automotive use, there remain problems beyond science and engineering

Nonsense. Check out the Tesla link I posted. It performs and is priced like a Ferrari, but all new Tech is expensive. They're already planning a more mainstream ride... and they can't build the sports car fast enough to meet demand. Electricity is here.

I'm looking forward to an onslaught of battery improvements. It's been predicted to be the next big thing since I was in high school.

Now if we can just get the paranoid to stop fearing Nuclear Power; we could actually accomplish what Kyoto never would have.

IEA urges $45-trillion "energy revolution" World governments must quickly start a $45-trillion "energy technology revolution" that could drive up the cost of producing carbon ten-fold, or risk emissions surging by 2050, the West's energy watchdog warned on Friday.

The world would need to build dozens of nuclear power plants a year and bury carbon emitted from dozens more gas and coal plants, plus cutting the carbon intensity of cars, trucks, buses and planes eightfold, to halve emissions by mid-century, the International Energy Agency said in a new report.

Without taking action on government policy, emissions would surge by 130 per cent and oil demand would rise by 70 per cent by 2050, the IEA said, far beyond the level that many experts believe the world is capable of sustainably producing.

The report, commissioned by the Group of Eight three years ago, lays down the gauntlet for G8 leaders gathering in northern Japan next month, where Tokyo is expected to urge them to agree on a target of chopping greenhouse gases in half by 2050.

"There should be no doubt - meeting the target of a 50 per cent cut in emissions represents a formidable target. We would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the IEA, said in a statement.

"It will essentially require a new global energy revolution which would completely transform the way we produce and use energy... We need to act now."

The IEA said halving emissions by 2050 would require "all options up to a cost of $200 per tonne of CO2" - and in the worst case $500 a tonne - giving a rare long-term forecast that suggests a sharp rise from the 27 euro ($42) a tonne price for carbon emissions rights trading in Europe.

"You would have to see one of the biggest rises in a commodity price in history to get $500 a tonne," said Tom Luckock, a lawyer with international law firm Norton Rose.

Scientists say that the world must brake and reverse annual increases in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change including rising seas and more extreme weather.

But governments are at odds over how to split the costs of funding cleaner energy technology, particularly in the developing world. The IEA said the $45 trillion is equal to 1.1 per cent of average annual global gross domestic product over the period.

"Carbon emissions must be cut. Costs of about 1 per cent of GDP are not outrageous, so this target is realistic," said Go Hibino, a senior manager at Mizuho Information & Research Institute.

About 190 nations are racing to craft a framework by the end of 2009 to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which binds 37 advanced nations to cut emissions by an average of 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

The report, which comes just ahead of a G8 energy ministers meeting this weekend in Japan, highlighted the security benefits of cracking down on carbon.

"Oil demand by 2050 would be 27 per cent below the level of 2005. Yet massive investments in remaining reserves will be needed to make up for the shortfall as low-reserve provinces are exhausted," Mr. Tanaka said.

A massive research and development effort will be needed in the next 15 years costing about $10-billion to $100-billion per year to develop technology to cut CO2 emissions, the IEA said in the Energy Technology Perspectives report.

It said the power sector would need to be "decarbonized" by installing CO2 capture and storage at 35 coal- and 20 gas-fired power plants a year from 2010 to 2050 at a cost of $1.5-billion each. The sector would also need to build 32 new nuclear plants and install 17,500 wind turbines a year.

Germany's RWE Supply and Trading said on Wednesday that CCS, often regarded as commercially impossible, could be viable with carbon prices of less than 100 euros.

The report comes ahead of a weekend meeting of G8 energy ministers and their China, India and South Korea peers in Aomori in northern Japan, where they will try to agree on the role of consumer nations in stemming oil's five-year price rally.

Mr. Tanaka said non-IEA members such as China, India and other developing countries must conserve energy to achieve the target as they are already big emitters and are likely to emit more.

"Some kind of financial facility or some scheme is needed to help developing countries participate more easily," Mizuho's Hibino said. "It would be hard for the IEA to achieve the goal without the participation of developing countries."

$139 Friday after Morgan Stanley predicted prices would hit $150 by the Fourth of July.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

roger wrote:

That's fascinating, DrewDad. This could be the solution to storing power from small scale solar electric installations, if price and durability make them practical. In automotive use, there remain problems beyond science and engineering

Nonsense. Check out the Tesla link I posted. It performs and is priced like a Ferrari, but all new Tech is expensive. They're already planning a more mainstream ride... and they can't build the sports car fast enough to meet demand. Electricity is here.

I'm looking forward to an onslaught of battery improvements. It's been predicted to be the next big thing since I was in high school.

Now if we can just get the paranoid to stop fearing Nuclear Power; we could actually accomplish what Kyoto never would have.

I think you missed a point there. The Tesla has a range of 220 miles and needs 3.5 hours for recharging - better than any past electric car but still not optimum. The nano-wire batteries would give it a range of 2,200 miles on that same 3.5 hour charge. (Of course, that's assuming they've fixed the transmission problems they've been having with the Tesla's too! )

Nonsense? Well, I did check the link, and whaddya know? It runs on electricity. Traditionally, electricity comes from power plants. Power plants require enormous quantities of water for cooling, not to mention makeup water for the boilers. You've heard of peak oil? Wait till you hear about peak water. Nukes are fine; they don't use less water. Costs of construction are high, but fuel is relatively cheap. Whether it will remain cheap when and if we have enough nuclear plants to supply the increased needs of a national fleet of electric cars is open to question.