Science Friday: exciting energy news. Yes, I said exciting.
“It’s not a small improvement,“ Cui said. “It’s a revolutionary development.“
I enjoy NPR’s Science Friday and also like the idea of blogs pitching in. But my SciFri post tends to wander in ‘round Saturday or Sunday. This is consistent with the fact that we usually send our Christmas cards (if at all) just as Spring gives way to Summer. So I hope you’ll cut me some slack.
Anyway my son sent me some truly exciting energy news this week. It seems that Stanford university has found a way to use silicon nanofibres to multiply the storage capacity of Li-Ion batteries by a factor of TEN.
Yeah, I know; that’s a pretty nerdy thing to get excited about, but think about it a minute. A tenfold increase in energy storage density means a lot more freedom in the storage vs. weight equation. For instance, it means high-performance electric cars with 400-mile range. It means electric ‘bicycles’. It means lighter laptops. It means far more practical prosthetic limbs. It means Segway technology becomes a practical base for advanced wheelchairs. It means a lot of stuff we haven’t thought of yet.
See, there really is no shortage of energy; it’s all around us. We know how to get it from wind, sun, and water, but the trouble is we can’t store it. That’s the main advantage of fossil fuels over renewable energy; it’s already stored and we can use it anytime.
There are lots of good reasons to abandon fossil fuels but it will be an uphill battle until one simple change occurs. The moment it is a penny cheaper per kilowatt hour to use renewable energy over fossil fuel, the world will change almost overnight. You’ll see people who hate environmentalism buying electric cars because they’ll be so much cheaper to drive.
The Stanford battery (as I predict it will be called) will mainly affect “things that move” so it’s just one piece in the puzzle that is the future of energy technology. But it’s a big piece.
In other energy news…
Many technologies are first used in military settings, and then go on to revolutionize civilian life. A few not-so-trivial examples: Jet engines, trauma medicine, GPS, the Internet…
2) The Pentagon will soon be buying portable refineries to make jet fuel from waste. The idea is to make fuel where they need it, solving both supply and waste problems. It is not a new idea but the implementation is very clever (and practical).
Imagine if this application scales up. Cities could generate a large chunk of their own electricity (reducing dependency on the grid) in turbine generators burning carbon-neutral jet fuel made from sewage and organic garbage. Mega hog farms would sell electricity, too.
3) Here’s a wind generator that has no rotating parts. It could power remote monitoring devices - perhaps charging up a Stanford battery.
4) Finally, it may be heresy here in Illinois to speak ill of corn ethanol, but Shifting Baselines reports: Corn kills fish, dead zone widens. Thank you ethanol!
It’s a non-trivial problem. We grow the corn here, but the price is distorted by the avalanche of money coming out of agricultural subsidies in general and the Ethanol subsidy in particular. Result? Corn production skyrockets, while crab and shrimp production in Louisiana dies a suffocating death. And in the bargain, most of the studies on corn ethanol that I have seen show that it’s break-even at best in carbon production. There seems to be no way to stop it, however.
Very exciting about the battery improvement. I have always had my doubts about corn ethanol,do you feed cars or cows? It looks like we have created an industry that will increase the cost of food and no reduction in the price of fuel. Personally i would like to see large advances in electric vehicles and the resumption of nuclear power plants.
Posted by james old guy on 12/21/07 at 11:08 PM“You’ll see people who hate environmentalism buying electric cars because they’ll be so much cheaper to drive.“
A lot of us don’t hate enviromentalism..we hate the environmental nuts..the ones who would rather save a
tree than a human..the ones who will use junk science to prove global warming is man made to advance a socialist agenda..the ones who will picket a fishing pier to save the fish and the ones who want to take away my gun and thus the right to protect myself.Yeah, if a battery operated vehicle would give the the same range and power as my gas guzzling pickup would give at a comparable cost I would buy one..in fact I would buy a small battery operated automobile just drive for my weekly run abouts.
But no matter how efficient the battery, there is still the problem of generating enough electricty to keep all those batteries charged..nuke powered plants? Maybe..but then it is a fight with the enviro-nuts just to try to get one built..we are going through such a fight in Levy county Florida right now.
It seems that even with the batteries it will be just a trade off on who is putting the emissions in the air…more power plants or the automobiles..
And of course how about the energy needed to produce the batteries…where will it come from?
I still like the technology and hope that it can be developed at a cost that will make it feasible for use by the public..hell, just a lighter laptop sounds good to me…
Posted by GUYK on 12/22/07 at 10:15 AMAs much as I think huge vehicles are silly, Americans seem to be addicted to them. So I’d love to see electric Ford F150’s and Cadillac Escalades.
I’m not too concerned about getting the electricity generated to charge the batteries. There’s lots of clean ways to generate electricity; wind, solar, waves, nuclear, even a new coal plant here in Illinois that’s going to squirt the carbon dioxide into deep rock strata where pressure will cause it to bind with rock and be stabilized. (I think that last method is kind of ridiculous but you know, big industries need their subsidies, don’t they?)
Today’s nuke plant designs are much safer than old ones. Unfortunately ‘fast’ nukes that basically make their own fuel are politically unpalatable because of the bomb-grade fuel they make. That is understandable, I guess. The main environmentalist complaint against nuke plants has always been the toxic waste, but to me that is more of a political problem than a technical one.
Lots of things can warm up a planet, and like it or not this particular round of global warming is pretty much a result of burning fossil fuel. Another bad effect is that a lot of the CO2 we’ve pumped into the air has been absorbed by the ocean, which acidifies it too fast for calcium-using corals to adapt. It could get very bad for the food chain.
As for saving a fish, the trouble is that all too soon we are soon going to have to learn how to live without them. As the country-western song goes, “Then what?“
Posted by george.w on 12/22/07 at 11:48 AMNot sure if it’s just me but that Pentagon link on waste was an article about Intel nano chips.
I agree with James, but I would also like to see more research funding for renewable’s to advance the technology and lower cost.
A lot of us don’t hate enviromentalism..we hate the environmental nuts..the ones who would rather save a
tree than a humanAmen! I’m glad to see you taking this stance. I have tried and tried to talk sense into the environmental nutballs, but like most fundies they just dont listen.
the ones who will use junk science to prove global warming is man made to advance a socialist agenda
In many ways Global Warming is man made and there is plenty of credible science that shows just that along with plenty of credible scientists that are currently studying such topic.
It seems that even with the batteries it will be just a trade off on who is putting the emissions in the air…more power plants or the automobiles..
I’m glad you bring this up because this is a myth that needs to be dispelled. The State of California did a study just on this very topic. What they found was that even if every car in California had an electric drive train, and even if every power plant was coal (both not the case and never will be) there would still be a 50% reduction in CO2 admissions from what is being output right now!
DOF, this was a very interesting Science Friday. It’s interesting to see where technology is going and I myself find it very exciting to learn about what new prospects could come from such technology.
Posted by webs05 on 12/23/07 at 11:07 AMthat is interesting about the COs2 emission study in California webs05.
Did the study take into consideration the additional power plants that would be needed to keep all those new car batteries charged?
Posted by GUYK on 12/23/07 at 12:09 PMThis is indeed fantastic news. Maybe I’ll sign up for an Aptera after all.
Posted by zilch on 12/23/07 at 04:36 PMThere may not currently be enough output to meet demand, but you’re missing the point. The point of the study was only to find out how CO2 emmissions are impacted by Electric Vehicles. But regardless I think California could easily have enough output, especially if Google’s idea takes off.
You have to remember, most people don’t want an electric drive train though so it really is a non issue, at most they want a Plugin Hybrid or a Plugin Serial Hybrid. Electric Vehicles still have range limitations. So I think Google’s Vehicle to grid idea coupled with solar powered recharging stations for plugins and EVs will work fine in California. California has free energy everywhere if they look hard enough.
Posted by webs05 on 12/23/07 at 04:37 PMDoh! Sorry about the incorrect Pentagon link. I fixed it.
Posted by george.w on 12/24/07 at 12:40 AMwebs- you say “Electric Vehicles still have range limitations.“
So do gas vehicles. And if the range of electric vehicles could be improved by a factor of ten, then they are easily competitive with gas vehicles. But we’ll see whether production of such batteries is feasible. And recharging still needs to be dealt with somehow. I’ll wait a few years before I plunk down the cash for an electric car, and continue biking and taking public transportation for the moment.
Merry Cephalopodmas, everyone! Or Christmas, or Saturnalia. Whatever- Merry Merry!
Posted by zilch on 12/24/07 at 06:21 AMAnd a happy Newtonmas to one and all!
Posted by george.w on 12/24/07 at 11:28 AMThis is very exciting news for those of us who dive electronic vehicles. Especially if we are dependent on those vehicles. Way to go Stanford!
Posted by Rate My Scooter on 07/31/08 at 12:41 PM
Next entry: Tony Blair goes Roman
Previous entry: Icicles from a couple days ago