More mathematics of electricity

[XstreamVking]

Cost vs return? Cali. does not care if it's economically feasible. They will spend tax dollars to make things more costly and ask for more govt. funds to make up the difference between reality and their fantasy.

[NICE PAIR]

"I concur"

[pcrussell50]

Oddly enough, I had a ride in an electric boat a couple of weeks ago. It was a hydrofoil. The boat could go 50 mph or cruise 2 hours,

It could do both if it was petro powered.

On the other hand, batteries continue to improve, so maybe one day

Not with lithium ion. It has been around for 35 years and only doubled in specific energy for practical apps. (Nearly tripled lab apps that are too dangerous to use in real life). We're pretty near the end of the road for lithium ion. The more you pack into it, the more of a fire bomb it becomes.

Interestingly, California is already using more battery storage than I knew. It would be interesting to see the cost analysis that led to this.

Over the past decade there have been an average of over two battery storage plant, lithium fires a year. CA alone had a huge one in January 2025 and another huge one just six months prior.

Battery storage plants are SUPER expensive, especially if they are lithium. Of all places to NOT need lithium, you would think it would be ground based stationary storage, and you would eliminate the fire risk, too. Not sure why the desperation to use dangerous and expensive lithium for stationary, ground based storage. Since it makes no sense, It stinks of crooked politics. Some generous donor getting rich off the taxpayers, no doubt.

-Peter

[David]

Iowa gets 60% of its electricity from wind; South Dakota, 55.3%; Kansas 46.2%; Texas has 19,415 wind turbines.




BYD is selling an EV in China that can add 250 miles of range in 5 minutes, for only $27,000

[pcrussell50]

Your Ignorance is astounding, Mrknownothing

What is the Energy Density of Lithium-Ion Batteries
March 19, 2025




Dr. Lee PAN

Energy density measures how much energy a battery stores relative to its weight or volume, and it directly impacts battery performance, influencing how long devices can operate. Lithium-ion batteries excel in this area, offering impressive li-ion energy density metrics:

Weight-based energy density: 150 to 350 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg)

Aw Cudes, can't you use your own words and be more to the point? That cut and paste was a monstrous ball of fluff.

And OHBTW, either your Dr. Lee PAN is a quack, or the reporter reporting on his work is unqualified to do science articles. Look at the bold bit again. Energy density is not how much energy a battery stores relative to it's weight. THAT, is what we call, specific energy. Energy density (he was half right) is correctly stated as how much energy a battery stores relative to it's volume. Oh, and better stick with specific energy when comparing to petro fuels. Lithium is even worse compared to petrol, in energy density.

Anyway, Yes, 350Wh/kg has been reached... In a lab. At the cell level, not the pack level. Do you know what is meant by the difference between cell level and pack level? Let me know and I will explain it to you.

The 350Wh/kg is hero numbers for braggers and dreamy fanstsisers. They have only been tested at low powers and under very gentle lab conditions. They are not used in commercially available products where people might get injured or killed by a lithium fie, especially transporting people. They are too fragile, with super thin separators, brittle (high silicon) anodes, and biggest of all, super high lithium concentration, making them basically fire bombs. To say nothing of the otherworldly cost of them.

Wake me when you or I can buy a 350Wh/kg battery for a car/boat/aeroplane and find anyone willing to insure our lives. If that day ever comes, lithium ion will have improved to the point where it is only 35 times less than petroleum. If it happens in say ten years, (if it every happens at all), that means lithium ion will have tripled in specific energy, and it will have only taken half a century to do it. Even if that ever happens, it will still not be nearly enough, and it will not get any better. Face it mate... We are at the end of the road for lithium. You're going to have to find something else to power your battery boating dreams.

Kudos: Your article did post a realistic truth. High end cars today do have pack-level specific energies of 150-200 Wh/kg. Meh.

***

I ride a lithium battery skateboard. It's a heavy mofo. If I could get a 350Wh/kg pack for it (they don't exist), and it didn't cost as much as a house (it literally would), I'd love to give it a go. It's easy to escape a burning skateboard if it fire bombs on me.

-Peter

[Chaz]

Peter I think there are two things your overlooking (fail to understand). That is the subject matter the village idiot doesn't understand (or cares to learn) the facts you present, or even the facts buried in the text that he cut (steals) and pastes from someone else's work.
So what you get back is typical lib-tard pushback, personal attack etc because they basically have nothing else.
Only thing funnier than CRAP acting like he know's about batteries, is him trying to figure out what happened to the outboard class at LOTO this year ...

[pcrussell50]

China is way ahead in battery tech.

Do you ever introspect as to why you hold that belief?

Ever since the dawn of rechargeable personal electronic devices, (way way way before the green mania over battery operated cars), it was quickly realized that that battery tech was going to be the most important field of research. Everybody wanted more capacity, lighter weight, slimmer designs. The finest minds in science and research have been all over it since then: Apple, Sanyo, Nokia, NASA, among many many many others. Don't be fooled just because of your relatively recent green car and boat dreams, that this is new.

So... Why do you think the China that steals tech from everybody else is ahead of everybody else? Do you ever wonder why it looks like that?

Going to take a break from the hard science and speculate a little here...

Here's what I see. They are not ahead of anybody else in actual cutting edge battery tech. If they are so far ahead, it would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of mankind, and they would be selling and licensing their technology to the west. What I believe is happening in China is that they are pushing the safety envelope in transportation battery tech. Being a Marxist country, they don't have to worry about being sued if a family burns up in one of their firebomb, deathtraps. But the west is not buying it. Thank goodness. Do you ever read about those battery mopeds everyone calls e-bikes? Whenever one catches fire in an apartment building in a big city, the apologists like to say, "But it was cheap Chinese garbage!1! A proper western company with a way more expensive battery would have been safer!1!1!" You've heard that excuse a million times. Do you not not see the parallels between Chinese battery mopeds and why Chinese battery car tech is not making it to western countries where the courts will side with the victims?

-Peter

[David]

Except that China exports lots of EVs. Just not to North America

[pcrussell50]

Except that China exports lots of EVs. Just not to North America

America has the most aggressive lawsuit culture in the world, and not by a little, but by a lot.

-Peter

[NICE PAIR]

Doesn't solar like batteries?

China Solar Panel Control


China plays a dominant role in the global solar panel supply chain, controlling over 80% of the production of key components such as polysilicon, wafers, cells, and modules. This dominance extends from raw material processing to the final assembly of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, with China producing at least 80% of the main PV components and accounting for 83% of global solar panel production as of 2023. Additionally, more than 30% of the world’s cumulative installed solar capacity is located in China, making it the largest installer as well.
This control has significant implications for global energy markets. Chinese firms benefit from substantial government subsidies, low-cost energy (often coal-based), and strategic industrial policies that have driven down global solar PV costs by over 80% since 2011. As a result, Chinese solar panels are highly competitive, enabling the country to become the top exporter of solar PVs worldwide. This cost advantage has led to rapid adoption in regions like Africa and South Asia, where countries such as Pakistan and Algeria have imported large volumes of Chinese panels to address energy shortages.
Beyond manufacturing, Chinese companies are expanding their footprint in international markets. By mid-2025, Chinese-backed firms are projected to control nearly half of U.S. domestic solar panel production capacity, leveraging both local investments and federal incentives like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This growing presence has raised concerns in the U.S. and Europe about strategic dependency and national security, particularly regarding smart inverters—devices that convert solar-generated direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) for grid use. Some Chinese-made inverters have been found to contain unauthorized communication devices, raising fears that they could be remotely manipulated to disrupt power grids, especially given Chinese laws requiring companies to cooperate with intelligence agencies.
NATO and cybersecurity experts have warned that the widespread integration of Chinese inverters—over 200 GW in Europe alone—creates potential vulnerabilities in critical energy infrastructure. While actual large-scale attacks remain speculative, the risk of coordinated shutdowns or grid instability is considered a serious concern.
In summary, China exerts extensive control over the global solar panel supply chain, from raw materials to finished products and increasingly, manufacturing capacity abroad. This dominance offers economic and environmental benefits through lower costs and faster deployment of solar energy, but it also introduces geopolitical and security risks related to energy dependence and potential cyber-physical threats to power systems.

[pcrussell50]

Photovoltaics (solar panels), involve toxic materials and heavy metals. Marxist countries are ideally situated to manufacture them with their slave labour, and no recourse for the workers poisoned by it.

Photovoltaics are what we call, dirty solar. There is clean solar too. But it’s really expensive. Even with subsidies, clean solar struggles to stay in business.

-Peter

[XstreamVking]

How about the African self charging car? ( Built In cooperation with china haha!) they were/are claiming to be building 30,000 cars a day. (both lying) Now, we know that is highly improbable but some people will fall for it just because they want sooo badly for it to be true. For those of us that live in reality, we easily know it's a scam. I don't believe much of what China claims. It's almost always too good to be true.

Remember what they told us in 2020 ? We still suffer the consequences from it...

[Chaz]

Newscum said with a wave of the hand ... we already have self charging cars in the land of fruits and nuts ..

[NICE PAIR]

They had smog-less, no emissions, no gasoline, no electricity cars in the dinosaur days! What made us think we could improve on that?

[David]

America has the most aggressive lawsuit culture in the world, and not by a little, but by a lot.

-Peter

absolutely true, and I spent my share of time as an in house defense guy

Despite that, perhaps the 100% tariffs are also a factor.

The president of Ford owns a BYD and says it’s great