Is a massive new technology disruption on the horizon?

[Rooster]

What I’ve read on the subject says that every 500 years a major leap occurs in something which has been advanced to its technological end. In this particular case, that would be weaponry, namely firearms. The advances in ballistics and metallurgy have gone about as far as they can go and are now relying on optics and acquisition systems that are computer based. The next big jump is expected to be in energy weaponry wherein the delivery system is portable enough, yet energy efficient to allow for it to be manufactured in a package that is concealable.

The other area I have read that could be the cataclysmic innovation is nanotechnology or nannites. This has applications ranging from medical procedures to crop production to weapon systems.

[Mikey]

This looks interesting and maybe right up my alley. Will try and watch it tomorrow.

Could be the big jump in weaponry will 3-D printed guns. They may never be capable of more than a single shot but could still make a lot of current security measures obsolete.

[Wolfman]

I thought it was plastic straws.

[Left Seater]

Too bad the leap isn’t in battery technology. That would take solar and wind power to a scale we can only dream about today. Without battery tech increasing exponentially, solar and wind power will rely on government subsidies to be viable.

[smackaholic]

I disagree, lefty.

Battery tech IS the key to making EVs practical, but solar and wind are already tied into the grid, in most cases. There is no need to store it.

[Imus]

I say when the cocksucker / house cleaner robot is perfected, then that will be a sea-change.

[BSmack]

2045 is just around the corner

[Mikey]

I disagree, lefty.

Battery tech IS the key to making EVs practical, but solar and wind are already tied into the grid, in most cases. There is no need to store it.

Ever heard of the term "intermittency?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

[Goober McTuber]

I disagree, lefty.

Battery tech IS the key to making EVs practical, but solar and wind are already tied into the grid, in most cases. There is no need to store it.

Ever heard of the term "intermittency?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

Interesting article. QQMF.

This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (May 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.

[smackaholic]

I disagree, lefty.

Battery tech IS the key to making EVs practical, but solar and wind are already tied into the grid, in most cases. There is no need to store it.

Ever heard of the term "intermittency?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

Not familiar with the term, but am aware of the issues with demand/generation. Seems like it is best dealt with on a large commercial scale. I don't believe banks of batteries in everyone's yard is the solution, unless it means going completely off grid.

Also, the tricky part of affordable batteries is a matter of weight. And weight isn't much of a concern if it just sits in your yard. I recently read an article about using tanks of salt water in battery systems. Horrible wh/lb ratio, but cheap, non-toxic and long lasting.

[Left Seater]

Yes wind and solar are already tied into the grid. What we don't have is the ability to store large quantities of power for use later. Solar power is useless when the sun goes down no matter how much you put into the grid a 2:00pm.

Texas is the largest wind power producer in the country. A few years ago it was double CA's output and more has come on line since. That said, when high pressure systems move over the state in the summer it tends to get very still. This means everyone is using more electricity to run their a/c units, but the wind farms are producing almost nothing. So having large scale battery power on hand would really help in some situations. In the winter the wind power farms can supply just short of 40% of the states power needs, but not so in the summer.

But what would be the problem with having some batteries tied into a home system as well? I am not saying everyone goes off grid, just having the ability to store on a larger scale than we have today would be awesome.

I still don't understand why government wants to throw money at wind and solar generating companies. Solar power is basically the same tech as it was in the 70s. Government should be funding battery research.

[Mikey]

Actually, solar panels are quite a bit more efficient than they were in the 70s.

Also, as far as storage, it would make sense to have it on a single household scale if cheap enough and you have PV on your roof. That way the power you generate during the day when you're not home can be used at night when you are. In case smackaholic didn't realize, the PV doesn't generate at night.

That being said,

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/teslas ... on/435171/
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/eia-70 ... us/514409/

Still relatively small, but Rome didn't become history's most popular radio talk jock in a day.

[smackaholic]

There is plenty of incentive to improve batteries, and we should improve it, for portable device use, but home use, not so much, unless it is to get off the grid. It just doesn't seem to make economic sense to me.

Large scale storage, using gravity, has been around forever. Let everyone pump their electrons back into the grid where the power company can store them, or better yet, use them elsewhere.

[Left Seater]

Actually, solar panels are quite a bit more efficient than they were in the 70s.

Other than cost coming down and an increase in efficiency what are the major solar gains? What will solar generation look like in 10 years? Pretty much the same as today, just a bit cheaper, no?

Batteries is where the jumps will come from.

[Mikey]

There is plenty of incentive to improve batteries, and we should improve it, for portable device use, but home use, not so much, unless it is to get off the grid. It just doesn't seem to make economic sense to me.

Large scale storage, using gravity, has been around forever. Let everyone pump their electrons back into the grid where the power company can store them, or better yet, use them elsewhere.

You seriously need to eject on this subject.

The power company doesn't store anything on "the grid," which is basically just wires. That's right...read it again, no storage on the grid. Unless you have a bunch of batteries attached to it. But you just said that that doesn't make any sense.



The problem now is that during the peak solar production, there's also no "elsewhere" to use the power. There's isn't some infinite demand out there where you can pump all those electrons. You have to have somewhere to use it, or store it for later when there's no solar production.

[Mikey]

Actually, solar panels are quite a bit more efficient than they were in the 70s.

Other than cost coming down and an increase in efficiency what are the major solar gains? What will solar generation look like in 10 years? Pretty much the same as today, just a bit cheaper, no?

Batteries is where the jumps will come from.

Lower cost and higher efficiency. What other "major" gains did you have in mind? Prettier solar panels?

[smackaholic]

The elsewhere has traditionally been pumping water back above a dam. They've done it for years. And even in socal, there are such dams. I have also read about a company building a system using railcars loaded full of rock. The cars have traction motors which pull them up a slope during excess supply and recover the power when needed. I read an article about using windmills to balance fluctuations. I assume the way it would work is to spin the windmill faster with the excess power to be pulled back out later. Obviously this isn't a long term storage technique, but could be used to even out small fluctuations.

To me, it just seems like having millions of separate storage systems is like everyone having generators in their yards rather than a single large plant. It is simple economy of scale. It works with power storage just like it does with most other things.

What are the upsides of everyone storing their own, besides the ability to run off grid? I don't see one that makes economic sense.

[Mikey]

The elsewhere has traditionally been pumping water back above a dam. They've done it for years. And even in socal, there are such dams.

Pumped storage is great. The problem is you can't just put it just anywhere you want it. You have to have two big lakes and a big hill between them. In socal there aren't many "such dams." Most damns are filled from behind to store the water. Almost all of them, at least the large ones, generate electricity when they release the water. The thing is, they're releasing the water for consumption. There isn't a big lake down the hill for storing water to pump back to the top.

I have also read about a company building a system using railcars loaded full of rock. The cars have traction motors which pull them up a slope during excess supply and recover the power when needed.

Seriously? You think this is reasonable on any kind of scale? You think batteries don't make economic sense?

I read an article about using windmills to balance fluctuations. I assume the way it would work is to spin the windmill faster with the excess power to be pulled back out later. Obviously this isn't a long term storage technique, but could be used to even out small fluctuations.

I can safely say that either whoever wrote this article was full of shit, or you didn't understand it. I think I can guess which.
You can't "spin the windmill faster with the excess power to be pulled back out later." Do you have any idea how ridiculous this statement is? A windmill creates electricity when the wind makes it spin, and in turn drives a generator. If the wind blows, the windmill spins. If the wind doesn't blow the windmill doesn't spin. You can slow it or stop it by "feathering" the blades but this doesn't save any power, it just doesn't make any from the wind that's blowing. If you don't use it, it's gone (with the wind). They do this when the wind is blowing too hard, or when there's no demand for the power. You can't pull it out later. A windmill running backwards is just a big fan.

To me, it just seems like having millions of separate storage systems is like everyone having generators in their yards rather than a single large plant. It is simple economy of scale. It works with power storage just like it does with most other things.

One advantage of having small on-site generation (like PV) is that you don't need to build any more transmission capacity ("the grid"). The more demand there is from a central plant, the bigger you have to make the wires and the local transformers.

What are the upsides of everyone storing their own, besides the ability to run off grid? I don't see one that makes economic sense.

Many, if not most, utilities are moving to a Time of Use rate paradigm for residential users. Almost all of them already are for larger commercial and industrial customers. You pay more during the peak demand periods, say noon until 6:00 pm, than the off-peak periods. Say you pay $0.15/kWh for off-peak consumption and $0.30/kWh during the peak period. Can you see any advantage, if you have PV, from generating electricity when the sun is shining and storing any extra so you don't have to pay the peak rate?

Even if you don't have PV, you charge up the battery at night when it's cheap and use it up during the day to avoid the peak rates.

I don't think I want to go into demand charges and demand reduction / response. It might make your head explode.

One thing about storage batteries is that they are an ideal way to re-purpose old ones from electric vehicles, or ones that don't pass QC in the Tesla factory. The most important thing for an EV battery is a high charge density, i.e. energy per unit mass or volume. Not so much for storage batteries.

[Left Seater]

Actually, solar panels are quite a bit more efficient than they were in the 70s.

Other than cost coming down and an increase in efficiency what are the major solar gains? What will solar generation look like in 10 years? Pretty much the same as today, just a bit cheaper, no?

Batteries is where the jumps will come from.

Lower cost and higher efficiency. What other "major" gains did you have in mind? Prettier solar panels?

So the panels are made in China and the cost fame down. That isn’t a tech gain.

Solyndra tried to advance solar panel tech but turns out they were just good at taking tax payer money. Solar panels are a mature technology. No more government money needs to go there.

[Mikey]

Solar panels are a mature technology.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Seriously, you should watch the video.

Solyndra is an example of a government investment that went off the rails. There are far more success than failures, but I guess you and your ilk are going to shout SOLYNDRA until you drop dead.

https://www.energy.gov/lpo/portfolio/portfolio-projects
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/portfolio

[Mikey]

I don't know much about this cat, Tony Seba. Could be a loon. But he isn't selling anything in this video (except maybe his book), and he makes a lot of good points.

I'm not particularly good at predicting the future. But I can see the path this guy lays out.

Watch the video. Worst case, you wasted an hour. Best case, we have something else to argue about that doesn't involve donkeys and elephants.

Just watched the video. He makes a very good presentation. Left Seater won't like it much, though, because solar panels are a mature technology. Funny - he made a few of the same points I tried to make in my earlier post, only he did it much better.

He makes a good case by presenting things from pretty much a purely economic POV. A few questions came to mind though.

- He gave some great examples of disruptive technologies and the "S" curve. I wonder if there are any examples out there of technologies that started up the "S" curve but sort of...fell off...and petered out.

- I don't think he mentioned any possible constraints that might result from lack of raw materials. That could be a problem with both PV and battery storage.

- What about coal?

[Mikey]

This looks interesting and maybe right up my alley. Will try and watch it tomorrow.

I had you in mind when I posted the video.

I would personally like to see the guy’s data sources to find out if he is cherry picking or painting an accurate picture of the technology gains. I’m basically taking him at his word, which is dangerous.

So, are you buying into his picture of the future?

Some of his projections seem pretty far fetched at first glance. But looking back 10 years, a lot of what's developed since then would have seemed just as outrageous.

I can say that all or most of what he presents that has happened up until now, or at least a year ago when the video was made, seems accurate. His short term predictions on energy storage and distributed generation, which I know a lot more about than EVs and autonomous vehicles, are still spot on a year later. When he drops in his projections using S curves and exponential growth it all seems very reasonable. But, showing that it happened in the past is a lot different than confirming that it will occur in the future.

Being the unapologetic libtard that I am, I wouldn't mind seeing a 30% reduction in petroleum demand, the death the internal combustion engine, and sub-transmission cost distributed PV production. The past four or five summers in California say that climate change sucks and it would be nice if we could reverse it or at least slow it down. I'm just not too sure it's going to happen that way.

There's one point he made that I don't really agree with, and that was his comparison of the current fuel cost of running an EV vs. an ICE. He claimed that it costs half as much to charge an EV as it does to use gasoline. My plug-in hybrid runs on both so I can make a pretty good comparison and, believe me, I have. It depends on your assumptions for 1) the price of gas, 2) the price of electrons, 3) mpg running on gas, and 4) miles per kWh when running on electric. I once did sort of a parametric comparison and came up with something like this; with my car a break even point is about 45 mpg, $0.20/kWh and $3.00/gal. My marginal electric cost is about $0.20 and I get about 45 mpg, so if gas is over $3.00 then electric is cheaper. Under $3.00 then gas is cheaper. I don't think we've been under $3.00 for a few years here. I sort of like driving in electric mode anyway so I always charge up over night. There are a lot of commercial charging stations around here that get you for $0.50/kWh or more. I would never charge up at one of those stations. It's a lot cheaper to run on gas. I do get a free charge at the airport though, and the EV parking spot is the closest one to the terminal.

[Left Seater]

Solyndra is but an example. But of all those companies listed in your portfolio link, where is the great advancement in solar for those dollars? Link us up to that. But again solar is a mature technology.

Your hybrid number are interesting. Sounds like you would do much better here or in Santa Fe where gas is $2.45 and rarely even gets to $3.00. One thing you seemed to leave out was purchase cost and on going maintenance/insurance. I believe there are still Federal subsidies for EV and possibly for hybrids.

[Mikey]

Solyndra is but an example. But of all those companies listed in your portfolio link, where is the great advancement in solar for those dollars? Link us up to that. But again solar is a mature technology.

Your hybrid number are interesting. Sounds like you would do much better here or in Santa Fe where gas is $2.45 and rarely even gets to $3.00. One thing you seemed to leave out was purchase cost and on going maintenance/insurance. I believe there are still Federal subsidies for EV and possibly for hybrids.

Why don’t you go ahead and “link us up” to some additional failures and anything at all that proves solar to be a “mature technology.” First though you might try defining “mature technology.”

[Left Seater]

Your failure to link us up to any significant gains has proven my point.

As for basic meaning of words since you seem to need help with those, consider this my good deed for the day.

A mature technology is a technology that has been in use for long enough that most of its initial faults and inherent problems have been removed or reduced by further development. In some contexts, it may also refer to technology that has not seen widespread use, but whose scientific background is well understood.

[Mikey]

Your failure to link us up to any significant gains has proven my point.

As for basic meaning of words since you seem to need help with those, consider this my good deed for the day.

A mature technology is a technology that has been in use for long enough that most of its initial faults and inherent problems have been removed or reduced by further development. In some contexts, it may also refer to technology that has not seen widespread use, but whose scientific background is well understood.

Actually, it hasn’t proven anything.

For somebody who’s always shouting to “link us up” you seem to have a real problem linking anything up on your own.



You stated that Solyndra is an "example" of something. If that's true then there should be plenty more "examples" of whatever Solyndra is an example of. Please link us up.
Still waiting for that link up showing that solar is a mature technology. Sorry, but looking up the definition doesn't count.

[Mikey]

BTW...

This is actually four year old news but you're still going to keep shouting SOLYNDRA!!!! every time solar energy comes up, so I'll just leave it at this.

https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/36357215 ... g-a-profit

After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit

[Goober McTuber]

Being the unapologetic libtard that I am, I wouldn't mind seeing a 30% reduction in petroleum demand, the death the internal combustion engine, and sub-transmission cost distributed PV production.

Wish in one hand...

[Mikey]

Being the unapologetic libtard that I am, I wouldn't mind seeing a 30% reduction in petroleum demand, the death the internal combustion engine, and sub-transmission cost distributed PV production.

Wish in one hand...

You should watch the video. The guy makes an interesting case that when the cost of owning, maintaining and operating an EV drops below a conventionally powered vehicle, then most people will stop buying them. At that point Trump's messing with emission standards won't much matter any more.

Of course there will be holdouts like Blow in PB who likes his Mustangs loud, but you could make a case for just adding some recorded engine noise. Even if 90% of new car sales are electric, you can bet the car companies will be phasing them out.

An electric motor also has about 5 x the lifetime of an ICE with little or no maintenance.

[Goober McTuber]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49247&p=969115#p969115

[Left Seater]

First though you might try defining “mature technology.”

Definition of basic words provided.

Sorry, but looking up the definition doesn't count.

Nice job moving the goal posts.



Further your lack of ability to link us up to significant gains in solar technology just makes my point for me. If you would slow down and not be so ready to argue, you would see that we are both pretty much on the same page. Hybrid is a good thing. More solar and wind is also good, but we need more storage capacity. Despite what 'Holic thinks battery storage for home use is a good thing.

[Mikey]

First though you might try defining “mature technology.”

Definition of basic words provided.

Sorry, but looking up the definition doesn't count.

Nice job moving the goal posts.



Further your lack of ability to link us up to significant gains in solar technology just makes my point for me. If you would slow down and not be so ready to argue, you would see that we are both pretty much on the same page. Hybrid is a good thing. More solar and wind is also good, but we need more storage capacity. Despite what 'Holic thinks battery storage for home use is a good thing.

Glad to see you're on board with these things. But your reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired. I never asked you to look up the definition of "mature technology" just to define it. Looking it up is fine too, but you've conveniently ignored the two things that I did ask you to "link up."

No, I haven't moved the goalposts. You apparently don't know a goalpost when you see one.

If you want a link to gains in solar technology, you might start with the video that 88 linked.

You also might try here:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/success-sto ... ss-stories

[Mikey]

As far as "mature technology" the definition you found certainly applies. But one could also argue that a technology whose implementation is still growing exponentially, whose cost is still decreasing exponentially, and whose efficiency continues to increase, should possibly not be considered "mature."

[Goober McTuber]

No, I haven't moved the goalposts. You apparently don't know a goalpost when you see one.

He's a referee, for God's sake!

[Go Coogs']

Wow. Very interesting video, but also scary when you think about what he’s proposing as the disruption. If all that were to happen, you’re talking about a massive collapse in the economy and millions jobless. Think about what all is involved with a car?

-Aluminum and steel demand reduced significantly

-Polymer molds reduced

-Fuel additives no longer needed

- Dealerships gone

-Bank lenders cut

-Gas stations and car washes gone

-Road expansions and highway improvements no longer needed

-No cash flow for municipalities for parking tickets, speeding, accidents, Etc

-Insurance adjusters, agents, policies gone

The list goes on and on and this will not only cripple the economy but you’re talking about a full on ‘Running Man’ type situation where homeless people will be in the streets crowded around barrels of fire placing bets on life or death game shows.

The only thing I would balk at in his video is the powerful nature and deep pockets of big oil, the banks, and all that surrounds our current transportation infrastructure. I laugh at the people who were clapping when he mentioned the part of oil demand going down. These are the same people who have no idea how many jobs and livelihoods are on the line if the ICE goes away and the automobile industry is significantly reduced. We will end up being a socialist society with fixed incomes.




Sent from Screwey's Lint Filter

[Go Coogs']

All valid points, 88 and I’m not saying I’m against it, but it is scary to think about. We need to get with times. My polyethylene is not used in automotive industry, but our parent companies are massive players in big oil. Maybe need to think of a career change and get out in front of this and learn more about battery cells and storage business. If the demand for this is at the beginning of the S curve, then that would surely get me to retirement in 15-18 years.


Sent from Screwey's Lint Filter

[smackaholic]

First though you might try defining “mature technology.”

Definition of basic words provided.

Sorry, but looking up the definition doesn't count.

Nice job moving the goal posts.



Further your lack of ability to link us up to significant gains in solar technology just makes my point for me. If you would slow down and not be so ready to argue, you would see that we are both pretty much on the same page. Hybrid is a good thing. More solar and wind is also good, but we need more storage capacity. Despite what 'Holic thinks battery storage for home use is a good thing.

I will admit that in local and maybe even a good bit of teeeehas, going off grid, or damn close to it, it may make economic sense to consider it.

Mikey, I do here your point about grid sizing, and in a place like local where a coupla few magic shade trees will pretty much get you to electron self sufficiency, it has more merit.

But, a good number of us live in places that are solarly challenged. We’ll never escape ‘the grid’. And the grid is already in place.

And even if we do go to residential ‘tron storage, weight isn’t an issue and to use a LS term, it sorta already is a mature technology. The big gains to be made in batteries are in cost of lightweight storage.

Maybe there would be something in the middle that would be more practical. Battery storage sites for neighborhoods. Maybe 100-200 homes. It would have the advantage of local storage and some economy of scale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mikey]

I was sitting in the airport a few weeks ago and couldn't help listening to one side of a conversation involving the installation of energy storage devices. The blow-hard salesman ruining my waiting-for-my-fucking-plane experience was jabbering on and on about the ease through which he is able to sell his electric storage cells to large businesses. They use a lot of juice and pay different rates depending upon the cost at peak etc. He said they can install the storage batteries (I got the impression that the storage batteries are used to collect and store energy from the grid when it is cheap as well as from solar panels installed on the building and on canopies over the cars in the parking lot etc.) at relatively low cost, and the company can recover that cost in less than four years. He said he is selling faster than his manufacturers and installers can keep up. This conversation was overheard before I watched the video, and so this all kind of make sense to me. This might be the company he works for, but I'm not sure.

http://www.primuspower.com/en/

One thing that you rarely see discussed, probably because most people just can't get their heads around it, but is critical to the economic success of energy storage in the Commercial and Industrial market, is the concept of demand reduction / demand response.

Most CI customers pay a Time of Use (TOU) rate that has both energy (kWh) and demand (kW) components. Generally there's a peak period, a mid-peak period and an off-peak period in the summer and just mid- and off-peak periods in the winter. The summer on-peak energy charge can be twice as high or more than the off-peak price.

You can see the tariff sheet for Southern California Edison's GS2 tariff, which is for mid-sized (20 kW to 200 kW) CI customers, here:

https://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce329.pdf

Option A has a huge energy charge (almost $0.40/kWh on-peak) and not so high demand charge (about $16.00/kW) where option B has a lower energy charge (about $0.13) and larger demand charge (almost $40.00/kW on-peak but only about $20.00 mid-peak and $16.00 off-peak).

Some companies end up paying a huge demand charge, much higher than their energy charge, because of the nature of how they use electricity. Demand is measured as the highest 15 minute average over the course of the one month billing period. 15 minutes is a pretty short period, and your demand charge for the entire month can be set by a single instance of high usage. For example, if you have a bunch of motors all start up at nearly the same time, the inrush current will cause a big intermittent spike in your demand and potentially cost hundreds or thousands of $$. Even if your natural load shape is spiky like, say running furnaces intermittently, the demand charge can kill you. A lot of companies that use multiple refrigeration compressors have controls that won't allow more than one to start up at any given time, just for this reason.

A storage battery can not only move your usage from the on-peak period to the off-peak period, it can smooth out all of the peaks that the utility sees by discharging when they occur. Think about it. If you're paying $40/kW for a 200 kW on-peak demand that's $8,000/month just in demand charges.

[Wolfman]

We're not about to run out of oil any time soon. I think there are huge reserves still available under the earth's crust and abiogenesis is stiil a possibility, although it has been pooh-poohed by many, Oh if Tesla was really onto something---" wireless electricity transmission. This is on the near horizon. " The other item that would be a huge game changer is cold fusion, if that is possible.

[Mikey]

The other item that would be a huge game changer is cold fusion, if that is possible.

I thought Coors already did that.