EV 1500km per charge, Aluminium Air fuel Cell

[goingbush]

This is what the world needs ASAP.

but do I smell a rat, thats a picture of a DC-100

Father-of-eight invents an electric car battery to take drivers 1,500 miles without charging it | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7592485/Father-eight-invents-electric-car-battery-drivers-1-500-miles-without-charging-it.html)


https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/10/20/00/19940864-7592485-image-a-64_1571527699892.jpg

[ChookD2]

That was an interesting read. Hope there is merit in this as lithium tech, if it hasn't already, is probably approaching it's peak.

In another forum on the subject of climate change I said that "alternative energies will be the future we just haven't found the right one's ..... yet". This bloke may have found one.

Not sure how he came to his calculation of 7p per mile. At 1500 mile range and £5000 to replace that makes 30p per mile by my figuring. Also if the average British family travel 7,900 miles per year at 1500 miles per cell that's 5.26 cells per year @ £5000 each making £26,300. Seems like a lot of money (£5000) to shell out in one hit 5 times a year. Yes, I understand you are not putting fuel in the tank every week/other day so that money is building in your account to be able to get your next cell. Even if I could just fuel my vehicle 5 times a year not sure I would be wanting to cough up 5 grand for the privilege each time. Roughly ever 2 1/4 months.

Like other power storage tech will this one lose charge over time when not in use? Guess we will have to wait and see where this goes but it does sound promising. Best of luck to him.

[goingbush]

That was an interesting read. Hope there is merit in this as lithium tech, if it hasn't already, is probably approaching it's peak.

In another forum on the subject of climate change I said that "alternative energies will be the future we just haven't found the right one's ..... yet". This bloke may have found one.

Not sure how he came to his calculation of 7p per mile. At 1500 mile range and £5000 to replace that makes 30p per mile by my figuring. Also if the average British family travel 7,900 miles per year at 1500 miles per cell that's 5.26 cells per year @ £5000 each making £26,300. Seems like a lot of money (£5000) to shell out in one hit 5 times a year. Yes, I understand you are not putting fuel in the tank every week/other day so that money is building in your account to be able to get your next cell. Even if I could just fuel my vehicle 5 times a year not sure I would be wanting to cough up 5 grand for the privilege each time. Roughly ever 2 1/4 months.

Like other power storage tech will this one lose charge over time when not in use? Guess we will have to wait and see where this goes but it does sound promising. Best of luck to him.


Good thinking but the way I read it the £5000 was up front for the battery/fuel cell. replacing it with a full one wont be £5000 every time, but rather a nominal fee, other wise the comparison with a Tesla battery at £30,000 is false economy , £30k would only give 9000miles , where the Tesla battery is good for 1,000,000 miles.

[AK83]

"old tech" so to speak.

THIS (https://phys.org/news/2018-10-catalyst-high-energy-aluminum-air-batteries.html) article explained it a year or so ago.

Still interesting info tho.

I remember reading the physics.org article and thought .. why don't they make it(the battery) compartmentalised in such a way that if all that is needed is fresh aluminium and electrolyte, then the user/owner has spare Al and electrolyte on hand and replenishes the battery cell themselves .. rather than paying thousands for the new cell from company X.
It'd be just like new diesels now .. you add diesel and ad blue and you go again.

And in the OP's article, the chap says they approached supermarket chains to discuss cell exchanges .. why limit to supermarket chains, and not major fuel station chains.
After all, if this kind of thing is to take off in a big way, the service stations have the most to lose (and to stay relevant) in the coming future of electro power.

Another article(actually Youtube vid too) I saw recently was that of liquid metal batteries. Sounds interesting, but not so much for transport.
Don Sadoway. Watch the Youtube of his hour long lecture at some UK university. Would never have thought I'd ever enjoy an hour long lecture on anything(I have the attention span of an dead ant).

[ChookD2]

....the way I read it...... replacing it with a full one wont be £5000 every time, but rather a nominal fee........

Fair call. 1500 miles is roughly 2400 km which for me is about 3.5 - 4 tanks of fuel @ about $120 per fill comes to $420 - $480. On that basis it would have to be an extremely nominal fee to compare or compete with today's fuels.

[Red90]

He is saying the cost is 105 UKP to recycle the cell. 5000 is the initial cost. So $0.083 AUD per km.

[Homestar]

While I’d love to be proved wrong here, this all smells like BS to me.

[Red90]

While I’d love to be proved wrong here, this all smells like BS to me.

It is all well established technology. The sticking point has been the cost of the aluminum and the dangers of the electrolyte. He is staying he has solved both. Since he is refusing to release details of how he did that, we would need real world examples being sold for reasonable prices.

[Homestar]

As I said, would love to be proved wrong, but he only claims he’s solved the issues. I’ll wait until there’s proof of this (which I hope there is, but until then I’m a sceptic)

[JDNSW]

Unfortunately, secret formulae are a hallmark of scams, which immediately raises the assumption that it is a scam.

And the Daily Mail is not a reliable source of factual information.

[goingbush]

Unfortunately, secret formulae are a hallmark of scams, which immediately raises the assumption that it is a scam.

And the Daily Mail is not a reliable source of factual information.

Yes, If they'd been asking for investors then it would be a scam for sure. I'm giving the benefit of doubt for now !

[NavyDiver]

As I said, would love to be proved wrong, but he only claims he’s solved the issues. I’ll wait until there’s proof of this (which I hope there is, but until then I’m a sceptic)

Might be but I like Navy types. Found this on him Link (https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/12/naval-veteran-aluminum-air-metalectrique/) might be legitimate.

[Homestar]

Then I eagerly await the proof - reviewed of course by independent testing. I’m not saying he’s a scammer but I’m naturally a sceptical person. If it’s all legit, he’ll be a billionaire in no time. If not, he’ll just have the development funds in his back pocket and a smile on his face anyway.

[Arapiles]

So, he’s running a car on water? (Well, he claims that it’s a drinkable electrolyte.) Sounds familiar .....

[goingbush]

If the inventor mysteriously disappears and battery never heard about again you will know its legit.

[Homestar]

If the inventor mysteriously disappears and battery never heard about again you will know its legit.

I would have thought the opposite - he’ll do a runner with the investment money...

I think all those conspiracy theories about people being murdered by the oil companies is a little ‘Tin foil hat’ for my liking.

[Arapiles]

I would have thought the opposite - he’ll do a runner with the investment money...

I think all those conspiracy theories about people being murdered by the oil companies is a little ‘Tin foil hat’ for my liking.

That article is full of conspiracies - the deep state car companies are holding him back apparently.

[Silenceisgolden]

This is what the world needs ASAP.

but do I smell a rat, thats a picture of a DC-100

Father-of-eight invents an electric car battery to take drivers 1,500 miles without charging it | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7592485/Father-eight-invents-electric-car-battery-drivers-1-500-miles-without-charging-it.html)




But why does the world need this ASAP? Until the world is entirely powered by renewables, electric cars will be running on coal. Even if you have your own solar panels, using the power to offset coal is better than using the power to offset diesel generated power. Coal gives about 30% less energy per unit CO2 produced than does diesel fuel.

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels
Coal (anthracite
228.6
[Coal (bituminous
205.7Coal (lignite)
215.4
Coal (subbituminous)
214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil
161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol)
157.2
Propane
139.0[
Natural gas
117.0

There was a good reason why coal fired trains were replaced by diesel/electric trains.

[JDNSW]

But why does the world need this ASAP? Until the world is entirely powered by renewables, electric cars will be running on coal. Even if you have your own solar panels, using the power to offset coal is better than using the power to offset diesel generated power. Coal gives about 30% less energy per unit CO2 produced than does diesel fuel.

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels
Coal (anthracite
228.6
[Coal (bituminous
205.7Coal (lignite)
215.4
Coal (subbituminous)
214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil
161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol)
157.2
Propane
139.0[
Natural gas
117.0

There was a good reason why coal fired trains were replaced by diesel/electric trains.

Yes - but it had nothing to do with CO2 emissions. Diesel electric trains had lower maintenance requirements, had a much more immediate availability (have you any idea how long it takes to heat fifty tons of water to boiling point?), and the fuel was a lot easier to manage - so overall costs were lower, despite having to replace engines that in many cases were as good as new even aft six or more decades of use, and despite the fuel being more expensive and imported instead of local.

[Phideaux]

[QUOTE=Silenceisgolden;2946666]But why does the world need this ASAP? Until the world is entirely powered by renewables, electric cars will be running on coal. "

Britain now has more renewable generation than non-renewable

Renewable energy in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom)

We could do the same here if the current government wasn't pocketed by Dear Gina. (See that photo with Mr "Drumpf" - with Gina centre-stage between The Donald and Scud-Mud?)

Germany closed its last coal-mine and all former miners were employed in renewables or something else.
Ditto - we could do the same here.

As for scam - that was my first guess; but if you look at the history of 'the guy', who has employed him, who was worked with him, (Unless all the reporting has been utterly shabby) - he should have been called out by now. I'm not familiar with this bit of tech - not my area anyway - but I'll be consulting with my "daughter the PHD in renewables" and maybe share her feedback in this forum.

My next car will be electric. I wish Land Rover was moving faster on this front. I love Ian McCullam's Jag. Beyond my budget, however... But an EV with a 50cm wading depth?? Still tempting... But a new 100 with a range like that? Not only tempting but usable in our vast country. So - for me - sooner is better.

[Silenceisgolden]

Yes - but it had nothing to do with CO2 emissions. Diesel electric trains had lower maintenance requirements, had a much more immediate availability (have you any idea how long it takes to heat fifty tons of water to boiling point?), and the fuel was a lot easier to manage - so overall costs were lower, despite having to replace engines that in many cases were as good as new even aft six or more decades of use, and despite the fuel being more expensive and imported instead of local.

Yes, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. The transition to diesel-electric happened in the fifties, long before anyone considered carbon polluting the atmosphere. Of course not everyone liked the smoke belched out.....

[Silenceisgolden]

[QUOTE=Phideaux;2946698][QUOTE=Silenceisgolden;2946666]But why does the world need this ASAP? Until the world is entirely powered by renewables, electric cars will be running on coal. "

Britain now has more renewable generation than non-renewable [\QUOTE]

Maybe so, but until electricity is generated ENTIRELY by renewable means, electric cars will be powered by coal or other fossil fuels, because until we are entirely renewable, ALL renewable energy will be used before you hop into your electric car. And if you should hop into your car first, then your fridge and your electric massage table will be coal fired instead of renewables fired.

Population control is the discussion we need to have, but it treads on too many toes.

Having said that, fifty years ago I ripped the clapped side-valve engine out of my C10 BSA and put in a Holden started motor and battery, end electric vehicles do have an immense charm in their own right.

[Homestar]

You’re forgetting that even if you powered every EV from coal, it’s still a LOT cleaner and far less emissions are produced - I’ll dig the figures up when I’m back in front of my computer. It makes heaps of sense RIGHT NOW to go electric. It would start reducing emissions immediately no matter what they were charged by. People keep dragging up this argument about charging them with coal time and again but it’s been done to death and the proof shows it’s still heaps cleaner and more efficient to do this than produce the same power with petrol or diesel in the vehicle.

[Silenceisgolden]

You’re forgetting that even if you powered every EV from coal, it’s still a LOT cleaner and far less emissions are produced - I’ll dig the figures up when I’m back in front of my computer. It makes heaps of sense RIGHT NOW to go electric. It would start reducing emissions immediately no matter what they were charged by. People keep dragging up this argument about charging them with coal time and again but it’s been done to death and the proof shows it’s still heaps cleaner and more efficient to do this than produce the same power with petrol or diesel in the vehicle.

Thank you, I would like to see your figures. The only info I could find was the table I printed, which doesn't take into account the conversion efficiency of either coal or diesel fired power.

[Tombie]

The energy is cleaner, the production of the elements used is far more damaging than that - Aluminium is an extremely high output process.

The band wagon is what it is though.

[Phideaux]

It would be nice if there was some magic wand which translated into "convert all vehicles to electric, end all environmental problems".
But there's not.
We're a very long way down a track, which, if we had something like a position of "Life-support systems Chief Officer, reporting to the Captain of Spaceship Earth" the report would be,
"Captain, I've just discovered, the previous several officers in my position made invalid assumptions about the resilience and depth of the system, and appear to have ignored multiple warnings from their Science Officers! Unless we backtrack and apply new and revised recycling and energy generation systems, the balancing systems are going to fail! Possibly within my lifetime!!"
(The 'Science Officer predictions were issued in the early-mid 1960s, and (fires, floods, bigger storms, etc) are evident in yesterday's and tomorrow's newspapers. I remember them. (And I never thought I'd see Binna-Burra Rainforest Lodge burn...) All the 'Captains' - PMs, Presidents, etc - were informed. Which is where Greta's "how dare you!" comes from. Failure to act? Unforgivable. PS - the most important thing Greta said: "I don't want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists!")

SilenceisGolden: agree with you re population control.
Refer Paul Ehrlich (1968), even if many of his predictions were wrong, or premature.
In fact - some actions have been taken - and they have worked. They're just insufficient.
SilenceisGolden: disagree if what you meant is, we have to go to 100% renewables before we get serious about EVs.

Re complexities
Insert variables like:
* people driving home from work and plugging in their EV are making a big drain at peak period. Plugging in during high sun or high wind - better.
* House batteries can't be used for charging EVs (they're too small; the percentage of charge they'd deliver simply wears out the house battery.) * However, EV car batteries can be used to power houses. And draw power from solar.
(My existing solar is good for only about 30km daily, I believe...)
* Existing electricity systems were designed for point sources of major power, not multiple sources of minor generation.
* Some graziers are surviving because they got a good lease for their unproductive hill paddock now providing wind power.

There's a zillion other variables. But the solution is within reach - particularly if we have governments who support the future instead of the entrenched polluters who pay more in Party contributions than they do in tax.

[Silenceisgolden]

SilenceisGolden: disagree if what you meant is, we have to go to 100% renewables before we get serious about EVs.



Let's see what Homestar comes up with - the only figures I could find suggest that coal pollutes more than diesel, in which case we are not ready for electric cars yet (from an environmental point of view).

[Homestar]

Let's see what Homestar comes up with - the only figures I could find suggest that coal pollutes more than diesel, in which case we are not ready for electric cars yet (from an environmental point of view).

Still looking for the report I’ve read, but this is a start. Media stuff I know but a reliable source. Still on my phone so limited with what I can find at the moment

Bloomberg - Are you a robot? (https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal)

Maybe you could find the BNEF report while I get home. If not, I’ll dig that up too.

[Silenceisgolden]

I think the Bloomberg report supports what I read. It says that "The difference was biggest in Britain and the U.K., which have large renewables industries." The point is, that while the car is using renewables it means that something else is using fossil fuel derived electricity instead of renewable electricity. This will only change when ALL electricity is derived from clean sources.

[Homestar]

You’re reading a different report to me then. Obviously you’ve got your mind set and won’t change it, that’s fine. We can agree to disagree. There’s heaps of stuff out there on this - every report done comes to the same conclusion - charging EV’s from coal is still cleaner than having those vehicle using an ICE. I’ll keep looking and post what I find. It will help to reduce emissions, and let’s face it, we have to start somewhere. Is it ideal? - No, but if we sit on our hands and do nothing, then nothing will change and things will continue to get worse. It won’t be our generation having to sort this out but our kids and their kids - if there’s anything left for them by then.

Look at it another way as far as power generation goes - bigger generators use less fuel per KW hour than smaller generators. Speaking from experience here - I work with diesel power gen every day and have done for more than 20 years. Take say a 100KVA genset - this has a similar sized engine in HP to an average 4WD diesel. On average these will produce around 3.6KWH per litre of fuel, whereas a bigger machine - say a 1250KVA that has an engine the size of a Ford Transit van - 50 litres, quad turbo V16 will produce just over 5KWH per litre. Step that up to a V20, 95 litre, 8 turbo behemoth pumping out 3,000KVA and that jumps again to 7.2KWH per litre burnt - making it twice as efficient as the small engine. All of these meet Euro 3 standards and produce similar emissions per litre of diesel burnt, so the 1250 and 3000 produce far less emissions for the power they makes than a 100KVA. Size gives you efficiency, and step that up 3 orders of magnitude to a coal fired power station. Not quite apples for apples, but you get the idea.

[Silenceisgolden]

You’re reading a different report to me then. Obviously you’ve got your mind set and won’t change it, that’s fine.

Nope, my minds not made up, that is why I thanked you for your offer to produce more relevant info than I could find. One thing on which my mind IS made up, is that political correctness does not necessarily follow science, or even common sense. We should all do the research, and make up our own minds.

[Arapiles]

Let's see what Homestar comes up with - the only figures I could find suggest that coal pollutes more than diesel, in which case we are not ready for electric cars yet (from an environmental point of view).

It is entirely possible for us to not be using coal at all in a pretty short period of time - given the negative cost of electricity on the national market at various times recently, and the effect of that on fossil fuel generators, it won’t be too long before the predictions about stranded assets come true.

[Arapiles]

Nope, my minds not made up, that is why I thanked you for your offer to produce more relevant info than I could find. One thing on which my mind IS made up, is that political correctness does not necessarily follow science, or even common sense. We should all do the research, and make up our own minds.

Not sure where political correctness comes into this? Unless you think that the science of climate change actually indicates that the world isn’t warming and it’s just politically correct to say so?

[AK83]

..... This will only change when ALL electricity is derived from clean sources.

And that won't happen until two things eventuate.
1. greater demand for electrical power .. such as more rechargeable electric vehicles in use, and or industry manufacturing products, such as Al-air batteries come on line and reach capacity

2. age of remaining coal fired power generation reaches end of life. You can't be expected to decommission billion dollar investments at the drop of a hat.
The non alarmist, level headed reaction to this environmental situation would be to build more renewable capacity, which then reduces the need for reliance on the old tech.
So where coal may have contributed say 50% to the overall grid until recently, say in a few years, it then may only be required to contribute 10%, except when supply can't be met with the renewable infrastructure.

When the comment like "this is what the world needs ASAP" .. it could be meant that it's needed, to increase demand for electricity thus requiring the building of more electrical generation capacity(which will almost certainly be renewable in most developed countries.
Therefore, more renewable = greater percentage of reliance on coal fired(except as stated before .. demand requires it).

ie. chicken and egg!

[Red90]

I don’t think people posting understand how this works. It is not a rechargeable battery. It is a single use battery. The aluminum is consumed during use. It then needs to be replaced and the aluminum oxide extracted from the electrolyte.

[goingbush]

Thank you, I would like to see your figures. The only info I could find was the table I printed, which doesn't take into account the conversion efficiency of either coal or diesel fired power.


Also don't forget it takes as much electricity to produce a litre of petrol or diesel to drive a comparable vehicle the same distance as electricity alone will do, so the whole coal argument is moot.

EV's are more efficient & less polluting no matter where or how the electricity is made. ...... Even, dare I say, if you charge them from a petrol powered generator on the side of the road and that petrol was refined using electricity produced at a coal fired plant.

[JDNSW]

Do you have a reference for electricity use of refineries? My understanding is that most energy used in refining petroleum is generated by burning low value fractions of the feedstock - the only reason for using electricity other than for lighting etc would be if it was cheaper than the value of the petroleum byproducts (which certainly may be the case in some situations). And lighting, instrumentation and pumps would use only a tiny fraction of the energy content of the refined product.

[goingbush]

Do you have a reference for electricity use of refineries? My understanding is that most energy used in refining petroleum is generated by burning low value fractions of the feedstock - the only reason for using electricity other than for lighting etc would be if it was cheaper than the value of the petroleum byproducts (which certainly may be the case in some situations). And lighting, instrumentation and pumps would use only a tiny fraction of the energy content of the refined product.

First thing that came up with my google search shows an accepted value of 8kwh to produce one US gallon .

my EV Landy is not what you would call an efficient EV but for the purposes of the argument it used an average of 33kwh per 100km over the last 12 months / 4600km ,

on petrol it used to drink a tad over 20l/100km or 5.28 US gallons /100km 5.28 x 8kwh equiv to 42.25 kwh/100km

Thats just efficiency, As well if we are talking emissions , Petrol / diesel pollutes twice 1st from mining & the refining oil & 2nd from burning the oil when driving the car , so EV clearly better for the environment .

How gas cars use more electricity to go 100 miles than EVs do | Autoblog (https://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/14/how-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-to-go-100-miles-than-evs-do/)

[Eevo]

Unless you think that the science of climate change actually indicates that the world isn’t warming and it’s just politically correct to say so?
you forgot the part about being a money making scam and about controlling the people

[Eevo]

I don’t think people posting understand how this works. It is not a rechargeable battery. It is a single use battery. The aluminum is consumed during use. It then needs to be replaced and the aluminum oxide extracted from the electrolyte.

thats disturbing. cool at the same time. go to the service station and fill up with aluminum instead of petrol.

[rick130]

thats disturbing. cool at the same time. go to the service station and fill up with aluminum instead of petrol.Naa, change to new fuel cells, the old ones would be returned and recycled.

[Eevo]

Naa, change to new fuel cells, the old ones would be returned and recycled.

your ruining my dream!

[rick130]

your ruining my dream!Sorry! [emoji17]

[AK83]

Naa, change to new fuel cells, the old ones would be returned and recycled.

I was having dreams of something akin to the backyard veg oil community .. only less smelly.

That was; buy up all those unloved unwanted D2's with cracked V8s, and blown heads .. scrap the aluminium in my home made foundry .. purify to nth degree, chuck resultant wads of pure Al into the back of the modded D1, refuel simply chucking sticks of Al into tank.

This ... "change new fuel cells, return old ones as exchange" .. sound too much like BBQ gas .. no romantic notion of the backyarders paradise in that?

[biggrin]

[Tins]

I cannot tell you how glad I am that I don't have to think about this crap. I truly hope that I'll be driving an ICE until they take my licence away. What a pathetic future you all seem to be looking forward to. Every one of you, all the same. I'll be glad to be dead.

LOL

[manic]

I cannot tell you how glad I am that I don't have to think about this crap. I truly hope that I'll be driving an ICE until they take my licence away.

LOL

Why hope for that?

Besides when they eventually take your licence away you might end up in an EV anyway - a mobility scooter!

Self driving cars will be EV. Hope they get in done in time!

[goingbush]

I cannot tell you how glad I am that I don't have to think about this crap. I truly hope that I'll be driving an ICE until they take my licence away. What a pathetic future you all seem to be looking forward to. Every one of you, all the same. I'll be glad to be dead.

LOL

Though you pretend to be too pompous to own I'm sure you will experience driving one and will love it.

Just like people that smoke, know its bad for you and will kill you , and don't care about the way they stink, Happy with the way the world is going and don't care about their own or the planets health.

[Homestar]

Well, can’t say I didn’t see this coming. In summary, the tech has been around for decades, it’s easy to do and there’s plenty of energy in aluminium, but the energy required to make the cell is vastly more than to charge a lithium ion battery, and there’s some significant issues with the reaction.

So, to the original points - toxicity of the electrolyte - not an issue and shown it can be done easily, and the cost - not sure how this one is overcome as recycling the spent cell isn’t like recycling aluminium cans - you basically have to start the smelting process again.

Interestingly what wasn’t covered is how far you’d get on a cell and how much aluminium is required for this and what the cost of that aluminium is, which I’d still like to know.


https://youtu.be/OmHnKKuBdco

[AK83]

Yeah! .. I like this thunderfoot guy. Haven't subscribed, but have seen many of his vids via other youtube links(mainly bigclive, EEVblog, Elecroboom, etc).

The big problem with sites like these, is that they don't sensationalise their topics and heading enough. So what happens is that they get a few hundred thousand, or a million, subs and views.
Yet the shysters and crooks understand marketing and hype better, and therefore and get more views and subs.

Have a look at any of the free energy youtubers and I'd estimate that they'd have say 5-10million views, yet the sites that point out the silliness of 'free energy' may get a few thousand by comparison.
It seems that the millennial + generations are more interested in watching pie in the sky, bogus, wish it were true info/educational content .. than coming to grips with the harsh reality.

When we're all long gone and forgotten, having from traditional educational backgrounds, where we've been properly taught that free energy such as perpetual motion isn't possible, and that fundamental laws are fixed ... future generations educational content will be primarily this bogus internet garbage, probably based on the operations of energy polarisers and other hoodoovoodoo rubbish, and it seems they may ever revert to the flat earth belief.

Here we are supposed to be worrying about our descendants futures due to the 'onset of a warming globe' ... whereasfuture generations eventual demise will most likely be as a result of their own incompentences.

As to the highlighted inventor, my initial thoughts were .. yeah, bogus, more likely than reality.. but you never know.
I dunno the inner workings of battery and chems, but Aluminium recycling is a bit easier than thunderfoot says it is .. much easier than lithium for starter and usually easier/less energy intensive than most other metals too.
But the reality of the overall logistics of the recycled Al battery energy market is obviously not as easy as some nutty prof in his shed type invention.

[JDNSW]

...., but Aluminium recycling is a bit easier than thunderfoot says it is .. much easier than lithium for starter and usually easier/less energy intensive than most other metals too.
......

But in this case, you are not recycling aluminium - you are re-refining aluminium oxide. And that is the most energy intensive metal producing operation that is done on a large scale. Which, of course, is the other side of the coin that gives you a high energy output by oxidising aluminium.

As the old saw goes "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!" (See my post #10)

[Tombie]

First thing that came up with my google search shows an accepted value of 8kwh to produce one US gallon .

my EV Landy is not what you would call an efficient EV but for the purposes of the argument it used an average of 33kwh per 100km over the last 12 months / 4600km ,

on petrol it used to drink a tad over 20l/100km or 5.28 US gallons /100km 5.28 x 8kwh equiv to 42.25 kwh/100km

Thats just efficiency, As well if we are talking emissions , Petrol / diesel pollutes twice 1st from mining & the refining oil & 2nd from burning the oil when driving the car , so EV clearly better for the environment .

How gas cars use more electricity to go 100 miles than EVs do | Autoblog (https://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/14/how-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-to-go-100-miles-than-evs-do/)

Interesting read, however its a totally flawed argument (in this case). Its looking at the energy to produce petrol but not the energy to produce batteries.
It also must assume renewable charging only - as at best the CFPS is running 40% efficiency.

Mining Lithium (even Brine) and processing, mining the Graphite, the diesel burn for all of this, the refining of the diesel, the flights continually to these remote sites....

And finally the reprocessing of the cells at the EOL.


Also an ICE engine can run years with almost 100% of design, within 2 years for example a Telsa is range reduced by 5-10%. 5 years and a new battery will be required. In 5 years the ICE will just need a service as per its schedule.


I'm enjoying watching the tech - its just so damn immature at the moment.

[Silenceisgolden]

Interesting read, however its a totally flawed argument (in this case). Its looking at the energy to produce petrol but not the energy to produce batteries.
It also must assume renewable charging only - as at best the CFPS is running 40% efficiency.

Mining Lithium (even Brine) and processing, mining the Graphite, the diesel burn for all of this, the refining of the diesel, the flights continually to these remote sites....

And finally the reprocessing of the cells at the EOL.


Also an ICE engine can run years with almost 100% of design, within 2 years for example a Telsa is range reduced by 5-10%. 5 years and a new battery will be required. In 5 years the ICE will just need a service as per its schedule.


I'm enjoying watching the tech - its just so damn immature at the moment.

All excellent points, but also we must consider the energy used to mine coal, or to produce solar panels, or to manufacture wind turbines with a life not much greater than an ICE, or to mine the toxic material neodymium, an essential part of wind turbines.

As you say, it is an immature subject, but it has grabbed so many people by their righteousness that sensible, reasoned debate is pretty difficult.