Waiting for Superbatteries They are still a long way from matching the energy density of liquid fue

Which is irrelevant.

Steel can hold up a building, but it is not very good for use in electronics. That is why we use gold, silver, and platinum for that.

 

OK, that does not even make sense.

So 22 Senators out of 100 were able to block this? What did the other 78 say and do?

On top of that, at the time the Democrats held a 58 to 42 majority in the Senate. So it sound to me like a hell of a lot of Democrats were against it as well.

You see, that is the problem when many people try to make claims, that make absolutely no logical sense. You can't blame its failure on 22 people in the minority party. Hell, your reference does not even say that. It talks about how it was "But it was dead on arrival in the Senate", even though the Democrats had the majority. Therefore, your claim has no merit.

 

All right, I should have just said "Senate Republicans," but I took the number from the 60 Minutes story, which I linked. Common sense would dictate, that the way that only 22 members could defeat a vote, in the Senate, is the same way that a single Senator can defeat any action: it is called the filibuster.

Here is the quote:

<Snip>
Bill Whitaker: So, China controls most of these resources from terrestrial sources?

Jonathan White: Yes.

Bill Whitaker: And now they're going after the lion's share of the seabed sources?

Jonathan White: They certainly are.

Bill Whitaker: Does that concern you?

Jonathan White: It absolutely concerns me. It concerns me with relation to our national security going forward. We need to be in this game.


So we called the 22 senators opposed to the treaty, all Republicans, to ask why. None would appear on camera. Those who wrote us said that ceding any control to the United Nations was a deal-breaker.

But Rear Admiral white worries if the U.S. doesn't ratify the Law of the Sea, it will soon be too late.


Bill Whitaker: And if we don't? What does that mean for us?

Jonathan White: I think it means that, again, we become more isolated, especially in terms of a growing global economy.

Bill Whitaker: And we're dependent on China?

Jonathan White: And absolutely more dependent on China.

Bill Whitaker: So what sense does that make?

Jonathan White: It makes no sense.


The country that made it to the moon first may now miss the race to this new frontier -- and the untold riches of the deep.

 

Um... NPR simply lies to make a point that shouldn't have been made. They actually discard their own narrative as they document the number of sources that aren't either "clean" or "renewable"... More, when you think about the destruction of natural habitats that would be required to build sufficient solar fields, wind fields, the thought that you were interested in saving the planet just sort of is undercut by the monstrous behavior that you exhibited in getting those built in the first place. If you're actually worried about the environment, the answer isn't creating these in the first place.

This is simply virtue signaling then. The idea that "Greece" of all places, would be a model for anything is astounding, and shows the level of dishonesty that frankly is expected these days as the progressive left trod on in their death march towards unsustainable power for the masses. Which is, actually, the point of all of this BS in the first place. The goal is not, nor has it ever been, cheap power for the population of the world. It has always been to regulate how folks use power, and only with their permission to do so. It is the ultimate power grab. Always has been, always will be.

 

Going "cold turkey" is exactly what they are demanding. That's why they keep telling us we only have 10 years left before we all die.

Banning the internal combustion engine is just one example of those demands.

It's the entire reason Europe became dependent on Russian fuel, which fed the ability of Russia to invade Ukraine.

It's the entire reason Germany is now building coal plants after their abysmal failure with "green" energy.

 

Gotta get some more of that lignite coal.

https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1...f-lignite-plants-due-to-tackle-energy-crisis/

Greece will boost coal mining by 50% and extend the operation of all its coal-fired power plants to 2028, instead of closing them down by 2023 as previously planned, to reduce dependence on natural gas, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced on Wednesday.

 

Yes, I read it. And it's a garbage quote. Especially since the Democrats at that time had a 58 to 42 majority!

And no, there was no filibuster. Not even the Democrats liked that bill, which is why it died. You are taking what somebody said simply because you believe it and want to find a way to blame Republicans for everything. Starting from a biased opinion then trying to cherry pick claims that support such beliefs is always a fail.

And yes, no wonder none of the people asked wanted to appear on camera. They want to dredge back up a Senate vote from 1993 in 2019. I doubt that anybody from either party would want to be on camera to give their opinions on a vote over a quarter century before.

That article was all about partisan coprolite and taking the claims of those interviewed at face value. And yes, 60 Minutes used to be a damned good news source. But over the decades it has slipped more and more, and now is largely just another editorial fake news program.

And obviously some Democrats took exception to the treaty also, why not call some of them up? Especially since they were the majority party? Hmmm? To me that they targeted a single party instead of those who opposed it without naming parties almost screams it was a targeted piece.

And FYI, I would find it just as targeted and bullshit if they had stated "22 Democrats". Bullshit is bullshit, does not matter which party it is aimed at.

 

And they have been saying that for decades now.

But if there is one thing they have in common, they keep the same narrative even if their beliefs change. I am old enough to remember when the same crowd was screaming we had 10 years to fix things or we would be creating a man-made ice age.

Same bullshit scare tactics, different lies. And what amazes me is that five decades later, people actually still believe them.

And if anybody thinks I am joking or exaggerating, feel free to look up quotes by the keynote speakers at the first Earth Day.

 

You are utterly mistaken: I was taking the word of 60 Minutes, because they are one of the longest running news programs on television, and have proven over time to usually be reliable. This seems an especially reasonable assumption, in this case, as the information was so easy for anyone to check, and 60 Minutes has a very large, and diverse audience. But you want me to believe you, personally, over 60 Minutes? And you did not even supply a link, to support your assertion?

You can't seriously believe that is going to cut it.

 

Yes, there are economic, political and ecological issues with some of the materials used in batteries today. There is no doubt about that!

On the good side, there are huge efforts being made to improve on battery chemistry.

I think part of this is that EVs are a very different form factor. We've loved having lithium batteries in small devices like laptops, tablets and cell phones. Now we need far larger batteries that can take the beating of fast charging, structural integrity, massive discharge rates for acceleration, etc.



And, yes, sitting on the sidelines is a ludicrous result of the cold war dreams of many in America.

So, Virginia's governor canceled a gigantic Ford battery plant that was to be built in a location where people are seriously in need of employment! How did THAT help his state, manufacturing in America, or anything else?

Yes, CATL is a Chinese company. And, Tesla is an American company that builds a major percent of the EVs being purchased in China.

 

No, actually the exact opposite.

I want people to question their sources. I want people to question me. I want people to actually engage their brain cells, and think about what information is presented to them and not just absorb it without considering what is said or implied.

In short, I want people to actually think. The problem is that you absorbed the information provided to you, and did not even think about what that information actually implied.

That vote failed, and Democrats had a 58 to 42 majority. And apparently 22 Republicans voted against it.

Well, ok, fine. But it takes at least 51 votes for a bill to fail in the senate. That means that logically, at least 29 Democrats voted against it also. Otherwise, it never could have failed.

OK, so at least 29 Democrats voted against it, and 22 Republicans. So why single out the Republicans? That makes absolutely no logical sense, unless the intent is to attack Republicans.

You see, this is the absolute bullshit partisan cap that I hate. And I see it all the damned time and it just pisses me off. And it is not hard to see, one just has to learn to question what information is fed to them, and spot the illogical coprolite that is embedded in it.

No, I do not want people to just "believe me". I actually encourage people to question me, to examine and check my sources and myself. I do not want sheeple to just believe anything that I say. I want people to be engaged, alert, and thinking about any sources they consume. And to not be blind followers that believe anything told to them.

And notice, this is actually fairly typical of my postings, in that I am actually not giving my own opinion of the data or treaty itself. Does not matter. But I know bullshit when I see it, and that was bullshit to anybody that knows that 22 of a minority party can not vote down when only 51 votes are needed and the majority party had 58 seats. That outright screams to me that the Democrats also did not like it, and more of them actually voted against it than the Republicans did. This is simply thinking logically with a little mental math.

I want people to question me, and all other sources. To look for neutral ones that do not have a political axe to grind. And not just finding sources that agree with their beliefs, but to even question their own beliefs and to look at sources from those they may think of as "hostile" to their beliefs. Because otherwise, all a person becomes is an echo chamber parroting what others tell them, and never think for themselves.

 

Well I did question you, and ask for your source, which you still have yet to provide. So, engaging my "brain cells," tells me that it is you who is pedalling the partisan bullshit, not 60 Minutes.

Tell me, then, what was the year in which this vote took place, and what was the name of the bill? Since one-third of Congress is up for election, every two years, and Clinton served for eight, there is no way you could cite a count of Dems & Repubs in the Senate, without knowing when the vote was held. And it is inexplicable, if you were looking at a source, giving the results of that vote, that you would not cite it, to prove your case, but would prefer to make it on the strength of your own, unsupported contentions. As I'd answered, your explanation is not the only, logical possibility, as you had presented it to be: the use of a filibuster, is the obvious answer, as to how 22 Republicans could block a vote. Any time you want to prove that this isn't what occurred, all you need do is cite a report, of that vote, of which you purport to be giving the results.

 

And the source for all of your knowledge, here, about what NPR did, not to mention, what would be the environmental impact of renewables?

 

@Bowerbird has already posted the opposite, that Germany has used renewables to fully power their grid, on a number of occasions, so far. Perhaps you could offer some source, to corroborate your claim?

 

Wow. You should really put some effort into a basic understanding of the issue.

Europe's leftist energy policies are funding the Russian war machine and enriching China.

German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html

Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...onary-tale-for-world-leaders/?sh=6e1072f654e9

Germany's Failed Bid To Be the Global Climate Leader
https://reason.com/2022/02/01/germanys-failed-bid-to-be-the-global-climate-leader/

Germany's Energy Catastrophe
https://quillette.com/2022/07/14/germanys-energy-catastrophe/

The Wind Turbine Failures Behind Europe's Energy Crisis Are a Warning for America
https://www.newsweek.com/wind-turbi...y-crisis-warning-america-fossil-fuels-1643011

 

*yawn*

1994. That makes it the 103rd US Congress, and the Democrats had the majority in both the House and Senate.

And it has been resubmitted multiple times since then, and always defeated (the last time in 2016). In short, a lot of Democrats also do not like it because it essentially means giving up the sovereign right of the nation on how to conduct mineral and other forms of mining in their own national waters.

The problem here is that you are taking the statement of somebody interviewed as an actual fact. That was not a statement in a news report, that was something said in an interview. And it was not stated by a news person, but the leader of an NPO lobby organization. So sorry if I do not just accept anything that a lobbyist says on camera.

Because to make this clear, that was not a statement by CBS or 60 Minutes. That was a statement made by a lobbyist in an interview. Learn to tell the difference.

 

Superbatteries will never happen because physics won't allow it.

 

I think that depends on how people want to define "superbatteries".

EV battery technology is improving petty rapidly - both in terms of storage capacity and charging characteristics.

I don't see a reason that near future EVs won't have the same distance and refueling times of gas cars.

Requirements for commuting have long been available in EVs that cost the same as low end gas cars.

I'm sure there will be specific uses or areas where people may still choose gas vehicles. For example, there are loads for which pretty large trucks are required - such as hauling the family boat over the mountains, or whatever.

 

A battery that can be charged to a capacity level and in the same timeframe as filling up your ICE car.

 

All automobiles have different capabilities and characteristics.

ICE cars don't have the same range, towing capacity, load capacity, etc.

There are also the issues of fuel cost per distance traveled, maintenance cost, etc.

 

Batteries all operate on a very simple concept.
A cathode and anode submerged in electrolyte.

The cathode must be a different metal from the anode. The more positive ions you have on one in the more negative ions you have on the other the better the battery will be.

At the stage we've come to the point where it's the best it can be.

In order to make super batteries you need to make super materials we don't have that ability yet.

 

Unfortunately, physics won't allow super batteries. Batteries can be increased, but the laws of physics will never allow anyone to develop anything of use.

I've looked at EV vans. Range is less than 120 miles, they cost more to charge than fill with diesel, they can't tow which I need to, and they're double the price to buy. I drive 45 miles to work each day, 90 miles return journey. Plus I go to suppliers etc.. on top of that, so having a range of less than 120 miles is no good. Plus, the weight of the batteries decreases the payload of the van.

So hopefully, I will be fully retired before all this useless EV junk is main stream and I won't need a van for work.

 

Evaluating the future based on first models in the category is a mistake

120 miles is not representative of performance limits today, let alone the future.

We will probably have to wait before there is real focus on vehicles such as vans.

 

Only trouble is, new ICE van sales are banned from 2030 in the UK. Me thinks this deadline will be missed because there's nothing viable out there.

If tradesman are forced into electric vans, I suggest people get all their work done before 2030, because they won't be able to afford the future quotes.

 

"First" models were 30 years ago and pre-dated Tesla. Current ranges are the developed ranges. And there's no real solutions at rational end of ready, period.