The energy industry is dead. Long live the energy industry.

Today, as has been the case for many decades now, it is possible to be completely self sufficient on renewable energy, without any negative environmental impact whatsoever. Not only in sunny, windy or wet countries, but globally - regardless of weather conditions, daylight time - wind speeds, or water availability. This may be contrary to popular belief, and ruffle the feathers of renewable energy skeptics. Extraordinary claims it is said, require extraordinary evidence, but there is nothing extraordinary about such a claim and evidence is readily available for analysis. So where to begin this dialogue ... well anywhere really, as there is not a single aspect of our present energy supply industry that could not be re-thought, re-designed, or eliminated all together.

Our perception of energy, what it is, how much we need, what is available and how energy technologies should and could be used, is provided to use by our energy industries via our mainstream media networks in league with the current governmental energy policy of all countries internationally, together with the appliance industry, the education industry and the banking industry, all of whom sing in harmony a similarly discordant song. 'you can't do it, it's too complex - so leave it up to us'. And as far as a promise for the future, that too should be left up to them. 'we're looking into it, new technologies need to be developed'.

OK .. so to start with, do we really need to wait for future technologies to solve our present needs, whilst in the mean time, pulling in our belts and paying an ever higher dividend for our energy needs and get all twisted up about our 'carbon footprint'. The answer to that is quite categorically no. We don't need energy from the void (zero point energy), and we don’t need to establish new alchemical systems, or for our collective space programs to beam down microwave energy and the like gathered from the sun in orbit above us. Non of these things are necessary, although I would be the first to endorse any research into future technologies. No, our energy consumption is meagre in comparison to the energy which is readily available all around us 24/7.

Our conventional technology and understanding of it, provides us with all the tools we need for sustainable clean inexpensive energy. All it takes is for us to recognise that fact and action a change in the way, and by whom this resource is managed. We need to take a look at what is possible today with our current technologies, and in doing so, consider where our current philosophy is failing. But before we get into it, I would like to clarify a common misconception. It is not a fault, and we are not greedy or irresponsible human beings, simply because we consume energy, nor are we a rash on planet earth causing its destruction by plugging in our TV’s, having a hot bath, cooking our food, or driving our cars. These are all things that we have become accustomed to doing, and its how our world works today. We have simply come to a juncture at our present stage of development where we need to take stock, reflect on our experiences and refocus on the infrastructure that has been developed under our present world financial system that dictates all these things, as well as the manner in which they are provided.

Energy conservation and environmental concerns have been addressed by our present system, and the solution has been agreed. The solution offered is a simple matter of paying more, which is the current trend of conservation. The logic is that if energy is more expensive, then we will consume less, whilst preserving the status quo of those institutions that provide our energy. This could in the correct context make some sense – and that context would be one where we are ‘over consuming’, but it also allows consumers both industrial and domestic, to consume in accordance with their means, that is to say, that under such a regime, those that have the means may consume, and those that do not have the means cannot consume or will consume less. This is already, and has historically been the case with energy since forever, and this philosophy simply exacerbates the situation. The ‘and’ in the three part equation of ‘supply and demand’ is of course means. In a profit oriented energy system that would be ‘demand, means, supply’, roughly translating as, if there is a demand, and you have the means, you can have a supply. We see this reflected in the contemporary political narrative of ‘carbon credits’, whereby, industry is expected to purchase certificates quantifying the permit of industrial activity. And so this is where we have arrived.

Whilst considering the present status of our modern day energy systems, we should also bear in mind that energy and its supply is not a given, but rather the reserve of the more industrialised nations. For those living in the more developed parts of the world, energy supply is very much taken for granted, but the larger picture is somewhat different. Whereas it is accepted that some 70% of the worlds population has access to energy, it does not follow, that some 70% of the occupied world has electricity, and although in recent decades, the percentage of the population that has access to electricity has grown – this has less to do with the growth and efficiency of the energy supply industry, and more to do with the urbanisation of those towns and cities that have energy infrastructure, and so has more to do with economic migration than rural development. The reasons for this, and the problems therein are quite complex, but to use a broad brush, it is simply not profitable for energy supply companies to reach out into the more rural areas of the world, to supply those with little or no means. Of course the cycle is self perpetuating, where the more rural communities, do not have the opportunities that an energy supply provides.

For example, some 300+ million people in India, roughly 25% of the population do not have electricity. Bangladesh, 40%, Burma 70%, Indonesia 25%, Philipines 30%, Pakistan 32%, Nigeria 55%, Ethiopia 76%, Somalia 87%, Rwanda – Uganda – Burundi – Congo – Kenya, all 80% plus. Malawi 92% and so on and so on, the list is very long, and the percentages are very high. In Sub Saharan Africa, 7 out of 10 people do not have access to electricity.

Having access to electricity is one thing, but we also have to consider the quality of supply, especially in the less developed world, where the supply simply isnt adequate or reliable or sustainable. Where hospitals and medical facilities cannot run refrigeration to store vaccines etc, simply because the supply is too unreliable or infective. This secondary ‘quality’ issue highlights another contributory factor to the supply development shortcomings of our present grid based infrastructure, which is that it is not economically scale-able, either from an efficiency of resource and consumption viewpoint, or a profitability viewpoint. That being said, we should try to get into the mindset of those who advocate such a system in order that we might re frame our understanding of these circumstances.

Present day thinking on these issues can be seen reflected in President Obama’s 2016 State of the Union Address in the United States. It may seem a little abstract, but lets take a look, and then make some sense of it. Source as of writing https://medium.com/the-white-house/president-obama-s-2016-state-of-the-union-address-7c06300f9726#.455as61xz

Obama:

Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources they’ve had in over a decade. Tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us, on so many issues over the past forty years, I’m putting Joe in charge of Mission Control. For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the family we can still save, let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.

Medical research is critical. We need the same level of commitment when it comes to developing clean energy sources.

Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.

But even if the planet wasn’t at stake; even if 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record — until 2015 turned out even hotter — why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future?

Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal — in jobs that pay better than average. We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy — something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.

Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.

Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy. Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future — especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet. That way, we put money back into those communities and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system.

None of this will happen overnight, and yes, there are plenty of entrenched interests who want to protect the status quo. But the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, and the planet we’ll preserve — that’s the kind of future our kids and grandkids deserve.

End quote.

So its a bit of a mouthful, but quite concise none the less. In these few paragraphs, we have managed to relate a moon shot with the fight against Cancer, with green energy – energy to climate change and ‘energy management’, and climate change to transportation systems, personal choice and freedoms of energy provision.

OK, so I just need to clarify here – I'm not making this a political thing, although obviously this is always going to be a part of the problem or solution. I have no affinity with or anything against the American governments address to its nation. Its a feel good day for the ruling party after all, nothing more. The president like any national representative of any country is an ambassador, a talking head who is simply reflecting the policy and attributes of his/her political party to their respective citizens. I would however like to understand how Joe Biden will cure cancer with the next moonshot, I’d like to know how he even plans to create such an expedition given the current issues facing the U.S. economy. A cure for cancer is certainly a good 'selling point' to those that might finance such a project, i.e. the tax paying public. But I digress. Whether or not I personally agree with anything contained in the above quote has little or nothing to do with my point, which is understanding those policy decisions regarding energy, and the language used to purvey such ideas.

How Green is Green

The terms renewable, carbon free and green sound really good, something non of us would like to be seen to be taking issue with. However what does it mean, and should these terms have such close associations with each other in our psyche. Well an example of this terminology can be found in Washington’s administrative goal of producing 'carbon free energy'. Now 'carbon free', means only that .. it doesn’t mean good or clean or safe or green or renewable, it only means 'carbon free', or perhaps this should be rephrased 'Energy production that produces lower Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions'. As no energy production can at present, be truly Carbon free.

Washington recently made an investment via the DOE in carbon free energy development by making available funds to two primary research groups, and the funds are to be spent developing the next generation of nuclear generators/reactors. I quote. “In order to ensure that nuclear energy remains a key source for U.S. electricity generation well into the future, it is critically important that we invest in these technologies today,” Secretary Moniz. “Public-private partnerships to develop advanced nuclear capabilities will enable low-carbon nuclear energy to power America for years to come.” So a little spin, turns our 'carbon free' initiative into an atomic energy investment plan.

The North American DOE claim that Nuclear power already generates 60% of their countries carbon free energy, which sounds like a big number. However what they don’t tell you is that nuclear power only provides the U.S. with approximately 18 to 20% of its total power consumption, so the 60% carbon free (that is nuclear) actually represents only 18/20% of the countries total power requirements. This demonstrates that the other 40% 'carbon free' sources such as wind hydro solar etc. represent only 13% or less (excuse my maths) of the total power requirements of the U.S. Now I must re-iterate here, we are using the term 'carbon free' that doesn’t mean safe, or green, or necessarily renewable, and as far as I am aware, no one has yet found a practical and safe way of storing spent nuclear fuel, let alone renewing or recycling it, for anything less than transforming the more depleted isotopes for purposes other than energy. For example, nuclear arms and their derivatives.

The Fukushima Daiichi incident of March 2011 highlighted this quite well. Of the three reactors that suffered, and are still suffering catastrophic meltdown, at least one of these was processing Mixed-Oxide Fuel, more commonly known as MOX fuel. MOX fuel is a mixture of Plutonium, an isotope that is intolerable by humans and the more common or garden Uranium. MOX was developed as a means to reprocess weapons grade plutonium from various military facilities rather than storing it indefinitely by some other means. It was also seen as a means to an end, whereby a nuclear facility which would otherwise be unprofitable by selling energy alone, could actually turn a profit by processing the unwanted waste from these military facilities, and thereby depend less on government subsidies. One has to wonder what the carbon footprint of MOX might be.

It does beg the question of course that if the nuclear industry represents a total of 20% of Americas energy needs and other renewables represent 13% of the countries total energy needs, then the above quote from President Obama’s address “employs more Americans than coal — in jobs that pay better than average”, leaves me to wonder, does this mean that most power stations not of a renewable or nuclear resource are powered by something other than coal or oil – and if that is not the case, is coal and oil imported rather than extracted in the U.S., or is it that 'carbon free' energy, including that of nuclear, is so much more labour intensive, that it requires a workforce greater than the 67% to run the 20% and the 13%. If so then we are surely on a hiding to nothing. Either way, I'm using the language of bankers and governments here, as this is how it is presented 'percentages of percentages'. Some real numbers would probably seem less friendly, or convincing.

Electric Vehicles - Energy In Transport

OK, I'm not going to harp on about nuclear energy, or any other governmental policies for that matter, as that would distract from the purpose of my writing. The choice of metric for the presidents address is a little different from the metrics used to promote investment in certain other branches of the energy industry. Energy storage and its applications is an excellent example, and so too that of the new wave of electric vehicles (transportation systems) presently being promoted the world over. The metrics for motor vehicles are now measured in grams of carbon per km or mile. The metrics are inclusive of manufacturing costs as well as running and disassembly (end of life) costs. So its worth a mention here, that no nuclear facility standing today has ever been constructed with a decommissioning budget as a part of its cash flow and energy cost forecast.

Closer to home, or at least closer to my narrative is the recent investment pledges made by the Obama administration in Lithium. I am not prepared to state how much, as the exact figures are a little obscure to say the least. Whatever the number, its in the Billions of dollars and it will be annually, and rather like the promised cyber security investment for 2016/17 its a mechanism designed to encourage and increase the dollar value of associated stock – thereby increasing investment interest in these technologies, in much the same way as Elon Musk's government investment loans were implemented as a tool to hike the price of Tesla shares. Common and good business practice many would argue.

So not a bad thing one might think, if Li-ion or other Lithium technologies benefit from this, then we might agree that this is positive, if we also agree that this is a technology worth investing in. So what are the benefits of Li-ion storage cells for our future transportation needs, and will it serve our purpose, or is this just a stock market money spinner.

Vehicle manufacture production statistics world wide for 2015 alone reveal some 68,000,000 domestic or light vehicles, and around 22,000,000 commercial vehicles, so that’s around 90,000,000 road vehicles annually, and rising. Our future prospect in accordance with the policy of various governments around the world is to replace all these vehicles with electric vehicles. This is a very lofty goal - one that could no doubt be achievable over time, and one which could ultimately benefit our 'local' environment. So lets take a closer look. First off, is there an energy benefit. The short answer to which is no. If we offload all the green baggage that comes with the idea of an electric vehicle, then we might see a different picture, not necessarily negative, but likely not what we are lead to believe.

Its an electric vehicle yes .. but it is powered in the same way as an internal combustion engine, using conventional mined and extracted fuels such as coal, oil, gas and uranium – they may also benefit from renewables, but presently this would be an insignificant contribution. So lets look at the energy input system.

An electric vehicle in its present manifestation, is primarily designed to rely on existing electric grid technology. The power station will produce the power by whatever means, and send it down the line to the charging station, just the same as your domestic power is supplied. The car charges, does its work and returns to recharge when the power cells are depleted. The way this is evaluated is really quite complex. In a world where CO2 emissions are said to be our enemy, electric and conventional fuel vehicle metrics are evaluated by their carbon footprint, as I mentioned previously, and is expressed as grams of equivalent carbon dioxide per vehicle kilometre or 'g CO2e/km'. Not only does this take account of the vehicle in every day use, but also data for the manufacturing footprint of the vehicle type, including its lifespan and disposal. The metrics have baseline models for both electric and conventional vehicles and also take account of the energy cost in carbon of any given countries energy infrastructure. So without naming and shaming any countries for their infrastructure, which more often than not is based on availability of fuel resources, the metric can be anything from 70g CO2e/km for smaller countries with relatively large natural energy resources, up to a 370g CO2e/km for countries who are heavily dependent on mined or extracted fuels. As a point of reference the U.S. averages out just above the 200g CO2e/km mark.

Not only is this an unfamiliar metric for users of conventional vehicles, but hard to compare one vehicle type to another. So the layman’s term would be MPG or KPG (miles or kilometers per gallon). And so for 'electric vehicles' operating in those countries heavily dependent on extracted fuels, coal, oil, uranium etc. The 'g CO2e/km' equivalent in MPG is between 25 to 30 MPG, and for those same vehicles operating in renewable rich countries that figure may be as much as 45 to 50 MPG. As you can see, as far as energy consumption goes, the range is similar to that of conventional vehicles, some more economical some less. The Achilles heal of the electric vehicle is really the manufacturing cost in terms of energy, where a conventionally fueled vehicle may have a manufacturing energy cost of 40g CO2e/km compared to 70g CO2e/km for an electric vehicle manufactured under the same energy infrastructure. The reason for this is not only the larger manufacturing footprint of the electric vehicle but also its inherently shorter lifespan.

The emissions in real terms of these vehicles is an even more complex matter, which as you may have gathered is also much dependent on the fuel resource of any given country. As far as the efficiency of fuel consumption in electric vehicles, the picture isn’t a good one. So lets take a closer look.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an average loss of some 6% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed annually is lost by one means or another. This is quite an impressive (low) figure. But this is not a complete picture as far as how we utilise this energy in our electric vehicles and other appliances. What is not included in the g CO2e/km metric is the losses at the user end. The energy isn’t simply put into the vehicle and then retrieved as needed, and batteries do not store electricity, contrary to popular belief. Getting energy into the vehicles fuel cells (batteries) is where we begin to see issues. Retrieving that power from those fuel cells is just as much a problem. So lets take a look at the batteries.

A battery does not store electricity, but rather it generates electricity as it is required. This is done by means of a chemical reaction. The electricity input is used to instigate a chemical reaction in a fuel cell (battery), when the chemical reaction is complete we consider the battery to be fully charged. When we want to extract usable energy from the fuel cell, we simply reverse that chemical reaction. The reversed chemical reaction, causes a current to flow across the electrodes. This is our electricity. So the battery, rather than storing electricity or electrons, actually generates current through a chemical reaction. So a more correct term for a battery in this context, is an electricity generator. We use electricity to instigate a chemical reaction which creates a potential, and generate electricity as required by reversing that reaction.

OK, so as in all energy conversion systems we expect to see some losses or inefficiency, which may be in the form of heat or lost content, vapours gases, as well as certain undesirable chemical reactions that are not a part of the system. The lost energy is a variable, it is very much dependent upon the conditions under which that fuel cell is loaded, the ambient temperature under which it operates, the speed or time over which we discharge the cell, the current drawn over time, and so on. All of these conditions change with every use of the fuel cell, as it is being used. These conditions or parameters also alter over the lifespan of the fuel cell, until it is no longer useful for its purpose. So the condition at first discharge of the cell from fully charged will be completely different from the condition of the cell 5 minutes later once loaded and its temperature and/or rate of discharge has changed and continues to change until fully discharged. The same losses are experienced in charging the cell. At first charge we might have quite a good or efficient reaction occurring, but as the cell becomes more charged and its temperature and internal resistance changes, then its charging efficiency is reduced, this also continues to change up until the cell is fully charged or our chemical reaction is complete. The rule of thumb is, that the faster you charge or discharge such a system, the less efficient it becomes in storing energy.

Before we go further, we can see already that with respect to an electric vehicle the chemical battery, be it lead acid Li-ion Ni-cad or whatever is ill suited to such an application. Where the loading on the cell is continuously changing not only in use (discharging) but also in the charge cycle. Users of these vehicles expect a 'fast charge', they don’t want to wait over night or a day for their batteries to charge like many of the older electric vehicles, rather they want to pull into a charge centre and charge their cells as fast as possible. If you could allow these cells to charge slowly over the course of say 24 hours, you would have a far more efficient charge, the cells would be better saturated and give longer service, less heat would be created in the charge process and a higher density of energy would be stored, which would result in better day to day performance. Likewise if we were to drive around all day at a constant 5mph, then we would return far better mileage from the cells and also extend their life. However, this is not how we use cars. They are not under a constant ideal load and we cant lay them off for 24 hours to charge the cell. So chemical batteries are really not ideal for such an application.

The efficiency or energy losses I discuss here, are so variable and diverse, dependent not only on the system design, its use, its geographic location, its age, condition and the manor in which the end user utilises the vehicle, that it would be impossible to give any exact figures, so I will give you a rule of thumb, for Li-ion at least. But please bear in mind, this doesn't speak to the efficiency of the vehicle itself, only the energy storage system.

A brand new battery fitted to a good system in an ideal environment with moderate use, may return something in the region of 70 to 80% of the energy imputed. So perhaps 10-15% of your energy will be lost in charging, and another 10-15% lost whilst in use or discharging. A 12 month old cell may achieve something in the region of 60% to 70% efficiency. The Efficiency pattern in lithium batteries will settle within the first six months to a year, at which point you would expect it to level a little and degrade in a slower more linear fashion over its lifespan, which could be expected to be anything from 6 to 10 years. But of course after some 4 to 5 years, you would expect at least a 40% drop in overall efficiency. Now with only 60% charge efficiency, the amount of extra money you would be paying for your fuel would probably be troubling you. Rather like your petrol or diesel car going from 50 mpg down to 35 mpg. Also your previously 'almost' respectable carbon footprint would now be completely out the window.

Lithium

It has to be said that the Li-ion cell or Lithium ion cell, is one of the better designs of chemical battery. It has a higher energy density than most other cell designs and doesn’t suffer so much from battery 'memory' issues, which in essence means that it should give better performance over the course of its life than most other battery types. Lithium, Like lead is also 100% recyclable, meaning that once the cell has expired, the lithium can be retrieved and put into service in a new cell.

I think I should point out here, that I am not anti electric vehicle, far from it, in fact I am an advocate of the electric vehicle, I just have to question the logic applied to its development, and the context in which it is being marketed. I will expand on this later, but as of now, we need to consider storage technology, and in particular Lithium. Anyone who has studied the Lithium market will be only too aware of the issues presented with respect to its availability and the likelihood of it being able to supply any demand. Lithium is a finite resource, like everything on our planet, but lithium is one of those rarer elements. So lets try to get a handle on Lithium as a resource.

The present assessment of lithium available on earth is around 39 million tons, but only about 30% of that is accessible by mining and other extraction techniques - that is economically speaking. 80 to 90% of the available 30% is to be found in brine lakes and the remaining 10 to 15% is in hard rock mineral. The extraction process is lengthy and expensive. Lithium is not something you just dig out of the ground and process. Lithium, even that which is in liquid salt pools has to undergo an evaporation process which takes anything from 7 months to one year. To get some idea of what these numbers mean. First lets break down what is available from what is quantified. 30% of 39 is 11.7, so of the 39 million tonnes quantified, an estimated 11.7 million tons can be made available. Of course these estimates will change as no doubt more sources will be discovered over time, as this is the case with most mineral assessments. But these numbers are assessed by ratio of availability, so change they might, but Lithium remains a rare resource. Now 11.7 million tonnes might sound like a lot, and perhaps in a few decades we could see that increase if investment becomes available for hard rock extraction systems. But it remains a rare commodity.

A report on Lithium, by Eric Eason of Stanford University, regarding the availability of Lithium, quotes stats on the Nissan Leaf, which coincidentally is one of the baseline vehicles used in assessing the 'g CO2e/km' metric. Due to the large variation in electric vehicle design, Eason basses his analysis on the Nissan Leaf electric car, which has a 24 kW·h battery. There are electric cars with smaller batteries than the Leaf (e.g., Chevrolet Volt) and larger batteries (e.g., Tesla Model S), so the Leaf's battery strikes a rough median. Every 10 kW·h requires 1 kg of lithium, so it takes at least 2.4 kg of lithium to make this battery.

Eason suggests that if all other lithium industries suddenly evaporated, we could imagine using the entire world lithium production to make nothing but Nissan Leafs. At 2 × 107 kg of lithium per year, we can make 8.3 million of them. Using all 9.9 × 109 kg of the world's lithium reserves, we can make 4.1 billion Leafs; using all the identified lithium resources (2.55 × 1010 kg), we can make 10.6 billion Leafs. If we would like to have a North American standard of living for everyone in the world – say, 1 car for every 2 people – then we would need about 3.4 billion Nissan Leafs. This would use 32% of the identified resources (all known lithium in the world), or 82% of the reserves (all lithium that is currently economic to produce).

Eason concludes:

Even with widespread recycling, that seems like an unsustainable prospect.

Remember that the limits on battery capacity are fundamental. The only ways this percentage can go down are:

1 Battery capacity exceeds 73% of the theoretical maximum (unlikely)
2 New deposits of lithium are discovered and made economic (unknowable)
3 Smaller lithium-ion batteries are used (shorter range)
4 Fewer cars are built with lithium-ion batteries.

This suggests to me that if all the world's cars are going to be made electric, it is likely that a mixture of battery technologies will be used. It is certainly possible to build millions of electric vehicles with lithium-ion batteries, but it may not be possible to make billions of them.

An interesting report, although I don't think its necessary to give every 2 people in the world a car to prove this point, simply because a car is considered, or produced and marketed as a disposable device, we don't produce a certain number then cease production, we introduce and market new models constantly in order to improve the markets profitability, much like a laptop or handheld device, so I believe that Eason is being a little optimistic or conservative there. I should just reiterate the stats I mentioned before, which is that as of 2015, annual world production of motor vehicles reached 90,000,000. According to Tesla motors own sales stats, it was able to achieve 50,000 sales in the same year, that's pretty good considering all the problems they have had with cars catching fire, battery load and charge issues etc. teething problems any start up company might suffer. However, that number represents only about 0.055% of total world production for that year.

Goldman Sachs estimates that the Tesla lithium facility, could itself consume 17% of existing Lithium supplies. Now I don’t want to mislead anyone here – so remember that Tesla’s Lithium factory is not a dedicated facility for Tesla motors, it is developing spin off products for domestic sales. Tesla however, regardless of its media profile is really only a small player in the lithium market. But the Tesla 'Gigafactory' is playing with the big boys. Like all things 'Musk', Elon has encouraged others to finance the Tesla start-up. The British tax payer footed the bill for the original Tesla government loans, as well as the reinvestment in Tesla stock – he also secured a deal with Sony, whereby Sony are a significant investor in the Tesla Giga Lithium facility. A canny businessman indeed. But Lithium isn’t just the reserve of the start up electric car industry, we use them in cell phones, laptops all hand held devices, torches, various household devices, in fact anything that requires batteries is now being supplied by the Lithium battery industry. In 2012 alone production and sales of Lithium products doubled.

I am fully aware that some will take apart my numbers, and of course the numbers will change, and unless the world of capitalism has changed, that trend will be an increase and not a decrease of demand. I would add to this, that regardless of how you might pick the legs off this, I'll save you all the trouble. Allow me to be statistically gross. Imagine that the forecast for electric car production only reaches half its expected forecast, imagine also that they redevelop Lithium technology to the point where only half the present requirement was consumed by each vehicle. We still have an issue with our Lithium supply, because the world does not run on cars alone. It is important to note that the doubling of Lithium products and Lithium requirement in 2012, had little or nothing to do with electric vehicle production. So I conclude that the Lithium industry – in terms of supply, is severely challenged as far as future production is concerned.

So what’s going on here, and why has Lithium been chosen as our our storage media of choice. Well, I would suggest that it hasn’t. It just happens to be the kings new clothes. And a highly profitable industry has grown up around it. Lithium stock is unlike other metals stock, in that it is not traded as a commodity, although you might choose to invest in Li via Global X Lithium ETF, although investments through Global X Lithium ETF have actually lost a massive 38% (that’s -38%) over the past five years, which is contrary to the market interest and demand, and if I understand correctly, actually outstrips supply. So not being an investment banker, I cannot comment or make much of a suggestion about this strange state of affairs, except that, for want of a better word, it is the monopolisation of the Lithium market and the companies concerned in its extraction and processing who dictate the price of Lithium, and not the stock market. Better then as an investment banker, to invest instead in those companies responsible, than to try and invest in Lithium as stock. This would be another reason as far as I am concerned why you wouldn’t utilise Lithium in your future energy investment plan, if the production companies can dictate the price independent of any market forces.

So Lithium is considered good, and with it we can make high energy density chemical cell batteries, but is it the product of the future for this industry. All things considered I would strongly suggest not. But of course that’s just my opinion. So where does this leave us as far as our future energy needs are concerned. Well first let me say something about what I have been discussing, but have so far failed to mention. The lithium supply and battery industry, the electric car, and all things associated, have nothing whatsoever to do with energy supply or energy conservation. The electric car as it presently exists, does so by virtue of the existing energy industry upon which it remains dependent. Electric cars use conventional fuels, they simply utilise this energy via a different system. They are no more or less efficient than conventional cars, they have a carbon footprint similar if not slightly worse than a conventional vehicle – they are nice to drive however, and they do, or would contribute to less localised pollution in our towns and cities, but then so would a well designed petrol engine, or even a bicycle for that matter. The lithium battery does not provide any power, it simply converts that which is already available in order to make it available to the end user.

But this is not about the electric car, nor is it about Lithium per se, it is about our future energy needs. It is about our choices, it is about our freedom of choice and it is about the welfare of our planet and its inhabitants. So let's take a moment and revisit Obama's address.

Obama:

Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.

And so, depending how you read this, or what you read into it, this is a very strong statement. “you’ll be debating our military”, I can only wonder at the meaning of this statement. As for Americas business leaders, they have no place in dictating the terms of our environmental policy. “The Majority of the American people” Also do not specialise in climate issues or energy production or storage, and are therefore ill equipped to hand out advice either to each other or the wider world. As for “the science around climate change”, it still leaves much to be desired and is still hotly debated by many scientists who do not agree as the U.S. president suggests.

As for suggesting that “On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills” nothing could be further from the truth. In the U.S. in most states, similarly to Europe, you cannot just install your own solar power system, ironically you have to apply for 'permission' from your energy company to do so. You also have to apply for planning permission from your local authority to do so, and you have to be able to afford to have it installed by a government approved solar power installation company. In other words for most people even if they are 'given permission' to carry out this work, the cost is quite prohibitive. This of course is a political hot potato, and I'm not about to get into it. What I will say however, is, do we really need to have science prove or disprove climate change and or our part in it, in order that we choose to live in harmony with the world, our environment and all the beasts that inhabit it, including ourselves. It seems to me, that climate change is the very least of our problems, and it seems to me that at best, it does little more than distract us from our more immediate issues with respect to the rising toxicity of our food, our water and our air. I don't need any military force or government to tell me that we should choose a better way to live, and nor do I believe that for one moment, capitalising on technologies and asking for payments in the form of taxes to purchase ever more rights to create pollution is the answer either.

The Dogma Of Green Energy

I have had so many conversations with so many different people in so many different parts of the world about future technologies. So often I hear over and over, how we must gain access to secret technologies how zero point energy inventors are rubbed out or disposed of or discredited, how technology is being suppressed, and how our development is being retarded by the powers to be. Nonsense I say, and if it isn’t nonsense, then it really doesn’t matter, because we already have all the tools and technologies required to be energy independent as individuals. You might not think this to be the case, especially if you have maintained an interest in this subject and been privy to all the information put out regarding the state of our technology with respect to renewable energy. The purveyors of these technologies themselves will be happy to tell you how for example, carbon technologies are not at a stage of development where they can even replace the humble chemical battery, and how other renewable technologies have yet to reach a state of efficiency that can really prove beneficial to our excessive energy needs. This is all bad information.

Carbon has become a dirty word in our modern world. But so few understand what is being spoken about when they hear such terms as carbon footprint. The word carbon in this context refers to Carbon dioxide - a gas which is an essential part of our ecosystem and is neither toxic or unnatural. It is what plants breath, and in return they breath out oxygen. The greater the quantity of carbon dioxide, the more prolific our vegetation becomes, and the more we benefit from the exchange or return of oxygen. If we are considering Co2 as a greenhouse gas, then we might better consider H2o (water) first. Its well understood that water in one form or another in our local atmosphere constitutes some 75% of our greenhouse gas, and Co2 some 20%, and so to be realistic, bearing in mind that Co2 is an essential gas in our ecosystem – by what degree is it ever stated that we should reduce the 20% Co2, and what impact if any would that have against the 80% ‘other’ greenhouse gases, such as water.

What is more important, is that we make sure not to reduce by brute force of industrial processes, all those things that are the lungs of our planet. The rain forests, the oceans, the rivers and all places where indigenous organic plant life may inhabit. Deforestation for example, would likely be a major contribution to the rise of co2 in our atmosphere. The oceans that cover two thirds of our planet are the largest single consumer of Co2 and producer of oxygen we have, and yet we choose to pollute them with waste chemicals, toxins from oil production the free flow of nuclear waste etc. whilst at the same time being directed to concern ourselves with how high our domestic thermostat is set, and whether or not we should switch our car engines off at junctions, whilst the larger world of industry continues to rape and pillage the planet.

It always amazes me, how we never hear other arguments such as making planned obsolescence in consumer products illegal, thereby reducing significantly and immediately unnecessary and wasteful product manufacture and resource consumption. Why we dont penalise companies producing unreliable or inferior short live products. Ban advertising of luxury consumer products. Why not, does it sound so draconian, are we not to believe we have a serious problem, should we not take drastic action, or is monopolising and taxing technology and consumption the real answer. Of course I’m exorcising a little irony here, as I don’t believe that to be necessary, because I dont believe that these are our only choices.

Carbon Is Our Friend

It is interesting, that in all these arguments, the word Carbon comes up time and time again, each time it’s associated with a detrimental or negative high level descriptor. So we need to understand why this is the chosen dialectic. Be clear. Never confuse carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide, the silent and most toxic killer, provided to us courtesy of the utility companies and energy industry, produced in unquantifiable amounts, injected directly into our environment and our homes. And if you really want to have a carbon footprint policy, make sure its for carbon monoxide, and not carbon dioxide, and whilst I'm on the subject of carbon, I need to tell you all that, CARBON IS OUR FRIEND.

Carbon is not only the base material for life on this planet and all known matter, it is the building block of life, and it is also our future. It is carbon the enemy by association, that is our greatest ally, and is the most abundant form of energy storage and energy harvesting media in the world. It is in fact the best kept secret of our time. Carbon can provide us with all of our energy needs – forever, free, and it is absolutely the most environmentally friendly resource available. There is one big problem with carbon. It is the most abundant material we know of, its simply everywhere and in everything. Its low-tech, anyone can access it anywhere in the world, anyone can use it, and the science of its application is as simple as baking a cake - and therein lies the problem. To capitalise carbon would be rather like trying to create a commodity out of sea water, or grass .. its everywhere, unlike Lithium, lead, petroleum, uranium, coal or oil. So lets have a new carbon policy, lets begin to use it, and lets unplug from the toxins trade and plug in to a new world, one with a future that is truly sustainable and not based on monetary policy or profitability. Its about time the world woke up to the reality of carbon - the propaganda put out by the energy industry with respect to the shortcomings of carbon storage and energy harvesting is rife, and Investment in education and industry regarding this technology is all but absent.

It has long past the time where carbon storage technologies could be considered a non equivalent or inferior to chemical storage for long and intermediate storage applications, as well as energy harvesting and generation. Conservatively speaking, we probably passed that landmark some 50 or more years ago. Carbon storage technologies have superseded chemical generator cells in all but form factor. The present form factor limitations however are under the dictate of design criteria conforming to marketed application and propagated consumer perception, and has nothing to do with design potential or limitations. The societal perception of carbon storage is very much based upon knowledge, or rather the lack of it, with respect to this technology; that it is somehow ineffective, inefficient, does not yield practical energy volumes - is not readily distributable or storable. All of these perceptions are based on misconceptions, and are completely unfounded.

---

I have only really set a scene and skimmed the surface here, but I intend to expand on these thoughts and hopefully validate my misgivings with some hard and fast facts on our technology requirements and solutions, but that will be my next post. So in closing - what am I talking about here.

Potential

The visible universe functions and is animated at a fundamental level by potential. Potential is present when elements are not in equilibrium. The natural state of all things is to be in equilibrium. Most everything we see is out of equilibrium. The systems and structures we see around us are those mechanisms that have either evolved, or naturally occur to regain equilibrium. A good example of this is a water fall, where one water system is raised above another, the water at higher level will flow into the water at a lower level until both systems are at the same level and equilibrium is restored. The difference between these two systems is what we refer to as potential. The potential in a water system can also be measured and calculated by its mass and its volume, and we can take advantage of the potential difference. We can intervene and place another system between these two systems and take advantage of the energy stored and the energy exchange mechanism. We know this of course, and this is how and why we have designed and constructed dams. A dam may be construed as creating a potential or an imbalance of equilibrium, but in fact, we are simply disrupting a system and taking advantage of its potential. This would be a hydro generator.

OK so this I imagine is obvious to us all, as these systems are commonplace and have been used for aeons from the very earliest corn mills and water pump irrigation systems, up to the modern hydro generators. Obvious because these systems are animated, usually quite large and in wide spread use across our planet. But there are less obvious systems in place all around use, from the atomic and sub atomic level as well as on a universally large scale. Potential is everywhere.

In my next article we will get into the meat and potatoes of carbon technologies. Until then, thank you for your interest.

All images courtesy of https://pixabay.com/