Random Battery News Plus huge IRA tax benefit for 4680 Production

[Ogre]

A few really interesting tidbits around battery production lately. Many of them related to the Inflation Reduction Act.

Probably the biggest eye opener is the fact that Tesla is accelerating battery production in Texas at the expense of Germany due to the fairly massive tax incentives for producing cells in the US. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but Tesla gets $10 - $45 per kWh for every cell they produce in the US. This is on top of the $7500 EV incentives buyers may qualify for. For the Cybertruck that means maybe $1,250 - $9,000 per pack depending on how big the pack is and how much of the incentive they qualify for. Considering they are delaying their Berlin in favor of accelerating Texas, I suspect it’s going to be $45/ kW which would likely offset much of the inflation related cost increases.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...trategy-to-seek-us-tax-breaks-wsj/ar-AA11Q4Dj

Possibly related, Tesla is exploring refining Lithium in Texas. Considering Musk has previously said refining lithium is like printing money, I suspect this will be a huge cost savings for them as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/new...r-ev-batteries-in-texas-this-year/ar-AA11DxUp

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

That is fantastic news if it pans out that way.
Maybe CT will be $49,990 for the AWD quad motor now!

I'm a bit surprised there's no equivalent subsidy in Germany, they're normally on top of this type of RE promoting development. Storage = less fossil use because you can source it from RE instead. Might just need V2G to kick it off though.

 

[Ogre]

That is fantastic news if it pans out that way.
Maybe CT will be $49,990 for the AWD quad motor now!

I'm a bit surprised there's no equivalent subsidy in Germany, they're normally on top of this type of RE promoting development. Storage = less fossil use because you can source it from RE instead. Might just need V2G to kick it off though.

Germany is years ahead of us on a lot of this. They do have a natural gas addiction they need to break, but they’ve invested massively in solar subsidies and are quite a bit further down the solar adoption curve then we are.

Germany’s mistake was decommissioning their nuclear plants first in favor of natural gas generation. They are sort of reversing that stance now. Turns out when your voters realize you’ve been helping the bad guys fund their WW3/ world domination efforts people are a lot more tolerant of nuclear power.

 

[JBee]

Germany is the third largest solar energy producer but actually produces more energy from biofuels than from solar power. Their 20 year EEG feed in tariff law made RE mainstream and led to their "Energiewende". Their natural gas network is actually used to transport bio methane they produce themselves from plant and food wastes. (Not edible food itself). See how Erdgas/NG (purple) compares to Biomasse (green) in the graph below. Their "addiction" of natural gas is because of the embodied emissions of nuclear are greater than burning natural gas out of the ground.

The substantial difference is how they use natural gas by burning it in CHP generation, (Combined Heat Power) that allows them to recover and use between 80-95% of the fuel energy. It produces electricity and distributed heat for suburbs. Doing so puts the carbon output to similar, if not less than household PV solar, which still has embodied carbon. Obviously burning bio-methane in CHP makes it a magnitude better again, and makes it actually one of the few that reduces forcing at all by any significant amount.

Sure certain actors shouldn't be incentivised, but as per above choosing natural gas was actually an "environmental" decision. Germany was affected by Chernobyl (I was also there at the time) and that experience lingered and has been a part of their decision making process ever since, further enforced by Fukushima, which actually solidified the already ongoing shutdowns. The "newest" plant was built 33years ago in 89'.

Currently most operational Nuclear are also only financially viable with significant gov. subsidies, plus current plants are all end of life in Germany, so there is no real cost incentive at all to keep the few going that they actually still can. FYI Australia can't afford nuclear, in particular because there are no insurance underwriters and gov. can't/won't be held liable for public works and liabilities of that magnitude.

So although its nice of EM and co to call out nuclear shutdowns from the sidelines, it doesn't really change the facts, and that the last three plants that are operational had been scheduled to shutdown years before Ukraine even became an issue. Besides the French have been populating them anyway, just buy power off them instead. Don't forget there is a "Euro power grid" and accross border distribution is embedded already.

Their heating demand is fairly high and solar sucks in winter there, so although battery storage and V2G will help get RE further into autumn and spring, reducing demand overall, there's just no way to store enough from one season to the next, to cover winter. Theres a lot of talk for getting solar from Africa...again.

 

[rr6013]

Germany loss of NORD I & II NG pipelines according to 2000 published figures amounts to roughly 10% that it must reduce or find elsewhere. That explains why GDR is not crippled going into winter then?

 

[JBee]

Germany loss of NORD I & II NG pipelines according to 2000 published figures amounts to roughly 10% that it must reduce or find elsewhere. That explains why GDR is not crippled going into winter then?

Although is Germany is the biggest importer of Russian NG only 49% comes from Russia, so technically a 5% hit to supplies. Neighbouring EU states have a much larger NG proportions, some over 40% making them more sensitive, and in turn are trading EU partners.

Theres a few overlayed problems that are happening sequentially. To reach the goal of zero emissions you need to transition, the least emitting and cost effective to transition with is NG, so keep that running till last and let that take up slack. Nuclear is cleaner than coal, but worse than NG, but is also not as cost effective and socially less acceptable, so that goes down with coal. Emissions reduction occurs through renewables for electricity by offsetting the polluters, and you end up with the graph I presented above.

But: electricity is only one part of the problem, heating is the cruncher. 50% of homes are heated with NG in winter, 25% from oil. So no NG means a cold winter with no real alternative and the electricity network being unable to support the extra load at all, (NG network capacity is larger than electricity network) plus is being NG limited itself, meaning less peaking plants for spinning reserve, that reduces RE penetrative and overall electricity availability even more. So you end up with less NG generation, that reduces RE generation which reduces overall electricity production, then you add extra heating demand etc and the electricity grid is on the limit. Let alone that Germany imports most of its coal, also from Russia, because its cheaper than their own, so local coal mining is scarce. Lately because of the hot summer coal deliveries to power stations were also limited by low water levels on rivers where the coal barges run...

Now add trying to treble electricity production to charge EVs, to accommodate banning ICE cars by 2030...oh what fun. Not.

 

[cvalue13]

Germany is years ahead of us on a lot of this. They do have a natural gas addiction they need to break, but they’ve invested massively in solar subsidies and are quite a bit further down the solar adoption curve then we are.

And we’re the past 12 months seeing why Germany has been so “forward-thinking” on alternative feedstock. These have been national security investments.

The perhaps dark irony is, one could view the timing of Crimea and now Ukraine as being a result of Germany’s progress. Russia’s leverage couldn’t wait that much longer.

But: electricity is only one part of the problem, heating is the cruncher. 50% of homes are heated with NG in winter, 25% from oil.

Personally, I view “the cruncher” to be our insatiable and exponential demand for electricity. People are too soft and lazy to face the fact that the cleanest enerfy is energy unused.

An interesting tie-in example of this is Japan, as it goes to the point of Nuclear. There is a country less soft and lazy.

A significant portion of Japan’s post-Fukushima energy policy has been on (let’s call it) asking it’s people to experience discomfort. Government owned or subsidized business must keep their thermostats above/below certain temperatures - warm enough in summer that overnight it went from unthinkable to not wear suits to work to instead unthinkable to wear anything other than short-sleeved shirts to work.

That’s a policy approach more viable in a country like Japan.

Here in the west, in contrast, policies all look to somehow use less energy to provide all the same stuff/comforts, as opposed to requiring a reduction of stuff/comfort.

 

[Ogre]

And we’re the past 12 months seeing why Germany has been so “forward-thinking” on alternative feedstock. These have been national security investments.

The perhaps dark irony is, one could view the timing of Crimea and now Ukraine as being a result of Germany’s progress. Russia’s leverage couldn’t wait that much longer.

Germany would have been over quite a barrel if they’d already fully decommissioned those nuclear plants.

 

[JBee]

And we’re the past 12 months seeing why Germany has been so “forward-thinking” on alternative feedstock. These have been national security investments.

The perhaps dark irony is, one could view the timing of Crimea and now Ukraine as being a result of Germany’s progress. Russia’s leverage couldn’t wait that much longer.




Personally, I view “the cruncher” to be our insatiable and exponential demand for electricity. People are too soft and lazy to face the fact that the cleanest enerfy is energy unused.

An interesting tie-in example of this is Japan, as it goes to the point of Nuclear. There is a country less soft and lazy.

A significant portion of Japan’s post-Fukushima energy policy has been on (let’s call it) asking it’s people to experience discomfort. Government owned or subsidized business must keep their thermostats above/below certain temperatures - warm enough in summer that overnight it went from unthinkable to not wear suits to work to instead unthinkable to wear anything other than short-sleeved shirts to work.

That’s a policy approach more viable in a country like Japan.

Here in the west, in contrast, policies all look to somehow use less energy to provide all the same stuff/comforts, as opposed to requiring a reduction of stuff/comfort.

The same is being done in Germany right now, again. Thermostats for public and private have been part of energy regulation for years to the point ot used to be the case when I was growing up there that you couldn't use big electrical appliances in peak periods as it was against the community/housing covenants.

So I won't take your comments on "soft and lazy" personally....

As for the timing of Ukraine I agree that Russia was definitely looking at its exports and EU demand, as well as weather/season, but also at covid and the shambles of a US pull-out of Afghanistan, along with some certainty and good will from their ally China and there expansion into the south China Sea. Sort of reminds me of the time just before WW2 where the English and French had an emergency meeting with the Germans to give them Czechoslovakia and then later the Russians and Germany agreeing to split Poland, at which the Russians were to slow at, resulting in the Germans doing most of it. All of which shortly followed up with the creation of the Arab states by the US, UK and Russian leaders, that were never originally organised like that as states.

But when it comes to nuclear power I'm a very weary, non-supporter in general, primarily because much of the power production is not for energy as so much for lowering the cost for weapons grade enrichment. If we were serious about nuclear power then we'd have thorium ones, but as it stands that doesn't blow stuff up well enough to be given a budget.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with that big fusion reactor that comes up like clockwork every sunrise.

 

[cvalue13]

So I won't take your comments on "soft and lazy" personally....

it’s a sliding scale, and as an American I think we’re most of us near the top/worst offenders

 

[tidmutt]

And we’re the past 12 months seeing why Germany has been so “forward-thinking” on alternative feedstock. These have been national security investments.

The perhaps dark irony is, one could view the timing of Crimea and now Ukraine as being a result of Germany’s progress. Russia’s leverage couldn’t wait that much longer.

Personally, I view “the cruncher” to be our insatiable and exponential demand for electricity. People are too soft and lazy to face the fact that the cleanest enerfy is energy unused.

An interesting tie-in example of this is Japan, as it goes to the point of Nuclear. There is a country less soft and lazy.

A significant portion of Japan’s post-Fukushima energy policy has been on (let’s call it) asking it’s people to experience discomfort. Government owned or subsidized business must keep their thermostats above/below certain temperatures - warm enough in summer that overnight it went from unthinkable to not wear suits to work to instead unthinkable to wear anything other than short-sleeved shirts to work.

That’s a policy approach more viable in a country like Japan.

Here in the west, in contrast, policies all look to somehow use less energy to provide all the same stuff/comforts, as opposed to requiring a reduction of stuff/comfort.

I have always struggled with this concept of limiting activity to save energy. It seems to run counter to human nature and that makes it a complete non-starter. Sure, with a compliant population you can convince them to do so to a certain extent but personally it does not feel like the right solution.

I’m fairly certain that Elon would agree.

I think we should engineer an abundant future, one that can support growth, expansion, and the evolution of human society.

Optimization, sure. Efficiency, absolutely. Be cold in the winter, hot in the summer. Don’t go on vacation, don’t stream Stranger Things and so on. Those things make zero sense to me. That feels like a dead end.

 

[rr6013]

High level flyover looks down on antiquated, maxxed-out grid.

Closest technology has yet come to solving grid is Solar+Batt systems. Goodnews is Solar+Batt systems takeoff grid electricity demand days at a time. Its a rare endpoint win for Joe the consumer.

Disintermediation favors Joe Consumer’s use of battery, LED, and any method that further provides power on his terms, at his option. ERCOT and CA grid operator demonstrate the limitation and cost inherent in Joe not having any.

Otherwise Joes surrenders all power to Grid Operators and the option of limiting activity to save energy by cutting electricity, taking down the grid or skyrocketing rates to takedown consumer Joes. People died in TX. People went bankrupt.

Options are better…

 

[JBee]

Sacrifice now for a better more abundant future. I call this an "investment".

I completely agree with the abundance principle. It is one of my pet gripes against demand vs supply economics. Nature doesn't follow that principle and life produces in excess, to the point it sometimes seems "un-natural". The reason why this works is simple: nature knows no waste either. Everything in a natural process is a resource and nothing ever goes to waste. So if our systems and processes create usable resources instead of waste, that be re-cylced back through economic activity, we can end up with a system of abundance.

 

[Crissa]

It's important to note we only hit the max for grid, which isn't to say there's not enough energy. It's more like a traffic jam than running out of cars.

-Crissa

Sponsored