The Rance tidal power station has in fact proved very successful. It is low maintenance and very reliable. It was expensive in its time.and.and the Government.of the day decided that the better way to go based on advice available at the time was a nuclear power programme. Many now regret that France didn’t give more importance to tidal power..The problem is that the cost for.both have now increased significantly, but if a suitable site or sites could be found IMO they would choose tidal rather than nuclear if the cost of construction was similar. They have proved to have a longer life, produce cheaper electricity, and once running don’t rely on other countries for.their fuel.
The US 55mph can not comment on and as for prohibition that was a disaster but it did prove one.point the Amendments to the US constitution can be changed.
French yellow headlights had a very good reason for them at the time, if my French history serves me well.. The problem.was that the public kept them going long after their usefulness had gone.
They eventually died out over the generations as did any vestiges of their legality.
But I have never said that the people.and market forces will eventually make something a success ot failure. But is I was paying the price per Kwh that they appear to pay in Norway, I would be very tempted by EVs even if it does mean some changes to my lifestyle.
Cobalt, Kwh per Kg of battery has increased dramatically over the last 2 years and with that the range of BEVs. This improvement is dramatically demonstrated by the performance of.Formula E cars.compared.to 2 years ago.
Where batteried go next to gain further improvements is proving to be an exciting race.
On the one hand you have solid state batteries.
There is a UK company which.used to spepcialise in.tiny light weight solid state batteries for use inside the body. Eg pacemakers and fibrillation appliances. They are now AIUI experimenting with.ways of adapting this technology for such as the EV market..On.the other side there are at least 2 groups looking at plant technology and plant materials to make batteries. Electricity from plants in tiny amounts is as old as the hills. Somewhere in between Elon Musk and Tesla are developing a new battery technology which I don’t know much about.
But will it.be.new battery technology or new recharging technology.whereby a car can be charged fully in 5 or perhaps 10 minutes which will prove to be the next step forward for BEVs.
Or will the overcoming the downsides of fuels such as ammonia or hyrdrogen give a push to hybrid electric vehicles?
One thing is sure is that there are and will be far more ways to generate and distribute electricity than to refine and distribute gasoline or diesel for cars. There are also less energy losses during generation and distribution and use of electricity than for gasoline or diesel.
The question was “Did the Rance Tidal Power Station that was built in 1966 subsequently create an expansion of tidal power as a significant source of electrical power worldwide?” The reasonable and correct answer is that it did not, and for good reason.
I’m afraid than quasi-religious belief structures cannot be successfully confronted with logic – that is in fact the biggest issue we face, increasing since the 1960s. Even more concerning is that politicians are recently relearning how useful these phenomena are in gaining power, with very negative results to everybody else.
Cobalt wrote:
a 30% reduction in weight
Which corresponds to a 42% increase in energy density which for practical purposes is the same as the 40% I wrote in a post in a separate thread about electric aircraft.
“I’m afraid than quasi-religious belief structures cannot be successfully confronted with logic – that is in fact the biggest issue we face, increasing since the 1960s. Even more concerning is that politicians are recently relearning how useful these phenomena are in gaining power, with very negative results to everybody else.”
What does this actually mean or are you just venting frustration that everyone doesn’t agree with you?🙂
A discussion is not meaningful unless the participants agree on some basic premises. If they don’t, they will simply talk past each other as the arguments quite literally don’t make sense to the other party.
In the case of discussions about fossil fuel vs. electricity as a means to power cars, the most basic premise we must agree on is whether or not it is a fact that we are facing a climate crisis caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
I have the distinct feeling that there is no agreement on that in the present discussion. In fact, some arguments put forth do not make sense unless he poster does – or does not, as the case may be – hold this to be true.
In the case of discussions about fossil fuel vs. electricity as a means to power cars, the most basic premise we must agree on is whether or not it is a fact that we are facing a climate crisis caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
I think it’s interesting that you say “fossil fuel is versus electricity” when the recent discussion has been focused on it being unlikely that the two will be separable for most people forced to buy an EV by governments that are increasingly passing laws to make the sale of anything else illegal.
I think the “climate crisis” is a fabrication and a power grab, as is the idea that EVs will solve any problem in that regard, “crisis” or not. Hybrids probably make more sense if that’s what people want to do. Whether or not there is a man-made climate issue that matters is another topic, one that I think has yet to be resolved. I think the energy security issue is more immediate and likely more important, particularly in Europe, as I posted probably 100 times years before Putin invaded and I don’t need to go through again. I think people in areas with low energy security are being broadly manipulated through the creation of a “crisis”. YMMV.
Speaking of energy storage, which is obviously key to powering EVs with renewables in most places around the world, I was approached recently by people working on solar/thermal energy storage using a supercritical CO2 cycle driving a generator. It’s very interesting in relation to utilizing solar power at night but hardware cost is a huge barrier for application on a distributed basis. Resolving that issue is why I was approached, along with the possibility of helping to get more government money for continued research.
I still haven’t totally digested the Manhattan Institute study as referenced above.
The study questions the CO2 parity of a Li-based BEV with an ICE using a prime argument being the immense carbon footprint of mainly Li mining. And, as an aside, spends quite some words on the geopolitical complications associated with Li and other material deposits being located in the “wrong” countries. Both are probably valid points.
It also states within the immediate future, 10 years or so, there are no alternatives for Li-based batteries for cars.
Really?
I’m no expert, but this looks like something that could change some conclusions of the study..
Often it’s the things that are not raised in a document that are important. A author with an open mind would at least give alternative battery designs some limelight. And even if Sodium batteries would not hit the streets within 10 years, I think it’s important to take a longer term view on this issue, be it Sodium or some other chemistry.
Often it’s the things that are not raised in a document that are important. A author with an open mind would at least give alternative battery designs some limelight.
Hence my introduction of thermal energy storage into the discussion 
Thermal energy storage has been around for years even at large projects.
Hot rocks, black sand, your average home hot water tank, solar hot water tanks, and ice storage to cool multi storey office blocks.
How would this be relevant to vehicles?
