U.S. Gearing Up To Become World's Supplier Of Lithium

The green movement is precisely intended to create energy poverty in the working classes, and part of that is to take away our cars. So the elites will have more room on the freeways for their SUV caravans on the way to their private jets.

Really.

Insanity. How many people are going to volunteer for their cars to be used for utility backup? So they can run down their batteries while other people recharge!

If I get free parking at the airport and be sure that it is charged up before arrival. That might work.

People in China, India, Africa, Indonesia want what we have: electric lights, cars, clean cooking fuel, safe hot and cold water, fans and air conditioning, transport, internet, schools, vermin-free floors, beds and chairs and stuff. And they will get all that. That will take energy.

How many cars are parked at airports? Surely not 0.1%.

Volunteer? How many workers with a high school education are going to volunteer to pay of the student loans of college 'educated' gender studies experts?

And screw the polar bears... I can't say that I blame them.

Which they will get cheaply from solar cells backed up by batteries. Not because they will be greenies, but because it is the cheapest way to get the energy, and they don't have to wait for their national government to build a grid system to deliver the power from some remote fossil-fueled generating system.

As they get more prosperous they'll invest large chunks of capital in wind-turbines and more batteries and a little local grid that will distribute the power from one or two wind turbines to a whole village.

John Larkin is dumb enough to think that poor people today are going to get electrified in the same way they were in Edison's America or Lenin's Russia. The technology has moved on from there, even if John Larkin's thinking hasn't.

The climate change denial propaganda - which he parrots quite frequently - is written by the fossil carbon extraction industry with the aim of keeping people buying fossil carbon fuel for a few years longer than is economically sensible. It's nuts, but John hasn't noticed.

Hard to charge them up if they aren't.

As I pointed out when I posted that - the line does seem to have been snipped,

"Rick C does have an emotional objection to the idea, but if the car owners were paid enough for the service they might feel better about it. "

The owners wouldn't be "volunteering" their cars, but selling access to them for a price.

No. So that some other grid customers - the ones that find it worth their while to pay for 100% access - can get serviced when generating capacity is reduced. That might include people who are willing to pay through the nose to get their car recharged fast, and right now.

There are already industrial process that are power intensive but not time critical, and get cheap power on the basis that the grid can cut them off whenever generating capacity is reduced. Grid storage batteries are an extreme case of such a market.

Well, the plumbers and electricians can give the sociology-degreed barristas and babysitters big tips.

The polar bears are doing fine.

After any disaster, some survivors are "doing fine". Head count is low, though. After the 1970 Bhola cyclone, Pakistan's General Yahya Khan toured, said 'looks OK to me'... then the survivors revolted, creating Bangladesh where once was East Pakistan.

google it.

It's your assertion. You find the link that supports your claim. Gnatguy can't manage this. Can you?

I recall from my childhood that we had a second meter for the water heater. It cut off heating at peak time and we got a cheaper rate. My dad was all about cheaper rates. But after some many years, they electric company took out that second meter and ran it all together again. I wonder why that was? Wasn't that good for everyone?

You think it's emotional, but that's your go-to idea for everything you can't understand. It's someone else's emotions.

The economics simply don't work for using car batteries as grid storage because they cost so much more to replace than grid storage batteries. So the electric company would have to shell out a lot more money to use them if the BEV owners are smart enough to understand. I know they would have to pay me dearly to use my battery, because I want to use it as long as I can, it is very expensive to replace. I might well get through the lifetime of the car without replacing it. If the power company pays me a couple of thousand dollars for using it which shortens its life prematurely, my spending $22,000 for another few years of use is not advantageous for me. So I would most likely not participate.

It might be useful to the power company for that 1% remaining or perhaps it's more realistic to say, the once in a month peak need. But even then, someone has to pay for the additional electronics and communications required. That might make the once a month usage, on top of the high per kWh rate, uneconomical. Why pay a couple of thousand to use 10 kWh once a month when you can probably build that 10 kWh for the couple of thousand, plus the use fees that would have to be paid over the life of the system. After all, this is the excess capacity you talk about building into the system that gets used for arbitrage, generating income. If it can't be used for storage when required, there's no point in adding to the same equipment.

This is the sort of analysis a bean counter would look at and tell us what is useful and what is not. I'm thinking it's not. The grid storage is just so practical, it's rather pointless to try to guild that lily with much more expensive V2G. YMMV

Oh, you do make me laugh. Tee, hee, hee.

It won't work for me. I only vote for my car.

I think GM is backing a project referred to a Cruise which recently got approval to operate a self driving taxi. Lots of restrictions and there had to be a person giving it oversight. The next day it was in an accident. So the cars were recalled and will have another go in a bit.