Engineer readers are optimistic about the prospects for the UK’s new funding to boost battery technology development.
The UK’s Faraday Challenge — the quarter-billion pound investment announced last week by business secretary Greg Clark — was generally welcomed by the 507 respondents to last week’s poll. The largest group of respondents, 41 percent, agreed with Clark’s hopes that the project would help to drive advances in renewable energy and electric vehicles, while another 17 percent thought it would keep the UK at the forefront of battery technology development. However, a fairly large group, 34 percent, was concerned that the investment was to little and too late. Another 8 percent of respondent declined to pick an option.
The comments section for this poll was typically lively, with several readers expressing concern about how batteries would be disposed of at the end of their lives. This is a valid concern, as research published last year raised the possibility of emissions of fluorine-containing gases from batteries, resulting from the release of LiPF6 from the battery electrolyte.
“Batteries are simply not the most appropriate form of energy storage for power hungry devices such as cars and they are environmentally suspect to say the least,” commented Tim Preston, who suggested that electricity was better stored in the form of hydrogen from electrolysing water. Graham Taylor raised the issue of how electric vehicles should be treated on trade-in. “If the life of the batteries on an EV are going to be about 5-7 years, what will be the cost of replacing them, the cost of recycling the old ones, or what will the value of the vehicle be? Would it be a better option to scrap the vehicle and purchase another 3-year-old one to take the place of the old one? Also what would be the options for the working man who can’t afford to buy even a 5-7 year old vehicle?” he asked.
Please continue to send us your opinions on this topic.
The options should have been slightly different. Too little too late should never have been an option, given that it is never too late to invest in technology.
Too little however is the paramount case here as £246m is a token gesture that would not even scratch the surface off sustained development in this technology, without private investment.
This initiative is all about transport? Transport is less than 40% of the energy usage in this country? We don’t make many cars or commercial vehicles in this country (Trains included). Without a user industry it is very difficult (ie damn near impossible) to influence vehicle manufacturers to take up UK developed technology. They will go with their own locally grown solutions. IF the developments are patentable and patented then there may be some revenue accrued from the investment.
Efficient systems for domestic energy storage and the consequent development of new industries around them, that we can use/prove locally and sell abroad, are a wise use of scarce funds. IF it is anticipated that this initiative will yield benefits in this area then all well and good – but I am unconvinced so far.
We actually make lots of cars in the UK. Last year we produced 1.7 million of them, the highest output for 17 years. We also have two major train manufacturers in the UK: Bombardier and Hitachi.
Presumably this money will benefit Dyson and Nissan UK to help them develop their battery technology investments or will it go to University’s like Oxford where John Goodenough developed the materials needed to create the Lithium Ion battery which Sony then went on to commercialise. Would be nice if the technology stayed in the UK for once, especially if Dyson are rumoured to be working on Solid State batteries!
Renewables and EV development programs are successful except in the energy storage. capability.
World is depending on the developed nations to make the breakthrough in battery technology and not give up on “green” propulsion. We must find out whether we did not know how to make a battery comparable to fossil fuels until today or whether it just cannot be done. Funding to develop a manufacturable and reliable battery that has at least 5% of the energy density of Diesel fuel should go on.
The news just in is that BMW will make the mini platform (including batteries) in Bavaria, with Cowley adding the chassis.
So no help. The battery technology stays in Germany. The labour intensive assembly comes to Britain.
The worldwide trend is certainly toward renewables with storage the weak link. Any storage solution is fine, but batteries are the best if the numbers can be worked out. That means cost per kWh must be competitive.
Batteries are simply not the most appropriate form of energy storage for power hungry devices such as cars and they are environmentally suspect to say the least.
Much better by far is to use cleanly generated electricity to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen can then be used directly in an internal combustion engine or in a fuel cell to generate electricity.
However, I fear that we are running headlong in the wrong direction, which is unfortunately what governments tend to do, especially in this increasingly hysteria prone atmosphere in which we currently live.
If we as a race inhabiting this planet are really, really serious about green energy then there should be a world forum that strives to a) Ensure that we capture as much of the sunlight that falls on this little globe as we possibly can (every new building should be covered in solar panels?) and b) that the cost of producing them should be brought down rapidly as volume increases and if necessary should become a worldwide production effort without borders for the good of all. Yes there is the fact that the materials / panels are not ‘energy free’ to produce but I am certain that there is scope to improve that. If we cannot get a world forum which sadly is unlikely to happen as governments would spend twenty years talking and achieving nothing. Then laws by each country could kick start the trend, how about that Mrs May? As for batteries UK as discussed here, we can either do something or do nothing, the latter is not an option. Do not always absolutely associate expenditure with results.
On the BBC this was presented as an opportunity for people with solar panel arrays to store electricity when the sun shines and sell it to the grid when it is required. What really puzzles me about the whole thing is that there is not more incentive for factory owners to put solar arrays on factory roofs. Lots of residential properties have tiny arrays, which cannot be very efficient when they have to drive an inverter to make useful AC current. Factory roof arrays would have greater efficiency just from their size. In addition, there has never been a subsidy for using heat pumps to heat buildings, why not ? A heat pump takes energy from the atmosphere, it literally does ‘global cooling’ when working, but it appears no-one in Whitehall has the understanding to work out a fair subsidy rate. All new factories should be covered in solar panels and all in colder climates should use heat pumps for heating.
The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) currently pays almost 20p/kWh for domestic ground source heat pump systems, and around 9p/kWh for non-domestic gshps. Air source heat pumps are supported at much lower levels, around 3 p/kWh.
Whilst I am with those who say ‘any’ investment in technology is good…may I make a plea for investment in R&D of much simpler, day-to-day items: to be used in millions and paid for with their own money by citizens: not by the State with that they have taken from us in taxes: and frankly almost invariably mis-spend? We (UKplc) make only a few house-hold items (yes I know about Dyson, but…. hardly any cameras, few watches, boilers, air-conditioning units, garage equipment I believe you get the idea! Here is a vast potential for ground-breaking development and design -for products for which there is a ready market. Let those ‘seats’ of Higher Learning which have Schools of Engineering and ‘proper’ Design (not arty-f**ty’ courses) define what they believe they are ‘good-at’ and let EPSRC or whatever and/or HMG allocate (along with a financial, marketing and manufacturing contribution) different areas to different ‘seats’. The rules are simple. Develop a world-beating product and 40% of the profits are yours. Do nothing of value and dissipate the funds in silly irrelevant ‘academic? papers and travel (the natural tendency?) and you will receive NO funding whatsoever, for ever! that should concentrate academic minds?
Mike
I hold with your ideas. Perhaps Uni research projects could be crowd funded to the benefit of home grown companies and it’s host of UK investors! It just needs some informed investment of those of us with a modicum of investible liquidity to have the bravery to invest in future technology.
Is this another case of a clueless government with zero engineering expertise reading something about electric cars in the Daily Fail and deciding to “pick winners” and throw some money about? Perhaps The Engineer can point us to the expert reports calling for this investment, and bids for research funds from academics with ideas that they want to pursue. Or is it another Osborne style pork barrel venture, like the Sir Henry Royce Institute, cooked up by a politician seeking good headlines while the world around them collapses?
The whole project shows a callous disregard for those poor people who struggle to pay ever increasing electricity bills every winter. All it will do is further increase the cost of electricity.
The plain fact is that with current technology there is no chance of achieving the prices needed. The current cost of storing electricity in a battery exceeds 50p/kWh and if it could be reduced by a factor of 10 – an impossible goal because it would be below the price of the raw materials – it would still be too expensive.
But worse than that, the whole battery mania is a crazy example of throwing good money after bad. Extra storage is needed on the system because the sun doesn’t shine at night and the wind often doesn’t blow during peak demand periods. So the whole problem could be solved immediately by simply abandoning expensive and useless wind and solar power and reverting to gas, coal and nuclear power.
Hear Hear. The whole thing is a sop to the masses who have been wound up by those who shout loudest and politicians clamouring for votes from those masses. Where are the facts? Where is the science?
I do wonder about the disposal costs of all of these millions of batteries along with their rare and toxic components – not to mention the required infrastructure to charge them all in the first place !
“but it appears no-one in Whitehall has the understanding”
“a clueless government with zero engineering expertise ”
Elect scientists and engineers.
The solution is an historic one but quite simple. Why don’t we go back to the old Eddision / Westinghouse argument. Change the distribution network to DC; this solves many other issues as well (phase synchronisation, phase shift, increased losses I2R, harmonics etc) and have localised (in property) inversion. All generation whether large or small scale could then run on DC and storage becomes a non issue, as it could happen either at the local scale or national scale without associated loss of 2 way conversion losses (AC > DC for storage then DC > AC for use).
Granted huge infrastructure to implement and big arguments over who would pay the user end equipment but in reality there would be such cost savings across the networks it may even pay for itself.
I also note the article is on storage for ‘ the grid’ although the battery concept seems to have thrown people into the car discussion.
Back to the Future! – SInclair C5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EQetm_qWDg
There are some interesting comments on the subject in question, but I have to take issue with one comment which comes up regularly on the subject of Government and the ability of Engineers and Scientists being more capable of running the country than elected officials.
Firstly, if Engineers and Scientists (I am an Engineer) think that they could make a better job of running the country then they should stand for office – few choose to do so.
Secondly, I know many Engineers and Scientists who are great individual contributors but very poor managers. Many think that they know how to be a manager but most (in my experience) are not very good at it.
It would be far better if Engineers and Scientists attempted to influence politicians rather than simply complain about them. Some Engineering Institutions put a lot of effort into this (the IMechE for one). Politicians of most parties have a poor grasp of Engineering, Science, manufacturing, power distribution, etc., but this is no different to the bulk of the population. However, some politicians actually recognise this fact and can be influenced by people who do understand the issues. It is up to us whether we choose to attempt to influence and educate them or just complain about them not understanding the issues.
Reading the comments of all the Engineers and technical boffins, it occurs to me that one thing has been forgotten. Just what happens to all these EV’s when they come to the end of their lives. The recycling of all of the toxic components in batteries and just how long is the life of the said EVs. Cars are the second most expensive item purchased by the household. I won’t purchase a new car simply due to the devaluation of the vehicle as I drive it off the forecourt. The last vehicle I purchased was a 3-year-old with 25k on the clock. When I trade it in at the end of this year it will have 100k on the clock but it is still running fine. If the life of the batteries on an EV are going to be about 5-7 years, what will be the cost of replacing them, the cost of recycling the old ones, or what will the value of the vehicle be? Would it be a better option to scrap the vehicle and purchase another 3-year-old one to take the place of the old one? Also what would be the options for the working man who can’t afford to buy even a 5-7 year old vehicle? We see lots of IC cars around housing estates that the owners have scraped up the cost of the vehicle but can’t afford to have them serviced or even replace the tyres, sitting beside the road broken down. These people often need their cars to get to work or take their kids to school and can’t afford new cars. EVs are really going to hit these people and saying that new EV vehicles will be the only option after 2040 will again hit those on lower incomes where it hurts them most. Fortunately I won’t be arround to see the results of the government taking the country to hell in a hand cart. Maybe the hand cart will be the only thing left as transport. For God’s sake don’t form a committee to sort it out. If they do, and it will have to be a large one with lots of members; then again, nothing will be achieved and we will have another complete waste of our taxes. I agree that the pollution in towns and even in the countryside is becoming a serious problem and it is affecting the young and old alike, but I’m afraid that I don’t know what the answer is. Our weather negates the use of push-bikes, walking is often not an option and cars, buses and trucks pollute. Where do we go? Brother Engineers, it’s down to you.
Perhaps for new installations, unlikely for old.
As I understand it, DC is only now viable, due to availability of solid state electronics / switch mode, etc?
Good idea. But do they stand for election?
Who suggested that? I didn’t. Nor did Stuart Saunders.
That’s what Stuart Saunders suggested.
For that to work, the intended recipients of that education have to show some willingness to learn.
The IMechE, RAEng and others do, indeed, put great effort into this, but they often end up shouting at deaf ears.
That was the point of my original comment. Where is the evidence that the politicians made this battery decision on the basis of advice from the engineering community?
I looked for supporting evidence but found none.
Batteries have big life cycle problems, even if older automotive batteries can be resold into household storage. Hydrogen storage removes the toxic waste issue. Flywheels, non toxic depleted uranium at the most efficient, can avoid the AC/DC conversion problem. In fact, permanent magnets can be placed around the flywheel rotor so generation is direct.
They exist already and there is no reason why every new wind turbine should not have a flywheel fitted into the column as part of the power train. Similarly for new solar power plants. The charge would be at midday, using excess power and the discharge would be after sunset during peak load for up to five hours. Flywheel maintenance would involve an occasional bearing change. Replacement cycles for existing designs run from 12 to 35 years. Other materials would last indefinitely.
They already exist. Commercial vehicle from rail mounted people movers to London buses already use them for regenerative braking. Most of these are no denser than steel.
Many topics raised above, perhaps a big part of our problem lies in modern commuting and commercial centralisation . Every new commuter route from link roads to HS2 generates energy hungry traffic, as well as vast but ultimately unproductive profits for civil and housing companies, to the detriment of those living near, and those forced to use them. A more diverse approach to resource planning and location could do much to reduce vehicle pollution and consequent waste of human and natural resources.
Indeed a lively comments section – always good to get a variety of comments. I am not an expert in this area of engineering. I have been designing machine controls for the last 40+ years, but often wonder if the idea of more localised power/heat generation (CHP?) could be viable now? I read something recently regarding the small modular reactors, I think from Rolls-Royce? that could be used for this type of operation. I realise this could be a problem in very densely populated areas, but rather than one huge power station taking many years (decades?) to build and commission, what about multiple small power generation facilities spread round the periphery of the populated area? I’d like to know more please!
We need to continue developments with Energy storage and Battery recycling. Probably in 8 -10 years time we will have gained knowledge and information which will be able to answer most of the questions and issues mentioned above.
There seems to be no simple and straight forward way of resolving future UK Energy storage. As pointed out, when there is no Solar (night time) and there is no Wind (high Barometric pressure), Renewables do not produce Energy. For this reason a compromise is vital?
In the next few years the UK should build around 10 new low cost Gas Power stations. The UK should copy the best USA practices for Shale Gas production (Fracking) to supply the Gas. The Gas Power Stations would be turned on and off and used for boosting the grid only when required. No more Nuclear Power stations should be built in future in the UK due to the dangers involved.