PDA

View Full Version : Book Review: Internal Combustion by Edwin Black


Rob Beckers
12th August 2009, 07:58
Recently I picked up the book "Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black at our local library. It chronicles how the world became addicted to oil, and how this was largely accomplished not by market forces, but by monopolistic behavior of various businesses.

It would be easy to dismiss the book as yet another conspiracy-theory-themed work, however, Mr. Black has actually done his homework. There is an almost unbelievable amount of research behind every statement, with references at every turn. In fact, just the references span 59 pages in fine print! The downside of all this is that it is a hard slug to read; the book is so dense with names, dates and such that it gets hard to keep track, and it definitely takes away from the flow of the story. I did work my way through, but would venture that most readers won't have the patience and will skip, reading a bit here and there (despite Mr. Black's explicit request in the introduction to read it front-to-back without skipping). A different style to tell the story would have benefited the book.

The book starts a few thousand years ago, then quickly works its way through the monopolies on wood in the middle ages, and coal after that, to the invention of the battery in the mid-1800's. Battery progress is killed through stock manipulation of the companies involved, to arrive at the horseless carriage in the late-1800's. The early cars at the turn of the 20th century were mostly powered by electric motors and batteries, to once again be run into the ground through poor management, monopolies on battery sources, patent strangleholds, and collusion between companies to favor the gasoline engine. Edison and Ford (yes, the model-T guy!) together gave it another try, a very expensive one, around 1912 - 1915. Once again they were thwarted in their efforts by business interest that needed the battery driven vehicle to fail.

By the way, it is this effort that resulted in the Edison battery, the Nickel-Iron battery that is still around these days. They last semi-forever with some of the original century old Edison originals still working, can be discharged to a full 100%, over and over, and overcharged without damage. On the downside, they have a 30-percent-a-month self-discharge rate and do poorly in freezing weather.

Electrical locomotion made a comeback in the form of streetcars as public transport in many American cities. That too came to an artificial end when those (public/municipal) transportation companies were systematically bought by a cartel of automotive related business lead by General Motors, and dismantled in the 1930's through 1950's. So ended public transport in many US cities, in favor of the automobile. A similar fate befall electrical train transportation in the US, in favor of diesel.

The book ends with a rather favorable review of the merits of hydrogen as an energy source. Personally I disagree with the author on that; in my view hydrogen makes a very poor fuel. It has a poor energy density, is very hard to store, and making it requires a great deal of energy (which at best comes from electricity, though currently almost all hydrogen is made from natural gas). In my opinion it would make more sense to work on better battery technology powered by renewable energy sources. Electric motors have very high efficiency, are quiet, last a very long time, and don't pollute. The trick is energy storage, and for that batteries offer more hope than hydrogen.

There are several messages I take away from reading this book. The big one is that free market forces have nothing to do with what products succeed, or fail. Neither does technical merit, it is not the best products that survive. Instead, it seems that those very institutions that were set up to promote a free market, and protection of intellectual property, are systematically abused by big business to achieve the exact opposite. Not only that, elected government seems set to rig the system to promote exactly such abuse. One may think that this is history (most of the book deals with the early 20th century), but events like Enron, and the current recession (largely caused by idiotic-but-perfectly-legal-and-very-profitable behavior of banks and related industry) tell otherwise.

In all, it's a good book. A bit hard to read, and probably not for everyone. For those interested in the subject I would recommend it.

-RoB-

Brian McGowan
13th August 2009, 15:36
Rob,
Very cool review. Thanks for that. I have done some historical research, although nowhere near as extensive as this book, and realized the same conclusions this book seems to arrive at. I have also read through a book that is very full of data comparing various energy sources and their positives and negatives. It was a very tough read. The conclusions, once you crunched the numbers, were very frightning but you had to get through the book and then crunch the numbers.

You mention the Edison battery. I have come to the conclusion that this is the only battery available today that is suitable for alternate energy. As I stated in my response to Dan in my storm story, I believe the FLA battery is poorly suited to the renewable energy industry due to it's inability to hang out at less than fully charged while waiting for the next energy to come in from mother nature. The Edison battery would happily do this. The only place that I know of that is producing these is China and they are fiercely expensive. Of course they do put up with abuse without problems. I have been doing reasearch into building my own but this has not lead to results yet and I am busy so it may not for a while. It kills me because I am about to change my old FLAs for new ones and I know I am going to kill them also. How can it be avoided?

I agree with you about the hydrogen. I have built a hydrogen generator and know how I will store it if I generate it and if all other possible uses for power are satisfied I will generate it but it is the 8th dump load down on the list right now so my guess is I will not get there often if ever. There are many better uses for the power before that becomes a option.

Well thanks again for the review.
Brian

Rob Beckers
14th August 2009, 08:55
Hi Brian,

Thank you for your kind words!
As for battery technology: I believe that for now (your next set of batteries) there's little choice but to use lead-acid. While the NiFe (Edison) battery is intriguing due to its almost unlimited life time, its rapid loss of 30% of the stored charge is a big problem with no solution. For the future I have my eye on Lithium-Iron-Phosphate (LiFePo4) as a battery technology. This is very different from the regular Lithium batteries found in laptops and cell phones. LFP batteries are inherently safe, they do not explode or catch fire. The materials are also non-toxic (Lithium is toxic, though not in the compound used in these batteries). The expensive and scarce material, lithium, can be removed and reused again from these batteries. They have a cycle life in the order of 5000+ cycles at 100% DOD before ending at 80% of rated capacity, just imagine how many cycles you will get with 80% DOD, basically they will never wear out. Self-discharge is small. Everything about them sounds very good, except price. They are (still) very expensive. Hopefully time will remedy that.

-RoB-

Brian McGowan
26th August 2009, 15:07
Rob,
You are welcome for the kind words. You deserve them you did the work! I keep trying to remember to name that book I read that was so scary but dry and boring.
I had already purchased 4 Everstart Maxx29 125AH trolling/marine/deep cycle batteries when I responded so you were right about having to go with FLAs again. In spite of the NiFe battery leakage issues I still have to wonder the following.
FLAs must be charged fully to avoid sulfation, probably as frequently as every day.
What is the efficiency of charging and discharging a standard FLA to begin with?
How much available energy is not collected and stored due to current limiting during the Absorption and Float phases of charging an FLA?
How much energy is used but not stored during the periodic Equalzation charges required to keep FLAs good?
Over the same period of time which includes all the above for an FLA, how would a NiFe battery compare since it could hang out at less than full charge allowing it to absorb and store energy anytime?
I have no personal data or experience to work with here and could not even hope to wager a guess.
Those Lithium-Iron-Phosphate batteries sound great. Let’s hope they can bring them into production at a competitive price.
Brian

Rob Beckers
27th August 2009, 09:07
Best I can tell the numbers for lead-acid battery efficiency are 80 - 95%: Best-case scenario is floating them long-term and trickling them just enough to keep them floating, supposedly you 'only' loose about 5% doing that. Regular cycling of a good set of batteries gets an overall efficiency of around 90%, so that's 10% down the drain. As they age this gets worse. Sandia Labs wrote a report about FLA efficiency for use with solar systems where initial charging efficiency of a deeply discharged battery is quite good (95% or more) but as the SOC increases the efficiency takes a dump (50% or so) since you're mostly doing hydrolysis and that takes lots of energy. In all, it's a bit muddy.

NiFe is far worse than FLA, with a starting value of only 60% efficiency or so, coupled with a high self-discharge rate. LiFePO4 looks most promising at this time (apart from their price).

-RoB-

Brian McGowan
27th August 2009, 10:41
So what are the LNP batteries going for. As I stated I have 4 of the 125AH FLAs for a total of 500AH that cost me $400.00 total which I will commission shortly. The closest NiFe battery set I could find was this which will cost $4030.00 or about 10 times the price of the FLAs.

Part # 7013
Ah* 488
Dimensions (inches) 11 x 6 x 18
Dimensions (mm) 276 x 138 x 450
Weight Lb 41
Weight Kg 20
Price Per Cell $403
12V System $4030

Brian
I tried to get this to line up but don't think I will be succesful

Rob Beckers
27th August 2009, 13:46
These Everstarts are 12V batteries, right? So you have 12 * 125 * 4 = 6000 Wh in energy storage for $400, or 6.7 ct/Wh.

The one seller of Thundersky's LiFePO4's I can find on EBay sells 8 cells of 4.25V/100Ah for $1,400. So, that's 4.25 * 100 * 8 = 3400 Wh in energy for $1,400, or 41.2 ct/Wh.

That makes the lithium batteries just over 6x more expensive.

However, if you want any life expectancy out of your FLAs you can only go to 50% DOD on a regular basis, while 80% DOD makes LFP cells last semi-forever. So, in terms of sizing and needed capacity you only need 0.6 times the amount of batteries with LFPs to have the same effective storage capacity as with FLAs.

That makes the lithium batteries about 3.7x more expensive.

Those Everstarts need replacing every 5 - 8 years, if you're lucky, while the lithiums should last almost forever (though with them being so new I want to wait and see before putting any money on that). That makes the comparison even harder to do.

By the way, the Everstarts are about the lowest price deep-cycle FLAs one can get. The higher-end FLAs go for a whole lot more. For example, I pay $622 wholesale for the 6V - 770Ah Surrette's (good for 15 - 20 years if treated right). Retail you'll pay a whole lot more still. That makes 6 * 770 = 4620 Wh of energy, or 13.5 ct/Wh.

For the same available energy storage (50% DOD for FLA, 80% DOD for LFP) that makes the lithium batteries 1.9x more expensive, when compared to high-end FLA!

Now we're starting to cook with gasoline! :confused:
This is obviously only the start of new battery technology, and I think the future looks bright. Better batteries (LiFePO4 or others) will get cheaper, battery life and capacity will increase.

-RoB-

Brian McGowan
28th August 2009, 13:00
OK so I only have a second here and I haven't had a chance to check out the battery site yet but it would seem that you have just proven this battery is worth it now.
Brian
Going to check out the battery site now.

Dave Turpin
5th November 2012, 17:22
It has been some time since this thread and I only found it again with the search engine.

I have always been interested in alternates to FLA batteries, and I keep seeing advertisements in Home Power magazine for these next-generation NiFe batteries:

http://ironedison.com/

Besides the fact that they are more expensive than FLA batteries (About $750 per kWH), are these still a no-go technology in your opinion?

The website makes it seem like I can beat the crap out of these batteries and they will still last 25 years. Chemically speaking, they are as simple as it gets. Either the Nickel plate oxidizes or the Iron plate does. If the Nickel place is fully oxidized the battery is fully charged; the electrolyte does nothing but pass current.

I can see why they would self-discharge (the super-oxidized Nickel plate would tend to revert to a lower oxidation level), but can't you just float the batteries?

Interestingly enough, the electrolyte is primarily KOH, which is the same electrolyte used in Oxygen generators.... My guess is you would need to replenish the water quite often, and I don't see a self-watering system being engineered for these yet.

Ralph Day
6th November 2012, 05:31
Hi Dave
Have a look and search on the NAWS (North Arizona Wind and Sun) forum. There has been extensive pro and con comments and information on the nife battery systems.

http://www.wind-sun.com/ForumVB/showthread.php?14420-Nickle-Iron-batteries&highlight=nife+batteries

That;s one thread, there's at least one more on the forum.

Ralph

Rob Beckers
6th November 2012, 06:25
Dave, my initial enthusiasm for NiFe has taken a bit of a hit over the last two years as more becomes known about those batteries. The original Edison batteries were pretty good, and hard to kill, but the ones made nowadays are not the same animal at all. My understanding is that both Russia and China manufacture new NiFe batteries, and both use far less nickel than Edison did. The result is a somewhat cheaper battery at the expense of longevity. The other one that I keep hearing is that the electrolyte needs to be replaced every so often (I don't know the schedule). Given their high price, and those issues (plus the high discharge rate, that has not changed), my money would be on LiFePO4 batteries as the technology of the future.

It is hard to distinguish fact from fiction. The manufacturers and their reps are cheer-leading, with only a loose regard of reality...

The OtherPower forums have also discussed NiFe batteries quite a bit over the last 6 months or so. That could be another place for you to look for comments.

-RoB-

Jerry Smith
5th February 2014, 06:40
I'll read the links shortly. My first direction to any party whose objectives are to wean the world off of oil is to think about the audience