So why isn't developing a better battery like the biggest priority right now...

"We here at Google have come up with a revolutionary solution to the massive amount of energy our data centers consume, which along with other tech companies comprise over 40% of the worlds energy consumption."

"We will simply stop giving you service :^)"

Fucking dumbass.

I take it your parents are not home then.

>we should go back to the stone age because it uses less energy

The premise of the thread is solving solutions like global warming.

Almost all energy used in the world has shit to do with your stupid house bill, which still will fluctuate and change depending on the region you live (base energy prices change.)

Keep acting smug when you are a fucking retard telling Google "just use less energy!"

Electricity is a recent discovery. We've been using it since around 150 BCE-223 CE. That's long after the stone age.

When will your parents be home so we can compare electric bills?

>I have autism and think I'm winning the argument so hard right now because I'm speaking about irrelevant metrics

$90 with solar panels, and if I and everybody else in my state reduced it 1/3rd, you still did not address any central problem here you fucking daft cunt.

You'd be 1/3 closer to the solution.

>1/3rd

You don't need the "rd" on the end, hun.

>$90

Just imagine what your parent could buy you with an extra $30 each month. I bet you have your eye on a new fidget spinner, amirite? Maybe if you talk nice to them and get them to stop using 1/3 of their electric they will buy one for you.

Wonderful argument you have there. I'll stop replying now.

A lot of people are working hard on new battery technology.

Glass batteries look the most promising, with a possible order-of-magnitude improvement on lithium-ion batteries in pretty much every way:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_battery

ORBAT is also a very interesting concept, for flow batteries enabling very high capacity per unit cost:
sandia.gov/ess/docs/pr_conferences/2014/Wednesday/PosterSession4/14_Narayan_Organic_Redox_Flow_Poster.pdf

Time to go beddy bye, eh? Night then, hun.

This to an extent.
"Capitalism is to civilization what a first stage is to a rocket: It's big, it's powerful, it's messy, it takes you to amazing heights, it does most of the initial heavy lifting, and it must be discarded after its fuel and usefulness is expended or else it will drag everything else back to Earth." -- Leddit.

Capitalism is responsible for some good innovation, but it approaches a stagnant endgame of monopoly or megacorporations and an impossible class gap.

It's not evil, it's just not perfect. A mixed market/socialist setup would probably work better but socialism is a big no to American voters. You have to be willing to allocate resources to innovation beyond what pure capitalistic market trends dictate because you otherwise WILL stagnate for profit without external pressures.

Also it should be illegal for business funds of any sort to be allocated to politicians' campaigns or personal funds. Lobbying is a mess.

They just made a new one for fuck sakes. Solid state bro by the same guy who made lithium ion. Everyone else is working on fuel cells and stuff anyways so

>A mixed market/socialist setup would probably work better

thats literally what we have. the US is not Laissez-faire by any stretch of the imagination.

I know, but I mean moreso than our current system. It's still got a lot of blaring gaps in social policy that could be filled in.

kill yourself

You were free to provide an argument.

You stupid? Planned obsolescence would never happen in a free market because there is no guarantee that the consumer would buy your product again; in fact they probably won't if it failed. Now if the consumer prefers cheap shit that doesn't last, that is a different issue.

>So why isn't developing a better battery like the biggest priority right now?
because the white supremacist patriarchy is still pumping out fictional actual puppeteers

>but it approaches a stagnant endgame of monopoly or megacorporations and an impossible class gap.
only because retarded leftists continue to give governments power, which are then captured by the corporations we were supposed to be "protected" from, only to give them the very hegemony we'd hoped to avoid

>not realizing that there is billions invested right now in creating new battery tech
I work for a National lab and one of the teams working on batteries literally gets funny-money amounts of cash to mess around with. They cant even spend it all.

To be fair we currently have a repub-dominated government and it doesn't appear to be any better.

I think the same type of people infiltrated both parties and everybody seems to take politics as such a chore/habit (not helped by the enormity of campaign budgets) that there seems to be little hope in changing that.

I think that's why the US at least was so originally supposed to be strong state governments with a weak federal one; too many conflicting interests for a strong federal government to be particularly useful to the common people, whose interests vary by state.

Do you think electricity just spouts from the ether? Of course we're using fuel to power our shit. It's largely coal, too, which is much dirtier than gasoline but is also much cheaper. One of the big things about energy security is that you NEED oil to keep the transportation sector afloat.

As it stands, you can't just use other energy sources like coal or nuclear to get yourself to work, to ship goods to specific locations, to run any kind of modern fishing industry, to power emergency services like ambulances or fire trucks, and a whole lot more. If you get on the oil sheikhs' bad side, it's game over until market forces either open new oil fields to you or result in other places middle-manning your shit. No oil, and every person down to the core of society will be feeling it before long (See: OPEC oil embargo of 1973).

With electric cars, you're no longer at the mercy of oil. However, good enough batteries are terribly expensive to produce. Cars actually run at about 3 times the wattage of your average household (think of your house's power bill compared to your car's gas bill with respect to how long you use both). Now, think of your entire house running on a battery, then triple that. That's one hell of a battery pack, and therein lies why it's good to fund better electric car research: precisely so the price can go down.

We just need to make 300 meter tall antennas on every vehicle and we can run them like old-school bumper cars, siphoning electricity straight from the ionosphere.

Why not design a way of life that does not rely on the daily use of cars for the individual, at least not for traveling long-distance?

Use the highways for automated cargo transport, let the individual enjoy tax cuts the closer he lives to his workplace, tax carbon monoxide/ fullerene/ dirt emission as they pose a direct threat to human health, tax the use of any hazardous chemicals for the production or the maintenance of cars.

Traveling by horse is arguably much safer and more natural for the individual than traveling by gunpowder chariots...

>there is no guarantee that the consumer would buy your product again;
If your product never fails there is a definite guarantee that the consumer would not buy your product again. If your product worked well and failed after a few years (depending on what it was) due to "normal wear", the consumer is likely to buy from you again.

Batteries only lower the EROEI of solar

>what is a monopoly
>what is an oligopoly
>what is collusion

>so easily trolled over an obvious joke

Fucking hell, Veeky Forums.

>I...it's just a joke guys

this isn't a video game, you can't just put research points into a technology you want.

Idk. Just ask Goodenough.

If you don't get is a joke you should probably KYS.

>i-i'm not an autist guys

Life isn't a 4x game where you can just select the technology you want to research next and you get it after 10 turns.

this
im tired of all these "why isnt x prioritized" threads

Actually you can. If you build your society leaning towards science a great deal you will get faster results in research and development. This is only because everyone has a basic level of scientific education geared specifically for R&D. Thus, when some redneck has an idea, he actually has the education to make it a reality if he so wishes and is willing to do the research.

Who knows, maybe there is a redneck out there who has the perfect idea but doesn't have the education to begin to make it a reality.

> So why isn't developing a better battery like the biggest priority right now?

It kind of is.

> It would solve so many problems with electric vehicles, emerging tech, and global warming (by making fossil fuels unnecessary).

You are very right. (I'm still a little dubious about solar and wind providing large fractions of the electric grid, even with super-good batteries, but it would definitely help tremendously in the analysis.)

Why? We've been working on batteries for 100 years, and we've seen slow incremental improvements, such as by using different chemistries. It just seems to be a hard physics and engineering problem. Given the mediocre track record despite lots of research, that why I'm not hopeful about radical breakthroughs.

>As it stands, you can't just use other energy sources like coal or nuclear to get yourself to work, to ship goods to specific locations, to run any kind of modern fishing industry, to power emergency services like ambulances or fire trucks, and a whole lot more.

There is research and small-scale demonstrations of synthetic gasoline from electricity - split water to get H2, and get CO2 from the air or oceans, and you can combine it to form hydrocarbons. All of the pieces have been scaled up to full industrial scale except the CO2 capture, which has a few different small-scale demonstrated techs AFAIK. It looks decently promising.

Because (and don't tell anyone) nobody actually has a clue how to make batteries that much better. All options currently on the table are for making batteries a few percent more efficient. Making batteries one or two orders of magnitude better than they currently are is something nobody even knows where to start researching from.

This. Veeky Forums not aware of recent research as usual.

>So why isn't developing a better battery like the biggest priority right now?
Because electricity is fleeting. Batteries are a meme to be engineered around, not with.

>It would solve so many problems with electric vehicles
The problem with electric vehicles is the electricity. Extended range electric is objectively better in every way.

>emerging tech
?

>global warming
meme

>by making fossil fuels unnecessary
Extra stupid meme. Energy density is important.
Hydrocarbons are completely renewable.

Let me spell it out for you:
batteries are stupid heavy for how much energy they store.
Chemical energy storage is stupid light for how much energy it stores. (esp hydrogen, but it's a meme because size/safety constraints)
An engine and tank of gas is lighter than an equivalent mass of batteries. Plus it gets lighter with use.

If you use a minimal amount of batteries and keep a generator at its most efficient rpm, then you have the most efficient non-railed vehicle. You've got an efficient, light, and practical vehicle.

(pure) electric vehicle are for idiots/leftists/idiot leftists.

>an equivalent mass of batteries
*equivalent amount of energy of batteries
(even when taking into account efficiencies)

FYI, hydrocarbons are one of the least energy efficient methods of storing energy.

This, the future is creating a fuel-co2-fuel cycle

>the method with highest energy density is the least efficient

>fuel-co2-fuel cycle
Not familiar, and google isn't helping.

google power to gas or synthetic hydrocarbons.

the US Navy did quite a bit of research on the topic because they wanted to use the excess energy from a carriers nuclear reactor to create jet fuel from seawater. it worked, but wasn't cost effective enough.

www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA539765

And that doesn't matter for transport, where mass is generally of primary importance. In other words, we're willing to pay more for better transport fuel performance.

I think he's saying fossil fuels will become less necessary because more power can/Will be stored in more advanced battery storage facilities instead of being wasted or regulated, which I suppose would reduce fossil fuel emissions

>www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA539765
Thanks, you just revolutionized my hypothetical rp nation's military.

But the way to make alternative energy work is to store the energy chemically. Chemical energy is stable, dense, and can be used more or less efficiently, as needed, to meet the needs of the grid.
renewables (read: molten salt loops) -> chemical renewables -> grid electricity

If there was a better alternative to carbon, we would be made of it.

Besides the 'solution' to the 'problem' of global warming is spraying salt water, or just cataloging the genome of failure animals for use in genetic engineering and just letting nature take its course.

>ftfy
Reddit is that way m8
>>>reddit

>Besides the 'solution' to the 'problem' of global warming is spraying salt water, or just cataloging the genome of failure animals for use in genetic engineering and just letting nature take its course.
Fuck no.

>anthropogenic cause, anthropogenic solution
>not an anthropogenic cause, let it happen
... The only other solution is to kill all the non-whites and limit humanity's energy expenditures to that which we receive from the sun (I'm not saying solar).
We currently lack the political will for that permanent solution.

>Being this new

You're all faggots who are out of the loop, the madman does it again

pcworld.com/article/3176671/components/beyond-lithium-ion-researchers-reveal-a-safer-longer-lasting-solid-state-battery-alternative.html

>make fossil fuels unnecessary
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Tesla cucks are the worst. Also, you're just trading drilling for oil with mining for minerals.

>If you build your society leaning towards science a great deal
You mean like we literally do? And where the scientist all fight for $$$$ for THEIR project or whatever? Idiot.

pleb thinks cutting down fossil fuel usage is enough to save us.

Let me explain this to you in a way you can understand:

Oil go bye bye into car-bon and water.

Car-bon make hot.

Minerals no go bye bye.

I'd rather see fusion research prioritized. Like cut the US defense budget by 2/3 and dump it all in to fusion. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Wars between nuclear powers can't be won and for the rest well 1/3 is enough to kill sand people. Quit sending million dollar cruise missiles to blow up houses made of mud.

Ra make mineral water hot, turn water into magic fluid.

Magic fluid used to turn air and car-bon into 'oil'.

Get keep mineral and oil.

>Like cut the US defense budget by 2/3 and dump it all in to fusion.
Or... eliminate the welfare completely (its bigger by a few times), and just throat darpa for incompetence.
Suddenly taxes are 5% across the board, individual and corporate.
(don't conflate discretionary with non-discretionary)

>Wars between nuclear powers can't be won
You're so fucking wrong.

>rest well 1/3 is enough to kill sand people.
We shouldn't be killing the sub-humans if we aren't going to go through the effort of killing them all.

>Quit sending million dollar cruise missiles to blow up houses made of mud.
The problem isn't the military, it's the graft in the MIC and darpa.

>You're so fucking wrong.
I will humor you. Do tell.

If it's a nuclear exchange, then the strategic targets will get hit, and from there it will be a conventional war with the remnants.
Strategic targets are ports, airbases, and manufacturing centers.
It's then the job of engineering corps to reestablish manufacturing and nuclear capabilities. (inb4 subs)

The end result is that after a couple of minutes of flash and spectacle, you have two third world countries fighting a conventional war for a few months after a month and a half of waiting for it to be safe to war.

But that is assuming there are literally only two nuclear countries.
The winner in a nuclear exchange is the one with the most nuclear allies.

> throat darpa for incompetence.
the research organization that gave you the internet, self driving cars, and will soon give you humanoid robots, improved diagnostic equipment and robotic limbs?
yeah go fuck yourself.

Making oil is incredibly inefficient, dumbass.

Ripsaw and lsat.

But it's light, absurdly light.

the technology is still in its infancy and it doesn't get any research funding because it isn't "green". a closed (or close enough to being closed for ecological purposes) carbon/fuel cycle is entirely possible.

>Capitalism "fears"

Wow, I didn't know a system that had no central authority or planners could have feelings.

>Or... eliminate the welfare completely (its bigger by a few times)
Tell me more about this multip-trillion dollar welfare program. I'd like to sign up for some gibs.

>You're so fucking wrong.
How do you win a war with China or Russia? How does getting all your economic and military assets incinerated, even if you win the follow up conventional war, count as winning?

>The problem isn't the military
You're right it's Congress. Spending money on F-22s and F-35s when we won't fight a nation with an air force that could take on a F-15 in the next 50 years is silly.

>Tell me more about this multip-trillion dollar welfare program. I'd like to sign up for some gibs.
It's called social security, medicare, and medicaid.
The greatest ponzi scheme humanity has made yet.

>How do you win a war with China or Russia?
Conventional warfare. See you're point below as to why it would be a conventional war.

>How does getting all your economic and military assets incinerated
>even if you win the follow up conventional war, count as winning?
The other side is dead, so you take all of their land.

>Spending money on F-22s and F-35s when we won't fight a nation with an air force that could take on a F-15 in the next 50 years is silly.
I agree.

is no one going to read this? Or even acknowledge that yes, we do have better battery tech coming?

mine is about the same bc i work at a power plant and get a discount

but planned obsolescence is pretty much the opposite of stagnation and is caused by constant will to change.

can you have a response to something that isnt back to le reddit? its like admitting that you cant argue logically and want to live in a cult.

None of these things are problems when we seed the clouds and harness biofuels

Where are they taking the energy to make gasoline in the first place?
This doesn't sound particularly realistic by the way you described it. Source maybe?

Yeah, capitalism as a system kills all innovation. Case in point: the electronics sector west of the Iron Curtain.

GTFO with your "progress is impossible without muh big daddy government" bullshit.

There is literally no significant difference between the republican and democratic parties.

Perhaps one speaks somewhat more in favour of Christianity and Judaism than the other, but does it matter in the end?

> build your society leaning towards science

Math, physics and chemistry are compulsory - and most people don't enjoy those subjects. Those that do, and can actually make a change, usually continue their STEM education in college and throughout the worklife.

As others before me have said: It's not a videogame where you move a slider to make your people more science'y. In reality this kind of heavy-handed social engineering never leads to good things.

Holy shit, this thread.

Nobody's talking about actual battery research. Everyone's shitposting about politics or crank "EROEI" analysis of green energy.

That pic is really, really depressing

Most people would rather regurgitate what they already know than challenging it with something new

>So why isn't developing a better battery like the biggest priority right now?

It is you retard.

Ah wow because throughout history only capitalism has given society a rich elite with well paid upper classes, a midrange of skilled workers and a seething mass of poor.

Oh wait, what was monarchy....feudalism....communism....etc, etc

No matter what system of economic reward you have we will always have a 80/20 split to resources....20% of the pop will be capable of handling 80% of the resources. Simply because of natural capabilities and tue distribution/demand of skilled labor.

Put down your fucking marxist textbooks and stick to crunching pretend numbers.

Because the new battery tech coming only makes batteries suck a little less. Nothing is changed. Batteries will always be shit compared to chemical energy.
"you don't know what the future will hold". Yeah, but I have an understanding of physics and chemistry that says it will never happen. There is no beating the constraints of the universe.

>There is literally no significant difference between the republican and democratic parties.
Rights (esp property), taxes, role of government, spending, free market, the constitution, judicial activism, personal responsibility, etc.

Yeah, but only capitalism has seen the poor be so well off as for their poorness not to matter.

>he thinks climate change is real

There is a reason why more than 50% of all research grants and Phd dissertations in Physics are for Solid State

It is literally the case that science for better batteries is the most sought after and researched subject currently, right now, already.

> Where are they taking the energy to make gasoline in the first place?
Electricity, from the usual source: coal, nat gas, nuclear, etc.

zmescience.com/research/us-navy-synthetic-jet-fuel-seawater-0423432/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel

etc

Well, it doesn't matter if you're white male Christian, with no health problems, etc. Otherwise, then it matters a lot. So, you're just wrong.

We've had threads on this. The original paper doesn't actually make the claims that are being made in popular news. As far as I can tell, most of the claims being made in popular news come from a mere news article on the university web site, and not from the paper itself.