This is yoatmon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following yoatmon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
In the future nuclear energy won't play a role in space travel at all; more so fusion energy.
@ all hydrogen proponents: 1) Mobility Currently, the favorite means of H² production is to crack NG, store the H² and vent the CO² into the atmosphere; not really a constructive, sustainable process. Storage of H² at high pressure levels requires considerable amounts of electric energy and suffers subsequent losses. Electrolysis of water to produce H² is sustainable but all else than efficient. The efficiency of electrolysis reaches approx. 70%. E. g. a FC has an efficiency of 60%. 60% of 70% = 42%. To distribute H² from the producing facility to the various filling stations, tank trucks, freight trains, pipelines etc. are a necessity and require energy. Bear in mind that every ton of steel produced, to support the complete H²-infrastructure, is the cause of 1.7 tons of CO² emitted into the atmosphere. The overall efficiency (well to wheels) of H² amounts at best to 20% or more than likely even less. Maintenance of a FCV will be expensive (when required) because H² is highly volatile. I certainly would shy to ride on a "H² bomb". 2) There is certain application that -in my opinion - would legitimate the use of H² e. g. a fusion reactor. Electric power used to charge batteries that power an EV is far more efficient and safer than any comparable H² technology. Development of 3-D solid state batteries is progressing and will enter the market in another 3 to 5 years from now. These batteries will leave nothing open to be desired such as range, cost or charging time. Two types of fusion reactors contending for supremacy are the tokamak and stellerator. The progress that the stellerator has achieved so far has predestined it to overhaul the tokamak before that is even really getting started. When the stellerator is the defined state of art, the future will definitely be electric.
Sorry! Quite unintentionally I omitted an important zero. 10.2 Mio voxels is the correct designation.
1.2 Mio voxels / sec. is a step in the right direction and that is everything but slow.
I'm convinced that the best strategy for cell manufacturing lies in 3D-printing. I've been toying with this idea for over a year and have managed to convince two pioneers engaged in 3D-printing. The current problem is that those printers fast enough for such a task are suited for organic materials only and not metals. It appears to be a difficult task but not impossible. Structures in the low µ-meter range seem possible, which would do for a start. When a goal in the nano meter range becomes achievable, every other process will no longer be compatible.
"....with none of the fleet issues due to unreliability that have hit Tesla." That is an ambiguous statement, to say the least. The issues that Tesla has been confronted with, pertain to their autopilot. Irrelevant of the fact that this function received a false name (should have been titled as "pilot assistant") Tesla has warned implicitly - that at this stage of development - the driver has to keep his hands on the steering wheel at all times. When a driver allows the vehicle full control (hands off) a warning is issued to remind the driver to resume control. Ignoring primary advice and implicit warnings is not a proof of enhanced intelligence, rather the opposite.
Some 25 to 30 years ago, the Japanese were already using high temperature sulfur batteries to manage peak loads at mid-day because they were far cheaper than peaker plants.
There are plenty of abnormals about that own and operate SUVs and never go hunting or off-road. The same types would probably buy a semi-truck for their daily commute if they had a garage big enough to park their semi.
EPA is a governmental agency and their recommendations are based on real driving experiences. All other standards are either based on the wild running imaginations of MFRCs or indirectly influenced from them.
It seems to me that their main interest is tied to energy consumption and employing the "triple B" principle to to disguise their inefficient process.
"The automated snow removal by two self-driving Mercedes-Benz Arocs ....." As snow is ever more so becoming a rare oddity in Europe, Mercedes would be well advised to concentrate on water removal instead of snow.
As the corona virus emerged in China and gained headway, the common Chinese became aware of - and stated the following to their leaders. " We know that you are lying to us, you know that we know that you are lying to us. Why do you keep on lying?" The same applies to the specified mileage range of any vehicle according to any standard. The standards change at an ever increasing rate but the lies remain. Why not try it with the truth instead. Or is it the conviction that a good impression (lie) is more convincing than the truth?
Sorry to disagree with you but efficiency of solar panels nowadays vary between 20 and 34%. Even those panels that decorate my rooftop are fifteen years old and achieve an efficiency of approx. 19 - 20%.
@ SJC: "We burn fossil fuels in power plants and will for decades to come. " Yep; you're probably right. With the top fool in W-DC propagating everything except something sensible. But many nations worldwide won't! America first! (to go down the drain)
Absolutely nothing specified about efficiency. If this should be less than 90 +% , then please just forget it.
I thought, because you didn't use quotation marks, that you agreed completely with the philosophy presented in the article.
It does not prevent unnecessary battery discharge, it is compensated.
No, that certainly is not an advantage; that water is equivalent to distilled water. Both are bare of any minerals. Consumption of such water leads to demineralization of the body and after approx. 3 days .... exodus forever.
A Magnesium electrode can be designed as a full-metal anode without the slightest dendrite growth. Mg also has 2 valence electrons but Li only one, hence, the theoretical energy density of a Mg anode is twice as high as that of Li. Furthermore, the negative electro-potential voltage of Mg is also higher than that of Li. All that is possible without any other additives like e. g. Cobalt.
EP: Could the rather short runway on a carrier be one of the major problems confronting the Navy for such a solution? If so, that would not pose an obstacle on a civilian runway.
Why not install an electro-magnetic catapult in the runway for takeoff to assist electric planes to get airborne?
If I understood the article correctly, Cal will undertake efforts to remove a certain tonnage of CO² from the atmosphere (step 1). Then they intend to produce synthesized fuel with the extracted CO² to achieve carbon neutrality (step 2). When the synthetic fuel is combusted, the once extracted emissions are re-emitted into the atmosphere (step 3). Subsequently, the status-quo of the the lopsided climate balance is warranted. What is really won? Nothing! The steady increase of pollutants is stopped! The screwed-up climatic conditions remain. A lot of hustle for what? Remove the pollutants from the atmosphere, lock them up in Pandoras-Box and keep them secured and out of the atmosphere!
Considering realistic results of city and highway drives it can be safely assumed that it may be possible to achieve an average total of perhaps 150 miles. It's totally unrealistic to drive on an oval or circular test strip for 50 miles at 30 MPH and calculate a fictional range for a 38.3 kWh battery pack.
Black carbon pollution could be avoided worldwide for a great part with this recently discovered method.