Another error in this video is that it says that the round-trip efficiency of a li-ion battery is 99%, which it isn't.
Another error in this video is that it says that the round-trip efficiency of a li-ion battery is 99%, which it isn't.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to get all of the fact's correct. This is a complex topic.
Another error in this video is that it says that the round-trip efficiency of a li-ion battery is 99%, which it isn't.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to get all of the fact's correct. This is a complex topic.
I'm going to sit on my ass and wait & see what turns out to be the next thing to propel a car. Batteries, synthetic fuel, bio-fuel or Hydrogen.
BTW I read an interesting article about synthetic blue diesel made from leftovers from the food industry. I doubt they keep that name for long because it also seems to be some kind of Marihuana.
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.
[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
The big idea is to have way too much capacity so that even at minimum production "no wind or sun over the whole of western Europe mythical day", the reliance on co generation or batteries is kept to a minimum.
All the other days, 364 of them, the wind would produce hydrogen with the excess (otherwise lost - aka nearly free) energy and convert that to methane. Once we have methane, longer hydrocarbons are possible. But methane, of itself, is already a easy to manage fuel.
The same method could be used to keep Nuclear plants running at optimal power levels, as they don't like low loads...
But the problem is getting to methane, as the Sabatier method is a bit iffy, but serious efforts are going into this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/ for example.
But, to be honest, I can't even pretend to have dug into it.
Could be the next big thing or "Solar Roadways II, the CH4 connection" for all I know...
That mythical day where there was no sun for solar and no wind to spin wind-turbines was 2 weeks. Both Great Brittan and Germany were affected. Both burned more coal and purchased nuclear produced electricity from France. If you look you will see a spike in Germany's burning of coal last year as a result of the renewables not producing.
As for Audi - They need to look at the Hydrogen fuel video to see why this isn't going to work. The amount of electricity involved in electrolysis of water into H-H O and storage is enormous. But they are adding a twist by using methane. So maybe........ But highly unlikely this would work. Watch the following vidoe.
The new fields solve that by going further north, further out, covering a wider area in more locations and using higher turbines.
Right now, the present capacity can be caught out, but that will be more and more unlikely.
Flat days happen, we had one going round the Cape Fisterra two days back, and that is extremely rare!
(But it was sunny and I had an after work tea just below the bridge with only the vastness of a flat Atlantic, lovely).
As a side note, from a tech perspective, I am far more a fan boy of PV in vast open spaces (Central Spain, Morroco, Algerian Sahara) and modern nuclear than offshore wind on the long term.
(PS, sorry, cannot watch Youtube, satellite internet... Doh!)
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.
[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
The big idea is to have way too much capacity so that even at minimum production "no wind or sun over the whole of western Europe mythical day", the reliance on co generation or batteries is kept to a minimum.
All the other days, 364 of them, the wind would produce hydrogen with the excess (otherwise lost - aka nearly free) energy and convert that to methane. Once we have methane, longer hydrocarbons are possible. But methane, of itself, is already a easy to manage fuel.
The same method could be used to keep Nuclear plants running at optimal power levels, as they don't like low loads...
But the problem is getting to methane, as the Sabatier method is a bit iffy, but serious efforts are going into this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/ for example.
But, to be honest, I can't even pretend to have dug into it.
Could be the next big thing or "Solar Roadways II, the CH4 connection" for all I know...
That mythical day where there was no sun for solar and no wind to spin wind-turbines was 2 weeks. Both Great Brittan and Germany were affected. Both burned more coal and purchased nuclear produced electricity from France. If you look you will see a spike in Germany's burning of coal last year as a result of the renewables not producing.
As for Audi - They need to look at the Hydrogen fuel video to see why this isn't going to work. The amount of electricity involved in electrolysis of water into H-H O and storage is enormous. But they are adding a twist by using methane. So maybe........ But highly unlikely this would work. Watch the following vidoe.
The new fields solve that by going further north, further out, covering a wider area in more locations and using higher turbines.
Right now, the present capacity can be caught out, but that will be more and more unlikely.
Flat days happen, we had one going round the Cape Fisterra two days back, and that is extremely rare!
(But it was sunny and I had an after work tea just below the bridge with only the vastness of a flat Atlantic, lovely).
As a side note, from a tech perspective, I am far more a fan boy of PV in vast open spaces (Central Spain, Morroco, Algerian Sahara) and modern nuclear than offshore wind on the long term.
(PS, sorry, cannot watch Youtube, satellite internet... Doh!)
Can’t you download and watch off-line? Or would that coast a fortune. I’m in agreement with you. Nuclear in the populated areas and solar/wind in remote locations. I know the USSR powered light houses and remote aircraft navigation radios with small nuclear power sources which were powered by radioactive Cesium.
Another error in this video is that it says that the round-trip efficiency of a li-ion battery is 99%, which it isn't.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to get all of the fact's correct. This is a complex topic.
I'm going to sit on my ass and wait & see what turns out to be the next thing to propel a car. Batteries, synthetic fuel, bio-fuel or Hydrogen.
BTW I read an interesting article about synthetic blue diesel made from leftovers from the food industry. I doubt they keep that name for long because it also seems to be some kind of Marihuana.
What about nuclear? With the technology we have right now we know hydrogen, bio-mass, synthetic diesel, French Fry frying oil all will not work. Popcorn before it’s poped is something we are already using.
Is Tesla screwed after Elon's Tweet? The SEC is investigating and could put an end to Tesla for Elon trying to manipulation of Tesla's stock price.
Dude, get with the program - he's been fined for $20 million (4 20) and has to find a new chairman for Tesla's board, but he's staying on as CEO.
Dude, get with the program - he's been fined for $20 million (4 20) and has to find a new chairman for Tesla's board, but he's staying on as CEO.
AFAIK Musk has turned the deal down and is now being sued by the SEC. Ofcourse it will take years before there will be a trial and the whole point will be moot by then.
Like Elon or hate him he's more like Nikola Tesla than Elizabeth Holmes. Tesla and Musk have both changed the world. Yes both may have scammed people along the way and made exaggerated many claims but in the end they both produced a products which have changed and will continue to change our world.
Holmes also made outrageous claims and scammed people as well. The big difference here is Holmes and her partner were scamming the investors, killing people and did it all intentionally to make money.
Got to hand it to Elon, Tesla. Gates, Jobs and Musk they are all people who have made our world better. SEC should be going after Holmes and stripping her of all of her money, oh wait, they have. Let's hope she gets free room and board at a club fed facilty for many years.
The guy is an accident waiting to happen, oh wait they already happened.
He should take some vacation, get its overworked system back in normal mode.
You can't expect a burned out person to take rational decisions which is what is exactly needed in a big business environment IMO.
Musk seems a lot more rational when he talks as the head of SpaceX, than when he talks as the head of Tesla. Perhaps there are people at SpaceX who keep him reined in.
Musk seems a lot more rational when he talks as the head of SpaceX, than when he talks as the head of Tesla. Perhaps there are people at SpaceX who keep him reigned in.
SpaceX is not a public company, so they can work in their own pace without disturbance from quarterly reports, SEC and short sellers.
Tesla is a public company...
What CEO smokes dope during a live broacasted interview? Musk
Appears Elon will pay a few hundred million in fines to the SEC for his tweet. Wonder if that’s enough to break Tesla?
Appears Elon will pay a few hundred million in fines to the SEC for his tweet.
What alternate universe did you get "a few hundred million" from?
The settlement was $20M from Musk and $20M from Tesla.
I fail to see how that adds up to "a few hundred million."
Appears Elon will pay a few hundred million in fines to the SEC for his tweet.
What alternate universe did you get "a few hundred million" from?
The settlement was $20M from Musk and $20M from Tesla.
I fail to see how that adds up to "a few hundred million."
That was in Octal. 40M=230455000 in octal.
Musk seems a lot more rational when he talks as the head of SpaceX, than when he talks as the head of Tesla. Perhaps there are people at SpaceX who keep him reigned in.
He's probably not addressing the same public, which would explain this.
People in the US should be aware the price of electricity may jump up by several hundred percent in the next few years and keep going up as we export our natural gas - (that will go up too) "until its gone".
That may change the economics of things energy (and heating) related.
Energy use at today's levels may become too expensive for many people.
They want to burn more coal but that may present a mercury hazard. Mercury uses up glutathione which will cause all sorts of problems- for example, disrupting "a novel regulatory pathway of oxidant-mediated Fyn/c-Cbl activation as a shared mechanism of action of chemically diverse toxicants at environmentally relevant levels, and as a means by which increased oxidative status may disrupt mitogenic signaling. These results provide one of a small number of general mechanistic principles in toxicology, and the only such principle integrating toxicology, precursor cell biology, redox biology, and signaling pathway analysis in a predictive framework of broad potential relevance to the understanding of pro-oxidant–mediated disruption of normal development". Source: Chemically Diverse Toxicants Converge on Fyn and c-Cbl to Disrupt Precursor Cell Function
We should not allow MNCs to use up the natural gas we may need in the future, and shift production to coal.
Putting lots of mercury into the environment will also cause increases in conditions like autism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790953/pdf/pbio.0050035.pdfand
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790949/
People in the US should be aware the price of electricity may jump up by several hundred percent in the next few years and keep going up as we export our natural gas - (that will go up too) "until its gone".
Solar adoption will increase by a very large amount as it's already profitable to install.