Re: [MBZ] OT EV airplanes in the near future -- POWER SOURCES
That sounds like the homeless issue mixed with the safe space snow flakes. Both populations are not going to breed. The homeless do not use much plug in energy, and the snowflakes want to save all the energy. That just leaves the religious folk to increase the population. clay monroe > I turned my computer upside down and shook it, but the bookmark for what I'm > looking for didn't fall out. > On Apr 4, 2019, at 3:58 PM, G Mann via Mercedes wrote: > > How do you build an elephant? > > Order a mouse, built under government contract... > ;)) > A few billion spent in government programs to stimulate ignorance and > inbreeding would reduce the population to the point where we need less > energy... Ohh wait we already have those in place.. ;)) [Sarcasm > off] ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT EV airplanes in the near future -- POWER SOURCES
Hear Here! Great sermon! SHort! Floyd Thursby via Mercedes wrote on 4/4/19 4:22 PM: The sun shines continuously a few thousand miles away https://www.wired.com/2014/04/solar-power-satellites-a-visual-introduction/ Full disclosure: My first grown-up job was working for Peter Glaser on SPS-related work. His sweet secretary facilitated that job after we spoke a coupla times on the phone. I think I wrote some of the content of one or two of those referenced reports. If anyone had any vision these days for truly remarkable challenges rather than being mired down in issues about whose flings are being hurt, we would be building components for these on the moon and launching to LEO where they would be assembled robotically. No nuclear waste to deal with, all the power you could want. --FT ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT EV airplanes in the near future -- POWER SOURCES
Andrew, Points taken. The economy of scale for solar has taken large strides in the past 10 years as production costs for solar panels have dropped and conversion of light energy to electricity efficiency. per panel, has increased. Several large scale solar plants were on the plan prior to 2008 economic crash, but were canceled. That interest is just now finding funding. Success will be measured in return on investment. But, only during daylight hours.. :)) On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 4:57 PM Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > Grant, I beg to differ. Idaho Power has just announced it proposes to > install utilities scale solar for 2 and a half cents per kilowatt hour. The > cheapest in history. > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 7:47 PM Max Dillon via Mercedes < > mercedes@okiebenz.com> > wrote: > > > The idea still has merit, perhaps in the future when fossil fuels are > > depleted. > > > > My concern would be the microwave energy, keeping that pointed in a safe > > direction. > > -- > > Max Dillon > > Charleston SC > > > > On April 4, 2019 6:28:40 PM EDT, Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < > > mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > > >It was all in the reports. The stuff I worked on had some fairly > > >realistic numbers on all that, based on what we knew at the time and > > >some reasonable expectations of the march of technology. One of the > > >biggest assumptions was the performance of solar photovoltaics going > > >from maybe 3% efficiency (at the time) to 6% or more, I think that is > > >sorta typical these days, might be even better than that. And yes the > > >photovoltaic arrays do degrade, that was factored in, I recall > > >something > > >like continuous upgrades of arrays as part of the process, after a > > >time. > > > > > >While cost projections on anything are worth the paper they are printed > > > > > >on, if that, all-up costs on a common basis (including externalities in > > > > > >the costs of competing technologies) showed SPS power to be in the > > >competitive realm, with a major assumption that costs of delivering > > >payloads to GEO would come down, either in earth->GEO launches or in > > >moon->GEO launches using lunar materials and propellants (including > > >"fuelless" launches using a mass driver). Note that building the > > >satellites in LEO from earth-launched materials, then using electric > > >propulsion (argon ion thrusters) to take them to GEO made sense, it > > >takes awhile but there is plenty of power and time to do it, so no big > > >deal. Launching stuff "downhill" makes a lot of sense, and when you > > >have > > >essentially unlimited resources on the moon with minimal concerns about > > > > > >environmental effects (externalities), either from launches or > > >manufacturing, then it looks even better. > > > > > >I talked a coupla years ago to one of my friends/colleagues from that > > >time about Peter and these ideas, as far as she knew nothing was being > > >done about it now. Another colleague with whom we worked, a former > > >Apollo astronaut, is still alive living in the DC area somewhere, I > > >have > > >reached out to him but have never heard back and neither has my friend > > >(whose good friend was married to him for some time, I guess they > > >aren't > > >any more). I don't know what he is up to these days, he must be way up > > > > > >in his 80s now. I know he kept trying to promote these ideas with > > >Peter. There were also some other interesting characters involved, > > >somewhat peripherally, but kept the ideas "out there." > > > > > >As far as low-hanging fruit, yep... but sometimes a visionary can help > > >reach that higher fruit... > > > > > >Sic transit gloria mundi... > > > > > >--FT > > > > > >On 4/4/19 5:44 PM, G Mann via Mercedes wrote: > > >> What a grand plan. > > >> However, after reading the posting in detail, I find no cost per KW > > >hr. > > >> projection based on the expected life of the solar orbit array, and > > >the > > >> actual cost of building it and maintaining it, both in space and on > > >the > > >> ground. > > >> > > >> Thus, solar and wind are still "pie in the sky" not connected to the > > >> reality of real life and mankind as it truly exists. > > >> As long as there is low hanging fruit to be picked, mankind will pick > > >it > > >> first. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < > > >> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> The sun shines continuously a few thousand miles away > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > https://www.wired.com/2014/04/solar-power-satellites-a-visual-introduction/ > > >>> > > >>> Full disclosure: My first grown-up job was working for Peter Glaser > > >on > > >>> SPS-related work. His sweet secretary facilitated that job after we > > >>> spoke a coupla times on the phone. I think I wrote some of the > > >content > > >>> of one or two of those referenced reports. If anyone had any vision > > >>> these days for truly remarkable challenges rather
Re: [MBZ] OT EV airplanes in the near future -- POWER SOURCES
How do you build an elephant? Order a mouse, built under government contract... ;)) A few billion spent in government programs to stimulate ignorance and inbreeding would reduce the population to the point where we need less energy... Ohh wait we already have those in place.. ;)) [Sarcasm off] On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 3:29 PM Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > It was all in the reports. The stuff I worked on had some fairly > realistic numbers on all that, based on what we knew at the time and > some reasonable expectations of the march of technology. One of the > biggest assumptions was the performance of solar photovoltaics going > from maybe 3% efficiency (at the time) to 6% or more, I think that is > sorta typical these days, might be even better than that. And yes the > photovoltaic arrays do degrade, that was factored in, I recall something > like continuous upgrades of arrays as part of the process, after a time. > > While cost projections on anything are worth the paper they are printed > on, if that, all-up costs on a common basis (including externalities in > the costs of competing technologies) showed SPS power to be in the > competitive realm, with a major assumption that costs of delivering > payloads to GEO would come down, either in earth->GEO launches or in > moon->GEO launches using lunar materials and propellants (including > "fuelless" launches using a mass driver). Note that building the > satellites in LEO from earth-launched materials, then using electric > propulsion (argon ion thrusters) to take them to GEO made sense, it > takes awhile but there is plenty of power and time to do it, so no big > deal. Launching stuff "downhill" makes a lot of sense, and when you have > essentially unlimited resources on the moon with minimal concerns about > environmental effects (externalities), either from launches or > manufacturing, then it looks even better. > > I talked a coupla years ago to one of my friends/colleagues from that > time about Peter and these ideas, as far as she knew nothing was being > done about it now. Another colleague with whom we worked, a former > Apollo astronaut, is still alive living in the DC area somewhere, I have > reached out to him but have never heard back and neither has my friend > (whose good friend was married to him for some time, I guess they aren't > any more). I don't know what he is up to these days, he must be way up > in his 80s now. I know he kept trying to promote these ideas with > Peter. There were also some other interesting characters involved, > somewhat peripherally, but kept the ideas "out there." > > As far as low-hanging fruit, yep... but sometimes a visionary can help > reach that higher fruit... > > Sic transit gloria mundi... > > --FT > > On 4/4/19 5:44 PM, G Mann via Mercedes wrote: > > What a grand plan. > > However, after reading the posting in detail, I find no cost per KW hr. > > projection based on the expected life of the solar orbit array, and the > > actual cost of building it and maintaining it, both in space and on the > > ground. > > > > Thus, solar and wind are still "pie in the sky" not connected to the > > reality of real life and mankind as it truly exists. > > As long as there is low hanging fruit to be picked, mankind will pick it > > first. > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < > > mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > > > >> The sun shines continuously a few thousand miles away > >> > >> > https://www.wired.com/2014/04/solar-power-satellites-a-visual-introduction/ > >> > >> Full disclosure: My first grown-up job was working for Peter Glaser on > >> SPS-related work. His sweet secretary facilitated that job after we > >> spoke a coupla times on the phone. I think I wrote some of the content > >> of one or two of those referenced reports. If anyone had any vision > >> these days for truly remarkable challenges rather than being mired down > >> in issues about whose flings are being hurt, we would be > >> building components for these on the moon and launching to LEO where > >> they would be assembled robotically. No nuclear waste to deal with, all > >> the power you could want. > >> > >> --FT > >> > >> On 4/4/19 4:25 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: > >>> EV vehicles are not a dream, Randy. There are thousands of them and > >>> thousands more are selling every month. In Manitoba, where do you get > >> your > >>> power? The answer is hydro. You are like Curt in that you expect > >> perfection > >>> all at once. The trend is definitely towards solar and wind. I agree > with > >>> you about collateral damage to birds from the wind turbines, but that > >>> problem is going to be overcome with offshore wind development, where > it > >>> has less effect on birds. > >>> > >>> And the tired old song about the Sun not shining at night will be > >> overcome > >>> through the evolution of storage batteries. Many utilities are already > >>>
Re: [MBZ] OT EV airplanes in the near future -- POWER SOURCES
Grant, I beg to differ. Idaho Power has just announced it proposes to install utilities scale solar for 2 and a half cents per kilowatt hour. The cheapest in history. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 7:47 PM Max Dillon via Mercedes wrote: > The idea still has merit, perhaps in the future when fossil fuels are > depleted. > > My concern would be the microwave energy, keeping that pointed in a safe > direction. > -- > Max Dillon > Charleston SC > > On April 4, 2019 6:28:40 PM EDT, Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < > mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > >It was all in the reports. The stuff I worked on had some fairly > >realistic numbers on all that, based on what we knew at the time and > >some reasonable expectations of the march of technology. One of the > >biggest assumptions was the performance of solar photovoltaics going > >from maybe 3% efficiency (at the time) to 6% or more, I think that is > >sorta typical these days, might be even better than that. And yes the > >photovoltaic arrays do degrade, that was factored in, I recall > >something > >like continuous upgrades of arrays as part of the process, after a > >time. > > > >While cost projections on anything are worth the paper they are printed > > > >on, if that, all-up costs on a common basis (including externalities in > > > >the costs of competing technologies) showed SPS power to be in the > >competitive realm, with a major assumption that costs of delivering > >payloads to GEO would come down, either in earth->GEO launches or in > >moon->GEO launches using lunar materials and propellants (including > >"fuelless" launches using a mass driver). Note that building the > >satellites in LEO from earth-launched materials, then using electric > >propulsion (argon ion thrusters) to take them to GEO made sense, it > >takes awhile but there is plenty of power and time to do it, so no big > >deal. Launching stuff "downhill" makes a lot of sense, and when you > >have > >essentially unlimited resources on the moon with minimal concerns about > > > >environmental effects (externalities), either from launches or > >manufacturing, then it looks even better. > > > >I talked a coupla years ago to one of my friends/colleagues from that > >time about Peter and these ideas, as far as she knew nothing was being > >done about it now. Another colleague with whom we worked, a former > >Apollo astronaut, is still alive living in the DC area somewhere, I > >have > >reached out to him but have never heard back and neither has my friend > >(whose good friend was married to him for some time, I guess they > >aren't > >any more). I don't know what he is up to these days, he must be way up > > > >in his 80s now. I know he kept trying to promote these ideas with > >Peter. There were also some other interesting characters involved, > >somewhat peripherally, but kept the ideas "out there." > > > >As far as low-hanging fruit, yep... but sometimes a visionary can help > >reach that higher fruit... > > > >Sic transit gloria mundi... > > > >--FT > > > >On 4/4/19 5:44 PM, G Mann via Mercedes wrote: > >> What a grand plan. > >> However, after reading the posting in detail, I find no cost per KW > >hr. > >> projection based on the expected life of the solar orbit array, and > >the > >> actual cost of building it and maintaining it, both in space and on > >the > >> ground. > >> > >> Thus, solar and wind are still "pie in the sky" not connected to the > >> reality of real life and mankind as it truly exists. > >> As long as there is low hanging fruit to be picked, mankind will pick > >it > >> first. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < > >> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > >> > >>> The sun shines continuously a few thousand miles away > >>> > >>> > > > https://www.wired.com/2014/04/solar-power-satellites-a-visual-introduction/ > >>> > >>> Full disclosure: My first grown-up job was working for Peter Glaser > >on > >>> SPS-related work. His sweet secretary facilitated that job after we > >>> spoke a coupla times on the phone. I think I wrote some of the > >content > >>> of one or two of those referenced reports. If anyone had any vision > >>> these days for truly remarkable challenges rather than being mired > >down > >>> in issues about whose flings are being hurt, we would be > >>> building components for these on the moon and launching to LEO where > >>> they would be assembled robotically. No nuclear waste to deal with, > >all > >>> the power you could want. > >>> > >>> --FT > >>> > >>> On 4/4/19 4:25 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: > EV vehicles are not a dream, Randy. There are thousands of them and > thousands more are selling every month. In Manitoba, where do you > >get > >>> your > power? The answer is hydro. You are like Curt in that you expect > >>> perfection > all at once. The trend is definitely towards solar and wind. I > >agree with > you about collateral damage to birds from the wind turbines, but >
Re: [MBZ] OT EV airplanes in the near future -- POWER SOURCES
The idea still has merit, perhaps in the future when fossil fuels are depleted. My concern would be the microwave energy, keeping that pointed in a safe direction. -- Max Dillon Charleston SC On April 4, 2019 6:28:40 PM EDT, Floyd Thursby via Mercedes wrote: >It was all in the reports. The stuff I worked on had some fairly >realistic numbers on all that, based on what we knew at the time and >some reasonable expectations of the march of technology. One of the >biggest assumptions was the performance of solar photovoltaics going >from maybe 3% efficiency (at the time) to 6% or more, I think that is >sorta typical these days, might be even better than that. And yes the >photovoltaic arrays do degrade, that was factored in, I recall >something >like continuous upgrades of arrays as part of the process, after a >time. > >While cost projections on anything are worth the paper they are printed > >on, if that, all-up costs on a common basis (including externalities in > >the costs of competing technologies) showed SPS power to be in the >competitive realm, with a major assumption that costs of delivering >payloads to GEO would come down, either in earth->GEO launches or in >moon->GEO launches using lunar materials and propellants (including >"fuelless" launches using a mass driver). Note that building the >satellites in LEO from earth-launched materials, then using electric >propulsion (argon ion thrusters) to take them to GEO made sense, it >takes awhile but there is plenty of power and time to do it, so no big >deal. Launching stuff "downhill" makes a lot of sense, and when you >have >essentially unlimited resources on the moon with minimal concerns about > >environmental effects (externalities), either from launches or >manufacturing, then it looks even better. > >I talked a coupla years ago to one of my friends/colleagues from that >time about Peter and these ideas, as far as she knew nothing was being >done about it now. Another colleague with whom we worked, a former >Apollo astronaut, is still alive living in the DC area somewhere, I >have >reached out to him but have never heard back and neither has my friend >(whose good friend was married to him for some time, I guess they >aren't >any more). I don't know what he is up to these days, he must be way up > >in his 80s now. I know he kept trying to promote these ideas with >Peter. There were also some other interesting characters involved, >somewhat peripherally, but kept the ideas "out there." > >As far as low-hanging fruit, yep... but sometimes a visionary can help >reach that higher fruit... > >Sic transit gloria mundi... > >--FT > >On 4/4/19 5:44 PM, G Mann via Mercedes wrote: >> What a grand plan. >> However, after reading the posting in detail, I find no cost per KW >hr. >> projection based on the expected life of the solar orbit array, and >the >> actual cost of building it and maintaining it, both in space and on >the >> ground. >> >> Thus, solar and wind are still "pie in the sky" not connected to the >> reality of real life and mankind as it truly exists. >> As long as there is low hanging fruit to be picked, mankind will pick >it >> first. >> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < >> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: >> >>> The sun shines continuously a few thousand miles away >>> >>> >https://www.wired.com/2014/04/solar-power-satellites-a-visual-introduction/ >>> >>> Full disclosure: My first grown-up job was working for Peter Glaser >on >>> SPS-related work. His sweet secretary facilitated that job after we >>> spoke a coupla times on the phone. I think I wrote some of the >content >>> of one or two of those referenced reports. If anyone had any vision >>> these days for truly remarkable challenges rather than being mired >down >>> in issues about whose flings are being hurt, we would be >>> building components for these on the moon and launching to LEO where >>> they would be assembled robotically. No nuclear waste to deal with, >all >>> the power you could want. >>> >>> --FT >>> >>> On 4/4/19 4:25 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: EV vehicles are not a dream, Randy. There are thousands of them and thousands more are selling every month. In Manitoba, where do you >get >>> your power? The answer is hydro. You are like Curt in that you expect >>> perfection all at once. The trend is definitely towards solar and wind. I >agree with you about collateral damage to birds from the wind turbines, but >that problem is going to be overcome with offshore wind development, >where it has less effect on birds. And the tired old song about the Sun not shining at night will be >>> overcome through the evolution of storage batteries. Many utilities are >already installing these. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 4:16 PM Randy Bennell via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > On 04/04/2019 12:35 PM, Andrew
Re: [MBZ] OT EV airplanes in the near future -- POWER SOURCES
It was all in the reports. The stuff I worked on had some fairly realistic numbers on all that, based on what we knew at the time and some reasonable expectations of the march of technology. One of the biggest assumptions was the performance of solar photovoltaics going from maybe 3% efficiency (at the time) to 6% or more, I think that is sorta typical these days, might be even better than that. And yes the photovoltaic arrays do degrade, that was factored in, I recall something like continuous upgrades of arrays as part of the process, after a time. While cost projections on anything are worth the paper they are printed on, if that, all-up costs on a common basis (including externalities in the costs of competing technologies) showed SPS power to be in the competitive realm, with a major assumption that costs of delivering payloads to GEO would come down, either in earth->GEO launches or in moon->GEO launches using lunar materials and propellants (including "fuelless" launches using a mass driver). Note that building the satellites in LEO from earth-launched materials, then using electric propulsion (argon ion thrusters) to take them to GEO made sense, it takes awhile but there is plenty of power and time to do it, so no big deal. Launching stuff "downhill" makes a lot of sense, and when you have essentially unlimited resources on the moon with minimal concerns about environmental effects (externalities), either from launches or manufacturing, then it looks even better. I talked a coupla years ago to one of my friends/colleagues from that time about Peter and these ideas, as far as she knew nothing was being done about it now. Another colleague with whom we worked, a former Apollo astronaut, is still alive living in the DC area somewhere, I have reached out to him but have never heard back and neither has my friend (whose good friend was married to him for some time, I guess they aren't any more). I don't know what he is up to these days, he must be way up in his 80s now. I know he kept trying to promote these ideas with Peter. There were also some other interesting characters involved, somewhat peripherally, but kept the ideas "out there." As far as low-hanging fruit, yep... but sometimes a visionary can help reach that higher fruit... Sic transit gloria mundi... --FT On 4/4/19 5:44 PM, G Mann via Mercedes wrote: What a grand plan. However, after reading the posting in detail, I find no cost per KW hr. projection based on the expected life of the solar orbit array, and the actual cost of building it and maintaining it, both in space and on the ground. Thus, solar and wind are still "pie in the sky" not connected to the reality of real life and mankind as it truly exists. As long as there is low hanging fruit to be picked, mankind will pick it first. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: The sun shines continuously a few thousand miles away https://www.wired.com/2014/04/solar-power-satellites-a-visual-introduction/ Full disclosure: My first grown-up job was working for Peter Glaser on SPS-related work. His sweet secretary facilitated that job after we spoke a coupla times on the phone. I think I wrote some of the content of one or two of those referenced reports. If anyone had any vision these days for truly remarkable challenges rather than being mired down in issues about whose flings are being hurt, we would be building components for these on the moon and launching to LEO where they would be assembled robotically. No nuclear waste to deal with, all the power you could want. --FT On 4/4/19 4:25 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: EV vehicles are not a dream, Randy. There are thousands of them and thousands more are selling every month. In Manitoba, where do you get your power? The answer is hydro. You are like Curt in that you expect perfection all at once. The trend is definitely towards solar and wind. I agree with you about collateral damage to birds from the wind turbines, but that problem is going to be overcome with offshore wind development, where it has less effect on birds. And the tired old song about the Sun not shining at night will be overcome through the evolution of storage batteries. Many utilities are already installing these. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 4:16 PM Randy Bennell via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: On 04/04/2019 12:35 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: Think positively: we're heading in the right direction. But, we are all old enough the only electric vehicles we are likely to ultimately find to be practical will be wheelchairs. Electric vehicles are a dream. They have no range. They take too long to re-charge. Battery technology is not at a point where they are practical. And, the infrastructure is not there to charge them. Solar does not work in the dark. Not bad in Arizona. Not so good in Manitoba, especially in
Re: [MBZ] OT EV airplanes in the near future -- POWER SOURCES
What a grand plan. However, after reading the posting in detail, I find no cost per KW hr. projection based on the expected life of the solar orbit array, and the actual cost of building it and maintaining it, both in space and on the ground. Thus, solar and wind are still "pie in the sky" not connected to the reality of real life and mankind as it truly exists. As long as there is low hanging fruit to be picked, mankind will pick it first. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > The sun shines continuously a few thousand miles away > > https://www.wired.com/2014/04/solar-power-satellites-a-visual-introduction/ > > Full disclosure: My first grown-up job was working for Peter Glaser on > SPS-related work. His sweet secretary facilitated that job after we > spoke a coupla times on the phone. I think I wrote some of the content > of one or two of those referenced reports. If anyone had any vision > these days for truly remarkable challenges rather than being mired down > in issues about whose flings are being hurt, we would be > building components for these on the moon and launching to LEO where > they would be assembled robotically. No nuclear waste to deal with, all > the power you could want. > > --FT > > On 4/4/19 4:25 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: > > EV vehicles are not a dream, Randy. There are thousands of them and > > thousands more are selling every month. In Manitoba, where do you get > your > > power? The answer is hydro. You are like Curt in that you expect > perfection > > all at once. The trend is definitely towards solar and wind. I agree with > > you about collateral damage to birds from the wind turbines, but that > > problem is going to be overcome with offshore wind development, where it > > has less effect on birds. > > > > And the tired old song about the Sun not shining at night will be > overcome > > through the evolution of storage batteries. Many utilities are already > > installing these. > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 4:16 PM Randy Bennell via Mercedes < > > mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > > > >> On 04/04/2019 12:35 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: > >>> Think positively: we're heading in the right direction. > >>> > >> But, we are all old enough the only electric vehicles we are likely to > >> ultimately find to be practical will be wheelchairs. > >> > >> Electric vehicles are a dream. They have no range. They take too long to > >> re-charge. Battery technology is not at a point where they are > practical. > >> > >> And, the infrastructure is not there to charge them. Solar does not work > >> in the dark. Not bad in Arizona. Not so good in Manitoba, especially in > >> winter. > >> > >> Windmills kill the birds migrating through their path. I am surprised > >> the environmental crowd does not get the windmills banned for that > >> reason alone. > >> > >> Nuclear is there but, as you pointed out yesterday, we have a problem > >> with the leftovers. Until they find a way to totally use up nuclear fuel > >> so that it does not pose a danger, there is the question of what to do > >> with the stuff that has no further use but is dangerous for the lord > >> only knows how long. > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> http://www.okiebenz.com > >> > >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > >> > >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > >> > >> > > ___ > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > > -- > --FT > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT EV airplanes in the near future -- POWER SOURCES
The sun shines continuously a few thousand miles away https://www.wired.com/2014/04/solar-power-satellites-a-visual-introduction/ Full disclosure: My first grown-up job was working for Peter Glaser on SPS-related work. His sweet secretary facilitated that job after we spoke a coupla times on the phone. I think I wrote some of the content of one or two of those referenced reports. If anyone had any vision these days for truly remarkable challenges rather than being mired down in issues about whose flings are being hurt, we would be building components for these on the moon and launching to LEO where they would be assembled robotically. No nuclear waste to deal with, all the power you could want. --FT On 4/4/19 4:25 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: EV vehicles are not a dream, Randy. There are thousands of them and thousands more are selling every month. In Manitoba, where do you get your power? The answer is hydro. You are like Curt in that you expect perfection all at once. The trend is definitely towards solar and wind. I agree with you about collateral damage to birds from the wind turbines, but that problem is going to be overcome with offshore wind development, where it has less effect on birds. And the tired old song about the Sun not shining at night will be overcome through the evolution of storage batteries. Many utilities are already installing these. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 4:16 PM Randy Bennell via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: On 04/04/2019 12:35 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: Think positively: we're heading in the right direction. But, we are all old enough the only electric vehicles we are likely to ultimately find to be practical will be wheelchairs. Electric vehicles are a dream. They have no range. They take too long to re-charge. Battery technology is not at a point where they are practical. And, the infrastructure is not there to charge them. Solar does not work in the dark. Not bad in Arizona. Not so good in Manitoba, especially in winter. Windmills kill the birds migrating through their path. I am surprised the environmental crowd does not get the windmills banned for that reason alone. Nuclear is there but, as you pointed out yesterday, we have a problem with the leftovers. Until they find a way to totally use up nuclear fuel so that it does not pose a danger, there is the question of what to do with the stuff that has no further use but is dangerous for the lord only knows how long. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- --FT ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
