On 7/23/2017 12:29 PM, grg wrote:
> OK, so you're saying that instead of single-digit percentages, there are
> real-world battery installations which get 75%-80% charge/discharge
> efficiency; meaning that if using them we'd only need to make 20%-25% more
> solar power, not 1000% more, to
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 01:20:05PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 7/23/2017 12:29 PM, grg wrote:
> > OK, so you're saying that instead of single-digit percentages, there are
> > real-world battery installations which get 75%-80% charge/discharge
> > efficiency; meaning that if using them we'd
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 00:23:26 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 8:56 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
>> But it's considerably more than 10% in practice, right?
>
> It depends. It's as much an ideal as Musk's asserted 90% efficiency for
> Tesla and Powerwall when in reality Tesla and other EV
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 00:46:22 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
>> OK, so here you're saying that instead of a <10% charge/discharge
>> efficiency, batteries actually have a 75%-80% charge/discharge efficiency?
>
> No. I'm saying that chemical batteries have *at best* a charge
> efficiency of around
On 7/23/2017 9:58 AM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> "As low as" 50% is a whole lot more than 10%.
As low as 50% when new. Efficiency drops off as batteries age. If you've
ever replaced a phone or notebook battery because the battery was worn
out then you've experienced this first hand.
> Supercaps
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 04:59:08PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 7/23/2017 3:42 PM, grg wrote:
> > In the paper they show that a conventional li-ion battery holds 90% of the
> > original charge after 3000 cycles (~9 years of daily cycling); and after
>
> BS.
>
>
On 7/23/2017 3:42 PM, grg wrote:
> In the paper they show that a conventional li-ion battery holds 90% of the
> original charge after 3000 cycles (~9 years of daily cycling); and after
BS.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries
> Nor do those
Even a small tornado won't simply "take out one part of a solar power
station". It's going throw dust and debris all over the place.
Experience on Mars with Rover was exactly the opposite, a gustanado
cleared accumulated dust OFF panels and restored system efficiency.
(N=1 is anecdote not
On 7/23/2017 5:01 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> If a tornado takes out one part of a solar power station, the rest is
> still usable.
Even a small tornado won't simply "take out one part of a solar power
station". It's going throw dust and debris all over the place. Here's
hoping your contract with
On 7/23/2017 6:48 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> Experience on Mars with Rover was exactly the opposite, a gustanado
> cleared accumulated dust OFF panels and restored system efficiency.
The Mars rovers' panels are constructed with electrostatic layers. Run a
charge through the ES layers and they
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 16:59:08 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 7/23/2017 3:42 PM, grg wrote:
>> Nor do those characteristics describe millions of homes and buildings. How
>> many buildings do you think are destroyed in Kansas by tornados each year?
>> Hundreds, for a survival rate of 99.99%. So
11 matches
Mail list logo
