Not that any mods are paying attention to this thread any more, but this "Score:5, Insightful" post is based on a faulty premise. Bulk material of these clusters would conduct thanks to the Josephson effect.
No-one's lost their life on a Soyuz vehicle since 1971, and they're still flying today.
Did you not read what I just wrote? "Sure, they haven't had any manned Soyuz losses recently, but that's demonstrably just luck; unmanned Soyuz keep blowing up (and killing ground crew, too)".
They should have a sign up outside Baikonur... "Safety is #1! [ 37 ] years since a fatal accident".
Try 5 1/2 years. Yes, he was on the ground and was killed by falling debris from an exploding Soyuz, but it was still an *exploding Soyuz*. Had there been people on it, they'd have been dead, too.
What manned stack with a statistically significant number of manned launches are you thinking of that has a better safety track record than the shuttle? Soyuz's record is about the same. Sure, they haven't had any manned Soyuz losses recently, but that's demonstrably just luck; unmanned Soyuz keep blowing up (and killing ground crew, too). And there have been a number of manned Soyuz close calls, too.
Sadly, a ~2% rate of total loss isn't a bad number when it comes to manned spaceflight.
The big deal with this discovery isn't that the possibilities the new materials they've found are endless. They actually underperform what we already have. It's that we don't understand how what we have (cuprate superconductors) works, but if we did, we could potentially find much higher-temperature superconductors. This gives us a key to help understand high temperature superconductivity. And the possibilities of high-temperature superconductors would be endless (assuming they could be made affordably).
On a serious note, anyone think this might be Blackswift we're seeing? Of course, Blackswift, AFAIK, wasn't supposed to be orbital. I'm noticing that it looks awfully similar to parts of their Space Launch Initiative proposal. Long, fat fuselage, so it's probably burning hydrogen, whatever it is.
Basically, you're saying that you have created your own religion, no? By forming a set of presuppositions that you are happy with, you now have the faith to belive in your own construct of reality and "truth".
I wouldn't exactly say that I have the faith to believe in my own construct -- more that I have the will to. I know that my construct is entirely what it is -- a construct entirely made out of whole cloth. One could call it a religion, in that I build my morality and live my life around it, but I have no faith that it is somehow in any way some sort of universal truth. It simply provides convenience in making choices. It's like being adrift in deep space with not a star in sight, and setting up a sign that points out the X, Y, and Z axes. There's absolutely no inherent truth to those axes, but they give you something you can navigate based on.
Not to nitpick, but I think you've somewhat oversimplified things when you suggest that a religious person (however you define that) merely adheres to their beliefs because of a sense of divine punishment. I'm sure you've heard of the Christian concept of Grace?
True, I did oversimplify. There are many different viewpoints among religious people in the world, and to group them all together like that was perhaps unfair. Most religious people I've known do believe that they must adhere to their religious principles out of sense of divine reward/punishment, but not all.
What truly is the underpinning for any morality at all if everything exists because of random chance?
Read some Nietzsche. Learn about existentialism, perspectivism, nihilism. Questions on the existence of meaning in a world devoid of objective truth have already been asked and answered a countless times over throughout the ages.
My story? As a teenager (unversed in philosophy), I reached the same point as Kierkegaard's "Young Man":
How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the managerI have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint?
In a world devoid of objective truth, rationalism leads to an inherent contradiction. Love is meaningless, hate is meaningless. Joy, what people strive for, meaningless. Given this, what meaning is there to any choice? None. What reason to not, say, walk around naked all the time? None. What reason to live at all? None. No *inherent* meaning. Yet, choices are continually taken. To stop living, that *too* would be a choice. No matter what you choose, there are ultimately meaningless consequences associated with it.
To make a choice, I independently invented existentialism. No choice you make has an inherent meaning. But you can *create* meaning. In fact, you don't need to create meaning for every individual action; all you need is to create overarching principles, and everything else falls from that. Yes, your principles are utterly meaningless. In existentialism, you know this and you accept this. Note that the only difference between existentialism and a standard theistic viewpoint of a universe of objective truth is that someone else told you a particular set of principles and you accepted them without question. At least in existentialism, you have a choice.
My choice began with what I'd term "lazy existentialism". Going with the flow; it's the easiest way. Adopting the general basic principles of society around me -- not every nuance, many of which are contradictory, but the overarching elements. This quickly formed into the independent invention of humanism. The morality of humanism would be quite familiar to most people with a religious worldview -- except that it's a lot less self-contradictory and judgemental;). A religious person adheres to their beliefs because of a sense of divine punishment. A humanist adheres to their beliefs because to violate them is to betray one's self revert to nihilism.
But this is a brief summary, and just my particular case for the evolution of my worldview evolution. Philosophy is a far broader topic.
Now, quickly, everyone search through the papers for Swastikas or Nazi propaganda. I hear Ben Stein would sell out his dignity for something like that.
While payback period may be the easiest measure to calculate, it's not a very good one. You really need to be calculating either IRR or mortgage length if you want to determine whether something is a good investment. They're different ways to measure the same thing. Basically, when you install something like a wind turbine or solar setup, you're buying an annuity. You need to show that that annuity is a better investment than other comparable investments on the open market.
You're right. I've never used a dewalt power tool. I've never talked with people who use them in hobby aircraft building. And it's not like I've read half a dozen *peer reviewed* papers on the subject. No, live in your own little world.
Electrolysis isn't limited to 50% efficiency. AFAIK, some high temperature steam cells are over 85%.
The real problem with hydrogen is that it's an utter PITA to store (i.e., expensive) and fuel cells are, and for the forseable future will be, way too expensive compared to their power output (a few kilowatts costing you tens of thousands of dollars -- and lifespan is not unlimited). In other words, the capital costs will kill you every time. There's one proposal to use the supposed "hydrogen economy" and have cars be both your storage tanks and generators. But that scenario is never going to happen; BEVs and PHEVs have already won. Lithium phosphate BEVs now can match hydrogen in terms of charge/refill time (using far cheaper infrastructure), beat it in safety, approximately match it in range per unit weight and volume (it's hard to do a direct comparison, as you're comparing kWh of storage with kW of power output in fuel cells plus the tank and fuel), blow it away in operation cost, beat it in purchase price, and blow it away in system efficiency. And battery tech is advancing a lot faster than hydrogen tech, and given what's in the lab right now, will continue to do so for a good long time. Plus, the "greens" who they expect to buy this tech by and large prefer BEVs (for the above reasons, especially the several-times-over efficiency advantage).
Corr: The line that starts "Not. Even. Close." should read:
"Not. Even. Close. 0.2 MJ/kg for Zebras (~90Wh/kg) < 42 MJ/kg for Diesel"
I don't mean to be too harsh on Zebras, but really, they're simply obsolete tech. A few companies still use them because they're "mature" (the prototype for the Smart EV, for example), but they have way too little power and the heating requirement is a waste and can be a pain in a number of situations. And they only last a few thousand cycles. They really have absolutely no advantages over LiP or any of the other long-life li-ion variants. And their obsolete nature shows; check out the reviews of the drive in the Smart EV. That's, what, 0-60 in "quite a while"?
Please, for the love of God, read up on the modern li-ion variants before you post again. Read up about lithium phosphates (in particular, lithium iron phosphate). Read up about the titanates. Read up about the spinels. Read up about the upcoming affordable BEV and PHEV lines from major manufacturers and new startups alike -- the Volt, the MiEV, the R1e, the Aptera, the VentureOne, the Loremo, and on and on. It's all variants on lithium ion, mostly LiP. Extreme charge effiency (~99.9%), very long life, safe, extreme power density, and while they don't have the energy density of their traditional li-ion bretheren (they're only ~100Wh/kg, although that's improving), their other qualities make them extremely attractive for automotive applications.
Cooling costs in space are zero. All you need is a proper reflector/radiator setup.
and atmospheric drag, this line would take all the energy from the orbit of the moon bringing it to the ground.
Then just picture it running through empty. This is a thought exercise. There is a huge distinction between "cost to build" and "efficiency of operation".
OK, I'll admit if you don't want to count manufacturing costs, or maintaince costs, but only energy in use
The energy used in building power transmission infrastructure is utterly dwarfed by the three-phase loads it carries in its lifespan.
Gas is still much cheaper.
No, it is not. An Aptera goes, with my current power rates, half a penny per mile. Show me a gasoline car that does that. At $3/gal, a 30mpg car costs $0.10 per mile.
Gasoline is an *incredibly expensive* power source. Joule per joule, it's *30 times more expensive* than powder river basin coal, for example.
look at this car, according to wikipedia Lithium costs 2.8-5 Wh/US$ to buy, get 300 to 1200 cycles.
For the last time, we're *NOT* talking about traditional li-ion; we're talking about *variants* on li-ion chemistry, such as phosphates, titanates, and spinels in current gen batteries, and lithium vanadium oxide, tin nanoparticles, and silicon nanowires in next gen. How many times are you going to repeat this straw man? A123 rates their batteries for 10+ years, 7k+ cycles, and even then, you're only looking at 10-20% loss in charge capacity. LG Chem expects theirs to last for 40 years in typical use. These are more like Edison Cells in terms of reliability.
battery cost of lithium polymers
We're NOT talking about lithium polymer either! Cut with the straw men.
I am test engineer in charge of a 3000 Hp Hybrid vehicle prototype running some very hot Sodium batterys
Lol, zebras? Yeah, wake me up when you work with anything that'll ever be relevant.
and their energy density is actually greater than diesiel fuel per weight.
Not. Even. Close. 0.2 Trust me, I know their are no batterys available for purchase by any person, or a company for mass production that has energy density, cycle times and efficiency for a reasonable cost per Kw Hr
Oh, you're right. It's not like *Freaking Dewalt Power Tool Battery Packs* use A123 LiP batteries or anything. Or several other brands now. Or like they're becoming the defacto standard for hobby aircraft and helicopters. Or like virtually all new EVs and electric motorcycles from major companies are using them, or like most hybrids are switching over (a couple are still sticking with NiMH, but not many). Or like any of the following companies exist and produce these batteries: A123, AltairNano, Compact, Ener1, Hitachi, Johnson Controls, Lithium Tech, Maxwell, Automotive Energy, Panasonic, Valence, Toshiba. It's not like these batteries are powering vehicles like the Killacycle and Wrightspeed X1 that almost beat *gasoline vehicle performance records*
No, go live in your little fantasy world where none of this exists.
Sorry if I'm snapping at you, but I'm amazed that you're continuing a debate about something that you know absolutely nothing about.
Most designs for solar thermal in a world that relies strongly on it are for either "combined cycle" plants, where solar either augments or completely replaces another heat source when the sun is out (and are capable of ramping output of the other thermal source up and down accordingly), or have some sort of energy storage system. Pumped energy storage, for example, can cost as little as 3-4 cents per kilowatt hour -- low enough that some places in China are using it in the opposite direction (using existing power plants to pump water at night and then letting it suppliment power during the day). If solar thermal can be made cheap enough, the energy storage issue can be compensated for.
I'm a big backer of solar. Even more than solar thermal, I'm bullish about photovoltaics. CIGS is taking off like there's no tomorrow. There's sliver cells, there's silicon ink, there's dye-sensitized cells, there's super-efficient silicon cells, and on, and on, with each tech advancing by leaps and bounds (just yesterday in the news, dye-sensitized cells got a big boost by the demonstration of 2 1/2 times their previous record sensitivity via nanoscale "popcorn balls"). And on top of this, silicon cells -- the ever-pricy cells that are still growing at 30-40% per year -- should have their prices fall dramatically in the next few years thanks to an upcoming "silicon glut".
High purity silicon is traditionally made from CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposition), a slow and costly process. These plants take a while to build, so the solar boom has completely outstripped supply. To try and catch up for this high-profit raw material, many new plants are under construction and will be coming online soon -- enough that they could possibly create a glut on their own (let alone with all of the silicon-reducing panel techs underway). But now, a couple companies have announced techs for producing high purity silicon in metallurgical processes (I.e., molten silicon, not CVD). Which means far faster plant construction times and far lower product costs. And investors are lining up. So, by all measures, it looks like the silicon shortage will be turning into a silicon glut, which means cheaper panels all around.
*That said*, while I used to feel that low enough cost solar plus pumped storage (or advances in battery storage, which are coming pretty rapidly in their own right these days) could mostly power the future, I'd have to recommend strongly against that. All because I stumbled into this quote that reminded me of something I had not thought of:
"During this year a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness? and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear." -- Byzantine historian Procopius, 536 AD
Volcanoes. Unfortunately, volcanic events major enough to decrease the sun's light significantly are not rare, and some in human history have virtually blotted it out. Even in fairly modern human history -- for example, the Year Without A Summer, 1816, from the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, and later, the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa -- volcanic events have caused devastating blocking of the sun's light. When your civilization is relying on solar power, even a regional affect could be catastrophic on its own, let alone combined with poor harvests and the like.
As a consequence, while I feel solar may be a good way to offset our peak loads and even drive prices down, I'd hate to see our civilization become reliant on it. I think EGS is a much more reliable clean, renewable baseload power source. Let's hope it works out to be economical.
sorry, but in a established market like this, cost pretty much does equal efficiency
Not even close. We could run a superconductor from here to the moon, and it would be 100% efficient. It'd cost an *Utter Fortune*, but it'd still be 100% efficient. You're trying to equate two concepts that are *not* related. The cost of power transmission infrastructure has nothing to do with how efficient it is.
After all all the copper
Power transmission infrastructure is mostly aluminum and steel.
ok 45% is the efficiency the power plant would hit, and 20% was the "typical" vehicle total use
Which means that EVs are a lot more efficient. As pretty much every peer reviewed study on this topic has stated. Which you'd know if you were debating a topic that you actually knew something about.
with 300 typical charge cycles for a lithium battery
Did you notice the word "variant" above? Again, you're out of your league here, so I'm going to have to back up and explain some basics to you. Li-ion now covers a whole family of batteries. Traditional li-ion batteries use a lithium cobalt oxide cathode and a graphite anode. The cobalt is all-around the most problematic element. It's expensive and it likes to lead to runaway decomposition and various problems that shorten lifespan. There are a number of alternatives -- for example, spinels. The most popular replacement cathode is LiP -- lithium phosphate variants, usually lithium iron phosphate. The energy density is reduced (although still better than NiMH, and far, far superior to lead-acid). In exchange, you get very long lifespan -- A123 rates theirs for 10+ years and 7000+ cycles, and even then, that only means you've lost 15-20% of the capacity. They're also very fire resistant. It's a beautiful battery chemistry for EV apps; almost all new highway-speed EVs are using it. A notable exception is Tesla, which uses traditional li-ion since it's currently cheaper (although won't be once LiP is in mass production) and because their customers can afford replacements. Another options competing for market share are titanate chemistries, lithium vanadium oxide, and Argonne lab's layered cathode. In the future, there's silicon nanowire and tin nanoparticle anodes for extreme energy density.
Again, you really need to read about this topic before you debate it.
Where I live, more than half the cost of electric is in the delivery/line charge.
It doesn't matter how much is in the "delivery line charge"; cost does not equal efficiency. In the US, the average transmission efficiency is 92.8%.
you lose 15% in the charger
AC Propulsion's 20kW charger is 93% efficient, while their 150kW charger is 90% efficient. That's pretty typical for non-inductive chargers.
and another 30% to the lead acid battery.
Lead-acid battery? Lol, what do you think we're talking about here, golf carts? NEVs? Even Firefly lead acid batteries are simply unsuitable for these sort of tasks. Way too short lifespan, way to inefficient, way too low energy density. We're talking about lithium ion variants. Lithium ion batteries are over 99% efficient (that's why they charge and discharge cool).
So while at the power plant rock in efficiency, it doubles in cost getting to my house
Please learn to separate the concepts of "cost" and "efficiency".
My understanding is Gas engine are 70-80% efficient
I thought the record for a Citroën AX was 87mpg. Their own company website states 78.5mpg highway, 55.4mpg city. And if those are imperial gallons, you need to reduce it (they don't state what kind of gallons). And I don't know about in Europe, but US mpg ratings have been lowered from what they were in the 90s to reflect more real-world driving conditions.
Well, I'm not sure you'd call it "normal", but if what you meant was "streetlegal, typical vehicle performance, and not cramped", I'd say the answer is now. Compare the Aptera with Pac Car II. And yes, it's competing in the X-Prize.
Sure, the results of these extreme efficiency competitions aren't directly applicable, but the engineering can make its way into mainstream cars. Mainstream cars have to deal with a *lot* of things other than just efficiency -- everything from how you turn on the high beams to the motor for the windshield wipers. These sorts of contests simplify things.
Probably the two most advanced "affordable" EV/PHEV projects right now are the Aptera (both the $27k Typ-1e and $30k Typ-1h) and the $25k Mitsubishi MiEV. You could probably get either by late next year, although you'll need to be tricky about it if you want it that soon (I'm getting my Aptera through a California intermediary). The Subaru R1e, also coming out in the same timeframe, doesn't cut it on range. The GM Volt will be $30-40k, with a late 2010/early 2011 timeframe. Another one to keep an eye on is the $25k VentureOne. If you don't mind tandem seating, it looks like a very fun ride. You may also want to watch Nissan-Renault and Think's offerings, and watch to see if Subaru decides to commercialize the G4e. All of these vehicles should be expected to be using long-life LiP batteries (10+ years with minimal degradation typical), with the exception of the G4e, which uses next generation, double energy density lithium vanadium oxide batteries (don't have info on their reliability yet)
More detailed info on four of the less expensive models:
* Aptera: Space-age styling, lots of neat interior and safety features, 2 1/2 seater, extreme energy efficiency (~80Wh/mi; ~200 is typical for EVs). Efficient use of electricity means a smaller (and thus cheaper to replace) battery pack and faster charging on less power. Typ-1e gets 120 miles electric range while the Typ-1h goes 40 miles electric then gets 130mpg. 0-60 in 10 seconds.
* MiEV: More conventional styling, mainstream manufacturer, 4 seater, 120 mile range, lots of charging options. 0-60 in ~10 seconds (heard some conflicting info, but that should be approximately right).
* Volt: "Chopped" styling, mainstream manufacturer, 4 seater, 40 mile electric range PHEV, 50mpg after that. 0-60 in 8.5 seconds.
* VentureOne: Thin tandem two seater, 120 mile range (noticing a trend?:) ) for the electric-only version (not sure about the PHEV), energy efficient due to low cross-sectional area, and drives like a motorcycle -- the car automatically tilts into turns ("flying the road"). 0-60 in 7 seconds.
Its Shell sponsoring it, of course non-gasoline vehicles weren't eligible for the grand prize...
Damn corporate scams for cheap publicity and easy recruitment.
Hey, now, let's put this conspiracy theory through it's paces. So, Shell is hosting this competition for cheap publicity and easy recruitment, right? Then why would they rig the race -- the ultimate example of trying to earn bad publicity and discouraging recruitment? Or, if the rigging was hoping to promote gasoline while they still get cheap publicity and easy recruitment, by trying to imply that gasoline always wins or something (I'm trying to help your theory out here), then why did they allow other fuels compete at all? To make gasoline look bad so that they can then refuse to award them the prize?
It just doesn't make sense.
Look, oil companies have done a lot of bad things in the world -- some intentional, most unintentional, but still bad. But pretending that *everything* they do must have some sort of evil hidden motive to keep the world addicted to gasoline is just ridiculous. The other day, I sat down on a park bench that had a small plaque on the side that it had been donated by Shell. Clearly, that bench was an insidious attempt to get Americans to stop walking so that they become fat and lazy and need big SUVs to support their exercise-averse lifestyle, right?
Things like this serve many purposes. Some of them can get tax deductions. Some of them are an attempt to earn good PR or recruit. Some of them are, to be quite honest, a way to allow execs to feel all warm and fuzzy that they're doing good things in the world while they keep the oil flowing. But the concept that everything they do must be a plot to keep us hooked on gasoline is just dumb.
Rolling losses -- the dominant factor at low speeds -- *are* affected by weight. And for vehicles this aerodynamic, wind gusts are not exactly a major concern, even if they come from the side.
Well, I can't point you to a vehicle a tenth as efficient, but this car due out later this year comes in two models -- the Aptera Typ-1h, which gets 130mpg plus has a 40 mile all-electric range, and the Typ-1e all-electric with a 120 mile range. Since power plants have a higher thermodynamic efficiency from burning fuel than gas engines, while battery, charger, and transmission losses are very small, you're looking at almost 200mpg equivalent for the Typ-1e and for the first 40 miles of the Typ-1h's range. So, you're looking at roughly a 20th as efficient, give or take in either direction. The price is a bit steep for a two seater ($30k for the Typ-1h and $27k for the Typ-1e), but when you're nearly or completely eliminating a couple thousand dollars in money spent on gasoline per year for a hundred dollars spent on electricity, and cutting maintenance (the electric drivetrain only has the following moving parts: three wheels, one drive belt, one sealed brushless electric motor; not even a transmission), you can hit payback pretty quickly, and certainly pay off the difference over a normal car in several years. Not to mention, it's all sorts of crazy neat features like in-seatbelt airbags (like small planes use -- they don't explode toward you, but upwards to be between you and the dash, shielding your whole body), StreetDeck (a nifty nav/entertainment system), camera situational awareness displays, and so on.
They're currently moving into their production facility, and plan to offer test drives and factory tours in 30 to 60 days.
It's fundamentally not a fair comparison. For example, per kilogram, hydrogen has a lot more energy than gasoline. And fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Of course, to make that hydrogen, a lot more energy was wasted than when making gasoline. And that hydrogen is bulky, hitting range. But that wouldn't hurt it here; by your rules, hydrogen vehicles would win easily.
Anyways: to those who think these vehicles are whimsical and whose tech can't readily be applied to streetlegal cars: As I posted over on Autobloggreen.com, compare This eco-marathon winner with this car due out this fall.
Of course, you see the problems with commercializing these eco-racers as-is. They're not stable enough for high speeds (hence Aptera's need to broaden the front wheelbase, increasing the drag coeff, as well as wider tires for better handling), there's too much ground turbulence at high speeds (hence the higher body), they're not comfortable for passengers (hence the larger cross section), and they're not streetlegal (hence things like the truncated, not-completely-tapered tail). Also, there's the fact that by their very nature, things like "normal driving cycles" and "highway speeds" greatly increase drag. And all of this adds weight, too. Hence, "thousands of miles per gallon" turns into "130 miles per gallon" (in the Typ-1h). Still impressive, mind you.
While I wish he'd just redirect it to other (budget-cut) NASA programs instead, I'd be quite happy to see Project Constellation killed. Ares/Orion is a bad design built more around the politics of whose jobs would have to be cut with the loss of the shuttle program than an actual attempt to have a reliable, low-cost launch system. Most people I've talked with who have watched it's floundering through one problem after another, looked at how overweight the system is, the extreme measures they're having to go through to make fundamental design flaws tolerable (like having shock absorbers even on the seats of the crew to stop them from being shaken to death -- i.e., the rest of the craft is still going to shake like crazy, which translates to unreliability), aren't terribly enthused.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that any mods are paying attention to this thread any more, but this "Score:5, Insightful" post is based on a faulty premise. Bulk material of these clusters would conduct thanks to the Josephson effect.
No-one's lost their life on a Soyuz vehicle since 1971, and they're still flying today.
Did you not read what I just wrote? "Sure, they haven't had any manned Soyuz losses recently, but that's demonstrably just luck; unmanned Soyuz keep blowing up (and killing ground crew, too)".
They should have a sign up outside Baikonur... "Safety is #1! [ 37 ] years since a fatal accident".
Try 5 1/2 years. Yes, he was on the ground and was killed by falling debris from an exploding Soyuz, but it was still an *exploding Soyuz*. Had there been people on it, they'd have been dead, too.
What manned stack with a statistically significant number of manned launches are you thinking of that has a better safety track record than the shuttle? Soyuz's record is about the same. Sure, they haven't had any manned Soyuz losses recently, but that's demonstrably just luck; unmanned Soyuz keep blowing up (and killing ground crew, too). And there have been a number of manned Soyuz close calls, too.
Sadly, a ~2% rate of total loss isn't a bad number when it comes to manned spaceflight.
The big deal with this discovery isn't that the possibilities the new materials they've found are endless. They actually underperform what we already have. It's that we don't understand how what we have (cuprate superconductors) works, but if we did, we could potentially find much higher-temperature superconductors. This gives us a key to help understand high temperature superconductivity. And the possibilities of high-temperature superconductors would be endless (assuming they could be made affordably).
On a serious note, anyone think this might be Blackswift we're seeing? Of course, Blackswift, AFAIK, wasn't supposed to be orbital. I'm noticing that it looks awfully similar to parts of their Space Launch Initiative proposal. Long, fat fuselage, so it's probably burning hydrogen, whatever it is.
Anyone know what exactly we're looking at here?
Basically, you're saying that you have created your own religion, no? By forming a set of presuppositions that you are happy with, you now have the faith to belive in your own construct of reality and "truth".
I wouldn't exactly say that I have the faith to believe in my own construct -- more that I have the will to. I know that my construct is entirely what it is -- a construct entirely made out of whole cloth. One could call it a religion, in that I build my morality and live my life around it, but I have no faith that it is somehow in any way some sort of universal truth. It simply provides convenience in making choices. It's like being adrift in deep space with not a star in sight, and setting up a sign that points out the X, Y, and Z axes. There's absolutely no inherent truth to those axes, but they give you something you can navigate based on.
Not to nitpick, but I think you've somewhat oversimplified things when you suggest that a religious person (however you define that) merely adheres to their beliefs because of a sense of divine punishment. I'm sure you've heard of the Christian concept of Grace?
True, I did oversimplify. There are many different viewpoints among religious people in the world, and to group them all together like that was perhaps unfair. Most religious people I've known do believe that they must adhere to their religious principles out of sense of divine reward/punishment, but not all.
What truly is the underpinning for any morality at all if everything exists because of random chance?
;). A religious person adheres to their beliefs because of a sense of divine punishment. A humanist adheres to their beliefs because to violate them is to betray one's self revert to nihilism.
Read some Nietzsche. Learn about existentialism, perspectivism, nihilism. Questions on the existence of meaning in a world devoid of objective truth have already been asked and answered a countless times over throughout the ages.
My story? As a teenager (unversed in philosophy), I reached the same point as Kierkegaard's "Young Man":
How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the managerI have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint?
In a world devoid of objective truth, rationalism leads to an inherent contradiction. Love is meaningless, hate is meaningless. Joy, what people strive for, meaningless. Given this, what meaning is there to any choice? None. What reason to not, say, walk around naked all the time? None. What reason to live at all? None. No *inherent* meaning. Yet, choices are continually taken. To stop living, that *too* would be a choice. No matter what you choose, there are ultimately meaningless consequences associated with it.
To make a choice, I independently invented existentialism. No choice you make has an inherent meaning. But you can *create* meaning. In fact, you don't need to create meaning for every individual action; all you need is to create overarching principles, and everything else falls from that. Yes, your principles are utterly meaningless. In existentialism, you know this and you accept this. Note that the only difference between existentialism and a standard theistic viewpoint of a universe of objective truth is that someone else told you a particular set of principles and you accepted them without question. At least in existentialism, you have a choice.
My choice began with what I'd term "lazy existentialism". Going with the flow; it's the easiest way. Adopting the general basic principles of society around me -- not every nuance, many of which are contradictory, but the overarching elements. This quickly formed into the independent invention of humanism. The morality of humanism would be quite familiar to most people with a religious worldview -- except that it's a lot less self-contradictory and judgemental
But this is a brief summary, and just my particular case for the evolution of my worldview evolution. Philosophy is a far broader topic.
Now, quickly, everyone search through the papers for Swastikas or Nazi propaganda. I hear Ben Stein would sell out his dignity for something like that.
While payback period may be the easiest measure to calculate, it's not a very good one. You really need to be calculating either IRR or mortgage length if you want to determine whether something is a good investment. They're different ways to measure the same thing. Basically, when you install something like a wind turbine or solar setup, you're buying an annuity. You need to show that that annuity is a better investment than other comparable investments on the open market.
You're right. I've never used a dewalt power tool. I've never talked with people who use them in hobby aircraft building. And it's not like I've read half a dozen *peer reviewed* papers on the subject. No, live in your own little world.
Electrolysis isn't limited to 50% efficiency. AFAIK, some high temperature steam cells are over 85%.
The real problem with hydrogen is that it's an utter PITA to store (i.e., expensive) and fuel cells are, and for the forseable future will be, way too expensive compared to their power output (a few kilowatts costing you tens of thousands of dollars -- and lifespan is not unlimited). In other words, the capital costs will kill you every time. There's one proposal to use the supposed "hydrogen economy" and have cars be both your storage tanks and generators. But that scenario is never going to happen; BEVs and PHEVs have already won. Lithium phosphate BEVs now can match hydrogen in terms of charge/refill time (using far cheaper infrastructure), beat it in safety, approximately match it in range per unit weight and volume (it's hard to do a direct comparison, as you're comparing kWh of storage with kW of power output in fuel cells plus the tank and fuel), blow it away in operation cost, beat it in purchase price, and blow it away in system efficiency. And battery tech is advancing a lot faster than hydrogen tech, and given what's in the lab right now, will continue to do so for a good long time. Plus, the "greens" who they expect to buy this tech by and large prefer BEVs (for the above reasons, especially the several-times-over efficiency advantage).
Corr: The line that starts "Not. Even. Close." should read:
"Not. Even. Close. 0.2 MJ/kg for Zebras (~90Wh/kg) < 42 MJ/kg for Diesel"
I don't mean to be too harsh on Zebras, but really, they're simply obsolete tech. A few companies still use them because they're "mature" (the prototype for the Smart EV, for example), but they have way too little power and the heating requirement is a waste and can be a pain in a number of situations. And they only last a few thousand cycles. They really have absolutely no advantages over LiP or any of the other long-life li-ion variants. And their obsolete nature shows; check out the reviews of the drive in the Smart EV. That's, what, 0-60 in "quite a while"?
Please, for the love of God, read up on the modern li-ion variants before you post again. Read up about lithium phosphates (in particular, lithium iron phosphate). Read up about the titanates. Read up about the spinels. Read up about the upcoming affordable BEV and PHEV lines from major manufacturers and new startups alike -- the Volt, the MiEV, the R1e, the Aptera, the VentureOne, the Loremo, and on and on. It's all variants on lithium ion, mostly LiP. Extreme charge effiency (~99.9%), very long life, safe, extreme power density, and while they don't have the energy density of their traditional li-ion bretheren (they're only ~100Wh/kg, although that's improving), their other qualities make them extremely attractive for automotive applications.
nope, you'd get 100% of the electrons through it.
Which is known as 100% efficiency.
But in the real world cost matters
Which nobody is denying.
with cooling costs
Cooling costs in space are zero. All you need is a proper reflector/radiator setup.
and atmospheric drag, this line would take all the energy from the orbit of the moon bringing it to the ground.
Then just picture it running through empty. This is a thought exercise. There is a huge distinction between "cost to build" and "efficiency of operation".
OK, I'll admit if you don't want to count manufacturing costs, or maintaince costs, but only energy in use
The energy used in building power transmission infrastructure is utterly dwarfed by the three-phase loads it carries in its lifespan.
Gas is still much cheaper.
No, it is not. An Aptera goes, with my current power rates, half a penny per mile. Show me a gasoline car that does that. At $3/gal, a 30mpg car costs $0.10 per mile.
Gasoline is an *incredibly expensive* power source. Joule per joule, it's *30 times more expensive* than powder river basin coal, for example.
look at this car, according to wikipedia Lithium costs 2.8-5 Wh/US$ to buy, get 300 to 1200 cycles.
For the last time, we're *NOT* talking about traditional li-ion; we're talking about *variants* on li-ion chemistry, such as phosphates, titanates, and spinels in current gen batteries, and lithium vanadium oxide, tin nanoparticles, and silicon nanowires in next gen. How many times are you going to repeat this straw man? A123 rates their batteries for 10+ years, 7k+ cycles, and even then, you're only looking at 10-20% loss in charge capacity. LG Chem expects theirs to last for 40 years in typical use. These are more like Edison Cells in terms of reliability.
battery cost of lithium polymers
We're NOT talking about lithium polymer either! Cut with the straw men.
I am test engineer in charge of a 3000 Hp Hybrid vehicle prototype running some very hot Sodium batterys
Lol, zebras? Yeah, wake me up when you work with anything that'll ever be relevant.
and their energy density is actually greater than diesiel fuel per weight.
Not. Even. Close. 0.2 Trust me, I know their are no batterys available for purchase by any person, or a company for mass production that has energy density, cycle times and efficiency for a reasonable cost per Kw Hr
Oh, you're right. It's not like *Freaking Dewalt Power Tool Battery Packs* use A123 LiP batteries or anything. Or several other brands now. Or like they're becoming the defacto standard for hobby aircraft and helicopters. Or like virtually all new EVs and electric motorcycles from major companies are using them, or like most hybrids are switching over (a couple are still sticking with NiMH, but not many). Or like any of the following companies exist and produce these batteries: A123, AltairNano, Compact, Ener1, Hitachi, Johnson Controls, Lithium Tech, Maxwell, Automotive Energy, Panasonic, Valence, Toshiba. It's not like these batteries are powering vehicles like the Killacycle and Wrightspeed X1 that almost beat *gasoline vehicle performance records*
No, go live in your little fantasy world where none of this exists.
Sorry if I'm snapping at you, but I'm amazed that you're continuing a debate about something that you know absolutely nothing about.
Most designs for solar thermal in a world that relies strongly on it are for either "combined cycle" plants, where solar either augments or completely replaces another heat source when the sun is out (and are capable of ramping output of the other thermal source up and down accordingly), or have some sort of energy storage system. Pumped energy storage, for example, can cost as little as 3-4 cents per kilowatt hour -- low enough that some places in China are using it in the opposite direction (using existing power plants to pump water at night and then letting it suppliment power during the day). If solar thermal can be made cheap enough, the energy storage issue can be compensated for.
I'm a big backer of solar. Even more than solar thermal, I'm bullish about photovoltaics. CIGS is taking off like there's no tomorrow. There's sliver cells, there's silicon ink, there's dye-sensitized cells, there's super-efficient silicon cells, and on, and on, with each tech advancing by leaps and bounds (just yesterday in the news, dye-sensitized cells got a big boost by the demonstration of 2 1/2 times their previous record sensitivity via nanoscale "popcorn balls"). And on top of this, silicon cells -- the ever-pricy cells that are still growing at 30-40% per year -- should have their prices fall dramatically in the next few years thanks to an upcoming "silicon glut".
High purity silicon is traditionally made from CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposition), a slow and costly process. These plants take a while to build, so the solar boom has completely outstripped supply. To try and catch up for this high-profit raw material, many new plants are under construction and will be coming online soon -- enough that they could possibly create a glut on their own (let alone with all of the silicon-reducing panel techs underway). But now, a couple companies have announced techs for producing high purity silicon in metallurgical processes (I.e., molten silicon, not CVD). Which means far faster plant construction times and far lower product costs. And investors are lining up. So, by all measures, it looks like the silicon shortage will be turning into a silicon glut, which means cheaper panels all around.
*That said*, while I used to feel that low enough cost solar plus pumped storage (or advances in battery storage, which are coming pretty rapidly in their own right these days) could mostly power the future, I'd have to recommend strongly against that. All because I stumbled into this quote that reminded me of something I had not thought of:
"During this year a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness? and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear." -- Byzantine historian Procopius, 536 AD
Volcanoes. Unfortunately, volcanic events major enough to decrease the sun's light significantly are not rare, and some in human history have virtually blotted it out. Even in fairly modern human history -- for example, the Year Without A Summer, 1816, from the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, and later, the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa -- volcanic events have caused devastating blocking of the sun's light. When your civilization is relying on solar power, even a regional affect could be catastrophic on its own, let alone combined with poor harvests and the like.
As a consequence, while I feel solar may be a good way to offset our peak loads and even drive prices down, I'd hate to see our civilization become reliant on it. I think EGS is a much more reliable clean, renewable baseload power source. Let's hope it works out to be economical.
sorry, but in a established market like this, cost pretty much does equal efficiency
Not even close. We could run a superconductor from here to the moon, and it would be 100% efficient. It'd cost an *Utter Fortune*, but it'd still be 100% efficient. You're trying to equate two concepts that are *not* related. The cost of power transmission infrastructure has nothing to do with how efficient it is.
After all all the copper
Power transmission infrastructure is mostly aluminum and steel.
ok 45% is the efficiency the power plant would hit, and 20% was the "typical" vehicle total use
Which means that EVs are a lot more efficient. As pretty much every peer reviewed study on this topic has stated. Which you'd know if you were debating a topic that you actually knew something about.
with 300 typical charge cycles for a lithium battery
Did you notice the word "variant" above? Again, you're out of your league here, so I'm going to have to back up and explain some basics to you. Li-ion now covers a whole family of batteries. Traditional li-ion batteries use a lithium cobalt oxide cathode and a graphite anode. The cobalt is all-around the most problematic element. It's expensive and it likes to lead to runaway decomposition and various problems that shorten lifespan. There are a number of alternatives -- for example, spinels. The most popular replacement cathode is LiP -- lithium phosphate variants, usually lithium iron phosphate. The energy density is reduced (although still better than NiMH, and far, far superior to lead-acid). In exchange, you get very long lifespan -- A123 rates theirs for 10+ years and 7000+ cycles, and even then, that only means you've lost 15-20% of the capacity. They're also very fire resistant. It's a beautiful battery chemistry for EV apps; almost all new highway-speed EVs are using it. A notable exception is Tesla, which uses traditional li-ion since it's currently cheaper (although won't be once LiP is in mass production) and because their customers can afford replacements. Another options competing for market share are titanate chemistries, lithium vanadium oxide, and Argonne lab's layered cathode. In the future, there's silicon nanowire and tin nanoparticle anodes for extreme energy density.
Again, you really need to read about this topic before you debate it.
Where I live, more than half the cost of electric is in the delivery/line charge.
:)
It doesn't matter how much is in the "delivery line charge"; cost does not equal efficiency. In the US, the average transmission efficiency is 92.8%.
you lose 15% in the charger
AC Propulsion's 20kW charger is 93% efficient, while their 150kW charger is 90% efficient. That's pretty typical for non-inductive chargers.
and another 30% to the lead acid battery.
Lead-acid battery? Lol, what do you think we're talking about here, golf carts? NEVs? Even Firefly lead acid batteries are simply unsuitable for these sort of tasks. Way too short lifespan, way to inefficient, way too low energy density. We're talking about lithium ion variants. Lithium ion batteries are over 99% efficient (that's why they charge and discharge cool).
So while at the power plant rock in efficiency, it doubles in cost getting to my house
Please learn to separate the concepts of "cost" and "efficiency".
My understanding is Gas engine are 70-80% efficient
Try about 20%, give or take.
It's okay to be unfamiliar with this topic. Just educate yourself so you're more informed for future debates and we can talk some more.
I thought the record for a Citroën AX was 87mpg. Their own company website states 78.5mpg highway, 55.4mpg city. And if those are imperial gallons, you need to reduce it (they don't state what kind of gallons). And I don't know about in Europe, but US mpg ratings have been lowered from what they were in the 90s to reflect more real-world driving conditions.
Well, I'm not sure you'd call it "normal", but if what you meant was "streetlegal, typical vehicle performance, and not cramped", I'd say the answer is now. Compare the Aptera with Pac Car II. And yes, it's competing in the X-Prize.
Sure, the results of these extreme efficiency competitions aren't directly applicable, but the engineering can make its way into mainstream cars. Mainstream cars have to deal with a *lot* of things other than just efficiency -- everything from how you turn on the high beams to the motor for the windshield wipers. These sorts of contests simplify things.
Given the course length and time it gets covered in, roughly 15mph, give or take.
Probably the two most advanced "affordable" EV/PHEV projects right now are the Aptera (both the $27k Typ-1e and $30k Typ-1h) and the $25k Mitsubishi MiEV. You could probably get either by late next year, although you'll need to be tricky about it if you want it that soon (I'm getting my Aptera through a California intermediary). The Subaru R1e, also coming out in the same timeframe, doesn't cut it on range. The GM Volt will be $30-40k, with a late 2010/early 2011 timeframe. Another one to keep an eye on is the $25k VentureOne. If you don't mind tandem seating, it looks like a very fun ride. You may also want to watch Nissan-Renault and Think's offerings, and watch to see if Subaru decides to commercialize the G4e. All of these vehicles should be expected to be using long-life LiP batteries (10+ years with minimal degradation typical), with the exception of the G4e, which uses next generation, double energy density lithium vanadium oxide batteries (don't have info on their reliability yet)
:) ) for the electric-only version (not sure about the PHEV), energy efficient due to low cross-sectional area, and drives like a motorcycle -- the car automatically tilts into turns ("flying the road"). 0-60 in 7 seconds.
More detailed info on four of the less expensive models:
* Aptera: Space-age styling, lots of neat interior and safety features, 2 1/2 seater, extreme energy efficiency (~80Wh/mi; ~200 is typical for EVs). Efficient use of electricity means a smaller (and thus cheaper to replace) battery pack and faster charging on less power. Typ-1e gets 120 miles electric range while the Typ-1h goes 40 miles electric then gets 130mpg. 0-60 in 10 seconds.
* MiEV: More conventional styling, mainstream manufacturer, 4 seater, 120 mile range, lots of charging options. 0-60 in ~10 seconds (heard some conflicting info, but that should be approximately right).
* Volt: "Chopped" styling, mainstream manufacturer, 4 seater, 40 mile electric range PHEV, 50mpg after that. 0-60 in 8.5 seconds.
* VentureOne: Thin tandem two seater, 120 mile range (noticing a trend?
Its Shell sponsoring it, of course non-gasoline vehicles weren't eligible for the grand prize...
Damn corporate scams for cheap publicity and easy recruitment.
Hey, now, let's put this conspiracy theory through it's paces. So, Shell is hosting this competition for cheap publicity and easy recruitment, right? Then why would they rig the race -- the ultimate example of trying to earn bad publicity and discouraging recruitment? Or, if the rigging was hoping to promote gasoline while they still get cheap publicity and easy recruitment, by trying to imply that gasoline always wins or something (I'm trying to help your theory out here), then why did they allow other fuels compete at all? To make gasoline look bad so that they can then refuse to award them the prize?
It just doesn't make sense.
Look, oil companies have done a lot of bad things in the world -- some intentional, most unintentional, but still bad. But pretending that *everything* they do must have some sort of evil hidden motive to keep the world addicted to gasoline is just ridiculous. The other day, I sat down on a park bench that had a small plaque on the side that it had been donated by Shell. Clearly, that bench was an insidious attempt to get Americans to stop walking so that they become fat and lazy and need big SUVs to support their exercise-averse lifestyle, right?
Things like this serve many purposes. Some of them can get tax deductions. Some of them are an attempt to earn good PR or recruit. Some of them are, to be quite honest, a way to allow execs to feel all warm and fuzzy that they're doing good things in the world while they keep the oil flowing. But the concept that everything they do must be a plot to keep us hooked on gasoline is just dumb.
Rolling losses -- the dominant factor at low speeds -- *are* affected by weight. And for vehicles this aerodynamic, wind gusts are not exactly a major concern, even if they come from the side.
Well, I can't point you to a vehicle a tenth as efficient, but this car due out later this year comes in two models -- the Aptera Typ-1h, which gets 130mpg plus has a 40 mile all-electric range, and the Typ-1e all-electric with a 120 mile range. Since power plants have a higher thermodynamic efficiency from burning fuel than gas engines, while battery, charger, and transmission losses are very small, you're looking at almost 200mpg equivalent for the Typ-1e and for the first 40 miles of the Typ-1h's range. So, you're looking at roughly a 20th as efficient, give or take in either direction. The price is a bit steep for a two seater ($30k for the Typ-1h and $27k for the Typ-1e), but when you're nearly or completely eliminating a couple thousand dollars in money spent on gasoline per year for a hundred dollars spent on electricity, and cutting maintenance (the electric drivetrain only has the following moving parts: three wheels, one drive belt, one sealed brushless electric motor; not even a transmission), you can hit payback pretty quickly, and certainly pay off the difference over a normal car in several years. Not to mention, it's all sorts of crazy neat features like in-seatbelt airbags (like small planes use -- they don't explode toward you, but upwards to be between you and the dash, shielding your whole body), StreetDeck (a nifty nav/entertainment system), camera situational awareness displays, and so on.
They're currently moving into their production facility, and plan to offer test drives and factory tours in 30 to 60 days.
It's fundamentally not a fair comparison. For example, per kilogram, hydrogen has a lot more energy than gasoline. And fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Of course, to make that hydrogen, a lot more energy was wasted than when making gasoline. And that hydrogen is bulky, hitting range. But that wouldn't hurt it here; by your rules, hydrogen vehicles would win easily.
Anyways: to those who think these vehicles are whimsical and whose tech can't readily be applied to streetlegal cars: As I posted over on Autobloggreen.com, compare This eco-marathon winner with this car due out this fall.
Of course, you see the problems with commercializing these eco-racers as-is. They're not stable enough for high speeds (hence Aptera's need to broaden the front wheelbase, increasing the drag coeff, as well as wider tires for better handling), there's too much ground turbulence at high speeds (hence the higher body), they're not comfortable for passengers (hence the larger cross section), and they're not streetlegal (hence things like the truncated, not-completely-tapered tail). Also, there's the fact that by their very nature, things like "normal driving cycles" and "highway speeds" greatly increase drag. And all of this adds weight, too. Hence, "thousands of miles per gallon" turns into "130 miles per gallon" (in the Typ-1h). Still impressive, mind you.
While I wish he'd just redirect it to other (budget-cut) NASA programs instead, I'd be quite happy to see Project Constellation killed. Ares/Orion is a bad design built more around the politics of whose jobs would have to be cut with the loss of the shuttle program than an actual attempt to have a reliable, low-cost launch system. Most people I've talked with who have watched it's floundering through one problem after another, looked at how overweight the system is, the extreme measures they're having to go through to make fundamental design flaws tolerable (like having shock absorbers even on the seats of the crew to stop them from being shaken to death -- i.e., the rest of the craft is still going to shake like crazy, which translates to unreliability), aren't terribly enthused.