I am talking about typical vehicles. Yes, there are some with very large tanks for various purposes, but you'll need 6 times the volume for the same range as a tank of gas if you use the info from the OP. The benefits of Flow Batteries aret't so great as to warrant hauling around all that weight.
Regarding changes making unworkable solutions into workable solutions, well, there are some big changes still required to make flow batteries practical and economical for cars. Like I said, there are good reasons why auto makers are not seriously pursuing flow batteries.
Regarding air space, I believe there is typically some gassing space, but I could be wrong. As far as flow batteries in cars, I don't know what shift you are trying to make, but the discussion was clearly a flow battery in a vehicle.
It can be managed but not eliminated. There is really no good reason to pursue a path that requires so much liquid to begin with. Flow battery technology has not demonstrated the benefits to 'outweigh' the cons. That is why nobody is seriously pursuing it in the auto industry.
350 liters of liquid is about 6 times the typical gas fuel tank. That is a lot of liquid to carry around. Give it some air space and now you have shifting fluid affecting maneuverability. Just no need to have that much in a car.
flow batteries are nothing new , they have been around a long time. They are actually a good example of the incremental progress I was speaking to. They are interesting for certain applications, but are a long way from practical. The recycling part of the process becomes a factor, along with electrolyte recycling. But carrying about 350 litres of liquid doesn't make sense unless we are talking about some sort of large truck for transport. I don't know how well they perform as they discharge more than half their potential. I don't think it is as steady as a lithium ion battery, but might be mistaken.
Research into battery storage has been intense for 20 years. We've had promises of drastic improvements, and we have seen some significant improvements. Yes, R&D has picked up even more but improvements are more likely to be incremental than breakthrough.
No, it just makes it more likely we will discover life that has not achieved intelligence before we discover life that has achieved intelligence.
But you've just statistically reduced the pool of intelligent life to find by your definition, which would statistically reduce the chances of finding intelligent life that meets your definition.
naah. You create new intelligent life and what thanks do you get? They just go off, forgetting about you and giving credit to some other entity. Then they start messing with each other because they are bored, or sit around consuming stuff and getting bigger and uglier. Then they get big heads and think they can do a better job creating new life. There's just no reward in the whole thing.
So by your definition, no species can be considered intelligent until after it has survived for a few millennia. That would make it less likely we will find intelligent life.
Stories have a way of evolving over time. The cold war was a time of great uncertainty, fear, and distrust. The US and the Soviets were both very uncertain about the technical capabilities of each other. The realities of WWII were still fresh in the minds of many. So when something like this occurred that was not understood, defense mechanisms were kicked into action.
But that does not mean we were ready to push the button or we would have if some scientists hadn't stepped in. It seems that we went through a process of evaluating all of the possibilities, and with the insight of the space program contributors to that process we figured out the cause, and it happened fairly quickly.
I'm sure that over the years some of those scientists liked to tell the story of how they saved the day. And its inevitable that over time the implication of how close we were to pushing the button was enhanced to make the story more interesting. But reality is often a bit more boring and the most likely reality is that we were still early in the process of evaluating the situation and only taking preliminary defensive actions.
Its an interesting story nonetheless, but time has its way of dramatizing things.
This is one issue where the FCC's categorization of ISPs as a utility, and Net Neutrality rules, work in the favor of ISPs. All content must be treated equally.
Meanwhile, cities and states are to be held liable for illegal good transported on their streets. Fed-ex for deliveries that support criminal activity, Utilities for supplying power to criminals, phone companies for those who plot over the phone, etc..
They should include an 'effort to success' ratio to rate these hypothetical attack vectors. In general, how hard is it vs. how likely you are to successfully apply it in a real world situation. I'd say the ES ratio here is quite high.
Even so, the projected costs for the plant are several times the cost of similar plants using the same design. Even assuming they go with nuclear, they can get a much better deal.
Not several times, but higher. There are two plants here proposed for the UK, to be built next to each other, not just one. I see that confused a lot.
But the most recent estimate for installing wind for Scotland is shown here to be $6.46/w, a far cry from the $1.50 you came up with. Reality is a bitch.
The post you and others responded to, which I made, specifically was talking about the UK. I had a lot of responses restricted to talking about Scotland. I'm not making the mistake.
I agree with the FCC's position that cities should be able to install those services, and I also agree with the ruling that it is outside their authority.
If any federal government authority could rule on such a matter, it should be the SEC, not the FCC. It is a matter of business practice, competition, and monopolies. It is not a matter of how communications are performed or restricted. The FCC's authority should apply equally to any provider of such services and be blind to who is providing them.
Not enough to meet the needs of the entire UK. It depends on your definition of massive, I suppose. Depending only on wind for any significant future generation additions is simply not practical.
The health impact of C8 has zero to do with my comment, nor did a say in any way it was or was not pretty bad for you. That you somehow applied that to me is a case of making a false argument, which you again demonstrated quite clearly.
If only there were a PRACTICAL and COST EFFECTIVE form of renewable energy that could be utilized by a giant island... hmmm.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
Slashdot Mirror
Oh great, our grid will be so unreliable that we'll have to put batteries in our appliances. How wonderful.
I am talking about typical vehicles. Yes, there are some with very large tanks for various purposes, but you'll need 6 times the volume for the same range as a tank of gas if you use the info from the OP. The benefits of Flow Batteries aret't so great as to warrant hauling around all that weight.
Regarding changes making unworkable solutions into workable solutions, well, there are some big changes still required to make flow batteries practical and economical for cars. Like I said, there are good reasons why auto makers are not seriously pursuing flow batteries.
Regarding air space, I believe there is typically some gassing space, but I could be wrong. As far as flow batteries in cars, I don't know what shift you are trying to make, but the discussion was clearly a flow battery in a vehicle.
It can be managed but not eliminated. There is really no good reason to pursue a path that requires so much liquid to begin with. Flow battery technology has not demonstrated the benefits to 'outweigh' the cons. That is why nobody is seriously pursuing it in the auto industry.
350 liters of liquid is about 6 times the typical gas fuel tank. That is a lot of liquid to carry around. Give it some air space and now you have shifting fluid affecting maneuverability. Just no need to have that much in a car.
flow batteries are nothing new , they have been around a long time. They are actually a good example of the incremental progress I was speaking to. They are interesting for certain applications, but are a long way from practical. The recycling part of the process becomes a factor, along with electrolyte recycling. But carrying about 350 litres of liquid doesn't make sense unless we are talking about some sort of large truck for transport. I don't know how well they perform as they discharge more than half their potential. I don't think it is as steady as a lithium ion battery, but might be mistaken.
Research into battery storage has been intense for 20 years. We've had promises of drastic improvements, and we have seen some significant improvements. Yes, R&D has picked up even more but improvements are more likely to be incremental than breakthrough.
I would much rather have these vulnerabilities than to have my hair on fire.
No, it just makes it more likely we will discover life that has not achieved intelligence before we discover life that has achieved intelligence.
But you've just statistically reduced the pool of intelligent life to find by your definition, which would statistically reduce the chances of finding intelligent life that meets your definition.
naah. You create new intelligent life and what thanks do you get? They just go off, forgetting about you and giving credit to some other entity. Then they start messing with each other because they are bored, or sit around consuming stuff and getting bigger and uglier. Then they get big heads and think they can do a better job creating new life. There's just no reward in the whole thing.
So by your definition, no species can be considered intelligent until after it has survived for a few millennia. That would make it less likely we will find intelligent life.
I'd say they tainted themselves by behaving in a manner that resulted in allegations. There certainly is evidence about how they are not delivering.
I don't think it is the allegations that are tainting them.
Stories have a way of evolving over time. The cold war was a time of great uncertainty, fear, and distrust. The US and the Soviets were both very uncertain about the technical capabilities of each other. The realities of WWII were still fresh in the minds of many. So when something like this occurred that was not understood, defense mechanisms were kicked into action.
But that does not mean we were ready to push the button or we would have if some scientists hadn't stepped in. It seems that we went through a process of evaluating all of the possibilities, and with the insight of the space program contributors to that process we figured out the cause, and it happened fairly quickly.
I'm sure that over the years some of those scientists liked to tell the story of how they saved the day. And its inevitable that over time the implication of how close we were to pushing the button was enhanced to make the story more interesting. But reality is often a bit more boring and the most likely reality is that we were still early in the process of evaluating the situation and only taking preliminary defensive actions.
Its an interesting story nonetheless, but time has its way of dramatizing things.
This is one issue where the FCC's categorization of ISPs as a utility, and Net Neutrality rules, work in the favor of ISPs. All content must be treated equally.
Meanwhile, cities and states are to be held liable for illegal good transported on their streets. Fed-ex for deliveries that support criminal activity, Utilities for supplying power to criminals, phone companies for those who plot over the phone, etc..
They should include an 'effort to success' ratio to rate these hypothetical attack vectors. In general, how hard is it vs. how likely you are to successfully apply it in a real world situation. I'd say the ES ratio here is quite high.
An actual recent estimate for installing wind for Scotland is shown here to be $6.46/w installed, a far cry from the $1.50 claimed.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/23...
Even so, the projected costs for the plant are several times the cost of similar plants using the same design. Even assuming they go with nuclear, they can get a much better deal.
Not several times, but higher. There are two plants here proposed for the UK, to be built next to each other, not just one. I see that confused a lot.
wind: $1.50 / .32 = $4.70 / Wc
But the most recent estimate for installing wind for Scotland is shown here to be $6.46/w, a far cry from the $1.50 you came up with. Reality is a bitch.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/23...
The post you and others responded to, which I made, specifically was talking about the UK. I had a lot of responses restricted to talking about Scotland. I'm not making the mistake.
I agree with the FCC's position that cities should be able to install those services, and I also agree with the ruling that it is outside their authority.
If any federal government authority could rule on such a matter, it should be the SEC, not the FCC. It is a matter of business practice, competition, and monopolies. It is not a matter of how communications are performed or restricted. The FCC's authority should apply equally to any provider of such services and be blind to who is providing them.
Not enough to meet the needs of the entire UK. It depends on your definition of massive, I suppose. Depending only on wind for any significant future generation additions is simply not practical.
The health impact of C8 has zero to do with my comment, nor did a say in any way it was or was not pretty bad for you. That you somehow applied that to me is a case of making a false argument, which you again demonstrated quite clearly.
If only there were a PRACTICAL and COST EFFECTIVE form of renewable energy that could be utilized by a giant island... hmmm.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .