Yep, it is France's 75% Nuclear power that is powering Europe. The previous French government had a plan to decrease France's Nuclear sector from 75% to 50% but luckily the new French government is reversing that plan. Otherwise, that would of been disaster for Europe's C02 emission reductions plan.
It is the natural gas peeker power stations that should be worried about any large scale deployment of grid storage. Adding battery storage to the grid is the end-game to get rid of gas fired power stations. Note that grid storage helps increase Nuclear power output because the minimum constant baseload level increases which would also help to kill off gas fired power stations.
One way of deploying grid storage is to use electric cars to feed power back into the grid whilst connected to the charge point. Electric cars charge during the night which also raises the minimum constant baseload level. Therefore, Nuclear could play a bigger role.
On the other hand solar, and wind deployments with on-site battery storage will likely increase at a rate that will mean no new Nuclear power stations need to be built.
That is why a new entrant into a market can totally disrupt the market.
Telsa is like Apple. Apple totally disrupted the mobile phone market. Tesla is disrupting the car and energy markets.
SpaceX is is disrupting the rocket market and already has a third of the launch business.
Incumbents typically lose the battle against disruptive new entrants. Governments can delay the inevitable by interfering in the market but cheaper, cleaner and more efficient solutions win at the end of the day.
By 2025, the battery electric car will be dominate because:
1. In 2025, Norway will ban the sale of all petrol and diesel cars. Today, 40% of new cars sold in Norway come with a plug for charging. 2. The deployment S-curve is exponential which means linear thinking will give wrong results. Just look at the fossil fuel industry's linear predictions for the loss of oil sales due to the deployment of battery electric cars as an example of wrong headed thinking. Like Kodak for film versus CCD cameras.
Car manufacturers are getting the "big stick" from governments and cities that indicates the sale of their current vehicles are at risk of being prohibited in 7 years time in some markets. The car manufacturers have to adapt today or die. The only mass market viable solution for 2025 is battery electric.
Rapid S-curve deployments have seen:
Audio CDs replaced by Music downloads Dial-up modems replaced by cable modems Dumb mobile phones replaced by smartphones - new entrant was Apple Film replaced by CCD cameras CRT monitors replaced by LCD monitors Discreet transistors replaced by microchips Thermionic valve (tube) based equipment replaced by transistors Horse and cart replaced by the car
History is full of the status quo changing "overnight".
Hydrogen is already dead, it just does not know it yet.
If massive amounts of grid storage were available such as in the range 1TWh to 10TWh then you could run the whole grid from grid storage. In other words, the grid storage powers the grid, and the power sources charge up the grid storage. This would eliminate the need to have any fast responding power sources.
Note that recent nuclear catastrophes have occurred in old nuclear plants. Fukushima was due for decommissioning before the natural disaster occurred. Human error of not foreseeing the catastrophe was the failure here. Engineering practises are developed upon failures which should lead to better future designs.
Do not forget that an electric drivetrain is more efficient than an ICE drivetrain:
ICE drivetrain is 30% efficient per unit of energy source Electric drivetrain is 90% efficient per unit of energy source
This means batteries need to have 30/90 = 1/3rd the energy density of gasoline for the electric vehicle to have the same energy usage at the wheels as the ICE vehicle.
Also: 1. An electric vehicle can be more aerodynamic than an ICE vehicle so an electric vehicle suffers less drag and therefore there is an efficiency gain over the ICE vehicle. 2. Electric vehicle can have regenerative braking systems which converts the kinetic energy back into stored electrical energy which makes an electric vehicle more efficient than an ICE vehicle on roads with varying gradients.
Therefore, the battery energy density is a major factor in the range of the vehicle but it is not the only factor.
Hmm, check your facts. The US space program used many German scientists and engineers recruited after the 2nd World War. The most famous German being Wernher von Braun the architect of the Saturn V.
Force (Netwons) = mass (kilograms) x acceleration (metres per second per second)
The moon has 1/6 the acceleration due to gravity than the earth:
On the surface of the earth, acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s/s.
On the surface of the moon. acceleration due to gravity is 1.620 m/s/s.
Therefore your weight is as follows:
On Earth, your weight (force) = 85 x 9.81 = 834 Newtons
On the moon, your weight (force) = 85 x 1.620 = 138 Newtons
One of the reasons you say your "weight is 14kg on the moon" is because conceptually it is easier to understand what 14kg is than what 138 Newtons is. But scientifically speaking weight is not measured in kg.
When you tell your doctor your weight, you are actually telling your doctor your mass. For example in the UK, doctors use the BMI (Body Mass Index) to calculate how overweight you are but despite mass being mentioned in the term they ask for your "weight" in kilograms, doh!
Unfortunately, many people confuse weight with mass because of the environment in which they were taught. For example, if you go to your doctor, and the doctor asks you for your weight, no-one says I weigh 850 Newtons which is technically the correct scientific answer.
Newton's equation of force = mass x acceleration which tells us that the force due to gravity aka weight is proportional to the mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.
In the metric system: force is in Newtons mass is in kilograms acceleration is in metres per second per second
This means kilograms is mass and is proportional to weight. Unfortunately, this proportionality allows people to pretend that kilograms are a force which is not the case.
My point was that adding the clarification of "metric" to "metric tonne" is technically redundant because tonne is metric and was spelt tonne to avoid any confusion with ton (imperial). It is like saying "wet water". By definition water is wet.
Centigrade was renamed to Celsius in 1954 to honour Anders Celsius who devised a similar temperature scale that had the freezing point of water to be 100 and the boiling point of water to be 0 (in reverse order to centigrade). Therefore centigrade is an obsolete term and I agree that Celsius and centigrade are the same.
Yep, the USA failed to get some "updates" to England's Weights and Measures Act due to US Independence resulting in US Gallons not being the same as Imperial Gallons (British).
Imagine your new car came with a full tank of fuel but there was no way of refilling the tank. When the fuel tank becomes empty, you have to buy a new car. Now substitute "car" for "rocket" and you can see that throwing away rockets is costly and can be cheaper by reusing the rocket just like reusing a car.
The world population needs to be taken into account because the population density was much lower in the past. Therefore, during the industrial revolution, there was insufficient people available for work which forced innovations such as the steam engine.
In modern times, people need to have good education in order to have good paying jobs. AI will start to take away the jobs of educated people and these people will find it hard to get a new job. We should worry about AI making humanity redundant.
That semi-trailer is illegal Europe due to a lack of side impact protection which prevents cars from submarining under the trailer taking the car's roof off. Therefore, the crash was not a fluke but was due to poor trailer design because this crash is impossible in Europe.
Had side impact protection bars been fitted to the trailer then:
1. the Tesla's radar system would have had a better chance of detecting the trailer and triggering an emergency stop 2. on impact with the trailer, the Tesla's front crumple zone and air bags would have deployed helping to protect the driver
The driver still may not have survived due to the high deceleration but at least the safety systems (separate from auto-pilot) would have been used.
Not to mention the ecological disaster that there would be if evil radiation were to leak in space! Do people not realize it is the one truly pristine environment left?
I can see that you are no scientist because your facts are wrong. Radiation is a natural phenomenon in the environment on Earth and in Space. We need to avoid being exposed to too much radiation because that can kill.
Space can have high levels of radiation depending on how close you get to the source. The main source of radiation in the solar system is the Sun and you would die without the radiation from the Sun. The Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere help to prevent damaging radiation from hitting the Earth's surface. The Earth remains hot at the core partly due to radioactive decay generating heat.
Each banana you eat is radioactive due to Potassium naturally decaying. We are naturally radioactive but at a low rate.
As well as radiation via photons (light), there are Alpha particles (Helium nuclei), Beta particles (Electrons) and Gamma waves (High energy electromagnetic radiation) plus other sub-atomic particles. The amount of damage you get depends on the exposure level, duration of exposure and type of radiation.
The 2 small nuclear bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII were air-bust explosions so the radioactive fallout was minimal and that is why people can live in these areas in Japan today. It was the release of a large amount of energy in a short period of time that caused people to die. It was not the radioactive decay radiation that killed people.
If you look at the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Radioactive material got into the environment. Some workers died because they had to work close to the source of the radioactive radiation. However, outside the exclusion zones the impact will be small on people's health. The radioactive material decays over time and the decay rate is know as "half-life". In Chernobyl, there are now tourists because the level of radiation has dropped to safe levels.
It will be all over for fossil cars in 10 years time. You are aware that Norway is banning the sale of new fossil cars in 2025 ? That is in 8 years time! I recommend you don't sleep for 10 years because fossil cars will be on the endangered list for going extinct in 2025.
FYI. Norway is an oil producing nation in Europe that gets a high percentage of their power from clean hydro power. Norway has the biggest EV market per capita in the world. Currently 42% of new car sales in Norway are electric. This is because the Norwegian government is using big incentives for EVs and big disincentives for fossil cars in order to change their population's buying habits.
Model 3 has Level 5 autonomous hardware, it just needs the software to be completed and for governments to ratify that autonomous vehicles are allowed to operate in their countries. My guess is that this will take 2 to 5 years from now to legally use Level 5. So Tesla just needs to download the certified autonomous software over the air in a few years time.
Being pedantic, I think you mean drive around the perimeter because the UK is not a circle so circumference is nonsensical. Unless you meant, drive in a circle ?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, it is France's 75% Nuclear power that is powering Europe. The previous French government had a plan to decrease France's Nuclear sector from 75% to 50% but luckily the new French government is reversing that plan. Otherwise, that would of been disaster for Europe's C02 emission reductions plan.
It is the natural gas peeker power stations that should be worried about any large scale deployment of grid storage. Adding battery storage to the grid is the end-game to get rid of gas fired power stations. Note that grid storage helps increase Nuclear power output because the minimum constant baseload level increases which would also help to kill off gas fired power stations.
One way of deploying grid storage is to use electric cars to feed power back into the grid whilst connected to the charge point. Electric cars charge during the night which also raises the minimum constant baseload level. Therefore, Nuclear could play a bigger role.
On the other hand solar, and wind deployments with on-site battery storage will likely increase at a rate that will mean no new Nuclear power stations need to be built.
That is why a new entrant into a market can totally disrupt the market.
Telsa is like Apple. Apple totally disrupted the mobile phone market. Tesla is disrupting the car and energy markets.
SpaceX is is disrupting the rocket market and already has a third of the launch business.
Incumbents typically lose the battle against disruptive new entrants. Governments can delay the inevitable by interfering in the market but cheaper, cleaner and more efficient solutions win at the end of the day.
By 2025, the battery electric car will be dominate because:
1. In 2025, Norway will ban the sale of all petrol and diesel cars. Today, 40% of new cars sold in Norway come with a plug for charging.
2. The deployment S-curve is exponential which means linear thinking will give wrong results. Just look at the fossil fuel industry's linear predictions for the loss of oil sales due to the deployment of battery electric cars as an example of wrong headed thinking. Like Kodak for film versus CCD cameras.
Car manufacturers are getting the "big stick" from governments and cities that indicates the sale of their current vehicles are at risk of being prohibited in 7 years time in some markets. The car manufacturers have to adapt today or die. The only mass market viable solution for 2025 is battery electric.
Rapid S-curve deployments have seen:
Audio CDs replaced by Music downloads
Dial-up modems replaced by cable modems
Dumb mobile phones replaced by smartphones - new entrant was Apple
Film replaced by CCD cameras
CRT monitors replaced by LCD monitors
Discreet transistors replaced by microchips
Thermionic valve (tube) based equipment replaced by transistors
Horse and cart replaced by the car
History is full of the status quo changing "overnight".
Hydrogen is already dead, it just does not know it yet.
If massive amounts of grid storage were available such as in the range 1TWh to 10TWh then you could run the whole grid from grid storage. In other words, the grid storage powers the grid, and the power sources charge up the grid storage. This would eliminate the need to have any fast responding power sources.
Note that recent nuclear catastrophes have occurred in old nuclear plants. Fukushima was due for decommissioning before the natural disaster occurred. Human error of not foreseeing the catastrophe was the failure here. Engineering practises are developed upon failures which should lead to better future designs.
Do not forget that an electric drivetrain is more efficient than an ICE drivetrain:
ICE drivetrain is 30% efficient per unit of energy source
Electric drivetrain is 90% efficient per unit of energy source
This means batteries need to have 30/90 = 1/3rd the energy density of gasoline for the electric vehicle to have the same energy usage at the wheels as the ICE vehicle.
Also:
1. An electric vehicle can be more aerodynamic than an ICE vehicle so an electric vehicle suffers less drag and therefore there is an efficiency gain over the ICE vehicle.
2. Electric vehicle can have regenerative braking systems which converts the kinetic energy back into stored electrical energy which makes an electric vehicle more efficient than an ICE vehicle on roads with varying gradients.
Therefore, the battery energy density is a major factor in the range of the vehicle but it is not the only factor.
Hmm, check your facts. The US space program used many German scientists and engineers recruited after the 2nd World War. The most famous German being Wernher von Braun the architect of the Saturn V.
On the moon your mass would still be 85kg.
Force (Netwons) = mass (kilograms) x acceleration (metres per second per second)
The moon has 1/6 the acceleration due to gravity than the earth:
On the surface of the earth, acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s/s.
On the surface of the moon. acceleration due to gravity is 1.620 m/s/s.
Therefore your weight is as follows:
On Earth, your weight (force) = 85 x 9.81 = 834 Newtons
On the moon, your weight (force) = 85 x 1.620 = 138 Newtons
One of the reasons you say your "weight is 14kg on the moon" is because conceptually it is easier to understand what 14kg is than what 138 Newtons is. But scientifically speaking weight is not measured in kg.
When you tell your doctor your weight, you are actually telling your doctor your mass. For example in the UK, doctors use the BMI (Body Mass Index) to calculate how overweight you are but despite mass being mentioned in the term they ask for your "weight" in kilograms, doh!
Unfortunately, many people confuse weight with mass because of the environment in which they were taught. For example, if you go to your doctor, and the doctor asks you for your weight, no-one says I weigh 850 Newtons which is technically the correct scientific answer.
Newton's equation of force = mass x acceleration which tells us that the force due to gravity aka weight is proportional to the mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.
In the metric system:
force is in Newtons
mass is in kilograms
acceleration is in metres per second per second
This means kilograms is mass and is proportional to weight. Unfortunately, this proportionality allows people to pretend that kilograms are a force which is not the case.
My point was that adding the clarification of "metric" to "metric tonne" is technically redundant because tonne is metric and was spelt tonne to avoid any confusion with ton (imperial). It is like saying "wet water". By definition water is wet.
Centigrade was renamed to Celsius in 1954 to honour Anders Celsius who devised a similar temperature scale that had the freezing point of water to be 100 and the boiling point of water to be 0 (in reverse order to centigrade). Therefore centigrade is an obsolete term and I agree that Celsius and centigrade are the same.
That is because people outside of the US don't know what a "pound" is.
Yep, the USA failed to get some "updates" to England's Weights and Measures Act due to US Independence resulting in US Gallons not being the same as Imperial Gallons (British).
By definition tonne is metric and ton is imperial.
However the US confuses things by calling a tonne, a metric ton.
Imagine your new car came with a full tank of fuel but there was no way of refilling the tank. When the fuel tank becomes empty, you have to buy a new car. Now substitute "car" for "rocket" and you can see that throwing away rockets is costly and can be cheaper by reusing the rocket just like reusing a car.
The world population needs to be taken into account because the population density was much lower in the past. Therefore, during the industrial revolution, there was insufficient people available for work which forced innovations such as the steam engine.
In modern times, people need to have good education in order to have good paying jobs. AI will start to take away the jobs of educated people and these people will find it hard to get a new job. We should worry about AI making humanity redundant.
That semi-trailer is illegal Europe due to a lack of side impact protection which prevents cars from submarining under the trailer taking the car's roof off. Therefore, the crash was not a fluke but was due to poor trailer design because this crash is impossible in Europe.
Had side impact protection bars been fitted to the trailer then:
1. the Tesla's radar system would have had a better chance of detecting the trailer and triggering an emergency stop
2. on impact with the trailer, the Tesla's front crumple zone and air bags would have deployed helping to protect the driver
The driver still may not have survived due to the high deceleration but at least the safety systems (separate from auto-pilot) would have been used.
I think this flight suit was tested in Space 1999...
Not to mention the ecological disaster that there would be if evil radiation were to leak in space!
Do people not realize it is the one truly pristine environment left?
I can see that you are no scientist because your facts are wrong. Radiation is a natural phenomenon in the environment on Earth and in Space. We need to avoid being exposed to too much radiation because that can kill.
Space can have high levels of radiation depending on how close you get to the source. The main source of radiation in the solar system is the Sun and you would die without the radiation from the Sun. The Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere help to prevent damaging radiation from hitting the Earth's surface. The Earth remains hot at the core partly due to radioactive decay generating heat.
Each banana you eat is radioactive due to Potassium naturally decaying. We are naturally radioactive but at a low rate.
As well as radiation via photons (light), there are Alpha particles (Helium nuclei), Beta particles (Electrons) and Gamma waves (High energy electromagnetic radiation) plus other sub-atomic particles. The amount of damage you get depends on the exposure level, duration of exposure and type of radiation.
The 2 small nuclear bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII were air-bust explosions so the radioactive fallout was minimal and that is why people can live in these areas in Japan today. It was the release of a large amount of energy in a short period of time that caused people to die. It was not the radioactive decay radiation that killed people.
If you look at the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Radioactive material got into the environment. Some workers died because they had to work close to the source of the radioactive radiation. However, outside the exclusion zones the impact will be small on people's health. The radioactive material decays over time and the decay rate is know as "half-life". In Chernobyl, there are now tourists because the level of radiation has dropped to safe levels.
It will be all over for fossil cars in 10 years time. You are aware that Norway is banning the sale of new fossil cars in 2025 ? That is in 8 years time! I recommend you don't sleep for 10 years because fossil cars will be on the endangered list for going extinct in 2025.
FYI. Norway is an oil producing nation in Europe that gets a high percentage of their power from clean hydro power. Norway has the biggest EV market per capita in the world. Currently 42% of new car sales in Norway are electric. This is because the Norwegian government is using big incentives for EVs and big disincentives for fossil cars in order to change their population's buying habits.
The battery pack is liquid cooled and heated, and uses a heat exchanger so I think there is a radiator and fan somewhere in the vehicle.
In cold weather the battery pack can be pre-heated before you drive so that the battery's performance can be maximised.
When driving and charging, the battery needs to be actively cooled to maximise performance.
Model 3 has Level 5 autonomous hardware, it just needs the software to be completed and for governments to ratify that autonomous vehicles are allowed to operate in their countries. My guess is that this will take 2 to 5 years from now to legally use Level 5. So Tesla just needs to download the certified autonomous software over the air in a few years time.
Being pedantic, I think you mean drive around the perimeter because the UK is not a circle so circumference is nonsensical. Unless you meant, drive in a circle ?
Is that a US gallon or a larger British Imperial gallon ?
The ban in 2040 is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It cannot fail.
Those specialist vehicles will be called Classic Cars from the 2020s.
It is an unstoppable self-fulfilling prophecy. No gamble is necessary by a politician.