this shows China way ahead of Europe and America on nuclear power.
However, in 2020, China will have 58 GW of nuclear power by 2021.
America has over 100 GW of nuclear power, but sadly, the same idiots from groups like this, continue to drive up our costs.
Europe has over 163 GW of nuclear power, and yet, this article claims that China is winning that?
First and foremost, where does China's electricity come from? 80+% is from COAL. Worse yet, the gov requires companies to put Emission.Controls on the plants ( due to treaty with Japan ), but actually discourages companies from using them, since Japan forgot to require that part.
Secondly, how much their electricity comes from clean sources? All the rest. IOW, less than 20% of their current 1.4 TW of electricity comes from clean energy. But to put matters into prospective, 100% of available clean energy is currently used. So by adding more EVs which will increase demand, where will the electricity come from? From coal. Right now, coal is at 60-65% utilization and can be quickly ramped up. Clean energy can not.
Third, how much new clean energy vs coal does China add yearly ? Each year, they add about 30 GW of solar, wind and hydro COMBINED. Of course, with their lack of good winds combined with pollution blocking solar, these run at less than 25%. So that 30 gw of 'clean energy' generates less than 7.5 GW.
Now how much NEW coal plants ( not just replacements ) does China add yearly? 35-50 GW.
China's plan is to CONTINUE adding new coal plants until 2030 at which point, they will be around 1.75 TW of coal. Then they will be adding their own nuclear power plants. But the coal will continue to run until 2060 or so. That is more coal than Europe, north America, central America, South America, and Africa COMBINED TODAY.
Lastly, why will China continue to add more coal plants while switching to EVs? 2 reasons. The first is their hope to destroy all foreign car makers.
The second is that they HAVE hit peak oil and they either have to import which they are opposed to, OR go to war with phillipines, Viet nam, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and possibly Russia and Australia to get all of the oceans that they have now declared to be theirs.
Sadly, idiots who do not understand science on AGW OR strategy, are helping China out by declaring them as winners in clean energy race, which is going to lead to WW3.
When it is the CUSTOMER who insists that the payload be bolted when the launch company was saying, not a wise idea, then it is more an issue for the customer than the launch company.
You are right about SX vs F9. I SHOULD have said F9. Mea Culpa.
plenty of rockets have had failures on the pad and other test locations. Apollo 1 comes quickly to mind and yes, it is STARRED. Depending on how you do the stats, the first loss was with Challenger, or was Apollo. However, if Apollo is used, the by defintion, that means that any loss of life while working on the systems, means that Both NASA and USSR/Russia have MANY more deaths.
Paying more for a single launch than what you pay for the loads and launch of MULTIPLE OTHERS, is a joke. There are VERY few cargo in which paying that difference makes economical, national security, or political sense.
And for the record, I used to work for NASA as well as Boeing.
And still, ULA remains a joke, esp since Bruno, Boeing nor L-Mart will do the right things with them.
That is why I am looking forward to seeing NextStep happen. With that, I would think that Axiom and Bigelow are the likely winners who will then be attached to the ISS. With Bigelow adding 1/3 more volume, and axiom will likely add about 1/8 to 1/6 more volume, it will be possible to add another 6 ppl on-board once they have ECLSS on 1 of those. That will enable both Boeing and SX to bring up a full load, assuming NASA or more likely CONgress, does not block private space from using that.
Actually, they have done some 30+ launch simulations in Texas, which is what why Block 5 will be the last development of F9 stage 1 (stage 2 might undergo more re-design once they start re-using it ; first landing attempt will be with FH test ). The inspections are simply checking to make sure that these compare similar to what the launch simulations showed up. If so, then Musk will have no issue with re-using these while switching the factory over to first BFR, and later BFS, production.
multiple things wrong there.
For reusable mode, subtract about 1/3. In addition, it is the EXACT SAME ROCKET. There is nothing different between expendable or reusable, other than expendable will simply not include the legs and a few other items. Musk has said that F9 will do 8.3 to GEO, and 5.5 tonnes in reusable mode, which is 2/3 of the expendable mode.And according to Musk, even in reusable mode, the rocket is paid for on the first launch.
As to insurance, this really is NOT unknown. It is the same as commercial aircrafts. They get re-used due to design. Likewise, F9 is designed for re-use so should have no issues going to the rated limited, which is supposedly 30 launches.
SX has been cheaper than competitors from the git-go.
The expendable F9 costs $61M and launches 22.8 tonnes to LEO, with this expected to go to 25-26 tonnes with block 5.
With Stage 1 reusable mode, they can do ~20 tonnes, at a cost of ~ $45M.
FH, which is to be tested in December, launches 64 tonnes, at a cost of $100M.
Ariane 5 launches 21 tonnes at a costs of $220 M.
Atlas 5 launches 18.8 tonnes at a cost of $200-300M.
Russia launches 23 tonnes at a cost of $80M.
And considering that the Russian launches uses proton, which has 102 launches, but 9 failures, and 1 partial, with the majority in the last 10 years, so is somewhat dicey.
So, all in all, SX is now using their profits to pay off the R&D $ money, as well as pay for BFR/BFS development, which should be out around 2020-2022.
As such, I doubt that they will lower their prices too much, until BO comes along who will likely force SX to lower.
Those 3 were F1s, not F9s. If you want to include all that they have done, then you will find that USSR/Russia, along with most of America are into the low 90s, high 80s, MAYBE.
The one that exploded on the pad was NOT launching, but undergoing tests.
SX has 1 F9 that exploded during launch, and put 1 payload into too low of orbit. So, 1.5 as I said.
And AC said that SX had BELOW the 94%, when in reality, it is above 95%.
ULA charges 4x what SX does. A single launch from ULA costs more than what 3 payloads AND launches that SX puts up.
So from a cost efficiency POV, ULA is a joke.
SX has launched 43 times with 1 launch failure ( and a partial ). That makes them over 95% successful. And actually, the F9 IS man rated. All that remains is the Dragon 2 .
yes, I know.
And NYC was NEVER as dirty as where the REAL manufacturing went on. LA, Chicago, Gary, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc. Our air was MUCH dirtier than NYC.
BTW, why do I know this? Because my father was an Airline pilot and I got visit all of these places all the time.
And in the 60s, as a boy scout, I helped with recycling Paper, Cans, Glass, etc. Made money for the troop as well as helped recycle.
And when I was on the school newspaper, I was the environmental reporter.
Baloney. There are large numbers of Nat gas pipelines there. They are flaring because it is fast.
Instead, they should be required to either sell it, or convert to electricity.
Not really. It is the century plus of subsidies which really hurt the poor.
If u really wanted to help national security, you would back not just wind/solar, but Geothermal and nuclear, while dropping all subsidies on fossil fuels.
Utilities have strong economic reasoning to use Nat gas, and wind. And most states are fighting against coal powered plants.
As such, coal will continue to disappear.
Hopefully, nukes and Geothermal will get subsidies. We need clean baseload power.
meh, that is the same AC that chases me around. I just ignore him.
The fact is, that when you are quoting something that backs it up, you would think that s?he would simply shut up, but s?he really never does.
But even then, he is truly an idiot since wiki/I said that it was NOT a science based sat, but simply one to announce to the world.
And then he clains it was for practice building, which is not science either. So, that AC is a real idiot. Just ignore him.
Sputnik 1 was NOT a scientific sat, and nor was the transmitter meant for science. The fact that something useful came from it, was simply a side thing. The transmitter was meant to tell the world, 'Look, we beat the Americans'.
In fact, all through the space race, almost 100% of the times was USSR finding out that America was about to do certain things so they would cut corners to beat us. That is why America made the moon and USSR/ Russia STILL has not put a boot print on the moon.
Tesla is in the tops of the 1/4 miler amongst its competitors, but not the winner. 1 group DID modifications to the MS and has it up around #3 or 4 in the quarter miler, but, that is it. And as to top speed, nearly all of its competitors can not only beat Tesla to its top speed of 145 / 165 (all others vs German version) MPH, but, they also have top speeds closer to 200 mph. However, other than Germany, having above 100 MPH does not buy you anything. OTOH, quickness in ALL situations, does.
lol.
Yeah. Right.
Obviously you do not drive nor read. Tesla Model S is superior handling performance to most of its competitors. I know a number of owners that sold their BMW, MB, Porsche, and even a Ferrari because MS was SUPERIOR to those vehicles.
Nice thought, but their is not just down, but wiped out. Not only is the wiring on the ground, but many of the cheap poles we're knocked over.
Otoh, if they start fresh, put in a single high voltage line down the middle and then divide into say 4 grids, each with their own batteries, solar, they can then have redunacy in their system.
Not likely. Their grid is over 60 years old and has not really been upgraded, which is part of the reason why it was taken out.
Need to upgrade it, which is very likely easier and cheaper by simply restarting.
Slashdot Mirror
this shows China way ahead of Europe and America on nuclear power. However, in 2020, China will have 58 GW of nuclear power by 2021.
America has over 100 GW of nuclear power, but sadly, the same idiots from groups like this, continue to drive up our costs.
Europe has over 163 GW of nuclear power, and yet, this article claims that China is winning that?
First and foremost, where does China's electricity come from? 80+% is from COAL. Worse yet, the gov requires companies to put Emission.Controls on the plants ( due to treaty with Japan ), but actually discourages companies from using them, since Japan forgot to require that part.
Secondly, how much their electricity comes from clean sources? All the rest. IOW, less than 20% of their current 1.4 TW of electricity comes from clean energy. But to put matters into prospective, 100% of available clean energy is currently used. So by adding more EVs which will increase demand, where will the electricity come from? From coal. Right now, coal is at 60-65% utilization and can be quickly ramped up. Clean energy can not.
Third, how much new clean energy vs coal does China add yearly ? Each year, they add about 30 GW of solar, wind and hydro COMBINED. Of course, with their lack of good winds combined with pollution blocking solar, these run at less than 25%. So that 30 gw of 'clean energy' generates less than 7.5 GW. Now how much NEW coal plants ( not just replacements ) does China add yearly? 35-50 GW. China's plan is to CONTINUE adding new coal plants until 2030 at which point, they will be around 1.75 TW of coal. Then they will be adding their own nuclear power plants. But the coal will continue to run until 2060 or so. That is more coal than Europe, north America, central America, South America, and Africa COMBINED TODAY.
Lastly, why will China continue to add more coal plants while switching to EVs? 2 reasons. The first is their hope to destroy all foreign car makers. The second is that they HAVE hit peak oil and they either have to import which they are opposed to, OR go to war with phillipines, Viet nam, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and possibly Russia and Australia to get all of the oceans that they have now declared to be theirs.
Sadly, idiots who do not understand science on AGW OR strategy, are helping China out by declaring them as winners in clean energy race, which is going to lead to WW3.
When it is the CUSTOMER who insists that the payload be bolted when the launch company was saying, not a wise idea, then it is more an issue for the customer than the launch company.
You are right about SX vs F9. I SHOULD have said F9. Mea Culpa.
plenty of rockets have had failures on the pad and other test locations. Apollo 1 comes quickly to mind and yes, it is STARRED. Depending on how you do the stats, the first loss was with Challenger, or was Apollo. However, if Apollo is used, the by defintion, that means that any loss of life while working on the systems, means that Both NASA and USSR/Russia have MANY more deaths.
Paying more for a single launch than what you pay for the loads and launch of MULTIPLE OTHERS, is a joke. There are VERY few cargo in which paying that difference makes economical, national security, or political sense.
And for the record, I used to work for NASA as well as Boeing.
And still, ULA remains a joke, esp since Bruno, Boeing nor L-Mart will do the right things with them.
Thank you. So many like to look past that fact.
That is why I am looking forward to seeing NextStep happen. With that, I would think that Axiom and Bigelow are the likely winners who will then be attached to the ISS. With Bigelow adding 1/3 more volume, and axiom will likely add about 1/8 to 1/6 more volume, it will be possible to add another 6 ppl on-board once they have ECLSS on 1 of those. That will enable both Boeing and SX to bring up a full load, assuming NASA or more likely CONgress, does not block private space from using that.
SX has had 1 failure in 43 launches.
The other failure was during a test and not during a launch.
Actually, they have done some 30+ launch simulations in Texas, which is what why Block 5 will be the last development of F9 stage 1 (stage 2 might undergo more re-design once they start re-using it ; first landing attempt will be with FH test ). The inspections are simply checking to make sure that these compare similar to what the launch simulations showed up. If so, then Musk will have no issue with re-using these while switching the factory over to first BFR, and later BFS, production.
multiple things wrong there.
For reusable mode, subtract about 1/3. In addition, it is the EXACT SAME ROCKET. There is nothing different between expendable or reusable, other than expendable will simply not include the legs and a few other items. Musk has said that F9 will do 8.3 to GEO, and 5.5 tonnes in reusable mode, which is 2/3 of the expendable mode.And according to Musk, even in reusable mode, the rocket is paid for on the first launch.
As to insurance, this really is NOT unknown. It is the same as commercial aircrafts. They get re-used due to design. Likewise, F9 is designed for re-use so should have no issues going to the rated limited, which is supposedly 30 launches.
SX has been cheaper than competitors from the git-go.
The expendable F9 costs $61M and launches 22.8 tonnes to LEO, with this expected to go to 25-26 tonnes with block 5.
With Stage 1 reusable mode, they can do ~20 tonnes, at a cost of ~ $45M. FH, which is to be tested in December, launches 64 tonnes, at a cost of $100M. Ariane 5 launches 21 tonnes at a costs of $220 M.
Atlas 5 launches 18.8 tonnes at a cost of $200-300M.
Russia launches 23 tonnes at a cost of $80M.
And considering that the Russian launches uses proton, which has 102 launches, but 9 failures, and 1 partial, with the majority in the last 10 years, so is somewhat dicey.
So, all in all, SX is now using their profits to pay off the R&D $ money, as well as pay for BFR/BFS development, which should be out around 2020-2022.
As such, I doubt that they will lower their prices too much, until BO comes along who will likely force SX to lower.
Those 3 were F1s, not F9s. If you want to include all that they have done, then you will find that USSR/Russia, along with most of America are into the low 90s, high 80s, MAYBE.
The one that exploded on the pad was NOT launching, but undergoing tests.
SX has 1 F9 that exploded during launch, and put 1 payload into too low of orbit. So, 1.5 as I said.
And AC said that SX had BELOW the 94%, when in reality, it is above 95%.
ULA charges 4x what SX does. A single launch from ULA costs more than what 3 payloads AND launches that SX puts up.
So from a cost efficiency POV, ULA is a joke.
SX has launched 43 times with 1 launch failure ( and a partial ). That makes them over 95% successful. And actually, the F9 IS man rated. All that remains is the Dragon 2 .
I'll bet that they come back far worse than what is expected.
yes, I know.
And NYC was NEVER as dirty as where the REAL manufacturing went on. LA, Chicago, Gary, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc. Our air was MUCH dirtier than NYC.
BTW, why do I know this? Because my father was an Airline pilot and I got visit all of these places all the time.
And in the 60s, as a boy scout, I helped with recycling Paper, Cans, Glass, etc. Made money for the troop as well as helped recycle.
And when I was on the school newspaper, I was the environmental reporter.
Baloney. There are large numbers of Nat gas pipelines there. They are flaring because it is fast. Instead, they should be required to either sell it, or convert to electricity.
Not really. It is the century plus of subsidies which really hurt the poor. If u really wanted to help national security, you would back not just wind/solar, but Geothermal and nuclear, while dropping all subsidies on fossil fuels.
Wow. I remember that stuff from when I was a kid. LA, Chicago, Gary, etc were never as clear as that harbor pix showed.
Utilities have strong economic reasoning to use Nat gas, and wind. And most states are fighting against coal powered plants. As such, coal will continue to disappear. Hopefully, nukes and Geothermal will get subsidies. We need clean baseload power.
meh, that is the same AC that chases me around. I just ignore him.
The fact is, that when you are quoting something that backs it up, you would think that s?he would simply shut up, but s?he really never does.
But even then, he is truly an idiot since wiki/I said that it was NOT a science based sat, but simply one to announce to the world.
And then he clains it was for practice building, which is not science either. So, that AC is a real idiot. Just ignore him.
actually, No. Sputnik 1, was NOT meant to be the scientific sat. Sputnik 3 was supposed to the original. Sputnik 1 was developed as a SIMPLE sat so that they could beat the Americans into space.
Fearing the U.S. would launch a satellite before the USSR, OKB-1 suggested the creation and launch of a satellite in April–May 1957, before the IGY began in July 1957. The new satellite would be simple, light (100 kg or 220 lb), and easy to construct, forgoing the complex, heavy scientific equipment in favour of a simple radio transmitter. On 15 February 1957 the Council of Ministers of the USSR approved this simple satellite, designated 'Object PS'.[20] This version allowed the satellite to be tracked visually by Earth-based observers, and it could transmit tracking signals to ground-based receiving stations.[20] The launch of two satellites, PS-1 and PS-2, with two R-7 rockets (8K71) was approved, provided that the R-7 completed at least two successful test flights.[20]
Sputnik 1 was NOT a scientific sat, and nor was the transmitter meant for science. The fact that something useful came from it, was simply a side thing. The transmitter was meant to tell the world, 'Look, we beat the Americans'.
In fact, all through the space race, almost 100% of the times was USSR finding out that America was about to do certain things so they would cut corners to beat us. That is why America made the moon and USSR/ Russia STILL has not put a boot print on the moon.
Tesla is in the tops of the 1/4 miler amongst its competitors, but not the winner. 1 group DID modifications to the MS and has it up around #3 or 4 in the quarter miler, but, that is it. And as to top speed, nearly all of its competitors can not only beat Tesla to its top speed of 145 / 165 (all others vs German version) MPH, but, they also have top speeds closer to 200 mph. However, other than Germany, having above 100 MPH does not buy you anything. OTOH, quickness in ALL situations, does.
lol.
Yeah. Right.
Obviously you do not drive nor read. Tesla Model S is superior handling performance to most of its competitors. I know a number of owners that sold their BMW, MB, Porsche, and even a Ferrari because MS was SUPERIOR to those vehicles.
5 series is a mid-size luxury, while model S is a full-size luxury. Direct competitor is 7 series.
You think that an inexpensive compact ICE car is a competitor to either a LARGE LUXURY sedan, or LARGE LUXURY X-over, or COMPACT EXECUTIVE sedan?
Direct competitors to Model S is considered to be: Mercedes S-Class, the BMW 7 Series, the Audi A8, the Lexus LS, etc.
Direct competitors to Model X is considered to be: BMW X5, MB GLS class, etc.
Direct competitors to Model 3 is considered to be: Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, etc.
Nice thought, but their is not just down, but wiped out. Not only is the wiring on the ground, but many of the cheap poles we're knocked over. Otoh, if they start fresh, put in a single high voltage line down the middle and then divide into say 4 grids, each with their own batteries, solar, they can then have redunacy in their system.
Not likely. Their grid is over 60 years old and has not really been upgraded, which is part of the reason why it was taken out. Need to upgrade it, which is very likely easier and cheaper by simply restarting.