Setting aside the fallacies in some of your reasoning, what does *anything* of that have to do with ammonia? Ammonia is mostly used for agriculture, then for other chemical purposes. Just the agricultural use alone can take advantage of any generation surpluses.
At one point in the future, you will overbuild the generation capacity and control load by intermittently synthesizing ammonia to replace fossil fuels used for the same purpose today. Just the current global consumption of ammonia would necessitate several hundred GW of extra average generation, so there's plenty of room for load management.
3.5 kW charging is what I'd be doing at home using a "plain wall socket", which is limited to 16 A at 230 V. Using the three-phase circuit I have in the toolshed, I should be able to charge at 24 kW (limited by the circuit breaker; the plug itself should handle 38 kW).
Sunlight appears to be the most equitably distributed primary power source on the whole planet. Even the worst regions don't seem to be more than 4x or so worse than the best region on the planet (a part of Chile, I suspect?). Any other source, such as wind, coal deposits, oil deposits, uranium ore etc. have vastly higher geographic differences (although admittedly, for some, such as uranium, this might not impact their practicality).
I would have thought that an "X killer" would need to be better than X (perhaps quite substantially), not just comparable, for all values of X. Unless I misunderstood what "killer" means in colloquial English.
Tesla's competing offering, the Model X, is almost 50% more expensive.
How is that possible? Is the $73k starting price for Model X "almost 50%" higher than the cited 81k Euro ($92k) starting price for the Audi E-Tron? How does that compute?
The non-Chinese manufacturers were destroyed *years* ago. I don't see how this market development has anything to do with "letting prices rise again". This seems like a pretty normal economic cycle.
But they *are* cheap and getting cheaper still. It's called "technological progress", and it happens to solar and wind generation equipment just like it happened to the efficiency and power-to-weight ratio of steam engines in the past, for example. These fluctuations mentioned in the article, which already happened in the past anyway, are irrelevant for the big picture.
Apparently they might actually be quite happy with solar in summer. It might allow them to do maintenance on any thermal generation equipment they have over there.
Driving involves rolling resistance losses and also longer distances due to road layout. The Airbus e-Fan had apparently electricity consumption of 18 kWh/100 km, roughly similar to contemporary electric vehicles - except at a cruise speed of 160 km/h, which is way faster than what an 18 kWh/100 km electric vehicle could achieve. Apparently a Model S at 160 km/h reaches over 40 kWh/100 km of power consumption.
Shouldn't certain forms of flying be more efficient than car travel? If you optimize lift and speed, and go over a reasonable distance, it could work. The problem usually is that pilots are specialists in short supply. Autonomous flying could remove that problem. Of course, I expect Norway to solve this first, though.
Math doesn't check out. Ariane stages at near orbital velocity, meaning that any recovery system is going to both involve significant TPS *and* have a 1:1 payload loss from the addition of the recovery system. The low staging velocity of F9 is what makes its performance losses reasonable.
Because unlike the hydrogen tank, the battery is filled in *seconds* of your time. You just plug it in at home and don't care about it. Also, no need to drive around to find a hydrogen pump.
Slashdot Mirror
Setting aside the fallacies in some of your reasoning, what does *anything* of that have to do with ammonia? Ammonia is mostly used for agriculture, then for other chemical purposes. Just the agricultural use alone can take advantage of any generation surpluses.
Lets be antivax! What could possibly go wrong?
VMS sales, for example?
I'm hardly an outlier, this is bog-standard equipment.
The robots are writing down your comments as we speak...
At one point in the future, you will overbuild the generation capacity and control load by intermittently synthesizing ammonia to replace fossil fuels used for the same purpose today. Just the current global consumption of ammonia would necessitate several hundred GW of extra average generation, so there's plenty of room for load management.
3.5 kW charging is what I'd be doing at home using a "plain wall socket", which is limited to 16 A at 230 V. Using the three-phase circuit I have in the toolshed, I should be able to charge at 24 kW (limited by the circuit breaker; the plug itself should handle 38 kW).
Bang for the buck is a decision factor, too, obviously.
Then you'd be utterly wrong, i.e. videotape format wars.
Weren't those won by available content? That's definitely one measure of "better" for a media format.
Its all in the frame
...of mind?
Sunlight appears to be the most equitably distributed primary power source on the whole planet. Even the worst regions don't seem to be more than 4x or so worse than the best region on the planet (a part of Chile, I suspect?). Any other source, such as wind, coal deposits, oil deposits, uranium ore etc. have vastly higher geographic differences (although admittedly, for some, such as uranium, this might not impact their practicality).
It happens...
I would have thought that an "X killer" would need to be better than X (perhaps quite substantially), not just comparable, for all values of X. Unless I misunderstood what "killer" means in colloquial English.
Tesla's competing offering, the Model X, is almost 50% more expensive.
How is that possible? Is the $73k starting price for Model X "almost 50%" higher than the cited 81k Euro ($92k) starting price for the Audi E-Tron? How does that compute?
Level 1: 120VAC (nominal) up to ~2KW
So if I happen to live in a country without any 120 volt grid at all, all chargers are at least Level 2 by default?
The non-Chinese manufacturers were destroyed *years* ago. I don't see how this market development has anything to do with "letting prices rise again". This seems like a pretty normal economic cycle.
But they *are* cheap and getting cheaper still. It's called "technological progress", and it happens to solar and wind generation equipment just like it happened to the efficiency and power-to-weight ratio of steam engines in the past, for example. These fluctuations mentioned in the article, which already happened in the past anyway, are irrelevant for the big picture.
Apparently they might actually be quite happy with solar in summer. It might allow them to do maintenance on any thermal generation equipment they have over there.
Yes, because we're running out of roofs and unused fields...
But when I'm out working in my yard or garage, I want a Budweiser.
Is that some kind of self-motivation to finish the work as quickly as humanly possible?
It should not be said because it's not clear that it's even generally true.
Driving involves rolling resistance losses and also longer distances due to road layout. The Airbus e-Fan had apparently electricity consumption of 18 kWh/100 km, roughly similar to contemporary electric vehicles - except at a cruise speed of 160 km/h, which is way faster than what an 18 kWh/100 km electric vehicle could achieve. Apparently a Model S at 160 km/h reaches over 40 kWh/100 km of power consumption.
Shouldn't certain forms of flying be more efficient than car travel? If you optimize lift and speed, and go over a reasonable distance, it could work. The problem usually is that pilots are specialists in short supply. Autonomous flying could remove that problem. Of course, I expect Norway to solve this first, though.
Ariane 6 will have a reusable 1st stage
When, in 2040?
at smaller performance penalty than Falcon 9
Math doesn't check out. Ariane stages at near orbital velocity, meaning that any recovery system is going to both involve significant TPS *and* have a 1:1 payload loss from the addition of the recovery system. The low staging velocity of F9 is what makes its performance losses reasonable.
I have, and that's yet another problem added to the two I mentioned. Fortunately I'm not the one suggesting that we should be doing that.
Because unlike the hydrogen tank, the battery is filled in *seconds* of your time. You just plug it in at home and don't care about it. Also, no need to drive around to find a hydrogen pump.