You know, you've just made having a 60 kWh BEV (especially one V2G-capable) AND residential solar suddenly look much better with your argument than what you're proposing.
The problem with solar is similar to the problem for most energy sources and that is low energy density. Solar at large scale requires lots of land.
Fortunately we have lots of spaces that we don't know what better thing to do with them.
And while some PV cells are made with toxic materials, others are made with much less environmental impact.
Yes, CdTe panels contain cadmium. Yet they are mostly an American curiosity, courtesy of First Solar, and conventional crystalline silicone panel, which contain no toxic materials, constitute 95% of the current market. So I wouldn't worry about toxicity.
Solar is nice and makes folks feel good but it does nothing to dent our CO2 production.
It did almost nothing perhaps in Germany for the simple reason that the increase in renewable generation in Germany was only somewhat higher than the closures of nuclear power plants that were possible because of the renewable generation increase. But that is an outlier, and if you're claiming that a generator that has CO2 intensity of 50 g CO2/kWh (and *still* quickly declining) saves nothing over a coal plant with 1000 g CO2/kWh emitted, then I don't understand where is your extra 950 g CO2/kWh coming from.
Without nuclear, nothing does
Great. It would be awesome and I'd absolutely love it, if it weren't for the fact that the price for new nuclear generation is somewhere around 14 cents per kWh - which is around triple the price of new solar in Germany.
This old one again. Look, its not possible to make enough Li-ion batteries (or batteries of any type) to back up a grid for even a day. Your solution is off by about a factor of 100x in terms of being about to do what you claim.
A straw man. I never said that (that this was a "solution" "to back up a grid for even a day"), even though there are reasons to believe that you're completely wrong about that, too. Why do you believe that it is impossible to manufacture 7 kWh of batteries per citizen of Earth? And why that random "100x" factor, of all things?
Germany has higher energy costs because of renewables. They had lower costs in 2010.
Lots of countries had lower costs in 2010, for reasons having nothing to do with renewables.
Then they installed a lot of renewables (from 2010-now) and now they have higher costs.
Setting aside post hoc ergo propter hoc, any extra costs Germany incurred specifically in the renewable generation field around 2010 or so are the results of the feed in tariff rate subsidies that were fixed for the installations at that time. These were high initially because of the discrepancy between renewable generation equipment available at that time and the bulk electricity price at that time and were necessary to stimulate the market. One can perhaps argue whether they were set at levels that would minimize long-term costs to the state and maximize the value thus obtained, but in any case, as the costs of the former went down, so did the subsidies, now basically at zero levels. These are grandfathered for the old installations and effectively sunk costs. They can't possibly have rationally any bearing on your reasoning about why not to install new renewable generation equipment *today*. Yet for some reason you seem to be obsessed by them.
Also, more CO2 output because of all the natural gas they burn to backup their wind. But don't let facts get in your unicorn's way.
When you factor in battery costs, and renewable maintenance (replacing those old wind turbines and solar cells that require massive reliable power to fabricate)
The generators are cheap even accounting for lifetime costs.
Battery costs will be a non-issue if BEVs spread due to the synergistic effect of renewable generation growth and BEV fleet growth. Massive amounts of load can be shifted to or from BEV charging almost instantly, so lots of BEVs allow for greater renewable generation deployment, and conversely, lots of renewable generators ensure that there's extra electricity available for lots of BEVs, which will standing around most of the time anyway like almost all cars.
Germany and other countries/states have shown, those with the highest percent of renewables have the highest power costs.
Or, it's the other way round and countries with high electricity costs turn to renewables in order to lower power costs in the future. Germany just had a "bump" problem in the sense that it was the first one to do it on such a scale that early costs bit them, but that's a 2010 thing, not a 2020 thing.
They have the HIGHEST efficiency in converting sunlight - the primary source of energy for all electricity generation that isn't nuclear, tidal or geothermal (with the latter two being negligible contributors to anything on Earth at the moment) - compared to any other pathway through which sunlight ever became electricity, be it wind, oil, gas or coal.
They never pay off the emissions
They do, in a year or so.
a d toxic chemicals required to make them
That's not even a thing for them.
let alone anything beyond that, before needing to be replaced
That the authors of MySQL, who were clueless more often than not, still haven't been able to develop a quality storage engine of their own? Unlike competent software efforts such as PostgreSQL and Firebird?
I can tell you that the testing / verification process for their software is mind boggling. They've had decades to fine tune their processes for creating reliable computer software.
Haven't we had ample evidence by now that it's all too easy to make computer software that very reliably and very accurately does exactly the wrong thing?
Except projectile orbital motion always brings you back to where you began. Every single one of those fragments will return to the detonation point at the end of every orbit. And the orbital period will not have been appreciably altered by a few m/s change
It will if it's at least few tens of meters per second (near 1 AU). So it's a matter of getting the ejection velocity statistically right (in the sense of imparting just enough velocity to as large mass fraction as possible). If that happens, why care about when another encounter between the fragments happens if it happens after hundreds of orbital periods or more? By that time, we'll have completely different means to solve the situation, I'm sure.
It's similar to the problem of trying to launch something into orbit using some sort of "cannon" on the planet's surface - it can't be done, because after one orbit the object will pass back through the point where the cannon was located, and impact with the surface.
It's not really similar because the movement of Earth around the barycenter of the two bodies (Earth and the launched object) is negligible, whereas here we're talking about two elliptical orbits, which you're trying to make just enough different by changing one of them to prevent future problems of re-coalescence. In the latter case, a sufficient velocity for that exists that prevents such and event for a period long enough that by the time the problem could repeatedly arise, you won't have to worry about it anymore.
Besides, once you're committing to not blowing it up symmetrically, why try to blow it up at all? The thing about a detonation, is that the center of mass always continues on the exact same trajectory it was on, so you're trying very hard to avoid leaving any major fragments traveling along along the original orbital path. If instead you detonate off to the side, the jet of vaporized surface material (and reflected blast energy) act as a rocket engine, pushing the asteroid off course. And without fragments, you don't have to worry about how they get distributed.
Why? So as to maximize the momentum change of the remaining mass. If you have a fixed energy budget (dictated by the size of your nuclear explosive), ejecting a larger mass at a lower speed imparts higher impulse to the large body than ejecting a small amount of mass at a very low speed.
As for there being fewer objects as they get larger - absolutely. But there's still an estimated 10,000 such objects larger than 10km in the asteroid belt alone, and we haven't spotted most of them.
I'm sure we'll spot them soon enough. And given sheer variety of orbital parameters these objects can have, 10,000 seems like a *very* small number to pose a danger with any higher probability.
And then there's the outer system objects. The real dark horse of the problem. Something trans-Neptunian, or from the Oort cloud, would be going screamingly fast by the time it got close in enough to have any chance of seeing it. Even with a broadly distributed asteroid-spotting system, we might only have months between it first becoming visible, and impact.
Of course, you can always make up a scenario in which you can't win, if you ignore its sheer improbability. We *could* also get invaded by aliens tomorrow. I wouldn't worry about it, though.
because you don't want to see what's at *one* specific place - you want to see what's at *all* the specific places something might be
Objects changing their relative position to Earth (i.e., objects not at L4/L5) should be already covered by telescopes on or near Earth, since they'd have to pass fairly nearby from time to time.
Are there any conceivable halo orbits at an L4/L5 point that wouldn't pass in front of an outward-oriented camera? Or in the worst case, one outward-oriented and one prograde-oriented?
Slashdot Mirror
You know, you've just made having a 60 kWh BEV (especially one V2G-capable) AND residential solar suddenly look much better with your argument than what you're proposing.
5 in AP Calculus
Ah, a failing grade, then.
A face detector is simpler and cheaper than a face recognizer, so there's an unfair advantage right there.
The problem with solar is similar to the problem for most energy sources and that is low energy density. Solar at large scale requires lots of land.
Fortunately we have lots of spaces that we don't know what better thing to do with them.
And while some PV cells are made with toxic materials, others are made with much less environmental impact.
Yes, CdTe panels contain cadmium. Yet they are mostly an American curiosity, courtesy of First Solar, and conventional crystalline silicone panel, which contain no toxic materials, constitute 95% of the current market. So I wouldn't worry about toxicity.
The problem is they are also lower efficiencies.
Efficiency is not a problem if you have space to waste, unless you're talking about cost efficiency. But we've already achieved grid parity in many places. So that should not be an issue anymore.
Solar is nice and makes folks feel good but it does nothing to dent our CO2 production.
It did almost nothing perhaps in Germany for the simple reason that the increase in renewable generation in Germany was only somewhat higher than the closures of nuclear power plants that were possible because of the renewable generation increase. But that is an outlier, and if you're claiming that a generator that has CO2 intensity of 50 g CO2/kWh (and *still* quickly declining) saves nothing over a coal plant with 1000 g CO2/kWh emitted, then I don't understand where is your extra 950 g CO2/kWh coming from.
Without nuclear, nothing does
Great. It would be awesome and I'd absolutely love it, if it weren't for the fact that the price for new nuclear generation is somewhere around 14 cents per kWh - which is around triple the price of new solar in Germany.
This old one again. Look, its not possible to make enough Li-ion batteries (or batteries of any type) to back up a grid for even a day. Your solution is off by about a factor of 100x in terms of being about to do what you claim.
A straw man. I never said that (that this was a "solution" "to back up a grid for even a day"), even though there are reasons to believe that you're completely wrong about that, too. Why do you believe that it is impossible to manufacture 7 kWh of batteries per citizen of Earth? And why that random "100x" factor, of all things?
Germany has higher energy costs because of renewables. They had lower costs in 2010.
Lots of countries had lower costs in 2010, for reasons having nothing to do with renewables.
Then they installed a lot of renewables (from 2010-now) and now they have higher costs.
Setting aside post hoc ergo propter hoc, any extra costs Germany incurred specifically in the renewable generation field around 2010 or so are the results of the feed in tariff rate subsidies that were fixed for the installations at that time. These were high initially because of the discrepancy between renewable generation equipment available at that time and the bulk electricity price at that time and were necessary to stimulate the market. One can perhaps argue whether they were set at levels that would minimize long-term costs to the state and maximize the value thus obtained, but in any case, as the costs of the former went down, so did the subsidies, now basically at zero levels. These are grandfathered for the old installations and effectively sunk costs. They can't possibly have rationally any bearing on your reasoning about why not to install new renewable generation equipment *today*. Yet for some reason you seem to be obsessed by them.
Also, more CO2 output because of all the natural gas they burn to backup their wind. But don't let facts get in your unicorn's way.
Ah, facts. Facts like these? The natural gas generation has increased since 2010 by...wait, minus 2 TWh? Oh, look, the CO2 output in the energy sector decreased between 2010 and 2017 as well. In fact, it went down from 356 to 313 Mt, even though generation increased from around 635 TWh to around 650 TWh. Wait...is that actually a 14% decrease of CO2 emissions per kWh? By space, how is it posssible? /s
Both are cheaper than any new renewable installations.
Not anymore.
When you factor in battery costs, and renewable maintenance (replacing those old wind turbines and solar cells that require massive reliable power to fabricate)
The generators are cheap even accounting for lifetime costs.
Battery costs will be a non-issue if BEVs spread due to the synergistic effect of renewable generation growth and BEV fleet growth. Massive amounts of load can be shifted to or from BEV charging almost instantly, so lots of BEVs allow for greater renewable generation deployment, and conversely, lots of renewable generators ensure that there's extra electricity available for lots of BEVs, which will standing around most of the time anyway like almost all cars.
Germany and other countries/states have shown, those with the highest percent of renewables have the highest power costs.
Or, it's the other way round and countries with high electricity costs turn to renewables in order to lower power costs in the future. Germany just had a "bump" problem in the sense that it was the first one to do it on such a scale that early costs bit them, but that's a 2010 thing, not a 2020 thing.
Solar panels are incredibly toxic to make
Bullshit.
and have horrible efficiency
They have the HIGHEST efficiency in converting sunlight - the primary source of energy for all electricity generation that isn't nuclear, tidal or geothermal (with the latter two being negligible contributors to anything on Earth at the moment) - compared to any other pathway through which sunlight ever became electricity, be it wind, oil, gas or coal.
They never pay off the emissions
They do, in a year or so.
a d toxic chemicals required to make them
That's not even a thing for them.
let alone anything beyond that, before needing to be replaced
They last 25 years or more without any problems.
Shoul he use the Bing bang?
That the authors of MySQL, who were clueless more often than not, still haven't been able to develop a quality storage engine of their own? Unlike competent software efforts such as PostgreSQL and Firebird?
How many programmers does it take to develop Google Search?
Two of them, apparently.
No one likes being authoritatively told they are wrong about something.
Oh, you're so wrong about that.
most studies would confirm an increased risk of brain cancer for people sticking their heads into live microwave ovens.
I wouldn't be surprised if sticking your head into a live microwave oven actually decreased your chance of getting brain cancer.
I can tell you that the testing / verification process for their software is mind boggling. They've had decades to fine tune their processes for creating reliable computer software.
Haven't we had ample evidence by now that it's all too easy to make computer software that very reliably and very accurately does exactly the wrong thing?
This "let's get bullied by a country because other countries are even worse" thing is getting rather old and irritating by now.
the functions themselves are called trigonometric
Except for the cyclometric ones?
check your privilege
Well, you won't be able to cash it anyway, so...
What if they manage to engineer seafood that you won't be allergic to?
Well, most importantly, you'd notice the 45-50 minute periods of focused activity interleaved with 10-15 minute rest periods.
So this schedule sounds a lot like a manager's schedule.
...have you ever attended any school?
Botside manner?
Except projectile orbital motion always brings you back to where you began. Every single one of those fragments will return to the detonation point at the end of every orbit. And the orbital period will not have been appreciably altered by a few m/s change
It will if it's at least few tens of meters per second (near 1 AU). So it's a matter of getting the ejection velocity statistically right (in the sense of imparting just enough velocity to as large mass fraction as possible). If that happens, why care about when another encounter between the fragments happens if it happens after hundreds of orbital periods or more? By that time, we'll have completely different means to solve the situation, I'm sure.
It's similar to the problem of trying to launch something into orbit using some sort of "cannon" on the planet's surface - it can't be done, because after one orbit the object will pass back through the point where the cannon was located, and impact with the surface.
It's not really similar because the movement of Earth around the barycenter of the two bodies (Earth and the launched object) is negligible, whereas here we're talking about two elliptical orbits, which you're trying to make just enough different by changing one of them to prevent future problems of re-coalescence. In the latter case, a sufficient velocity for that exists that prevents such and event for a period long enough that by the time the problem could repeatedly arise, you won't have to worry about it anymore.
Besides, once you're committing to not blowing it up symmetrically, why try to blow it up at all? The thing about a detonation, is that the center of mass always continues on the exact same trajectory it was on, so you're trying very hard to avoid leaving any major fragments traveling along along the original orbital path. If instead you detonate off to the side, the jet of vaporized surface material (and reflected blast energy) act as a rocket engine, pushing the asteroid off course. And without fragments, you don't have to worry about how they get distributed.
Why? So as to maximize the momentum change of the remaining mass. If you have a fixed energy budget (dictated by the size of your nuclear explosive), ejecting a larger mass at a lower speed imparts higher impulse to the large body than ejecting a small amount of mass at a very low speed.
As for there being fewer objects as they get larger - absolutely. But there's still an estimated 10,000 such objects larger than 10km in the asteroid belt alone, and we haven't spotted most of them.
I'm sure we'll spot them soon enough. And given sheer variety of orbital parameters these objects can have, 10,000 seems like a *very* small number to pose a danger with any higher probability.
And then there's the outer system objects. The real dark horse of the problem. Something trans-Neptunian, or from the Oort cloud, would be going screamingly fast by the time it got close in enough to have any chance of seeing it. Even with a broadly distributed asteroid-spotting system, we might only have months between it first becoming visible, and impact.
Of course, you can always make up a scenario in which you can't win, if you ignore its sheer improbability. We *could* also get invaded by aliens tomorrow. I wouldn't worry about it, though.
because you don't want to see what's at *one* specific place - you want to see what's at *all* the specific places something might be
Objects changing their relative position to Earth (i.e., objects not at L4/L5) should be already covered by telescopes on or near Earth, since they'd have to pass fairly nearby from time to time.
Are there any conceivable halo orbits at an L4/L5 point that wouldn't pass in front of an outward-oriented camera? Or in the worst case, one outward-oriented and one prograde-oriented?
Because these scooters are a disease?