All electric commuter (9 pax) aircraft
06-25-2019 | 03:09 PM
#52
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,153
Likes: 341
I wouldn't count the Germans out. They were the first to utilize coal to oil back in WWII. Those MF's took on a host of nations during two world wars and almost won the second one. Personally when it comes to betting I find I generally do better not betting against them!
I really like the idea of stackable nuke reactors. They are small scale self contained units that can be dropped outside cities and towns all around the country. Completely self contained. Scalable. Best of all the ability to be mass produced (ie cheap!).
Solar and wind are feel goods but if we are serious about getting rid of emissions a great place to start is making electricity cheap and abundant. Incentivize people to switch to cheaper alternatives vs taxing them to reduce use.
Aviation is already in the crosshairs with multiple bills being introduced to tax airline emissions.
I really like the idea of stackable nuke reactors. They are small scale self contained units that can be dropped outside cities and towns all around the country. Completely self contained. Scalable. Best of all the ability to be mass produced (ie cheap!).
Solar and wind are feel goods but if we are serious about getting rid of emissions a great place to start is making electricity cheap and abundant. Incentivize people to switch to cheaper alternatives vs taxing them to reduce use.
Aviation is already in the crosshairs with multiple bills being introduced to tax airline emissions.
06-25-2019 | 03:18 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
06-25-2019 | 04:11 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,244
Likes: 2
From: Baja Vermont
Well done, BZ, rickair777 and FlyJsh.
Speaking of renewables being environmental sound, pity the wind operators out West have “take permits” in the thousands for species like the Bald Eagle. In the East, solar farms and wind farms are running up against NIMBYs who support renewables until they despoil the view from the harbor or gentleman farms.
GF
Speaking of renewables being environmental sound, pity the wind operators out West have “take permits” in the thousands for species like the Bald Eagle. In the East, solar farms and wind farms are running up against NIMBYs who support renewables until they despoil the view from the harbor or gentleman farms.
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 06-25-2019 at 04:28 PM.
06-26-2019 | 03:55 AM
#56
Banned
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
So is whining.
Oooh boy, where do we start on this one. It's like talking to a child.
Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.
Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....
You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.
The rest is just babbling....
Frankly, I'm surprised you can dress yourself.
Let's get started on the stupid...
Huh? You're kind of throwing "science sounding" terminology around loosely here but what you really mean is specific energy. Energy density matters, but it's not the show stopper.
The show stopper (as someone pointed out already) is chemistry, specifically electron valence energy. That's pretty fundamental based on known laws of physics. If you can re-write the laws of physics to change that, we won't need airplanes because we'll also have anti-gravity, levitation, FTL, and time travel.
Wrong. It can be economically viable if you remove all the political stupidy which creates (intentional) artificial impediments.
Modern plant designs would be even more economical than old ones... most operating plants in the US are the engineering equivalent of a '65 Ford. Also vastly safer too.
And "economically viable" by what measure? If it's that vital to save the planet from CO2, it's not unreasonable that (clean) electrical power might be a little more expensive than say coal.
Niche. Plenty of places to build it, but many folks really don't want those things all over the place. Also as progressives have to learn over and over again there are some engineering limitations on power generation... the places that need power are not necessarily close enough to places where windmills make sense (windy with few residents).
Profitable? If it were profitable, rich guys would be doing it to get even richer. It is quickly becoming technically more practical, and will obviously play a role.
But like wind, the best places to generate solar power (southwestern deserts in the US) are too far away from most population centers, ie it's not going to help new england much. High latitudes and/or cloud cover quickly reduce the utility of solar.
Grid capacity will actually have to increase unless controls are put in place because folks will want to charge their cars while at work during the day (peak AC use, peak industrial commercial use, etc). If you can limit car charging to night only, the current grid might suffice.
Nuke is much better than coal or NG. You just have to get around stupid people who are afraid of things they don't understand, and easily mislead by self-appointned wingnut counter-culture gurus.
H2 is not an energy source any more than a battery is. It's just a means of transporting and delivering energy (ie a fuel).
H2 is good because the only emission is H20... that's fine at sea level but actually bad in the flight levels where there's normally no moisture above the tropopause. If you put moisture up there it will produce a greenhouse effect like Co2.
There are engineering challenges, and of course. The only clear win for H2 is applications where you need specific energy at all costs, including low energy density. That's pretty much space launch, specifically deep space launch.
Not an energy source, just a system component. The nature of the fuel in question is what's significant. If the fuel makes sense, then fuel cells can make sense.
Not dead, it will be around forever
Huh???
You do realize that a capacitor is a kind of battery, right?
The higher capacity capacitors have the same chemistry limitations as other batteries.
Field capacitors are also limited by physics... if you try to use high voltage to increase energy storage, you need a lot of weight and space to contain that voltage. And you will reach a voltage which cannot be contained by practical volumes of material or spacing. With reasonable voltages, capacitors simply weigh too much (compared to practical fuels/energy storage systems).
That's really hard to quantify. If we let all of the wannabe rogue regimes just run amuck, there would be much broader economic consequences than just oil.
But eliminating most oil use would certainly be a good thing, in many respects. It just needs to be done in a coordinated manner so as not to code blue the global economy.
There's a clear niche for electric planes, and it can probably (barely) include small regional jet market.
Electrical airplanes are actually a fascinating engineering challenge because of all the various tradeoffs. All of which can be fined-tuned for the specific mission at hand.
But with batteries you're still limited to about 8% of the specific energy of Jet A, and that's at 100% chemical efficiency.
Chemical batteries are the best known portable storage technology for electrical energy. They can be improved, but there's a glass ceiling and we already know about what it is (1,000 KwH/Kg).
Frankly, lots of passion but pretty weak on basic science and engineering.
Huh? You're kind of throwing "science sounding" terminology around loosely here but what you really mean is specific energy. Energy density matters, but it's not the show stopper.
The show stopper (as someone pointed out already) is chemistry, specifically electron valence energy. That's pretty fundamental based on known laws of physics. If you can re-write the laws of physics to change that, we won't need airplanes because we'll also have anti-gravity, levitation, FTL, and time travel.
Wrong. It can be economically viable if you remove all the political stupidy which creates (intentional) artificial impediments.
Modern plant designs would be even more economical than old ones... most operating plants in the US are the engineering equivalent of a '65 Ford. Also vastly safer too.
And "economically viable" by what measure? If it's that vital to save the planet from CO2, it's not unreasonable that (clean) electrical power might be a little more expensive than say coal.
Niche. Plenty of places to build it, but many folks really don't want those things all over the place. Also as progressives have to learn over and over again there are some engineering limitations on power generation... the places that need power are not necessarily close enough to places where windmills make sense (windy with few residents).
Profitable? If it were profitable, rich guys would be doing it to get even richer. It is quickly becoming technically more practical, and will obviously play a role.
But like wind, the best places to generate solar power (southwestern deserts in the US) are too far away from most population centers, ie it's not going to help new england much. High latitudes and/or cloud cover quickly reduce the utility of solar.
Grid capacity will actually have to increase unless controls are put in place because folks will want to charge their cars while at work during the day (peak AC use, peak industrial commercial use, etc). If you can limit car charging to night only, the current grid might suffice.
Nuke is much better than coal or NG. You just have to get around stupid people who are afraid of things they don't understand, and easily mislead by self-appointned wingnut counter-culture gurus.
H2 is not an energy source any more than a battery is. It's just a means of transporting and delivering energy (ie a fuel).
H2 is good because the only emission is H20... that's fine at sea level but actually bad in the flight levels where there's normally no moisture above the tropopause. If you put moisture up there it will produce a greenhouse effect like Co2.
There are engineering challenges, and of course. The only clear win for H2 is applications where you need specific energy at all costs, including low energy density. That's pretty much space launch, specifically deep space launch.
Not an energy source, just a system component. The nature of the fuel in question is what's significant. If the fuel makes sense, then fuel cells can make sense.
Not dead, it will be around forever
Huh???
You do realize that a capacitor is a kind of battery, right?
The higher capacity capacitors have the same chemistry limitations as other batteries.
Field capacitors are also limited by physics... if you try to use high voltage to increase energy storage, you need a lot of weight and space to contain that voltage. And you will reach a voltage which cannot be contained by practical volumes of material or spacing. With reasonable voltages, capacitors simply weigh too much (compared to practical fuels/energy storage systems).
That's really hard to quantify. If we let all of the wannabe rogue regimes just run amuck, there would be much broader economic consequences than just oil.
But eliminating most oil use would certainly be a good thing, in many respects. It just needs to be done in a coordinated manner so as not to code blue the global economy.
There's a clear niche for electric planes, and it can probably (barely) include small regional jet market.
Electrical airplanes are actually a fascinating engineering challenge because of all the various tradeoffs. All of which can be fined-tuned for the specific mission at hand.
But with batteries you're still limited to about 8% of the specific energy of Jet A, and that's at 100% chemical efficiency.
Chemical batteries are the best known portable storage technology for electrical energy. They can be improved, but there's a glass ceiling and we already know about what it is (1,000 KwH/Kg).
Frankly, lots of passion but pretty weak on basic science and engineering.
Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.
Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....
You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.
The rest is just babbling....
You are referring to me, but have attributed to me that which I did not say. You are a liar.
I said nothing about "electrical airplanes are hard." YOU said that. Speak for yourself, if you believe that you're capable. Don't put words in my mouth. I speak very well for myself.
I said nothing about "electrical airplanes are hard." YOU said that. Speak for yourself, if you believe that you're capable. Don't put words in my mouth. I speak very well for myself.
06-26-2019 | 07:39 AM
#57
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,153
Likes: 341
So is whining.
Oooh boy, where do we start on this one. It's like talking to a child.
Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.
Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....
You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.
The rest is just babbling....
Frankly, I'm surprised you can dress yourself.
Oooh boy, where do we start on this one. It's like talking to a child.
Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.
Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....
You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.
The rest is just babbling....
Frankly, I'm surprised you can dress yourself.
Solar IS the least expensive way to generate power. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
What he's saying is the AMOUNT of solar (and other renewables) required to generate our power needs is astronomical. Especially when you start transitioning transportation infrastructure to electric as well.
Nuclear is very safe, what has made it (somewhat) unsafe is using 1950's design...no new modern nuclear plants have been built.
China and India currently produces 60%+ of their power with coal (and increasing). Replacing that with renewable is a pipe dream. Nuclear would provide instant reductions in smog and contaminates. And it would also provide the needed power without sending people back into caves.
06-26-2019 | 08:02 AM
#58
Disinterested Third Party
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,758
Likes: 74
06-26-2019 | 08:32 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
Solar IS the least expensive way to generate power. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
What he's saying is the AMOUNT of solar (and other renewables) required to generate our power needs is astronomical. Especially when you start transitioning transportation infrastructure to electric as well.
Nuclear is very safe, what has made it (somewhat) unsafe is using 1950's design...no new modern nuclear plants have been built.
China and India currently produces 60%+ of their power with coal (and increasing). Replacing that with renewable is a pipe dream. Nuclear would provide instant reductions in smog and contaminates. And it would also provide the needed power without sending people back into caves.
What he's saying is the AMOUNT of solar (and other renewables) required to generate our power needs is astronomical. Especially when you start transitioning transportation infrastructure to electric as well.
Nuclear is very safe, what has made it (somewhat) unsafe is using 1950's design...no new modern nuclear plants have been built.
China and India currently produces 60%+ of their power with coal (and increasing). Replacing that with renewable is a pipe dream. Nuclear would provide instant reductions in smog and contaminates. And it would also provide the needed power without sending people back into caves.
Im sure with everything else already worked out they also have a neat chart with a data point for population-renewable energy equilibrium.
Im just wondering if the local zero emmision advocates are part of the solution in that effort?
06-26-2019 | 08:52 AM
#60
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
So is whining.
Oooh boy, where do we start on this one. It's like talking to a child.
Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.
Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....
You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.
The rest is just babbling....
Frankly, I'm surprised you can dress yourself.
Oooh boy, where do we start on this one. It's like talking to a child.
Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.
Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....
You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.
The rest is just babbling....
Frankly, I'm surprised you can dress yourself.
There are is only one option for zero emissions, nuclear and biofuel generated from waste heat.
Solar and wind require massive amounts of coal and natural gas to power through the production troughs. This is proven by Germany, whom is now caught in a vicious cycle, where more and more coal is required to keep their grid running. They have missed every single emissions target.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
