Let's get started on the stupid...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Let's see, there's a lot of stupid to debunk here.
The battery energy density myth was already debunked by ATPcliff.
(Good luck Cliff, it's throwing pearls to swine around here)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Nuclear: oh my, no.... Aside from the ridiculously obvious Chernobyl references, it's just not economically viable.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Wind: Cheap, profitable, doesn't screw the environment, can be used with batteries. Plenty of places to build it.
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Solar: Cheap, profitable, doesn't screw the environment, can be used with batteries. Plenty of places to build it.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
"Electrical transportation will require 150% more electricity capacity, bla bla bla whine whine"
No.
Most charging will occur during low utilization, meaning, at night. So when everyone is asleep, power plants are at low capacity. Charging electric cars, trucks, and airplanes, there will be enough generation without the need for upgrade.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Natural gas: it's good for certain locations. Still makes CO2, but the least bad of the Nuke, Coal, Gas solutions.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Hydrogen: It's a dead pathway. inefficiencies, weight, complexity. Might work for remote areas or some trucks. There might be a technical breakthrough, but I'm not banking on it.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Fuel Cells: Meh. Fuel cells require H2 or some other consumable. The companies who support it do so not for efficiency, environment, or initial cost. They support it because it requires a consumable that they can supply... for a price.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Hydro: a dead technology. You have what you have (in the USA at least) and that's really it.
Not dead, it will be around forever
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Capacitors (or SUPER Capacitors as the marketers would say): Is a highly probable technology with price and density for most transportation solutions. You want to make money? Find the Cap company.
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
The oil industry IS subsidized heavily. Take away the wars we started to keep oil readily available and there goes half the cost. Decrease the demand for oil by 3-5% and we can control OPEC, not the other way around.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
This new electric airplane is an interesting advance and a brilliant one. It fits a very specific niche in aviation and allows it to be a real world proving ground for the electrical propulsion systems with high utilization and cycles placed on the motors, batteries, cooling, and regulation systems.
The lack of moving parts and MUCH lower maintenance will REALLY decrease costs in addition to the decrease in consumables.
An interesting problem will be the fact that the take off weight will always be the same as the landing weight.
Electric wins on simplicity and efficiency. End of story.
Energy density is still a challenge but it is being solved faster than many expect.
There's a clear niche for electric planes, and it can probably (barely) include small regional jet market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
As for the Genius who says "electrical airplanes are hard because I saw the 'Solar Impulse once"
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
This is quite possibly the dumbest comment that I've seen in years.
We're all stupider having read your comment.
May god have mercy on your soul.
Bunch of Cretans here.
Frankly, lots of passion but pretty weak on basic science and engineering.