Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Theory, law or fact

Diogenes, no argument, it isn't about the details.

But with batteries I am not just talking about "no wind, no sun" storage.

The future is not the electric car, but the electric bike. Even If "only" a doubling of energy density occurred and a significant reduction in cost, then the electric bike would take over. Why carry around 2 tons of "space"? In most cases there isn't a need. In developing countries it would make the difference to where people could travel.

It is academic, batteries are just too expensive and too heavy. Profit margins on bikes are often 50% at the re-seller, the whole selling/distribution model is wrong. They need to become a commodity.

Anyway the point was not really about capital energy generation. For all the talk about "big oil", "big solar" etc, a cheap high density battery suitable for a combined "vehicle plus rider" weight of max 150 kg would change the world overnight.

Whilst not effecting the Connects of the developed world negatively, a viable electric bike would significantly increase the Connects of the Developing world.

Of course such a battery would make electric cars more viable, but really why carry around all that unused space and unnecessary weight? In a high maintenance form.

That also leads onto another thing about progress. CAGW advocates think skeptics are against renewables etc. If energy can be made cheaper and reliably then there is no issue. But let the market decide.

If you do not then you end if with a Trabant. Or...

And say the world invests completely in current solar technology. And along comes some guy working in his shed who discovers a totally new method. Overnight the investment made is obsolete. How do people think "big solar" would act?

It is just ridiculous to cover the planet is awful crappy technology (wind and solar) with investment time frames of 20 years or more. it is like investing in huge horse stables every 5 km because a society only has the horse drawn carriage to use, and want to build a transport system.

If we suddenly develop the "progress" equivalent of the train,, then go with the investment, but renewables currently are like two old nags pulling a cart.

Feb 15, 2016 at 2:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterMedia Hoar

... Until humans arrived, Australia had no top predators.
Feb 4, 2016 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Australia's extinct marsupial lion, Thylacoleo carnifex, was the continent's top predator at the time of human arrival 50,000 years ago.

"...Weighing more than 100kg, the animal had sharp claws and a powerful jaw, and shearing teeth that could rip through the flesh of its prey, which included giant kangaroos, rhinoceros-sized herbivores known as diprotodon..."

Feb 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A