If you study the 'Tesla' recycling report you can see that it is written in the future tense.
The video of Redwood Materials' pilot plant (~15:00 at https://tinyurl.com/y4fhhkpm) suggests that the process is working and scaling up is under way. Yes that could be marketing hype but the amount of input material they have on hand is not small. Are they just getting paid to store it? As a co-founder of Tesla, Straubel surely doesn't need the pocket change that might yield.
The video of Redwood Materials' pilot plant (~15:00 at https://tinyurl.com/y4fhhkpm) suggests that the process is working and scaling up is under way. Yes that could be marketing hype but the amount of input material they have on hand is not small.
Even if it were a miniature pilot plant, if they can do it, they can do it. Where "do it" means recycle with a method that would be cost effective on a large scale; a method that can be scaled up; and that is safe. There is no need to demonstrate actual cost effective recycling in the first machines they build.
Too many people confuse the roles of a proof or principle machine with an actual, commercially viable machine. This happens a lot in cold fusion. Brillouin is off chasing after the end of the rainbow, trying to achieve commercially useful levels of power. There is no need to do that! Just demonstrate a reasonably good ability to control the reaction in a device that can be scaled up in principle, and you have solved the problem. Show that to investors and you will get all the money you need.
Another article about the graphene Brownian motion harvester chip. The jump from picowatts to milliwatts is assumed.
https://medium.com/fast-compan…-and-for-all-3c31ca35b036
Medium allows up to five free reads per month.
Another article about the graphene Brownian motion harvester chip. The jump from picowatts to milliwatts is assumed.
I thought Graphene was just something you used to get research grants, now I see it has advanced to the point where you can use it to raise private equity. That's progress.
I have in the past seen similar claims about building power sources based on the thermal noise in diodes. But I think that idea went away.
Climeon Close Up.
The answer is we need EVERYTHING available in equal measure......petrol for motorcycles, diesel for cars, lithium ion batteries for TESLAS. The latter are far more effective in lightweight bicycles. More EFFICIENT. Less chance of EXPLODING! Or just use LEAD-ACID in GOLF CARTS!!! Battery TECH has gone as far as it can, so we need to hedge our bets and use GAS as well (preferably methane because it is easy to store and lastly NUCLEAR which although terribly terribly expensive leaves no CARBON FOOTPRINT. As if that is really IMPORTANT????? The jury is still out on GLOBAL WARMING anyway I think MONKTON is right. Nuff said.
Clue what is the differential or integral of an exponential or random process?? Another exponential with the same time constsnt!!! WHICH looks LINEAR if examined very very closely!!! thing of how ferns grow in MANDELBROT patterns or CROP circles!! Thos farmers have been on the booze again!!.
interesting how enzymes are removed ..
interesting how enzymes are removed ..
Without the whole arrangment of compounds with their different categories the food breakdown is unbalanced or inefficient. The digestive dances need some of different helpful element categories. I hear you.
it would be a job for AI for shore.
it would be a job for AI for shore.
The blessings are something for inspired analogue human minds too. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and divine patterns older than digital AI, in order to see. Still loving AI, smartly done, analogue or digital. Lord knows it was done first analogue millennia ago. Lord knows some of us flesh heads get the pattern.
https://www.realclearenergy.or…eir_drawbacks_654808.html
Does the the inconvenience, and cost of charging EV's make them impractical? You be the judge.
https://www.realclearenergy.or…eir_drawbacks_654808.html
Does the the inconvenience, and cost of charging EV's make them impractical? You be the judge.
Have to say that for me the whole ICE vs EV vehicles debate is spurious, I think a serious attempt to develop fuel cell cars would settle the matter once and for all, battery technology will never be better than fuel cells.
Display MoreGenerate electricity from (hopefully) a green source. Use that electricity and other resources to produce hydrogen. Transport and store the hydrogen (using up more energy and resources.). Pump hydrogen into a vehicle. Operate a fuel cell in the vehicle to produce electricity to power the car. Every step wastes energy.
Or
Generate electricity from (hopefully) a green source. Charge a vehicle battery. Power the car.
Which of these things seems like the sensible way to go?
All contending technologies have pros and cons, the less bad bottom line IMHO is for the fuel Cell powered EVs, as long as it has to be an EV. Batteries weight to power ratio is by far their Achilles heel.
An even better alternative would be a turbine powered hybrid hydrogen EV, but that’s further away in terms of development.
Does the the inconvenience, and cost of charging EV's make them impractical? You be the judge.
That depends on the EV, and on where you live, and where you drive to. As I mentioned, I had a Leaf for several months. It has a 90 mile range. COVID-19 meant I no longer need a second car, so I gave it my daughter in DC. Here in Atlanta, with my commute, the 90-mile range made no difference at all. It was good for nearly all trips. However, in DC when my daughter drives to northern Maryland or Pennsylvania, the range is a problem. She sometimes has to stop and recharge, which takes 30 minutes. So it is less practical than a gasoline car.
EVs with much larger ranges are more practical. When the range becomes about as much as you can drive in one day, and there are overnight chargers at your destination or motel, the problem should largely go away.
Generate electricity from (hopefully) a green source. Use that electricity and other resources to produce hydrogen. Transport and store the hydrogen (using up more energy and resources.). Pump hydrogen into a vehicle. Operate a fuel cell in the vehicle to produce electricity to power the car. Every step wastes energy.
You can see how much energy each step wastes in this NREL document:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf
It is out of date, but still useful.
@Jed - I recently wrote another piece on this topic - or close to it - in hydrogen fuel cells compared with electrolysis. Somewhat partisan I'm afraid, but I am in the chemical hydrogen game.
Does the the inconvenience, and cost of charging EV's make them impractical?
Come to think of it . . . this is like asking: "Does the small size of a Mini Cooper make it impractical?" For a family of 6 driving 300 miles, the answer is Yes. For someone with 4 sheep dogs or someone who has to haul tons of lumber and concrete, the answer is Yes. That person needs a pickup truck. But, for me, driving with one or two people in Atlanta and picking up groceries, it would be fine. There are different kinds of vehicles for different purposes, and different markets.
What I like about the Mini Cooper is the window decal says: "Actual Size"
