Tesla and Puerto Rico.

Polydectes said:

Me too, but Americans seem reluctant to embrace nuclear energy despite the extremely good US safety record.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more same here in the UK. I would have like to see a significant investment into the small module reactors and fussion tokamaks. As I understand it there have been significant advances in the design and production of tokamaks and soon we should have the first commercially viable plants brought on stream.

I have always wondered how far down the line we would have been in terms of R&D on viability and technical capability if rather than throwing all the green taxes at solar/wind/tidal they had looked at fusion instead.

Fitz said:

Couldn't agree more same here in the UK. I would have like to see a significant investment into the small module reactors and fussion tokamaks. As I understand it there have been significant advances in the design and production of tokamaks and soon we should have the first commercially viable plants brought on stream.

I have always wondered how far down the line we would have been in terms of R&D on viability and technical capability if rather than throwing all the green taxes at solar/wind/tidal they had looked at fusion instead.

Click to expand...

We have another issue here in the states. We Embrace nuclear back in the fifties and sixties and now our plants are falling apart they need an overhaul but we won't let them.

It makes me wonder if this is all the coal industry. This whole green ecology thing is just a front. The only types of green energy were able to produce are really novelties. Wind generated energy and solar energy likely don't make up 1% of our nation's demand.

After the whole solyndra Fiasco I'm starting to think this kind of so-called green energy is a racket.

Polydectes said:

We have another issue here in the states. We Embrace nuclear back in the fifties and sixties and now our plants are falling apart they need an overhaul but we won't let them.

It makes me wonder if this is all the coal industry. This whole green ecology thing is just a front. The only types of green energy were able to produce are really novelties. Wind generated energy and solar energy likely don't make up 1% of our nation's demand.

After the whole solyndra Fiasco I'm starting to think this kind of so-called green energy is a racket.

Click to expand...

China wouldn't be aggressively going Green if it wasn't economically viable and there are nations that are majority/entirely green. I mean solar is cheaper than oil, the problem is the US simply doesn't invest in it because Oil owns everyone in D.C.

David said:

China wouldn't be aggressively going Green if it wasn't economically viable and there are nations that are majority/entirely green. I mean solar is cheaper than oil, the problem is the US simply doesn't invest in it because Oil owns everyone in D.C.

Click to expand...

How much of the nation's demand could be met with solar?

tecoyah said:

Elon Musk wants to power the US off of solar - Business Insider

Click to expand...

I have my doubts.

Polydectes said:

How much of the nation's demand could be met with solar?

Click to expand...

A massive solar farm in Nevada could power the nation. All it takes is the government to say no to oil, spend the money and wait for it to be built. The math has been in for decades.

The trouble with Tesla and Elon Musk is that although he is without doubt a visionary and a very capable man he is prone to over-estimate his and his comapnies capability. There are many solar powered ideas that on paper that all look viable and wiring up the desert with solar PVs and Tesla batteries sounds great. The trouble is that Tesla stuff doesn't really work - at least not as good as what is already out there.

There are a number of decent "battery" systems out there for commercial load, A123 Systems and NGK of Japan for example. Unfortunately they are expensive and following Musks' desert idea would require much of the "desert" capacity to charge and maintain the load, also with a lifespan of no more that about 15 years they would be expensive to replace - Tesla batteries are much less... for want of a better phrase "efficient", cost more and last a maximum 10 years.

Batteries are seen as the holy grail of the green power movement but are unfortunately a major issue at the moment in that there is nothing really on the horizon that is going to solve the problem of bulk storeage for commercial load variability.

Tesla Corp is in my humble oppinion a ponzi scheme in that it has thrived on cheap capital over the last decade to service a massive debt producing mediocre goods to an affluent middle class wanting to "do their bit" for the planet. The hype and gush surrounding Tesla has enabled them to obtain mountains cheap credit and as long as the elegant and suave Elon Musk stays in front of the media then great he can maintain his public image and keep selling his junk to the affluent green middle classes.

I'm just thankful that their are still serious people, serious engineers doing the serious research and working hard trying to solve the real problems with RES. These are the people that stand up and say "errrmm well its not that simple really!" These are the people that don't get in front of the cameras but they sure as hell make a serious contribution.

tecoyah said:

{snip}... NASA...people impose limitations on imagination and progress by having weak vision.

Click to expand...

Yeah look at NASA...!!! What is NASA doing?? medical research....checking water temps....turned their sights earthbound instead of the other way. Whatever happened to those majestic rockets they built the visions they had for space exploration and missions to Mars and beyond...all lost...not green...no bucks...no buck rogers (phrase stolen from somewhere....help me out!!)

What is NASA doing nowadays??

David said:

A massive solar farm in Nevada could power the nation. All it takes is the government to say no to oil, spend the money and wait for it to be built. The math has been in for decades.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you.

Fitz said:

Yeah look at NASA...!!! What is NASA doing?? medical research....checking water temps....turned their sights earthbound instead of the other way. Whatever happened to those majestic rockets they built the visions they had for space exploration and missions to Mars and beyond...all lost...not green...no bucks...no buck rogers (phrase stolen from somewhere....help me out!!)

What is NASA doing nowadays??

Click to expand...

you see we had to defund NASA so that we could waste more money fighting in the Middle East.

Polydectes said:

you see we had to defund NASA so that we could waste more money fighting in the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Ah yes...a worthwhile escapade that brought much joy and harmony to downtrodden folk...yay

tecoyah said:

I truly hope you are Joking. If not you must have missed the probes on Mars, Cassini, Hubble, the upcoming SLS, Orion....etc....

Click to expand...

Cassini was launched in 1997...
Hubble was launched in 1990...
SLS is mired in political and funding issues and may be ready in 2023?
Orion is part of the SLS (crew module)

But yes, I understand your point. It just seemed to me that after the challenger issue there was a shit load of naval gazing and nobody had the will to gather the pieces and push forward....funding I guess. Its easier to defray costs and work in collaboration with Europeans and Russians and Chinese.

tecoyah said:

As stated...do a bit of research into what you are typing. After challenger there were many Shuttle missions

Click to expand...

...mybad should have read "Colombia"....

tecoyah said:

It would seem you think NASA is the Apollo program and should just be astronauts walking on another planetary body....believe it of not it takes a lot of research and thought before you get to that stage if you want them to live.

Click to expand...

yeah...I think I get that...however the paradigm was exactly that! Astronauts in space and walking on planets; early on NASA's ethos was not to be hobbled by one off launch mission dragging fuel and comsumables with them just to esacpe the earth's gravity it was to establish consumables in orbit (even on the moon!) so that vehicles could be sent without having to be reliant on earth that was the purpose of the nascent STS mission they were supposed to be the stepping stones to a more sustainable system. The paradigm changed with the makeup of the oversight board that had little understanding of what roles NASA would have in for example the ISS where did all the orbiter programmes go where did all the research go on lifting bodies etc etc.? Now we have earth bound photographers with canon camers or whatever sightseeing planets which is great but where is the stepping stone? The commercial companies are now taking up that challenge and good for them maybe they should have the money that NASA gets instead.

tecoyah said:

The exact same can be said after Columbia.

Click to expand...

Not really the program was being wound down look at the number of missions scheduled and then compare the number cancelled "No Mission crew assigned"