If it wasn't for electricity we would have choked ourselves to death by now. However as we shift to EV's we will need a new power grid to support it, one that is green and secure from being fucked with by hackers too. To charge that F-150 from flat takes a Helluva a lot of juice and as the range increases, so will the amount of power that will need to be dumped into the battery.
All new homes built in Cali are required to have solar roofs.....
Hydrogen makes sense to me for commercial transport: aircraft, trains and heavy trucks. Producing it is easy if you have enough wind or solar.
Grid storage is less sensitive to energy density.
They sell them for home solar as well, a bit bulkier, but last many cycles.
I fly FPV drones and RC planes that are eclectically powered with either Lipo's or Li on batteries and look forward to double or triple the range, performance and endurance.
Definitely not very efficient to run water hundreds of miles to the desert, but don't worry, that style of living is very finite.California wouldn't have water issues if 1/2 of it's citizens didn't choose to live in a desert...
www.notebookcheck.net
With the amount of money living in the desert here, we’ll get a new water source. Either piped from the PNW or separated from the sea.
That's what you get for buying an Apple with wheels on it.
Tesla owner blows up car over $22,000 repair bill
The explosion at a former quarry was captured on video from every angle.www.kktv.com
Regenerative braking!
Don't count on it. California has been trying to get our water for decades.
Until we get aneutronic fusion. Solar and wind are great for general use, but having a reliable high power generation capacity is valuable for heavy industry and electrified transport.
Fission is short term gain long term headache for our kids who will laugh at the technology, solar is the bridge until fusion reactors come on line imo but I agree we all need more energy self sufficiency
I’m not as down on fission as you. I know it is more dangerous, Fukushima taught us that as Chernobyl and TMI could not.
It’s difficult to factor in future costs when we don’t know the environmental damage the ongoing uptick in background radiation is causing so it seems sensible to reduce radioactive emissions as we are carbon. The costs are more than just financial so I’m for upscaling renewables more than increasing fission power.I’m not as down on fission as you. I know it is more dangerous, Fukushima taught us that as Chernobyl and TMI could not.
But when I run cost/benefit, fission still looks better than bad.
So long as we are on the way to developing better tech. Someone else thinks so too.
China's Artificial Sun Just Broke a Record for Longest Sustained Nuclear Fusion
Superheated plasma reached 126 million degrees Fahrenheit for 17 minuteswww.smithsonianmag.com
I’m hoping this will pry some more funding loose in the West.
