/sci/ - Science & Math

(future general thread)

0

Just a few days ago:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8361001/want-to-live-to-be-150-years-old

Also:
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029

http://www.ted.com/themes/might_you_live_a_great_deal_longer.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/sierra-sciences-working-towards.html

http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3329065877451441972#

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-biologists-yeast-cells-reverse-aging.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-dna-reverse-premature-aging.html

So while you can't live forever (heat death) you can expect to live indefinitely, whether hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of years. It all depends on the technology and the circumstances you find yourself in.

I swear to Sagan if one more person says only rich people will be able to afford a relatively inexpensive synthesized medicine I will rip off your nuts, blend them and force-feed you them through an IV drip mixed with the aging cure.

Trust me.
You do NOT want to see the future

>>3927463

if its anything like Fallout i want to

>>3927461

I just creamed my pants. SO HARD.

>>3927463

The future is going to be glorious.

No one will ever live forever.

Zero.

But then, I don't want to live forever, just an indefinate period of time. An extra few decades, or centuries, or even millenia would be nice, but we're never forever.

All I want is the max time I can get, I've accepted my eventual non-existence and I'm alright with that bit.

Related, how much self improvement will you do with your time, /sci/? I'd pick up all major languages, not to mention fixing my math-deficit.

>>3927482
This. Infinity doesn't exist as a real thing. You will never reach living forever.

>>3927485
I wouldn't do anything. At all. Ever. I'd just keep procrastinating it into nest millennium.

>>3927485
>Related, how much self improvement will you do with your time, /sci/?
I would do everything.
EVERYTHING.

By the time I'm old and frail I'll be able to download my conscious onto a computer and scientist will be able to use my brain for all sorts of things. Hopefully I get to control a swarm of nanobots exploring the galaxy

>>3927445

That looks like a sad future. Looks like people just shuffling around, going about their business, being slaves to the system. Looks like technology advanced while society is still boring as fuck.

>>3927493
>my view when

Thinking about having an enormous amount of time, I'd try and get to space. Not just working and buying a ticket, but assembling a Gemini-style craft to go enjoy being weightless in.
(Of course, if I'll be living hundreds of years I'll go further than that, buying land on the moon and a ticket to live there, building a ship to Mars.)
THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER HORIZON, /SCI/!

You see cool future shit every day. Progress happens all around us, don't take it for granted. Scanning dreams? Quantum levitation? Naval railguns? Private spaceflight? We live in amazing times.

>>3927522
If you want to fly, do you want to be living in 1920, or 2011?

Just a thought I had. These ARE amazing times, but can we be patient enough to wait for what we want?

Spirits never die op.

>>3927520
> THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER HORIZON, /SCI/!

No, you were just born into the Cheap Oil era, where you got drunk on huge, constant growth. But that era is over, and there are no energy sources for humanity to exploit that will drive that sort of growth anymore. Now you must live in the new era of Oil Starvation. Literally billions of people are alive today purely because they have "eaten oil" by pumping petroleum into fuels and fertilizers and an industrial crop system. Once the Cheap Oil stops energizing that, they must die off.

There are no more horizons, having wasted our limited and one-time Petroleum Heritage on zooming around trying to make more deals for a bigger pile of fiat currency. Now humanity must endure billions will become murderous before they let loose this mortal coil. Those who must downsize or starve, will be VERY angry and will expect their militaries to "do something" about it, since we are really just violent simians who got ahold of sharp knives.

And so those militaries will invoke the Resource Wars. And those will help commit the megadeaths that will prelude the gigadeaths. AND THEN IT GETS WORSE.

>>3927532

Nuclear reactors and electric cars/trains.

>>3927532
>violent simians
WE'VE TOLD YOU TO FUCK OFF LIKE FIFTY TIMES NOW.

>>3927532
>all economies collapse
>world ends
>those horizons are still there, never to be seen by humans

Way to stay positive.
also
>implying oil is only fuel forever

>>3927532

>implying Thorium won't overtake Oil

>no energy whatsoever
>all of a sudden, oil
> "whee oil!"
> oil starts running out
> "whoop, party over"
> civilization ends

This is what >>3927532 actually believe

>>3927539
> Nuclear reactors and electric cars/trains.

Stop DERPing. Those are either expensive or just don't go where you're going. There is essentially ZERO train infrastructure in the USA for passengers. And Amtrak is under constant subsidy, since IT CAN NEVER MAKE MONEY.

There's a reason why you see diesel engines running your construction equipment, moron. Only such an engine delivers the power that's required for the work. You can't electrify such equipment.

Stop pretending that there's a replacement for CHEAP FUCKING OIL. There just isn't. Whatever we have to "replace" it will be less energy dense, far more expensive, and generally more impractical. Multiply those factors together and you get your civilization's total skullfucking.

... as if you could ever convince the American people to ever let another nuke plant be built in the nation.

>>3927540
> WE'VE TOLD YOU TO FUCK OFF LIKE FIFTY TIMES NOW.

So? You're going to tell me tens times that amount before you finally give up. Better get some practice in, eh? Wanker. You fucking petro-baby.

>>3927628
>here is essentially ZERO train infrastructure in the USA for passengers. And Amtrak is under constant subsidy, since IT CAN NEVER MAKE MONEY.
Sure sucks for those 300 million people.
>There's a reason why you see diesel engines running your construction equipment, moron. Only such an engine delivers the power that's required for the work. You can't electrify such equipment.
Why not?

>Stop pretending that there's a replacement for CHEAP FUCKING OIL. There just isn't. Whatever we have to "replace" it will be less energy dense, far more expensive, and generally more impractical. Multiply those factors together and you get your civilization's total skullfucking.
Oil is made with magic fusion fairy dust, gotcha.

>... as if you could ever convince the American people to ever let another nuke plant be built in the nation.
I'm sure after China has a raving success with their LFTR project that this will change.

>>3927542
> >implying oil is only fuel forever

Petroleum IS the only fuel that offers the combination of high energy density, cheapness, and practicality (ie. ease of exploitation, shipping and storage).

Considering all those factors, it's easy to see why almost all your stupid civilization runs on it. However, it's really odd that you can't even SEE that. You're drunk on the Myth of Growth. Well, the end of Cheap Oil will school you, and when you finally admit that I'm right, I'll be here, waiting.

Are you a rich white person?

If not, you won't be living forever.

The likelihood that you live forever is 1/3. There are three possible outcomes:
You die of natural causes
You live forever
You kill yourself

/thread
>I suggest the latter of the three

>>3927634
> Sure sucks for those 300 million people.

Yep! But they do have a kick-ass military that has already started the Resource Wars phase of the decline of all human civilization.

Who's laughing now, shorty?

> Why not?

Because only petroleum-based fuels provide the energy density, cheapness, and practicality required to run the modern construction plant.

Of course, you could scoff at all that, and go back to using oxen and wooden hoists.

> Oil is made with magic fusion fairy dust, gotcha.

No, petroleum is a fossil fuel. There's only so many trillions of barrels in the ground that we can exploit at certain costs levels.

> I'm sure after China has a raving success with their LFTR project that this will change.

It's hard to predict innovation when there's no particular innovation track record for what you're advocating. But do keep hoping. Hope is all you've got.

>>3927647
On that note, the likelihood that the past exists is also 1/3.
>The past does exist
>The past existed at one point but now does not exist
>The past never existed and is only a misinterpretation of the present

>>3927628
>electric trains and cars
>There's a reason why you see diesel engines running your construction equipment, moron. Only such an engine delivers the power that's required for the work. You can't electrify such equipment.

You've never seen an electric train? What decade are you living in? 1910?

Oh no, how will we have any electricity if we run out of oil? Wait a second, what's that picture at left...

>>3927638

I'm white, and I plan on being pretty rich.

>>3927654
> You've never seen an electric train? What decade are you living in? 1910?

Which letter in "construction equipment" proved too difficult to comprehend for you?

Your construction industry runs on diesel, or gasoline in a pinch. A minor portion runs on propane. Bitch, NONE OF IT runs on electric transportation. That's because elec-trans sucks dickwads. It's good for certain things, but the majority of construction equipment and individual transport? Those require TOO MUCH FUCKING RAW POWER.

Why are /sci/tards so fucking autistic about energy sources? Oh yeah, that's because they were born into a civilization that was swimming in cheap petroleum. Well, it's a fossil fuel and the CHEAP STUFF has assuredly run out. Now you're dependent on it and you have nowhere to go.

>>3927681

>but the majority of construction equipment and individual transport? Those require TOO MUCH FUCKING RAW POWER.

actually most of the energy intensive work done by construction equipment is hydraulic. nothing, in principle, prevents the use of tethered electric construction vehicles as they don't need to roam very far on the work site.

>>3927681

>Why are /sci/tards so fucking autistic about energy sources?

Autism is focusing obsessively on one topic and reacting with hostility to any efforts to broaden the discussion. You're autistic about oil. Everyone here is trying to talk you down from your sperg rage with facts about where energy comes from, what oil is really used for an alternatives for those uses that are electric.

>>3927662
> Oh no, how will we have any electricity if we run out of oil? Wait a second, what's that picture at left...

Nearly half of your electricity comes from coal, followed by about 20-25% each of natural gas and nuclear. What fuel base is used to maintain those plants? PETROLEUM. What fuel base is used to transport fuel to those plants? PETROLEUM. How do workers show up every day to run those plants? PETROLEUM. What's put into the trucks that run out after each ice storm to get tens of thousands of people back on the grid? PETROLEUM.

Cheap oil powered the hypermajority of your civilization. And you can't afford whatever might be used to replace it; or you will find the replacement lacking the energy density or power; or you will become tired of the impracticality of the replacement's utility. Taken together, you will have very hard time running your civ without Cheap Oil.

>>3927681
>respond to a comment about transport with one about construction
>call other people autistic when they stick to the original point

>>3927690

>Nearly half of your electricity comes from coal

Which is not oil.

>followed by about 20-25% each of natural gas and nuclear.

So let's knock out 24% for nat. gas and oil. You're saying we cannot make up that deficit with nuclear? Really?

>What fuel base is used to maintain those plants? PETROLEUM.

....Nuclear plants run on petroleum?

>What fuel base is used to transport fuel to those plants? PETROLEUM.

Use electric trains for most of the trip and electric trucks for the last mile.

>How do workers show up every day to run those plants? PETROLEUM.

Unless they drive a Leaf or Volt. And more EVs are on the way.

>What's put into the trucks that run out after each ice storm to get tens of thousands of people back on the grid? PETROLEUM.

Not mine. All electric.

>>3927685
> actually most of the energy intensive work done by construction equipment is hydraulic. nothing, in principle, prevents the use of tethered electric construction vehicles as they don't need to roam very far on the work site.

"Hydraulic" isn't a power source, retard. Construction equipment used at today's construction pace, needs the raw power provided by DIESEL AND GASOLINE.

Minor uses like forklifts use propane. There are even a few electric forklifts, but those can't match the propane ones. A propane switchout takes 2 minutes.

Your construction industry will have to change, and you fuckers are NOT prepared for such changes. I can't wait for you to start screaming about huge increases in utility fees in order to keep gassing up those trucks for storm service. Keep yelling, as if that will make more Magic Petroleum appear out of the fucking ground.

>>3927699

>"Hydraulic" isn't a power source, retard.

I didn't say that, asshole. You claimed only diesel engines have the power necessary for construction vehicles. I was pointing out that the most strenuous work they do employs not the engine but hydraulic pistons which can be compressed via electric pumps.

>A propane switchout takes 2 minutes.

So does a battery switchout.

You're religiously obsessed with doomsday, same as Harold Camping, but you're of the post apocalyptic survivalist sect. You *want* the world to end because of deep dissatisfaction with your own life. You imagine that if the playing field were leveled by the collapse of civilization that you could rise to the top of the wreckage. You are wrong.

>>3927696
> Use electric trains for most of the trip and electric trucks for the last mile.

I keep telling you that your system is 99% dependent on petroleum, and you wave all that magically away as if there will be no costs to change out all that infrastructure.

You can't afford to change all your trains to electric. You can't afford to change all your light-transport trucks to electric. The basic point is that nothing replaces the CHEAPNESS of the oil supplies that we blew through in the 20th Century.

Like I said before, once those huge utility increases come rolling down into your life, and are passed along to you by each business, then you're gonna scream. Scream all you want, you no longer will have a choice.

>>3927708
>You can't afford to change all your trains to electric
>Implying most of mainland Europe has not already done this

>>3927708

>I keep telling you that your system is 99% dependent on petroleum, and you wave all that magically away as if there will be no costs to change out all that infrastructure.

I never claimed it would be free, where did you get that idea from? Obviously it will be costly. Everything is.

>You can't afford to change all your trains to electric.

All of our trains already are. Diesel electric trains use electric motors powered by diesel generators. Diesel engines don't have the torque necessary. As a result converting them to electric would be a matter of adding the power electronics onboard and an overhead line, like light rail.

>You can't afford to change all your light-transport trucks to electric.

Yes we can.

>The basic point is that nothing replaces the CHEAPNESS of the oil supplies that we blew through in the 20th Century.

Electricity is a damn sight cheaper than oil.

>Like I said before, once those huge utility increases come rolling down into your life

Like you've been insisting would happen any day now for decades?

>and are passed along to you by each business, then you're gonna scream. Scream all you want, you no longer will have a choice.

I'm not screaming. You are.

>>3927707
> You claimed only diesel engines have the power necessary for construction vehicles.

Yes, because that's true. Only a heavy petroleum distillate like diesel or gasoline can power these vehicles.

> I was pointing out that the most strenuous work they do employs not the engine but hydraulic pistons which can be compressed via electric pumps.

Except that those electric pumps don't have the power density.

You're pretty much the stupidest fucker alive. If cheap electric motors would have sufficed, the industry would have adopted them by now. But they didn't, since ONLY A DIESEL ENGINE CAN RELIABLY AND ECONOMICALLY POWER THAT 10-TON LOADER OR SCRAPER.

When people realize that the Cheap Oil is gone for good, they will hurriedly try to change over, but will find electrics won't create the same infrastructure. What will be created will be expensive to change in the first place, and will result in an underpowered civ. Downsizing of all sorts of things must happen. And you're just not prepared for that.

You fuckers believe that technology CREATED energy sources. That's fucking rubbish. Tech only allowed us to better exploit what was there already. And with a fossil fuel, that only meant accelerating depletion, so eventually you RUN OUT.

>>3927714
> Implying most of mainland Europe has not already done this

You people are so fucking retarded that it's now time for you to become licensed to even speak on such forums.

1. Europe got bombed out from two world wars. The USA didn't. Europe HAD to replace their rail lines.

2. The USA has massive stretches of land between rail nodes. Europe is dense. So rail makes a lot more economic sense there, than in the USA.

3. The USA runs on HYPERCAPITALISM. That means what Europe (which runs a much more socialist model) can afford, Americans just can't. The USA could easily afford socialized medicine, for example, but ask anyone there if they'd afford it, and you'd get a screaming "NOOOOOO!".

Well, well, well. Looks like we have a major case of buthurt in this thread. Do you autistic piece of shit really belive that the Western world is going to suffer when the oil runs out.
No sir, we have the technology and neccecary infrastructure to switch to other energy sources.

The reason why we don't have so many electric cars is simply the fact that we don't need them jet. When the oil starts to become too expencive for cars, we will have a gradual increase in electric ones. And at that point the puplic opinion on nuclear energy won't matter' as the emergy needed for their cars will outweight the fears of nuclear energy.

The third world will be facing the majority of the shit that comes when the peak oil is reached, and why agai should we care about the poor dirty scum of developing nations?

>>3927718

>Yes, because that's true. Only a heavy petroleum distillate like diesel or gasoline can power these vehicles.

No, electric motors would easily suffice.

>Except that those electric pumps don't have the power density.

Sure they do. Electric motors are not inherently weaker than internal combustion engines, and in fact they are superior in the torque department.

>You're pretty much the stupidest fucker alive.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you don't honestly believe it.

>If cheap electric motors would have sufficed, the industry would have adopted them by now.

The reason they haven't been adopted is because gas powered equipment is cheaper. I am not denying that. Only saying that electric equivalents are possible and would not be much more expensive.

>....but will find electrics won't create the same infrastructure.

True, it will be very different. And use less energy, too. But it will accomplish much more with that energy than you imagine. Remember that motors are 85% efficient. They do more work for the energy consumed than a gas engine that's perhaps 25% efficient if you're lucky.

>You fuckers believe that technology CREATED energy sources.

No I don't. One of the problems you seem to have is that you lie unashamedly and in literally every post. You deliberately and grossly misrepresent other people's positions in order to belittle them and tear down a strawman version of their argument. This is terrible behavior, you should be ashamed of yourself.

>>3927532

Hey dude
hey

Your thoughts mirror my own.
Our Petroleum Heritage was our one shot to get off this rock.
Life is a fluke, and sentient life too, it is our responsibility to distribute it to a barren universe.
We are failing in this responsibility.
Space Colonization is not inevitable. It is a purely philanthropic endeavour of extreme expense.
We spent our surplus economic potential on the automobile, which warped the conduct of our soceity. And dumb wars I guess.

Just use hydrogen power.

ITT: People who don't know about the collapse of complex societies.

ITT: People who don't realize that but 30 years ago we were on the brink of nuclear annihilation, and that we could be living in a pocket of relative stability that will soon end as shit gets tough. Because they've only been alive for <30 years, hahaha!

ITT: One autistic fuck cannot figure out how to think beyond the present situation.

Oil isn't going to run out for at LEAST another 50 years, and judging by the advancements in alternative energy in just the last 15 years, I'd say when the time comes we'll be in pretty fucking good shape to make the transition. Prove me wrong.

According to Lucretius/Epicurus, nothing but the most basic particles and the universe itself exist forever.

So yeah, literally forever won't happen.

>this thread

So I take it from the reactions, this dumb fuck has been posting stupid shit for a while now huh?

>hypermajority
>hypercapitalism

go climb a wall of hyperdicks

>no replacement for oil
>what is algae biofuel
>fast growing, high lipid content, can use carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for synthesis of hydrocarbons, can be grown in arid deserts, can be grown in saline water, genetic engineering to improve all of these characteristics, easily refined into biodeisel
>Estimates show America could be powered by algae farms 1/7 the total size of al corn farm land in America right now.
I see the future.

>>3927776
We call him Mr. Violent Simians, as he seems to be unable to refrain from opening his statements in threads without incorporating it.
See:
>>3927532

>>3927818

>>Estimates show America could be powered by algae farms 1/7 the total size of al corn farm land in America right now.

Or we can farm it in the ocean.

>>3927532
The only reason we don't run on windmills and solar panels is because oil and coal is slightly less expensive. The industrial revolution won't end with fossil fuels.

>>3927532
Lol, no.
Pic related, it's thorium.

>>3927637
>>all your stupid civilization runs on it
>>your

WTF?
are you an alien anon?

Future will be just now, forever.

I'll just leave this here.

>>3929775
> The industrial revolution won't end with fossil fuels.

Of course it won't. It will just go back to the Coal Era, and you didn't have 100s of millions of personal vehicles back then. But you did have HORSES. And people WALKED A LOT.

Out of 7 billion people alive today, probably 3 billion are SOLELY alive because of Cheap Oil. There is no possible means of feeding them outside of the oil-mechanized agricultural system. So they must die off.

You're already into the kilodeaths of the start of the Resource Wars. That will lead inexorably into megadeaths. And you have no preparation for the gigadeaths that much conclude this civilizational collapse.

There's a reason why systems collapse once you puff them up too much with unsustainable inputs. And I must state again that technology doesn't CREATE energy sources; it just allowed us to EXPLOIT them, and in exploiting them, we only increase their DEPLETION.

>>3929835
lol, thorium. thats the stock photo of shiny things, its:
>Selenium:
http://www.informed.hu/betegsegek/betegsegek_reszletesen/endocrine/diabetes/?article_hid=96269
>Palladium:
http://dondwest.hubpages.com/hub/Palladium-Catalyst
>Europium
http://www.odiseacosmica.com/2010/11/la-escasez-de-algunos-minerales-podria.html
>Dysprosium
http://www.americanelements.com/AErareearths.html
>Vanadium
http://www.jaiom18.com/vanadium-vitamin-steel-vanadium-discovered-nils-gabriel-sefstorm-1830/
>Zinc
http://www.altcap-metals.com/zinc.html
>and lets not forget thorium
>>3927445

>>3929908

>and you didn't have 100s of millions of personal vehicles back then

Actually, electric cars dominated back then and will again. For those without there were extensive electric trolley networks that were eventually bought out and destroyed by the auto industry.

Transport will change a great deal, but not for the worse. Our current system of transport is the bloated result of errors carried forward for many decades.

I just want to live long enough to be able to upload my memories into a robot.

>>3929908
LOL, no. there is no real investment in alternative energies because
a) oil is cheap
b) oil companies are powerful
There are other reasons, but these will suffice.

Once oil stops bein cheap, real research on alternative sources will begin.
Also, thorium.

>>your society
It is also your pal, unless that PC you are using runs on biofuel. Should society collapse, armchair survivalists would be the first to die out.
Why? Because you are social recluses, unable to work in a group.

>>3929961

>LOL, no. there is no real investment in alternative energies

This is provably false. Renewable power has the highest growth of any form of energy. Coal plants are actually being gradually decommissioned. Only 2 left in our state, after which we'll be full hydro/nuclear/wind/solar.

Solar is also the fastest growing energy industry right now.

How much faith do you have in human innovation?

>>3930031

>How much faith do you have in human innovation?

The same amount of faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. Human innovation is not unprecedented. Historically it is the rule, not the exception. Innovation has been frustrating malthusian doomsayers since long before there was a term for such people.

>>3927628
Look, US is a shithole, we can all agree.
But US=/= The world

>>3930031
Hasn't let us down too badly yet

Though I see the Americas situation as worse than the European one. Your infrastructure is inefficient and out of date and your people seem more reluctant/ afraid of change more than anyone else. No offence

Next gen electric vehicles are looking very positive, looking at 600km with 6 min fast charging available soon. Still hopes for a kind Mutual inductance highway in the future

>>3930044
> Human innovation is not unprecedented. Historically it is the rule, not the exception.

The real historical exception has been CHEAP OIL. It was like magic, since it produced such cheap and large energy that was so practical to use.

You Western retards are going to have to find all this out the HARD WAY. You are actually so brainwashed that you believe that the end of cheap energy means that investment in other sources will somehow (by some miracle) bring back the cheap energy era again. It can't; logic alone suffices to say that it can't, since you're counting on EXPENSIVENESS to produce it.

You /sci/fags are exactly the same as religious morons. You believe technology will solve all your problems. Yet tech has done little other than create more problems for each single problem that it solved, until your civilization is drowning in problems.

The fact is, NOTHING replaces Cheap Oil. Physics and chemistry tell me this. And you /sci/fags are the ones who were supposed to abide by physics and chemistry. Pfui! You're no better than Muzzie shitskins when it comes to your own religion, TECHNOLOGY.

>>3930069

>Next gen electric vehicles are looking very positive, looking at 600km with 6 min fast charging available soon.

I am THE pro-EV guy here, so please believe me when I say a 6 minute fast charge will not happen. When they say that, what it means is the battery chemistry they're using can withstand charging at that rate without significant degradation. However it requires unbelievable current to charge that fast. We're talking, a private transformer at every charging location. 30 minute fast charging already requires enormous bulky charging equipment that costs tens of thousands. That's at 380 volts and 300/400 amps. The most common charging standard will probably be somewhere between that and the 240 standard, as a reduction to 380v/200a dramatically reduces the size and cost of the charger to something not much larger than a 240v charging pole but offers a 45 minute to an hour charging time which, for a parked car, is just about right. These will be supplemented by battery swap stations, most likely only one or two within cities, and spaced at 60 or 70 miles apart on interstates to accommodate lower range EVs.

>>3930100
You're so mature and edgy, you must be at least 12.

>>3930109
Try being pro-EV and visiting /o/, it's depressing

The 6min fast charge was based of a prototype Audi using Li-po batteries and a High voltage DC charging point. It will damage the cells pretty quickly but I would rarely see myself having to drive over 600km in a day anyway.

>>3930133

>The 6min fast charge was based of a prototype Audi using Li-po batteries and a High voltage DC charging point.

I know that. Like I said, I'm the EV guy here. Specifically it was a prototype from a German company and it used Kolibri alpha polymer batteries, currently used in high end electric forklifts.

>It will damage the cells pretty quickly but I would rarely see myself having to drive over 600km in a day anyway.

Actually it won't. One of the benefits of kolibri alpha polymer batteries is resistance to damage at high charging current, just like li-titanate. Very few chemistries can boast this.

>>3930133
It's simple really, you're asking electricity to match the energy density and transfer rate of liquid hydrocarbons. You might as well ask hydrocarbons to match nuclear.

The best way to get fast charging is to have replaceable battery packs and that creates a shit ton of issues that chemical combustion simply doesn't have.

Far better to use energy to create methanol from sustainable, cheap feedstocks.

>>3930148
Hey ms, if a 400lb generator can produce as much electricty from a gallon of gas as a ev uses to travel 100 mikes, why do hybrids use the gas engine as part of a drivetrain instead of purely to recharge batteries?

>>3930176
Because the oil producers don't want the hybrids to be too efficient. Just enough that even hippys keep buying their oil.

>>3930148
I bow to your superior knowledge sir, I am but a simple electrician wishing to self educate.

On the front-line of fixing the future, 1 solar system and 1 l.e.d. at a time

>>3930165

>you're asking electricity to match the energy density and transfer rate of liquid hydrocarbons. You might as well ask hydrocarbons to match nuclear.

It looks like that on paper, yeah. But there's stuff you're not factoring in. Gas isn't as energy dense in practice as the numbers make it seem, since you can only get 15-20% of the energy out of it. So really, batteries only need to be 35% as energy dense as gasoline in order to match it, accounting for the 10-15% loss at the motor. And in fact, because batteries have gotten much lighter in recent years and can be mounted in any orientation (unlike old flooded batteries that had to stay upright) you can easily pack in enough of them to match the range of a gasoline vehicle. It's been done already a number of times.

The prototype alpha polymer Audi had a range of 384 miles at an average speed of 55 mph. The Crown Vic I rented recently had a max range of around 300 miles. The Tesla Model S premium edition will have that range, for $77,000. Not ideal, but cheaper than a fuel cell and coming down fast. The 2009 Tesla Roadster only had a 250 mile range and cost $109,000. That's some seriously rapid progress.

A still more glorious dawn awaits.

>>3930197
That 384 miles is an absolute best figure. I drive a Saab which weighs in a 1.7 tons, it will do over 600 miles driven sensibly on a single tank of gasoline and it costs a fraction of what the audi costs.

I see the use of big nuclear power plants built next to uranium (thorium?) deposits to produce methanol from carbon dioxide and hydrogen through electrolysis as being more practical and easier to implement.

>>3930228
>I see the use of big nuclear power plants built next to uranium (thorium?) deposits to produce methanol from carbon dioxide and hydrogen through electrolysis as being more practical and easier to implement.

See the thing is, Battery electric vehicles work now....another 10 (20, 40+? implying?) years of waiting for the Hydrogen market to get its inefficient shit feast together?

Imagine if all that government funding went into super capacitor or battery tech instead of pissing money into Arnie's Hydrogen hummer....may of saved yourself another middle east invasion in a few years

>>3930228

>That 384 miles is an absolute best figure.

No, it was achieved during normal driving conditions with an average speed of 55mph.

The absolute best figure is over 1,000 miles on a charge: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-boozer-ev-miles-plus.html

>>3930260
And where does that electricity come from? Sure, the odd tree hugger using a plug in prius isn't a problem but what happens when every car gets replaced with an electric one or even 10% of cars world wide. For that matter, I don't think that the current generating capacity could handle 1% of the cars in the world doing what they currently do powered by electricity.

Pretty much every major national power supply system in The World is operating close to capacity at the moment. Electric cars could push them over the edge.

>>3930277

>And where does that electricity come from?

http://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_wtw.pdf
(tl;dr it's still much cleaner than gas vehicles, even on today's grid)

>but what happens when every car gets replaced with an electric one or even 10% of cars world wide.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f81/american-electric-power-says-grid-ready-plug-hybrids-66855/in
dex2.html
(tl;dr the grid could handle 70% conversion to electric all at once. But the change will happen gradually, in tandem with grid improvement.)

>>3930277
Electricity demand will increase EVs or none

And how can you be a supporter of Hydrogen and then say EV's will cause more strain on the grid? The production, storage and transport of hydrogen uses ~10x as much energy as charging a electric vehicle

>>3929977
Till we run out of the rare earth elements that are needed to build the renewable power plants.

Oil is not the only thing running out.

>>3930197 efficiencies
Only because environmental laws require strict emission control. If vehicles had the same polution limits as electrical plants thrre wouldnt be much difference.

>>3930306
>Sea holds treasure trove of rare-earth elements

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110703/full/news.2011.393.html

>>3930306

>Till we run out of the rare earth elements that are needed to build the renewable power plants.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576425230759407002.html

http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Home.asp
http://www.neptuneminerals.com/

>>3930322
So we start underwater mining that might make mass death of sea life?

>>3930341
You don't mind doing it with oil, why not (less hazardous) minerals?

>>3930341

>So we start underwater mining that might make mass death of sea life?

Underwater mining equipment is electric. It has to be, internal combustion engines don't work underwater. The excavation process releases no emissions or toxic substances. It does create sediment clouds known to disrupt migration, but it does not kill anything.

Oceanic development is a necessary stepping stone for our species before space. It provides a proving ground for technologies directly applicable to living on other worlds and it unlocks the enormous wealth we will need in order to expand meaningfully to other worlds.

>>3930358
Hmmmm ummm... ok fine you win.

Can we at least agree we are in for a really shitty time for the next 40 or so years?

>>3930369
Couldn't disagree but we live in hope and do our bit

criticisms on photovoltaics on satellites and inalambric transfer, gents?

>>3930399
> Couldn't disagree but we live in hope and do our bit

That's part of the problem. Most people feel that "doing their bit" is merely planning on finding another fuel like Cheap Oil that is as effective as before. They hardly make any effort to become more efficient in BOTH capital expense AND operational costs. That's the only possible future: The future of fewer energetic products and services, and less ability to do stuff thereby with it all.

Anyone who wants to "do their part" should be conserving energy and should be doing THAT as cheaply as possible. But you can't even find people who dress warmly inside their domiciles during the winter. It's like conserving energy is against their fucking religion or something.

Then it hit me one day, that that's what's really happening here. Culturally, consuming prodigiously is the prevailing Western religion. The Western powers are addicted to consuming, and that invariably means consuming energy.

Even more enraging, most of those who claim to be conserving, are just style-tards who spend a lot of money on "energy saving" devices, which tends to obviate the energy savings in the first place. Electric and hybrid cars are primary examples of this faux conservation.

>>3930416
2 concerns.
1 if we lose 30ish percent of solar energy from atmosphere blockage wouldnt we potentially lose similar or more?
2satellites would have to be geosyncronous to properly send to base station, so would get blocked from sun by earth halfbof the day?

>>3930465

transmission in the form of microwaves could circumvent atmospheric absorption/reflection. at a far enough geosynchronous orbit the time the satellite is obstructed can be reduced.