Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The super-collider is located outside of Bern, and they haven't gotten that sucker to work yet. DOD's advanced research agency (DARPA) is working on particle beam weaponry, which would be in the same general area of physics that the accelerator is in.
Apparently, they want more money than DARPA can pony up, because it's an advertisement for your money.
If this is true ,why isn't it on any "known" media sources?
Its not known because that link is sensationalizing technology that's not revolutionary. The technology is an improvement but in its current state its not much of an improvement. Here are the key facts you need to know:
Each unit produces 100 kW of energy and costs $700-$800K. That powers approximately 80 typical US homes. If the cost of the unit is reduced by 50% (company claims they can reduce it by 68%) then the break even point for a typical home in the USA is 8 years. However, at this point the boxes only have a 10 year life span. So you would save money for only 2 years.
And taking the average cost of electricity at .12/kW and the estimated cost using the box at .10/kW your only saving about 17% over traditional electricity. So if your electricity bill on average is $100; your only saving $204/yr.
Its better then regular electricity but only marginally. This is why its not making headlines because at this point there is nothing amazing to scream about. Even if they can find a way to use this electric device on a car to replace traditional car fuel; it wont be a big deal. That's because the fuel for this device is natural gas and we already have the technology to power cars directly using natural gas.
The smart money is going into battery technology and it is this that will kill Big Oil and the utilities. I give it 5 to 10 years before batteries become an economically viable solution for storing solar or wind generated energy and to power vehicles.
Fuel cells are more expensive than electric cars. Their main advantage is they take less time to refuel (5 mins) and they travel a longer distance (300+ miles) between refueling.
The smart money is going into battery technology and it is this that will kill Big Oil and the utilities. I give it 5 to 10 years before batteries become an economically viable solution for storing solar or wind generated energy and to power vehicles.
Unlikely, consider this. Suppose the capacity of the fossil fuels is X and we are going to replace X with solar. Suppose during an ideal 8 hour period your solar installations can produce X. What do you do for the other 16 hours? Your capacity needs have now increased to X+X and you need Y storage for X. Now you are good for 24 hour period assuming 8 hours of ideal conditions.
What happens if the sun is not shining the next day? Your capacity needs are now X+X+X+X and your storage needs have increased too Y+Y+Y. If the sun doesn't shine for 7 days? The capacity and storage needs become huge.
One might suggest you just build X and keep the fossil fuel plants around as backup but that is going to drastically increase the cost of power generated from them. A dual system where one is sufficient is not cost effective. A great deal of the cost of electric no matter what the source is the capital costs and that applies to fossil fuel generation too. When they build a coal plant it's going to run almost continuously for 5, 6 or 7 decades. The more it runs the cheaper the electric is.
The smart money is going into battery technology and it is this that will kill Big Oil and the utilities. I give it 5 to 10 years before batteries become an economically viable solution for storing solar or wind generated energy and to power vehicles.
Nah, there is zero reason to store solar or wind outside of off grid implementations, it doesnt produce nearly enough juice to begin with. It is not a primary power source and never will be. Battery storage drives the price of renewable's (already too high) through the roof.
Nah, there is zero reason to store solar or wind outside of off grid implementations, it doesnt produce nearly enough juice to begin with. It is not a primary power source and never will be. Battery storage drives the price of renewable's (already too high) through the roof.
Minimum 50 more like 100+. Fuel prices will not be nutso in 10 years they may be in 50 to 100. Using secondary power sources combined with batteries as a primary power source is going to require extremely expensive primary fuels. Battery tech is a long way off as well.
The grid is far more efficient than any battery system batteries remove efficiency from a system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
