3 ms·

That figure comes from speculation about future technology. Right now, it breaks down at around 1,500 km. And that is based on (from what I can tell) very gener

by _hypx 4y ago

That figure comes from speculation about future technology. Right now, it breaks down at around 1,500 km. And that is based on (from what I can tell) very generous estimates regarding the cost of implementing the idea. I think an honest person will admit that we cannot implement this concept right now. You can only say that maybe in the future it will be possible.

epistasis 4y ago
The title is literally "cost declines raise prospect." This is all that I have claimed. This is all that the article has claimed. Agreed, an honest person can say that. But an an hoenst person can not say that it's impossible because of "physics" or for that matter that it's impossible because of economics! I'm not sure why we should take your assessment that they are "very generous estimates" when you started with the false assertion that it's "very clearly non-economical" while pointing to the paper itself as evidence, when the paper refuted you. If you have a complaint, make it, please don't just smear with innuendo, especially since you are reading the paper. The numbers of $100/kWh, which you talk about as mere speculation, are like forecasting future computing performance and thinking the safe move is to assume no improvement in computing costs. People that have assumed that storage would stay at the same cost have been proven wrong year after year after year. Suggesting that somehow, just now, prices will stop decreasing, is wild speculation with no basis in fact and should be dismissed out of hand, unless the claimant can at least bother to come up with some resin for the change.
- _hypx 4y ago
  Just to be clear, they’re assuming $50/kWh, cheap infrastructure costs for the recharging system, alongside heavy taxes for tradition ships, plus other assumptions, to get to your claims. It’s much more of a stretch than you’re letting on.

by _hypx 4y ago

epistasis 4y ago

The title is literally "cost declines raise prospect." This is all that I have claimed. This is all that the article has claimed. Agreed, an honest person can say that. But an an hoenst person can not say that it's impossible because of "physics" or for that matter that it's impossible because of economics! I'm not sure why we should take your assessment that they are "very generous estimates" when you started with the false assertion that it's "very clearly non-economical" while pointing to the paper itself as evidence, when the paper refuted you. If you have a complaint, make it, please don't just smear with innuendo, especially since you are reading the paper. The numbers of $100/kWh, which you talk about as mere speculation, are like forecasting future computing performance and thinking the safe move is to assume no improvement in computing costs. People that have assumed that storage would stay at the same cost have been proven wrong year after year after year. Suggesting that somehow, just now, prices will stop decreasing, is wild speculation with no basis in fact and should be dismissed out of hand, unless the claimant can at least bother to come up with some resin for the change.

_hypx 4y ago
Just to be clear, they’re assuming $50/kWh, cheap infrastructure costs for the recharging system, alongside heavy taxes for tradition ships, plus other assumptions, to get to your claims. It’s much more of a stretch than you’re letting on.