3 ms·

Unfortunately changing 2027 to 2030 doesn't make the math much better

• JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > changing 2027 to 2030 doesn't make the math much better Could you show me? Early turbines didn't last that long. Even modern ones are only rated for a few decades.
  • singularity2001 1y ago
    there is a difference between a few decades and half a decade though? Or his time in general accelerated so much that it's basically very similar
    • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      “Within Parsons' lifetime, the generating capacity of a [steam turbine] unit was scaled up by about 10,000 times” [1]. For comparison, Moore’s law (at 2 years per doubling) scales 4 orders of magnitude in about 27 years. That’s roughly the lifetime of a modern steam turbine [2]. In actuality, Parsons lived 77 years [3], implying a 13% growth rate, so doubling every 6 versus 2 years. But within the same order of magnitude. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine [2] https://alliedpg.com/latest-articles/life-extension-strategies-aging-steam-turbines/ https://alliedpg.com/latest-articles/life-extension-strategi... 30 years [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Algernon_Parsons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Algernon_Parsons