Comments by "Devil\x27s Offspring" (@devilsoffspring5519) on "Thoughty2" channel.

@brionbee I doubt it. Aluminum-air is more likely, but there are numerous non-rechargeable (primary) cell chemistries that store huge amounts of energy at low cost. ALL of them are useless overall because they cannot be recharged.
15
Local stationary energy storage for sustainable energy systems doesn't require high energy density though, which is the expensive part and also the very dangerous part. For bulk stationary storage the only requirement is that it's very cheap per unit of storage and can operate at part-charge without damage. Unfortunately, lead-acids don't fit the bill because even though they're relatively cheap and very safe, they get damaged unless maintained at 100% charge. Nickel-based chemistries are too expensive, lithium-ion is far too dangerous in large aircraft-hangar sized installations and tends to be very expensive as well. Perhaps LFP (lithium ferrophosphate) cells would be a good intermediate solution for local bulk storage but they are still far too expensive. Their cycle life and calendar life are outstanding, though. For large cities like Toronto, Montreal, NYC, L.A. and the like, having huge local battery storage systems might be a really good idea to relieve power stations from conditions of peak demand. It's just that battery technology is too dangerous and much too expensive right now. The highest possible energy density is only necessary for EVs, and is especially necessary for electric aircraft. The best current battery tech is much too dangerous and expensive, so even the best EVs are a very costly niche product and likely will remain so for many decades. They can get away with it for relatively small numbers of very expensive luxury & performance oriented vehicles, but EV still have no way to compete with internal combustion engines for low cost and high practicality & convenience. Long-range low-cost practical air travel entirely on green energy is a dream for the future--and an actual goal for the distant future.
14
@starbyray7828 It has already happened. Off-peak electricity is roughly 10 cents a kWh, around 100 bucks a meg. Portable energy for vehicles (gasoline) is about twice that cost for the same amount of energy. That's really, really cheap. We may think of it as expensive because it's so common and so cheap that we use it frivolously. What's not cheap is practical, sustainable energy. The normal sources like oil-derived fuels for mobile applications and hydro, nuclear and natural gas for stationary energy are extremely cheap.
8
@WagallLynkx I recall aluminum-air cells being very expensive. Primary cells are usually pretty cheap but not those
5
@RealMrBased It isn't so much a shortcoming of battery technology as running excessively high current to get the performance you want out of a given size pack. As an analogy, it's been possible for decades to get 1,000+ HP per liter of displacement from a gasoline engine--over 16 HP per cubic inch. Just don't expect it to last 250,000 miles.
4
For the RC hobby li-ion (including polymer cells, same thing) cells are fine. You're probably not going to fly a 200 km/h model aircraft continuously for hours and hours. Passenger planes have different requirements :)
3
@henribasson5489 That's the term I was looking for! Utility Scale. At that level the only thing that really matters is total cost for the total energy throughput (watt-HOURS per dollar) and that's it! Total cost of implementation versus quantity of energy storage is all that matters for a stationary application. That includes fire insurance for "touchy" chemistries. For solar power, the energy itself is not only universally plentiful, it's 100% free. It's the human work required to make practical use of it that's unacceptably expensive, and that's why the world is almost hopelessly dependent on fossil fuels. It has nothing to do with the physical aspects of "technology" in the usual sense; the purely gadgetry-oriented sense. It's the poor cost-effectiveness that puts sustainable energy on the back burner while the human species continues to compete ferociously for money itself in the name of power over people and sex. Those three things are what the world is about: Power, money, and sex. Sustainable energy isn't profitable enough or practical enough just yet to become a primary goal for the human species because the use of "canned" energy from finite resources is still more profitable. Only after the world runs very low on fossil fuels will our economy adapt itself to make the effort to develop sustainable energy. Until we reach that point, you can do your part to help things along by getting a super-thirsty gas-guzzling vehicle and a huge McMansion that burns fuel and money to heat it and cool it.
3
@RealMrBased Hehehe yeah, I used to fly RC and I quickly learned to buy the cheapest packs that got the job done. No point in a super-expensive flight battery that lasts 200-300 cycles when it gets splattered all over the countryside on the 6th or 7th flight :)
2
@Zyryne1 Wrong, cost-effectiveness reigns supreme in the world of engineering and technology and that's why internal combustion engines are still the de facto universal standard instead of EVs. The only exception is certain specific military hardware where cost is no object--until it becomes one. For massive-scale production items like energy storage devices, cheaper and better are practically the same thing. Finally, you make a bigger profit by making something cheaper! Who is this "they" you speak of that will "never let it see light"? The energy industry? Cheaper and better is exactly what ALL of them want because it's great for business.
2
Code Green-And-Blue-And-Purple-And-Orange means "I drunk too much, maaan! BLUGHARGHBBPP!"
1
Just throw everyone in prison. From an unemployed, starving Ethiopian kid to the US President, and everyone else in between. Including the Catholic Nuns. Fuck me, ESPECIALLY the Catholic Nuns. Takes care o' that, don'it?!
1
It's worthwhile keeping in mind that there is no way to quantify something like self-reported happiness, largely because it means different things to different people. One person has a normal job, house, kids, loads of debt, and self-reports as being happy. Another person has exactly the same life, and self-reports as being miserable. But, they both function in life exactly the same way. A better way of saying it is "are you living your life in accordance with your own principles and reaching your own self-recognized potential." That's FAR more meaningful than asking "are you happy?"
1
This shit is made out to be far more complex than it really is. Seriously, "analyzing" instrument timbres and melodies?!?! Sing some shit. Does it sell? Sing more shit like it! Repeat ad nauseum. There's your pop music for 30 years! Enjoy the dough! Don't like it? Write your own, find an insanely hot 20 year old to sing it and... enjoy the dough! And quit whining :)
1
Then you're outta luck because you'll have to wait :)
1
Actually, the high-performance electric RC racecars you're describing have been around since the 1980s, using brushless motors and lipo batteries. They weren't found all over in hobby shops though, you needed a computer with Internet access and you had to order them from China. in the mid-'80s I had a 450 size RC helicopter with a brushless motor that was powered by a 3-cell lipo battery, about 2.0Ah, 11.1 volts and shaped like a brick--pretty much exactly the same as today, complete with high-current power leads and plug, and smaller balance leads and plug for charging. There were also flybarless 3-axis gyroscopes becoming available back then too. All of it fairly cheap--if you knew how to order it from China online and had a PC to do it with. That was all about 40 years ago. It's been around forever--just not commonplace here until more recently (I live in Canada.)
1
@erincarson8998 Probably. They are expensive and non-rechargeable, but store an enormous amount of energy for their size and weight (Wiki says about 1,300 Wh/kg, around 6 or 7 times better than li-ion) No idea about their safety or their discharge performance.
1
Just to dump them off in school so they can grow up wondering what the point of life is because it's all FUCKING DRUDGERY?! Then do almost nothing with their whole adult lives except work? To hell with that, why bother?
1
If LFP cells can ever be made extremely cheap then they'd be ideal for bulk energy storage. Their moderate energy density makes them less than ideal for EV propulsion, but they do have a long cycle life and extremely long calendar life.
1
@adventascension People that know what they're talking about (very few) have always considered nuclear energy to be, by far, the most environmentally harmless way of producing electricity. Bar none. But good luck convincing anyone else of that! Germany has apparently outright banned nuclear energy, and is going back to using COAL of all bloody things. Gotta save those trees, Germany!
1
They're not. There's nothing to hide. The cheapest and best ALWAYS wins, and that's the li-ion cells that have been mass-produced in China for the past 40 years. If you think they're no good, invent something better!
1
Wow, I thought it was just me! (And everyone else)
1
Without going on about it for 20 minutes: "modern music" is awful because that's what the greatest number of people like to hear. I'm not being a snob/elitist here--think about it: You're in the business of making music. You have to keep your business going and make money, otherwise why bother? So, what's a sharp-thinking music business executive dude type gonna do? You got it--produce lots and lots of what people want :) So, if most popular music is shyte, it's because the best and brightest music industry execs figured out a long time ago that the greatest number of people prefer it that way. It works out perfectly, too! Shitty music is easy to write in enormous quantities, and if lots of people want it, you'd be a fool not to get into marketing it instead of spending more time and effort on writing & producing something with more limited appeal--and limited market value.
1
@jobrock1079 The stuff that's considered really good is what's still played sometimes today. There's probably always been lots and lots of half-hearted, half-arsed shyte being pumped out, it's just that it was quickly forgotten, giving the impression that "music was better back in the ol' days." It often depends on age, too--people are also likely to be more attached to the music they got into when they were young, and not so much the newer stuff even if it's well-done. This also creates the illusion that music used to be better a while ago, but not anymore. There's always been talented artists creating good music, and there's always been hacks pumping out half-baked shyte. It's just that the shyte from days of yore has been forgotten, leaving only memories of the good stuff, whereas today's good music suffers from being watered down with current shyte :)
1
People forget that radio is programmed to appeal to the masses, and you're mostly going to hear music that's written to a style, to appeal to a certain market. That's how you get radio listeners. There's plenty of good music today, and there was also plenty of crap released in the 50s, 60s and 70s. If you don't like "music today", get an instrument and write some :)
1
How is averageness beautiful? People find exceptionality to be attractive, not the average. That's pretty obvious.
1
"Go to university! Be SUCCESSFUL!!!" Goes to university. Ends up working for somebody else like every other poor fucking schmuck :)
1
I heard about SSBs as a young kid in the '80s. Mostly a lab experiment, just like today. Same two characteristics: High energy density but uselessly short cycle life.
1
@tyler60904 Late '90s Civics were actually supposed to be pretty good cars :)
1
Writing disturbing material? Some popular music borders on psychological torture! Is it OK if you make a ton of money at it?
1