Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:41pm:



So tell us. More powerful, lighter batteries?

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:41pm:



Really where was that said? All I can recall is questions of capacity, recharge etc. Questions that still remain for other than commutes.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:41pm:



You mean like the level playing field of intermittent power?

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 7:20am:



poor ddh. Getting excited about possibilities? It would be better to get excited about probabilities.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:


yes. So many new batteries - never made to production.
So any renewable energies - never made it to commercialisation.
And now Wind turbines.

"The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years.

The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade.

Older turbines will need to be replaced more quickly than the industry estimates while many more will need to be built onshore if the Government is to meet renewable energy targets by 2020.

The extra cost is likely to be passed on to households, which already pay about £1 billion a year in a consumer subsidy that is added to electricity bills. "

" The report’s author, Prof Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.

The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbin...

That makes replacement sooner rather than later.


DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:



I have heard that about you. They call you "the Judge" on the wharves. Always resting on your case.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:



Really? is that what you intuited?

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:


I thought it was from an economist.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:


Perhaps you can point me to where it was "distorted"?

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:



Except n the case of wind generators they take a lot of tearing down. All that CO2 emitting concrete.

I just realized u have done it again...... now we r not talking about planes.....anther great deflection there king Lee 

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 7:04pm:


Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:


Perhaps you should pin the blame where it belongs.

And then you started waffling about possibilities. Apart from a light plane what other possibilities did you want to discuss under flight?

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 9:21pm:



oh dear. trying to take the topic off piste?

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:44pm:


Can you cite where I would have said that or did you pluck that from your ass?

That plane uses 20% of battery for 7 minutes flight time so keeping a little in reserve it's good for just under half an hour flight time per battery charge.

It would be lucky to do 100 knots (184 KPH) in level flight so it would have a range of about 90km

How far apart are airports? Is this thing limited to flying patterns around the airport it takes off from?