Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Xwang]

I watch this guy regularly, he always has good stuff on, always worth a watch.
The actual vid is about a thorium reactor being built in China, but it touches on powering planes and ships with the tec.

Not actually specific enough to discuss but shows the gist.

Again, this guy presents as either severely lacking in critical-analysis capability, (suspiciously),
or as a downright shill - for maybe/could be/one day, possibly stuff - sans reasonable doubt.

When he shows a vid-clip of a mid 1940s B-29, as a nuclear-powered aircraft, well
frankly, to me - his credibility plummet to ground zero - faster than Fatman/Little boy...

Maybe he should have taken an image from this wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

[Big Tea]

I watch this guy regularly, he always has good stuff on, always worth a watch.
The actual vid is about a thorium reactor being built in China, but it touches on powering planes and ships with the tec.

Not actually specific enough to discuss but shows the gist.

Again, this guy presents as either severely lacking in critical-analysis capability, (suspiciously),
or as a downright shill - for maybe/could be/one day, possibly stuff - sans reasonable doubt.

When he shows a vid-clip of a mid 1940s B-29, as a nuclear-powered aircraft, well
frankly, to me - his credibility plummet to ground zero - faster than Fatman/Little boy...

To be fair to him, he is only presenting a daily headlines type program. He never goes into depth with his vids, but often he gives the idea and lets you go looking.


As with many newspaper and mag articles though, the small text is not what you expect

[Andres125sx]

I watch this guy regularly, he always has good stuff on, always worth a watch.
The actual vid is about a thorium reactor being built in China, but it touches on powering planes and ships with the tec.

Not actually specific enough to discuss but shows the gist



jump to 3.30 if you want.

Very interesting, thanks

[Andres125sx]

I watch this guy regularly, he always has good stuff on, always worth a watch.
The actual vid is about a thorium reactor being built in China, but it touches on powering planes and ships with the tec.

Not actually specific enough to discuss but shows the gist.

Again, this guy presents as either severely lacking in critical-analysis capability, (suspiciously),
or as a downright shill - for maybe/could be/one day, possibly stuff - sans reasonable doubt.

When he shows a vid-clip of a mid 1940s B-29, as a nuclear-powered aircraft, well
frankly, to me - his credibility plummet to ground zero - faster than Fatman/Little boy...

Except that´s not a 40s B-29, but a Convair B-36 wich, actually, was a nuclear test plane

[Just_a_fan]

I watch this guy regularly, he always has good stuff on, always worth a watch.
The actual vid is about a thorium reactor being built in China, but it touches on powering planes and ships with the tec.

Not actually specific enough to discuss but shows the gist.

Again, this guy presents as either severely lacking in critical-analysis capability, (suspiciously),
or as a downright shill - for maybe/could be/one day, possibly stuff - sans reasonable doubt.

When he shows a vid-clip of a mid 1940s B-29, as a nuclear-powered aircraft, well
frankly, to me - his credibility plummet to ground zero - faster than Fatman/Little boy...

Except that´s not a 40s B-29, but a Convair B-36 wich, actually, was a nuclear test plane

The one he shows flying is a B29. In fact it appears to be this B29:


The B36 was a much, much bigger aircraft with 6 pusher props (later they added 4 jet engines too) rather than the 4 tractor props of the B29.

Here's both together in one shot:


The B36 was used as a test bed for a nuke-powered aircraft. Here is one of them:


It's worth pointing out that the nuclear reactor didn't power the aircraft at all. They just wanted to see what happened when a reactor was working in an aircraft.

[J.A.W.]

Well presented post there J-A-F, & that pic of the 'lead sled' B-36 in flight, blasting
out massive visible 'cork-screw' vortices from its huge pusher-props gives a clue as
to why birds have flight problems in the vicinity of electric wind-turbine complexes.

[Just_a_fan]

Well presented post there J-A-F, & that pic of the 'lead sled' B-36 in flight, blasting
out massive visible 'cork-screw' vortices from its huge pusher-props gives a clue as
to why birds have flight problems in the vicinity of electric wind-turbine complexes.

Interesting suggestion that wind turbines are bad for birds. Whilst they might have issues, they're way down the list of things that humans do/have that are bad for birds:


Off shore turbines are better for birds in many cases because they generally are higher up and sea birds usually fly near the surface. So the new bigger turbines are safer. There is also a study in Norway that showed that painting one of the blades black reduced bird deaths by 70% - presumably it just makes the whole whirling thing more easily visible to them.

[nzjrs]

Well presented post there J-A-F, & that pic of the 'lead sled' B-36 in flight, blasting
out massive visible 'cork-screw' vortices from its huge pusher-props gives a clue as
to why birds have flight problems in the vicinity of electric wind-turbine complexes.

Interesting suggestion that wind turbines are bad for birds. Whilst they might have issues, they're way down the list of things that humans do/have that are bad for birds:
http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/imag ... 15195.jpeg

Off shore turbines are better for birds in many cases because they generally are higher up and sea birds usually fly near the surface. So the new bigger turbines are safer. There is also a study in Norway that showed that painting one of the blades black reduced bird deaths by 70% - presumably it just makes the whole whirling thing more easily visible to them.

IIRC A prominent NZer tried to run for Mayor of our capital city on, among other things, on a platform of banning cats in the city and/or requiring bells. He lost handily.

[Just_a_fan]

Well presented post there J-A-F, & that pic of the 'lead sled' B-36 in flight, blasting
out massive visible 'cork-screw' vortices from its huge pusher-props gives a clue as
to why birds have flight problems in the vicinity of electric wind-turbine complexes.

Interesting suggestion that wind turbines are bad for birds. Whilst they might have issues, they're way down the list of things that humans do/have that are bad for birds:
http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/imag ... 15195.jpeg

Off shore turbines are better for birds in many cases because they generally are higher up and sea birds usually fly near the surface. So the new bigger turbines are safer. There is also a study in Norway that showed that painting one of the blades black reduced bird deaths by 70% - presumably it just makes the whole whirling thing more easily visible to them.

IIRC A prominent NZer tried to run for Mayor of our capital city on, among other things, on a platform of banning cats in the city and/or requiring bells. He lost handily.

I remember a few years ago that there was some noise in the UK that was saying that people walking dogs in the countryside was bad for birds. There's always a pressure group somewhere trying to ban something that someone else likes.

[J.A.W.]

Interesting suggestion that wind turbines are bad for birds. Whilst they might have issues, they're way down the list of things that humans do/have that are bad for birds:
http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/imag ... 15195.jpeg

Off shore turbines are better for birds in many cases because they generally are higher up and sea birds usually fly near the surface. So the new bigger turbines are safer. There is also a study in Norway that showed that painting one of the blades black reduced bird deaths by 70% - presumably it just makes the whole whirling thing more easily visible to them.

IIRC A prominent NZer tried to run for Mayor of our capital city on, among other things, on a platform of banning cats in the city and/or requiring bells. He lost handily.

I remember a few years ago that there was some noise in the UK that was saying that people walking dogs in the countryside was bad for birds. There's always a pressure group somewhere trying to ban something that someone else likes.

Yeah for sure, 'concerned citizen' pressure groups never ah, quail - at 'fudging figures' for their
'estimates' - which often bear very little scientific validity when scrutinized, but then claim,
'modelling' variables, of course...

Cruelly, that list of direct bird killers missed humans, from egg-collectors, song-bird 'sports' shooters,
farmers/land developers right up to ~50% of kept fowl (males) being killed on hatching, as useless.

Our family cat happens to be of all-white pelage, so has learned not to waste his efforts on birds,
& in fact, the only birds he has destroyed were assaulting him, stupidly/suicidally enough, since
they'd knowingly chosen to 'play dice with the devil' & lost, (as per human 'bird-brains' in casinos)...

[nzjrs]

IIRC A prominent NZer tried to run for Mayor of our capital city on, among other things, on a platform of banning cats in the city and/or requiring bells. He lost handily.

I remember a few years ago that there was some noise in the UK that was saying that people walking dogs in the countryside was bad for birds. There's always a pressure group somewhere trying to ban something that someone else likes.

To be fair, The specifics of the NZ policy were cost/benefit as the birds in question were endangered and flightless. An easy prey for even useless housecats.

As JAW might have implied, there is a parallel there to a tragedy of the commons / negative externalities / personal responsibility aspects of climate change action.

[DChemTech]

Well presented post there J-A-F, & that pic of the 'lead sled' B-36 in flight, blasting
out massive visible 'cork-screw' vortices from its huge pusher-props gives a clue as
to why birds have flight problems in the vicinity of electric wind-turbine complexes.

Interesting suggestion that wind turbines are bad for birds. Whilst they might have issues, they're way down the list of things that humans do/have that are bad for birds:
http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/imag ... 15195.jpeg

Off shore turbines are better for birds in many cases because they generally are higher up and sea birds usually fly near the surface. So the new bigger turbines are safer. There is also a study in Norway that showed that painting one of the blades black reduced bird deaths by 70% - presumably it just makes the whole whirling thing more easily visible to them.

Is a windmill a birdkilling device? Nah, essentially it's just a fan (in reverse).

[Tommy Cookers]

Well presented post there J-A-F, & that pic of the 'lead sled' B-36 in flight, blasting
out massive visible 'cork-screw' vortices from its huge pusher-props gives a clue as
to why birds have flight problems in the vicinity of electric wind-turbine complexes.

btw
these aren't prop tip vortices - and they're not vortices in atmospheric air
anyway max tip vortex pressures from high aspect ratio elements eg prop blades are less than max from low AR wings

the engine's water vapour exhaust naturally condenses by cooling at altitude which is what the photo basically shows
each exhaust stream emerges into a propulsive stream that is being rotated by the prop action
tip pressure lows are detectable, but also the engine core wake, and majorly the rotation of the whole stream

RETRO EDIT NEXT DAY - (credit to Andres for making this point before me)
yes wind turbines work rate is a fraction of propellers work rate ..... because eg .....
the B36 flying at eg 360 mph TAS by per every 10 seconds accelerating mile-long columns of air by (say) 120 mph
the wind turbine is braked to a shut down whenever wind speed exceeds (say) 50 mph .... so ....

propellers develop pressures at least 5 times greater than the wind turbines do



and afaik good news .....
GM now make 220m diameter wind turbines giving higher utilisation % and notionally 12 -14 MW output

PV makers are now making cheaply material working on 3 energy bands including infra red (handy for cloudy UK etc ?)

[Andres125sx]

Well presented post there J-A-F, & that pic of the 'lead sled' B-36 in flight, blasting
out massive visible 'cork-screw' vortices from its huge pusher-props gives a clue as
to why birds have flight problems in the vicinity of electric wind-turbine complexes.

You know a plane prop is spun by an engine at extremelly high rpm while a wind turbine blade is moved by the wind at extremelly low rpm, right?

[Big Tea]

Interesting suggestion that wind turbines are bad for birds. Whilst they might have issues, they're way down the list of things that humans do/have that are bad for birds:
http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/imag ... 15195.jpeg

Off shore turbines are better for birds in many cases because they generally are higher up and sea birds usually fly near the surface. So the new bigger turbines are safer. There is also a study in Norway that showed that painting one of the blades black reduced bird deaths by 70% - presumably it just makes the whole whirling thing more easily visible to them.

IIRC A prominent NZer tried to run for Mayor of our capital city on, among other things, on a platform of banning cats in the city and/or requiring bells. He lost handily.

I remember a few years ago that there was some noise in the UK that was saying that people walking dogs in the countryside was bad for birds. There's always a pressure group somewhere trying to ban something that someone else likes.

There was a big fuss in an area near me a few years back to introduce a hawk that had not been see for many years.
There were collection, grants, groups of al sorts making sure mountain bikers did not go in the same hemisphere as them, now there are other groups saying they have killed off 4 other species in the region.