Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/

On 7/11/23 6:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
> https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/

Why are people still wasting time with batteries? The future clearly is
Hydrogen.

Nikola Motors tried out gravity-powered semi's, but achieved limited
commercial success with them. So of course they went to batteries. But
unfortunately their laser welding process was punching holes in the
cells, leading to corrosion of the terminals after as little as two cycles:

https://electrek.co/2023/06/27/nikola-major-battery-defect-trucks-caught-fire/

They discovered the problem, and remarkably decided to continue
production of the batteries, in parallel with trying to fix it.

They did burn up five semi tractors, claiming it must have been arson,
but the fire department said they could find no evidence at all of
arson. No doubt a coincidence that the fried tractors were built with
defective batteries.

Having stumbled a bit with batteries, they're now all-in on hydrogen,
pretending that semi drivers will be able to access a nation-wide
network of hydrogen fueling stations, all serving up Green Hydrogen.
Perhaps Dementia Joe will toss a few hundred billion their way to solve
that problem.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:29:15 AM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> On 7/11/23 6:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
> > https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/
> Why are people still wasting time with batteries? The future clearly is
> Hydrogen.
>
> Nikola Motors tried out gravity-powered semi's, but achieved limited
> commercial success with them. So of course they went to batteries. But
> unfortunately their laser welding process was punching holes in the
> cells, leading to corrosion of the terminals after as little as two cycles:
>
>
> https://electrek.co/2023/06/27/nikola-major-battery-defect-trucks-caught-fire/
>
> They discovered the problem, and remarkably decided to continue
> production of the batteries, in parallel with trying to fix it.
>
> They did burn up five semi tractors, claiming it must have been arson,
> but the fire department said they could find no evidence at all of
> arson. No doubt a coincidence that the fried tractors were built with
> defective batteries.
>
> Having stumbled a bit with batteries, they're now all-in on hydrogen,
> pretending that semi drivers will be able to access a nation-wide
> network of hydrogen fueling stations, all serving up Green Hydrogen.
> Perhaps Dementia Joe will toss a few hundred billion their way to solve
> that problem.
Dave, green hydrogen is another myth. Today over 90% of all hydrogen is made from nat. gas, obviously not so green. Splitting water is immensely expensive in terms of electricity use, the bond between O2 and H is just very strong. Making green hydrogen economically competitive is a long way out. Then you start dealing with metal containers that have to be very heavy due to the high pressure H2 they must contain and the leakage of the small H2 molecules. I agree with you on batteries but the H2 economy not the answer.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7:29:15 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> On 7/11/23 6:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
> > https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/
> Why are people still wasting time with batteries? The future clearly is
> Hydrogen.
Since Tesla sold it's first car till now, I've seen prices for EVs drop considerably, while the range has improved significantly. Everywhere I go, I see more charging stations. I like the trend.

Everyone has electricity in their home, and most can charge their EV there. Hydrogen is harder to bring to the masses - nobody has in their home. I think it is part of the future, but not in the next 10 years. In the meantime, we can get electric gliders. Be happy for that.

Doesn't anybody remember their high school chemistry and physics classes? They taught that the energy required to split a hydrogen atom away from any other atoms to which it is attached is exactly the same energy it produces to rejoin it. (See: Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy) And since you have to generate the energy to split it in the first place, inefficiency in the generation of the energy implies that you get less energy back than you put into it. Result: net loss of energy. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source that is even particularly desirable due to the fact that it delivers less energy than it takes to make it, is difficult to transport because of its extremely low volume as a gas, or it requires cryogenic containers to store in a liquid form. It also leaks through just about any container as a gas, and the leakage causes hydrogen embrittlement in the material it permeates. It is also volatile in any concentration from about 5% to 85% in the atmosphere.

However, all of the above arguments concerning its generation and use are negated by the uninformed politicians who only pay attention to the fact that "Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe," and "Burning hydrogen only produces water."

Therefore, a hydrogen economy is inevitable, simply because the single-issue people cannot actually comprehend the complete picture. And we continue to elect them.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:25:31 AM UTC-7, Mark628CA wrote:
> Doesn't anybody remember their high school chemistry and physics classes? They taught that the energy required to split a hydrogen atom away from any other atoms to which it is attached is exactly the same energy it produces to rejoin it. (See: Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy) And since you have to generate the energy to split it in the first place, inefficiency in the generation of the energy implies that you get less energy back than you put into it. Result: net loss of energy. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source that is even particularly desirable due to the fact that it delivers less energy than it takes to make it, is difficult to transport because of its extremely low volume as a gas, or it requires cryogenic containers to store in a liquid form. It also leaks through just about any container as a gas, and the leakage causes hydrogen embrittlement in the material it permeates.. It is also volatile in any concentration from about 5% to 85% in the atmosphere.
>
> However, all of the above arguments concerning its generation and use are negated by the uninformed politicians who only pay attention to the fact that "Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe," and "Burning hydrogen only produces water."
>
> Therefore, a hydrogen economy is inevitable, simply because the single-issue people cannot actually comprehend the complete picture. And we continue to elect them.
China is transitioning their transportation to EV, without the benefit of elected single-issuers. We don't elect the directors of Airbus, and they are the ones seriously pursuing hydrogen power for airliners. This suggests to me there actually are good reasons to pursue battery and hydrogen power, even though neither is a source of energy.

Check out the Airbus progress with hydrogen: https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hydrogen

Hydrogen from water is incredibly cheap at night if you have a nuclear power plant near.
The future is not one or the other, there will be plenty of option.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:47:21 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:25:31 AM UTC-7, Mark628CA wrote:
> > Doesn't anybody remember their high school chemistry and physics classes? They taught that the energy required to split a hydrogen atom away from any other atoms to which it is attached is exactly the same energy it produces to rejoin it. (See: Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy) And since you have to generate the energy to split it in the first place, inefficiency in the generation of the energy implies that you get less energy back than you put into it. Result: net loss of energy. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source that is even particularly desirable due to the fact that it delivers less energy than it takes to make it, is difficult to transport because of its extremely low volume as a gas, or it requires cryogenic containers to store in a liquid form. It also leaks through just about any container as a gas, and the leakage causes hydrogen embrittlement in the material it permeates. It is also volatile in any concentration from about 5% to 85% in the atmosphere.
> >
> > However, all of the above arguments concerning its generation and use are negated by the uninformed politicians who only pay attention to the fact that "Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe," and "Burning hydrogen only produces water."
> >
> > Therefore, a hydrogen economy is inevitable, simply because the single-issue people cannot actually comprehend the complete picture. And we continue to elect them.
> China is transitioning their transportation to EV, without the benefit of elected single-issuers. We don't elect the directors of Airbus, and they are the ones seriously pursuing hydrogen power for airliners. This suggests to me there actually are good reasons to pursue battery and hydrogen power, even though neither is a source of energy.
>
> Check out the Airbus progress with hydrogen: https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hydrogen
Eric, so when can you guys expect a HPMG, Hydrogen Powered Motorglider!

Running hydrogen in a fuel cell might be cleaner, but burning it in an engine will also produce oxides of nitrogen

On Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 19:25:31 UTC+1, Mark628CA wrote:
> However, all of the above arguments concerning its generation and use are negated by the uninformed politicians who only pay attention to the fact that "Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe," and "Burning hydrogen only produces water."
>
> Therefore, a hydrogen economy is inevitable, simply because the single-issue people cannot actually comprehend the complete picture. And we continue to elect them.

On 7/11/23 10:53 AM, Herbert Kilian wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:29:15 AM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>> On 7/11/23 6:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>> Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
>>> https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/
>> Why are people still wasting time with batteries? The future clearly is
>> Hydrogen.
>>
>> Nikola Motors tried out gravity-powered semi's, but achieved limited
>> commercial success with them. So of course they went to batteries. But
>> unfortunately their laser welding process was punching holes in the
>> cells, leading to corrosion of the terminals after as little as two cycles:
>>
>>
>> https://electrek.co/2023/06/27/nikola-major-battery-defect-trucks-caught-fire/
>>
>> They discovered the problem, and remarkably decided to continue
>> production of the batteries, in parallel with trying to fix it.
>>
>> They did burn up five semi tractors, claiming it must have been arson,
>> but the fire department said they could find no evidence at all of
>> arson. No doubt a coincidence that the fried tractors were built with
>> defective batteries.
>>
>> Having stumbled a bit with batteries, they're now all-in on hydrogen,
>> pretending that semi drivers will be able to access a nation-wide
>> network of hydrogen fueling stations, all serving up Green Hydrogen.
>> Perhaps Dementia Joe will toss a few hundred billion their way to solve
>> that problem.
> Dave, green hydrogen is another myth. Today over 90% of all hydrogen is made from nat. gas, obviously not so green. Splitting water is immensely expensive in terms of electricity use, the bond between O2 and H is just very strong. Making green hydrogen economically competitive is a long way out. Then you start dealing with metal containers that have to be very heavy due to the high pressure H2 they must contain and the leakage of the small H2 molecules. I agree with you on batteries but the H2 economy not the answer.

Herb, there you go, trying to use facts and logic. Unfortunately, facts
and logic play virtually no role in energy policy.

It's like your compatriots in Germany, Greta Thunberg said nukes are
bad, so they finished shutting down all their nukes at the end of the
year. "Don't worry, we got plenty of gas coming in that Nordstream 2
pipeline." Things didn't go quite according to plan with the pipeline,
so those crafty Germans reopened coal-fired plants to make up some of
the shortfall. Now, Greta has changed her mind, and doesn't think nukes
are so bad after all! It's as if no intelligent people are in charge of
energy policies, and it certainly isn't limited to Germany. Airbus
thinks hydrogen is the future of aviation, we'll see how their
blended-wing monstrosity works out. If it doesn't have enough range,
maybe electric towplanes can take turns shepherding the thing along.

On 7/11/23 1:55 PM, emirs...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hydrogen from water is incredibly cheap at night if you have a nuclear power plant near.

That's a rather big IF. The U.S. doesn't have enough nuclear plants
the way it is, and there's as 30 year approval cycle for new construction.

> The future is not one or the other, there will be plenty of option.

Options? Not really. Politicians like to pick winners and losers, and
will use regulations, rebates, taxes, and other means to push their
agenda. Colorado is already starting to ban lawn mowers, weed wackers,
chain saws and the like that run on gas. It's clear the end of 100LL is
coming, good luck with engines that require it. Biden has declared GM
the world leader in electric cars, he wants to reward his union buddies
with your tax money:

https://insideevs.com/news/548768/biden-says-gm-ev-leader/

What a joke.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:11:45 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:47:21 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:25:31 AM UTC-7, Mark628CA wrote:
> > > Doesn't anybody remember their high school chemistry and physics classes? They taught that the energy required to split a hydrogen atom away from any other atoms to which it is attached is exactly the same energy it produces to rejoin it. (See: Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy) And since you have to generate the energy to split it in the first place, inefficiency in the generation of the energy implies that you get less energy back than you put into it. Result: net loss of energy. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source that is even particularly desirable due to the fact that it delivers less energy than it takes to make it, is difficult to transport because of its extremely low volume as a gas, or it requires cryogenic containers to store in a liquid form. It also leaks through just about any container as a gas, and the leakage causes hydrogen embrittlement in the material it permeates. It is also volatile in any concentration from about 5% to 85% in the atmosphere.
> > >
> > > However, all of the above arguments concerning its generation and use are negated by the uninformed politicians who only pay attention to the fact that "Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe," and "Burning hydrogen only produces water."
> > >
> > > Therefore, a hydrogen economy is inevitable, simply because the single-issue people cannot actually comprehend the complete picture. And we continue to elect them.
> > China is transitioning their transportation to EV, without the benefit of elected single-issuers. We don't elect the directors of Airbus, and they are the ones seriously pursuing hydrogen power for airliners. This suggests to me there actually are good reasons to pursue battery and hydrogen power, even though neither is a source of energy.
> >
> > Check out the Airbus progress with hydrogen: https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hydrogen
> Eric, so when can you guys expect a HPMG, Hydrogen Powered Motorglider!
Stemme built at least one. Look it up!

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:48:13 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> On 7/11/23 1:55 PM, emirs...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hydrogen from water is incredibly cheap at night if you have a nuclear power plant near.
> That's a rather big IF. The U.S. doesn't have enough nuclear plants
> the way it is, and there's as 30 year approval cycle for new construction..
> > The future is not one or the other, there will be plenty of option.
> Options? Not really. Politicians like to pick winners and losers, and
> will use regulations, rebates, taxes, and other means to push their
> agenda. Colorado is already starting to ban lawn mowers, weed wackers,
> chain saws and the like that run on gas. It's clear the end of 100LL is
> coming, good luck with engines that require it. Biden has declared GM
> the world leader in electric cars, he wants to reward his union buddies
> with your tax money:
>
> https://insideevs.com/news/548768/biden-says-gm-ev-leader/
>
> What a joke.
I have an electric powered lawn mower, snow blower, weed whacker, and leaf blower. They are much more pleasant to use than the gas powered versions, and work well. Colorado is doing their citizens a favor, even those that don't use these tools: the sound of quiet will be appreciated by everyone!

On 7/11/23 10:53 AM, Herbert Kilian wrote:

> Dave, green hydrogen is another myth. Today over 90% of all hydrogen is made from nat. gas, obviously not so green. Splitting water is immensely expensive in terms of electricity use, the bond between O2 and H is just very strong. Making green hydrogen economically competitive is a long way out. Then you start dealing with metal containers that have to be very heavy due to the high pressure H2 they must contain and the leakage of the small H2 molecules. I agree with you on batteries but the H2 economy not the answer.

Sure, we all know transporting and storing hydrogen is a real bitch.
But you need to think outside the box a bit Herb.

Take the Gumpert Nathalie sports car for example. They fuel it up with
pure methanol (AKA wood alcohol), convert it in the car to hydrogen, use
fuel cells and batteries to make a supercharged car that does 0-62 in
2.5 seconds!

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31406874/nathalie-methanol-powered-electric-sports-car/

They don't mention what they do with the carbon from the methanol, and
downplay the decided lack of methanol fueling stations, but hey anything
to save the planet. They even offer a free overnight delivery service
for all your methanol needs, at least for the first year. This is not
just some vacuous press release, this baby came out March 18, 2020.
Must admit, haven't seen one on the street yet.

Hot on the heals of the Nathalie success, comes a superyacht that uses
the same methanol concept, this time offering "unlimited autonomy",
whatever that means. Sounds impressive though.

https://robbreport.com/motors/marine/sunreef-zero-cat-hydrogen-1234868205/

I expect methanol at a marina is about as scarce as hydrogen, but they
did pave the decks with solar cells, so maybe it all will work out.
Details of the powersystem are a bit sketchy currently. Naybe they've
tucked a cold fusion reactor in there somewhere.

There's also talk of using ammonia for hydrogen transport. As with methanol the trick is avoiding undesirable byproducts during H2 generation and subsequent combustion.

On 7/19/23 4:28 PM, George Haeh wrote:
> There's also talk of using ammonia for hydrogen transport. As with methanol the trick is avoiding undesirable byproducts during H2 generation and subsequent combustion.

What I've seen is they're proposing burning actual ammonia in slightly
modified jet engines.

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/aviation-h2-ammonia-fuel-jet-aircraft/

The advantage of the sports car and yacht is they can pretend they're
feeding hydrogen into a fuel cell, which makes it seem like a
zero-carbon process (for people who can't actually think).

On 7/11/23 11:38 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7:29:15 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>> On 7/11/23 6:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>> Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
>>> https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/
>> Why are people still wasting time with batteries? The future clearly is
>> Hydrogen.
> Since Tesla sold it's first car till now, I've seen prices for EVs drop considerably, while the range has improved significantly. Everywhere I go, I see more charging stations. I like the trend.
>
> Everyone has electricity in their home, and most can charge their EV there. Hydrogen is harder to bring to the masses - nobody has in their home. I think it is part of the future, but not in the next 10 years. In the meantime, we can get electric gliders. Be happy for that.

Sometimes cheaper is not always better. One month after the initial
conflagration, a Nikola reignited:

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/south-phoenix/electric-semi-truck-reignited-at-phoenix-nikola-property

This year at Parowan, we had 20 gas burners and one kerosene burner.
Noticeably absent was anything electric. The electric tidal wave has
been slow to develop.

-Dave

On 7/11/23 12:25 PM, Mark628CA wrote:
> Doesn't anybody remember their high school chemistry and physics classes? They taught that the energy required to split a hydrogen atom away from any other atoms to which it is attached is exactly the same energy it produces to rejoin it. (See: Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy) And since you have to generate the energy to split it in the first place, inefficiency in the generation of the energy implies that you get less energy back than you put into it. Result: net loss of energy. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source that is even particularly desirable due to the fact that it delivers less energy than it takes to make it, is difficult to transport because of its extremely low volume as a gas, or it requires cryogenic containers to store in a liquid form. It also leaks through just about any container as a gas, and the leakage causes hydrogen embrittlement in the material it permeates. It is also volatile in any concentration from about 5% to 85% in the atmosphere.
>
> However, all of the above arguments concerning its generation and use are negated by the uninformed politicians who only pay attention to the fact that "Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe," and "Burning hydrogen only produces water."
>
> Therefore, a hydrogen economy is inevitable, simply because the single-issue people cannot actually comprehend the complete picture. And we continue to elect them.

On 7/11/23 11:38 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> In the meantime, we can get electric gliders. Be happy for that.

I think options are great, if they are truly free-choice options. But
what I'm most happy about is not wasting a dollar on the current crop of
electric gliders.

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:58:14 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> On 7/11/23 11:38 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7:29:15 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> >> On 7/11/23 6:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> >>> Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
> >>> https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/
> >> Why are people still wasting time with batteries? The future clearly is
> >> Hydrogen.
> > Since Tesla sold it's first car till now, I've seen prices for EVs drop considerably, while the range has improved significantly. Everywhere I go, I see more charging stations. I like the trend.
> >
> > Everyone has electricity in their home, and most can charge their EV there. Hydrogen is harder to bring to the masses - nobody has in their home. I think it is part of the future, but not in the next 10 years. In the meantime, we can get electric gliders. Be happy for that.
> Sometimes cheaper is not always better. One month after the initial
> conflagration, a Nikola reignited:
>
>
> https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/south-phoenix/electric-semi-truck-reignited-at-phoenix-nikola-property
>
> This year at Parowan, we had 20 gas burners and one kerosene burner.
> Noticeably absent was anything electric. The electric tidal wave has
> been slow to develop.
>
> -Dave
I don't think anyone has expected a tidal wave of electrics. The demand is there, but production isn't keeping up, at least for self-launchers. The most popular type of electric glider - 300+ FES gliders - are likely to remain absent at Parowan, until towing is available.

Some FES gliders are capable of self launch.

Dan
5J

On 7/24/23 12:07, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:58:14 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>> On 7/11/23 11:38 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7:29:15 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/23 6:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>>>> Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
>>>>> https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/
>>>> Why are people still wasting time with batteries? The future clearly is
>>>> Hydrogen.
>>> Since Tesla sold it's first car till now, I've seen prices for EVs drop considerably, while the range has improved significantly. Everywhere I go, I see more charging stations. I like the trend.
>>>
>>> Everyone has electricity in their home, and most can charge their EV there. Hydrogen is harder to bring to the masses - nobody has in their home. I think it is part of the future, but not in the next 10 years. In the meantime, we can get electric gliders. Be happy for that.
>> Sometimes cheaper is not always better. One month after the initial
>> conflagration, a Nikola reignited:
>>
>>
>> https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/south-phoenix/electric-semi-truck-reignited-at-phoenix-nikola-property
>>
>> This year at Parowan, we had 20 gas burners and one kerosene burner.
>> Noticeably absent was anything electric. The electric tidal wave has
>> been slow to develop.
>>
>> -Dave
> I don't think anyone has expected a tidal wave of electrics. The demand is there, but production isn't keeping up, at least for self-launchers. The most popular type of electric glider - 300+ FES gliders - are likely to remain absent at Parowan, until towing is available.

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Some FES gliders are capable of self launch.
>
> Dan
> 5J
> On 7/24/23 12:07, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:58:14 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> >> On 7/11/23 11:38 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7:29:15 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> >>>> On 7/11/23 6:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> >>>>> Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
> >>>>> https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/
> >>>> Why are people still wasting time with batteries? The future clearly is
> >>>> Hydrogen.
> >>> Since Tesla sold it's first car till now, I've seen prices for EVs drop considerably, while the range has improved significantly. Everywhere I go, I see more charging stations. I like the trend.
> >>>
> >>> Everyone has electricity in their home, and most can charge their EV there. Hydrogen is harder to bring to the masses - nobody has in their home.. I think it is part of the future, but not in the next 10 years. In the meantime, we can get electric gliders. Be happy for that.
> >> Sometimes cheaper is not always better. One month after the initial
> >> conflagration, a Nikola reignited:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/south-phoenix/electric-semi-truck-reignited-at-phoenix-nikola-property
> >>
> >> This year at Parowan, we had 20 gas burners and one kerosene burner.
> >> Noticeably absent was anything electric. The electric tidal wave has
> >> been slow to develop.
> >>
> >> -Dave
> > I don't think anyone has expected a tidal wave of electrics. The demand is there, but production isn't keeping up, at least for self-launchers. The most popular type of electric glider - 300+ FES gliders - are likely to remain absent at Parowan, until towing is available.
Yes, they are becoming more available, and at least one can even launch with ballast. In the works is a folding, three blade propeller, which should allow a 50% increase in thrust. The Parowan camp might attract some of few FES self-launchers, but very unfortunately, the ramp space was cut from 40+ spaces to 20-22 a few years ago, so it's hard for anyone to get into the camp that hasn't been flying there before the ramp reduction.

On 7/24/23 1:54 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Some FES gliders are capable of self launch.
>>
>> Dan
>> 5J
>> On 7/24/23 12:07, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:58:14 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/23 11:38 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7:29:15 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/11/23 6:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>>>>>> Reported cells 360 Wh/kg, pack 261 Wh/kg.
>>>>>>> https://insideevs.com/news/676131/nio-solid-state-battery-577-miles-range/
>>>>>> Why are people still wasting time with batteries? The future clearly is
>>>>>> Hydrogen.
>>>>> Since Tesla sold it's first car till now, I've seen prices for EVs drop considerably, while the range has improved significantly. Everywhere I go, I see more charging stations. I like the trend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone has electricity in their home, and most can charge their EV there. Hydrogen is harder to bring to the masses - nobody has in their home. I think it is part of the future, but not in the next 10 years. In the meantime, we can get electric gliders. Be happy for that.
>>>> Sometimes cheaper is not always better. One month after the initial
>>>> conflagration, a Nikola reignited:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/south-phoenix/electric-semi-truck-reignited-at-phoenix-nikola-property
>>>>
>>>> This year at Parowan, we had 20 gas burners and one kerosene burner.
>>>> Noticeably absent was anything electric. The electric tidal wave has
>>>> been slow to develop.
>>>>
>>>> -Dave
>>> I don't think anyone has expected a tidal wave of electrics. The demand is there, but production isn't keeping up, at least for self-launchers. The most popular type of electric glider - 300+ FES gliders - are likely to remain absent at Parowan, until towing is available.
> Yes, they are becoming more available, and at least one can even launch with ballast. In the works is a folding, three blade propeller, which should allow a 50% increase in thrust. The Parowan camp might attract some of few FES self-launchers, but very unfortunately, the ramp space was cut from 40+ spaces to 20-22 a few years ago, so it's hard for anyone to get into the camp that hasn't been flying there before the ramp reduction.

Supply doesn't seem to be much of a problem for battery cars. Axios
reports an average 92 day supply of bev cars piling up on dealer lots:

https://www.axios.com/2023/07/10/unsold-electric-cars-are-piling-up-on-dealer-lots

Compare that to 44 days for gas-electric hybrids, and 54 days for
conventional gas powered cars, and a 70 day historical average. Maybe
the Elfin is the wave of the future after all for motorgliders.

Concerning ramp space at Parowan, there's nothing stopping one of the
regulars from picking up a Jeta or Silent 2 or similar and showing up
with it. They seem to be available. Oh wait!

Always teething problems with early versions of pretty much anything:

https://www.sustainable-bus.com/news/fuel-cell-bus-fire-golden-state-empire-transit/

On 8/1/23 10:50 AM, raylov...@gmail.com wrote:
> Always teething problems with early versions of pretty much anything:
>
> https://www.sustainable-bus.com/news/fuel-cell-bus-fire-golden-state-empire-transit/

The Hindenburg disaster was almost 100 years ago. A 2019 explosion in
Santa Clara CA was felt 5 miles away. Apparently some "teething
problems" are worse than others.