"Additionally, that 60x claim is getting old by the minute. We are getting to 300+ with advancements coming in so fast they are hard to keep track of. That 60x could drop to 10x or lower in just a few years"
What was a Tesla Model S power density 10 years ago? Today? Hardware moves slower than you think. All your points have some basis of consideration but the potential performance improvements they represent are tiny compared to the single huge downside of having to fly a giant, heavy battery everywhere and that is not going to change anytime soon.
Density is going up exponentially in the graph because it has been improving 18% for every doubling of the number shipped. Global EV market share is projected to cross 25% this year, so we should expect two more 18% improvements as it approaches 100%. That should improve density 39%. Then (ignoring batteries sold so far, and assuming there are no new markets for lithium batteries), we’ll see another 18% in 2 years (164% of current density), 4 (193%) 8 (228%), and so on until some theoretical limit is hit.
In all likelihood, some other technology will replace lithium batteries at some point. That further improves the density numbers.
From the article, "A second obvious theme is the prevalence of hydrogen buses in industrial regions and cities that bought into the hydrogen for energy narrative that’s falling apart now. Cologne, Aberdeen, Bolzano, Groningen/Drenthe, and Wuppertal are all trying to be hydrogen valleys, centers of the hydrogen economy’s industry. That’s going badly because it was always a bad idea, devoid of thermodynamic and economic reality."
I think the last sentence speaks alot to hydrogens place in the sustainable energy field. It sounds like a good idea but the applications always seem to struggle with reality.
I fail to understand how using elemental hydrogen for storing energy has ever sounded like a good idea for anyone.
What sounds like a good idea is using fuel cells instead of ICEs, but using hydrocarbons as fuel, not dihydrogen (also solid carbon is a possible fuel).
The use of hydrocarbons can be carbon-neutral and sustainable, by making them from carbon dioxide and water.
There have been various experiments with fuel cells using other fuels than dihydrogen, but the main roadblocks have been a lower power at a given size than with pure hydrogen and the need for more frequent maintenance, besides the main disadvantage common to all kinds of fuel cells for now, high cost, due to expensive catalysts or to components such as separators that must be replaced frequently.
Nevertheless, we know that it is possible to make cheap and performant fuel cells, as demonstrated by any living being that breathes air.
Hydrogen isn't chosen because it's the optimal technical solution (or even a solution at all). It's purpose is to prevent the transition to BEV technology (as a proposed alternative) and thereby protect the businesses making ICEs. It therefore can serve its purpose even if zero Hydrogen vehicles are made.
Of course this was all for the past 30 years. Since everyone can see with their eyes that BEVs work, Hydrogen's job is over.
"and likely a good argument that at lest some minor capability should exist so we can keep re-assessing the value of that industry"
But that doesn't work. You need economies of scale and technological advancement for an industry to be competitive. Once you sellout an industry (what government and corporations spent the last half century doing) you've lost a capability forever unless drastic shifts happen and even then it would take years/decades to recover.
Why care? I guess I would say, as someone who works with physical products, it's hard to see a good future when we build nothing and buy everything. That is the direction we've been going. It's not about building everything ourselves it's just about building stuff ourselves. I think you touch on this talking about "the right balance".
You are literally repeating the classic - "younger generation" are "negative adjective" and not as "positive adjective" as "older generation" and thus can't hack it - which has been going on since the beginning of time.
In general any observations about how he was able to convince congress / government of the potential of a nuclear navy. He doesn't come across as a necessarily easy person to deal with in many contexts and it's always felt like there's a missing link in explaining his effectiveness at getting what he wanted. I mean he went from being someone the navy wanting gone to probably the most famous/influential naval figure in history and largely through maneuvering outside of the organization. But how?
I also would love if you find anything out about his interactions with Takis Veliotis in the 80s (who if you don't know about, feel free to message me or see my submission on).
To be a good manager means to run a team well and get stuff done. To be a good VP means to increase shareholder value. To be a director means you are at some percentage of completion of the soul/morality extraction process that happens when transitioning from the first to the second.
Are you saying you, as a manager, are running a group so poorly that you have enough churn to where retention makes up a large percentage what you work on day to day?
Or are you saying your company treats/pays employees so poorly that there is significant turnover throughout the organization? And instead of generally treating/paying employees better they rather have middle management spend a significant amount of their time discussing retention?
And you are choosing to highlight this as something IC's should appreciate that management has to deal with?
You’re getting downvoted, it seems, but you raise a very real point: you need to have a high turnover, or rough span of control ratios, in order for this to be a common interrupt.
Especially given it’s well known that people don’t leave companies, they leave bad managers… it’s a bit telling.
Anecdotally: I spent 6-7 years managing at various levels (manger/sr mgr/director) before going back to an IC role, and I had a single regrettable attrition (+2 non-regrettable) in that time.
> Especially given it’s well known that people don’t leave companies, they leave bad managers…
I know this is an old saw because it’s usually true, but I’ve left companies where I had a good relationship with my manager because I lost confidence in leadership at some level above them.
Sometimes you can see the train wreck coming and it’s time to go.
ULA is not a "incompetent monstrosity" (Boeing yes sadly). The company is making good progress with Vulcan and if they were given the funds/time to design a reusable rocket they're probably one of the few companies that has the talent/experience to pull it off. Tony Bruno is maybe the only CEO of a large space company that is a hardcore engineer and has a passion for space. Would have been cool to see BO/ULA get combined under Tony's leadership but wasn't meant to be.
It is. Both GE and P&W newest generation of engines realized on the order of 20% efficiency gains over their previous products. They both cost in the billions / 10's of billions in r&d, which may sound doable, but realize that they were both starting off with organizations (engineers, facilities, decades of experience, etc.) built to do that. China has thrown 10's of billions and 10's of thousands of people at this problem and still hasn't cracked it after 10ish years.
What was a Tesla Model S power density 10 years ago? Today? Hardware moves slower than you think. All your points have some basis of consideration but the potential performance improvements they represent are tiny compared to the single huge downside of having to fly a giant, heavy battery everywhere and that is not going to change anytime soon.