1.7 MB is,
"The memory of AAPL's Lisa in 1983. Enough for one or two photos. The PC's price tag? $10,000. Go Moores Law." Fortune Mag. (9/26/11)
Technology and it's ever accelerating advancement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was an article in yesterday's L.A. Times about Solyndra. They went out of business because of the rapid decrease in the prices of flat solar panels.
Think about it...read the post above (comments from the C.E.O. of NRG)...the cost of the electricity needed to run the Tesla "S"...IS GOING DOWN.
<<Moores law will apply to the battery and a little of the internal workings of the car. The chargers will get better and faster and cheaper. Charging will get easier. Usage of the car will get easier. Much of the car will not get much better.
Overall it will be great.>>
How about the "Moores Law Effect" on the cost of the power source (ELECTRICITY) for the Tesla!
I watched Cramer interview the C.E.O. of NRG last Tuesday. He was talking about the precipitous drop in prices on solar panels in the last few years. He said it was already cost effective for businesses (I take it he meant those businesses with large roof areas) to install solar systems. He commented on their (NRG) recent deal to install solar panels for the Washington Redskins...at FedExField.
He went on to say that within three to four years, in at least half of the states in the U.S., solar will cost less than drawing power from the grid.
MOORE'S LAW: "the price of solar panels has dropped precipitously in the last two to three years. "
NRG SOLAR PANEL DEAL WITH WASHINGTON REDSKINS:
JIM CRAMER INTERVIEW WITH C.E.O. OF NRG:
NRG Energy CEO Makes the Case for Solar
Published: Tuesday, 20 Sep 2011 | 6:28 PM ET
NRG’s CEO David Crane told the “Mad Money” host that solar power is not just about public service, it is also good business.
“The rap on solar power for a long time is it’s just too expensive to install,” he said. “But the price of solar panels has dropped precipitously in the last two to three years. So we’re to the point right now where solar is cost affordable for businesses.”
He thinks that within three to four years, in at least half of the states in the U.S., solar will cost less than drawing power from the grid.
Crane also said the company is still interested in offshore wind, calling it “the biggest large scale renewable resource we have in the northeast United States.”
However, he said a lot of things need to fall into place for it to become an affordable power option.
To see the full interview, watch the video.
"precludes further advances" is your distortion of what I posted. I said battery improvements cannot progress at the rate predicted by Moore's Law because batteries are constrained by the laws of physical chemistry. The compounds used for anodes, cathodes, and electrolytes can be tweaked but the results will ultimately be limited by their electric potential differentials.
If you are genuinely interested in understanding the science (rather than merely trying to "blow [me] out of the water"), here's a good place to start:
But what is it from High School Chemistry that precludes further advances in battery technology? Something about the periodic table? I know there was the old lead/acid battery; the NiCad (nickel-cadmium); Lithium Ion... many of those are elements on the periodic table, along with simple compounds like acid. So why are we at the limit of battery improvements at this time in history? That's the real question you are dodging.
N0m0re, I'd like to know what the "crap' is Dud refers to? The crap I read here is generally provided by Networthless and his brother, _Trade. Those two(or one) can find the most off-beat, senseless, and useless info I've read in some time.
Then again, what's to talk about for these folks? No product, no sales, no profits. They only have hype generated by..........themselves! The stoxk is a non-starter as no one can adequately explain why it rises and falls? Simply put, it's hype and hyperbole. But the end is near! Soon, Tesla will be forced to back up the talk by providing something tangible, maybe!
OK I'll go through it slowly for you.
In the link I referenced, you said "...Tesla haters post rediculous (sic) crap that is easily countered ... It's actually kinda fun and easy to do...My goal is to get an honest assessment of events and possibilities "
Your posts to counter "crap" is only in one direction. The statement in the subject line of this post is false.
"Moore's Law" has become catch-all techno-jargon for the concept that the rate of advancements in technology is such that it doubles about every two years.
Battery technology has never doubled in any two year period (nor will it ever) because it is limited by the electrical potential differential of the compounds used to construct batteries.
I don't consider myself a self-appointed anything. It is so easy to blow you out of the water and you can't stand it. The periodic table was developed some 140 years ago by Mendeelev or something like that. Since that time there has been much improvement in batteries. It's so simple it's absurd. The laws of physics and chemistry were the same then as now. Science moves on.
what are you saying about batteries? That no progress can happen from this point onward? That no upgrades to present day state of the art battery technology is possible? That's a ridiculous assertion. It makes you seem like something of a Luddite.
So tell me, what is it about modern day batteries/chemistry that stymies all future development?
<<The constraint is on battery improvements not progress generically. You must have slept through high school chemistry.
Your homework assignment is to re-read the chapter on the table of electric potential of the elements. >>
There must be some simple high school chemistry level impediment that I just missed. Please fill me in.
With almost every post you undermine your authority as the self-appointed arbiter of the "truth."
The constraint is on battery improvements not progress generically. You must have slept through high school chemistry.
Your homework assignment is to re-read the chapter on the table of electric potential of the elements.
Progress is constrained by the laws of physical chemistry, or whatever, of course. 18th century science was constrained by the laws of physical chemistry. But progress has been made since that time. The laws of science are ever being tested and new improvements being developed on a daily basis. Sophistry? Are we at the limits of scientific discovery? Constrained by "The Laws of Physical Chemistry"? What does that even mean?