7 minutes ago, Camsdad13 said:

I hope you’re right and agree with you regarding virtual meetings. They are one dimensional. What I’m seeing especially with private equity owned companies is a shift to staying with virtual meetings and not having the travel expenditures. I’m arguing that face to face relationships have a better ROI. We shall see and I hope you’re right.

Eugh! Having worked in P.E., too often it's about extracting the maximum value out of the portfolio company before I.P.O. or secondary market sale. Any way that costs can be reduced in order for the fund manager to hit carry will be used, regardless of whether that's in the best interests of the owned company.

Please continue to argue for face-to-face. I can accept the cost accountant rationale for reducing 'unnecessary' expenditure in the short-term, but it annoys me when value is lost because that isn't as readily visible in monthly / quarterly management reports.

I hope I'm right too.  /rant

11 hours ago, martin-w said:

ou are a bit behind the times Dave. Tesla cars can have a range over 300 miles and I don't know many people that drive for longer times periods than that, after all, we all need to get out and eat, empty our bladders and take a break. Dangerous not to. I should add, that there are new models about to hit the market with a 400 mile range. Then we have Elon's so called million mile battery, regrading lifespan of course.

Charge times for electric cars are as low as 30 mins at a supercharger. And of course not that relevant when most owners will be charging at home over night. 

No, I know that they have ranges of 300-400 miles.  The issue is charging time and infrastructure.  First, it's not very convenient to have to wait 30 minutes for the batteries to charge if you take a trip over 300 miles.  I'm in the USA, not a small country, so that is indeed an issue.  Second, there aren't exactly charging stations around every corner.

I believe that these issues will be largely resolved in the next 10 years or so, but for now electric vehicles just aren't that attractive for a lot of people.  The electric vehicle share of the global automobile market is only about 3%.

Another issue concerning EVs is what's going to happen when millions of vehicles start drawing power from the electric grid for charging every day.  The electric grid will need more capacity, meaning even more wind turbines, solar panels, etc.  All doable, of course, just not cost free, or zero emission, or carbon free. 

I do think that EVs are the future for automobiles, just not quite ready for the masses yet.

Dave

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

No, I know that they have ranges of 300-400 miles.  The issue is charging time and infrastructure.  First, it's not very convenient to have to wait 30 minutes for the batteries to charge if you take a trip over 300 miles.  I'm in the USA, not a small country, so that is indeed an issue.  Second, there aren't exactly charging stations around every corner.

I think this problem is exaggerated. The vast majority of driving is commuting - around 50-100 miles a day, with a charging station at home in the garage. The number of >300 mile trips I take in a year can be counted on one hand, and even then it's a tough slog to do more than 300 miles at a stretch without a meal or some time out of the seat. Taking 30 minutes to charge while I eat, stretch and pee makes sense.

I also think the notion of power draw isn't a huge deal. The majority of charging would happen at night, where demand is lowest. The rate schedules can be amended to encourage this, if they aren't already.

Cheers!

 

All the motor manufacturers agree that EVs are the future for automobiles.

Some are just taking a little longer to untangle themselves from the business as usual product cycle.

But what a golden time for EV owners!
Government subsidies! (in most places, which surely must expire)
No Road User Charges! (which surely must expire)
Dirt cheap energy costs! (which surely must survive - it's not only EV's using electricity)

As an EV owner (a decent one, not a mere Leaf) I'm enjoying the benefits of EV's being just not quite ready for the masses yet!

I've never had a need to exceed the vehicle's real world range of 450+ km, and charging is generally done at home, overnight (at low demand times as decided by my electricity supplier).
If I need to go further than 400km for any reason, commuter airlines exist for that very purpose. At the destination? An EV which you don't need to gas up when you return it. 😇
 

  

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by WingZ

Our company already get more monthly flight and passangers than last year domesticly. So no worry guys, things will come back.

Although most of it are contributed by one-pay-full-year-free-flight mode, we are still making profit.

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by C2615

4 hours ago, dave2013 said:

No, I know that they have ranges of 300-400 miles.  The issue is charging time and infrastructure.  First, it's not very convenient to have to wait 30 minutes for the batteries to charge if you take a trip over 300 miles. 

You drive more than 5 hours straight without stopping? The entire US is saturated with Tesla Superchargers, so your never left without a place to charge.

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

You drive more than 5 hours straight without stopping? The entire US is saturated with Tesla Superchargers, so your never left without a place to charge.

Well, you're right.  I looked up the Tesla charger locations and was surprised to see how vast the network is.  It wasn't too long ago that there was practically no charging infrastructure other than in places like California or very large cities.  I'm glad to see how much progress has been made on that.

I might be in the market for an EV in the near future!

Dave

 

10 hours ago, dave2013 said:

No, I know that they have ranges of 300-400 miles.  The issue is charging time and infrastructure.  First, it's not very convenient to have to wait 30 minutes for the batteries to charge if you take a trip over 300 miles.  I'm in the USA, not a small country, so that is indeed an issue.  Second, there aren't exactly charging stations around every corner.

I do think that EVs are the future for automobiles, just not quite ready for the masses yet.

Dave

 

30 minutes waiting for a battery to charge isn't an issue surely Dave. 30 minutes is nothing, and its very unhealthy to drive for longer than 300-400 miles before taking a break. Unhealthy in terms of a full bladder and unhealthy in terms of driver fatigue. Most motoring authorities recommend at least a 30 minute break after that long behind the wheel.

 

Quote

Second, there aren't exactly charging stations around every corner.

 

Actually you guys are great for chargers in the US. I recall there's greater than 16,000 in the US.

 

Quote

Another issue concerning EVs is what's going to happen when millions of vehicles start drawing power from the electric grid for charging every day.  The electric grid will need more capacity, meaning even more wind turbines, solar panels, etc.  All doable, of course, just not cost free, or zero emission, or carbon free. 

 

Expansion required to a degree yes, but the answer is the "Smart Grid". 

 

https://www.regen.co.uk/the-role-of-electric-vehicles-in-a-smart-grid/

 

Quote

just not quite ready for the masses yet.

 

Like I said Dave, you are behind the times. 😁

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by martin-w

17 hours ago, F737NG said:

Until such time we build high numbers of relatively local battery systems to hold surplus energy 

 

That's exactly what's happening around the world. Expected to expand rapidly in the UK over the next 10 years.

 

Quote

Nuclear shouldn't be dismissed too quickly either. 

 

Yep, I agree, we may have no choice. I'm just saying I'm not a fan of nuclear for the reasons already stated. 

 

Quote

Potentially, the renaissance of development into smaller, more numerous molten salt reactors, can lead us to a win-win situation.

 

We aren't anywhere near a "renaissance" in such technology though. Molten salt reactors still have a lot of development required before they are a viable proposition. They are not yet a commercial reality. there are quite a few disadvantages to the technology too...

Questionable economics 

Reaching break-even breeding is questionable 

Still much development needed

Startup fuel – Unlike mined uranium, mined thorium does not have a fissile isotope. 

Salts freezing 

Beryllium toxicity

Loss of delayed neutrons

Waste management – About 83% of the radioactive waste has a half-life in hours or days, with the remaining 17% requiring 300-year storage

Uncertain decommissioning costs

There are numerous other disadvantages to deal with but I'll let you read the rest...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by martin-w

Saving this thread, it will be interesting to check the claims made here a few years down the road... 😏

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

Saving this thread, it will be interesting to check the claims made here a few years down the road... 😏

 

Same here.  There's a reason why electric vehicle sales are still so low.  Part of the issue is that people are reluctant and slow to make so drastic a change - we've been used to gasoline and diesel powering our vehicles for 100 years so that's not going to change overnight. 

I'm a proponent of renewable and sustainable energy.  I've never liked seeing black clouds pouring out of smokestacks or automobile tailpipes, but I'm also not an alarmist who believes that the seas will soon rise 30 feet and inundate all of our coastal cities, or that we only have 12 years until the world is destroyed.  The transition to sustainable energy must be done gradually and methodically, allowing people time to adjust.  I also don't wish to see gigantic wind turbines everywhere I look, obscuring the world's natural beauty.  There is a place for wind power, but it clearly shouldn't be the major source of our energy.

My area electricity is provided by a nuclear plant about 50 miles away.  It is reliable and relatively inexpensive.  The newer nuclear plant designs are extremely safe and efficient and should not be dismissed out of hand because they're not perfect or because the waste must be stored somewhere.  Every form of energy has pros and cons, even wind and solar power.

Dave

Well I basically agree with you, but this is going to turn political very soon I guess... In before the lock! 🙂

21 hours ago, C2615 said:

Our company already get more monthly flight and passangers than last year domesticly. So no worry guys, things will come back.

Although most of it are contributed by one-pay-full-year-free-flight mode, we are still making profit.

That maybe the USA market. 

I'll predict here in UK, Norwegian and Virgin will be gone by February / March 2021,  and then unless the summer 2021 bookings are through the roof, I'll say jet2 and easyjet will be on the ropes too this time next year, and that's officially the scenario according to balpa that are in negotiations with the companies, And I quite believe them.

You just can't run semi full lines of scheduled flying with 20 pax on each flight just to try keep your crews recency, annual line checks, and to try and keep historic slots and traffic rights. It just doesnt work.  You need people to book flights with money and now. 

If you don't, you eventually just run out money, and have to start selling aircraft (that you own) or return to leasor the ones you don't to cover your payroll run, fuel, and scheduled A, B, C, D  checks. 

This in essence what is crippling the UK carriers.  They are burning money they dont have, and are having to issue vouchers which people are then using on flights for summer 2021, and that's if the carriers make it through winter.  Vouchers are not money, they are vouchers and no good to anyone

 

 

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by fluffyflops

Where do we find the super-genius who can invent "Mr. Fusion?"

Why, at MIT, of course!