Jump to content

Things you often Wonder


mjmooney

Recommended Posts

Just now, Brumerican said:

Lack of profit most likely. 

There's a lot of money involved destroying the planet . 

I guess it’s down to the return.

I’m sure governments could raise the money through loans or private investment if the return was there. Are there other forces at play (like the oil / gas companies / states)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Genie said:

Are there other forces at play (like the oil / gas companies / states)?

Definitely.   The knowledge has been here a very long time but reliance on expensive and destructive energy is one of the glues that keeps humanity on the treadmill. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they'll have had plenty of offers over the years, if it was to happen it would be one of these things where the Chinese build a motorway through the middle of the country and in return get to build a solar plant that they own, take all the profits from creates no jobs and has very little actual benefit to the host nation 

Maybe after hundreds of years of trading the rights to their minerals for a paltry return they've learned something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the problem the vast distances it would have to travel to someone with the money to pay? There would be a lot of power loss over such large lengths of wire. 

Unless you had lorries with huge batteries used like oil tankers but then the cost stacks up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

Isn't the problem the vast distances it would have to travel to someone with the money to pay? There would be a lot of power loss over such large lengths of wire. 

Unless you had lorries with huge batteries used like oil tankers but then the cost stacks up. 

Losses transferring electricity are low, and the technology well established. 
Also, everyone needs electricity, near and far.

I’d assume transferring electricity vast distances is easier than gas and oil?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sidcow said:

Isn't the problem the vast distances it would have to travel to someone with the money to pay? There would be a lot of power loss over such large lengths of wire. 

Unless you had lorries with huge batteries used like oil tankers but then the cost stacks up. 

There will soon be room temperature superconductors. You could use them for batteries or wires.

Graphene might be an option soon for battery "tankers". Too expensive at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/02/2021 at 19:48, Genie said:

Is it just down to cost?

Given the abundance of sunshine, space  and the need for electricity I thought there would be a business case for it. Maybe not.

I was just looking at some studies, to power the entire planet you’d need land equivalent to 3% of the US.

Projects that aim to do this have existed for some time. Most obviously, there is a high-voltage link from Morocco to Spain, and Morocco is a world leader in solar power for obvious reasons. There was at one time - I don't know if it's still planned, as such - a planned project called DESERTEC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec), which essentially aimed to join up grids across north Africa and Europe, but there are quite a few challenges, including the threat to European energy security of relying too much on African energy, and tensions between north African countries (especially Morocco and Algeria). A nice-looking map of the DESERTEC dream from the Wiki article:

DESERTEC-Map_large.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I emailed my MP the other day. 

I had quite a long reply last night from him.

Or was it him? Do they respond to their own emails or do they have a team that does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Xela said:

I emailed my MP the other day. 

I had quite a long reply last night from him.

Or was it him? Do they respond to their own emails or do they have a team that does it?

Its rarely them, constituency secretary, parliamentary researchers etc etc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m probably going to receive a lot of legitimate examples disproving this, but anyway...why is it seemingly more “acceptable” for a musician to have a stab at acting and have reasonable success, but an actor having a go at being a musician is more often ridiculed than it is acclaimed?

Justin Timberlake or Lady Gaga can attempt careers in Hollywood and it’s fine, but Scarlett Johansson’s singing career is a non starter. 

I know there are exceptions to this, but it seems to me it’s far easier to make the transition from music to acting than the other way round. Is it because musicians are held to a different standard, or there’s a question of sincerity maybe? 

Edited by Mark Albrighton
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I’m probably going to receive a lot of legitimate examples disproving this, but anyway...why is it seemingly more “acceptable” for a musician to have a stab at acting and have reasonable success, but an actor having a go at being a musician is more often ridiculed than it is acclaimed?

Justin Timberlake or Lady Gaga can attempt careers in Hollywood and it’s fine, but Scarlett Johansson’s singing career is a non starter. 

I know there are exceptions to this, but it seems to me it’s far easier to make the transition from music to acting than the other way round. Is it because musicians are held to a different standard, acting is, for want of a better word “easier”? 

I struggle outside of Childish Gambino to think of others that have gone actor to musician and made a success and critical acclaim of it. 
 

Edit. Jared Leto. But its a small list I think. 

Edited by Seat68
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â