|
Dave, Because of these circumstances, it is not obvious which energy price has to be applied. On the one hand, it would be unwise to forgo easily obtainable government support and with it the faster pay off.Fortunately, we have a very experienced innovation adviser who said that "on the other hand", we must be aware of what technology is capable of and not forget that government subsidies may be modified,even canceled. We accepted his opinion, according to which we must calculate with half the lowest energy-price, if we want to enter the market. In 2011, this was about 0,025 $/kWh. Calculating with such low electricity-price, the pay off time is 15.3 years, an almost acceptable value. Under the same conditions, the pay off time of the reference (conventional) wind power plant is 74 (!) years. This means an outstanding competitiveness even with such a low electricity price. The
capital costs depend first of all on the manufacturer of the
sophisticated components,since one has to pay for his knowledge (super
profit). There is a commonly accepted price level of e.g. gliders,
which contains this mentioned high profit. But it mainly pertains to
small series. If we are going to need a significant number of gliders,
it depends on our decision whether we will buy gliders one after
another, or if we buy a small but experienced factory where we organize a serial production to fulfill our demand. This way, the high profit remains with us. Dare to dream great! (It costs the same as a small dream... Safety, liability and insurance hang together. Our gliders are in the "unusual" or "unknown" category today. That is, the high costs of insurance today are because of subjective reasons. But military and continously rising civil applications diffuse these aversions. Of course, further technical development is also needed to enhance liability and safety. These developments are in progress in several companies and university- or academic research teams. But today, it is already possible to build systems from "off-the-shelf" components, possessing high-reliability by applying enough (e.g.: triple) redundancy. If the contact goes off the air with the ground station because of any reason, then an inbuilt algorithm will take over the control, ensuring the return of the planes to the base without any outside control. These systems tend to belong to the commercial category. By the way, this is also a problem today in the case of tethered devices working in high altitude. As far as I know, they have to work in an area restricted from air traffic. Presumably, this will be not the case with untethered flying devices. These are like other airplanes. You have seen above that I do not hesitate to calculate with a very low price of energy, if rational arguments (e.g.: the investigation of the market) show that this low price is needed to enter the market as an outsider, as a new participant of this play. But I do not hesitate also NOT to accept a price being a result of a hysteria and ignorance, -if a realistic approach shows just the very opposite. By the way, we are not alone having this problem. UAV-industryis growing up very rapidly. I am convinced that this problem will be no more a problem when our IFOs will start to fly. Why no small cheap proof-of-concept flying model? Wea re going to do even now some experiments with a model glider. But to tell the truth, I never ask "why NO?" , but "Why?". In this case the main motivation is the stress implied in yours and others question, - besides I like playing with a model plane. (I think, most of the results of this flight are foreseeable.) Dave,I
have never thought that there will come a time when somebody from the
"West" will take the side of communism against me. Well, I say that the
simplified stereotypic thoughts of the cold war about "our" communism
have to be forgotten. Indoctrination proceeded both sides! In fact the fall of the totalitarian Stalinism in Hungary proceeded a lot of time before
the fall of the whole system. After the '70s, the "dictatorship" in
Hungary could not be called a "totalitarian Stalinistic dictatorship".
It was something of a benevolent and viable system, ensuring much
higher social safety than today. The price of it was a lower standard
of living and the predominance of collective rights(e.g.: right to
work, -there was no unemployment!) instead of personal rights (e.g.:free-enterprise).
Being "gray", that is, not rising above the crowd was more rewarding
than doing so. And this was the reason why the system fell. It was not
competitive, it did not motivate people to do their best.And this is
what I'm talking about when I say that communism did not work for us.
Well, I like the communism that you imagine. But I am afraid that it
cannot be realized outside of one's family. (Perhaps without any people... Lift! Gabor PS.:
I hope, the formal criteria of my script is already OK. If not, I ask
your kind help by noticing it in a private message. Thanks! |
)
)
