Crops under solar panels can be a win-win

[Clifford Heath]

On 7/9/19 4:09 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:40:24 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 3:25 pm, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:03:24 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

snip

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

That was just an expedient as Musk is showing us.

Rubbish. His rockets are liquid-fuelled. Show me a similar re-usable
hydrogen-fuelled rocket and we have something to talk about.

In what sense is liquid hydrogen not a liquid fuel?

It's not liquid at STP. It can't be carried in a normal bottle or pumped
with a normal fuel pump, routed using normal valves. But you already
knew that, and are deliberately being a dick.
> Musk uses kerosene and liquid oxygen. The other private rocket development uses liquid methane and liquid oxygen. Liquid hydrogen is trickier than liquid oxygen, or liquid methane, but cryogenic liquids are clearly perfectly practical.

Hydrogen is a damn sight harder. Hell will freeze over before it gets
general aviation certification.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 6:15:56 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 7/9/19 4:09 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:40:24 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 3:25 pm, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:03:24 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

snip

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

That was just an expedient as Musk is showing us.

Rubbish. His rockets are liquid-fuelled. Show me a similar re-usable
hydrogen-fuelled rocket and we have something to talk about.

In what sense is liquid hydrogen not a liquid fuel?

It's not liquid at STP. It can't be carried in a normal bottle or pumped
with a normal fuel pump, routed using normal valves. But you already
knew that, and are deliberately being a dick.

Of course I know it. But none of that means that it can't used. The same objections apply to liquid oxygen, and your incapacity to appreciate this isn't clever.

Musk uses kerosene and liquid oxygen. The other private rocket development uses liquid methane and liquid oxygen. Liquid hydrogen is trickier than liquid oxygen, or liquid methane, but cryogenic liquids are clearly perfectly practical.

Hydrogen is a damn sight harder. Hell will freeze over before it gets
general aviation certification.

Liquid hydrogen is a lot colder than liquid oxygen, but your prediction that it will never get a general aviation certificate may not be all that useful.

If liquid hydrogen is the fuel that aviation industry needs to stay in the mass market, they will work out how to live with the associated difficulties.

Neither of us owns a certified crystal ball, and there's always the possibility that very high speed trains (possibly running in evacuated pipes or tunnels) may eat the aviation industry's mass market.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:64f96bbe-1efd-4c58-88fd-594dbf8a95b7@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:40:24 PM UTC+10, Clifford
Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 3:25 pm, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:03:24 AM UTC-4, Clifford
Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10,
Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John
Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick
C wrote:

snip

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room
for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than
liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but
it would take a while and a great deal of expensive
development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no
way to encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable
aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a
rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

That was just an expedient as Musk is showing us.

Rubbish. His rockets are liquid-fuelled. Show me a similar
re-usable hydrogen-fuelled rocket and we have something to talk
about.

In what sense is liquid hydrogen not a liquid fuel?

Musk uses kerosene and liquid oxygen. The other private rocket
development uses liquid methane and liquid oxygen. Liquid hydrogen
is trickier than liquid oxygen, or liquid methane, but cryogenic
liquids are clearly perfectly practical.

The rocket motors are more difficult to design and use, because the
liquid hydrogen gets boiled (evaporated) into gaseous form for mixing
with also evaporated liquid Oxygen before making it to the
"carburator" and subsequent engine nozzle. The liquid form is simply
to allow for more storage of a greater than when used density fuel
element. Also single element "fuels" have no residue to worry about.

Liquid elements discussed here "boil" at a very low temperature
with respect to normal lay person human interpretation. I guess
'evaporation' is the correct term. I essentially mean that before
any "fuel" hits the engine nozzle, it is 'converted' from liquid
phase to gas phase.

The big Saturn V engines which went on to be those used also in the
space shuttle had evaporation coils encircling the entire engine
nozzle.

 

Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote in
news:7pHcF.99414$Ph5.13105@fx27.iad:

On 7/9/19 3:25 pm, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:03:24 AM UTC-4, Clifford
Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford
Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John
Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C
wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar
-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using
less water for the amount of food produced the solar
panels stay cooler improving their electrical
production. True win-win.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Study was conducted in arid area of southwest where
literally anything is an improvement. It is not a general
recommendation.

The solar cells can power water sprayers.

The water is a more valuable commodity than the electricity
it takes to run irrigation pumps, and they really want to
be using drip irrigation in places like this, and drip is
low power.It probably drove the idea of using the panels
for shading in the first place, although a lot stuff
doesn't do well in shade. Notice they didn't mention any of
the economics, but the crummy vegetable crop isn't going to
make up for the loss of revenue due to greatly reduced
panel density. Modern agriculture is heading for
catastrophic collapse in so many ways. They have HUGE
problems. Here is a story about their plastics problem:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-can-agriculture-solve-i
ts-1-billion-plastic-problem These plastic products are
absolutely essential, but it's getting unsustainable.

There's gloom and destruction everywhere you look. Enjoy.

Some fathead Dem candidate said that driving cars will
"destroy the planet" as he boarded his private plane.

Driving electric cars would be fine. Aircraft are more of a
problem. There really aren't enough private planes to create
a problem, but international tourism probably has to go.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

George Monbiot pointed this out back in 2006, and it still
seems to be true.

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room
for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than
liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it
would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no
way to encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a
rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

That was just an expedient as Musk is showing us.

Rubbish. His rockets are liquid-fuelled. Show me a similar
re-usable hydrogen-fuelled rocket and we have something to talk
about.

Clifford Heath.

Yes, and do not those boosters rely on eject after use SRBs for
initial lift segment? The part that returns is expensive. Expensive
to make into a returnable, when disposable is not that much more.
But then there is that carbon footprint litterbug thing.

I do not think I fully get the returnablr booster thing. That has
to add a lot of weight to it and detract from total payload capacity.

 

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:41:54 -0700, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:

In article <cd054c53-efde-43ca-ab89-eac6db3eacbe@googlegroups.com>,
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

It was a sobering thing to think "OK, every mistake I make in the
first version of the code is going to be mastered onto about 100k
CD-ROMs... and can't be fixed once it's shipped."

Don't you wish you worked on hardware where things are simple and easy to get right?

(sound of a horse, laughing, in the distance)



Yeah, that situation gave me an appreciation for what the hardware
guys go through every time they tape out.

Except that our tape-out cost $2M (c. 2005).

 

On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 10:16:51 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 20:12:39 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using less water for the amount of food produced the solar panels stay cooler improving their electrical production. True win-win.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Study was conducted in arid area of southwest where literally anything is an improvement. It is not a general recommendation.

The solar cells can power water sprayers.

The water is a more valuable commodity than the electricity it takes to run irrigation pumps, and they really want to be using drip irrigation in places like this, and drip is low power.It probably drove the idea of using the panels for shading in the first place, although a lot stuff doesn't do well in shade. Notice they didn't mention any of the economics, but the crummy vegetable crop isn't going to make up for the loss of revenue due to greatly reduced panel density.
Modern agriculture is heading for catastrophic collapse in so many ways. They have HUGE problems. Here is a story about their plastics problem:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-can-agriculture-solve-its-1-billion-plastic-problem
These plastic products are absolutely essential, but it's getting unsustainable.

There's gloom and destruction everywhere you look. Enjoy.

Some fathead Dem candidate said that driving cars will "destroy the
planet" as he boarded his private plane.

Driving electric cars would be fine. Aircraft are more of a problem. There really aren't enough private planes to create a problem, but international tourism probably has to go.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

George Monbiot pointed this out back in 2006, and it still seems to be true.

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel. You can make the tanks well-enough insulated that the boil-off rate is tolerable.

An intercontinental flight takes longer than fueling a rocket and waiting for take-off, but "bulbous" does envisage thicker insulation than you'd choose for a rocket.

Is evaporation of liquid hydrogen really a problem ? As far as I
understand, the hydrogen needs to be in gaseous form in order to burn
it in an engine. In rockets, the liquid hydrogen runs around the
nozzle to evaporate it before being burnt.

Boiloff limits hydrogen fuel-cell flights to something like 2 hours
max. A rocket uses up all its 1st stage fuel supply in minutes.

And rockets are expensive.

 

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 15:02:42 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net>
wrote:

On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using less water for the amount of food produced the solar panels stay cooler improving their electrical production. True win-win.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Study was conducted in arid area of southwest where literally anything is an improvement. It is not a general recommendation.

The solar cells can power water sprayers.

The water is a more valuable commodity than the electricity it takes to run irrigation pumps, and they really want to be using drip irrigation in places like this, and drip is low power.It probably drove the idea of using the panels for shading in the first place, although a lot stuff doesn't do well in shade. Notice they didn't mention any of the economics, but the crummy vegetable crop isn't going to make up for the loss of revenue due to greatly reduced panel density.
Modern agriculture is heading for catastrophic collapse in so many ways. They have HUGE problems. Here is a story about their plastics problem:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-can-agriculture-solve-its-1-billion-plastic-problem
These plastic products are absolutely essential, but it's getting unsustainable.

There's gloom and destruction everywhere you look. Enjoy.

Some fathead Dem candidate said that driving cars will "destroy the
planet" as he boarded his private plane.

Driving electric cars would be fine. Aircraft are more of a problem. There really aren't enough private planes to create a problem, but international tourism probably has to go.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

George Monbiot pointed this out back in 2006, and it still seems to be true.

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel. You can make the tanks well-enough insulated that the boil-off rate is tolerable.

An intercontinental flight takes longer than fueling a rocket and waiting for take-off, but "bulbous" does envisage thicker insulation than you'd choose for a rocket.


Cryogenics are costly and troublesome. Hydrogen at useful density and
ambient temperatures the same in different ways. Both are inordinately
more difficult and costly than liquid fuels.

The latest issue of Aviation Week discusses some experimental hydrogen
fuel-cell airplanes. Boiloff of cryo hydrogen is a severe limitation
on range. Looks like 10,000 PSI room-temp gas might work, if the fuel
cell cost and weight can be improved maybe 5:1.

The best way to store hydrogen is to stick it to carbon.

 

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:05:00 +0100, Jeff Layman
<jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 06/09/19 06:27, Rick C wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using less water for the amount of food produced the solar panels stay cooler improving their electrical production. True win-win.

From one of the comments, there are a lot more photos at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrel/44570328402/in/album-72157673312397578/>.

Yuppie greenies standing around and pointing at things. Not an actual
farmer in overalls in sight.

Those seem to show that the spacing between the rows is a lot more than
usual for solar farms. However, as a concept it's an interesting idea.

Why just two wins? Why not win-win-win? Alternate rows of solar cells,
organic quinoa, and Tesla assembly lines.

 

[Tim Williams]

"Dave Platt" <dplatt@coop.radagast.org> wrote in message
news:971b4g-05f.ln1@coop.radagast.org...

I wasn't working on any one specific game for it - I was part of the
team developing the Portfolio operating system that all of the games
used. I wrote the CD-ROM driver and the filesystem code, and the
software to drive the game controllers and light gun and so forth.
Also co-designed the audio DSP and developed the 3D-audio algorithm
for it.

Cool!

Have you connected with any of the vintage/resto, homebrew or emulator
communities? If you still have some code or tools floating around that's
since lapsed out of NDA it could prove very helpful to some.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

 

[John Doe]

lol
Yeah, until you're ready to harvest them.
lol

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:28:14 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 10:16:51 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 20:12:39 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using less water for the amount of food produced the solar panels stay cooler improving their electrical production. True win-win.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Study was conducted in arid area of southwest where literally anything is an improvement. It is not a general recommendation.

The solar cells can power water sprayers.

The water is a more valuable commodity than the electricity it takes to run irrigation pumps, and they really want to be using drip irrigation in places like this, and drip is low power.It probably drove the idea of using the panels for shading in the first place, although a lot stuff doesn't do well in shade. Notice they didn't mention any of the economics, but the crummy vegetable crop isn't going to make up for the loss of revenue due to greatly reduced panel density.
Modern agriculture is heading for catastrophic collapse in so many ways. They have HUGE problems. Here is a story about their plastics problem:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-can-agriculture-solve-its-1-billion-plastic-problem
These plastic products are absolutely essential, but it's getting unsustainable.

There's gloom and destruction everywhere you look. Enjoy.

Some fathead Dem candidate said that driving cars will "destroy the
planet" as he boarded his private plane.

Driving electric cars would be fine. Aircraft are more of a problem.. There really aren't enough private planes to create a problem, but international tourism probably has to go.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

George Monbiot pointed this out back in 2006, and it still seems to be true.

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel. You can make the tanks well-enough insulated that the boil-off rate is tolerable.

An intercontinental flight takes longer than fueling a rocket and waiting for take-off, but "bulbous" does envisage thicker insulation than you'd choose for a rocket.

Is evaporation of liquid hydrogen really a problem ? As far as I
understand, the hydrogen needs to be in gaseous form in order to burn
it in an engine. In rockets, the liquid hydrogen runs around the
nozzle to evaporate it before being burnt.

Boiloff limits hydrogen fuel-cell flights to something like 2 hours
max. A rocket uses up all its 1st stage fuel supply in minutes.

Boil-off limited a particular liquid hydrogen fuel-cell flight to something like two hours. The quality and thickness of the insulation on the liquid hydrogen tank is a design feature.

Most of the discussions of liquid hydrogen powered long range aircraft talk about bulbous designs to make room for bigger fuel tanks with thicker insulation than the current generation of slimline aircraft can accommodate.

> And rockets are expensive.

So are aircraft. Of course we build more aircraft so there's more economy of scale.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:23:57 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 15:02:42 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net
wrote:

On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using less water for the amount of food produced the solar panels stay cooler improving their electrical production. True win-win.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Study was conducted in arid area of southwest where literally anything is an improvement. It is not a general recommendation.

The solar cells can power water sprayers.

The water is a more valuable commodity than the electricity it takes to run irrigation pumps, and they really want to be using drip irrigation in places like this, and drip is low power.It probably drove the idea of using the panels for shading in the first place, although a lot stuff doesn't do well in shade. Notice they didn't mention any of the economics, but the crummy vegetable crop isn't going to make up for the loss of revenue due to greatly reduced panel density.
Modern agriculture is heading for catastrophic collapse in so many ways. They have HUGE problems. Here is a story about their plastics problem:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-can-agriculture-solve-its-1-billion-plastic-problem
These plastic products are absolutely essential, but it's getting unsustainable.

There's gloom and destruction everywhere you look. Enjoy.

Some fathead Dem candidate said that driving cars will "destroy the
planet" as he boarded his private plane.

Driving electric cars would be fine. Aircraft are more of a problem. There really aren't enough private planes to create a problem, but international tourism probably has to go.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

George Monbiot pointed this out back in 2006, and it still seems to be true.

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel. You can make the tanks well-enough insulated that the boil-off rate is tolerable.

An intercontinental flight takes longer than fueling a rocket and waiting for take-off, but "bulbous" does envisage thicker insulation than you'd choose for a rocket.

Cryogenics are costly and troublesome. Hydrogen at useful density and
ambient temperatures the same in different ways. Both are inordinately
more difficult and costly than liquid fuels.

Perhaps more costly than other liquid fuels. "Inordinately" is a value judgement, and ingenious design has a way of making problems less "inordinate" than they might seem at first sight.

The latest issue of Aviation Week discusses some experimental hydrogen
fuel-cell airplanes. Boiloff of cryo hydrogen is a severe limitation
on range.

Thicker or better insulation is always a possibility.

Looks like 10,000 PSI room-temp gas might work, if the fuel
cell cost and weight can be improved maybe 5:1.

The best way to store hydrogen is to stick it to carbon.

Or nitrogen. Liquid ammonia gets shipped around in truckloads.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:29:22 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:03:24 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using less water for the amount of food produced the solar panels stay cooler improving their electrical production. True win-win.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Study was conducted in arid area of southwest where literally anything is an improvement. It is not a general recommendation.

The solar cells can power water sprayers.

The water is a more valuable commodity than the electricity it takes to run irrigation pumps, and they really want to be using drip irrigation in places like this, and drip is low power.It probably drove the idea of using the panels for shading in the first place, although a lot stuff doesn't do well in shade. Notice they didn't mention any of the economics, but the crummy vegetable crop isn't going to make up for the loss of revenue due to greatly reduced panel density.
Modern agriculture is heading for catastrophic collapse in so many ways. They have HUGE problems. Here is a story about their plastics problem:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-can-agriculture-solve-its-1-billion-plastic-problem
These plastic products are absolutely essential, but it's getting unsustainable.

There's gloom and destruction everywhere you look. Enjoy.

Some fathead Dem candidate said that driving cars will "destroy the
planet" as he boarded his private plane.

Driving electric cars would be fine. Aircraft are more of a problem.. There really aren't enough private planes to create a problem, but international tourism probably has to go.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

George Monbiot pointed this out back in 2006, and it still seems to be true.

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

So what? Hydrogen embrittlement is a known problem with known solutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

You seem to be in full nervous Nellie mode.

Are you sure about that? From your cite,

"Hydrogen embrittlement (HE) also known as hydrogen assisted cracking (HAC) and hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC), describes the embrittling of metal after being exposed to hydrogen. It is a complex process that is not completely understood because of the variety of mechanisms that can lead to embrittlement."

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:40:24 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 7/9/19 3:25 pm, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:03:24 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using less water for the amount of food produced the solar panels stay cooler improving their electrical production. True win-win.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Study was conducted in arid area of southwest where literally anything is an improvement. It is not a general recommendation.

The solar cells can power water sprayers.

The water is a more valuable commodity than the electricity it takes to run irrigation pumps, and they really want to be using drip irrigation in places like this, and drip is low power.It probably drove the idea of using the panels for shading in the first place, although a lot stuff doesn't do well in shade. Notice they didn't mention any of the economics, but the crummy vegetable crop isn't going to make up for the loss of revenue due to greatly reduced panel density.
Modern agriculture is heading for catastrophic collapse in so many ways. They have HUGE problems. Here is a story about their plastics problem:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-can-agriculture-solve-its-1-billion-plastic-problem
These plastic products are absolutely essential, but it's getting unsustainable.

There's gloom and destruction everywhere you look. Enjoy.

Some fathead Dem candidate said that driving cars will "destroy the
planet" as he boarded his private plane.

Driving electric cars would be fine. Aircraft are more of a problem.. There really aren't enough private planes to create a problem, but international tourism probably has to go.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

George Monbiot pointed this out back in 2006, and it still seems to be true.

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

That was just an expedient as Musk is showing us.

Rubbish. His rockets are liquid-fuelled. Show me a similar re-usable
hydrogen-fuelled rocket and we have something to talk about.

Why is that relevant? The limitation to reusing rockets is the control to allow them to land and be recovered.

How many were reusing rockets of any type until Musk did it?

Someone said it's not practical to use Hydrogen fuel, then someone else pointed out those examples were single use, but there is nothing inherent in hydrogen fuel that makes a reusable rocket impractical.

Or is there something about this you aren't telling?

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:52:17 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:29:22 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:03:24 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

<snip>

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

So what? Hydrogen embrittlement is a known problem with known solutions..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

You seem to be in full nervous Nellie mode.

Are you sure about that? From your cite,

"Hydrogen embrittlement (HE) also known as hydrogen assisted cracking (HAC) and hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC), describes the embrittling of metal after being exposed to hydrogen. It is a complex process that is not completely understood because of the variety of mechanisms that can lead to embrittlement."

Of course I'm not sure. On the other hand, we don't "completely understand" a whole lot of processes that we can manage perfectly adequately.

The Australian hydrogen lobby hopes to make a lot of money by shipping tanker loads of liquid hydrogen from Australia to Japan and South Korea.

That does imply that some people with money are fairly confident that the tankers won't start breaking in half before they get to their destinations.

Of course the first few super-sized oil tankers did break in half from time to time, so their confidence isn't necessarily well-founded.

https://www.wired.com/2002/06/superrust/

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 11:23:57 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 15:02:42 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net
wrote:

On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using less water for the amount of food produced the solar panels stay cooler improving their electrical production. True win-win.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Study was conducted in arid area of southwest where literally anything is an improvement. It is not a general recommendation.

The solar cells can power water sprayers.

The water is a more valuable commodity than the electricity it takes to run irrigation pumps, and they really want to be using drip irrigation in places like this, and drip is low power.It probably drove the idea of using the panels for shading in the first place, although a lot stuff doesn't do well in shade. Notice they didn't mention any of the economics, but the crummy vegetable crop isn't going to make up for the loss of revenue due to greatly reduced panel density.
Modern agriculture is heading for catastrophic collapse in so many ways. They have HUGE problems. Here is a story about their plastics problem:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-can-agriculture-solve-its-1-billion-plastic-problem
These plastic products are absolutely essential, but it's getting unsustainable.

There's gloom and destruction everywhere you look. Enjoy.

Some fathead Dem candidate said that driving cars will "destroy the
planet" as he boarded his private plane.

Driving electric cars would be fine. Aircraft are more of a problem. There really aren't enough private planes to create a problem, but international tourism probably has to go.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

George Monbiot pointed this out back in 2006, and it still seems to be true.

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel. You can make the tanks well-enough insulated that the boil-off rate is tolerable.

An intercontinental flight takes longer than fueling a rocket and waiting for take-off, but "bulbous" does envisage thicker insulation than you'd choose for a rocket.


Cryogenics are costly and troublesome. Hydrogen at useful density and
ambient temperatures the same in different ways. Both are inordinately
more difficult and costly than liquid fuels.

The latest issue of Aviation Week discusses some experimental hydrogen
fuel-cell airplanes. Boiloff of cryo hydrogen is a severe limitation
on range. Looks like 10,000 PSI room-temp gas might work, if the fuel
cell cost and weight can be improved maybe 5:1.

The best way to store hydrogen is to stick it to carbon.

The trouble with that is returning the carbon so it can be reused. It tends to get into the exhaust stream with the obvious issues that creates.

Much easier to return your electrons to have them rejuvenated electrically.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:16:12 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:52:17 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:29:22 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:03:24 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

snip

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

So what? Hydrogen embrittlement is a known problem with known solutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

You seem to be in full nervous Nellie mode.

Are you sure about that? From your cite,

"Hydrogen embrittlement (HE) also known as hydrogen assisted cracking (HAC) and hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC), describes the embrittling of metal after being exposed to hydrogen. It is a complex process that is not completely understood because of the variety of mechanisms that can lead to embrittlement."

Of course I'm not sure. On the other hand, we don't "completely understand" a whole lot of processes that we can manage perfectly adequately.

Ok, so if you aren't sure, but you still think we should listen to your argument?

The Australian hydrogen lobby hopes to make a lot of money by shipping tanker loads of liquid hydrogen from Australia to Japan and South Korea.

That does imply that some people with money are fairly confident that the tankers won't start breaking in half before they get to their destinations..

When do they think they will break in half?

Of course the first few super-sized oil tankers did break in half from time to time, so their confidence isn't necessarily well-founded.

https://www.wired.com/2002/06/superrust/

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:54:19 PM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:16:12 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:52:17 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:29:22 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:03:24 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

snip

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

So what? Hydrogen embrittlement is a known problem with known solutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

You seem to be in full nervous Nellie mode.

Are you sure about that? From your cite,

"Hydrogen embrittlement (HE) also known as hydrogen assisted cracking (HAC) and hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC), describes the embrittling of metal after being exposed to hydrogen. It is a complex process that is not completely understood because of the variety of mechanisms that can lead to embrittlement."

Of course I'm not sure. On the other hand, we don't "completely understand" a whole lot of processes that we can manage perfectly adequately.

Ok, so if you aren't sure, but you still think we should listen to your argument?


The Australian hydrogen lobby hopes to make a lot of money by shipping tanker loads of liquid hydrogen from Australia to Japan and South Korea.

That does imply that some people with money are fairly confident that the tankers won't start breaking in half before they get to their destinations.

When do they think they will break in half?

Probably not at all.

Of course the first few super-sized oil tankers did break in half from time to time, so their confidence isn't necessarily well-founded.

https://www.wired.com/2002/06/superrust/

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

I'm trying to be realistic, rather than dogmatic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 8:28:14 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Boiloff limits hydrogen fuel-cell flights to something like 2 hours
max. A rocket uses up all its 1st stage fuel supply in minutes.

And rockets are expensive.

How much do you pay for a paper match and a wrap of aluminum foil?
Someone has been overcharging you very badly.

For aircraft, there's AIR available, the 'first stage fuel' in an expensive space rocket
is burned so quckly because that's how you avoid lifting (among other things)
a lot of liquid oxygen. The economics of space rockets don't apply to aircraft.

 

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 18:52:38 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:40:24 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 3:25 pm, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 1:03:24 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:22:32 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/9/19 11:51 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:19:27 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:27:17 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
This is interesting

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

They report that not only do crops grow better using less water for the amount of food produced the solar panels stay cooler improving their electrical production. True win-win.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Study was conducted in arid area of southwest where literally anything is an improvement. It is not a general recommendation.

The solar cells can power water sprayers.

The water is a more valuable commodity than the electricity it takes to run irrigation pumps, and they really want to be using drip irrigation in places like this, and drip is low power.It probably drove the idea of using the panels for shading in the first place, although a lot stuff doesn't do well in shade. Notice they didn't mention any of the economics, but the crummy vegetable crop isn't going to make up for the loss of revenue due to greatly reduced panel density.
Modern agriculture is heading for catastrophic collapse in so many ways. They have HUGE problems. Here is a story about their plastics problem:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-can-agriculture-solve-its-1-billion-plastic-problem
These plastic products are absolutely essential, but it's getting unsustainable.

There's gloom and destruction everywhere you look. Enjoy.

Some fathead Dem candidate said that driving cars will "destroy the
planet" as he boarded his private plane.

Driving electric cars would be fine. Aircraft are more of a problem. There really aren't enough private planes to create a problem, but international tourism probably has to go.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

George Monbiot pointed this out back in 2006, and it still seems to be true.

A new generation of more bulbous aircraft with enough room for liquid hydrogen fuel - rather lower energy density than liquid hydrocarbons - might save the tourist industry, but it would take a while and a great deal of expensive development.

It's not just the lower energy density. There's probably no way to
encase useful amounts of hydrogen in a viable aircraft.

What makes you think that? Liquid hydrogen has been used as a rocket fuel.

Also, all those rockets were single-use.

That was just an expedient as Musk is showing us.

Rubbish. His rockets are liquid-fuelled. Show me a similar re-usable
hydrogen-fuelled rocket and we have something to talk about.

Why is that relevant? The limitation to reusing rockets is the control to allow them to land and be recovered.

How many were reusing rockets of any type until Musk did it?

Someone said it's not practical to use Hydrogen fuel, then someone else pointed out those examples were single use, but there is nothing inherent in hydrogen fuel that makes a reusable rocket impractical.

Those reusable stages have mainly been the first stage, i.e. running
in a high atmospheric pressure, in which the trust drops compared to
vacuum. In such environments it makes sense to use exhaust gases with
higher molecular weight.

In addition, the LH2 would require huge tanks. Think about how huge
the first stage of Saturn V have been, if the fuel had been LH2
instead of kerosine. On the Shuttle, LH2 takes out the main part of
the ET and still you need those SRBs as the first stage.

>Or is there something about this you aren't telling?