Quote:
Originally Posted by J. T. Toad
This "maintenance problem" is like, to use the prior analogy, showing up to race @ LeMans with square tires, a Briggs and Straton power plant, and forgetting fuel.
I hate to say, but the application of present day technologies to prove an "everybody should be doing this" mentality is juvenile.
The energy storage (battery) wouldn't have been able to realistically sustain the house from the get go. Let alone the implied environmental concerns for the ENTIRE experiment.
I would hate to be on the space station, submarine, airplane, to find out failure would be written off as a "maintenance" issue.
|
To imply that everyone should be building houses according to a student project is stupid. I don't think that was implied. I had mentioned in an earlier post that decades ago my college was involved with building solar powered cars for a competition. It's been a couple of decades and I don't see us driving solar powered cars, nor would I ever expect that one of the student built solar cars would ever be considered for mass production for everyone. It is just a student built prototype. A fully engineered car meant for production, like a Mustang, Accord, Caravan etc. will have 100's of millions spent on engineering, testing, tooling, documentation, service training, etc. And that is with evolutionary changes. Shifting to newer technologies like hybrids I'm sure costs more.
Likewise, we don't use student projects as actual nuclear submarines, space shuttles or commercial aircraft. And even with 10's of billions spent on engineering safety and redundant systems on nuclear submarines and space shuttles, we have seen nuclear subs sink on their maiden test voyages and lost a couple of shuttles as well. Those are dangerous environments and even the best minds don't devise the perfect foolproof designs to eliminate all risks of the danger.