This quarter could be a special case. There is a 200,000 vehicle trigger for reducing/eliminating government subsidies at Tesla is close to that mark. By delaying deliveries by a few weeks or diverting production to another market, they can push the date when the 200,000 limit is reached into the next quarter, and thus delay the loss of subsidies by a quarter. I've seen this discussed several times, here is the first article discussing it that I found by web search:
Researchers at the online publication Inside EVs said Tesla probably reached the 200,000-unit mark on its models 3, X and S in June. However, Tesla could have worked the numbers so the target will be hit in July, by shipping more cars to Canada, for example.Under Internal Revenue Service rules, the first subsidy cutback, to $3,750, would begin for cars delivered in October or January, depending on when the 200,000 limit is hit.
Here is a story about a reusable rocket-plane using a modified Space Shuttle main engine, designed for DARPA, to launch medium sized military satellites (a bit over two tonnes.) It is intended to have 24 hour turnaround.
Like Falcon 9, the booster stage is reusable but the second stage is not. Unlike Falcon 9, the booster will glide back to a runway like a shuttle. First flight is targeted for 2021.
I think there are four block 3 or 4 boosters left in existence: The first booster that SpaceX successfully landed is displayed outside their HQ. There is the first booster that they ever reflew, which as I recall was recovered. Given that they've decided that nothing pre-block 5 flies more than twice, presumably this one still exists. The side boosters from the Falcon Heavy test flight were both flying for the second time and both were recovered. By the same logic, they should also still exist.
B1021 is the first reflown booster. "Following the second flight, SpaceX stated that they plan to retire this booster and donate it to Cape Canaveral for public display." This is also a "Full Thrust" booster.
The Heavy side boosters were B1023 and B1025. For B1023, "Following the second flight, SpaceX stated that they plan to retire this booster."
All four of these are described as "Full Thrust" variant. They weren't using the terminology 'block 3' at the time and there is some uncertainty when the block numbers started counting from, so it is unclear whether these are what we now call block 3, or if block counting started with Full Thrust, they might be block 1 or 2.
Aha I just found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... According to this list, B1019, B1021, B1022, B1023, B1025, B1026, B1029, B1031, B1035 (all 'Full Thrust") have status "retired", so if they haven't been broken up they should be available to museums. B1042 (block 4) has flown once and is listed as "in storage". This is intended to be used for the Dragon 2 in-flight abort test (which is liable to be hazardous to the booster, and I'm guessing they won't attempt to recover the booster.)
So it looks like after the abort test, only "Full Thrust" (all block 3?) and block 5 boosters will still exist.
Other posters have put $130B of gold at around 2000 tonnes (I haven't checked this.) Having no expertise in this field, I'd think that is enough to shift the gold price by a percent or two, but not to crash it. It is comparable to annual production but pretty small compared to world reserves.
I invite someone to look up real time gold prices and find out when this news broke, and see if the price shifted in response. The existence of this ship wreck gold is fairly speculative, so it may not have an effect yet. If the gold does exist, news of how much there is will probably come out slowly, making it hard to isolate the effect of this find from other influences on gold price.
Further to the above: The National Post article says "the stern was found at a depth of 380 metres and the bow at a depth of 430 metres" (i.e. difference of 50m). Wikipedia says the ship's length was 93.4m. This means it is either at an angle of about 32 degrees off horizontal (pretty darn steep, but not impossible) or it has broken up.
Yes, I couldn't read their site. Here is another article (or, for all I know, the same one).
Important points from that article: That the ship was carrying so much gold is debated. Allegedly there are some oddities about the company that says it found the ship.
Another article. This one says they intend to raise the ship, which seems decidedly odd, compared to just trying to raise the gold. I'm wondering if there was a translation error.
The problem isn't with the major airlines, who generally treat their pilots fine, it is the commuter airlines. If you don't go the military route, you need to spend many years at a regional airline, where conditions historically have been much much worse than you describe. The conditions you describe are not available to novices - these are people with over a decade of piloting experience, and with expensive self-funded training. It is also the case that it is not the majors which are suffering from a pilot shortage - they can hire from the best of the current regional pilots, who will leap at the chance to fly for a major.
I am not a pilot, and the above paragraph describes USA conditions. I get my information from the 'Ask The Pilot' blog. The pilot in question addressed the pilot shortage in a post about a year ago. Here is an extract:
An aspiring aviator has to ask, is it worth sinking $100,000 or more into one’s primary training, plus the time it will take to build the necessary number of flight hours, plus the cost of a college education, only to spend years toiling at poverty-level wages, with at best a marginal shot at moving on to a major? For many the answer has been a resounding (and logical) no.
However, things are changing:
The regionals have finally started upping their salaries and improving benefits, in some cases substantially. The cost structures of these carriers, whose existence is primarily to allow the majors to outsource flying on the cheap, limits how much they can lavish on their employees, but frankly they have little choice. New hires at companies like Endeavor Air (a Delta affiliate) and PSA (American), for example, can now make first-year salaries in the $70,000-plus range. That’s three times what these pilots would have made in years past. Other companies are offering signing bonuses of several thousand dollars, and work rules too are getting better. Air Wisconsin, a United partner and one of the nation’s oldest regionals, says that pilots can now earn up to $57,000 in sign-on bonuses. It promises earnings of between $260,000 and $317,000, including salary and bonuses over the first three years of employment. Figures like that are unprecedented.
But when they issued the alert, other telescopes started looking at that 1.6 by 0.8 degrees. Some telescopes detected high energy gamma rays in the area, and those telescopes had much better accuracy. And there was a previously detected gamma ray source, located with even higher spacial accuracy, within that error ellipse. And the galaxy in turn was within this smallest error ellipse.
Even the smallest error ellipse probably contains a bunch of galaxies. I presume that just one of them looked 'weird' in some way, and so was assumed to have interesting activity at its core. I haven't taken the time to drill down that far into their identification process.
The hard bit is 'given the timings and intensities of flashes I detected in my detector, what was the direction of the primary neutrino?' That gives a direction relative to the detector array, then all you need to know is the sidereal time and location on Earth of the detector to turn it into a direction on the sky, with some simple addition of angles. The uncertainty in neutrino direction is on the order of a degree (I've commented elsewhere on this) so effects much smaller than a degree can be ignored.
I did calculations quite similar to this for a cosmic ray experiment in my MSc thesis in 1988/89. I used likelihood calculations to determine direction and uncertainty in direction. I expect this experiment does the same.
I've just quickly looked at the Science article. Here is the plot you want. (I hope that doesn't need institutional access to view.)
The 90% confidence contour for arrival direction of the neutrino is roughly elliptical with length/width (major/minor axis) about 1.5 degrees and 1 degree - so you are right, the direction of the neutrino has quite large uncertainty.
The high energy gamma rays detected by the MAGIC telescopes (in response to the neutrino triggered alert) have 95% confidence ellipse about 0.1 degree diameter. A previously identified gamma ray source has 95% confidence ellipse about 0.03 degrees in diameter. All are consistent with the location of TXS 0506+056.
This makes it clear that certification comes after the first test crewed launch, and is likely to be in the late 2019/early 2020 time frame.
The report shows when NASA believes Boeing and SpaceX will each have completed a single non-crewed test flight, a test flight with crew, and then undergo a certification process to become ready for operational flights. This is known as the "certification milestone."
So this is about when the second crewed flight of each capsule can happen. Possibly the first (test) crewed flight won't go to the space station.
I read that article too. I'm dubious of the claim that SpaceX can/will bail out Tesla. SpaceX has a lot on its plate (the BFR and the Starlink satellite program, which requires SpaceX to self-fund thousands of moderate sized satellites) and can't go to the stock market to raise funds. Further, Tesla has achieved its primary social goal (get the world to take electric vehicles seriously) but SpaceX has not (colonize Mars.) Given this, I think Musk would let Tesla die rather than endanger SpaceX. This wouldn't contradict Musk's history of going 'all in', it would rather be that he'd go 'all in' on SpaceX, even at the cost of losing Tesla. Also, I don't think SpaceX can bail Tesla out at Musk's whim. Although SpaceX is a private company, I think Musk isn't the only shareholder.
At this point, I think it very unlikely the current contract will be canceled, unless something disastrous happens. The capsule is nearly ready to fly, and NASA will keep funding the tests and several crewed launches. Whether SpaceX have made a profit on this I have no idea.
The commercial crew program is a pretty small part of what SpaceX is doing. Their bread and butter is commercial satellite launches with Falcon 9, and looks to be going great.
So, as I read it: the ability/will for SpaceX to bail out Tesla is questionable, the danger to SpaceX's crewed program is small, and the effect that crewed launch has on SpaceX is small, so this news has very little effect on Tesla.
My favourite space news and analysis site is www.nasaspaceflight.com. (This is a misnomer - it covers space stuff world wide, not NASA specific, and so far as I can tell has no affiliation with NASA.) They last looked at the commercial crew program in April in a pair of articles: https://www.nasaspaceflight.co... https://www.nasaspaceflight.co...
Both were pretty up-beat about prospects, however the SpaceX article says:
[...] SpaceX aims to conduct a crew test flight of Dragon, known as DM-2. This mission is currently slated for December 2018 but is likely to slip into early 2019.
And the Boeing article says:
Officially, Boeing is targeting August 2018 for its Orbital Flight Test (OFT), their uncrewed certification mission for Starliner, to be followed in November 2018 with their Crew Flight Test (CFT). Those dates are based on the last quarterly review by the Commercial Crew Program in February, and there is some indication that those dates are likely to slip at the next quarterly review in May – with the CFT slipping into 2019.
TFA takes early 2019 as a start point:
SpaceX and Boeing Co are the two main contractors selected under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s commercial crew program to send U.S. astronauts to space as soon as 2019, using their Dragon and Starliner spacecraft respectively.
and seems to be talking about delays beyond this.
“Boeing and SpaceX continue to make progress developing their crew transportation systems, but both contractors have further delayed the certification milestone to early 2019,” the report said.
Reading between the lines, I take it that there is a significant time between certification and first crewed flight, so certification in early 2019 means no crewed flight in early 2019. Both capsules will have an uncrewed test flight some months before the first crewed flight. I don't know whether certification comes before or after the test flight.
Were I generating such fake accounts, they wouldn't only follow people who paid me. I'd give each account several interests - e.g. 'jazz', 'online gaming', 'San Francisco'. Then I'd have them follow several legitimate people for each interest, randomly chosen. Finally when I get a jazz customer wanting followers, this account is one of the ones that might randomly be chosen to follow the customer.
The point being that if this is how it is done, completely innocent people will see their follower numbers drop when the fake accounts are deleted. Don't hurl accusations at someone who takes a 5% hit in their follower numbers.
I'd be surprised if these fake accounts don't work like this, because if they only follow paying customers they would be very very obvious to simple analysis by Twitter.
After so many stupid objections, it is pleasant to find a smart one.
If the future that eventuates is this car-summoned-on-demand one, then yes, this policy will waste money. (The EV recharge circuits could find an alternative use for in-house battery storage, but it is also uncertain whether that will turn out to be economic.)
If the future that eventuates is that most people own their own electric cars, this policy will save money.
I don't have the knowledge to judge the cost, benefit and risk of this policy.
TFA is an announcement of intention to consult before making the regulations. If they do this consultation competently, they'll consider the implications on the power connection to the houses, and make some compromise between required current capacity of the EV charging circuit and the required current supply to the house. They might only require a 20 amp or 40 amp charging circuit, or require different current limits in different locations, depending on the state of the local electricity grid. It is also possible that they won't consult competently, and (for example) they'll demand circuits which capacity the grid can't possibly supply.
1) Read the one sentence summary "charger in every new home". 2) Don't bother to read the fine article, which includes words like "where appropriate" and "consult". 3) Assume that "charger in every new home" will be applied rigidly even when it makes no sense. This will be a regulation which will probably run to hundreds of pages, but pretend that one sentence says everything you need to know about it. Also pretend that the people writing regulations are drooling idiots. 4) Conclude that the policy will lead to idiotic outcomes, rather than realizing you are making idiotic interpretation 5) Post as AC about how idiotic this policy is 6) ???? 7) Profit!
This was my first thought. If all they require is wiring and a socket, then this won't be a problem - at worst, you need to replace a plug or socket, and even that is unlikely, as the 10-years-from-now-technology should be able to plug into a commonly installed socket.
It isn't clear from TFA that a socket is all that will be required, but they promise to consult before setting the rules, so hopefully the people they consult will be aware of this potential problem.
Slashdot Mirror
This quarter could be a special case. There is a 200,000 vehicle trigger for reducing/eliminating government subsidies at Tesla is close to that mark. By delaying deliveries by a few weeks or diverting production to another market, they can push the date when the 200,000 limit is reached into the next quarter, and thus delay the loss of subsidies by a quarter. I've seen this discussed several times, here is the first article discussing it that I found by web search:
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
Researchers at the online publication Inside EVs said Tesla probably reached the 200,000-unit mark on its models 3, X and S in June. However, Tesla could have worked the numbers so the target will be hit in July, by shipping more cars to Canada, for example.Under Internal Revenue Service rules, the first subsidy cutback, to $3,750, would begin for cars delivered in October or January, depending on when the 200,000 limit is hit.
I'm talking about a (reusable (((space shuttle) engined) rocket)). You appear to be interpreting it as ((reusable (space shuttle)) (engined rocket)).
Here is a story about a reusable rocket-plane using a modified Space Shuttle main engine, designed for DARPA, to launch medium sized military satellites (a bit over two tonnes.) It is intended to have 24 hour turnaround.
Like Falcon 9, the booster stage is reusable but the second stage is not. Unlike Falcon 9, the booster will glide back to a runway like a shuttle. First flight is targeted for 2021.
I have a friend who was a programmer on Mike's Bikes, but I haven't played it.
I think there are four block 3 or 4 boosters left in existence:
The first booster that SpaceX successfully landed is displayed outside their HQ.
There is the first booster that they ever reflew, which as I recall was recovered. Given that they've decided that nothing pre-block 5 flies more than twice, presumably this one still exists.
The side boosters from the Falcon Heavy test flight were both flying for the second time and both were recovered. By the same logic, they should also still exist.
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
B1019 is displayed outside HQ.
B1021 is the first reflown booster. "Following the second flight, SpaceX stated that they plan to retire this booster and donate it to Cape Canaveral for public display." This is also a "Full Thrust" booster.
The Heavy side boosters were B1023 and B1025. For B1023, "Following the second flight, SpaceX stated that they plan to retire this booster."
All four of these are described as "Full Thrust" variant. They weren't using the terminology 'block 3' at the time and there is some uncertainty when the block numbers started counting from, so it is unclear whether these are what we now call block 3, or if block counting started with Full Thrust, they might be block 1 or 2.
Aha I just found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
According to this list, B1019, B1021, B1022, B1023, B1025, B1026, B1029, B1031, B1035 (all 'Full Thrust") have status "retired", so if they haven't been broken up they should be available to museums.
B1042 (block 4) has flown once and is listed as "in storage". This is intended to be used for the Dragon 2 in-flight abort test (which is liable to be hazardous to the booster, and I'm guessing they won't attempt to recover the booster.)
So it looks like after the abort test, only "Full Thrust" (all block 3?) and block 5 boosters will still exist.
why is it an outrage on slashdot?
I have lots of other places to go should I feel the need to get angry and depressed about US politics.
World gold reserve is about 170,000 tonnes, and production is about 1500 tonnes per year.
Other posters have put $130B of gold at around 2000 tonnes (I haven't checked this.) Having no expertise in this field, I'd think that is enough to shift the gold price by a percent or two, but not to crash it. It is comparable to annual production but pretty small compared to world reserves.
I invite someone to look up real time gold prices and find out when this news broke, and see if the price shifted in response. The existence of this ship wreck gold is fairly speculative, so it may not have an effect yet. If the gold does exist, news of how much there is will probably come out slowly, making it hard to isolate the effect of this find from other influences on gold price.
Further to the above: The National Post article says "the stern was found at a depth of 380 metres and the bow at a depth of 430 metres" (i.e. difference of 50m). Wikipedia says the ship's length was 93.4m. This means it is either at an angle of about 32 degrees off horizontal (pretty darn steep, but not impossible) or it has broken up.
Yes, I couldn't read their site. Here is another article (or, for all I know, the same one).
Important points from that article: That the ship was carrying so much gold is debated. Allegedly there are some oddities about the company that says it found the ship.
Another article. This one says they intend to raise the ship, which seems decidedly odd, compared to just trying to raise the gold. I'm wondering if there was a translation error.
The problem isn't with the major airlines, who generally treat their pilots fine, it is the commuter airlines. If you don't go the military route, you need to spend many years at a regional airline, where conditions historically have been much much worse than you describe. The conditions you describe are not available to novices - these are people with over a decade of piloting experience, and with expensive self-funded training. It is also the case that it is not the majors which are suffering from a pilot shortage - they can hire from the best of the current regional pilots, who will leap at the chance to fly for a major.
I am not a pilot, and the above paragraph describes USA conditions. I get my information from the 'Ask The Pilot' blog. The pilot in question addressed the pilot shortage in a post about a year ago. Here is an extract:
An aspiring aviator has to ask, is it worth sinking $100,000 or more into one’s primary training, plus the time it will take to build the necessary number of flight hours, plus the cost of a college education, only to spend years toiling at poverty-level wages, with at best a marginal shot at moving on to a major? For many the answer has been a resounding (and logical) no.
However, things are changing:
The regionals have finally started upping their salaries and improving benefits, in some cases substantially. The cost structures of these carriers, whose existence is primarily to allow the majors to outsource flying on the cheap, limits how much they can lavish on their employees, but frankly they have little choice. New hires at companies like Endeavor Air (a Delta affiliate) and PSA (American), for example, can now make first-year salaries in the $70,000-plus range. That’s three times what these pilots would have made in years past. Other companies are offering signing bonuses of several thousand dollars, and work rules too are getting better. Air Wisconsin, a United partner and one of the nation’s oldest regionals, says that pilots can now earn up to $57,000 in sign-on bonuses. It promises earnings of between $260,000 and $317,000, including salary and bonuses over the first three years of employment. Figures like that are unprecedented.
But when they issued the alert, other telescopes started looking at that 1.6 by 0.8 degrees. Some telescopes detected high energy gamma rays in the area, and those telescopes had much better accuracy. And there was a previously detected gamma ray source, located with even higher spacial accuracy, within that error ellipse. And the galaxy in turn was within this smallest error ellipse.
Here is the picture.
Even the smallest error ellipse probably contains a bunch of galaxies. I presume that just one of them looked 'weird' in some way, and so was assumed to have interesting activity at its core. I haven't taken the time to drill down that far into their identification process.
The hard bit is 'given the timings and intensities of flashes I detected in my detector, what was the direction of the primary neutrino?' That gives a direction relative to the detector array, then all you need to know is the sidereal time and location on Earth of the detector to turn it into a direction on the sky, with some simple addition of angles. The uncertainty in neutrino direction is on the order of a degree (I've commented elsewhere on this) so effects much smaller than a degree can be ignored.
I did calculations quite similar to this for a cosmic ray experiment in my MSc thesis in 1988/89. I used likelihood calculations to determine direction and uncertainty in direction. I expect this experiment does the same.
I've just quickly looked at the Science article. Here is the plot you want. (I hope that doesn't need institutional access to view.)
The 90% confidence contour for arrival direction of the neutrino is roughly elliptical with length/width (major/minor axis) about 1.5 degrees and 1 degree - so you are right, the direction of the neutrino has quite large uncertainty.
The high energy gamma rays detected by the MAGIC telescopes (in response to the neutrino triggered alert) have 95% confidence ellipse about 0.1 degree diameter. A previously identified gamma ray source has 95% confidence ellipse about 0.03 degrees in diameter. All are consistent with the location of TXS 0506+056.
They make good solar systems, battery packs, and cars, and there is high demand for each.
I for one am dead keen on buying a good solar system. I want multiple habitable moons around a gas giant - that would be really cool.
Update: An AC pointed to this article:
https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
This makes it clear that certification comes after the first test crewed launch, and is likely to be in the late 2019/early 2020 time frame.
The report shows when NASA believes Boeing and SpaceX will each have completed a single non-crewed test flight, a test flight with crew, and then undergo a certification process to become ready for operational flights. This is known as the "certification milestone."
So this is about when the second crewed flight of each capsule can happen. Possibly the first (test) crewed flight won't go to the space station.
I read that article too. I'm dubious of the claim that SpaceX can/will bail out Tesla. SpaceX has a lot on its plate (the BFR and the Starlink satellite program, which requires SpaceX to self-fund thousands of moderate sized satellites) and can't go to the stock market to raise funds. Further, Tesla has achieved its primary social goal (get the world to take electric vehicles seriously) but SpaceX has not (colonize Mars.) Given this, I think Musk would let Tesla die rather than endanger SpaceX. This wouldn't contradict Musk's history of going 'all in', it would rather be that he'd go 'all in' on SpaceX, even at the cost of losing Tesla. Also, I don't think SpaceX can bail Tesla out at Musk's whim. Although SpaceX is a private company, I think Musk isn't the only shareholder.
At this point, I think it very unlikely the current contract will be canceled, unless something disastrous happens. The capsule is nearly ready to fly, and NASA will keep funding the tests and several crewed launches. Whether SpaceX have made a profit on this I have no idea.
The commercial crew program is a pretty small part of what SpaceX is doing. Their bread and butter is commercial satellite launches with Falcon 9, and looks to be going great.
So, as I read it: the ability/will for SpaceX to bail out Tesla is questionable, the danger to SpaceX's crewed program is small, and the effect that crewed launch has on SpaceX is small, so this news has very little effect on Tesla.
My favourite space news and analysis site is www.nasaspaceflight.com. (This is a misnomer - it covers space stuff world wide, not NASA specific, and so far as I can tell has no affiliation with NASA.) They last looked at the commercial crew program in April in a pair of articles:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.co...
https://www.nasaspaceflight.co...
Both were pretty up-beat about prospects, however the SpaceX article says:
[...] SpaceX aims to conduct a crew test flight of Dragon, known as DM-2. This mission is currently slated for December 2018 but is likely to slip into early 2019.
And the Boeing article says:
Officially, Boeing is targeting August 2018 for its Orbital Flight Test (OFT), their uncrewed certification mission for Starliner, to be followed in November 2018 with their Crew Flight Test (CFT). Those dates are based on the last quarterly review by the Commercial Crew Program in February, and there is some indication that those dates are likely to slip at the next quarterly review in May – with the CFT slipping into 2019.
TFA takes early 2019 as a start point:
SpaceX and Boeing Co are the two main contractors selected under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s commercial crew program to send U.S. astronauts to space as soon as 2019, using their Dragon and Starliner spacecraft respectively.
and seems to be talking about delays beyond this.
“Boeing and SpaceX continue to make progress developing their crew transportation systems, but both contractors have further delayed the certification milestone to early 2019,” the report said.
Reading between the lines, I take it that there is a significant time between certification and first crewed flight, so certification in early 2019 means no crewed flight in early 2019. Both capsules will have an uncrewed test flight some months before the first crewed flight. I don't know whether certification comes before or after the test flight.
Were I generating such fake accounts, they wouldn't only follow people who paid me. I'd give each account several interests - e.g. 'jazz', 'online gaming', 'San Francisco'. Then I'd have them follow several legitimate people for each interest, randomly chosen. Finally when I get a jazz customer wanting followers, this account is one of the ones that might randomly be chosen to follow the customer.
The point being that if this is how it is done, completely innocent people will see their follower numbers drop when the fake accounts are deleted. Don't hurl accusations at someone who takes a 5% hit in their follower numbers.
I'd be surprised if these fake accounts don't work like this, because if they only follow paying customers they would be very very obvious to simple analysis by Twitter.
After so many stupid objections, it is pleasant to find a smart one.
If the future that eventuates is this car-summoned-on-demand one, then yes, this policy will waste money. (The EV recharge circuits could find an alternative use for in-house battery storage, but it is also uncertain whether that will turn out to be economic.)
If the future that eventuates is that most people own their own electric cars, this policy will save money.
I don't have the knowledge to judge the cost, benefit and risk of this policy.
TFA is an announcement of intention to consult before making the regulations. If they do this consultation competently, they'll consider the implications on the power connection to the houses, and make some compromise between required current capacity of the EV charging circuit and the required current supply to the house. They might only require a 20 amp or 40 amp charging circuit, or require different current limits in different locations, depending on the state of the local electricity grid. It is also possible that they won't consult competently, and (for example) they'll demand circuits which capacity the grid can't possibly supply.
Wow, you just broke my irony meter with your straw man argument.
1) Read the one sentence summary "charger in every new home".
2) Don't bother to read the fine article, which includes words like "where appropriate" and "consult".
3) Assume that "charger in every new home" will be applied rigidly even when it makes no sense. This will be a regulation which will probably run to hundreds of pages, but pretend that one sentence says everything you need to know about it. Also pretend that the people writing regulations are drooling idiots.
4) Conclude that the policy will lead to idiotic outcomes, rather than realizing you are making idiotic interpretation
5) Post as AC about how idiotic this policy is
6) ????
7) Profit!
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
This was my first thought. If all they require is wiring and a socket, then this won't be a problem - at worst, you need to replace a plug or socket, and even that is unlikely, as the 10-years-from-now-technology should be able to plug into a commonly installed socket.
It isn't clear from TFA that a socket is all that will be required, but they promise to consult before setting the rules, so hopefully the people they consult will be aware of this potential problem.
From TFA:
"It is our intention that all new homes, where appropriate, should have a charge point available," a government statement said.
(emphasis added.)
From TFA:
"It is our intention that all new homes, where appropriate, should have a charge point available," a government statement said.
Civil servants aren't idiots. They won't require car recharging in a 14th floor apartment.
"We plan to consult as soon as possible on introducing a requirement for charge point infrastructure for new dwellings in England."
So even if they are idiots, non-idiots will get to tell them so before regulations get made.