The "it pollutes to make solar panels" argument is ridiculous. Of course it pollutes to make anything. But the amount of embodied pollution utterly pales in comparison to the amount of power that gets generated at no extra emissions while sitting out in the sun for decades on end.
Oil is only rarely used for power in western nations. In the US, oil really only competes for electricity market share in Hawaii (and to a much lesser extent in Alaska). And while gas is a competitor to solar and wind for baseload, it's also boosted by them for peaking. Solar and wind don't drive out coal and nuclear alone; they do so in combination with NG peakers. The amount of gas being needed depending on the strength of their grid links and the diversity of the resources (solar + wind > solar | wind; solar + wind in different geographic locations > solar + wind in the same place).
Hydro works even better in combination with solar and wind than gas. But hydro capacity is geographically limited, largely tapped out (although you can uprate existing plants, which is being done), and concerning places with new generation possibilities, most people don't want them. Batteries will eventually win, and they're starting to make inroads into the grid in specialized applications, but they don't yet compete with gas for bulk peaking needs.
** Note: this is a bit of an oversimplification. At small penetrations, solar actually reduces peaking needs, as it tends to offset daytime peak usage. But this only applies up to certain levels of market penetration.
Reality is precisely the opposite. Transmission losses are very low (under 10% on average), but small batch installation costs on rooftop arrays kill the economics relative to large installations, which are installed in bulk with dramatically lower labour per unit nameplate capacity. Associated hardware (such as inverters) and grid links are also much cheaper per unit power at large scales. Even panels can be purchased and imported significantly cheaper when bought in bulk and all delivered to the same location. And as for subsidies, while both residential and commercial get the same ITC, residential installs also tend to be subject to a lot of state benefits as well.
The issue is not whether the technology exists to reuse water. There are even technologies for power plants to use no water - totally closed loop and air cooled. It's about cost. And at a time where coal is already struggling, adding more costs onto plants is not a winning strategy for saving it.
Why did you link to an article tagged "mostly false"? According to the article:
According to the OIG report, HUD maintains that the errors represented a net adjustment of only $3 million and resulted in “no changes in HUD’s financial position or impact to [HUD] programs”:
$3 million dollars off.... $2 trillion dollars off.... One of these numbers is bigger than the other.
That glow radiating from his skin ever since he placed his hands upon the orb still seems kind of creepy. Ever since the Invocation opened up the Portals to the Deep, things just haven't felt the same.
He was actually under house arrest at one point in the UK, while the UK court cases were playing out - although said "house" was a luxurious country mansion. He had to cut his tracking bracelet before fleeing to the embassy.
SW (the only person there was a rape charge concerning - there were only lesser charges concerning AA, and the statute of limitations has expired on them) did indeed only seek to force Assange to get an STD test - but she was telling people (including before going to the police, including before she met AA) that she had been raped. According to the witness statements, she didn't want to become embroiled in some big public mess with the public heaping negative attention on her (like, by the way, the vast majority of rape victims - the reason that rape reporting rates are so low), and so only tried to force the STD test issue. Yeah, that didn't quite work out.
Regardless of the initial goal of trying to stay out of the public spotlight, now that they're being trolled, doxxed, and receiving rape and death threats from Assange fans (one actually fled Sweden for a few years; both have to keep very low profiles due to all of the hostility), that option no longer exists. After the case got out into the open, both women secured legal representation which has consistently sought Assange's prosecution. Upon hearing the news of Sweden giving up hope of ever getting Ecuador to give up Assange and dropping the case, SW's lawyer was shocked:
Elizabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer for Assange's accuser, criticized the Swedish authorities' decision in a statement to CNN. "It is a scandal that a suspected rapist is able to evade the judicial system and thus avoid trial," Fritz said. "Evidence in the case is available and that evidence should have been tested in court."
Fritz said the process had dragged on for too long and that her client was "shocked" by the decision to drop it now. "To conduct a preliminary investigation for so many years and today make a decision to close the investigation is something I am very critical of," she said.
Fritz also called for a review of parts of the judicial process, including how Sweden tries suspects who deliberately avoid court for years.
"He has acted like this consciously and his fear must be that he is afraid of being sentenced for rape. Nobody wants to be sentenced for rape because it's a terrible and humiliating crime,"
Elizabeth Massi Fritz is the second legal representative that SW has retained; she switched from the first one, Claes Borgström, because she felt that he was more focused on self promotion than bringing Assange to justice.
In short, trying to pretend that SW and AA don't really want Assange prosecuted is pure nonsense.
No. See the explanation for the dropping of the investigation which for some reason Slashdot didn't bother to mention. The short of it: They dropped it because Moreno won the Ecuadorian election, and he's refused to negotiate on handing over Assange, so there's no realistic possibility that he'll be surrendered before the statute of limitations runs out. Swedish law mandates that when all possibilities to resolve an investigation have been exhausted, the prosecutor is obliged to discontinue it.
Guess I'll have to do it. Boldfacing the interesting parts, which for some reason Slashdot didn't bother covering in the summary.
The investigation against Julian Assange is discontinued
19-05-2017 Director of Public Prosecution, Ms Marianne Ny, has today decided to discontinue the investigation regarding the suspected rape (lesser degree) by Julian Assange. The motive is that there is no reason to believe that the decision to surrender him to Sweden can be executed in the foreseeable future.
– Almost 5 years ago Julian Assange was permitted refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has resided ever since. In doing so, he has escaped all attempts by the Swedish and British authorities to execute the decision to surrender him to Sweden in accordance with the EU rules concerning the European Arrest Warrant. My assessment is that the surrender cannot be executed in the foreseeable future, says Marianne Ny.
According to Swedish legislation, a criminal investigation is to be conducted as quickly as possible. At the point when a prosecutor has exhausted the possibilities to continue the investigation, the prosecutor is obliged to discontinue the investigation.
– At this point, all possibilities to conduct the investigation are exhausted. In order to proceed with the case, Julian Assange would have to be formally notified of the criminal suspicions against him. We cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador regarding this. Therefore the investigation is discontinued.
– If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately, says Marianne Ny.
As a result of the decision to discontinue the investigation, the prosecutor has reversed the decision to detain him in his absence and withdrawn the EAW.
– In view of the fact that all prospects of pursuing the investigation under present circumstances are exhausted, it appears that it is no longer proportionate to maintain the arrest of Julian Assange in his absence. Consequently, there is no basis upon which to continue the investigation, says Marianne Ny.
Do you do cross country driving everyday? No? Then it's an edge case relative to everyday driving.
A lot of people do long drives regularly.
And congratulations, today's charging infrastructure plus 215-300mi EVs lets you do precisely that.
. Many more want to have the option without building their entire plan around charger locations
For the last bloody time, You Don't Have To Do That. They're located at regular intervals on every interstate except for a small, soon-to-be-remedied patch of one, and the vehicle knows where they all are and what's there.
If I can't charge while I eat,
Also for the last bloody time, you can. You can even pick out your restaurant from hundreds of miles away.
Also, after following your oft repeated suggestion to just google it, I found that a lot of these chargers along the interstates are at hotels.
Without being able to see your screen, that's either a Google fail or a reading fail.
Here is the Tesla supercharger map. Note. That is just Tesla superchargers, not all Tesla chargers, let alone all chargers period. Of the Tesla superchargers, most are either at shopping centres, restaurants, or travel stops. Some are at hotels, but a significant minority. All of these are public chargers - every last thing on that map. And they're as close to the interstates as gas stations are. I assume you know how to use the zoom button? Why on Earth didn't you use it and answer your own question?
And seriously, you honestly wrote that many posts about there not being enough chargers without having ever bothered to see how many chargers there actually are? What the hell is wrong with you?
This conversation ends here. I have no interest in debating with someone who is going to write half a dozen adamant posts about something before they actually even attempt to look it up for the first time.
It is still necessary to plan the trip around the available chargers.
No, it isn't. If you don't stop at one, you can stop at the next - you don't need to stop at every one, even with the shortest range Model S or Model 3. And you don't need to know where they are, unless you're driving on the one section of interstate in North Dakota that doesn't have them. Your car knows where they are. You don't need to "plan" anything at all.
. One cannot simply stop along the way and drive around to see the sights for a bit without risk of not reaching the next charger
Yes, you absolutely can, unless "see the sights" to you means "driving around for literally three hours nonstop and not stopping anywhere with a power socket during the period". And even if you did want to drive around aimlessly for hours in a particular location, it's difficult to find a place in the US apart from deep wilderness that's not near a supercharger that you could head off to for a fillup before returning to your aimless driving. There are a few places (North Dakota / northeastern Montana being the main one), but that's it.
You are describing a situation that does not correspond to reality. By the way, is it even worth mentioning that we're only talking about Tesla supercharging stations here and not taking into account other charging stations (which Tesla vehicles can also use)?
When there are enough that wherever you're going and whatever you're doing, there will be a charger, like there is with gas stations, then it will be sufficient.
Then it is sufficient, outside of the most remote of wilderness areas, and the (soon to be remedied) North Dakota gap. Glad you're onboard. Unless your plan is to, say, drive Canyonlands in a family sedan?
And this whole conversation is ridiculous anyway because it's built around the edge case (cross country trips) rather than daily driving. I guarantee you that if the situation were reversed, if people were used to EVs and someone suggested gasoline vehicles, Slashdotters would be laughing their arses off at the concept that anyone would tolerate having to go to a gas station once every week or two and stand outside in whatever weather filling up their car, rather than just plugging in at home and never having to think about how much "energy" their vehicle has during their everyday life.
What is the point then? There's more than enough density to drive country on almost any interstate, and they're about to double the density. The car knows exactly where the stops are, will tell you (no need to "look for a sign"), and will tell you what restaurants and amenities are nearby. So what exactly is the problem?
You don't need to "pull it up on Google", the vehicle knows where all of them are. And it will tell you what restaurants are at each charger - and a lot more info (restrooms, wifi, amenities, etc). You don't have to wait to "see a sign on the interstate".
Why "don't think that..."? Use the map. Just because you've never bothered to consult a map of where they are doesn't mean that they don't exist.
You didn't list what state you're in, but the only state in the US that doesn't have any Tesla chargers is Alaska... and given that a lot of towns in Alaska don't even have roads to them and the population density is tiny, that's no shock. Of other states, North Dakota is probably the most deprived has no "superchargers", only two "destination chargers"; I-94 as it passes through North Dakota is the last sizeable chunk of US interstate to be upgraded, but it's next on the list. After North Dakota, the lowest number of superchargers per state is Rhode Island and Delaware (1) followed by Maine (2). They're all arranged along interstates, which is where you actually need them - an about 100 mi / 150 km apart, less in densely populated areas.
Please tell me you know how to use Google. They're every ~100mi / 150km on almost every interstate in the US (more in more densely populated areas), and this is before the big planned expansion.
Now, I have to hope that anywhere along my route offers charging AND that they serve food
Where do you think that chargers are - in the middle of the woods? They're at highway exits, the same sorts of places you find gas stations and restaurants. Generally in the larger cities along the route, where such cities are present.
Click on any charger on the above map. It'll tell you what restaurants (and other things) are around the charger.
The infrastructure is not ready. Period.
Learn to use Google. Period.
Unless you're looking for a vehicle for, say, a trip deep into Canyonlands or the like, it's not a problem. If you're a normal human being who takes interstates to near their destination and then travels less than a couple hundred kilometers off of their turnoff to their destination, there is no problem.
So your conception is that because Musk wants to set an example for his employees and show that he's not "better than them", that means that during his waking hours he's not "organizing stuff"? What's he doing instead, playing Starcraft?
Slashdot Mirror
The "it pollutes to make solar panels" argument is ridiculous. Of course it pollutes to make anything. But the amount of embodied pollution utterly pales in comparison to the amount of power that gets generated at no extra emissions while sitting out in the sun for decades on end.
Oil is only rarely used for power in western nations. In the US, oil really only competes for electricity market share in Hawaii (and to a much lesser extent in Alaska). And while gas is a competitor to solar and wind for baseload, it's also boosted by them for peaking. Solar and wind don't drive out coal and nuclear alone; they do so in combination with NG peakers. The amount of gas being needed depending on the strength of their grid links and the diversity of the resources (solar + wind > solar | wind; solar + wind in different geographic locations > solar + wind in the same place).
Hydro works even better in combination with solar and wind than gas. But hydro capacity is geographically limited, largely tapped out (although you can uprate existing plants, which is being done), and concerning places with new generation possibilities, most people don't want them. Batteries will eventually win, and they're starting to make inroads into the grid in specialized applications, but they don't yet compete with gas for bulk peaking needs.
** Note: this is a bit of an oversimplification. At small penetrations, solar actually reduces peaking needs, as it tends to offset daytime peak usage. But this only applies up to certain levels of market penetration.
Reality is precisely the opposite. Transmission losses are very low (under 10% on average), but small batch installation costs on rooftop arrays kill the economics relative to large installations, which are installed in bulk with dramatically lower labour per unit nameplate capacity. Associated hardware (such as inverters) and grid links are also much cheaper per unit power at large scales. Even panels can be purchased and imported significantly cheaper when bought in bulk and all delivered to the same location. And as for subsidies, while both residential and commercial get the same ITC, residential installs also tend to be subject to a lot of state benefits as well.
The issue is not whether the technology exists to reuse water. There are even technologies for power plants to use no water - totally closed loop and air cooled. It's about cost. And at a time where coal is already struggling, adding more costs onto plants is not a winning strategy for saving it.
Right, let me just google "site:slashdot.org anonymous coward obama", that's going to narrow it down so much.
I'm not sure what part of "backing up a claim that you are making" is a difficult concept for you.
Don't just claim it, prove it. Cite where you criticized an accounting error and were called a racist for it.
For that matter, also show that your cited error in the same linked post was accurate.
Can't you people leave him alone for a single day? He finished up his orb business, then left the middle east to arrive at Israel, had a great time at the Holocaust museum and randomly decided to confess to outing an Israeli spy in front of Netanyahu - but all you people can do is make fun of his tiny, tiny hands.
Why did you link to an article tagged "mostly false"? According to the article:
$3 million dollars off.... $2 trillion dollars off....
One of these numbers is bigger than the other.
Calm down, people, we don't want a fight here. Let's put aside our differences and try for the possibility of lasting peach on this site.
Hail Orb.
That glow radiating from his skin ever since he placed his hands upon the orb still seems kind of creepy. Ever since the Invocation opened up the Portals to the Deep, things just haven't felt the same.
He was actually under house arrest at one point in the UK, while the UK court cases were playing out - although said "house" was a luxurious country mansion. He had to cut his tracking bracelet before fleeing to the embassy.
SW (the only person there was a rape charge concerning - there were only lesser charges concerning AA, and the statute of limitations has expired on them) did indeed only seek to force Assange to get an STD test - but she was telling people (including before going to the police, including before she met AA) that she had been raped. According to the witness statements, she didn't want to become embroiled in some big public mess with the public heaping negative attention on her (like, by the way, the vast majority of rape victims - the reason that rape reporting rates are so low), and so only tried to force the STD test issue. Yeah, that didn't quite work out.
Regardless of the initial goal of trying to stay out of the public spotlight, now that they're being trolled, doxxed, and receiving rape and death threats from Assange fans (one actually fled Sweden for a few years; both have to keep very low profiles due to all of the hostility), that option no longer exists. After the case got out into the open, both women secured legal representation which has consistently sought Assange's prosecution. Upon hearing the news of Sweden giving up hope of ever getting Ecuador to give up Assange and dropping the case, SW's lawyer was shocked:
Elizabeth Massi Fritz is the second legal representative that SW has retained; she switched from the first one, Claes Borgström, because she felt that he was more focused on self promotion than bringing Assange to justice.
In short, trying to pretend that SW and AA don't really want Assange prosecuted is pure nonsense.
No, if you start fuck a sleeping girl to work around her previous refusal to consent to your preferred form of sex, that's rape.
Which was charge #4 on the EAW, the one marked rape. The other three charges were 2x molestation and 1x unlawful sexual coersion.
No. See the explanation for the dropping of the investigation which for some reason Slashdot didn't bother to mention. The short of it: They dropped it because Moreno won the Ecuadorian election, and he's refused to negotiate on handing over Assange, so there's no realistic possibility that he'll be surrendered before the statute of limitations runs out. Swedish law mandates that when all possibilities to resolve an investigation have been exhausted, the prosecutor is obliged to discontinue it.
Guess I'll have to do it. Boldfacing the interesting parts, which for some reason Slashdot didn't bother covering in the summary.
Do you do cross country driving everyday? No? Then it's an edge case relative to everyday driving.
And congratulations, today's charging infrastructure plus 215-300mi EVs lets you do precisely that.
For the last bloody time, You Don't Have To Do That. They're located at regular intervals on every interstate except for a small, soon-to-be-remedied patch of one, and the vehicle knows where they all are and what's there.
Also for the last bloody time, you can. You can even pick out your restaurant from hundreds of miles away.
Without being able to see your screen, that's either a Google fail or a reading fail.
Here is the Tesla supercharger map. Note. That is just Tesla superchargers, not all Tesla chargers, let alone all chargers period. Of the Tesla superchargers, most are either at shopping centres, restaurants, or travel stops. Some are at hotels, but a significant minority. All of these are public chargers - every last thing on that map. And they're as close to the interstates as gas stations are. I assume you know how to use the zoom button? Why on Earth didn't you use it and answer your own question?
And seriously, you honestly wrote that many posts about there not being enough chargers without having ever bothered to see how many chargers there actually are? What the hell is wrong with you?
This conversation ends here. I have no interest in debating with someone who is going to write half a dozen adamant posts about something before they actually even attempt to look it up for the first time.
No, it isn't. If you don't stop at one, you can stop at the next - you don't need to stop at every one, even with the shortest range Model S or Model 3. And you don't need to know where they are, unless you're driving on the one section of interstate in North Dakota that doesn't have them. Your car knows where they are. You don't need to "plan" anything at all.
Yes, you absolutely can, unless "see the sights" to you means "driving around for literally three hours nonstop and not stopping anywhere with a power socket during the period". And even if you did want to drive around aimlessly for hours in a particular location, it's difficult to find a place in the US apart from deep wilderness that's not near a supercharger that you could head off to for a fillup before returning to your aimless driving. There are a few places (North Dakota / northeastern Montana being the main one), but that's it.
You are describing a situation that does not correspond to reality. By the way, is it even worth mentioning that we're only talking about Tesla supercharging stations here and not taking into account other charging stations (which Tesla vehicles can also use)?
Then it is sufficient, outside of the most remote of wilderness areas, and the (soon to be remedied) North Dakota gap. Glad you're onboard. Unless your plan is to, say, drive Canyonlands in a family sedan?
And this whole conversation is ridiculous anyway because it's built around the edge case (cross country trips) rather than daily driving. I guarantee you that if the situation were reversed, if people were used to EVs and someone suggested gasoline vehicles, Slashdotters would be laughing their arses off at the concept that anyone would tolerate having to go to a gas station once every week or two and stand outside in whatever weather filling up their car, rather than just plugging in at home and never having to think about how much "energy" their vehicle has during their everyday life.
No, then it would read "America's CARS Are Suddenly Getting FASTER and MORE EFFICIENT!"
What is the point then? There's more than enough density to drive country on almost any interstate, and they're about to double the density. The car knows exactly where the stops are, will tell you (no need to "look for a sign"), and will tell you what restaurants and amenities are nearby. So what exactly is the problem?
You don't need to "pull it up on Google", the vehicle knows where all of them are. And it will tell you what restaurants are at each charger - and a lot more info (restrooms, wifi, amenities, etc). You don't have to wait to "see a sign on the interstate".
Why "don't think that..."? Use the map. Just because you've never bothered to consult a map of where they are doesn't mean that they don't exist.
You didn't list what state you're in, but the only state in the US that doesn't have any Tesla chargers is Alaska... and given that a lot of towns in Alaska don't even have roads to them and the population density is tiny, that's no shock. Of other states, North Dakota is probably the most deprived has no "superchargers", only two "destination chargers"; I-94 as it passes through North Dakota is the last sizeable chunk of US interstate to be upgraded, but it's next on the list. After North Dakota, the lowest number of superchargers per state is Rhode Island and Delaware (1) followed by Maine (2). They're all arranged along interstates, which is where you actually need them - an about 100 mi / 150 km apart, less in densely populated areas.
How closely spaced do chargers need to be before you'll admit that the infrastructure is "there"?
Please tell me you know how to use Google. They're every ~100mi / 150km on almost every interstate in the US (more in more densely populated areas), and this is before the big planned expansion.
Where do you think that chargers are - in the middle of the woods? They're at highway exits, the same sorts of places you find gas stations and restaurants. Generally in the larger cities along the route, where such cities are present.
Click on any charger on the above map. It'll tell you what restaurants (and other things) are around the charger.
Learn to use Google. Period.
Unless you're looking for a vehicle for, say, a trip deep into Canyonlands or the like, it's not a problem. If you're a normal human being who takes interstates to near their destination and then travels less than a couple hundred kilometers off of their turnoff to their destination, there is no problem.
So your conception is that because Musk wants to set an example for his employees and show that he's not "better than them", that means that during his waking hours he's not "organizing stuff"? What's he doing instead, playing Starcraft?