Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 1
No, the *energy* to weight ratio of batteries sucks. The *power* to weight ratio of modern automotive li-ions is incredible. AltairNano's can deliver as much as 4-5kW/kg. If you have something like the LightningCar with a range of 180 miles, and let's assume 200Wh/mi, that's 36kWh, divide by 90Wh/kg, that's 400kg, so about 1.8MW of power = 2,400 horsepower. The batteries aren't the limiting factor; the motor is (and electric motors are pretty light). Even if you assume 100kg, the weight of a typical non-sports-car ICE drivetrain, that's around 600 horsepower. And factor in that ICEs only deliver a fraction of their horsepower at most RPMs/torque requirements, while electric motors are at full power across most of the curve, so you really need to significantly increase those electric numbers.
Even with their low state of maturity, EVs are already challenging gasoline records. The eight-wheeled Eliica is trying to beat gasoline speed records, while Wrightspeed is convinced that the production version of their 0-60 in 2.5 second X1, known as the SR-71, will be able to beat a Veyron at 0-60.
As for energy to weight, comparing the raw energy in batteries to the raw energy in gasoline, and yeah, you'll come to the conclusion that they're atrocious. However, there are a few things to note. 1) Gasoline engines only get a small (~20%) fraction of the energy of the fuel out as torque; EVs get ~80-90% of the energy in their batteries out as torque. 2) Gas tanks are light, but internal combustion engines are heavy. Electric motors are light but batteries are heavy. The paradigms are reversed; batteries aren't competing against a gas tank for weight and space, but against the *engine*. Currently, for a vehicle of range comparable to that of your typical gasoline vehicle, yes, batteries lose -- however, not by a margin of nearly 100:1 as it may appear just by comparing energy densities, but only by a margin of about 3:1. And, quite honestly, some next-gen batteries may be able to give a three-fold or greater increase in energy density (silicon nanowires, silicon nanoparticles, tin nanoparticles, etc for the anode, and things like nanoscale-layered or fluorinated metal oxides for the cathode).
Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Exactly. You need to have a kilowatt hour or two of reserve charge to "average out" the hills. Optimally, your motor should be sized to haul you up an interstate at 5-6% grade (6% = legal max) at what you consider a reasonable speed, while your engine should be sized to manage a 1-2% grade (you generally won't surpass that as a running average of slopes on an interstate). Smaller mountain roads may be steeper and have higher average grades, but you won't be climbing them at nearly as high of a speed, either.
Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture"
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Not exactly. Exercise increases the rate of burning calories (that's why people who want to lose weight do it). The human body is inefficient about turning food calories into kinetic energy, and plants are inefficient at turning sunlight into calories (photosynthesis is fairly efficient, but most of the energy doesn't end up stored in a way we can recover through digestion -- usually somewhere between a fraction of one percent and a few percent is). And there's all of the energy involved in growing, harvesting, processing, and transporting that food, which is often greater than the energy contained in the food.
Lastly, there's a value to time. The person could instead, for example, be building wind turbines or installing solar arrays. The biggest reason why this is a kit car is almost certainly because the maker didn't want to have to work out a cost-effective mass production system, not because it's somehow better for the environment that way.
Not *having* to meet safety standards != Not meeting safety standards. There are about a dozen advantages to the tadpole trike design -- reduced wind resistance, lighter weight, lower construction cost, lower maintenance, drivetrain simplicity, and so on. Honestly, I'd love it if we:
A) Ditched our classification system based on the number of wheels B) Came up with a set of environmental and safety classifications that vehicles could voluntarily choose to try to qualify for C) Required that their environmental and safety classifications be prominently listed on vehicles for sale D) Banned vehicles that don't meet given requirements from different kinds of operation -- for example, perhaps to drive on a public road at all, you must meet at least "silver" environmental standards, and to drive on a highway, you must meet at least "bronze" safety standards, while for a child to ride in a vehicle on any public road, it has to have at least a "silver" safety rating. Something to that nature.
I don't see why those who want to innovate should be penalized for doing so. All that should matter is the net results: how safe it is and how clean it is. And furthermore, if I want to buy and drive a deathtrap, so long as it's not needlessly endangering *others*, that should be my choice and my choice alone.
Re:buy an old S10 and convert it to electric
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 1
Sure, if a used vehicle, 40 miles range, 60mph top speed, very poor power, and having to replace your lead-acid batteries every 3-6 years is acceptable to you, then yes, you can do that. As for me, I need 100+ miles range, 80-90mph top speed, reasonable acceleration, and a battery pack that lasts the life of the vehicle. Hence, I'm on the waiting list for a $27k Aptera. However, it's hardly the only such vehicle that's coming out in the next couple years; there are dozens. If, for some reason, Aptera weren't to work out, I'd probably go with a Mitsubishi i-MiEV. I just prefer the Aptera because of its extreme efficiency.
Smarts aren't actually that fuel efficient -- 35mpg hwy/31mpg city if I remember correctly. It's not even a regular hybrid, let alone a *plug-in hybrid*, like this vehicle. Of course, for this vehicle, ignore the BS mileage figures; most EV and PHEV manufacturers come up with fake "mpg" figures that assume you drive X miles on electricity and Y miles on gasoline, where X is much greater than Y, and then ignore the electricity. Still, it's hugely beneficial. Even from our current grid, according to a DOE study, due to the greater efficiency of power plants, you get a third lower CO2 emissions by going electric.
For those who are interested in going electric, and aren't into novelty kit cars, here's a list of 33 upcoming EVs and PHEVs, excluding motorcycles and commercial vans/semis, not counting concept cars, and not counting cars from new companies that haven't shown compelling evidence of working toward production.
Amazing that you have an inability to distinguish between "political opponent" and "family friend" (as well as "politically motivated retaliation" while we're at it). And I completely missed the part where you responded about book-burning religious nutcases. I assume it must have been in there somewhere.
There was no change in pilots; the state switched back to using the King Air turboprop that they had used earlier -- a larger, more expensive plane, I might add. And one that's aging, so operations costs are similar.
It has nothing to do with "running the numbers". Palin's campaign for the governorship can basically be summed up as, "I Am Not Frank Murkowski." He earned bad press for the jet purchase, she earned good press for getting rid of it. She is a very savvy politician.
FYI, guess what she's flying around Alaska in today? An Embraer 190, a jet many times the size of the previous one.;)
FUD back at you. The jet was about a low-end as you can get; the McCain family aircraft, for example, sells for $9m used. The governor's office used it less than 30% of the time; it was primarily used to transfer prisoners. The government still owes the purchaser $50k in stipulated repairs. Alaska now uses a King Air turboprop that costs 3x what the jet costs, has similar hourly costs, and is 175mph slower. What a deal.
Holds more prisoners, though, so the per-prisoner cost for transfers is lower. You do know that it was primarily used to transfer prisonres, right?
You're right. She discovered corruption in the oil board because the commissioner was using state eq to run party business. She then bravely outed him, not to promote herself, but because it was the right thing to do! Never mind that her lieutenant governor run was *run out of her mayor's office*.
Hypocrite much? Please don't fall for their BS spin; just a quick look at her past debunks it. The Bridge to Nowhere? She *campaigned on it*, even posing holding up a "Nowhere, Alaska" T-shirt, then switched sides on it when it became politically advantageous -- but kept the money. The "luxury jet" for the governor, sold on ebay for a profit? Never sold on ebay, despite three listings, and was sold for a sizable loss offline; the jet was about as cheap as you can get for a jet, and the governor's office only used it 28% of the time; it was mainly used to transport prisoners. Her fight against earmarks? She *hired a lobbying firm* to bring in earmarks to Wasilla, earning tiny Wasilla nearly as much in earmarks as Boise during her tenure. Her opposition to Ted Stevens? She *chaired his PAC* and *took money from the same VECO execs*; like the bridge, she only switched when it became politically advantageous. They're making this giant myth out of her, and anyone who falls for it simply isn't doing their homework.
Oh, darn, I wasn't fair to Sarah there. She didn't do nothing from the time that she majored in Journalism to when she ran for mayor. She served as a sportscaster, part time fisherman, and city council member. Also, later, she was appointed to the oil board, where she stayed briefly before making a name for herself by outing the commissioner for using state eq for Republican Party business (this right after her failed Lt. Governor run in which she ran her campaign out of her mayoral office, using taxpayer dollars for mailings) My apologies for demeaning her career by not mentioning these things. .
What insight. Why didn't I realize that? Palin is more qualified than Obama! Let's just run down the timeline here:
When Obama was graduating from Columbia University (Ivy League) with a degree in Political Science with a focus in International Relations, Palin was graduating high school and competing in beauty contests. When Obama was President of Harvard Law Review, then organizing Chicago's largest voter drive in history and teaching Constitutional Law, Palin was switching between six low-key colleges before finally getting a degree in journalism (polisci minor) When Obama was in the state senate drafting over 800 bills (so many that he created a backlog; there's still some working their way through today), Palin was being elected of a tiny town of 5,000 (at the time) with 53 employees that she didn't even control (a city administrator did that) with just over 600 votes. Pushed for policies that drove the town into $22 million dollars of debt -- and that *with* the massive sales tax increase (spending increased ~34% during her tenure) and over $20 million in federal earmarks. $1.5 million of the debt due to bungling an attempt at eminent domain to build a sports complex. Obama was elected to the senate from one of the US's largest states with 3.5 million votes, where he has served for twice as long as Palin has been governor (elected with 114,000 votes, to run a state with about as many people as Fort Worth, Texas). Obama served on 13 committees, including the prestigious Foreign Relations Committee, and has met world leaders in dozens of countries across Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Palin got her first passport in 2007, and her campaign claims the following foreign policy experience: Canada, Kuwait, Germany, Ireland, and Russia. Canada because she's crossed the border before. Kuwait because she flew there to visit the Alaska National Guard (never left the base). Germany because she stopped at a base there on the way back (never left the base). Ireland because her plane stopped there to refuel (never left the airport). Russia because "Alaska is close to Russia". Hmm... since Obama's senate term (involving sponsoring over 500 bills and drafting over 100, including the most sweeping piece of ethics reform since Watergate) is twice as long, that's probably not a fair comparison. I guess we should merely compare his *presidential campaign*, which is about as long as her governorship. 1.5 million donors versus ~680,000 taxpayers. ~80,000 campaign volunteers versus ~50,000 state employees.
You're right -- Palin is clearly more experienced!
True; just follow the body count of political enemies who got in her way. The librarian who refused to ban the books she wanted banned. The police chief who tried to crack down on the bars to reduce Wasilla's drunk driving problem (the bars were big contributors to her mayoral campaign). The loyal aide who had an affair with a family friend. The police commissioner who refused to fire her already-punished ex-brother in law. Hell, even the entire freaking *dairy board* who didn't want to subsidize a crumbling dairy in Sarah's hometown (it collapsed anyways, but not after soaking hundreds of thousands of state dollars and a statewide milk price hike). The list of people, usually former allies, who got in her way and paid for it could fill a book.
Don't underestimate this woman. She can't write a speech to save her life, and she may be a religious nutcase who believes that Alaska is a safe haven from the rapture (1:37), but she's not stupid. She could give Machiavelli lessons.
The thing is that before we paid much attention to this stuff, there was ONE real model that predicted a global temperature increase: global warming. It was not ignored before because "the man" was trying to hide science, it was ignored because there was NO effort to show an actual cause and effect relationship.
Spoken like a person who's never read a paper on the subject. The study of climate change is part models and part real-world data gathering and testing. Even among models alone, there are *many different* models, most on particular aspects of climate forcing and impacts, not the more famous global models. There is not one "model". And it wasn't ignored, by any standard; it's been an active ongoing research topic in the scientific community for decades. Peer review is the judge, not public opinion.
This becomes embarressing when things like the carbon retention of the Sahara are studied, as we discussed weaks ago, and suddenly billions of tons of carbon disappear from the air in our models, but the temperature hasn't changed at all.
Waht arr yoo talkng abowt?
The reason this worries me is that, while fighting pollution and emissions is never a bad thing, we could very well be ignoring the elephant in the room, simply because the global warming discussion has become so political, (and that's the activists faults, not the scientists). What if, although our carbon certainly doesn't help, most of this is due to cyclical sun output?
No. Read section 2.7, which summarizes pretty much every peer-reviewed paper published on the subject. Not even close. I mean, seriously -- did it never occur to you that maybe, just maybe, we have observatories and satellites studying in detail essentially every thing the sun does, in addition to all kinds of long-term proxy data?
You know what caused the onset of the iceages? North and South America connected at Panama, cutting of the Pacific-Atlantic currents, which cooled the entire Northern Hemisphere.
Ice ages happen regularly, on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, along the lines of Milankovitch cycles. The Isthmus of Panama formed once, three million years ago.
She only said the "not part of the curriculum" and "no litmus test" stuff after there was a backlash against her mentioning it in the debates. During the debate, her exact wording was: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
Do you honestly think that we should be teaching creationism in science class?
What were you trying to show with that link? Someone repeating a bunch of debunked talking points? Because that's what she's doing. For example, that "2000 acre" thing. The oil is not concentrated in one 2,000 acre area; it's in more than 30 deposits spread across 640,000 acres of Alaska's North Slope coastal plain (out of 1.5 million), which means stretching roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure that practically renders the area uninhabitable for large wildlife. Even if you only want to look at the "touching the ground" measure of how much land it takes up, the combination of oil infrastructure, drill sites, airports and roads, and gravel mines is *12,000* acres, not 2,000. No rivers in the North Slope? Um, BS. I mean, come on -- you think that all the water on the north side of Alaska drains all the way to the south? I could go on and on. This is a woman who thinks that an animal that spends most of its life hunting on ice flows isn't going to be adversely impacted by their imminent disappearance, and you're acting like she's some kind of environmentalist? Give me a break.
Come on, it's not exactly hard to find Palin saying things that will alienate Hillary supporters (#2) other than about abortion. Calling Hillary a whiner probably won't win her any friends with her supporters. Of course, the fact that Palin's beliefs about abortion are inline with only 14% of Americans ("illegal in all circumstances") certainly isn't a good start for her, either.
That's not even two hours of driving? Where do you live where you can drive 115 mph? Or are you talking about going in circles on a track for two hours straight? As for charge time, Tesla (due to their early start) is one of the few EV manufacturers using traditional laptop cells; this limits their charge time. Not to "all day", but 3 1/2 hours (i.e., 65 miles of range per charging hour). Had they used automotive li-ions, like the Lightning GT, they'd be able to charge in 5-10 minutes.
I don't fault Tesla for using laptop cells, mind you -- back when they started, the automotive li-ions were pretty new, and there was a really big price difference. Nowadays, however, there's little reason to choose them. Even the energy density difference is closing.
1) As for hydrogen safety, please read the linked NASA safety guidelines. NASA contrasts it with gasoline, and they handle about as much of it as anyone except the oil industry. And speaking of the oil industry, I toured a refinery several times as a child (my father was a manager). The hydrogen leaks were always the dreaded ones. Back before appropriate IR/UV detectors were on the market, they used to search for them by walking around, waving broomsticks. If the broomstick got cut in half, there was your hydrogen flame.
2) $7.50/W or even $5.00/W would still mean many tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a typical car -- enough to buy enough li-ion batteries to go 400 to a thousand or more miles. Yes, as you note, adding more fuel cells is about adding more power, while adding more batteries is about adding more range. But just the minimum amount of power that you need for a reasonable car is way, way too expensive with fuel cells. If your goal was to make a vehicle that can drive from Scotland to Vladivastok on a single tank, then yes, hydrogen would be a better choice. But for real-world driving demands, it's not even a close comparison, financially. Or safety-wise. Or efficiency-wise. Or operations-cost-wise. And so on.
you can change the bottle and get to the track in less than 10 minutes
You can do the same with the titanates and the SCiB. For the phosphates and the spinels, it's more like 15-20 minutes. Hardly a big difference.
I applaud your work on the other drivetrain elements. But hydrogen is just one flaw after another in comparison to the automotive-style li-ion batteries.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the *energy* to weight ratio of batteries sucks. The *power* to weight ratio of modern automotive li-ions is incredible. AltairNano's can deliver as much as 4-5kW/kg. If you have something like the LightningCar with a range of 180 miles, and let's assume 200Wh/mi, that's 36kWh, divide by 90Wh/kg, that's 400kg, so about 1.8MW of power = 2,400 horsepower. The batteries aren't the limiting factor; the motor is (and electric motors are pretty light). Even if you assume 100kg, the weight of a typical non-sports-car ICE drivetrain, that's around 600 horsepower. And factor in that ICEs only deliver a fraction of their horsepower at most RPMs/torque requirements, while electric motors are at full power across most of the curve, so you really need to significantly increase those electric numbers.
Even with their low state of maturity, EVs are already challenging gasoline records. The eight-wheeled Eliica is trying to beat gasoline speed records, while Wrightspeed is convinced that the production version of their 0-60 in 2.5 second X1, known as the SR-71, will be able to beat a Veyron at 0-60.
As for energy to weight, comparing the raw energy in batteries to the raw energy in gasoline, and yeah, you'll come to the conclusion that they're atrocious. However, there are a few things to note. 1) Gasoline engines only get a small (~20%) fraction of the energy of the fuel out as torque; EVs get ~80-90% of the energy in their batteries out as torque. 2) Gas tanks are light, but internal combustion engines are heavy. Electric motors are light but batteries are heavy. The paradigms are reversed; batteries aren't competing against a gas tank for weight and space, but against the *engine*. Currently, for a vehicle of range comparable to that of your typical gasoline vehicle, yes, batteries lose -- however, not by a margin of nearly 100:1 as it may appear just by comparing energy densities, but only by a margin of about 3:1. And, quite honestly, some next-gen batteries may be able to give a three-fold or greater increase in energy density (silicon nanowires, silicon nanoparticles, tin nanoparticles, etc for the anode, and things like nanoscale-layered or fluorinated metal oxides for the cathode).
Exactly. You need to have a kilowatt hour or two of reserve charge to "average out" the hills. Optimally, your motor should be sized to haul you up an interstate at 5-6% grade (6% = legal max) at what you consider a reasonable speed, while your engine should be sized to manage a 1-2% grade (you generally won't surpass that as a running average of slopes on an interstate). Smaller mountain roads may be steeper and have higher average grades, but you won't be climbing them at nearly as high of a speed, either.
Not exactly. Exercise increases the rate of burning calories (that's why people who want to lose weight do it). The human body is inefficient about turning food calories into kinetic energy, and plants are inefficient at turning sunlight into calories (photosynthesis is fairly efficient, but most of the energy doesn't end up stored in a way we can recover through digestion -- usually somewhere between a fraction of one percent and a few percent is). And there's all of the energy involved in growing, harvesting, processing, and transporting that food, which is often greater than the energy contained in the food.
Lastly, there's a value to time. The person could instead, for example, be building wind turbines or installing solar arrays. The biggest reason why this is a kit car is almost certainly because the maker didn't want to have to work out a cost-effective mass production system, not because it's somehow better for the environment that way.
Not *having* to meet safety standards != Not meeting safety standards. There are about a dozen advantages to the tadpole trike design -- reduced wind resistance, lighter weight, lower construction cost, lower maintenance, drivetrain simplicity, and so on. Honestly, I'd love it if we:
A) Ditched our classification system based on the number of wheels
B) Came up with a set of environmental and safety classifications that vehicles could voluntarily choose to try to qualify for
C) Required that their environmental and safety classifications be prominently listed on vehicles for sale
D) Banned vehicles that don't meet given requirements from different kinds of operation -- for example, perhaps to drive on a public road at all, you must meet at least "silver" environmental standards, and to drive on a highway, you must meet at least "bronze" safety standards, while for a child to ride in a vehicle on any public road, it has to have at least a "silver" safety rating. Something to that nature.
I don't see why those who want to innovate should be penalized for doing so. All that should matter is the net results: how safe it is and how clean it is. And furthermore, if I want to buy and drive a deathtrap, so long as it's not needlessly endangering *others*, that should be my choice and my choice alone.
Sure, if a used vehicle, 40 miles range, 60mph top speed, very poor power, and having to replace your lead-acid batteries every 3-6 years is acceptable to you, then yes, you can do that. As for me, I need 100+ miles range, 80-90mph top speed, reasonable acceleration, and a battery pack that lasts the life of the vehicle. Hence, I'm on the waiting list for a $27k Aptera. However, it's hardly the only such vehicle that's coming out in the next couple years; there are dozens. If, for some reason, Aptera weren't to work out, I'd probably go with a Mitsubishi i-MiEV. I just prefer the Aptera because of its extreme efficiency.
Smarts aren't actually that fuel efficient -- 35mpg hwy/31mpg city if I remember correctly. It's not even a regular hybrid, let alone a *plug-in hybrid*, like this vehicle. Of course, for this vehicle, ignore the BS mileage figures; most EV and PHEV manufacturers come up with fake "mpg" figures that assume you drive X miles on electricity and Y miles on gasoline, where X is much greater than Y, and then ignore the electricity. Still, it's hugely beneficial. Even from our current grid, according to a DOE study, due to the greater efficiency of power plants, you get a third lower CO2 emissions by going electric.
For those who are interested in going electric, and aren't into novelty kit cars, here's a list of 33 upcoming EVs and PHEVs, excluding motorcycles and commercial vans/semis, not counting concept cars, and not counting cars from new companies that haven't shown compelling evidence of working toward production.
Amazing that you have an inability to distinguish between "political opponent" and "family friend" (as well as "politically motivated retaliation" while we're at it). And I completely missed the part where you responded about book-burning religious nutcases. I assume it must have been in there somewhere.
Good to know that you like book burning law-breaking religious nutcases who will gladly destroy a family friend if it will promote their career.
There was no change in pilots; the state switched back to using the King Air turboprop that they had used earlier -- a larger, more expensive plane, I might add. And one that's aging, so operations costs are similar.
It has nothing to do with "running the numbers". Palin's campaign for the governorship can basically be summed up as, "I Am Not Frank Murkowski." He earned bad press for the jet purchase, she earned good press for getting rid of it. She is a very savvy politician.
FYI, guess what she's flying around Alaska in today? An Embraer 190, a jet many times the size of the previous one. ;)
FUD back at you. The jet was about a low-end as you can get; the McCain family aircraft, for example, sells for $9m used. The governor's office used it less than 30% of the time; it was primarily used to transfer prisoners. The government still owes the purchaser $50k in stipulated repairs. Alaska now uses a King Air turboprop that costs 3x what the jet costs, has similar hourly costs, and is 175mph slower. What a deal.
Holds more prisoners, though, so the per-prisoner cost for transfers is lower. You do know that it was primarily used to transfer prisonres, right?
You're right. She discovered corruption in the oil board because the commissioner was using state eq to run party business. She then bravely outed him, not to promote herself, but because it was the right thing to do! Never mind that her lieutenant governor run was *run out of her mayor's office*.
Hypocrite much? Please don't fall for their BS spin; just a quick look at her past debunks it. The Bridge to Nowhere? She *campaigned on it*, even posing holding up a "Nowhere, Alaska" T-shirt, then switched sides on it when it became politically advantageous -- but kept the money. The "luxury jet" for the governor, sold on ebay for a profit? Never sold on ebay, despite three listings, and was sold for a sizable loss offline; the jet was about as cheap as you can get for a jet, and the governor's office only used it 28% of the time; it was mainly used to transport prisoners. Her fight against earmarks? She *hired a lobbying firm* to bring in earmarks to Wasilla, earning tiny Wasilla nearly as much in earmarks as Boise during her tenure. Her opposition to Ted Stevens? She *chaired his PAC* and *took money from the same VECO execs*; like the bridge, she only switched when it became politically advantageous. They're making this giant myth out of her, and anyone who falls for it simply isn't doing their homework.
As for Obama, no need to repeat myself, is there?
Oh, darn, I wasn't fair to Sarah there. She didn't do nothing from the time that she majored in Journalism to when she ran for mayor. She served as a sportscaster, part time fisherman, and city council member. Also, later, she was appointed to the oil board, where she stayed briefly before making a name for herself by outing the commissioner for using state eq for Republican Party business (this right after her failed Lt. Governor run in which she ran her campaign out of her mayoral office, using taxpayer dollars for mailings) My apologies for demeaning her career by not mentioning these things.
.
What insight. Why didn't I realize that? Palin is more qualified than Obama! Let's just run down the timeline here:
When Obama was graduating from Columbia University (Ivy League) with a degree in Political Science with a focus in International Relations, Palin was graduating high school and competing in beauty contests.
When Obama was President of Harvard Law Review, then organizing Chicago's largest voter drive in history and teaching Constitutional Law, Palin was switching between six low-key colleges before finally getting a degree in journalism (polisci minor)
When Obama was in the state senate drafting over 800 bills (so many that he created a backlog; there's still some working their way through today), Palin was being elected of a tiny town of 5,000 (at the time) with 53 employees that she didn't even control (a city administrator did that) with just over 600 votes. Pushed for policies that drove the town into $22 million dollars of debt -- and that *with* the massive sales tax increase (spending increased ~34% during her tenure) and over $20 million in federal earmarks. $1.5 million of the debt due to bungling an attempt at eminent domain to build a sports complex.
Obama was elected to the senate from one of the US's largest states with 3.5 million votes, where he has served for twice as long as Palin has been governor (elected with 114,000 votes, to run a state with about as many people as Fort Worth, Texas). Obama served on 13 committees, including the prestigious Foreign Relations Committee, and has met world leaders in dozens of countries across Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Palin got her first passport in 2007, and her campaign claims the following foreign policy experience: Canada, Kuwait, Germany, Ireland, and Russia. Canada because she's crossed the border before. Kuwait because she flew there to visit the Alaska National Guard (never left the base). Germany because she stopped at a base there on the way back (never left the base). Ireland because her plane stopped there to refuel (never left the airport). Russia because "Alaska is close to Russia".
Hmm... since Obama's senate term (involving sponsoring over 500 bills and drafting over 100, including the most sweeping piece of ethics reform since Watergate) is twice as long, that's probably not a fair comparison. I guess we should merely compare his *presidential campaign*, which is about as long as her governorship. 1.5 million donors versus ~680,000 taxpayers. ~80,000 campaign volunteers versus ~50,000 state employees.
You're right -- Palin is clearly more experienced!
True; just follow the body count of political enemies who got in her way. The librarian who refused to ban the books she wanted banned. The police chief who tried to crack down on the bars to reduce Wasilla's drunk driving problem (the bars were big contributors to her mayoral campaign). The loyal aide who had an affair with a family friend. The police commissioner who refused to fire her already-punished ex-brother in law. Hell, even the entire freaking *dairy board* who didn't want to subsidize a crumbling dairy in Sarah's hometown (it collapsed anyways, but not after soaking hundreds of thousands of state dollars and a statewide milk price hike). The list of people, usually former allies, who got in her way and paid for it could fill a book.
Don't underestimate this woman. She can't write a speech to save her life, and she may be a religious nutcase who believes that Alaska is a safe haven from the rapture (1:37), but she's not stupid. She could give Machiavelli lessons.
The thing is that before we paid much attention to this stuff, there was ONE real model that predicted a global temperature increase: global warming. It was not ignored before because "the man" was trying to hide science, it was ignored because there was NO effort to show an actual cause and effect relationship.
Spoken like a person who's never read a paper on the subject. The study of climate change is part models and part real-world data gathering and testing. Even among models alone, there are *many different* models, most on particular aspects of climate forcing and impacts, not the more famous global models. There is not one "model". And it wasn't ignored, by any standard; it's been an active ongoing research topic in the scientific community for decades. Peer review is the judge, not public opinion.
This becomes embarressing when things like the carbon retention of the Sahara are studied, as we discussed weaks ago, and suddenly billions of tons of carbon disappear from the air in our models, but the temperature hasn't changed at all.
Waht arr yoo talkng abowt?
The reason this worries me is that, while fighting pollution and emissions is never a bad thing, we could very well be ignoring the elephant in the room, simply because the global warming discussion has become so political, (and that's the activists faults, not the scientists). What if, although our carbon certainly doesn't help, most of this is due to cyclical sun output?
No. Read section 2.7, which summarizes pretty much every peer-reviewed paper published on the subject. Not even close. I mean, seriously -- did it never occur to you that maybe, just maybe, we have observatories and satellites studying in detail essentially every thing the sun does, in addition to all kinds of long-term proxy data?
You know what caused the onset of the iceages? North and South America connected at Panama, cutting of the Pacific-Atlantic currents, which cooled the entire Northern Hemisphere.
Ice ages happen regularly, on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, along the lines of Milankovitch cycles. The Isthmus of Panama formed once, three million years ago.
Let's skip the talking points, shall we?
She only said the "not part of the curriculum" and "no litmus test" stuff after there was a backlash against her mentioning it in the debates. During the debate, her exact wording was: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
Do you honestly think that we should be teaching creationism in science class?
What were you trying to show with that link? Someone repeating a bunch of debunked talking points? Because that's what she's doing. For example, that "2000 acre" thing. The oil is not concentrated in one 2,000 acre area; it's in more than 30 deposits spread across 640,000 acres of Alaska's North Slope coastal plain (out of 1.5 million), which means stretching roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure that practically renders the area uninhabitable for large wildlife. Even if you only want to look at the "touching the ground" measure of how much land it takes up, the combination of oil infrastructure, drill sites, airports and roads, and gravel mines is *12,000* acres, not 2,000. No rivers in the North Slope? Um, BS. I mean, come on -- you think that all the water on the north side of Alaska drains all the way to the south? I could go on and on. This is a woman who thinks that an animal that spends most of its life hunting on ice flows isn't going to be adversely impacted by their imminent disappearance, and you're acting like she's some kind of environmentalist? Give me a break.
Come on, it's not exactly hard to find Palin saying things that will alienate Hillary supporters (#2) other than about abortion. Calling Hillary a whiner probably won't win her any friends with her supporters. Of course, the fact that Palin's beliefs about abortion are inline with only 14% of Americans ("illegal in all circumstances") certainly isn't a good start for her, either.
Are you kidding? From the Christian Broadcasting Network:
Palin Pick Causes 'Elation' Among Evangelical Leaders
Palin's trying to run away from Stevens as fast as she can. She took money from the same convicted VECO guy that he did -- just not as much.
Yeah, but Quayle want creationism taught in schools like Palin does?
Welcome to America. Here's your ballot; just mark whichever you think is the lesser of two evils. ;)
If you're looking for instant runoff voting or similar so this wouldn't be the situation, you don't have to convince me.
That's not even two hours of driving? Where do you live where you can drive 115 mph? Or are you talking about going in circles on a track for two hours straight? As for charge time, Tesla (due to their early start) is one of the few EV manufacturers using traditional laptop cells; this limits their charge time. Not to "all day", but 3 1/2 hours (i.e., 65 miles of range per charging hour). Had they used automotive li-ions, like the Lightning GT, they'd be able to charge in 5-10 minutes.
I don't fault Tesla for using laptop cells, mind you -- back when they started, the automotive li-ions were pretty new, and there was a really big price difference. Nowadays, however, there's little reason to choose them. Even the energy density difference is closing.
Compare that endorsement to:
"Vote for me! My principles *include* supporting authoritarian spy laws."
Don't worry; your English was great :)
1) As for hydrogen safety, please read the linked NASA safety guidelines. NASA contrasts it with gasoline, and they handle about as much of it as anyone except the oil industry. And speaking of the oil industry, I toured a refinery several times as a child (my father was a manager). The hydrogen leaks were always the dreaded ones. Back before appropriate IR/UV detectors were on the market, they used to search for them by walking around, waving broomsticks. If the broomstick got cut in half, there was your hydrogen flame.
2) $7.50/W or even $5.00/W would still mean many tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a typical car -- enough to buy enough li-ion batteries to go 400 to a thousand or more miles. Yes, as you note, adding more fuel cells is about adding more power, while adding more batteries is about adding more range. But just the minimum amount of power that you need for a reasonable car is way, way too expensive with fuel cells. If your goal was to make a vehicle that can drive from Scotland to Vladivastok on a single tank, then yes, hydrogen would be a better choice. But for real-world driving demands, it's not even a close comparison, financially. Or safety-wise. Or efficiency-wise. Or operations-cost-wise. And so on.
you can change the bottle and get to the track in less than 10 minutes
You can do the same with the titanates and the SCiB. For the phosphates and the spinels, it's more like 15-20 minutes. Hardly a big difference.
I applaud your work on the other drivetrain elements. But hydrogen is just one flaw after another in comparison to the automotive-style li-ion batteries.