Good thought progression, but I do need to ask:
How does your analysis run when you replace the Coal Plant with the Nuclear Power plant?
Shouldn't the longevity of Nuclear Power Plants help to stabilize rising energy costs while using any form of petroleum only depletes world supplies more, thus driving energy costs higher, faster?
Effectively vague. Please expand on your statement. Last time I checked, a mass produced EV has not been in existence. Individual components, yes, optimized together as a system, no. Tag, your turn to do your research.
Under current technologies, yes, battery recharge does take a while. I need to dig up the link, but there is a research firm that has a protoype cell phone battery with the standard 2h talk 2day standby capacity, but with a charge time of nearly 15 seconds. If they could scale that to EV sized batteries... now we are talking.
True. Both Explosion and Shock are a hazard but engineering can keep battery voltages low enough to keep the shock Hazard next to zero. Besides, its not the voltage that will hurt you, its the current!
And this is different from driving around with a tank full of highly explosive gasoline because...?
I was comparing and contrasting Electric to H2. So to retort, please read the post instead of jumping to silly conclusions that can be answered in an instant.
Since one of those sources in the hydrogen case is electricity, I don't see the number of sources to be fewer than in the case of battery-powered cars.
The electrolysis of water and the subsequent use of the gaseous energies from H2 and O2 is a significantly inefficient energy conversion process.
Since you seem to be a bit of an elitist, I will use simpler words:
There are more ways to get electricity than there are ways to get H2.
You can get H2 from electricity and electricity from H2, but that's not the topic I was speaking about.
Good point, but even H2 cells used for electricity generation can explode, albeit not under normal operations. Its still H2 afterall. Hell, even the H2 O2 from electrolysis occurring in a Lead Acid battery can explode under the right conditions.
Best to leave H2 out of the picture all together.
All of these ICE -> EV diy conversion kits are pretty much prototypes. The technology is still VERY young. As it matures, it will improve and cost will drop.
Its no different than paying double the cost for a Pre-Screening of your favorite movie.
Don't forget that even a EV will need oil for lubrication and heat removal... and an oil spill is still pretty messy.
As for the Battery issue, Lead Acid style batteries are nowhere near the pinnacle of electrochemical energy storage. Much like demand caused the Petroleum industry to research and come up with better products, so will the demand for better batteries drive Battery R&D.
A tank of hydrogen can store more energy than an equivalent sized battery, so in that right, the H2 concept is more viable. However, in addition to the H2 generation being much less efficient, its also very unsafe to be driving around with a tank full of highly exlposive gas... so in that right, the electric is more viable.
In the long run, electric will be the better choice. We can get electricity from a number of sources, which abstracts that away from the engineering of the vehicle. An h2 powered car will have significantly fewer of sources (aka naturally occurring, electrolysis, byproducts from fission events)
Easy there slick. You are making WAY to broad of assumptions. You can go ahead and brush aside the importance of 'learning styles' and continue to live an ignorant little world wondering why everyone doesn't know how a Microwave works.
In no way did I link Learning Styles to Accountability for learning. I was merely pointint out how ridiculous your example study and subsequent assumptions were.
Insensitive? No. Elitist? Yes. Utopian like mentality? Absolutely.
If everyone had to have a general idea of how everything in their life worked, then the formal education process would extend from the first 20 years of someones life to their entire lifetime.
Modern society is built on the "Developer, Technician, and User" paradigm, and it works very well. A User doesn't have to worry about exactly *how* their computer works, just how to efficiently use it to accomplish their task. A Technician doesn't have to know how the Semiconductors are doped on this particular chip(Like a dev would), nor do they have to know the specifics of the software the User does. Etc Etc.
Its called Specialization. Great Concept. As mentioned in a previous post, 99% of the time, its an Arrogant Elitist who just so happens to be particularly Savvy at, I dunno, say Applied Sciences, who can make statements like: "Everyone should know how a Computer works" or Everyone should know how a Internal Combustion Engine works" or Everyone should know how a Microwave works"
That's the day I decided that the average person has no clueabout the internal workings of a Microwave Oven.
...the only thing your experiment proves is that the 'average' person has no clue about how a microwave works. Not to mention, that even if you stopped 10,000 people in one day, that is still a far cry from an adequate sample to claim an 'average'
People are different, period. They learn differently, speak differently, have different retention abilities, etc.
A better experiment to perform would be to TELL someone how a Microwave oven works, then ask them to repeat it back to you in their own terms. Then again, that would merely show their learning style, not whether they have a general 'clue' or not....
...what priceless data? Sure, it cost a ton of money to obtain these absolutely incredible images... but what data?
Also, who's to say that this is 100% of the data that NASA received? Personally, knowing the way the Gov agencies work, these images represent the 'icing' on the cake of data received. The critical information is probably retained.
As for you answers that you don't want to hear: Well that's just to bad. Post a question in a public internet venue, and you are subject to any answers that get posted, stupid or otherwise.
America IS #1, we have the big foam hands indicating as such. And Science doesn't want to be free, but discoveries that affect us as the Human Race *SHOULD* be free.
Why. Most mac users I know love their Macs because they are Macs. Others love Macs because they aren't Windows machines. Personally, I see a time & Place for just about all OSes/hardware, but more often than not, there is just no talking to a die-hard Mac user....
Slashdot Mirror
Good thought progression, but I do need to ask: How does your analysis run when you replace the Coal Plant with the Nuclear Power plant? Shouldn't the longevity of Nuclear Power Plants help to stabilize rising energy costs while using any form of petroleum only depletes world supplies more, thus driving energy costs higher, faster?
Effectively vague. Please expand on your statement. Last time I checked, a mass produced EV has not been in existence. Individual components, yes, optimized together as a system, no. Tag, your turn to do your research.
Under current technologies, yes, battery recharge does take a while. I need to dig up the link, but there is a research firm that has a protoype cell phone battery with the standard 2h talk 2day standby capacity, but with a charge time of nearly 15 seconds. If they could scale that to EV sized batteries... now we are talking.
True. Both Explosion and Shock are a hazard but engineering can keep battery voltages low enough to keep the shock Hazard next to zero. Besides, its not the voltage that will hurt you, its the current!
And this is different from driving around with a tank full of highly explosive gasoline because...?
I was comparing and contrasting Electric to H2. So to retort, please read the post instead of jumping to silly conclusions that can be answered in an instant.
Since one of those sources in the hydrogen case is electricity, I don't see the number of sources to be fewer than in the case of battery-powered cars.
The electrolysis of water and the subsequent use of the gaseous energies from H2 and O2 is a significantly inefficient energy conversion process.
Since you seem to be a bit of an elitist, I will use simpler words:
There are more ways to get electricity than there are ways to get H2.
You can get H2 from electricity and electricity from H2, but that's not the topic I was speaking about.
Tesla has promised sub $60k and sub $30k cars...
If you can afford a Tesla Roadster, you can afford to pay off the Tax Man....
Good point, but even H2 cells used for electricity generation can explode, albeit not under normal operations. Its still H2 afterall. Hell, even the H2 O2 from electrolysis occurring in a Lead Acid battery can explode under the right conditions. Best to leave H2 out of the picture all together.
All of these ICE -> EV diy conversion kits are pretty much prototypes. The technology is still VERY young. As it matures, it will improve and cost will drop.
Its no different than paying double the cost for a Pre-Screening of your favorite movie.
Patience is key.
Don't forget that even a EV will need oil for lubrication and heat removal... and an oil spill is still pretty messy. As for the Battery issue, Lead Acid style batteries are nowhere near the pinnacle of electrochemical energy storage. Much like demand caused the Petroleum industry to research and come up with better products, so will the demand for better batteries drive Battery R&D.
Well, "Peak" and "Non-Peak" hours will change drastically once the Electric Vehicle catches on.
A tank of hydrogen can store more energy than an equivalent sized battery, so in that right, the H2 concept is more viable. However, in addition to the H2 generation being much less efficient, its also very unsafe to be driving around with a tank full of highly exlposive gas... so in that right, the electric is more viable.
In the long run, electric will be the better choice. We can get electricity from a number of sources, which abstracts that away from the engineering of the vehicle. An h2 powered car will have significantly fewer of sources (aka naturally occurring, electrolysis, byproducts from fission events)
Just my $0.02
I'd put my money on Ventura in a Governator v Ventura v Regan brawl. ..providing all members were still alive.
What's wrong with the Governator?
I bet that's just an oversight. Email him and ask. 1 email is worth $11 imo.
Easy there slick. You are making WAY to broad of assumptions. You can go ahead and brush aside the importance of 'learning styles' and continue to live an ignorant little world wondering why everyone doesn't know how a Microwave works.
In no way did I link Learning Styles to Accountability for learning. I was merely pointint out how ridiculous your example study and subsequent assumptions were.
Insensitive? No. Elitist? Yes. Utopian like mentality? Absolutely.
If everyone had to have a general idea of how everything in their life worked, then the formal education process would extend from the first 20 years of someones life to their entire lifetime.
Modern society is built on the "Developer, Technician, and User" paradigm, and it works very well. A User doesn't have to worry about exactly *how* their computer works, just how to efficiently use it to accomplish their task. A Technician doesn't have to know how the Semiconductors are doped on this particular chip(Like a dev would), nor do they have to know the specifics of the software the User does. Etc Etc.
Its called Specialization. Great Concept. As mentioned in a previous post, 99% of the time, its an Arrogant Elitist who just so happens to be particularly Savvy at, I dunno, say Applied Sciences, who can make statements like: "Everyone should know how a Computer works" or Everyone should know how a Internal Combustion Engine works" or Everyone should know how a Microwave works"
So, yeah, spare me the Elitist Bullshit.
Its amazing how well your statements parallel many posters and their screen vomit here on /.
That's the day I decided that the average person has no clue about the internal workings of a Microwave Oven.
...the only thing your experiment proves is that the 'average' person has no clue about how a microwave works. Not to mention, that even if you stopped 10,000 people in one day, that is still a far cry from an adequate sample to claim an 'average'
People are different, period. They learn differently, speak differently, have different retention abilities, etc.
A better experiment to perform would be to TELL someone how a Microwave oven works, then ask them to repeat it back to you in their own terms. Then again, that would merely show their learning style, not whether they have a general 'clue' or not....
...what priceless data? Sure, it cost a ton of money to obtain these absolutely incredible images... but what data?
Also, who's to say that this is 100% of the data that NASA received? Personally, knowing the way the Gov agencies work, these images represent the 'icing' on the cake of data received. The critical information is probably retained.
As for you answers that you don't want to hear: Well that's just to bad. Post a question in a public internet venue, and you are subject to any answers that get posted, stupid or otherwise.
America IS #1, we have the big foam hands indicating as such. And Science doesn't want to be free, but discoveries that affect us as the Human Race *SHOULD* be free.
Why. Most mac users I know love their Macs because they are Macs. Others love Macs because they aren't Windows machines. Personally, I see a time & Place for just about all OSes/hardware, but more often than not, there is just no talking to a die-hard Mac user....
Its a 'Mobile Workstation' and/or a 'notepad'... not a 'laptop'