Well, I *could* do you that favour, but if you've managed to get to the stage in your life where: 1. you're able to string a coherent sentence together 2. you haven't already seen information on the devastating effects of a 4degree rise that you consider credible 3. you consider that a point about summer/winter temperature to be facetious-yet-worth-making-anyway it's pretty clear you're a lost cause and not worth the effort.
Again, it's not just about survival. It's about our civilisation surviving. It's about holding on to the precious gains humanity has made, in terms of lives free from death, disease and dismemberment.
Ooh, can you do me a favour? Can you just quickly remind me of the last time that it was much hotter than this and there were 7bn humans on the planet and a civilisation I'm really quite attached to? Cos I really couldn't give two fucks if dinosaurs or voles or tree ferns or sharks can survive, or if humans can survive but only in apocalyptic conditions. I'd like our civilisation to survive too.
You're spotting patterns that aren't there. You'd need to do some quant analysis to demonstrate this is real, but the likelihood is it's an artefact of human cognition.
FFS, mate. I live in the UK too. Your figures seem ridiculous -- your school has been had. Here in Norf London, there are hundreds of houses with solar fitted that's charging Teslas. Couldn't do that if the conversions were as poor as you assert for your school. And there is no way that at 1pm on a cloudy day a 10kW system in the UK should be generating zero. That is mad.
How on *earth* did your school manage to install a large panel costing tens of thousands that can generate as little as 45W??? Can you provide more details? Cos this sounds pretty dubious. What time of day? How old is the installation? What was its rated generative capacity? Where is the school?
I mean, a typical home installation generates 3kW, and costs well under 10k.
How is it Apple's fault that Southwest Airlines haven't released an iPad-specific version of their app? It's also very clear why Southwest haven't done so: the vast majority of the use case that they're addressing are travellers moving to and through airports, who are much, much more likely to access the app on their iphones than on an ipad.
There's plenty of business-focused apps that are optimised for iPad because that's what their target market will be using. But they're very vertical-specific, by and large. If you're a dentist who does implants, 3Diemme's solution is excellent: http://www.3diemme.it/en/produ... If you're a pilot, you are very likely to be using an electronic flight bag (developed in-house, mainly). That's where the value is for business.
*Pretty* sure that Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2 and the invasion of Afghanistan were in fact carried out by Republican administrations. But you keep telling yourself that the only party of war is the Dems.
Hmm, let's take a wild guess: 1. Market maturity. They're just further behind on the adoption curve 2. The familiarity of an ICE, and the range reassurance that brings Both of these factors will obviously weaken over time.
4 hours there and 4 hours back, not really that unusual of a commute when you live outside of a city
Not really that unusual?? Are you having a larf? I would wager that even in the most flyover of flyover country, an eight hour daily commute is actually *quite* unusual, as in, the sort of commute that fewer than 0.1% of the population would do. As if it were normal to leave the house at 5am, drive 4hours, work till 5pm, and get home at 9pm!!
Didn't know how much energy was lost to inefficiencies, eg resistance. On reflection, I'm sure a tiny amount, so yes, the faster rate would only be helpful at public chargers that are able to deliver power at very high rates. As I understood it, the rate-limiting step has not been the batteries' ability to accept charging at high rates of power, but the safety risks associated with high rates of power -- no-one's quite got the balls to deliver 150kW chargers for public use just yet.
Not the way you do it, for sure. I can't believe it can really be safe to do 800 miles with only a 15min break! Additionally, I'm not sure I understand how your maths works. If you're travelling 800 miles then at 60mph that's more than 13 hours, ie an all-day affair. Even at 90mph, it's nearly 9 hours, which pretty much feels like all day to me. Whether you have a 15min or 60min break feels fairly immaterial in that context, no?
I pay $200 per month for our car (including electricity) and I can afford a cab from time to time, but have never needed one because my car is out of power.
We'll come to your exciting interpretation of the data in a minute, but let's begin with the basics: I said "The costs of solar power have plummeted -- more than a hundred-fold decrease since 1977". You replied with some stuff that gives the impression that you're disputing that fact without ever quite disputing that fact, I guess because you accept that it is true that prices have plummeted. So I'm really not clear what the point of your post is: - it took a lot of investment to bring solar prices down? I mean, I'm sure it did, most energy sources require huge amounts of investment just to produce without any benefits in $/W reductions over time, and it doesn't affect the fact that prices have indeed come down - some kind of prediction that solar costs can't fall further in the future? I mean, if you think that, you're a braver analyst than me
And finally, your interpretation: How on earth did you conclude that there were two major price drops in the last 60 years?? Which data could possibly support that interpretation? According to the first chart I linked to, prices dropped every year from 1977 (~$77/W) through to 1989 (~$6/W) -- but you talk about a "change in the early 80s". The rate of change in the early 80s is slower than the rate in the late 70s, which doesn't tie up with your narrative. From 1989, prices stayed steady for about 10 years and then fell significantly through to 2008 (~$4/W) -- a near-halving. From 2008 to 2013, they fell even more significantly to under $1/W.
It takes really determined squinting to look at a chart showing 36 years of significantly declining prices with a decade-long plateau in the middle and describe that as "two major price drops". Had there been a 3 year period of price declines, a 30 year period of plateau, and a further 3 year period of declines, then that would be a reasonable characterisation.
Man, the US is different from Europe. Here it is never -- never -- cheaper to drive a mile on gas cf a mile using electricity. My Renault Zoe EV will do about 100 miles per £1. A Renault Clio gas car would do about 12 miles per £1. (New Renault Zoe has a 180mile range, but it will not be sold in the US because Renault aren't present in the market, and because it's too small to be successful)
10 years wouldn't be too bad. On top of that, the incentives for commercialisation are sharper now than back then, so more resources are likely to be poured into this. On the other hand, there are many other battery tech innovations being pursued because of those sharper incentives, so this approach will have to compete with those others for resource.
Hm. The costs of solar power have plummeted -- more than a hundred-fold decrease since 1977. Plentiful is mainly about political choices at this point.
Perhaps. But I imagine vanishingly few trips are 600miles without a significant break. Most EV owners charge overnight for most of their charges, and wake up to a fully charged car every morning. It therefore becomes irrelevant whether it takes ten minute or three hours to charge, and the rate-limiting step for home-charging is usually the availability of high-power charging. In the UK, you can get 7kW chargers if you can fit an isolator, and if you have three-phase supply (most people don't), you can get 22kW. But my little Renault Zoe can take up to 43kW, and no home-charger set-up can provide that. I'm not sure if this change in battery tech means that you can charge at 3x the rate for the same amount of power, or if it means that you can provide 3x the power and thus charge at 3x the rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I *could* do you that favour, but if you've managed to get to the stage in your life where:
1. you're able to string a coherent sentence together
2. you haven't already seen information on the devastating effects of a 4degree rise that you consider credible
3. you consider that a point about summer/winter temperature to be facetious-yet-worth-making-anyway
it's pretty clear you're a lost cause and not worth the effort.
Again, it's not just about survival. It's about our civilisation surviving. It's about holding on to the precious gains humanity has made, in terms of lives free from death, disease and dismemberment.
Ooh, can you do me a favour? Can you just quickly remind me of the last time that it was much hotter than this and there were 7bn humans on the planet and a civilisation I'm really quite attached to? Cos I really couldn't give two fucks if dinosaurs or voles or tree ferns or sharks can survive, or if humans can survive but only in apocalyptic conditions. I'd like our civilisation to survive too.
You're spotting patterns that aren't there. You'd need to do some quant analysis to demonstrate this is real, but the likelihood is it's an artefact of human cognition.
Agree with your point about styling. It's one of the things I like about my Renault Zoe. Electric, yes, fairly distinctive, yes, but not ... weird.
FFS, mate. I live in the UK too. Your figures seem ridiculous -- your school has been had. Here in Norf London, there are hundreds of houses with solar fitted that's charging Teslas. Couldn't do that if the conversions were as poor as you assert for your school. And there is no way that at 1pm on a cloudy day a 10kW system in the UK should be generating zero. That is mad.
How on *earth* did your school manage to install a large panel costing tens of thousands that can generate as little as 45W??? Can you provide more details? Cos this sounds pretty dubious. What time of day? How old is the installation? What was its rated generative capacity? Where is the school?
I mean, a typical home installation generates 3kW, and costs well under 10k.
How is it Apple's fault that Southwest Airlines haven't released an iPad-specific version of their app? It's also very clear why Southwest haven't done so: the vast majority of the use case that they're addressing are travellers moving to and through airports, who are much, much more likely to access the app on their iphones than on an ipad.
There's plenty of business-focused apps that are optimised for iPad because that's what their target market will be using. But they're very vertical-specific, by and large. If you're a dentist who does implants, 3Diemme's solution is excellent: http://www.3diemme.it/en/produ... If you're a pilot, you are very likely to be using an electronic flight bag (developed in-house, mainly). That's where the value is for business.
Apple has always done some fairly low-key upgrades as well as the big splashy ones.
*Pretty* sure that Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2 and the invasion of Afghanistan were in fact carried out by Republican administrations. But you keep telling yourself that the only party of war is the Dems.
I tell you what I'm not keen on: your terrible, awful grammar.
Hmm, let's take a wild guess:
1. Market maturity. They're just further behind on the adoption curve
2. The familiarity of an ICE, and the range reassurance that brings
Both of these factors will obviously weaken over time.
4 hours there and 4 hours back, not really that unusual of a commute when you live outside of a city
Not really that unusual?? Are you having a larf? I would wager that even in the most flyover of flyover country, an eight hour daily commute is actually *quite* unusual, as in, the sort of commute that fewer than 0.1% of the population would do. As if it were normal to leave the house at 5am, drive 4hours, work till 5pm, and get home at 9pm!!
No, cos they had the excellent sense to put billions into a sovereign wealth fund.
Don't be an absolute arse-twonk. Don't let the best be the enemy of the good.
Didn't know how much energy was lost to inefficiencies, eg resistance. On reflection, I'm sure a tiny amount, so yes, the faster rate would only be helpful at public chargers that are able to deliver power at very high rates. As I understood it, the rate-limiting step has not been the batteries' ability to accept charging at high rates of power, but the safety risks associated with high rates of power -- no-one's quite got the balls to deliver 150kW chargers for public use just yet.
Not the way you do it, for sure. I can't believe it can really be safe to do 800 miles with only a 15min break! Additionally, I'm not sure I understand how your maths works. If you're travelling 800 miles then at 60mph that's more than 13 hours, ie an all-day affair. Even at 90mph, it's nearly 9 hours, which pretty much feels like all day to me. Whether you have a 15min or 60min break feels fairly immaterial in that context, no?
I pay $200 per month for our car (including electricity) and I can afford a cab from time to time, but have never needed one because my car is out of power.
My experience has been that it's not so much about forgetting, as judging whether you need to and choosing not to. It's not been an issue for me.
We'll come to your exciting interpretation of the data in a minute, but let's begin with the basics: I said "The costs of solar power have plummeted -- more than a hundred-fold decrease since 1977". You replied with some stuff that gives the impression that you're disputing that fact without ever quite disputing that fact, I guess because you accept that it is true that prices have plummeted. So I'm really not clear what the point of your post is:
- it took a lot of investment to bring solar prices down? I mean, I'm sure it did, most energy sources require huge amounts of investment just to produce without any benefits in $/W reductions over time, and it doesn't affect the fact that prices have indeed come down
- some kind of prediction that solar costs can't fall further in the future? I mean, if you think that, you're a braver analyst than me
And finally, your interpretation: How on earth did you conclude that there were two major price drops in the last 60 years?? Which data could possibly support that interpretation? According to the first chart I linked to, prices dropped every year from 1977 (~$77/W) through to 1989 (~$6/W) -- but you talk about a "change in the early 80s". The rate of change in the early 80s is slower than the rate in the late 70s, which doesn't tie up with your narrative. From 1989, prices stayed steady for about 10 years and then fell significantly through to 2008 (~$4/W) -- a near-halving. From 2008 to 2013, they fell even more significantly to under $1/W.
It takes really determined squinting to look at a chart showing 36 years of significantly declining prices with a decade-long plateau in the middle and describe that as "two major price drops". Had there been a 3 year period of price declines, a 30 year period of plateau, and a further 3 year period of declines, then that would be a reasonable characterisation.
Man, the US is different from Europe. Here it is never -- never -- cheaper to drive a mile on gas cf a mile using electricity. My Renault Zoe EV will do about 100 miles per £1. A Renault Clio gas car would do about 12 miles per £1. (New Renault Zoe has a 180mile range, but it will not be sold in the US because Renault aren't present in the market, and because it's too small to be successful)
10 years wouldn't be too bad. On top of that, the incentives for commercialisation are sharper now than back then, so more resources are likely to be poured into this. On the other hand, there are many other battery tech innovations being pursued because of those sharper incentives, so this approach will have to compete with those others for resource.
Hm. The costs of solar power have plummeted -- more than a hundred-fold decrease since 1977. Plentiful is mainly about political choices at this point.
https://cleantechnica.com/2014...
Perhaps. But I imagine vanishingly few trips are 600miles without a significant break. Most EV owners charge overnight for most of their charges, and wake up to a fully charged car every morning. It therefore becomes irrelevant whether it takes ten minute or three hours to charge, and the rate-limiting step for home-charging is usually the availability of high-power charging. In the UK, you can get 7kW chargers if you can fit an isolator, and if you have three-phase supply (most people don't), you can get 22kW. But my little Renault Zoe can take up to 43kW, and no home-charger set-up can provide that. I'm not sure if this change in battery tech means that you can charge at 3x the rate for the same amount of power, or if it means that you can provide 3x the power and thus charge at 3x the rate.
How far do you drive to work if you need a 600 mile range?! Come to think of it, how far do you drive to work if you need a 200 mile range?!