Nobody's contesting that for grid electricity, BEVs are more efficient than FCEVs. But for many other FCEV pathways you can't power a BEV in the same way, so there's no comparison.
Also, your fuel chain is wrong. nobody is electrolyzing h2 at a central source. it's all done on site. nor is anybody liquifying it.
at first I thought that this was a specious comment, but thinking about it more I see s/he has a point. there are many power sources (major and minor) that don't require combustion:
1) hydroelectric dams
2) nuclear power plants
3) geothermal
4) solar PV
5) solar molten salt
6) wind
For transportation:
* Fuel Cells
* batteries
* i've seen proposals for linear induction and maglev.
dude, fuel cells don't burn hydrogen! it's an electrochemical thing. the membrane separates the hydrogen proton and electron. proton goes to the other side of the membrane, while the electron races through the circuit to catch up. on the toher side, proton + electron + oxygen combine to make water. there's no combustion going on. no burning, no worries!
no worries. you can get your satisfaction fix from the KSM photo. he looks like a stoned ron jeremy in a scoopneck wife beater. It always gives me a laugh when i need one!
yes people care what the station looks like. This is why it will never work.
when people think of getting gas, they think of going to the clean shell station on the corner with the TVs and candy bars. A level III charger is like parking at an electrical substation and plugging in. it's not going to be adopted, even in pilot phases.
During normal EV use, you'll never have to visit a charging station
I agree with you that level III charging is as unneccesary as it is impractical. Everybody will charge at home, and nobody will buy an EV unless they have the capability for home charging.
Another solution that I've seen proposed is to come up with a standard "generator pod"
I've never heard of this. Sounds like weasel words. I imagine one of those uhaul tows, except with a diesel generator inside! The idea is essentially the same as a Chevy Volt - a plug in hybrid or extended range EV. a gasoline engine maintains state of charge after 40 miles.
that's just a critical mass. If there were a group named Anonymous with a democratic structure, then there would be a leader that facilitates discussions, proposals for actions, and yea or nay votes on the proposals. none of these are the case.
Sucinctly: "democratic" != "mob mentality"
FCEVs aren't burning stuff under any possible definition of burning. The fuel cell is a chemical / electrical reaction. When natural gas is used as the source, h2 is stripped out at low temperatures using a catalyst.
ok let me equivocate. If you use a coal power plant to produce electricity to electolyze water, then yes you're burning stuff. But that's tertiary burning at best.
I thought real world fuel cell efficiency was much less than 85%
The issue is the efficiency of an engine vs the efficiency of a vehicle. Comparing engines is nice because it takes out variables relating to the cars. Ultimately, ICs are limited by teh carnot cycle, while fuel cell / motor and battery / motor stacks are not. for that reason, FCs and EVs are ~2x more efficient.
15 - 30 minute fast charge stations for BEV's already exist
No they don't. The link says that Level III chargers *will* exist. In reality I know of one unit in use in Tokyo operated by TEPCO.
The reality is that fast charging will never catch on. The car charges in 30 mins, but the station essentially looks like back to the future -- a dedicated attendant plugs in a snake line of 500V, 50kw into your car. Super dangerous, super expensive, needs its own substation.
no fair comparing FCEVs to vaporware charging technology.
FCEVs (fuel cell electric vehicles) win on a number of levels:
* there are a number of pathways to make h2, which allows you to make your desired tradeoff between cost, quantity, carbon footprint, etc. Some pathways: petro natural gas, landfill gas, power plant electricity to electrolysis, solar panel to electrolysis, coal gasification. what's cool about this is that h2 production technology can improve over time, and you can establish the FCEV market now that will fund future development. pathways ftw!
* FCEVs are a form of electric vehicle so they get EV efficiency ~85%, while natural gas cars are still internal combustion so they get ~30%. efficiency ftw!
*unlike BEVs, FCEVs avoid the range anxiety issue, and can be filled up like a regular car instead of needing 8 hour charge. convenience ftw!
There are more, but that's all I have on short notice. BTW I just learned what ftw means. loving it!
nopee. it stores the location of the tower, but does not transmit it. If you think about it, a phone stores all sorts of stuff.
* contents ot text messages sent and recieved
* log of calls placed and recieved
* contents of emails sent and recieved (up to a certain buffer size)
* name, phone, email, address of your contacts
It's not a big deal -- the phone as these so it can be useful. no conspiracy here. It would be bad if the phone emailed all this content to steve@apple.com, but there's no evicence that this is so, and the company explicitly says it doesn't do so.
In short, [citation needed]
meh. let's agree to disagree. I'm a seasoned user too, and office 2007 makes it much easier for me to make high quality documents with good formatting and layout. Also it doesn't crash nearly as much, and you never get that error "document failed to save." wtf kind of bug is that!?!?!? fails to f'n save!?!?!
your comment is facile. OBVIOUSLY the answer is b. maybe you would feel better if we restricted op's comment a bit. Are you comfortable with this:
>>...that would enable us to do all the things we want to do on the web in a way that preserves our privacy*
* does not include
pedo porn
stealing people's money
building zombie bots
sending millions of spams
stalking people (goes to your silly strawman argument)
to be fair office 2007 is much faster and easier to use than office 2003, and same for office 2010 vs 2008 (mac). Anti-latency bloat and anti-feature bloat.
I agree the answer is obvious, and I didn't see it discussed in the article (yes I rtfa!)
Android on phones got traction because it had a near monopoly on three out of four US wireless carriers. If you were on verizon, tmobile or sprint you couldn't get an iphone so you had to get an android.
the tablet situation is totally different. tablets aren't carrier locked, so android doesn't get a monopoly anywhere. anybody can buy an ipad if they want. and they do. I have yet to hear a compelling reason for choosing an android tablet over an ipad.
My $7 dialup plan provides more data (>15 GB) than $40 verizon wireless (5 GB). Pathetic.
How do you figure this? Let's OM it: 56 kbps (that's dialup, right?) ~ 8 kbytes per second ~690 mbytes per day. Oh I see what you did there. If you maxxed out your dialup connection for every second of the month you could download ~15gbytes. I see your point, I guess... but perhaps there's no need for caps on dialup connections because:
* even if one could download 15GB monthly the average usage is probably much less than 1GB
* dialup goes over the phone network which is not resource constrained, as opposed to the wireless network in which bandwidth is precious.
So, in short, get off your high horse, I guess? recognize that things happen for a reason, not just to screw you over?
Also, not to make you feel bad, but my $30 ATT ipad plan gets unlimited wireless for $30. Of course, this is in SF, so the speeds are equivalent to dialup...
Slashdot Mirror
traversing a stretch of the Atlantic Ocean between Morocco and Spain."
umm.. what is the straits of gibraltar? I'll take geography for 500. Daily double!
I think OSX is a train wreck
Can you elaborate on this? No snark, I'm just curious for more info. It hasn't been my experience, but you may be coming at it from a different angle.
Nobody's contesting that for grid electricity, BEVs are more efficient than FCEVs. But for many other FCEV pathways you can't power a BEV in the same way, so there's no comparison. Also, your fuel chain is wrong. nobody is electrolyzing h2 at a central source. it's all done on site. nor is anybody liquifying it.
at first I thought that this was a specious comment, but thinking about it more I see s/he has a point. there are many power sources (major and minor) that don't require combustion: 1) hydroelectric dams 2) nuclear power plants 3) geothermal 4) solar PV 5) solar molten salt 6) wind For transportation: * Fuel Cells * batteries * i've seen proposals for linear induction and maglev.
dude, fuel cells don't burn hydrogen! it's an electrochemical thing. the membrane separates the hydrogen proton and electron. proton goes to the other side of the membrane, while the electron races through the circuit to catch up. on the toher side, proton + electron + oxygen combine to make water. there's no combustion going on. no burning, no worries!
no worries. you can get your satisfaction fix from the KSM photo. he looks like a stoned ron jeremy in a scoopneck wife beater. It always gives me a laugh when i need one!
how would the pictures show in what context obl was killed? i think they show him with a hole in his head.
Do you really care what the station looks like?
yes people care what the station looks like. This is why it will never work.
when people think of getting gas, they think of going to the clean shell station on the corner with the TVs and candy bars. A level III charger is like parking at an electrical substation and plugging in. it's not going to be adopted, even in pilot phases.
During normal EV use, you'll never have to visit a charging station
I agree with you that level III charging is as unneccesary as it is impractical. Everybody will charge at home, and nobody will buy an EV unless they have the capability for home charging.
Another solution that I've seen proposed is to come up with a standard "generator pod"
I've never heard of this. Sounds like weasel words. I imagine one of those uhaul tows, except with a diesel generator inside! The idea is essentially the same as a Chevy Volt - a plug in hybrid or extended range EV. a gasoline engine maintains state of charge after 40 miles.
that's just a critical mass. If there were a group named Anonymous with a democratic structure, then there would be a leader that facilitates discussions, proposals for actions, and yea or nay votes on the proposals. none of these are the case. Sucinctly: "democratic" != "mob mentality"
it seems extremely democratic to me
what exactly is democratic here? I don't see it. please elaborate.
ok let me equivocate. If you use a coal power plant to produce electricity to electolyze water, then yes you're burning stuff. But that's tertiary burning at best.
I thought real world fuel cell efficiency was much less than 85%
The issue is the efficiency of an engine vs the efficiency of a vehicle. Comparing engines is nice because it takes out variables relating to the cars. Ultimately, ICs are limited by teh carnot cycle, while fuel cell / motor and battery / motor stacks are not. for that reason, FCs and EVs are ~2x more efficient.
15 - 30 minute fast charge stations for BEV's already exist
No they don't. The link says that Level III chargers *will* exist. In reality I know of one unit in use in Tokyo operated by TEPCO.
The reality is that fast charging will never catch on. The car charges in 30 mins, but the station essentially looks like back to the future -- a dedicated attendant plugs in a snake line of 500V, 50kw into your car. Super dangerous, super expensive, needs its own substation.
no fair comparing FCEVs to vaporware charging technology.
* there are a number of pathways to make h2, which allows you to make your desired tradeoff between cost, quantity, carbon footprint, etc. Some pathways: petro natural gas, landfill gas, power plant electricity to electrolysis, solar panel to electrolysis, coal gasification. what's cool about this is that h2 production technology can improve over time, and you can establish the FCEV market now that will fund future development. pathways ftw!
* FCEVs are a form of electric vehicle so they get EV efficiency ~85%, while natural gas cars are still internal combustion so they get ~30%. efficiency ftw!
*unlike BEVs, FCEVs avoid the range anxiety issue, and can be filled up like a regular car instead of needing 8 hour charge. convenience ftw!
There are more, but that's all I have on short notice. BTW I just learned what ftw means. loving it!
nopee. it stores the location of the tower, but does not transmit it. If you think about it, a phone stores all sorts of stuff. * contents ot text messages sent and recieved * log of calls placed and recieved * contents of emails sent and recieved (up to a certain buffer size) * name, phone, email, address of your contacts It's not a big deal -- the phone as these so it can be useful. no conspiracy here. It would be bad if the phone emailed all this content to steve@apple.com, but there's no evicence that this is so, and the company explicitly says it doesn't do so. In short, [citation needed]
meh. let's agree to disagree. I'm a seasoned user too, and office 2007 makes it much easier for me to make high quality documents with good formatting and layout. Also it doesn't crash nearly as much, and you never get that error "document failed to save." wtf kind of bug is that!?!?!? fails to f'n save!?!?!
>> ...that would enable us to do all the things we want to do on the web in a way that preserves our privacy*
* does not include
pedo porn
stealing people's money
building zombie bots
sending millions of spams
stalking people (goes to your silly strawman argument)
So we all agree now.
to be fair office 2007 is much faster and easier to use than office 2003, and same for office 2010 vs 2008 (mac). Anti-latency bloat and anti-feature bloat.
how come I got +1 but you got +3? mine was super funny I thought.
I agree the answer is obvious, and I didn't see it discussed in the article (yes I rtfa!) Android on phones got traction because it had a near monopoly on three out of four US wireless carriers. If you were on verizon, tmobile or sprint you couldn't get an iphone so you had to get an android. the tablet situation is totally different. tablets aren't carrier locked, so android doesn't get a monopoly anywhere. anybody can buy an ipad if they want. and they do. I have yet to hear a compelling reason for choosing an android tablet over an ipad.
There was that article a while back about how the vast majority of apps send back user information
link?
maybe they'll give him a red shirt to wear.
ouch you beat me to the joke. touche!
Holtz is becoming a useless keyword to generate 'news'.
It's not much of a keyword if you misspell his name. Alternatively, I guess you're right on the mark - "Holtz" is truly a useless keyword.
oooh burrn. Apple is improving their products because they hope to sell more products in the future. evil capitalists!
My $7 dialup plan provides more data (>15 GB) than $40 verizon wireless (5 GB). Pathetic.
How do you figure this? Let's OM it: 56 kbps (that's dialup, right?) ~ 8 kbytes per second ~690 mbytes per day. Oh I see what you did there. If you maxxed out your dialup connection for every second of the month you could download ~15gbytes. I see your point, I guess... but perhaps there's no need for caps on dialup connections because:
* even if one could download 15GB monthly the average usage is probably much less than 1GB
* dialup goes over the phone network which is not resource constrained, as opposed to the wireless network in which bandwidth is precious.
So, in short, get off your high horse, I guess? recognize that things happen for a reason, not just to screw you over?
Also, not to make you feel bad, but my $30 ATT ipad plan gets unlimited wireless for $30. Of course, this is in SF, so the speeds are equivalent to dialup...