The conversion from petajoules a second to Terra Watt hours was to give those too lazy to make a conversion some context. If you are in possesion of the figures for the lifetime heat output of a AP1000 in petajoules then perhaps we can discuss it in that frame of reference?
Well yeah, given that you're converting watts(joules/second = watts) to joules improperly.
My veiw is we are debating two types of Nuclear Reactors, one (EPR) with systems that have been used and tested and one (AP1000) with a untested design compared to (GenII) established reactors.
Define 'tested'. At one point the EPR systems were untested. I've read the reports. There were some issues with the AP1000 dome at first, they redesigned it a bit and satisfied the regulators.
To repeat: I have read your numerous gripes about the AP1000 dome and found them wanting and petty. You say it's untested, it's not. The AP1000 design is a evolution of the AP600 design which is an evolution of even earlier designs. You complain there's not enough concrete in the dome. I point out that the amount of concrete is less important than the ability to remove heat. You say it's untested. I do the research and find that it is.
But to go a step further: I DON'T WANT TO BE DEBATING SPECIFIC REACTOR DESIGNS. I'm not trying to argue the benefits of one design over another. If I'm going to do that, I'd be pushing molten-salt Thorium.
Cars aren't highly radioactive at the end of their service life and they don't release radionuclides in an accident, so I think reactors are too complex to be compared to cars.
And I should listen to somebody who fails at analogies why? Hell, if it makes you happier, substitute 'EPR' and 'AP1000' for the modern cars and 'GenII reactors' for the Model-T. The point is either of the new reactors is a couple OOMs safer than the old reactors. We can't realistically get rid of the old reactors until we get new reactors built.
Even though aircraft still aren't as complex as a nuclear reactor, do you think aviation authorities would allow an untested aircraft design to make regular service routes with passengers?
Except it's not untested. You're just disregarding the testing. And if you think that aircraft aren't as complex as a nuclear reactor, I think you're full of it. Or maybe I'm more familiar with how complex modern(ish) aircraft are.
Not unless you can change the laws of physics and stop neutrons from bombarding the inside of the reactor vessel. That is what limits the service life of a nuclear reactor to 40-60 years.
Except of course that we now have a bunch of them still operating that are older than that.
You're correct, I need to remember to be careful about using 'all'. To my knowledge, said solar shingles haven't progressed beyond test installs and such.
If I lived in Arizona, Heck, any of the Southern states, I'd consider covered parking a perk worth perhaps paying a touch more in the store for. Plus, from a business standpoint there's a lot to be said for such an install. 1. If I phrase it as the carport structure as not being a carport, but as necessary support structure to get the solar panels safely over the cars, I can deduct and get credits for my carport as part of the solar install. 2. There's various credits and deductions with said install. 3. The power provided helps lower my max energy usage - companies are billed not only by total power used, but by maximum wattage. IE it's cheaper for me to use 100 watts continuously than 2400 watts for 1 hour a day. The daytime power from the panels will reduce the increase in power usage during business hours. Set my AC systems up to 'supercool' during that time frame to keep the temperature good once the sun comes down until my power starts dropping. 4. As you mention, car ports in heavily lit areas down south is a perk. I can attract a 'higher class' of customers that way. 5. For that matter, it saves energy in cooling costs. People burn less gasoline running the AC for their cars, especially with remote starters and such. Raised solar panels(and a few inches is sufficient) can act as a sun screen for your building, substantially dropping AC energy requirements, to the point that I remember some buildings having non-solar screens way back in the day. The energy gained from solar energy is a economic boost in such a case.
Is it just more publicized than that in other sports?
I think it really is more publicized. Consider that doping scandals have hit nearly every professional sport - including golf. Even baseball has had it's share with things like 'cored' bats.
Bicycling is just the one sport where a motor would be both useful and could be implemented in a way that would be 'hard' to spot.
Roofs also need maintenance and replacing, and this is not cheap as any homeowner knows -- so the material displacement theory has to compete with that as well, though currently many rooftop solar installations do not replace shingles.
Currently ALL solar rooftop installs over structures such as houses don't replace shingles or other roofing materials. The problem is one of tightness - solar panels as direct roofing material is currently too 'leaky'. With a car port, this isn't a big deal. Hell, the panels are also structural, so they're replacing the shingles, the tar paper, plywood, AND most of the 2x4 supports. They basically only need edge support, which is easy to provide with beams.
They also tend to be semi-transparent, though that could be fixed if they were designed to replace a roof with a aluminum backing or something.
Basically, the engineering to use them over what I'd consider critical structures(IE homes) as opposed to non-critical structures(IE carport) hasn't been done or finished yet.
Yeah, I've seen that too. They use money to measure industrial energy consumption and convert that to petajoules.
Ah, problem is that this isn't a valid conversion. Electric energy is 'more valuable' than heat energy, just to start with.
less likley of an incident in what?
Than currently existing reactors. My view is that we're debating the safety differences between a Honda Civic and a Toyota Corolla when everybody currently on the road are driving Model T Fords.
I can't see it happening. Nuclear power is too expensive, there is no energetic return. It maybe fantastic and amazing but it is also pointless.
There's plenty of energetic return.
As decaying relics of a selfish era after being operated for 40 or maybe 60 years.
The way things are going, they'll still be around after 100, like the B-52.
It could be very difficult to keep the random 500 people from accepting bribes. It's actually a lot easier to monitor congressmen for corruption, at least they're around for 2+ years.
Treat them like jurors - their names are to be unknown, somewhat sequestered, and most 'trials' would only last a couple months, which would be tough to break the anonymity, find a corruptible juror that doesn't want the reward for reporting a bribe attempt, etc...
The problem with monitoring congressmen is that they're around long enough for 'corrupting' one to matter, and they're always in need of re-election money. Most of the time if you're engaging in bribery you're not bribing a random congressman, you're bribing a specific one who's in the correct sub-committee.
With no sub-committees, no majority/minority leaders, etc... You're looking at having to bribe enough of them to matter. The more you bribe, the more likely it's to come out and get your hand slapped.
I'm not being stupidly picky - 60% is 'has a position that I can live with'. I'm not one to argue much between whether something is 50k or 60k. I'm pro-choice, but view somebody that wants to ban 3rd trimester abortions outside of 'medical necessity' as okay, given that essentially 100% of 3rd trimester abortions are already medically necessary with a non-viable fetus because otherwise it's an 'emergency c-section', not an abortion.
Whether a tax is set to 25% or 26% isn't that big of a deal in most cases. Etc...
My highest match in this presidential election - including ALL runners on both sides, was 70% using the online poles.
Needs permits since it's above ground, hides the views of rich people and gives everybody living there a right to object, on the roads they can do whatever they want. 1 owner, no permits.
1. Do you think that the Highway division needs permits for it's structures? It's the same organization putting down pavement or putting up roadsigns and bridges. 2. I think that 'hides the views of rich people' should be rephrased - such panels would block the highway from view, and reflect some of the noise. Would be a NET POSITIVE for rich people living in the area. I don't think they'd object to the lessening of the impact of highway visibility and noise. They already put panels and such up in some areas to isolate the highways a bit.
A solar car port makes a lot of sense if you're going to be making a car port* anyways because the solar panels can be the roof itself. The displacement of the roofing materials makes the solar panels a relatively cheap upgrade.
As for 6x the cost of 'standard electricity' - you need to update your figures and realize that not all electricity is that cheap. It's under 2X for competently done installs even before rebates and such.
If you have semi-frequent outages the reduction in generator load(during the day at least), makes it even more economical.
*In this case a 'car port' is a partial shelter option for a car. IE a roof, maybe a side panel. Intended to keep the rain and sun off of cars in areas normally hotter than temperate. Not a complete shelter.
Okay, first up: I analyzed the 'Solar Freaking Roadways!!!' proposals so I know the arguments, though I think they glossed over or ignored numerous problems. My end thought was that it might be a neat system for a pedestrian walk area, where you don't have anything bigger than a golf cart traversing it.
That being said, I'm always willing to be proven wrong - it's relatively easy to get me to agree to a 100m/1km/1 Mile or so 'test strip'. 100m, for example, is long enough to get a truck completely onto the solar surface and drive for a bit - because the interface might be a destruction point. Something to study, obviously.
Okay, the reasoning for 'solar roads' is a combination of displacement and synchronicity. By displacement, we mean that the surface of a properly constructed solar panel displaces other construction material - pavement, for a road. For something like a 'solar car park', solar panels are strong enough to replace the roof, not supplement it. - Problem: Pavement is relatively incredibly cheap and durable. Synchronicity: By this I mean that the substitution provides additional benefits. Solar roadways, for example, boasts that you could incorporate heating elements into their units such that when it snows you can avoid the need for plowing by melting the snow off the roads, then recoup the heat used via the solar panels. Problem - I don't think they've thought about heavy snows and that you get less light in winter. Another 'benefit' would be using LED lighting to enable 'remapping' the control lanes on a road, signaling when it's safe to pass, etc... They even said that the solar roads would be easier to repair - have a busted hexagonal panel? Pull up with a truck that has a robot arm that automatically unbolts and lifts the damaged panel and locks a replacement in. Each panel is supposed to be cheap because it's made in an automated factory.
As such, using the panels as 'roadway shade/shelter' such that things like rain and snow don't reach the road at all, and probably even block direct sun, is a much better use.
Size of the ballot paper would be huge and would be asking too much of voters too.
Not really, I'd just read up some stuff, decide on a party, and vote for that party. That party has a list of people to be elected, and depending on how much of the vote they get, that's how many members are elected.
I'd sure like to have somebody in congress who matches me at around 90%, rather than the 60% I normally get as a *best* option.
I've had thoughts about government. One idea I had was to get rid of congress as a law passing body entirely. They're too tied into popularity contests, donations by extremist wealthy people, etc... They could still write laws or something.
Instead, let's go statistical. When a bill is proposed, you pull in around 500 random eligible citizens. Call them a 'specific representational congress' or something. Think of it like jury duty crossed with legislation, and be sure to pay them well so they aren't moaning about losing money. The supporters and detractors of the bill go through the bill with the selected citizens, having a relatively large amount of time to educate them on the benefits and detriments. If anybody can think of a better way to ensure that those selected are well informed on what the bill has in it, I'm open to options.
Then, after all the debating, investigation, etc...They vote. I'm not sure whether majority or super-majority would be better, but with 500 people, you're 95% likely to be within ~4% of how the whole nation would vote - assuming they intensely investigated the bill for that length of time. I feel this would actually be a more accurate result than a nation-wide poll or vote, because we can't afford to have every citizen spend that much time on each vote. Hell, it's the job of senators to do that sort of stuff, and they can't keep up with the amount of proposed legislation today, and thus must trust the 'special interests', aids, and such.
So imagine a pickup truck with a "ludicrous" mode, not for acceleration, but for getting a trailer rolling.
Now I'm picturing a guy with a S-10 sized pickup pulling a F-350 out of a ditch via tow strap. Normally he wouldn't have enough traction, but because he has those batteries, his truck actually weighs about the same as the bigger vehicle. Power? Not a problem!
You're right, I've looked up - it's about 10-20 hp, or ~7.5-15kW. Even the 4.5kW generator I have might work as a range extender for a small strong EV - if it wasn't for it being louder then hell. A motorcycle or ATV engine with proper mufflers would work better.
Anyways - let's say I have a 300 mile EV that consumes 9 kW to maintain highway speeds. While the 4.5kW generator only fulfills half the demand, that's still going to double my range to 600 miles, which should take roughly 10 hours of driving. Which is about as long as you should drive anyways. Unless they put a bigger tank on the generator - it's going to need gasoline after approximately 5 hours anyways. You should be left with roughly 50% battery power at this point, which is plenty of slack to drive another hour or so. So let's say that you stop for gas, lunch, and a super-charger station for about an hour. By the time you get going again, you're almost back up to 100% on the batteries, the generator is full again, etc... Note: If a supercharger station isn't available, running the generator might be an option, especially if it can operate in parallel with another charging station.
Going by this, I could have a 150 mile EV, that consumes ~20kW on the road because it's towing, mount a ~15kW generator to the trailer, which I hook to the towing vehicle by a power cable. That way, I only have to hook up or unhook the trailer to take the generator along, presumably I don't need the generator unless I'm taking the trailer. I can use the generator, while still on the trailer to provide power to my house during an outage, or during a camping trip, at a remote work site, whatever.
That would give me approximately 600 miles of range assuming the fuel doesn't run out, and if I manage to exhaust the battery I just slow down some.
The model S and roadster use modified 18650 cells. They're 65.2mm long, and 18.6mm in diameter. They're mostly stacked end to end, so you're looking at about 2 cm per layer + armoring.
At least in my truck, there's room to put a battery box/structure under where the current bed is, and you'd want to keep SOME bed structure to protect the batteries as well as to support the load.
As for the protective compartment idea - I'd continue with what tesla did. The protection is built onto the bottom of the battery, and the battery bolts into it's support structure. That way you can just unscrew the bolts and replace the battery without worrying about other protective structures.
That makes him a good candidate for a personal mobility device such as a Segway.
You'd think so, but no. His balance is affected too much. As for the milk, remember that it used to be delivered. That's a business model(along with other groceries), that's coming back in some areas. He also needs to keep walking, otherwise he'd lose it quick.
One thing that I've read is that at least some Tesla models will vary their height - lower on the highway, higher off it where rougher pavement can be expected. If they produce a model that can lift itself 6-12", it'd look funny, but would probably work for mom, and maybe grandpa. But that's an awful lot of travel, and could be justified as a mobility device.
You could shove 4-8 model-s batteries under the bed of a full size pickup without sacrificing any cargo space. That would translate, probably, to 2-4 times the range.
Of course, $136k for 8 ~$17k battery packs would make it a little pricey.
Most however seem to drive them because the thing that at some point in time in the future they may need to tow or haul something even though they have never hauled or towed anything ever.
Going by my family, our aging population might be part of the issue. Modern cars are generally built very low to the ground for various reasons. They may be good for normal people. But my grandfather has spinal damage - he can't get into or out of standard modern cars. He HAS to have a van, truck, or SUV that he climbs into, not moving down into. Mom has developed arthritis like symptoms(the medical explanation went over my head), and she can no longer climb out of a car seat - I even have to help here climb out of a movie theater seat. Without assistance she'd essentially have to fall out of the vehicle and then get up. Or drive a SUV where she sits higher. I'm not sure about dad, it might simply be with him that when he bought the truck it was as a second vehicle where the bed was useful, and our family's tendencies to drive a vehicle until it doesn't work anymore(even if we buy new), so he's not trading out of it anytime soon. Of course, an S-10 isn't exactly a penis-replacement truck either.
Take my family experiences, combine with a US population that's getting older, and the 'SUV/Truck' craze might amount to the regulations making such vehicles a little cheaper for their size, combined with that said vehicles, being built higher, are simply easier to get into and out of than modern low-slung cars.
4 wheel drive can be satisfied with Subaru and such.
There are many times during the year when I may need to drive 300 miles round trip. If it won't make it then it's a non-starter.
Then we make it a hybrid. With a battery pack capable of hauling the truck itself ~150-200 miles, you add a small engine, possibly just a 4 cylinder. Maybe even just put it in the bed. A nice fuel-efficient 4 cylinder(that you are probably better off renting) would be able to keep the vehicle at modest highway speeds, and even if not, the by the time you exhaust the battery you're probably ready for a stop anyways.
You could build the battery packs right under the bed, no problem.
And it'd even fix the winter traction issue. I looked under my truck to kind of figure out how I'd electrify it, and there's plenty of room under there for batteries.
Slashdot Mirror
The conversion from petajoules a second to Terra Watt hours was to give those too lazy to make a conversion some context. If you are in possesion of the figures for the lifetime heat output of a AP1000 in petajoules then perhaps we can discuss it in that frame of reference?
Well yeah, given that you're converting watts(joules/second = watts) to joules improperly.
My veiw is we are debating two types of Nuclear Reactors, one (EPR) with systems that have been used and tested and one (AP1000) with a untested design compared to (GenII) established reactors.
Define 'tested'. At one point the EPR systems were untested. I've read the reports. There were some issues with the AP1000 dome at first, they redesigned it a bit and satisfied the regulators.
To repeat: I have read your numerous gripes about the AP1000 dome and found them wanting and petty. You say it's untested, it's not. The AP1000 design is a evolution of the AP600 design which is an evolution of even earlier designs. You complain there's not enough concrete in the dome. I point out that the amount of concrete is less important than the ability to remove heat. You say it's untested. I do the research and find that it is.
But to go a step further: I DON'T WANT TO BE DEBATING SPECIFIC REACTOR DESIGNS. I'm not trying to argue the benefits of one design over another. If I'm going to do that, I'd be pushing molten-salt Thorium.
Cars aren't highly radioactive at the end of their service life and they don't release radionuclides in an accident, so I think reactors are too complex to be compared to cars.
And I should listen to somebody who fails at analogies why? Hell, if it makes you happier, substitute 'EPR' and 'AP1000' for the modern cars and 'GenII reactors' for the Model-T. The point is either of the new reactors is a couple OOMs safer than the old reactors. We can't realistically get rid of the old reactors until we get new reactors built.
Even though aircraft still aren't as complex as a nuclear reactor, do you think aviation authorities would allow an untested aircraft design to make regular service routes with passengers?
Except it's not untested. You're just disregarding the testing. And if you think that aircraft aren't as complex as a nuclear reactor, I think you're full of it. Or maybe I'm more familiar with how complex modern(ish) aircraft are.
Not unless you can change the laws of physics and stop neutrons from bombarding the inside of the reactor vessel. That is what limits the service life of a nuclear reactor to 40-60 years.
Except of course that we now have a bunch of them still operating that are older than that.
You're correct, I need to remember to be careful about using 'all'. To my knowledge, said solar shingles haven't progressed beyond test installs and such.
If I lived in Arizona, Heck, any of the Southern states, I'd consider covered parking a perk worth perhaps paying a touch more in the store for. Plus, from a business standpoint there's a lot to be said for such an install.
1. If I phrase it as the carport structure as not being a carport, but as necessary support structure to get the solar panels safely over the cars, I can deduct and get credits for my carport as part of the solar install.
2. There's various credits and deductions with said install.
3. The power provided helps lower my max energy usage - companies are billed not only by total power used, but by maximum wattage. IE it's cheaper for me to use 100 watts continuously than 2400 watts for 1 hour a day. The daytime power from the panels will reduce the increase in power usage during business hours. Set my AC systems up to 'supercool' during that time frame to keep the temperature good once the sun comes down until my power starts dropping.
4. As you mention, car ports in heavily lit areas down south is a perk. I can attract a 'higher class' of customers that way.
5. For that matter, it saves energy in cooling costs. People burn less gasoline running the AC for their cars, especially with remote starters and such. Raised solar panels(and a few inches is sufficient) can act as a sun screen for your building, substantially dropping AC energy requirements, to the point that I remember some buildings having non-solar screens way back in the day. The energy gained from solar energy is a economic boost in such a case.
Is it just more publicized than that in other sports?
I think it really is more publicized. Consider that doping scandals have hit nearly every professional sport - including golf. Even baseball has had it's share with things like 'cored' bats.
Bicycling is just the one sport where a motor would be both useful and could be implemented in a way that would be 'hard' to spot.
Roofs also need maintenance and replacing, and this is not cheap as any homeowner knows -- so the material displacement theory has to compete with that as well, though currently many rooftop solar installations do not replace shingles.
Currently ALL solar rooftop installs over structures such as houses don't replace shingles or other roofing materials. The problem is one of tightness - solar panels as direct roofing material is currently too 'leaky'. With a car port, this isn't a big deal. Hell, the panels are also structural, so they're replacing the shingles, the tar paper, plywood, AND most of the 2x4 supports. They basically only need edge support, which is easy to provide with beams.
They also tend to be semi-transparent, though that could be fixed if they were designed to replace a roof with a aluminum backing or something.
Basically, the engineering to use them over what I'd consider critical structures(IE homes) as opposed to non-critical structures(IE carport) hasn't been done or finished yet.
Yeah, I've seen that too. They use money to measure industrial energy consumption and convert that to petajoules.
Ah, problem is that this isn't a valid conversion. Electric energy is 'more valuable' than heat energy, just to start with.
less likley of an incident in what?
Than currently existing reactors. My view is that we're debating the safety differences between a Honda Civic and a Toyota Corolla when everybody currently on the road are driving Model T Fords.
I can't see it happening. Nuclear power is too expensive, there is no energetic return. It maybe fantastic and amazing but it is also pointless.
There's plenty of energetic return.
As decaying relics of a selfish era after being operated for 40 or maybe 60 years.
The way things are going, they'll still be around after 100, like the B-52.
It could be very difficult to keep the random 500 people from accepting bribes. It's actually a lot easier to monitor congressmen for corruption, at least they're around for 2+ years.
Treat them like jurors - their names are to be unknown, somewhat sequestered, and most 'trials' would only last a couple months, which would be tough to break the anonymity, find a corruptible juror that doesn't want the reward for reporting a bribe attempt, etc...
The problem with monitoring congressmen is that they're around long enough for 'corrupting' one to matter, and they're always in need of re-election money. Most of the time if you're engaging in bribery you're not bribing a random congressman, you're bribing a specific one who's in the correct sub-committee.
With no sub-committees, no majority/minority leaders, etc... You're looking at having to bribe enough of them to matter. The more you bribe, the more likely it's to come out and get your hand slapped.
I'm not being stupidly picky - 60% is 'has a position that I can live with'. I'm not one to argue much between whether something is 50k or 60k. I'm pro-choice, but view somebody that wants to ban 3rd trimester abortions outside of 'medical necessity' as okay, given that essentially 100% of 3rd trimester abortions are already medically necessary with a non-viable fetus because otherwise it's an 'emergency c-section', not an abortion.
Whether a tax is set to 25% or 26% isn't that big of a deal in most cases. Etc...
My highest match in this presidential election - including ALL runners on both sides, was 70% using the online poles.
Needs permits since it's above ground, hides the views of rich people and gives everybody living there a right to object, on the roads they can do whatever they want. 1 owner, no permits.
1. Do you think that the Highway division needs permits for it's structures? It's the same organization putting down pavement or putting up roadsigns and bridges.
2. I think that 'hides the views of rich people' should be rephrased - such panels would block the highway from view, and reflect some of the noise. Would be a NET POSITIVE for rich people living in the area. I don't think they'd object to the lessening of the impact of highway visibility and noise. They already put panels and such up in some areas to isolate the highways a bit.
You'd just be strategic where you put them first.
A solar car port makes a lot of sense if you're going to be making a car port* anyways because the solar panels can be the roof itself. The displacement of the roofing materials makes the solar panels a relatively cheap upgrade.
As for 6x the cost of 'standard electricity' - you need to update your figures and realize that not all electricity is that cheap. It's under 2X for competently done installs even before rebates and such.
If you have semi-frequent outages the reduction in generator load(during the day at least), makes it even more economical.
*In this case a 'car port' is a partial shelter option for a car. IE a roof, maybe a side panel. Intended to keep the rain and sun off of cars in areas normally hotter than temperate. Not a complete shelter.
Okay, first up: I analyzed the 'Solar Freaking Roadways!!!' proposals so I know the arguments, though I think they glossed over or ignored numerous problems. My end thought was that it might be a neat system for a pedestrian walk area, where you don't have anything bigger than a golf cart traversing it.
That being said, I'm always willing to be proven wrong - it's relatively easy to get me to agree to a 100m/1km/1 Mile or so 'test strip'. 100m, for example, is long enough to get a truck completely onto the solar surface and drive for a bit - because the interface might be a destruction point. Something to study, obviously.
Okay, the reasoning for 'solar roads' is a combination of displacement and synchronicity. By displacement, we mean that the surface of a properly constructed solar panel displaces other construction material - pavement, for a road. For something like a 'solar car park', solar panels are strong enough to replace the roof, not supplement it.
- Problem: Pavement is relatively incredibly cheap and durable.
Synchronicity: By this I mean that the substitution provides additional benefits. Solar roadways, for example, boasts that you could incorporate heating elements into their units such that when it snows you can avoid the need for plowing by melting the snow off the roads, then recoup the heat used via the solar panels. Problem - I don't think they've thought about heavy snows and that you get less light in winter.
Another 'benefit' would be using LED lighting to enable 'remapping' the control lanes on a road, signaling when it's safe to pass, etc...
They even said that the solar roads would be easier to repair - have a busted hexagonal panel? Pull up with a truck that has a robot arm that automatically unbolts and lifts the damaged panel and locks a replacement in. Each panel is supposed to be cheap because it's made in an automated factory.
As such, using the panels as 'roadway shade/shelter' such that things like rain and snow don't reach the road at all, and probably even block direct sun, is a much better use.
Size of the ballot paper would be huge and would be asking too much of voters too.
Not really, I'd just read up some stuff, decide on a party, and vote for that party. That party has a list of people to be elected, and depending on how much of the vote they get, that's how many members are elected.
I'd sure like to have somebody in congress who matches me at around 90%, rather than the 60% I normally get as a *best* option.
I've had thoughts about government. One idea I had was to get rid of congress as a law passing body entirely. They're too tied into popularity contests, donations by extremist wealthy people, etc... They could still write laws or something.
Instead, let's go statistical. When a bill is proposed, you pull in around 500 random eligible citizens. Call them a 'specific representational congress' or something. Think of it like jury duty crossed with legislation, and be sure to pay them well so they aren't moaning about losing money. The supporters and detractors of the bill go through the bill with the selected citizens, having a relatively large amount of time to educate them on the benefits and detriments. If anybody can think of a better way to ensure that those selected are well informed on what the bill has in it, I'm open to options.
Then, after all the debating, investigation, etc...They vote. I'm not sure whether majority or super-majority would be better, but with 500 people, you're 95% likely to be within ~4% of how the whole nation would vote - assuming they intensely investigated the bill for that length of time. I feel this would actually be a more accurate result than a nation-wide poll or vote, because we can't afford to have every citizen spend that much time on each vote. Hell, it's the job of senators to do that sort of stuff, and they can't keep up with the amount of proposed legislation today, and thus must trust the 'special interests', aids, and such.
So imagine a pickup truck with a "ludicrous" mode, not for acceleration, but for getting a trailer rolling.
Now I'm picturing a guy with a S-10 sized pickup pulling a F-350 out of a ditch via tow strap. Normally he wouldn't have enough traction, but because he has those batteries, his truck actually weighs about the same as the bigger vehicle. Power? Not a problem!
You're right, I've looked up - it's about 10-20 hp, or ~7.5-15kW. Even the 4.5kW generator I have might work as a range extender for a small strong EV - if it wasn't for it being louder then hell. A motorcycle or ATV engine with proper mufflers would work better.
Anyways - let's say I have a 300 mile EV that consumes 9 kW to maintain highway speeds. While the 4.5kW generator only fulfills half the demand, that's still going to double my range to 600 miles, which should take roughly 10 hours of driving. Which is about as long as you should drive anyways. Unless they put a bigger tank on the generator - it's going to need gasoline after approximately 5 hours anyways. You should be left with roughly 50% battery power at this point, which is plenty of slack to drive another hour or so. So let's say that you stop for gas, lunch, and a super-charger station for about an hour. By the time you get going again, you're almost back up to 100% on the batteries, the generator is full again, etc... Note: If a supercharger station isn't available, running the generator might be an option, especially if it can operate in parallel with another charging station.
Going by this, I could have a 150 mile EV, that consumes ~20kW on the road because it's towing, mount a ~15kW generator to the trailer, which I hook to the towing vehicle by a power cable. That way, I only have to hook up or unhook the trailer to take the generator along, presumably I don't need the generator unless I'm taking the trailer. I can use the generator, while still on the trailer to provide power to my house during an outage, or during a camping trip, at a remote work site, whatever.
That would give me approximately 600 miles of range assuming the fuel doesn't run out, and if I manage to exhaust the battery I just slow down some.
Yeah, I agree - note that I mentioned 'putting it in the bed' and 'renting'.
You leave the weight off when you don't need it.
100% torque electric motor at 0 rpm is very good for towing stuff.
Yes, the aerodynamic drag is an issue, which is why I suggested making the truck a hybrid.
The model S and roadster use modified 18650 cells. They're 65.2mm long, and 18.6mm in diameter. They're mostly stacked end to end, so you're looking at about 2 cm per layer + armoring.
At least in my truck, there's room to put a battery box/structure under where the current bed is, and you'd want to keep SOME bed structure to protect the batteries as well as to support the load.
As for the protective compartment idea - I'd continue with what tesla did. The protection is built onto the bottom of the battery, and the battery bolts into it's support structure. That way you can just unscrew the bolts and replace the battery without worrying about other protective structures.
That makes him a good candidate for a personal mobility device such as a Segway.
You'd think so, but no. His balance is affected too much. As for the milk, remember that it used to be delivered. That's a business model(along with other groceries), that's coming back in some areas. He also needs to keep walking, otherwise he'd lose it quick.
One thing that I've read is that at least some Tesla models will vary their height - lower on the highway, higher off it where rougher pavement can be expected. If they produce a model that can lift itself 6-12", it'd look funny, but would probably work for mom, and maybe grandpa. But that's an awful lot of travel, and could be justified as a mobility device.
Wait, what do you mean by "cargo space"?
You could shove 4-8 model-s batteries under the bed of a full size pickup without sacrificing any cargo space. That would translate, probably, to 2-4 times the range.
Of course, $136k for 8 ~$17k battery packs would make it a little pricey.
A Model S battery is already proportionally flatter than a cell phone battery.
At that point you stick it UNDER the bed, like how it's on the bottom of a model S, and you don't lose any storage.
Most however seem to drive them because the thing that at some point in time in the future they may need to tow or haul something even though they have never hauled or towed anything ever.
Going by my family, our aging population might be part of the issue. Modern cars are generally built very low to the ground for various reasons. They may be good for normal people. But my grandfather has spinal damage - he can't get into or out of standard modern cars. He HAS to have a van, truck, or SUV that he climbs into, not moving down into. Mom has developed arthritis like symptoms(the medical explanation went over my head), and she can no longer climb out of a car seat - I even have to help here climb out of a movie theater seat. Without assistance she'd essentially have to fall out of the vehicle and then get up. Or drive a SUV where she sits higher. I'm not sure about dad, it might simply be with him that when he bought the truck it was as a second vehicle where the bed was useful, and our family's tendencies to drive a vehicle until it doesn't work anymore(even if we buy new), so he's not trading out of it anytime soon. Of course, an S-10 isn't exactly a penis-replacement truck either.
Take my family experiences, combine with a US population that's getting older, and the 'SUV/Truck' craze might amount to the regulations making such vehicles a little cheaper for their size, combined with that said vehicles, being built higher, are simply easier to get into and out of than modern low-slung cars.
4 wheel drive can be satisfied with Subaru and such.
There are many times during the year when I may need to drive 300 miles round trip. If it won't make it then it's a non-starter.
Then we make it a hybrid. With a battery pack capable of hauling the truck itself ~150-200 miles, you add a small engine, possibly just a 4 cylinder. Maybe even just put it in the bed. A nice fuel-efficient 4 cylinder(that you are probably better off renting) would be able to keep the vehicle at modest highway speeds, and even if not, the by the time you exhaust the battery you're probably ready for a stop anyways.
You could build the battery packs right under the bed, no problem.
And it'd even fix the winter traction issue. I looked under my truck to kind of figure out how I'd electrify it, and there's plenty of room under there for batteries.
It's because of the up-front costs, the savings are actually fairly minor.