The simple solution here would be to have some sane limits.
IE if plaintiff #1 spends $5k on the case and loses against a guy who spends $100k, maybe #1's liability should be limited to something around $5k.
Or have the judge make a decision - without basis: loser pays has basis: IE the situation was complicated enough that yes, a court was needed. No court costs.
Note: "No basis" would include a company dragged into court for something it should darn well have paid for earlier and without the fuss.
How is there any risk if you have a legitimate case?
Because the rules have certain deadlines and the dude simply keeps sending them until you miss one. Also, you need to be lawyer or otherwise have heard about the rule with the deadline to know of it's importance.
I'd be suing the guy for court costs simply as a scorched earth defensive measure - I want to be on the fucking list of "don't bother trying to sue this guy, not only is he judgement proof, he'll turn around and press his own court case to simply cost you money".
It's the same deal as not paying kidnappers. Pay them and you simply paint a bigger target on yourself for kidnappings.
If it's one thing that I've learned over my life, it's that human nature doesn't change.
So, while I fully agree that you can find differences in mindset between Norway and the USA, while the center may be different, there's a core underlayment that will remain the same. And thus amount to much the same.
Though after sleeping on it, I have to stop thinking of 2025 as 'far in the future' and switch to 2050. After all, 2025 is just over 1 dual term president away...
I was talking about the USA, where there are political forces in play that have actually banned Tesla dealerships.
There's no such thing as a Tesla "dealership", which is actually the problem, because many states have mandated that manufacturers can't sell cars directly, that they must be sold through dealerships.
While I object to such laws as well, let's not pretend that it's because Teslas are electric. Indeed, they're getting away with more exceptions to the franchise laws than they would have if they were traditional gasoline vehicles.
People would still be able to sell their vehicles - it mentioned that it'd be a ban on NEW car sales. So it'd probably be like other bans around - you get a boost in sales right before the ban goes into place. Saw that with incandescent light bulbs here in the USA. Even though they're really still available - 'special duty', 'industrial', 'utility', etc... They still sell them for use in fridges, ovens, etc...
So, given that vehicles are averaging something like 15 years now, what I figure is that you'd see a lot of cars bought before the ban becomes effective, giving everybody 20+ years of gasoline powered vehicle if they want it.
After that, you'll probably have some loopholes - farm vehicles and such. Importing of used vs new vehicles. That sort of thing.
That being said, somebody else said that it was a proposal from a minority party, not something actually seriously considered.
Kind of what I figured. Exempt Diesel, CNG, vehicles for those living outside urban areas, vehicles 'designed for towing'(without checking to see if the buy will actually tow anything), motorcycles, etc...
Besides the whole 'minority of a minority party proposed this', there's plenty of ways to water it down to uselessness, even if it's not like a second term president issuing an executive order to become effective in 12 years. When him AND his successor are gone, and the successor or his successor can simply rescind or push back the order.
A lot of people get the idea that cold weather kills batteris because that's when they seem to fail. Heat has been killing the thing for a long time before the actual failure point.
Indeed, cold weather tends to preserve them.
However, sufficient cold will temporarily reduce the power of the batter, while heat will permanently reduce it, it's just that the temporary loss is greater than the permanent. Doesn't help that you need more power to start a cold engine.
So you could, theoretically speaking, ship many 'failed' batteries that are a decade old from Alaska, where they can no longer start a car at -40, down to where it never gets below 0, and get at least a few more years out of them.
I'm willing to bet that the 'resolution' is like a lot of resolutions - full of sound and fury, but set so far in the future that it can be quietly 'forgotten' by everybody but a few extremists, and the new administration, not feeling bound by what their predecessors promised, can either disclaim the resolution or push it back. "Sorry, technology didn't progress quite as fast as they hoped".
There will probably also be huge gaping loopholes. To use the USA as an example, "commercial trucks" were, and in many cases still are, exempt from some of the more stringent pollution and mileage requirements.
One problem that this caused is that the mileage requirements actually drove more people to drive trucks - that could have the abilities they were looking for. So in some ways, the EPA requirements actually drove increased gasoline usage, because the different layers of regulation drove some people to drive less fuel efficient vehicles.
You acknowledged that government might have a useful function and mentioned taxes without using phrases like "literally parasitic theft of my lifeblood at the point of a stormtrooper's gun".
That's an anarchist. Given that there's 3 major federal agencies that I would eliminate pretty much completely given the chance, you're right, I'm not a Republican.
Randians are also, if they knew their roots, not libertarians, though they come up with the same theories by coincidence, not similarity of thought.
Plus, if you're a lesbian creeping it up in the women's room, or a gay guy creeping up the men's room, there are still legal solutions to that problem.
Note: I'm NOT saying that homosexual people are creepers. I'm saying that IF you happen to get somebody who's both, or just that fucked up, the problem is fixable under current rules in at least most states. There might be a state that has fucked up laws.
Personally, I'm for unisex bathrooms - beef up the stalls, provide a changing room, call it a day.
Indeed, I am a libertarian, you dirty anarcho capitalist scum*, and my philosophy has approximately zero in the way of even caring about somebody's gender beyond 'why the hell should we poke our noses in?' because the republicans and democrats care.
Uber is explicitly not a ride sharing service. It's clearly a for hire service. Which translates to "You need your commercial license" for flying.
There's a reason why I chose to italicize the word 'sharing'.
That being said, it could still lead to more flying. With a general license, for example, I could hang out my offer every weekend, with the caveat that I cancel if there's nobody to split my trip with. Like say I want to spend a weekend vacationing, but am flexible on the dates.
As you say, there's lots of scam artists out there. Holmes doesn't hold a candle on Bernie Madoff, for example.
But still, I think one could make the argument that she used her gender to increase her success. Madoff, for example, used his being Jewish to seem more trustworthy in the Jewish community, allowing him to obtain more investors. She could have done the same with the 'feminist' community, who may have invested in her, at least partially, as a political statement.
Same deal with her deliberately manipulating her image to create associations with Steve Jobs.
Personally I'm saddened she turned out to be a fraud. I was so hyped about the possibility of 'hundreds of medical tests on a chip!'.
Excepting that, as with traditional ride sharing, as opposed to hiring, the pilot was making that flight anyways, and he's fully certified for general flying, just not taking paying passengers.
Well, as I posted, Tesla supercharger stations are 120kW NOW, and you posited one 10X as powerful. The math is simple...
Tesla is releasing a 100kWh Model-S 'soonish'.
In order to charge it completely, assuming no chemical limitations, it would take 100 kW for 1 hour in order to charge it from 0% to 100%. In reality, it still being at 10% would be offset that the AC-DC transformation isn't 100% efficient, so 100kW into the car might be 110kW into the charging station. Whatever, general figures.
So you want to charge the car in 6 minutes. That will be 1 MW, yes? The situation only becomes worse if the 'chemical limits force slower charging near full charge', because a battery capable of being charged in 6 minutes but with that limit would need MORE power during it's peak charge to keep a full charge at 6 minutes as it's forced to slow when it gets above 80-90%.
So, no, current cars can't take a megawatt when charging. But They could if you switched to a battery chemistry that can charge '20X faster'.
Seems that there are several branches of libertarianism. One seems to be the survivalist-hut-in-montanna-no-taxes sort. The other seems to be in favour of as much freedom as possible, and taxes because that's how to actually implement that.
I like to say that if you ask a dozen libertarians for their opinion on something, you'll get two dozen answers, and I'm not talking about minor wording differences.
I also think that we have a number of 'members' who are anarchists trying to get away from the name.
That being said, I'm more of a classical libertarian. I might not like taxes(who does?), but I recognize that if you're going to have government services that they need to be paid for.
You said (I can't find the quote button in Slashdot, this is the crappiest designed forum I've ever used):
There is no quote button, and yes, slashdot is rather old school. Wrap 'quote' and '/quote' up in html style tags and you have your quote. Faster than a button if you're a typist like I am.
But non-fast charging stations will need the very same wattage. Exactly the same. Because the number of joules the cars take before leaving is identical. Charging speed = convenience, not power supply requirements.
Nope, they'll need more, at least outside of very specific scenarios. Yes, if you go from 10 120kW stations to 1 1200kW station, the wattage need will remain the same. However, as I've stated before, the current installs are often 4-8 120kW stations, which means that going from 560kW total to 1200kW total will probably require wiring upgrades. Do you see where I'm coming from now?
In addition, going from 10 chargers to 1 charger might make some sense when you're going from 75 minutes for a full charge to 7.5, but consider real world examples - they aren't going to want 1 charger.
Consider the scenario of a maximally used charger station. You're right that the power demands will be equal if you have a car pull up every 7.5 minutes to do a charge, vs a new car pulling in every 7.5 minutes to replace the just leaving one in a 10 car 75 minute station.
But what if, instead of 1 car every 7.5 minutes, it's 10 cars all at once? Statistically speaking, you're going to have a car rolling up to an occupied spot over half the time. 7.5 minutes within an order of magnitude of a gas station, after all, and have you noticed how stations will be empty much of the time, but come rush hour?
I was explaining (which you appear to be saying now aswell) that one fast charger is the same watts as 10 slow chargers.
Hmm... Since we're getting nitpicky, you were the one to pick the 10:1 example. I'm not going to say that 'one fast charger' is the same as '10 slow chargers' because that's all up to whatever implementation of a theoretical standard we're looking at.
I merely mentioned that superchargers - which I've mentioned are installed in groups of 2-6, are pushing the capacity of local switching yards. okay, it seems that 4-8 is a better answer.
To better define the issue, a supercharger can currently take a Tesla up to 80% in 40 minutes, 100% charge in 75. Note: The last 20% taking as much time as the first 80% is due to LiIon charging limitations.
In order to do this, each charging station is up to 120kW. This is approximately 3 houses at full 'main breaker almost popping' draw. 10 of them would be roughly 300 houses at average expected peak draw.
I worked out or read somewhere once that most of us use about the same amount of fuel in our household as we do in our cars, so even if everyone changed to electric cars right now, we'd only need to double the capacity of the substations. Now since it's going to take a very long time for everyone to change over, I'm sure the substation upgrades can keep up.
When I figured it out, it was 50% - average household miles, using average EV miles per kWh, average household electric usage. High amount of variability, of course.
That means that, statistically speaking, some substations will need upgrades just because, statistically speaking, some will be on the line anyways, but not as much as you might think - they have to be sized for peak load, and the cars can charge off-peak.
Nope. 10 people want to charge their car at a certain charging station every hour. Currently 10 cars will be on charge at a rate of x watts each for 1 hour each. Power requirement = 10x watts.
You're acting like I don't understand basic math. Need for a remedial integer addition course aside, I kinda get math. My point is more real-world: There aren't currently 10 charging stations. There's 2-6. Ergo if 10 EVs roll up they'd have to wait even under slow charging.
Putting superchargers into a parking lot is a major electrical upgrade, even if it's just a double-station. Putting 10 in, like I said, can force an upgrade to the local switching station. You may even have situations where they have more headers than they can support at full charge capacity, requiring that charging speed be slowed if all or most headers are in use, or the newcomers having to wait for a fast charge until capacity is available.
The extra headers are still handy in such a case because you can at least plug in and get into the queue, rather than, say, having to wait 10 minutes with your vehicle waiting for a spot to open.
It doesn't matter whether you put in 10 supercharger stations, or 1 uber-supercharger*. If you want all of them to be usable at once, there is a very real likelihood that the closest switching yard is going to need to be upgraded, and that might include the line to the switching yard being upgraded - whether an additional line is run, a heavier line pulled in place of a current one, or they tweak the voltage up (7kV to 12kV, for example), you're talking about a capacity increase.
Right now Tesla has a great deal of flexibility in installing it's stations, and they're the highest power stations out there. They can afford to vary their install locations to only target substations with the excess capacity to begin with, or work with the power companies to get the substations upgraded behind the scenes long before the supercharger station goes in.
Electrical connections are rated in watts of capacity. You want to move more watts, you eventually need a beefier connection. Supercharger connections are already quite beefy, to the point that they're reaching the zone where the local commercial substation will need to be beefed up if you want them to deliver roughly 5x more watts*.
Considering that lots of supercharger stations are only 2 spots? And you gotta build in for the spread of more EVs as they get better?
Beefier grid will be required.
*going from a 1 hour charge to a 12 minute one. It's less than 20X, but the 20X might be the carbon battery's peak improvement over LiIon. There could be wide bands where the advantage is less.
Bigger supply wires isn't that difficult. Anyway, consider a charging station charging 10 cars slowly. Now change that station to charge 1 car 10 times faster. Same watts needed for the station, but the drivers get to leave quickly.
Superchargers are already pushing the limits to the power you can push to a spot without serious re-engineering of the grid.
As for more volume - you just make the sled under the car thicker.
Cost wise - there's not much lithium in a LiIon battery, oddly enough, and the gigafactory and such are supposed to drop the price by at least half. So the question of whether the battery would still be cheaper comes up.
They can be hard to find in mountains too, but "500 feet altitude" is hard to define amongst 14,000 foot mountains.
Fortunately, there's not many oceans at 14k feet, so we could define the ejection altitude at a more or less constant '500 feet above sealevel', not ground level.
Though you might want to adjust that to 1k feet it it'll be flying over the great lakes.
Hmm... How to guarantee separation, but minimize separation between the plane and the box's final location? A plane could glide or fly for several miles after the box pops out.
What if we put the box on a strap that will pull it along until buoyancy or water causes it to break or disconnect?
IE - hits 500/1000 feet too far from an airport. Device pops out, starts transmitting SOS. Plane hits water, box briefly submerges, strap disconnects, popping box, still squawking, back to the surface of the water.
I'm not sure. I just hit 'enter'. I'm using 'plain old text' though. Maybe you're set on 'HTML formatted'? In which case you'd need to use p and br tags.
As for the aluminum battery - more expensive than recharging, theoretically about the same as gasoline, if I remember right.
As for your link, I'll note that they're saying, if it works out, that it's the same energy density as LiIon, making the only benefits be 'cheaper' and 'can charge faster'.
While that would be highly useful for a cell phone, the limitation for an EV becomes that of how do you supply the watts? The article goofs a bit - the limitation for charging a battery is more by chemistry than by size. IE you'd still be able to charge a Tesla 85kWh battery in 12 minutes, same as the 24kWh Leaf battery - but it'd take 3.5 times the watts to do so. And supercharger stations already push a ridiculous number of watts into a Model-S battery.
On the other hand, if your area is that developed, how likely is a crashed plane to be hard to find? To my knowledge, large plane crashes on land are not hard to find.
A floating black box, maybe 2-4 of them, that's designed to eject from the plane if it becomes immersed might be much more useful. While you're at it, put a satellite emergency beacon on them so you have a very good idea of where the plane hit the water.
...How'd I miss that? Okay, I was being an idiot when I wrote that. Sorry. Let me be honest enough to admit to screwing up, even if it's just an internet debate.
Let's see, now that I have something of an idea of what you're talking about. I do support quite a few programs, though as I said before, everything interlinks, so if it's beneficial to society as a whole, it's beneficial to me as well, even if not directly. As I try to think of an example, I discover that I'm very good at coming up with indirect links.
Okay - how about a different aspect of my opposition to the war on drugs - I support legalizing, taxing, and regulating more than just Marijuana. Part of the reason for taxing would be to fund addiction treatment centers. Basically the same idea as behind tobacco cessation programs - there's so many different programs funding that that I think that you'd actually have to try to find a smoker who doesn't qualify for a subsidized, if not free, program.
As a non-addict, it doesn't benefit me directly, though indirectly you have the theoretical reduction in crime, making me less likely to be a victim.
Really? Because I'm pretty much in favour of the welfare state, council housing and all of that stuff. I'm a homeowner and so I'm never going to qualify for a council house.
Ah, UK citizen, right? Well, for one I'd say 'never say never', because you never know. Fall on hard times, lose the house somehow, etc...
That being said, I might actually be more radical than you in that aspect. You see, libertarians aren't necessarily against welfare. Now, don't get me wrong, we're against it as it's currently implemented, but we're not against the concept. Quite the contrary. I support replacing welfare with a basic income guarantee. Means tested welfare that is paid out in a dozen different ways is inefficient, and creates incentives to stay on it.
I'm also generally fine with infrastructure in areas I'm not going to. I recognize that you need that 'everywhere'.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple solution here would be to have some sane limits.
IE if plaintiff #1 spends $5k on the case and loses against a guy who spends $100k, maybe #1's liability should be limited to something around $5k.
Or have the judge make a decision -
without basis: loser pays
has basis: IE the situation was complicated enough that yes, a court was needed. No court costs.
Note: "No basis" would include a company dragged into court for something it should darn well have paid for earlier and without the fuss.
How is there any risk if you have a legitimate case?
Because the rules have certain deadlines and the dude simply keeps sending them until you miss one. Also, you need to be lawyer or otherwise have heard about the rule with the deadline to know of it's importance.
I'd be suing the guy for court costs simply as a scorched earth defensive measure - I want to be on the fucking list of "don't bother trying to sue this guy, not only is he judgement proof, he'll turn around and press his own court case to simply cost you money".
It's the same deal as not paying kidnappers. Pay them and you simply paint a bigger target on yourself for kidnappings.
If it's one thing that I've learned over my life, it's that human nature doesn't change.
So, while I fully agree that you can find differences in mindset between Norway and the USA, while the center may be different, there's a core underlayment that will remain the same. And thus amount to much the same.
Though after sleeping on it, I have to stop thinking of 2025 as 'far in the future' and switch to 2050. After all, 2025 is just over 1 dual term president away...
I was talking about the USA, where there are political forces in play that have actually banned Tesla dealerships.
There's no such thing as a Tesla "dealership", which is actually the problem, because many states have mandated that manufacturers can't sell cars directly, that they must be sold through dealerships.
While I object to such laws as well, let's not pretend that it's because Teslas are electric. Indeed, they're getting away with more exceptions to the franchise laws than they would have if they were traditional gasoline vehicles.
People would still be able to sell their vehicles - it mentioned that it'd be a ban on NEW car sales. So it'd probably be like other bans around - you get a boost in sales right before the ban goes into place. Saw that with incandescent light bulbs here in the USA. Even though they're really still available - 'special duty', 'industrial', 'utility', etc... They still sell them for use in fridges, ovens, etc...
So, given that vehicles are averaging something like 15 years now, what I figure is that you'd see a lot of cars bought before the ban becomes effective, giving everybody 20+ years of gasoline powered vehicle if they want it.
After that, you'll probably have some loopholes - farm vehicles and such. Importing of used vs new vehicles. That sort of thing.
That being said, somebody else said that it was a proposal from a minority party, not something actually seriously considered.
Kind of what I figured. Exempt Diesel, CNG, vehicles for those living outside urban areas, vehicles 'designed for towing'(without checking to see if the buy will actually tow anything), motorcycles, etc...
Besides the whole 'minority of a minority party proposed this', there's plenty of ways to water it down to uselessness, even if it's not like a second term president issuing an executive order to become effective in 12 years. When him AND his successor are gone, and the successor or his successor can simply rescind or push back the order.
A lot of people get the idea that cold weather kills batteris because that's when they seem to fail. Heat has been killing the thing for a long time before the actual failure point.
Indeed, cold weather tends to preserve them.
However, sufficient cold will temporarily reduce the power of the batter, while heat will permanently reduce it, it's just that the temporary loss is greater than the permanent. Doesn't help that you need more power to start a cold engine.
So you could, theoretically speaking, ship many 'failed' batteries that are a decade old from Alaska, where they can no longer start a car at -40, down to where it never gets below 0, and get at least a few more years out of them.
I'm willing to bet that the 'resolution' is like a lot of resolutions - full of sound and fury, but set so far in the future that it can be quietly 'forgotten' by everybody but a few extremists, and the new administration, not feeling bound by what their predecessors promised, can either disclaim the resolution or push it back. "Sorry, technology didn't progress quite as fast as they hoped".
There will probably also be huge gaping loopholes. To use the USA as an example, "commercial trucks" were, and in many cases still are, exempt from some of the more stringent pollution and mileage requirements.
One problem that this caused is that the mileage requirements actually drove more people to drive trucks - that could have the abilities they were looking for. So in some ways, the EPA requirements actually drove increased gasoline usage, because the different layers of regulation drove some people to drive less fuel efficient vehicles.
You acknowledged that government might have a useful function and mentioned taxes without using phrases like "literally parasitic theft of my lifeblood at the point of a stormtrooper's gun".
That's an anarchist. Given that there's 3 major federal agencies that I would eliminate pretty much completely given the chance, you're right, I'm not a Republican.
Randians are also, if they knew their roots, not libertarians, though they come up with the same theories by coincidence, not similarity of thought.
Plus, if you're a lesbian creeping it up in the women's room, or a gay guy creeping up the men's room, there are still legal solutions to that problem.
Note: I'm NOT saying that homosexual people are creepers. I'm saying that IF you happen to get somebody who's both, or just that fucked up, the problem is fixable under current rules in at least most states. There might be a state that has fucked up laws.
Personally, I'm for unisex bathrooms - beef up the stalls, provide a changing room, call it a day.
Indeed, I am a libertarian, you dirty anarcho capitalist scum*, and my philosophy has approximately zero in the way of even caring about somebody's gender beyond 'why the hell should we poke our noses in?' because the republicans and democrats care.
* ;)
Uber is explicitly not a ride sharing service. It's clearly a for hire service. Which translates to "You need your commercial license" for flying.
There's a reason why I chose to italicize the word 'sharing'.
That being said, it could still lead to more flying. With a general license, for example, I could hang out my offer every weekend, with the caveat that I cancel if there's nobody to split my trip with. Like say I want to spend a weekend vacationing, but am flexible on the dates.
As you say, there's lots of scam artists out there. Holmes doesn't hold a candle on Bernie Madoff, for example.
But still, I think one could make the argument that she used her gender to increase her success. Madoff, for example, used his being Jewish to seem more trustworthy in the Jewish community, allowing him to obtain more investors. She could have done the same with the 'feminist' community, who may have invested in her, at least partially, as a political statement.
Same deal with her deliberately manipulating her image to create associations with Steve Jobs.
Personally I'm saddened she turned out to be a fraud. I was so hyped about the possibility of 'hundreds of medical tests on a chip!'.
Excepting that, as with traditional ride sharing, as opposed to hiring, the pilot was making that flight anyways, and he's fully certified for general flying, just not taking paying passengers.
Well, as I posted, Tesla supercharger stations are 120kW NOW, and you posited one 10X as powerful. The math is simple...
Tesla is releasing a 100kWh Model-S 'soonish'.
In order to charge it completely, assuming no chemical limitations, it would take 100 kW for 1 hour in order to charge it from 0% to 100%. In reality, it still being at 10% would be offset that the AC-DC transformation isn't 100% efficient, so 100kW into the car might be 110kW into the charging station. Whatever, general figures.
So you want to charge the car in 6 minutes. That will be 1 MW, yes? The situation only becomes worse if the 'chemical limits force slower charging near full charge', because a battery capable of being charged in 6 minutes but with that limit would need MORE power during it's peak charge to keep a full charge at 6 minutes as it's forced to slow when it gets above 80-90%.
So, no, current cars can't take a megawatt when charging. But They could if you switched to a battery chemistry that can charge '20X faster'.
Seems that there are several branches of libertarianism. One seems to be the survivalist-hut-in-montanna-no-taxes sort. The other seems to be in favour of as much freedom as possible, and taxes because that's how to actually implement that.
I like to say that if you ask a dozen libertarians for their opinion on something, you'll get two dozen answers, and I'm not talking about minor wording differences.
I also think that we have a number of 'members' who are anarchists trying to get away from the name.
That being said, I'm more of a classical libertarian. I might not like taxes(who does?), but I recognize that if you're going to have government services that they need to be paid for.
You said (I can't find the quote button in Slashdot, this is the crappiest designed forum I've ever used):
There is no quote button, and yes, slashdot is rather old school. Wrap 'quote' and '/quote' up in html style tags and you have your quote. Faster than a button if you're a typist like I am.
But non-fast charging stations will need the very same wattage. Exactly the same. Because the number of joules the cars take before leaving is identical. Charging speed = convenience, not power supply requirements.
Nope, they'll need more, at least outside of very specific scenarios. Yes, if you go from 10 120kW stations to 1 1200kW station, the wattage need will remain the same. However, as I've stated before, the current installs are often 4-8 120kW stations, which means that going from 560kW total to 1200kW total will probably require wiring upgrades. Do you see where I'm coming from now?
In addition, going from 10 chargers to 1 charger might make some sense when you're going from 75 minutes for a full charge to 7.5, but consider real world examples - they aren't going to want 1 charger.
Consider the scenario of a maximally used charger station. You're right that the power demands will be equal if you have a car pull up every 7.5 minutes to do a charge, vs a new car pulling in every 7.5 minutes to replace the just leaving one in a 10 car 75 minute station.
But what if, instead of 1 car every 7.5 minutes, it's 10 cars all at once? Statistically speaking, you're going to have a car rolling up to an occupied spot over half the time. 7.5 minutes within an order of magnitude of a gas station, after all, and have you noticed how stations will be empty much of the time, but come rush hour?
I was explaining (which you appear to be saying now aswell) that one fast charger is the same watts as 10 slow chargers.
Hmm... Since we're getting nitpicky, you were the one to pick the 10:1 example. I'm not going to say that 'one fast charger' is the same as '10 slow chargers' because that's all up to whatever implementation of a theoretical standard we're looking at.
I merely mentioned that superchargers - which I've mentioned are installed in groups of 2-6, are pushing the capacity of local switching yards. okay, it seems that 4-8 is a better answer.
To better define the issue, a supercharger can currently take a Tesla up to 80% in 40 minutes, 100% charge in 75. Note: The last 20% taking as much time as the first 80% is due to LiIon charging limitations.
In order to do this, each charging station is up to 120kW. This is approximately 3 houses at full 'main breaker almost popping' draw. 10 of them would be roughly 300 houses at average expected peak draw.
I worked out or read somewhere once that most of us use about the same amount of fuel in our household as we do in our cars, so even if everyone changed to electric cars right now, we'd only need to double the capacity of the substations. Now since it's going to take a very long time for everyone to change over, I'm sure the substation upgrades can keep up.
When I figured it out, it was 50% - average household miles, using average EV miles per kWh, average household electric usage. High amount of variability, of course.
That means that, statistically speaking, some substations will need upgrades just because, statistically speaking, some will be on the line anyways, but not as much as you might think - they have to be sized for peak load, and the cars can charge off-peak.
Nope. 10 people want to charge their car at a certain charging station every hour. Currently 10 cars will be on charge at a rate of x watts each for 1 hour each. Power requirement = 10x watts.
You're acting like I don't understand basic math. Need for a remedial integer addition course aside, I kinda get math. My point is more real-world: There aren't currently 10 charging stations. There's 2-6. Ergo if 10 EVs roll up they'd have to wait even under slow charging.
Putting superchargers into a parking lot is a major electrical upgrade, even if it's just a double-station. Putting 10 in, like I said, can force an upgrade to the local switching station. You may even have situations where they have more headers than they can support at full charge capacity, requiring that charging speed be slowed if all or most headers are in use, or the newcomers having to wait for a fast charge until capacity is available.
The extra headers are still handy in such a case because you can at least plug in and get into the queue, rather than, say, having to wait 10 minutes with your vehicle waiting for a spot to open.
It doesn't matter whether you put in 10 supercharger stations, or 1 uber-supercharger*. If you want all of them to be usable at once, there is a very real likelihood that the closest switching yard is going to need to be upgraded, and that might include the line to the switching yard being upgraded - whether an additional line is run, a heavier line pulled in place of a current one, or they tweak the voltage up (7kV to 12kV, for example), you're talking about a capacity increase.
Right now Tesla has a great deal of flexibility in installing it's stations, and they're the highest power stations out there. They can afford to vary their install locations to only target substations with the excess capacity to begin with, or work with the power companies to get the substations upgraded behind the scenes long before the supercharger station goes in.
Charging a car faster doesn't need a bigger grid.
Electrical connections are rated in watts of capacity. You want to move more watts, you eventually need a beefier connection. Supercharger connections are already quite beefy, to the point that they're reaching the zone where the local commercial substation will need to be beefed up if you want them to deliver roughly 5x more watts*.
Considering that lots of supercharger stations are only 2 spots? And you gotta build in for the spread of more EVs as they get better?
Beefier grid will be required.
*going from a 1 hour charge to a 12 minute one. It's less than 20X, but the 20X might be the carbon battery's peak improvement over LiIon. There could be wide bands where the advantage is less.
Bigger supply wires isn't that difficult. Anyway, consider a charging station charging 10 cars slowly. Now change that station to charge 1 car 10 times faster. Same watts needed for the station, but the drivers get to leave quickly.
Superchargers are already pushing the limits to the power you can push to a spot without serious re-engineering of the grid.
As for more volume - you just make the sled under the car thicker.
Cost wise - there's not much lithium in a LiIon battery, oddly enough, and the gigafactory and such are supposed to drop the price by at least half. So the question of whether the battery would still be cheaper comes up.
They can be hard to find in mountains too, but "500 feet altitude" is hard to define amongst 14,000 foot mountains.
Fortunately, there's not many oceans at 14k feet, so we could define the ejection altitude at a more or less constant '500 feet above sealevel', not ground level.
Though you might want to adjust that to 1k feet it it'll be flying over the great lakes.
Hmm... How to guarantee separation, but minimize separation between the plane and the box's final location? A plane could glide or fly for several miles after the box pops out.
What if we put the box on a strap that will pull it along until buoyancy or water causes it to break or disconnect?
IE - hits 500/1000 feet too far from an airport. Device pops out, starts transmitting SOS. Plane hits water, box briefly submerges, strap disconnects, popping box, still squawking, back to the surface of the water.
I'm not sure. I just hit 'enter'. I'm using 'plain old text' though. Maybe you're set on 'HTML formatted'? In which case you'd need to use p and br tags.
As for the aluminum battery - more expensive than recharging, theoretically about the same as gasoline, if I remember right.
As for your link, I'll note that they're saying, if it works out, that it's the same energy density as LiIon, making the only benefits be 'cheaper' and 'can charge faster'.
While that would be highly useful for a cell phone, the limitation for an EV becomes that of how do you supply the watts? The article goofs a bit - the limitation for charging a battery is more by chemistry than by size. IE you'd still be able to charge a Tesla 85kWh battery in 12 minutes, same as the 24kWh Leaf battery - but it'd take 3.5 times the watts to do so. And supercharger stations already push a ridiculous number of watts into a Model-S battery.
On the other hand, if your area is that developed, how likely is a crashed plane to be hard to find? To my knowledge, large plane crashes on land are not hard to find.
A floating black box, maybe 2-4 of them, that's designed to eject from the plane if it becomes immersed might be much more useful. While you're at it, put a satellite emergency beacon on them so you have a very good idea of where the plane hit the water.
That's not exactly a counterpoint.
...How'd I miss that? Okay, I was being an idiot when I wrote that. Sorry. Let me be honest enough to admit to screwing up, even if it's just an internet debate.
Let's see, now that I have something of an idea of what you're talking about. I do support quite a few programs, though as I said before, everything interlinks, so if it's beneficial to society as a whole, it's beneficial to me as well, even if not directly. As I try to think of an example, I discover that I'm very good at coming up with indirect links.
Okay - how about a different aspect of my opposition to the war on drugs - I support legalizing, taxing, and regulating more than just Marijuana. Part of the reason for taxing would be to fund addiction treatment centers. Basically the same idea as behind tobacco cessation programs - there's so many different programs funding that that I think that you'd actually have to try to find a smoker who doesn't qualify for a subsidized, if not free, program.
As a non-addict, it doesn't benefit me directly, though indirectly you have the theoretical reduction in crime, making me less likely to be a victim.
Really? Because I'm pretty much in favour of the welfare state, council housing and all of that stuff. I'm a homeowner and so I'm never going to qualify for a council house.
Ah, UK citizen, right? Well, for one I'd say 'never say never', because you never know. Fall on hard times, lose the house somehow, etc...
That being said, I might actually be more radical than you in that aspect. You see, libertarians aren't necessarily against welfare. Now, don't get me wrong, we're against it as it's currently implemented, but we're not against the concept. Quite the contrary. I support replacing welfare with a basic income guarantee. Means tested welfare that is paid out in a dozen different ways is inefficient, and creates incentives to stay on it.
I'm also generally fine with infrastructure in areas I'm not going to. I recognize that you need that 'everywhere'.