How much did each of those stations cost? You've got what, like 20 of them? They must be making money hand over fist, and that's why more of them are popping up so quickly. Why am I not surprised that you live in Cali? What kind of FCEV do you own?
Outrageous amounts of money. But that's not really the point -- this is an experiment, an attempt to jump start the chicken-vs-egg infrastructure problem. Just as California led the way with electric cars, and now we're seeing those cars appear elsewhere in the nation. The hydrogen experiment might very well be a total failure. Or it might take 10 years to catch on. I don't profess to know.
The point, though, is that many of the things you think are non-starters have already been overcome. I can tell by the questions you're asking that you weren't even aware of that, still fixated on the energy source vs. energy carrier issue. The filling stations exist. The fuel cells exist. The hydrogen tanks already exist. The cars exist. You may not personally approve, but California doesn't need your approval. You can poo-poo it if you want, but you kind of look like an idiot when Exhibit A is functioning FCEVs and a functioning (albeit small) infrastructure.
As for me, I own a rather ordinary electric car, which fits well into my life and I'm perfectly happy with it. Yet elsewhere in the US of motherfucking stupid A, people like you still seem to believe that electric cars aren't viable, despite the fact that I see hundreds of them on the road every day on my way to work.
So get over yourself. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
While you and others who think they're smarter than everyone else are poo-pooing the idea, us crazy ones out here in California are actually trying it out to see how well (or not) it will work. In point of fact, we've already got filling stations open, with more on the way. That kind of puts an end to the discussion of whether it can be done or not -- it already has been done.
The problem with hydrogen for energy storage is "the right container". While its energy density per kilogram is very high, energy density per liter at any reasonable pressure is way low, and getting into unreasonable pressures has its own dangers.
Agreed. If it were easy, we would have done it already. I'm not arguing that hydrogen is the most ideal possible solution. Like any engineering problem, you have to choose what you're optimizing for. If zero tailpipe emissions and fast refill are at the top of the list, hydrogen is a candidate, even while producing lots of other engineering problems that need solving.
There is nothing about hydrogen that makes it a convenient form of energy.
Right. Except for the part where it can be easily converted to electricity via a fuel cell, or burned like gasoline for mechanical motion. And except for the part where it's faster to fill a hydrogen tank than it is to charge a battery. But you know, except for those aspects, it's completely useless.
No it's not. It still requires more energy to split it than you get from it. If you're going to split it with electricity you might as well just put that electricity into a battery instead.
Your statement is a very good example of the tendency for smart people to say stupid things because they haven't grasped the fucking point. Nobody said Hydrogen was an energy source. Electricity isn't an energy source, either. Both are just a convenient form of energy that makes it portable, given the right container. This is, in fact, the main benefit that gasoline has -- not as a fuel source, but as an extremely dense portable energy form. The fact that gasoline is also an energy source gives it an obvious advantage over the others, but only if you're willing to ignore the side effects and the possibility that it might run out someday.
1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do), and will continue on its current trend.
False.
2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...
False.
3) Plastics (made from petroleum) are the backbone of technology and civilization at this time - no viable replacement has yet arisen that doesn't require even more damage to the ecosystems, or can last nearly as long when the requirements call for longevity/durability. (e.g. yeah you can make plastic from corn, but it'll be much shorter-lived and will require massive up-scaling in agriculture, which presents problems of its own.)
Before you say "yes", try to come up with a meaningful difference between a physical key, which the Amendment certainly does not protect, and a coded password...
It's easy to sound reasonable when you make up your own facts. In point of fact, those are not the facts of this case, and anyone who has read even a little bit about the case already understands that. So you're either ignorant, or (more likely) willfully ignorant.
Except, of course, the court order specifically allows for Apple to NOT give the binaries to the FBI and the FBI requested it that way to address exactly that issue. But hey, I just read the writ, not the bullshit lies on the Internet.
Okay, I'll bite.
What happens the next time the FBI (or any other LEA) has an iPhone that they need information off of? The FBI has divulged that there already exist about a dozen phones that need breaking. They have also admitted -- in public testimony -- that this case would set a precedent.
So please tell me, specifically: how exactly is this just about a single phone, when the actual head of the actual FBI has admitted that it is categorically NOT about a single phone?
They could develop a vehicle just for the US market, that was cheap to build and market. I am thinking maybe something like an affordable version of the Smart car?
They already have. It's called the eGolf, and it's already for sale in California.
A truly bad idea. If VW's heart is not in it they will only do the minimum to keep the government off their back.
Don't be so sure. The largest auto makers are required to produce electric cars for the California market, and all of them are actually doing a pretty good job. Even Fiat, who bitches about it incessantly, managed to make the Fiat 500e, which is a hoot to drive. Not all of the electric cars in the California market are necessarily exciting, but none of them actually suck.
What they have one? A dozen? Is that enough or are they going to have to PRODUCE more? Sorry, but that was a pretty moronic comment you made.
They're currently on the road in California. I've actually seen a couple of them. So the product is fully developed and won't require any significant new R&D. Just production of something they are already producing, but on a larger scale.
Slashdot Mirror
If I could mod you "-1 Incoherent" I would.
What it lacks is a team of rabid marketing people ready to cram it down the throats of unsuspecting users who do not yet know that they need it.
I think you fundamentally lack any understanding of why people buy computers, and what mechanisms drive those choices.
2) What you are actually writing programs to do, has changed over the years, slowly so you don't notice those changes.
While that may be true, you haven't actually disproved the AC's point: secretaries have not, in fact, taken his job.
This.
How much did each of those stations cost? You've got what, like 20 of them? They must be making money hand over fist, and that's why more of them are popping up so quickly. Why am I not surprised that you live in Cali? What kind of FCEV do you own?
Outrageous amounts of money. But that's not really the point -- this is an experiment, an attempt to jump start the chicken-vs-egg infrastructure problem. Just as California led the way with electric cars, and now we're seeing those cars appear elsewhere in the nation. The hydrogen experiment might very well be a total failure. Or it might take 10 years to catch on. I don't profess to know.
The point, though, is that many of the things you think are non-starters have already been overcome. I can tell by the questions you're asking that you weren't even aware of that, still fixated on the energy source vs. energy carrier issue. The filling stations exist. The fuel cells exist. The hydrogen tanks already exist. The cars exist. You may not personally approve, but California doesn't need your approval. You can poo-poo it if you want, but you kind of look like an idiot when Exhibit A is functioning FCEVs and a functioning (albeit small) infrastructure.
As for me, I own a rather ordinary electric car, which fits well into my life and I'm perfectly happy with it. Yet elsewhere in the US of motherfucking stupid A, people like you still seem to believe that electric cars aren't viable, despite the fact that I see hundreds of them on the road every day on my way to work.
So get over yourself. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Cool, where can I fill up?
Here are a list of currently open or soon-to-open stations in California: http://cafcp.org/stationmap
Just read this.
Why hydrogen is stupid as fuel for cars
While you and others who think they're smarter than everyone else are poo-pooing the idea, us crazy ones out here in California are actually trying it out to see how well (or not) it will work. In point of fact, we've already got filling stations open, with more on the way. That kind of puts an end to the discussion of whether it can be done or not -- it already has been done.
At what pressure is the hydrogen stored in the tank in the car?
For current FCEVs, 700 bar.
The problem with hydrogen for energy storage is "the right container". While its energy density per kilogram is very high, energy density per liter at any reasonable pressure is way low, and getting into unreasonable pressures has its own dangers.
Agreed. If it were easy, we would have done it already. I'm not arguing that hydrogen is the most ideal possible solution. Like any engineering problem, you have to choose what you're optimizing for. If zero tailpipe emissions and fast refill are at the top of the list, hydrogen is a candidate, even while producing lots of other engineering problems that need solving.
Is that all you know about hydrogen, that we can burn it like gasoline, or use it in a fuel cell, and it fills up a tank quickly?
Those are the things that make it relevant to the current conversation. If you'd like to know more, I'd be happy to answer your questions.
There is nothing about hydrogen that makes it a convenient form of energy.
Right. Except for the part where it can be easily converted to electricity via a fuel cell, or burned like gasoline for mechanical motion. And except for the part where it's faster to fill a hydrogen tank than it is to charge a battery. But you know, except for those aspects, it's completely useless.
No it's not. It still requires more energy to split it than you get from it. If you're going to split it with electricity you might as well just put that electricity into a battery instead.
Your statement is a very good example of the tendency for smart people to say stupid things because they haven't grasped the fucking point. Nobody said Hydrogen was an energy source. Electricity isn't an energy source, either. Both are just a convenient form of energy that makes it portable, given the right container. This is, in fact, the main benefit that gasoline has -- not as a fuel source, but as an extremely dense portable energy form. The fact that gasoline is also an energy source gives it an obvious advantage over the others, but only if you're willing to ignore the side effects and the possibility that it might run out someday.
yes because nuke powered big rigs on our highways and in our cities is the right idea
Straw man. Nobody mentioned nuclear big rigs.
Try again.
1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do), and will continue on its current trend.
False.
2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...
False.
3) Plastics (made from petroleum) are the backbone of technology and civilization at this time - no viable replacement has yet arisen that doesn't require even more damage to the ecosystems, or can last nearly as long when the requirements call for longevity/durability. (e.g. yeah you can make plastic from corn, but it'll be much shorter-lived and will require massive up-scaling in agriculture, which presents problems of its own.)
False.
Any questions?
Rampant cognitive dissonance on display in 3... 2... 1...
Before you say "yes", try to come up with a meaningful difference between a physical key, which the Amendment certainly does not protect, and a coded password...
It's easy to sound reasonable when you make up your own facts. In point of fact, those are not the facts of this case, and anyone who has read even a little bit about the case already understands that. So you're either ignorant, or (more likely) willfully ignorant.
Which is it?
Let me be the first to say: Fuck you, you fucking little troll. Anonymous != HRC.
Asshole.
What a crock full of shit.
Except, of course, the court order specifically allows for Apple to NOT give the binaries to the FBI and the FBI requested it that way to address exactly that issue. But hey, I just read the writ, not the bullshit lies on the Internet.
Okay, I'll bite.
What happens the next time the FBI (or any other LEA) has an iPhone that they need information off of? The FBI has divulged that there already exist about a dozen phones that need breaking. They have also admitted -- in public testimony -- that this case would set a precedent.
So please tell me, specifically: how exactly is this just about a single phone, when the actual head of the actual FBI has admitted that it is categorically NOT about a single phone?
Attention, UK Bureaucrats! Black Mirror is a warning, not an instruction manual!
Kind of like this?
They could develop a vehicle just for the US market, that was cheap to build and market. I am thinking maybe something like an affordable version of the Smart car?
They already have. It's called the eGolf, and it's already for sale in California.
A truly bad idea. If VW's heart is not in it they will only do the minimum to keep the government off their back.
Don't be so sure. The largest auto makers are required to produce electric cars for the California market, and all of them are actually doing a pretty good job. Even Fiat, who bitches about it incessantly, managed to make the Fiat 500e, which is a hoot to drive. Not all of the electric cars in the California market are necessarily exciting, but none of them actually suck.
What they have one? A dozen? Is that enough or are they going to have to PRODUCE more? Sorry, but that was a pretty moronic comment you made.
They're currently on the road in California. I've actually seen a couple of them. So the product is fully developed and won't require any significant new R&D. Just production of something they are already producing, but on a larger scale.
Not a moronic comment at all.
it's actually a stupid solution, will compete with Tesla, an American company. Stupid America.
I'm fairly certain Tesla welcomes the competition. Their goal is less about selling cars and more about changing the world for the better.