Yip, why do newspaper articles always clutch at straws. 723 to 730 is NOT a significant increase. Ever heard of variation? My god, my electric bill went from £50 to £51! I must do something about this!
I just went to the Netflix website to see what all the fuss was about, and it won't tell me the most important thing ever, what programs they show! So, no customer from me.
Ok, I hadn't realised just how much power was going to be needed, I guess a typical petrol engine is rated around 100kW, so there must be a lot of power in there. Looks like "gas" stations will have to be actually on the national grid with their own substation.
You said (I can't find the quote button in Slashdot, this is the crappiest designed forum I've ever used): "In order to do this, each charging station is up to 120kW. [wikipedia.org] 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."
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.
I said "Charging a car faster doesn't need a bigger grid."
You said "You want to move more watts, you eventually need a beefier connection."
I was explaining (which you appear to be saying now aswell) that one fast charger is the same watts as 10 slow chargers. And you'll need a tenth of the number of charging points if people finish charging ten times faster. So, the charging speed is nothing to do with how much juice needs to be cabled to the "petrol station".
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.
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.
Now they all get fast charge cars, you have one plug with 10x watts available, and they take it in turns to use it. They're using it for a tenth of the time at 10 times the power. Same requirement exactly.
Charging a car faster doesn't need a bigger grid. You take the same power overall. What needs a bigger grid is more electric cars, which will happen no matter what, as oil becomes rarer and more expensive.
Yes I guess you can raise the internal part of the car, as the battery will maintain a low centre of gravity.
Surely mass production cheapness will happen with both battery technologies?
I didn't know there was that choice, I was on html, I've switched it off. Works much better now, thanks.
Only as much as gasoline? I'd expect a lot more.
Cheaper and can charge faster are HUGE benefits. Charging much faster makes it like filling a petrol car. And cheaper means people like me would not care about the battery cost. And it doesn't matter if the energy density isn't higher. As it's cheaper, you can have more battery in the car for the same purchase price (as long as you don't want loads of luggage space - but then perhaps half the battery could be removable?)
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.
Wouldn't that be EXCEEDINGLY expensive? Ok so you only use it occasionally, but still! I'd perhaps only activate it in an absolute emergency, like I'm a few miles short of my destination.
Ah, here we are: http://www.gizmag.com/dual-car...
P.S. how do you do carriage returns in slashdot? My text always runs together after posting.
I heard something about a new battery chemical a couple of years ago, can't remember what it was though. It had a much higher (times 3 or 5?) charge density than LiIon. It was in lab testing stage at that time.
I will wait until tech improves and 2nd hand EVs are more common before bothering to change. That or the price of oil increases tremendously. At the moment I cannot save money by using electric.
Yes a long range EV would be nice, but battery tech has to get a LOT better to get a decent range. At 130 miles currently it's useless. That's more and longer fills than for petrol. So we need either amazing battery capacity, or very fast charging batteries.
I was actually thinking of getting an EV for daily use and keeping the petrol car for holidays (as a 400 mile holiday is impossible with current EVs), but the amount of money to buy the EV and change the battery every 5 years was the same as what I'd save on petrol, so utterly pointless.
I'm sure I've seen hydrogen filling on TV somewhere (there's probably something on youtube if you look), and it wasn't much different from the customer's point of view to LPG. The clamp will be different, but I doubt it's going to take long to do it up.
The long range EVs like the Tesla are presumably very expensive. Perhaps when there are more EVs about, battery prices will be many times lower due to mass production, and every EV can have more batteries. They're on Lithium Ion now I believe, and the first ones were Nickel Metal Hydride, so they're lighter (plus higher charge density) now too. A new one might replace Lithium Ion soon and make it lighter and smaller again.
99% of people do not want to wait while their car fills.
If it had a 3000 mile range, that's fine, as you'd never need to wait for a charge, it can charge while you're asleep. But they don't, they have a pathetic range much less than that of a petrol vehicle.
I used to have two vehicles that ran on LPG. They didn't take any longer than petrol to fill. Why would they? The lock that you tighten is done in seconds.
Fossil fuels are by definition created from fossils. So burning them is making the earth like it used to be before they were created. And it must have supported life back then or there wouldn't be fossils.
Correct, same as filling with LPG. I didn't mean it was EXACTLY like petrol. I meant it was as quick as petrol. Connect hose, wait 2 minutes, pay, leave. As opposed to connect cable, eat lunch or go for a walk for an hour, then come back later. A car that takes more than 5 minutes to fill is not fit for purpose.
Tax is evil. Nobody should pay taxes. I applaud anyone who manages to evade them. Basically they are to fund the government to do things I never authorised with my money.
Slashdot Mirror
1.2 + 1.5 + some more IS a billion or so. "A billion or so" is NOT an exact figure.
Yip, why do newspaper articles always clutch at straws. 723 to 730 is NOT a significant increase. Ever heard of variation? My god, my electric bill went from £50 to £51! I must do something about this!
I just went to the Netflix website to see what all the fuss was about, and it won't tell me the most important thing ever, what programs they show! So, no customer from me.
Ok, I hadn't realised just how much power was going to be needed, I guess a typical petrol engine is rated around 100kW, so there must be a lot of power in there. Looks like "gas" stations will have to be actually on the national grid with their own substation.
You get those options asked of you when you install/upgrade, just like you always have.
Ah I see. But 1200kW? Over a megawatt into 1 car? That's a small power station's worth. Surely a battery can't take that much juice?
You said (I can't find the quote button in Slashdot, this is the crappiest designed forum I've ever used): "In order to do this, each charging station is up to 120kW. [wikipedia.org] 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."
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.
I said "Charging a car faster doesn't need a bigger grid."
You said "You want to move more watts, you eventually need a beefier connection."
I was explaining (which you appear to be saying now aswell) that one fast charger is the same watts as 10 slow chargers. And you'll need a tenth of the number of charging points if people finish charging ten times faster. So, the charging speed is nothing to do with how much juice needs to be cabled to the "petrol station".
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.
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.
Now they all get fast charge cars, you have one plug with 10x watts available, and they take it in turns to use it. They're using it for a tenth of the time at 10 times the power. Same requirement exactly.
Charging a car faster doesn't need a bigger grid. You take the same power overall. What needs a bigger grid is more electric cars, which will happen no matter what, as oil becomes rarer and more expensive.
Yes I guess you can raise the internal part of the car, as the battery will maintain a low centre of gravity.
Surely mass production cheapness will happen with both battery technologies?
I didn't know there was that choice, I was on html, I've switched it off. Works much better now, thanks.
Only as much as gasoline? I'd expect a lot more.
Cheaper and can charge faster are HUGE benefits. Charging much faster makes it like filling a petrol car. And cheaper means people like me would not care about the battery cost. And it doesn't matter if the energy density isn't higher. As it's cheaper, you can have more battery in the car for the same purchase price (as long as you don't want loads of luggage space - but then perhaps half the battery could be removable?)
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.
Wouldn't that be EXCEEDINGLY expensive? Ok so you only use it occasionally, but still! I'd perhaps only activate it in an absolute emergency, like I'm a few miles short of my destination. Ah, here we are: http://www.gizmag.com/dual-car... P.S. how do you do carriage returns in slashdot? My text always runs together after posting.
I heard something about a new battery chemical a couple of years ago, can't remember what it was though. It had a much higher (times 3 or 5?) charge density than LiIon. It was in lab testing stage at that time. I will wait until tech improves and 2nd hand EVs are more common before bothering to change. That or the price of oil increases tremendously. At the moment I cannot save money by using electric.
Yes a long range EV would be nice, but battery tech has to get a LOT better to get a decent range. At 130 miles currently it's useless. That's more and longer fills than for petrol. So we need either amazing battery capacity, or very fast charging batteries. I was actually thinking of getting an EV for daily use and keeping the petrol car for holidays (as a 400 mile holiday is impossible with current EVs), but the amount of money to buy the EV and change the battery every 5 years was the same as what I'd save on petrol, so utterly pointless. I'm sure I've seen hydrogen filling on TV somewhere (there's probably something on youtube if you look), and it wasn't much different from the customer's point of view to LPG. The clamp will be different, but I doubt it's going to take long to do it up. The long range EVs like the Tesla are presumably very expensive. Perhaps when there are more EVs about, battery prices will be many times lower due to mass production, and every EV can have more batteries. They're on Lithium Ion now I believe, and the first ones were Nickel Metal Hydride, so they're lighter (plus higher charge density) now too. A new one might replace Lithium Ion soon and make it lighter and smaller again.
Re: your sig. The questionnaire is biassed, so I won't be filling it in.
P.S. sorry about the formatting, slashdot ignores my carriage returns.
99% of people do not want to wait while their car fills. If it had a 3000 mile range, that's fine, as you'd never need to wait for a charge, it can charge while you're asleep. But they don't, they have a pathetic range much less than that of a petrol vehicle. I used to have two vehicles that ran on LPG. They didn't take any longer than petrol to fill. Why would they? The lock that you tighten is done in seconds.
Fossil fuels are by definition created from fossils. So burning them is making the earth like it used to be before they were created. And it must have supported life back then or there wouldn't be fossils.
Correct, same as filling with LPG. I didn't mean it was EXACTLY like petrol. I meant it was as quick as petrol. Connect hose, wait 2 minutes, pay, leave. As opposed to connect cable, eat lunch or go for a walk for an hour, then come back later. A car that takes more than 5 minutes to fill is not fit for purpose.
The trouble with batteries is there's no fast charge (yet?) - hydrogen fills like petrol.
Tax is evil. Nobody should pay taxes. I applaud anyone who manages to evade them. Basically they are to fund the government to do things I never authorised with my money.
Capitalism sux.
Yes they do, women downrate Top Gear.
I thought FM had been turned off and replaced by DAB? It has in the UK at least.
Unless they make them go a lot faster (including breaking the speed limit), then yes, they will clog up the roads. Slow cars get in the way!