Another poster mentioned that EMI constitutes 9% of the recorded music out there. And it's evidently valued at somewhere around $2B. It is utterly astonishing that such an insignificantly tiny industry could have such enormous legal and political power.
$2B is less than a one-time $10 fee for every person in the USA. It's less than we, collectively, spend on chewing gum in a year. For that puny amount, we could put 9% of all recorded music in the public domain. Wow.
Okay, I see my error. The "one third" figure would be the result of the merger, not EMI's share. I think my point still stands, though, even if EMI only represents 9%.
So piracy losses amount to $12 billion annually in the US alone, but the copyrights to one third of the music out there are worth a measly $2B? Something doesn't compute, here. What am I missing?
U.S. voters don't care because the first-past-the-post voting system guarantees a two-party system, where the "winner" is favored only by a small minority of voters.
See this video for an easy-to-understand explanation of the problem, and why an alternate voting system will help.
Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense.
Perhaps it is copyright law that should be changed instead. For starters, we could limit the inconvenience of policing their own content at their own expense to 15 years.
On second thought... it is public domain that is obsolete by their wording
Given that they probably don't have the "slashdot culture" context, I think they didn't understand (nor respond to) the question that was being asked--and interesting revelation in itself.
And going with a locked-down, Microsoft-created format is better how, exactly? [...] I don't know any non-nerd who uses Vorbis or FLAC.
Neither Vorbis nor FLAC is a "locked-down, Microsoft-created format". And seriously, "Nerds like it" is the best counter argument you can come up with?
It's all about what price archivists are willing to pay. I think it's workable, but it's not me establishing the procedures.
Exactly. $CORP is establishing the procedures and at best they think they've got it perfectly under control by leaving in on a forgotten server somewhere. At worst, they're actively working to make copying their films difficult.
Afaict with a few golden rules you can make a very safe digital archive
Sure, you can, but can you convince $CORPORATION to do the same when most of their attention is focused on *preventing* copies (think access control and DRM)? We'll probably always find a way to archive DVD/Blueray/whatever is released but the original HD source and audio tracks are probably locked away on $CORP's server and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
The cardinal problem we have with old film reels is not the medium's inherent instability. It's that no one had the foresight to archive the reels properly.
And the problem is worse for digital. At best, the source material may be stored in a proprietary format on a server somewhere at $CORPORATION.
$CORP is not concerned with archiving, thinks they've got it all under control by themselves, and instead has most of its forces (think access control and DRM) working against your ability to make your archive.
Why can't they build something I can stick in my basement that does the job?
"They" could, but the hardware is expensive, and the wearout cost of your Optimas is impractically high.
You have (perhaps inadvertently) hit upon a key point: V2G has the advantage of capitalizing on hardware (a large battery a high powered charger) that already exists, and which is already plugged in and idle for 20-22 hours each day.
The issue that the battery will wear out over time even absent cycling is of course granted, but the issue that cycling is not a consequential contribute to wear-out need substantiation.
My point was that V2G is *not* adding any significant number of cycles to the battery, so we're getting off topic by fixating on "what if".
Memory effect was a real and crippling defect in nickel cadmiums.
Only in odd pathological cases like spacecraft, where cells were repeatedly discharged to precisely the same depth. Virtually everything attributed to "charge memory" is nothing more than the accumulated effects of poor charge control (generally this takes the form of near-perpetual over-charging in appliances that see little use.
And, as you surely know, we are talking about vehicle traction batteries, which for all purposes forward means Lithium. NiCds are a red herring, here.
Both you and the AC above are still on the wrong track, but since you had the courage to log in, I'll reply to you instead.
If you don't understand the difference between energy and power, read up on that first, or there isn't much point in further discussions of V2G. V2G is about power, specifically in the "ancillary services" regulation market. It is *not* about energy, and in particular it is not about macro scale regulation, which is why your energy calculations aren't relevant. (This is also why your "can't drive the car now" scenario doesn't actually happen, and this should have been the first clue that you're talking about V2G.)
Utility companies buy regulation services, and today it is mostly achieved by ramping generation up and down. This is a slow process, and generation is also least efficient and most polluting when ramping, so there is tremendous potential for a fleet of cars to provide the same services with a response time in milliseconds.
A 20kW bi-directional charger has a maximum theoretical value of about $600-700/month in this market. Real world values will be slightly lower, and of course not all of that will be bestowed upon the end user, because aggregation, accounting, and others will take a cut, but there is still an order of magnitude more value on the table than required to balance amortized battery wearout.
IAAEVE (I am an electric vehicle engineer) and I don't know how to combat these misconceptions other than by brute force, over and over again, so here we go:
1) V2G is not adding many cycles to the battery. The value (and thus the money on the table) is primarily for being *available* and for being available instantly. For a utility company, the alternate source of regulation services is to ramp a generator up/or down, and that takes TIME. A fleet of vehicles can respond in milliseconds.
2) The system would be (necessarily, for obvious reasons) transparent to the end user, who would get paid handsomely for (voluntary) participation in amounts TBD, but which would exceed amortized battery wearout cost by roughly an order of magnitude. In any case there are hundreds of dollars per month on the table.
3) Your battery has a calendar life wearout mechanism, and there is no reason to conserve charge cycles when the calendar life wearout would otherwise dominate.
4) Charge "memory" is BS, part of a great cloud of myth and lore surrounding rechargeable batteries. It applied only to Nickel-Cadmium batteries (which have been obsolete for decades) and even then only in very specific pathological cases. It has no bearing on either Nickel-metal (current hybrids) or Lithium batteries (newer hybrids and pure EVs).
Considering how much rechargeable batteries "leak" energy when they sit
A common misconception, part of the myth and lore surrounding batteries, a la "charge memory" and other BS. Modern lithium traction batteries (i.e. those in cars) do not suffer any significant "self discharge". It's on the order of a few percent per year.
It seems like the energy loss of moving energy from the grid to the cars, then back to the grid, could potentially be too great to justify the investment.
Guess what. Smarter people than you who have actually researched it have come to the opposite conclusion.
I would think large arrays of dedicated stationary batteries might be a better choice.
And what would be different in that case, which is precisely identical except for requiring even more batteries to accomplish the same result, since the fleet of vehicle traction batteries would not be used to their maximum effect?
. I would be completely and utterly unwilling to lower my battery life through this extreme charge-recharge cycle.
Yawn. We've been over this a million times, but TFA was light on technical detail, so you're forgiven.
It's not an extreme cycle, it would be managed so as to be transparent to the end user (of the vehicle), and you'd get paid handsomely for your (voluntary) participation in amounts TBD, but which would exceed amortized battery wearout cost by roughly an order of magnitude. In any case there are hundreds of dollars per month on the table.
Also: Your traction battery has an inherent calendar life wearout mechanism, so there is no reason to conserve cycle life when calendar life dominates wearout anyway in most practical applications.
if these folks are so rich it's worthwhile to establish a new country to avoid taxes[...]
Right. In fact, so rich that they could not find a single country in the world with more favorable taxation, to the point where living on a sea platform seems favorable by comparison.
I would be willing to bet a Libertarian society has not existed on a large scale ever. Calling something a "pipe-dream" doesn't refute it as a political philosophy, evidence does.
Your evidence is right there in the first half of the citation.
However, the charging circuit can't handle that amperage.
True in Nissan's case, as they have a laughably tiny 3kW charger on board, but nonsense in the general case. The wall box in your garage is not actually a charger, nor is it a significant limiting factor for recharge power.
We've been doing this for a decade. The hardware exists, is cost-effective, and it works. As others have noted in this thread, what remains is primarily a distributed command and control infrastructure problem.
There is already a 50-150kW inverter on board (for traction motor drive) and the very essence of AC Propulsion's "reductive" charging patent is to reconfigure this inverter for use in a bi-directional recharge circuit. This equates to single-phase charging at ~20 kW and 3-phase charging at ~50 kW with little marginal cost of the traction inverter.
Solar is not a pipe-dream. Its entirely possible to make it cheaper than nuclear energy.
Nuclear isn't the problem, nor the target. We need to make solar cheaper than coal. It may already be, if you account for coal's external costs, but no one does the accounting that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Another poster mentioned that EMI constitutes 9% of the recorded music out there. And it's evidently valued at somewhere around $2B. It is utterly astonishing that such an insignificantly tiny industry could have such enormous legal and political power.
$2B is less than a one-time $10 fee for every person in the USA. It's less than we, collectively, spend on chewing gum in a year. For that puny amount, we could put 9% of all recorded music in the public domain. Wow.
Okay, I see my error. The "one third" figure would be the result of the merger, not EMI's share. I think my point still stands, though, even if EMI only represents 9%.
So piracy losses amount to $12 billion annually in the US alone, but the copyrights to one third of the music out there are worth a measly $2B? Something doesn't compute, here. What am I missing?
you can't make voters care
U.S. voters don't care because the first-past-the-post voting system guarantees a two-party system, where the "winner" is favored only by a small minority of voters.
See this video for an easy-to-understand explanation of the problem, and why an alternate voting system will help.
With GPS devices, the accused is forced to pay for his own surveillance (the extra gas to move the GPS device around town)
(Emphasis mine.)
I'm pretty sympathetic to "the accused" in these cases, but I sure hope you don't expect to prevail based on the above premise.
Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense.
Perhaps it is copyright law that should be changed instead. For starters, we could limit the inconvenience of policing their own content at their own expense to 15 years.
On second thought... it is public domain that is obsolete by their wording
Given that they probably don't have the "slashdot culture" context, I think they didn't understand (nor respond to) the question that was being asked--and interesting revelation in itself.
And going with a locked-down, Microsoft-created format is better how, exactly? [...] I don't know any non-nerd who uses Vorbis or FLAC.
Neither Vorbis nor FLAC is a "locked-down, Microsoft-created format". And seriously, "Nerds like it" is the best counter argument you can come up with?
What exactly is "locked-down" about an iPod?
It's right there in the GP:
FLAC isn't going to play.
And the winner of this whole experiment ends up being ATI, who sold a bunch of GPUs to doe-eyed bitcoin miners.
Shouldn't that be dough-eyed?
It's all about what price archivists are willing to pay. I think it's workable, but it's not me establishing the procedures.
Exactly. $CORP is establishing the procedures and at best they think they've got it perfectly under control by leaving in on a forgotten server somewhere. At worst, they're actively working to make copying their films difficult.
Afaict with a few golden rules you can make a very safe digital archive
Sure, you can, but can you convince $CORPORATION to do the same when most of their attention is focused on *preventing* copies (think access control and DRM)? We'll probably always find a way to archive DVD/Blueray/whatever is released but the original HD source and audio tracks are probably locked away on $CORP's server and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
The cardinal problem we have with old film reels is not the medium's inherent instability. It's that no one had the foresight to archive the reels properly.
And the problem is worse for digital. At best, the source material may be stored in a proprietary format on a server somewhere at $CORPORATION.
$CORP is not concerned with archiving, thinks they've got it all under control by themselves, and instead has most of its forces (think access control and DRM) working against your ability to make your archive.
Why can't they build something I can stick in my basement that does the job?
"They" could, but the hardware is expensive, and the wearout cost of your Optimas is impractically high.
You have (perhaps inadvertently) hit upon a key point: V2G has the advantage of capitalizing on hardware (a large battery a high powered charger) that already exists, and which is already plugged in and idle for 20-22 hours each day.
The issue that the battery will wear out over time even absent cycling is of course granted, but the issue that cycling is not a consequential contribute to wear-out need substantiation.
My point was that V2G is *not* adding any significant number of cycles to the battery, so we're getting off topic by fixating on "what if".
Memory effect was a real and crippling defect in nickel cadmiums.
Only in odd pathological cases like spacecraft, where cells were repeatedly discharged to precisely the same depth. Virtually everything attributed to "charge memory" is nothing more than the accumulated effects of poor charge control (generally this takes the form of near-perpetual over-charging in appliances that see little use.
And, as you surely know, we are talking about vehicle traction batteries, which for all purposes forward means Lithium. NiCds are a red herring, here.
Anyway, lets do some math
Both you and the AC above are still on the wrong track, but since you had the courage to log in, I'll reply to you instead.
If you don't understand the difference between energy and power, read up on that first, or there isn't much point in further discussions of V2G. V2G is about power, specifically in the "ancillary services" regulation market. It is *not* about energy, and in particular it is not about macro scale regulation, which is why your energy calculations aren't relevant. (This is also why your "can't drive the car now" scenario doesn't actually happen, and this should have been the first clue that you're talking about V2G.)
Utility companies buy regulation services, and today it is mostly achieved by ramping generation up and down. This is a slow process, and generation is also least efficient and most polluting when ramping, so there is tremendous potential for a fleet of cars to provide the same services with a response time in milliseconds.
A 20kW bi-directional charger has a maximum theoretical value of about $600-700/month in this market. Real world values will be slightly lower, and of course not all of that will be bestowed upon the end user, because aggregation, accounting, and others will take a cut, but there is still an order of magnitude more value on the table than required to balance amortized battery wearout.
IAAEVE (I am an electric vehicle engineer) and I don't know how to combat these misconceptions other than by brute force, over and over again, so here we go:
1) V2G is not adding many cycles to the battery. The value (and thus the money on the table) is primarily for being *available* and for being available instantly. For a utility company, the alternate source of regulation services is to ramp a generator up/or down, and that takes TIME. A fleet of vehicles can respond in milliseconds.
2) The system would be (necessarily, for obvious reasons) transparent to the end user, who would get paid handsomely for (voluntary) participation in amounts TBD, but which would exceed amortized battery wearout cost by roughly an order of magnitude. In any case there are hundreds of dollars per month on the table.
3) Your battery has a calendar life wearout mechanism, and there is no reason to conserve charge cycles when the calendar life wearout would otherwise dominate.
4) Charge "memory" is BS, part of a great cloud of myth and lore surrounding rechargeable batteries. It applied only to Nickel-Cadmium batteries (which have been obsolete for decades) and even then only in very specific pathological cases. It has no bearing on either Nickel-metal (current hybrids) or Lithium batteries (newer hybrids and pure EVs).
Considering how much rechargeable batteries "leak" energy when they sit
A common misconception, part of the myth and lore surrounding batteries, a la "charge memory" and other BS. Modern lithium traction batteries (i.e. those in cars) do not suffer any significant "self discharge". It's on the order of a few percent per year.
It seems like the energy loss of moving energy from the grid to the cars, then back to the grid, could potentially be too great to justify the investment.
Guess what. Smarter people than you who have actually researched it have come to the opposite conclusion.
I would think large arrays of dedicated stationary batteries might be a better choice.
And what would be different in that case, which is precisely identical except for requiring even more batteries to accomplish the same result, since the fleet of vehicle traction batteries would not be used to their maximum effect?
. I would be completely and utterly unwilling to lower my battery life through this extreme charge-recharge cycle.
Yawn. We've been over this a million times, but TFA was light on technical detail, so you're forgiven.
It's not an extreme cycle, it would be managed so as to be transparent to the end user (of the vehicle), and you'd get paid handsomely for your (voluntary) participation in amounts TBD, but which would exceed amortized battery wearout cost by roughly an order of magnitude. In any case there are hundreds of dollars per month on the table.
Also: Your traction battery has an inherent calendar life wearout mechanism, so there is no reason to conserve cycle life when calendar life dominates wearout anyway in most practical applications.
...they'll be focusing on all the new coal-fired generation that Germany is deploying to replace its nukes.
if these folks are so rich it's worthwhile to establish a new country to avoid taxes[...]
Right. In fact, so rich that they could not find a single country in the world with more favorable taxation, to the point where living on a sea platform seems favorable by comparison.
I would be willing to bet a Libertarian society has not existed on a large scale ever. Calling something a "pipe-dream" doesn't refute it as a political philosophy, evidence does.
Your evidence is right there in the first half of the citation.
However, the charging circuit can't handle that amperage.
True in Nissan's case, as they have a laughably tiny 3kW charger on board, but nonsense in the general case. The wall box in your garage is not actually a charger, nor is it a significant limiting factor for recharge power.
We've been doing this for a decade. The hardware exists, is cost-effective, and it works. As others have noted in this thread, what remains is primarily a distributed command and control infrastructure problem.
There is already a 50-150kW inverter on board (for traction motor drive) and the very essence of AC Propulsion's "reductive" charging patent is to reconfigure this inverter for use in a bi-directional recharge circuit. This equates to single-phase charging at ~20 kW and 3-phase charging at ~50 kW with little marginal cost of the traction inverter.
Solar is not a pipe-dream. Its entirely possible to make it cheaper than nuclear energy.
Nuclear isn't the problem, nor the target. We need to make solar cheaper than coal. It may already be, if you account for coal's external costs, but no one does the accounting that way.