They claim "current technology", but with current technology 900 kWh weigh about 9 tons (considering the battery pack). Ultimate density for Li-ion, according to this report (figure 6-12), could get it to 3 ton or just below.
That's in any case a lot more than the payload for a plane that size. In general, current battery technology cannot be used on regional flights, much less intercontinental ones. Hydrogen may be an alternative for regional (still not long-range), though it might require making the plane look like a beluga to accommodate the tanks.
900 kWh on a 9-seater? Vaporware, unless they show what battery pack they are using.
Uhh... going pretty strong. Prices have been gradually coming down and there is a lot of interest from industry. However, since batteries have also improved in the meantime, the focus is moving away from consumer applications (cars) to larger ones (ships, buses, trucks, trains, even regional planes), so they are not so visible to the man in the street.
I do work in hydrogen & fuel cells, and in the last 2-3 years we have seen a surge in industrial interest we can barely handle. We know that FC manufacturers are tooling for mass production, at which point prices will fall a lot faster.
At this point we are where batteries were about 15 years ago, with some applications ready for deployment (buses, home CHP, trucks, trains) and plenty of others in advanced development—maritime is likely the next big thing.
So just because you don't hear about it in the 9 o'clock news it does not mean it has been abandoned. It has simply dipped down from the hype peak and started maturing.
While CO2 is wreaking havoc on the planet's climate, it is still a small fraction of air, around 500 ppm, and is chemically inert (well, it's a combustion product, so obviously...). Extracting CO2 from the air is very difficult. You can use current technology with biofuels, though these are obtained by fermentation and have a short shelf life. For example, biodiesel is OK for city buses because they run around regularly, but if you fill your diesel car with biodiesel and park it at the airport for 2 weeks while on holiday, you may find a nasty surprise when you try to start it again and the fuel has precipitated solids.
The infrastructure for EVs is way more pervasive than fossil fuels today. I am en EV owner (Nissan Leaf) and I almost never need to use fast charging: overnight charging at 2 kW covers over 95% of my needs. Just connect it in the evening and it will be ready the day after. Fast chargers are a necessity for longer travels, but charging at home is a whole lot cheaper.
And since I often hear the argument "but what if everyone charges their car at the same time?", well that just does not happen. The grid would collapse also if everyone started their washing machines at the same time, but that does not happen. Sure, the grid will need some strengthening here and there, but there is plenty of time to do it, consumers are not going to buy EVs all at the same time.
Is it illegal to make a break-in tool like that? Or merely to use it?
Not sure if making is illegal, but I am pretty sure that if I find out that my neighbour's door has a faulty lock, make a tool with instructions on how to break in, lose it to some thief and my neighbour gets robbed by said thief with the method I developed, I would be liable to a lawsuit at the very least, if not criminal facilitation by gross negligence.
In addition to not telling my neighbour for years that his lock was faulty, which is pretty bad, especially if I worked for an agency that has "Security" as a middle name.
Yay, more subsidies to nuclear! An industry that has lived on gigantic subsidies since the 40's and has never spouted out a single fully non-subsidised, private-funded plant anywhere in the world, that still promises only economic disaster with yet another generation of miserable failures like the now-legendary 3rd+-generation Olkiluoto 3, 10 years late and procrastinating (I am thrilled to see whether they break the record of Duke Nukem Forever, they are quite close), while renewables have a proven track record of plummeting CAPEX and OPEX, are already competitive with ridiculously low prices (seriously: they hit 17 $/MWh in Mexico, and this is a company committing to deliver this and putting their money behind it, not an estimate).
The most obvious proof that world leaders know nuclear power is just a boondoggle, good only as a support to military nuclear? When Iran announced they wanted to build nuclear power plants, no one believed them for a second. They knew the economics.
No no, let's China take control of the world's renewable tech, just like we did with rare earths. What could possibly go wrong?
Armiamoci e partite!, which was the climax of a public speech at the beginning of WW2. It is quite difficult to render in English with the same immediacy, but the effect is about "let us take up arms, so you may fight!"
It was later discovered that the city’s computers had long been vulnerable to leaked exploits developed by the National Security Agency — later stolen and leaked online for anyone to use.
Any indictment coming soon for those in a taxpayer-funded federal agency who did not report security holes in critical US infrastructure, but instead developed tools to exploit them, which were later "lost" and ended up in the hands of anyone with an Internet connection? These guys probably reside on US territory and can actually be arrested.
These Iranians are two small-time thugs. What about the Chinese government—do you think they did not duly download the tools and put them to good use?
Countries which use the world standard 25kV (2x25kV) AC, 50 / 60 Hz traction system can electrify railways cheaply, regardless of varried terrain, density of traffic or there being single or multiple tracks.
The rest of the comment is actually OK, but this is appalling bullshit. Electrification by catenary is extremely expensive ("extremely" as in "there is nothing more expensive you can possibly do", other than building the railroad itself). It can be a good investment, but it will always be enormous.
It is also patently false that all this is "regardless of varried terrain, density of traffic or there being single or multiple tracks". Terrain is a major deal-breaker. As UK's Network Rail points out, the actual catenary is actually a minor post in the whole electrification endeavour: bridges and tunnels are especially expensive, as they need to be widened to make place for the catenary—often while trains are still using the line. Going through cities is usually as bad as going through mountains, since there are so many overpasses.
Density of traffic is the single most important parameter for economic feasibility of catenary electrification: you need enough trains to spread the cost of the catenary on. If traffic is small enough, diesel always wins out. However, hydrogen trains do not require significant infrastructure, and their cost scales with the number of trains like diesel, not the length of the line like catenary: that's why they can compete on these small lines and catenary cannot.
In the conventional model, libraries, with professional, highly educated, librarians, basically decide which journals are legit and which are scams. The libraries negotiate bulk rates with the power of large institutions.
As a researcher, from my point of view, funding agencies have way more influence on which journal I choose to publish in. In my environment, there are three groups of journals: Class 1 (Nature, Science, but also high-quality lesser-known journals such as Electrochimica Acta), Class 2 (not so good, but still legit, like Journal of Power Sources and most scientific journals), and unclassified junk (the kind of journals that spam researcher promising "fast peer review" and "open access", for a fee of course). Which journal you publish in directly affects your funding, and it's the researchers who produce the content.
You seem to be implying that ISPs and webmail providers are not parsing your emails and collating data on you. That would be nice.
Unencrypted email is not, and has never been, a secure channel. If you want to impress your prospective employer in this field, provide your public encryption key (not on a USB pen). That works with any mailbox.
Man, here in Norway electric cars are almost 2/3 of all new vehicles already (half battery, the other half hybrids, mostly plug-in). Range is already more than enough for anyone who is not a taxi driver or otherwise drives all day long. Calculations by DNV GL indicate that EVs will be overall cheaper than fossil-fuelled card by 2022, that's before you factor in extra taxes on pollution or subsidies on zero emissions. It's true that their up-front cost is higher, but maintenance and energy are way cheaper, so that the TCO is still better.
2035 is a perfectly reasonable date to expect ICE cars to be off the market: It took only 10 years for the car to displace the horse. Some ICE cars will still be around, but mostly as a curiosity (we did not exterminate horses either). Also, as demand for gas plummets, gas stations will close, oil companies will not invest in new fields, the oil value chain will lose its economies of scale, and gas prices will go a long way up.
Incorrect, Tesla use Panasonic cells rated for 3000 cycles.
Not sure why a comment with unbacked claims got modded +5 Informative. Googling leads to no official claim for this 3000 cycle figure. Indeed, Panasonic's official datasheet for the 18650B used in Teslas indicates an end-of-life (defined at 20% capacity loss) after 300 cycles.
Of course, that's because in Panasonic's test cycle the cell is deep-discharged down to 2.75 V, and obviously if you are careful with your EV's charging pattern you will have much better performance. 3000 is not impossible, but it's not the nominal rating, and Panasonic would be unwise to guarantee a performance that is highly dependent on good behaviour by the user. In any case, this is irrelevant since 500 cycles are plenty for most people, except possibly professional drivers.
My point is, if you connect to a V2G system, the grid company will want to use the full capacity and maximum power that the vehicle is capable of delivering (that's what they pay for), so with that kind of cycling you can expect a lifetime closer to 300 than 3000.
Thank you for the link, the ScienceDirect paper liked in it was an interesting read.
However, I became sceptical of scientific findings in newspapers early in my PhD for good reasons.
In this specific case, the original authors Uddin & al. looked for a specific pattern that would reduce degradation. That's not the same pattern that would result in the most profit for the grid company, and for which they would pay 40 USD a month.
In a nutshell, their V2G strategy reduced the SoC of vehicles that arrived at work with high SoC, reducing thereby degradation due to sustained high voltages. Now, as they also point out in more polite terms, an EV owner who charges their car to 100% every night when he needs 5% to get to work is an idiot, and will wear the battery rapidly. Their strategy takes care of these idiots by reducing the SoC of their vehicles and preserving battery performance though the day.
The article does not claim that V2G in general reduces degradation, only that, for a minority of (stupid) users, it can be made that way.
But real users are not necessarily stupid, and if you want a grid company to pay you for V2G you had better provide storage on their terms, not yours: that means storing at high SoC, rapid charge and discharge, and other wearing conditions as they see fit for their operation-not for your vehicle.
(Disclaimer: EV owner, researcher in relevant field, and I was once asked to evaluate a research project on V2G in an European country)
The idea is interesting, and may well have an impact in countries with a lot of non-controllable power (wind, sun, but to a degree nuclear and other baseloads too), if price oscillations are large enough. The article mentions a potential of USD 40 a month, which is just above a buck a day. Would you risk not having enough charge in your car to get home for such a pittance?
More importantly, there is no mention of battery wear. Batteries are much more expensive than the energy they store through their lifetime. Teslas have actually a very limited lifetime of about 500 cycles (since the batteries are large, there is no need for more lifetime—it's actually smart to use short-lived, cheaper NCA batteries as Tesla does), which means that, if you assume USD 200 / kWh by 2030, each kWh will cost 40 cents only in battery depreciation: that's a lot more than what the energy costs, and will likely more than offset those 40 USD a month. (Yes, there are longer-lived batteries; they are also more expensive) (Yes, battery wear is not just a matter of cycling, it's also storing at high voltage, rate of charge/discharge at which temperature, and lots of other things)
V2G is very interesting for grid companies as a solution to their energy storage problems, but they seem to intend to exploit the lack of consumer understanding of EV cost dynamics: the real cost of a kWh is the battery wear, not the actual energy. There is a reason why these companies are not buying the batteries directly.
I believe V2G has more potential in "private grid" applications: e.g. if you have a cabin in the woods with no option of grid connection, you could drive to it with you EV and power it from your batteries while you are there (a home uses a lot less power than a car); or you could transfer some charge to a vehicle that ran out of it on the road (actually the Toyota Mirai has a similar feature, a ChaDeMo outlet).
PragerU claims to be a university, but is just a propaganda outlet. So they are lying right from their name.
They do expose a number of political opinions I find wrong, distasteful or outright despicable, such as that Israel does not discriminate against Arabs, or that capitalism is the solution to poverty, but that does not warrant any kind of censorship. But when they venture in the territory of alternative facts, as opposed to alternative opinions, such as "global warming isn't real", then they deserve to take a hit for spreading mala fide lies. Note that YT is not censoring them nor anyone, they are just going to be unable to monetise. And considering that PragerU is funded by the billionaire Wilkis brothers, video monetisation is the last of their problems.
Wow, these democrats are really powerful—they managed to influence even the construction of nuclear reactors in Finland!
The Olkiluoto reactor #3 has been a spectacular failure for years. Works started in 2005, slated to finish in 2010 for 3 billion €. Works are still unfinished, with completion slated for 2019 at 8.5 billion € (barring further fuck-ups, which at this point have become a habit).
Building the plant is not some Finnish farmer, it's Areva and Siemens, top-notch companies in the nuclear industry. If that's what nuclear can provide, well some politicians looking for a humongous boondoggle may be happy with that, but I as a consumer and taxpayer, not so much.
Your link appears to be mostly a whining rant about how terrible it is that nuclear power plants are forced to respect minimum standards of environmental decency: this, in particular, blew my mind [my bold]:
The Seabrook plant in New Hampshire suffered 2 years of delay due to intervenor activity based on the plant's discharges of warm water (typically 80F) into the Atlantic Ocean. Intervenors claimed it would do harm to a particular species of aquatic life which is not commercially harvested. There was nothing harmful about the water other than its warm temperatures. The utility eventually provided a large and very expensive system for piping this warm water 2 miles out from shore before releasing it
So as long as it's not commercially harvested, it's all right to exterminate species in the ocean? The temperature may seem mild to us, but higher temperatures do reduce oxygen content in water, and for every GW of power out of nuclear power plant there are 2 GW of heat; that could have altered the ecosystem significantly. Look at the location of the Seabrook, NH plant: it is right on the inside of Hampton Harbor, which has a very narrow inlet. Heat would easily accumulate in there over time. And boo-hoo, they had to build 2 miles of pipe, cry me a river.
I guess you are a resident of a non-EU country then, because I definitely ordered from Amazon to Italy and got billed from Luxembourg (i.e. zero VAT). When shipping to Norway, instead, the customs apply the VAT (none on books, but 25 % on most items).
A person who is not a white male will absolutely get paid attention to almost immediately.
That's true when discussing being stopped by police.
I'm a white male myself and I cannot fathom how some people with my same complexion cannot notice the skin colour and genital makeup of Congress, company boards and most positions of power.
This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century. However, it would have been interesting the reaction of the same people if he had been a muslim and proposed to install sharia in Google—which is pretty much what he was suggesting.
And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!
World War 2 was started because Germany wanted a chunk of land that was predominately German
I'm pretty sure Poland was not predominantly German. You are thinking of the Sudetenland, which western powers were all too happy to hand over to Hitler on a silver platter (along with the rest of Czechoslovakia).
Oh, but charges do become obsolete, unfortunately. In my garage, my car uses Type 1 for normal charging, the Kia I believe as well. The VW uses Type 2. The Teslas have their own standard. So in a small garage we have 3 standards for charging. Most likely Type 2 will win out, but for now there is fragmentation.
Thought about that, but that requires the condo admins to standardise on a specific model, and possibly to install the chargers in each parking stall. We still have a majority of fossil-fuelled cars, and new EVs trickle in slowly, and by the time the next (PH)EV arrives the previous charger model could be out of production.
I see that as a thing 10 years from now, in newly built condos and after EVs have penetrated over 50% of the market.
Condominiums are pretty common the world over, actually—Wiki is your friend.
What is particular in Norway, is that we have two distinct types of condominiums:
The Sameie, or "joint ownership", which is a condominium proper like anywhere else: everybody owns their flat and do what they want with it, and they pay a fee to maintain the jointly owned estate;
The Borettslag, or "Right-to-reside company", which is more structured like a company in which you buy one share that grants you the right to use a flat (you don't own the flat formally, the company does).
The first are usually common for larger and more expensive apartments, and for (almost) all free-standing houses. The second are exempt from the heavy taxes levied on acquisition of real estate (2.5%), since you are buying a share, not real estate, but require more administration since it's the company that formally owns the whole building. They are also more heavily regulated, for example there are strict limits to subletting, since their social purpose is to provide people a home they own and live in, as opposed to be a pure investment object.
Most problems with EV chargers come with the Borettslag, because there you need to ask for permission for any major renovation you want to do (because formally it's not yours). In a Sameie things are usually easier, though you must handle them yourself.
Having experienced both (my own charger and fast chargers): you definitely want to use your own charger. Fast chargers are really expensive (about as expensive as gas by the km—European gas that is!), and their kWh price is about 10 times what you would get from your power company; the reason is that they pay high tariffs for kW rating (as opposed to kWh).
Fast chargers are for people driving long distances once in a while who need to recharge their vehicle midway. If you use them regularly, you will not save anything on "fuel" compared to gas, plus your battery will degrade faster in the long run. If you can buy an EV, you should also have your own little (slow) charging station at home, and use it overnight as you main charging strategy: this will save you loads of money.
I am an EV owner living in Norway, and we had this kind of problems in the news. The government is thinking of making it a requirement for condos to allow installation of charging stations.
The argument of the recalcitrant condos was that old electric systems could not support charging all cars if all tenants switched to EVs, so they decided to forbid it outright for everybody, in order not to create a precedent. In my condo, for example, we have a standing rule that we cannot install a charger for more than 16 A each. Yet this point is moot, since it practically never happens that all cars are charging at the same time, and if it does is during the night. I charge my Leaf on average once a week (in our garage we also have a Tesla S, a Tesla X, a Kia Soul Electric and a VW E-golf out of 15 flats). The electric grid could just as well get overloaded if all tenants started their ovens, washing machines and heaters at the same time, and the worst that can happen is that the main switch trips.
Also, having 32 A charging is nice to have the time you need it, but no one actually uses daily it if they can help it, because:
10 A is more than enough for overnight charge, and higher currents degrade the battery faster
32 A is a big share of each tenant's limit of 40 A, so you have to run the rest of the flat on 8 A (which must be enough for heating, cooking and so on)
What I think is more challenging for the US is that a lot of people rent rather than buy, so they would be unwilling to buy their charging stations. I bought my own for about 1000 dollars (including cabling, B-type residual-current device and installation) and I consider an investment in the house, but people renting will not be willing to shell out that much money (though you can probably get away with 100 $ if you install a simple socket and use the onboard charger).
Slashdot Mirror
I think I may have found a flaw in your train of thought.
They claim "current technology", but with current technology 900 kWh weigh about 9 tons (considering the battery pack). Ultimate density for Li-ion, according to this report (figure 6-12), could get it to 3 ton or just below.
That's in any case a lot more than the payload for a plane that size. In general, current battery technology cannot be used on regional flights, much less intercontinental ones. Hydrogen may be an alternative for regional (still not long-range), though it might require making the plane look like a beluga to accommodate the tanks.
900 kWh on a 9-seater? Vaporware, unless they show what battery pack they are using.
Uhh... going pretty strong. Prices have been gradually coming down and there is a lot of interest from industry. However, since batteries have also improved in the meantime, the focus is moving away from consumer applications (cars) to larger ones (ships, buses, trucks, trains, even regional planes), so they are not so visible to the man in the street.
I do work in hydrogen & fuel cells, and in the last 2-3 years we have seen a surge in industrial interest we can barely handle. We know that FC manufacturers are tooling for mass production, at which point prices will fall a lot faster. At this point we are where batteries were about 15 years ago, with some applications ready for deployment (buses, home CHP, trucks, trains) and plenty of others in advanced development—maritime is likely the next big thing.
So just because you don't hear about it in the 9 o'clock news it does not mean it has been abandoned. It has simply dipped down from the hype peak and started maturing.
While CO2 is wreaking havoc on the planet's climate, it is still a small fraction of air, around 500 ppm, and is chemically inert (well, it's a combustion product, so obviously...). Extracting CO2 from the air is very difficult. You can use current technology with biofuels, though these are obtained by fermentation and have a short shelf life. For example, biodiesel is OK for city buses because they run around regularly, but if you fill your diesel car with biodiesel and park it at the airport for 2 weeks while on holiday, you may find a nasty surprise when you try to start it again and the fuel has precipitated solids.
The infrastructure for EVs is way more pervasive than fossil fuels today. I am en EV owner (Nissan Leaf) and I almost never need to use fast charging: overnight charging at 2 kW covers over 95% of my needs. Just connect it in the evening and it will be ready the day after. Fast chargers are a necessity for longer travels, but charging at home is a whole lot cheaper.
And since I often hear the argument "but what if everyone charges their car at the same time?", well that just does not happen. The grid would collapse also if everyone started their washing machines at the same time, but that does not happen. Sure, the grid will need some strengthening here and there, but there is plenty of time to do it, consumers are not going to buy EVs all at the same time.
Not sure if making is illegal, but I am pretty sure that if I find out that my neighbour's door has a faulty lock, make a tool with instructions on how to break in, lose it to some thief and my neighbour gets robbed by said thief with the method I developed, I would be liable to a lawsuit at the very least, if not criminal facilitation by gross negligence.
In addition to not telling my neighbour for years that his lock was faulty, which is pretty bad, especially if I worked for an agency that has "Security" as a middle name.
Yay, more subsidies to nuclear! An industry that has lived on gigantic subsidies since the 40's and has never spouted out a single fully non-subsidised, private-funded plant anywhere in the world, that still promises only economic disaster with yet another generation of miserable failures like the now-legendary 3rd+-generation Olkiluoto 3, 10 years late and procrastinating (I am thrilled to see whether they break the record of Duke Nukem Forever, they are quite close), while renewables have a proven track record of plummeting CAPEX and OPEX, are already competitive with ridiculously low prices (seriously: they hit 17 $/MWh in Mexico, and this is a company committing to deliver this and putting their money behind it, not an estimate).
The most obvious proof that world leaders know nuclear power is just a boondoggle, good only as a support to military nuclear? When Iran announced they wanted to build nuclear power plants, no one believed them for a second. They knew the economics.
No no, let's China take control of the world's renewable tech, just like we did with rare earths. What could possibly go wrong?
Armiamoci e partite!, which was the climax of a public speech at the beginning of WW2. It is quite difficult to render in English with the same immediacy, but the effect is about "let us take up arms, so you may fight!"
Any indictment coming soon for those in a taxpayer-funded federal agency who did not report security holes in critical US infrastructure, but instead developed tools to exploit them, which were later "lost" and ended up in the hands of anyone with an Internet connection? These guys probably reside on US territory and can actually be arrested.
These Iranians are two small-time thugs. What about the Chinese government—do you think they did not duly download the tools and put them to good use?
The rest of the comment is actually OK, but this is appalling bullshit. Electrification by catenary is extremely expensive ("extremely" as in "there is nothing more expensive you can possibly do", other than building the railroad itself). It can be a good investment, but it will always be enormous.
A good estimate is 1.7 million dollars per km of electrification (I have this from the 3 billion NOK the Norwegian government recently allocated to electrify about 200 km of single-track rail).
It is also patently false that all this is "regardless of varried terrain, density of traffic or there being single or multiple tracks". Terrain is a major deal-breaker. As UK's Network Rail points out, the actual catenary is actually a minor post in the whole electrification endeavour: bridges and tunnels are especially expensive, as they need to be widened to make place for the catenary—often while trains are still using the line. Going through cities is usually as bad as going through mountains, since there are so many overpasses.
Density of traffic is the single most important parameter for economic feasibility of catenary electrification: you need enough trains to spread the cost of the catenary on. If traffic is small enough, diesel always wins out. However, hydrogen trains do not require significant infrastructure, and their cost scales with the number of trains like diesel, not the length of the line like catenary: that's why they can compete on these small lines and catenary cannot.
As a researcher, from my point of view, funding agencies have way more influence on which journal I choose to publish in. In my environment, there are three groups of journals: Class 1 (Nature, Science, but also high-quality lesser-known journals such as Electrochimica Acta), Class 2 (not so good, but still legit, like Journal of Power Sources and most scientific journals), and unclassified junk (the kind of journals that spam researcher promising "fast peer review" and "open access", for a fee of course). Which journal you publish in directly affects your funding, and it's the researchers who produce the content.
You seem to be implying that ISPs and webmail providers are not parsing your emails and collating data on you. That would be nice.
Unencrypted email is not, and has never been, a secure channel. If you want to impress your prospective employer in this field, provide your public encryption key (not on a USB pen). That works with any mailbox.
Man, here in Norway electric cars are almost 2/3 of all new vehicles already (half battery, the other half hybrids, mostly plug-in). Range is already more than enough for anyone who is not a taxi driver or otherwise drives all day long. Calculations by DNV GL indicate that EVs will be overall cheaper than fossil-fuelled card by 2022, that's before you factor in extra taxes on pollution or subsidies on zero emissions. It's true that their up-front cost is higher, but maintenance and energy are way cheaper, so that the TCO is still better.
2035 is a perfectly reasonable date to expect ICE cars to be off the market: It took only 10 years for the car to displace the horse. Some ICE cars will still be around, but mostly as a curiosity (we did not exterminate horses either). Also, as demand for gas plummets, gas stations will close, oil companies will not invest in new fields, the oil value chain will lose its economies of scale, and gas prices will go a long way up.
Not sure why a comment with unbacked claims got modded +5 Informative. Googling leads to no official claim for this 3000 cycle figure. Indeed, Panasonic's official datasheet for the 18650B used in Teslas indicates an end-of-life (defined at 20% capacity loss) after 300 cycles.
Of course, that's because in Panasonic's test cycle the cell is deep-discharged down to 2.75 V, and obviously if you are careful with your EV's charging pattern you will have much better performance. 3000 is not impossible, but it's not the nominal rating, and Panasonic would be unwise to guarantee a performance that is highly dependent on good behaviour by the user. In any case, this is irrelevant since 500 cycles are plenty for most people, except possibly professional drivers.
My point is, if you connect to a V2G system, the grid company will want to use the full capacity and maximum power that the vehicle is capable of delivering (that's what they pay for), so with that kind of cycling you can expect a lifetime closer to 300 than 3000.
Thank you for the link, the ScienceDirect paper liked in it was an interesting read. However, I became sceptical of scientific findings in newspapers early in my PhD for good reasons. In this specific case, the original authors Uddin & al. looked for a specific pattern that would reduce degradation. That's not the same pattern that would result in the most profit for the grid company, and for which they would pay 40 USD a month. In a nutshell, their V2G strategy reduced the SoC of vehicles that arrived at work with high SoC, reducing thereby degradation due to sustained high voltages. Now, as they also point out in more polite terms, an EV owner who charges their car to 100% every night when he needs 5% to get to work is an idiot, and will wear the battery rapidly. Their strategy takes care of these idiots by reducing the SoC of their vehicles and preserving battery performance though the day. The article does not claim that V2G in general reduces degradation, only that, for a minority of (stupid) users, it can be made that way. But real users are not necessarily stupid, and if you want a grid company to pay you for V2G you had better provide storage on their terms, not yours: that means storing at high SoC, rapid charge and discharge, and other wearing conditions as they see fit for their operation-not for your vehicle.
(Disclaimer: EV owner, researcher in relevant field, and I was once asked to evaluate a research project on V2G in an European country)
The idea is interesting, and may well have an impact in countries with a lot of non-controllable power (wind, sun, but to a degree nuclear and other baseloads too), if price oscillations are large enough. The article mentions a potential of USD 40 a month, which is just above a buck a day. Would you risk not having enough charge in your car to get home for such a pittance?
More importantly, there is no mention of battery wear. Batteries are much more expensive than the energy they store through their lifetime. Teslas have actually a very limited lifetime of about 500 cycles (since the batteries are large, there is no need for more lifetime—it's actually smart to use short-lived, cheaper NCA batteries as Tesla does), which means that, if you assume USD 200 / kWh by 2030, each kWh will cost 40 cents only in battery depreciation: that's a lot more than what the energy costs, and will likely more than offset those 40 USD a month. (Yes, there are longer-lived batteries; they are also more expensive) (Yes, battery wear is not just a matter of cycling, it's also storing at high voltage, rate of charge/discharge at which temperature, and lots of other things)
V2G is very interesting for grid companies as a solution to their energy storage problems, but they seem to intend to exploit the lack of consumer understanding of EV cost dynamics: the real cost of a kWh is the battery wear, not the actual energy. There is a reason why these companies are not buying the batteries directly.
I believe V2G has more potential in "private grid" applications: e.g. if you have a cabin in the woods with no option of grid connection, you could drive to it with you EV and power it from your batteries while you are there (a home uses a lot less power than a car); or you could transfer some charge to a vehicle that ran out of it on the road (actually the Toyota Mirai has a similar feature, a ChaDeMo outlet).
PragerU claims to be a university, but is just a propaganda outlet. So they are lying right from their name.
They do expose a number of political opinions I find wrong, distasteful or outright despicable, such as that Israel does not discriminate against Arabs, or that capitalism is the solution to poverty, but that does not warrant any kind of censorship. But when they venture in the territory of alternative facts, as opposed to alternative opinions, such as "global warming isn't real", then they deserve to take a hit for spreading mala fide lies. Note that YT is not censoring them nor anyone, they are just going to be unable to monetise. And considering that PragerU is funded by the billionaire Wilkis brothers, video monetisation is the last of their problems.
Wow, these democrats are really powerful—they managed to influence even the construction of nuclear reactors in Finland!
The Olkiluoto reactor #3 has been a spectacular failure for years. Works started in 2005, slated to finish in 2010 for 3 billion €. Works are still unfinished, with completion slated for 2019 at 8.5 billion € (barring further fuck-ups, which at this point have become a habit).
Building the plant is not some Finnish farmer, it's Areva and Siemens, top-notch companies in the nuclear industry. If that's what nuclear can provide, well some politicians looking for a humongous boondoggle may be happy with that, but I as a consumer and taxpayer, not so much.
Your link appears to be mostly a whining rant about how terrible it is that nuclear power plants are forced to respect minimum standards of environmental decency: this, in particular, blew my mind [my bold]:
So as long as it's not commercially harvested, it's all right to exterminate species in the ocean? The temperature may seem mild to us, but higher temperatures do reduce oxygen content in water, and for every GW of power out of nuclear power plant there are 2 GW of heat; that could have altered the ecosystem significantly. Look at the location of the Seabrook, NH plant: it is right on the inside of Hampton Harbor, which has a very narrow inlet. Heat would easily accumulate in there over time. And boo-hoo, they had to build 2 miles of pipe, cry me a river.
I guess you are a resident of a non-EU country then, because I definitely ordered from Amazon to Italy and got billed from Luxembourg (i.e. zero VAT). When shipping to Norway, instead, the customs apply the VAT (none on books, but 25 % on most items).
That's true when discussing being stopped by police.
I'm a white male myself and I cannot fathom how some people with my same complexion cannot notice the skin colour and genital makeup of Congress, company boards and most positions of power.
This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century. However, it would have been interesting the reaction of the same people if he had been a muslim and proposed to install sharia in Google—which is pretty much what he was suggesting.
And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!
I'm pretty sure Poland was not predominantly German. You are thinking of the Sudetenland, which western powers were all too happy to hand over to Hitler on a silver platter (along with the rest of Czechoslovakia).
Oh, but charges do become obsolete, unfortunately. In my garage, my car uses Type 1 for normal charging, the Kia I believe as well. The VW uses Type 2. The Teslas have their own standard. So in a small garage we have 3 standards for charging. Most likely Type 2 will win out, but for now there is fragmentation.
Thought about that, but that requires the condo admins to standardise on a specific model, and possibly to install the chargers in each parking stall. We still have a majority of fossil-fuelled cars, and new EVs trickle in slowly, and by the time the next (PH)EV arrives the previous charger model could be out of production.
I see that as a thing 10 years from now, in newly built condos and after EVs have penetrated over 50% of the market.
Condominiums are pretty common the world over, actually—Wiki is your friend.
What is particular in Norway, is that we have two distinct types of condominiums:
The first are usually common for larger and more expensive apartments, and for (almost) all free-standing houses. The second are exempt from the heavy taxes levied on acquisition of real estate (2.5%), since you are buying a share, not real estate, but require more administration since it's the company that formally owns the whole building. They are also more heavily regulated, for example there are strict limits to subletting, since their social purpose is to provide people a home they own and live in, as opposed to be a pure investment object.
Most problems with EV chargers come with the Borettslag, because there you need to ask for permission for any major renovation you want to do (because formally it's not yours). In a Sameie things are usually easier, though you must handle them yourself.
Having experienced both (my own charger and fast chargers): you definitely want to use your own charger. Fast chargers are really expensive (about as expensive as gas by the km—European gas that is!), and their kWh price is about 10 times what you would get from your power company; the reason is that they pay high tariffs for kW rating (as opposed to kWh).
Fast chargers are for people driving long distances once in a while who need to recharge their vehicle midway. If you use them regularly, you will not save anything on "fuel" compared to gas, plus your battery will degrade faster in the long run. If you can buy an EV, you should also have your own little (slow) charging station at home, and use it overnight as you main charging strategy: this will save you loads of money.
I am an EV owner living in Norway, and we had this kind of problems in the news. The government is thinking of making it a requirement for condos to allow installation of charging stations.
The argument of the recalcitrant condos was that old electric systems could not support charging all cars if all tenants switched to EVs, so they decided to forbid it outright for everybody, in order not to create a precedent. In my condo, for example, we have a standing rule that we cannot install a charger for more than 16 A each. Yet this point is moot, since it practically never happens that all cars are charging at the same time, and if it does is during the night. I charge my Leaf on average once a week (in our garage we also have a Tesla S, a Tesla X, a Kia Soul Electric and a VW E-golf out of 15 flats). The electric grid could just as well get overloaded if all tenants started their ovens, washing machines and heaters at the same time, and the worst that can happen is that the main switch trips.
Also, having 32 A charging is nice to have the time you need it, but no one actually uses daily it if they can help it, because:
What I think is more challenging for the US is that a lot of people rent rather than buy, so they would be unwilling to buy their charging stations. I bought my own for about 1000 dollars (including cabling, B-type residual-current device and installation) and I consider an investment in the house, but people renting will not be willing to shell out that much money (though you can probably get away with 100 $ if you install a simple socket and use the onboard charger).