Personally I'd rather not have large donors of any sort provide financing for campaign advertising. But if you're going to allow that, it should be clear who is providing the financing and the content should be labeled as such - campaign advertising.
Even if you're not going to be that strict, I'd definitely draw the line at foreign government/interests using social media as tool to manipulate and disrupt our elections, - which is quite a bit different than using social media to promote your own candidacy.
I don't know about the libraries in Boston but the libraries in my city are well maintained and definitely get used. Parents with young kids are common visitors along with various groups using the meeting rooms. 60-80% of the computers are typically in use during the afternoon and evening by people of all sorts.
There are people who definitely go there to get work/studying done as opposed to sitting in a starbucks or coffee shop.
I've never seen any old men there playing checkers but I'm sure it happens.
I think it would be worth the effort to separate opinion and speech from news. The FCC should re-adopt the fairness doctrine and make it apply to a wider variety of media.
If you want to be considered a "news" source, then you should be required to provide time and/or space to opposing points of view. Something that's presented as "news" should be prominently retracted or corrected when proven to false, - like what ABC news did when they mistakenly showed a banner that said Manafort had plead guilty to 5 counts of manslaughter. If a site/network/station is not willing to be held to that level of accountability then they should clearly identify themselves as a source of opinion and not news.
The fairness doctrine required broadcasters to provide air time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance and they had to provide contrasting views of those issues.
A radio station or TV network could broadcast any point of view that they liked as long as they gave air time to somebody with an opposing view.
So, nothing like the Egyptian law at all really.
Many think that today's more polarized political environment is partly the result of the FCC dropping the fairness doctrine instead of expanding it to cover more types of media. Unfortunately, today it's all too easy to insulate oneself in their own little news bubble where opposing points of view are never heard and anything from outside that bubble is "fake".
Imagine a world where giving time to opposing viewpoints was considered normal and proper. Imagine a world where conservative speakers would be welcomed at a liberal college...
It's a common misconception and it varies by state but gas taxes only pay for a portion of the costs of roads and bridges. The EV owners don't get to use them for free because they are largely paid for through other taxes.
Also consider that the cost of damages done by air pollution in the US was 131 billion in 2011 and that transportation is the major source of air pollution in the US. Fortunately, as the degree of air pollution has decreased, so have the associated costs. It was 175 billion in 2002.
We're all paying for that and fortunately, EVs are helping to reduce that cost.
I've never purchased a brand new vehicle in my life. For my personal car the most I've ever paid is about $13,000. My wife and I bought a minivan once for $19,000.
I'm not sure if I'm one of the little people or not, but the tax break on EVs also suppresses the resale value. Let's say the MSRP is $40,000. Few people are going to pay even $30,000 for a 1 year old car when they can get the same car brand new effectively for $32,500.
That means that not only do the original buyers pay less, so do the buyers down the road (including us little people). I just bought a used Chevy Volt for about the same as what I'd pay for an equivalently equipped Toyota Corolla of the same year.
And of course we all benefit if the tax break helps speed the adoption of EVs.
And that's before we actually get into talking about when the media actively and provably lies to the public. I'm looking at you CNN. 'It's illegal to read Wikileaks' my ass...
Are you referring to what Chris Cuomo said about the Clinton emails? Because that's not what he said. What he said was "It's illegal to possess these uh, stolen documents".
Now, you can argue about whether or not he was deliberately trying to discourage people from reading them on their own because CNN wanted to protect Clinton. And I'm sure depending on your political persuasion, you might be inclined to believe that. But your quote is not a quote at all and a distortion of what he actually said.
Was this deliberate on your part or were you just repeating what you've read on your more favored sources of "news" without verifying that it was true? Unfortunately both have become far too common.
There's not a lot that's completely new. Maybe it's just me but it seems like most "new" languages I see bear a strong resemblance to one or another old one. So why the new ones? They aim to fix some weaknesses that existed in the older languages. Python to me seems likes a reaction to the arcane and messy world of perl scripts.
Lots of stuff is borrowed and this helps adoption rates.
And yes, I do think a lot of programmers enjoy learning new languages.
This would be for new homes, - not existing. I would guess they'd be smart enough to also require 200 Amp service (or more) if that's what's needed.
From what I understand the base Model 3 only charges at 40 amps anyway. The model X and S are about 72 amps but the literature I've seen is that the charger will run on as little a 15 amps. It will take forever to get a full charge that way, but that's all that's required. If you were to go with 40 amps, the Model 3 charges at a rate of 30 miles per every hour it's plugged in, the Model S is 23 miles per hour, and the Model X is 20. So even with the Model X, 40 amps gets you 200 miles of range for 10 hours of charging.
A Chevy Bolt with 238 mile range takes about 9.5 hours to charge at 240 volts / 32 amps.
Since you're probably not starting at zero all the time, the actual time it takes to top off the charge will be much less. 40 amps seems to be adequate even if not ideal for some vehicles.
I recently bought a 1st generation Chevy Volt (not a Bolt) which is a plug-in hybrid. It's only has a 40 mile electric range, then a gasoline powered "range extender" kicks in. I'm currently using a plain old 120 volt outlet to charge it. Takes 11 hours if starting from zero. It will take less if the circuit is a dedicated one and can draw 12 amps. Installing a Level 2 "EVSE" requires 240 volts and at least 16 amps. That will get charge times down to 4.5 hours. I plan on installing a 240 outlet with a 20 amp circuit because currently I only have 100 amp service. But I'll run wiring capable of handling at least 40 amps so that if I ever do get a pure EV, I can get proper charging without running more wire out to the garage, but I will need upgraded service.
Who is they? I thought the recording industry was fighting services like Spotify and Pandora? I think the reality is that technology has evolved and services have come along to capitalize on that. It's not a conspiracy designed to dupe the public.
One problem with purchasing a CD (aside from the relative inconvenience of the format) is that most of the music consumed is modern pop or hip hop, and it's largely about singles, - not albums. This really is not something that's changed. Buying a CD means you get 2 or 3 songs that you like and 8 or 10 that you don't particularly care for. And people would prefer to listen a lower quality version of a song they like than a high quality version of a song they don't.
Again, this is not something new. This is why people bought 45s in the 50s and early 60s rather than albums. 45s far outsold albums. It's also why people recorded music off the radio once technology made that fairly easy to do that. How good was the quality? Terrible, compared to buying the album or any streaming service available today. But it was cheap, the quality was good enough, and people could choose the songs they wanted individually rather than packaged as an album.
Oh, and just to be clear, when I said "it's just not that cold here", I mean that it's not so cold that staying below 0 F for 7 straight days is a common occurrence. That almost never happens. But it is still obviously a very cold place, as anyone who was here during the Super Bowl last winter can tell you.
Nope. Not kidding. The article you linked would seem to agree with me.
The question I was responding to was was: "I live in MN. What happens if this battery is sitting in a car outside when it -reasonably frequently - is -35c for a week?"
Just to convert for people more used to Fahrenheit, -35 C is -31 F, - not that much different. The Fahrenheit and Celsius scales converge at about -40.
If I was going to be nitpicky, the phase "-35c for a week" would mean that the temp never varied from -35c for 7 straight days which is of course not what you meant. What I took it to mean was what if it was about that cold or colder for a week? In other words, what if the temp *never* rose about -35c for a week?
It's just not that cold here. You might have lots of days where it *falls* below 0 F, and there are a number of days where it never rises above 0 F, but in the twin cities area, it almost never stays below 0 F for 168 consecutive hours (a week). According to your article, the last time it stayed below 0 for 4 days or more was 1994.
As for -35 C (or -31 F), it almost never gets that cold in the Twin Cities metro area period, at the airport or anywhere. The coldest recorded temp in the metro area is -34 F back in 1936. Not sure if that temp was measured at the airport. There was an airport, but there wasn't much to it, certainly not much of a heat island effect.
Anyway the distinction between "falls below" and "remains below" is important when it comes to EV battery packs. Batteries have a fairly hight specific heat and in well built EVs they're pretty well insulated. So just because it falls below 0 outside, does not mean the cells themselves will get that cold. It would have to remain below 0 for a significant amount of time.
I've spent most of my 50+ years in Minnesota including my time at college. Like many campuses, parking was scarce and there was effectively only one lot at the far end of campus where a car could be kept over night. Even then all cars had to be off the lot between 1:00 and 5:00 pm on Saturday's. I had a good job back home about 2 hours away that I worked every other weekend, so I kept on car on campus.
I have vivid memories of tromping down to the lot to see the local tow trucks circling like vultures. If it had been a cold week, the chances of your car starting were slim unless you'd been vigilant about running it now and again. If you got there early enough, they'd charge you to start your car. If not, you'd get a nice ticket left on your windshield or possibly even towed.
There's a reason I tell that story. In the days of carburetors and mechanical ignition, it wasn't uncommon for people to have block heaters installed in their cars and plug them in overnight. Some motels would even advertise free plugins. With EVs for extreme cold or heat the same thing applies. You plug it in not only to charge it, but to maintain the battery temp. I own a Chevy Volt and it's not a problem to leave it a day or two unused outdoors in sub zero (Fahrenheit) weather. Longer than that and it should be plugged in.
Now a slight point of contention. As I said, I've seen many winters in MN. There are definitely places where it falls below -35 C multiple times during the winter, but I don't think there's any place in the state where it'll stay that cold for a week. Maybe -18 C. (0 F).
I'm a big fan of Tesla and think they have the potential to disrupt the auto industry in very positive ways (if they already haven't), but I also believe it would be a mistake to characterize traditional car manufacturers as comparatively clueless when it comes to battery technology.
As I said, I'm a big fan of Tesla but their cars cost much more than I'm willing to spend on a vehicle. In fact I bike to work and a lot of places which is a dirt cheap way to get around. Still we do own and drive a couple of cars for those trips where biking or other forms of transportation aren't vey practical. When one of them got to be about 16 years old it started to become less reliable and we decided to replace it. I wanted to try an EV and for us a plug-hybrid made a lot of sense. As someone who considers $15,000 to be a lot of money for a car, a new one was out of the question. But the beauty of used marked for EVs is that resale values are crappy because people don't want to get stuck with having to replace a battery pack.
What we ended up with was a used Chevy Volt. I've never owned a Chevy in my life but the battery packs on those cars have a pretty good reputation. Contrary to what you might think, they put a lot of thought and engineering into designing those packs. They DO have their own independent cooling and heating systems and have since the first ones came out in 2010/2011. They have not suffered the degradation that early Nissan Leaf owners did who lived in hot climates.
So, our 2012 Volt (manufactured in late 2011) is nearly 7 years old, has 73,000 miles and so far has not lost any perceptible amount of electric range. Tesla has not cornered the market on EV battery technology.
Baseball is a perfect example where this is completely feasible. Calling balls vs. strikes when the batter doesn't swing is a matter of where exactly the ball is. Umpires are notoriously inaccurate. The 538 even did a story showing that they biased their calls in favor of ending games that went into extra innings.
Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure anyone really wants more than an extra inning or two. And to me that's why having humans involved makes sense because they don't strictly apply the rules. The good ones keep control of the game while letting the players play. And when everyone is sick of watching the players play, and the players want to be done playing, they work to end the game while still keeping it fair.
AI applies the rule without always understanding why the rule is there. Without that understanding you can't decide when to let something go that's technically a violation.
Well, with a Bolt or Tesla you have the 200 miles you need plus some extra and with a plug-in hybrid like a Volt it's a non issue. So if you're genuinely interested it's a solvable problem. Your situation isn't that common and I'm guessing probably temporary?
Anyway, EVs aren't for everybody but the range is less of an issue than a lot of people realize. I imagine those biweekly 200 mile trips of yours result in a healthy fuel bill. Even if you went the plug-in hybrid route you could go the first 50 miles or so on electricity which for me anyway is dirt cheap. I realize that's not the case for everyone. And with a car like the Volt, once the gas engine kicks in you're still getting 40+ mpg. You'd use less than 4 gallons of gas for the whole trip.
Sounds like you have a bit of bias against 4 cylinder cars.;-) If you buy a decent one and take reasonable care of it, it'll last a long time. Our last one was 16 years old and we'd still have it if it weren't for my wife. Trucks can last for decades but that doesn't mean everyone wants to keep one that long.
Anyway, unless you account for the difference between the aerodynamics of your truck vs a Volt (which would be substantial), your calculations aren't going to mean a lot. Acceleration in a Volt from 45-65 is 4.2 seconds if that gives you some idea. But I suggest that if you're really curious you could always take one for a test drive. Or if acceleration at passing speeds is really that important to you, a Tesla may be a better option.
150 hp still doesn't sound like much. How much jam does it have at highway speed for passing?
Quoted from a wired review:
Once up to full speed, I did some “passing speed” behavior to see how the car would perform in traffic. When accelerating from 50 to 65 mph and 55 to 70 mph, the Volt performed like a conventional car but without the downshift and sudden surge you often experience. The Volt performs perfectly well on the highway and you’ll have no trouble overtaking slower cars with ease.
I'm in my 50's now and both the car I learned to drive on and the first car I owned had V8's. Both were heavier cars than the Volt and bricks by comparison to the Volt in terms of aerodynamics. Neither accelerated as well. The standard engine on 1973 Catalina (the car I learned to drive on) was a 2 barrel 350 ci V8 engine that generated... 150 hp. The car that the Volt is replacing was a 4 cyl that generated 125 hp and I never felt that it's acceleration was inadequate except for perhaps when we had 6 people crammed in it with a trunk full of crap.
My point is that the number of cylinders, the displacement, and the horsepower aren't the only factors that determine how well a car is going to perform. And of course, it's all subjective. If you're used to a 300+ HP engine in a sedan, then 150 HP in a Volt may not feel adequate to you even though it might be more than enough for 80% of drivers.
Chevy Bolt has a 238 mile range. Teslas can do 200+ miles. You could always go with a Plug-In hybrid which will use a gas engine once the battery is depleted. Another thing that people don't realize is how many charging stations there are around. Plugshare.com is one site/app that will show you the charging stations along your route and around your destination. Some are free, others you pay a fee for.
For example, my son makes periodic visits to his girlfriend at her college which is a 160 mile round trip. They have a free EV charging station. He may or may not be there long enough to get a full charge but if you have an EV that's roughly capable of 150 or 200 miles you can probably grab dinner somewhere and add enough miles to get you home. Chevy claims the Bolt's fast charging rate is 90 miles in 30 minutes. Not all stations are capable of charging at that rate but more are being added. VW as part of their settlement for their diesel scam has agreed to pour 2 billion into building out the fast charging network in the US.
Worse case scenario is that your stuck charging from a typical 120 volt outlet. Available nearly everywhere but you may need a very leisurely meal to get enough juice to get where your going.
Just to clarify something that confuses people about the Volt. The gas engine kicks in before the battery is ever truly exhausted and it's the job of the gas engine to generate enough electricity to power the electric motor. The Volt is always using the 150 HP electric motor to drive the wheels even when the gas engine is running.
You're not quite right. The gas engine, which in most situations is just a generator, is 84 hp. The electric motor is 150.
Acceleration isn't just dependent on horsepower, it's also impacted by mass. And highway speeds, also heavily dependent on aerodynamics. The Volt is not a light car for its size, but Chevy spent a lot of time working on the aerodynamics. It's a slippery vehicle so it simply doesn't require as much horsepower to accelerate as a typical car or truck.
Our other vehicle is a 253 HP Acura MDX and I have no concerns about either car being able to pass at highway speeds. All I can say is that you should really drive a Volt or other EV before coming to any conclusions about its performance. It's not a sports car but it's fun to drive. Actually, it's a blast to drive.
Let me answer this a 2nd way. Any vehicle choice involves compromises. Whether it's range, size, handling, comfort, performance, reliability, cost, gas mileage, towing capacity, seating capacity, etc, etc.
An electric vehicle is no exception. You might choose a plug-in electric hybrid (also has a gas engine) if range is really an issue. But I think at least for early adopters like myself, driving an EV involves changing some of your driving habits. I have a PHEV (plug in electric hybrid) so I don't worry about range except that I much prefer not using the gas engine. One might find themselves devising strategies for traveling long distances on electric like picking hotels that allow people to plug in their vehicles or choosing routes with charging stations near good restaurants. There are apps that'll show you where you can charge your vehicle nearby or along your route.
Many people come up with reasons why an EV wouldn't be a good choice for them and many of those reasons are legit, but some objections or concerns could be alleviated with some thought. Your camping trip example for one. I've gone on several camping trips to remote areas without electricity, running water, etc. Without exception the car was left some place not far from electricity. Often times when camping at a remote area the evening before we'll overnight at a hotel some place relatively close to where we're going. The car can be charged there, driven to the drop off spot the next take day and will have plenty of charge remaining when we return to it after the camping trip is done.
EVs aren't for everyone. Something like a Volt (PHEV) might work well for you since it has a gas engine backup. It has a range of over 300 miles just on the gas engine so you can go as far on electric as your comfort and conditions allow knowing that there's a gas engine to take you the rest of the way if battery alone is not enough.
The previous owner of our Volt ended up moving into an apartment where they couldn't charge the car very frequently but would sometimes do it at work. Most of the miles they put on it by far were using the gas engine. They still averaged 50 mpg combining the gas and electric use. But that's why they sold it. Figured it didn't make sense to have an electric vehicle when you're running on electricity only about 1/3 of the time.
What if you want to haul 12 foot sheets of drywall in your vehicle and be able to drive 6 kids to football practice when it's your family's turn to drive? Or what if you want a vehicle that gets 50+ mpg and 90% of the time, you're the only one in it?
The answer for a family is probably to have two different types of vehicles, each well suited for certain types of trips while being less suited for others. One vehicle could be a small EV and the other a more traditional gas powered vehicle. Maybe a minivan or SUV. And maybe for certain kinds of things (12 foot sheets of drywall), they'll just rent or pay to have the stuff delivered.
That's what we do. For years we've had a small economy car for the bulk of the trips and a larger vehicle to be used when you need a bigger vehicle.
In your example, most families probably aren't going to "suddenly" go camping in a remote area without electricity anyway. That takes a little bit of planning and if they've got time to plan and are an all EV family, they probably have some disposable income and can find a cheap rental car or borrow one from a friend.
You can have both heated seats and a heated cabin, but it shortens the distance you can travel without re-charging (or the gas engine kicking in in the case of a plugin hybrid). If the range is long enough then it doesn't matter but it's something you need to be aware of. It's also a consideration in hot climates in terms of A/C use.
I have a 2012 Chevy Volt and it's electric range is between 25 and 45 miles depending on a number of factors including weather, driving style, etc. After that the gas engine ("range extender") kicks in. Since and I and most Volt drivers have a strong preference for limiting the amount of time the range extender runs, it becomes kind of a game to see how far we can go on electric only.
What my son and a lot of people will do in hot weather is turn the A/C to max, - he'll set it to 60 or whatever. It drives me nuts because it shortens the range and is totally unnecessary. The climate system does a pretty good job of managing the temp in the cabin if you set it at 72 or 75. And it will be far easier on the range. But for some reason, people like their cars to feel like inside of a refrigerator when it's hot outside.
Same with the heat. There's no reason to set the temp at 85 in the cabin when you're already wearing a winter coat. I dress for being outside and don't need or want it to be 80 inside the car. But like I said before, the Volt will comply and even has the bonus of remote start from the key fob or phone app that will warm the car up before you drive while it's still plugged in.
Cars like the Volt are nice because even if the electric range is shortened below the point where you get all the places you need to be, it has a gas engine to charge the battery and the mileage is still much better than most gas engine cars would get. And I think new EVs (all electric) like the Bolt and newer Teslas have enough range that even if it's shortened in cold weather, it's still adequate.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I'd rather not have large donors of any sort provide financing for campaign advertising. But if you're going to allow that, it should be clear who is providing the financing and the content should be labeled as such - campaign advertising.
Even if you're not going to be that strict, I'd definitely draw the line at foreign government/interests using social media as tool to manipulate and disrupt our elections, - which is quite a bit different than using social media to promote your own candidacy.
I don't know about the libraries in Boston but the libraries in my city are well maintained and definitely get used. Parents with young kids are common visitors along with various groups using the meeting rooms. 60-80% of the computers are typically in use during the afternoon and evening by people of all sorts.
There are people who definitely go there to get work/studying done as opposed to sitting in a starbucks or coffee shop.
I've never seen any old men there playing checkers but I'm sure it happens.
I think it would be worth the effort to separate opinion and speech from news. The FCC should re-adopt the fairness doctrine and make it apply to a wider variety of media.
If you want to be considered a "news" source, then you should be required to provide time and/or space to opposing points of view. Something that's presented as "news" should be prominently retracted or corrected when proven to false, - like what ABC news did when they mistakenly showed a banner that said Manafort had plead guilty to 5 counts of manslaughter. If a site/network/station is not willing to be held to that level of accountability then they should clearly identify themselves as a source of opinion and not news.
The fairness doctrine required broadcasters to provide air time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance and they had to provide contrasting views of those issues.
A radio station or TV network could broadcast any point of view that they liked as long as they gave air time to somebody with an opposing view.
So, nothing like the Egyptian law at all really.
Many think that today's more polarized political environment is partly the result of the FCC dropping the fairness doctrine instead of expanding it to cover more types of media. Unfortunately, today it's all too easy to insulate oneself in their own little news bubble where opposing points of view are never heard and anything from outside that bubble is "fake".
Imagine a world where giving time to opposing viewpoints was considered normal and proper. Imagine a world where conservative speakers would be welcomed at a liberal college...
It's a common misconception and it varies by state but gas taxes only pay for a portion of the costs of roads and bridges. The EV owners don't get to use them for free because they are largely paid for through other taxes.
Also consider that the cost of damages done by air pollution in the US was 131 billion in 2011 and that transportation is the major source of air pollution in the US. Fortunately, as the degree of air pollution has decreased, so have the associated costs. It was 175 billion in 2002.
We're all paying for that and fortunately, EVs are helping to reduce that cost.
You're welcome.
I've never purchased a brand new vehicle in my life. For my personal car the most I've ever paid is about $13,000. My wife and I bought a minivan once for $19,000.
I'm not sure if I'm one of the little people or not, but the tax break on EVs also suppresses the resale value. Let's say the MSRP is $40,000. Few people are going to pay even $30,000 for a 1 year old car when they can get the same car brand new effectively for $32,500.
That means that not only do the original buyers pay less, so do the buyers down the road (including us little people). I just bought a used Chevy Volt for about the same as what I'd pay for an equivalently equipped Toyota Corolla of the same year.
And of course we all benefit if the tax break helps speed the adoption of EVs.
...
And that's before we actually get into talking about when the media actively and provably lies to the public. I'm looking at you CNN. 'It's illegal to read Wikileaks' my ass...
Are you referring to what Chris Cuomo said about the Clinton emails? Because that's not what he said. What he said was "It's illegal to possess these uh, stolen documents".
Now, you can argue about whether or not he was deliberately trying to discourage people from reading them on their own because CNN wanted to protect Clinton. And I'm sure depending on your political persuasion, you might be inclined to believe that. But your quote is not a quote at all and a distortion of what he actually said.
Was this deliberate on your part or were you just repeating what you've read on your more favored sources of "news" without verifying that it was true? Unfortunately both have become far too common.
There's not a lot that's completely new. Maybe it's just me but it seems like most "new" languages I see bear a strong resemblance to one or another old one. So why the new ones? They aim to fix some weaknesses that existed in the older languages. Python to me seems likes a reaction to the arcane and messy world of perl scripts.
Lots of stuff is borrowed and this helps adoption rates.
And yes, I do think a lot of programmers enjoy learning new languages.
This would be for new homes, - not existing. I would guess they'd be smart enough to also require 200 Amp service (or more) if that's what's needed.
From what I understand the base Model 3 only charges at 40 amps anyway. The model X and S are about 72 amps but the literature I've seen is that the charger will run on as little a 15 amps. It will take forever to get a full charge that way, but that's all that's required. If you were to go with 40 amps, the Model 3 charges at a rate of 30 miles per every hour it's plugged in, the Model S is 23 miles per hour, and the Model X is 20. So even with the Model X, 40 amps gets you 200 miles of range for 10 hours of charging.
A Chevy Bolt with 238 mile range takes about 9.5 hours to charge at 240 volts / 32 amps.
Since you're probably not starting at zero all the time, the actual time it takes to top off the charge will be much less. 40 amps seems to be adequate even if not ideal for some vehicles.
I recently bought a 1st generation Chevy Volt (not a Bolt) which is a plug-in hybrid. It's only has a 40 mile electric range, then a gasoline powered "range extender" kicks in. I'm currently using a plain old 120 volt outlet to charge it. Takes 11 hours if starting from zero. It will take less if the circuit is a dedicated one and can draw 12 amps. Installing a Level 2 "EVSE" requires 240 volts and at least 16 amps. That will get charge times down to 4.5 hours. I plan on installing a 240 outlet with a 20 amp circuit because currently I only have 100 amp service. But I'll run wiring capable of handling at least 40 amps so that if I ever do get a pure EV, I can get proper charging without running more wire out to the garage, but I will need upgraded service.
Who is they? I thought the recording industry was fighting services like Spotify and Pandora? I think the reality is that technology has evolved and services have come along to capitalize on that. It's not a conspiracy designed to dupe the public.
One problem with purchasing a CD (aside from the relative inconvenience of the format) is that most of the music consumed is modern pop or hip hop, and it's largely about singles, - not albums. This really is not something that's changed. Buying a CD means you get 2 or 3 songs that you like and 8 or 10 that you don't particularly care for. And people would prefer to listen a lower quality version of a song they like than a high quality version of a song they don't.
Again, this is not something new. This is why people bought 45s in the 50s and early 60s rather than albums. 45s far outsold albums. It's also why people recorded music off the radio once technology made that fairly easy to do that. How good was the quality? Terrible, compared to buying the album or any streaming service available today. But it was cheap, the quality was good enough, and people could choose the songs they wanted individually rather than packaged as an album.
Oh, and just to be clear, when I said "it's just not that cold here", I mean that it's not so cold that staying below 0 F for 7 straight days is a common occurrence. That almost never happens. But it is still obviously a very cold place, as anyone who was here during the Super Bowl last winter can tell you.
Nope. Not kidding. The article you linked would seem to agree with me.
The question I was responding to was was: "I live in MN. What happens if this battery is sitting in a car outside when it -reasonably frequently - is -35c for a week?"
Just to convert for people more used to Fahrenheit, -35 C is -31 F, - not that much different. The Fahrenheit and Celsius scales converge at about -40.
If I was going to be nitpicky, the phase "-35c for a week" would mean that the temp never varied from -35c for 7 straight days which is of course not what you meant. What I took it to mean was what if it was about that cold or colder for a week? In other words, what if the temp *never* rose about -35c for a week?
It's just not that cold here. You might have lots of days where it *falls* below 0 F, and there are a number of days where it never rises above 0 F, but in the twin cities area, it almost never stays below 0 F for 168 consecutive hours (a week). According to your article, the last time it stayed below 0 for 4 days or more was 1994.
As for -35 C (or -31 F), it almost never gets that cold in the Twin Cities metro area period, at the airport or anywhere. The coldest recorded temp in the metro area is -34 F back in 1936. Not sure if that temp was measured at the airport. There was an airport, but there wasn't much to it, certainly not much of a heat island effect.
Anyway the distinction between "falls below" and "remains below" is important when it comes to EV battery packs. Batteries have a fairly hight specific heat and in well built EVs they're pretty well insulated. So just because it falls below 0 outside, does not mean the cells themselves will get that cold. It would have to remain below 0 for a significant amount of time.
I've spent most of my 50+ years in Minnesota including my time at college. Like many campuses, parking was scarce and there was effectively only one lot at the far end of campus where a car could be kept over night. Even then all cars had to be off the lot between 1:00 and 5:00 pm on Saturday's. I had a good job back home about 2 hours away that I worked every other weekend, so I kept on car on campus.
I have vivid memories of tromping down to the lot to see the local tow trucks circling like vultures. If it had been a cold week, the chances of your car starting were slim unless you'd been vigilant about running it now and again. If you got there early enough, they'd charge you to start your car. If not, you'd get a nice ticket left on your windshield or possibly even towed.
There's a reason I tell that story. In the days of carburetors and mechanical ignition, it wasn't uncommon for people to have block heaters installed in their cars and plug them in overnight. Some motels would even advertise free plugins. With EVs for extreme cold or heat the same thing applies. You plug it in not only to charge it, but to maintain the battery temp. I own a Chevy Volt and it's not a problem to leave it a day or two unused outdoors in sub zero (Fahrenheit) weather. Longer than that and it should be plugged in.
Now a slight point of contention. As I said, I've seen many winters in MN. There are definitely places where it falls below -35 C multiple times during the winter, but I don't think there's any place in the state where it'll stay that cold for a week. Maybe -18 C. (0 F).
Didn't a Tesla spontaneously combust a couple of weeks ago?
I'm a big fan of Tesla and think they have the potential to disrupt the auto industry in very positive ways (if they already haven't), but I also believe it would be a mistake to characterize traditional car manufacturers as comparatively clueless when it comes to battery technology.
As I said, I'm a big fan of Tesla but their cars cost much more than I'm willing to spend on a vehicle. In fact I bike to work and a lot of places which is a dirt cheap way to get around. Still we do own and drive a couple of cars for those trips where biking or other forms of transportation aren't vey practical. When one of them got to be about 16 years old it started to become less reliable and we decided to replace it. I wanted to try an EV and for us a plug-hybrid made a lot of sense. As someone who considers $15,000 to be a lot of money for a car, a new one was out of the question. But the beauty of used marked for EVs is that resale values are crappy because people don't want to get stuck with having to replace a battery pack.
What we ended up with was a used Chevy Volt. I've never owned a Chevy in my life but the battery packs on those cars have a pretty good reputation. Contrary to what you might think, they put a lot of thought and engineering into designing those packs. They DO have their own independent cooling and heating systems and have since the first ones came out in 2010/2011. They have not suffered the degradation that early Nissan Leaf owners did who lived in hot climates.
So, our 2012 Volt (manufactured in late 2011) is nearly 7 years old, has 73,000 miles and so far has not lost any perceptible amount of electric range. Tesla has not cornered the market on EV battery technology.
Baseball is a perfect example where this is completely feasible. Calling balls vs. strikes when the batter doesn't swing is a matter of where exactly the ball is. Umpires are notoriously inaccurate. The 538 even did a story showing that they biased their calls in favor of ending games that went into extra innings.
Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure anyone really wants more than an extra inning or two. And to me that's why having humans involved makes sense because they don't strictly apply the rules. The good ones keep control of the game while letting the players play. And when everyone is sick of watching the players play, and the players want to be done playing, they work to end the game while still keeping it fair.
AI applies the rule without always understanding why the rule is there. Without that understanding you can't decide when to let something go that's technically a violation.
Well, with a Bolt or Tesla you have the 200 miles you need plus some extra and with a plug-in hybrid like a Volt it's a non issue. So if you're genuinely interested it's a solvable problem. Your situation isn't that common and I'm guessing probably temporary?
Anyway, EVs aren't for everybody but the range is less of an issue than a lot of people realize. I imagine those biweekly 200 mile trips of yours result in a healthy fuel bill. Even if you went the plug-in hybrid route you could go the first 50 miles or so on electricity which for me anyway is dirt cheap. I realize that's not the case for everyone. And with a car like the Volt, once the gas engine kicks in you're still getting 40+ mpg. You'd use less than 4 gallons of gas for the whole trip.
Sounds like you have a bit of bias against 4 cylinder cars. ;-) If you buy a decent one and take reasonable care of it, it'll last a long time. Our last one was 16 years old and we'd still have it if it weren't for my wife. Trucks can last for decades but that doesn't mean everyone wants to keep one that long.
Anyway, unless you account for the difference between the aerodynamics of your truck vs a Volt (which would be substantial), your calculations aren't going to mean a lot. Acceleration in a Volt from 45-65 is 4.2 seconds if that gives you some idea. But I suggest that if you're really curious you could always take one for a test drive. Or if acceleration at passing speeds is really that important to you, a Tesla may be a better option.
150 hp still doesn't sound like much. How much jam does it have at highway speed for passing?
Quoted from a wired review:
Once up to full speed, I did some “passing speed” behavior to see how the car would perform in traffic. When accelerating from 50 to 65 mph and 55 to 70 mph, the Volt performed like a conventional car but without the downshift and sudden surge you often experience. The Volt performs perfectly well on the highway and you’ll have no trouble overtaking slower cars with ease.
https://www.wired.com/2010/08/...
I'm in my 50's now and both the car I learned to drive on and the first car I owned had V8's. Both were heavier cars than the Volt and bricks by comparison to the Volt in terms of aerodynamics. Neither accelerated as well. The standard engine on 1973 Catalina (the car I learned to drive on) was a 2 barrel 350 ci V8 engine that generated... 150 hp. The car that the Volt is replacing was a 4 cyl that generated 125 hp and I never felt that it's acceleration was inadequate except for perhaps when we had 6 people crammed in it with a trunk full of crap.
My point is that the number of cylinders, the displacement, and the horsepower aren't the only factors that determine how well a car is going to perform. And of course, it's all subjective. If you're used to a 300+ HP engine in a sedan, then 150 HP in a Volt may not feel adequate to you even though it might be more than enough for 80% of drivers.
Chevy Bolt has a 238 mile range. Teslas can do 200+ miles. You could always go with a Plug-In hybrid which will use a gas engine once the battery is depleted. Another thing that people don't realize is how many charging stations there are around. Plugshare.com is one site/app that will show you the charging stations along your route and around your destination. Some are free, others you pay a fee for.
For example, my son makes periodic visits to his girlfriend at her college which is a 160 mile round trip. They have a free EV charging station. He may or may not be there long enough to get a full charge but if you have an EV that's roughly capable of 150 or 200 miles you can probably grab dinner somewhere and add enough miles to get you home. Chevy claims the Bolt's fast charging rate is 90 miles in 30 minutes. Not all stations are capable of charging at that rate but more are being added. VW as part of their settlement for their diesel scam has agreed to pour 2 billion into building out the fast charging network in the US.
Worse case scenario is that your stuck charging from a typical 120 volt outlet. Available nearly everywhere but you may need a very leisurely meal to get enough juice to get where your going.
Just to clarify something that confuses people about the Volt. The gas engine kicks in before the battery is ever truly exhausted and it's the job of the gas engine to generate enough electricity to power the electric motor. The Volt is always using the 150 HP electric motor to drive the wheels even when the gas engine is running.
You're not quite right. The gas engine, which in most situations is just a generator, is 84 hp. The electric motor is 150.
Acceleration isn't just dependent on horsepower, it's also impacted by mass. And highway speeds, also heavily dependent on aerodynamics. The Volt is not a light car for its size, but Chevy spent a lot of time working on the aerodynamics. It's a slippery vehicle so it simply doesn't require as much horsepower to accelerate as a typical car or truck.
Our other vehicle is a 253 HP Acura MDX and I have no concerns about either car being able to pass at highway speeds. All I can say is that you should really drive a Volt or other EV before coming to any conclusions about its performance. It's not a sports car but it's fun to drive. Actually, it's a blast to drive.
Let me answer this a 2nd way. Any vehicle choice involves compromises. Whether it's range, size, handling, comfort, performance, reliability, cost, gas mileage, towing capacity, seating capacity, etc, etc.
An electric vehicle is no exception. You might choose a plug-in electric hybrid (also has a gas engine) if range is really an issue. But I think at least for early adopters like myself, driving an EV involves changing some of your driving habits. I have a PHEV (plug in electric hybrid) so I don't worry about range except that I much prefer not using the gas engine. One might find themselves devising strategies for traveling long distances on electric like picking hotels that allow people to plug in their vehicles or choosing routes with charging stations near good restaurants. There are apps that'll show you where you can charge your vehicle nearby or along your route.
Many people come up with reasons why an EV wouldn't be a good choice for them and many of those reasons are legit, but some objections or concerns could be alleviated with some thought. Your camping trip example for one. I've gone on several camping trips to remote areas without electricity, running water, etc. Without exception the car was left some place not far from electricity. Often times when camping at a remote area the evening before we'll overnight at a hotel some place relatively close to where we're going. The car can be charged there, driven to the drop off spot the next take day and will have plenty of charge remaining when we return to it after the camping trip is done.
EVs aren't for everyone. Something like a Volt (PHEV) might work well for you since it has a gas engine backup. It has a range of over 300 miles just on the gas engine so you can go as far on electric as your comfort and conditions allow knowing that there's a gas engine to take you the rest of the way if battery alone is not enough.
The previous owner of our Volt ended up moving into an apartment where they couldn't charge the car very frequently but would sometimes do it at work. Most of the miles they put on it by far were using the gas engine. They still averaged 50 mpg combining the gas and electric use. But that's why they sold it. Figured it didn't make sense to have an electric vehicle when you're running on electricity only about 1/3 of the time.
What if you want to haul 12 foot sheets of drywall in your vehicle and be able to drive 6 kids to football practice when it's your family's turn to drive? Or what if you want a vehicle that gets 50+ mpg and 90% of the time, you're the only one in it?
The answer for a family is probably to have two different types of vehicles, each well suited for certain types of trips while being less suited for others. One vehicle could be a small EV and the other a more traditional gas powered vehicle. Maybe a minivan or SUV. And maybe for certain kinds of things (12 foot sheets of drywall), they'll just rent or pay to have the stuff delivered.
That's what we do. For years we've had a small economy car for the bulk of the trips and a larger vehicle to be used when you need a bigger vehicle.
In your example, most families probably aren't going to "suddenly" go camping in a remote area without electricity anyway. That takes a little bit of planning and if they've got time to plan and are an all EV family, they probably have some disposable income and can find a cheap rental car or borrow one from a friend.
You can have both heated seats and a heated cabin, but it shortens the distance you can travel without re-charging (or the gas engine kicking in in the case of a plugin hybrid). If the range is long enough then it doesn't matter but it's something you need to be aware of. It's also a consideration in hot climates in terms of A/C use.
I have a 2012 Chevy Volt and it's electric range is between 25 and 45 miles depending on a number of factors including weather, driving style, etc. After that the gas engine ("range extender") kicks in. Since and I and most Volt drivers have a strong preference for limiting the amount of time the range extender runs, it becomes kind of a game to see how far we can go on electric only.
What my son and a lot of people will do in hot weather is turn the A/C to max, - he'll set it to 60 or whatever. It drives me nuts because it shortens the range and is totally unnecessary. The climate system does a pretty good job of managing the temp in the cabin if you set it at 72 or 75. And it will be far easier on the range. But for some reason, people like their cars to feel like inside of a refrigerator when it's hot outside.
Same with the heat. There's no reason to set the temp at 85 in the cabin when you're already wearing a winter coat. I dress for being outside and don't need or want it to be 80 inside the car. But like I said before, the Volt will comply and even has the bonus of remote start from the key fob or phone app that will warm the car up before you drive while it's still plugged in.
Cars like the Volt are nice because even if the electric range is shortened below the point where you get all the places you need to be, it has a gas engine to charge the battery and the mileage is still much better than most gas engine cars would get. And I think new EVs (all electric) like the Bolt and newer Teslas have enough range that even if it's shortened in cold weather, it's still adequate.