Using more power at night actually helps the power utilities. The more evenly distributed the power usage is throughout the day, the more efficiently they can operate and the lower the costs. This is one of many videos describing how it all works. They use the term "filling the bathtub." Detroit Edison did a study on the impact of EVs. Basically it would require some upgrades in localized areas but it's perfectly manageable. =Smidge=
There's a video (in Japanese) that shows various testing they did with the LEAF. One of them was to have a hose pour water into the charge connector (skip to ~26min) as it was plugged and powered to test exactly that. Although the testing shows the CHAdeMO connector, not the J1772 plug Chuq's link shows, the level of safety is identical.
The J1772 standard is pilot-operated. Normally the cable is not powered at all. Then the cable is plugged in, the car sends a voltage signal to the EVSE which tests the connection and closes a relay to let the power flow. (The charger is in the car, the wall unit is called an Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment - EVSE). Because of this, there is no danger of electrical shock while plugging in since there's no electricity until the connection is proven.
The connector is asymmetric and can't be connected backwards. Even if you could, since it's AC going through it it wouldn't matter much.
As a related aside, the LEAF can drive through 27 inches (700mm) of standing water without incident. Great video of this just after the part showing the connector water test. =Smidge=
If we could reduce the number of "standard form factors" required to maybe four or five, it's possible. Small (compact, 2-door sedans) , Medium (4-door sedans, wagons, crossovers), Large (Larger crossovers, SUVs, vans, light trucks) and Heavy Duty. Considering the level of standardization in other industries - most notably the electronics and telecom industries - it is profoundly cynical to say the auto industry is unable to do this.
Remember that the fundamental reason most EVs don't have compatible batteries is all but two or three manufacturers are focusing on shoehorning an electric drivetrain into an existing car. Everyone who is building pure EVs from scratch have been accommodating: The Nissan Leaf has the battery pack under the floorboards (though the attachment system is not swap-capable, the location is). The Renault Fluence Z.E. is specifically built in partnership with Better Place with a swappable battery behind the rear seat. The Tesla Model S and BYD's e6 are also said to be swap compatible.
This goes way beyond Israel too. Better Place is an Israeli company, sure, but their battery swap pilot stations can be found in Japan, France, Denmark, and the US (California and Hawaii).
It's not just "waiting 10-20 minutes when moving between cities." For every ~60 miles you drive you will spend a minimum of 40 minutes recharging. That's ~1 hour of highway driving and 40 minutes charging. That's with fast chargers, not the significantly slower L2 stations which would take 6-8 hours. Battery swap takes less than 2 minutes and is fully automated. Roll up, swipe a credit card (or membership card for bill-me-later service), pull into what is essentially a car wash, and drive out faster than you could order a cup of coffee.
Don't forget that the ultimate goal is to "de-carbon" transportation, so "stop bitching and by (sic) a gas car" is antithetical to that goal. It's also irresponsibly unsustainable. =Smidge=
Aerial refueling is far from simple, but it is performed by highly trained operators in billion dollar equipment. And you use that to justify why installing 100,000 battery changers, performing hundreds of millions of changes a year, operated by idiot consumers with cheap vehicles is somehow easy?
That's why you let robots do it. Robots have been replacing vehicle batteries (the vehicles themselves often robots) for quite some time now.
For the cost of installing battery-swap infrastructure in a handful of locations, we could cover a city with standard charging stations.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calcs some time ago and concluded that a battery swap station would not be any more expensive than a typical gas station. Standard L1/L2 chargers are great and should be everywhere people tend to park for several hours at a time - but they're not going to help someone driving between cities.
Now I agree that the "gas station for EVs" is stupid, and that home.work charging is the primary means to keep it electron'd-up. But I also recognize the need for a minimal infrastructure to support long distance travel without the need to be parked somewhere for 20 minutes out of ever hour (or more). =Smidge=
Be careful here, because there are two kinds of "capacity" that are being discussed.
There's total capacity, which is the maximum sticker rating of the battery pack. Then there's available capacity, which is the software-limited range of total capacity that you as the end user have available. For example, the Nissan LEAF has a 24kWh battery back. If you add up the Wh rating of all the cells you get 24kWh. However, the vehicle only lets you use ~21-22kWh in order to keep the state of charge away from the extremes and protect the chemistry. The Chevy Volt has a 16kWh pack - that's total capacity. The available capacity is about 2/3rds of that.
When they talk about quick charging to 80%, they mean 80% of available capacity, not total capacity. =Smidge=
This is why I don't particularly care for the transaction:
"Trimble has already created the de-facto standard for field data models and project management tools for our key markets. SketchUp, together with these existing capabilities, will provide a stand-alone and enterprise solution that will enable an integrated and seamless workflow to reduce rework and improve productivity for the customer. Users will be able to collect data, design, model, and collaborate on one platform..."
This is a fancy way of saying Sketchup is going to become a lot more bloaty, a lot less user-friendly, and a lot more proprietary... and probably a lot more expensive if you use the pro version. =Smidge=
I would say it's just the opposite. Contrary to what might seem obvious in other situations, MORE money could actually DECREASE fraud in science. There is less money - at least public, "no strings attached" money - available. It would not surprise me at all if societies that invest more public money into research see less fraud.
If you're a scientist you are increasingly pressured to get the results your funding corporation/institution is paying for and to do it within crushing schedules and shoestring budgets. That's not to say all studies are trying to reach a particular conclusion (though some clearly are like that), but often a study is simply inconclusive... but inconclusive studies don't make the bean counters happy.
Science needs materials, equipment, staff and time. Give them what they need, stand back, and you'll get good results. Might not be the results you want, but that's a risk you'll have to accept. =Smidge=
86% of cases were due to parents declining all vaccination. Some portion of the remaining 14% were attributable to incomplete vaccinations (didn't get the recommended booster shots). The portion varies with age group.
It's nowhere near as simple as "14% of those vaccinated get it anyway." Infections per 100,000 are given in the PDF report. =Smidge=
It's not clear whether a sprinkle of water, blown leaves or a crow would have a radar signature large enough to warrant action, so on that point I can't really accept the argument. For exactly that reason I would expect a threshold of obstacle assessment anyway.
Pedestrians standing in the road, such as the police officer and the guy with the disabled vehicle, Do present difficult problems, sure, but not in the context of this thread. The difficulty comes in the form of extra instruction given to the driver that the vehicle might not recognize. In terms of object avoidance, they are still objects to be avoided.
Even for a nuisance stop, it would presumably be as safe a stop as practical. =Smidge=
Why would it need to tell the difference between a human and a non-human? If it's not in the way, it's not in the way. If it's moving in a manner that will cause it to be in the way, then react accordingly. A human standing at the curb and suddenly running out into the street is no different, functionally, than an empty trash can getting thrown into the street by a gust of wind. An obstacle is an obstacle regardless of what it's made of and regardless of whether or not it's sentient. =Smidge=
Did they think of the possibility of driving over a cliff-edge while out of GPS reception?
If the Internet is to be trusted at all, I'll take the chance of a self-driving car careening off a cliff due to lack of GPS reception over the chance of a human careening off a cliff because of GPS reception.
Does it detect ice, snow, oil, sand before the wheels are there?
Humans certainly don't... but there are already automatic traction control systems that do an excellent job maintaining the vehicle's footing in all but the more extreme situations - I can't imagine it would be that hard to send that data to the pilot AI and have it react by slowing down. Also I'd imagine it would be easier for the computer to detect ice and such using sensor data (IR cameras to detect road surface temp, lasers reveal changes in surface reflective properties, etc.)
What about kids throwing stones off the top of a bridge onto the passing cars (common problem in the UK - someone died just the other month from this)? Is the car looking UP too and determining their intent?
Again, I doubt humans would do much better. The radar systems on an automated car could conceivably be used to detect objects that may hit the car even from above and some evasive/mitigating action could take place - with better reaction times than a human driver.
This is why even a jumbo jet - so of the most highly automated and tested machines in the world - has TWO HUMAN OPERATORS. And even there, they have TWO because the first can't be trusted on their own (proven by that recent thing with the pilot).
Again, though I don't keep careful track of these things, there seems to be more incidents related to human error than automation error. Specifically the humans overriding the automated systems to correct for a problem that didn't actually exist.
If you honestly, seriously, think that you can reliably determine the outcome of a machine complex enough to obtain all that data, you're an idiot.
Humans are essentially machines much more complex than that, and have tens of thousands of years worth of historical precedent for doing incredibly stupid things despite having accurate information - yet somehow they are more trustworthy than a machine just by virtue of not being a machine? This kind of argument instantly refutes itself.
How do you test the system for these things? Tens of thousands of hours of real-world driving. Considering all a human needs to legally operate a 2-ton projectile is roughly twenty minutes worth of testing (if you're lucky!) I'll take my chances with the machine. =Smidge=
It takes a long time because the game is essentially a 3D cellular automation. When you flip a switch, for example, the block it sits on is "powered" - then it takes one update cycle for that "power" to travel up to 16 blocks, then at least one more update cycle for the next 16 blocks, etc. Any object that's not wire (like the components in a logic gate) adds at least one more cycle worth of delay. It adds up quickly.
Redstone was really intended for simple mechanisms like switch activated doors and other very simple, local interactivity. But people have really taken it to the limits of the game. Basically you're building logic gates and digital circuits out of discreet relays! =Smidge=
The DoE is not some kind of overlord for the public education system. Believe it or not, school districts are essentially autonomous entities. What little direct influence the DoE has over individual schools would also apply to private schools anyway. But whatever - what would be an unbiased source in your eyes?
And where did I say "there's no such thing as a bad public school?" I guess you'd have to define "bad" first if we're going to discuss this aspect of it, since there are obviously some better and worse than others. The point I'm trying to make is the school as a facility is only a relatively small part of the problem; a school with relatively little resources can do a better job educating than a school with plentiful resources.
The elephant in the room is the hierarchical, age-segregated, cookie-cutter assembly line educational system that essentially all schools - public or private - employ. =Smidge=
Increasing energy efficiency lowers energy costs (and makes systems less susceptible to changes in costs), reduces infrastructure requirements (lower costs, more reliable), lowers barriers to entry, makes sustainability possible, increases productivity (more work per unit energy), and allows increasing density of technology.
Laptops and iPhones would be impossible with people like you at the helm, because "throw more watts at it" does not lend itself to miniaturization too well.
We can (and should!) still work on fusion energy, meanwhile increasing efficiency across the board will reap more immediate benefits for everyone at every level of society. Ever observe a bacteria colony in a petri dish? The colony grows and grows, consuming more and more, until they run out of resources... then the entire colony dies. I'd like to think we're smarter than bacteria and can at least recognize the consequences of consuming without regard to this planet's limits. =Smidge=
Vouchers would allow kids who want to learn but are stuck in a shitty school to move to another school without having to pay all of the extra money for a private school.
The ultimate problem is, IMHO, we are employing a 19th century educational model to a 21st century world. The educational system we use is very much build in the model of the industrial revolution which necessitated it, and even then it only sought to supply the bare minimum required to produce a competent worker (basic literacy and rudimentary math skills - aka "Reading, Writing and 'Rithmetic") If you wanted a real education, you got yourself an apprentice position and/or attended a university.
Public or private, they are both using the same outdated methodologies. Khan Academy and MITx are promising but still imperfect strategies, but with proper community support (ie a classroom with an involved teacher) could be a great improvement over what we have now.
We also need to put an end to standardized testing wherever possible, and instead focus on demonstrating practical skill rather than rote memorization and mechanical problem solving. The test problems used to evaluate students in school look absolutely nothing like real world problems, so it should be no surprise that students are inadequately prepared.
Bitch all you want about teacher's unions and vouchers and whatever. Won't make a damn bit of difference. The entire methodology needs to be torn down and rebuilt. =Smidge=
I'm not trying to show that the Volt is a better investment, though. I'm countering the argument that an EV (or in this case a hybrid) is not "affordable." You have to go way up this comment branch to find where that all started, though.
"Affordable" is relative, and the out-of-pocket cost of a ~$40K hybrid can be, under reasonable circumstances, equivalent to the out-of-pocket cost of a comparable vehicle at half the cost. That's the one and only point I set out to argue originally. =Smidge=
That's not a chump change, it's a serious accounting matter.
So you honestly think that every single employee is going to be an EV owner, and they're all going to be bilking the company for all it's worth? I'm neither so optimistic for the first part nor so pessimistic for the second part.
Running low on gas also means that the fuel pump is not getting proper cooling...
You are totally overthinking this as a concept...
A 1/4 of a tank in most cars amounts to 80-100 miles of range... The Leaf does about the same
Yes, that's the point of the analogy
but the comparison is not accurate because a gas car can be fueled under 3 minutes nearly anywhere, with no fuss.
Hence the stipulations "absolutely must refuel today" and "at least consider an EV" - I'm well aware that just because ~80 miles may easily cover a typical day that you might need more on occasion. It's just a rule of thumb to see if you can immediately rule out an EV for consideration, not a definitive guide. =Smidge=
The reason leasing is a more attractive offer for EVs is the battery. Maybe you're worried about the battery capacity and performance degrading too quickly, or maybe you're wondering if a newer, better, longer-range battery will be available in a few years. Maybe you're fine yourself with the battery technology, but worried about how uncertainty in the general public will impact the car's resale value.
Solution? Lease, then you have about three years to see how things play out, paying only a modest overall premium if you decide to buy. Think of it as insurance for the ability to ditch the car and save the residual value.
And again, I think it's stupid to talk about personal vehicles in terms of investment. Investments are supposed to give a return on your money. Buying a vehicle is more like buying a stockpile of a commodity. =Smidge=
When you lease a vehicle, the lessor is effectively the purchaser of the vehicle. Why should they not get the credit? And since they save money through the credit, they pass the savings on to you as incentive. Either way, the one who sees the financial benefit is the one leasing the vehicle. =Smidge=
Daytime consumers are industrial facilities, and the power to them is delivered via thick underground cables. Nighttime EV chargers are connected to a residential distribution grid, implemented as overhead wires and transformers on poles.
Residential power use also follows a day/night cycle, and much of the light commercial sector uses the same substations and overhead wires that the residential areas do. Even if what you said were true - which it isn't - the utility company would freak over air conditioner installations because a central AC system would use several times the power an EV would.
However power companies are interested in pushing EV users into the far more expensive day rates. As matter of fact, that's what you will be paying if you charge at work. Businesses will not allow free leeching of a considerable amount of power by thousands of employees.
Let's assume an apocalyptic $1.00 per kWh. Employee #4628 deliberately waits until his EV is almost fully drained before abusing the company charge point. At most he is costing the company $20/day. Not insignificant, mind you, but it's not ripping the company off for thousands of dollars a year like this line of argument typically makes it sound like.
If the company was really interested in promoting alternative energy, they'd install solar along with their EV charge points. Bonus: Any power not going to the vehicles offsets the company's own utility bills... and if you're actually paying $1/kWh then a solar installation will pay itself off pretty damn quick.
Loss of power will force you to miss the charging cycle and call for a taxicab next morning. That won't be free.
Assuming you needed an absolutely full charge to make it to work, anyway. Personally, with my usage I'd only need to charge every three or four days if I reliably got 80 miles per charge. Of course if you have a significant power outage lasting several days, getting gasoline might be difficult since gas stations need electricity too...
. In a Leaf you may be watching the needle to go all the way to zero, and then lights dim and the car is off, surrounded by thousands of other cars. What you are going to do? There isn't enough power even for blinking emergency lights.
Morbo says: "Electric cars do not work that way!"
Seriously... if you're not going anywhere you aren't using any power. If you're not using any power you're not going to deplete the battery. There is no EV equivalent to idling the engine. The only exception would be climate control loads, which only "cost" you about 1.5 mile of range per hour to operate at full power (5kW). All other systems, such as lights and radio and the computer, run off of a fairly typical 12 volt lead acid battery.
The LEAF, at least, gives you at least three warnings and offers two levels of reduced power operation (one of them optional, one automatic). If you're worried, turn the AC down. Everything else uses so little power compared to the battery capacity it's not worth thinking about.
Plans change, and even if I didn't intend to go somewhere I might have to do that. A single phone call can change all that. A Leaf is OK only if you are fully in control of all your plans. This rarely happens. Real life requires a car that can be fueled (with gas or electrons) quickly enough and easily enough. A trip to the airport (50 miles one way) will leave the Leaf stranded.
Maybe, maybe not. No doubt current EVs have these types of limitations. There is absolutely a wide range of usage scenarios where the LEAF is a perfect fit. For others, it could be a Volt or a Prius. These ranges overlap so it's going to take a case by case consideration. For me, a LEAF would work great - 99.9% of the time I could drive one carefree, and for those sudden n
What makes you think you as the lessor are going to benefit from the $7500 rebate fully? The dealer (by which you probably mean the leasing company, who is the actual buyer of the car) is under no obligation to pass those savings on to you 1:1 and in fact, most don't from my shopping experience.
If they don't - and it would be readily apparent by reviewing the paperwork - then I'd argue over it. If they refuse, I'll find another dealer who won't rip me off. I'm just as obliged to give them my business as they are to pass the incentive along to me.
I've yet to hear of any anecdotes of this happening, though. If the revisions for the incentive get passed, not only will it increase to $10K but then the dealers WILL be obligated to pass it along. =Smidge=
I'm surely subsidizing your lifestyle in some way. The fact that you seem to think you're not part of a society shows obvious character flaws, I'm sure you vote Libertarian.
Slashdot Mirror
Using more power at night actually helps the power utilities. The more evenly distributed the power usage is throughout the day, the more efficiently they can operate and the lower the costs. This is one of many videos describing how it all works. They use the term "filling the bathtub." Detroit Edison did a study on the impact of EVs. Basically it would require some upgrades in localized areas but it's perfectly manageable.
=Smidge=
There's a video (in Japanese) that shows various testing they did with the LEAF. One of them was to have a hose pour water into the charge connector (skip to ~26min) as it was plugged and powered to test exactly that. Although the testing shows the CHAdeMO connector, not the J1772 plug Chuq's link shows, the level of safety is identical.
The J1772 standard is pilot-operated. Normally the cable is not powered at all. Then the cable is plugged in, the car sends a voltage signal to the EVSE which tests the connection and closes a relay to let the power flow. (The charger is in the car, the wall unit is called an Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment - EVSE). Because of this, there is no danger of electrical shock while plugging in since there's no electricity until the connection is proven.
The connector is asymmetric and can't be connected backwards. Even if you could, since it's AC going through it it wouldn't matter much.
As a related aside, the LEAF can drive through 27 inches (700mm) of standing water without incident. Great video of this just after the part showing the connector water test.
=Smidge=
If we could reduce the number of "standard form factors" required to maybe four or five, it's possible. Small (compact, 2-door sedans) , Medium (4-door sedans, wagons, crossovers), Large (Larger crossovers, SUVs, vans, light trucks) and Heavy Duty. Considering the level of standardization in other industries - most notably the electronics and telecom industries - it is profoundly cynical to say the auto industry is unable to do this.
Remember that the fundamental reason most EVs don't have compatible batteries is all but two or three manufacturers are focusing on shoehorning an electric drivetrain into an existing car. Everyone who is building pure EVs from scratch have been accommodating: The Nissan Leaf has the battery pack under the floorboards (though the attachment system is not swap-capable, the location is). The Renault Fluence Z.E. is specifically built in partnership with Better Place with a swappable battery behind the rear seat. The Tesla Model S and BYD's e6 are also said to be swap compatible.
This goes way beyond Israel too. Better Place is an Israeli company, sure, but their battery swap pilot stations can be found in Japan, France, Denmark, and the US (California and Hawaii).
It's not just "waiting 10-20 minutes when moving between cities." For every ~60 miles you drive you will spend a minimum of 40 minutes recharging. That's ~1 hour of highway driving and 40 minutes charging. That's with fast chargers, not the significantly slower L2 stations which would take 6-8 hours. Battery swap takes less than 2 minutes and is fully automated. Roll up, swipe a credit card (or membership card for bill-me-later service), pull into what is essentially a car wash, and drive out faster than you could order a cup of coffee.
Don't forget that the ultimate goal is to "de-carbon" transportation, so "stop bitching and by (sic) a gas car" is antithetical to that goal. It's also irresponsibly unsustainable.
=Smidge=
Aerial refueling is far from simple, but it is performed by highly trained operators in billion dollar equipment. And you use that to justify why installing 100,000 battery changers, performing hundreds of millions of changes a year, operated by idiot consumers with cheap vehicles is somehow easy?
That's why you let robots do it. Robots have been replacing vehicle batteries (the vehicles themselves often robots) for quite some time now.
For the cost of installing battery-swap infrastructure in a handful of locations, we could cover a city with standard charging stations.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calcs some time ago and concluded that a battery swap station would not be any more expensive than a typical gas station. Standard L1/L2 chargers are great and should be everywhere people tend to park for several hours at a time - but they're not going to help someone driving between cities.
Now I agree that the "gas station for EVs" is stupid, and that home.work charging is the primary means to keep it electron'd-up. But I also recognize the need for a minimal infrastructure to support long distance travel without the need to be parked somewhere for 20 minutes out of ever hour (or more).
=Smidge=
Be careful here, because there are two kinds of "capacity" that are being discussed.
There's total capacity, which is the maximum sticker rating of the battery pack. Then there's available capacity, which is the software-limited range of total capacity that you as the end user have available. For example, the Nissan LEAF has a 24kWh battery back. If you add up the Wh rating of all the cells you get 24kWh. However, the vehicle only lets you use ~21-22kWh in order to keep the state of charge away from the extremes and protect the chemistry. The Chevy Volt has a 16kWh pack - that's total capacity. The available capacity is about 2/3rds of that.
When they talk about quick charging to 80%, they mean 80% of available capacity, not total capacity.
=Smidge=
This is why I don't particularly care for the transaction:
"Trimble has already created the de-facto standard for field data models and project management tools for our key markets. SketchUp, together with these existing capabilities, will provide a stand-alone and enterprise solution that will enable an integrated and seamless workflow to reduce rework and improve productivity for the customer. Users will be able to collect data, design, model, and collaborate on one platform..."
This is a fancy way of saying Sketchup is going to become a lot more bloaty, a lot less user-friendly, and a lot more proprietary... and probably a lot more expensive if you use the pro version.
=Smidge=
I would say it's just the opposite. Contrary to what might seem obvious in other situations, MORE money could actually DECREASE fraud in science. There is less money - at least public, "no strings attached" money - available. It would not surprise me at all if societies that invest more public money into research see less fraud.
If you're a scientist you are increasingly pressured to get the results your funding corporation/institution is paying for and to do it within crushing schedules and shoestring budgets. That's not to say all studies are trying to reach a particular conclusion (though some clearly are like that), but often a study is simply inconclusive... but inconclusive studies don't make the bean counters happy.
Science needs materials, equipment, staff and time. Give them what they need, stand back, and you'll get good results. Might not be the results you want, but that's a risk you'll have to accept.
=Smidge=
86% of cases were due to parents declining all vaccination. Some portion of the remaining 14% were attributable to incomplete vaccinations (didn't get the recommended booster shots). The portion varies with age group.
It's nowhere near as simple as "14% of those vaccinated get it anyway." Infections per 100,000 are given in the PDF report.
=Smidge=
It's not clear whether a sprinkle of water, blown leaves or a crow would have a radar signature large enough to warrant action, so on that point I can't really accept the argument. For exactly that reason I would expect a threshold of obstacle assessment anyway.
Pedestrians standing in the road, such as the police officer and the guy with the disabled vehicle, Do present difficult problems, sure, but not in the context of this thread. The difficulty comes in the form of extra instruction given to the driver that the vehicle might not recognize. In terms of object avoidance, they are still objects to be avoided.
Even for a nuisance stop, it would presumably be as safe a stop as practical.
=Smidge=
Why would it need to tell the difference between a human and a non-human? If it's not in the way, it's not in the way. If it's moving in a manner that will cause it to be in the way, then react accordingly. A human standing at the curb and suddenly running out into the street is no different, functionally, than an empty trash can getting thrown into the street by a gust of wind. An obstacle is an obstacle regardless of what it's made of and regardless of whether or not it's sentient.
=Smidge=
Did they think of the possibility of driving over a cliff-edge while out of GPS reception?
If the Internet is to be trusted at all, I'll take the chance of a self-driving car careening off a cliff due to lack of GPS reception over the chance of a human careening off a cliff because of GPS reception.
Does it detect ice, snow, oil, sand before the wheels are there?
Humans certainly don't... but there are already automatic traction control systems that do an excellent job maintaining the vehicle's footing in all but the more extreme situations - I can't imagine it would be that hard to send that data to the pilot AI and have it react by slowing down. Also I'd imagine it would be easier for the computer to detect ice and such using sensor data (IR cameras to detect road surface temp, lasers reveal changes in surface reflective properties, etc.)
What about kids throwing stones off the top of a bridge onto the passing cars (common problem in the UK - someone died just the other month from this)? Is the car looking UP too and determining their intent?
Again, I doubt humans would do much better. The radar systems on an automated car could conceivably be used to detect objects that may hit the car even from above and some evasive/mitigating action could take place - with better reaction times than a human driver.
This is why even a jumbo jet - so of the most highly automated and tested machines in the world - has TWO HUMAN OPERATORS. And even there, they have TWO because the first can't be trusted on their own (proven by that recent thing with the pilot).
Again, though I don't keep careful track of these things, there seems to be more incidents related to human error than automation error. Specifically the humans overriding the automated systems to correct for a problem that didn't actually exist.
If you honestly, seriously, think that you can reliably determine the outcome of a machine complex enough to obtain all that data, you're an idiot.
Humans are essentially machines much more complex than that, and have tens of thousands of years worth of historical precedent for doing incredibly stupid things despite having accurate information - yet somehow they are more trustworthy than a machine just by virtue of not being a machine? This kind of argument instantly refutes itself.
How do you test the system for these things? Tens of thousands of hours of real-world driving. Considering all a human needs to legally operate a 2-ton projectile is roughly twenty minutes worth of testing (if you're lucky!) I'll take my chances with the machine.
=Smidge=
It takes a long time because the game is essentially a 3D cellular automation. When you flip a switch, for example, the block it sits on is "powered" - then it takes one update cycle for that "power" to travel up to 16 blocks, then at least one more update cycle for the next 16 blocks, etc. Any object that's not wire (like the components in a logic gate) adds at least one more cycle worth of delay. It adds up quickly.
Redstone was really intended for simple mechanisms like switch activated doors and other very simple, local interactivity. But people have really taken it to the limits of the game. Basically you're building logic gates and digital circuits out of discreet relays!
=Smidge=
Genesis and cosmetology are both creation myths.
I had a girlfriend who was a Cosmetologist. Whole house stunk of nail polish and hair dye...
=Smidge=
The DoE is not some kind of overlord for the public education system. Believe it or not, school districts are essentially autonomous entities. What little direct influence the DoE has over individual schools would also apply to private schools anyway. But whatever - what would be an unbiased source in your eyes?
And where did I say "there's no such thing as a bad public school?" I guess you'd have to define "bad" first if we're going to discuss this aspect of it, since there are obviously some better and worse than others. The point I'm trying to make is the school as a facility is only a relatively small part of the problem; a school with relatively little resources can do a better job educating than a school with plentiful resources.
The elephant in the room is the hierarchical, age-segregated, cookie-cutter assembly line educational system that essentially all schools - public or private - employ.
=Smidge=
Increasing energy efficiency lowers energy costs (and makes systems less susceptible to changes in costs), reduces infrastructure requirements (lower costs, more reliable), lowers barriers to entry, makes sustainability possible, increases productivity (more work per unit energy), and allows increasing density of technology.
Laptops and iPhones would be impossible with people like you at the helm, because "throw more watts at it" does not lend itself to miniaturization too well.
We can (and should!) still work on fusion energy, meanwhile increasing efficiency across the board will reap more immediate benefits for everyone at every level of society. Ever observe a bacteria colony in a petri dish? The colony grows and grows, consuming more and more, until they run out of resources... then the entire colony dies. I'd like to think we're smarter than bacteria and can at least recognize the consequences of consuming without regard to this planet's limits.
=Smidge=
Vouchers would allow kids who want to learn but are stuck in a shitty school to move to another school without having to pay all of the extra money for a private school.
You're putting the blame/credit on the school again. Private schools do not necessarily outperform public schools. They certainly cost more, though.
The ultimate problem is, IMHO, we are employing a 19th century educational model to a 21st century world. The educational system we use is very much build in the model of the industrial revolution which necessitated it, and even then it only sought to supply the bare minimum required to produce a competent worker (basic literacy and rudimentary math skills - aka "Reading, Writing and 'Rithmetic") If you wanted a real education, you got yourself an apprentice position and/or attended a university.
Public or private, they are both using the same outdated methodologies. Khan Academy and MITx are promising but still imperfect strategies, but with proper community support (ie a classroom with an involved teacher) could be a great improvement over what we have now.
We also need to put an end to standardized testing wherever possible, and instead focus on demonstrating practical skill rather than rote memorization and mechanical problem solving. The test problems used to evaluate students in school look absolutely nothing like real world problems, so it should be no surprise that students are inadequately prepared.
Bitch all you want about teacher's unions and vouchers and whatever. Won't make a damn bit of difference. The entire methodology needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
=Smidge=
IMMINENT TERRORIST THREAT!
Must be an election year...
=Smidge=
You quoted me three sentences too early.
The only exception would be climate control loads, which only "cost" you about 1.5 mile of range per hour to operate at full power (5kW).
Plus heated seats and steering wheel would allow for cooler, more energy efficient cabin temperatures.
=Smidge=
I'm not trying to show that the Volt is a better investment, though. I'm countering the argument that an EV (or in this case a hybrid) is not "affordable." You have to go way up this comment branch to find where that all started, though.
"Affordable" is relative, and the out-of-pocket cost of a ~$40K hybrid can be, under reasonable circumstances, equivalent to the out-of-pocket cost of a comparable vehicle at half the cost. That's the one and only point I set out to argue originally.
=Smidge=
That's not a chump change, it's a serious accounting matter.
So you honestly think that every single employee is going to be an EV owner, and they're all going to be bilking the company for all it's worth? I'm neither so optimistic for the first part nor so pessimistic for the second part.
Running low on gas also means that the fuel pump is not getting proper cooling...
You are totally overthinking this as a concept...
A 1/4 of a tank in most cars amounts to 80-100 miles of range. .. The Leaf does about the same
Yes, that's the point of the analogy
but the comparison is not accurate because a gas car can be fueled under 3 minutes nearly anywhere, with no fuss.
Hence the stipulations "absolutely must refuel today" and "at least consider an EV" - I'm well aware that just because ~80 miles may easily cover a typical day that you might need more on occasion. It's just a rule of thumb to see if you can immediately rule out an EV for consideration, not a definitive guide.
=Smidge=
The reason leasing is a more attractive offer for EVs is the battery. Maybe you're worried about the battery capacity and performance degrading too quickly, or maybe you're wondering if a newer, better, longer-range battery will be available in a few years. Maybe you're fine yourself with the battery technology, but worried about how uncertainty in the general public will impact the car's resale value.
Solution? Lease, then you have about three years to see how things play out, paying only a modest overall premium if you decide to buy. Think of it as insurance for the ability to ditch the car and save the residual value.
And again, I think it's stupid to talk about personal vehicles in terms of investment. Investments are supposed to give a return on your money. Buying a vehicle is more like buying a stockpile of a commodity.
=Smidge=
When you lease a vehicle, the lessor is effectively the purchaser of the vehicle. Why should they not get the credit? And since they save money through the credit, they pass the savings on to you as incentive. Either way, the one who sees the financial benefit is the one leasing the vehicle.
=Smidge=
Daytime consumers are industrial facilities, and the power to them is delivered via thick underground cables. Nighttime EV chargers are connected to a residential distribution grid, implemented as overhead wires and transformers on poles.
Residential power use also follows a day/night cycle, and much of the light commercial sector uses the same substations and overhead wires that the residential areas do. Even if what you said were true - which it isn't - the utility company would freak over air conditioner installations because a central AC system would use several times the power an EV would.
However power companies are interested in pushing EV users into the far more expensive day rates. As matter of fact, that's what you will be paying if you charge at work. Businesses will not allow free leeching of a considerable amount of power by thousands of employees.
Let's assume an apocalyptic $1.00 per kWh. Employee #4628 deliberately waits until his EV is almost fully drained before abusing the company charge point. At most he is costing the company $20/day. Not insignificant, mind you, but it's not ripping the company off for thousands of dollars a year like this line of argument typically makes it sound like.
If the company was really interested in promoting alternative energy, they'd install solar along with their EV charge points. Bonus: Any power not going to the vehicles offsets the company's own utility bills... and if you're actually paying $1/kWh then a solar installation will pay itself off pretty damn quick.
Loss of power will force you to miss the charging cycle and call for a taxicab next morning. That won't be free.
Assuming you needed an absolutely full charge to make it to work, anyway. Personally, with my usage I'd only need to charge every three or four days if I reliably got 80 miles per charge. Of course if you have a significant power outage lasting several days, getting gasoline might be difficult since gas stations need electricity too...
. In a Leaf you may be watching the needle to go all the way to zero, and then lights dim and the car is off, surrounded by thousands of other cars. What you are going to do? There isn't enough power even for blinking emergency lights.
Morbo says: "Electric cars do not work that way!"
Seriously... if you're not going anywhere you aren't using any power. If you're not using any power you're not going to deplete the battery. There is no EV equivalent to idling the engine. The only exception would be climate control loads, which only "cost" you about 1.5 mile of range per hour to operate at full power (5kW). All other systems, such as lights and radio and the computer, run off of a fairly typical 12 volt lead acid battery.
The LEAF, at least, gives you at least three warnings and offers two levels of reduced power operation (one of them optional, one automatic). If you're worried, turn the AC down. Everything else uses so little power compared to the battery capacity it's not worth thinking about.
Plans change, and even if I didn't intend to go somewhere I might have to do that. A single phone call can change all that. A Leaf is OK only if you are fully in control of all your plans. This rarely happens. Real life requires a car that can be fueled (with gas or electrons) quickly enough and easily enough. A trip to the airport (50 miles one way) will leave the Leaf stranded.
Maybe, maybe not. No doubt current EVs have these types of limitations. There is absolutely a wide range of usage scenarios where the LEAF is a perfect fit. For others, it could be a Volt or a Prius. These ranges overlap so it's going to take a case by case consideration. For me, a LEAF would work great - 99.9% of the time I could drive one carefree, and for those sudden n
What makes you think you as the lessor are going to benefit from the $7500 rebate fully? The dealer (by which you probably mean the leasing company, who is the actual buyer of the car) is under no obligation to pass those savings on to you 1:1 and in fact, most don't from my shopping experience.
If they don't - and it would be readily apparent by reviewing the paperwork - then I'd argue over it. If they refuse, I'll find another dealer who won't rip me off. I'm just as obliged to give them my business as they are to pass the incentive along to me.
I've yet to hear of any anecdotes of this happening, though. If the revisions for the incentive get passed, not only will it increase to $10K but then the dealers WILL be obligated to pass it along.
=Smidge=
I'm surely subsidizing your lifestyle in some way. The fact that you seem to think you're not part of a society shows obvious character flaws, I'm sure you vote Libertarian.
=Smidge=