You bastard, you beat me to it. I logged in specifically to make that observation. Bastard. I bet you wear bastard T shirts and bastard shorts and have a bastard laptop. Bastard.
I didn't know that. So we should charge the Volt with fake electricity before crash testing it? Suggestions please on a stamped self addressed envelope.
The best human drivers don't have injury or death causing accidents in their entire driving careers . I've been driving for 35 years and have never been in an accident with another car , and have bent a few panels and scratched paint when hitting stationary objects. I'm not actually a good driver, just cautious. So AVs cannot better the best human safety record.
There were 4 independent sensor systems in that car (LiDAR, radar, camera, 'safety driver'). NONE of them registered the appearance of a human sized target walking in a straight line in time to apply the brakes before the collision. OK the safety driver was playing on their phone, but the three automatic systems failed. The obfuscated video supplied by Uber may have hoodwinked the general populace but they have not revealed the LiDAR or radar 'footage', neither of which rely on ambient light.
A boring few minutes in google maps shows many stretches of the 101 with a lane on the right hand side separated from the main carriageway by a thick white line and a total absence of vehicles in it. Presumably they put that in because they had some spare asphalt, as opposed to maybe expecting people to stop in it if necessary.
No Betz's law is that the efficiency of a system that extracts energy from a free flowing windstream cannot be more than 59.3% . The reason is that if you take more energy than that out of the incoming windstream, it all piles up behind the rotor (as a sort of handwavy explanation). It doesn't matter what the configuration is you won't beat that.
The idea of using a GA to develop aero is of course not new, it is not hard to put a matlab or pythn program together to do this. Many years ago i had a GA script that optimised a structure using FEA that worked well enough.
However, you need to define a set of genes to describe your shape. That might be tricky.
No, you are out by a factor of about 5, sorry. Here's a comparison I did recently
Best battery around at the moment is probably Tesla. Their 85 kWh battery weighs 540 kg. A typical car has a 72 litre tank, so we could replace that with a 9 kWh battery. 9 kWh is of course 33 MJ. 72 litres of fuel is about 2500 MJ. The efficiency of whatever ancient technology they use on the gas car is perhaps 15% or a little better. So on a/like for like/ basis the BEV has 9% of the energy available at the wheel compared with a not very efficient gasoline car. Admittedly the electric motors are lighter than the gasoline powertrain, but that wasn't your argument. A more sensible approach would be to add up the total mass of fuel+tank+powertrain and comparing it with the same overall mass of motors+transmission+electronics+battery.
Since you think you are good with numbers perhaps you could do that for me.
I'm sure that with your extensive experience in analysing real world data (it's my day job) you'd agree that extrapolating the second derivative from noisy data is a bit silly. As soon as the idiotic subsidies for regen disappear, so will the growth in regen installations, or at least their second derivative. Bear in mind in that graph I posted the %age of regen was actually falling, since it had the same slope as oil and coal.
I'm not putting any time into actually doing the numbers but if I get any interesting responses to this I will.
Ah, no in fact the entire post got mungled up, probably becasue I used GE and LE brackets.
"In the past fifteen years we have witnessed several pivotal points along the route towards clean energy and transport. In 2004, renewables were poised for explosive growth; in 2008, the world's power system started to go digital; in 2012, it became clear that EVs would take over light ground transportation"
Point 1, in fact renewables have scarecely increased as a %age of total energy usage eg
Point 3 - good thing he said light vehicles, in 2016 they were about 1.7% of sales in China, the US, Europe, Japan and Canada, and of course practically zero elsewhere.
So not exactly the most compelling argument really.
In the past fifteen years we have witnessed several pivotal points along the route towards clean energy and transport. In 2004, renewables were poised for explosive growth; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...> in 2008, the world's power system started to go digital ; in 2012, it became clear that EVs would take over light ground transportation https://www.businessinsider.co....>
So out of his three main points one is irrelevant, one is misleading at best, and one is basing an awful lot on a very small sample. Cracking job matey.
The only charity I give money to is the Fred Hollows Foundation. They do free cataract operations in India. I can't see much harm in that unless you are an Indian eye surgeon. It costs about 25 bucks to restore a person's sight.
Actual experience with my 5 kW system. It cost me $7000. I think the installer probably got a $4000 subsidy in one form or another, so i paid that indirectly, being a taxpayer.
Anyway, over the year that it has been installed its performance matches the predictions almost exactly, and it has generated 7000 kWh. Due to an insane state government scheme, which again i am paying for, I get 14c/kWh for power I feed into the grid, and am charged 24 c/kWh for power I take out. Over the year my total electricity bill is $200 credit, giving a crude payback of about 6 years.
If I had invested that money elsewhere I would pay tax on any earnings, but for idealogical reasons PV income is not taxed, again I am paying for that in other ways. So I'd have to make about 30% pa on that capital to match the return from the panels. I'm nowhere near that good at shares.
So basically, in Australia PV is currently a pretty good bet as other taxpayers are subsidising it. Of course if the ludicrous tarriffs change then it won't be as attractive. But I'll still be saving the planet (haha).
That is a peak for one 30 minute period. It is some function of the way the market is controlled, for instance yesterday the price peaked at $3/kWh, yet for the rest of the day it has hovered around $0.10 per kWh
Here's the past and future price estimates over 24 h
As I write the '57%' renewable SA system is absorbing all the coal power it can get from Victoria and its '57%' renewable generators are actually supplying less than 20% of the state's needs.
Here's a snapshot on a nice sunny windless day last Saturday where SA's renewable generators were producing virtually nothing. It demonstrates that you have to have 100% baseload generation, you cannot rely on renewables to replace them, at least until we install hundreds of batteries the size of the one in SA.
Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age? So the anthropogenic signal is hard to discern in that. I agree the earth is warming, it has been warming since the last Ice Age. We don't really know if the rate of warming is unusual, but judging by HADCET, it would appear that the period since 1800 has seen temperature rises over decades that are not unusual. That is, there are several periods in that 400 year record that have similar sustained rates of warming.
As to CO2, yes the fossil fuel emissions do hang around in the atmosphere, and so CO2 has increased. But, the greenhouse effect is due to CO2 is small, and easily overwhelmed by changes in water vapor and albedo. The albedo effect is the dominant part of the equation, and none of their computer models account for changes in albedo in the future. Crucially this means that the models need positive feedback to outweigh negative feedback. This is unlikely.
Let me mansplain this to you. A few days back there was a story that Google's image identification program had labelled a photo of a group of black men as 'gorillas'. Google make autonomous cars. Now, do you see the joke?
two of us live on my off grid house, using rainwater stored in two 10 ton tanks. That'll just last us 4 or 5 months. That's 33 US gallons a day for two people. There are no leaks in the system. I'll admit to taking luxurious showers.
That greenwash wasn't peer reviewed either. Tesla's batteries are currently built with marginal electricity, so they must be made from deployable power, which is fossil fuel or nukes.
Slashdot Mirror
Not acceptable to snowflake, he wants to live in the same sort of house his parents have, in the same suburb as his parents.
You are the 3.5th person making the same joke.
You are the 3rd person making the same joke.
You are the 2nd person making the same joke.
You are the 4th person making the same joke.
You bastard, you beat me to it. I logged in specifically to make that observation. Bastard. I bet you wear bastard T shirts and bastard shorts and have a bastard laptop. Bastard.
mod parent up.
I didn't know that. So we should charge the Volt with fake electricity before crash testing it? Suggestions please on a stamped self addressed envelope.
The best human drivers don't have injury or death causing accidents in their entire driving careers . I've been driving for 35 years and have never been in an accident with another car , and have bent a few panels and scratched paint when hitting stationary objects. I'm not actually a good driver, just cautious. So AVs cannot better the best human safety record.
There were 4 independent sensor systems in that car (LiDAR, radar, camera, 'safety driver'). NONE of them registered the appearance of a human sized target walking in a straight line in time to apply the brakes before the collision. OK the safety driver was playing on their phone, but the three automatic systems failed. The obfuscated video supplied by Uber may have hoodwinked the general populace but they have not revealed the LiDAR or radar 'footage', neither of which rely on ambient light.
A boring few minutes in google maps shows many stretches of the 101 with a lane on the right hand side separated from the main carriageway by a thick white line and a total absence of vehicles in it. Presumably they put that in because they had some spare asphalt, as opposed to maybe expecting people to stop in it if necessary.
https://www.google.com.au/maps...
eg https://eawephdseminar.science... p33
in which he compares cfd results from the free software OpenFoam for a wind turbine in cfd and in reality. Military grade my arse.
No Betz's law is that the efficiency of a system that extracts energy from a free flowing windstream cannot be more than 59.3% . The reason is that if you take more energy than that out of the incoming windstream, it all piles up behind the rotor (as a sort of handwavy explanation). It doesn't matter what the configuration is you won't beat that.
The idea of using a GA to develop aero is of course not new, it is not hard to put a matlab or pythn program together to do this. Many years ago i had a GA script that optimised a structure using FEA that worked well enough.
However, you need to define a set of genes to describe your shape. That might be tricky.
No, you are out by a factor of about 5, sorry. Here's a comparison I did recently
Best battery around at the moment is probably Tesla. Their 85 kWh battery weighs 540 kg. A typical car has a 72 litre tank, so we could replace that with a 9 kWh battery. 9 kWh is of course 33 MJ. 72 litres of fuel is about 2500 MJ. The efficiency of whatever ancient technology they use on the gas car is perhaps 15% or a little better. So on a /like for like/ basis the BEV has 9% of the energy available at the wheel compared with a not very efficient gasoline car. Admittedly the electric motors are lighter than the gasoline powertrain, but that wasn't your argument. A more sensible approach would be to add up the total mass of fuel+tank+powertrain and comparing it with the same overall mass of motors+transmission+electronics+battery.
Since you think you are good with numbers perhaps you could do that for me.
I'm sure that with your extensive experience in analysing real world data (it's my day job) you'd agree that extrapolating the second derivative from noisy data is a bit silly. As soon as the idiotic subsidies for regen disappear, so will the growth in regen installations, or at least their second derivative. Bear in mind in that graph I posted the %age of regen was actually falling, since it had the same slope as oil and coal.
I'm not putting any time into actually doing the numbers but if I get any interesting responses to this I will.
Ah, no in fact the entire post got mungled up, probably becasue I used GE and LE brackets.
"In the past fifteen years we have witnessed several pivotal points along the route towards clean energy and transport. In 2004, renewables were poised for explosive growth; in 2008, the world's power system started to go digital; in 2012, it became clear that EVs would take over light ground transportation"
Point 1, in fact renewables have scarecely increased as a %age of total energy usage eg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Point 2 - digital so what?
Point 3 - good thing he said light vehicles, in 2016 they were about 1.7% of sales in China, the US, Europe, Japan and Canada, and of course practically zero elsewhere.
So not exactly the most compelling argument really.
sorry about the links, why is that happening?
In the past fifteen years we have witnessed several pivotal points along the route towards clean energy and transport. In 2004, renewables were poised for explosive growth; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...> in 2008, the world's power system started to go digital ; in 2012, it became clear that EVs would take over light ground transportation https://www.businessinsider.co... .>
So out of his three main points one is irrelevant, one is misleading at best, and one is basing an awful lot on a very small sample. Cracking job matey.
The only charity I give money to is the Fred Hollows Foundation. They do free cataract operations in India. I can't see much harm in that unless you are an Indian eye surgeon. It costs about 25 bucks to restore a person's sight.
So it was the non convict settlers that massacred the Aborigines then? Mmm, nice. The smugness can be felt from here.
Actual experience with my 5 kW system. It cost me $7000. I think the installer probably got a $4000 subsidy in one form or another, so i paid that indirectly, being a taxpayer.
Anyway, over the year that it has been installed its performance matches the predictions almost exactly, and it has generated 7000 kWh. Due to an insane state government scheme, which again i am paying for, I get 14c/kWh for power I feed into the grid, and am charged 24 c/kWh for power I take out. Over the year my total electricity bill is $200 credit, giving a crude payback of about 6 years.
If I had invested that money elsewhere I would pay tax on any earnings, but for idealogical reasons PV income is not taxed, again I am paying for that in other ways. So I'd have to make about 30% pa on that capital to match the return from the panels. I'm nowhere near that good at shares.
So basically, in Australia PV is currently a pretty good bet as other taxpayers are subsidising it. Of course if the ludicrous tarriffs change then it won't be as attractive. But I'll still be saving the planet (haha).
That is a peak for one 30 minute period. It is some function of the way the market is controlled, for instance yesterday the price peaked at $3/kWh, yet for the rest of the day it has hovered around $0.10 per kWh
Here's the past and future price estimates over 24 h
https://www.aemo.com.au/Electr...
And here is the far more entertaining power flow between the states
https://www.aemo.com.au/Electr...
As I write the '57%' renewable SA system is absorbing all the coal power it can get from Victoria and its '57%' renewable generators are actually supplying less than 20% of the state's needs.
Here's a snapshot on a nice sunny windless day last Saturday where SA's renewable generators were producing virtually nothing. It demonstrates that you have to have 100% baseload generation, you cannot rely on renewables to replace them, at least until we install hundreds of batteries the size of the one in SA.
http://res.cloudinary.com/engi...
Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age? So the anthropogenic signal is hard to discern in that. I agree the earth is warming, it has been warming since the last Ice Age. We don't really know if the rate of warming is unusual, but judging by HADCET, it would appear that the period since 1800 has seen temperature rises over decades that are not unusual. That is, there are several periods in that 400 year record that have similar sustained rates of warming.
As to CO2, yes the fossil fuel emissions do hang around in the atmosphere, and so CO2 has increased. But, the greenhouse effect is due to CO2 is small, and easily overwhelmed by changes in water vapor and albedo. The albedo effect is the dominant part of the equation, and none of their computer models account for changes in albedo in the future. Crucially this means that the models need positive feedback to outweigh negative feedback. This is unlikely.
Let me mansplain this to you. A few days back there was a story that Google's image identification program had labelled a photo of a group of black men as 'gorillas'. Google make autonomous cars. Now, do you see the joke?
two of us live on my off grid house, using rainwater stored in two 10 ton tanks. That'll just last us 4 or 5 months. That's 33 US gallons a day for two people. There are no leaks in the system. I'll admit to taking luxurious showers.
That greenwash wasn't peer reviewed either. Tesla's batteries are currently built with marginal electricity, so they must be made from deployable power, which is fossil fuel or nukes.