Air conditioning could plausibly use phase change heat (cold) storage so that you wouldn't have to feed it with electricity all the time (except for heat exchanger pumps).
Since all that additional electricity consumption happens overnight, if every house has an EV then suddenly the peak electricity consumption period switches from mid-day to overnight. And the lower electricity prices people are expecting to pay to recharge their EV evaporates. Moreso if there's significant solar power generation in the grid. Since solar provides electricity only during the day, the electricity during night to charge all these EVs will have to come from generators the power companies can spool up to meet the overnight demand spike.
Have you considered the possibility of charging *during the day*? It almost makes too much sense to store the surpluses, doesn't it? And consequently it makes too little sense to charge overnight. Thus no "overnight demand spike" is necessarily bound to happen.
Storing solar power in batteries for overnight use is not cost-effective unless solar generation exceeds 100% of daytime consumption.
Sooner or later, this excess generation is going to happen if the cost of solar generators becomes so low that using them pays off even despite not using their full output. Even in Germany (which is quite bad for solar power!), for example, the prices auctioned in 2018 for new solar installations where around 45 Euros/MWh. In some other places, the same figure is below $20/MWh already. At these levels, you soon have to ask yourself what to do with the stuff you can't consume around noon in any other way.
It makes no sense to run other power generators during the day just so you can store solar power in batteries for use during the night, when you can just use the solar power directly during the day (avoiding battery losses) and run the other power generators during the night.
It makes no sense to make this argument since you have to charge those vehicles *somehow*, and considering that most of the charge will be used for driving anyway, "[using] the solar power directly during the day (avoiding battery losses)" makes no sense since you can't drive directly on solar power, or nuclear power, or whatever source of electricity you're using, unless catenary wires or some other similar infrastructure is involved. (Which it won't be for personal vehicles.)
Meaning you're going to be paying the highest electricity rates to charge your EV, not the lowest. Modding me down doesn't change this truth. The same truth that lets your EV battery power your home for more than a day, also means the power pricing peak will invert when every home has an EV charging overnight.
That's assuming that everyone makes the irrational decision to charge during the most expensive period. That's a strange assumption to make.
Considering the statistics on natural disasters, you might get actually paid in lower energy prices. It's all a matter of averages. Get an X % discount for being ready to help someone once every few years? Kind of makes sense.
Why is it a Platonic fallacy? It's for example an "invention" that zeros and ones and additive and multiplicative inverses exist in fields? Or a matter of logical necessity? These are absolutely discoveries. These things were not made up arbitrarily based on how good someone's sleep was; they could not have been formulated in any other way.
For now, separate processes into security domains and never let two processes from different domains run on the same core. In the future, get rid of that thing and design computer systems that don't require squeezing out every drop of sequential execution speed you possibly can. There doesn't really seem to be a lot of ways of getting rid of that problem.
to be launched on top of a SpaceX Falcon 9 booster (a US company)
It would be rather difficult for Israel to launch things to high energy trajectories for reasons of geography. So I wouldn't blame them for the lack of capability. I mean, they *could* technically do it, but then some people would scream bloody murder even more.
Why would you need to invoke gods? For what reason? And how is it not a discovery if every individual comes independently to the same conclusion? Languages of the world are interesting in the ways in which they differ, mathematics is interesting in how it is exactly the same for everyone. It's not like, for example, the density of primes is inverse logarithmic for Europeans and constant for Polynesians. That's not "an abstraction", that's a fact of nature.
History shows us that various methods were discovered multiple times independently by multiple people using different approaches, so I don't see how this statement is provable.
Ironically, the Independence War (you mean the conflicts around 1948, I presume?), if I remember correctly, was heavily helped by surplus German equipment.
Algebra is an invention with roots in ancient Babylonia and with contributions from the Greeks but that in it's modern form largely came from the Islamic world.
Invention? You mean discovery? And by "modern form", you mean the discoveries of al-Galois? Oh wait, that was Evariste Galois and it was the 1800s already!
one of the two times Isaac Newton was heard to laugh
A cool story, but all it illustrates is mostly our shoddy history record. Note that I didn't say a word about Elements or Euclid, so I'm not sure what was your point there. Purely geometric methods never got to the point that you needed for a large portion of rocket engineering problems the solution of which made Von Braun and his projects successful.
Also, none of the things you wrote contradict what I wrote, which is what I'm pretty sure is basically a statement from Keith Devlin that I read some years ago. So don't complain to me about that.
Also, the 0.1% argument does not seem to make sense to me considering that neither 99.9% of the distance nor 99.9% of the delta V will be arranged for by the launch vehicle. 0.1% of what exactly are we talking about here?
Well, even just coasting in continuous sunlight is not trivial to engineer for with a custom spacecraft bus. And that last part has historically been attempted extremely infrequently, so much so that I'd argue it deserves fairly high marks if successful, surely higher than GTO insertions, of which you get two dozens a year or so.
Higher level math still depends on lower level foundations being discovered first. Who asked you what you thought was more interesting? That wasn't the question.
One might successfully argue that it's the other way round, as evidenced, e.g., by partially-historically-inverse presentation of linear algebra in universities, where you start with the low-level foundations discovered last and then you follow up with some of the specific results discovered way earlier (before you exhaust them and follow on with specific results obtained in the 20th century).
By the way, your random assertion that "it's easier to land on Mars than in Melbourne, Australia" that you fought so hard to try to convince everybody wasn't totally a crock of shit? Yeah. That's what I remember as your greatest contribution, your most "interesting" nugget of bullshit opine. To be honest, your take on mathematics doesn't come close.
My take on mathematics doesn't come close to a claim I never made? Wow, something I said is different from something I *never* said? How surprising and insightful!:-p
The American contribution apparently ends 10% along the way to the Moon. So if it succeeds, is calling the success 90% Israeli going to keep you happy?
If you look at the history of mathematics, Arabs and Greeks optimistically ended their math education in the third year of high school. The really interesting things were discovered after 1700, perhaps with the exception of calculus, which was discovered after 1600.
Slashdot Mirror
Still remember that old joke about Intel and Motorola CPUs? Time to dust if off, perhaps?
Air conditioning could plausibly use phase change heat (cold) storage so that you wouldn't have to feed it with electricity all the time (except for heat exchanger pumps).
Two days in Spain, three days in Italy, five days in Brazil or Mexico...that's assuming all would be covered from the vehicle. With a residential solar installation, it probably wouldn't.
The average American home uses 10,399 kWh in a year
That's because an average American home is crap when it comes to efficiency.
Since all that additional electricity consumption happens overnight, if every house has an EV then suddenly the peak electricity consumption period switches from mid-day to overnight. And the lower electricity prices people are expecting to pay to recharge their EV evaporates. Moreso if there's significant solar power generation in the grid. Since solar provides electricity only during the day, the electricity during night to charge all these EVs will have to come from generators the power companies can spool up to meet the overnight demand spike.
Have you considered the possibility of charging *during the day*? It almost makes too much sense to store the surpluses, doesn't it? And consequently it makes too little sense to charge overnight. Thus no "overnight demand spike" is necessarily bound to happen.
Storing solar power in batteries for overnight use is not cost-effective unless solar generation exceeds 100% of daytime consumption.
Sooner or later, this excess generation is going to happen if the cost of solar generators becomes so low that using them pays off even despite not using their full output. Even in Germany (which is quite bad for solar power!), for example, the prices auctioned in 2018 for new solar installations where around 45 Euros/MWh. In some other places, the same figure is below $20/MWh already. At these levels, you soon have to ask yourself what to do with the stuff you can't consume around noon in any other way.
It makes no sense to run other power generators during the day just so you can store solar power in batteries for use during the night, when you can just use the solar power directly during the day (avoiding battery losses) and run the other power generators during the night.
It makes no sense to make this argument since you have to charge those vehicles *somehow*, and considering that most of the charge will be used for driving anyway, "[using] the solar power directly during the day (avoiding battery losses)" makes no sense since you can't drive directly on solar power, or nuclear power, or whatever source of electricity you're using, unless catenary wires or some other similar infrastructure is involved. (Which it won't be for personal vehicles.)
Meaning you're going to be paying the highest electricity rates to charge your EV, not the lowest. Modding me down doesn't change this truth. The same truth that lets your EV battery power your home for more than a day, also means the power pricing peak will invert when every home has an EV charging overnight.
That's assuming that everyone makes the irrational decision to charge during the most expensive period. That's a strange assumption to make.
Not so much, apparently...
Psychoanalysis?? I thought this was a nude rap session!!!
Considering the statistics on natural disasters, you might get actually paid in lower energy prices. It's all a matter of averages. Get an X % discount for being ready to help someone once every few years? Kind of makes sense.
Clearly you pay too much attention to latitude and not enough to longitude.
Why is it a Platonic fallacy? It's for example an "invention" that zeros and ones and additive and multiplicative inverses exist in fields? Or a matter of logical necessity? These are absolutely discoveries. These things were not made up arbitrarily based on how good someone's sleep was; they could not have been formulated in any other way.
The first clause is a tautology, but not a very useful one, which makes the second clause nonsensical.
For now, separate processes into security domains and never let two processes from different domains run on the same core. In the future, get rid of that thing and design computer systems that don't require squeezing out every drop of sequential execution speed you possibly can. There doesn't really seem to be a lot of ways of getting rid of that problem.
to be launched on top of a SpaceX Falcon 9 booster (a US company)
It would be rather difficult for Israel to launch things to high energy trajectories for reasons of geography. So I wouldn't blame them for the lack of capability. I mean, they *could* technically do it, but then some people would scream bloody murder even more.
Why would you need to invoke gods? For what reason? And how is it not a discovery if every individual comes independently to the same conclusion? Languages of the world are interesting in the ways in which they differ, mathematics is interesting in how it is exactly the same for everyone. It's not like, for example, the density of primes is inverse logarithmic for Europeans and constant for Polynesians. That's not "an abstraction", that's a fact of nature.
There was a shitload of infantry firearms involved, too.
yet without them you wouldn't get beyond that
History shows us that various methods were discovered multiple times independently by multiple people using different approaches, so I don't see how this statement is provable.
That's a hypothetical considering that you can't post such a link. But yes.
Ironically, the Independence War (you mean the conflicts around 1948, I presume?), if I remember correctly, was heavily helped by surplus German equipment.
Said by you.
Actually, it's said by you. YOU wrote it right there. I can't edit your comments.
Algebra is an invention with roots in ancient Babylonia and with contributions from the Greeks but that in it's modern form largely came from the Islamic world.
Invention? You mean discovery? And by "modern form", you mean the discoveries of al-Galois? Oh wait, that was Evariste Galois and it was the 1800s already!
one of the two times Isaac Newton was heard to laugh
A cool story, but all it illustrates is mostly our shoddy history record. Note that I didn't say a word about Elements or Euclid, so I'm not sure what was your point there. Purely geometric methods never got to the point that you needed for a large portion of rocket engineering problems the solution of which made Von Braun and his projects successful.
Also, none of the things you wrote contradict what I wrote, which is what I'm pretty sure is basically a statement from Keith Devlin that I read some years ago. So don't complain to me about that.
Also, the 0.1% argument does not seem to make sense to me considering that neither 99.9% of the distance nor 99.9% of the delta V will be arranged for by the launch vehicle. 0.1% of what exactly are we talking about here?
Well, even just coasting in continuous sunlight is not trivial to engineer for with a custom spacecraft bus. And that last part has historically been attempted extremely infrequently, so much so that I'd argue it deserves fairly high marks if successful, surely higher than GTO insertions, of which you get two dozens a year or so.
Higher level math still depends on lower level foundations being discovered first. Who asked you what you thought was more interesting? That wasn't the question.
One might successfully argue that it's the other way round, as evidenced, e.g., by partially-historically-inverse presentation of linear algebra in universities, where you start with the low-level foundations discovered last and then you follow up with some of the specific results discovered way earlier (before you exhaust them and follow on with specific results obtained in the 20th century).
By the way, your random assertion that "it's easier to land on Mars than in Melbourne, Australia" that you fought so hard to try to convince everybody wasn't totally a crock of shit? Yeah. That's what I remember as your greatest contribution, your most "interesting" nugget of bullshit opine. To be honest, your take on mathematics doesn't come close.
My take on mathematics doesn't come close to a claim I never made? Wow, something I said is different from something I *never* said? How surprising and insightful! :-p
The American contribution apparently ends 10% along the way to the Moon. So if it succeeds, is calling the success 90% Israeli going to keep you happy?
If you look at the history of mathematics, Arabs and Greeks optimistically ended their math education in the third year of high school. The really interesting things were discovered after 1700, perhaps with the exception of calculus, which was discovered after 1600.
Nothing, you're out of balls by then. Or maybe they take your shaft?