Electric planes are coming, prototypes already exist. Your belief that batteries will stay insufficient for practical payload and range is not widely shared.
The problem is precisely that the "engines" are not powerful enough yet, measured by thrust per area. It is unclear whether that is fixable, but there is certainly hope.
What has happened to Slashdot, dreams from our childhoods unexpectedly become possible, and we go "meh, I checked the timetable at Heathrow for tomorrow, none of those fly with ionic engines".
Just to make it worse, when the first commercial flight of ionic engines happens, we'll go "meh, old tech, this professor showed it in 2018 already. Why is there no innovation anymore?"
I have used DuckDuckGo for about that amount of time. Practically every search ends up redone with a !g in front of it. It is absolutely ridiculous how bad the results are on DuckDuckGo.
Please don't ask why it is still my default search engine. There is no good answer to that question.
Everyone involved with the SLS project have shown nothing but sheer incompetence.
As far as I can tell, everything you complain about is built-in to the project requirements. The people involved in the design are not incompetent just because they do as they are told. It is not like there are a million jobs out there in rocket design, except perhaps in certain dubious regimes.
"Cost plus" is precisely why NASA is stuck where it is. With cost plus, making your process more efficient means LESS money. That is why there was no innovation in the space industry for decades.
Cost plus is the reason that humans haven't been to the moon in my lifetime.
Basically every EV that is charged via a SmartMeter/SmartCharger can feed back into the grid.
This is a completely ridiculous statement. The only EV that can feed power back into the grid in Europe is the very latest version of the Nissan Leaf combined with a home DC charger. This combination is exceedingly rare.
What is V2G infrastructure? I don't recognize V2G...
The original thread went:
"Most vehicles are not wired to allow this at residential level - the J1772 standard doesn't allow the vehicle to pump inverted AC power out, although that would be a neat trick (and probably feasible in future cars)."
The reply was
"I'm honestly kind of irritated nobody is seriously trying to do it already from EVs."
And then you wrote
"It is done in Europe since a decade."
That is V2G, Vehicle to Grid, allowing cars to supply power instead of just charging. It has NOT been done in Europe for a decade, as you claimed. None of your references say that it has been done.
No idea about that. As Europe has probably 1000 times more EVs than the US, no idea what you want to imply. I can not charge my Nissan at a Tesla plug? Well, we only have one plug here and Teslas come with adaptors...
I am precisely saying that you cannot charge your Nissan at a Tesla charging station. And the non-Tesla charging stations suck, so you can basically forget about long distance driving unless you own a Tesla.
The Kona will do long distance, but it sometimes stops charging randomly so you return to it after the break and it's still mostly empty. Probably the fault of the charging station and not the car, but that does not help the driver who is trying to get somewhere.
As to one plug? For AC there are 2 (type 1 and type 2), for DC there are 2 (CCS and CHAdeMO), and then there is the Tesla plug. It's a disaster.
Your links contain zero references to V2G infrastructure. It is all about being able to plug your car in anywhere and being able to pay for the power. Great, but not at all on topic.
(If only they succeeded. The non-Tesla high speed charging infrastructure in most of Europe is a joke. And non-Teslas can't use the Tesla grid.)
There are better chip technologies than Si for various uses. Yet everyone is on silicon, because economies of scale left everything else behind on old slow processes.
Same thing for the various alternatives to NAND flash. The amount of money dumped into making amazing NAND flash has kept everything else uncompetitive.
It is possible that flow batteries or something else non-Lithium will one day be used for grid storage. I doubt it though. The Lithium chemistries are improving at an impressive rate, and they are still quite far away from fundamental limits. It is likely that there will never be enough money in alternative chemistries to get them to catch up to Lithium.
If it was a 1000 cars around 2005, then most certainly there are far more now.
The whole thing sounds highly dubious. If there were 1000 cars involved in 2005, it would be easy to provide a reference. So please do so.
Lithium batteries basically weren't used for cars in 2005. Nickel chemistries are bad enough for electric vehicles in general, but they are completely unsuitable for vehicle to grid. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The Roadster was the first highway legal serial production all-electric car to use lithium-ion battery cells". That was in 2008.
Note that the cost isn't just monetary. If you buy Oracle, you will forever have to fear their licensing antics. You never know when an audit might happen, and the licensing terms are so convoluted that you're likely in breach. Just to make it worse, the terms constantly change.
I so wish they'd do that. The game as described in the official rules is bad but playable. The game played with the rules that people actually use is absolutely atrocious.
But damnit, don't make me pay £0.092 per kWh at 3 am in the morning for electricity I don't need or want. Wind and solar can do it for less than half the price. And if you order a new off-shore wind farm today, it'll be installed in 3 years. If you order a new nuclear reactor today, it might be installed in 10 years, if you're lucky.
Then, it expands to "waste". Did you water your lawn? Oh my, you wasted a lot of perfectly good water. To the gallows with you!
Already illegal in many jurisdictions during droughts (and why would you water it if there was no drought?)
Does your car guzzle more than one gallon per 50 miles? We are providing you with a perfectly fitting dungeon chamber where you'll spend large amounts of time thinking about how you wasted resources.
Car taxes (or "fines" if you prefer that word to make it more like a punishment) based on fuel use exist in multiple countries.
Are you heating your house to temperatures more than 10 degrees Celsius above freezing?
Insulation standards are common in countries with cold climates.
Waste is already illegal in many places. The gulags are nowhere to be seen. I think we'll be OK on that train.
Are there any hard numbers showing that this is caused by increased demand rather than constrained supply?
I expect that some of the previous-generation factories are in the process of being retooled for 10nm? Is that not how Intel does it? If it is, that would limit the supply of the 14nm chips without yet being able to make up the shortfall with 10nm chips.
Thank you! I was hoping you'd be going off the main battery voltage, not stepping down to 12V, up to 110V, and then down near 24V...
Either way, it is cool that you can get so much power out of the 12V system. I am somewhat surprised that the Volt has chosen to run so many parts on 12V.
That is not how vehicles work (except to a certain extent Teslas).
Modern vehicles are a hodgepodge of random interconnected computers that each do one thing plus half of another. Replace the radio and the pedestrian collision detection will stop working. I can't imagine that tractors are built more sensibly.
Your memory is completely off. Have it looked at. Solar makes sense right now.
Batteries don't, for daily cycle applications. But they're improving right on schedule.
Nuclear on the other hand is economically entirely unviable. Just look at the laughable price for the power from Hinckley Point C, which the UK tax payers will be subsidizing for 35 years. The only hope for the UK industry is that it breaks sometime during the contract so the economy won't have that lead (ok, uranium) weight to pull around.
You'll have a shortfall of some 7 GW at 6-7pm and a slightly smaller one in the morning. However, given the price projections, in 10 years solar + batteries will be cheaper than nuclear, and that's approximately how long it'll take you to get the nuclear plant online.
This won't cover summer vs. winter differences, but the demand curve you showed doesn't have much of those.
As the parent mentioned, solar and wind compliment nuclear very nicely. Both solar and wind are great - when the weather is right at the moment. When the weather isn't right, at night for example, nuclear is the very best, cleanest way to have your base.
Nuclear, solar, and wind are all zero-marginal-cost technologies. If you decide not to use the power they make, you save approximately nothing -- a little wear and tear on the wind turbines, a bit of essentially free nuclear fuel for nuclear. Therefore they complement each other atrociously. If you have enough nuclear power to handle peak demand, any build-out of solar and wind is throwing money away for no gain, and if you don't have enough nuclear, you are scuppered on a cloudy quiet day.
If you have energy storage, you can obviously use that to solve the problem. But if you have energy storage, you build renewables instead of nuclear because they are half the cost.
Flat Earth statistic: If gravity is caused by a flat earth accelerating at g, it'll reach c after about 1 year (~354 days).
You are saying that as if it is a problem to hit C, like it would be impossible to continue after 354 days. This is not the case. As long as you only care about your own point of view and you're the one being accelerated, you can reach as many times C as you want (well, have fuel for).
You are wrong though. DivX the discs did not use DivX the pirate file format. DivX the pirate file format came significantly after DivX the discs.
There are no technical links between the two. DivX the pirate file format was named DivX to joke about DivX the discs. The only thing linking them is the name and the joke.
Come on, the Economist track record isn't half as bad as Wall Street Journal, and WSJ earns way more money than the Economist.
Wall Street Journal makes money by telling those in power that it is reasonable and proper that they are in power. Arguing that the information in there is useful just because it's expensive is bogus.
Slashdot Mirror
Electric planes are coming, prototypes already exist. Your belief that batteries will stay insufficient for practical payload and range is not widely shared.
The problem is precisely that the "engines" are not powerful enough yet, measured by thrust per area. It is unclear whether that is fixable, but there is certainly hope.
Screw useful.
It flies without engines or motors!
What has happened to Slashdot, dreams from our childhoods unexpectedly become possible, and we go "meh, I checked the timetable at Heathrow for tomorrow, none of those fly with ionic engines".
Just to make it worse, when the first commercial flight of ionic engines happens, we'll go "meh, old tech, this professor showed it in 2018 already. Why is there no innovation anymore?"
I have used DuckDuckGo for about that amount of time. Practically every search ends up redone with a !g in front of it. It is absolutely ridiculous how bad the results are on DuckDuckGo.
Please don't ask why it is still my default search engine. There is no good answer to that question.
Everyone involved with the SLS project have shown nothing but sheer incompetence.
As far as I can tell, everything you complain about is built-in to the project requirements. The people involved in the design are not incompetent just because they do as they are told. It is not like there are a million jobs out there in rocket design, except perhaps in certain dubious regimes.
"Cost plus" is precisely why NASA is stuck where it is. With cost plus, making your process more efficient means LESS money. That is why there was no innovation in the space industry for decades.
Cost plus is the reason that humans haven't been to the moon in my lifetime.
Basically every EV that is charged via a SmartMeter/SmartCharger can feed back into the grid.
This is a completely ridiculous statement. The only EV that can feed power back into the grid in Europe is the very latest version of the Nissan Leaf combined with a home DC charger. This combination is exceedingly rare.
I am not going to continue this thread.
What is V2G infrastructure? I don't recognize V2G ...
The original thread went:
"Most vehicles are not wired to allow this at residential level - the J1772 standard doesn't allow the vehicle to pump inverted AC power out, although that would be a neat trick (and probably feasible in future cars)."
The reply was
"I'm honestly kind of irritated nobody is seriously trying to do it already from EVs."
And then you wrote
"It is done in Europe since a decade."
That is V2G, Vehicle to Grid, allowing cars to supply power instead of just charging. It has NOT been done in Europe for a decade, as you claimed. None of your references say that it has been done.
No idea about that. As Europe has probably 1000 times more EVs than the US, no idea what you want to imply. I can not charge my Nissan at a Tesla plug? Well, we only have one plug here and Teslas come with adaptors ...
I am precisely saying that you cannot charge your Nissan at a Tesla charging station. And the non-Tesla charging stations suck, so you can basically forget about long distance driving unless you own a Tesla.
The Kona will do long distance, but it sometimes stops charging randomly so you return to it after the break and it's still mostly empty. Probably the fault of the charging station and not the car, but that does not help the driver who is trying to get somewhere.
As to one plug? For AC there are 2 (type 1 and type 2), for DC there are 2 (CCS and CHAdeMO), and then there is the Tesla plug. It's a disaster.
Your links contain zero references to V2G infrastructure. It is all about being able to plug your car in anywhere and being able to pay for the power. Great, but not at all on topic.
(If only they succeeded. The non-Tesla high speed charging infrastructure in most of Europe is a joke. And non-Teslas can't use the Tesla grid.)
There are better chip technologies than Si for various uses. Yet everyone is on silicon, because economies of scale left everything else behind on old slow processes.
Same thing for the various alternatives to NAND flash. The amount of money dumped into making amazing NAND flash has kept everything else uncompetitive.
It is possible that flow batteries or something else non-Lithium will one day be used for grid storage. I doubt it though. The Lithium chemistries are improving at an impressive rate, and they are still quite far away from fundamental limits. It is likely that there will never be enough money in alternative chemistries to get them to catch up to Lithium.
If it was a 1000 cars around 2005, then most certainly there are far more now.
The whole thing sounds highly dubious. If there were 1000 cars involved in 2005, it would be easy to provide a reference. So please do so.
Lithium batteries basically weren't used for cars in 2005. Nickel chemistries are bad enough for electric vehicles in general, but they are completely unsuitable for vehicle to grid. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The Roadster was the first highway legal serial production all-electric car to use lithium-ion battery cells". That was in 2008.
Note that the cost isn't just monetary. If you buy Oracle, you will forever have to fear their licensing antics. You never know when an audit might happen, and the licensing terms are so convoluted that you're likely in breach. Just to make it worse, the terms constantly change.
I so wish they'd do that. The game as described in the official rules is bad but playable. The game played with the rules that people actually use is absolutely atrocious.
I'm all for nuclear power. Build away!
But damnit, don't make me pay £0.092 per kWh at 3 am in the morning for electricity I don't need or want. Wind and solar can do it for less than half the price. And if you order a new off-shore wind farm today, it'll be installed in 3 years. If you order a new nuclear reactor today, it might be installed in 10 years, if you're lucky.
Then, it expands to "waste". Did you water your lawn? Oh my, you wasted a lot of perfectly good water. To the gallows with you!
Already illegal in many jurisdictions during droughts (and why would you water it if there was no drought?)
Does your car guzzle more than one gallon per 50 miles? We are providing you with a perfectly fitting dungeon chamber where you'll spend large amounts of time thinking about how you wasted resources.
Car taxes (or "fines" if you prefer that word to make it more like a punishment) based on fuel use exist in multiple countries.
Are you heating your house to temperatures more than 10 degrees Celsius above freezing?
Insulation standards are common in countries with cold climates.
Waste is already illegal in many places. The gulags are nowhere to be seen. I think we'll be OK on that train.
Are there any hard numbers showing that this is caused by increased demand rather than constrained supply?
I expect that some of the previous-generation factories are in the process of being retooled for 10nm? Is that not how Intel does it? If it is, that would limit the supply of the 14nm chips without yet being able to make up the shortfall with 10nm chips.
Thank you! I was hoping you'd be going off the main battery voltage, not stepping down to 12V, up to 110V, and then down near 24V...
Either way, it is cool that you can get so much power out of the 12V system. I am somewhat surprised that the Volt has chosen to run so many parts on 12V.
Do tell... How do you get AC out of the car?
That is not how vehicles work (except to a certain extent Teslas).
Modern vehicles are a hodgepodge of random interconnected computers that each do one thing plus half of another. Replace the radio and the pedestrian collision detection will stop working. I can't imagine that tractors are built more sensibly.
Replacing the computerization is a huge task.
Your memory is completely off. Have it looked at. Solar makes sense right now.
Batteries don't, for daily cycle applications. But they're improving right on schedule.
Nuclear on the other hand is economically entirely unviable. Just look at the laughable price for the power from Hinckley Point C, which the UK tax payers will be subsidizing for 35 years. The only hope for the UK industry is that it breaks sometime during the contract so the economy won't have that lead (ok, uranium) weight to pull around.
You'll have a shortfall of some 7 GW at 6-7pm and a slightly smaller one in the morning. However, given the price projections, in 10 years solar + batteries will be cheaper than nuclear, and that's approximately how long it'll take you to get the nuclear plant online.
This won't cover summer vs. winter differences, but the demand curve you showed doesn't have much of those.
As the parent mentioned, solar and wind compliment nuclear very nicely. Both solar and wind are great - when the weather is right at the moment. When the weather isn't right, at night for example, nuclear is the very best, cleanest way to have your base.
Nuclear, solar, and wind are all zero-marginal-cost technologies. If you decide not to use the power they make, you save approximately nothing -- a little wear and tear on the wind turbines, a bit of essentially free nuclear fuel for nuclear. Therefore they complement each other atrociously. If you have enough nuclear power to handle peak demand, any build-out of solar and wind is throwing money away for no gain, and if you don't have enough nuclear, you are scuppered on a cloudy quiet day.
If you have energy storage, you can obviously use that to solve the problem. But if you have energy storage, you build renewables instead of nuclear because they are half the cost.
Flat Earth statistic: If gravity is caused by a flat earth accelerating at g, it'll reach c after about 1 year (~354 days).
You are saying that as if it is a problem to hit C, like it would be impossible to continue after 354 days. This is not the case. As long as you only care about your own point of view and you're the one being accelerated, you can reach as many times C as you want (well, have fuel for).
Traditional online banking can be made quantum-resistant with reasonable effort. It will start happening soon.
Bitcoin requires an incompatible upgrade to do the same. Those have been fun so far.
You are wrong though. DivX the discs did not use DivX the pirate file format. DivX the pirate file format came significantly after DivX the discs.
There are no technical links between the two. DivX the pirate file format was named DivX to joke about DivX the discs. The only thing linking them is the name and the joke.
Come on, the Economist track record isn't half as bad as Wall Street Journal, and WSJ earns way more money than the Economist.
Wall Street Journal makes money by telling those in power that it is reasonable and proper that they are in power. Arguing that the information in there is useful just because it's expensive is bogus.