Go ahead and charge me sales taxes on internet purchases; I will still favor online retailers. Point, click, purchase vs start car, drive to store, shop inside, wait in checkout line, etc. Brick and mortar stores are going to have to do something pretty amazing for me to favor them over Amazon.
Everything you just listed above is paid for in my property taxes, my fuel taxes (both that I pay and UPS/Fedex when delivering my Amazon packages), and my water bill. Why you need sales tax from me if I'm not using a brick and mortar store to buy something?
Second, you're not paying the average price of power. You're going to be paying time of day, and charging between midnight and 5am (I live in Northern Illinois, and get my nuclear-generated power from ComEd. To charge my Roadster, I pay under 2 cents per KwH if I charge between the hours I previously mentioned).
Electricity still wins out. You can move it across the country at speeds physical fuels can only dream off, it can be generated in a distributed fashion from all sorts of different energy sources, and its price is MUCH less volatile than petroleum products.
"In an electric vehicle, chemical energy is stored in a battery. Lithium-ion batteries are used in Tesla vehicles because of high energy density. Converting the chemical energy to free electrons (electrical energy) can be greater than 90% efficient – some energy is lost to heat in cells and other battery pack components such as current conductors and fuses. The remaining components of the Tesla powertrain – the drive inverter and motor – are also extremely efficient. Overall, drive efficiency of the Tesla Roadster is 88% - almost three times more efficient than an internal combustion powered vehicle."
"Chemical energy is stored as gasoline in a conventional car. Combustion is used to convert the chemical energy into thermal energy. Pistons convert the thermal energy to the mechanical work that turns the wheels. The conversion process is, at best, 35% efficient. The majority of the energy stored in the gasoline is lost as heat."
If time in field is your only criteria then EVs have failed.
Not if we run out of cheap oil first. It should be noted that we lose 4% of annual oil production per year due to depletion of those proven and in-production oil fields, and in the last 6 years, no replacement has been found for that amount of production we've lost.
The price of electricity is easier to manage and properly plan for than the price of crude, based on current producers and global demand. Electric still ends up being the way of the future.
Correct. They are not a "standard" that anyone can build for. But, since the only maintenance it'll need is tire rotations every 5K miles, I don't mind getting a new pack at 100-200K miles when the first one no longer works; the new pack will already be better than the original pack due to capacity and charge/discharge tech advancements. Show me how many ICE cars get upgraded over their life to increase their drivetrain capacity/efficiency.
The DOE has a report showing that 77% of the light vehicle fleet in the US could switch over to electric and could be charged at night without any additional base load generation facilities. So, nobody is going to need to build additional coal fired power plants.
When I put money down for the Model S, I was told by the salesperson (Chicago store) that the battery would indeed be swappable for a higher-capacity battery in the future.
This car is to compete against the BMW 5 series; also, these cars are paying for the R&D that will fund cheaper cars for people like you. Keep whining that its just a toy though.
So the vehicle is at fault because the user is incompetent and doesn't know when to recharge the car? Fact: Electric cars are orders of magnitude more efficient than ICE vehicles. Fact: Over 75% of Americans' daily commutes is 40 miles or less.
Electric vehicle development is occurring how fast compared to how long it took the ICE from develop from Model-T days to having hybrid vehicles? Keep wasting your time bitching on Slashdot; other folks work all day long to move the world towards electrified transportation.
I'll use SparkShare as soon as it uses an object storage system like Openstack's Swift on the backend (http://openstack.org/projects/storage/). Using GIT is a hack, when they should be using something like Swift (which is meant to be API compliant with Amazon S3).
It's not cost effective for Dropbox. They break files into 2MB chunks, stored in S3 (and at last count, had between 22-24 billion objects stored). Their efficiency is due to being able to charge several people for storing the collective chunks of data once. If they have to start saving different chunks in different locations to deal with compliance, the whole business model goes to hell.
My god man (or woman)! I meant that just because it was ok to beat your kid in the past, didn't mean its ok (just like slavery used to be a common practice in early American history). I did not mean to equate the two, nor am I oblivious that slavery is alive and well today.
Between 2007 and 2011, carbon emissions from coal use in the United States dropped 10 percent. During the same period, emissions from oil use dropped 11 percent. In contrast, carbon emissions from natural gas use increased by 6 percent. The net effect of these trends was that U.S. carbon emissions dropped 7 percent in four years. And this is only the beginning.
In installed wind-generating capacity, Texas is followed by Iowa, California, Minnesota, and Illinois. In the share of electricity generation in the state coming from wind, Iowa leads at 20 percent.
With electricity generated by solar panels, the United States has some 22,000 megawatts of utility-scale projects in the pipeline. And this does not include residential installations.
Closing coal plants also cuts oil use. With coal use falling, the near 40 percent of freight rail diesel fuel that is used to move coal from mines to power plants will also drop.
In fact, oil use has fallen fast in the United States over the last four years, thus reversing another long-term trend of rising consumption. The reasons for this include a shrinkage in the size of the national fleet, the rising fuel efficiency of new cars, and a reduction in the miles driven per vehicle.
While not Belgium, the US is a much larger market, and I'd fathom that the trend will be followed in other first-world countries (including those in Europe).
I love solar. But I firmly believe it has a place on people's roofs rather than a large scale plant. Wind can go to hell, ruining the lovely countryside landscapes for a pissy little 1MW (if you're lucky, even with the new 4MW drive systems after you take into account wind capacity).
This train of thought is just as bad as NIMBY individuals. Aesthetics are no reason not to build a generation system.
I think we're not communicating properly. I am under no illusion that a renewables facility is at its nameplate capacity fulltime. I'm suggesting overbuilding. Replacing a 500MW coal facility with wind? You build the wind facility out to 1.5TW of nameplate, or even 2TW. Why? Coal costs money. Every second of every day you're shoveling a fuel into a raging furnace, fuel that you have to pay for. Renewables have no such fuel, so you can pull those operating costs upfront into capital costs that you can amortize over 30, 50, or 75 years.
1) Overbuild renewable capacity 2) Modernize transmission and load buffering systems; it doesn't matter where you generate the power if you can intelligently and quickly push the power to the load across huge distances 3) Shut down dirty generation systems (coal) (note: I take no issue whatsoever with nuclear, but I accept that some groups are too shortsighted to see the benefits, and may prohibit continuing operation or future building of said generation facilities). 4) Profit.
Slashdot Mirror
I've gotten items delivered same day from Amazon via their local delivery option.
I have no problem with you getting that benefit; just be willing to pay for it. I plan ahead, and have no need to pay the local merchant premium.
Go ahead and charge me sales taxes on internet purchases; I will still favor online retailers. Point, click, purchase vs start car, drive to store, shop inside, wait in checkout line, etc. Brick and mortar stores are going to have to do something pretty amazing for me to favor them over Amazon.
Sounds like that'll make it easy to tax my online books/music/software purchases *rolls eyes*
Everything you just listed above is paid for in my property taxes, my fuel taxes (both that I pay and UPS/Fedex when delivering my Amazon packages), and my water bill. Why you need sales tax from me if I'm not using a brick and mortar store to buy something?
First, you're wrong about the average cost. It's 11.6 cents per KwH according to the DOE: http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_factors_affecting_prices
Second, you're not paying the average price of power. You're going to be paying time of day, and charging between midnight and 5am (I live in Northern Illinois, and get my nuclear-generated power from ComEd. To charge my Roadster, I pay under 2 cents per KwH if I charge between the hours I previously mentioned).
Electricity still wins out. You can move it across the country at speeds physical fuels can only dream off, it can be generated in a distributed fashion from all sorts of different energy sources, and its price is MUCH less volatile than petroleum products.
Either way, I'm satisfied with the car as-is. I wouldn't have put $5K down on it otherwise.
I didn't go to class to learn thermodynamics, I just need to read research by those who have:
Here is the long form proving my point: http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
Here is the easy web version: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency
"In an electric vehicle, chemical energy is stored in a battery. Lithium-ion batteries are used in Tesla vehicles because of high energy density. Converting the chemical energy to free electrons (electrical energy) can be greater than 90% efficient – some energy is lost to heat in cells and other battery pack components such as current conductors and fuses. The remaining components of the Tesla powertrain – the drive inverter and motor – are also extremely efficient. Overall, drive efficiency of the Tesla Roadster is 88% - almost three times more efficient than an internal combustion powered vehicle."
"Chemical energy is stored as gasoline in a conventional car. Combustion is used to convert the chemical energy into thermal energy. Pistons convert the thermal energy to the mechanical work that turns the wheels. The conversion process is, at best, 35% efficient. The majority of the energy stored in the gasoline is lost as heat."
If time in field is your only criteria then EVs have failed.
Not if we run out of cheap oil first. It should be noted that we lose 4% of annual oil production per year due to depletion of those proven and in-production oil fields, and in the last 6 years, no replacement has been found for that amount of production we've lost.
Have ICE cars won? Well, the race isn't over.
There is no connection between oil and electricity pricing. Less than a tenth of one percent of US power generation is done with oil-fired generation facilities: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997398
The price of electricity is easier to manage and properly plan for than the price of crude, based on current producers and global demand. Electric still ends up being the way of the future.
Correct. They are not a "standard" that anyone can build for. But, since the only maintenance it'll need is tire rotations every 5K miles, I don't mind getting a new pack at 100-200K miles when the first one no longer works; the new pack will already be better than the original pack due to capacity and charge/discharge tech advancements. Show me how many ICE cars get upgraded over their life to increase their drivetrain capacity/efficiency.
The DOE has a report showing that 77% of the light vehicle fleet in the US could switch over to electric and could be charged at night without any additional base load generation facilities. So, nobody is going to need to build additional coal fired power plants.
When I put money down for the Model S, I was told by the salesperson (Chicago store) that the battery would indeed be swappable for a higher-capacity battery in the future.
This car is to compete against the BMW 5 series; also, these cars are paying for the R&D that will fund cheaper cars for people like you. Keep whining that its just a toy though.
So the vehicle is at fault because the user is incompetent and doesn't know when to recharge the car? Fact: Electric cars are orders of magnitude more efficient than ICE vehicles. Fact: Over 75% of Americans' daily commutes is 40 miles or less.
Electric vehicle development is occurring how fast compared to how long it took the ICE from develop from Model-T days to having hybrid vehicles? Keep wasting your time bitching on Slashdot; other folks work all day long to move the world towards electrified transportation.
Would you complain about the time to charge for pennies per mile (in electric drivetrain vehicles) if fuel was $12-15/gallon?
I'll use SparkShare as soon as it uses an object storage system like Openstack's Swift on the backend (http://openstack.org/projects/storage/). Using GIT is a hack, when they should be using something like Swift (which is meant to be API compliant with Amazon S3).
It's not cost effective for Dropbox. They break files into 2MB chunks, stored in S3 (and at last count, had between 22-24 billion objects stored). Their efficiency is due to being able to charge several people for storing the collective chunks of data once. If they have to start saving different chunks in different locations to deal with compliance, the whole business model goes to hell.
My god man (or woman)! I meant that just because it was ok to beat your kid in the past, didn't mean its ok (just like slavery used to be a common practice in early American history). I did not mean to equate the two, nor am I oblivious that slavery is alive and well today.
We also use to buy and sell african americans as if they were livestock. Not much of that going on either these days.
Newsflash: Old people are old, younger folks deal with things differently. Film at 11.
And hence the Good Guy Google meme was created.
Summary: Facts are non-negotiable.
Yes...and because consumers are opting for more fuel efficient vehicles, and because of coal plant shutdowns. Its not a single reason.
This was just released today by the Earth Policy Institute. While it is US centric, it does have some compelling data:
http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2011/update101
Between 2007 and 2011, carbon emissions from coal use in the United States dropped 10 percent. During the same period, emissions from oil use dropped 11 percent. In contrast, carbon emissions from natural gas use increased by 6 percent. The net effect of these trends was that U.S. carbon emissions dropped 7 percent in four years. And this is only the beginning.
In installed wind-generating capacity, Texas is followed by Iowa, California, Minnesota, and Illinois. In the share of electricity generation in the state coming from wind, Iowa leads at 20 percent.
With electricity generated by solar panels, the United States has some 22,000 megawatts of utility-scale projects in the pipeline. And this does not include residential installations.
Closing coal plants also cuts oil use. With coal use falling, the near 40 percent of freight rail diesel fuel that is used to move coal from mines to power plants will also drop.
In fact, oil use has fallen fast in the United States over the last four years, thus reversing another long-term trend of rising consumption. The reasons for this include a shrinkage in the size of the national fleet, the rising fuel efficiency of new cars, and a reduction in the miles driven per vehicle.
While not Belgium, the US is a much larger market, and I'd fathom that the trend will be followed in other first-world countries (including those in Europe).
I love solar. But I firmly believe it has a place on people's roofs rather than a large scale plant. Wind can go to hell, ruining the lovely countryside landscapes for a pissy little 1MW (if you're lucky, even with the new 4MW drive systems after you take into account wind capacity).
This train of thought is just as bad as NIMBY individuals. Aesthetics are no reason not to build a generation system.
I think we're not communicating properly. I am under no illusion that a renewables facility is at its nameplate capacity fulltime. I'm suggesting overbuilding. Replacing a 500MW coal facility with wind? You build the wind facility out to 1.5TW of nameplate, or even 2TW. Why? Coal costs money. Every second of every day you're shoveling a fuel into a raging furnace, fuel that you have to pay for. Renewables have no such fuel, so you can pull those operating costs upfront into capital costs that you can amortize over 30, 50, or 75 years.
1) Overbuild renewable capacity 2) Modernize transmission and load buffering systems; it doesn't matter where you generate the power if you can intelligently and quickly push the power to the load across huge distances 3) Shut down dirty generation systems (coal) (note: I take no issue whatsoever with nuclear, but I accept that some groups are too shortsighted to see the benefits, and may prohibit continuing operation or future building of said generation facilities). 4) Profit.