| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419298 is a reply to message #419296] |
Wed, 22 February 2023 14:04   |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 22 Feb 2023 18:54:06 GMT
maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> Damn right I am opposed to battery-electric vehicles. When I think of
> all the unrenewable batteries that are going to have to dumped in the
> years to come, and the useless remainders of those vehicles. The whole
> plan to replace fossil fuels with renewables is fantasy, tosh.
In that case we are doomed. It may not be possible but we have no
choice but to try or die.
> The only road forwards is heavy tax on fossil fuels to eke out what is
> remaining in the ground.
Then what, abandon technology and starve ?
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419306 is a reply to message #419282] |
Wed, 22 February 2023 17:55 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 19/02/2023 17:54, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Planning ahead. Don’t you know that isn’t allowed! Actually I’m thinking of
>> all the twisted pair I pulled in my old house that was made obsolete by
>> wi-fi.
>
> You must have a small house, or one made out of exactly the right
> materials. WiFi is dodgy in parts of our house, and I made damn sure I
> had a duct run to my garden office. Twisted pair gives me a reliable
> gigabit; one day I'll run a fibre when that isn't enough.
>
> WiFi won't give you those speeds reliably at any distance.
>
> Andy
>
You can buy wi-fi signal boosters to put in appropriate places.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419307 is a reply to message #419295] |
Wed, 22 February 2023 17:55 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>> On 2023-02-22 15:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> On 19/02/2023 21:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> > On 2023-02-19 21:28, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> >> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> 45 minutes would be perfect, considering that if my battery is that
>>>> >>> depleted I am doing a long trip, and I absolutely must take a rest.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But if it's 45 minutes, there'll be a queue to even get plugged in ...
>>>> >
>>>> > Today, yes. Eventually, no. Stations are mandated here to evolve and
>>>> > grow charging spots.
>>>> >
>>>> Eventually, yes.
>>>>
>>>> We get away with not having quite enough fuel pumps, and queues at peak
>>>> times. The queues are only a few minutes. Say three cars' worth.
>>>>
>>>> Three cars' worth at 45 minutes each hurts.
>>>>
>>>> I've pointed out to my wife that an EV would be great for her. There's a
>>>> spare slot in the breaker box in the garage waiting for a charger, we
>>>> have private parking, and she never goes more than a few miles - the
>>>> longest day she's ever likely to do is under 150 miles.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand my mother is 150 miles away, and her sister 400 miles
>>>> away, and there's no guarantee that we could get a charge at the end of
>>>> that journey. So we need a car with the ability to do a quick refill.
>>>> Which means dino juice.
>>>
>>> Are y'all incapable of a simple google search?
>>>
>>> The Model 3, today, charges to 80% in 25 minutes with
>>> the current high-speed chargers.
>>>
>>> As battery and charger technology improves, so will the charge
>>> time become shorter.
>>
>> Another simple search: tesla model 3 range
>>
>> gives 272 miles as some kind of official number. Seems a bit short if
>> you want to drive 400 miles...
>
> So you stop and have lunch for 25 minutes along the way. Various
> Tesla variants can reach 405 miles (Model S), as a google search
> will confirm.
>
> In any case, choosing a vehicle based upon a one-time might-happen seems
> counterintuitive - like someone is reaching for a reason to dislike
> battery-electric vehicles.
>
>
No. If I’m going to make a major lifestyle change, like from ICs to EVs, I
would want the new thing to be better than the old, not “almost as good”,
even with “look at all the new nifty features you get.” Especially with
the price differential. For me an auto is just a way to get from here to
there, as quickly and painlessly as possible. When an EV gives me that I’ll
happily change.
I keep bringing up lightbulbs. I thought trying to change from
incandescents to fluorescents was a major PITA, even disregarding the
warning not to throw them in the trash. (I wasn’t about to drive a dead
bulb to a recycling center that accepted hazardous waste!). On the other
hand, LED’s seem better than incandescents in most ways, except giving off
heat to keep the pipes from freezing, and I’m happy to use them all over,
especially given the price these days.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419308 is a reply to message #419296] |
Wed, 22 February 2023 17:55 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>>> On 2023-02-22 15:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> > On 19/02/2023 21:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> So you stop and have lunch for 25 minutes along the way. Various
>> Tesla variants can reach 405 miles (Model S), as a google search
>> will confirm.
>>
>> In any case, choosing a vehicle based upon a one-time might-happen seems
>> counterintuitive - like someone is reaching for a reason to dislike
>> battery-electric vehicles.
>>
> Damn right I am opposed to battery-electric vehicles. When I think of
> all the unrenewable batteries that are going to have to dumped in the
> years to come, and the useless remainders of those vehicles. The whole
> plan to replace fossil fuels with renewables is fantasy, tosh.
>
> The only road forwards is heavy tax on fossil fuels to eke out what is
> remaining in the ground. Won't go down well with Bill Gates, with his
> four private jets, or that ilk
>
Hydrogen is the only logical way to go. The problems with hydrogen are
slowly being solved, but the people pushing plug-in EVs are going to be
getting in the way of adoption.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419311 is a reply to message #419308] |
Wed, 22 February 2023 18:23 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>>>> On 2023-02-22 15:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> > Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >> On 19/02/2023 21:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> So you stop and have lunch for 25 minutes along the way. Various
>>> Tesla variants can reach 405 miles (Model S), as a google search
>>> will confirm.
>>>
>>> In any case, choosing a vehicle based upon a one-time might-happen seems
>>> counterintuitive - like someone is reaching for a reason to dislike
>>> battery-electric vehicles.
>>>
>> Damn right I am opposed to battery-electric vehicles. When I think of
>> all the unrenewable batteries that are going to have to dumped in the
>> years to come, and the useless remainders of those vehicles. The whole
>> plan to replace fossil fuels with renewables is fantasy, tosh.
>>
>> The only road forwards is heavy tax on fossil fuels to eke out what is
>> remaining in the ground. Won't go down well with Bill Gates, with his
>> four private jets, or that ilk
>
> Hydrogen is the only logical way to go. The problems with hydrogen are
> slowly being solved, but the people pushing plug-in EVs are going to be
> getting in the way of adoption.
It degrades the container you store it in.
It's highly explosive. If you think we have problems with mass
shootings, start making H2 available in bulk. Accidents where
the tank gets cracked will be heard for miles.
Possibly someone will come up with practical chemistry to store the H2 in
a fuel cell but I doubt it.
It does burn cleanly and energetically.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419312 is a reply to message #419311] |
Wed, 22 February 2023 20:39 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>>>> > On 2023-02-22 15:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> >> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >>> On 19/02/2023 21:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> So you stop and have lunch for 25 minutes along the way. Various
>>>> Tesla variants can reach 405 miles (Model S), as a google search
>>>> will confirm.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, choosing a vehicle based upon a one-time might-happen seems
>>>> counterintuitive - like someone is reaching for a reason to dislike
>>>> battery-electric vehicles.
>>>>
>>> Damn right I am opposed to battery-electric vehicles. When I think of
>>> all the unrenewable batteries that are going to have to dumped in the
>>> years to come, and the useless remainders of those vehicles. The whole
>>> plan to replace fossil fuels with renewables is fantasy, tosh.
>>>
>>> The only road forwards is heavy tax on fossil fuels to eke out what is
>>> remaining in the ground. Won't go down well with Bill Gates, with his
>>> four private jets, or that ilk
>>
>> Hydrogen is the only logical way to go. The problems with hydrogen are
>> slowly being solved, but the people pushing plug-in EVs are going to be
>> getting in the way of adoption.
>
> It degrades the container you store it in.
This is an are where they’re making decent progress.
> It's highly explosive. If you think we have problems with mass
> shootings, start making H2 available in bulk. Accidents where
> the tank gets cracked will be heard for miles.
>
> Possibly someone will come up with practical chemistry to store the H2 in
> a fuel cell but I doubt it.
I think they’re developing a system that stores the H2 in a crystal lattice
of some sort that eliminates a lot of the problems. That’s what I mean
about not rushing to push everyone into some sort of half-assed battery
system that has problems of its own when a better system is on its way.
>
> It does burn cleanly and energetically.
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419313 is a reply to message #419312] |
Wed, 22 February 2023 21:58 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> > Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>>>> >> On 2023-02-22 15:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> >>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >>>> On 19/02/2023 21:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> > So you stop and have lunch for 25 minutes along the way. Various
>>>> > Tesla variants can reach 405 miles (Model S), as a google search
>>>> > will confirm.
>>>> >
>>>> > In any case, choosing a vehicle based upon a one-time might-happen seems
>>>> > counterintuitive - like someone is reaching for a reason to dislike
>>>> > battery-electric vehicles.
>>>> >
>>>> Damn right I am opposed to battery-electric vehicles. When I think of
>>>> all the unrenewable batteries that are going to have to dumped in the
>>>> years to come, and the useless remainders of those vehicles. The whole
>>>> plan to replace fossil fuels with renewables is fantasy, tosh.
>>>>
>>>> The only road forwards is heavy tax on fossil fuels to eke out what is
>>>> remaining in the ground. Won't go down well with Bill Gates, with his
>>>> four private jets, or that ilk
>>>
>>> Hydrogen is the only logical way to go. The problems with hydrogen are
>>> slowly being solved, but the people pushing plug-in EVs are going to be
>>> getting in the way of adoption.
>>
>> It degrades the container you store it in.
>
> This is an are where they’re making decent progress.
They're fighting the laws of nature.
>> It's highly explosive. If you think we have problems with mass
>> shootings, start making H2 available in bulk. Accidents where
>> the tank gets cracked will be heard for miles.
>>
>> Possibly someone will come up with practical chemistry to store the H2 in
>> a fuel cell but I doubt it.
>
> I think they’re developing a system that stores the H2 in a crystal lattice
> of some sort that eliminates a lot of the problems. That’s what I mean
> about not rushing to push everyone into some sort of half-assed battery
> system that has problems of its own when a better system is on its
> way.
I can't see how you can squeeze a tank of H2 into another tank with a
solid in it without needing more space.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419314 is a reply to message #419308] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 00:41 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:55:22 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hydrogen is the only logical way to go. The problems with hydrogen are
> slowly being solved, but the people pushing plug-in EVs are going to be
> getting in the way of adoption.
Hydrogen is a *terrible* option. Just consider the charge (extract
hydrogen from some compound) discharge (burn hydrogen in a fuel cell or IC
engine) cycle efficiency compared to that of a decent battery. Then consider
the (unsolved as yet) storage problems and the hazards.
If I had the choice today at the same price as an IC car of a
hydrogen burner (with filling stations everywhere) and the range of an IC or
a 2023 plug in EV with a charge point at home I'd take the latter. The plug
in EV would be get in and drive with never a thought about fuel - the
hydrogen burner would force me to spend time filling it in a hazardous
place just like an oil burner.
However I don't have that choice battery EVs are ready to go NOW,
hydrogen fuel vehicles are a bucket load of research and infrastructure
development away from being a distant second best.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419315 is a reply to message #419307] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 01:15 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-22, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No. If I’m going to make a major lifestyle change, like from ICs to EVs, I
> would want the new thing to be better than the old, not “almost as good”,
> even with “look at all the new nifty features you get.” Especially with
> the price differential. For me an auto is just a way to get from here to
> there, as quickly and painlessly as possible. When an EV gives me that I’ll
> happily change.
I'm with you 100% on this one. I'll change when it benefits _me_,
not some corporation.
> I keep bringing up lightbulbs. I thought trying to change from
> incandescents to fluorescents was a major PITA, even disregarding the
> warning not to throw them in the trash. (I wasn’t about to drive a dead
> bulb to a recycling center that accepted hazardous waste!). On the other
> hand, LED’s seem better than incandescents in most ways, except giving off
> heat to keep the pipes from freezing, and I’m happy to use them all over,
> especially given the price these days.
Hmmm, this automobile argument is starting to sound like lighting options.
What if the current crop of EVs turns out to be like CFLs?
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419316 is a reply to message #419280] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 01:53 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 11:04:56 +0000
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On the other hand my mother is 150 miles away, and her sister 400 miles
> away, and there's no guarantee that we could get a charge at the end of
> that journey. So we need a car with the ability to do a quick refill.
> Which means dino juice.
There are several EVs on the market that would make the first round
trip, and some that would make the second one way. If you can plug into a
wall socket at the end then you can charge at 3kW which will take a while
to fill but would let you get to a fast charger for the return.
This rather clever dodge might one day lead to liquid fillable
batteries for portable use (currently the discharge rate is far too low).
< https://www.science.org/content/article/new-type-flow-batter y-can-store-10-times-energy-next-best-device>
I bumped into it checking on the current state of domestic flow
battery development - the startups are popping up like mushrooms all over
the world. Pretty soon we'll have a choice of cheap domestic flow
batteries, mostly vanadium but at least one is going for a lithium sulphur
mix. The early competition is going to be bloody!
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419320 is a reply to message #419315] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 04:31 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 06:15:48 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> I'm with you 100% on this one. I'll change when it benefits _me_,
> not some corporation.
I see benefits to me - just not enough to make me buy a new car to
replace my second hand diesel. Especially as I'd have to find cash for it,
nobody does car loans to people my age.
>> I keep bringing up lightbulbs. I thought trying to change from
>> incandescents to fluorescents was a major PITA, even disregarding the
>> warning not to throw them in the trash.
Why was it a PITA - a simple process of when bulb failsl replace
with CFL worked for me and was no hassle.
>> bulb to a recycling center that accepted hazardous waste!).
Shops that sold them would accept dead ones here.
> On the other
>> hand, LED’s seem better than incandescents in most ways, except giving
>> off heat to keep the pipes from freezing,
Being more efficient is better too - if you want a heater install a
heater it will last longer than a light bulb. All the water pipes in this
place are either inside the insulation or under the ground apart from a
service box by the back door and the outside tap, I don't need to waste
energy keeping them from freezing. So many houses are badly designed.
> Hmmm, this automobile argument is starting to sound like lighting options.
> What if the current crop of EVs turns out to be like CFLs?
They probably will - sooner or later someone will probably improve
on lithium batteries, there is a lot of research going on into battery
design and chemistry. Like CFLs they're better than their predecessors in
many ways, available now and there might not be a successor. Unlike light
bulbs most people sell their car and replace it every few years.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419321 is a reply to message #419287] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 05:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris
On 22/02/2023 14:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> Eventually, yes.
>>
>> We get away with not having quite enough fuel pumps, and queues at peak
>> times. The queues are only a few minutes. Say three cars' worth.
>>
>> Three cars' worth at 45 minutes each hurts.
>>
>> I've pointed out to my wife that an EV would be great for her. There's a
>> spare slot in the breaker box in the garage waiting for a charger, we
>> have private parking, and she never goes more than a few miles - the
>> longest day she's ever likely to do is under 150 miles.
>>
>> On the other hand my mother is 150 miles away, and her sister 400 miles
>> away, and there's no guarantee that we could get a charge at the end of
>> that journey. So we need a car with the ability to do a quick refill.
>> Which means dino juice.
>
> Are y'all incapable of a simple google search?
>
> The Model 3, today, charges to 80% in 25 minutes with
> the current high-speed chargers.
>
> As battery and charger technology improves, so will the charge
> time become shorter.
>
OK, so it's not 45 minutes, it's only 25 minutes.
I don't mind a 25 minute break on the occasional long journey that I do.
I do object a long queue for the charger.
Three cars worth at 25 minutes is better than three at 45, but it still
hurts.
Incidentally a friend of mine has recently gone from Cambs to Northern
Ireland in a petrol car. Local knowledge has told him he'll be unlikely
to get his Tesla charged over there.
Andy
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419322 is a reply to message #419320] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 06:02 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 06:15:48 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm with you 100% on this one. I'll change when it benefits _me_,
>> not some corporation.
>
> energy keeping them from freezing. So many houses are badly designed.
>
>> Hmmm, this automobile argument is starting to sound like lighting options.
>> What if the current crop of EVs turns out to be like CFLs?
>
> They probably will - sooner or later someone will probably improve
> on lithium batteries, there is a lot of research going on into battery
> design and chemistry. Like CFLs they're better than their predecessors in
> many ways, available now and there might not be a successor. Unlike light
> bulbs most people sell their car and replace it every few years.
>
I rememeber once that there was a TLA, "RealSoonNow"
about things, Seems to be getting popular again.
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419323 is a reply to message #419321] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 06:05 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-23, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/02/2023 14:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> Eventually, yes.
>>>
>>> We get away with not having quite enough fuel pumps, and queues at peak
>>> times. The queues are only a few minutes. Say three cars' worth.
>>>
>>> Three cars' worth at 45 minutes each hurts.
>>>
>>> I've pointed out to my wife that an EV would be great for her. There's a
>>> spare slot in the breaker box in the garage waiting for a charger, we
>>> have private parking, and she never goes more than a few miles - the
>>> longest day she's ever likely to do is under 150 miles.
>>>
>>> On the other hand my mother is 150 miles away, and her sister 400 miles
>>> away, and there's no guarantee that we could get a charge at the end of
>>> that journey. So we need a car with the ability to do a quick refill.
>>> Which means dino juice.
>>
>> Are y'all incapable of a simple google search?
>>
>> The Model 3, today, charges to 80% in 25 minutes with
>> the current high-speed chargers.
>>
>> As battery and charger technology improves, so will the charge
>> time become shorter.
>>
>
> OK, so it's not 45 minutes, it's only 25 minutes.
>
It will be shorter in future, actually, when you think of plugging it
in, it is already recharged :):}
RSN
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419324 is a reply to message #419311] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 06:23 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-23 00:23, Dan Espen wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>>>> > On 2023-02-22 15:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> >> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >>> On 19/02/2023 21:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> So you stop and have lunch for 25 minutes along the way. Various
>>>> Tesla variants can reach 405 miles (Model S), as a google search
>>>> will confirm.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, choosing a vehicle based upon a one-time might-happen seems
>>>> counterintuitive - like someone is reaching for a reason to dislike
>>>> battery-electric vehicles.
>>>>
>>> Damn right I am opposed to battery-electric vehicles. When I think of
>>> all the unrenewable batteries that are going to have to dumped in the
>>> years to come, and the useless remainders of those vehicles. The whole
>>> plan to replace fossil fuels with renewables is fantasy, tosh.
>>>
>>> The only road forwards is heavy tax on fossil fuels to eke out what is
>>> remaining in the ground. Won't go down well with Bill Gates, with his
>>> four private jets, or that ilk
>>
>> Hydrogen is the only logical way to go. The problems with hydrogen are
>> slowly being solved, but the people pushing plug-in EVs are going to be
>> getting in the way of adoption.
>
> It degrades the container you store it in.
> It's highly explosive. If you think we have problems with mass
> shootings, start making H2 available in bulk. Accidents where
> the tank gets cracked will be heard for miles.
>
> Possibly someone will come up with practical chemistry to store the H2 in
> a fuel cell but I doubt it.
ammonia...
>
> It does burn cleanly and energetically.
Not in an ICE. You still get nitrogen compounds, some of them dangerous,
and some oil burning (lubricants). Yes, far cleaner than gasoline, but
not clean.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419326 is a reply to message #419306] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 08:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris
On 22/02/2023 22:55, Peter Flass wrote:
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2023 17:54, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> Planning ahead. Don’t you know that isn’t allowed! Actually I’m thinking of
>>> all the twisted pair I pulled in my old house that was made obsolete by
>>> wi-fi.
>>
>> You must have a small house, or one made out of exactly the right
>> materials. WiFi is dodgy in parts of our house, and I made damn sure I
>> had a duct run to my garden office. Twisted pair gives me a reliable
>> gigabit; one day I'll run a fibre when that isn't enough.
>>
>> WiFi won't give you those speeds reliably at any distance.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
> You can buy wi-fi signal boosters to put in appropriate places.
>
I've got one upstairs. It's not as good as a wire.
Andy
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419327 is a reply to message #419323] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 08:47 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris
On 23/02/2023 11:05, maus wrote:
> On 2023-02-23, Vir Campestris<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>> OK, so it's not 45 minutes, it's only 25 minutes.
>>
> It will be shorter in future, actually, when you think of plugging it
> in, it is already recharged :):}
The smallest Tesla battery is 50kWh.
Assume I want a 1-minute recharge and that will require 50*60 = 3000kW.
Equivalent to a thousand electric fires.
What kind of plug will I need for that?
Andy
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419328 is a reply to message #419315] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 08:51 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2023-02-22, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No. If I’m going to make a major lifestyle change, like from ICs to EVs, I
>> would want the new thing to be better than the old, not “almost as good”,
>> even with “look at all the new nifty features you get.” Especially with
>> the price differential. For me an auto is just a way to get from here to
>> there, as quickly and painlessly as possible. When an EV gives me that I’ll
>> happily change.
>
> I'm with you 100% on this one. I'll change when it benefits _me_,
> not some corporation.
>
>> I keep bringing up lightbulbs. I thought trying to change from
>> incandescents to fluorescents was a major PITA, even disregarding the
>> warning not to throw them in the trash. (I wasn’t about to drive a dead
>> bulb to a recycling center that accepted hazardous waste!). On the other
>> hand, LED’s seem better than incandescents in most ways, except giving off
>> heat to keep the pipes from freezing, and I’m happy to use them all over,
>> especially given the price these days.
>
> Hmmm, this automobile argument is starting to sound like lighting options.
> What if the current crop of EVs turns out to be like CFLs?
I think that's very likely.
Many of the CFLs I bought are still working. They may have been
disliked by some people, but for me they are working fine.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419329 is a reply to message #419326] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 09:23 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-23, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/02/2023 22:55, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2023 17:54, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> Planning ahead. Don’t you know that isn’t allowed! Actually I’m thinking of
>>>> all the twisted pair I pulled in my old house that was made obsolete by
>>>> wi-fi.
>>>
>>> You must have a small house, or one made out of exactly the right
>>> materials. WiFi is dodgy in parts of our house, and I made damn sure I
>>> had a duct run to my garden office. Twisted pair gives me a reliable
>>> gigabit; one day I'll run a fibre when that isn't enough.
>>>
>>> WiFi won't give you those speeds reliably at any distance.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>
>> You can buy wi-fi signal boosters to put in appropriate places.
The mind boggles.
>>
> I've got one upstairs. It's not as good as a wire.
>
> Andy
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419330 is a reply to message #419321] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 09:45 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/02/2023 14:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> Eventually, yes.
>>>
>>> We get away with not having quite enough fuel pumps, and queues at peak
>>> times. The queues are only a few minutes. Say three cars' worth.
>>>
>>> Three cars' worth at 45 minutes each hurts.
>>>
>>> I've pointed out to my wife that an EV would be great for her. There's a
>>> spare slot in the breaker box in the garage waiting for a charger, we
>>> have private parking, and she never goes more than a few miles - the
>>> longest day she's ever likely to do is under 150 miles.
>>>
>>> On the other hand my mother is 150 miles away, and her sister 400 miles
>>> away, and there's no guarantee that we could get a charge at the end of
>>> that journey. So we need a car with the ability to do a quick refill.
>>> Which means dino juice.
>>
>> Are y'all incapable of a simple google search?
>>
>> The Model 3, today, charges to 80% in 25 minutes with
>> the current high-speed chargers.
>>
>> As battery and charger technology improves, so will the charge
>> time become shorter.
>>
>
> OK, so it's not 45 minutes, it's only 25 minutes.
>
> I don't mind a 25 minute break on the occasional long journey that I do.
>
> I do object a long queue for the charger.
>
> Three cars worth at 25 minutes is better than three at 45, but it still
> hurts.
>
> Incidentally a friend of mine has recently gone from Cambs to Northern
> Ireland in a petrol car. Local knowledge has told him he'll be unlikely
> to get his Tesla charged over there.
>
> Andy
>
I have driven cross-country three of four times (I lost count). There is no
way I’d want to take any of the current crop of EVs on a road trip. Often
our “stops” consisted of filling the tank while wife and I took turns going
to the bathroom, and maybe grab a fast-food sandwich and a candy bar. Total
time - about 15 min. Also did about 700 miles per day with one or two of
those quick stops. How much time would an EV add? Make that three stops at
1/2 hour or 45 min each. Adds an hour and a half to each day’s drive to
make the same milage. i
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419331 is a reply to message #419280] |
Wed, 22 February 2023 09:47 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Kurt Weiske
To: Vir Campestris
-=> Vir Campestris wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
VC> I've pointed out to my wife that an EV would be great for her. There's
VC> a spare slot in the breaker box in the garage waiting for a charger, we
VC> have private parking, and she never goes more than a few miles - the
VC> longest day she's ever likely to do is under 150 miles.
I'm with you so far...
VC> On the other hand my mother is 150 miles away, and her sister 400 miles
VC> away, and there's no guarantee that we could get a charge at the end of
VC> that journey. So we need a car with the ability to do a quick refill.
VC> Which means dino juice.
A plug-in Hybrid like the Prius might be a good fit. Mine's a 2014, only
has about 10 miles of pure electric range, and has the gas engine for
long trips. The new ones are thought to have 25 miles of pure electric -
great for trips around town, while you have the gas engine for long
trips.
I love being able to go to the store and back, take my kids to school,
etc on electric. It helps with the combined MPG as well.
Aside: We lost power in my neighborhood for 3 days this winter. I bought
an 1100 watt inverter for the Prius and ran a long extension cord to my
refrigerator. The Prius used about 1/8 tank of gas to keep the
refrigerator going, turning the engine over once every 15 minutes or so
to keep the batteries topped off.
kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
| http://realitycheckbbs.org
| 1:218/700@fidonet
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
* realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419332 is a reply to message #419282] |
Wed, 22 February 2023 09:51 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Kurt Weiske
To: Vir Campestris
-=> Vir Campestris wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
VC> You must have a small house, or one made out of exactly the right
VC> materials. WiFi is dodgy in parts of our house, and I made damn sure I
VC> had a duct run to my garden office. Twisted pair gives me a reliable
VC> gigabit; one day I'll run a fibre when that isn't enough.
VC> WiFi won't give you those speeds reliably at any distance.
I have a 2 story wood-frame house with soundproofing on the floors and
cable modem downstairs. I tried everything to get reliable wifi upstairs
- routers running WPS, wireless extenders, and finally powerline
adapters.
When I started working from home I hired a home cable installer to take
a look, and he found a path I would have never thought of to run Cat6
from my bedroom upstairs to my home office. Now I have gigabit ethernet
for my upstairs home office and an ethernet-connected AP upstairs for
the rest of the house. I should have done this *much* sooner.
kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
| http://realitycheckbbs.org
| 1:218/700@fidonet
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
* realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419337 is a reply to message #419312] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 10:41 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> > Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>>>> >> On 2023-02-22 15:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> >>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >>>> On 19/02/2023 21:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> > So you stop and have lunch for 25 minutes along the way. Various
>>>> > Tesla variants can reach 405 miles (Model S), as a google search
>>>> > will confirm.
>>>> >
>>>> > In any case, choosing a vehicle based upon a one-time might-happen seems
>>>> > counterintuitive - like someone is reaching for a reason to dislike
>>>> > battery-electric vehicles.
>>>> >
>>>> Damn right I am opposed to battery-electric vehicles. When I think of
>>>> all the unrenewable batteries that are going to have to dumped in the
>>>> years to come, and the useless remainders of those vehicles. The whole
>>>> plan to replace fossil fuels with renewables is fantasy, tosh.
>>>>
>>>> The only road forwards is heavy tax on fossil fuels to eke out what is
>>>> remaining in the ground. Won't go down well with Bill Gates, with his
>>>> four private jets, or that ilk
>>>
>>> Hydrogen is the only logical way to go. The problems with hydrogen are
>>> slowly being solved, but the people pushing plug-in EVs are going to be
>>> getting in the way of adoption.
>>
>> It degrades the container you store it in.
>
> This is an are where they’re making decent progress.
Are you sure about that? Can you point to some published work
on this? Airbus is spending large amounts of money researching
hydrogen as a replacement for JET-A. Storage capability is
correlated with the size of the H2 molecule, not to mention
where do you _get_ the hydrogen (solar electrolosis requires a whole
shitload of solar panels to replace any substantial fraction of
fossil fuels - and why not juststore and use the electricity directly then?)
Then there are the transportation issues and the energy require to
compress and cool the H2 into a form economically transported.
As a replacement for JET-A, it is a potentially viable, albeit more
expensive, solution. As a replacement for automobile fuel, I wouldn't
hold my breath.
https://www.h2bulletin.com/knowledge/hydrogen-colours-codes/
> I think they’re developing a system that stores the H2 in a crystal lattice
> of some sort that eliminates a lot of the problems.
Shades of cold fusion (hydrogen in a nickel metal lattice). Good luck
with that.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage
https://spectra.mhi.com/4-ways-of-storing-hydrogen-from-rene wable-energy
It may be more viable to blend the H2 with CO2 removed from the atmosphere
into a synthetic hydrocarbon with characteristics similar to gasoline,
but again, the electricity used to generate the H2 and extract the CO2
could just be used directly. Given the advancements in battery tech
over the last decade, I have little doubt which approach will be vialbe
in the long run.
Your range anxiety is overblown.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419338 is a reply to message #419313] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 10:43 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>
>> I think they’re developing a system that stores the H2 in a crystal lattice
>> of some sort that eliminates a lot of the problems. That’s what I mean
>> about not rushing to push everyone into some sort of half-assed battery
>> system that has problems of its own when a better system is on its
>> way.
>
> I can't see how you can squeeze a tank of H2 into another tank with a
> solid in it without needing more space.
Palladium can be used to store H2. However, Palladium is extremely
rare and currently costs around $50,000/kg at current demand.
At atomic scales, even a dense metal is spacious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419340 is a reply to message #419330] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 10:55 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Incidentally a friend of mine has recently gone from Cambs to Northern
>> Ireland in a petrol car. Local knowledge has told him he'll be unlikely
>> to get his Tesla charged over there.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
> I have driven cross-country three of four times (I lost count). There is no
> way I’d want to take any of the current crop of EVs on a road trip. Often
> our “stops” consisted of filling the tank while wife and I took turns going
> to the bathroom, and maybe grab a fast-food sandwich and a candy bar. Total
> time - about 15 min. Also did about 700 miles per day with one or two of
> those quick stops. How much time would an EV add? Make that three stops at
> 1/2 hour or 45 min each. Adds an hour and a half to each day’s drive to
> make the same milage. i
>
So rent a car when you need to make such a trip. Or fly and rent an electric
car locally.
By far the vast majority of car owners don't make such trips regularly.
You'll still be able to buy gas for the rest of your life anyway, so you
can keep your car as long as someone will sell you some gas.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419342 is a reply to message #419327] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 10:58 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:47:50 +0000
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The smallest Tesla battery is 50kWh.
>
> Assume I want a 1-minute recharge and that will require 50*60 = 3000kW.
Charging slows down a lot for the last 20% unless you want to
destroy the battery, which is why everyone talks about time to 80%.
The fastest chargers on the market at the moment run at 480kW. I
read once that a megawatt is about the limit since nobody wants to go over
about 1000V (current high end cars apparently run at 800V) and anything over
1000A leads to a cable nobody will be able to lift. Your three megawatt
charger would have to avoid the need to lug cables - challenging when
charging ports are wherever the car manufacturer thought looked cute.
Still the 480kW that's available today will get you a ten minute
charge, a megawatt would get that down to five minutes. That's not too
different to pumping fuel in.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419346 is a reply to message #419342] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 15:23 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-23 16:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:47:50 +0000
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The smallest Tesla battery is 50kWh.
>>
>> Assume I want a 1-minute recharge and that will require 50*60 = 3000kW.
>
> Charging slows down a lot for the last 20% unless you want to
> destroy the battery, which is why everyone talks about time to 80%.
>
> The fastest chargers on the market at the moment run at 480kW. I
> read once that a megawatt is about the limit since nobody wants to go over
> about 1000V (current high end cars apparently run at 800V) and anything over
> 1000A leads to a cable nobody will be able to lift. Your three megawatt
> charger would have to avoid the need to lug cables - challenging when
> charging ports are wherever the car manufacturer thought looked cute.
>
> Still the 480kW that's available today will get you a ten minute
> charge, a megawatt would get that down to five minutes. That's not too
> different to pumping fuel in.
The issue will then be the transmission lines to those fast charging
stations. Or the stations will have to keep a huge battery pack of their
own.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419347 is a reply to message #419330] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 15:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-23 15:45, Peter Flass wrote:
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 22/02/2023 14:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> Eventually, yes.
>>>>
>>>> We get away with not having quite enough fuel pumps, and queues at peak
>>>> times. The queues are only a few minutes. Say three cars' worth.
>>>>
>>>> Three cars' worth at 45 minutes each hurts.
>>>>
>>>> I've pointed out to my wife that an EV would be great for her. There's a
>>>> spare slot in the breaker box in the garage waiting for a charger, we
>>>> have private parking, and she never goes more than a few miles - the
>>>> longest day she's ever likely to do is under 150 miles.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand my mother is 150 miles away, and her sister 400 miles
>>>> away, and there's no guarantee that we could get a charge at the end of
>>>> that journey. So we need a car with the ability to do a quick refill.
>>>> Which means dino juice.
>>>
>>> Are y'all incapable of a simple google search?
>>>
>>> The Model 3, today, charges to 80% in 25 minutes with
>>> the current high-speed chargers.
>>>
>>> As battery and charger technology improves, so will the charge
>>> time become shorter.
>>>
>>
>> OK, so it's not 45 minutes, it's only 25 minutes.
>>
>> I don't mind a 25 minute break on the occasional long journey that I do.
>>
>> I do object a long queue for the charger.
>>
>> Three cars worth at 25 minutes is better than three at 45, but it still
>> hurts.
>>
>> Incidentally a friend of mine has recently gone from Cambs to Northern
>> Ireland in a petrol car. Local knowledge has told him he'll be unlikely
>> to get his Tesla charged over there.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
> I have driven cross-country three of four times (I lost count). There is no
> way I’d want to take any of the current crop of EVs on a road trip. Often
> our “stops” consisted of filling the tank while wife and I took turns going
> to the bathroom, and maybe grab a fast-food sandwich and a candy bar. Total
> time - about 15 min. Also did about 700 miles per day with one or two of
> those quick stops. How much time would an EV add? Make that three stops at
> 1/2 hour or 45 min each. Adds an hour and a half to each day’s drive to
> make the same milage. i
I always stop about half an hour for every two or three hour driving.
>
< https://www.team-bhp.com/news/volvo-electric-truck-travels-3 000-km-longest-electric-cv>
«*The trip helped the company gain important knowledge on the use of
e-trucks for long-distance journeys.*
Volvo's 40-tonne FH electric semi-trailer truck recently completed a
3000 km round trip between Zurich (Switzerland) and Valencia (Spain),
making it the longest distance travelled by a commercial electric truck
to date.
The trip was made by the Swiss logistics company, Krummen Kerzers, and
the truck was driven by Balint Schnell, carrying 20 tonnes of groceries.
It was the first time Schnell was driving an electric truck, requiring
him to not only familiarise himself with the semi but also study the
route and plan ahead. Following the EU driving & rest times, Schnell
stopped 20 times during the entire trip while also planning the route in
a way that the charging times coincided with these breaks.
The entire round-trip is said to have taken him a week to complete,
which in a conventional diesel truck would have taken 4 days. The FH
electric is said to have a range of up to 300 km on a single charge.
Schnell stated that the route isn't designed for charging electric
semis, making him use regular EV stations. However, if the EV station
was used by other vehicles, the charging speeds would reduce drastically.
Peter Krummen, Co-Managing Director of Krummen Kerzers, stated that the
trip helped the company gain important knowledge on the use of e-trucks
for long-distance journeys. He also added that the entire trip helped
save 3 tons of CO2 emissions.»
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419348 is a reply to message #419204] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 15:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-19 19:10, Peter Flass wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 03:02:10 GMT
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Another factor that isn't yet fully appreciated is battery life.
>>> EVs haven't been around long enough for a significant number of
>>> batteries to wear out, so we have yet to find out exactly what
>>> is involved in amortizing a $25,000 replacement battery.
>>
>> EVs have been around long enough for us to know that replacing the
>> battery is not going to happen - it's even less sensible than replacing a
>> worn out IC engine and very few do that these days. An EV is essentially a
>> battery on wheels, almost all of the value is in the battery. When the
>> battery won't hold a useful charge the car is dead.
>
> I thought they were planning a system where the dealer could just pull out
> a rack of batteries and slide in a new one?
For buses or delivery vans, maybe.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419349 is a reply to message #419346] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 16:22 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:23:15 +0100
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> The issue will then be the transmission lines to those fast charging
> stations. Or the stations will have to keep a huge battery pack of their
> own.
Yep they'll need power like a large factory. Personally I expect
that when my car is an EV it will get almost all its charging done at home
and I'll only use public charge points very rarely.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419354 is a reply to message #419350] |
Thu, 23 February 2023 18:44 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:45:52 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Also did about 700 miles per day with one or two of those quick stops
>
> I can't think of anything that would persuade me to drive 700 miles
> in a day.
Been there, done that. It's doable, but tiring - especially solo.
Best done when you're in your 20s.
Last summer we drove from Vancouver, B.C. to Moab, Utah,
a distance of about 1200 miles. We did it in two days,
but there were three of us spelling each other off,
and we found a motel at the halfway point. Even then,
we thought we'd take three days for the return trip,
although once on the road we changed our minds,
pushed on through, and got home in two days.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419360 is a reply to message #419354] |
Fri, 24 February 2023 01:08 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 23:44:11 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-02-23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:45:52 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also did about 700 miles per day with one or two of those quick stops
>>
>> I can't think of anything that would persuade me to drive 700
>> miles in a day.
>
> Been there, done that. It's doable, but tiring - especially solo.
> Best done when you're in your 20s.
>
> Last summer we drove from Vancouver, B.C. to Moab, Utah,
> a distance of about 1200 miles. We did it in two days,
If I have to go that kind of distance I'll fly or if it's across
mainland Europe I might take a train. Driving it would not enter
consideration.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419362 is a reply to message #419350] |
Fri, 24 February 2023 03:13 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:45:52 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Also did about 700 miles per day with one or two of those quick stops
>
> I can't think of anything that would persuade me to drive 700 miles
> in a day.
>
Asides from anything else, In Ireland, you would be getting very wet.
Consider deliveries, and the return journies.
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419363 is a reply to message #419337] |
Fri, 24 February 2023 05:02 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris
On 23/02/2023 15:41, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Are you sure about that? Can you point to some published work
> on this? Airbus is spending large amounts of money researching
> hydrogen as a replacement for JET-A. Storage capability is
> correlated with the size of the H2 molecule, not to mention
> where do you_get_ the hydrogen (solar electrolosis requires a whole
> shitload of solar panels to replace any substantial fraction of
> fossil fuels - and why not juststore and use the electricity directly then?)
<snip>
"why not juststore and use the electricity directly then?"
The main current "green" power systems are solar (doesn't work at night)
wind (only works when it's windy, and sometimes there are windless
patches hundreds of miles across) and hydro (we've used all the good
sites already). None of these will provide the power we want at the
times we want it.
If you have a system that will store electricity at grid scales we're
all ears. The world really will beat a path to your door.
Storing hydrogen is one of the possible methods, but as we've discussed
it has all sorts of problems.
Andy
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419364 is a reply to message #419339] |
Fri, 24 February 2023 05:12 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris
On 23/02/2023 15:51, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 23/02/2023 11:05, maus wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-23, Vir Campestris<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> OK, so it's not 45 minutes, it's only 25 minutes.
>>>>
>>> It will be shorter in future, actually, when you think of plugging it
>>> in, it is already recharged :):}
>>
>> The smallest Tesla battery is 50kWh.
>>
>> Assume I want a 1-minute recharge and that will require 50*60 = 3000kW.
>>
>> Equivalent to a thousand electric fires.
>>
>> What kind of plug will I need for that?
>
> https://electrek.co/2021/11/01/tesla-launches-new-home-charg er-that-works-j1772-all-electric-cars/
>
Try again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772
says "can deliver up to 19.2 kW"
Not 3000kW.
It also says there's an add on that takes it up to 350kW. A long way
from a 1 minute charge, even if the batteries could take it.
This implies we will need a lot more charging stations on big service
areas compared to the number of fuel pumps - you don't just need enough
so the queue doesn't get long, which is where we are on pumps, you need
enough so there's almost never a queue.
A guaranteed 25 minute charge on a long trip would be OK, time for a
bite to eat. Not great, but OK.
A 25 minute charge time with a queue of three before you get to the
charge station would not be acceptable.
Andy
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419365 is a reply to message #419362] |
Fri, 24 February 2023 05:27 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 24 Feb 2023 08:13:41 GMT
maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:45:52 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also did about 700 miles per day with one or two of those quick stops
>>
>> I can't think of anything that would persuade me to drive 700
>> miles in a day.
>>
>
>
> Asides from anything else, In Ireland, you would be getting very wet.
Nah, a trip from here up the west coast to Donegal or so then
across to Belfast, down to Dublin and on to Wexford, across the bottom to
Cork and back up to Kerry (taking in Dingle of course) would be way more
than 700 miles.
Doing it in a day would be positively heroic.
> Consider deliveries, and the return journies
I see all the van makers have electric versions with ranges in the
3-400km region - they have smaller batteries than some of the mid-range
cars this year - they seem to be exploring the load/range trade off.
Long range is definitely where IC vehicles win, but unless you need
it the EV wins in every other respect apart from price!
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419366 is a reply to message #419365] |
Fri, 24 February 2023 05:40 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2023 08:13:41 GMT
> maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-02-23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:45:52 -0700
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
> cars this year - they seem to be exploring the load/range trade off.
>
> Long range is definitely where IC vehicles win, but unless you need
> it the EV wins in every other respect apart from price!
>
I see the post office, which here is turning into a 4day service, has
changed its vehicles. A big thing in the whole problem is tax. I think
that if EV gets popular, the plugs will have to be different than
ordinary household plugs to allow electricy to be taxed for vehicles
like petrol and deisel presently is. Otherwise that tax will have to be
raised elsewhere.
Yes, I agree, there are problems to be overcome under both systems (EV
or direct fuel), but saying `It will be all right on the night' will not
solve it.
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
