So do are they using heat recovery?
You mean like a large tank of petroleum or a big store of ammonium nitrate? What was the name? Oh yeah, West Fertilizer Co.
Why would that be?
Yea, not much point in even discussing hydro unless someone plans to drill to storage sites since it otherwise is geographically limited.
So what is the efficiency of this facility?
The much touted hydrogen economy is even worse. Hydrogen forms explosive mixtures with air over a very wide range of concentrations.
He hasn't thought about about hydrogen leakage which could create a very large fuel-air bomb.
High voltage transmission links can reduce that geographical limitation quite a bit. Australia's Snowy 2 pumped hydroelectric scheme is to be built 330km from Melbourne and 490 km for Sydney. The two cities between them have a population of 10.4 million, 41% of Australia's total population.
EVs will never come into their own UNTIL they start PAYING for the roads they drive on.
Flyguy is a complete idiot. He may have a tolerably sensible idea - when electric vehicles get popular enough to be worth taxing, politicians may well slap a tax on all vehicles per mile driven, ostensibly to help pay for road maintenance in the same way that fuel tax is supposed to - but he hasn't found the right words to express that idea if that was the idea he wanted to articulate. Since it is a tolerably sensible idea, it probably wasn't.
The electric vehicles won't pay the tax - the people who own them and drive them will - and electric vehicles don't have an "own" to come into. They are property.
Costs will go up more if they actually build it.
The electric vehicle rebate fund is about empty here now, and our beloved governor doesn't want to renew it. That would whack e-car sales. Some people are asking why government is paying rich people to buy expensive ugly cars.
Inflation:
The new policies - pay people to not work and to consume, and increase business taxes - will have the opposite effect, unemployment and inflation.
NASDAQ is up 60% in the last year. That's not real money.
On Monday, 3 May 2021 at 07:29:51 UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: ...
...
Rich people don't get the rebates. There has been an income cap for the last couple of years.
The most popular EVs, Tesla and Chevy Bolt, don't get a Federal tax credit either as they finished a couple of years ago for those manufacturers
So the governor's decision to not renew the CVRP should not affect sales of those cars anyway.
KW
John Larkin is too stupid to realise that you can always cherry-pick prices that have gone up, and when a year ago the world was in Covid-19 panic you onlyu have to cherry pick the date..
The spectacular rise in the oil price over the year reflects the fact that it was spectaculary low a year ago, on April 30, 2020 at $21.04 per barrel.
It now back up to more or less where it used to be.
It doesn't make much sense to John Larkin - people with more sense saw it as a way of avoiding a feature of the Great Depression where normally viable companies were shutdown and dismantled, and it took ages to put them back together again after the depression was finally dealt with.
Australia did it when Covid19 lock-downs hit the economy. Once they'd done their job the Australian economy revived very rapidly.
The US was too worried about the economic effects of effective lock-downs to go that far, so their Covid-19 epidemic has been much worse than Australia's 1778 Covid-19 deaths per million so far, versus 35 per million in Australia, and it's economy is in rather worse shape in consequence.
They haven't in Australia, and - if they are done right, by people who understand what they are doing - they never should.
Keynesian economics isn't complicated, but it's complicated enough that John Larkin and James Arthur seem incapable of understanding it.
It would be if you'd bought when it was low, which nobody much did (which is why it was low).
Solar --> charger --> battery --> charger --> battery sounds like the magic bullet everyone has been looking for.
The costs and compound efficiency will be issues. As will availability in cold dark weather.
EVs need more charging when it's cold too.
The federal government rebates have ended for the two largest EV companies. EVs have been proven and are on the way to becoming mainstream. If the feds continue the EV rebates for the remaining companies, fine. But I can't see a reason to add anything to the pot. I think California is the last state to need a rebate program. I believe a huge proportion of the EVs in the US are already in CA. Sales are booming there, so why would rebates even be needed? People like the rebates, but that's not why people buy EVs. If that were true, Tesla would have closed it's doors instead of building a new factory or two every year.
I guess it's a good thing that EVs can charge at night from those nuclear plants that they can't throttle back effectively.
not true. global warming cancels that out.
like fukushima?
Excellent. Tesla can stop including cabin heaters. That will considerably increase range.
... but not where it means you have air conditioners.
Two problems with EVs are the length of time charging, and low resale value because the time you want to sell is when the batteries need replacement.
If they had standardized quick-change battery packs that you could have swapped out at a "filling station" then both problems would go away. You'd own the car but the batteries would belong to various companies that rent them out, charge them, and swap them between themselves (much like the way any gas supplier can deliver fuel to any gas station).
If I drive to my friend's house in the Catskills on a Friday night after work it takes a few hours. With an EV I would have to stop halfway and charge for several hours. Instead of spending a weekend there I would spend the first and last nights in a motel and lose a full day. And charging again at his house is like making him fill my tank.
Or is there a way to manage that differently?
Do you know who complains about the charging time? People who don't actually have EVs. I charged yesterday while I ordered food at a restaurant to take home. I was worried the car would get done first and I would get charged for leaving my car plugged in while not charging. Seems they've tightened things up. I normally charge to 90%, but at some times the system will set your car to 80% and you have to set it back to 90%. It appeared that this time it was going to cut me off at 80%. It didn't, but I guess they are having a hard time building chargers as fast as they are building EV cars.
The replaceable battery pack is an absurd solution to a non-problem. It has been looked at and simply is not viable. Fortunately it's not an issue at all unless you are on a trip and it's not much of one then. On my way back from North Carolina the other day I hit a charger before the last leg home and was talking to another EV owner who said he finds the short rest makes the trip so much easier and relaxing than driving for seven hours straight with nothing more than a pee break. Stopping for 20 minutes every couple of hours doesn't add much to the trip and is the way trips should be driven anyway.
If you were driving some really crappy EV perhaps. How many miles? I bet it would either not require a charging stop at all or a rather short one. But it does depend on the charging at their place. It won't be long before most people have level 2 chargers in their homes. With that you can reach there with a nearly empty tank and be full up by morning.
I especially like that you think charging takes "several hours".
Better yet, give me start and end addresses and I'll plug it into abetterrouteplanner.com. My car is not great on range and I bet it does the trip without much of a charging stop.
You mean the $10 it costs to fill the tank? Buy him a burger and beer to pay him back!
Manage what exactly?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.