Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Range and recharging time (Score 1) 435 435

Hence my "big cons" section in the above comment.

But to address your points in turn (also you forgot to log in).

1) infrastructure is obviously lacking at the moment, but as I said, you either ship it around in tanks (inefficient), or you generate it relatively locally if you have a decent electrical supply - which you're going to have anyway because you need to charge EVs.

2) the long cycle time will not be a problem because as I said, H2 is more suited for commercial vehicles that have very large tanks that do not need to be refuelled often. The smaller cars are all EVs.

3) Water on roads? seriously? You think the water vapour produced by a hydrogen fuel cell is going to ice up the roads in cold climates more than the local weather is? If you really think it's a problem, we add a $5 container designed to collect the waste water and feed it back into the vehicles systems (washer fluid top up, etc) with a button for "safe to dump waste water because we're not on a road" button for when it's nearly full.

4) Energy cost to produce. Yes, it is very high right now. The two main ways to make it are steam reforming of methane (expensive and uses fossil fuels) which is about 80% of the production and electrolysis of aqueous sodium hydroxide (energy intensive). Of course, as more energy sources come online that cost will reduce, as will research into improved H2 production methods (catalysis, higher density solar, nuclear, wind).

5) As far as hydrogen corrosion of metals goes, it's almost as if you think that metal corrosion is not something that we deal with in modern machinery all the time.

No one is say that H2 vehicles should be "the winner" over battery powered vehicles. The idea is that they complement each other. EVs have downsides. H2 vehicles have downsides. EVs have upsides. H2 vehicles have upsides. Funnily enough, they each have different strengths and weaknesses that can counteract each other while still sharing a lot of common ground (like the traction motor being electric).

Comment: Re:My concerns (Score 1) 435 435

True, coal is pretty much at the bottom of that heap, but when you factor in the cost of making gasoline and transporting it around to fuel stations, those inefficiencies really start to add up.

No one is saying that EVs run but coal power stations is ideal, just that it is better than gasoline power.

The aim is to add a lot more renewable (including nuclear) as time goes on, sooner rather than later.

Comment: Re:My concerns (Score 1) 435 435

The first point has been addressed many times already - even if you're powering your electric car on 100% fossil-fuel electricity you're still doing better than burning gasoline.

How can that be? Humor us. With electric vehicles you are changing energy types no less than four times. Chemical to thermal to electric at the power station, electric to chemical during charging, finally chemical back to electric while driving. Each one of those have losses involved that do not matter for traditional ICE vehicles. So, when accounting for those losses, how could a system that does not have those losses burn more fuel?

Because the ICE in your car is extremely inefficient. A vehicle-sized gasoline engine is about 30-35% efficient. Then add in the the energy cost of producing the gasoline from crude oil, now factor the cost of transporting it around before you put it in your car.

Even if you remove the transportation and production costs of gasoline (which you conveniently left out of your comparison) you're still doing better by using an electric car.

They are just much more efficient, even with generation, transmission, charging and discharge losses.

Comment: Re:My concerns (Score 4, Informative) 435 435

The first point has been addressed many times already - even if you're powering your electric car on 100% fossil-fuel electricity you're still doing better than burning gasoline.

A centralised generating station is much more efficient than lots of gas engines that are about 30% efficient. Obviously it would be ideal to move to renewable generation, but that will also be happening as those sources get cheaper and more effective. You also have to factor in transmission losses and charging losses, but even with these included you're still ahead.

Comment: Re:Range and recharging time (Score 1) 435 435

Ideally your work truck would be hydrogen fuelled.

Your typical week sounds like the ideal workload for an H2 vehicle.

Keep all of the truck the same as a pure electric design (motors, chassis, etc), but swap the battery packs for a hydrogen tank and a fuel cell.

I think that will be the best way to reduce emissions in the future - pure electric for the bulk of commuters and so on, with H2 for large commercial vehicles. The bulk of the manufacturing can be shared across the lines (for example, they'd use the same electric motors) but each system has pros and cons.

Obviously a big con of H2 systems is infrastructure for H2 production and storage. If we can crack the catalysis issue (making it cheaper to manufacture quickly from bulk electrolysis than it is currently, and moving away from steam reforming of natural gas) then it can be made anywhere you have a good source of electricity and water. Given that you need a solid electricity supply to provide recharging stations for EVs, this part will be solved. Just need to crack the other part now.

Comment: Re:Why release it? (Score 1) 85 85

You don't need Apple's drivers for bootcamp for the GPU - you can just install the AMD or Nvidia ones that AMD and Nvidia supply for windows.

The one Apple ships with the bootcamp driver package (that you install from a USB stick when you first set up windows and has everything you need for the keyboard, networking, bluetooth, etc) includes one of those OEM drivers from AMD or Nvidia, it just tends to be an older one since they don't update the package all that often.

Once you have windows installed though it's no different to any other windows machine in terms of GPU drivers.

Comment: Re:Or (Score 1) 117 117

You seem to have missed the sarcasm inherent in my original comment.

The GP was claiming that they could just hose the wings down rather than using an anti-bug coating.

I was just wondering out loud how that would work when the plane is in flight given that the hose probably has a finite length.

Comment: Re: Cool (Score 1) 190 190

It was pretty clear what he meant, you were just being a dick.

If you're following the comments, why didn't you log in?

It was clear that the original poster didn't understand how the technology worked.

Also, if my comment to him is considered "being a dick" then my goodness he must have a thin skin. He'd better be careful on the internet. What specifically about it is me "being a dick"?

Comment: Re:Cool (Score 1) 190 190

You don't get it.
What vux984 is saying is that he set up the magic trackpad so that he only has to touch the trackpad to click, and he does not have to exert a force on it.

I personally got rid of everything that requires to exert an additional vertical force on the trackpad the day I tried to use it on my laps. I'm talking about a wireless magic trackpad of course. I replaced everything with two and three fingers gestures, and it feels so confortable that I setup my laptop the same way, and never looked back. So force touch for me doesn't make sense, but I have to admit that I have not tried a force touch enabled magic trackpad.

I do get it. He is saying that he has never used the force touch feature when that's literally impossible, even if he taps it lightly enough to just register his finger - the cap sensor and the strain gauges work together on the new trackpad. Je just didn't understand that.

The UNIX philosophy basically involves giving you enough rope to hang yourself. And then a couple of feet more, just to be sure.

Working...