Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Never enough houses (Score 3, Insightful) 164

Italy and Japan have shrinking populations. We would too, if it weren't for immigration. However our population growth rate is still low, and if it were any lower we'd be facing serious economic and social challenges. Sure, a shrinking population would drop housing prices, but we are far from having so many people there isn't space to fit them. Our real problem is seventy years of public policy aimed at the elimination of "slums" and the prevention of their reemergence.

If you think about it, "slum" is just a derogatory word for a neighborhood with a high concentration of very affordable housing. Basically policy has by design eliminated the most affordable tier of housing, which eliminates downward price pressure on higher tiers of housing. Today in my city a median studio apartment cost $2800; by the old 1/5 of income rule that means you'd need an income of $168k. Of course the rule now is 30% of income, so to afford a studio apartment you need "only" 112k of income. So essentially there is no affordable housing at all in the city, even for young middle class workers. There is, however a glut of *luxury* housing.

In a way, this is what we set out to accomplish: a city where the only concentrations of people allowed are wealthy people. We didn't really think it through; we acted as if poor to middle income people would just disappear. In reality two things happened. First they got pushed further and further into the suburbs, sparking backlash by residents concerned with property values. And a lot of people, even middle-class young people, end up in illegal off-the-book apartments in spaces like old warehouses and industrial spaces.

Comment Re:Hope it lives up to it's promises (Score 1) 138

First, what little time we get for vacation (the only time most of us would go the distances where we'd need to charge mid-trip), those charge times are eating into our vacation time. We want to spend that time at our destination, not sitting around waiting hours for a charge.

I vacation around the US in an EV all the time, and it's really not an issue. Not unless your vacation travel is of the "pee-in-a-bottle-no-stopping" sort. If you aren't hardcore about minimizing travel time, making stops for decent meals, and stops for bathroom breaks and leg stretching, you'll find that you spend little if any time waiting for the car to charge. What you do is drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for 15 minutes for bathroom (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for an hour for lunch (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for 15 minutes for bathroom (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for an hour for dinner (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for the night (and charging).

Basically, you just make sure that whenever you stop for biological needs, you do in a place you can plug in. This is quite easy to do.

You do want to pick hotels with chargers to overnight. If you don't, then you'll probably have to 30-45 minutes in the morning to charge (during breakfast?).

I've done several thousand miles of road trips with an EV in the western US, where distances are long and cities are far apart. It works fine.

You can go 200 miles sometimes without seeing a gas station, let alone any kind of EV charger setup.

You actually can't in the US, not on the interstates, anyway. Tesla has the US interstates covered, with chargers every ~75 miles. Sometimes this means there's a Supercharger out in the middle of the desert, sure. There's always a gas station/convenience store there, too. Also, you don't actually have to think about when/where you're going to charge. The car's navigation system tells you where you need to stop and for how long.

If you get off the Interstates, you can find larger distances between L3 chargers. In practice I've never found it to be a problem, though.

Comment Re: Yay to the abolition of lithium slavery! (Score 1) 138

I'm biased. The house I currently live in had the oil burning furnace explode in 2011. It was located in the basement and the fire gutted the kitchen above it. I'm surprised the whole house didn't burn, but there was significant damage.

Where I live it is common for 120 gallon propane tanks to be strapped to the outside wall of the house. Granted, I'm in West Virginia and this place isn't know for intelligence. Safety regulations are for them liberal hippie communist types.

Comment Re: Yay to the abolition of lithium slavery! (Score 2) 138

Sigh...no. From the website:

UL9540A 'Champion' rated nonflammable at the cell level with no thermal runaway under any condition

People have heating oil, propane, and kerosene tanks next to their houses all the time and rely solely on the fire-rated tanks. Batteries aren't special in this regard, unless you consider they aren't a liquid that can spread or a gas that can expand so they're safer.

Comment Re:Yay to the abolition of lithium slavery! (Score 5, Informative) 138

How much usable energy per unit of battery weight?

That really isn't their concern, because they're not marketing to the automotive sector, where weight is an issue. Their focus is for stationary storage like data center, grid scale, etc. Weight is no longer a major concern when you aren't hauling it around.

According to this page, energy density in Wh/l is 1/2 to 1/6 that of Lithium. On the other hand, significantly better maximum sustained power and recharge times.

They do mention EV fast charging, but they aren't talking about the car batteries but rather battery storage at the charger so charging stations can level out their power draws and reduce their utility bills.

Comment Re:Free Market (Score 1) 188

Trump is winning because of votes from people living in trailer parks, not because of donations from Wall Street. DeSantis wants to be the next Trump.

There's a lot of mythology around who Trump voters are. Part of it is that statistics can be confusing, especially if you're prone to jump to conclusions. Yes Trump wins the voters without a college degree, and people without college degrees tend to make less money, but we can't leap to the conculsion that Trump voters are poor. In fact, data shows Trump lost the $50k and under income group solidly in both 2016 and 2020. In 2016 he won every income group greater than $50k, although only *strongly* in the $50k -$99k group. In 2020 he solidly lost every income group betlow $100k, but but won the over $100k group by an enormous 12 point margin.

Putting it all together, Trump's core voter group are people with limited educational attainment who are economically comfortable of (good for them) well off without having a college degree. However he doesn't own any particular socioeconomic group; really elections are determined by changes in turnout in key swing states. There was strong turnout among Trump's *share* of $50-$99 ke voters in 2016; I don't think many of those voters changed their mind, but their compatriots who sat 2016 out came out to vote in 2020.

Comment Re:Who knows.. (Score 1) 188

Just because the cigarette industry pictured doctors recommending smoking in its advertising didn't mean that *all* doctors, or even most thought smoking was healthy for you. This was largely in the 30s and 40s when they took advantage of a positive attitude toward science and particular medical science. They began to pull back from this after 1950 when evidence was mounting for the link between smoking and cancer, for fear of pushback from the medical community.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Working...