I wish there was a website specific for open sourcing ideas, or maybe there's one and I don't know about it.
This isn't for "vehicle-to-vehicle comms.
"Automakers aren't too happy about a recent U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal, which uses part of the wireless spectrum assigned to vehicle-to-vehicle technology for Wi-Fi instead."
and if the quote came from TFA, it's drivel too.
-1, Wrong because he didn't RTFA
Syngas is not generally produced starting from coal, with is the topic of this story.
In what sense is it not generally produced from coal? Coal gasification is being done on a commercial scale right now (and has been done for decades). While it may not be the most common way to generate syngas, it's certainly not a new or unknown idea. I'm sure if there's more demand for syngas made from coal, more plants will be built. And no, generating syngas from coal is not the topic of this story.
Not sure where this process generates syngas.
Not sure why you think this process has anything to do with generating syngas. The point of this is to burn certain carbon-containing materials, e.g., coal or syngas, in a way that the generated CO2 can be almost completely captured. This research plant generates 25kW from coal. The upcoming one will generate 250kW from syngas.
Assuming the parent poster is French because of the reference to France, these pluralization mistakes aren't so far fetched for a Francophone. In French, verbs are conjugated to match whether or not the subject is plural.
How is that different from English? English has subject-verb agreement too.
So, he/she has the word "they" so naturally because this is a plural word, to him/her, "suck" should be pluralized to match.
The plural form of "suck" isn't "sucks"--you don't form the plural form of a verb by adding "s" to it, in either English or French.
Infinitive: "to suck". "He sucks": singular subject, verb ends in "s". "They suck": plural subject, no "s".
Infinitive: "sucer". "Il suce": singular subject, no "s". "Ils sucent": plural subject, no "s".
but the 12V battery that powers the accessories and gets its juice from the high voltage battery shut down when Broder pulled into the service station.
What kind of crappy design is that? The high voltage battery should charge the 12V battery, but the 12V battery shouldn't arbitrarily "shut down". Especially when the HV battery still has juice in it (which it did, according to the logs). Also, not sure why an e-brake needs to be battery-powered in the first place.
The plot of estimated range vs. miles traveled is particularly interesting... if the range estimation was accurate, the slope while driving should be -1. However, it's pretty consistently around -1.3, with the exception of the section between about 400 and 475 miles (note that the x and y axis scales aren't the same, so you can't just eyeball the line or measure the pixels). I.e., an estimate of 130 miles only gets you about 100 miles of actual driving. Which Broder also noted in his original article: "At 68 miles since recharging, the range had dropped by 85 miles." Why doesn't the estimate adapt to driving conditions and style? In my gas-powered car, the estimated range remaining does seem to take into account the current running average mpg.
In any case, I'm not really interested in what happens after the Milford supercharge (at ~320 miles): he should've charged to completion there, or charged longer at Norwich. The Delaware to Milford supercharge is the portion that's interesting to me. Musk claims that Broder drove the car hard during that section, but I'm not seeing it in the logs. He was going about 60mph during most of that (Musk quibbles that Broder said he set the cruise at 54mph--whatever; neither 54 or 60 are driving the car hard). The slope of the estimated range vs. actual mileage for that section is about -1.25. The distance between the Delaware and Milford stations is 200 (or 202) miles. The estimated range after a 90% charge at Delaware is 242 miles. So factoring in the inaccuracy, an estimated 242 miles translates to an actual 193 miles--not quite enough to reach the destination. And that's while driving below the speed limit.
The car was not fully-charged
The car may not have been fully charged, but it was charged to the point where it displayed "Charging Complete" (which is apparently about 90% charge), at which point the estimated range displayed by the car should have covered the distance to his destination with no problems.
and the journalist took a detour from the given route.
A two-mile detour into Manhattan. Which he was thinking might actually increase the range, seeing that air resistance is lower at slower speeds, and regenerative braking can help recoup much of the energy lost by a gasoline-powered car during stop-and-go driving. Have you noticed how hybrids have a higher MPG for city driving vs. highway, whereas gas-powered cars have a higher MPG for highway vs. city? It turns out that he was wrong--driving at a slower speed is what saves energy, not the stop-and-go driving of going through a city, but a two mile detour is hardly the make or break thing that Musk is making it out to be.
//GO.SYSIN DD *, DOODAH, DOODAH