Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Infrastructure vs Independence (Score 1) 466

That's actually the real point. Transmitting electricity is horribly inefficient, compared to transporting portable fuel. The energy required to send a car 500 kilometers is approximately 50 litres of gasolene. Transporting 50 litres of gasolene to a fuel station by truck costs no more than the truck expense, and the truck's fuel expense, and the road wear and tear. And the larger the truck, the less it costs per litre.

But for the electricity, not only is there transmission loss, but there's also repeaters, lines, equipment along the way, the maintenance of that equipment, accessing that equipment, oh it's horrible. Maintaining infrastructure is a horrible horrible game when you're outside of a major city's orbit.

Think of a mountain range, with 10'000 miles of road. No cities at all. You can build wires, and repeaters, and blast mountains, and fix ice storms, or you can just drive the fuel to the stations.

Electricity is only useful within city limits -- like just about all infrastructure systems.

City limits (3.5% of the land area) hosts over 60% of the American population (the majority of which have commute times less than 2 hours.) The majority who drive cannot afford to travel the way you do that frequently anyways, so energy policy should be catering to them, not you.

Comment Re:It's about landmass (Score 1) 466

But as soon as you get out of one of those urban center, you probably need to drive 2~4 hours to get to another urban center.

Hybrids are a solution. Plus, most people do not drive (regularly) outside of their urban centers, and purely electric motors would run supreme for public transportation within a urban center.

Comment Re:It's about landmass (Score 1) 466

I'm all for electric vehicles, but the US has much lower population density. An electric vehicle only works as a primary vehicle if you rarely leave a major metro area. Unless they become cheap enough that it can be a second or even third household vehicle, it's simply not feasible for a lot of Americans.

80% of the US population lives in urban areas, with 3.5% of the land area hosting 62.7% of Americans. Yes, the country is one big vast subcontinent, but we seem to forget we have big-ass metropolises. Some of them rival in size to Japan's Kanto region.

Look at LA or NY metropolitan areas, or the North Eastern corridor. Or Dallas/Ft. Worth. Or look at South Florida (where I'm currently living), 6 million people in an urban area that spans three counties, 100km long by no more than 20km wide.

Electric cars could totally work in these areas where, as I said, host 60% of Americans.

Comment Re: Shorter summary (Score 2) 144

Hypocrisy- I don't think that word means what you think it means. Well that or there is a lot more to this story than what is printed on this page.

Even if we buy into the suggestion that the GP is a "lock her up" fan (there is evidence in word or text of law of wrong doing, Comey inserted a mens rea test into the application of a law which the law in question specifically avoids in order to say no charges are warranted because Hillary didn't mean to break the law. The only people not questioning that are Hillary supporters and never trump'rs) , I still don't see the hypocrisy here- or even a connection to the new AG or some Alt Right team member- whatever that is supposed to mean anyways.

Slashdot Top Deals

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.

Working...