Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Raising of Chicago (Score 2, Interesting) 140

Wasn't this type of problem solved over 150 years ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Why isn't this a more reasonable solution vs. shutting down the world's industrial capacity? I know they have done retrofits to sky scrapers for earthquake proofing, so wouldn't the process be similar?

Comment Re:With Experience of Similar Incidents... (Score 1) 596

I'm a little suspicious of it being exactly 100% max throttle. If it's an analog A/D you'd think it would be like 100.01% or 99.95% or some in-exact value. It would also be essential to record the intermediate values from 0% to 100%. A jump from 0% immediately to exactly 100% seems a little suspicious to me. Or it could just be the software discretizing the analog data from the pedal at a low sample rate. We don't have the source code to really know.

Comment Re:What an incredibly stupid idea... (Score 2) 77

From my experience using several charge stations over the last year, I don't believe your concerns are that much of an issue. I haven't seen any charge stations vandalized in my area yet. If it did become a problem, I'm sure security cameras and law enforcement could deal with it.

As far as weathering, that should be a non-issue as charge stations are engineered to be outdoor rated (check out NEMA ratings).

What kind of "accidental damage"? Cars running into the charge station? I suppose this is a valid concern, but usually a bollards are installed in front of them.

Comment Re:Dear Mr Musk... (Score 1) 398

This is why workplace charging is so important, but often overlooked in regards to EV tech. The technical challenges of adding charge stations to your destination is a solved problem. Doubling the range of lithium ion batteries is still in the laboratory at this point. Also, with PHEV the more opportunities you have to charge, the less gas you have to burn. So instead of 80% of your trips being in EV mode, you might hit 90% just by having destination charging.

Comment Re: Disgusting corporate welfare (Score 1) 398

I've found with our C-Max Energi the AC will hit about 2.5KW of power usage for maybe the first 10 minutes of running, so it's usually good to pre-condition the car before unplugging it. After it's been running for awhile it tends to maintain a draw of maybe about 500 watts from what I can tell from the dash gauge. This is in 90 degree weather.

The heater electrical usage is ridiculous though. It doesn't use a heat pump so it relies on resistance heating. At that point, I'm probably better off just enabling the engine.

Comment Re:boost to electric vehicles? (Score 1) 392

As for total electrics aka the Tesla's of the world, they're not viable until you can charge them fully in the amount of time it would take to pump 15-19 gallons of fuel. Right now I can drive six hours from my place to my folks with a 20 minute stop to stretch and answer mother nature's call. Last I saw in the Tesla literature, that same drive would require 3 to 4 30 minute stops to complete. At 4 stops, that 6 hour trip just became 8 ours.

Don't understand your math here... at 75 MPH for 5.66 hours is 425 miles. Tesla 70D has about 236 mile range at 70MPH. So maybe you have to stop once or maybe twice for 30 minutes or so to super charge. I don't think it would be 3-4 times. Of course, I'm also assuming you could charge at your destination somehow for the trip back. You could also drive a little slow (60mph) and gain another 40mi range each charge. I guess there are a lot of variables here, but I think in general it's not as bad as it sounds.

Comment Re:There is no reason for any drought to continue (Score 1) 390

It's amazing how much the politicians push the common people to "do their part", which amounts to saving a minuscule fraction of the water when the real problem is agriculture/environmental usages of the water. So you have a large percentage of the population wasting their time killing their lawn, spending $10k on drought resistant landscaping, etc. People feel good they have a dead front lawn but in the end, they are not really contributing anything meaningful to the solution, but the politicians did a good job making them feel like they did their part. Meanwhile, actual solutions to the problems are left unexplored.

Comment Re:No surprise... (Score 1) 390

Where I live (California) the base cost is about $2.50 USD per 100 cubic feet (748 gallons). There are then additional "tiers" that increase the cost over your baseline quantity. If you live in an apartment and don't have a lawn/yard/garden I can understand only 31 gallons/day, but I have a few fruit trees and such that I like to keep watered. One thing I'll admit is that if they want people to conserve, they need to raise water rates (and then use that money to acquire more water resources).

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce