Somehow Europe REFUSING to pay its bills (let's remember that even Obama insisted they should - they simply ignored him) is the US's fault?

Yes, Trump destroyed the 'gentlemens agreement' that the US would pay for everything?

We apparently have different definitions of 'gentlemen'?

This is asinine. The US is $39 TRILLION in debt.
Every dollar the US spends is 20-25% borrowed from the future.
This is the wealthiest society that has ever existed, and we cannot pay for everything we want.

In fact, I agree with you; in the immediate aftermath of WW2 the US was *fantastically* wealthy and could afford to pay for everything. That's what happens when you have 2 global wars wreck every other competitive industrial economy - you kind of end up on top.
Yes, we could afford to buy everyone else's lunches. For 75 years. Not any more.
But the moment we started to say "hey, um, guys, remember how this is about COLLECTIVE defense? Maybe... maybe you could perhaps pitch in a LITTLE?" everyone shit themselves complaining.

What's hilarious is that now the first people to complain that the US threw its weight around, that the US acted like the global police, that the US always was sticking its nose where it didn't belong - THESE are the people bitching that the US isn't willing to continue to pay for everything.

It's sad when people have been paying for your lunch for 75 years decide to stop letting you free ride, isn't it?

...and then the reveal that you can't have it unless you have an M3 chip or later, plus 12Gb of RAM. So that's all the new Neo owners out then isn't it - that's a serious miss.

That's a fantastic idea. Thanks!

If you haven't figured out that 'the peasants' pay for everything, you're just not figuring anything out. Blaming is not understanding.

'We' pay for everything.

I think the OP is saying that a better quality UPS will "improve" poor input quality, while a cheaper one will just disconnect.

However, I don't know enough about grid stability to know whether this is reasonable. My guess would be that abrupt disconnect for over-voltage, rather than just draw less current and down convert will tend to increase the grid instability, while an abrupt disconnect for under-voltage would tend to improve grid stability.

I would bet that the engineers at the power company have already thought about all of these things and told management what should be done. It's 50/50 whether management then wrote these requirements into the contracts with these big consumers or whether the big consumers have claimed to be doing whatever is required while actually choosing the cheapest option (which I would assume is abrupt disconnect on over or under voltage and switch to site power)

You might want to read up on how current hybrid vehicles actually work, 'cause it seems you have more than one misconception going on.

I have. For instance, my latest vehicle is the Ford F-159 XLT,, the full-hybrid model of the F-series pickup truck line. Power train is:
  - 6 cylinder dual-turbo engine. (runs low power but approoximately doubles output when a lot is needed.)
  - 47 HP motor-generator "pancake" on the engine side of the ttransmission, to scavenge / return power to./from a 1.5 kWhr lithium battery.
  - 10-speed automatic transmission, working with the lithium battery;s main alternator to fine-tune match the engine/mogen to the current driving situation. Max power of engine plus hybrid mogen; 430 hp.
  - full four wheel drive.

So it's primarily a gas-engine power train with an electric-car motor mechanically coupled to the engine shaft. Many other hybrids, from the venerable prius onward, are similar, with plug-in variants having a big scavaging/peaking battery good for pure electric operation of tens of miles rather than a minute or so and a wall-powered charger added.

What I'm looking for is essentially a pure electric - totally electronic "transmission" consisting of alternator(s) between the batteries and the motor(s), plus a tiny engine-generator able to burn gas and feed some teens of KW of charging power into the batteries when running down the road or parked near it.
 

Do the Waymo batteries use one of the lithium chemistries including cobalt, or a non-cobalt chemistry such as lithium iron phosphate?

Cobalt chemistries have a higher power/weight and energy/weight ratio, which made them the go-to chemistries for vehicle batteries. But they also produce oxygen when the cells overheat, leading to an unextinguishable runaway fire hazard: A burning cell makes enough heat to ignite the adjacent cells, so the whole assembly of them goes. Bad enough when it's a car's worth, but a disaster if it's a shipping-container sized module of a utility energy storage site. (And even worse when the site is a building full of racks, which someone had "protected" from fire with water-spraying, equipment-shorting system, so the whole site burns up, as happened recently with one in California creating a toxic mess.)

That's why purpose-built stationary lithium energy systems use non-cobalt chemistries - heavier, but a shorted cell just kills itself without getting hot enough to light off its neighbors.

"And itâ(TM)s probably easier to hike in a gallon or three of gas than the equivalent electricity. But having back up solar panels could solve that in some situations with an EV too."
Grok says about 2 days to charge up 10 miles of range from a 4m2 reasonably portable solar panel in decent days at 45n latitude.
Yeah, I think I'd rather just fetch some gas.

Thanks for the update, I was unaware of the project at all.
Fascinating stuff, I wish them the best & sincerely hope the Canadian government-as-it's-going doesn't see this as a potential source of funds that can be drained off for more norcan.

As he already said, haters gonna hate.
Despite being variously a know-nothing alt-right trans-denying fascist stupid head, he's worth a $trillion and running several successful businesses that individually would be massive, groundbreaking success stories.

That's gotta just burn, doesn't it?

I want to see inexpensive plugin hybrids.

But not like the current ones, which are primarily an engine/tranny powertrain with a motor/generator + small battery for scavenging downhill/braking energy for later accelleration/uphill/cruise/power-boost.

I want ones that are primarily a battery-electric with a small aux engine-generator (say 15-20 HP range), big enough to power crusing with a bit left over for gradually charging. That would let you range-extend by the size of your gas tank plus fillups (i.e. indefinitely if only gas is available) or go from battery empty to back on the road in a couple tens of minutes.

The backup engine would only run at max-efficiency speed and could use an atkins-like cycle (see "liquid piston engine") to get the max power out of the fuel. Most operation would use power-grid charging (when available and cheaper than fuel).

The serious projects like covering the desert, or canals, which seem really, really clever. It all depends on what they're covering. I guess sometimes not very nice to what they're covering. But it's really about choices. Responsible choices are going to be okay. I'm reminded though that there is no criticism of any power generation method that won't burn you, the scorn and ridicule and dismissal and rejection somehow. Doesn't mean anybody's right or wrong. Oh wait it does.

If it were just about the money, then nuclear would not be very attractive.

But it's the environment, stupid. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear is an attractive option, cost be damned. Hydro is not without detriment. Solar uses space. Wind is going to be seen as a loser in so many ways, but it is a stepping stone.

Nuclear is the best option, and SMR among other technologies will improve the option.

ps - Previous comment about desalination in higher latitudes might, I think, miss the basic equation. Fresh water is more readily available at higher latitudes than lower, until you get into the ice. Nuclear powering desalination in Southern California, yes. Alaska? Dude?