Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re: Impressive (Score 0) 176

Battery storage costs continue to drop in parallel with solar... With some good battery storage, especially close to its point of consumption, they are going to reap even greater savings, as they would be able to use the power at night rather than rely on coal or other fossil fuels. The US has been moving aggressively in that direction, but if Trump really ends up as our president--- hoping against hope that the vote recount throws that out the window--- he and his brain dead, myopic lackeys may set us back decades in that and many other sectors of our society. Dark ages loom.

Comment Re: PLEASE...make a sports car again!! (Score 0) 247

The sports car sector will be evolving, like the entire car business. EVs, by nature, will always out-perform ICE vehicles in pure acceleration, but as EV tech---especially battery chemistry--- matures, EVs will become less expensive, longer range, and harder for ICE drive trains to compete. EV tech will make all cars quicker, simpler, and quieter... roaring exhausts will no longer be considered a sign of power and macho, and the EVs you suggest--- inexpensive Toyotas, Hondas and Subarus, for instance--- will be dominated by electric power plants. One of the nice aspects to EV drive trains is their ultra-simplicity--- none will have clutches, reverse gears, or torque converters. I have two EVs, and one of them has only five moving parts---no pistons, valves, rockers, cams, etc... ultra simple, efficient, easy to work on without all those moving parts, and virtually no maintenance.

Comment Re: PLEASE...make a sports car again!! (Score 0) 247

Musk recently stated their intention to broaden the product base to pickups, semis, a d motorcycles, and to return to the Roadster. Given that the top Model S is a four-door sedan with optional seating for seven passengers, if they used the same frame, battery pack, etc., but with a two-door sports car body, the weight loss alone would decrease the elapsed time by another quarter of a second or so, putting it even further beyond the reach of any ICE-powered vehicles such as the Ferrari, which CEO Sergio Marchionne has sworn would always be purely mechanical with no hybrid or EV drive train. It is impossible to duplicate the quickness of a fully electric drive train in any fully ICE powered car; it would be even more out of reach for one that was not turbo or 4WD. But the Roadster would not simply get a 2-door body, but be re-engineered in every respect to optimize the total package for two passengers, shortening the frame and changing other components as well. Nothing will be able to challenge it,, such as a McLaren, Lamborghini, or Porsche, without a purpose-built EV drive train. We can probably expect sports car times to drop below 2 seconds. Marchionne's stubbornness regarding drive trains... no electrically-driven components...puts him in an awkward position: he will either have to accept that his machines going forward will never have the acceleration only possible by four-wheel-drive EVs, or will have to break his arrogant promise. I suspect at some point he will realize he must modernize with EV components at least as a drive train option, or risk losing business to the competition--- perhaps even risking bankruptcy by not being able to compete.

Comment Re: Stop breathing! (Score 0) 559

BronsCon: You are looking at the world through a keyhole and thinking you can make an accurate assessment of our situation. 2016 is NOT 1973, when we were brought to our knees by OPEC, and there were no alternatives to driving bit to use gasoline. Today we have batteries that supply a dozen times more energy density than lead/acid, meaning that instead of an EV only being able to eke out 30 to 50 miles on one charge we can drive several hundred miles, and do it cheaper, with greater performance--- and the battery cycle life is many times greater as well. Solar cells are literally a thousand times more efficient today than in 1970; one watt of solar cell costs a few pennies... solar is so cheap Saudi Arabia is installing thousands of acres of solar farms to run their country rather than using their fossil fuels---they have the cheapest oil on the planet yet they are switching to solar power... if you think I'm bluffing, google it. If the Saudis are switching to solar, that is a sure sign we are letting the US oligarchs run us into the ground with oil dependency thinking it is the only way, when it is not... and they have the mainstream media (MSM) as their lackey cohorts to try to keep us believing it--- Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc... they are all helping the oil barons to hog tie us, but fortunately, one of the other things that was not around in the 70's was the Internet, which allows us to get accurate information before anyone can manipulate it--- you simply have to be savvy enough to know where to go and how to identify the liars. We DO NOT NEED PETROLEUM to drive any more---go to You Tube, check out Tesla EVs embarrassing the most powerful internal combustion engine (ICE) powered sports cars ever built--- yet these Teslas are passenger sedans capable of driving more than 300 miles on a charge. Too, expensive? Buy a Chevy Bolt EV that can, handle well over 200, and with the savings on gas you don't buy, it would be like buying a gas car for $20,000. Install an inexpensive Tesla solar roof, an affordable Powerwall battery pack to store the electrons you harvest, and any one of a dozen EVs--- whatever your budget can afford--- and you are off the grid for life, never again to a gas tank. Not everyone can afford all of that yet, but the average man can, and even the ones making a bit more than minimum wage can afford the used EVs already available. NO: WE ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OIL BARONS!!!

Comment Re: Cost? (Score 0) 191

I am quite surprised to hear that you had lost 10% in just a year. I, have had far less than that in my EV battery pack, which is typically a harder drain that loses energy density faster. There are several factors that could be at play: if a lithium pack is charged too high or discharged too low, it can age the pack faster. Heat can be a factor as well; and charging or discharging too rapidly also is detrimental. The size of the battery pack relative to its load or the solar input may be responsible... a, larger pack or adequate may have helped to prevent such rapid deterioration.

Comment Re: Cost? (Score 0) 191

I disagree with your calculations. First, although you could conceivably ship in an entire tanker's worth of fuel, it would be impractical to have such a large storage array. I also doubt you have priced solar and batteries in the last few years... solar has nose-dived especially in the last three years after a steady decline for more than half a century. Solar is, not just pennies a watt. And I, assume you are calculating coats of lead/acid, deep discharge battery cells which cannot come close to the efficiency of lithium iron phosphate (LiFe PO4) battery packs that have many times the energy density, and, have a, cycle life of decades for such applications, when bought new. In the real world, though, it is better to buy a partially depleted pack that has been used in an EV for a decade or so... such packs still have a decade or more of life for use in such stationary apps, and are more cost effective than buying them new since EV battery packs can be quite affordable.

Comment Re: Solar makes a lot of sense (Score 0) 191

It really boils down to how much you are willing to spend on solar panels and battery backup--- and especially in the last three years, solar has gotten ridiculously cheap, and batteries have been improving as well. With enough solar you can generate enough power for a week or more, and with a large battery sink, it can make you nearly impervious to any need for generators.

Comment Re: Relief (Score 0) 191

You understand the polar cycles well. But the difficulty and cost of getting fossil fuels in the polar regions is so great that even if they are not getting sunlight for six months, the six months that they CAN get sunlight would be a huge savings on fuel that can easily run into the double-digits per gallon. Plus, in the polar regions, sunlight reflecting off of the bright white snow and ice can amplify the light - gathering effect. Solar costs have been dropping steadily since the 1970's, when it was nearly $100/ watt. The only way it was practical at those prices was for spacecraft and other extreme locations. In the last three years solar prices have taken such a nosedive in prices that it is less than 10 cents a watt, which is, so cheap that Saudi Arabia, who has the cheapest fossil fuels anywhere, yet even for them solar is still cheaper than gas or diesel generators so they have been installing thousands of acres of solar to meet all their energy needs. When coupled with today's best and cheapest batteries, we no longer need fossil fuel for just about anything but aircraft--- but even Airbus and Boeing have got serious programs in full gear right now to prepare for the day we have electric passenger aircraft as well. Our dependence on fuels is coming to an end.

Comment Re: Relief (Score 0) 191

I can appreciate your doubts, but you need not have a cloudless sky to generate solar energy. I may be mistaken, but as I recall you still get about 80% even on a cloudy day. Even if it was only 30 percent, that would still be a huge savings over paying for 100% diesel, as expensive as it can get on an island far from the mainland. Do some googling, and you will find that they are making exciting progress being able to use much more of the spectrum to generate power rather than relying on just a sliver of the rainbow. If they can do that, there are parts of the spectrum that are nearly unaffected by clouds.

Comment Re: Tesla Runs an Entire Island (Score 0) 191

Thank you so much for your input, troll. No doubt this is what you do every time you see anything to do with EVs, solar power, sustainable lifestyles and/or anything to do with people that are, actually doing something positive. You work for the Koch Brothers, I suppose? I do notice you hide behind that Anonymous Coward handle, which only on occasion is as meaningful a monicker as it applies to you. Now, go crawl back in your snake pit, coward, and take your poisons with you so the rest of us can get along with the business of actually improving our lot.

Comment Re: seaweed taste for cows (Score 0) 283

On the contrary, check with any veterinarian: animals DO pay attention to those things that make them sick, and avoid them. That is, why coloration is so effective in protecting poisonous animals--- the first time they try to eat something that makes them sick, they remember the appearance and coloration of what they bit and avoid it. Stop trying so hard to make healthy foods something they are not. If you wanna pollute your body with Big Macs, fries and Cokes, fine, but don't be trying to convince everyone else to follow you over the cliff.

Comment Re: Those cows (Score 0) 283

Just as other forms of life from crabs to chicken (with their eggs) to farm crops can be affected significantly by what they are few or the soil they are grown in, I am confident the cattle WOULD taste differently, but to assume without the slightest bit of data that they would take on an unfavorable taste does nothing but show your idiotic biases... I suspect you chain smoke, drink Budweiser and Pepsi by the case, are a huge fan of Big Macs with cheese, and have a cholesterol level that can only be topped by the Matterhorn. Ugh, I am glad you are no neighbor of mine.

Comment Re: Simple explanation (Score 0) 283

On the contrary, you blithering fool! Your logic is as twisted as the TRUE giants of the food industry: beef, pork, sugar and carbonated beverages. If ANYONE skews the facts it would be THEM, not the minuscule seaweed suppliers! OMG, what an idiot. Perhaps you didn't see the episode of Oprah twenty or, so years ago in which she had someone on the show that merely told the truth about the ill effects of beef... like a, shot out of the dark, the beef industry had a billion-dollar tort against Oprah, which they cleverly filed in TEXAS, home to a huge share of the beef industry! Their logic, of course, was to hopefully pad the jury with Texans sympathetic to an industry that so many Texans rely on. (I also suspect they were hoping to get a few White bigots as well who did not like Winfrey for other reasons.) Result? After spending BIG in his case to put a scare into anyone telling the truth as to how much worse beef is for our diet than other forms of nutrition, the jury decided AGAINST the Beefers. It was a damned good thing Oprah did not countersue, or she could have caused a near collapse heard round the world... she would have done everyone a favor if she had. No, fella, you assume too many things that are just not true... now, go crawl back under your rock.

Slashdot Top Deals

1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!

Working...