FWIW, my 2005 Prius lasted 14 years and 295K miles (475,000 km). The engine burned oil for the last 70K miles, the rocker panels and rear suspension rusted out, and finally it wouldn't pass inspection. The battery was fine.
Exactly - The battery and the electrical motor is generally the least of the cars issues. Wear and tear and the ravages of road salt and dirt will end the car long before the batteries and electrical motor.
At that point, the AI bubble will burst, as it becomes completely useless.
I've been studying and learning the models, and while there is potential, it needs some sort of regulation before it kills itself.
You see, by passing dead batteries off to these schmucks Waymo completely avoids any battery disposal problems. In fact, they pay for Waymo's waste.
They get to pretend that they are contributing to the green movement for a year or two before the batteries are so useless that they must be dumped or "recycled". But, that's not Waymo's problem.
It's a huge win, for Waymo.
They are not dead batteries. their characteristics have changed (to around 70 percent of initial capacity max) to a point where they aren't appropriate for vehicle use, but still store energy https://www.motherjones.com/en.... https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
All of which makes them very appropriate for grid power storage.
just how long will an EV owner drive before running face first into that five-figure maintenance bill?
We know that answer already, it's "forever" for the typical consumer. Replacing an EV battery is done out of damage or faults, not out of degradation. EV batteries statistically outlast the useful life of the rest of the car.
He's recycling the old arguments when the Prius was first put out in 1997. Proven wrong time and again. Must be the same people that claim Solar power is impossible because it gets dark at night.
Given that many manufacturers offer warranties on their batteries longer than 7 years we can categorically say after. In fact Tesla's battery warranty is within the error bars of the average scrapping distance travelled for a car (150k-200k miles) so you can expect even second hand buyers to never end up replacing the battery.
And before someone points out they've had their car for 50 years and has 600k miles on it, you're not average. You're a special little boy. *pats head*
Yeah, of all the issues with in the EV vs ICE wars, battery life is only on the list for the woefully ignorant. It isn't an issue at all.
The issue is the chemistry. Those Lithium-Cobalt based chemistries are all shite and need withdrawn from the market for good.
Yeah, nothing like a battery that is prone to thermal runaway.
I think these are their iPace taxis, so they will be LG Chem batteries.
So then the same shit NCM packs that caught fire in Moss Landing?
Apparently. What surprises me is that a battery tech that is prone to overcharging fires, and releases Oxygen when overheated was used - not a good choice.
For my own two cents, the business of battery based grid storage shouldn't even look at Lithium based storage. There are plenty of very stable and tougher batteries out there.
I've agitated for years for Nickel - Iron batteries for this purpose. They aren't indestructible, but they are so much tougher than the Lithium based batteries. The New York subway system uses Nickel - Iron. The Energy Density is lower, but if you need more batteries, pour a bigger concrete pad. The charge holding characteristic are lower, but not a big deal for the purpose.
The electrolyte is a combo of Potassium Hydroxide and Lithium Hydroxide and is not consumed during use. Low toxicity stuff.
good grief, nice display of ignorance of EV batteries. 1. Batteries have at least a 7 year warranty. 2. Batteries can have faulty cells/modules replaced therefore no need for a full replacement.
Yup. It is nothing short of incredible that people are using old and disproven claims. Must be heavy into recycling.
I recall in here after the Prius was well established, and some slash dotters were claiming that the batteries didn't last long, that you were going to be better off just ditching the car when the batteries went south.
Yet in most states, the batteries were warranted for 100,000 miles (160,934 km) except for California which required a warranty of 150,000 miles (241,402 km)
And digging into the matter, batteries were lasting beyond that. They kept extending the assessment period because not enough batteries failed to make a legitimate stat. Unfortunately, that was years ago that I looked all that up - probably lost in link rot or modern search engine slop search results.
Now Fluffernutter is correct in that a well maintained modern IC engine can get 250 K miles on it (he used 400,000 km to be precise) but therein lies the rub. I've had a number of modern vehicles that have hit 250 K miles, but they were getting to be a pain in the ass to keep together. There were a fair number of new parts in those high milage engines, so it is hard to make an apples to apples comparison.
One thing is for certain - no one should let engine versus battery life guide their purchase. Wrong comparison anyhow. Batteries function as the fuel, the electric motor as the engine.
Graduates have massive debts in most cases, right?
Irrelevant. That is a different issue.
The student loan issue was the endgame of a social experiment that failed with horrible outcome. And make no mistake, it was not a capitalistic or conservative experiment.
1. People were told that having a degree - any degree - was the mark of a superior being. They bought into it.
2. Young people, encouraged by their parents, teachers and society, started going to college en masse, buoyed by loans that covered everything, tuition, books, living expenses.
3. It fell apart in two parts. First was that the "any degree" paradigm allowed young people who were perhaps not "college material" to take majors that were not going to give them employment possibilities that would allow paying back the loans. Opinion degrees don't prepare a person for gainful employment.
Second was it was simply unsustainable.
Universities added layer upon layer of middle management using that money. They are re-adjusting at this point. Painfully.
Meanwhile, those who took majors that could land them a good paying career, could pay back their loans. I work with a number of them.
I do feel a little badly for those who wasted their college years on degrees that qualify them for the same jobs as the guy who quit school in 10th grade. But damn, why was this obvious to me when I first heard of the loans? I mean, I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, so why did so many people who are smarter than me buy into it?
Back when we weren't so hardcore capitalist, people used to have a job for life and would stick with a company even after they skilled up. The company would reward them with better salary as they became more senior.
Nowadays the only way to get a decent salary bump is to move company, and people do that a lot because the cost of living is so high.
I always like to point out that I retired at 55, was searched out for work after "retirement", and my present employer recently gave me a 50 percent raise.
Kind of flies in the face of your "only way" comment.
Obviously we're in a world where young people do not know how to communicate via messaging systems, online web apps and email. They need to be physically sitting on a file cabinet in my cube while I slam obscure commands into a terminal and swear semi-silently at every typo.
I don't know who writes all this shit, but my experience is that our new hires have less desire to be in an office, in a strange city far from home, than I do.
Our new hires didn't want to work, truth be told. They wanted to be back in school, Mom and Dad and student loans paying the bills. It was a good gig while it lasted.
But do you for a minute believe that a person who likely has never worked a job in their life would be ready to become a productive employee with a positive career trajectory if they were just handed their duties, then left alone with them?
Perhaps this generation has risen like Venus from the sea, fully formed, competent in all aspects of employment - but they would be the first, so I doubt it. I'm pretty adroit in my field, and it took a while to get there, and the only part that was from home was reading books on teh subject during my off time.
I do roughly 50:50, home and onsite. The whole "I will only work from home" business has a few issues.
Networking is a big one (I know networking is a 4 letter word on Slashdot, but hear me out) Like it or not, it is really hard to network from home. I've always networked well. Even became friends with many co-workers, and that really helps with career trajectory. And it is an exceptional way to create synergy. Some might call it schmoozing, but then again, I'm a pattern weaver, so all the interactions are a learning experience. In the end, I have been hired twice because I am a known quantity.
A person who makes a demand that they will only work from home is purposely limiting their career choices. You don't get the learning and career leap that requires full time in person work. And there are many jobs that require actual presence. You as a remote worker are only an avatar on a teams or zoom screen. The interactions I have with the people I remote with and those I interact with in person are quite different.
So I take it you stood up for yourself and found a better job, right? Right?!
What on Earth gives you that idea? Did you read what I wrote?
Your experience is universal. Mine is different, but therefore irrelevant. Thank you.
It's not exactly a controversial position. Most of Europe at least partially funds education through taxation, because capitalism doesn't deliver what the country needs. It's the tragedy of the commons, every company wants to use the pool of existing skilled labour, none of them want to contribute to maintaining it.
I pay several thousand every year to fund education through taxes. Your statement insinuates that the USA does not fund education.
And since we are talking about capitalism, and you seem to think the USA is the prime example, allow me to show you what your claim shows.
Free or reduced childcare https://childcare.gov/consumer...
Section 8 housing https://www.usa.gov/housing-vo...
Free PCs: https://www.pcsforpeople.org/e...
Free phones and free cellular https://lifewireless.com/
Medicaid and CHIP: https://www.healthcare.gov/med...
Heating assistance: https://www.liheap.org/
Those are just a start. And of course, there are income limits. Funny, I thought capitalism was something different entirely.
And despite our current issues here, the memes
It's the usual failure of the capitalist system. There is little benefit to investing in younger staff and training them. Once they gain skills they want more money, so either you pay them or they leave. Companies prefer to just hire experienced staff, and now can try to replace the graduates with AI.
It used to be the norm to train people out of skill and employ them for decades. Now they expect the graduate to train themselves, at their own expense, and treat them as disposable.
While it is easy to blame everything on capitalism, as if the word is uttered, and the wise will simply nod in agreement, it isn't quite that simple.
Yes, once a person gains more workplace skills, they will want to be compensated. So if they aren't, they will go to a place with better compensation.
The only cure for that is pure communism, where are careers are paid the same, and everyone from the newest to most experienced are paid the same.
That never even happened with the attempts at Communism that were tried.
I think the issue of wanting experienced help, and paying them for it may have had a genesis when the first crop of millennials hit the professional workplace. I cannot vouch for everywhere, but our experience matched what we were hearing from other places:
Entitlement, expectation of rapid promotion for basic expectations, belief that they and they alone knew everything, not those stodgy old people. The stodgy old people turned out to know a lot more than they did. The concept that work was a sprint, not a marathon. That sprint concept was more prevalent in the women.
There are exceptions. Two of the best employees we got were millennial's and women. But most of the millennials we hired weren't worth it. 90 percent just left, moved back in with mommy and daddy, or in one case with Grandma because Daddy grew a spine and said "time to grow up".
Finally, they refused to take telling. They found any constructive criticism to cause great upset. An example is one guy we hired who for some reason was petrified of me. As much as I tried, he's still freak out. Finally, I relayed assignments to him via on of the women co-workers.
And the clash between AI, and the demands to WFH for first hires is just a non-starter. A person who has never held a job is going to have a lot of issues under those conditions.
Going the speed of light is bad for your age.
