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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 238

While I mostly agree with you and would prefer a subsidy free solution, you left out an important economic factor. External costs. Hard to measure and define, but very real and econ 101 stuff. Burning stuff pumped out of the ground and into the air has a cost associated with it that the beneficiaries do not pay. One argument FOR tax breaks for stuff is to level the playing field in this respect. The other option to factor in externalities is to tax them as in a tax on pollution.

So just playing devil's advocate. An EV buyer gets a $7500 tax credit. That's $7500 of what they owe the IRS that they don't have to pay. 150,000 miles @ 20 mpg average for a Tesla sized sedan is 7500 gallons of gasoline. That's 7500 gallons not drilled, pumped, transported, refined, transported, pumped, and burned. With some portion of the oil possibly imported from national enemies. That's 22,500 lbs. of CO2 possibly not put into the atmosphere. That's $18,750 not paid for gasoline at $2.50 per gallon. Now where that energy DOES come from will determine how advantageous it is. Though in nearly any case, electricity generation wins out over oil and it is 100% domestic. From an energy perspective It is certainly beneficial environmentally, nationally, and financially. How beneficial? Someone put a number of $7500 on it.

Comment Re:title seems to be misleading, at best. (Score 1) 263

"Wind and especially solar can never guarantee that."

Careful with that word never. Grid storage makes for a better design than produce on demand. It is not certain how/when grid storage will become economically viable, but it is inevitable. The way we run the grid today is insane, trying to match production to demand. It's only designed that way out of necessity.

Comment Re:For those who still want diesel (Score 1) 179

I agree, this will be one of the more difficult hurdles to overcome. The most obvious solution is to have outlets (even 110) close to the parking spaces, but I don't know how one would provide the incentive to get it done. For early adopters (we're certainly in that stage), kindly try to work out a solution with your landlord. It could become a valuable amenity. Offer to pay some or all of the installation cost. On a recent trip, at the place I was staying I stayed topped up using 110V at 12 amps driving 30-50 miles each day. If you're home 10 hours per day, that's about 13kWh or 16kWh at 15 amps, enough for 40-50 miles.

I think it's obvious for stores to offer charging. Some already do. Charge up while you grocery shop, have dinner, wash clothes, or watch a movie. Interesting times.

Comment Re:EVs aren't that much better (Score 1) 630

"An ICE engine can hit about 30% efficiency." Yes, but they don't operate near this most of the time. This only happens at a particular engine speed (RPM) and load. This might happen on the highway if the motor is at its optimum speed. You're giving ICE way too much credit on efficiency. There are no measured numbers available that I'm aware, but if you factor in most people's driving habits, which include start-up, warm-up inefficiencies, stop-and-go which runs RPMs out of optimum bands and brakes which throw energy away, I would guess 15% is much more likely and even 10% or less for many drivers. By contrast, power plants run at optimum points all of the time.

You also forgot EV regen, which gives them a significant boost in stop-and-go driving over ICE.

ICE: 15% * 92.5% = 13.8%
EV: 36.3%
H2: 30% * 80% * 50% * 85% = 10% (see below)

You also left out something very important. Gasoline/Diesel REFINING!!! Estimates by EPA put the energy cost at roughly 6 Kwh per gallon of gasoline. Also add in transport and pumping. Try factoring that into the ICE equation. I'm guessing it puts it way below 10%.

Your H2 calculation has a serious problems too. Electrolysis starts with electricity, so it gets the 50% hit plus 98% transmission hit before electrolysis even starts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you factor that into your 30% number. But you left out transport, and compression (10,000 psi) and pumping 85%. Then the fuel cell charges a battery because it can't produce sufficient power on demand. So you have to apply the 80% charging hit you applied to the EV.

"EVs and hydrogen in inextricably linked in this way"

Hell no, they're not! Hydrogen comes from natural gas now, which will always be cheaper than electrolysis. The hydrogen economy is a natural gas economy.

Comment Re:Pray tell, how long again? (Score 1) 555

It wouldn't be a big deal to install receptacles at apartment parking spaces. Even a measly 110V/20A outlet would give you 50-60 miles per day, enough to keep you topped off. Any transition will require adjustments. Electric is the easiest transition of all. Power lines run everywhere and electrical outlets like NEMA 14-50 are easy for any electrician. No special training (other than being an electrician) required.

Imagine if no automobile infrastructure of any kind existed. Creating a gasoline infrastructure, which requires drilling, pumping, transport, refining, transport, station construction, more pumping ... would seem impossible. Any electric infrastructure is simple and straightforward by comparison. Barring some major discovery, we will always use electricity as the backbone of our infrastructure. EV transport is a natural fit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy an EV today. You can happily drive an ICE while the EV early adopters push the tech into the mainstream. I'm not terribly old, but I've seen this pattern enough. Why would you pay $1,000 for a CD Player? That's just a rich man's toy. My cassettes sound just as good and (insert advantages). Look at so and so wasting their money on that portable bag phone. Why would anyone do that? It doesn't even work at my house. John payed $8,000 for a flat screen just so he can hang it on the wall. I can get a bigger TV (that weighs 200 lbs) for $1,500. How ridiculous!

I'm starting to believe that people are just wired differently. Many can't see things other than how they are today.

Comment Re:Semantics (Score 5, Insightful) 837

If by propaganda you mean 30+ years of peer reviewed scientific work, then yes. It should be enough that we've changed the composition of the atmosphere of the one habitable planet we have. But "deniers" demand 100% proof of future devastation while offering ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in legitimate scientific evidence. This is Slashdot, a website for Nerds. Of all places, people here should understand how critical the scientific method and peer reviewed is to sound science.

BTW, what exactly does Bill Nye want? What's in it for him that he would risk his reputation defending "propaganda"?

Oh, and my ID is lower than yours. I don't buy your wisdom by age argument.

Comment Re: Err - no. (Score 1) 162

People buy cars all the time without maxing out the options, such as 3 series BMW without the "M" badge. The base Model 3 was said to be delivered with autopilot safety features enabled and 0-60 under 6 seconds, supercharging and at least a 215 EPA rated range. My prediction is people might opt for a range upgrade to 250+ miles that should cost $5k or less.

Comment Re:Regardless of the reasons... (Score 1) 292

Do you care to break it down? I find it suspicious that you're badmouthing your own company.

Can you show that the ROI, without tax incentives, doesn't happen.

Just looking at hardware (I'll address construction shortly). Here is a 7.8k system for $14,351 That's less than $2 per watt with grid tie equipment. With 5 sun-hours per day, that's 1,060 kWh in 30 days. 15 cents/kwh is $159 per month. That's a 7.5 year ROI on the equipment.

Now the construction. I see often see quoted construction at roughly double the equipment cost. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I think that's ridiculously high and a result of a lack of qualified installers. You need to 1. mount the panels and 2. connect the grid tie equipment. You can get a roof completely reshingled (materials and labor) for $6k. Mounting of the panels shouldn't cost more than $2k. Then there is the electrical hookup, which requires an electrician. An electrician will install a 200 amp panel for about $2,000. Why should it cost much more to install grid tie equipment? So I'll round up and say installation costs should be $5k for this system. That brings the ROI to 10 years.

10 years with NO incentives. And that doesn't count any net metering. As you can see, I take issue with the construction costs. I'll gladly admit my error if you convince me that I'm wrong.

Slashdot Top Deals

IOT trap -- core dumped