671–680 of 919 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My plan to buy an EV in the next five years may be realistic after all. Happy!
You may not have a choice in the matter as more and more countries are thinking of/implementing ICE bans in the near future.
Notably missing from the release: - cost? - what new chemicals are involved and what is the environmental impact? - how many cycles can the new battery take? - volume? (density is always shown as weight/mass, it's not the only thing that matters)? - how does it behave under environmental changes (temp / pressure / etc ...)
The claims about new battery chemistry are rarely farfetched or inaccurate, but we as a society (and especially the reporters) don't do a good job of interpreting the claims, focusing on one promising sounding parameter and neglecting all others.
The manufacturers are also not helping by omitting this sort of critically important information that you have highlighted (lying by omission).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m afraid these bans get systematically sabotaged by well funded ice lobby groups. Nonsense; it's just harsh reality landing on green wet-dreams. They effectively propose a ban on cheap cars, and you expected ... what, exactly? The only way they're replacing ICE vehicles is by making the EVs cheaper, and there is a limit to how high they can tax sales of ICE vehicles or fuels without a population revolt.
"The only way they're replacing ICE vehicles is by making the EVs cheaper" Even if electric cars would be cheaper, faster and longer running - some people would rather die, than give up their ICE cars and motorcycles. The strong lobby in germany against banning aren't the poor, but the rich who want to drive their roaring Porsche till eternity. They literally say that. I can somewhat understand the appeal of an loud…
Well lets stop calling this the reason for unbanning until EVs get cheaper, faster and longer running.
I mean, sure, some people are like that, but we won't know how many there are until EVs are cheaper, faster and longer running. Painting the opposition to ICE bans as "they will argue the same even when EVs are cheaper, faster and longer running" is irrational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> EVs in current state are not so good Well then, good thing the world's largest battery maker is starting to mass-produce batteries with twice the energy density.
It solves only one of multiple problems new generations of cars (EVs especially) are facing
> World’s largest battery maker announces major breakthrough in energy density > This is a little under 2x the density of current batteries. Anything less than a ~400x increase is a minor breakthrough based on my expectations. I would like to charge my phone once a year.
Do you not feel this is an unreasonable expectation? I wouldn’t think we would ever get to the point where phones are only charged once a year. This assumes that power consumption would not increase over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Uranium-235 about 1GWh/kg EDIT: this is for nuclear fuel enriched to 3% in a normal (not breeder) reactor 35000 MJ per 10g pellet https://whatisnuclear.com/energy-density.html Only a tiny fraction of the total energy is actually used
You need to account for all the weight required to turn the radiation into electricity. That'll make the numbers ... a bit different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My litmus test for battery/solar stories is: can you buy it? If not, consider it bullshit. At least these guys are announcing production.
This is why I generally skip over any "breakthrough" science/tech stories on HN. News articles on breakthrough discoveries are mostly bullshit and even when they aren't, most of the time they don't affect my life in the slightest because the tech is impractical or expensive. It may be interesting to read about science discoveries, but I don't want to take the time to sort out the bullshit from what's real just to fin…
i like these sorts of stories because they have prepared me a bit for some of amazing technology changes i have seen over past decades. by the time i can by an iphone i was at least expecting it. when email hacking stories started appearing in politics, i already knew the details. the first time i bought an electric car was not the first time i had thought about the issues of range and charge speed and so on.
surely not everything that looks promising becomes popular, but that is also useful information, to me, a person whose job is building/helping to build novel systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really because some amount of a barrel of oil is gasoline. The other uses of oil will still want their fraction and be willing to pay. The refineries will need to get rid of the parts of the crude that doesn't have a market to sell to the market they have. There will of course be much less refineries. The other uses of oil are small niches, and so the world needs one-two small refinery to supply their needs. So t…
The reverse scaling will be the problem more than the commodity price. As gas stations close, finding a refueling place will similar to what early adopters of EVs faced, but without the ability to do >90% of fueling at home or anywhere else the electrical grid reaches. Although maybe it'll become a thing for some people to store tanks of gasoline at their home. At that point I'd trade for a diesel vehicle, though, if…
Minor pet peeve: Energy density is energy per volume (in GJ/m^3, for example, or Wh/litre, or whatever). -> "X density" = X per volume What's discussed here is specific energy, ie energy per mass (in Wh/kg, or whatever). -> "specific X" = X per mass The latter is particularly relevant for aviation, needless to say.
They even refer to "energy intensity", which as far as I am concerned doesn't refer to anything.