Jump to content

rmpfyf

Members
  • Content Count

    1,936
  • Donations

    $15.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,318 Superstar

About rmpfyf

  • Rank
    1000+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Online
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

3,961 profile views
  1. Elsafe. Usually best found s/h on Gumtree when someone's clearing out a server rack with some nice, well-used ones in there.
  2. Yup. In our country and every other. We've had load shedding since the earliest days of the grid. Designing generation for all possible demand eventualities is a waste of resources. EVs - and any other controllable load - can help the grid by smoothing out demand a good bit. Allows for more intermittent generation on the grid, better power quality, all that good stuff. Unregulated demand growth - that's a problem.
  3. Load shedding is normal. We need more if it. EVs actually help here.
  4. You could do that direct connection Ethernet over optical - good Mellanox cards are cheap on eBay, and they power independently very well
  5. Actually (coming from the power industry currently) infrastructure changes aren't that severe, not least because the cars won't all turn up tomorrow. In most cases the grid needs to get smarter to manage that demand, but that's consistent with a move towards the grid getting smarter in general (we're interested in demand management for many reasons, not just cars). Charging stations might need to be common but the majority do not need to be fast. Cars are parked on average 22-23 hours/day. The majority of EVs are 'slow' charged, this is unlikely to change. Batteries will probably not get so cheap as quick as what people will like, we'll simply get used to charging more often (as in whenever we park a car) and smaller batteries. We might not even end up owning cars, which will change how we use and accordingly design them. Lithium batteries are not difficult to recycle. Complete furphy. Over 90% of what's in a pack can usually be recycled with decent separation technology, sometimes up to 98%. Most auto batteries are capable of finding a second life in other applications. A bigger problem is what to do with the recovered lithium - fresh material is too cheap to justify reusing it in new batteries without some policy in place.
  6. Horsepoo. That's a significant misunderstanding of how a hybrid/electric anything goes - same goes for your 'two powertrains' comment. Real world - hybrid runs most of the time, and the savings are proportionate to battery size, usage, etc. Last parallel hybrid I leased was ~40% better on fuel consumption than the ICE variant... and I also ran real-world data on the other ~1500 nearly identical cars (around 350 were hybrid) the same company ran. Savings for a small car parallel hybrid to ICE were over 50%. Never mind that brakes wore out less often, less NVH related failures/service items, etc. If your argument stood up then most of Australia's taxi industry is in deep said horsepoo. That or they're getting by just fine. The last time I was quoted $800 for a gear linkage on the last ICE I owned that I bought (genuine part) off eBay for $82 didn't have me running towards EVs. Point is - shop around always. If you paid full whack for a e.g. Camry battery it'd be around $4k to replace. Often it's not the whole battery that needs replacing, and earliest failures are in silly hot climates from 350,000km (most battery failures are well over 400,000km) but let's assume you had to replace the whole thing. You're saving around (real world numbers) 4L/100km. So that's 350,000/100*4=14,000L. That 14,000L of petrol would need to cost you less than $4k for this FUD to stand up. That'd be 28.6c/L. Fuel costs a bit more over my way. How about you? Water pumps are the same as most modern cars these days - a ton of cars use electric pumps. They're more efficient. Nothing different or special. The motor is the generator. Usually it outlasts the car, just as most electric motors in any other application tend to outlast the application. There is extremely little (practically nothing) to go wrong.
  7. Second that... That thing doesn't look unbeatable.
  8. That bit makes no sense - the cars are traction (not power) limited at low speeds. Nice asides.
  9. Everything's got resistance, capacitance, inductance, susceptibility to noise, etc. The effects are indeed measurable. Unlike the cabling in your wall (which is laid by a trained trades with best practice) what's out of your wall tends to go in a fairly noisy environment. Shielding is a good thing generally. Some may argue that it's an important thing given it's the 'first' cable to mains. I'll let people ponder this, though it's not a definition I disagree with from a pure physics perspective. Much of the effect depends on what your system deals with. If you're composed of switching mode PSUs then effects may be more minor than say, a valve rectifier that expects/is designed for sinusoidal power delivery and anything lesser becomes, effectively, harmonic distortion. The effects are indirect. You're not listening to 50Hz tones powered directly by mains etc. Whilst indirect the point remains that any effects are a function of what you start and end with with respect to power quality and system topology. Ultimately if you don't hear it, it doesn't matter. That a difference may be measurable given equipment of appropriate resolution doesn't mean the instruments doing the listening can hear as much, and that's ultimately what matters. Whilst some cables cost up to USD$60k there is no where near this much in parts in any cable. Done right and exclusive of any development recoupment one shouldn't cost more than $200 or so. Anything else is reasonably snakeoil. That people have this much money to spend but won't engage a power systems engineer to review their reticulation is lunacy. The most audible difference I heard with an 'audiophile' power cable made my system demonstrably worse. It's an easy thing to do. This isn't to say it can't be made better - would consider that what's made to standard is already very good.
  10. Completely untrue. Caradvice can write whatever it wants, Toyota has never placed a sole bet on anything - and has always supported HEV, PHEV, BEV and FCV technologies. Ultimately they're all electric cars, they all have batteries, they all have electric motors and much of the rest of the ancillary components are the same. That the Japanese government sees a big part of its future in hydrogen isn't specifically Toyota. This is different to, say, Tesla which has bet the house on one technology set. Some places is just works best. For long-term high-energy-dense storage hydrogen absolutely slaughters batteries. For utilising (or protecting, depending how you look at it) existing fuel supply chains, hydrogen wins. There's a ton of applications where it wins just fine ta very much. There are even more where it's complementary. Technically it works - in many cases, well. That it's losing a marketing war to BEVs is completely correct. That it may never recover in the mass market... increasingly probably. In many markets and for many uses its effectively become Betamax in this discussion. Peek into the pack of your Model S and trace the origins of those cells - you might reconsider what's protectionist there.
  11. 50% of people don't want to pay more than $30k for a car, let alone an EV. Though I'd also bet closer to 100% of people want their car to crash like a new one if asked. Makes it a fringe industry, which makes the numbers low, which makes economies of scale poor, etc.... you get it. Sales data the last few years indicates a decent number of people are happy to pay >$30k for a car. Market's moved upstream.
  12. No... you paid taxes to buy a luxury car. As do people who buy ICE luxury cars. Though I think your argument come closer to a policy point than anything mentioned so far. EVs cost more, accordingly it's reasonable to suggest the LCT should kick in later - even moreso than for fuel efficient vehicles (what's are the cutoffs now - around $68k, $76k for 'fuel efficient' vehicles).... EVs should be later still, or completely exempt for a while yet - in their current volumes they generate little net revenue through LCT. As it is this is an active discussion in Treasury, and if the likes of @proftournesol want to direct their considerable rage where vested interests play most prolifically, (in lieu of a carbon policy) raising hell over the LCT for EVs is a good start.
  13. Road construction and maintenance is a state and local affair, with the federal government providing funding for special projects. The feds collect funds through fuel excise, GST on vehicle sales and fuel, and heavy vehicle road user charge (related to fuel consumption). The state govts collect stamp and registration charges. Yes, the federal revenues go into general revenue and not a specific bucket for road infrastructure despite a historical and current intentions, it's an indirect relationship. We could go on. Facts are simple - EVs use roads just as much ICE vehicles and are contributing less to the revenue pool. Their EV-ness alone doesn't make for a compelling argument for a free ride. Yet.
  14. Not completely true, and not getting away from the notion that all road users should pay to use road infrastructure fairly irrespective of what's under the hood.
  15. Ignore em, they're not worthy the airtime. These aren't EV subsidies though - they're carbon fleet subsidies, and they create a need to stimulate EV sales. Got to take as bigger picture view here. 'NewsCorpse' For one they'll crash very differently.
×
×
  • Create New...