Post: #76

Did you just imply Musk is a loser? Have you seen his chick?

(05-04-2015 10:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Nerds like Elon Musk want to go to Mars for the same reason nerds flock to MMOs like World of Warcraft. They know they are losers on this world, so they seek an alternate world where they will come out on top of the status hierarchy, where they, and not athletes and actors, are the A-list.

Post: #77

I misspoke. I meant that they tend to grow up as losers in their formative years, so they nurture this desire for alternative worlds where they can triumph, where there is no prevailing status hierarchy of jocks and cheerleaders that blocks their ascent.

"American needs a decent railway system BADLY. "

If you mean an intercity system, not really. Air travel is fine for distant, occasional travel. America needs cities to stop designing themselves to cater to cars first and everyone else as an afterthought. Intercity traveling is vastly outnumbered by intracity traveling. California's bullet train is stupid IMO, because the number of trips between say SF and LA is nothing compared to the commutes that Californians make daily on a smaller scale - but the governor wants a legacy, and throwing money to local transit systems isn't very grand like a statewide train is. What's the number of long distance trips per person across the state every year, 0.1? 0.5? And trips to routine destinations - several hundreds per year. With the trains, you're just building another infrastructure system to support - you're not trashing the highways or airways any time soon either, so there are little if any savings to be had.

Post: #78

(05-05-2015 10:57 AM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  I would hope it's using newer battery technology for that price, $3500 can buy a shit ton of Trojan deep cycles. Enough to run your house for a month probably.

Trojan 30XHS, 12 volt, 130 AH = $165 each

21 batteries X 130 amp hours = is 2730 AH total. That's a lot of power.

It isn't. There are some different chemistries with 18650 Li ion batteries but those differences are mostly based on expected usage...they'll change things to tailor for density, durability, temperature range, etc.

The only advantages this system would offer over Trojans is size, weight and maintenance. I'm unsure of the durability of Trojan batteries in this application so that could go either way.

Post: #79

I've been looking into deep cycle banks and Trojans are said to last up to 7 years with proper care and maintenance. I have this wacky idea for outfitting my new RV with as many as it'll hold and a solar panel on the roof for some extended free-stay boondocking in the woods.

Post: #80

(05-05-2015 12:56 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  I've been looking into deep cycle banks and Trojans are said to last up to 7 years with proper care and maintenance. I have this wacky idea for outfitting my new RV with as many as it'll hold and a solar panel on the roof for some extended free-stay boondocking in the woods.

Each Trojan weighs 66 pounds - that's almost 10 gallons of gas. I'd look at a generator for the RV because it's unlikely you'll be able to set up enough solar panels to charge more than 1 battery on an average day. Plus, solar is expensive and the solar/battery/AC conversion would require extra equipment.

Post: #81

(05-05-2015 11:17 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  I misspoke. I meant that they tend to grow up as losers in their formative years, so they nurture this desire for alternative worlds where they can triumph, where there is no prevailing status hierarchy of jocks and cheerleaders that blocks their ascent.

"American needs a decent railway system BADLY. "

If you mean an intercity system, not really. Air travel is fine for distant, occasional travel. America needs cities to stop designing themselves to cater to cars first and everyone else as an afterthought. Intercity traveling is vastly outnumbered by intracity traveling. California's bullet train is stupid IMO, because the number of trips between say SF and LA is nothing compared to the commutes that Californians make daily on a smaller scale - but the governor wants a legacy, and throwing money to local transit systems isn't very grand like a statewide train is. What's the number of long distance trips per person across the state every year, 0.1? 0.5? And trips to routine destinations - several hundreds per year. With the trains, you're just building another infrastructure system to support - you're not trashing the highways or airways any time soon either, so there are little if any savings to be had.

Be careful what you wish for.

I live in a city that is trying its best to remove cars from the equation.

It's chaos.

The last people in the world I'd ever want in charge of my transport are local governments.

Post: #82

"The last people in the world I'd ever want in charge of my transport are local governments"

Lol, you're a lot more dependent on the government when you use a car to get around than when on your own two feet... Not to mention susceptible to government surveillance and harassment.

Post: #83

It is true, that before cars, cities were designed much more compact than they are now. More accessible to both foot traffic and horses than today. Gotta wonder how natural it is. Even still, does it matter? "Natural" doesn't necessarily exist - you either adapt and become part of the new "natural," or you die.

Post: #84

Wired: Should you Get a Tesla Home Battery? Let Physics Explain

Quote:So, you could just get this battery and run your house?

Actually, no. Your house runs on AC current but the battery gives you DC current. This means that you need to take the DC current and convert it to AC current. You might have a device that does this in your car so that you can plug in household items like a computer or a coffee pot. The converter takes the DC current from the car battery and turns it into an AC current so that your laptop can then take this AC current and convert it back to DC. Yes, that seems silly but it’s true. The Powerwall does not include a DC to AC converter (or AC to DC if you want to charge from the power grid).

Post: #85

(05-03-2015 04:55 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  "The issue with existing batteries is that they suck."

But these are filled with standard lithium ion cells, right? Existing batteries...that supposedly suck.

Under heavy daily use, a few cells are expected to fail or become inefficient every few months. I have a lot of experience with Li-ion cells, and 5000 cycles is a wild claim - they MIGHT get that in controlled lab conditions, but I doubt it would get 1000 IRL. Same as your laptop battery, you'd have to replace it every year or two.

That, combined with the outrageous cost of solar power, means you're looking at 30-50 cents per kwh (national average is 12.5) - assuming it works the way they claim it can. And that's IF you have a house and yard large enough to both power your home during the day while charging the device for night use.

Then there's usage. Peak time for power use spikes 2-3 times in the late afternoon and evening - when the solar grid wouldn't be producing much, if any, power. The spikes are around 6-8 kw, so this battery pack would last about 1.5-2 hours. You'd need 3 or 4 packs to go off grid...good luck charging them.

I don't think there's much of a consumer market for this at all. Maybe for a boat, RV or hunting cabin where the batteries could be charged all week and used briefly on the weekend.

Until there's a radical change in solar (or wind) efficiency and battery energy density, the grid is the only real option.

I work in the electronics industry and while I'm not a battery expert, I generally agree with this assessment. Existing lead-acid and nickel-cadmium battery technologies have many advantages: they are a well-understood and time-proven technology, inexpensive for the power density they offer, better for the environment (elemental lithium is extremely toxic), future lithium scarcity issues, they don't explode if you look at them funny, etc.

This product is a solution looking for a problem, the problem being that the Gigafactory won't make it's return on investment via electric vehicle batteries alone. So a guy with ~5 billion invested into selling a certain battery technology says the other competing technologies suck. No fooling?

Post: #86

"you either adapt and become part of the new "natural," or you die."

So will you become a tranny? That's the new normal I hear.

If you just want to be a willow flapping in the wind, sure, convictions are superfluous.

Does it matter? If you don't mind obesity, ugliness, death, injury, wasted time, poverty, no, I suppose it doesn't matter.

Post: #87

(05-05-2015 11:15 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  "you either adapt and become part of the new "natural," or you die."

So will you become a tranny? That's the new normal I hear.

If you just want to be a willow flapping in the wind, sure, convictions are superfluous.

Does it matter? If you don't mind obesity, ugliness, death, injury, wasted time, poverty, no, I suppose it doesn't matter.

Those are the opposite of adaptations. Those are mal-adaptations. They are the ones who cannot handle current society and adapt:

The obese: those who cannot handle having unlimited food in front of them

Ugly: Probably not going to be reproducing much

Tyrannies: These guys are freaks and may be celebrated but they won't last

Most social malfunctions are probably the result of humans who aren't able to handle the modern world as it wasn't what their ancestors evolved for. And so, the next generation of people who live successfully will be those who can live in this world and not succumb to it.

Post: #88

(05-06-2015 12:18 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 11:15 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  "you either adapt and become part of the new "natural," or you die."

So will you become a tranny? That's the new normal I hear.

If you just want to be a willow flapping in the wind, sure, convictions are superfluous.

Does it matter? If you don't mind obesity, ugliness, death, injury, wasted time, poverty, no, I suppose it doesn't matter.

Those are the opposite of adaptations. Those are mal-adaptations. They are the ones who cannot handle current society and adapt:

The obese: those who cannot handle having unlimited food in front of them

Ugly: Probably not going to be reproducing much

Tyrannies: These guys are freaks and may be celebrated but they won't last

Most social malfunctions are probably the result of humans who aren't able to handle the modern world as it wasn't what their ancestors evolved for. And so, the next generation of people who live successfully will be those who can live in this world and not succumb to it.

My point was that basing cities around cars yields obesity, ugliness, death, injury, wasted time and poverty. Mal-adaptations, you could say, to human nature.


------------------------------------

For a more detailed exposition of why electric cars are a non-solution to very real problems, see this article: Unclean at Any Speed

It's fun to troll people who think electric cars are a real solution - especially if you already drive less than they do. People just want to hear they can go on doing the exact same thing with a green spin on it and salve their soul.

There's a certain kind of mentality I will call techno-fetishism. The techno-fetishist has an eternal restlessness about him, a hole, an emptiness. His eyes are always to the horizon ahead, to future technologies that will put him at peace. Technology will never and can never fill this hole; this hole was created by a lack of enduring social relationships and spiritual connection, connection to his people, to his ancestry, to his family, to his sexuality, to his work, to his home, to his god - all the things that root a man. He has disowned his past; he is repulsed by it. To suggest that, instead of refining provably flawed technologies like the car further, he must step back a moment and take a page from something beyond himself and his era is to grossly offend him. This is merely the technological equivalent of telling a modern feminist that assigning men and women to different roles, as in days past, had merit. You can find analogs in architecture as well - a movement suffused with people who blanch and convulse at the prospect of reviving traditional architecture, forms that served men effectively for centuries, for the silly reason that they date to a time when patriarchy and traditionalism reigned.

Admittedly, in modern society, with the constant cascade of new technologies altering our life daily, and an absence of connection, we are all increasingly techno-fetishists, myself included.

Post: #89

(05-06-2015 12:44 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 12:18 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 11:15 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  "you either adapt and become part of the new "natural," or you die."

So will you become a tranny? That's the new normal I hear.

If you just want to be a willow flapping in the wind, sure, convictions are superfluous.

Does it matter? If you don't mind obesity, ugliness, death, injury, wasted time, poverty, no, I suppose it doesn't matter.

Those are the opposite of adaptations. Those are mal-adaptations. They are the ones who cannot handle current society and adapt:

The obese: those who cannot handle having unlimited food in front of them

Ugly: Probably not going to be reproducing much

Tyrannies: These guys are freaks and may be celebrated but they won't last

Most social malfunctions are probably the result of humans who aren't able to handle the modern world as it wasn't what their ancestors evolved for. And so, the next generation of people who live successfully will be those who can live in this world and not succumb to it.

My point was that basing cities around cars yields obesity, ugliness, death, injury, wasted time and poverty. Mal-adaptations, you could say, to human nature.

I wouldn't say cars are particularly ugly. They are quite interesting and amazing inventions. They do take up huge space and if they could develop personal mopeds with temperature controlled chambers it would be a lot better. But I doubt such vehicles could traverse quickly outside of the city.

Ultimately, many things in modern city exist precisely because they are so useful and offer so many advantages they are impossible to resist. People follow practicality 9 times out of 10, whether or not it is good for them is a far different question. People follow practical concerns of time and money and adjust afterwards, or they do not adjust and become yet another degenerate. If current cities produce more degenerates than successes, it is unsustainable and will collapse - and if cars are indeed problems causing degeneracy, they too will fade.

Regardless, the problem always sorts itself out in the end no?

Post: #90

(05-06-2015 12:53 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I wouldn't say cars are particularly ugly. They are quite interesting and amazing inventions. They do take up huge space and if they could develop personal mopeds with temperature controlled chambers it would be a lot better. But I doubt such vehicles could traverse quickly outside of the city.

Ultimately, many things in modern city exist precisely because they are so useful and offer so many advantages they are impossible to resist. People follow practicality 9 times out of 10, whether or not it is good for them is a far different question. People follow practical concerns of time and money and adjust afterwards, or they do not adjust and become yet another degenerate. If current cities produce more degenerates than successes, it is unsustainable and will collapse - and if cars are indeed problems causing degeneracy, they too will fade.

Regardless, the problem always sorts itself out in the end no?

The utility of cars is a farce. If you design a city for cars, sure, a car will often be the most useful way of getting around. But a city designed for people on foot (and secondarily, people on trains or bikes) will be far cleaner, cheaper, happier, greener, healthier and safer. Cars have simply expanded the distance between destinations, so we've increased our commute times and wasted more land just to continue living.

Are cars ugly? Relative to most American cityscapes, maybe not - but that just speaks to how dull Americans' sense of aesthetics are, compared to say, an old Greek or Italian village. We can hardly dress ourselves approvingly, no surprise that our buildings follow much the same pattern. The infrastructure around cars is even uglier - parking lots, freeways, highways, billboards...

Cars originally got their start on farms, where their use is eminently sensible.

Post: #91

(05-06-2015 01:17 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 12:53 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I wouldn't say cars are particularly ugly. They are quite interesting and amazing inventions. They do take up huge space and if they could develop personal mopeds with temperature controlled chambers it would be a lot better. But I doubt such vehicles could traverse quickly outside of the city.

Ultimately, many things in modern city exist precisely because they are so useful and offer so many advantages they are impossible to resist. People follow practicality 9 times out of 10, whether or not it is good for them is a far different question. People follow practical concerns of time and money and adjust afterwards, or they do not adjust and become yet another degenerate. If current cities produce more degenerates than successes, it is unsustainable and will collapse - and if cars are indeed problems causing degeneracy, they too will fade.

Regardless, the problem always sorts itself out in the end no?

The utility of cars is a farce. If you design a city for cars, sure, a car will often be the most useful way of getting around. But a city designed for people on foot (and secondarily, people on trains or bikes) will be far cleaner, cheaper, happier, greener, healthier and safer. Cars have simply expanded the distance between destinations, so we've increased our commute times and wasted more land just to continue living.

Cars originally got their start on farms, where their use is eminently sensible.

Cars also connected the rural folk to major industrial centers where the factory jobs were. That made them super popular because the car would carry a return on investment. I think accounts for the car's success more than anything.

Post: #92

When people started working in factories, they moved to the city. You don't need to own a car to move once. While the government didn't midwife the car, it spent a lot of money bolstering it and edging out alternatives (zoning, mortgage interest tax deduction, parking requirements, highway spending...).

Post: #93

(05-05-2015 10:24 AM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 10:16 AM)Hades Wrote:  That works in an ideal sense, but without some government intervention in technology and infrastructure we'd all still be burning whale oil and travelling in giant balloons. Nuclear power, guns that aren't flintlocks, airplanes, trains, public transport, maybe even cars and roads wouldn't exist.

I agree public transport wouldn't exist without government intervention, but saying the others wouldn't exist is like saying shoes or bread wouldn't exist without government intervention.

Crack a book sometime, everything I listed didn't get anywhere until investment from government contracts, oftentimes by literally fucking over the government (for instance, selling them back their own faulty weapons in wartime, etc.).

Do you actually think that there would be serious incentive for technology if it weren't for warfare?

I had to clarify with guns because after old-timey flintlocks there was no real place for artisans as far as gunpowder weaponry was concerned. At that point we needed weapons with interchangeable parts that came out of factories.

But yeah, basically, all that priceless scientific research and public infrastructure funded on government cheese wouldn't be a reality otherwise. Now if you want to argue that it didn't have to be a reality, that's another subject entirely.

Post: #94

(05-03-2015 03:31 PM)kbell Wrote:  



Elon Musk introduced the Power Wall which is a battery storage for Solar power. Its cost about $3500 and it sounds like it can allow you to go off grid by powering your house. The question is it safe, and will power companies kill it before it gets mass usage?

You might not need solar power since it can store energy from the cheap times and cuts your usage down significantly as well.



Here are some notes from the video:

He announces Tesla energy.

Wants to harness the sun. Solar only works during the day. A battery will cover the rest.

Announces the tesla power wall. Its wall mounted anywhere. Its flat against wall and works with solar systems right out of the box. It backs up electricity if utilities are cut. Does DC conversion for you as well. Can stack up to 9 of them which is 90kw hours. One is 10 kw hs.

Will start shipping 3 or 4 months. They have a factory in Nevada which will really help production shortages that will occur in the beginning.

There is a Tesla PowerPack which can scale infinitely. He powered the facility it was presented in with the PowerPack. The first one is 1GWh. It would take 160,000,000 of them to power the US. Supposedly 900,000,000 of them would power the world. 2 billion would take care of all transportation.

Talks about a gigafactory but doesn't explain exactly what it does. Describes it as a product which is strange as well.

Musk is a great marketer. Beyond that... Not impressed.

And his name helps a ton.

Thinking about changing mine actually.

Sterling Archer has worked incredibly well so far, but looking to be more original...

*Broads are dumb. Investors not quite as bad...

Key word: Quite

Post: #95

btw-I have one of these at the house.

http://www.powerequipmentdirect.com/Gene...oCLoDw_wcB

I'm guessing it's a helluva lot cheaper than what Elon is pimping.

Post: #96

(05-06-2015 01:31 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  When people started working in factories, they moved to the city. You don't need to own a car to move once. While the government didn't midwife the car, it spent a lot of money bolstering it and edging out alternatives (zoning, mortgage interest tax deduction, parking requirements, highway spending...).

The government trailed what the consumer wanted for years.

It took decades before the interstate system was constructed. Long after most Americans had a car.

Before that and government subsidized airports and such?

People took the train. And unlike most of the world, the trains in the US were (and still are) private. Other than Amtrak.

Why did the government form Amtrak? Because the railroads were losing their collective asses on passenger trains in 1970 due to competition from the automobile and airlines due to subsidized infrastructure.

Don't even try to bring up land grants. They subsidized less than 10% of the railroad construction in the US. And there were caveats with those grants. Discounted government tariffs for one. They were not free...

And, the government held alternating sections on those grants. It benefited just as much as the rails, if not more, as they were able to sell that land and collect taxes BECAUSE the railroads were built. There was zero reason to build tracks in most of those territories without the incentive of the grants.

Actually, it was one of the smartest things the country did. Without the grants the west would have settled MUCH slower, if it would have settled at all.

It basically comes down to what do you want? We HAD a damn good passenger train infrastructure decades ago. Privately built and operated. The government made it "noncompetitive".

Keep expanding interstates and expanding rail is the way the government wants to go.

Gotta please everyone... Which never works.

Post: #97

The idea is nothing revolutionary, it's just good marketing. He knows how to rile up a crowd.

At least it's more realistic than that Solar Driveways scam.

Post: #98

People that are somewhat critical on Elon Musk and government subsidies:

He is a very rich guy who is pioneering in different fields, in SpaceX he put 100m of his own I guess. So his companies could go bankrupt without government subsidies but he himself never will.

I can understand government subsidies but at least he is a pioneer. It is a tiny amount of money that is thrown in his project. Compare that to the billions of dollars that are thrown in wars against drugs and against the jihad.

Post: #99

(05-06-2015 06:45 AM)mastauser Wrote:  I can understand government subsidies but at least he is a pioneer. It is a tiny amount of money that is thrown in his project. Compare that to the billions of dollars that are thrown in wars against drugs and against the jihad.

Again I don't understand this mentality at all.

Wasting taxpayer money is wasting taxpayer money. Trying to justify it because you personally believe in the cause or because it isn't as "evil" as other forms of waste is rationalization.

I wouldn't call him a pioneer either when it comes to batteries or solar energy. Both of these technologies have been around for a long time.

The first solar call was created in the 1880's and the first practical battery in 1836.

Post: #100

(05-06-2015 07:08 AM)Darius Wrote:  Again I don't understand this mentality at all.

Wasting taxpayer money is wasting taxpayer money. Trying to justify it because you personally believe in the cause or because it isn't as "evil" as other forms of waste is rationalization.

That is because socialism is only socialism when "someone else" uses tax dollars for something you don't want or need. Using tax dollars is "vital" and "necessary" when when it is something "you" want or need. That's why I rarely talk politics any more, socialists gonna socialist my comrade.