Electric Vehicles

#251
#251
NorthDallas40 said:
Yeah the higher input voltage is the key for rapid chargers. But again you have to manage the impacts on battery life with rapid charging also. I’d guess I’m not telling Tesla anything they don’t already know.

And yeah you will never find a higher performing motor than a brushless DC torque motor. Full torque is available at rotor stall IE non rotating wheels. Definitely not the case with internal combustion engines.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you know, but I doubt most people consider the fact that fast charging means heat. Generally heat is not the thing that helps battery or electrical component longevity. I had a car with the battery nestled against the firewall on the exhaust side of things and right behind the turbo - didn't get very good battery life even with a heat shield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C-south and NorthDallas40
#253
#253
OrangeTsar said:
This IS Volnation and one of the Vols primary sponsors is Natural Gas. So any dissing of NG is disloyalty to the program. So get with it!!!!
Click to expand...

It's my parents old house. My dad was not happy when the range needed replacing and my sister and I refused to get him a gas stove. He was basically blind by that time, but still insisted on heating water for coffee, etc; and we couldn't handle the thought of him and a gas stove or even conventional electric burners. I'm not there all the time and do so little cooking on it that I can't see replacing it just because I'd rather be cooking with gas.
 
#254
#254
zeppelin128 said:
Thanks for the detailed response. Since you are in the field, how would you go about making nuclear power a more tenable solution?
Click to expand...

As much as I hate even thinking the thought, I think to get nuclear going again will require some kind of government backing. I simply can't see today's investors plunking money into projects that aren't going to earn a cent for ten or twenty years - we just aren't wired that way. Apparently construction at the Vogtle plant in GA got really going in 2012 and the first operation is projected now to be 2023 (I've never seen one hit the projected start) and the cost is up to $30B. Something like the military building new airplanes on costs and schedules except the planes don't usually get sidetracked by NIMBYs or other hostage takers, and the planes don't require years of licensing and a regulatory approvals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123, McDad and zeppelin128
#256
#256
AM64 said:
As much as I hate even thinking the thought, I think to get nuclear going again will require some kind of government backing. I simply can't see today's investors plunking money into projects that aren't going to earn a cent for ten or twenty years - we just aren't wired that way. Apparently construction at the Vogtle plant in GA got really going in 2012 and the first operation is projected now to be 2023 (I've never seen one hit the projected start) and the cost is up to $30B. Something like the military building new airplanes on costs and schedules except the planes don't usually get sidetracked by NIMBYs or other hostage takers, and the planes don't require years of licensing and a regulatory approvals.
Click to expand...
Wish I could give you an extra like for calling out NIMBYs. Champagne socialists are quick to advocate for cleaner energy, then immediately shoot down the same thing if it is in their neighborhood.

So basically printer needs to go brrrrrrrr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#258
#258
zeppelin128 said:
Wish I could give you an extra like for calling out NIMBYs. Champagne socialists are quick to advocate for cleaner energy, then immediately shoot down the same thing if it is in their neighborhood.

So basically printer needs to go brrrrrrrr.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just can't see any other way ... and what would have gone to stockholders should be refunded to the taxpayer, but we know that won't happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#259
#259
CagleMtnVol said:
Get ready boys it's going to skyrocket!

Click to expand...

This fuel hike is going to hurt a lot of entities short term. Worse inflation: small business, average Americans, politicians… all will suffer the wrath. Long term, though, I can see this being a nudge to alternatives both on the basis of cost and in an attempt to be less reliant on outside parties. It makes too much sense not to move that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vol66
#260
#260
OHvol40 said:
This fuel hike is going to hurt a lot of entities short term. Worse inflation: small business, average Americans, politicians… all will suffer the wrath. Long term, though, I can see this being a nudge to alternatives both on the basis of cost and in an attempt to be less reliant on outside parties. It makes too much sense not to move that way.
Click to expand...
We weren't reliant on outside parties a year ago
 
  • Like
Reactions: DynaLo, InVOLuntary, hog88 and 1 other person
#261
#261
OHvol40 said:
This fuel hike is going to hurt a lot of entities short term. Worse inflation: small business, average Americans, politicians… all will suffer the wrath. Long term, though, I can see this being a nudge to alternatives both on the basis of cost and in an attempt to be less reliant on outside parties. It makes too much sense not to move that way.
Click to expand...

I'm not against solar, wind or electric but it's going to take another 30 to 50 years for it to overtake fossil fuels and become a cheap and reliable alternative.

This administration acts like it's going happen over the the next six months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and walkenvol
#263
#263
PEPPERJAX said:
I have an older Coleman model. Used that thing camping dozens of times.
Click to expand...

I wish these cost less, but have replaced gas lanterns with them. If there's options with brighter light and this runtime, I haven't seen them.
I do miss the comforting Coleman 'hiss' though, and the lizard-brain attraction of white gas.
model - Tough Light 1000
.
s-l1600.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, InVOLuntary and PEPPERJAX
#273
#273
OrangeTsar said:
That is because their ultimate goal (which they will never state out loud) is to eventually DECREASE the energy used by mankind. They already think there are too many humans and that we are too affluent and wasteful. So why not force their preferred goals on everyone by starving the world economies of energy. That accomplishes much of the progressive/Marxist agenda without a single vote or election. Everyone will be equal. Equally poor and energy deprived)
Click to expand...
It's easier to kill off a large segment of the population with a bioweapon disguised as a virus that came from a bat though. Especially with a complicit media. It's actually a twofer: reduce the population, and get the rest under control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top