|
QuarkJets posted:The combination of cheap personal transportation and cheap land was what led to the mass-creation of suburbs, not government-owned roads. The government building roads to these suburbs was an effect, not a cause. Plenty of HOAs in fact own and maintain their own roads Yeah, the most common development mode was that new subdivisions built their own roads out to existing roads which used to serve the farms and such they'd bought the land from. Later once development was done, the roads would be turned over to the local municipality to maintain. Often this happened because development companies would be spun up just for a few subdivisions, then allowed to have costs "force" it to close so that the real ownership could get away with not paying certain bills or not owing certain taxes.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The combination of cheap personal transportation and cheap land was what led to the mass-creation of suburbs, not government-owned roads. The government building roads to these suburbs was an effect, not a cause. Plenty of HOAs in fact own and maintain their own roads This couldn't possibly be more wrong. The suburbs that sprung up after the creation of first the steam railroad, then the electric streetcar and, later, cheap automobiles, were suburbs that were still attached to the cities they grew from. It wasn't until after WWII when what we think of as a suburb existed at all. And they came to exist precisely because of government subsidy. First, the FHA deliberately chose to build and subsidize certain forms of housing, and not others. The FHA started in 1934 but the 30s housing market was pretty much nonexistent, and then once the war came on nonsessential construction came to a halt. Second, there was the Federal government throwing money at towns far away from urban centers to build highways. Without that highway money, maybe the market would have built those highways anyway, but maybe it wouldn't, and you're the one arguing we need nationalization to do things the market won't do on its own. Without the subsidies, those roads out from the cities to what would become suburbs don't get built. Without the FHA's mandate that new housing developments be free of through-traffic, the big sprawling mess of cul de sacs and aterials doesn't get built. Without the FHA's mortgage loans intended specifically to subsidize housing of that sort, other sorts of construction would have been engaged in. Without the FHA barring adjacent non-conforming uses, which means eliminated local commerce, people would likely have had *walkable* commercial districts and things like that, obviating the need to get in your car and drive to every single thing you want to do. The mass-produced Levittowns were the *direct* creation of the FHA and the VA (and had segregation as one of the *requirements*. Like, if you wanted Federal money, you could *not* sell the houses to black people). Then the Federal highway act came along in 1956 and the inner cities started to die as white flight went into full swing and destroyed their tax bases. The extra-urban suburb as has existed for over 50 years is not a spontaneous market-based creation. It is a direct result and intention of specific government policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
My supposition is that #10 Cocks consumes the kind of media and keeps the kind of companions that flatly refuse to believe that the healthiest, happiest populations on earth are social democracies or further left that milk the private / public cow with great success by basing policy on things like analysis and fact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This couldn't possibly be more wrong. The FHA was a tool and enabler of white flight, not a cause. You may not be aware of where local and state governments with wealthy constituents play into the subsidiary of new upscale suburban development. Perhaps start with Mike Davis if you like the shock treatment approach to learning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Tracking white flight is partially complicated by the fact that a lot of the people who did it had never intended on staying in the cities in the first place. A lot of people who did it were rural living people, forced into the cities during the Depression and World War II in search of jobs, including because of the declining ability to make a living at smallhold farming. Without the Depression and World War II industry bringing people into the cities temporarily, they would have proceeded from rural areas directly to suburban areas with much less people leaving the cities. To be frank, they never wanted to be around the minorities who were living in the cities in the first place. We have continued to have people leaving the rural areas for the suburbs ever since then. Also, a ton of suburban development actually preceded any functional freeways or even expanded surface highways to where the development happened, because developers rightfully gambled that if you build first sufficient expansion would catch up. After all, a fast commute wasn't their responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Perhaps start with Mike Davis if you like the shock treatment approach to learning. For sufficiently-loose definitions of "learning." Mike Davis is an intellectually dishonest hack, and it is *hilarious* that you cite him as an authority on anything right after you attack #10 Cocks for cherry-picking his inputs. http://www.salon.com/1998/12/07/cov_07feature/ Phanatic fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This couldn't possibly be more wrong. You seem to agree with me that government-owned roads are not solely responsible for the rise of suburbia, since you are raising alternative contributors here. Thank you for your contributions to the discussion
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Fun tech for supplying water current generated power, fly model planes under water! http://minesto.com/ Not sure how great these sites will be in the short run if climate change make currents more unpredictable, but I assume the units and associated infrastructure will be somewhat movable since it the power generation is so spread out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Fun tech for supplying water current generated power, fly model planes under water!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I wonder what happens when a large marine animal hits a moving turbine... Depending on speed, angle and size, I assume anything from bruises up to blubber explosion. They claim the technology is "in harmony with marine ecosystem" but I have a hard time imagining that a 10 ton winged torpedo does not bludgeon the snot out of any large animal it encounter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
I guess he felt his previous work just wasn't good enough.  Tesla's model S already has a range of 210-315 miles, triple that and you get a range of 630-945 miles which blows even fuel efficient cars out of the water. https://news.utexas.edu/2017/02/28/goodenough-introduces-new-battery-technology quote:Lithium-Ion Battery Inventor Introduces New Technology for Fast-Charging, Noncombustible Batteries
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
I really hope that turns into something and it's reasonable for me to get an EV with good range in the winter here. Best news I've read in a long time. I guess I'll go ahead and get my hopes up for a while.
YarPirate fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Considering how that story is basically making zero news, the potential upsides of these new batteries would be game changing if they work out. Hopefully we won't have to wait a decade for these things to become marketable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
It's an automotive part, get ready to wait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 16:12
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
If that's half the improvement they claim, it's still a game changer. Just being able to cut out lithium is huge. They only mention electric cars, but I suppose this battery tech will scale? Anyway, yeah that's really cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Considering how that story is basically making zero news, the potential upsides of these new batteries would be game changing if they work out. Hopefully we won't have to wait a decade for these things to become marketable. Research-level announcements usually don't carry a ton of traction because the implication is you'll be waiting a decade or more before the technology is widely-available commercially. The first prototype for a lithium ion battery was developed in the 70s, the first "modern" lithium ion battery was demonstrated in 1985, the first commercial lithium ion battery was released in 1991, and they weren't in a majority of handheld electronics until 2011. That's roughly 40 years between prototype and critical adoption But this is a great example of why basic research is so loving important; this team wouldn't have even gotten to square one without a thorough understanding of fundamental discoveries made about the underlying materials and their interactions QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It's an automotive part, get ready to wait. EV batteries are just made up of prismatic or cylindrical cells. The BMS is the most complicated part. For the most part, using those cell would be drop-in if the cell voltage isn't too different. There is also no standard for EV batteries yet, so every car gets its own design anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:If that's half the improvement they claim, it's still a game changer. Just being able to cut out lithium is huge. They only mention electric cars, but I suppose this battery tech will scale? The problem with solid-state batteries is a much higher density and weight so I'm not sure cars would be my preferred application. A cursory glance of the paper suggests that for the same energy it's about 1/3 the size of a lithium battery but about 2.5x heavier. I would probably put it in watches, phones, laptops etc. first. I don't care if my phone weighs more if I get more juice but in a car it's somewhat counter-productive. I mean you could just put more Li-Ion batteries in cars if weight wasn't an issue but somewhere there's an optimum for weight and energy storage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Bates posted:The problem with solid-state batteries is a much higher density and weight so I'm not sure cars would be my preferred application. A cursory glance of the paper suggests that for the same energy it's about 1/3 the size of a lithium battery but about 2.5x heavier. I would probably put it in watches, phones, laptops etc. first. I don't care if my phone weighs more if I get more juice but in a car it's somewhat counter-productive. I mean you could just put more Li-Ion batteries in cars if weight wasn't an issue but somewhere there's an optimum for weight and energy storage. A major component in the limited amount of battery we put in cars is the sheer bulk they have, and not so much the weight. For some purposes it would be just fine to have more weight for the batteries as long as you can use the same or less space for them, and in many purposes adding a bit of weight won't matter so much because you'd still get more power out of the thing. Take a look at this image, it's a guy with a Tesla Model S car and a replacement battery pack for it in the wooden shipping crate. You can see how big the pack is compared to the car itself, it basically takes up almost all available area under the passenger cabin floor that doesn't need to be taken up by the electric motors and wheel assemblies:
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
The claimed charge time alone would be a game changer for electric cars, even without the higher density, colder operating temp and improved battery cycle life. If literally only charge time were different than lithium ion, and it were relatively the same price, you could not make them fast enough to meet demand for cars alone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Bates posted:The problem with solid-state batteries is a much higher density and weight so I'm not sure cars would be my preferred application. A cursory glance of the paper suggests that for the same energy it's about 1/3 the size of a lithium battery but about 2.5x heavier. I would probably put it in watches, phones, laptops etc. first. I don't care if my phone weighs more if I get more juice but in a car it's somewhat counter-productive. I mean you could just put more Li-Ion batteries in cars if weight wasn't an issue but somewhere there's an optimum for weight and energy storage. Apparently the 85 kWh battery that the Model S uses is 1200 lb, for a car that weighs 4500 lbs in total. Multiplying the battery weight by 2.5x would be like a 50% increase in total weight for the car, making it as heavy as a very large consumer truck. For gas cars, the EPA suggests that every 100 pounds removed from the chassis translates to a 1% improvement in fuel economy, so the cumulative gain of an extra 1800 lbs would be about 20% loss in efficiency. So, is a hypothetical 20% loss in efficiency made up for by a hypothetical 200% increase in energy density? I think so, yes; even if the loss in efficiency was 50%, you'd still have over 50% more range on a full charge. And if the battery also needs to be replaced less often and recharges O(100)x faster, then I think it'd clearly make a good battery for an all-electric automobile. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Bates posted:The problem with solid-state batteries is a much higher density and weight so I'm not sure cars would be my preferred application. A cursory glance of the paper suggests that for the same energy it's about 1/3 the size of a lithium battery but about 2.5x heavier. I would probably put it in watches, phones, laptops etc. first. I don't care if my phone weighs more if I get more juice but in a car it's somewhat counter-productive. I mean you could just put more Li-Ion batteries in cars if weight wasn't an issue but somewhere there's an optimum for weight and energy storage. Nah, stationary power storage would be the first usage. Weight doesn't matter for that, but size often does. It lets you deploy grid power smoothing in space constrained area (eg: downtown power substations) where you can monitor and service the batteries at will, which would be very beneficial in a first commercial application. Next would come car/truck usage, then phones and watches, and finally laptop/tablet devices. People are actually very sensitive to weight in those two areas, because they are bulky enough to need to be carried, not worn or pocketed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Apparently the 85 kWh battery that the Model S uses is 1200 lb, for a car that weighs 4500 lbs in total. Multiplying the battery weight by 2.5x would be like a 50% increase in total weight for the car, making it as heavy as a very large consumer truck. For gas cars, the EPA suggests that every 100 pounds removed from the chassis translates to a 1% improvement in fuel economy, so the cumulative loss of an extra 1800 lbs would be about 20% loss in efficiency. And in case it's on anyone's mind, practically no roads care about even heavy consumer trucks. Only the shittiest, lowest-volume rural roads, basically. 4k per axle is nothin'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:Nah, stationary power storage would be the first usage. Weight doesn't matter for that, but size often does. It lets you deploy grid power smoothing in space constrained area (eg: downtown power substations) where you can monitor and service the batteries at will, which would be very beneficial in a first commercial application. Except the thing is it massively increases both range and charging rate, the two biggest problems people have with current electric cars once they get past the price. Those are huge problems to fix. It would be crazy if it didn't show up in electric cars both new and as a retrofit (assuming the other characteristics of the design allow easy replacement) as among the first commercial uses for it. A grid storage application in a busy downtown area actually might want to wait a bit to see how susceptible the packs are to explosions or other problems that can arrive, major safety reasons to be concerned about there which aren't quite as bad in a car. As for laptops and phones, well, the extra weight shouldn't really matter much. People were just fine with carrying ni-cad and nimh batteries in those devices before lithium ion caught on, what we got out of switching to lithium was much more of getting longer battery life at the same weight rather than reducing device weight to get the same battery life, with the new technology it should be about the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
If anything, your phone being disproportionately heavy yet small is probably associated with it being high quality. Too light and it feels like cheap tat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
I personally prefer heavier phones, they're harder to lose/drop. Being any lighter isn't really an advantage to me
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:And in case it's on anyone's mind, practically no roads care about even heavy consumer trucks. Only the shittiest, lowest-volume rural roads, basically. The lower end trucks from Detroit are 4K/axle!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Apparently the 85 kWh battery that the Model S uses is 1200 lb, for a car that weighs 4500 lbs in total. Multiplying the battery weight by 2.5x would be like a 50% increase in total weight for the car, making it as heavy as a very large consumer truck. For gas cars, the EPA suggests that every 100 pounds removed from the chassis translates to a 1% improvement in fuel economy, so the cumulative gain of an extra 1800 lbs would be about 20% loss in efficiency. With that said, I've just skimmed the paper and I'm not sure where "2.5x the weight for the same energy" comes from - the only relevant value I can see in the paper is "The energy density of the full discharge was 10.5 Wh g-1 (Li metal)", but that's energy density relative to the mass of lithium in the battery they tested rather than the total mass of the battery, AFAIK. OTOH, I am not a battery guy and it's entirely possible I'm being a dumb-dumb here. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 11:26 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Anybody got an idea for the energy saving potential of drone delivery of groceries and other deliveries? (I'd assume it could also be an energy wasting measure if it makes people order in smaller batches than if they had to go out themselves.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Anybody got an idea for the energy saving potential of drone delivery of groceries and other deliveries? The local supermarket with people going to it model is much more efficient. But only if you have density and walk-able cities. If you can encourage biking, public transport and small EV vechiles that is much more easier and efficient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
White Rock posted:The local supermarket with people going to it model is much more efficient. But only if you have density and walk-able cities.  Like, of course, if you can walk, that's better for everyone. But I'm thinking this would be mostly used by people who actually drive there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The guy said "2.5x the weight for the same energy" - to get more range, you'd need more stored energy, so unless I'm misunderstanding things badly, the new battery would allow you to get the same storage capacity as existing batteries (and hence the same vehicle range if you ignore the impact of the extra weight) but with 2.5x the battery weight, or have a battery that took up the same amount of space as the existing battery but weighed 7.5x as much and gave triple the capacity, or something in between. I don't know where the weight thing comes from, either; I haven't looked at the paper, and the article doesn't say anything about weight, just that it offers 3x more energy density
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I don't know where the weight thing comes from, either; I haven't looked at the paper, and the article doesn't say anything about weight, just that it offers 3x more energy density The weight will obviously be reduced with further development, as well. There's not much point in arguing based on a one-off prototype. If it's as good as they claim, someone will figure out how to get the weight down to where it's acceptable in cars and cell phones eventually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Anybody got an idea for the energy saving potential of drone delivery of groceries and other deliveries? Negative energy savings. Flight is very expensive in terms of energy expended, because of the need to maintain lift - and you'd need multiple drone trips to carry a large amount of product. The current most efficient use of energy, and it seems it will stay that way for some time to come, is the delivery services which gather up a whole truck's capacity of food and merchandise and then drive around between customers to make deliveries. You get about the maximum usefulness out of the fuel expended, and it's a lot less total fuel/emissions than if all or even most of the customers had driven to the store, while still allowing bulk purchasing that is not practical to carry when you walk/bike/take public transit to the store. Drone delivery of very small orders might be competitive in energy usage with driving all the way out to the store just to get one small item, however the delivery costs are likely to make those sorts of orders impractical and rare. And the guy with a truck who delivers your one small item on the way to other people still uses less fuel/energy to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Have all the stores you need within walking distance so you don't need to drive or come up with ridiculous silicon valley solutions like a grocery hyperloop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Have all the stores you need within walking distance Usually not actually possible. You need to have actual planning for delivery from or transport to stores of one category or another, plus you can only carry so much at once when you walk, and expecting people to have to spend a bunch of time walking to and from the stores on a regular basis to counteract lack of carrying ability poses unreasonable demands on time and energy for most people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The weight will obviously be reduced with further development, as well. There's not much point in arguing based on a one-off prototype. If it's as good as they claim, someone will figure out how to get the weight down to where it's acceptable in cars and cell phones eventually. I think I showed that 2.5x the weight (apparently a number that someone just made up) for 3x the energy density would already be worth it for cars, phones, etc. by a pretty large margin. But yeah, since we don't actually have an estimate of the weight increase, no point in discussing it further
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I guess he felt his previous work just wasn't good enough. So I'm a bit late in responding here but nearly everything in this article is wrong. First of all, the paper itself is nonsense. It's bad science and most likely was published (in a very good journal at that) as a result of Goodenough's name, who has been in line for a chemistry nobel for a while. Unfortunately it appears he's gone off his rocker a bit, or at least is not paying very close attention to what he's publishing. The strategy for creating a multi-volt cell based on plating an alkali metal on both sides (!) based on some bizarre idea of redox level pinning appears to violate thermodynamics and all sorts of basic electrochemistry rules. I don't really think this is the place to explain in detail but they're sort of claiming they've made a homeopathic battery. There are 5 citations in the whole paper, 3 of which are self-citations. I'm not going to mince words, it looks like bullshit and no one I've talked to understands how Goodenough's name is on it. Then to go further, it is also completely ridiculous to claim that this is the first anything with regard to solid state batteries. Room temperature lithium based SSBs have been demonstrated for almost a decade. There are >10 startups in the US working on this technology. Toyota has a massive research effort in this area and has published sulfide-based solid state systems which beat the pants off the devices in this paper even if you believe it. Apple is working on this as well. In the end, ceramic processing is too expensive for solid state batteries to be worth it at the moment. Way, way too expensive. You need a <50 micron thick solid electrolyte separator to even match conventional Li ion in terms of energy density, and while this is possible to do, no one knows how to do it at scale right now. Popular science press is generally complete bullshit. Convergence fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The lower end trucks from Detroit are 4K/axle! I don't think our pavement design software even has an entry for sub-12k. I might be misremembering, the floor might be 10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Convergence, would you say the paper just isn't good enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:40
|
|
