Yes. But as that gets rolled out and implemented, assume that the richer organizations would be able to get those ACs installed faster and earlier.

Just tell us the model of the TV and the devices that work, and the devices that don't.

If you want an answer to your question of whether this happens to old devices, yes, it does. And the way that it usually happens is that the old device doesn't understand newer signal protocol versions.

That would explain why some devices work perfectly and some devices don't work at all, because an all or nothing situation suggests something going wrong with a handshake or other signal negotiation protocol.

Some devices fall back to earlier versions, and some don't. Some only fall back if instructed to, so even if it does support an old version it expects to be told.

Another point of failure could be the cable itself, where it won't pass certain types of signals correctly and might screw up the handshake. Have you tried other cables?

No it's not, it's perfectly linear compared to what we are already doing.

That's no more true than saying building a 10-story building is only 10 times as complex as building a 1-story building. The engineering and design for something like that makes scaling more difficult. Not that a 10-story building is unachievable for architects and engineers, but it does change the nature of the project (and the expertise/approvals needed to make it happen), and where it can be feasibly built.

But despite of that, we see these stations with 30+ 400 kW chargers, despite very few today can utilize 400 kW

Yeah, I suspect that the total simultaneous capacity for a charging station like that is much, much lower than 12 MW. If you happen to have 30 cars plugged in at once it likely drops power delivered to each one, and, like you say, it's very unlikely for there to be all stalls taken by all 400kW capable vehicles. In the US, it's pretty common for the charging stations to have shared power so that during peak hours, cars don't actually max out their draw from each charger. Show me an example and we can look at the specific specifications of that particular station/site.

We are transitioning to electricity in general, both regarding heating houses where installation of heat pump systems are currently subsidized, and electric cars that are now 80% of sales here

Heating houses is basically insignificant compared to megawatt installations. A 2000 square foot (185 sq m) house can be heated with a 3000W heat pump (or, if you're super wasteful, 9000W of resistive heating). It'll take about 330 of those huge houses to hit 1MW, and 3300 before hitting 10MW, which is the threshold that I described as needing specialized planning and site selection.

That's what I mean. The scale of what we're describing in the MW+ range, much less the 10MW+ range, has its own special considerations. The stuff we learn by building out 25kW or 50kW residential circuits or even 500 kW apartment buildings, or adding a 50 kW charger in an apartment garage, don't present the same engineering challenges as delivering 5MW to a single city block, much less to a single vehicle for a few minutes at a time.

I may be wrong, but without mandatory standardization, I don't think battery swap is where the future is at, as cool as that might be.

Sure, but there aren't open standards for MW chargers, either. The proprietary systems are all competing for market position right now.

I don't watch videos but I clicked on the links to the sources.

The ICCT report shows that hybrid passenger vehicles produce about 20% less emissions than a similar gasoline vehicle. That still seems significant, even if there are even lower emissions available.

And that seems obviously true, the way that hybrids tend to use lower power, higher efficiency internal combustion engines than similarly sized full gasoline vehicles, and recapture some portion of the energy that would otherwise be wasted.

I think you're naively assuming that 10x the power is 10x the difficulty, and 100x the power is 100x the difficulty.

A 10 MW project is considerably more complex than a 1 MW project, and site selection alone gets significantly more complicated when you need to be near a large enough substation (or be willing to plan out a grid connection and your own substation). A 100 MW project pretty much needs to build out their own dedicated substation, and the whole administrative/legal/regulatory negotiation of connecting that to the grid.

It just seems much simpler to build out a system that steadily charges batteries that can be swapped rather than volatile of spikes in usage and building out the capacity for irregular peaks rather than a steady average.

I don't see why it wouldn't charge at 4.5 MW or even higher.

Because that's really high power that would require thicker cables, larger transformers, and higher rated switch gear, more robust safety equipment. Is the additional complexity and heavier duty equipment actually necessary?

With chargers getting very fast too, the advantage of swapping is diminishing while the costs are not.

BYD has batteries now that can charge at 1.5 MW for a normal passenger car, and CATL too is at least at 1.3 MW last I heard.

For context, CATL already has battery swap stations in China where they swap 1-3 modules of 171 kWh each. So for a truck swapping all 3 modules, that's 513 kWh, which would take about 20 minutes at 1.5 MW, and longer in real world conditions where the last 10% of charging a battery tends to slow down. Plus the charging infrastructure at a battery swap station might not need to have such high power capacity, either, compared to the systems that can deliver 1.5 MW to a single vehicle.

Yes, if they describe their numbers but you refuse to describe yours.

It's a great resource. I use it when seasons change to get a sense of when is the best time to charge my car, with whatever time of day and weather conditions that have high renewable generation and/or low demand so that I don't feed into fossil fuel demand if I can avoid it.

How many miles per kwh do you get while towing at highways speeds, and how big is your battery? The article has reported that experience, so feel free to counter with your numbers, but saying "nuh uh" doesn't contribute to the discussion.

I mean yes they have less solar potential but not that much less.

I wonder if population density plays into it. With a lot more people demanding a lot more electricity, is there enough physical space for wind and solar on a per capita basis?

From the article:

Our first trailer got about 1.0 miles/kWh towing at 65 mph (our ABRP reference figure). When we swapped to the 7,000-pound inTech, our efficiency dropped down to 0.9 miles/kWh. If you are doing the math at home, 0.9 miles/kWh means a 130 kWh battery pack (the standard “extended range” packs you find in trucks like the F-150 Lightning or Rivian R1T) will give you about 117 miles of total range from 100% to completely dead. A Tesla Cybertruck’s 123 kWh battery does a few miles less.

But out in the real world, you never drive from 100% to 0%.

If you had read the article, you'd also have second hand experience that 80 miles is the appropriate real-world range for towing RVs.

The reason why EV motors are so high power is that unlike internal combustion engines, an electric motor being capable of high power doesn't make it less efficient during lower power use. So unlike a 1000 hp gasoline engine, an EV with 1000 hp can cruise around a city at low speeds using very little energy.

Another advantage of high power motors is that they are also high power generators for recapturing the kinetic energy in regenerative braking that charges the batteries.

This page says the ocean is about 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons, which is about 1.3 x 10^21 liters, and each liter is a kg of water (yeah, yeah, the dissolved salt adds some mass but I don't think it adds sufficient thermal mass to make a difference). It takes 4.184 kilojoules to raise 1kg of liquid water 1°C, and 1 joule is 2.778 x 10^-4 wh.

So that's 1.55 x 10^18 watt hours, or 1,550,000 TWh.

Global electricity consumption is about 30,000 TWh per year, so if you use the entire world's electricity consumption for 51 years you'd raise the oceans' temperature by 1°C.

Or if you take global data center power capacity of about 125 GW, and ran them at full power 24/7, you'd be producing about 10.8 TWh per day or 3944 TWh per year. It'd take about 393 years of the world's data centers to raise the ocean by 1°C.

Just goes to show that much more of the energy heating up our world and our oceans is coming from the sun heating up the planet and the planet failing to radiate it out past our greenhouse blanket, not from the actual heating of our atmosphere from our own energy sources.

Dealers fucked Ford Corporate's EV strategy, by adding fees and slowing down sales on the EV versions, and using the wait-list to try to sell people on a truck today.

There have also been statements by Ford's CEO that there were design lessons learned from the F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach E about being more thoughtful and efficient with wiring and harnesses to save weight/material/cost with a dedicated EV platform rather than adding an EV powertrain to a vehicle designed for ICE powertrains.

The small truck they're going to release next year should show some of the lessons learned.

I don't know how much to attribute to the war in Iran. The Chinese government ended a tax rebate program for exported solar panels effective April 1, so all the producers rushed their capacity to get as many as they could out the door.

Now that production costs are 10-15% higher for panels exported in April than the panels exported in March, we'd want to see how April's numbers compare, once that data is published in about a month.

That photograph is not the truck discussed in the article. The article (misleadingly, in my opinion) ran a 4-year-old photograph of a F-150 Lightning test model when it was wrapped up like that. And yes, that photo looks just like the current generation F-150.

They should've just run an article with other graphics, to avoid the confusion.

Exactly.

HERE'S A THEOREM: IF IT'S PROVEN, IT'S TRUE EVERYWHERE, FOREVER

But at the same time, even if it's true everywhere forever, it might still not be provable, because Gödel.

Isn't that also true of literal gasoline?

A 15-gallon tank of gasoline has about 1800 megajoules or 500 kWh stored, ready to combust when mixed with oxygen and heat.

You crash test the actual modules and make sure it doesn't short when encountering highway crash forces, same as you do for gasoline tanks.

This is actually one of the principles that is causing building codes to start accommodating load bearing timber in tall buildings. Even though wood is combustible, wood beams that are thick enough can withstand fire for long periods of time. They're still working out what the different tests and standards should be, but some jurisdictions have approved timber skyscrapers.