As I mentioned in my other response, our battery capacity and longevity has increased by a factor of 10 in the last 30 years. Charging capacity has increased significantly, as well. And the only reason we don't have more powerful chargers is because we haven't needed them. It will certainly require a different configuration to charge twice as fast, probably with local power storage to reduce the burden on the electrical grid, but the only technical challenge is the power draw, and there are a number of ways to avoid that.
GreyEyedGhost
joined 2 years ago
Fossil fuels are currently the largest disconnected power storage by overall power used. You know, the thing cars use when they aren't EVs. You may have heard of diesel and gasoline generators, or oil-fueled ships.
As per the previous part of my comment that you quoted, my point was that incremental changes can accumulate to the point where at some point revolutionary changes can occur. We increased capacity and longevity by a factor of 10 over 30 years, have a new technology hitting mainstream, and another that could double power density in the next 5 to 10. Yet you seem skeptical that's possible, in spite of the decades of advances we already have made.
First and foremost, this is the technology community. If you wanted to see mature tech that is in production, you're in the wrong place.
Second, battery tech has had steady improvement for decades. The cell phone I had 30 years ago had a battery pack that was about as big as my current cell phone with a capacity of 500 mAh. My current cell phone has a battery tucked away somewhere inside it that has a capacity of 4000 mAh. The price per mAh has also gone down about 99% over that time span. There have also been three major "new battery" types over those 3 decades. The changes have been happening whether on not you bothered to notice it.
"I came to the technology community and was surprised when they started talking about things that aren't in production."
There is a ~~solid state~~ sodium battery factory being built in Japan, I think, and one in America. (Yes, I mixed up my two battery technologies, a common problem in a stagnant field...) But yes, real life isn't a game, you can't immediately use new tech as soon as it becomes viable, and factories take time to build. That doesn't mean that advances haven't been constantly occurring, just like advances continued to occur with NiMH battery technology a decade after lithium was mainstream. Partly, no doubt, because factories are expensive, they take time to build, and companies like to maximize the profits from their investments.
There may not be a revolutionary discovery, but we are nearing a tipping point where battery makes more sense for most disconnected power storage than anything else.
The cell phone I had 30 years ago had a battery pack that was about as big as my current cell phone and was 500 mAh. My current cell phone has a little battery tucked away in it that stores 4000 mAh, recharges about as fast, and can be recharged more before it loses a significant amount of its capacity. It also costs about 1% per mAh of the price of that battery from 30 years ago.
Just because you haven't bothered to investigate advances in battery technology doesn't mean significant advances haven't occurred.
So I was between relationships, hanging out with a friend, dropping her off at work when one of her coworkers catches my eye. I ask my friend who she is, and she laughs and says she's in a long-term relationship. I laugh and move on.
Later on, I try to call my friend at her work, and this lady picks up the phone. I'm in a good mood, I flirt with her a bit and hang up once I've gotten the info about my friend.
Months after all that, I'm renting out a room and this friend refers her coworker who just broke up with her boyfriend. She moves in, engages in some rebound activity, and we hang out a bit. I determine I'm interested in her and she's interested in me, but I've been dating someone for a while. This relationship is only a few months old, and it's reminding me of my first marriage. I break it off and have sex with my roommate on what could charitably be called our first date. Within 6 months she stops having her own room.
We proceed to blow past a number of other red flags, and have now been together for about 14 years, married for 7.
I told (and tell) my kids that we did everything wrong in starting a relationship, but it worked out in spite of it
I can't believe people cared enough to downvote this. People are more comfortable with what they grew up with, what a novel idea. No no, the only system that makes sense is the one that puts 0 at too cold to be comfortable (for some people) and 100 to too warm to be comfortable (for some people). So let me ask this instead. Why 0 to 100? Why not 0 to 144? Why not 0 to 180? Why not 0 to 90? These all have their value, and would have been preferred in various cultures, because that's what was familiar to them. The range is no less (or more) arbitrary than the markers used to divide it.
I'll lay a little judgement. Shooting through a flat piece of tissue would give wounds similar to what was shown in the video. The difference between an ear on a human head that is facing you flat on and an ear attached to cardboard at a shooting range facing you flat on is that one of them has a head behind it. A hit is still possible, but it likely would have looked different from what they showed.
Obviously, whatever hit Trump's ear, it was going more or less from one side of his ear to the other (front to back, or vice versa), otherwise it would have hit his head and we'd have a much more significant wound to discuss.
That's pretty much what they were saying south of the border. I'd prefer a more appealing option, but Pierre isn't it.
I knew a guy from a French-speaking African country who had studied international law. He was located in Manitoba doing manual labor. This is possibly the least effective way to use his abilities I can imagine. He should have been placed in a program to get his certifications for Canada and connected to a French speaking community that could help integrate him (provided that's what he wanted, of course). But there he was, just scraping by.
Now, if you're quibbling about the term power vs. energy, I can't really be bothered with it. If you aren't, what exactly do you think is the reason we use gasoline in vehicles than because it's a highly portable source of energy?