It’s easy to explain once you realize the real ideology of these people is money. Even if they have other internal beliefs they’ll get buried under the desire to make more money.
> This will be a logistical challenge for the grid but absolutely fantastic for BYD owners in particular.
Interestingly BYD actually puts batteries next to these chargers that they charge "off peak" to minimise the strain on the grid. So often times cars will actually charge from that battery instead of directly from the grid.
> batteries next to these chargers that they charge "off peak"
I don't think that's what they'll do. Charging off peak means being able to store the entirety of the energy demand for the power station in a battery, which is going to be very expensive (assuming 20 cars charge during peak hours every day, that'd mean having to swallow the cost of 20 cars worth of battery per charging station. Good luck getting a good ROI with that).
Instead I think they'll just use the battery so that they never drain the full power of a charge when a car is charging. Drawing a megawatt of current 5% of the time is putting lots of pressure on the local grid, and it can be mitigated by having a battery with the capacity of a car battery that you charge slowly during the whole day (including during peak hour) and discharge fast when a car is charging (for instance, if in average you have 2 cars charging for 5 minutes every hour, you can draw 166kW continuously instead of having bursts of 1MW consumption).
> if in average you have 2 cars charging for 5 minutes every hour, you can draw 166kW continuously instead of having bursts of 1MW consumption)
You definitely need to have that to not load the grid with 1MW, but the question still remains what the capacity of the battery is. A charger that promises a 5 minute 1MW charge BUT which can only do it once per hour and then falls back to 200kW doesn't seem as special as a charger that actually charges a car every five minutes.
It's convenient to get going in 5 minutes. But the time you REALLY want the charger to be quick is when you are third in line to charge at that charger.
I was definitely using simplifying assumptions to get my point straight here.
Setting the actual parameters for such systems is an engineering job, I just wanted to illustrate that the goal isn't going to have the charging station off the grid during peak hours thanks to the batteries, and more about managing the burden you put on the grid.
Yeah that's why it probably needs to be more than 1 charge in the battery. Unless you do N back-to-back charges during peak time, the charger isn't utilized enough. And to do N back to back charges you need about N car batteries as buffer.
If you have full usage of your charger, then batteries are pointless anyway because you have steady usage no matter what.
But it's not a realistic assumption, at the very least the driver has to park, get out of their car, plug the car, spend some time on the payment interface, then unplug the car and leave.
So even in the maximum theoretical scenario where drivers are lining up at the charging station, your charger isn't going above 80% utilization. Using a single car battery, you can save 20% in terms of connection to the grid (you “just” need a 800kW connection instead of a 1MW one), and you aren't nearly as much of a nuisance to the grid as if you were having constant ups and down of 1MW.
In practice there will a be a trade off between how much you save in connection infrastructure to the grid and how much you spend on batteries, and this calculation will depends a lot on the usage pattern.
Yes it can't be used 24/7 for 5-minute charges because then the buffer does nothing.
But if there is never back-to-back charges then I'd argue it's also kind of pointless because when the speed most needed (when there is a queue) is when the charger starts going the slowest. The balance is to have N charges (say 3, 5 or 7) in the battery. That way you can churn through the peak with N charges (say 07-09) and then charge for several hours until the peak hour returns at 16-18 when you can once again at least serve the first few cars without falling back to whatever you can suck from the grid continuously.
> then I'd argue it's also kind of pointless because when the speed most needed (when there is a queue)
The thing is: with 5min charging, it reduces the amount of situations where there's a queue at all.
> That way you can churn through the peak with N charges (say 07-09)
Again, 9 batteries is just an hour worth of energy if car are lining up. The goal of such battery is just to smooth the demand spikes, not to get though peak hour.
> The balance is to have N charges (say 3, 5 or 7) in the battery.
I suspect this will depend a lot on the expected usage of the charging station (an maybe adapted later on if the usage doesn't match their expectations), as I said above it's going to be a full time job.
Generally fast charging has been a much harder nut to crack than fast discharge. If you have fast charging you necessarily have fast discharge in my experience.
> And this is fantastic for EV owners in general, assuming the charging network is open to all.
Given that the job descriptions seem to include working with local subsidy programs, I sure hope the Canadian government is going to require an open standard or adding more DC chargers under existing standards.
With the power of hindsight many decisions look obvious. But many others look silly. For every "discovery of the Americas" there were thousands of expeditions that fizzled out in a worthless desert, middle of the ocean, dead end cave.
The argument that "progress always needed bold steps" can lead into dead ends too. Past experience isn't enough to justify future steps without additional evidence. Exploration and learning are always good reasons but if you jump to the "it's good business" step before knowing all you can reasonably know, it's probably a fad. It's shooting in the dark. It could still hit the target, or it could miss. You only really know if something is a fad or not with hindsight.
It's hard to say with certainty today whether Mars is a viable target for colonization in the long term compared to other places like Titan or even the Moon. Before you drill for oil you do a lot of exploratory activities. If those bring back solid positive results then you go for the full blown thing. Before you launch a business you build a business case. Did anyone provide a solid business case and exploratory evidence for why "going for Mars" is the viable future?
As far as I can tell it's not scientists pushing for colonizing Mars. All we have to go on is the push from a man widely known to pump up the value of his own companies (which this would do and then some) by repeatedly making sweeping promises he failed to keep.
This [1] is pretty much exactly what you're looking for. Zubrin is one amongst countless voices, of all back grounds - certainly academic included, pushing for Mars colonization. Even as far back as the 60s NASA, under Von Braun, had drawn up extensive plans for settling Mars. This was all cancelled by Nixon, in large part because he was worried that a catastrophe under NASA would look bad on his political career. If he only knew what was coming.
Musk has become demonized mostly because of his politics. He's made bold claims and overwhelmingly fulfilled them in space. For instance there was a time when something we now take for granted - autonomous landing reusable rockets - was deemed impossible by the powers that be. They were even taunted by Boeing et al along the lines of 'yeah, we tried that long ago - the economics don't work. it's cute to see you having a go at it though.'
He's also brought the price to get things to space down multiple orders of magnitude relative to the Space Shuttle. And similarly before him, electric vehicles were glorified go-karts for virtue signaling hipsters. Having any public political opinion in a country as divided as America is going to make a whole lot of people hate you, but I think the efforts to try to marginalize what he's done are a mixture of silliness and ignorance. If he died tomorrow he'd already go down as the Edison of this generation, and there's yet many a decade remaining for him to cement what may be the ultimate legacy of the first man to make humanity truly multiplanetary.
> This [1] is pretty much exactly what you're looking for. Zubrin is one amongst countless voices, of all back grounds - certainly academic included, pushing for Mars colonization.
What about the countless voices, academic included, against it? It's not whether someone thinks it's a good idea but if we have a reasonable consensus on it. 50/50 is a coin flip, not a "peer reviewed" conclusion. It took the blink of an eye to realize putting things in orbit is greatly beneficial. We've been looking at Mars from all sides for decades and the business case is yet to be clear except mostly for people making money by selling you the idea, or the book.
> Musk has become demonized mostly because of his politics. ... He's also brought the price to get things to space down multiple orders of magnitude relative to the Space Shuttle. And similarly before him, electric vehicles were glorified go-karts for virtue signaling hipsters.
Let's not make this the core of the discussion, my objection to him isn't ideological. The companies he has led have a history of fraud, misinformation, and lies. Tesla is the poster child of this. If I can pick just the most obvious examples, FSD has been promised just around the corner for close to a decade now and the recent retroactive change of the contracts really drives the fraud home. Solar Roof was a sham from the start. Boring Company, sham. See how I'm not listing just a "normal" business failure, like xAI failing as a frontier AI lab. Not everything is destined to be a success. I'm just mentioning the things that were overtly lies told for money. SpaceX is probably successful because by all accounts Musk left the leading of the company to the CEO. His history of lies to enrich himself legitimize the attitude to start with the baseline that any wild claim that could enrich him is a lie and wait to be proven otherwise.
For a hammer everything looks like a nail, so for Musk everything is in space. As it happens, he's one of the few parties in the world with easy access to that resource, and acts as a gateway for almost everyone else.
I'm not losing or making money on his success so this for me is just a matter of common sense. If someone lies as often as he does, it's "shame on me" to still assume truth until proven lie.
Well then you loop back to where we began. You implied nobody had made the 'business case' for Mars, as in something tangible. That's been done repeatedly, to quite a high standard. Now you're back to claiming well what about some sort of consensus, but again do everything by committee and all you get is a shinier version of what you had last year. It's easy to critique things, even things that are completely and absolutely sound - before people know that.
For instance here [1] is the NYTimes claiming that human flight would be impossible, published just about 2 months before the Wright Bros achieved human flight. Incidentally they also said space flight would be impossible, and were actively patronizing towards the concept. They felt that any child with a basic understanding of science would understand that there's nothing to 'push back against' in space, so spaceflight simply can't work. Until that's proven wrong by actually doing it, some might actually think 'wait that's kind of reasonable - omg maybe it is impossible.'
As for Musk, you're simply assuming malice when e.g. everybody thought full self driving was just around the corner when he made his claims about Tesla bringing it to market. It's kind of the same way that today everybody thinks that in a decade LLMs will be replacing knowledge workers left and right. It's just extrapolating outward from a trendline that exists at one point in time. But it may well be that in a decade we're still predicting that in a decade LLMs will finally be there. Or maybe there will be some revolutionary change, as promised by by all the people pushing LLMs. If it fizzles out, I wouldn't jump to calling them all fraudulent hucksters.
> The games went to a Saudi sovereign wealth fund. The map went to defense.
The map went to offense. Nobody needs scans of someone else's country for "defense".
At this point it's a given that any data source that can bring an edge in a conflict is being used for exactly that. Things that film and scan surroundings are the newest addition. When a fleet of cars is taking cm or mm resolution scans of entire cities or even countries the safe assumption is that the data is funneled for intelligence and military purposes.
> I would never know whether the models they launch will silently corrupt my output
You never knew to begin with, now you have an explicit reason to realize this. Any black box run entirely out of your control, where you can never verify the output, is subject to the same suspicion.
True enough, but that is true for all the products I buy. I do not expect to control every product I own. For some I prefer to have more control, for others I just need something that works out of the box. There is always an initial bias for trust when you buy something otherwise you would not spend your hard earned money on it.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on both of us.” -- S. King
Some things are more obscure than others. It's easier to trust and verify Office SaaS than AI SaaS. The determinism and obviousness of most other activities make them less susceptible to hidden interference. AI run by someone else is the next level of black box for users compared to most other objects or services we usually interact with.
> If you become a bat, you are a bat, you cannot get out of that space and think "oh so that is what it is like to be a bat".
This is what makes the question so difficult. The human would experience what is like for a bat to be a bat but in the context of human understanding and consciousness. It already makes too little sense so maybe an analogy to attaching a debugger is getting close? Or "running a bat" as a VM or inside a sandbox in the human mind hypervisor, one brain brain hemisphere is the bat (with virtual peripherals), the other observes and experiences everything as a human.
But in the end the goal would be to have the full bat experience on your own skin and perception, and then process it as a human to understand as a human would.
The similarity between mobile internet (CSD) and dial-up wasn't really obvious from the users' perspective because they weren't explicitly making a call to access the internet. The session was established transparently when data had to be transferred, and the time this took was charged as minutes.
Operators always dreamed of a world built on circuit-switched networks that they fully control instead of packet-switched IP networks where anyone can take part and operators are just a carrier. So the big operators started the mobile internet era with the telephony model.
Circuit switching has latency and QoS advantages, but it's definitely not worth the cost for most use cases.
Interestingly, TDM carriers have a latency of approximately one bit per hop and jitter less than that, while any kind of packetized voice such as VoIP has a latency of at least one packet worth of audio, plus one to several packet transmission times per hop, and jitter of several packet transmission times, and packet drop on top of all that. We've actually made quality worse in the name of fitting more services down the same wire, which isn't necessarily bad but it's something to think about.
reply