Re: fratzonic chambered exhaust
> "Fratzonic" - someone rubbed out the edge of the leading 'P'?
Or the designers actually wrote "Fartzonic" and marketing had to make a last minute tweak...
7402 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
There have been many efforts to power a car with a turbine, but only as a genset? I'm not sure.
Jaguar tried with a hybrid concept, but the production model went back to standard piston engine, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75. I think noise is a problem.
According to UK gov figures, total transport energy consumption in the UK in 2021 was 36.8 mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent), it was over 40 mtoe before the pandemic, so we can expect it to rise. About 12 mtoe were for haulage & buses, leaving around 25-28 mtoe for cars.
28mtoe is 325 TWh. We know that ICE vehicles are inefficient, only using 30% of the energy in the fuel. Let's be generous and assume that electric cars get the full 100%, so if we replace all ICE cars with EVs they will consume ~100 TWh of energy per year. That's a 30% increase in total electricity demand over the year (it's normally around 320TWh), and more than was generated by wind in the whole of 2021.
98TWh/year is 270GWh/night on average, so for an 8-hour charge that's an additional 33GW required, roughly the same as the normal peak demand. It would require ~4.5m 7.2kW chargers...
Of course taking averages like this is unrealistic, it will be very variable, but it still shows the scale of the problem, and that's just cars. Then add HGVs, and heat pumps...
Go to your own grid data, work out the difference between peak and night load, and divide by the normal size of an AC charger (in Ireland 7kW.)
If you get a number less than, say, 20% of the total number of cars in your country, let me know
UK peak is around 50GW (winter) and 37GW (summer). It's hard to get minimum figures, but around 28GW in winter seems to be the common figure so, 50GW-28GW is 22GW, divided by 7.2kW average home charger, that's 3m chargers. The UK has 33m cars which gives 10%, well below your 20%.
Very good points, for which I have no answers.
We know that people go to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying subscriptions for basic, cheap, things like encrypted TV channels, so I would expect that any technological 'solution' such as GPS-based road pricing with annual charges running into thousands will likely spawn a whole market for defeat devices, which are likely to cause problems to many users.
There's also the small matter of the £30bn in fuel duty that the government collects annually on the sale of petrol and diesel, and the 20% VAT. Home electricity only has 5% VAT. Once those taxes get added back into the running costs of EVs, either as tax on fuel, road pricing, or some other creative mechanism, EVs become more expensive per mile than ICE vehicles in almost all circumstances.
It becomes a vote loser in a country where people educationally unprepared to counter the propaganda they read have developed lower brain reflex "public spending = bad"
Public spending is neither inherently good nor bad, maybe one needs to be "educationally unprepared" for one to to make such an oversimplified generalisation.
Like private spending, public spending needs to be appropriate and justified, more so than private spending perhaps because it's the taxpayers' money that is being spent for them. Some areas, like education, are pretty easy to justify, but others are less so. Nationalising a failing company such as an email provider because it is presumed "essential" but cannot pay its way rarely has a happy ending.
The problem with nationalising supposed "essential" services, especially in times like these when we're being taxed until the pips squeak, is that the people who don't use those "essential" services soon start to complain about subsidising those who do. The railways is an excellent case in point.
It doesn't take long for it to become an election vote-loser, at which point the government finds that it can't afford to keep running them if it wants to stay in office, but can't afford to close them either, just like the commercial situation. They're then either underfunded and left to wither, or privatised again where they become someone else's problem.
string together terms in a way that means nothing
The same ones who are incapable of reading an error message word-for-word from their screen, no matter how many times you ask?
e.g. "It says the WiFi isn't working", when the message actually read "License server connection failure".
My ordinary car has an auto cruise control that will adjust to the speed of the car in front. There's a junction near home where the road forks on a curve. Cars turning off across the oncoming traffic have to slow or stop in the turn lane, those on the main road can continue round the curve. Every time I do that, as I pass on the inside, the cruise control brakes unnecessarily. It clearly gets confused by the slow traffic and the curve, and can't work out what 'lane' it's in. I now know to cancel the cruise before I get there, but it was a surprise the first time.
Look at the state we're in, and have been in as far back as we care to look.
And disputes between churches are probably the single biggest cause. It's the 21st century, way past time to move on from medieval superstation about which supernatural entity is best, and how to kill the most people who disagree.
But inevitably one person can’t make it so there is a Zoom/Teams inclusion
Why? If Zoom/Teams wasn't an option would you still expect someone who can't make a critical business meeting during the working day to be allowed to just skip it? If not, why should that one special person be allowed to insist on remote attendance? If they can't do their job, maybe they should be encouraged to look at new opportunities elsewhere?
but on continental Europe I'm not expecting any problems this winter
You should be, it's all over the French press at least, e.g. from BFM:
"Le sujet est désormais omniprésent dans le débat public alors que le mercure a drastiquement chuté ces derniers jours, marquant le début de l'hiver météorologique. La France pourrait connaître des coupures de courant au coeur de cette période hivernale, notamment à partir du mois de janvier 2023."
For the non French-speakers:
"The subject now crops up everywhere in public debate as the temperatures have dropped drastically in recent days, marking the start of the meteorological winter. France could experience power cuts in the heart of the winter period, especially from January 2023."
If I were going to smuggle chips, especially large BGA ones, I'd try hot-melt gluing them to the PCBs of otherwise allowed stuff like cheap radios. Scans wouldn't show anything abnormal, and the average customs agent probably doesn't have the training to spot that such a chip is unconnected and out of place on an FM radio board, even if they could be bothered to do a visual inspection.
Try to pass them off in a fake baby bulge seems doomed to failure.
It is especially interesting that HMRC seems to be always going after a contractor and not after the umbrella. Wonder why?
That's not what the article says. The very first line is "Britain's tax collection agency is clamping down on umbrella companies", and it goes on: "With a large number of umbrella companies suspected of VAT avoidance" and "Umbrella companies are firmly in its crosshairs". There's no suggestion that this is targeting contractors, quite the reverse.
With the complexity of IR35, lots of contractors are choosing to use umbrella companies to simplify their situation. The article would suggest that there has been a growth in unscrupulous umbrella companies attempting to cash in on this, but not properly managing their own tax affairs, in particular not paying the VAT they should. That's what HMRC is targeting, it shouldn't have any effect on the employees of those companies.
What about the arrow makers who were put out of business by guns, or the carburettor makers when fuel injection came along, etc? By the time I retired I wasn't doing the same job that I started at, the world changes every day, and we have to adapt. Why should shoppers have to pay more to supermarkets to keep on unnecessary staff? They won't, of course, they'll go to cheaper supermarkets, then all the employees of the expensive ones will lose their jobs when they go out of business. That doesn't help.
Not everyone has the financial ability to pay the higher prices that result from employing people just to wave your purchases past the scanner, though. Self checkouts keep costs down.
Personally I prefer the self checkouts anyway, they're faster and you don't have to wait in line behind some old biddy who wants to discuss her grandchildren's latest holiday with the checkout operator while she tries to find her purse and only then starts to pack her bag.
but according to Wikipedia the series ran from 1962 to 1977
Interesting, I didn't realise it had made it into the 70s.
value of one "new penny" was supposedly just under 2½ "old pence", but rumours of short-changing by unscrupulous shopkeepers still abound
As a child I remember thinking it was very unfair that a 5d packets of crisps was now sold for 2½p (6d) but hadn't got any bigger!