In the US, V2L limits your ability to output power from the car to about 1500 W. It's not going to power your house as more than a stopgap, even if you do have supplementary house batteries. V2H/V2G justify their complexity by solving that problem, along with all the ancillary grid benefits.
Not sure if that's the case - however doing V2L requires the manufacturer to add an inverter to the car, and making that powerful probably adds extra cost most customers wouldn't pay. TI just looked it up and my Ioniq can only do about 2kW sustained - but since this charges the house battery, that's enough - idle load is just a couple hundred watts.
If you have solar panels or time-of-use electrical rates, you charge the car when power is cheap/free, and spend stored power when the grid costs are high. During a protracted outage, maybe you drive the car to a fast charger.
You pointed out a significant limitation of my current setup - right now there are 2 plugs - one for discharging the car through a proprietary manufacturer's V2L adapter, and one for charging.
I'm planning to make a 'box' that can switch between the 2 functionalities on the same cable.
The whole setup is a bit clunky as it is right, now, but I'm kinda more surprised that it works at all, and how well the fundamentals work.
This whole thing was more of an experiment in 'no way you can do this' to actually doing it, but I think this is HUGE, and will transform the way people think about electric cars.
A typical house averages less than 1500W. And most of the higher usage overlaps the sun being out. So if you have supplemental house batteries to handle bursts then 1500W of V2L can go a very long way.
the average hides a lot of information. the largest peak load is often an electric stove, which is regularly greater than 1,500 kW.
Also, this idea that higher usage overlap with the sun being out is laughably wrong. Solar noon is between 11 AM and 2 PM. Very few people are home at that time. There is a reason that peak grid demand in almost every country is in the early evening.
> the largest peak load is often an electric stove, which is regularly greater than 1,500 kW.
Does that change anything about what I said? This is specifically about "if you do have supplementary house batteries".
> Also, this idea that higher usage overlap with the sun being out is laughably wrong.
The reason we have the duck curve is that insolation and demand largely overlap (especially when we're talking about the worst case part of the summer), but then for part of the evening they really don't overlap.
The peak use is evening, but there's a significant ramp up when the sun rises and the whole day is much higher than night. https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S03062619173137... (This isn't the US but finding household graphs in particular is annoying, and most of the US has more summer heat than denmark)
Anyway evening is one of those bursts where you use the supplementary battery to handle the rest of the load. Even 10% of the car's capacity, 6kWh, could cover almost all use above 1500W.
Everything you describe is true only in some places, likely California. In much of the rest of the world, electricity demand peaks in the evening, when the sun is low in the sky and continues well into the evening, when the sun isn’t out. Notice how even the Wikipedia page about the duck curve lists mainly California. Even in Australia and the UK, daylight hours and electricity demand mostly do not overlap.
This is the January 2024 ruling allowing Apple to resume imports of Apple Watches to the US with the blood oxygen feature disabled. Hopefully the recent ruling will show up on this site at some point.
My go-to ice cream book is Jeni Britton-Bauer's https://jenis.com/products/jenis-splendid-ice-creams-at-home (which won a James Beard award), and her base for all but a few custard recipes is milk, cream, sugar, starch, and cream cheese. I love eggs, but they are not a required element of top-shelf ice cream.
starch has no place in home-made ice cream, though it is there in various forms in commercial ones. cream cheese might be a good idea though. i once made smoked salmon ice cream (intended as a starter) which i could imagine being improved with a bit of cheese.
I think he means corn starch (which is also common in gelato made without eggs). There's better stabilizers out there, but Jeni suggested in her book the most common people can find.
The cream cheese is for adding more milk solids and most cream cheese has some stabilizers in it as well.
Something like a 4:2:1 ratio of locus bean gum, guar gum and lambda carrigean makes a good stabilizer. About a gram of LBG per quart
Jeni's books have some great ideas for recipes, but if you're interested in the science behind ice cream making the recipe book by Dana Cree is much more informative
Most (but not all) good recipes also measure in mass (grams) instead of volume. Super easy to measure and less dishes to wash when you put the bowl on a scale and keep hitting tare after each inclusion.
The reason to remove such products is because they contain dangerous agents that aren't being disclosed. The same would be said of any scientifically well-validated product that was tainted. If bottles of paracetamol/acetaminophen were contaminated with toxic mold, those should be removed too I think.
I personally think the FDA should be more focused on these kinds of things — contamination and labeling fraud — and less on regulation of efficacy or access. We need more access and competition in the US, not less.
I'm definitely not assuming that homeopathic medicine is incapable of harming people, but for the sake of this specific argument I think it's reasonable to assume that we could find something that isn't especially harmful to fill the role of giving people who don't read the labels something to take.
If rapists and terrorists used their water or electrical service as a primary means to rape and terrorize, then those infrastructure services would find themselves feeling justified pressure to develop terms of service prohibiting that conduct, and to cut off the rapists and terrorists who violated those terms.
"Infrastructure" has the luxury of being value-neutral. Cloudflare wishes that were also true of it, frequently and publicly, to no avail.
> those infrastructure services would find themselves feeling justified pressure to develop terms of service prohibiting that conduct
I don't think you understand how infrastructure works or is regulated…
And yes, sometimes this is the case. Even now: Electricity providers are as guilty of keeping those forums online as Cloudflare is. Whatever your "primary means" is, electricity is just as needed as Cloudflare's services are (more, in fact). So… no, you're wrong, there's been zero pressure on the infra, because that pressure is not possible.
Your electrical service can and will be shut off if you use it in a way that the utility provider objects to. If you've never read the rules for your power company it might be enlightening, the ones for PG&E I just pulled up are dozens of pages and list lots of obligations the customer has.
ISPs will also shut you off if they feel like it, for example if you run a server or they otherwise object to what you're doing. CloudFlare already did this too - they have a history of cutting off sex workers who use their services.
> they have a history of cutting off sex workers who use their services
You are making irrelevant aspersions - they cut of sex workers because they are adhering to the US FOSTA laws: "We also terminate security services for content which is illegal in the United States — where Cloudflare is headquartered. This includes Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) as well as content subject to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA)."
Cloudflare knowingly fronts many sites that violate FOSTA. They only cared when Switter made the press.
Cloudflare gave us no warning when they suspended our account.
What makes even less sense is that Cloudflare's Head of Sales emailed us offering their services when we mentioned we were getting DDOSed as an escort directory.
Perhaps “making the press” is one limit that legal council use to decide whether CloudFlare is knowingly (according to internal legal theory) breaking the FOSTA laws: i.e. that the legal liability exceeds their appetite for risk. Their exact internal rules for deciding to terminate a sex-worker site are unlikely to be published by CloudFlare, and it could depend on non-public correspondence sent to CloudFlare. “Knowingly” is very legally vague as per this article: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-politics-of-section-2...
Cloudflare provides DDoS protection. Suppose there were arsonists repeatedly trying to burn down the house of some neo-nazi author. Then suppose a group of people with supposedly no association with the arsonists pressuring the local fire department to stop putting out arson fires for the evil neo-nazi. Does that not raise all sorts of alarm bells for you? Or are people on HN (and the general public) really that far gone?
Previously, each developer had to do one or more of:
* use TestFlight for centralized distribution of pre-release apps, through Apple (with some lighter-touch app review involved), or
* use enterprise signing (which requires enrolling in a more expensive program and jumping through some corporate hoops, with your apps subject to deactivation if you abuse it) to install on an unrestricted number of devices theoretically owned by your company, or
* whitelist a pretty low number of specific iOS devices to install arbitrary apps onto — I think that limit is still 100 devices per year, per developer account
This sounds like it removes the whitelisting requirement from the third option. Hope it's enough friction to prevent the worst aspects of sideloading from taking hold.
If this removes the whitelisting requirement, that would be awesome—but I’m very much not holding my breath. My pessimistic guess would be nothing else changes, just a bit of extra fiction.
The article's conflation of things being broken down into their component parts and recycled, vs things being "destroyed", is maddening and tendentious. Try not to fall for it.
The topic and language of the article makes it sound like the author, or the entity who commissioned the article to be written, stands to benefit financially from resold parts or refurbishing. The tone is too strong for something that is not a big deal, except to those who are in the business of profiting from the reuse/resale of hardware components.
Follow the money. "Won't someone think of the environment" is often a smokescreen used by those looking to seek policy changes for their own financial gain. Reading this article does not have me envisioning environmental motivations; I get the vibe of a lobbyist-like group pushing an agenda with their own financial incentive in mind.
There is an energy deficit creating workable electronics from raw materials, but that can be covered by a large flow of retail currency through an efficient sales and supply chain.
There is an energy surplus remaining after small profits have been extracted from many repurposed waste materials, especially workable electronics. Not much retail currency available, only wholesale but at least it's surplus.
However the "market" is balanced to the extreme disadvantage of the reuse/resale operators, and it looks like Koebler has been reporting things from that type of source:
Financial incentive is not always a bad thing, especially when there's no real greed, just pursuit of excellent business opportunity instead.
Plus financial incentive is not always driven by the desire for financial gains, sometimes more so the prevention of financial losses. From the poor soul who's desperate for his gear to be fixed cheap by the neighborhood hobbyist who only needs an online factory repair manual, to the corporation that invested heavily in tonnes[0] of top-dollar goods truly having 2x or 3x workable lifetimes, they would both benefit by participating in a smaller purchase-to-resale differential that would naturally exist if the secondary market was allowed to thrive with encouragement.
Cornering the consumers into a pure retail-to-scrap scenario (with a support lifetime limit for backup) does appear to be more of a major institutional policy effort disadvantageous to consumers, compared with the Right-to-Repair operators who appear dedicated to removing as much gear as possible from the retail-to-scrap cycle and preventing future resources from being tied up within it. Consumers would theoretically benefit the stronger the right to repair.
Even when there is not much financial benefit either way, at least the environment might suffer less.
Despite appearing the New Zealand Herald, the story comes with a byline from the Daily Mail, which, for a story related to terrorism, reduces its credibility to zero.
And the Daily Mall's only source seems to be "unnamed' TSA officials. And the article lacks any real detail. Also, they threw this obvious false-hood in their article: "The Transportation Security Administration will not allow cellphones or other electronic devices on US-bound planes from now on."
Can we please remove this from the frontpage of HN until we have another source? I know a bunch of people are going to take the headline as fact without researching the source.
I guess the news is, a. don't forget your chargers! b. don't forget your power adaptors! c. remember to charge! d. make sure your device doesn't break in some repairable-but-for-the-moment-powerless way!
Otherwise, that Macbook Air is going to have to go in the bin along with the bottle of water and the toothpaste sonny jim, and there's nowt you can do about it.
(Wonder how long that will last - possibly until some celeb has their over-worked iPhone taken off them, and causes a social media stink).
