Modern direct fuel injection systems today can compress fuel at almost 30,000psi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_rail), so 10,000psi is nothing. Hydrogen is much safer than batteries, this is a fact.
Any significant amount of Hydrogen gas is crazy dangerous to work with because it has such a wide explosive range.
Reading through the Saturn V manual (as you do), the design aspect that surprised me the most was just how much of the hardware was dedicated to hydrogen gas leak detection! It was everywhere. Even the skin of the thing was a two layer affair in places, deliberately designed with channels and helium pressurisation in a complicated way to flush even the tiniest leak through long channels to the nearest sensor.
It sounds crazy until you realise that even a pinhole leak would release gas that rises up and concentrates in spaces between bulkheads and tanks where it can rapidly reach an explosive mixture ratio.
So explain the never ending cases of batteries catching fire. This is actually a big scandal, shows that the NHTSA has an agenda and no credibility at all.
Energy-dense storage is always inherently energetic, that's the definition of what energy storage is!
Flywheels explode.
Dams burst.
Fuels burst into flame.
Batteries catch fire.
Hydrogen explodes.
The difference is the relative rate. Batteries are very safe! You probably have one in your pocket on a daily basis and you don't stress about it.
Hydrogen needs special handling by professionals using constantly monitored specialised containment vessels or it explodes.
Those "well publicised scandals" you reference? Something like 90% of them are being promulgated by traders with a short position in TSLA. As you can imagine, they're not exactly unbiased.
To quote an actual analysis, not frothing-at-the-mouth ranting from day-traders losing their shirt because Tesla is doing well:
"Regarding the risk of electrochemical failure, [this] report concludes that the propensity and severity of fires and explosions from the accidental ignition of flammable electrolytic solvents used in Li-ion battery systems are anticipated to be somewhat comparable to or perhaps slightly less than those for gasoline or diesel vehicular fuels. The overall consequences for Li-ion batteries are expected to be less because of the much smaller amounts of flammable solvent released and burning in a catastrophic failure situation."
Clicking feedback is very bad, sometimes it's instantaneous, other times it takes a couple of seconds that makes me unsure whether I actually clicked. Product pages loads fast but any other page is a lottery if it's going to load fast or take 2 seconds. Maybe this is a Commerce.js issue.
Try using the Facebook ads and Google Adwords interface for more than one week. Those are the worst interface I've ever seen. Slow and disfunctional, every click you get a spinner, I'm surprised it went to production, using that for more than a week is torture.
As if the spinners were not bad enough, now western web design created the animated grayed out text, which I particularly find an aberration.
Youtube interface is another example. You click on the "videos" tab and you get infinite scrolling without pagination. Killing pagination is a huge usability issue. Comments section with the "Load more" approach, another annoying feature, just load me all the comments in one go please.
I get what you mean, but you're basically complaining about UX. The guy was talking about radical minimalism. Not sure killing pagination is under the radical minimalism category...
It's not about entitlement, it's not about wanting something for free as some other replies are trying to justify this kind of practice. It's about how offering something for free destroys genuine competition. Once the competition is destroyed, users will have no other option but to pay the price Google is asking. Users can't search for a better price or better service because there is no other competing business that can offer a better anything.
Your comment hits the nail on the head. It's anticompetitive behaviour, and in the end consumers don't have a choice because competitors have gone out of business. If it's a valuable product or service (e.g. lifetime memories), consumers are then held to ransom. It has been going on for years, and it will continue to get worse until we rearch some kind of tipping point where people start to really care.
This seems specious. Others absolutely have competing options, Apple's photos the most notable (since it's by the other Phone OS maker). None as good as Google photos imo (at least not that I've tried), but on release there was nothing as good as Google Photos either.
And now that they are charging, presumably there's space for competition to arise again no? Just as if they started charging at the outset?
It didn't work though, there's like 1 billion ways to store photos. At the end of the day DropBox started as just a wrapper around Amazon S3 buckets, it's not exactly a high barrier to entry.
The storage is a small piece of the Google Photos offering. Good luck searching for a persons name or "sunsets", getting time hops, stylized suggestions and collages, or easy group sharing on a trip in solutions like DropBox or S3, especially for the average user.
That's the weirdest thing to me about this conversation. People act like storage is the main thing Google Photos does, but that's not by a long shot the most compelling piece of the offering.
It's not about accepting or not accepting paying to view videos. It's about how Youtube decimated competition and now the user cannot choose another pricing option and is left with the only option of paying the amount Google wants you to pay.
If someone gives people free beer while driving out competitors or preventing potential competitors form starting a business, then it's dumping. No company should be entitled to decimate competition using dirty strategies.
2. Plenty of competitors in the storage space are still thriving including Dropbox, Box, Microsoft OneDrive, Backblaze, Amazon Drive, Apple iCloud, etc.
3. There's even more more competition on the photo sharing side of things like Instagram, Flickr, SmugMug, 500px, imgur, imageshack, Facebook, 1x, photoblog, etc.
4. Photos isn't even the largest service nor Google the most influential player in either sector.
Read your own links please and FYI Google Drive/Storage was far from the first to offer free storage, not by a long shot. Dropbox and Microsoft were offering of free storage years before Google even launched Drive. Free hosting in the photo sharing space predates Photos/Picasa by literally decades and even in their specific form they were never without major competitors from the likes of FB/MS/Flickr/Photobucket/IG etc.
> All of these businesses operate on less than 180 miles round trips per day typically inside the US. In Europe distances tend to be even shorter.
Yes but you are referring to the small urban trucks used in last mile deliveries. The article mentions heavy duty trucks. Even in the last mile delivery case, a limited 300km range is a problem because that means the same truck cannot be shared by workers in following shifts. Or maybe operate autonomously 24/7.
> Yes but you are referring to the small urban trucks used in last mile deliveries. The article mentions heavy duty trucks.
We don't have to guess. If you go to Volvo's site, you can see exactly what sort of trucks they are talking about. We're talking about:
=> "A two-axle truck with a gross vehicle weight up to 16 tonnes and an excellent working environment for the driver. Volvo Trucks can deliver complete vehicles for urban transport like deliveries."
AND
=> "A three-axle truck with a gross vehicle weight up to 27 tonnes and a comfortable working environment for the driver. Volvo Trucks can deliver complete vehicles for demanding types of urban transport like waste collection, light construction transports and deliveries."
> Even in the last mile delivery case, a limited 300km range is a problem because that means the same truck cannot be shared by workers in following shifts.
Pretty much all delivery companies have sub 12 hour routes which run during business hours and into the evening. There is very little demand for package delivery at 2am. Likewise, construction is a 9-5 sort of job. Garbage collection (which is specifically mentioned) is almost always a once/ per day route.
I'm sure there is demand for autonomous 24/7 vehicles out there, but there are also plenty of commercial vehicles which are parked over night as well.
> => "A two-axle truck with a gross vehicle weight up to 16 tonnes and an excellent working environment for the driver. Volvo Trucks can deliver complete vehicles for urban transport like deliveries."
This is still significantly heavier than what most courier companies like FedEx and DHL use; within Europe most use Ford Transits and similar, which have a maximum gross weight of 3.5t (this is partly due to licensing; these vehicles can be driven on a normal "car" driving license).
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, that Volvo doesn't know what they are talking about? You'd think after decades in this industry Volvo knows who their target market is.
I don't live in Europe, but I'm inclined to take Volvo at face value on this.
You two appear to be talking past each other. When Volvo says deliveries they likely don't mean residential deliveries in the typical P700/P800/P1000/P1200 package cars that people associate with UPS, and the analogous models at FedEx. The two-axle Volvo truck is comparable to a Freightliner M2 106, a straight-truck, not a package car. And the Volvo truck has a maximum GVWR of 16 tonnes, the final configuration would be lower, and you could operate it without a CDL. The poster is correct about licensing requirements. I do not have a CDL, but I can drive the straight trucks and package cars because they are under the 26,000lbs GVWR limit in my state.
> The two-axle Volvo truck is comparable to a Freightliner M2 106, a straight-truck, not a package car. And the Volvo truck has a maximum GVWR of 16 tonnes, the final configuration would be lower, and you could operate it without a CDL. The poster is correct about licensing requirements. I do not have a CDL, but I can drive the straight trucks and package cars because they are under the 26,000lbs GVWR limit in my state.
Note that within the EU, in general "large goods vehicle" licenses cover everything over 3.5 tonnes, so these Volvo trucks are _well_ into that category. Package delivery companies avoid such large vehicles for last-mile deliveries.
But yes, two-axle trucks like what Volvo is proposing do of course see heavy usage for deliveries in commercial/industrial settings. Most smaller supermarkets are supplied by such trucks, for example, especially within cities (where loading bays are rare).
You know I saw his post and I thought... hmm maybe he's right. Then you go and confirm that we aren't talking past each other. You just don't seem to get that there is indeed demand for this kind of truck for local use.
Again, look at Volvo's site. They understand this market, they've been in it for 50+ years.
No, we're not talking about long haul trucking, which is done with tractors. To use an American example, the two-axle truck could be used for intra-city moving, like U-Haul. Speaking with my commercial customers, they also do their own intra-city deliveries of plumbing supplies and HVAC/appliances. Amazon runs two workers in a box truck for irregular packages. Furniture companies use box trucks for intra-city deliveries. Document shredding companies could use these trucks. Landscaping companies use trucks like the Isuzu NQR. Look around you at next time you're in a city and make a note of what trucks you see. That's what Volvo is targeting here
Deliveries as a segment is not exclusively UPS/DHL/etc. package delivery to end consumers. At least where I live there's plenty of small trucks doing deliveries from regional warehouses to various shops.
