This map has real time stats on battery swap. Unfortunately it's only available in Chinese. NIO has done 35 million battery swap to date and you can see where the swap stations are located. Not quite as accessible as your gas stations but not far off especially in the large cities.
Obviously you didn't read (the first sentence of) the article, I applaud your courage in commenting regardless.
The 1044km claim is from a livestream where the CEO of the company drove the car from Shanghai to Xiamen until there's 3% left in the battery. All this amid a cold wave too.
> The temperature during the test was between -2 °C and 12 °C (28 – 54 °F). The coldest time was at the beginning of the test, as it was early morning in Shanghai. The average cabin temperature was 20 °C (68 °F). The carload was about 190 kg (two adults, lifestream equipment, and other items).
How can you bias a livestream where you drive the number of kilometers that you later claim that you can drive with the car? You can at worst commit outright fraud, but bias?
Hypermiling is a known method for extending the range. That is why standardized tests are important so you can match the standardized number to your driving.
A livestream is hard to fake but what tires were they using? What was the climate control setting? What speed? Did they have a tail wind?
The maximum speed was caped to 90 km/hour (56 miles/hour), and the energy consumption was 13.2 kWh/100 km. The average speed for the trip was 83.9 km/h.
so there it goes, driven at an average speed of 53 mph hypermilling! For comparison, Tesla M3 achieved 975km:
In May 2018, Sean Mitchell and Erik Strait set a hypermiling record for the Tesla Model 3 by driving 606.2 miles on a single charge after 32 hours of driving.
Sure but it depends on the location. I guess in China fraud committed by a company with strong party connections (as all companies have) is not illegal. Otherwise half the alibaba sellers would be arrested :) :)
But I generally don't like to throw legal terms around unless it's been proven in court.
to clarify, "thinking like a trader" means Putin ought to tolerate continued NATO expansion, with American missiles placed on Russia's front porch, just because the west is a buyer of Russian gas?
The western politicians and the public acting surprised after ignoring all the warning signs all these years is truly amazing to watch.
Russia is literally surrounded by NATO in Kaliningrad and I’ve only seen it mentioned once somewhere on Twitter, and not by Russians. This is Russian propaganda to make westerners feel guilty and blame their politicians.
Even Russia itself is "surrounded" only because they threaten the countries around them and NATO is a defensive force to protect those adjoining countries. The only reason not to join NATO is the possible and totally inappropriate Kremlin response.
Saying "look at the map, NATO surrounds Russia" is sort of akin to looking at a map of city lights on the earth and calling it a heat map of murders. Not the greatest analogy, but hopefully gets the point across.
Interestingly, Kaliningrad is also brought up every single time in order to dismiss the argument raised in the parent comment. I wouldn't call your comment US propaganda because it's such a throw-around these days that one could automatically use it to dismiss people that don't share your view.
The crucial difference, in case is not clear, is that a missile placed in Ukraine would hit Moscow, the capital of Russia, in minutes. This is much more threatening to core Russia interests and Putin would not live with it.
Before rushing to putting all the blame on Russia just because "Putin-bad": I would strongly encourage people who are interested to know more to watch the following talks, from ages ago, given at reputable US universities because let's be honest, none of us is geopolitical historian two weeks ago on this topic so why don't we all do a bit more research.
> The crucial difference, in case is not clear, is that a missile placed in Ukraine would hit Moscow, the capital of Russia, in minutes. This is much more threatening to core Russia interests and Putin would not live with it.
So what? So could one from Latvia or Estonia. (Not to mention Leningrad.) So you're saying that justifies him invading and subjugating those countries too, aren't you?
Somehow this Russian propaganda has been parroted by every Western expert to the left of Hitler for the last couple of decades. Putin is clearly playing the long game.
I heard many of these arguments along the lines of "NATO is responsible for the war in Ukraine because they shouldn't expand" - like prof. John Mearsheimer's famous video.
The point is, these experts may understand geopolitics, but they don't understand people. These countries don't join NATO because the USA pushes them or because "NATO wants" to expand. They do it because they're afraid of an aggressive state with a history of offensive wars. They don't want to became Putin's vassals like Belarussians who recently tried to decide about themselves and met with violent terror. So yes, in the mind of Putin it's the fault of NATO, but it is a very sick point of view.
I don't know about bulgaria, but this is absolutely, categorically not true in the Baltics and in Poland. The primary motivation is to not become a russian puppet state... again.
> These countries don't join NATO because the USA pushes them or because "NATO wants" to expand.
Of course smaller countries with less security guarantees want to join NATO! It's the most powerful military pact and once you are in you can go around punching up against much larger countries! Who wouldn't want to?
Even Russia wanted to join NATO, an idea floated after WWII when the Russians fought against the Nazis alongside the allied forces. Of course that was dismissed as a pipe-dream because the existence of NATO was to contain Russia to the east.
not trying to "confirm" anything here... if you actually look at any of Putin's interview this is basically the only thing he kept on blabbering about... of course nobody in the west should or care to listen to the "madman" but the warning sign has been flashing all along.
wow, there's no mentioning of Google in the article at all (ctrl-F showed no hit); Even then, "Google engineers" do NOT just get access to GCP client's data... it would be a immense breach of client trust for GCP and would be a code red for google immediately.
Please refrain from making strenuous, baseless connections to arbitrary articles for your own privacy vendetta. It helps nobody.
I used Google as an example of what it normally means to send stuff to the cloud. Sorry If it bothered you. Insert X powerful monopoly private company instead.
yep. I live in a very small city (<80k) that is being abused as a test case for hyper-surveillance, including geofencing and cctv tuned to phone activity.
They look to be located somewhere around Darwin Australia judging from their blog posts.
Seems like an okay city to line with cameras judging by the wiki page : "Darwin has had a history of alcohol abuse and violent crime, with 6,000 assaults in 2009, of which 350 resulted in broken jaws and noses—more than anywhere else in the world, according to the Royal Darwin Hospital."
> The difference between TikTok and WeChat and FB/Google/Twitter is obvious: the former are to some degree controlled by China and the latter are private entities.
The irony is that we were just about to witness US govt forcing said "private entities" to ban specific applications.
It blows my mind how much higher US/Canada's per-capita CO2 emission is compared to European industrialized countries as well as China [1].
While we lament how much of this is due to offshoring industries to China, it's also a good sign that carbon-importing countries seem to have been trending down over the past 10 years while carbon-exporting country (China) is leveling off in its emission. My naive read would be that we learned to make more efficient use of carbon while off-shoring is happening.
All countries need to do much more but SOME really need to wake up and do their part!
US energy use is very high for a number of reasons and energy use will tend to drive CO2 emissions. If you just use electricity (we'll get to that) you can maybe make an order of magnitude difference and maybe if you work very hard, which we need to, two orders of magnitude but that's all you can hope for. That's from 1kg/kWh which is roughly where coal power is, to 100g/kWh and then (very hard) to 10g/kWh with power sources that produce CO2 mainly during construction then amortized over their lifetime.
So if you start out using many times more energy than other countries per capita, you'll struggle to equal them on CO2 emissions even if that's a core policy goal.
The low population density in much of the US drives increased energy usage. I will walk to the nearby grocery store in a few minutes to buy my week's groceries, many Americans will drive, perhaps as much as an hour, to buy their groceries, it's not as though eating is optional. And this low density also forces bad energy source choices (e.g. using wood fires to keep warm seems pretty reasonable when there is no mains electricity out where you live even though of course it's very inefficient)
But to be fair consumerism does not help. Americans have been somewhat resistant to energy efficiency technologies that took off elsewhere, consumption is a sign of wealth and success and so efficiency is in that sense "bad". The entire city of Las Vegas is clearly a terrible idea from an energy efficiency point of view, why would you build a city in a desert?
The low population density in much of the US drives increased energy usage.
80% of the US lives in "urban" areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...), and that's where most of the emissions are from. It's not geography that causes the low density, it's urban sprawl and culture. Eating might not be optional, but living in a car-centric low-density neighborhood definitely is. It's one of the things our ancestors would consider a luxury, and which our ever-comparing north american minds now treat as a basic necessity.
I think it would be super interesting to look at CO2 emission per capita broken down by states (i.e. perhaps states along the coasts would show a very different picture than less populated states).
309 people per mi2 (France) vs 421 for the NY state.
Without controlling for income, it's hard to draw good conclusions here. Looking at the area I am familiar with (Boston and its inner suburbs), CO2 emissions seem to correlate pretty well with income for areas which are a similar distance from downtown Boston and similarly dense/built-up.
Of course there's the open question of whether something like Brookline or even more so Cambridge or Somerville count as "suburbs outside a city".
Also from the area, I get the sense that the Boston area is generally increasing in carbon efficiency (at least pre covid). There simply isn't space to build more/bigger highways into Boston, the only feasible way to expand capacity is increasing density and more transit/biking.
Shale oil/tar sands really are a truly disgusting and ongoing environmental catastrophe for which there can be no reasonable explanation in 2020, and about which Canadians should be ashamed. If there were any justice in the world Canada would have sanctions applied to it over this years ago.
Many are, the oil is being produced for the US market where it is refined. In any case, blaming the supplier will never solve the problem, everyone's consumption of fossil fuels is the problem as it drives a high price of oil that funds these projects. Notice US tariffs against Canada for softwood lumber, aluminum, steel, dairy, but NEVER OIL. Makes sense though, the US fund and develop the projects.
So the price of oil is the explanation (trillions of dollars), but everything about the tarsands is insane. The CO2 emissions are probably #3.
The man who invented the technology was horrified, then he died of cancer. Many dangerous chemicals in the mix are being processed and stored beside major rivers in tailing 'ponds'.
The tailing ponds that are actually very large lakes of toxic sludge kill countless birds each year. They installed scarecrows probably 10 years ago.
The natural gas (methane) being burned to extract the tar from the sand with heat is the actual emission of CO2. They were thinking about building nuclear power plants to generate heat instead. This would solve the emissions issue that everyone complains about, but then there would be nuclear waste being generated to create bitumen. This seemed a little too crazy and didn't go anywhere.
Finally, this bitumen needs to be processed, but it doesn't move in a pipeline. So yet another petroleum product is shipped in from the middle east to dissolve it, so it will flow through pipelines to the US for refining and let's face facts here, consumption.
Construction of pipelines, and the ongoing risk of a spill are all added to the list.
But people need to commute to their office job and they can't afford to do that if the price of oil is too high, and it is a hedge against a major disruption in production in the middle east which is only a few Iranian nukes away from reality.
It's all insane, but the CO2 is just lower on the list.
> blaming the supplier will never solve the problem, everyone's consumption of fossil fuels is the problem as it drives a high price of oil that funds these projects.
Up to a point - but the UK for example deliberately destroyed its own coal industry partly due to concern over carbon, so I would say it's not completely reasonable to give countries a pass for merely responding to fossil fuel usage generally. Nations can and do take the better choice sometimes.
It's the contrast between the incessant virtue signalling from the Canadian government with the wanton destruction of the environment and harm inflicted on indigenous people that is really sickening.
or, OP simply does not want their true identity to be labeled as "pro-China" and created this specific account given how toxic, biased and hostile HN comment section has become wrt "pro-China" sentiment, by people like yourself.
Counter the argument for what it is if you wish but going after OP's account history is not called for.
Calling out the very few Chinese people on English platforms defending their country as shills is even more chilling than China calling everybody who mentions things like this spies and dissidents. In the west, it's also racially coded. It's also against a lot of forums' rules, including this one. It's an excuse not to engage on the merits, but to blanket dismiss.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
You should look through the comments of people who are constantly anti-China with the same vigilance; I'm sure you'll find 100x as many. Also, astroturfing is when corporations create activist organizations, not when somebody has an opinion you don't like, or when somebody believes their own government.
"Waa waa, someone does not ascribe to my beliefs so they must be a paid troll!" Do you need a tissue mate?
The reason I don't make many comments is because 1, I am too lazy and 2, HN is pretty toxic in that if you write anything adversarial to HN's party line of anti-corporates, anti-police, anti-China or anti-something else, even when what's written is true, then you get downvoted into oblivion.
Also, this is a pretty terrible platform for discussions (tbh, I am not sure if there is one that is good for discussions). No notifications, no auto-refreshes, in all honesty if I really paid attention to the discussions here, I should probably be questioning my life.
This map has real time stats on battery swap. Unfortunately it's only available in Chinese. NIO has done 35 million battery swap to date and you can see where the swap stations are located. Not quite as accessible as your gas stations but not far off especially in the large cities.