We already know that people will basically pick the cheaper option (at least, the perceived cheaper option, which is often not really cheaper) even when it's food that they know is terrible for their health. Humans in the aggregate almost always end up statistically choosing the bad option, which is why I have a teeny bit of an issue with Adam Smith and his invisible hand.

Earlier, you compared this to the search for the Holy Grail. The analogy I like better is the search by alchemists for the Philosopher's Stone. If we ignore the elixir of life bit, with the philosopher's stone, you can transmute other metals into gold. The thing that has become clear though, is that the leaps required to actually fulfill that dream would make gold obsolete. You could have a big pile of it and stuff it away in a bin in a closet until you have some project that calls for it on a rainy day. That's sort of how I look at what you're proposing. I think the technology required for what you're proposing would probably make the plastics you want to make degradable obsolete. To be clear, I don't think that's a bad thing. All sorts of useful discoveries were made by alchemists chasing their unachievable dream (until we essentially achieved it and today we could technically make all the gold we want from just about any other metal we want to -- of course it would require billions to trillions of dollars per gram, start with massive amounts of material, much of which would end up as radioactive waste, and the final result would probably contain large percentages of radioactive gold isotopes). The things we would discover along the way could be amazing though.

So, just to be clear, what process are you proposing to create synthetic gasoline substitute that's so marvelously efficient? I note that you did not propose one. Also, I have to note that your conclusion that my description of the chain to getting to synthetic fuel without fossil fuels to start with was in bad faith itself seems a lot like bad faith. So please, update the chain I presented with an alternative one that's practical, based on currently conceivable technology and significantly more efficient. If you do not, then it's obviously you who is using fallacious or deceptive reasoning.

What a piece of work you are. Try to have a reasonable discussion with you - I even put a joke at the end to keep the tone light - and this is how you act? Seriously. It is not a lie, by omission or otherwise. Aside from the fact that I actually did discuss hybrids as well, leaving them out in the main part was both a logical fit with my argument and also completely in line with the topic of discussion. In case you missed it, the argument was that the potential gains promised by the technology in TFA (and this is contingent on those promises actually being delivered on) could allow EVs to surpass ICE performance on meaningful range and bring recharge times to the level where they are acceptably close to gas station fueling times. Equalling or surpassing ICE vehicles on range and shortening recharge times to that point (where the actual total lifetime hours spent for 99%+ of drivers refueling/recharging(not counting unattended home recharges) would be less for EV drivers than ICE drivers would basically obsolete ICE vehicles for all but niche uses. There's no need to consider hybrids really at that point because EVs obsoleting ICE vehicles would also obsolete hybrids. I mean, seriously, you couldn't even ask for my reasoning on this and then argue your own point, you had to jump right into insults and claims that I'm lying?

"Straw men and paid lobbying"? I've been reading Slashdot since very nearly the start and I got an account fairly early on and you're user seven million plus. I've been on this site for close to three decades and you're trying to call me a lobbyist? Either you need to be ashamed of yourself for that nonsense or you need to seek mental help. I notice that you have not made one single reasoned argument or present a single shred of fact so far, it's just been an attack. As for removing an option for simplicity, do you have any idea how many power generation methods and power storage methods there have been and still are that just can't cut it? Remember flywheel storage? Ultracapacitors? Towers that with elevators for tons of dirt or rock to lift to the top for potential energy storage? Solar thermal cells? Vortex induced oscillating wind turbines? Flettner rotor wind turbines? Energy generating kites? Polycrystalline solar cells? Ethanol biofuels? Etc., etc.? Am I lying by omission by not bringing those up in every discussion on power topics? Are you? Because you certainly bring them all up either. The simple fact is that, for purposes of the actual discussion at hand about solid state batteries, PHEVs don't really count as a separate category from EVs, so they are an afterthought.

Once again, a reminder: this discussion is about a new battery technology that is projected to increase range and charging speed. Basically all of the other facets fit into the "tried and true" category at this point. So a sufficient improvement in the battery technology would rapidly bring it to match or exceed the ICE vehicles in pretty much every way. Also, to clarify a bit more, this is a discussion about the future, not the present.

Sure, decades. Ok.

I am certainly going to give it time. I should not need to buy another car for quite a while and I know the options will be different then, but they didn't suit my needs now, so I didn't buy one. Also, going by the general trend of automotive history, waiting for the auto manufacturers to learn what drivers want and expect in general is a losing proposition. If you're not an overgrown child who likes playing with toy cars, just full sized, anyway. I remember when I was buying my very first new car. Went into a Ford dealership. The dealer showed me a few things, including a Ford Focus. From sitting in it I made a comment about how it felt like you were sitting very high in the car (these were quite little cars by American standards) and the dealer proudly telling me about how for that feeling of being up high, the Focus was the best car in its class. He also told me that, for an extra $300, they could slap some Mustang logos on the car. The experience was very disturbing.

The available PHEVs at the time I needed to make a car purchase did not meet my personal needs and preferences. Simple.

Quite slowly this time. I. Picked. The. Vehicle. That. Was. Right. For. Me. Based. On. My. Criteria.
Also, huh? So, you're suggesting that if you have a good option and a perfect option in front of you, you would only pick the good option? There's a saying that you shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good, but that works on assumptions about needing to jump through hoops to get the perfect option over the good. I did not have to jump through hoops. I just bought it. I think it was actually slightly cheaper than the PHEV that was closest to matching. Why would I buy the option that was on the wrong side of the dividing line representing all my requirements when another option that was firmly on the right side of that line? So I could take one of the 20 hour trips of almost continuous driving to Florida for a vacation like I have in the past? Not bloody likely for a bunch of different reasons. To drive to Kentucky for the eclipse again? I would need a time machine. Plus, this car is my personal daily driver, we have other vehicles. There was just absolutely zero need whatsoever for something other than the BEV I bought.

I am absolutely, 100% in favor of synthetic fuels for planes, and for ICEs that remain on the market and anything else that can not be practically electrified. As someone in favor of them, I have considered some of the issues in creating them and done some research. At this point though, it may be a few years out of date. So, by all means, if you have a more realistic set of assumptions about how fuel synthesis would work, please, be my guest and present it. I insist, in fact.

I really don't know how you got from what I wrote that I have some sort of problem with PHEVs. I am fine with the concept. I think it's great. I think it is transitional, but many technologies are transitional. If it serves its purpose in its time great. None of the options available at the time met my needs though, so I bought a vehicle that did meet my needs. I think everyone whose needs are not met by a BEV should buy one rather than an ICE.

That's useful information.

I suppose I could, but it's relatively new for that kind of functionality to be widely available, and I'm sure there's still plenty of things it would break out there on the web (ironically though, probably less than the apostrophe). Basically, a lot of conventions we have now in language come from the days of typewriters and, before that, block printing and a lot of conventions for special characters have been set to use the characters that were available back in the day (plus it's just plain easier, especially for people not familiar with the actual special characters). A great example (if it's not apocryphal) of limited character reproduction technology affecting development of language is apparently the Welsh language settling on the 'c' for a hard 'k' sound instead of just using 'k'. Apparently one of the first major published books in the Welsh language (presented in Latin characters) was a bible and they chose to use 'c' instead of 'k' because the printer did not have enough of the letter 'k'. Of course, this is possibly apocryphal and the real reason might be because the original Latin 'c' was pronounced like 'k' and the 'k' was a Greek letter that the Romans used kind of like how the Japanese use Hirigana for phonetic spelling of Japanese words and Katakana for foreign words. Of course, this bible was printed well past the time when the letter c had been replaced by a sibilant sound even among most of the Latin educated clergy, so the printer being out of one letter does seem more likely. Either way it is interesting that usage of the 'c' in the Welsh language was set by that one published bible and stuck.

That's a point, certainly. However, the total round trip conversion losses in the process are a bit problematic: generate electricity -> use electricity to electrolyze water to get hydrogen (not the only possible first step, but a typical one in many processes) -> generating carbon monoxide (possible through various processes) and mixing it with the hydrogen (also not the only possible way) -> converting to hydrocarbons through Fischer-Tropsch -> refining the hydrocarbons through a variation on traditional oil refining techniques -> filling the car gas tank with the synthetic fuel (delivered with the current distribution process) -> Running the car with gas to convert to mechanical energy and a relatively small amount of electricity to run the car. Each step has losses, some of them quite large. That last one has a 75% to 80% loss. The process of generate electrity -> distribute over grid to charging stations/homes -> convert current in charger -> charge car has losses at each stage as well, but there are less of them and they are generally smaller.

So, certainly there is niche at present for synthetic fuels for planes and other niches where grid-based charging is just impossible. For cars though, it's economically impractical to clean up ICE vehicles with synthetic gas and, until none of those losses represent emissions or other pollution/waste, it does not compete with just using EVs in terms of reduced upstream power environmental costs.

I did discuss hybrids briefly at the end, but I kept this mainly on EV vs. ICE for simplicity. PHEVs do play a role as well and are often a good compromise. If battery technology can improve enough (which is what TFA is about) then PHEVs will end up as a transitional technology. Basically, as discussed, if charging becomes fast enough and battery capacities high enough, there just won't be a point to hybrids at all any more. For my last car purchase, I was looking at BEVs and PHEVs. In the end I chose the BEV over a PHEV. The additional fuel flexibility for the PHEV would have been a selling point for me, but manufacturers seem to have settled on only one format for PHEVs and that is short battery range for short commutes and gas for anything longer. There just didn't seem to be any medium battery range options and for me, being able to charge at home and never, ever have to go to a gas station (at least for that car) was a big selling point, but I could see that the battery range on most of the PHEVs was just low enough that I would need to use a little gasoline on the return leg of a lot of round trips and that would mean eventual trips to the gas station. If I had seen one with just maybe 30% more battery, I probably would have gone with the PHEV.

None that I could find that fit my specific needs, but I'm just an anecdote. I don't think I'm alone though.

I don't really disagree with that, but I do think that the hybrid modality itself will also become obsolete so PHEV's will be a transitional technology. Which reminds of Superman: A transitional power source

Sorry to reply twice, but I really just had to add: we were all told that bulletproof vests would protect us, so why would we be worried about falling off cliffs, or drinking poison or, and here's the big one, being shot by bullets? Unless we were being lied to.

The answer of course is that bulletproof vests definitely do protect you, and you can still totally die from lots of things when wearing one, even being shot with bullets. Even when they hit the vest rather than an exposed area not covered by the vest. Even when the bullets are stopped by the vest. Because what you said there was really, really dumb.

Please tell me you're just playing dumb and you actually do understand the basic concept of herd immunity?

It was always eventually going to become endemic after a certain point. Possibly early containment could have stopped it cold, but that clearly was not going to happen in many places. Slowing it down, however, was a useful goal, especially early on when hospitals were overwhelmed, had not developed effective treatment protocols and were storing corpses in rented refrigerated trailers. Stalling the virus certainly provided time for the vaccines to come into play and treatments to become more effective. The problem is that you can never do more than estimate how many people would have died if you hadn't done the thing that you actually did. I wonder how many people there are out there going on about how the virus was overblown and it didn't kill them who actually would be dead if it was not for public health measures that were put in place.

The lungs - the organs designed for all of your blood to cycle through so that it can exchange CO2 for O2 in its red blood cells and which are directly built around the heart for biological efficiency and are specifically part of the cardiopulmonary system - are a long way from the blood and the heart? Care to elaborate on that some more?

Just to be clear, you don't think that the way the virus damages the body is through the spike proteins do you?

Why would we argue with them? If we brought it up with the hospital or the Canadian government, they would say: "Oh golly. You're not one of those crazy 'turbo cancer' conspiracy theorists are you?" Then we would say: "No. We just wanted to get confirmation from you that this is a crazy conspiracy theory to try to reason with nutcases.". Then they would say something like: "Yes, we can confirm that this is a crazy conspiracy theory and that the COVID-19 vaccines do not cause 'Turbo-Cancer', eh."

Now, here's a question for you. Why have you not checked out what Vancouver General Hospital and the Canadian government actually have to say about this?

Well, that's human nature though, isn't it. We think we hear or see something in the underbrush and it may be too soon to think it's dangerous, but we still tend to react as if it is because it turns out that the cost of assuming it is dangerous is lower than the cost of not making that assumption even if it's only dangerous 1% of the time. It's widely believed that's one of the reasons that we tend to see faces and animals in all kinds of things in nature that are not actually faces or animals. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, when we are definitely on track for the amount of microplastics in our bodies to drastically increase and we have already documented and pretty much verified real health problems in animals from microplastics and we are starting to document them in humans that assuming it's dangerous is not a "too soon" thing.

It's an example I bring up a lot, but I think it's a good one. If I found a chunk of metal in the forest in winter that had melted all the snow around it and was always hot to the touch, I would hope that, even without my education about radiation, just basic intelligence and common sense would tell me to assume it is dangerous. I really, really hope I would not use it to keep my sleeping bag warm at night. This, by the way, is a real thing that happened to some guys working in the woods (I think lumberjacks) in Georgia (the country). Basically, if I know something is unnatural and weird, I have a tendency to assume that it could be dangerous. Basically, as far as my body goes, if I know something doesn't belong somewhere, I don't stick it there, and I avoid having it stuck there unless there's a really good reason. Bear in mind of course, I have had various things stuck all over my body, like huge sampling needs, plastic tubes, endoscopes, etc. that didn't belong in the various places they went. The doctors assured me that there were good reasons though, and I believed them. I do recall though, getting a huge sampling needle shoved through my lower back felt instinctively very, very wrong. There was local anesthetic, but you can still feel everything that is happening, it's just not painful, but every instinct screams that it's wrong and you should not be feeling an object tear its way through your body there. I apply the same general rule to microplastics. It's wrong and unnatural for them to be there, so I'm going to assume they are dangerous without proof to the contrary.

So that does suggest that a composite re-usable/disposable system could work. For example a plastic (or other waterproof material if a suitable non-plastic material could be used) diaper cover as you mentioned and an inner cloth diaper style pad, maybe something with a woven light cotton surface layer, an inside stuffed with cotton or other surface material, then a starch based or other biodegradable absorbent. Something like that could probably be produced with similar cost to plastic disposable diapers, but would actually be more environmentally sound to dispose of.

Ah, that fraunhofer project is interesting. It is thematically similar to the idea of pumping compressed air into underground caverns for storage. That certainly could potentially be usable for the kind of storage system considered here. Of course, the challenge given was three days of power storage for the whole country for rare, once in a decade instances where it would need to be usable. For any sort of pumped hydro system, or indeed most systems that rely on spinning a generator for power, you do have the issue of needing turbines in sufficient number and size to power the whole country, but leaving them idle 99.9992% of the time. With a battery system, if you simply increase the capacity to three days worth of power, it potentially allows you to use more batteries with a lower C-rating which could possibly translate into cheaper or more reliable batteries (and fewer charge/discharge cycles) while still being able to provide instant power on demand and scale more easily, do maintenance without having to send out ships or deep sea dive, etc. So, without a major cost difference, batteries might be the best option regardless.

Curious, do you think that turning into rotational torque is where the energy stops? Maybe if your car uses it to accelerate on the only part of an infinite frictionless plane in an airless void that actually has some friction. Otherwise, that torque turns into kinetic energy from propelling the car forward or backwards. That results in air friction, rolling friction, bumps acting on the suspension system components, and sound which eventually become heat and, when the car stops, some gets recycled back to the car battery through regenerative braking, but some turns into heat and sound (which becomes heat) both from the regenerative braking process and from the friction of the brake pads in the final stage of braking. The energy that you get back from the regenerative braking then either gets re-used for more motion (which we have established pretty much gets turned to heat) or in other car systems. For example, lights, which either produce secondary heat along with the light, or the light eventually becomes heat (some of it may escape the Earth before doing so though, so some of it can escape the city the car is operating in. It may also be used for heating or air conditioning, which both produce heat, they just deliver it to different places, but it all ends up in the environment outside the car eventually. It can also be used for music, and the sound eventually becomes heat. We can characterize the display panels of various kinds along with the lights. The various computing devices obviously produce heat from their power use. Windows rolling up and down produce heat from the motors, friction, etc (maybe a tiny amount stored as potential energy if you put the window up).

Am I missing anything there? Possibly, but either way, anything I have missed ends up as heat in the local environment with few exceptions. Some of those exceptions are cases where some of the energy used is stored as potential energy, like I mentioned with rolling up the windows, but also if you drive the car to the top of the hill. Generally though, that pretty much averages out and typically ends up as heat so not really much of a loophole there. You're not wrong about excess heat being an inefficiency to be avoided, but all any such efficiencies can do is delay the energy turning into heat, not stop it.

You do know that the person your replying to is quite right of center in their politics, right?