VBprogrammer

This audit put the number of overnight parking spots at "on-site locations" within 5km of the strategic road network (so not even the whole country) at 16,761. With the remainder of the report concluding that the usage was at or above capacity in much of the country.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6454ab292f622...

Milence's first site in the UK, opened in March this year, provides 8 charging bays with 4 chargers shared between them. So to provide a similar number of overnight parking spots a further 2000 need to be built. Or to put it another way, these charging stations would need to be approximately as frequent as McDonald's restaurants in the UK. Not accounting for the areas of the country located further away from the strategic road network and the other 35% of the vehicles they surveyed parked in lay-bys and industrial estates.

Good luck with that. The reality is their aren't enough toilets for truck drivers nevermind building a whole suite of rest stops up and down the country.

The majority of trucking in the UK is based on the tramping model. A driver gets in his truck at 6am on a Monday and drives it around the country until Friday evening. Sleeping in service stations, lay-bys and industrial estates depending on where they can find availability (often with difficulty).

The idea that electric trucks could just slot into this is extremely naive.

My trip home to my parents is 400 miles (about 650km) and that's far from the the most extreme journey.

Presumably you mean with recharging? Which is theoretically fine but the charging infrastructure for large vehicles is currently nonexistent. We see some electric busses, from Gatwick if I remember correctly, coming to recharge at Cobham services in the regular car charging spots.

Yeah, in the US they should probably run overhead wires which would be more efficient than batteries. They could also consider coupling together a few dozen trucks on the highway. For the ultimate in efficiency, and to reduce particulate emissions, they could replace the wheels with steel wheels and make them run on tracks...

I'm not sure where you got condescension from - I was going for genuine concern. Being irrationality concerned about hygiene is a warning sign for conditions like obsessive compulsive disorder.

It took me a long time to convince myself he wasn't the actor from Numb3rs.

If you are worried about this you might want to consider whether you have a healthy degree of concern about hygiene and bacteria. It could be worth speaking with a therapist.

It's not clear there is anything Israel could do which would elicit more than strong, but carefully chosen, words of condemnation from the west.

Certainly Nuclear strikes against Iran would be a huge overreach. But no other country is going to retaliate with a Nuclear strike on Israel. If for no other reason than it would certainly lead the US deploying its nuclear arsenal. Especially with the current administration, no one would count on them choosing a path of de-escalation.

Glad I don't own any Boeing shares at the moment...

Yeah, I initially wondered about a botched single engine failure. It's not uncommon in twin piston and turboprop aircraft for someone to shutdown the good engine. It is less common in turbofan aircraft because their performance is typically pretty good, even one engine out, and there is no immediate need to manage the dead engine.

As you say, the complete lack of any unintended yaw motion and lack of any evidence of failure of either engine in the videos make it seem less likely.

An auto-thottle cock up does seem like a likely, if scary, scenario. Two competent pilots on a CAVOK day losing a plane under complete control just by failing to advance the throttles manually. I'd prefer a mechanical fault.

Yeah, I've seen examples of that in the past. The 737 Max incidents were fertile ground...

However, to come at it from the other side. If we assume the RAT didn't deploy, and by implication there was no loss of engine thrust. What could have brought the airplane down? Certainly it wasn't a loss of control incident.

This AAIB conclusion makes interesting reading:

> The operator realised that the flap mis-selection event to G-EZEW was not an isolated event and carried out a study into similar incidents with assistance from the manufacturer. The operator was concerned about the risk associated with aircraft being in a low energy state near to the ground, including performance risks and the possibility that crew members would become confused leading to a loss of situational awareness.

> Information from the manufacturer indicated that properly-computed takeoff performance calculations, combined with the aircraft’s Alpha/Speed Lock and Alpha Floor protection functions, would allow the aircraft to climb safely following a flap mis-selection event, even when combined with other, adverse, factors. Aircraft climb performance following early flap retraction would exceed one engine inoperative climb performance.

To be clear, that is a conclusion reached on the smaller A319/A320 Airbus aircraft but I'd be surprised if the conclusion was not similar on the 787.

Having done a bit of internet research I'm convinced the RAT deployed. There is a very good quality video of a Thai Airways 787 coming in to land with the RAT deployed which sounds identical to that of the rooftop iPhone video, if you get the better quality version. It sounds like a Jet aircraft being pursued by a P51.

I was never very convinced that a 787 which managed to get airborne (suffering a tail-strike or a runway overrun would certainly be a possibility), would not be able to climb away on two good engines, regardless of the flap setting. There is a good demonstration of the takeoff configuration alarm from a simulator, it would be very difficult to ignore, and unlike some older airframes, the exact reason is displayed on the MFD.

Incidentally in that video the aircraft rotates and climbs out without flaps set, I don't place a lot of emphasis on that though because, firstly the simulator is not real life, and secondly I don't know if the conditions the simulator were trying to recreate were at all representative of the accident flight.

Even on light GA aircraft the radio will run for an hour on the starter battery. This narrative doesn't sound realistic.

It's a shame this is so far down the page (at least for me, at this moment) because I'm fairly certain you are exactly right.

I suspect that any reduction in hiring is more a function of market sentiment than jobs being replaced by AI. Many companies are cutting costs rather than expanding as rapidly as possible during the capture the flag years.

Not to mention that wet bulb temperature, measuring the effect of humidity, is actually the most important measure in those temperature ranges.

I sometimes say, tongue in cheek slightly, that the best Linux desktop is Windows.

I was lax about going to certain classes. Not always because of laziness (though, I'll admit it was occasionally a factor) but often because the format of one person, who lacked any particular talent for teaching, reading mostly from notes or scribbling incomprehensible symbology on a blackboard in a room filed with hundreds of people wasn't really a teaching format that did anything for me.

The UK government are trying really hard to mandate IDs for access to porn sites. Can't wait for that to blow up in their faces.

There really is no accounting for China. They are building everything at an incredible rate, solar, wind, nuclear and coal power!

Bet in the past tense? It seems they are moving further away from that position. There are also some domestic market issues for Toyota - Japan having the lowest voltage mains electricity in the world for example.

I think the obfuscation is that they are generally talking about stuffing small quantities of hydrogen into natural gas pipelines. Similar to alcohol in gasoline.

I don't think a tractor is necessary a bad use case for batteries. They just need battery packs which can do the equivalent of a days work. Electric motors are almost better suited to the use case due to the torque. I'm sure some of the US mega farms have tractors which run all night (and the emissions of those are the least of their environmental issues) but this isn't common elsewhere.

> The bus gets lighter and more efficient as it uses fuel.

This argument is weak. To get any kind of reasonable energy density you have to compress hydrogen to 10,000psi. The tanks to contain a gas at that pressure are heavy enough that the weight of gas inside is almost negligible. Especially in ground vehicles which aren't hugely sensitive to weight.

Ever met a diesel mechanic? Every one I've ever come across has a very distinctive diesel cologne. I worry how this plays out in the field when combined with a 10,000psi gas which is explosive is almost any mixture including oxygen.

And the number of hydrogen powered vehicles sold year on year is currently decreasing. As are the number of places to fill them up in the UK at least.

I remember driving a forklift for hours!

I mean even if you just look at it from the point of view that having Musk as your "ideas guy" is a pretty good proxy for success. How can the fact that he's spending most of his time as some kind of political missionary rather than on developing the business be a positive thing?

I hear this a lot but I've not heard any coherent explanation for how Musk's actions don't hurt the brand. Obviously as a billionaire being a big fan of the Republican party would hardly be a surprise, he could have supported them, even donated large sums to them without any significant backlash. But becoming a key part of the administration instantly alienates half of the country, and by extension the customer base. And that is before you get into his "Roman salute" antics.