Thanks for adding that — yes, you can do this with any electric motor; EV motors have simply been optimized for this purpose, and can generate power in the kW range. They have the necessary wiring for handling high voltage, along with built-in cooling tubing/conduits.

They’re as close to a drop-in-and-spin electrical generator as you can get. And unlike gas engines they don’t really ever wear out — so it wouldn’t be a surprise to see these become highly available and pretty inexpensive as EV uptake continues to increase, and as we finally start seeing huge numbers of current EVs being taken off the roads due to age in 15 years or so.

Used EV cells are already starting to find use in industry. In Japan, Nissan resells pairs of used Leaf batteries that pass their testing inside an inverter pack that can provide emergency power or as a generator replacement. On top of that, they have repurposed 16 Leaf EV batteries to provide backup for and smooth out fluctuations from a solar power array in Japan. And Canada’s own Moment Energy specializes in building grid-scale storage from used EV batteries.

(Here’s an example of a Canadian company that resells used EV batteries and motors for use in DIY projects).

Work in this area is admittedly low right now — but mostly because in the 15 years since the first readily available commercial EVs started shipping, the vast bulk of them are still on the road today. So EV battery supply is pretty low right now (I’d imagine mostly being from EVs that have been in accidents which haven’t affected the battery itself). But with EV adoption increasing that supply will also increase, albeit with a 15 - 20 year lag.

And the motors don’t really ever wear out. I have no doubt some company out there will start using them for small-ish wind turbines once a reliable second hand supply is available. I agree for now that’s most likely to be in the domain of hobbies to, but if it becomes easy to source hundreds of EV motors cheaply that I don’t see why they wouldn’t be used to create small, and relatively inexpensive power stations for remote communities.

The possibilities are pretty huge here. On top of that, once these second-life uses for EV batteries and motors have finally exhausted their usefulness, they’re 95+% recyclable into new battery packs and motors, allowing the cycle to begin anew. It’s pretty exciting stuff — which is why I’m hopeful long term that the Canadian governments investments into both mineral mining and battery production pay off — EVs are just the tip of that iceberg.

Exactly — which is why I think any money that could be put towards an e-bike rebate would be better spent working on infrastructure. Offering a rebate without suitable infrastructure for riding is putting the cart before the horse.

And I’ll tell you — as a former e-bike rider^0, I’d much rather share the road with EVs than gas and diesel vehicles. EV rebates benefit cyclists and pedestrians too. California has seen a measurable drop in fine particulate matter and ozone pollution thanks to EVs. Noise pollution is also reduced. EVs running alongside good cycling infrastructure is a win for everyone.

[0] — e-biked 10km each way too and from work for about 3 years; stopped about 14 years ago because I’ve been 100% work-from-home since that time.

I put nearly 10 000 km on my e-bike back when I commuted to work; I’m very familiar with the issues around infrastructure, and am more than supportive of infrastructure improvements for cyclists.

But that still doesn’t negate the fact that people want cars. If they wanted an e-bike they’re already significantly cheaper than a car and they could just go out and buy one. Would more people ride them if we had better infrastructure? Maybe — but that’s an infrastructure problem, and not one of having an e-bike rebate.

The motors in EVs are designed to also provide regenerative services — the charge you put into the battery gets extended by having all “breaking” re-generate power in the battery. So if you’re in a situation where you’re driving down a mountain, you can wind up in a situation where you’re can have more charge when you get to the bottom as you had at the top.

(This is a problem EVs actually have to design around — they’ll turn off the regenerative breaking if your battery is at 100% so you don’t risk overcharging it driving down a long, steep decline).

When removed from the car, you can use the motors like this in a permanent installation. Anything that provides rotational power can then be used to generate electricity — a wind turbine, a water wheel, steam, 2 thousand hamsters — whatever you have on hand. Use that power to turn the motor, and you get electricity out the other end.

These systems aren’t passive, so an EV sitting in a parking lot isn’t going to generate electricity. You need movement from an external source to turn the motors to get power out.

e-Bikes and e-Scooters are already significantly cheaper than even the cheapest new car.

And yet people are still choosing to buy cars.

It’s not the price of a e-bike that is the problem; it’s that you can’t get an e-bike that can haul around a family of 4 and all their “stuff” to grandma’s two cities over in a reasonable amount of time.

Automotive pollution causes thousands of excess deaths every year. It is also linked to a number of negative health outcomes, and has a correlation to autism in children.

Used EV parts have the possibility of really transforming our society — EV batteries that are no longer suitable for transportation can still hold enough charge to power a home for a day or two; couple that with used EV motors which can generate electricity, and each EV that can no longer be driven is effectively a cheap and ready power plant that can power a home or office, or can help provide grid-scale storage on the cheap.

Everyone is going to benefit from a (near) fully EV world.

Apple recently removed the USB-A only SuperDrive, and replaced the Magic Mouse with a USB-C variant.

Other than perhaps old-stock, the only current Lightning device Apple is currently selling anywhere is the iPhone SE, which appears due for replacement soon.

Agreed — this is overall a really, really good thing for consumers. Now that my MacBook Pro, iPad Pro, and iPhone Pro all use USB-C it’s trivial to swap devices between them and generally they all just work. The USB-C Ethernet adaptor I have for my MBP work with my iPad Pro and iPhone Pro. As do Apple’s USB-A/USB-C/HDMI adaptors. And my USB-C external drives and USB sticks. And my PS5 DualSense controllers. And the 100W lithium battery pack with 60W USB-PD output. Heck, even the latest Apple TV remote is USB-C.

AFAIK, this is the first time ever that there is one single connector that works across their entire lineup of devices. Even if you go back to the original Apple 1 (when it was the only device they sold), it had several different connector types. Now we have one connector to rule them all, and while the standard has its issues, it’s quite a bit better than the old days when everything had a different connector.

It’s worth remembering however that there weren’t a lot of options for a standardized connector back when Apple made the first switch in 2012. The USB-C connector wasn’t published for another two years after Lightning was released to the public. Lightning was much better than the then-available standard of micro USB-B, allowed for thinner phones and devices, and was able to carry video and audio (which was only achieved on Android phones of the time with micro USB-B by violating the USB standard).

Also worth noting here is that the various Macs made the switch to USB-C before most PCs did, and the iPad Pro made the switch all the way back in 2018 — long before the EU started making noise about forcing everyone to use USB-C. So Apple has a history of pushing USB-C; at least for devices where there wasn’t a mass market of bespoke docks that people were going to be pissed off at having to scrap and replace.

I’ll readily agree we’re in a better place today — I’m now nearly 100% USB-C for all my modern devices (with the one big holdout being my car — even though it was an expensive 2024 EV model, it still came with USB-A. I have several USB-A to USB-C cables in the car for device charging small devices, but can’t take advantage of USB-PD to charge and run my MacBook Pro). But I suspect Apple isn’t as bothered by this change as everyone thinks they are. They finally get to standardize on one connector across their entire lineup of devices for the first time ever, and don’t have to take the blame for it. Sounds win-win to me.

I’m still of the opinion that Apple benefitted from this legislation, and that they know it. They never fought this decision particularly hard — and ultimately, it’s only going to help Apple move forward.

I’m more than old enough to remember the last time Apple tried changing connectors from the 30-pin connector to the Lightning connector. People (and the press) were apoplectic that Apple changed the connector. Everything from cables to external speakers to alarm clocks and other accessories became useless as soon as you upgraded your iPod/iPhone — the 30-pin connector had been the standard connector since the original iPod, and millions of devices used it. Apple took a ton of flak for changing it — even though Lightning was a pretty significant improvement.

That’s not happening this time, as Apple (and everyone else) can point to and blame the EU instead. If Apple had made this change on their own, they would likely have been pilloried in the press (again) for making so many devices and cables obsolete nearly overnight — but at least this way they can point at the EU and say “they’re the ones making us do this” and escape criticism.

The big question I’ve never really seen answered anywhere is how does CCS stand up to geologic timeframes?

The Earth isn’t static; we already know of natural methane pockets that have opened up and leaked into the atmosphere because of geologic changes to the earth. What will prevent this from happening in 200, 500, 1000, or 10000 years? Isn’t CCS just ultimately punting the problem to a future generation, and pretending like we’ve done something to fix our problems?

Even today amongst a certain segment of Americans they still revere the concept of “Manifest Destiny”, whereby the entirety of North America will eventually be under American (and traditionally, white Christian) rule.

This wasn’t always envisioned as being done via force; typically it was simply believed that the American system was so perfect and blessed by God that everyone in North America would eventually want to be part of it, and would simply join the US as an inevitable eventuality. To their minds, the entire concept of full American control of North America was ordained by God itself, and so couldn’t be wrong.

Of course, as with any pseudo-religious prophesies when the expectation doesn’t happen some will want to cause/force it to happen. When their Manifest Destiny doesn’t come to fruition, it’s not because of a fault in the concept (to their minds), but that the Canadians/Mexicans (and now Greenlanders?) are standing in the way of inevitability.

There are Americans who continue to believe they’ll eventually control all of North America. You can’t just ignore them and pretend they don’t exist.

Sorry — have to downvote you on your rant, as Canada has the highest tertiary education attainment level in the world. And those are 2014 numbers — by 2022, 63% of Canadian adults had a post-secondary education. We are unmatched in global education attainment, and it really isn’t all that close.

Are there pockets of anti-intellectualism? Sure — but get out of your bubble and the reality is vastly different.

That’s quite a straw man argument he’s setup there.

My main problem with this argument is that he’s misdefined “centrism”, and then decided to beat up on the wrong definition. I think we can all agree that his definition of “centrism” would be pretty weak and unpopular politically.

But what he’s defined here isn’t centrism. Steve’s definition here is that the centrist looks at a single policy, looks at how the left views it, looks at how the right views it, and then tries to craft some in between policy for each and every policy on the map.

Now that can happen with every party on certain policies — but more typically centrism picks some policies from the left, and some policies from the right. It’s led less by ideology than by science and a notion of “what’s best” — and sometimes what’s best is a leftist policy, and sometimes it’s a rightist policy.

And it’s not hard to see that this is true with the Trudeau Liberal Government. Marijuana legalization is very much a leftist policy. The National Child Care Plan is 100% a leftist policy. So is gun control. And on the flip side, Carbon Pricing was a 100% rightist policy, as it’s a minimalist market solution to the problem of climate change (one which people need to remember was originally proposed by right-wing think tanks. The leftist policy would have been heavy legislation against industry directly). Modifying the Safe Third Country Agreement also followed the Right’s playbook. As was joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership.

If you want to boil the three ideologies down to their cores, at the extreme right we have a purely free market system with minimalist government and few social services. At the extreme left side you have a system that heavily regulates and controls markets, but with strong social support systems and larger government bureaucracies. True centrism is effectively the notion that the free market is best in some situations, but government is better in others. For example, that the free market is best for making and selling smart phones (rightist), but government is better at providing health care (leftist).

That is centrism — and it’s not difficult to look at the bulk of Liberal Party of Canada policies and see that this is the general pattern they follow. Not some simplistic “let’s look at what the left wants and what the right wants on a specific policy and craft something down the middle”. Centrists pick some rightist policies, and some leftist policies. That is what makes them centrists.

Sure, but electrolysis is only around 30% efficient — so you need 3 units of energy to produce the hydrogen to drive a vehicle x distance, whereas a BEV would only need one unit to travel the same distance.

That is, you can use the electricity generated from that nuclear power plant to drive three times the distance with a fleet of BEVs than you’ll get out of a fleet of hydrogen powered vehicles.

Ask your dad if he knows why people steal catalytic converters from ICE vehicles.

For anyone not aware, it’s because they’re filled with Palladium — a precious rare earth metal. One where 40% of the world’s supply comes from Russia.

Palladium’s prevalence in the Earth’s crust is about 0.015 ppm. Lithium’s prevalence is 20 ppm — or around 1300 times more abundant than palladium. Which is why people steal catalytic converters in the first place.

The Fediverse by design prevents this, while the internet of the old age had little if any guardrails against this specially since the platforms never really federated with another.

I see someone is too young to remember USENET.

The Fediverse is a bit more like the old USENET days in some regards, but ultimately if it ever becomes more popular the same assholes that ruin other online experiences will also wind up here.

What made the Internet more exciting 30 years ago was that it was mostly comprised of the well educated and dedicated hobbyists, who had it in their best interest to generally keep things decent. We didn’t have the uber-lock-in of a handful of massive companies running everything.

It’s all Eternal September. There’s no going back at this point — any new medium that becomes popular will attract the same forces making the current Internet worse.

Depends on what you mean by “back in the day”. So far as I know you could be ~30, and “back in the day” for you is the 2005 era.

For some of us “back in the day” is more like the early 90’s (and even earlier than that if we want to include other online services, like BBS’s) — and the difference since Eternal September is pretty stark (in both good and bad ways).