Peer review.
Sorry to steal your thunder, Spark but I just remembered something I wanted to ask.
Tesla motors repaid their government loans 10 years early so they are doing great. But did they ever find an answer to the critics complaint that you can't refuel them quickly? I guess they could create easily swappable batteries and standardize them but otherwise the cars still aren't as reliable as a gas car. As far as I know. Please enlighten me.
Tesla motors repaid their government loans 10 years early so they are doing great. But did they ever find an answer to the critics complaint that you can't refuel them quickly? I guess they could create easily swappable batteries and standardize them but otherwise the cars still aren't as reliable as a gas car. As far as I know. Please enlighten me.
i thought they had a fast charge method but if used often would destroy the battery.
also the batteries are huge
also the batteries are huge
Not to mention 'fast' charge is very misleading, it still takes a few hours. Not at all comparable to the 2-3mins to fill your tank with petrol.
Standardization of batteries is a long way off because all of the electric vehicle research is being conducted in-house by the car companies and they are loathe to share secrets. It will take many years, and the commoditization of the electric vehicle before any attempt at battery consolidation can come to fruition. At that point, I anticipate people simply going to the nearest charging station (gas stations most likely) and doing a quick swap.Macbeth wrote:
Sorry to steal your thunder, Spark but I just remembered something I wanted to ask.
Tesla motors repaid their government loans 10 years early so they are doing great. But did they ever find an answer to the critics complaint that you can't refuel them quickly? I guess they could create easily swappable batteries and standardize them but otherwise the cars still aren't as reliable as a gas car. As far as I know. Please enlighten me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Our current battery technology is kind of hitting it's limits on what it can store and how quickly it can charge (and traditionally those are mutually exclusive). We're only getting incremental improvements with different anode/cathode combinations so a significant change in the technology itself is needed. Hopefully something like this can provide the improvements we need in battery tech.
Eventually we'll just have cars that charge while you drive, be it through solar panels on the roof or from the road itself via the tyres.
Tesla are building "supercharge" stations that take about an hour to do a full charge (I think the way they are advertising is 30min for a half-charge).DrunkFace wrote:
Not to mention 'fast' charge is very misleading, it still takes a few hours. Not at all comparable to the 2-3mins to fill your tank with petrol.
Right now I think they have 20-30 of them on the East Coast, but plan to expand nationwide...something along those lines. They seem to be moving rapidly in the right direction.
NewpAussieReaper wrote:
Eventually we'll just have cars that charge while you drive, be it through solar panels on the roof or from the road itself via the tyres.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
eventually we'll all be shuttled around in tubes
Electric cars would make perfect sense if we could power our grid on Nuclear, Hydro or, in the future, Fusion power. It is counter productive on a grid powered by coal and natural gas.
all eco developments and power-saving inventions only really have a minimal benefit to the consumer's wallet/companies profits, insofar as the actual base method of energy production is so 'dirty' and reliant on fossil fuels. it's a no brainer. unfortunately the oil industry wields far more power and choice over political matters than the car industry. it's easy to pressure car-drivers and car-manufacturers to make more green cars, through taxation/road limits etc., but it's not so easy to get the oil industry to clean up its act.
What?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
all eco developments and power-saving inventions only really have a minimal benefit to the consumer's wallet/companies profits, insofar as the actual base method of energy production is so 'dirty' and reliant on fossil fuels. it's a no brainer. unfortunately the oil industry wields far more power and choice over political matters than the car industry. it's easy to pressure car-drivers and car-manufacturers to make more green cars, through taxation/road limits etc., but it's not so easy to get the oil industry to clean up its act.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
what's hard to understand with that? it's easier to try and apply legislative pressure to the car industry/car consumer than it is the oil industry. fossil fuels are politicized. they float (some) entire nations' wealth. it's much easier to induce change - essentially self-cancelling change at this stage - in consumer habits than it is to try and jack the entire energy complex.
is this complicated to understand? i don't think so.
is this complicated to understand? i don't think so.
Your premise is completely silly. We burn fossil fuels because we can extract more watts from burning them than we can generate elsewhere for comparable cost. They're more efficient on a cost/kWh basis than any renewable source, which is why they are burned, not any silly conspiracy theory about politics.
Burn natural gas or coal or oil, boil water, send steam through turbine, get electricity or motive force on demand without weather dependency. If we switch to greener electricity production our cost of living will skyrocket and our quality of life will plummet. That may not mean much to you, but it sure means a lot to people on the lower rungs of society. There's a reason only the wealthy advocate renewables, they can afford to take the hit.
Burn natural gas or coal or oil, boil water, send steam through turbine, get electricity or motive force on demand without weather dependency. If we switch to greener electricity production our cost of living will skyrocket and our quality of life will plummet. That may not mean much to you, but it sure means a lot to people on the lower rungs of society. There's a reason only the wealthy advocate renewables, they can afford to take the hit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
conspiracy theory? lol wat. who funds climate change denial lobby-groups? hardly a conspiracy.
energy companies exist to make profit, not to find the most efficient forms of producing energy. in the UK we had a 'gas shortage crisis' a while back, but in fact there wasn't a shortage at all: several companies had huge stockpiles of gas left at some storage stations which were only operating at 40% capacity. why? they made a shitload of money off the sudden spike in gas prices. the major oil companies are much the same. the current arrangement suits them. there is no 'conspiracy theory'. i'm not imputing it to a new world order. it's just capitalism.
energy companies exist to make profit, not to find the most efficient forms of producing energy. in the UK we had a 'gas shortage crisis' a while back, but in fact there wasn't a shortage at all: several companies had huge stockpiles of gas left at some storage stations which were only operating at 40% capacity. why? they made a shitload of money off the sudden spike in gas prices. the major oil companies are much the same. the current arrangement suits them. there is no 'conspiracy theory'. i'm not imputing it to a new world order. it's just capitalism.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-25 08:26:45)
They wont make any sense until at least one of a few things happen.Extra Medium wrote:
Electric cars would make perfect sense if we could power our grid on Nuclear, Hydro or, in the future, Fusion power. It is counter productive on a grid powered by coal and natural gas.
1. Batteries become small, light and simple enough for a frail, semi dementured 80 year old women to easy change in under 5 minutes.
2. Batteries are reliably charged to full capacity in under 5minutes.
3. Battery life is drastically increased.
4. My personal preference, the electric power is produced on board.
5. Electricity is delivered through a similar system to current rail systems.
1 and 2 I don't see happening in the foreseeable future.
3 still has the same problems as today's electric cars, just less often.
5 would require such a massive infrastructure change I don't see the point, not to mention the system would quite literally have to cover the entire globe, not just road networks.
4 just requires a new fuel source.
Not if its done intelligently, no.Jay wrote:
If we switch to greener electricity production our cost of living will skyrocket and our quality of life will plummet. That may not mean much to you, but it sure means a lot to people on the lower rungs of society. There's a reason only the wealthy advocate renewables, they can afford to take the hit.
Why? Do you strip out your fuel tank instead of filling it?Drunkface wrote:
1. Batteries become small, light and simple enough for a frail, semi dementured 80 year old women to easy change in under 5 minutes.
Why five minutes? We're just used to refuelling our vehicles in that time these days, back in olden times could a horse be refuelled in five minutes? Nope, and people organised their lives accordingly.2. Batteries are reliably charged to full capacity in under 5minutes.
The five minute fuel stop will be gone, and with it the the fuel co.s stranglehold on the fuel economy - this is why they're scared and pumping out scare stories. My favourite was on Fox - electric cars will lead to more marital discord because there will be arguments about who forgot to plug it in at night - hence they're really saying electric cars = less sex.
The five minute fuel stop will be replaced by charging points wherever you park, at home, work, supermarkets, capacitive systems which will mean a few minutes charge will give you enough range to get home in an emergency, or electric cars with 100-200km range - which are on the market now. Either way its not a calamity - except for the oil co.s
Happening steadily now.3. Battery life is drastically increased.
Fuck Israel
This has been explained already, electric cars running on coal-fired electricity are already at least comparable with oil in efficiency.Extra Medium wrote:
Electric cars would make perfect sense if we could power our grid on Nuclear, Hydro or, in the future, Fusion power. It is counter productive on a grid powered by coal and natural gas.
Fuck Israel
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6562|Graz, Austria
Ah, this discussion again.
Hydro power beats fossil fuel power hands down.
Rivers are not likely to stop running anytime soon. And the higher cost of building a big hydro power station are quickly amortized by the zero cost of the running water.
You constantly need to drill for fossil fuels, transport them around the globe and refine them.
And all the infrastructure for that doesn't grow on trees.
Guess why China and many South American countries are building these huge dams?
Hydro power beats fossil fuel power hands down.
Rivers are not likely to stop running anytime soon. And the higher cost of building a big hydro power station are quickly amortized by the zero cost of the running water.
You constantly need to drill for fossil fuels, transport them around the globe and refine them.
And all the infrastructure for that doesn't grow on trees.
Guess why China and many South American countries are building these huge dams?
Not everyone has the Danube cutting through their tiny country and natural gas is still cheaper.globefish23 wrote:
Ah, this discussion again.
Hydro power beats fossil fuel power hands down.
Rivers are not likely to stop running anytime soon. And the higher cost of building a big hydro power station are quickly amortized by the zero cost of the running water.
You constantly need to drill for fossil fuels, transport them around the globe and refine them.
And all the infrastructure for that doesn't grow on trees.
Guess why China and many South American countries are building these huge dams?
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electr … ration.cfm
Last edited by Jay (2013-05-26 07:44:47)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6562|Graz, Austria
Ah, right, I totally forgot that the USA only consists of New York, Hollywood and prairie and desert in between.Jay wrote:
Not everyone has the Danube cutting through their tiny country and natural gas is still cheaper.globefish23 wrote:
Ah, this discussion again.
Hydro power beats fossil fuel power hands down.
Rivers are not likely to stop running anytime soon. And the higher cost of building a big hydro power station are quickly amortized by the zero cost of the running water.
You constantly need to drill for fossil fuels, transport them around the globe and refine them.
And all the infrastructure for that doesn't grow on trees.
Guess why China and many South American countries are building these huge dams?
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electr … ration.cfm
All these tiny rivulets are completely unfit for hydro power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ri … ted_States
And Hoover dam is basically only a dusty wall, needing more external energy to keep it running.
The lake feeding the hoover dam has dropped more than 20 meters in the past twenty years. There's a good chance they will have to shut it down.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
global cooling
Nah, it's because the population of Las Vegas has doubled in size since 1999, and the lake doubles as it's fresh water supply.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat