Slashdot Mirror

Also the second shipment to Europe will also arrive at Zeebrugge shortly.

And Musk is in Europe, supervising the Model 3 roll-out in Europe:

https://electrek.co/2019/02/09...

Interestingly enough, this story was posted right as the first delivery of Model 3s to China is arriving in Tianjin. :) Also the second shipment to Europe will also arrive at Zeebrugge shortly.

Interestingly enough, this story was posted right as the first delivery of Model 3s to China is arriving in Tianjin. :) Also the second shipment to Europe will also arrive at Zeebrugge shortly.

So a brand primarily bought by fanboys has a high customer satisfaction?

Apparently the vast majority of all EV buyers in the US are "fanboys". What a weird cult! Hey, is it still a cult if the majority believe in it, or does it then get reclassed as a religion? ;)

It's great that it now seems to be finally coming, but I'll believe it when I see it

Seriously? I literally point you to a ship full of Model 3s, and you say "I'll believe it when I see it"? Want more? Here you go. They fill up a ship a week at Port 80 in San Francisco. Tons of spyshots watching them do it. Where do you think they're going?

Meanwhile, Audi have already delivered the first few hundreds of e-trons in late 2018.

You're thinking of I-Paces. And they started in Europe, so of course they got to Europe sooner. Their US sales are almost nonexistent so far.

The first 350kW Ionity stations are already operational

You forgot to put "350kW" in quotes. I literally just informed you that they're 350kW in name only. They're "To Be Upgraded Later". For example. They can't even do 175kW yet. It's literally a CCS1 cable. And if you're going to put a CCS1 cable on it then you're not going to bother filling the rack either only to let it just sit around collecting dust, unusable.

But hey, they've got rack space for 350kW, and "plans" ;)

Tesla can do its own thing and that is fine, but it will soon become irrelevant. Charging stations are popping up everywhere. Sure, many may not yet offer the higher charging current, but the point is that they are there and EV owners can use them and in due time, many will upgraded

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, "Everywhere, ever since the Supercharger network was launched".

Sounds good, but Tesla has rounded up specs in its favour once or twice before

It's literally what the hacked computer (factory mode, where you can see this data, is not supposed to be accessible by customers) is reporting as its internal values. Did Tesla tell the computer to lie to itself? On the offchance that someone might hack it?

I swear... do you think the moon landings were faked too?

So a brand primarily bought by fanboys has a high customer satisfaction?

Apparently the vast majority of all EV buyers in the US are "fanboys". What a weird cult! Hey, is it still a cult if the majority believe in it, or does it then get reclassed as a religion? ;)

It's great that it now seems to be finally coming, but I'll believe it when I see it

Seriously? I literally point you to a ship full of Model 3s, and you say "I'll believe it when I see it"? Want more? Here you go. They fill up a ship a week at Port 80 in San Francisco. Tons of spyshots watching them do it. Where do you think they're going?

Meanwhile, Audi have already delivered the first few hundreds of e-trons in late 2018.

You're thinking of I-Paces. And they started in Europe, so of course they got to Europe sooner. Their US sales are almost nonexistent so far.

The first 350kW Ionity stations are already operational

You forgot to put "350kW" in quotes. I literally just informed you that they're 350kW in name only. They're "To Be Upgraded Later". For example. They can't even do 175kW yet. It's literally a CCS1 cable. And if you're going to put a CCS1 cable on it then you're not going to bother filling the rack either only to let it just sit around collecting dust, unusable.

But hey, they've got rack space for 350kW, and "plans" ;)

Tesla can do its own thing and that is fine, but it will soon become irrelevant. Charging stations are popping up everywhere. Sure, many may not yet offer the higher charging current, but the point is that they are there and EV owners can use them and in due time, many will upgraded

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, "Everywhere, ever since the Supercharger network was launched".

Sounds good, but Tesla has rounded up specs in its favour once or twice before

It's literally what the hacked computer (factory mode, where you can see this data, is not supposed to be accessible by customers) is reporting as its internal values. Did Tesla tell the computer to lie to itself? On the offchance that someone might hack it?

I swear... do you think the moon landings were faked too?

I doubt many people will be cross-shopping a premium-brand SUV with a cheaply built saloon that isn't actually on sale in Europe yet

1. Your "cheaply built saloon" has the highest resale value retention of any car in the US in the US, from a company with the highest owner satisfaction. But don't let facts interfere with a good attack line.

2. Model 3 is on sale in Europe. First customer cars arrive in Europe on a week from now.

Additionally, the e-tron is ready for high-current chargers that will soon be everywhere

1. There are two primary factors that determine how long you're waiting at charging stations on a road trip: A) the charging power, and B) your vehicle's consumption. As described above, E-Tron is such a guzzler that even if it can charge on 175kW stations it still would only charge at 3/5ths the number of miles/kilometers per minute. Of course, most CCS stations are far from 175kW.

2. "Soon be everywhere" is a funny statement. You know that Ionity network that's supposed to be making them in Europe? You may be surprised to know that the vast majority of what they're actually building is only CCS v1 (capped out at 200A, not 500A as in CCS v2). It's not even clear that they support 800-1000V yet either, rather than just 400-500V. The "350kW" moniker is designed to be a "later upgrade"; they're 350kW "design intent".

3. Even if this weren't the case, they're years behind the Supercharger network.

while Tesla has not yet announced what the maximum charging power will be for the Model 3.

They've pointed out that all of their current production can take powers well faster than current superchargers can deliver, which is ~117kW. The onboard computer, when put into factory mode, shows a current limit of 525A, which would be ~180kW, give or take.

Tesla model 3 must have insane battery tech if it can reach Europe all the way from America on one charge!

To play a nice game of "Missing the Joke": Model 3s are traveling to Europe on the Glovis RORO ships. They load up at Pier 80 in SF weekly. The furthest ahead one is the Glovis Captain, passed through the Panama Canal a day ago and is now en route to Zeebrugge. The second ship, Glovis Cosmos, is passing the tip of Baja en route to the canal. The third ship, Glovis Symphony, is at Pier 80 now. It's not certain, but they may be bringing in a second carrier for the China exports; we have to wait and see.

Electric-powered non-stop transoceanic shipping is impractical with today's battery energy density; although cargo ships are very efficient, Atlantic trips would have their cargo capacity seriously slashed, and it'd be hard to cross the Pacific at all. The battery packs would also dramatically increase the cost of the ships, to impractical levels. That said, building oceanic "gigachargers" every ~700km using floating wind turbines (which exist, although they cost more than other wind turbines at present) and/or floating solar (starting to become common in reservoirs in China, and there's some small coastal pilot plants) could certainly do the trick with today's battery tech. Battery max charge rates are independent of battery size (in this case, about a gigawatt hour per ship), as are the rates in which a modular battery bank can discharge (the more modules for more storage capacity, the more power you can output). The same "0-80% in half an hour" that applies to cars can also apply to ships. The limiting factors for a ship would be docking time and connecting/disconnecting the (very) massive liquid-cooled cable with a crane. Stops would be once per day.

A Maersk Triple-E class ship with a gigawatt hour pack, by the time that battery production had scaled to the point of being able to supply such ships (already dropping under $100/kWh, probably $50-70/kWh by then at those scales), should run a similar cost to an existing Maersk Triple-E (~$190m). Deepwater wind / floating solar, although more expensive than near-shore and land-based alternatives, should still fuel ships at a cheaper cost than bunker fuel, particularly now that they're being forced to phase out sulfur-heavy fuels and putting their fuel in direct competition with diesel (there's also the advantage that one of the things that makes current deepwater wind projects expensive is the cost of connecting the turbines to shore, which is eliminated in this case). Having many GWh of storage sitting in port would also be a huge buffer to coastal power grids. Lastly - while it's hard to estimate (because you're factoring in widely varying ship rents atop all the existing price uncertainty of the above), some back-of-the-napkin calculations suggest that you could even "export power" (e.g. to disaster areas or areas that are temporarily overloaded) over distances of a few hundred kilometers for a cost of a couple cents or so per kWh.

But as for nonstop trans-oceanic shipping of goods on electric power today? No, that's not realistic on today's battery tech. Electric ferries and the like may be starting to take over short-range shipping markets in parts of Europe, but long-distance goods transport is a different story.

Tesla model 3 must have insane battery tech if it can reach Europe all the way from America on one charge!

To play a nice game of "Missing the Joke": Model 3s are traveling to Europe on the Glovis RORO ships. They load up at Pier 80 in SF weekly. The furthest ahead one is the Glovis Captain, passed through the Panama Canal a day ago and is now en route to Zeebrugge. The second ship, Glovis Cosmos, is passing the tip of Baja en route to the canal. The third ship, Glovis Symphony, is at Pier 80 now. It's not certain, but they may be bringing in a second carrier for the China exports; we have to wait and see.

Electric-powered non-stop transoceanic shipping is impractical with today's battery energy density; although cargo ships are very efficient, Atlantic trips would have their cargo capacity seriously slashed, and it'd be hard to cross the Pacific at all. The battery packs would also dramatically increase the cost of the ships, to impractical levels. That said, building oceanic "gigachargers" every ~700km using floating wind turbines (which exist, although they cost more than other wind turbines at present) and/or floating solar (starting to become common in reservoirs in China, and there's some small coastal pilot plants) could certainly do the trick with today's battery tech. Battery max charge rates are independent of battery size (in this case, about a gigawatt hour per ship), as are the rates in which a modular battery bank can discharge (the more modules for more storage capacity, the more power you can output). The same "0-80% in half an hour" that applies to cars can also apply to ships. The limiting factors for a ship would be docking time and connecting/disconnecting the (very) massive liquid-cooled cable with a crane. Stops would be once per day.

A Maersk Triple-E class ship with a gigawatt hour pack, by the time that battery production had scaled to the point of being able to supply such ships (already dropping under $100/kWh, probably $50-70/kWh by then at those scales), should run a similar cost to an existing Maersk Triple-E (~$190m). Deepwater wind / floating solar, although more expensive than near-shore and land-based alternatives, should still fuel ships at a cheaper cost than bunker fuel, particularly now that they're being forced to phase out sulfur-heavy fuels and putting their fuel in direct competition with diesel (there's also the advantage that one of the things that makes current deepwater wind projects expensive is the cost of connecting the turbines to shore, which is eliminated in this case). Having many GWh of storage sitting in port would also be a huge buffer to coastal power grids. Lastly - while it's hard to estimate (because you're factoring in widely varying ship rents atop all the existing price uncertainty of the above), some back-of-the-napkin calculations suggest that you could even "export power" (e.g. to disaster areas or areas that are temporarily overloaded) over distances of a few hundred kilometers for a cost of a couple cents or so per kWh.

But as for nonstop trans-oceanic shipping of goods on electric power today? No, that's not realistic on today's battery tech. Electric ferries and the like may be starting to take over short-range shipping markets in parts of Europe, but long-distance goods transport is a different story.

Tesla model 3 must have insane battery tech if it can reach Europe all the way from America on one charge!

To play a nice game of "Missing the Joke": Model 3s are traveling to Europe on the Glovis RORO ships. They load up at Pier 80 in SF weekly. The furthest ahead one is the Glovis Captain, passed through the Panama Canal a day ago and is now en route to Zeebrugge. The second ship, Glovis Cosmos, is passing the tip of Baja en route to the canal. The third ship, Glovis Symphony, is at Pier 80 now. It's not certain, but they may be bringing in a second carrier for the China exports; we have to wait and see.

Electric-powered non-stop transoceanic shipping is impractical with today's battery energy density; although cargo ships are very efficient, Atlantic trips would have their cargo capacity seriously slashed, and it'd be hard to cross the Pacific at all. The battery packs would also dramatically increase the cost of the ships, to impractical levels. That said, building oceanic "gigachargers" every ~700km using floating wind turbines (which exist, although they cost more than other wind turbines at present) and/or floating solar (starting to become common in reservoirs in China, and there's some small coastal pilot plants) could certainly do the trick with today's battery tech. Battery max charge rates are independent of battery size (in this case, about a gigawatt hour per ship), as are the rates in which a modular battery bank can discharge (the more modules for more storage capacity, the more power you can output). The same "0-80% in half an hour" that applies to cars can also apply to ships. The limiting factors for a ship would be docking time and connecting/disconnecting the (very) massive liquid-cooled cable with a crane. Stops would be once per day.

A Maersk Triple-E class ship with a gigawatt hour pack, by the time that battery production had scaled to the point of being able to supply such ships (already dropping under $100/kWh, probably $50-70/kWh by then at those scales), should run a similar cost to an existing Maersk Triple-E (~$190m). Deepwater wind / floating solar, although more expensive than near-shore and land-based alternatives, should still fuel ships at a cheaper cost than bunker fuel, particularly now that they're being forced to phase out sulfur-heavy fuels and putting their fuel in direct competition with diesel (there's also the advantage that one of the things that makes current deepwater wind projects expensive is the cost of connecting the turbines to shore, which is eliminated in this case). Having many GWh of storage sitting in port would also be a huge buffer to coastal power grids. Lastly - while it's hard to estimate (because you're factoring in widely varying ship rents atop all the existing price uncertainty of the above), some back-of-the-napkin calculations suggest that you could even "export power" (e.g. to disaster areas or areas that are temporarily overloaded) over distances of a few hundred kilometers for a cost of a couple cents or so per kWh.

But as for nonstop trans-oceanic shipping of goods on electric power today? No, that's not realistic on today's battery tech. Electric ferries and the like may be starting to take over short-range shipping markets in parts of Europe, but long-distance goods transport is a different story.