Slashdot Mirror
Musk, Others Want Volkswagen To Go Electric Instead of Fixing Diesels (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Volkswagen has put itself in a tough spot. After cheating emissions standards, the company faces billions in fines and repair costs to bring those vehicles into spec and make peace with regulators. But a group of business owners, investors, and environmentalists has a different suggestion. The group, headlined by Elon Musk, sent an open letter to the California Air Resources Board outlining their solution. They want Volkswagen to be released from its obligation to fix cars already on the road, and instead require that the company substantially accelerate its rollout of zero-emission vehicles.
They want Volkswagen's money to go into manufacturing plants and R&D for zero-emission technology rather than to government-mandated fines. (Note that these investments would give Musk, in particular, another direct competitor.) The letter says, "In contrast to the punishments and recalls being considered, this proposal would be a real win for California emissions, a big win for California jobs, and a historic action to help derail climate change. The bottleneck to the greater availability of zero emissions vehicles is the availability of batteries. There is an urgent need to build more battery factories to increase battery supply, and this proposal would ensure that large battery plant and related investments, with their ensuing local jobs, would be made in the U.S. by VW."
They want Volkswagen's money to go into manufacturing plants and R&D for zero-emission technology rather than to government-mandated fines. (Note that these investments would give Musk, in particular, another direct competitor.) The letter says, "In contrast to the punishments and recalls being considered, this proposal would be a real win for California emissions, a big win for California jobs, and a historic action to help derail climate change. The bottleneck to the greater availability of zero emissions vehicles is the availability of batteries. There is an urgent need to build more battery factories to increase battery supply, and this proposal would ensure that large battery plant and related investments, with their ensuing local jobs, would be made in the U.S. by VW."
Even with all the lying and dishonesty from VW, I'd still expect them to do a better job at making something useful out of that money then our government.
Greater acceptance and availability of electric vehicles and the growth of electric vehicle market segment would benefit Musk, and it also adds to hi good guy image. It is quite possible Musk appears to be a good guy is because he *is* actually a good guy.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Musk is smart. The more competition he has in electric car manufacturers, the less is his share in the infrastructure of recharging stations, battery building, and the research and tech behind it all. The more companies that jump on the electric car path, the easier it is for him to sell cars (though he seems a little more high minded than that which is why I like him).
I've leased an eGolf and it is a nice car. Waiting for the Tesla model 3. VW should really go all in to EVs. Audi is dragging feet and only want to do plug-in hybrids, but that is no solution... Porsche may be doing EV.
EVs are the only way forward
While it might make another Musk competitor, it will give Musk a BIG market for selling his batteries.
So it's to his personal advantage...just a coincidence, I'm sure.
inch for inch a Golf, not an unproven model (leaf) encroached or compromised trunk space (energi, volt) and more-than-commuter range. $21K with the rebates - that's less than a GTI. This is a huge opportunity for VW. If my commute gets below 80 miles I'm getting one.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
But this is completely unfair to the people who have been lied to. Release them from fixing the cars, require them to produce electric cars and then also give vouchers for discounts to free new vehicles to existing owners.
Further there is no such thing as zero emission vehicles, and as part of this transparency, they need to provide reasonable details as to the regional pollution the electric vehicles will cause. In terms of CO2 this means generally 50-60 mpg equivalent in the USA but some regions are less and some more. Note that this is better than the mpg promised on their clean diesels but not by a huge amount. For example if used in Finland they may be around 100+ while if charged in India may only be 20mpg. They can even tie it into solar installations where appropriate and subsidies exist.
Finally, if we are still talking transparency, the cost of replacement batteries and the expected lifetimes should be made clear. Battery technologies do not evolve quickly and early adopters of hybrid and electrics are just now suffering from this very large cost. Spreading this out in a payment plan, possibly guaranteeing government subsidy up front at purchase for a future replacement, would likely make more sense for many customers, rather than be slapped with a 4-8k replacement charge 8-10 years from rolling off the assembly line and help to increase resale values as well.
My wife has a 2011 VW Jetta (Mexican made) It had its water pump replaced after six months and the replacement pump has just failed now. The car has gone 62000 km. This is crap. Water pumps were a solved problem 200 years ago. Any Japanese engine will go 300000km before serious problems set in.
Maybe musk should just buy VW shells and put his drive lines inside.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
As others have noted, what he is suggesting is a little self-serving, but anything that helps progress the technology and reduce the cost is a good thing IMHO. The making available the patents of the super-chargers, for example, is a benefit to him, since it helps increase needed infrastructure, which Tesla can benefit from, but also benefits everyone else, since they have one less argument against the electric car.
The next two places that the research money needs to be spent, IMHO, is simplifying the electric engine, to reduce parts, and solving the post-life problem. For example, while the batteries can be used for homes after their life in a car, there is still an issue of what to go with them afterwards. While the electric car reduces emissions during its use, we still need to solve the environmental impact involved, from digging up the raw materials to doing something with them after the cars's life.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Even if CARB said yes to this, VW would still be on the hook for millions of lawsuits by customers, states, EPA, etc...
Can California's electric grid hold up if VW really did replace all those vehicles with electric cars? Electric cars aren't actually zero emissions - they just don't emit anything at the point of use. There's still plenty of emissions (or other environmental concerns) from the site where the power for them is generated, which is why CA has tried very hard to push most of their generating capacity out of state. Even hydro capacity has decreased, as more dams are broken than built because they apparently bother the fishies. So a massive surge in electrical demand from plug-in vehicles may genuinely hammer the local grid, a grid that is already prone to widespread brownouts. It's great to suggest that everyone go electric with their vehicles, but someone somewhere must actually generate the electricity first. It's like pushing the benefits of dairy products while banning anyone in the state from raising stinky cows.
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
Already VW and other companies are planning to go way into electric vehicles. And why wouldn't they want to? It's an easier and cheaper way of passing the EPA buck onto someone else. Instead of having to try to meet every stringent reg they can let someone else entirely (power companies) deal with that issue. And will they be able to deal with the issue either? Doubtful.
Everyone talks about how dishonest VW was. But strictly speaking, they followed the letter of the law as it was written. Obviously they violated the intent. But when it comes to tricky-to-follow laws, the letter of the law is where you'll go every time. They met the tests as the EPA required. The EPA moving to a more "real-world" testing system perhaps might be a tipping point. I honestly doubt there's an engine on the planet that really meets EPA pollution regs, and this real-world testing will soon find this out. I'm all for clean air, but the EPA and the public has been lulled into a false sense of what can be achieved. And what does "real world testing" mean anyway? Straight and level? Steady climb for 400 miles? It's a gong show.
For years the EPA and other interested parties have deluded the public into thinking we can have our cake and eat it too. We can drive cars as much as we want. And it's clean! In fact cars always will be about trade-offs. Risk and benefits. And nevermind net CO2, which isn't even part of this.
And electric doesn't actually help much because almost all diesel pollution is from heavy trucks which at present aren't really going to be made electric.
Musk must be nuts. Many of these VW diesels can be fixed just by software update, or minor hardware changes. Now we should leave these smog & cancer machines on the road just because Musk wants to create market for his battery factory? Oh, yes, it is all "for greater good", so it must be ok. He would better invent a quick way to fix electric grid from reliance on dispatchable power sources like natural gas from fracking and coal.
They want Volkswagen's money to go into manufacturing plants and R&D for zero-emission technology rather than to government-mandated fines. (Note that these investments would give Musk, in particular, another direct competitor.)
Would it really give him a competitor? How about first it reduces the competition against existing electric vehicles, and when Volkswagen finally is ready to market, Musk can lease them some patents and sell them some batteries from his gigafactory.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Most of US electricity is produced from coal and gas, zero emissions my ass. 67% coal/gas/petroleum. 19% is nuclear, technically zero emissions apart from the waste.
I think they first need to get the generation of electricity cleaned up before pretending the electric cars are zero emissions.
Many of these VW diesels can be fixed just by software update, or minor hardware changes. Now we should leave these smog & cancer machines
Calm down there, Wilbur. The diesel emissions regs are so tight now that it's questionable whether anyone is actually going to be harmed by these VWs running over the allowable limits.
Now we should leave these smog & cancer machines on the road just because Musk wants to create market for his battery factory?
Compared to the average full-sized SUV, they're still clean and green. If you're going to be all upset about them, be upset about something much more harmful first.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Musk makes batteries. He wants more people to use his batteries. It doesn't matter if the solution is largely impractical and inconvenient, it's not about solving the problem. It's about making him even more rich than he already is.
elon gets....Pride
He would better invent a quick way to fix electric grid from reliance on dispatchable power sources like natural gas from fracking and coal
Isn't that his powerwall system? Energy storage close to the consumer actually makes it easier to rely on wind and solar power.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I say f*ck VW. Why don't we punish companies that lie, cheat, and steal? We offer them handouts when they screw up, we seem to be suggesting that we reward companies or let-them-off-the-hook for wrongdoing without consequences. What is the lesson learned for companies if they are not punished for falsifying and cheating emission standards? I would think that companies would continue to do wrong, if it is financially beneficial, until they are either fined. It sounds like VW will be able to continue lying and cheating in the electric vehicle world, perhaps they'll start lying about safety standards? We should let VW go through the process, get fined (i.e. the stock holders who benefited from the lies), and if they fail, another car company will take their place. Don't let the liars win!
Quit calling them zero emission vehicles. They're coal powered cars.
reduce grid impact with Solar City or Tesla branded charging stations or home installations.
Check. Mate.
Suck it Trebek.
Can't we just make big drones that can carry people?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
They want Volkswagen to be released from its obligation to fix cars already on the road, and instead require that the company substantially accelerate its rollout of zero-emission vehicles.
And how do they propose to make whole the people that VW defrauded? You can't simply leave those people hanging. Moving to electric vehicles is fine and all but VW has two debts from their lies. One to society (indirect victims) and the other to their customers (direct victims). This proposal only deals with the first one. Any proposal that does not compensate customers of these vehicles is a non-starter. Could be as simple as a cash payment but it can't be a promise to develop new technology someday.
What a crap a you talking about, "so tight". Do you have a slightest idea how diesel engine works? SUV or not SUV just increase engine size by 30-50% or so, compression is still low and all that cancerous stuff from high compression diesel engines is emitted only by diesels that skip on these limits. No, limits are not tight, they are too loose and too loosely enforced. Especially on older diesels, and all cars inevitably get older with time.
Is it just me or does Musk have something to say about everything almost every day?
Or do we wait until after the Formic invasion. Just sayin'.
For years the EPA and other interested parties have deluded the public into thinking we can have our cake and eat it too. We can drive cars as much as we want. And it's clean! In fact cars always will be about trade-offs. Risk and benefits. And nevermind net CO2, which isn't even part of this.
This is not precisely what happened.
The emissions requirements on vehicles are strongly tied to what we are and are not able to easily and economically test. If it's hard to test something, it doesn't get tested, it gets ignored. What happened is that we became better able to test diesel emissions to a high granularity, and so we tested them to that granularity.
This same thing happens in reactive software testing. You build a product iteratively, and as you discover bugs, you write tests for those bugs, and then you verify that the software passes that test as a result of some bug fix, and as long as it keeps passing that test on each iteration, you declare it good software. The theory being that you can arrive at (or asymptotically approach) some ideal that approximates the set of tests you would have arrived at had you written your tests from the design document in the first place.
When we became better able to test diesel emissions, CARB started ratcheting down the emissions diesels were allowed to have based on their ability to test; this is the "less is better" theory, without providing a correlation to visible emissions or health effects from emissions, visible or not (this is the "any emissions more than zero are bad" theory).
This was also not an issue until they started turning the ratchet; the rate at which they turned the ratchet was higher than the rate at which technology to reduce emissions was advancing.
Sure, there are a small minority of systems that are capable of keeping up with the ability to test these specific emissions; but this is not by design on the part of the vendors, this is based solely on luck: the emissions they have are not the emissions for which we are able to test easily and economically. In other words, these other vendors don't actually have overall "cleaner" vehicles, what they have is a different set of emissions for which testing is currently difficult.
Time to follow the money...
Do we require freight haulers to meet these emissions standards? Specifically, do we require freight hauling trucks, and diesel electric trains to meet these emissions standards? No; doing so would cripple the economy.
OK...
Why passenger vehicles, but not these other vehicles? The answer is that passenger vehicles utilizing diesel fuel make less diesel fuel available for trains and trucks. The intent of these vehicles was to take advantage of the price differential in diesel vs. gasoline pricing, in order to cause cars to be cheaper to operate. In doing that, they create a scarcity market for diesel fuel, and drove the price up.
So in the end, we have that CARB really doesn't care about diesel emissions, they care about passenger cars, and they care about them in two ways: they would like fewer passenger cars, period, and they would like diesel to be cheap for the freight companies. So they would like to get passenger vehicles off of using diesel fuel entirely. In fact, California had a ban, which did not stand up to legal challenge, as it violated the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, on importation of diesel passenger cars to California; so it's not like we can't see the hand they are playing.
Comparatively speaking, we also have the "phase-in", which on the face of it looks reasonable, but which in practice disadvantages passenger vehicles compared to other vehicles, since it doesn't apply to other vehicles, and for which there are not real, measurable justifications.
So Volkswagen hacked the law, by meeting its letter, and defeating its spirit.
Lest you think this is evil, this is precisely what H&R Block do for you, personally, when you have them do your t
Uh, no. The affected VW's wouldn't have passed 1984 emissions standards, in fact they would have been over by about 50%. By completely turning off emissions equipment during non-testing mode VW went from barely above regulations to untuned Mercedes 300 levels (obviously not in soot production but almost every other metric).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Where I live, VWs are what the hipsters drive... where they want to cut people off at lights and on the highway like the BMW 3 and 5 series knobs... but don't have the cash for German engineering, so wind up buying a German car in name only that harks from Mexico [1].
Even worse, VW doesn't sell their good vehicles in the US, just their low-tier cars. Take the Volkswagen Amarok. Not sold in the US, but this is something that would be in high demand, just due to the fuel economy. The 8 speed transmission doesn't hurt either.
Or, the VW Crafter. Seen the vans in the US? You either buy a RAM Promaster which is pretty much a Fiat Ducato, or pay Mercedes prices for a Sprinter. If VW managed to get the Crafter onto US soil, they would make a mint due to fleets, just because the van could be serviced at not just VW places, but M-B, as well as Freightliner depots.
It would be nice if VW actually took the US market seriously and sold their other vehicle lines here, not just the same old compact cars.
[1]: Always funny that people here in the US buy foreign cars, then complain about where the jobs went. Same with buying crap from China in general.
This just in: T. Boone Pickens thinks they should be required to spend the money on natural gas vehicles and wind harvesting technologies.
so vw got caught now its that much harder to get diesel cars, unlike the rest of the world. Instead of 40MPG you have 20MPG gasoline or tiny cars. Then your gas is diluted with ethanol and you get to emit even more while "saving" the environment.
Is it true the new Volkswagon model is called the Astroturf?
How else will our politicians be able to afford to send their poor children to the best private ivory league preparatory schools. Also how will they be able to vacation at the Epstein ranch for troubled youth. You know how much it costs to give to give a child hand at the Epstein Ranch? It costs a lot. You know Million dollar mansions and policy meeting in Hawaii are not cheap. The Democratic politicians need these fines to keep the wheels of government helping all the poor people.
Yea, Musk sounds like some kind of right wing radical. I understand that mandating electronical vehicals isn't exactly a republican platform, but the idea of taking away outrageous unnecessary fines is totally antithetical to the current Democratic ideals. Removing fines is much more against the Democratic ideals than electronical cars is against Republican Ideals.
I, a member in good standing of the Hillary Campaign for our Future, do therefore declare and affirm that this Musk creep is a right wing Child molesting Nazi who hates women. Every time you buy one of his cars you are effectively raping a woman. So Stop raping women. Also when you talk positively about Musk, you are talking positively about rape. Stop glorying the 'Munsk Rape Mobiles (tm)'
Hillary 2016.
Until electric cars can be charged in 1-5 minutes, and have a range of 500-600 miles minimum, I don't see them gaining any significant traction. Working in the automotive industry, I don't see why it won't be possible for diesel engines to meet future emissions targets using the technologies that currently exist. Electric cars certainly have promise, but the battery technology doesn't have the capacity, nor the longevity at present. A second hand electric car will be next to worthless, since the battery pack will cost more the replace than the vehicle is worth.
For now, I will be sticking with a modern, almost zero emission diesel on my drive. There is a good reason that over half of cars sold in the most advanced markets use diesel engines - it is because they are fat and heavy, and the diesel powerplant is currently the best fit for the premium performance/economy balance.
How about VW investing in companies which clean up the shit their cars have pumped out already?
Why do I need to charge my car in 1-5 minutes? It charges while I'm not in it so it takes effectively 0 minutes as far as I'm concerned. The problem with the way you're thinking about it is that you're imagining refueling your EV the way you do a gas car - run it until it's empty and then wait for it to be refilled. That's just not the way EVs get used. I get home, plug it in, and when I want to go out again it's fully charged and ready to go. I seldom charge while away from home, but when I do it's while I'm someplace I'm spending a while at, i.e. if I was running in to shop for 5 minutes I wouldn't bother. But if I'm at the mall for an hour I can plug in and generally have 100% charge available by the time I return to the car.
My car has 100 miles of range (84 EPA). That ends up being enough for me to do all but about 1-2 trips a month. 300 miles would be awesome, but when the Tesla Model 3 and Chevy Bolt come out with 200 miles of range, that will probably be enough for all but 1-2 trips a year. I don't mind renting 1-2 times a year if it means I get to enjoy an EV the rest of the time. They're that nice to drive.
Experience with the Tesla Model S would say you're probably wrong about the longevity of battery packs. What I've read suggests they'll have similar lifespans to ICE engines.
I guess one question is what you define as "significant traction"? Around here I see Tesla Model S's all the time, lots of Leafs, lots of BMW i3s. When I've let people drive my car (Honda Fit EV) they love it. I think you'll find demand for EVs increase quickly. It will take a long time for the entire fleet to be electric (30/40 years?) but it won't take nearly as long for a large percentage of new cars to be EVs, IMHO.
Do you have a slightest idea how diesel engine works?
Obviously better than you.
SUV or not SUV just increase engine size by 30-50% or so
And vehicle mass by 100% or so
compression is still low and all that cancerous stuff from high compression diesel engines is emitted only by diesels that skip on these limits
"All that cancerous stuff" that you are talking about is NOx, which is not cancerous. It is the primary component in acid rain, and it can lead to the formation of nitric acid which will damage lung tissue, but no part of it is cancerous. Gasoline vehicles produce more PM2.5 soot than do diesels, and they also emit more unburned hydrocarbons (until the catalyst heats up, they just spew fuel out the tailpipe) so they are actually more cancerous than are diesels.
No, limits are not tight, they are too loose and too loosely enforced. Especially on older diesels, and all cars inevitably get older with time.
We're talking specifically about the NOx limit here. The NOx limit for diesels was deliberately set to about an order of magnitude tighter than necessary (as measured by making them pollute no more than gasoline cars, measured in health and environmental impact) to continue the attack on the diesel engine, because American companies still have inferior diesels to European ones, whether you make them follow the smog laws or not.
Especially on older diesels, and all cars inevitably get older with time.
Gasoline vehicles are worse polluters than diesels, and gasoline cars get old too. Diesels run lean all the time, so when they get old they still don't release a lot of unburned hydrocarbons. But gasoline engines don't, and when they get old their catalyst wears out, and their emissions start to rise. It takes longer for the catalyst to function as it wears out, so the time they spend spewing HC at startup increases. Why don't you think gasoline cars wear out as the age, too?
Only the oldest diesels (pre-1996) are exempt from smog testing, like my 1982 300SD and my 1992 F250. They are a minuscule percentage of vehicles on the road, so they have minimal environmental impact. Most of the ones I see still running are being maintained well, because most of the ones that weren't have fallen apart already, and even some of the ones that were. My F250 died due to cavitation even though I was running a precharged coolant filter. Now I need to find it a 6.9 block. I'm just finishing up the engine work on my 1997 Audi A8 Quattro, though. That's definitely going to pollute more than my 300SD, because it has a 4.2 liter V8 and 400 more pounds to haul around. Happy yet?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are a lot of journals and web site which tracks how reliable car are. German car are very reliable. Plus you seem to make a fallacy that very reliable means never get a lemon. That is not true over million of car sold, some will have a problem. So sorry for your 1200$ repair, but that does not mean on average that german car are crap. You have got to look at the bulk, not single incident.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The article notes that VW would become a new competitor to Musk. It also notes that the bottleneck for electric vehicles is availability of batteries. But Musk is currently building the largest battery factory in the world, in Nevada. So VW would also be a customer of the Musk batteries. So now we know why Musk is so excited about VW entering the electric market.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
...they just don't emit anything at the point of use. There's still plenty of emissions (or other environmental concerns) from the site where the power for them is generated...
Whats more efficient: 10,000 tiny petrol/deisel engines being carted around or one big fossil fuel X plant? honestly the fuel doesn't even matter that much to figure this out. Also replacing cars first at least gives you an infrastructure that is ready to run on clean energy even if the backend still needs replacing... EV's can be done right now, power plants will take time but we are getting there. So lets do the stuff we can do now - NOW
Second: The main reason to want EVs today? your lungs: cities stink, they weaken your lungs and vastly increase your chances of various types of lung disease... the fumes are comparable and in some cases many times worse than smoking - yet you don't see anti-deisel campaigns or cars with pictures of lung disease on the back of them being sold.
If you don't care about global warming, think about that awful stench, that burning sensation at the back of your nose if you ever try to run in a densely packed city in busy traffic and wonder what it's going to do to your lungs... even pedestrians can't escape this.
And media bought it.
As if Volkswagen did not know their options. They already sell electric cars too, but it is not a mass market. Guess they don't have the Apple-like image of Tesla that allows them to sell lots of overly expensive cars.
If we continue to have personal transportation vehicles (a big if), in the long run they will be a combination of pure electric (Nissan Leaf) and extended-range electric (Chevy Volt) - because that's the only sustainable set of transportable energy sources. However, the engine in the extended-range vehicle will need to be diesel rather than gas since we can manufacture diesel fuel from non-fossil sources. Therefore long run we really need better diesels with good efficiency and emissions controls. Volkswagen has managed to set this process back a decade. Thanks Merkel.
sPh
They could put a Hybrid Truck on the market within a year if they wanted and probably make a decent profit on the initial sales. The reason they don't want to is all the maintenance the dealers would loose due to steady state engines instead of the large 11-16 litres that are used for the heaviest commercial trucks in the U.S.. I've thought about this possibility for 20 years (retired truck driver) and realized that it would make plenty of sense because of the increase in fuel economy (main reason it wont happen). Back when I started driving, if your fleet averaged 6mpg, that was pretty good mileage. Even today, the largest companies are lucky to see 7mpg and when you factor that out to 10k trucks at 100k miles per year, that's a lot of fuel being wasted.
Even the latest designs are lucky to see 8 to 10 mpg and it takes serious effort by the drivers to actually see that kind of mileage so a Hybrid properly engineered could easily double those fuel economy figures to 16-20 mpg, resulting in a major fuel savings for a company along with maintenance cost reductions by eliminating most of the drive train - move the motors to the wheels (all wheel drive) and add in things like electronic braking with stability/traction contols along with some of the Heads Up Features like FLC (forward looking camers - ir/uv), lane control along with a host of additional safety features. Hell just eliminating the damn gear shift improves safety because a driver would be less distracted from driving.
This is a very good idea. Regardless of Musk or Tesla private motives, this would benefit everyone in general.
What's funny is that most of you Slashdot twits eat Musk's words up like they are
wisdom. That just proves how stupid most of you really are, outside the narrow
range of things at which you might actually be competent.
The problem with the way you're thinking about it is that you're imagining refueling your EV the way you do a gas car - run it until it's empty and then wait for it to be refilled. That's just not the way EVs get used.
Here's a news flash for ya, chump :
Other peoples' needs might differ from yours.
If we continue to have personal transportation vehicles (a big if),
sPh
Obviously you don't live in the United States. The western portion of the US includes vast areas of land
where personal transportation vehicles are the ONLY practical solution.
God damn it, I'm tired of imbeciles like you who assume the world they know represents the entire world.
{The article} also notes that the bottleneck for electric vehicles is availability of batteries. But Musk is currently building the largest battery factory in the world, in Nevada. So VW would also be a customer of the Musk batteries. So now we know why Musk is so excited about VW entering the electric market.
that's what I tought, but when reading further the part that you quote:
The bottleneck to the greater availability of zero emissions vehicles is the availability of batteries. There is an urgent need to build more battery factories to increase battery supply, and this proposal would ensure that large battery plant and related investments, with their ensuing local jobs, would be made in the U.S. by VW.
Aparently Mush wants that more factories get build.
(Not that this couldn't too help him further his own cause at a higher level: market for electric cars will end up increasing if the necessary infrastructure increases).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
That could be solved by quick but small inductive charging e.g. while you wait at the stopsign or red-lights. {...} That way congestion might actually benefit drivers (as standing in a trafic jam recharges your car's battery).
I you want to quickly charge the car in short burst, these bursts are going to need quite some current (or power, more precisely).
We're not speaking about wirelessly charging your tooth brush, your smartphone or your vibrator.
We're speaking about wirelessly charging something that can have up to 90kWh Batteries.
(That the reason why, when using simple household main power, you need to charge the car over night. Or conversly if you want to charge the car in less than half an hour, you need special high-current DC "Super chargers").
A fast charge can significantly input extra power in such a battery during its brief stops is going to be quite some feat (bordering on a small EMP~ just joking but that still a big electromagnetical emission).
Also Tesla forgot to put solar panels on the roof of their cars,
They have been considered. Covering the whole surface of the car with solar pannels would cost way to much compared to the small input of energy.
Better putting them on the roof of chargers: then the panels can be optimally aligned for as long as there's sunshine and thus maximize their energy output (and thus partially offset the energy required during a fast charge).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
well you're looking too narrowly. Electrical generation plants that burn fossil fuels are a lot more efficient than ICE. The use of ICE is based on the ease of accelleration/torque on demand, lack of long startup phases. If you use an electric motor for the kinetic activities, the the options for generating electricity for the powertrain to use are wide open. Say when the battery gets down to 25% charge, you start up a compact gas turbine, and run it until it's back up to >90% and then shut it off. so the duty cycle is long, no varying torque, something like this: http://www.bladonjets.com/ has only one moving part... should last forever, far simpler than an ICE, and likely more efficient. another product: http://www.capstoneturbine.com... Walmart's gas turbine hybrid truck: http://www.greencarcongress.co...
Average SUV doesn't consume 100% more fuel than typical sedan. Though you of course can do some extreme comparison between subcompact and largest SUV. You can always make such excuse, "my car pollutes less than Boeing 747, so who cares". It doesn't fly.
World Health Organization (WHO) has classified diesel engine exhaust as a carcinogen – a substance that causes cancer. It is scientific fact and you may as well argue that Earth is flat. It isn't just NOx but whole complex of substances.
Paris and London has hard time now due to diesel exhaust - they are victim of stupid earlier policy to promote diesels and need to suffer more smog as result. Now they try to put on all kinds of restrictions do not admit diesels to downtown and reverse the stupid policy, but it is a bit too late. The EPA (or whoever set emission limits) has done good job keeping this junk out of the US as much as possible.
Yeah, I'm pretty well aware of the geography and population census of the United States / North America. I'm also aware of the total fraction of the US/North American population that lives there (very small) and the questions that have been raised over the last 30 years as to whether it is possible to maintain human habitation there for anything other than specialized purposes such as mining towns ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). Whether or not it is ecologically or economically possible to maintain the use of personal transit vehicles is entirely separate from the question of whether people live in certain areas of North America or prefer to live there.
But sure: some pure diesel vehicles as well. Heavy construction and heavy delivery vehicles will presumably remain diesel, and some passenger vehicles as well. As originally noted diesel can be manufactured from non-fossil sources which means it will be with us for a long time.
sPh
No, it isn't. It only helps somebody who wants to feel green and better person. Not the grid in the long run. First, the price makes energy from battery expensive, higher than peak wholesale price. Lithium battery cost only allows to use them for very short term balancing, e.g. gives some minutes to turn on regular generator. E.g. recent battery project was announced for German grid. But it is still too high for peak cost shaving. Household tesla powerwall may help to acomodate a bit more solar into grid, as it reduced "duck" pattern when demand goes too high at sunset. But the end result is still the same, dead end. You need seasonal storage to make grid clean and reliable. That is not lithium batteries.
Loads of torque gobs of power 50mpg biofuel and 99% cleaner than diesel just years ago, why oh why this push for something that can't go the miles. I have a 5280 mile trip coming up and am using a Jetta TDI which will take 108 gallons of diesel or 8 fillups. A 200 mile range tesla (170 miles per charge reasonable) would take 32 recharges and add 21 hours of recharging to the trip, and that is IF I can find superchargers for every one of those 32 stops. Plus for the price difference of a tesla (50,000 dollars) I can buy 22222 gallons of diesel which will get me one million miles or more (assuming 45 average mpg).
The numbers for electric vehicles don't add up. Especially when if doing the trip in a leaf it would be 67 or more charges at another 50 hours to 80 hours of charging. I don't have the time money or time for this and if VW moves to electric they will lose my business. Even a Gasser getting 20mpg would be better. Honda even has a gas civic than can match these numbers. Electric until it gets 670 miles or more on a charge and can charge in under 8 minutes (5 would be ideal) and costs around 22k for a decent sedan and 0 battery degradation over at least 400k miles it is a gimmick.
I will point out that for the average commute if you drove 45 miles per day and could recharge at night a car with 200 mile range that lasted over 15 years of commuting might be worth it due to the less maintenance and lower fuel costs. But you still would need another car or a charge trailer for long trips. If Tesla's were 35k and could go 200 miles on a charge with a diesel generator that extended that range at 50mpg or better with at least a 15 gallon tank, then I would jump on one. But until then I have a diesel Jetta that is super efficient and cleaner than it needs to be. We have an EPA that is driving up the price of a fantastic fuel on a fantastic vehicle that we should be lauding verses fining and complaining about. It will last over 400k (longer with maintenance) is fuel efficient, plenty powerful and could run on bio fuels. The who electric car idea may be a good one for certain markets but for the bulk of the car buying public it is not sufficient or in a price range that can be afforded except by the rich.
Battery electric is such a fucking short sighted distraction from real improvement.
Electric cars aren't the answer unless every car charging station is powered solely by solar and wind power.
As long as their using coal for electrics, they might as well leave diesels the way they are.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
This plan, though it might be environmentally beneficial, does nothing to compensate the car owners for their substantial losses. They are stuck with cars that they can't drive in good conscience, and can only sell at a considerable loss.
use the proceeds to build alternative fuel technology and infrastructure (new energy storage tech, battery factories, charging stations, hydrogen stations, etc) here in America? That way, VW gets the harsh punishment they deserve and we get to use their money to advance our alternative fuel infrastructure.
I don't really see VW agreeing to the aggressive schedule set forth in letter, nor do I see them building factories in one of the most expensive and heavily regulated states in the US. I'm sure they already have a product plan in place for the next 5 years, and it probably doesn't include trying to sell a shit ton of $30K electric cars with less than 1/5th the range of a $20K Diesel Jetta.
This is a nice piece of PR, but it's a total pipe dream.
Musk is on the right track, but he misses one big point: even a fixed up Diesel is cheaper to buy and goes much farther with a full tank. Until EVs are on par with gasoline cars in purchase price, cost of operation, and can be refueled within a matter of minutes and then drive several hundred miles on one charge not much will change. EVs are too expensive for the regular folks.