Yeah, it seems the absolute cheapest way one can drive - if the range is sufficient for them - is a used Leaf. They sell for almost nothing (unlike Teslas, which hold their value surprisingly well) and cost almost nothing to operate.
And the combustion engine dates to Hero of Alexandria's Aeolipile in the 1st century AD. Your point?
What's that? His engine doesn't resemble modern combustion engines? You're right. And neither do 18th century batteries and motors resemble modern ones.
Current superchargers are $0,20/kWh. But megachargers are announced to be $0,07/kWh. How? Wind and solar are dirt cheap nowadays, but you have to have some sort of peaking or storage with them, which ups the price. Super-high-power chargers need a battery buffer so that they don't have to pull crazy amounts of power off the grid at random intervals. When you combine the two, you get a two-for-one - the same buffer that buffers charging also buffers solar and wind. Also, Tesla's battery costs have been plunging as the Gigafactory scales up. When you do the math on the Semi pricing you come up with a figure of something like $85/kWh *after* profit. Crazy-low, but at the same time, still realistic, as the raw materials (even at "spike" prices) that go into them are about $50/kWh, and the whole point of Gigafactory was to get battery costs to approach their raw materials costs. And the batteries in Semi are the same type as Tesla uses in its grid storage products.
The "experts" thought Tesla's price on the Australian battery buffer was going to be $60m-$120m; it turned out to be closer to $50m. But that was with powerpack prices from early this year, on hardware designed the year before. As one might say: you ain't seen nothing yet;)
Oh, I should probably add: one of the options coming out next year for the Model 3 is the performance package. The pricing and specs aren't known, but based on a spy video, plus typical performance and pricing of options on Tesla's other lines over the years, most people are expecting it to be something like $15k and give a 0-60 somewhere in the 3-4 second range. That would be on top of the base LR (I doubt the SR pack could support it), so something like $60k. But we'll have to wait and see. As a general rule, EVs will give you very high accelerations for a lot cheaper than gasoline.
The dual motor 4WD + air suspension package (also price TBD, expected to be around $5k or so) will likely add a very small performance boost to either the LR and SR, as well as a small range boost. This happens because the motors are geared differently, and when no slip is detected and no extra torque is requested, it sleeps the less efficient motor (with instant wakeup when needed).
Also, more to the point, new electricity generation in the US (and most of the developed world) is a mix of wind, solar and natural gas. Modern natural gas baseload plants (combined cycle), BTW, are around 60% efficient, not 40%. Coal is dying.
When you add new load to the grid, they're not filling that load with coal; they're filling it with renewables.
News flash to Americans: there exists a world outside America.
Meanwhile, let's compare the Tesla Model 3, without any subsidies, to the similarly sized BMW 3-series. First off, which models to compare?
Model 3 SR: 0-60=5,5s; BMW 330i: 0-60=5,4s Model 3 LR: 0-60=4,8s (Motor Trend)-5,1s(official); BMW 340i: 0-60 various measured at 4,8 and 5,1s.
So now we have our comparison points; let's do the comparisons. Note for the below that the 3-series all have a 15,8gal tank, and the Model 3 LR has an EPA-calculated range of 347/334/318mi in city/combined/highway driving, respectively. SR's battery is the same as LR's except 31 cells per brick rather than 46, so its range figures should be 31/46 times as much, plus a bonus for the reduced weight (estimated at 4%/3,2%/2,5% in city/combined/highway, respectively).
Base price (before options): SR/330i: $35k vs. $40,3k LR/340i: $44k vs $49k
Energy consumption, City/Combined/Highway (Wh/mi or mpg): SR/330i: 248/260/274 vs 21/25/32(manual), 23/27/34(auto) LR/340i: 258/267/281 vs 19/23/29(manual), 21/25/32(auto)
Annual energy cost, based on US average gasoline $2,561/gal, US average residential electricity $0,1319/kWh, and an average US driving distance of 13476/yr. The difference between the gas and electricity prices is roughly doubled in the EU averages. SR/330i: $441/$461/$487 vs $1648/$1384/$1081 (manual), $1505/$1282/$1018 (auto) LR/340i: $459/$476/$499 vs $1821/$1505/$1193 (manual), $1648/$1384/$1081 (auto)
Model 3 annual energy cost savings ("combined" is representative of most drivers); again, differences are roughly doubled in the EU: SR/330i: $1207/$923/$594 (manual), $1064/$820/$531 (auto) LR/340i: $1363/$908/$582 (manual), $1189/$908/$582 (auto)
Vehicle range (mi): SR/330i: 243/232/220 vs 332/395/506 (manual), 363/427/537 (auto) LR/340i: 347/334/318 vs 300/363/458 (manual), 332/395/506 (auto)
Time stopped for filling on a 100% highway-driving trip (anything less than 100% highway = more EV friendly comparison). Assumed EV driving down to 10% capacity, charging to 60% (unless a small amount more will mean one less stop), with average 7,5mi/min for LR and 6mi/min for SR. 4 min overhead assumed per stop (based on my timing of vehicle stop lengths), minimum 30mi remaining at arrival, gas vehicles filled to full at each stop, 1 minute tank fill time. Assumed half tank starting point for gasoline. Format: "trip length (drive time@70mph): SR LR / 330i-manual
The simple fact is that Operation Overcast, then Operation Paperclip occurred first. And were incredibly successful at getting almost everyone of significance from the German program. Operation Osoaviakhim, the more forceful Soviet equivalent, occurred afterwards, and as a consequence was only able to clean up the scraps. Mainly line workers, as I mentioned. They had a couple fairly high ranking people (such as Helmut Gröttrup, Ferdinand Brandner, and Fritz Preikschat), but not many - nothing compared to what Operation Paperclip got. Most of the line workers were released after 1-2 years. The Soviets had completely purged their rocketry industry of even the high-level Germans by 1953.
The proposed system would contain 129,000 kilowatt-hours of capacity, meaning the project's cost would start at around $42 million. The head of Tesla's battery division has quoted a cost of about $65 million in the past. Other experts say a system of that size is likely to cost somewhere between $60 and $120 million.
(It cost $50M. And judging from Semi battery prices, if they were to do it again late next year, it'd be a small fraction of that much)
Hope they have a site ready for him, leveling and concreting a section of land can take years. Yeah, yeah, I know Aussie is flat, but not that flat.
Getting them there is only a small part of the problem. The real issue is that Australia can throw lots of roadblocks in Elon's way, from customs to building permits. And there is a hell of a difference between delivering enough batteries in the stated time and building up a power system to use them. I think Musk's ego go the better of him here and he shot off his mouth too fast. Betting that you can do something in 100 days or it is free against the very people who can block you at every move isn't the smartest thing to do.
That's the rub. He hasn't even clearly defined what problem he will solve. The recent articles describe the symptoms of a more complex problem. Musk is proposing to alleviate the local symptoms possibly, not necessarily the core systemic problem which is continuously evolving. And of course he needs to tell them how much it will cost to 'solve' the problem.
Australia clearly won't fall for his rhetoric.
A container ship can cross the pacific in 2-4 weeks so that's not a big deal. Lead time would be a serious problem though for his 100 day boast. Presume it takes 20 days to transport the batteries and maybe another 30-40 to build them all (probably optimistic), they would be left with maybe a month to design, install and test the whole thing. Not saying it would be impossible but it would be a tight squeeze most likely unless he has already built the batteries and designed the system. He could probably get it up and running quickly but perhaps not at full capacity.
Reminder: it was not only done 99 days from the bet, but only 55 days from the contract signing;)
It's not just the batteries that are the issue, unless Elon is only saying that the batteries will be there within 100 days. Utility scale electrical equipment is generally bespoke and/or custom manufactured and has long lead times. On top of the batteries you need to have utility scale inverters. You need switchgear to direct the produced power, you need large transformers to boost it up to utility voltages. In the organization I work with, we just finished a major electrical upgrade where we purchased 12 pad-mount transformers. While they were out of the catalogue, the lead time before shipping was still 8 weeks, and that was from a major manufacturer. Really big transformers, those capable of working with megawatts of power, take months to manufacture.
When Vancouver lost one of the two large transformers that supply the downtown part of the city, it was found that it would take 18 months to get a replacement manufactured.
I'm quite sure getting all the permits takes longer than 100 days. Where can I sign the contract for a free 100MW battery storage system.
Given that it took 1.125 days per MWh for Los Angeles, I wo
This is correct. This battery system is not designed as a replacement for power plants. It's being used as an "instant on" system to keep people powered until standby power can be ramped up (which takes time). Aka, a high ratio of power to capacity. You can also get battery systems with a high ratio of capacity to power, but this is not one of them.
Indeed. Look at the stats on the battery: 100MW, yet only 129MWh. This isn't storing power for long periods of time; it's providing a power-plant level of power until power plant outputs can be ramped up elsewhere. Hence it physically cannot be used as a "storage for when the wind doesn't blow" solution (unless the wind is only stopped for an hour or so). Tesla does make longer-term storage solutions too (it's done that for solar in a number of places), but that's not what this battery is.
A proper engine design can't "boom". It can burn violently until propellant can be cut off (you can't really stop that, when you're dumping fuel and oxidizer together), but if you design properly, you prevent backflowing "hammer" effects in feedlines, have proper debris catching around turbopumps, etc.
SpaceX has lost Merlins in flight before. No boom, at least so far:) A new Block 5 development engine was initially reported to have exploded on the test stand, but it turned out to be a failure of the test equipment.
On the other hand, I don't think the Soviets get enough credit, and the Germans get too much.
The US swept up most of the important rocketry figures with Operation Paperclip; the Soviets got a lot fewer, and most were line workers; only a couple had any positions of significance in the Soviet program. Also, while the US integrated the Germans into its rocket program, the Soviets mainly just collected information from those that they gathered up, and as soon as they felt they knew everything they needed to from them, shut them out. Yet the US program kept stumbling while the Soviet program moved forward by leaps and bounds. The US didn't take the lead until the sheer force of far higher levels of investment made it possible (the Soviet N1 program was horribly rushed and underfunded; even a comparably small amount of extra funding could have made the difference for it)
You assume that an engine failure dooms the mission. The whole point is engine-out capability that doesn't. In such a case, the reliability increases the more engines you have.
The problem with the N1 was a combination of A) its engine-out failures tended to be cascading (aka, the engines were not properly protected from each other), B) its rate of engine-out failures was huge, C) lots of miswiring, and D) overcautious software that killed missions it shouldn't have, and outright destroyed a launch pad when it didn't need to.
** Ed: also connecting Vandenberg AFB. Vandenburg through LA (access to Hawthorne), out on I-10, through Texas (passing 150mi from McGregor), along the Gulf Coast to Jacksonville, then down I-95.
Obviously they'll also be running Semi between Gigafactory and Fremont, but you don't really need a megacharger network in there. Perhaps one station.
Satellite launches that improve quality of life here on Earth. Mainly communications and monitoring.
Also, expect a significant decrease in emissions per unit mass launched to orbit over time. BFR, for example, will burn methane rather than RP1, and will have a much higher payload fraction. And as for the ground operations, I strongly expect SpaceX to be a major early customer of the Tesla Semi once they're available. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first megacharger routes to go live connects SpaceX facilities with their Florida launch pads.
So long as natural gas is cheap, they'll probably continue using it for methane supply for BFR. But if its price ever rises enough and/or the cost of producing it from electricity and CO2 ever drops enough, I'd strongly expect them to switch to synthesized methane. We're far from that at present, however - you'll need to see natural gas disappearing from baseload grid power generation first, as an early indicator.
Did "that"? What is "that"? Made things explode frequently? Yes. Yes they did.
But "that" is not just a "fifty years ago" thing. "That" continues up to the present. Even today, launches of new rockets are extremely risky. The problem is that there's a lot that you really can't test properly except in flight; there's only so much you can do on the ground.
Nobody was launching 64-tonne-to-LEO rockets in 1942. Ask Wernher von Braun about the difficulty of scaling up rockets to that stage and about the huge chain of embarrassing failures along the way.
The statement is clearly preemptive damage control. That said, given the track record of "first launches of new rocket systems" around the world, probably well warranted.
I'm sure if SpaceX could turn back time they would have skipped the development of FH altogether and focused entirely on BFR; the development process turned out to be much harder than they anticipated. But, they've come this far, so it's time to get this bird in the air.
2. Batteries are not "environmentally problematic". Most lithium comes from salars, which is probably one of the least environmentally destructive mining processes on Earth; the rest comes from spodumene, which has no "spodumene-specific" risks over general hard rock mining (the main "environmental concern" is simply suspended solids in wastewater (aka, silt / clay), something that can occur in any mine on Earth that operates a rock crusher). The casing and part of the wiring is alumium. Most of the wiring is copper. The coolant tubing, coolant, electrolytes, and separator membranes are hydrocarbon products. The anodes are graphite (carbon) and a small amount of silicon (sand). The cathodes are mixed metal oxides - either NCA (usually 80% nickel, 15% cobalt, 5% alumium) or NMC (usually 60% nickel, 20% manganese, 20% cobalt), not counting the oxygen fraction. Despite the fact that the metals involved are mostly nickel, batteries are only expected to increase global nickel production by 10-40% by 2025. And that's the key thing - we already use huge amounts of these metals today, as alloying agents in steel. Steel should get no more of a "ignore the mining costs" free pass than batteries, yet everyone always wants to give it one.
3. Recycling rates can be expected to be near 100%; nobody is going to throw away a giant box full of nickel, cobalt, alumium, copper and lithium, given their market prices. The main "environmental concern" has always been the energy to manufacture the batteries (which has historically been well more than the energy used in mining). But that's always correlated with the cost of the batteries and the scale of mass production. As production scales up, prices and energy consumption fall - and boy have they ever recently. To top it off, most battery manufacturers are setting up their plants to operate primarily or entirely off of solar and/or wind.
Those are the only points I'm going to comment about. I don't personally know enough about the engineering tradeoffs involved in making vehicles operate on "third rails" or overhead lines or whatnot in high-speed express service / personal vehicle transit systems to feel fit to comment.
The ability to bring your car is the whole point, not a penalty. It's not about "dragging it along", it's about letting you take it if you want it. And as for a small "cube" (cube? Where did you get that?), the passenger variants hold 8-16 passengers. How huge is your "group"?
Did you even read the Slashdot summary, let alone the FAQ?
The funny thing is, their boring tech is actually rather interesting;) If their hot-swap liquid-cooled advanced-alloy cutting discs and continuous casing system work as designed, the performance should be amazing. I can't wait to see a video of a TBM operating at something like 1-2 rotations per second (today's TBMs are currently limited to far slower speeds to try to preserve disc life, as wear increases dramatically as cutting head temperature increases (which corresponds with rotation speed), and they can only be replaced when stopped)
Boring Company will never escape the randomness of geology, unmarked utilities, and so forth. But when it's moving - if their design works as intended - it should really move.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it seems the absolute cheapest way one can drive - if the range is sufficient for them - is a used Leaf. They sell for almost nothing (unlike Teslas, which hold their value surprisingly well) and cost almost nothing to operate.
And the combustion engine dates to Hero of Alexandria's Aeolipile in the 1st century AD. Your point?
What's that? His engine doesn't resemble modern combustion engines? You're right. And neither do 18th century batteries and motors resemble modern ones.
Current superchargers are $0,20/kWh. But megachargers are announced to be $0,07/kWh. How? Wind and solar are dirt cheap nowadays, but you have to have some sort of peaking or storage with them, which ups the price. Super-high-power chargers need a battery buffer so that they don't have to pull crazy amounts of power off the grid at random intervals. When you combine the two, you get a two-for-one - the same buffer that buffers charging also buffers solar and wind. Also, Tesla's battery costs have been plunging as the Gigafactory scales up. When you do the math on the Semi pricing you come up with a figure of something like $85/kWh *after* profit. Crazy-low, but at the same time, still realistic, as the raw materials (even at "spike" prices) that go into them are about $50/kWh, and the whole point of Gigafactory was to get battery costs to approach their raw materials costs. And the batteries in Semi are the same type as Tesla uses in its grid storage products.
The "experts" thought Tesla's price on the Australian battery buffer was going to be $60m-$120m; it turned out to be closer to $50m. But that was with powerpack prices from early this year, on hardware designed the year before. As one might say: you ain't seen nothing yet ;)
Oh, I should probably add: one of the options coming out next year for the Model 3 is the performance package. The pricing and specs aren't known, but based on a spy video, plus typical performance and pricing of options on Tesla's other lines over the years, most people are expecting it to be something like $15k and give a 0-60 somewhere in the 3-4 second range. That would be on top of the base LR (I doubt the SR pack could support it), so something like $60k. But we'll have to wait and see. As a general rule, EVs will give you very high accelerations for a lot cheaper than gasoline.
The dual motor 4WD + air suspension package (also price TBD, expected to be around $5k or so) will likely add a very small performance boost to either the LR and SR, as well as a small range boost. This happens because the motors are geared differently, and when no slip is detected and no extra torque is requested, it sleeps the less efficient motor (with instant wakeup when needed).
Meanwhile, here's what its actually like to have an EV in a natural disaster.
Also, more to the point, new electricity generation in the US (and most of the developed world) is a mix of wind, solar and natural gas. Modern natural gas baseload plants (combined cycle), BTW, are around 60% efficient, not 40%. Coal is dying.
When you add new load to the grid, they're not filling that load with coal; they're filling it with renewables.
Or instead, instead of playing amateur scientist on the net, the GP could listen to actual scientists who've studied the issue. ;)
News flash to Americans: there exists a world outside America.
Meanwhile, let's compare the Tesla Model 3, without any subsidies, to the similarly sized BMW 3-series. First off, which models to compare?
Model 3 SR: 0-60=5,5s; BMW 330i: 0-60=5,4s
Model 3 LR: 0-60=4,8s (Motor Trend)-5,1s(official); BMW 340i: 0-60 various measured at 4,8 and 5,1s.
So now we have our comparison points; let's do the comparisons. Note for the below that the 3-series all have a 15,8gal tank, and the Model 3 LR has an EPA-calculated range of 347/334/318mi in city/combined/highway driving, respectively. SR's battery is the same as LR's except 31 cells per brick rather than 46, so its range figures should be 31/46 times as much, plus a bonus for the reduced weight (estimated at 4%/3,2%/2,5% in city/combined/highway, respectively).
Base price (before options):
SR/330i: $35k vs. $40,3k
LR/340i: $44k vs $49k
Curb weight:
SR/330i: 3549 lbs vs. 3501lbs (manual) - 3541lbs (auto)
LR/340i: 3814 lbs vs 3675lbs (manual) - 3704lbs (auto)
Energy consumption, City/Combined/Highway (Wh/mi or mpg):
SR/330i: 248/260/274 vs 21/25/32(manual), 23/27/34(auto)
LR/340i: 258/267/281 vs 19/23/29(manual), 21/25/32(auto)
Annual energy cost, based on US average gasoline $2,561/gal, US average residential electricity $0,1319/kWh, and an average US driving distance of 13476/yr. The difference between the gas and electricity prices is roughly doubled in the EU averages.
SR/330i: $441/$461/$487 vs $1648/$1384/$1081 (manual), $1505/$1282/$1018 (auto)
LR/340i: $459/$476/$499 vs $1821/$1505/$1193 (manual), $1648/$1384/$1081 (auto)
Model 3 annual energy cost savings ("combined" is representative of most drivers); again, differences are roughly doubled in the EU:
SR/330i: $1207/$923/$594 (manual), $1064/$820/$531 (auto)
LR/340i: $1363/$908/$582 (manual), $1189/$908/$582 (auto)
Vehicle range (mi):
SR/330i: 243/232/220 vs 332/395/506 (manual), 363/427/537 (auto)
LR/340i: 347/334/318 vs 300/363/458 (manual), 332/395/506 (auto)
Time stopped for filling on a 100% highway-driving trip (anything less than 100% highway = more EV friendly comparison). Assumed EV driving down to 10% capacity, charging to 60% (unless a small amount more will mean one less stop), with average 7,5mi/min for LR and 6mi/min for SR. 4 min overhead assumed per stop (based on my timing of vehicle stop lengths), minimum 30mi remaining at arrival, gas vehicles filled to full at each stop, 1 minute tank fill time. Assumed half tank starting point for gasoline. Format: "trip length (drive time@70mph): SR LR / 330i-manual
The simple fact is that Operation Overcast, then Operation Paperclip occurred first. And were incredibly successful at getting almost everyone of significance from the German program. Operation Osoaviakhim, the more forceful Soviet equivalent, occurred afterwards, and as a consequence was only able to clean up the scraps. Mainly line workers, as I mentioned. They had a couple fairly high ranking people (such as Helmut Gröttrup, Ferdinand Brandner, and Fritz Preikschat), but not many - nothing compared to what Operation Paperclip got. Most of the line workers were released after 1-2 years. The Soviets had completely purged their rocketry industry of even the high-level Germans by 1953.
These are the facts. Facts are not up for debate.
Sure he did - he made a bunch of Slashdotters (and "experts") look silly ;)
(It cost $50M. And judging from Semi battery prices, if they were to do it again late next year, it'd be a small fraction of that much)
Link
Reminder: it was not only done 99 days from the bet, but only 55 days from the contract signing ;)
This is correct. This battery system is not designed as a replacement for power plants. It's being used as an "instant on" system to keep people powered until standby power can be ramped up (which takes time). Aka, a high ratio of power to capacity. You can also get battery systems with a high ratio of capacity to power, but this is not one of them.
More to point: the grid has always had to deal with intermittancy: demand intermittency. Different side of the same coin.
Indeed. Look at the stats on the battery: 100MW, yet only 129MWh. This isn't storing power for long periods of time; it's providing a power-plant level of power until power plant outputs can be ramped up elsewhere. Hence it physically cannot be used as a "storage for when the wind doesn't blow" solution (unless the wind is only stopped for an hour or so). Tesla does make longer-term storage solutions too (it's done that for solar in a number of places), but that's not what this battery is.
A proper engine design can't "boom". It can burn violently until propellant can be cut off (you can't really stop that, when you're dumping fuel and oxidizer together), but if you design properly, you prevent backflowing "hammer" effects in feedlines, have proper debris catching around turbopumps, etc.
SpaceX has lost Merlins in flight before. No boom, at least so far :) A new Block 5 development engine was initially reported to have exploded on the test stand, but it turned out to be a failure of the test equipment.
** positions of significance in the German program.
On the other hand, I don't think the Soviets get enough credit, and the Germans get too much.
The US swept up most of the important rocketry figures with Operation Paperclip; the Soviets got a lot fewer, and most were line workers; only a couple had any positions of significance in the Soviet program. Also, while the US integrated the Germans into its rocket program, the Soviets mainly just collected information from those that they gathered up, and as soon as they felt they knew everything they needed to from them, shut them out. Yet the US program kept stumbling while the Soviet program moved forward by leaps and bounds. The US didn't take the lead until the sheer force of far higher levels of investment made it possible (the Soviet N1 program was horribly rushed and underfunded; even a comparably small amount of extra funding could have made the difference for it)
You assume that an engine failure dooms the mission. The whole point is engine-out capability that doesn't. In such a case, the reliability increases the more engines you have.
The problem with the N1 was a combination of A) its engine-out failures tended to be cascading (aka, the engines were not properly protected from each other), B) its rate of engine-out failures was huge, C) lots of miswiring, and D) overcautious software that killed missions it shouldn't have, and outright destroyed a launch pad when it didn't need to.
** Ed: also connecting Vandenberg AFB. Vandenburg through LA (access to Hawthorne), out on I-10, through Texas (passing 150mi from McGregor), along the Gulf Coast to Jacksonville, then down I-95.
Obviously they'll also be running Semi between Gigafactory and Fremont, but you don't really need a megacharger network in there. Perhaps one station.
Satellite launches that improve quality of life here on Earth. Mainly communications and monitoring.
Also, expect a significant decrease in emissions per unit mass launched to orbit over time. BFR, for example, will burn methane rather than RP1, and will have a much higher payload fraction. And as for the ground operations, I strongly expect SpaceX to be a major early customer of the Tesla Semi once they're available. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first megacharger routes to go live connects SpaceX facilities with their Florida launch pads.
So long as natural gas is cheap, they'll probably continue using it for methane supply for BFR. But if its price ever rises enough and/or the cost of producing it from electricity and CO2 ever drops enough, I'd strongly expect them to switch to synthesized methane. We're far from that at present, however - you'll need to see natural gas disappearing from baseload grid power generation first, as an early indicator.
Did "that"? What is "that"? Made things explode frequently? Yes. Yes they did.
But "that" is not just a "fifty years ago" thing. "That" continues up to the present. Even today, launches of new rockets are extremely risky. The problem is that there's a lot that you really can't test properly except in flight; there's only so much you can do on the ground.
Nobody was launching 64-tonne-to-LEO rockets in 1942. Ask Wernher von Braun about the difficulty of scaling up rockets to that stage and about the huge chain of embarrassing failures along the way.
The statement is clearly preemptive damage control. That said, given the track record of "first launches of new rocket systems" around the world, probably well warranted.
I'm sure if SpaceX could turn back time they would have skipped the development of FH altogether and focused entirely on BFR; the development process turned out to be much harder than they anticipated. But, they've come this far, so it's time to get this bird in the air.
1. Charging losses are minimal in li-ions.
2. Batteries are not "environmentally problematic". Most lithium comes from salars, which is probably one of the least environmentally destructive mining processes on Earth; the rest comes from spodumene, which has no "spodumene-specific" risks over general hard rock mining (the main "environmental concern" is simply suspended solids in wastewater (aka, silt / clay), something that can occur in any mine on Earth that operates a rock crusher). The casing and part of the wiring is alumium. Most of the wiring is copper. The coolant tubing, coolant, electrolytes, and separator membranes are hydrocarbon products. The anodes are graphite (carbon) and a small amount of silicon (sand). The cathodes are mixed metal oxides - either NCA (usually 80% nickel, 15% cobalt, 5% alumium) or NMC (usually 60% nickel, 20% manganese, 20% cobalt), not counting the oxygen fraction. Despite the fact that the metals involved are mostly nickel, batteries are only expected to increase global nickel production by 10-40% by 2025. And that's the key thing - we already use huge amounts of these metals today, as alloying agents in steel. Steel should get no more of a "ignore the mining costs" free pass than batteries, yet everyone always wants to give it one.
3. Recycling rates can be expected to be near 100%; nobody is going to throw away a giant box full of nickel, cobalt, alumium, copper and lithium, given their market prices. The main "environmental concern" has always been the energy to manufacture the batteries (which has historically been well more than the energy used in mining). But that's always correlated with the cost of the batteries and the scale of mass production. As production scales up, prices and energy consumption fall - and boy have they ever recently. To top it off, most battery manufacturers are setting up their plants to operate primarily or entirely off of solar and/or wind.
Those are the only points I'm going to comment about. I don't personally know enough about the engineering tradeoffs involved in making vehicles operate on "third rails" or overhead lines or whatnot in high-speed express service / personal vehicle transit systems to feel fit to comment.
The ability to bring your car is the whole point, not a penalty. It's not about "dragging it along", it's about letting you take it if you want it. And as for a small "cube" (cube? Where did you get that?), the passenger variants hold 8-16 passengers. How huge is your "group"?
Did you even read the Slashdot summary, let alone the FAQ?
The funny thing is, their boring tech is actually rather interesting ;) If their hot-swap liquid-cooled advanced-alloy cutting discs and continuous casing system work as designed, the performance should be amazing. I can't wait to see a video of a TBM operating at something like 1-2 rotations per second (today's TBMs are currently limited to far slower speeds to try to preserve disc life, as wear increases dramatically as cutting head temperature increases (which corresponds with rotation speed), and they can only be replaced when stopped)
Boring Company will never escape the randomness of geology, unmarked utilities, and so forth. But when it's moving - if their design works as intended - it should really move.