There's 1/4 inch of armor plating over the battery pack - clearly that doesn't stop every intrusion but it's a hell of a lot better than most cars and Tesla can always beef it up some more. That would increase the weight but it would still be a small fraction of the already heavy vehicle. And the battery packs will probably get lighter over time.
Here's one guy who was very lucky and would probably jump at the chance to have an undercarriage like a Model S, flammable batteries or not.
"Situated poorly"? Why? Because it's at the bottom of the car?
"of course the fords have a wholly another reason for combusting(failed quality assurance/production, which is something you can "fix" by recall maintenance, so there is something to be proactive about)."
Tesla can proactively "fix" the problem without a recall - they can push an over-the-air patch to raise the ride height of the car when it's traveling above a certain speed.That will likely affect the car's handling and aerodynamics but not so much to completely ruin the joy of whizzing along in near-silence with impressive acceleration. They do already limit the Model S' top speed.
Dickwad AC, Tesla's fires have not been caused by collisions but by intrusions from below. Most of the ICEs that catch fire every year are not able to be software-adjusted for greater ground clearance ( as the cost of greater drag ) and all fare much, much, much more poorly in an actual collision than a Model S.
"Hi, my name is Skydiving Accident, but you can call me Skyak because it's like paddling upstream without a canoe, or a paddle, or even water and you're jumping from the top of the falls.
So, who wants to be left dead or disabled today??"
I see there a few of the Westinghouse AP1000s under construction, including 2 at Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia. With an estimated cost of $14 billion for the pair and a federal loan guarantee of $8 billion, there's a lot riding on this.
I was about to remark that it would be imperative for this to come in on-time & on-budget but I see they're already 14 months behind schedule.
What are the other competing designs that have already been approved?
Without looking too deeply into them, I notice these designs are still essentially on the drawing board and not likely be constructed before 2030 - that's 16 years before building even starts so 2035-2040 before any one of these is producing power. They're all very promising but we need to build lots of new generation and scrap old ones between now and then and we can't very well build current-design nuke plants and upgrade seamlessly to 4th-gen in 20 yrs.
"Unsuitable geography for hydro"?? Which Japan are you talking about? The one with 27GW of installed capacity that produces more electricity from this source than Sweden?
It absolutely is an option but is not measuring up very well.
Because ( and these are not in any particular order ) it doesn't reduce carbon as much as is claimed, always cost much more and take much longer than is projected, is not very flexible, the waste is a problem, especially where reprocessing is not available or permitted.
And they couldn't figure this out in 10 yrs of research? When you have a gas like argon that's 1% of the atmosphere? Or what about using nitrogen, which is ridiculously abundant & reasonably non-reactive?
Because you wouldn't get the capacity increase and lower power use from a gas with higher density relative to air?
At one-seventh the density of air, helium produces less drag on the moving components of a drive - the spinning disk platters and actuator arms -- which translates into less friction and lower operating temperatures.
The helium-drives run at four to five degrees cooler than today's 7200rpm drives, HGST stated
Isn't nuclear to supposed to be cheaper over its lifetime than coal? That modern "non-polluting" plant doesn't come cheap. The filtration systems that remove all that nasty stuff adds up to a billion to the price tag.
I don't know about India but China passed some strict emissions rules in Jan 2012 that have already taken effect and ALL coal plants must be in compliance by Sept 2014. There's no grandfathering so if your plant can't meet the standard, it'll be shut down. It remains to be seen how well this will be enforced but the law is on the books and is at least at strict as any in the West.
The German "power poverty" issue is overblown to the point of fraud. Their per-capita electricity use is 1/2 that of the USA and with the amount of taxes in the cost of power, they can easily - and do - give the needy a break.
Fossil fuels have been getting subsidies & tax breaks for a long time; the oil industry has some specific ones that have been in place for 100 years. Are we to assume that oil & coal production isn't yet economical? We have seen a remarkable drop in the price of solar PV in the last decade and more than a 90% reduction in the cost per watt since 1980. And looking at what's been done in Germany, there's potential to cut the soft costs of installation in half.
Slashdot Mirror
There's 1/4 inch of armor plating over the battery pack - clearly that doesn't stop every intrusion but it's a hell of a lot better than most cars and Tesla can always beef it up some more. That would increase the weight but it would still be a small fraction of the already heavy vehicle.
And the battery packs will probably get lighter over time.
Here's one guy who was very lucky and would probably jump at the chance to have an undercarriage like a Model S, flammable batteries or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJUWXRWK4xs
"Situated poorly"? Why? Because it's at the bottom of the car?
"of course the fords have a wholly another reason for combusting(failed quality assurance/production, which is something you can "fix" by recall maintenance, so there is something to be proactive about)."
Tesla can proactively "fix" the problem without a recall - they can push an over-the-air patch to raise the ride height of the car when it's traveling above a certain speed.That will likely affect the car's handling and aerodynamics but not so much to completely ruin the joy of whizzing along in near-silence with impressive acceleration.
They do already limit the Model S' top speed.
Dickwad AC, Tesla's fires have not been caused by collisions but by intrusions from below. Most of the ICEs that catch fire every year are not able to be software-adjusted for greater ground clearance ( as the cost of greater drag ) and all fare much, much, much more poorly in an actual collision than a Model S.
A quarter-million ICE vehicles catch fire every year in America alone so Ford and the rest need to be a LOT more proactive.
Electric cars are new AGAIN and they are very much the "old way"
"What we need are BOXES... Supermarkets used to keep piles of empty boxes near the checkouts, and we could put or goods in those"
Used to?? All the chain supermarkets in the major cities where I've lived have been doing this for 20 years.
Do keep trying. No telling what a million years of evolution will do for you.
Or like the the pond scum hiding behind the mask of an AC and are too stupid to understand what I meant?
Like an AC??
By replying, would I be applying human characteristics to an AC?
although I've seen this style used many times.
Why the anthropomorphism for a type of accident?
"Hi, my name is Skydiving Accident, but you can call me Skyak because it's like paddling upstream without a canoe, or a paddle, or even water and you're jumping from the top of the falls.
So, who wants to be left dead or disabled today??"
I see there a few of the Westinghouse AP1000s under construction, including 2 at Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia. With an estimated cost of $14 billion for the pair and a federal loan guarantee of $8 billion, there's a lot riding on this.
I was about to remark that it would be imperative for this to come in on-time & on-budget but I see they're already 14 months behind schedule.
What are the other competing designs that have already been approved?
Without looking too deeply into them, I notice these designs are still essentially on the drawing board and not likely be constructed before 2030 - that's 16 years before building even starts so 2035-2040 before any one of these is producing power.
They're all very promising but we need to build lots of new generation and scrap old ones between now and then and we can't very well build current-design nuke plants and upgrade seamlessly to 4th-gen in 20 yrs.
"Unsuitable geography for hydro"??
Which Japan are you talking about? The one with 27GW of installed capacity that produces more electricity from this source than Sweden?
It absolutely is an option but is not measuring up very well.
Because ( and these are not in any particular order ) it doesn't reduce carbon as much as is claimed, always cost much more and take much longer than is projected, is not very flexible, the waste is a problem, especially where reprocessing is not available or permitted.
I believe we all lost any perspective of the value of money back in the '80s and have never regained our senses.
It's still the HTML title if you view the page source.
Thanks - I know the history of the grid, the war of currents, etc.
No matter how amazing it was then, it's badly outdated now.
That should be "we have an EARLY 20th-century energy grid".
Yes, but you're not YOUR parents although you could very well be your own grandfather.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_My_Own_Grandpa
And they couldn't figure this out in 10 yrs of research?
When you have a gas like argon that's 1% of the atmosphere?
Or what about using nitrogen, which is ridiculously abundant & reasonably non-reactive?
Because you wouldn't get the capacity increase and lower power use from a gas with higher density relative to air?
Mod parent up
Isn't nuclear to supposed to be cheaper over its lifetime than coal? That modern "non-polluting" plant doesn't come cheap. The filtration systems that remove all that nasty stuff adds up to a billion to the price tag.
I don't know about India but China passed some strict emissions rules in Jan 2012 that have already taken effect and ALL coal plants must be in compliance by Sept 2014. There's no grandfathering so if your plant can't meet the standard, it'll be shut down.
It remains to be seen how well this will be enforced but the law is on the books and is at least at strict as any in the West.
The German "power poverty" issue is overblown to the point of fraud. Their per-capita electricity use is 1/2 that of the USA and with the amount of taxes in the cost of power, they can easily - and do - give the needy a break.
Fossil fuels have been getting subsidies & tax breaks for a long time; the oil industry has some specific ones that have been in place for 100 years.
Are we to assume that oil & coal production isn't yet economical?
We have seen a remarkable drop in the price of solar PV in the last decade and more than a 90% reduction in the cost per watt since 1980.
And looking at what's been done in Germany, there's potential to cut the soft costs of installation in half.