Another comparison point:
Diesel Locomotive (starting) 9515 ft lbs, and side note with these, they use electric motors (with diesel generators to create the electricity)
I beg to differ. Since it's the humans on the planet that are causing the non-natural release of CO2 that's causing anthropogenic climate change and subsequently it's the humans on the planet that need to change their habits to reduce their CO2 output to stop the anthropogenic climate change, it most definitely should be evaluated on a per capita basis.
Adding a couple more:
5. Less maintenance: Electric drivetrains have about 10% of the moving parts of a gasoline drive train. A hybrid destroys this advantage by having both drive trains plus additional tech to get them to work nicely together making them worse for maintenance than simple internal combustion engine vehicles.
6. More space: Electric drivetrains take up much less room, leaving that extra space for storage if the manufacturer is smart about it. Hybrids use up that extra space with the internal combustion drivetrain.
simulating every damn particle in the universe might require more energy than there is universe
Interesting point about the energy required to do the simulation. I've often wondered if this alone could be used to disprove the idea that we're in a simulation (at least where the "real" universe has the same physical laws).
For example, wouldn't the simulator need to exist in a relatively confined space? And if you have that much energy in a small-ish space, wouldn't its gravitational pull turn it into a singularity? That seems like a no-go to me.
I too live in Canada, and I see EVs every day. Usually they're Nissan Leafs, but I often also see Kia Soul EVs, BMW i3, Tesla Model S and Xs and I've even seen one Chevy Bolt, a Ford Focus EV and an ugly Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Maybe you just don't know what to look for, those Soul EVs look almost exactly like their Gas powered siblings. Or maybe you're in a particularly EV unfriendly place in Canada. Or maybe you're not actively looking for them like I am.
But it's no matter, not that I agree that it was a good prediction, the original claim was regarding new car sales, so the number of EVs currently on the road is irrelevant.
I think you went too far when you used "allegedly" on an allegedly first-hand account, and then quoted some PR article.
FTFY (lol)
Seriously though, I feel the need to point out that this "first-hand" account is from someone who is hiding their identity whereas the PR article's author is not. So the nature of the bias and/or motivations from the "first-hand" account are much more hidden, whereas with the PR article, they're more clear.
It is really lame when somebody like you who likes call people trolls is modded more insightful than some Anonymous Coward who allegedly worked at a Tesla plant
FTFY
Also, here's a citation for the injury rate dropping. I'll admit it's biased, since it's coming from Elon who has a vested interest in making these claims. But the claims that the injury rate are so high are coming from the UAW who also have a vested interest in making these claims. So, at worst these claims are equivalent.
Granted, you need superchargers not far off your path, but they don't need to be at "just the right places" (ie. exactly 482km from your start point, then again 275km from there).
You could start off with your 482 km of range, and after say, 300km stop at a supercharger, add your 275km of range like in the above scenario, leaving you with 457km of range. Then stop again later for 15 minutes adding another 160km.
But I concede that not having them in your country would count as too far off your path. It's just going to be a matter of time before this infrastructure is everywhere.
Not sure if you consider this "reasonably affordable" or not, but the Tesla Model 3 will have an All-Wheel Drive option available once they finish ramping up their production line.
But people say that the traction control in Teslas is so well done there are no issues driving a rear-wheel drive version in the snow.
Unless you're peeing in a bottle and eating in the car while you're making that 900km trip, you're going to need to stop at some point. While you're stopped to pee and to eat you're taking up time. If you're honest about how much time you actually take on your stops and how often these stops happen, you can imagine that you could be charging an EV during the length of the stop. So, an EV need not have a 900km range to do your trip, but instead a 900km minus however much it can charge while you're already stopped.
To give you an idea, a Tesla Model S can charge enough to get about 275 km of range in 30 minutes. You start with a full battery, giving you 482km, you stop for lunch (about 30 minutes), get another 275 km, and you've gone 757km of your trip without taking any *extra time* out of your trip to charge your car.
Let's say you need to take two breaks, because your back is sore and you have to pee again, you plug in again on your second stop, and it'll only take 15 minutes of charging this time to get the remaining range that you require for your 900km trip. This also happens to be about how long you would have stopped anyways.
The reality is that even these long trips can already be done by EVs like Teslas without actually increasing the amount of time you're probably taking to do that trip.
The science says optimally a 4-wheel braking system can only recover 40% of the energy anyway so you'll always need a mechanical system that will wear.
The efficiency of the regenerative braking is irrelevant for whether or not you'll need mechanical systems. The need comes from the possibility that you may need to brake faster than the regenerative braking system is capable of slowing the car down.
You're totally correct. But this point is lost on those who aren't already EV owners or who aren't EV enthusiasts. I've noticed a trend in the people who are toying with the idea of replacing a gas car with an EV - they equate charging stations with gas stations. And if there aren't enough charging stations in their mind, they think they'll be stranded, like they would be if there weren't enough gas stations. It's stupid, but I hear this argument time and time again.
Well, Model 3 has the Bolt beat in this regard because it has access to Tesla's supercharger network AND all of the third party chargers that the Bolt has access to use.
Don't forget, Teslas can use all of the third party charging stations too, with the adapters that they provide with the car or ones that you can buy from them after you purchase. So you're only making my point stronger.
"Union organization that's pushing for union at Tesla have sent a letter of requests to company's board members"
From what I can tell, the push for the union is not coming from the Tesla employees exactly, though I don't doubt that there are some supporters who are Tesla employees. But it's coming from the United Auto Workers union, who are trying to expand their portfolio. From TFA: "The United Auto Workers is in the process of trying to unionize the 10,000 Tesla workers at the Fremont plant, alleging the company has a poor safety record—a charge it vehemently denies."
Biggest difference is the supercharger network for the Model 3. The Bolt's options when it comes to road-trips are more limited and where they exist they are inferior since they don't have the same charge rate as the supercharger.
Automobiles are not purchased for the average case; they're purchased for reasonable worst case. And the reasonable worst-case performance of a car that runs on man-portable liquid fuel is lightyears beyond the worst-case performance of a glorified golf cart.
Your reasonable worst case has you walking miles with a Gerry can to get gas? Most people call services like AAA to resolve these situations. Services like this exist for EVs too.
Also, you're too focused on how long it takes to put the fuel in and not how long it takes of YOUR TIME to put the fuel in. With gas cars you've got to detour from your trip to get to a gas station, pull into the gas station, pay, actively pump the gas and leave. All taking up your time. Sure it's probably just 5-10 minutes but it's still your time. But with EVs, unless you're on vacation (road trip) you're charging it at home, while you sleep. It takes seconds of your time to plug it in and unplug it. Seconds vs. minutes. So unless you're taking more than, say, 2-3 road trips a year (when you need to charge mid-trip), you're actually spending less of your time charging an EV than you are gassing up a gas guzzler.
And for the cost... Sure it costs more up front for an EV, but if you look at the true cost of ownership EVs are on par with gas cars that cost $15,000 less, thanks to savings in fuel costs, much lower maintenance and slower depreciation. This is similar to how when gas cars cost more up front than horses back in the day, but they saved on their lifetime costs vs. owning a horse.
Gas cars never did everything better than horses (cars need flat surfaces to drive on and can't reproduce before they die) just as EVs don't do everything better than gas cars, but they do enough better that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Even fossil fuel power stations are more efficient than the most efficient gas powered car. Even with transmission losses and everything. So, even if we don't switch to renewable sources, it's improving the strain on the environment. But this just gets better and better as the infrastructure gradually gets upgraded to renewable sources. An Internal Combustion Engines never get more efficient over its lifetime.
You seem to still have the mindset that you only ever charge an EV at a charging station. Sorry, no, that's gas powered cars your thinking of.
The only time you need a charging station for an EV is when you're on a road trip. And when you're on a road trip you DO have extra time to wait while your car charges up because you'll also need to take a break from driving, you'll need to pee, you'll be hungry.
Battery swapping could be useful for people who can't charge at home overnight though. Considering that 70% of the US population lives in single family homes, this is not a problem for the majority of the population.
Recently a Tesla Model S set a new cannonball record for driving from California to New York (2830mi) and averaged 54 mph for the whole trip including charging breaks.
You don't lose as much time as you'd think charging, because you don't need to sit next to your car while it charges, you can simultaneously go get something to eat, use the bathroom or just stretch your legs. Taking these kinds of breaks makes for a nicer road trip anyways.
But sure, your edge case does show that in one way gas powered cars are still better than EVs.
To add a comparison point. There was recently a new EV record set from a Tesla. They drove from California to New York.
Total time: 51 hours, 54 minutes, 18 seconds
Average moving speed: 76 mph
Overall average speed: 54 mph
Sure, gas cars are the winner here. But EVs aren't far behind any longer so this is becoming more and more of an edge case.
"But, but, but, I NEED my method of transport to be able to drive cross country at more than 54mph!!!", sounds an awful lot like, "But, but, but, I NEED my method of transport to be able to jump over obstacles when they appear!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
Finally something can ACTUALLY be cured using one weird trick that doctor's don't want you to know.
Another comparison point:
Diesel Locomotive (starting) 9515 ft lbs, and side note with these, they use electric motors (with diesel generators to create the electricity)
I beg to differ. Since it's the humans on the planet that are causing the non-natural release of CO2 that's causing anthropogenic climate change and subsequently it's the humans on the planet that need to change their habits to reduce their CO2 output to stop the anthropogenic climate change, it most definitely should be evaluated on a per capita basis.
Adding a couple more:
5. Less maintenance: Electric drivetrains have about 10% of the moving parts of a gasoline drive train. A hybrid destroys this advantage by having both drive trains plus additional tech to get them to work nicely together making them worse for maintenance than simple internal combustion engine vehicles.
6. More space: Electric drivetrains take up much less room, leaving that extra space for storage if the manufacturer is smart about it. Hybrids use up that extra space with the internal combustion drivetrain.
simulating every damn particle in the universe might require more energy than there is universe
Interesting point about the energy required to do the simulation. I've often wondered if this alone could be used to disprove the idea that we're in a simulation (at least where the "real" universe has the same physical laws).
For example, wouldn't the simulator need to exist in a relatively confined space? And if you have that much energy in a small-ish space, wouldn't its gravitational pull turn it into a singularity? That seems like a no-go to me.
I too live in Canada, and I see EVs every day. Usually they're Nissan Leafs, but I often also see Kia Soul EVs, BMW i3, Tesla Model S and Xs and I've even seen one Chevy Bolt, a Ford Focus EV and an ugly Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Maybe you just don't know what to look for, those Soul EVs look almost exactly like their Gas powered siblings. Or maybe you're in a particularly EV unfriendly place in Canada. Or maybe you're not actively looking for them like I am.
But it's no matter, not that I agree that it was a good prediction, the original claim was regarding new car sales, so the number of EVs currently on the road is irrelevant.
This could also explain why cat videos are so popular
I think you went too far when you used "allegedly" on an allegedly first-hand account, and then quoted some PR article.
FTFY (lol)
Seriously though, I feel the need to point out that this "first-hand" account is from someone who is hiding their identity whereas the PR article's author is not. So the nature of the bias and/or motivations from the "first-hand" account are much more hidden, whereas with the PR article, they're more clear.
It is really lame when somebody like you who likes call people trolls is modded more insightful than some Anonymous Coward who allegedly worked at a Tesla plant
FTFY
Also, here's a citation for the injury rate dropping. I'll admit it's biased, since it's coming from Elon who has a vested interest in making these claims. But the claims that the injury rate are so high are coming from the UAW who also have a vested interest in making these claims. So, at worst these claims are equivalent.
It's not done client side by HTML, CSS or JavaScript. It's done server side and they are serving out a jpg of the blurred image.
Granted, you need superchargers not far off your path, but they don't need to be at "just the right places" (ie. exactly 482km from your start point, then again 275km from there).
You could start off with your 482 km of range, and after say, 300km stop at a supercharger, add your 275km of range like in the above scenario, leaving you with 457km of range. Then stop again later for 15 minutes adding another 160km.
But I concede that not having them in your country would count as too far off your path. It's just going to be a matter of time before this infrastructure is everywhere.
Not sure if you consider this "reasonably affordable" or not, but the Tesla Model 3 will have an All-Wheel Drive option available once they finish ramping up their production line.
But people say that the traction control in Teslas is so well done there are no issues driving a rear-wheel drive version in the snow.
The majority of people don't have garages.
60.3% of US residents live in single family homes.
Whether or not all of these have garages specifically is immaterial, they have a dedicated place to park (and charge) their car.
Unless you're peeing in a bottle and eating in the car while you're making that 900km trip, you're going to need to stop at some point. While you're stopped to pee and to eat you're taking up time. If you're honest about how much time you actually take on your stops and how often these stops happen, you can imagine that you could be charging an EV during the length of the stop. So, an EV need not have a 900km range to do your trip, but instead a 900km minus however much it can charge while you're already stopped.
To give you an idea, a Tesla Model S can charge enough to get about 275 km of range in 30 minutes. You start with a full battery, giving you 482km, you stop for lunch (about 30 minutes), get another 275 km, and you've gone 757km of your trip without taking any *extra time* out of your trip to charge your car.
Let's say you need to take two breaks, because your back is sore and you have to pee again, you plug in again on your second stop, and it'll only take 15 minutes of charging this time to get the remaining range that you require for your 900km trip. This also happens to be about how long you would have stopped anyways.
The reality is that even these long trips can already be done by EVs like Teslas without actually increasing the amount of time you're probably taking to do that trip.
there is no reason to believe it would be bent on world domination, unless this were for some reason programmed into the system
And no one would ever ruin it for everyone else just because they're mad at the world or something. /s
The science says optimally a 4-wheel braking system can only recover 40% of the energy anyway so you'll always need a mechanical system that will wear.
The efficiency of the regenerative braking is irrelevant for whether or not you'll need mechanical systems. The need comes from the possibility that you may need to brake faster than the regenerative braking system is capable of slowing the car down.
You're totally correct. But this point is lost on those who aren't already EV owners or who aren't EV enthusiasts. I've noticed a trend in the people who are toying with the idea of replacing a gas car with an EV - they equate charging stations with gas stations. And if there aren't enough charging stations in their mind, they think they'll be stranded, like they would be if there weren't enough gas stations. It's stupid, but I hear this argument time and time again.
Well, Model 3 has the Bolt beat in this regard because it has access to Tesla's supercharger network AND all of the third party chargers that the Bolt has access to use.
Don't forget, Teslas can use all of the third party charging stations too, with the adapters that they provide with the car or ones that you can buy from them after you purchase. So you're only making my point stronger.
A more accurate title would be:
"Union organization that's pushing for union at Tesla have sent a letter of requests to company's board members"
From what I can tell, the push for the union is not coming from the Tesla employees exactly, though I don't doubt that there are some supporters who are Tesla employees. But it's coming from the United Auto Workers union, who are trying to expand their portfolio. From TFA:
"The United Auto Workers is in the process of trying to unionize the 10,000 Tesla workers at the Fremont plant, alleging the company has a poor safety record—a charge it vehemently denies."
Biggest difference is the supercharger network for the Model 3. The Bolt's options when it comes to road-trips are more limited and where they exist they are inferior since they don't have the same charge rate as the supercharger.
Automobiles are not purchased for the average case; they're purchased for reasonable worst case. And the reasonable worst-case performance of a car that runs on man-portable liquid fuel is lightyears beyond the worst-case performance of a glorified golf cart.
Your reasonable worst case has you walking miles with a Gerry can to get gas? Most people call services like AAA to resolve these situations. Services like this exist for EVs too.
Also, you're too focused on how long it takes to put the fuel in and not how long it takes of YOUR TIME to put the fuel in. With gas cars you've got to detour from your trip to get to a gas station, pull into the gas station, pay, actively pump the gas and leave. All taking up your time. Sure it's probably just 5-10 minutes but it's still your time. But with EVs, unless you're on vacation (road trip) you're charging it at home, while you sleep. It takes seconds of your time to plug it in and unplug it. Seconds vs. minutes. So unless you're taking more than, say, 2-3 road trips a year (when you need to charge mid-trip), you're actually spending less of your time charging an EV than you are gassing up a gas guzzler.
And for the cost... Sure it costs more up front for an EV, but if you look at the true cost of ownership EVs are on par with gas cars that cost $15,000 less, thanks to savings in fuel costs, much lower maintenance and slower depreciation. This is similar to how when gas cars cost more up front than horses back in the day, but they saved on their lifetime costs vs. owning a horse.
Gas cars never did everything better than horses (cars need flat surfaces to drive on and can't reproduce before they die) just as EVs don't do everything better than gas cars, but they do enough better that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Even fossil fuel power stations are more efficient than the most efficient gas powered car. Even with transmission losses and everything. So, even if we don't switch to renewable sources, it's improving the strain on the environment. But this just gets better and better as the infrastructure gradually gets upgraded to renewable sources. An Internal Combustion Engines never get more efficient over its lifetime.
You seem to still have the mindset that you only ever charge an EV at a charging station. Sorry, no, that's gas powered cars your thinking of.
The only time you need a charging station for an EV is when you're on a road trip. And when you're on a road trip you DO have extra time to wait while your car charges up because you'll also need to take a break from driving, you'll need to pee, you'll be hungry.
Battery swapping could be useful for people who can't charge at home overnight though. Considering that 70% of the US population lives in single family homes, this is not a problem for the majority of the population.
Recently a Tesla Model S set a new cannonball record for driving from California to New York (2830mi) and averaged 54 mph for the whole trip including charging breaks.
You don't lose as much time as you'd think charging, because you don't need to sit next to your car while it charges, you can simultaneously go get something to eat, use the bathroom or just stretch your legs. Taking these kinds of breaks makes for a nicer road trip anyways.
But sure, your edge case does show that in one way gas powered cars are still better than EVs.
To add a comparison point. There was recently a new EV record set from a Tesla. They drove from California to New York.
Total time: 51 hours, 54 minutes, 18 seconds
Average moving speed: 76 mph
Overall average speed: 54 mph
Sure, gas cars are the winner here. But EVs aren't far behind any longer so this is becoming more and more of an edge case.
"But, but, but, I NEED my method of transport to be able to drive cross country at more than 54mph!!!", sounds an awful lot like, "But, but, but, I NEED my method of transport to be able to jump over obstacles when they appear!!!"