It runs counter mostly with US ideas only. Sure US always wants to impose its laws and ideas over the world, but it would be naive to think that everybody will comply, as it runs against fundamental rights to privacy and individual human rights in EU.
You grand scheme doesn't work, as 1) google would still need to invest money and have hassle complying with the law, and somehow I think it is most important for them. 2) if google serves content in EU, it doesn't matter where servers are located, in France or on the Moon, it is still subject of EU law and anybody can be arrested as soon as he crosses the border. Not to mention that google income is from advertising, and advertisers need to wire funds to google somehow, and banks will comply with court orders.
It is about France and EU laws, not about US. You in the US have some laws and customs that look weird and medieval in the EU. Like allowing to publish underage arrest records, allowing extort money to remove them, and all various kind of medieval crap. In Europe privacy is somewhat more valued than in the US. Now Google being big US corporation is arrogant enough to attempt to push US laws and understanding how things should work in the EU. Sure, judges in France told them to... off. Typing google.com instead of google.fr while being in the EU doesn't make you immune from EU law, is it so difficult to understand?
Even if you speculate that Tesla found existing standard unsuitable, it is not how you do things if you want vehicle charging concept to succeed. You make your own much better standard, and make it public, maybe patent it and charge reasonable fees, but allow everybody interested to use the standard and network and not just fragment market for foreseeable future.
That's what Tesla did. Tesla's charging standard is open for other automakers and it was offered to SAE working group. They were not interested.
"Not interested" means the proposal had too many hooks attached or nothing was valuable in that Tesla protocol. If Tesla really wants to open it, it should 1) publish it 2) allow non-discriminatory third party EV access to their network based on reasonable per-use fee to recoup costs. Otherwise it is just lip service to look good and pump price of shares for next raise of capital. As Tesla wasn't able to come with single plug for their own network yet, what is the point switching to it now? 200kW likely will not be enough for this Porsche car anyway.
Any link about supercharging network unification? American version should go away then as it doesn't have enough conductors for 3-phase charging that is needed in Europe. I would imagine it would cost a fortune if they do right thing and change equipment everywhere in the US. And you know, European Tesla plug is bigger.
Retrofitting existing superchargers won't cost too much, especially if they distribute adapters among the existing Tesla customers first. Or do a retrofit during the regular service.
As for the adapters. See, you have no problems carrying Chademo adapter and using Chademo network built by other people, most charger owners don't make issue about it, even if you with your big battery may be blocking slower charger for a long time. But nobody from outside can use Tesla network. Don't you find something wrong in such approach?
Certainly not. Every time I charge at ChADeMo stations I also pay a fee, often quite steep (the most recent 30kWH charge up at Astoria, OR cost me $32). But superchargers are free for Tesla owners since they are essentially priced into the car's cost.
You tend to thing about yourself only, and short term. $32 is peanuts as you don't need to pay it every time, and it is much cheaper than flatbed truck to closest Tesla supercharger. Availability is more important than per-use rate. The point is that Tesla makes its network available to their customers only, it is useless for non-Tesla EVs. At the same time Tesla uses other networks. Not so nice word about would be leaching.
I don't see how Tesla cares more than others. Sure they have some limited network that allows cross country travel if you go the way that is available. But so what, other players don't need cross country travel, they didn't make long range EVs until recently as they found price would be prohibitive.
It's remarkable how you can contradict yourself in just two sentences.
It is not contradiction, it is looking for perspective. You as a customer are not interested in some proprietary monopoly as you are going to pay a lot for it eventually and will not get anything, and is even an obstacle for mass EV adoption in long term. Maybe you have a lot of Tesla shares and hope to profit from it, it would be different story. It is risky investment at current price.
Chademo plug geometry allows up to 200 A, likely more if you use different alloy to handle higher temperature. It means 80kW at 400V or 160kW at 800V.
Except that Tesla connectors were actually designed for 200kW at 400V. They are doing 150kW _right_ _now_ in Europe (not in some uncertain future) and are experimenting with liquid-cooled cables in the US.
So let's see, there was no approved standard when Tesla was developing its superchargers and the eventually approved standard is extremely shitty (the plugs are heavy, unreliable and don't allow for enough power).
There were EV automakers and Japanese electricity company working on the standard finalization, it was used in practice, it was well known for everybody in the field that is used in practice, and if Tesla wanted, they should have participated. "Not finalized" is not an excuse if you ever worked in any standard creation. Finalization typically takes long time as all interested parties have their opinions on every fine detail, but finalization usually don't go far from initial draft. No need to invent another wheel. The standard was approved as such because Tesla didn't wanted standard and didn't participated, and nobody else cared for Tesla power requirements. It doesn't mean that the plug can't carry more power - nobody worked on making it to carry more power. The fact that plug is bigger/heavier means that maybe it can carry more power. Just like Tesla in Europe uses modified Mennekes Type 2 plug that wasn't designed for such power initially, but it was made possible later.
Even if you speculate that Tesla found existing standard unsuitable, it is not how you do things if you want vehicle charging concept to succeed. You make your own much better standard, and make it public, maybe patent it and charge reasonable fees, but allow everybody interested to use the standard and network and not just fragment market for foreseeable future.
Exactly. Some shitty "standard" was invented by German/US automakers to drag down Japanese EVs. Some FUD was spread that competitors are "deprecated" and it worked, you repeat it now. Tesla had option to use common open standard at that time and CCS may be not have happened.
I actually work with guys who were involved in the SAE plug design. They have some choice words about it. For example, the SAE plug uses a complete TCP/IP stack over a custom PHY layer.
I don't think they sell such adapter, and I wouldn't be sure they would start charging when VIN from other region would be sent to supercharger, and you already may be carrying a dozen different adapters in your trunk or frunk. What a hassle.
Tesla said that the supercharging network will be unified across the continents. As for dozens adapters - yes, I actually carry a "frankencable" for charging and a ChADeMO adapter.
Any link about supercharging network unification? American version should go away then as it doesn't have enough conductors for 3-phase charging that is needed in Europe. I would imagine it would cost a fortune if they do right thing and change equipment everywhere in the US. And you know, European Tesla plug is bigger.
As for the adapters. See, you have no problems carrying Chademo adapter and using Chademo network built by other people, most charger owners don't make issue about it, even if you with your big battery may be blocking slower charger for a long time. But nobody from outside can use Tesla network. Don't you find something wrong in such approach?
It is called abuse in my book but as the are trying "to save the world" they are entitled to do anything in they eyes of their fans. Most evil things in the human history were done by people fighting "for greater good".
Nissan has it's own network for LEAFs. They should have called it "Charge for Sure(tm)". So I'd like to _eventually_ see
For the Tesla Model S/X price, certainly any gas station owner would be glad to sell you a cheaper car and provide gas for 100,000 miles, whatever is reasonable lifetime of that car, or until bankruptcy. Nobody in their right mind would go for such silly offer though. Who wants lock up itself into some niche monopoly company and get restricted for the life of the car where to fill gas and where to service car and pay up to the roof whatever the monopoly asks to pay because you have no choice anymore.
It is good my favorite gas station doesn't do some $$$$$ inspection of my vehicle before I put highly explosive gas into it, and do not require me to go to their own body shop charging $10,000 for each fender before I'm allowed to pass their inspection;) Competition is good thing for me.
There were no cars capable of 250k charging and the standard itself is limited to 80kW, so it was a stunt only. I have no idea where you got the 2008 date, the official international ChADeMO standard was released in 2011 ( http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=... ).
Standards are not made by some aliens, but by people interested in them. The fact that Chademo standard wasn't finalized to the last detail until some years later doesn't mean compatible chargers didn't existed before. http://www.japanfs.org/en/news... http://www.greencarcongress.co... http://www.chademo.com/wp/wp-c... As Tesla has chosen to fragment market in "DVD regions" style and do not participate, their needs for more power were not addressed. It doesn't mean it is not possible with the same or compatible plug. You can always extend software protocol for more power options and leave it backwards compatible. Changing plugs of existing widespread infrastructure is next to impossible. Chademo plug geometry allows up to 200 A, likely more if you use different alloy to handle higher temperature. It means 80kW at 400V or 160kW at 800V.
And anyway, it's being deprecated in favor of another shitty standard (from SAE this time).
Exactly. Some shitty "standard" was invented by German/US automakers to drag down Japanese EVs. Some FUD was spread that competitors are "deprecated" and it worked, you repeat it now. Tesla had option to use common open standard at that time and CCS may be not have happened. Like in Japan BMW i3 is sold with Chademo outlet instead of CCS: http://insideevs.com/bmw-i3-ge...
And no, Tesla network do not use one standard. In Europe and China their plug is completely different and not compatible with American version.
They are not completely different. They just use different wiring arrangements and can be adapted by a simple wiring adapter.
I don't think they sell such adapter, and I wouldn't be sure they would start charging when VIN from other region would be sent to supercharger, and you already may be carrying a dozen different adapters in your trunk or frunk. What a hassle. Well, next year we will see GM Bolt, and most likely GM's own (CSS or whatever) fast charging infrastructure will follow, more wider as GM (plus others) is bigger player, and Tesla will be left on isolated island. Isn't that what they wanted?
Model S are prevented from use superchargers as they check VIN when you plug in. Do you really want to say all this is good business ethics?
Since Tesla actually foots the electricity bills and funds the network rollout - that's perfectly fine. Also, superchargers are more powerful than ANY of the deployed standards out there right now.
It is called abuse in my book but as the are trying "to save the world" they are entitled to do anything in they eyes of their fans. Most evil things in the human history were done by people fighting "for greater good". They receive lots of subsidized loans/credits/all kinds perks from all taxpayers and it isn't exactly correct that they foot all the bills or that it is impossible for them to charge others for use of their network to recoup all reasonable costs. Such practice may be even become illegal in Europe soon, there is bill proposed that publicly accessible charging stations should not be discriminating against other EVs. How about gas stations with different hoses and owned by GM, Toyota, BMW, each incompatible with each other? Do you imagine what absurd waste of resour
Airvironment demonstrated 250kW EV charger to CARB in 2007. Chademo was already deployed in 2008 in Japan. Tesla opened superchargers when, in the end of 2012? Do they were sitting 4 years designing a charger and somebody prevented them from participating in existing standard improvement all these 4 years? It sounds like very lame excuse. And no, Tesla network do not use one standard. In Europe and China their plug is completely different and not compatible with American version. Their service centers don't take European Model S in the USA and don't serve American Model S in Europe. No service manuals are released unlike any major automaker. As they skip autodealers, they can use it as loophole to skip "right to repair" laws too. No spare parts are sold unless you prove you own proper title Model S and more "advanced" parts are not sold at all. Face it, it is classic monopoly play to take advantage of customer, just like DVD regions invention. Lip service about "creating greater future" doesn't count, words are cheap.
Chademo is the same everywhere and even Tesla can take advantage of it with their adapter. Not vice versa. You can plug CCS car in European Tesla Supercharger as the plug is similar to Mennekes Type 2, but it would not charge. Some people say even rebuilt salvage title Model S are prevented from use superchargers as they check VIN when you plug in. Do you really want to say all this is good business ethics? Sure, it is always possible to find excuses for a single thing, but the broad picture is still not nice.
Aren't reliable?? Not in my experience. They can go on track and do just fine. Yes cheap maintenance is not what you will find in Porsche or any performance car - when you push physical limits, you always need more expensive materials and design to handle higher loads.
It is difficult to argue about taste, especially when they have many different models, but many people would not say that they are ugly.
70-75mph limit for i3 ReX to maintain charge is what i3 drivers say, so I tend to believe them. Yes you can drive faster for a bit, and even hack the system to get some European setting to enable option to keep 30% charge for mountains. But once you get your charge exhausted, you are dropped into some eco mode with around 45-50 mph limit, and you can't drive at normal US highway at that speed at all:( p.s. Drag is not just cube of speed, it is much more complex. Anyway at high speed air drag takes most energy to maintain speed. Just normal sustained 20-40 mph front wind would drop your maximum speed needed to maintain charge by about the same. OK, maybe less a bit, but even 15 mph less would be 60 mph and it is just unsafe whey everybody drives at 75mph. In some Texas highways speed limit is 80 mph. It may be ok for some, but you can't really expect people to get $40-$50k car and constantly babysit charge level when driving on highway, too much pain.
BMW i3 ReX has 25kW generator and I heard it is enough to sustain 70mph on flat road, but it isn't all what you need. You may need to go against high wind for long time, go into mountain, put some heavy baggage or more people into a car and it would not enough to reach destination.
i3 would be fine car with enough head space, and it is actually fine in megacities in Europe and is going to sell there. But BMW overextended with their wish to please CARB for some extra credits that I think they eventually didn't get, and made some crippled version that can't keep charge with speed over 70-75mph on highway or go up on elevation with ReX. Just a bit more powerful ReX generator and bigger fuel tank, and it would be ideal vehicle, no worries for some charging networks and 95% of your traveled distance would be electric.
Aerovironment has demonstrated 250kW 330A 700V charger to CARB about a decade ago. http://evsolutions-dev.avinc.c... It has Chademo compatibility. It is sad that Tesla went fragmenting charging infrastructure with their closed proprietary protocol/network, or 2 incompatible Tesla networks for different regions of the world. It doesn't help EV adoption whatever you say.
Dream on, commodity bubble is over and commodity cycles last decades. OPEC is irrelevant now, they have minority of the market and can't even control each others output anymore. You will not see stable $100 oil price for next decade.
Except that lead batteries need frequent replacements, are too heavy and need constant refill service. They are crap and more expensive when you account for replacements. Or you can get salvaged Nissan Leaf battery for $2000-$3000 21kWh
They already tried with me. 5% off? No thanks State Farm. Go spy on your other customers.
Progressive was more generous for me - 30% off for Big Brother device. The only issue that price with 30% off was still about the same as competitor offer without device.
Storage always costs more than production, and always will. Decreasing trends don't last forever, and it will slow down, and in fact, it can only get so cheap.
Any arguments why it only can get so cheap? It doesn't make any sense to me. Sure trends can change, but it doesn't look likely with all that increasing funding in battery research and increasing demand for storage. I can get a quote from local home solar PV installers with or without battery backup (Tesla Powerwall or whatever). Cost difference for 5.5kW is just $16k vs $23k, plus you have backup in case of grid outage. It isn't enough for seasonal storage, but enough for daily.
Only if you build fusion plan right now for the fraction of the cost of fission plant.
So, what you are doing is moving the goal posts. Fission already costs a fraction of solar and offshore wind, without the storage requirement. Why would you expect that fusion should cost a fraction of a fraction of all other power generation methods?
You are contradicting yourself, first you say that solar is on par, than that fission costs fraction of solar. Which is right? You source gives numbers 95 nuclear vs 125 solar PV. But it is obviously not a full price, it doesn't include taxpayer provided nuclear liability insurance (Price-Anderson Act). This cost is huge and nobody would be building nuclear plants without this subsidy. It doesn't include nuclear waste storage for thousands of years, which is impossible even to calculate, while operational time is just few decades. It doesn't include backup plants that are required to balance grid in case of reactor shuts down unexpectedly. It doesn't include lost opportunity cost - nuclear plant license is for 40 years, and capital payoff takes decades, and how exactly you predict energy costs for 40 years? Nobody builds nuclear plants in the US anymore for these reasons, natural gas is cheaper and much more flexible. Some of these unaccounted costs would apply to fusion as well.
Sure I agree that if fusion would provide $95 MWh cost right now, it would be competitive to some extent. Now. Or maybe not, as natural gas in your source is around 60, and you can store gas and quickly power on when there is demand. But it is like arguing about pie in the sky, you will not have any fusion cost number for decades, and when you will have, situation will be completely different.
What is the cost of fusion, why should it be cheap? You really have little idea what it will be or when it will be on Earth at all. Most likely at least first plants will have very high capital cost, just like fission, and will not be viable without taxpayer subsidies. Storage costs are going down rapidly, around 8-14% per year. At that speed, storage will use increase and it would fund further development of storage technology. By the time fusion will be ready, storage costs will be irrelevant.
Only if you build fusion plan right now for the fraction of the cost of fission plant. But it is not going to happen of decades at least. It is highly unlikely that storage will not get many times cheaper by then.
Slashdot Mirror
It runs counter mostly with US ideas only. Sure US always wants to impose its laws and ideas over the world, but it would be naive to think that everybody will comply, as it runs against fundamental rights to privacy and individual human rights in EU.
You grand scheme doesn't work, as 1) google would still need to invest money and have hassle complying with the law, and somehow I think it is most important for them. 2) if google serves content in EU, it doesn't matter where servers are located, in France or on the Moon, it is still subject of EU law and anybody can be arrested as soon as he crosses the border. Not to mention that google income is from advertising, and advertisers need to wire funds to google somehow, and banks will comply with court orders.
It is about France and EU laws, not about US. You in the US have some laws and customs that look weird and medieval in the EU. Like allowing to publish underage arrest records, allowing extort money to remove them, and all various kind of medieval crap. In Europe privacy is somewhat more valued than in the US. Now Google being big US corporation is arrogant enough to attempt to push US laws and understanding how things should work in the EU. Sure, judges in France told them to ... off. Typing google.com instead of google.fr while being in the EU doesn't make you immune from EU law, is it so difficult to understand?
The law is not a problem, problem is Google arrogance trying to circumvent the law.
Even if you speculate that Tesla found existing standard unsuitable, it is not how you do things if you want vehicle charging concept to succeed. You make your own much better standard, and make it public, maybe patent it and charge reasonable fees, but allow everybody interested to use the standard and network and not just fragment market for foreseeable future.
That's what Tesla did. Tesla's charging standard is open for other automakers and it was offered to SAE working group. They were not interested.
"Not interested" means the proposal had too many hooks attached or nothing was valuable in that Tesla protocol. If Tesla really wants to open it, it should 1) publish it 2) allow non-discriminatory third party EV access to their network based on reasonable per-use fee to recoup costs. Otherwise it is just lip service to look good and pump price of shares for next raise of capital.
As Tesla wasn't able to come with single plug for their own network yet, what is the point switching to it now? 200kW likely will not be enough for this Porsche car anyway.
Any link about supercharging network unification? American version should go away then as it doesn't have enough conductors for 3-phase charging that is needed in Europe. I would imagine it would cost a fortune if they do right thing and change equipment everywhere in the US. And you know, European Tesla plug is bigger.
Retrofitting existing superchargers won't cost too much, especially if they distribute adapters among the existing Tesla customers first. Or do a retrofit during the regular service.
As for the adapters. See, you have no problems carrying Chademo adapter and using Chademo network built by other people, most charger owners don't make issue about it, even if you with your big battery may be blocking slower charger for a long time. But nobody from outside can use Tesla network. Don't you find something wrong in such approach?
Certainly not. Every time I charge at ChADeMo stations I also pay a fee, often quite steep (the most recent 30kWH charge up at Astoria, OR cost me $32). But superchargers are free for Tesla owners since they are essentially priced into the car's cost.
You tend to thing about yourself only, and short term. $32 is peanuts as you don't need to pay it every time, and it is much cheaper than flatbed truck to closest Tesla supercharger. Availability is more important than per-use rate. The point is that Tesla makes its network available to their customers only, it is useless for non-Tesla EVs. At the same time Tesla uses other networks. Not so nice word about would be leaching.
I don't see how Tesla cares more than others. Sure they have some limited network that allows cross country travel if you go the way that is available. But so what, other players don't need cross country travel, they didn't make long range EVs until recently as they found price would be prohibitive.
It's remarkable how you can contradict yourself in just two sentences.
It is not contradiction, it is looking for perspective. You as a customer are not interested in some proprietary monopoly as you are going to pay a lot for it eventually and will not get anything, and is even an obstacle for mass EV adoption in long term. Maybe you have a lot of Tesla shares and hope to profit from it, it would be different story. It is risky investment at current price.
Chademo plug geometry allows up to 200 A, likely more if you use different alloy to handle higher temperature. It means 80kW at 400V or 160kW at 800V.
Except that Tesla connectors were actually designed for 200kW at 400V. They are doing 150kW _right_ _now_ in Europe (not in some uncertain future) and are experimenting with liquid-cooled cables in the US.
So let's see, there was no approved standard when Tesla was developing its superchargers and the eventually approved standard is extremely shitty (the plugs are heavy, unreliable and don't allow for enough power).
There were EV automakers and Japanese electricity company working on the standard finalization, it was used in practice, it was well known for everybody in the field that is used in practice, and if Tesla wanted, they should have participated. "Not finalized" is not an excuse if you ever worked in any standard creation. Finalization typically takes long time as all interested parties have their opinions on every fine detail, but finalization usually don't go far from initial draft. No need to invent another wheel. The standard was approved as such because Tesla didn't wanted standard and didn't participated, and nobody else cared for Tesla power requirements. It doesn't mean that the plug can't carry more power - nobody worked on making it to carry more power. The fact that plug is bigger/heavier means that maybe it can carry more power. Just like Tesla in Europe uses modified Mennekes Type 2 plug that wasn't designed for such power initially, but it was made possible later.
Even if you speculate that Tesla found existing standard unsuitable, it is not how you do things if you want vehicle charging concept to succeed. You make your own much better standard, and make it public, maybe patent it and charge reasonable fees, but allow everybody interested to use the standard and network and not just fragment market for foreseeable future.
Exactly. Some shitty "standard" was invented by German/US automakers to drag down Japanese EVs. Some FUD was spread that competitors are "deprecated" and it worked, you repeat it now. Tesla had option to use common open standard at that time and CCS may be not have happened.
I actually work with guys who were involved in the SAE plug design. They have some choice words about it. For example, the SAE plug uses a complete TCP/IP stack over a custom PHY layer.
I don't think they sell such adapter, and I wouldn't be sure they would start charging when VIN from other region would be sent to supercharger, and you already may be carrying a dozen different adapters in your trunk or frunk. What a hassle.
Tesla said that the supercharging network will be unified across the continents. As for dozens adapters - yes, I actually carry a "frankencable" for charging and a ChADeMO adapter.
Any link about supercharging network unification? American version should go away then as it doesn't have enough conductors for 3-phase charging that is needed in Europe. I would imagine it would cost a fortune if they do right thing and change equipment everywhere in the US. And you know, European Tesla plug is bigger.
As for the adapters. See, you have no problems carrying Chademo adapter and using Chademo network built by other people, most charger owners don't make issue about it, even if you with your big battery may be blocking slower charger for a long time. But nobody from outside can use Tesla network. Don't you find something wrong in such approach?
It is called abuse in my book but as the are trying "to save the world" they are entitled to do anything in they eyes of their fans. Most evil things in the human history were done by people fighting "for greater good".
Nissan has it's own network for LEAFs. They should have called it "Charge for Sure(tm)". So I'd like to _eventually_ see
For the Tesla Model S/X price, certainly any gas station owner would be glad to sell you a cheaper car and provide gas for 100,000 miles, whatever is reasonable lifetime of that car, or until bankruptcy. Nobody in their right mind would go for such silly offer though. Who wants lock up itself into some niche monopoly company and get restricted for the life of the car where to fill gas and where to service car and pay up to the roof whatever the monopoly asks to pay because you have no choice anymore.
It is good my favorite gas station doesn't do some $$$$$ inspection of my vehicle before I put highly explosive gas into it, and do not require me to go to their own body shop charging $10,000 for each fender before I'm allowed to pass their inspection ;) Competition is good thing for me.
There were no cars capable of 250k charging and the standard itself is limited to 80kW, so it was a stunt only. I have no idea where you got the 2008 date, the official international ChADeMO standard was released in 2011 ( http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=... ).
Standards are not made by some aliens, but by people interested in them. The fact that Chademo standard wasn't finalized to the last detail until some years later doesn't mean compatible chargers didn't existed before.
http://www.japanfs.org/en/news...
http://www.greencarcongress.co...
http://www.chademo.com/wp/wp-c...
As Tesla has chosen to fragment market in "DVD regions" style and do not participate, their needs for more power were not addressed. It doesn't mean it is not possible with the same or compatible plug. You can always extend software protocol for more power options and leave it backwards compatible. Changing plugs of existing widespread infrastructure is next to impossible. Chademo plug geometry allows up to 200 A, likely more if you use different alloy to handle higher temperature. It means 80kW at 400V or 160kW at 800V.
And anyway, it's being deprecated in favor of another shitty standard (from SAE this time).
Exactly. Some shitty "standard" was invented by German/US automakers to drag down Japanese EVs. Some FUD was spread that competitors are "deprecated" and it worked, you repeat it now. Tesla had option to use common open standard at that time and CCS may be not have happened. Like in Japan BMW i3 is sold with Chademo outlet instead of CCS:
http://insideevs.com/bmw-i3-ge...
And no, Tesla network do not use one standard. In Europe and China their plug is completely different and not compatible with American version.
They are not completely different. They just use different wiring arrangements and can be adapted by a simple wiring adapter.
I don't think they sell such adapter, and I wouldn't be sure they would start charging when VIN from other region would be sent to supercharger, and you already may be carrying a dozen different adapters in your trunk or frunk. What a hassle. Well, next year we will see GM Bolt, and most likely GM's own (CSS or whatever) fast charging infrastructure will follow, more wider as GM (plus others) is bigger player, and Tesla will be left on isolated island. Isn't that what they wanted?
Model S are prevented from use superchargers as they check VIN when you plug in. Do you really want to say all this is good business ethics?
Since Tesla actually foots the electricity bills and funds the network rollout - that's perfectly fine. Also, superchargers are more powerful than ANY of the deployed standards out there right now.
It is called abuse in my book but as the are trying "to save the world" they are entitled to do anything in they eyes of their fans. Most evil things in the human history were done by people fighting "for greater good". They receive lots of subsidized loans/credits/all kinds perks from all taxpayers and it isn't exactly correct that they foot all the bills or that it is impossible for them to charge others for use of their network to recoup all reasonable costs. Such practice may be even become illegal in Europe soon, there is bill proposed that publicly accessible charging stations should not be discriminating against other EVs. How about gas stations with different hoses and owned by GM, Toyota, BMW, each incompatible with each other? Do you imagine what absurd waste of resour
Airvironment demonstrated 250kW EV charger to CARB in 2007. Chademo was already deployed in 2008 in Japan. Tesla opened superchargers when, in the end of 2012? Do they were sitting 4 years designing a charger and somebody prevented them from participating in existing standard improvement all these 4 years? It sounds like very lame excuse.
And no, Tesla network do not use one standard. In Europe and China their plug is completely different and not compatible with American version. Their service centers don't take European Model S in the USA and don't serve American Model S in Europe. No service manuals are released unlike any major automaker. As they skip autodealers, they can use it as loophole to skip "right to repair" laws too. No spare parts are sold unless you prove you own proper title Model S and more "advanced" parts are not sold at all. Face it, it is classic monopoly play to take advantage of customer, just like DVD regions invention. Lip service about "creating greater future" doesn't count, words are cheap.
Chademo is the same everywhere and even Tesla can take advantage of it with their adapter. Not vice versa. You can plug CCS car in European Tesla Supercharger as the plug is similar to Mennekes Type 2, but it would not charge. Some people say even rebuilt salvage title Model S are prevented from use superchargers as they check VIN when you plug in. Do you really want to say all this is good business ethics? Sure, it is always possible to find excuses for a single thing, but the broad picture is still not nice.
Aren't reliable?? Not in my experience. They can go on track and do just fine. Yes cheap maintenance is not what you will find in Porsche or any performance car - when you push physical limits, you always need more expensive materials and design to handle higher loads.
It is difficult to argue about taste, especially when they have many different models, but many people would not say that they are ugly.
70-75mph limit for i3 ReX to maintain charge is what i3 drivers say, so I tend to believe them. Yes you can drive faster for a bit, and even hack the system to get some European setting to enable option to keep 30% charge for mountains. But once you get your charge exhausted, you are dropped into some eco mode with around 45-50 mph limit, and you can't drive at normal US highway at that speed at all :(
p.s. Drag is not just cube of speed, it is much more complex. Anyway at high speed air drag takes most energy to maintain speed. Just normal sustained 20-40 mph front wind would drop your maximum speed needed to maintain charge by about the same. OK, maybe less a bit, but even 15 mph less would be 60 mph and it is just unsafe whey everybody drives at 75mph. In some Texas highways speed limit is 80 mph.
It may be ok for some, but you can't really expect people to get $40-$50k car and constantly babysit charge level when driving on highway, too much pain.
BMW i3 ReX has 25kW generator and I heard it is enough to sustain 70mph on flat road, but it isn't all what you need. You may need to go against high wind for long time, go into mountain, put some heavy baggage or more people into a car and it would not enough to reach destination.
Yes, and the primary reason for that reputation is that Porsche makes really good cars that are fun to drive and own.
i3 would be fine car with enough head space, and it is actually fine in megacities in Europe and is going to sell there. But BMW overextended with their wish to please CARB for some extra credits that I think they eventually didn't get, and made some crippled version that can't keep charge with speed over 70-75mph on highway or go up on elevation with ReX. Just a bit more powerful ReX generator and bigger fuel tank, and it would be ideal vehicle, no worries for some charging networks and 95% of your traveled distance would be electric.
Correction: 550A, not 330
Aerovironment has demonstrated 250kW 330A 700V charger to CARB about a decade ago.
http://evsolutions-dev.avinc.c...
It has Chademo compatibility.
It is sad that Tesla went fragmenting charging infrastructure with their closed proprietary protocol/network, or 2 incompatible Tesla networks for different regions of the world. It doesn't help EV adoption whatever you say.
You already can get them at around $250/kWh. By 2020 it will be $100/kWh. The study uses some hopelessly outdated data.
Dream on, commodity bubble is over and commodity cycles last decades. OPEC is irrelevant now, they have minority of the market and can't even control each others output anymore. You will not see stable $100 oil price for next decade.
Except that lead batteries need frequent replacements, are too heavy and need constant refill service. They are crap and more expensive when you account for replacements.
Or you can get salvaged Nissan Leaf battery for $2000-$3000 21kWh
They already tried with me. 5% off? No thanks State Farm. Go spy on your other customers.
Progressive was more generous for me - 30% off for Big Brother device. The only issue that price with 30% off was still about the same as competitor offer without device.
Storage always costs more than production, and always will. Decreasing trends don't last forever, and it will slow down, and in fact, it can only get so cheap.
Any arguments why it only can get so cheap? It doesn't make any sense to me. Sure trends can change, but it doesn't look likely with all that increasing funding in battery research and increasing demand for storage. I can get a quote from local home solar PV installers with or without battery backup (Tesla Powerwall or whatever). Cost difference for 5.5kW is just $16k vs $23k, plus you have backup in case of grid outage. It isn't enough for seasonal storage, but enough for daily.
Only if you build fusion plan right now for the fraction of the cost of fission plant.
So, what you are doing is moving the goal posts. Fission already costs a fraction of solar and offshore wind, without the storage requirement. Why would you expect that fusion should cost a fraction of a fraction of all other power generation methods?
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/a...
You are contradicting yourself, first you say that solar is on par, than that fission costs fraction of solar. Which is right? You source gives numbers 95 nuclear vs 125 solar PV. But it is obviously not a full price, it doesn't include taxpayer provided nuclear liability insurance (Price-Anderson Act). This cost is huge and nobody would be building nuclear plants without this subsidy. It doesn't include nuclear waste storage for thousands of years, which is impossible even to calculate, while operational time is just few decades. It doesn't include backup plants that are required to balance grid in case of reactor shuts down unexpectedly. It doesn't include lost opportunity cost - nuclear plant license is for 40 years, and capital payoff takes decades, and how exactly you predict energy costs for 40 years? Nobody builds nuclear plants in the US anymore for these reasons, natural gas is cheaper and much more flexible. Some of these unaccounted costs would apply to fusion as well.
Sure I agree that if fusion would provide $95 MWh cost right now, it would be competitive to some extent. Now. Or maybe not, as natural gas in your source is around 60, and you can store gas and quickly power on when there is demand. But it is like arguing about pie in the sky, you will not have any fusion cost number for decades, and when you will have, situation will be completely different.
What is the cost of fusion, why should it be cheap? You really have little idea what it will be or when it will be on Earth at all. Most likely at least first plants will have very high capital cost, just like fission, and will not be viable without taxpayer subsidies.
Storage costs are going down rapidly, around 8-14% per year. At that speed, storage will use increase and it would fund further development of storage technology. By the time fusion will be ready, storage costs will be irrelevant.
Only if you build fusion plan right now for the fraction of the cost of fission plant. But it is not going to happen of decades at least. It is highly unlikely that storage will not get many times cheaper by then.
Light is just fine actually.