The US does indeed has its border controls in few foreign airports, e.g. in Ireland, before you even board the plane to the US. But really you don't need "long arms" to pick up phone and let the other side to know in advance that you don't want passenger X to board the plane as he is in extra risk list. US (and not just US) gets passenger list at least some hours in advance for very obvious reason, so they can react and prevent boarding.
It is not that easy to replicate Google approach as as far as I heard they try to map every rock on the street in advance. To replicate it nationwide it would take a lot of resources only Google has so far. Insurance companies may be willing to underwrite liability insurance though anyway if it is not perfect but incident rate matches average driver on the street including drunks and raging & racing idiots.
The problem with these millions miles is that they are all on the same track, so really means nothing when you go elsewhere or when something changes on the road.
It is fine for driver assistance, but it doesn't sound like fool-proof for autonomous car. What if you drive in some location where Teslas are not very popular and get into new road construction zone with remapped or absent lanes? Will Tesla just follow previous path and go straight into a pile of sand? I would rather wait for other guinea pigs to test such system on full scale before relying on it myself.
Humans who don't operate machinery loose skills to do it inevitably. It is already happening with airliners, from time to time pilots get confused with simple things when autopilot disconnects, even if they are supposed to receive simulator training. E.g. Air France flight over Atlantic, autopilot disconnected and pilot was unable to keep plane going at constant speed and pushed up until it went into stall. Or Korean plane hitting seawall in CA in perfect weather just because some autolanding system was off.
You may still retains driving skills as you were driving for many years. But younger generation will not have them.
Does Tesla sell factory service/repair manuals? As far as I heard nope, they don't. Neither spare parts unless you prove that you own clean title Tesla and it isn't something more complex like engine. Good look trying to reverse engineer it which would probably be declared illegal as well. And they can switch off their charger access at any moment, or any charging for that matter, thanks to that great over-the-air update & always connected feature of total control of your (are you sure it is your anymore?) car.
That way you don't need to use any words at all because everybody is intelligent enough to know everything:/ If you still use words, you may want to use them in unambiguous way (like zero tailpipe emissions) to avoid discrediting your agenda. Event blatant advertising puts "* conditions apply" notes and lists conditions at least in fine print.
"Does that mean anyone who drives a gasoline car supports brutal middle-eastern regimes and terrorism?" I would not stick terrorism here as it doesn't stick very well. But for hostile regimes in Middle East or more important in Russia, yes, it does support them, I agree.
Nukes are legacy of military development. They are rarely built anymore because capital cost is several times more of alternatives, especially in the US with cheap natural gas. Even with government provided waiver for liability insurance that would be huge or unobtainable. Nukes don't help solar/gas because nukes are always on, so they can't compensate for lows in solar/wind supply. Technically you can stop reactor or reduce power, but nuclear fuel cost is small fraction of capital cost, so it doesn't make sense. So if you already have nukes, you don't need solar/wind because they can't provide reliable power at peak time or at any time. Unreliable power isn't what such grid needs. Solar/wind plus NON-legacy, but new natural gas turbines that can ramp up in seconds may work. But solar/wind needs compete with fuel cost only, because you need full power backup from gas whey solar/wind is not available. Natural gas is very cheap, so it is hard competition. Legacy coal/gas needs A DAY to ramp up, so it doesn't work with solar/wind that requires constant change of other power supplies. The only renewable that is better is hydro. But it is limited by geography and has similar seasonal issues, and dry years issue. Sure you may say that for now solar/wind penetration is low in most places and you may get away with import/export. But what kind of solution it is if it can't do more than 30% or so of grid power? Even at 30% it becomes an issue, e.g. Germany has 30% renewable grid and invested a lot in cross country lines and grid balancing, and household electricity prices are around 0.30 EUR/kWh now. Charging from clean grid becomes very distant and expensive fantasy then.
No, it isn't. It only helps somebody who wants to feel green and better person. Not the grid in the long run. First, the price makes energy from battery expensive, higher than peak wholesale price. Lithium battery cost only allows to use them for very short term balancing, e.g. gives some minutes to turn on regular generator. E.g. recent battery project was announced for German grid. But it is still too high for peak cost shaving. Household tesla powerwall may help to acomodate a bit more solar into grid, as it reduced "duck" pattern when demand goes too high at sunset. But the end result is still the same, dead end. You need seasonal storage to make grid clean and reliable. That is not lithium batteries.
There is some Dynad Hydromax offer, but it will cost you a fortune to operate. The fuel cell technology is small niche so far, so it would cost a lot for now, and high power becomes cost-prohibitive.
Sometimes in year 2100 when battery weight and price will be 50 less than now, they will sure do. Antigravity transportation should be popular by then too;)
Average SUV doesn't consume 100% more fuel than typical sedan. Though you of course can do some extreme comparison between subcompact and largest SUV. You can always make such excuse, "my car pollutes less than Boeing 747, so who cares". It doesn't fly.
World Health Organization (WHO) has classified diesel engine exhaust as a carcinogen – a substance that causes cancer. It is scientific fact and you may as well argue that Earth is flat. It isn't just NOx but whole complex of substances.
Paris and London has hard time now due to diesel exhaust - they are victim of stupid earlier policy to promote diesels and need to suffer more smog as result. Now they try to put on all kinds of restrictions do not admit diesels to downtown and reverse the stupid policy, but it is a bit too late. The EPA (or whoever set emission limits) has done good job keeping this junk out of the US as much as possible.
"Electric vehicles are zero emissions" without elaborating anything further is half truth that intends to make impression to uninformed people that they result in no pollution when battery is made and when you charge a car. I would call it "intentionally misleading" but you may have different opinion.
You are missing the point. Apple represented a transition point, a point where (1) the public began to think "I want a personal computer" and (2) Competitors (ex IBM) followed them into this emerging market.
I lived at that time and I know how it was, and it doesn't look so to me. Apple didn't represented any transition point at that time. Apple II was just one of many micro computer producers for few hobbyists, gamers and enthusiasts, too primitive for anything serious. IBM PC was the thing that moved computers from big business and research facilities to masses.
Tesla seems to have sparked a similar interest in all-electric in the public's mind. Competitors like Porsche are following, http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/1....
It sounds like some wrapped reality to me. Yes, Tesla generated a lot of hype, but electric battery cars were well known before Model S (e.g. Nissan Leaf, EV1) and who cares about public's mind really? It is not a new optional toy, but transportation. Everybody already uses transportation and knows it is needed. When you have technology and can make competitive mass-market product, any automaker would just do it and public will buy it after some advertising. When you don't have technology suitable for mass market, you can generate huge hype, promise any vaporware, even produce some niche vehicles for rich enthusiasts using taxpayer money, promise greater future that the messiah will lead you to, whatever. It is not really what changes the world. Public enthusiasm doesn't create technology, people in labs do, and they are typically a bit more balanced and persons capable of critical thinking.
Please check here how "duck" looks: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... Please tell us how do you "solve" duck problem. When Sun goes down, it goes down everywhere in half of the Earth.
Yes you can use storage. Except that you don't have any practical storage, and when you account for capital, electricity from battery/pumped hydro/compressed air storage costs more than peak wholesale rate. Makes little sense for utilities to invest into it. It may be different for household when you are playing with various incentives, but no seasonal storage is available to households to disconnect from grid now, other than keeping natural gas generators, natural gas appliances, and it is obviously bad idea if you have electric grid available.
Yes you can use natural gas plants, but you need to build new, as typical old plants can't go up and down many times a day, they need up to a day to reach full power. Now you build new gas plant and use it at full power for like 2-3 hours a day, maybe at night, or when wind is not blowing. How is it going to repay capital costs and staff salaries? The shorter the usage time, the higher the cost of its electricity. Basically solar/wind allows you to offset natural gas plant fuel cost at random times, and that is all, you still need to pay for new gas plant for full required power.
Yes you can rely on export/import. This is what it is done in practice. This relies on your neighbors NOT using much intermittent renewables, as otherwise they would follow similar supply/demand pattern and you would have nowhere to export/import. That is what I was talking about. Great solution that enables to pose as superior to others but have little value as global solution as it leads to dead end. Long transcontinental transmission lines are inherently unreliable to rely just on them.
In more distant future, you may come with power-to-gas technology, that means production of hydrogen or synthetic methane and storing it in already available natural gas storage that has capacity for seasonal storage. It is likely to be more expensive than fracking, and battery cars would make less sense when paying full price for clean electricity, accounting for huge cost of balancing electric grid. Hydrogen fuel cells may make more sense than batteries then.
You are engaging in game of words to support your agenda. This doesn't make your agenda look credible, rather the opposite. Agenda that requires game of words to look good can't be credible. You may as well say that gas car doesn't produce emissions, only the fuel produce them. It is misleading as makes people to assume things that may or may not be assumed.
You have no other practical forms to charge but to use electric grid that is not going to become clean any time soon. Whatever you install on your roof to sell power to grid at teaser rates is irrelevant. You don't have any choice when and where to charge - and anyway it would be the same grid, there aren't any fantasy green chargers that collect solar to cheap fantasy batteries for half a year and then everybody can use this saved energy. Battery capacity is very limited, you must charge it from grid as soon as it gets half empty, or your trip next day may end with flatbed or being stuck for a half of day at lower power charger. It is not going to change in the next decade.
The term is entirely misleading. Zero tailpipe emissions would be accurate.
No, you can't produce clean electricity in practical way that can be used to charge cars (typically after sunset). Hydro is limited by geography and doesn't work so well in dry years. Solar is reaching its peak and daytime demand is going closer to zero in California due to too many solar installations. Demand peak starts at sunset. Google "duck" and "California grid". Solar/wind relies on new gas plants that can be turned on/off on demand. Most older ones can't, so you just run them whole day. Basically you can only use intermittent renewables under condition that your neighbors (or neighboring states) are not using them much and are ready to back you up with power of fracking product. Electricity storage is way too expensive, more expensive than peak wholesale rates for now. Seasonal power demand fluctuations are entirely hopeless matter for solar/wind without (whatever) gas that can be stored for seasons.
What a crap a you talking about, "so tight". Do you have a slightest idea how diesel engine works? SUV or not SUV just increase engine size by 30-50% or so, compression is still low and all that cancerous stuff from high compression diesel engines is emitted only by diesels that skip on these limits. No, limits are not tight, they are too loose and too loosely enforced. Especially on older diesels, and all cars inevitably get older with time.
1/10 the energy density (by volume) already exists, and much better than that, more like 1/3 at low volume production level. Not ready yet for full scale auto production, but it is just matter of time to scale it up. But this kind of battery is called a bit differently, i.e. fuel cell, that is why Musk and his fanboys hate it so much.
Musk must be nuts. Many of these VW diesels can be fixed just by software update, or minor hardware changes. Now we should leave these smog & cancer machines on the road just because Musk wants to create market for his battery factory? Oh, yes, it is all "for greater good", so it must be ok. He would better invent a quick way to fix electric grid from reliance on dispatchable power sources like natural gas from fracking and coal.
. Designing and tuning a suspension or building a structural frame or a seat are not software and never will be.
Yes, sure. Why would Apple or Tesla do that? They can just order suspension from Continental like everybody else:/ OK, they still need to design something mechanical. But large part of it is just order from OEM parts bin that everybody uses. I don't think future really autonomous cars without steering wheel would emphasize mechanical part. E.g. look at recently shown Nissan concepts. What is important, is how it looks and feels inside, how it sounds, is it trendy and fashionable. Handling cornering? Who cares, computer does it, as long it doesn't spill coffee, it is ok. 0-60 times? Are you what, some stone age dragracer with ancient manual car? Too quick acceleration disrupts my breakfast! Mechanics will be just utility, software will rule. Good time for software company to step into game, just like it did when communication hardware became minicomputers aka smartphones.
I don't know what profit margins Apple is planning, I don't design their business plans obviously;) But they certainly can get more than others. Plenty of people pay a lot of extra for all kind of "cool" vehicles and get no utility for it, it is not going to change. Make something fashionable, and you can charge extra. Car payment is several hundreds dollars. It is more than iPhone, so it is new area for Apple, but it also promises bigger money. Whatever, they already are trying it with or without Faraday frontend. We will see how well it will go for them, I don't bet for them either, but they do it anyway and they have money to burn.
I think you overestimate marketing too much. Marketing always comes from somebody when technology is available, it is matter of time, not some exceptional capabilities of random marketer, though marketers with exceptional capabilities like Steve Jobs always shine.
You may create as much overpriced products as you want that are attractive to mass-market but not affordable. It doesn't create some breakthrough in battery lab research by itself and make these niche cars suitable for mass market. There are plenty of automakers willing to produce and market mass-market cars with or without Tesla - the problem is that technology isn't exactly here yet, not public perception. Obsession with 0-60 in particular and drag-racing is more US market phenomena, though it exists everywhere.
On history: Apple wasn't the only producer of toy/game/micro computers at that time and it didn't created mass interest. Computers were not for masses at that time. Anything serious was done on mainframe terminals and PDP-11 family of minicomputers. IBM PC created mass interest by using open architecture and attracting all software/hardware developers, though it still was exotics outside computing centers in the first years.
I don't know what do you mean by "big Lexus". E.g. RX 450h uses 30 mpg. I certainly don't need some oversized car myself and have no need to show people around how "tough" I'm by size of my junk on wheels, nor I spend much time in a car, so I'm not very interested in them.
Your grid usage pattern only works for you and few early adopters, and you still have no way to charge your car without fossil powered grid. This doesn't scale up as global solution at all.
Model S doesn't make any sense as pollution reducer, except for smog in places like Los Angeles. Just extra manufacturing pollution for expensive car along whole supply chain that you don't even know would offset any reduction in greenhouse gas emission when charging it from imaginary green US/Canada grid (that doesn't exist yet). Sure it may be better in that aspect than other oversized cars at that price point, but obsession with oversized cars in the US is one of the causes of the problem in the first place. It is like some "Sustainable/green/ecology" sales sticker on a natural fur coat.
2015 estimate of carbon emission social cost is $60/ton. You can buy carbon credits for much less now. For Model S price you may buy much more carbon credits than 6, or 60, or 600 tons if you really care about pollution.
You may call it milestone or whatever, but electric car is no way news, I'm not getting into irrational exuberance just because some "invented" electric car yet another time. Grandfather of Porsche family that owns VW group (including Porsche brand) was making electric car as his first attempt a century ago. We had EV1. Golf fields are dominated by electric transportation for decades. Formula 1 cars use electric motors at some time, and well known hybrids uses it too to some extent. Their advantages and disadvantages are well know for decades, nothing left to investigate. Just show me a battery for sale at $50/kWh with good enough energy density, able to withstand full charge in 20 min for 1000 cycles, and will get excited.
A smaller lighter car would not need exactly the same battery, but sizing would be close, you would not be able to reduce it twice. I'll get excited when I'll see mass-market electric capable of road trips and at the same price as gas vehicle of the same size. So far Tesla provides a way to feel being part of trendy green elite but no way it is changing the world as their mass market car is somewhere on the other side of the Moon. It looks like mass market automakers (those conspired with Big Oil ) have more chances to change the world for real. E.g. Toyota had sold millions of boring hybrids worldwide, and each of them emits about the same amount of greenhouse gases as battery electric car on US/Canada grid, without much fuss and $100k price tags.
Slashdot Mirror
The US does indeed has its border controls in few foreign airports, e.g. in Ireland, before you even board the plane to the US. But really you don't need "long arms" to pick up phone and let the other side to know in advance that you don't want passenger X to board the plane as he is in extra risk list. US (and not just US) gets passenger list at least some hours in advance for very obvious reason, so they can react and prevent boarding.
It is not that easy to replicate Google approach as as far as I heard they try to map every rock on the street in advance. To replicate it nationwide it would take a lot of resources only Google has so far.
Insurance companies may be willing to underwrite liability insurance though anyway if it is not perfect but incident rate matches average driver on the street including drunks and raging & racing idiots.
GPS may be hardly usable in some places like South America.
The problem with these millions miles is that they are all on the same track, so really means nothing when you go elsewhere or when something changes on the road.
It is fine for driver assistance, but it doesn't sound like fool-proof for autonomous car. What if you drive in some location where Teslas are not very popular and get into new road construction zone with remapped or absent lanes? Will Tesla just follow previous path and go straight into a pile of sand? I would rather wait for other guinea pigs to test such system on full scale before relying on it myself.
Humans who don't operate machinery loose skills to do it inevitably. It is already happening with airliners, from time to time pilots get confused with simple things when autopilot disconnects, even if they are supposed to receive simulator training. E.g. Air France flight over Atlantic, autopilot disconnected and pilot was unable to keep plane going at constant speed and pushed up until it went into stall. Or Korean plane hitting seawall in CA in perfect weather just because some autolanding system was off.
You may still retains driving skills as you were driving for many years. But younger generation will not have them.
Does Tesla sell factory service/repair manuals? As far as I heard nope, they don't. Neither spare parts unless you prove that you own clean title Tesla and it isn't something more complex like engine. Good look trying to reverse engineer it which would probably be declared illegal as well. And they can switch off their charger access at any moment, or any charging for that matter, thanks to that great over-the-air update & always connected feature of total control of your (are you sure it is your anymore?) car.
That way you don't need to use any words at all because everybody is intelligent enough to know everything :/
If you still use words, you may want to use them in unambiguous way (like zero tailpipe emissions) to avoid discrediting your agenda. Event blatant advertising puts "* conditions apply" notes and lists conditions at least in fine print.
"Does that mean anyone who drives a gasoline car supports brutal middle-eastern regimes and terrorism?"
I would not stick terrorism here as it doesn't stick very well. But for hostile regimes in Middle East or more important in Russia, yes, it does support them, I agree.
Nukes are legacy of military development. They are rarely built anymore because capital cost is several times more of alternatives, especially in the US with cheap natural gas. Even with government provided waiver for liability insurance that would be huge or unobtainable. Nukes don't help solar/gas because nukes are always on, so they can't compensate for lows in solar/wind supply. Technically you can stop reactor or reduce power, but nuclear fuel cost is small fraction of capital cost, so it doesn't make sense. So if you already have nukes, you don't need solar/wind because they can't provide reliable power at peak time or at any time. Unreliable power isn't what such grid needs.
Solar/wind plus NON-legacy, but new natural gas turbines that can ramp up in seconds may work. But solar/wind needs compete with fuel cost only, because you need full power backup from gas whey solar/wind is not available. Natural gas is very cheap, so it is hard competition. Legacy coal/gas needs A DAY to ramp up, so it doesn't work with solar/wind that requires constant change of other power supplies.
The only renewable that is better is hydro. But it is limited by geography and has similar seasonal issues, and dry years issue.
Sure you may say that for now solar/wind penetration is low in most places and you may get away with import/export. But what kind of solution it is if it can't do more than 30% or so of grid power? Even at 30% it becomes an issue, e.g. Germany has 30% renewable grid and invested a lot in cross country lines and grid balancing, and household electricity prices are around 0.30 EUR/kWh now. Charging from clean grid becomes very distant and expensive fantasy then.
No, it isn't. It only helps somebody who wants to feel green and better person. Not the grid in the long run. First, the price makes energy from battery expensive, higher than peak wholesale price. Lithium battery cost only allows to use them for very short term balancing, e.g. gives some minutes to turn on regular generator. E.g. recent battery project was announced for German grid. But it is still too high for peak cost shaving. Household tesla powerwall may help to acomodate a bit more solar into grid, as it reduced "duck" pattern when demand goes too high at sunset. But the end result is still the same, dead end. You need seasonal storage to make grid clean and reliable. That is not lithium batteries.
There is some Dynad Hydromax offer, but it will cost you a fortune to operate. The fuel cell technology is small niche so far, so it would cost a lot for now, and high power becomes cost-prohibitive.
Sometimes in year 2100 when battery weight and price will be 50 less than now, they will sure do. Antigravity transportation should be popular by then too ;)
Average SUV doesn't consume 100% more fuel than typical sedan. Though you of course can do some extreme comparison between subcompact and largest SUV. You can always make such excuse, "my car pollutes less than Boeing 747, so who cares". It doesn't fly.
World Health Organization (WHO) has classified diesel engine exhaust as a carcinogen – a substance that causes cancer. It is scientific fact and you may as well argue that Earth is flat. It isn't just NOx but whole complex of substances.
Paris and London has hard time now due to diesel exhaust - they are victim of stupid earlier policy to promote diesels and need to suffer more smog as result. Now they try to put on all kinds of restrictions do not admit diesels to downtown and reverse the stupid policy, but it is a bit too late. The EPA (or whoever set emission limits) has done good job keeping this junk out of the US as much as possible.
"Electric vehicles are zero emissions" without elaborating anything further is half truth that intends to make impression to uninformed people that they result in no pollution when battery is made and when you charge a car. I would call it "intentionally misleading" but you may have different opinion.
You are missing the point. Apple represented a transition point, a point where (1) the public began to think "I want a personal computer" and (2) Competitors (ex IBM) followed them into this emerging market.
I lived at that time and I know how it was, and it doesn't look so to me. Apple didn't represented any transition point at that time. Apple II was just one of many micro computer producers for few hobbyists, gamers and enthusiasts, too primitive for anything serious. IBM PC was the thing that moved computers from big business and research facilities to masses.
Tesla seems to have sparked a similar interest in all-electric in the public's mind. Competitors like Porsche are following, http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/1....
It sounds like some wrapped reality to me. Yes, Tesla generated a lot of hype, but electric battery cars were well known before Model S (e.g. Nissan Leaf, EV1) and who cares about public's mind really? It is not a new optional toy, but transportation. Everybody already uses transportation and knows it is needed. When you have technology and can make competitive mass-market product, any automaker would just do it and public will buy it after some advertising. When you don't have technology suitable for mass market, you can generate huge hype, promise any vaporware, even produce some niche vehicles for rich enthusiasts using taxpayer money, promise greater future that the messiah will lead you to, whatever. It is not really what changes the world. Public enthusiasm doesn't create technology, people in labs do, and they are typically a bit more balanced and persons capable of critical thinking.
Please check here how "duck" looks:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Please tell us how do you "solve" duck problem. When Sun goes down, it goes down everywhere in half of the Earth.
Yes you can use storage. Except that you don't have any practical storage, and when you account for capital, electricity from battery/pumped hydro/compressed air storage costs more than peak wholesale rate. Makes little sense for utilities to invest into it. It may be different for household when you are playing with various incentives, but no seasonal storage is available to households to disconnect from grid now, other than keeping natural gas generators, natural gas appliances, and it is obviously bad idea if you have electric grid available.
Yes you can use natural gas plants, but you need to build new, as typical old plants can't go up and down many times a day, they need up to a day to reach full power. Now you build new gas plant and use it at full power for like 2-3 hours a day, maybe at night, or when wind is not blowing. How is it going to repay capital costs and staff salaries? The shorter the usage time, the higher the cost of its electricity. Basically solar/wind allows you to offset natural gas plant fuel cost at random times, and that is all, you still need to pay for new gas plant for full required power.
Yes you can rely on export/import. This is what it is done in practice. This relies on your neighbors NOT using much intermittent renewables, as otherwise they would follow similar supply/demand pattern and you would have nowhere to export/import. That is what I was talking about. Great solution that enables to pose as superior to others but have little value as global solution as it leads to dead end. Long transcontinental transmission lines are inherently unreliable to rely just on them.
In more distant future, you may come with power-to-gas technology, that means production of hydrogen or synthetic methane and storing it in already available natural gas storage that has capacity for seasonal storage. It is likely to be more expensive than fracking, and battery cars would make less sense when paying full price for clean electricity, accounting for huge cost of balancing electric grid. Hydrogen fuel cells may make more sense than batteries then.
You are engaging in game of words to support your agenda. This doesn't make your agenda look credible, rather the opposite. Agenda that requires game of words to look good can't be credible. You may as well say that gas car doesn't produce emissions, only the fuel produce them. It is misleading as makes people to assume things that may or may not be assumed.
You have no other practical forms to charge but to use electric grid that is not going to become clean any time soon. Whatever you install on your roof to sell power to grid at teaser rates is irrelevant. You don't have any choice when and where to charge - and anyway it would be the same grid, there aren't any fantasy green chargers that collect solar to cheap fantasy batteries for half a year and then everybody can use this saved energy. Battery capacity is very limited, you must charge it from grid as soon as it gets half empty, or your trip next day may end with flatbed or being stuck for a half of day at lower power charger. It is not going to change in the next decade.
The term is entirely misleading. Zero tailpipe emissions would be accurate.
No, you can't produce clean electricity in practical way that can be used to charge cars (typically after sunset). Hydro is limited by geography and doesn't work so well in dry years. Solar is reaching its peak and daytime demand is going closer to zero in California due to too many solar installations. Demand peak starts at sunset. Google "duck" and "California grid". Solar/wind relies on new gas plants that can be turned on/off on demand. Most older ones can't, so you just run them whole day. Basically you can only use intermittent renewables under condition that your neighbors (or neighboring states) are not using them much and are ready to back you up with power of fracking product. Electricity storage is way too expensive, more expensive than peak wholesale rates for now. Seasonal power demand fluctuations are entirely hopeless matter for solar/wind without (whatever) gas that can be stored for seasons.
What a crap a you talking about, "so tight". Do you have a slightest idea how diesel engine works? SUV or not SUV just increase engine size by 30-50% or so, compression is still low and all that cancerous stuff from high compression diesel engines is emitted only by diesels that skip on these limits. No, limits are not tight, they are too loose and too loosely enforced. Especially on older diesels, and all cars inevitably get older with time.
1/10 the energy density (by volume) already exists, and much better than that, more like 1/3 at low volume production level. Not ready yet for full scale auto production, but it is just matter of time to scale it up. But this kind of battery is called a bit differently, i.e. fuel cell, that is why Musk and his fanboys hate it so much.
Musk must be nuts. Many of these VW diesels can be fixed just by software update, or minor hardware changes. Now we should leave these smog & cancer machines on the road just because Musk wants to create market for his battery factory? Oh, yes, it is all "for greater good", so it must be ok. He would better invent a quick way to fix electric grid from reliance on dispatchable power sources like natural gas from fracking and coal.
. Designing and tuning a suspension or building a structural frame or a seat are not software and never will be.
Yes, sure. Why would Apple or Tesla do that? They can just order suspension from Continental like everybody else :/ OK, they still need to design something mechanical. But large part of it is just order from OEM parts bin that everybody uses. I don't think future really autonomous cars without steering wheel would emphasize mechanical part. E.g. look at recently shown Nissan concepts. What is important, is how it looks and feels inside, how it sounds, is it trendy and fashionable. Handling cornering? Who cares, computer does it, as long it doesn't spill coffee, it is ok. 0-60 times? Are you what, some stone age dragracer with ancient manual car? Too quick acceleration disrupts my breakfast! Mechanics will be just utility, software will rule. Good time for software company to step into game, just like it did when communication hardware became minicomputers aka smartphones.
I don't know what profit margins Apple is planning, I don't design their business plans obviously ;) But they certainly can get more than others. Plenty of people pay a lot of extra for all kind of "cool" vehicles and get no utility for it, it is not going to change. Make something fashionable, and you can charge extra. Car payment is several hundreds dollars. It is more than iPhone, so it is new area for Apple, but it also promises bigger money. Whatever, they already are trying it with or without Faraday frontend. We will see how well it will go for them, I don't bet for them either, but they do it anyway and they have money to burn.
I think you overestimate marketing too much. Marketing always comes from somebody when technology is available, it is matter of time, not some exceptional capabilities of random marketer, though marketers with exceptional capabilities like Steve Jobs always shine.
You may create as much overpriced products as you want that are attractive to mass-market but not affordable. It doesn't create some breakthrough in battery lab research by itself and make these niche cars suitable for mass market. There are plenty of automakers willing to produce and market mass-market cars with or without Tesla - the problem is that technology isn't exactly here yet, not public perception. Obsession with 0-60 in particular and drag-racing is more US market phenomena, though it exists everywhere.
On history: Apple wasn't the only producer of toy/game/micro computers at that time and it didn't created mass interest. Computers were not for masses at that time. Anything serious was done on mainframe terminals and PDP-11 family of minicomputers. IBM PC created mass interest by using open architecture and attracting all software/hardware developers, though it still was exotics outside computing centers in the first years.
I don't know what do you mean by "big Lexus". E.g. RX 450h uses 30 mpg. I certainly don't need some oversized car myself and have no need to show people around how "tough" I'm by size of my junk on wheels, nor I spend much time in a car, so I'm not very interested in them.
Your grid usage pattern only works for you and few early adopters, and you still have no way to charge your car without fossil powered grid. This doesn't scale up as global solution at all.
Model S doesn't make any sense as pollution reducer, except for smog in places like Los Angeles. Just extra manufacturing pollution for expensive car along whole supply chain that you don't even know would offset any reduction in greenhouse gas emission when charging it from imaginary green US/Canada grid (that doesn't exist yet). Sure it may be better in that aspect than other oversized cars at that price point, but obsession with oversized cars in the US is one of the causes of the problem in the first place. It is like some "Sustainable/green/ecology" sales sticker on a natural fur coat.
2015 estimate of carbon emission social cost is $60/ton. You can buy carbon credits for much less now. For Model S price you may buy much more carbon credits than 6, or 60, or 600 tons if you really care about pollution.
You may call it milestone or whatever, but electric car is no way news, I'm not getting into irrational exuberance just because some "invented" electric car yet another time. Grandfather of Porsche family that owns VW group (including Porsche brand) was making electric car as his first attempt a century ago. We had EV1. Golf fields are dominated by electric transportation for decades. Formula 1 cars use electric motors at some time, and well known hybrids uses it too to some extent. Their advantages and disadvantages are well know for decades, nothing left to investigate. Just show me a battery for sale at $50/kWh with good enough energy density, able to withstand full charge in 20 min for 1000 cycles, and will get excited.
A smaller lighter car would not need exactly the same battery, but sizing would be close, you would not be able to reduce it twice. I'll get excited when I'll see mass-market electric capable of road trips and at the same price as gas vehicle of the same size. So far Tesla provides a way to feel being part of trendy green elite but no way it is changing the world as their mass market car is somewhere on the other side of the Moon. It looks like mass market automakers (those conspired with Big Oil ) have more chances to change the world for real. E.g. Toyota had sold millions of boring hybrids worldwide, and each of them emits about the same amount of greenhouse gases as battery electric car on US/Canada grid, without much fuss and $100k price tags.