If you need to live off the grid you're already such an edge case that we don't need to be optimizing for you. Living off the grid is expensive. And if you just want to live off the grid, then you're obviously not optimizing for 1) low cost or 2) efficient use of resources, so why should I care about your problem?
How about this for crazy, install one on an offshore wind farm and run a pipe back to shore and have a wind farm producing not electricity but hydrogen gas!
Yes, it's crazy alright, but what good is that? The electricity->H2->electricity round trip efficiency is something like 25%, and that's not counting the massive amounts of energy required to compress the H2. 25% sucks bad enough that you can't change things with handwaving as you scale that efficiency to the transportation sector.
Put the energy directly into the battery (we already have better batteries than H2 fuel cells) and drive several times as far. There's a reason electric cars are here today, but fuel cell cars are not.
Almost the entirety of the cost of hydrogen gas is the energy used to create it by cracking water.
Don't forget that you have to compress the H2 before you can use it, too, and that takes a huge amount of (usually electrical) energy. Enough energy that you could put it into a battery electric car instead and drive a significant fraction of the distance the fuel cell would take you without the stupid fuel cell.
and yet the country is operating fine without any reactors in operation
Sure, as long as the additional $0.2 trillion per year to import LNG doesn't inconvenience anyone (and it would be much more expensive, if NG prices weren't crashing due to fracking).
They understand, and this is not their concern. They are worried about accidents.
And that is not a rational concern in a world where coal makes up the shortfall and kills an order of magnitude more people, even before you consider the effects of global warming.
If you're claiming "people are stupid and don't know what's good for them" then I guess we agree. The question is what to do about it.
Considering that debris and radioactive waste from Fukushima landed in my back yard, it does become somewhat of an issue.
Perspective is useful, here. More radioactive material (orders of magnitude more) ends up in your air and your backyard from coal generation than from all the nuclear generation, nuclear disasters, and nuclear weapons tests combined.
activists [...] asked the government to admit that nuclear power was no longer needed in Japan
Of course it's not needed as long as they don't mind making up the shortfall with conservation (good) and motherfracking natural gas (not good).
"Celebrating" the nuclear shutdown is asinine, since it's just trading the carbon-free generation for more coal and gas, which are orders of magnitude worse.
When "renewables" are deployed massively and the last fossil generation shuts down--that's when it makes sense to re-think nuclear.
Which is more than completely offset by the difference in price between electric cars and gasoline powered cars.
You keep writing that, but it's at best a marginal claim. Even with relatively high electric rates here in California, a Nissan LEAF would be nearly a breakeven cost experience over the life of the vehicle, and we're not even out of the "early adopter" part of the curve. Of course the cars will get cheaper over time, and the smart money knows gasoline will get more expensive.
There isn't much other data from which to draw conclusions, yet. (The Volt costs more and, not surprisingly, is faltering. Tesla is optimizing for performance rather than economy.)
since they do not offer a similar level of convenience
Ah, but they offer different conveniences, such as the convenience of never having to refuel. (Like your phone, it's full every morning.) I know this sounds crazy, because even people who want an electric don't get this at first, but after a few months you stop even thinking about range.
It's pretty convenient not having to do (or pay for) oil changes, timing belt replacements, or practically any other service.
Some people assign a high value to the knowledge that they're not using oil, as electricity is almost entirely sourced domestically. Unlike oil, electricity has a very stable price history, too, thanks to the fact that it comes from multiple root sources.
And electrics are just plain ridiculously fun to drive. If you haven't tried it, you won't understand. Maybe you don't care anyway, but anecdotes don't matter. People are starting to get it.
they must offer increased driving range comparable to a gasoline car
We're going in circles, now. That can be done at a cost no one would bear. (See the Volt.)
Tesla's Model S will be an interesting case study--it's available with three range options, and it's easy to calculate the marginal cost per mile. Unfortunately for science, Tesla's clientele is probably self-selected to be less-concerned with cost.
before they are likely to be widely accepted.
And we've covered this, too. They don't need to be "widely accepted" to be successful.
I get it, man. They're different, and change is scary.
not suggesting that families don't own multiple cars... I'm saying that the expense of an additional car that they do not regularly need is simply not worth it for most people.
It's not an "additional car" for a household that has two cars anyway, which, as we've established, many do. Practically no one needs two long distance cars.
No offense intended, but I get the feeling you don't actually know anyone who drives an electric. Typically someone commutes in the electric, and the spouse drives the "other car", which is also the obvious choice for family road trips. One of the more-progressive households I know has just one car, and for the occasional longer trip they trade cars with a friend. Of course, they could also rent a car.
And consider also that EV's cost more than you're likely to spend on gasoline on a car that you own for almost the entire life of the car.
True also for gas cars (at today's gas prices) but still irrelevant. It's the marginal cost per mile that matters, and it's not just fuel in the equation. Electrics need none of the service that gas cars require, aside from tires and wiper fluid.
Coupled with the fact that the electricity isn't free either
Of course not, but it is about 90% cheaper, depending on your local electric rates. Almost everyone agrees that gasoline prices will rise faster (and be more volatile) than electric rates for the foreseeable future (decades).
If EV's were half, or even better, a quarter the cost of a regular automobile
Nah, totally unnecessary, because the cost of operation is so much lower. Remember, the industry is production limited (not demand limited) and this will not change for years.
The only escape from this otherwise catch-22 is to increase the EV's range.
There is some truth, here. Considering that marginal range costs $50-100 per mile (granted, it's falling quickly), there is a strong economic incentive not to design in more range than necessary, since the EV makes a poor long distance car in any case. There is an ideal range, and I think market forces will eventually find it, but it's still too early. 150 miles is probably too much for now. 50 is not enough.
Attempting to design for for widest appeal is a trap that leads to expensive solutions like battery swapping or series hybrids (e.g. the Volt, which, not coincidentally, is not selling nearly as well despite being a great, innovative vehicle).
I guess we'll see. For now, the first and second derivatives are solidly positive. It took mild hybrids ten years to reach 1% market share, and that was fast by automotive standards, so the transition will likely be more gradual than what is tossed around by the press and the EV "community".
I dispute your claim that people don't want an additional car. I don't recall the precise figure at the moment, but an enormous fraction of households in the US have two or more cars, and that trend is even stronger with electrics (i.e. they tend to be in multi-car households).
Interesting that you brought up financials. Even if you don't value the convenience or the smooth, high-torque driving experience with instant throttle response, the economics of electrics are about breakeven today. It's a massive win elsewhere in the world where gas isn't as cheap, and when gas hits $8 or $10 in the states, there will be no contest in terms of fully amortized cost per mile.
And of course, the real point I was trying to make is that, just like any other car model, electrics don't have to appeal to everyone or even "most people". Most people don't want an H2, either, but they still sold pretty well. Total worldwide production for electrics won't exceed 100,000 units for several more years. Demand won't be the limiting factor for a decade, even if it merely holds steady.
It's not an imaginary problem. Even with this tech, making people wait at a charging station for 30 minutes is a problem.
The need for fast charging (or battery swapping or any of a host of other non-economical "solutions" to the "range problem") is what's imaginary. As anyone who actually drives an electric knows, the overwhelming majority of charging happens at home. Depending on range expended, the typical charge time is an hour or two, but it doesn't matter because it happens while you're doing other things.
Your argument applies much more strongly to cell phones. They only make calls for a few days, and then you have to wait for hours while they charge. No one would ever think that's a good thing!
The swap station is 1/2 the price of a gas station, and the price to the driver is competitive with gasoline.
It doesn't matter, because it's far cheaper still to charge at home. The economics of "fast charge" stations are dubious (that's being generous) and battery swapping is an order of magnitude worse.
And of course this is moot, because the auto industry is not adopting battery swapping. Period. Even Renault, which is building cars is not going along with it, which is why BP still has not deployed a single production swap station. Smoke and mirrors prototypes? Yeah, they got those. I'm sure their investors are thrilled that they blew a third of their cash on that.
They are rolling this out in Finland, Japan, and Israel.
Yeah sure they are. I guess that's why, according to Wikipedia: "As of March 2012, none of these deployments have occurred. Better Place plans to deploy the infrastructure on a country-by-country basis."
They're being left in the dust by the rest of the industry. Innovation by press release only works until other companies start delivering the stuff you promised.
Several standard deviations of charging happens at home. The rest happens as part of the routine (e.g. at work) and the rest is down in the noise. If Shai Agassi ever spent any significant time driving an EV, he'd realize this.
A range of 50 miles before having to spend 3 or more hours recharging is not a "psychological phenomenon"
It would be if you sat there waiting for it, but it charges while you're doing other things--like sleeping--so it actually only eats about two seconds of your time to plug it in.
I could make the same argument about cell phones. You can only make calls for a day or two, and then you have to plug it in for hours. No one will ever put up with that!
The adoption rate is dropping -- very few people who buy an electric car buy another
You're confusing the recent news about hybrids with electrics. Since the latter have only been widely available for a year or two, adoption is, of course, accelerating.
Consumer satisfaction with Teslas, BMWs, and Nissan LEAFs is through the roof. The number of households with two electrics defies logical explanation. A large fraction of Mini E drivers went on to lease Active Es, and Roadster drivers are the largest class of Model S pre-orders.
People like the convenience of a vehicle with range
This line of reasoning always reduces down to: Electrics aren't a 100% solution, therefore they may as well not exist. Fortunately, no vehicle actually needs to appeal to anywhere near 100% of the market. If we applied that metric universally, we wouldn't have Hummers, concrete mixer trucks, or Smart cars.
The perceived "problem" with electrics has a name--range anxiety--and it's mostly a psychological phenomenon. I do not believe it will have a technical solution--education and experience will increase adoption gradually.
It isn't cheap to deal with high current conversions
Actually, yes, it's cheap. You need two IGBTs per phase, as well as a lot of capacitance, and you need both of those for the motor drive (inverter) anyway. The marginal cost of high power charging is negligible, once you've got the inverter on board.
A 50kW offboard DC charger costs $40,000-$50,000, whereas onboard charging is a few hundred bucks.
it's so stupid that Better Place raised $700 million to do it.
It is stupid. The Better Place model only makes sense when you're optimizing the system to get Israel off "foreign" oil at any price. It's utter folly otherwise, as evidenced by no real progress (smoke-and-mirrors demos don't count) in spite of the $700 million.
Better Place would be better off if Shai ever actually tried driving an EV instead of trying to solve imaginary problems.
Actually, it absolutely is over among auto engineers.
Not that all traction batteries are the same (this is the whole point after all) but if you were to pick a typical one, it's the size of 4-5 gas tanks, and weighs 200-300 kg. At that scale is a structural part of the car. Making a one-size-fits-all battery is even less likely than a one-size-fits-all gasoline engine.
It's also entirely unnecessary. The desire for fast charging (and other manifestations of range anxiety) are mostly prevalent among people who don't actually drive the cars. Charging at home utterly dominates, since it's by far the most convenient, efficient, and cost effective.
I would guess the Tesla is absent because their battery packs are made from 6000-7000 laptop batteries and can't take rapid charging.
No need to guess; Tesla's traction batteries can be fast charged just fine. Also, the raw cells share the 18650 form factor with your laptop cells, but that's where the similarity ends. The resulting battery is better for cost, specific power, and specific energy than anything else on the market, and that's why they use them.
Comparing the boutique battery in the roadster (total production about 2000 units) to a higher volume one is silly--of course the higher volume will have better production cost.
How does [CHAdeMO] compare technically to [the new SAE standard]?
CHAdeMO supports DC charging only, at up to 125A.
The SAE spec supports DC at up to 200A, as well as pretty high power three-phase AC charging.
Ultimately, I believe the AC charging will prove more useful. The need for fast charging is greatly exaggerated to begin with, but DC charging standards will be obsolete as soon as the next generation of high voltage traction batteries arrive, since both CHAdeMO and SAE are limited to 500V. (The next wave of cars will have 600V or even 1000V batteries.)
Anything that can dump several thousand watts of juice into a vehicle in that short of a time can be fucked with, and probably with deadly results.
Please, for the good of humanity, stop spewing made-up bullshit when you don't know what you're talking about.
First, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of watts.
Second, the SAE charging standard is ridiculously safe, and does not energize the contacts until mated with the vehicle and a handshake has been exchanged.
Third, the number of watts is utterly irrelevant. Plugging in your iPod charger (or any other appliance) carries exactly the same risk--the electricity will kill you just as fast. Actually the car is safer as it would be damn near impossible to touch live contacts, unlike the NEMA plugs in the US.
A gas-powered car using today's technology can travel 300+ miles, and refuel in 2 minutes before resuming its trip.
Yeah yeah, change is scary and you're willfully ignorant. Everyone fancies himself as taking 300 mile road trips all the time, but the driving statistics (have a look at the University of George study) conclusively demonstrate that most people don't. Electrics aren't for everyone--they're only useful for about 80% of the driving we do. Your own anecdotes about your needs, even if true, don't change the big picture.
All this eco-tech has huge drawbacks in terms of performance and convenience.
Spoken like someone who has never driven an electric, nor even bothered to learn about them. The performance is outstanding, and it's difficult to beat the convenience of charging at home for a small fraction of the price of gasoline.
If we presume that this motor is sufficient for all modes of operation (probably true) then we can say that the car takes 110 kW to run at 80 mph.
No. A small-medium car like the volt will use 20-25 kW when cruising at 80 mph. As with gas cars, the peak motor output is really only used when accelerating.
Yeah, what they meant is that there is no fucking way a Navy Seal with Osama bin Laden in his sights is going to refrain from shooting him in the face.
I'm sure anyone would agree that killing your enemies is much more convenient than trying them in court.
expecting a Seal to just read him his rights and take him away instead of making him God's problem is simply unrealistic.
You're not giving the seals enough credit. They're entirely capable of following orders, and if they were ordered to capture him they would have done so. But anyone who can see through the finest dusting of bullshit knows the orders were to kill OBL.
I think the world was entitled to hear his case in all its messy detail. Personally, I was interested to learn why he, of all people, denied involvement in 9/11 until 2004.
No one claimed justifiable execution. They did claim that OSB tried to fight the seals and could not be taken peacefully.
And then they later admitted that that was bullshit and that he was unarmed, along with some bs handwaving about how he "didn't surrender immediately".
A case built on "evidence" like presented so far would be laughed out of even a kangaroo court!
Perhaps that's why we opted not to drag him into court when we had the chance. Shooting an unarmed man in his pajamas is so much simpler. He was guilty anyway, so it's cool, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Say you want or need to live off the grid
If you need to live off the grid you're already such an edge case that we don't need to be optimizing for you. Living off the grid is expensive. And if you just want to live off the grid, then you're obviously not optimizing for 1) low cost or 2) efficient use of resources, so why should I care about your problem?
How about this for crazy, install one on an offshore wind farm and run a pipe back to shore and have a wind farm producing not electricity but hydrogen gas!
Yes, it's crazy alright, but what good is that? The electricity->H2->electricity round trip efficiency is something like 25%, and that's not counting the massive amounts of energy required to compress the H2. 25% sucks bad enough that you can't change things with handwaving as you scale that efficiency to the transportation sector.
Put the energy directly into the battery (we already have better batteries than H2 fuel cells) and drive several times as far. There's a reason electric cars are here today, but fuel cell cars are not.
Almost the entirety of the cost of hydrogen gas is the energy used to create it by cracking water.
Don't forget that you have to compress the H2 before you can use it, too, and that takes a huge amount of (usually electrical) energy. Enough energy that you could put it into a battery electric car instead and drive a significant fraction of the distance the fuel cell would take you without the stupid fuel cell.
Adobe's fix? You need to pay to upgrade [from CS5] to Photoshop CS6.
Ah yes, I would be delighted to buy more software from you, since it worked out so well last time around.
don't you think it's kind of weird that the guy who lied gets to keep his job as CEO, yet this director is being made a scapegoat?
Yes. If it's not serious enough to take action against the CEO, then taking action against the person who hired him is nuts.
and yet the country is operating fine without any reactors in operation
Sure, as long as the additional $0.2 trillion per year to import LNG doesn't inconvenience anyone (and it would be much more expensive, if NG prices weren't crashing due to fracking).
They understand, and this is not their concern. They are worried about accidents.
And that is not a rational concern in a world where coal makes up the shortfall and kills an order of magnitude more people, even before you consider the effects of global warming.
If you're claiming "people are stupid and don't know what's good for them" then I guess we agree. The question is what to do about it.
Considering that debris and radioactive waste from Fukushima landed in my back yard, it does become somewhat of an issue.
Perspective is useful, here. More radioactive material (orders of magnitude more) ends up in your air and your backyard from coal generation than from all the nuclear generation, nuclear disasters, and nuclear weapons tests combined.
activists [...] asked the government to admit that nuclear power was no longer needed in Japan
Of course it's not needed as long as they don't mind making up the shortfall with conservation (good) and motherfracking natural gas (not good).
"Celebrating" the nuclear shutdown is asinine, since it's just trading the carbon-free generation for more coal and gas, which are orders of magnitude worse.
When "renewables" are deployed massively and the last fossil generation shuts down--that's when it makes sense to re-think nuclear.
Which is more than completely offset by the difference in price between electric cars and gasoline powered cars.
You keep writing that, but it's at best a marginal claim. Even with relatively high electric rates here in California, a Nissan LEAF would be nearly a breakeven cost experience over the life of the vehicle, and we're not even out of the "early adopter" part of the curve. Of course the cars will get cheaper over time, and the smart money knows gasoline will get more expensive.
There isn't much other data from which to draw conclusions, yet. (The Volt costs more and, not surprisingly, is faltering. Tesla is optimizing for performance rather than economy.)
since they do not offer a similar level of convenience
Ah, but they offer different conveniences, such as the convenience of never having to refuel. (Like your phone, it's full every morning.) I know this sounds crazy, because even people who want an electric don't get this at first, but after a few months you stop even thinking about range.
It's pretty convenient not having to do (or pay for) oil changes, timing belt replacements, or practically any other service.
Some people assign a high value to the knowledge that they're not using oil, as electricity is almost entirely sourced domestically. Unlike oil, electricity has a very stable price history, too, thanks to the fact that it comes from multiple root sources.
And electrics are just plain ridiculously fun to drive. If you haven't tried it, you won't understand. Maybe you don't care anyway, but anecdotes don't matter. People are starting to get it.
they must offer increased driving range comparable to a gasoline car
We're going in circles, now. That can be done at a cost no one would bear. (See the Volt.)
Tesla's Model S will be an interesting case study--it's available with three range options, and it's easy to calculate the marginal cost per mile. Unfortunately for science, Tesla's clientele is probably self-selected to be less-concerned with cost.
before they are likely to be widely accepted.
And we've covered this, too. They don't need to be "widely accepted" to be successful.
I get it, man. They're different, and change is scary.
not suggesting that families don't own multiple cars... I'm saying that the expense of an additional car that they do not regularly need is simply not worth it for most people.
It's not an "additional car" for a household that has two cars anyway, which, as we've established, many do. Practically no one needs two long distance cars.
No offense intended, but I get the feeling you don't actually know anyone who drives an electric. Typically someone commutes in the electric, and the spouse drives the "other car", which is also the obvious choice for family road trips. One of the more-progressive households I know has just one car, and for the occasional longer trip they trade cars with a friend. Of course, they could also rent a car.
And consider also that EV's cost more than you're likely to spend on gasoline on a car that you own for almost the entire life of the car.
True also for gas cars (at today's gas prices) but still irrelevant. It's the marginal cost per mile that matters, and it's not just fuel in the equation. Electrics need none of the service that gas cars require, aside from tires and wiper fluid.
Coupled with the fact that the electricity isn't free either
Of course not, but it is about 90% cheaper, depending on your local electric rates. Almost everyone agrees that gasoline prices will rise faster (and be more volatile) than electric rates for the foreseeable future (decades).
If EV's were half, or even better, a quarter the cost of a regular automobile
Nah, totally unnecessary, because the cost of operation is so much lower. Remember, the industry is production limited (not demand limited) and this will not change for years.
The only escape from this otherwise catch-22 is to increase the EV's range.
There is some truth, here. Considering that marginal range costs $50-100 per mile (granted, it's falling quickly), there is a strong economic incentive not to design in more range than necessary, since the EV makes a poor long distance car in any case. There is an ideal range, and I think market forces will eventually find it, but it's still too early. 150 miles is probably too much for now. 50 is not enough.
Attempting to design for for widest appeal is a trap that leads to expensive solutions like battery swapping or series hybrids (e.g. the Volt, which, not coincidentally, is not selling nearly as well despite being a great, innovative vehicle).
I guess we'll see. For now, the first and second derivatives are solidly positive. It took mild hybrids ten years to reach 1% market share, and that was fast by automotive standards, so the transition will likely be more gradual than what is tossed around by the press and the EV "community".
I dispute your claim that people don't want an additional car. I don't recall the precise figure at the moment, but an enormous fraction of households in the US have two or more cars, and that trend is even stronger with electrics (i.e. they tend to be in multi-car households).
Interesting that you brought up financials. Even if you don't value the convenience or the smooth, high-torque driving experience with instant throttle response, the economics of electrics are about breakeven today. It's a massive win elsewhere in the world where gas isn't as cheap, and when gas hits $8 or $10 in the states, there will be no contest in terms of fully amortized cost per mile.
And of course, the real point I was trying to make is that, just like any other car model, electrics don't have to appeal to everyone or even "most people". Most people don't want an H2, either, but they still sold pretty well. Total worldwide production for electrics won't exceed 100,000 units for several more years. Demand won't be the limiting factor for a decade, even if it merely holds steady.
It's not an imaginary problem. Even with this tech, making people wait at a charging station for 30 minutes is a problem.
The need for fast charging (or battery swapping or any of a host of other non-economical "solutions" to the "range problem") is what's imaginary. As anyone who actually drives an electric knows, the overwhelming majority of charging happens at home. Depending on range expended, the typical charge time is an hour or two, but it doesn't matter because it happens while you're doing other things.
Your argument applies much more strongly to cell phones. They only make calls for a few days, and then you have to wait for hours while they charge. No one would ever think that's a good thing!
The swap station is 1/2 the price of a gas station, and the price to the driver is competitive with gasoline.
It doesn't matter, because it's far cheaper still to charge at home. The economics of "fast charge" stations are dubious (that's being generous) and battery swapping is an order of magnitude worse.
And of course this is moot, because the auto industry is not adopting battery swapping. Period. Even Renault, which is building cars is not going along with it, which is why BP still has not deployed a single production swap station. Smoke and mirrors prototypes? Yeah, they got those. I'm sure their investors are thrilled that they blew a third of their cash on that.
They are rolling this out in Finland, Japan, and Israel.
Yeah sure they are. I guess that's why, according to Wikipedia: "As of March 2012, none of these deployments have occurred. Better Place plans to deploy the infrastructure on a country-by-country basis."
They're being left in the dust by the rest of the industry. Innovation by press release only works until other companies start delivering the stuff you promised.
Several standard deviations of charging happens at home. The rest happens as part of the routine (e.g. at work) and the rest is down in the noise. If Shai Agassi ever spent any significant time driving an EV, he'd realize this.
A range of 50 miles before having to spend 3 or more hours recharging is not a "psychological phenomenon"
It would be if you sat there waiting for it, but it charges while you're doing other things--like sleeping--so it actually only eats about two seconds of your time to plug it in.
I could make the same argument about cell phones. You can only make calls for a day or two, and then you have to plug it in for hours. No one will ever put up with that!
The adoption rate is dropping -- very few people who buy an electric car buy another
You're confusing the recent news about hybrids with electrics. Since the latter have only been widely available for a year or two, adoption is, of course, accelerating.
Consumer satisfaction with Teslas, BMWs, and Nissan LEAFs is through the roof. The number of households with two electrics defies logical explanation. A large fraction of Mini E drivers went on to lease Active Es, and Roadster drivers are the largest class of Model S pre-orders.
People like the convenience of a vehicle with range
This line of reasoning always reduces down to: Electrics aren't a 100% solution, therefore they may as well not exist. Fortunately, no vehicle actually needs to appeal to anywhere near 100% of the market. If we applied that metric universally, we wouldn't have Hummers, concrete mixer trucks, or Smart cars.
The perceived "problem" with electrics has a name--range anxiety--and it's mostly a psychological phenomenon. I do not believe it will have a technical solution--education and experience will increase adoption gradually.
It isn't cheap to deal with high current conversions
Actually, yes, it's cheap. You need two IGBTs per phase, as well as a lot of capacitance, and you need both of those for the motor drive (inverter) anyway. The marginal cost of high power charging is negligible, once you've got the inverter on board.
A 50kW offboard DC charger costs $40,000-$50,000, whereas onboard charging is a few hundred bucks.
it's so stupid that Better Place raised $700 million to do it.
It is stupid. The Better Place model only makes sense when you're optimizing the system to get Israel off "foreign" oil at any price. It's utter folly otherwise, as evidenced by no real progress (smoke-and-mirrors demos don't count) in spite of the $700 million.
Better Place would be better off if Shai ever actually tried driving an EV instead of trying to solve imaginary problems.
I was hoping to see an inductive charger similar to the one sported by the EV1.
Why? Conductive charging is better by every imaginable metric. Inductive charging is obsolete, and for good reason.
Sorry, but this debate isn't over.
Actually, it absolutely is over among auto engineers.
Not that all traction batteries are the same (this is the whole point after all) but if you were to pick a typical one, it's the size of 4-5 gas tanks, and weighs 200-300 kg. At that scale is a structural part of the car. Making a one-size-fits-all battery is even less likely than a one-size-fits-all gasoline engine.
It's also entirely unnecessary. The desire for fast charging (and other manifestations of range anxiety) are mostly prevalent among people who don't actually drive the cars. Charging at home utterly dominates, since it's by far the most convenient, efficient, and cost effective.
I would guess the Tesla is absent because their battery packs are made from 6000-7000 laptop batteries and can't take rapid charging.
No need to guess; Tesla's traction batteries can be fast charged just fine. Also, the raw cells share the 18650 form factor with your laptop cells, but that's where the similarity ends. The resulting battery is better for cost, specific power, and specific energy than anything else on the market, and that's why they use them.
Comparing the boutique battery in the roadster (total production about 2000 units) to a higher volume one is silly--of course the higher volume will have better production cost.
How does [CHAdeMO] compare technically to [the new SAE standard]?
CHAdeMO supports DC charging only, at up to 125A.
The SAE spec supports DC at up to 200A, as well as pretty high power three-phase AC charging.
Ultimately, I believe the AC charging will prove more useful. The need for fast charging is greatly exaggerated to begin with, but DC charging standards will be obsolete as soon as the next generation of high voltage traction batteries arrive, since both CHAdeMO and SAE are limited to 500V. (The next wave of cars will have 600V or even 1000V batteries.)
Anything that can dump several thousand watts of juice into a vehicle in that short of a time can be fucked with, and probably with deadly results.
Please, for the good of humanity, stop spewing made-up bullshit when you don't know what you're talking about.
First, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of watts.
Second, the SAE charging standard is ridiculously safe, and does not energize the contacts until mated with the vehicle and a handshake has been exchanged.
Third, the number of watts is utterly irrelevant. Plugging in your iPod charger (or any other appliance) carries exactly the same risk--the electricity will kill you just as fast. Actually the car is safer as it would be damn near impossible to touch live contacts, unlike the NEMA plugs in the US.
A gas-powered car using today's technology can travel 300+ miles, and refuel in 2 minutes before resuming its trip.
Yeah yeah, change is scary and you're willfully ignorant. Everyone fancies himself as taking 300 mile road trips all the time, but the driving statistics (have a look at the University of George study) conclusively demonstrate that most people don't. Electrics aren't for everyone--they're only useful for about 80% of the driving we do. Your own anecdotes about your needs, even if true, don't change the big picture.
All this eco-tech has huge drawbacks in terms of performance and convenience.
Spoken like someone who has never driven an electric, nor even bothered to learn about them. The performance is outstanding, and it's difficult to beat the convenience of charging at home for a small fraction of the price of gasoline.
If we presume that this motor is sufficient for all modes of operation (probably true) then we can say that the car takes 110 kW to run at 80 mph.
No. A small-medium car like the volt will use 20-25 kW when cruising at 80 mph. As with gas cars, the peak motor output is really only used when accelerating.
Yeah, what they meant is that there is no fucking way a Navy Seal with Osama bin Laden in his sights is going to refrain from shooting him in the face.
I'm sure anyone would agree that killing your enemies is much more convenient than trying them in court.
expecting a Seal to just read him his rights and take him away instead of making him God's problem is simply unrealistic.
You're not giving the seals enough credit. They're entirely capable of following orders, and if they were ordered to capture him they would have done so. But anyone who can see through the finest dusting of bullshit knows the orders were to kill OBL.
I think the world was entitled to hear his case in all its messy detail. Personally, I was interested to learn why he, of all people, denied involvement in 9/11 until 2004.
No one claimed justifiable execution. They did claim that OSB tried to fight the seals and could not be taken peacefully.
And then they later admitted that that was bullshit and that he was unarmed, along with some bs handwaving about how he "didn't surrender immediately".
A case built on "evidence" like presented so far would be laughed out of even a kangaroo court!
Perhaps that's why we opted not to drag him into court when we had the chance. Shooting an unarmed man in his pajamas is so much simpler. He was guilty anyway, so it's cool, right?