Getting stranded would be a rare occurrence given that you know the range remaining, and you have a Sat-Nav with the locations of chargers. But it'll happen. Just as most of us have from time to time run out of petrol.
As EVs become more common one can imagine a small industry of mobile battery/generator vans that go to rescue the people that get stuck.
The bottom line is that EVs will remain a niche market until advancements in battery technology bring down the costs enough to be competitive with gasoline or diesel powered cars of equivalent range, if not equivalent refueling time.
It will follow the usual technology adoption curve. The early adopters will grow, and as technology improves, and price comes down, will smoothly give way to the early majority, followed by the late majority and the laggards.
You've spelled out your requirements, but everyones requirements and price sensitivities are different. That's why these curves are relatively smooth.
OK, so Tesla builds ONE string of charging stations approx. 150 miles apart that stretches across the US. So tell me how does that work when there are millions of Tesla cars on the road?
When there are millions on Teslas on the road (and there will be) there will be more charging stations than that. Some provided by Tesla, most provided by other companies. Mostly the electric utilities, directly or as a franchise - much as gas stations were mostly created by the oil companies.
A lot of things work when the average selling price of your cars isclose to $100,000, you have government subsidies flung at you and/or your customers left and right, you have fewer than 100,000 vehicles in the field, your company isn't really expected to show a profit, and your customers actually *read* the users manuals (probably send corrections to technical errors in them to your engineers) and make Apple Zealots look like disinterested teens.
It seems your views are made from hysterical emotional reactions to imagined customers of companies you don't like, rather than rational thought on the logistics.
Suppose all cars were running on biofuel. If you were to grow biofuels in a strip of land next to the roads on which the cars run, that strip of land would on average have to be 8km wide.
Then, if the batteries have to be replaced every 5 years or sooner, there go all the savings and environmental friendliness.
They don't. Prius batteries had a planned life of 10 years. Many have been going for 15 years. Which is longer than the average life span of a car. And about the time an ICE is wearing out.
And todays batteries are significantly better than Prius batteries fitted 15 years ago were.
Didn't you realize that oil companies are already backing lots of electrical efforts?
Other than hydrogen, no.
If that were true they wouldn't back hydrogen, which is inherently superior to battery power in every way.
Except for in the way of being a better technology for powering a car. There are reasons that all commercial EVs use batteries, and hydrogen is only in concept vehicles and pilot schemes than never progress beyond pilot.
You can believe hydrogen fuel cells are the future if you like. My bet is that you'll be waiting as long as fusion enthusiasts have been waiting for fusion power stations.
This is a car that costs almost 6 figures, not the latest smart-gadget. I do not believe early adoption plays into the situation as much as with other, cheaper technological improvements - not nearly as much as the expense, charging times, and lack of range do.
Which is useless when you're not at home. There is more to life than driving back and forth to work.
Right. But it does mean you can create a workable supercharging network by simply concentrating on the motorways/autobahns/interstates/highways. This differs from gas stations, in that they aren't needed so much at a local level. They are primarily needed for long distance journeys.
You expressed the opinion that what Tesla is selling is a new technology.
And he's right. Modern batteries aren't the same as the old lead-acid batteries anymore than whisky is the same as beer. You're an idiot if you think there is no new technology in batteries.
Likewise with computerised battery management. There was no such thing in 100 year old EVs.
Also the modern smartphone is new technology compared to two cans and a piece of string.
The point is they are using a non-standard charging station that can only charge Teslas. By not using the standard they are reducing the number of possible charging stations for non-Tesla electric cars. This doesn't help the electric car market as a whole. I understand that Tesla doesn't care about other electric car manufacturers, but it's kind of a dick move.
What the article is saying is that these are Tesla charging stations, which presumably won't have an interface for say the Nissan Leaf, or other competing electric cars. Which if you think about it, if they are trying to get consumer buy in as a viable alternative is a pretty colossal stupid move (tho maybe influenced by specific technology which would be a shame).
Elon Musk and others at Telsa are pretty obviously not colossally stupid. And they know the EV market a lot better than you. So the question becomes what can they see that you can't?
The answer is that the popular move to EV is inevitable. Whilst there is the question of how fast it happens, there's also the question of which EV manufacturers will dominate. And if people see that there's a lot of Tesla only supercharging stations around, and they are free of charge, that's two good incentives for them to buy a Tesla rather than another EV.
This is just the short term though. Longer term the charging stations will be run by other companies (probably primarily the electric utilities themselves.) Just as gas stations are run by oil companies rather than car companies. Those charging stations will have the incentive to support all types of EV. So things will work out in the medium term.
a) Tesla is minimising the charge time for their own cars. They can probably save time by doing their own thing than following a standard. b) Tesla is providing free electricity from it's superchargers. c) Tesla's business interests are best served by giving these advantages to their own cars only.
It's a transitory period in the technology. Charging stations will eventually be run by companies other than the manufacturers, and they will be best served by providing electricity to all comers. But whilst EV manufacturers are priming the pumps, it's hardly surprising they are serving their own interests.
And that's the reason why young people are still learning to type on the inefficient QWERTY keyboard layout, who's sole purpose died out with the level arm manual typewriter.
God forbid we should encourage new users to use something better, when they can learn something worse that their ancestors thought up.
I'd go along with your overview of the classic desktop.
Sometimes they'll add fancy graphical effects like transparency, blurred transparency, smooth scaling windows, fade ins/fade outs.
But these are added effects, they are not changing the desktop you described. And they are not all useless. It used to be that every window manipulation required a redraw, modern compositing windowing means that's not necessary. It used to be that resizing a window only gave you a marquee until you finished. Modern live resize is far better. Scrolling used to mean a slow jerky redraw, nowadays we have intelligent smooth scrolling that prepares in advance. Even windows transparency can be good when it is used to support non-rectangular interfaces. However, I'm with you that semi-transparent elements are rarely a positive thing.
On the other items you mention, perhaps I'm just not familiar with recent Linux UIs. I didn't know these things were happening. I was aware of the hostility towards Unity, which took lessons from OS X. But I assumed that was just the usual Apple hatred thing.
I'm not sure you're old enough to even ever have used an original Mac.
I'm in my late 40s. Fist computer I used was a SC/MP development board around 1977. So that ad-hominem fails.
The current bastardization of OpenStep is nothing like the original you are trying to cling to there.
App menu stuck to the top of the screen, with the same standard items. Check. Finder with all the same features. Check. Desktop interface. Check. Trash Can. Check. All the Mac OS drag and drop semantics. Check.
What are the features of Mac OS v1 that you think aren't in OS X?
"the Mac desktop is just a hi-res version of the Amiga (toolbar at the top for the active window, task bar,... were all Amiga desktop features)."
The OS X desktop is a development of the NeXT UI and the Mac OS UI. It has nothing to do with the Amiga. Rather the Amiga copied those UI ideas from Mac OS. As did the Amiga's competition - the Atari ST.
Windows is certainly better for backwards compatibility. But that does come at the cost of the tremendous bloat for which Windows is famous. The ever increasing layering of UIs and APIs over old ones.
Possibly the worst technical aspect of Windows is the Registry. The slowdown over time that Windows inevitably has, and the advice to reinstall from scratch, rather than upgrade a Windows installation, all originates from this monolithic data store, which is constantly added to, yet rarely cleaned up properly.
It was obvious almost immediately after it's introduction that the Registry was a bad idea, yet because of backwards compatibility it's still there more than 20 years later.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, the Apple rumors have said
Apple rumors rarely have any connection with anything that's actually happening at Apple.
Apple releases updates that cripple your device after a couple of years.
You probably don't want to get your tech "news" from an economics journalist of the NYT. It only makes you look silly.
Which is as relevant as the rotary dial landline phone on the technology adoption curve of the smartphone.
It doesn't have to be a completely new tech to have a technology adoption curve. Television for example has been through many.
Getting stranded would be a rare occurrence given that you know the range remaining, and you have a Sat-Nav with the locations of chargers. But it'll happen. Just as most of us have from time to time run out of petrol.
As EVs become more common one can imagine a small industry of mobile battery/generator vans that go to rescue the people that get stuck.
The bottom line is that EVs will remain a niche market until advancements in battery technology bring down the costs enough to be competitive with gasoline or diesel powered cars of equivalent range, if not equivalent refueling time.
It will follow the usual technology adoption curve. The early adopters will grow, and as technology improves, and price comes down, will smoothly give way to the early majority, followed by the late majority and the laggards.
You've spelled out your requirements, but everyones requirements and price sensitivities are different. That's why these curves are relatively smooth.
OK, so Tesla builds ONE string of charging stations approx. 150 miles apart that stretches across the US. So tell me how does that work when there are millions of Tesla cars on the road?
When there are millions on Teslas on the road (and there will be) there will be more charging stations than that. Some provided by Tesla, most provided by other companies. Mostly the electric utilities, directly or as a franchise - much as gas stations were mostly created by the oil companies.
A lot of things work when the average selling price of your cars isclose to $100,000, you have government subsidies flung at you and/or your customers left and right, you have fewer than 100,000 vehicles in the field, your company isn't really expected to show a profit, and your customers actually *read* the users manuals (probably send corrections to technical errors in them to your engineers) and make Apple Zealots look like disinterested teens.
It seems your views are made from hysterical emotional reactions to imagined customers of companies you don't like, rather than rational thought on the logistics.
Suppose all cars were running on biofuel. If you were to grow biofuels in a strip of land next to the roads on which the cars run, that strip of land would on average have to be 8km wide.
This is of course impossible.
Then, if the batteries have to be replaced every 5 years or sooner, there go all the savings and environmental friendliness.
They don't. Prius batteries had a planned life of 10 years. Many have been going for 15 years. Which is longer than the average life span of a car. And about the time an ICE is wearing out.
And todays batteries are significantly better than Prius batteries fitted 15 years ago were.
Didn't you realize that oil companies are already backing lots of electrical efforts?
Other than hydrogen, no.
If that were true they wouldn't back hydrogen, which is inherently superior to battery power in every way.
Except for in the way of being a better technology for powering a car. There are reasons that all commercial EVs use batteries, and hydrogen is only in concept vehicles and pilot schemes than never progress beyond pilot.
You can believe hydrogen fuel cells are the future if you like. My bet is that you'll be waiting as long as fusion enthusiasts have been waiting for fusion power stations.
In the end the ethnology that will win out, for those reasons and others, is Hydrogen.
Right. Just as fusion has been the technology that will win out for nuclear power stations since the 1940s.
This is a car that costs almost 6 figures, not the latest smart-gadget. I do not believe early adoption plays into the situation as much as with other, cheaper technological improvements - not nearly as much as the expense, charging times, and lack of range do.
All technology adoption curves have an early adoption phase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
High cost at the early adoption phase is normal. The early majority comes in as the price reduces.
What is new about the idea of the electric car today, that was not part of the idea of the electric car in 1900?
Battery management systems. Without which the modern EV would not be possible. And which requires a microprocessor just as much as the PC did,
Lithium ion in batteries does not make electric vehicles new technology any more than putting rubber tires on wheels made wheels new technology.
I'm afraid that just goes to show your lack of understanding of what goes into modern battery systems.
Which is useless when you're not at home. There is more to life than driving back and forth to work.
Right. But it does mean you can create a workable supercharging network by simply concentrating on the motorways/autobahns/interstates/highways. This differs from gas stations, in that they aren't needed so much at a local level. They are primarily needed for long distance journeys.
You expressed the opinion that what Tesla is selling is a new technology.
And he's right. Modern batteries aren't the same as the old lead-acid batteries anymore than whisky is the same as beer. You're an idiot if you think there is no new technology in batteries.
Likewise with computerised battery management. There was no such thing in 100 year old EVs.
Also the modern smartphone is new technology compared to two cans and a piece of string.
I might as well keep the gasoline burners I use now, rather than switch to electrical.
Maybe. For now. But as gas continues to become more expensive relative to electricity, at some point your personal balance point will be surpassed.
The whole thing with technology adoption curves is that not everyone comes over at the same time.
The Roadster was based on the Lotus Elise. A car that's not shipped for 18 years. The supply of Elise shells ran out.
The Roadster was only ever intended to be a way to bootstrap the company in a relatively raid way, by only having to work on the EV side of a car.
Meanwhile, if you want a modern Lotus with electric car performance, here's a nifty hybrid:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
The point is they are using a non-standard charging station that can only charge Teslas. By not using the standard they are reducing the number of possible charging stations for non-Tesla electric cars. This doesn't help the electric car market as a whole. I understand that Tesla doesn't care about other electric car manufacturers, but it's kind of a dick move.
Otherwise known as a rational business decision.
What the article is saying is that these are Tesla charging stations, which presumably won't have an interface for say the Nissan Leaf, or other competing electric cars. Which if you think about it, if they are trying to get consumer buy in as a viable alternative is a pretty colossal stupid move (tho maybe influenced by specific technology which would be a shame).
Elon Musk and others at Telsa are pretty obviously not colossally stupid. And they know the EV market a lot better than you. So the question becomes what can they see that you can't?
The answer is that the popular move to EV is inevitable. Whilst there is the question of how fast it happens, there's also the question of which EV manufacturers will dominate. And if people see that there's a lot of Tesla only supercharging stations around, and they are free of charge, that's two good incentives for them to buy a Tesla rather than another EV.
This is just the short term though. Longer term the charging stations will be run by other companies (probably primarily the electric utilities themselves.) Just as gas stations are run by oil companies rather than car companies. Those charging stations will have the incentive to support all types of EV. So things will work out in the medium term.
a) Tesla is minimising the charge time for their own cars. They can probably save time by doing their own thing than following a standard.
b) Tesla is providing free electricity from it's superchargers.
c) Tesla's business interests are best served by giving these advantages to their own cars only.
It's a transitory period in the technology. Charging stations will eventually be run by companies other than the manufacturers, and they will be best served by providing electricity to all comers. But whilst EV manufacturers are priming the pumps, it's hardly surprising they are serving their own interests.
And that's the reason why young people are still learning to type on the inefficient QWERTY keyboard layout, who's sole purpose died out with the level arm manual typewriter.
God forbid we should encourage new users to use something better, when they can learn something worse that their ancestors thought up.
I'd go along with your overview of the classic desktop.
Sometimes they'll add fancy graphical effects like transparency, blurred transparency, smooth scaling windows, fade ins/fade outs.
But these are added effects, they are not changing the desktop you described. And they are not all useless. It used to be that every window manipulation required a redraw, modern compositing windowing means that's not necessary. It used to be that resizing a window only gave you a marquee until you finished. Modern live resize is far better. Scrolling used to mean a slow jerky redraw, nowadays we have intelligent smooth scrolling that prepares in advance. Even windows transparency can be good when it is used to support non-rectangular interfaces. However, I'm with you that semi-transparent elements are rarely a positive thing.
On the other items you mention, perhaps I'm just not familiar with recent Linux UIs. I didn't know these things were happening. I was aware of the hostility towards Unity, which took lessons from OS X. But I assumed that was just the usual Apple hatred thing.
I'm not sure you're old enough to even ever have used an original Mac.
I'm in my late 40s. Fist computer I used was a SC/MP development board around 1977. So that ad-hominem fails.
The current bastardization of OpenStep is nothing like the original you are trying to cling to there.
App menu stuck to the top of the screen, with the same standard items. Check.
Finder with all the same features. Check.
Desktop interface. Check.
Trash Can. Check.
All the Mac OS drag and drop semantics. Check.
What are the features of Mac OS v1 that you think aren't in OS X?
You don't know what you are talking about.
We're talking about the features of the UI here.
"the Mac desktop is just a hi-res version of the Amiga (toolbar at the top for the active window, task bar, ... were all Amiga desktop features)."
The OS X desktop is a development of the NeXT UI and the Mac OS UI. It has nothing to do with the Amiga. Rather the Amiga copied those UI ideas from Mac OS. As did the Amiga's competition - the Atari ST.
Windows is certainly better for backwards compatibility. But that does come at the cost of the tremendous bloat for which Windows is famous. The ever increasing layering of UIs and APIs over old ones.
Possibly the worst technical aspect of Windows is the Registry. The slowdown over time that Windows inevitably has, and the advice to reinstall from scratch, rather than upgrade a Windows installation, all originates from this monolithic data store, which is constantly added to, yet rarely cleaned up properly.
It was obvious almost immediately after it's introduction that the Registry was a bad idea, yet because of backwards compatibility it's still there more than 20 years later.