"Takes Over the Reigns of Tesla" - falsely implying that Elon is no longer running the company on a day to day basis? No need for clickbait headlines like this.
> It's not an odd connector. It's a NEMA 14-50 socket
I'm talking about the Tesla outlet shape that is on the vehicle - which is Tesla specific. NEMA sockets are standard power outlets, and Tesla provides adapters for many of them. One of the benefits of AC charging!
Many of the things you've said are technically true, but are worded in such a way to make it sound bad. There is a mix now worldwide, but if you look at a continent/regional level there is a clear preference for one system or the other going forward.
* You need AC charging so that you can charge from any power point, anywhere on the planet. This makes any home a potential charging location and is vital to the success of EVs because 90% of the time you don't need anything else. * You need DC charging so that when travelling long distances, you can charge at 50kW, even up to 150kW or 350kW, which is effectively the same time as you would stop on a road trip if using petrol/diesel. Some don't support this, but will be a necessity for mainstream acceptance.
So, for the most part, each car is going to need to support two standards, one AC and one DC.
AC - most countries have chosen one standard or another - USA and Japan are predominantly J1772, Europe is predominantly Type 2.. however in any case, it isn't much of an issue, you can get adaptors to go from one to the other and in some countries the standard is that the charging unit has a socket only - so your carry your own cable which is suitable for your car. So while there are different plug types the electricity is all "compatible". On a purely technical basis, Type 2 is superior - it allows rates up to 22kW or 43kW.
DC - the three public standards are Chademo, CCS1, and CCS2. Chademo, a big plug on it's own. CCS1 and 2, combine one of the two AC standards mentioned above with 2 pins for DC. The bonus here is that the car then only needs the one socket which can take an AC or DC plug. Again, most countries have chosen one of these as a standard, a small number have chosen two (with a preferences towards one for future vehicles). DC fast charging equipment has two plugs in the same way that fuel pumps have 3, 4 or 5 types of fuel.
CCS2 is the format being used for IONITY and other 350kW charging networks in Europe. So every big European manufacturer is now going to use it. I think it will be the eventual winner. As a result, Type 2 will follow on as the AC standard.
Tesla is a strange one, but I'm going to guess you are North American - because almost everywhere else, Tesla uses the Type 2 socket which makes it compatible with many other public charging stations. It is speculated that the Model 3 outside North America will have a CCS2 port, which would make it compatible with both public Type2 and CCS2, as well as existing Tesla chargers/superchargers. It's a shame they didn't go down this route in North America, because they've now backed themselves into a corner due to how many cars and chargers use the existing North American socket type.
The expensive part is wiring for the power supply. You can just install a power point of the required capacity. Power point connectors have been standardised (within each country, at least) for decades and aren't changing. If someone wants to get a dedicated charging unit with extra functionality installed later, they can do that.
Renewable and intermittent aren't the same thing. Many forms such as solar thermal and hydro have storage integrated. Some others such as tidal and geothermal are suitable for baseload. And of course you can integrate battery storage with any form or generation. Note the title of this post...
It is the huge expanses of empty land that are the killer for PV or wind for Australia.
Sure the wind is always blowing somewhere, but the transmission distances are huge and you need to have the baseload supply.
That's easy - the wind/solar doesn't have to be built way out in the middle of the outback - you can still build just outside the major cities. In fact rooftop PV is about the only realistic generation type that has a zero distance transmission!
But the long transmission lines aren't a deal breaker, after all Loy Yang etc. are 150km+ out of Melbourne.
People can't seem to get their head around the fact that Australia is not a suitable country for 100% renewables.
So, the country with some of the worlds highest solar irradiation levels, huge expanses of empty land, thousands of kilometres of coastline and is in the line of the roaring 40s wind stream, is not a suitable country for solar PV, solar thermal, wind (including off-shore), wave or tidal energy?
This Hornsdale battery has been a wake up call to a lot of governments in Australia, and when the SolarReserve tower in Pt August goes live it's going to generate a wave of similar generators elsewhere.
Yes, nuclear is another huge advantage that Australia has had in the past, and if we didn't have the renewable resources it would have been a great idea, but nuclear today is many times more expensive that renewables and the lead time to build such a station is about 10 years (including the politics of it). It would have been the ideal solution 30-40 years ago, but it's time has passed now.
The concept of a single nuclear power station in the outback supplying 4 major population centres is a risky one too. A 500MW coal generator tripping causes issues with the grid. Can you imagine if a single 1-2GW power station suddenly shut down? Also, I always thought nuclear power stations had to be near water for cooling.
That's a shame. People shouldn't tolerate so much secrecy when it comes to how their tax money is spent.
$50 million was the public contribution. There's also private investment - Neoen (the wind farm operator) has rights to use some of the capacity and we're not sure what sort of interest Tesla continues to have in the project - obviously they are getting a lot of the publicity here so may have provided some sort of discount (other than the "100 days or it's free" offer)
What a joke, considering Facebook profits enormously from freebooted videos which are taken from YouTube (where the content creator earns the ad revenue) and rehosted on FB (where Facebook themselves gets the ad revenue). Their algorithms also prefer FB hosted over YouTube hosted video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
An "EV grid" isn't actually a thing - it should refer to the electricity grid which is over a century old and practically ubiquitous. 90% of charging by EVs can be done on the existing network. Fast chargers make it more convenient but are not a new grid in itself. Hydrogen, on the other hand, requires dedicated infrastructure to support 100% of fuelling requirements. Not just the stations, but the generation, storage and shipping.
isn't unreasonable if you can plug it in and fuck off to do something else, it may even represent a time saving.
Exactly. This is one thing that people who don't have practical experience with EVs don't consider. My mobile phone takes hours to charge, but I don't sit there staring at it while it does it.
They have fleet learning, where every car will share the same knowledge about a given route as all other Tesla cars. So if others have driven that same route with lane markings, your car will know where they are. And if not, it will use visual cues (paths being taken by other cars, etc) to work it out, the same as a human.
I'm sure most require a person to be at the wheel. But when traffic laws was first written, maybe some didn't consider it necessary to specify that a person be controlling the car, as it was assumed. Perhaps in all the different jurisdictions around the world, there is one where the wording of the law accidentally permits a self driving car to legally operate.
The same as a human? They use visual cues such as other vehicles? Or perhaps they use Tesla's fleet learning experience to see where other vehicles have travelled in the area previously?
I think you're mixing up Autopilot, which Tesla vehicles have been using for a couple of years, and today's announcement. Today's reveal is about 100% autonomous self driving cars.
Tesla won't require a human at the wheel for this. Local laws might, but I think for quite some time people will be just sitting in the driver seat doing absolutely nothing while they wait for the laws to catch up.
Worth noting that Autopilot was never advertised as 100% autonomous - this new system will be.
Slashdot Mirror
"Takes Over the Reigns of Tesla" - falsely implying that Elon is no longer running the company on a day to day basis? No need for clickbait headlines like this.
How hard is it to use the phrase "daylight saving"?
> It's not an odd connector. It's a NEMA 14-50 socket
I'm talking about the Tesla outlet shape that is on the vehicle - which is Tesla specific. NEMA sockets are standard power outlets, and Tesla provides adapters for many of them. One of the benefits of AC charging!
Many of the things you've said are technically true, but are worded in such a way to make it sound bad. There is a mix now worldwide, but if you look at a continent/regional level there is a clear preference for one system or the other going forward.
* You need AC charging so that you can charge from any power point, anywhere on the planet. This makes any home a potential charging location and is vital to the success of EVs because 90% of the time you don't need anything else.
* You need DC charging so that when travelling long distances, you can charge at 50kW, even up to 150kW or 350kW, which is effectively the same time as you would stop on a road trip if using petrol/diesel. Some don't support this, but will be a necessity for mainstream acceptance.
So, for the most part, each car is going to need to support two standards, one AC and one DC.
AC - most countries have chosen one standard or another - USA and Japan are predominantly J1772, Europe is predominantly Type 2.. however in any case, it isn't much of an issue, you can get adaptors to go from one to the other and in some countries the standard is that the charging unit has a socket only - so your carry your own cable which is suitable for your car. So while there are different plug types the electricity is all "compatible". On a purely technical basis, Type 2 is superior - it allows rates up to 22kW or 43kW.
DC - the three public standards are Chademo, CCS1, and CCS2. Chademo, a big plug on it's own. CCS1 and 2, combine one of the two AC standards mentioned above with 2 pins for DC. The bonus here is that the car then only needs the one socket which can take an AC or DC plug. Again, most countries have chosen one of these as a standard, a small number have chosen two (with a preferences towards one for future vehicles). DC fast charging equipment has two plugs in the same way that fuel pumps have 3, 4 or 5 types of fuel.
CCS2 is the format being used for IONITY and other 350kW charging networks in Europe. So every big European manufacturer is now going to use it. I think it will be the eventual winner. As a result, Type 2 will follow on as the AC standard.
Tesla is a strange one, but I'm going to guess you are North American - because almost everywhere else, Tesla uses the Type 2 socket which makes it compatible with many other public charging stations. It is speculated that the Model 3 outside North America will have a CCS2 port, which would make it compatible with both public Type2 and CCS2, as well as existing Tesla chargers/superchargers. It's a shame they didn't go down this route in North America, because they've now backed themselves into a corner due to how many cars and chargers use the existing North American socket type.
Do you have a car park? Then the charge point would be there. If not, it's obviously not talking about you.
The expensive part is wiring for the power supply. You can just install a power point of the required capacity. Power point connectors have been standardised (within each country, at least) for decades and aren't changing. If someone wants to get a dedicated charging unit with extra functionality installed later, they can do that.
Now there's a name I've not heard in a long time....
Don't they mean "Atlantic Standard Time" ?
especially since 328 feet = 100 metres, which is the unit in which the measurement was originally given.
Renewable and intermittent aren't the same thing. Many forms such as solar thermal and hydro have storage integrated. Some others such as tidal and geothermal are suitable for baseload. And of course you can integrate battery storage with any form or generation. Note the title of this post...
It is the huge expanses of empty land that are the killer for PV or wind for Australia.
Sure the wind is always blowing somewhere, but the transmission distances are huge and you need to have the baseload supply.
That's easy - the wind/solar doesn't have to be built way out in the middle of the outback - you can still build just outside the major cities. In fact rooftop PV is about the only realistic generation type that has a zero distance transmission!
But the long transmission lines aren't a deal breaker, after all Loy Yang etc. are 150km+ out of Melbourne.
People can't seem to get their head around the fact that Australia is not a suitable country for 100% renewables.
So, the country with some of the worlds highest solar irradiation levels, huge expanses of empty land, thousands of kilometres of coastline and is in the line of the roaring 40s wind stream, is not a suitable country for solar PV, solar thermal, wind (including off-shore), wave or tidal energy?
This Hornsdale battery has been a wake up call to a lot of governments in Australia, and when the SolarReserve tower in Pt August goes live it's going to generate a wave of similar generators elsewhere.
Yes, nuclear is another huge advantage that Australia has had in the past, and if we didn't have the renewable resources it would have been a great idea, but nuclear today is many times more expensive that renewables and the lead time to build such a station is about 10 years (including the politics of it). It would have been the ideal solution 30-40 years ago, but it's time has passed now.
The concept of a single nuclear power station in the outback supplying 4 major population centres is a risky one too. A 500MW coal generator tripping causes issues with the grid. Can you imagine if a single 1-2GW power station suddenly shut down? Also, I always thought nuclear power stations had to be near water for cooling.
That's a shame. People shouldn't tolerate so much secrecy when it comes to how their tax money is spent.
$50 million was the public contribution. There's also private investment - Neoen (the wind farm operator) has rights to use some of the capacity and we're not sure what sort of interest Tesla continues to have in the project - obviously they are getting a lot of the publicity here so may have provided some sort of discount (other than the "100 days or it's free" offer)
Then it's going to turn out that manufacturing and remanufacturing batteries en masse is a dirty and expensive business
It seems the Koch brothers propaganda and smear tactics are working well on some people.
What a joke, considering Facebook profits enormously from freebooted videos which are taken from YouTube (where the content creator earns the ad revenue) and rehosted on FB (where Facebook themselves gets the ad revenue). Their algorithms also prefer FB hosted over YouTube hosted video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
... something they stole from Pied Piper.
An "EV grid" isn't actually a thing - it should refer to the electricity grid which is over a century old and practically ubiquitous.
90% of charging by EVs can be done on the existing network. Fast chargers make it more convenient but are not a new grid in itself.
Hydrogen, on the other hand, requires dedicated infrastructure to support 100% of fuelling requirements. Not just the stations, but the generation, storage and shipping.
isn't unreasonable if you can plug it in and fuck off to do something else, it may even represent a time saving.
Exactly. This is one thing that people who don't have practical experience with EVs don't consider. My mobile phone takes hours to charge, but I don't sit there staring at it while it does it.
They have fleet learning, where every car will share the same knowledge about a given route as all other Tesla cars. So if others have driven that same route with lane markings, your car will know where they are. And if not, it will use visual cues (paths being taken by other cars, etc) to work it out, the same as a human.
I'm sure most require a person to be at the wheel. But when traffic laws was first written, maybe some didn't consider it necessary to specify that a person be controlling the car, as it was assumed. Perhaps in all the different jurisdictions around the world, there is one where the wording of the law accidentally permits a self driving car to legally operate.
The same as a human? They use visual cues such as other vehicles? Or perhaps they use Tesla's fleet learning experience to see where other vehicles have travelled in the area previously?
I think you're mixing up Autopilot, which Tesla vehicles have been using for a couple of years, and today's announcement. Today's reveal is about 100% autonomous self driving cars.
Tesla won't require a human at the wheel for this. Local laws might, but I think for quite some time people will be just sitting in the driver seat doing absolutely nothing while they wait for the laws to catch up.
Worth noting that Autopilot was never advertised as 100% autonomous - this new system will be.
They're going on Ark B.
Oh, hi Bertel Schmitt.
The leader of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea disagrees with you.