Tesla Master Plan part deux

[anonymous-user]

TEKNOPUG said:

I'm not sure how you can have a discussion about EV's being the future of transportation without considering the implications of the energy requirements. Others seem to think otherwise.

But you just dismissed the energy required to produce gasoline. It's something like 4kWh/us gallon. 4kWh will move a Tesla S 10-20 miles. Think about it. Now granted not all the energy used in producing gasoline is in the form of electricity; most comes from burning the product its self but in terms of energy infrastructure its trivial to move to an interim solution that moves the pollution out of your cities. No one disputes the electricity has to come from somewhere but writing off the future of EV's because we don't have enough electricity is daft.

[TEKNOPUG]

fblm said:

TEKNOPUG said:

I'm not sure how you can have a discussion about EV's being the future of transportation without considering the implications of the energy requirements. Others seem to think otherwise.

But you just dismissed the energy required to produce gasoline. It's something like 4kWh/us gallon. 4kWh will move a Tesla S 10-20 miles. Think about it. Now granted not all the energy used in producing gasoline is in the form of electricity; most comes from burning the product its self but in terms of energy infrastructure its trivial to move to an interim solution that moves the pollution out of your cities. No one disputes the electricity has to come from somewhere but writing off the future of EV's because we don't have enough electricity is daft.

I haven't written them off

What I have said is that until the energy infrastructure is in place to actually switch from combustion to EVs, they will remain a niche (albeit growing) market. It's all very well refining the technology so that you have a proper car (Like the Tesla S) that meets all the requirements of a combustion equivalent - range, recharging time, battery life etc but you still need to bridge the infrastructure gap on a national level, before the "future" can ever be the present. Combustion engine vehicles have become so popular because the energy is easily portable. It's easy to carry and easy to store. So it can be made readily available anywhere. And it's not dependant upon the time of day or the weather. That's the real challenge that EV face in replacing combustion engines.

[Jader1973]

RobDickinson said:

Jader1973 said:

I can refuel my car in 5 minutes and then have a 700km range. Amazing isn't it! I can also drive it wherever I want and am highly likely be able to find someplace to fill it up (in 5 minutes). Truely awesome tech!

As per an earlier post in this thread, I read an article about the new E Class today: the tech in it is truely amazing and way ahead of anything Tesla has.

They also aren't pushing the "look it can drive itself" angle, probably because they (and every other established manufacturer) know how dangerous it is due to the immature tech something Tesla seem happy to ignore.

What percentage of drivers do 700kmns a day? What percentage of drivers do you want doing 700kms a day without a 30min break in there? Thats a stop for toilet, coffee and a sandwich. BEV's could be made with that range with huge batteries but almost no one would ever need it. The average daily mileage is tiny, and 300km range covers almost every trip.

And think of how many times you are filling up your car, 5min what once a week? BEV's you almost always recharge at home overnight so you overall will save more time than loose.

The whole reason car ownership exploded is because it gives everyone the freedom to go where they want when they want. 99.9% of people may not need a car that can do 700km in one go, but they already have one and therefore want one that can go 700km in one go. Giving them something that does anything less than that looks to them like taking away their freedom.

The entire industry has been pushing fuel economy improvements for decades - "go further with less". Changing that to "Go less, with more inconvenience" isn't going to work. Which is why for the next couple of decades at least ICE (with or without hybrid systems) will remain the majority of sales. Mass market take up of BEVs is a long way off.


As for Musk's grand plan, the only bit that I can see any merit in at the moment is the idea for a van. I could see courier companies getting on board with that for their city/town based fleets. It would complicate route planning is they could only do 300km a day I suppose but they have all sorts of route planning software that could get round that. Then if they can go fully autonomous parcels could be delivered by robot vans with drones that shuttle them from the van to the door, in some places. I don't understand why he isn't focussing on that part - maybe it isn't cool enough for him?

[anonymous-user]

Jader1973 said:

The whole reason car ownership exploded is because it gives everyone the freedom to go where they want when they want. 99.9% of people may not need a car that can do 700km in one go, but they already have one and therefore want one that can go 700km in one go. Giving them something that does anything less than that looks to them like taking away their freedom.

I think you're missing the point. Short of buying a Rolls I honestly can't think of a nicer more relaxing car to commute in. The NVH of no engine is a joy. Not to mention no congestion charge. With a noisy fun car for the weekend obviously.

[Impasse]

Unfortunately I fear any progress will soon begin to dwindle as Musk loses his focus. He's been spending a lot of time with Amber Heard recently. Distracted and skint within five years.

[RobDickinson]

Jader1973 said:

"go further with less"

"Go all year without refuelling" would work for almost everyone.

Ask whoever you want, find that one person that actually likes stopping to refuel, with BEV's you pretty much never have to

[98elise]

TEKNOPUG said:

fblm said:

TEKNOPUG said:

I'm not sure how you can have a discussion about EV's being the future of transportation without considering the implications of the energy requirements. Others seem to think otherwise.

But you just dismissed the energy required to produce gasoline. It's something like 4kWh/us gallon. 4kWh will move a Tesla S 10-20 miles. Think about it. Now granted not all the energy used in producing gasoline is in the form of electricity; most comes from burning the product its self but in terms of energy infrastructure its trivial to move to an interim solution that moves the pollution out of your cities. No one disputes the electricity has to come from somewhere but writing off the future of EV's because we don't have enough electricity is daft.

I haven't written them off

What I have said is that until the energy infrastructure is in place to actually switch from combustion to EVs, they will remain a niche (albeit growing) market. It's all very well refining the technology so that you have a proper car (Like the Tesla S) that meets all the requirements of a combustion equivalent - range, recharging time, battery life etc but you still need to bridge the infrastructure gap on a national level, before the "future" can ever be the present. Combustion engine vehicles have become so popular because the energy is easily portable. It's easy to carry and easy to store. So it can be made readily available anywhere. And it's not dependant upon the time of day or the weather. That's the real challenge that EV face in replacing combustion engines.

What infrastructure gap? The average driver would need around 8kWh per day, thats a hob for an hour. Unless your home currently can't cope with that, then we already have the energy capacity and infrastructure. Petrol isn't available in my home or at my work but electricity is. Put it this way, do you find charging your pone at home a pain? Do you wish we had phones and laptops that could be charged a bit faster but only in special shops?

Electricity can be produced as long as we have energy, when we run out of electricity we have run out of energy. EV's are the future of mass transport.

Edited by 98elise on Saturday 23 July 08:43

[Tonsko]

RobDickinson said:

I think he means they have not as yet re-launched one.

Thats going to happen later this year

Yes, apologies. 'it' was re-use, not landing in floating platform. Was on my phone, saw that it could be misconstrued and didn't bother to edit. The used rockets are in (mostly!) good shape, so should see one go up shortly.

[ex1]

TEKNOPUG said:

I haven't written them off

What I have said is that until the energy infrastructure is in place to actually switch from combustion to EVs, they will remain a niche (albeit growing) market. It's all very well refining the technology so that you have a proper car (Like the Tesla S) that meets all the requirements of a combustion equivalent - range, recharging time, battery life etc but you still need to bridge the infrastructure gap on a national level, before the "future" can ever be the present. Combustion engine vehicles have become so popular because the energy is easily portable. It's easy to carry and easy to store. So it can be made readily available anywhere. And it's not dependant upon the time of day or the weather. That's the real challenge that EV face in replacing combustion engines.

Electricity is much easier to store and distribute than a liquid fuel. The infrastructure will grow as demand grows. The grid stands massively under-utilised for the vast majority of the time ready for 6pm when it spikes as everyone gets home from work and puts on the tv/kettle. If you could better distribute that usage the same capacity would support much more which is why lots of very intelligent people including Tesla are investing huge amounts into home energy storage and regenerative roads etc

Nissan are currently trailing a more integrated solution where your EV car puts excess energy back into the home at peak times and takes it back at 3am via wireless charging.

The key is the batteries not the energy. Lithium ION/Sulpher batteries will be at least half the weight and half the price they are today in just 5 years. The old batteries will be refurbished (you only need to replace individual cells not the whole battery) and used in other applications - remote stations, home power, leisure etc. This is much bigger than the car industry, vast portions of the planet still dont have access to a national grid. Imagine how cheaper, more efficient batteries will change things for them. Combined with solar you may see them bypass a grid all together.

EV is a better solution that combustion in virtually every way. Combustion engines only won over EV in the beginning because Ford got to mass production first and someone invented an electric starter motor NOT because the fuel was easily portable. Prior to that 40% of the cars in production were EV.

[Jader1973]

RobDickinson said:

Jader1973 said:

"go further with less"

"Go all year without refuelling" would work for almost everyone.

Ask whoever you want, find that one person that actually likes stopping to refuel, with BEV's you pretty much never have to

You're right about it working for the majority of people - getting them to understand that is the challenge I think.

The thing is you do have to "refuel" - every night or at least every couple of nights. Not everyone will be able to do that - not everyone has a driveway let alone a garage or even a parking spot outside their house. Some of us have garages full of crap with no room for a car

If you can drive the car in to the garage and charge it wirelessly then great. If you have to plug it in I reckon it would be a pretty safe bet a lot of people wouldn't , or couldn't, plug it in every night.

I don't doubt BEV use will grow but I can't see it being the majority of sales for many years because of the range anxiety, real or imagined.

[The Vambo]

Jader1973 said:

It would complicate route planning is they could only do 300km

If 90% of a last mile couriers fleet isn't doing under 150Km per day, they will be out of business very very soon.

The explosion in the domestic parcel industry has increased the density of deliveries and hugely reduced the fuel burn for each route, a Tesla Luton could really dominate the industry IMHO.

[frisbee]

I'm looking forward to one of the many "I post on a forum so I now much more than some bloke who's been successful in several different industries" cars to come out. I can't wait for my own Homer.

[technodup]

Jader1973 said:

The whole reason car ownership exploded is because it gives everyone the freedom to go where they want when they want. 99.9% of people may not need a car that can do 700km in one go, but they already have one and therefore want one that can go 700km in one go. Giving them something that does anything less than that looks to them like taking away their freedom.

You are forgetting two things.

1. government influence
2. marketing men

When government wants you to, and the conditions are right YOU WILL make the change. Extra taxes, congestion charges, EV only roads/cities, scrappage grants, incentives, the list of push and pull tools they have is endless. You will do what they want you to.

Between that and the positive messaging we'll be getting from the manufacturers and ad guys it will be a no brainer.

Even the most ardent PH flat earther will surrender his petrol principles when his pocket is taking a battering. Also see seatbelt use, speeding, drink driving, smoking etc etc.

[anonymous-user]

technodup said:

ou are forgetting two things.

1. government influence
2. marketing men

When government wants you to, and the conditions are right YOU WILL make the change. Extra taxes, congestion charges, EV only roads/cities, scrappage grants, incentives, the list of push and pull tools they have is endless. You will do what they want you to.

Between that and the positive messaging we'll be getting from the manufacturers and ad guys it will be a no brainer.

Even the most ardent PH flat earther will surrender his petrol principles when his pocket is taking a battering. Also see seatbelt use, speeding, drink driving, smoking etc etc.

I don't disagree but you must see the truth of the current situation if you believe that EVs success will depend on government coercion?

Wouldn't it be great if the EV could be desirable because it was better than the alternative in all respects for all drivers?

[technodup]

REALIST123 said:

I don't disagree but you must see the truth of the current situation if you believe that EVs success will depend on government coercion?

I don't think that will be the case. Just that certain groups might need more persuasion than others. PHers, for example.

REALIST123 said:

Wouldn't it be great if the EV could be desirable because it was better than the alternative in all respects for all drivers?

There's not a product on earth that suits everyone all of the time, why expect EVs to? Cars, like anything else are designed for the masses. The old 80/20 rule. Chairs for example are built for the 80% in the middle, freaks at the short or tall 10% can get their own made if they don't fit. There will always be extremes but it's not economic to cater for them, that's where specialists come in.

As it is I think they're most of the way there for most people. It's just that some people as on this thread seem to want the right to drive a mythical 700kms whenever they feel like it (which is never, but I still might one day bla bla).

Most people don't do 700kms in a fortnight. 300km range is more than enough for most uses. They already have every functionality and more of a normal car. They're faster, less unreliable and cleaner. As I see it the only issues are charging infrastructure and perception.

But then I'm not a Top Gear tshirt PH car bore.

[Xaero]

Seems like a legit plan to me, I wouldn't be surprised if he starts targeting the haulage industry as that's going to be one of the first victims once driveless is approved, to a point where they probably don't even need to design a cabin space for the driver, maybe the windscreen will just be a solar panel; But still obviously will obviously need huge batteries for the distances and weight involved.

The thing I don't see happening within 5 years is getting the autopilot all legalised in the various governments around the world. Maybe somewhere like Norway will be the first to approve it as they aren't bound by EU regs and are fans of EVs. The UK could venture into legalising it after Brexit but I doubt it'll even be discussed before.

[davepoth]

Xaero said:

But still obviously will obviously need huge batteries for the distances and weight involved.

Probably not, as it happens. The particulars of electric motors make them rather well suited to goods haulage - for example, double up the drivetrain of the Model S P85D and it's more powerful in terms of both HP and torque than the top of the line Mercedes Benz Actros tractor unit. All up, a pair of P85Ds would weigh about 4 tonnes, and a Mercedes Actros is about 10 tonnes. 6 tonnes of battery would get you a very long way.

[anonymous-user]

technodup said:

REALIST123 said:

I don't disagree but you must see the truth of the current situation if you believe that EVs success will depend on government coercion?

I don't think that will be the case. Just that certain groups might need more persuasion than others. PHers, for example.

REALIST123 said:

Wouldn't it be great if the EV could be desirable because it was better than the alternative in all respects for all drivers?

There's not a product on earth that suits everyone all of the time, why expect EVs to? Cars, like anything else are designed for the masses. The old 80/20 rule. Chairs for example are built for the 80% in the middle, freaks at the short or tall 10% can get their own made if they don't fit. There will always be extremes but it's not economic to cater for them, that's where specialists come in.

As it is I think they're most of the way there for most people. It's just that some people as on this thread seem to want the right to drive a mythical 700kms whenever they feel like it (which is never, but I still might one day bla bla).

Most people don't do 700kms in a fortnight. 300km range is more than enough for most uses. They already have every functionality and more of a normal car. They're faster, less unreliable and cleaner. As I see it the only issues are charging infrastructure and perception.

But then I'm not a Top Gear tshirt PH car bore.

There's more than one kind of bore

[Sylvaforever]

I'm 48% through Musks autobiography, interesting bloke, but don't know if I'd want to work for him imho; then perhaps he has màtured a little over the last few years..

[ex1]

REALIST123 said:

technodup said:

ou are forgetting two things.

1. government influence
2. marketing men

When government wants you to, and the conditions are right YOU WILL make the change. Extra taxes, congestion charges, EV only roads/cities, scrappage grants, incentives, the list of push and pull tools they have is endless. You will do what they want you to.

Between that and the positive messaging we'll be getting from the manufacturers and ad guys it will be a no brainer.

Even the most ardent PH flat earther will surrender his petrol principles when his pocket is taking a battering. Also see seatbelt use, speeding, drink driving, smoking etc etc.

I don't disagree but you must see the truth of the current situation if you believe that EVs success will depend on government coercion?

Wouldn't it be great if the EV could be desirable because it was better than the alternative in all respects for all drivers?

For 85% of people it is already a better alternative and the government are supporting it pretty well - £4500 towards purchase - £500 towards home charge point - 7% BIK - free RFL - free congestion charge and only 5% vat on fuel! They certainly won't be throwing any better incentives at it in the future.

The reason it isn't getting mass uptake is lack of education and resistance to change. You also have to remember there are a lot of powerful people that have a vested interest in maintaining the current status quo.

We swapped a tdi golf for a Nissan Leaf some time ago as a second car and it is simply better in every way.