Tesla Model 3 revealed
Discussion
Caring about the planet is soooo Daily Mail. 
Ok then, of course it is.
Nuclear is just a temporary solution with real hidden dangers. If you love it, great. I don't. Nuclear is an environmental threat in various ways: waste disposal, accidental leaks, or even intentional destruction. I these modern times with terrorists actively plotting ways to destroy them, I'd rather not be anywhere near one, or their waste sites.
Ok then, of course it is.Nuclear is just a temporary solution with real hidden dangers. If you love it, great. I don't. Nuclear is an environmental threat in various ways: waste disposal, accidental leaks, or even intentional destruction. I these modern times with terrorists actively plotting ways to destroy them, I'd rather not be anywhere near one, or their waste sites.
Max_Torque said:
k-ink said:
burying nuclear waste in places of natural beauty .
It's all gone a bit "daily mail" in here hasn't it!Often, due to their geology, places of "Natural beauty", which are often mountainous, rocky, regions, are the BEST places to bury nuclear material because they have the most stable strata below ground. And the clue is the word "bury". We are not going to just leave the material in the corner of a NT car park you know, and because of the high energy density, waste products are relatively small (compared to the VAST, global scale of pollution caused by oil,gas and coal!!) the only on-surface sign of such a depository will be a small entrance tunnel..........
k-ink said:
Caring about the planet is soooo Daily Mail. Ok then, of course it is.
Nuclear is just a temporary solution with real hidden dangers. If you love it, great. I don't. Nuclear is an environmental threat in various ways: waste disposal, accidental leaks, or even intentional destruction. I these modern times with terrorists actively plotting ways to destroy them, I'd rather not be anywhere near one, or their waste sites.
That's the start of a whole different discussion. There are some interesting things ahead for nuclear power - whilst early reactors used critical fuels and then tried to stop them going pop, there's a new generation that use more stable fuels and just let them decay to ever safer levels - they've been compared to letting a candle burn down. These are terrorist proof and ultimately pretty clean, with known fuel reserves that are measured in hundreds of years. The next generation of nuclear stands to be no worse (and potentially better) than the typical pollution you get from mining the rare earth metals used in EV batteries. Ok then, of course it is.Nuclear is just a temporary solution with real hidden dangers. If you love it, great. I don't. Nuclear is an environmental threat in various ways: waste disposal, accidental leaks, or even intentional destruction. I these modern times with terrorists actively plotting ways to destroy them, I'd rather not be anywhere near one, or their waste sites.
So, whilst we're currently wringing our hands about energy and peak oil and pollution, there's a good chance that in 50 years or so energy just won't be an issue.
The real human problems aren't about energy and pollution - they're about traffic congestion and over-population.
I remain of the opinion that Tesla will get eaten alive when Ford, GM, Toyota and VW take them on in head-to-head competition. Tesla is simply "bleeding edge" with wealthy customers paying for development of the infrastructure. Nobody "needs" a Tesla - it's a lifestyle thing.
I remain of the opinion that Tesla will get eaten alive when Ford, GM, Toyota and VW take them on in head-to-head competition. Tesla is simply "bleeding edge" with wealthy customers paying for development of the infrastructure. Nobody "needs" a Tesla - it's a lifestyle thing.
Ozzie Osmond said:
I remain of the opinion that Tesla will get eaten alive when Ford, GM, Toyota and VW take them on in head-to-head competition. Tesla is simply "bleeding edge" with wealthy customers paying for development of the infrastructure. Nobody "needs" a Tesla - it's a lifestyle thing.
This is where Musk has been very clever. He's saying to the other car manufacturers "Here; use my tech, don't worry about the patents. Want some batteries to implement that? I have the world largest battery factory. A charging network? We've got one of those too, you are welcome to use it for a small per vehicle fee."He does not want to compete with Ford, GM, Toyota and VW. He wants to compete with Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total.
Mr Will said:
He does not want to compete with Ford, GM, Toyota and VW. He wants to compete with Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total.
How ? We're told people will all refuel at home using electricity made by solar, wind and fairies in the meadows . . . so where will Tesla make their money ? If BP for example choose to create a charging network they already have the spare forecourt space on most of their sites, they already have high capacity three phase supply on most sites and they have more locations than Tesla could ever hope to acquire in the next 10 years. If BP, Shell, Total etc all offer charging points then Tesla will look like a minor bit part player. And I'd bet those companies are already looking at this, perhaps not ready to implement but they will have investigated the economics of it and have a technical plan at the ready. I think he plans to sell cars and compete with the majors - this can be the only option open to him - does he really think GM or VAG will buy batteries from him ? That's an ultra high risk strategy and if it fails, will leave him selling just cars . . which are nice but will Tesla survive when Mercedes/BMW/GM/JLR start making EVs ? They will be an acquisition target . . . maybe that's his plan ?
Mr Will said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
I remain of the opinion that Tesla will get eaten alive when Ford, GM, Toyota and VW take them on in head-to-head competition. Tesla is simply "bleeding edge" with wealthy customers paying for development of the infrastructure. Nobody "needs" a Tesla - it's a lifestyle thing.
This is where Musk has been very clever. He's saying to the other car manufacturers "Here; use my tech, don't worry about the patents. Want some batteries to implement that? I have the world largest battery factory. A charging network? We've got one of those too, you are welcome to use it for a small per vehicle fee."He does not want to compete with Ford, GM, Toyota and VW. He wants to compete with Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total.
George111 said:
How ? We're told people will all refuel at home using electricity made by solar, wind and fairies in the meadows . . . so where will Tesla make their money ? If BP for example choose to create a charging network they already have the spare forecourt space on most of their sites, they already have high capacity three phase supply on most sites and they have more locations than Tesla could ever hope to acquire in the next 10 years. If BP, Shell, Total etc all offer charging points then Tesla will look like a minor bit part player. And I'd bet those companies are already looking at this, perhaps not ready to implement but they will have investigated the economics of it and have a technical plan at the ready.
I think he plans to sell cars and compete with the majors - this can be the only option open to him - does he really think GM or VAG will buy batteries from him ? That's an ultra high risk strategy and if it fails, will leave him selling just cars . . which are nice but will Tesla survive when Mercedes/BMW/GM/JLR start making EVs ? They will be an acquisition target . . . maybe that's his plan ?
Tesla is run buy a billionaire. He just wants to improve the world.I think he plans to sell cars and compete with the majors - this can be the only option open to him - does he really think GM or VAG will buy batteries from him ? That's an ultra high risk strategy and if it fails, will leave him selling just cars . . which are nice but will Tesla survive when Mercedes/BMW/GM/JLR start making EVs ? They will be an acquisition target . . . maybe that's his plan ?
JLR is not exactly mightily rich is it?
All those other companies have engine plant which you can scrap in 5 years.
Hugh Jarse said:
George111 said:
How ? We're told people will all refuel at home using electricity made by solar, wind and fairies in the meadows . . . so where will Tesla make their money ? If BP for example choose to create a charging network they already have the spare forecourt space on most of their sites, they already have high capacity three phase supply on most sites and they have more locations than Tesla could ever hope to acquire in the next 10 years. If BP, Shell, Total etc all offer charging points then Tesla will look like a minor bit part player. And I'd bet those companies are already looking at this, perhaps not ready to implement but they will have investigated the economics of it and have a technical plan at the ready.
I think he plans to sell cars and compete with the majors - this can be the only option open to him - does he really think GM or VAG will buy batteries from him ? That's an ultra high risk strategy and if it fails, will leave him selling just cars . . which are nice but will Tesla survive when Mercedes/BMW/GM/JLR start making EVs ? They will be an acquisition target . . . maybe that's his plan ?
Tesla is run buy a billionaire. He just wants to improve the world.I think he plans to sell cars and compete with the majors - this can be the only option open to him - does he really think GM or VAG will buy batteries from him ? That's an ultra high risk strategy and if it fails, will leave him selling just cars . . which are nice but will Tesla survive when Mercedes/BMW/GM/JLR start making EVs ? They will be an acquisition target . . . maybe that's his plan ?
JLR is not exactly mightily rich is it?
All those other companies have engine plant which you can scrap in 5 years.
George111 said:
Mr Will said:
He does not want to compete with Ford, GM, Toyota and VW. He wants to compete with Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total.
How ? We're told people will all refuel at home using electricity made by solar, wind and fairies in the meadows . . . so where will Tesla make their money ? If BP for example choose to create a charging network they already have the spare forecourt space on most of their sites, they already have high capacity three phase supply on most sites and they have more locations than Tesla could ever hope to acquire in the next 10 years. If BP, Shell, Total etc all offer charging points then Tesla will look like a minor bit part player. And I'd bet those companies are already looking at this, perhaps not ready to implement but they will have investigated the economics of it and have a technical plan at the ready. I think he plans to sell cars and compete with the majors - this can be the only option open to him - does he really think GM or VAG will buy batteries from him ? That's an ultra high risk strategy and if it fails, will leave him selling just cars . . which are nice but will Tesla survive when Mercedes/BMW/GM/JLR start making EVs ? They will be an acquisition target . . . maybe that's his plan ?
1. Supplying other manufacturers with batteries - why would they not buy from Tesla if Tesla can offer the best balance of price/performance? Tesla are building the worlds largest battery factory for a reason, and it's not just to supply their own cars.
2. Licencing their charger network to other manufacturers - Do you really think other manufacturers will want to invest the time and money required to set up a network if one already exists that they can use for a reasonable fee? BMW don't build petrol stations.
3. Selling "Destination Chargers" to companies that want to offer them.
Potentially 4. Selling the car side of the business to an existing car manufacturer wanting to catch up with the game (once steps 1 to 3 are in full swing)
Yes, the energy companies might attempt to compete but Tesla have a significant head start in both locations and vehicles. Forecourts don't make good EV charging locations (nobody wants to hang around a petrol station for an hour) so they'll still be starting from scratch. If you want to compete in EV charging then you need stations where people spend time - shopping centres, office blocks, city centres; not by the side of the local ring-road.
They'll also have the issue of how to make profit from it - If they try to make the user pay then all the Tesla owners will avoid them and use the free superchargers instead. If they try to do a deal with a car manufacturer then you have the chicken/egg situation of having to build the network before the cars or vice versa.
None of this means Tesla is a guaranteed success, but to view them as purely a car company is to miss the point. The cars are there to support the rest of the business.
speedking31 said:
k-ink said:
Nope. Deserts in the Middle East. Or Oceans.
What about the distribution network required to get the energy to where it is required?Mr Will said:
speedking31 said:
k-ink said:
Nope. Deserts in the Middle East. Or Oceans.
What about the distribution network required to get the energy to where it is required?Quite literally sunk cost.
Perhaps if we had a blank globe to start with it would be cheaper to cover it in PV and string up a bunch of cables than to build VLCCs and drill holes.
But we don't.
Mr Will said:
speedking31 said:
k-ink said:
Nope. Deserts in the Middle East. Or Oceans.
What about the distribution network required to get the energy to where it is required?Oil is completely different, stick it in a ship or a pipeline and send it anywhere in the world no problem.
Energy supply for mass take up of electric cars is a huge hurdle as is producing it without just ending up moving massive pollution elsewhere. Nuclear power seems feasible but we're struggling to even build one station in the Uk extra let alone the numbers needed to power hundreds of thousands of EVs. Nuclear does all still have a waste by product issue to deal with.
Mr Will said:
This is where Musk has been very clever. He's saying to the other car manufacturers "Here; use my tech, don't worry about the patents. Want some batteries to implement that? I have the world largest battery factory. A charging network? We've got one of those too, you are welcome to use it for a small per vehicle fee."
He does not want to compete with Ford, GM, Toyota and VW. He wants to compete with Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total.
I'd hesitate to say what Musk wants. His goal is to change the world (electric cars, missions to Mars), not necessarily to take it over. So far it seems his special skill is not in innovating so much as in taking absolute maximum advantage of subsidies and grants to build out capability. Having proven a market though, we've not yet seen what his intentions are - neither Tesla nor Space X have got that far yet. Open patents and so on suggest he doesn't want to dominate, and the sheer challenge of investment suggest he'll have to climb a mountain to maintain a hold on the market. The sheer scale of infrastructure behind Shell and BP is staggering.He does not want to compete with Ford, GM, Toyota and VW. He wants to compete with Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total.
Mr Will said:
2. Licencing their charger network to other manufacturers - Do you really think other manufacturers will want to invest the time and money required to set up a network if one already exists that they can use for a reasonable fee? BMW don't build petrol stations.
The cost in a 'fuel station' is the land, not what goes on it. BMW don't build petrol stations because BP, Shell and so on have tens of thousands of them. A petrol station is at least half a million pounds worth of property investment - whereas a charging station costs around a thousand pounds to put in. Why would a manufacturer license a network when the existing networks are going to be bending over backwards to welcome in the new customers in their shiny new cars?Blaster72 said:
Well, he does have a point. You can't exactly put solar energy in a barrel and ship it to Europe. Can't transmit it through power lines that distance either without some pretty huge transmission losses.
Oil is completely different, stick it in a ship or a pipeline and send it anywhere in the world no problem.
Energy supply for mass take up of electric cars is a huge hurdle as is producing it without just ending up moving massive pollution elsewhere. Nuclear power seems feasible but we're struggling to even build one station in the Uk extra let alone the numbers needed to power hundreds of thousands of EVs. Nuclear does all still have a waste by product issue to deal with.
With current tech there are transmission losses of ~3.5% per 1000km. The Sahara is less than 3000km from the UK. Transmission losses of less than 10% seem quite manageable to me. Even going equator to pole is still 70% efficient.Oil is completely different, stick it in a ship or a pipeline and send it anywhere in the world no problem.
Energy supply for mass take up of electric cars is a huge hurdle as is producing it without just ending up moving massive pollution elsewhere. Nuclear power seems feasible but we're struggling to even build one station in the Uk extra let alone the numbers needed to power hundreds of thousands of EVs. Nuclear does all still have a waste by product issue to deal with.
The bigger problem is the politics. Just as with oil pipelines, getting permission to build massive infrastructure across multiple countries is extremely difficult. Oil has the alternative of using ships. Electricity has no such option.
Mr Will said:
With current tech there are transmission losses of ~3.5% per 1000km. The Sahara is less than 3000km from the UK. Transmission losses of less than 10% seem quite manageable to me. Even going equator to pole is still 70% efficient.
The bigger problem is the politics. Just as with oil pipelines, getting permission to build massive infrastructure across multiple countries is extremely difficult. Oil has the alternative of using ships. Electricity has no such option.
your figures are a bit optimisticThe bigger problem is the politics. Just as with oil pipelines, getting permission to build massive infrastructure across multiple countries is extremely difficult. Oil has the alternative of using ships. Electricity has no such option.
"Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces the fraction of energy lost to resistance, which varies depending on the specific conductors, the current flowing, and the length of the transmission line. For example, a 100-mile (160 km) 765 kV line carrying 1000 MW of power can have losses of 1.1% to 0.5%. A 345 kV line carrying the same load across the same distance has losses of 4.2%."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_trans...
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff