Tesla Battery Day 2020: Is foresight 20/22?

[CarlBar]

On 9/24/2020 at 12:22 AM, niofalpha said:

or how putting billions of subsidies into electric vehicles isn't the most optimal way to help reduce congestion or pollution

 

So in your opinion what is the optimal way?

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

So in your opinion what is the optimal way?

Most likely something about public transportation and getting rid of the idea that people own cars on an individual level.

 

Something that - long term - is probably true.

But is also simply not practical. Unless you outright outlaw individual car ownership, especially in places like Canada and the US, people will simply keep buying cars. And if that's the case, you might as well make the car they do buy the most efficient and environmentally friendly as you can.

 

And that's where EV's come in. HFC is simply not there yet (or possibly ever) for a regular commuter car. To create Hydrogen fuel, you're either burning fossil fuels, or you're using electricity - and the amount of electricity needed to create hydrogen is more than you would need to charge an EV for the same comparable range, thus making HFC significantly less efficient compared to EV's. In time, innovation may reduce that efficiency loss, but it's just a pipe dream until someone can do it.

 

HFC does make sense in something like long haul trucking, where the ability to "carry" as much additional fuel as needed, and the ability to quickly refuel, vastly outweighs the efficiency losses and cost savings of electric.

 

EV Transport Trucks are coming - everyone saw the Tesla Semi demo. But those are mostly going to be local and short haul trucking at first (though you could always simply line the bed of the trailer with extra batteries, which would also vastly increase range - but there must be diminishing returns at some point).

 

EV's are the future of commuter cars. It's just that simple. I currently own an ICE vehicle, but I will be getting either a Hybrid or a full blown EV within the next 10 years. If I'm a home owner by then, it will definitely be an EV.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, Results45 said:

Tesla by 2023: affordable $25,000 car

 

Meanwhile........100% solar-powered car

 

 

IMO both are going to be important. The former will be a semi-selfdriving Model 3 with 50%+ more range that a lot more people will be able to buy or lease while the latter will prove the viability of a solar car in sunny climates and at least halve emissions compared to hybrids in less sunny places.

The Lightyear one isn't 100% solar-powered car...at best it can get 60 km range in a day (their words).  While I am glad there are companies pushing this sort of thing forward as well, I don't think their vehicle will be practical (or they might have to scale back their claims).  They reportedly have a 60kWh battery and claim an 700km range.  While the claim is that it's achieved via the aerodynamics and efficiencies, I would caution believing it.  (Just as I would caution believing all that Tesla said will turn out to be correct)

[niofalpha]

On 9/25/2020 at 4:09 PM, CarlBar said:

 

So in your opinion what is the optimal way?

Public transit

On 9/25/2020 at 4:52 PM, gabrielcarvfer said:

Reality of public transportation:

If it is uncomfortable, some people will prefer alternatives.
If it is expensive, some people will prefer alternatives.
If it is unsafe, some people will prefer alternatives.
If it is unreliable, some people will prefer alternatives.
If it is slow, some people will prefer alternatives.

Make public transportation cheap, comfortable, safe, reliable AND fast and most people will use it.
People blame cars instead of blaming shitty public transportation.

Yes, then fund public transit so it's not shitty. Public transit in America is so shitty because there have been concentrated lobbying efforts for the last century to defund public transit so it's shitty to drive up car ownership rates. And when people say "investing in public transit", a part of it includes bike and pedestrian paths, which has the same (or greater) benefits as public transit. The perfect example of a city that does public transit "right" is Amsterdam (Statistics are similar in The Hague and Rotterdam). There are is only a car for every 4 households, because the city does public transit right. There are bike paths everywhere, cheap fast public transit.

 

On 9/25/2020 at 4:20 PM, dalekphalm said:

Most likely something about public transportation and getting rid of the idea that people own cars on an individual level.

 

Something that - long term - is probably true.

But is also simply not practical. Unless you outright outlaw individual car ownership, especially in places like Canada and the US, people will simply keep buying cars. And if that's the case, you might as well make the car they do buy the most efficient and environmentally friendly as you can.

See, this argument falls apart when you realize that the high number of cars in North America is largely caused by the complete lack of other options. If I wanted to go to either of the larger cities near me, there are literally no options other than driving. If there was something like a rail line, or a busline The American and Canadian governments subsidize fossil fuels to help keep gas prices low. These two boost demand for cars. Reducing either of these (or increasing the sin taxes on gasoline) would drive the demand for cars down. It's literally High School economics. Of course there is going to be a high demand for cars, you have to have one.

[dalekphalm]

On 9/27/2020 at 6:20 PM, niofalpha said:

Public transit

Yes, then fund public transit so it's not shitty. Public transit in America is so shitty because there have been concentrated lobbying efforts for the last century to defund public transit so it's shitty to drive up car ownership rates. And when people say "investing in public transit", a part of it includes bike and pedestrian paths, which has the same (or greater) benefits as public transit. The perfect example of a city that does public transit "right" is Amsterdam (Statistics are similar in The Hague and Rotterdam). There are is only a car for every 4 households, because the city does public transit right. There are bike paths everywhere, cheap fast public transit.

Indeed these are all ways that encourage other forms of transportation. 
 

where I live, the regional government has been heavily investing in public transport (we recently opened a new Light Rail Train system that’s fully integrated into the bus system), as well as heavy bike lane investment too. 

On 9/27/2020 at 6:20 PM, niofalpha said:

See, this argument falls apart when you realize that the high number of cars in North America is largely caused by the complete lack of other options. If I wanted to go to either of the larger cities near me, there are literally no options other than driving. If there was something like a rail line, or a busline The American and Canadian governments subsidize fossil fuels to help keep gas prices low. These two boost demand for cars. Reducing either of these (or increasing the sin taxes on gasoline) would drive the demand for cars down. It's literally High School economics. Of course there is going to be a high demand for cars, you have to have one.

In part you are correct. But there is a cultural difference when it comes to cars. People still largely choose cars even when they live in a city like I do, where the average person can more or less be fully accommodated by the public transit system. 
 

The point being people are buying cars. Until they stop doing that, or you force them, you might as well have highly efficient cars as affordable options. 
 

Especially PHEV’s and EV’s. 

[spartaman64]

i sort of have doubts about the structural batteries. the last thing i want in an expensive car is nonreplaceable batteries

[dalekphalm]

25 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i sort of have doubts about the structural batteries. the last thing i want in an expensive car is nonreplaceable batteries

Depending on how the structures interconnect, you might be able to remove entire modules and replacement them with ones that have fresh batteries. It would be a major repair though, unless whatever that structure was, was built into the design of a replaceable battery.

 

Example, perhaps the bottom of the car's frames could have the batteries integrated into the structure. The rest of the frame could attach in a modular fashion to anchor points on the "battery structure", which makes up a large portion of the bottom of the vehicle.

 

The question would be could they do that in a way that is safe, not more expensive, and able to remove the batteries (or the entire module) without too much difficulty.

 

Eventually I can see this happening, but I think we'll still see the batteries being at least factory accessible for replacement going forward.