HN has a raging hard-on for tesla. It's not surprising, but I agree it's ridiculously one sided here.
Personally, I hope Tesla fail, and think they will.
Personally, I hope Tesla fail, and think they will.
I think that without any kind of justification, this is completely unnecessary for HN, and downmodded you accordingly. Even though I agree that many comments here are one-sided, and haven't considered what the PR statement might be missing.
Maybe, but you need to realize that the electric car is an obvious and timely technological development, and someone will produce a successful mass-market electric car. Why not Tesla? It's not as though they're making a lot of mistakes.
Of all the things that are banes of our lives these days, surely it's everything that runs on a battery.
Remember when phones would last a week or so on a charge? Now you're lucky if a smart phone lasts a day on standby. And people call it progress...
So no, I think the idea of having a massive battery in my car is horrible.
Early internal combustion engines were also rather embarrassing, but this didn't hinder their adoption -- at the time they were a better choice overall.
Imagine the reverse situation -- imagine that electric cars took hold when they were first introduced in the early 1900s and saw a century of improvements. Then someone comes forward and says, "We have an idea! Instead of charging your battery all the time, you carry a tank of explosive liquid fuel with you wherever you go, and you burn the fuel as you drive."
Present battery technology is pretty terrible -- not very efficient, too heavy, low energy density, short life. But widespread adoption of electric cars will force technological improvements, just as happened with internal combustion engines.
If batteries improve -- greatly -- it will become self-evident that carrying a battery around is a better choice than carrying and burning liquid fuel, both for the environment and in a simple economic sense. At the moment, electric cars aren't an obvious improvement over an internal combustion car, but I think that will change.
In a hypothetical future with more wind and solar energy sources, and possibly fusion power in the long term, electric cars will make more environmental sense as well.
Identical. Why has battery technology not improved one bit in the last 30 years? Well, obviously there's a massive disincentive - the better the battery, the less people buy, but I don't think that's the main limitation.
I don't think conventional batteries can improve all that much more.
That's completely false. I might have said, "Look at a basic mousetrap 30 years ago. Now look at one today. Identical." What's missing is any examination of the alternatives. 30 years ago, there weren't any NiMH batteries, or commercial lithium-ion batteries (the latter were under active development), but they're now the primary power sources for portable devices, and lithium-ion batteries power the Tesla Model S.
> I don't think conventional batteries can improve all that much more.
And I don't think conventional thinking can improve all that much more. But I have high hopes for unconventional thinking.
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -- Arthur C. Clarke
What does that mean for the user. Do batteries today last twice what they lasted 30 years ago? Nope. Are rechargeable batteries any more viable today? Nope.
Even batteries in laptops only last a year or so before they are just dead and need replacing.
If you think battery technology has really massively improved in the last 30 years, please let me know what real world improvements there have been...
You are flat wrong on both counts. Modern batteries provide much more energy per size, weight and cost than their rechargeable predecessors. As to "viable", how can you make any kind of claim about batteries that didn't exist 30 years ago?
> Even batteries in laptops only last a year or so before they are just dead and need replacing.
Yes -- compared to no batteries and no laptops, 30 years ago. What kind of comparison do you think you're making?
> If you think battery technology has really massively improved in the last 30 years, please let me know what real world improvements there have been...
Today, batteries exist, and applications exist, that did not exist 30 years ago. Modern battery applications could not be filled by the technology that existed 30 years ago. How difficult is that to decode? Thirty years ago, the Tesla Model S could not exist, period, full stop. The battery technology didn't exist.
Chart of battery energy density by year:
I'm actually thinking of going back to my nokia which has a battery that lasts a week on standby. Compared to modern smartphones which last a day.
You're right though - Inefficient bloated buggy software is becoming the driving force for requiring more power from batteries - going back to my original point - I don't want software running my car.
Agree to disagree eh
Then you're suffering from evidence immunity:
http://www.akbars.net/images/battery%20energy%20density.png
The above graph shows that batteries have improved enormously in the past 30 years -- they now have more than twice the energy density they had then. There are few products that have improved so dramatically. And more improvements are in the pipeline:
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/new-lithium-ion-b...
Quote: "Breakthrough lithium-ion battery can recharge 1,000x faster than current tech"
> Agree to disagree eh ...
This is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.
Too late. Every car since about 1993 is entirely reliant on electronic computers, and many were even in 1980. Most of them reprogrammable, though usually cumbersome to do so.
Too late. Every car since about 1993 is entirely reliant on electronic computers--and many were much earlier. Most of them reprogrammable, though usually cumbersome to do so. Changing software during service is common these days--and the dealer may not even bother to mention it.
Tesla's use of software is pretty normal. Go sit in BMW 5 series, or a Ford Focus. All soft interface. Tesla's is just nicer, and not afraid of taking advantage of the fact that everything is software already.
Actual On-Demand Refilling Stats:
- One hour at supercharging station
- Two minutes at battery swapping station
gargoiler00: As long as the Sun shines...
Using solar, wind, hydroelectric and future fusion reactors, yes, it is.
My neighbour has an old dumper truck he lets me use, probably 50 or 60 years old. It starts every time, first time. There is literally nothing to go wrong on it.
Now contrast that with a modern car, where you need special tools to access the electronics unlock diagnostics. What about when cars have auto update software over wifi? What about when the government forces car makers to embed their own tracking software into them to monitor and spy on civilians.
Tesla isn't quite as bad as the idiotic self drive cars Google is pressing for (So they can drive you to a google advertiser), but they're in the same bucket of nastiness.
> My neighbour has an old dumper truck he lets me use, probably 50 or 60 years old. It starts every time, first time. There is literally nothing to go wrong on it.
I guess apart from modern safety features and gas guzzling?
> What about when the government forces car makers to embed their own tracking software into them to monitor and spy on civilians.
Not necessary. People already carry cell phones.
I am actually looking forward to the self driving cars. Human error causes lots of accidents. But then, I don't own a car and probably never will.