Posted 1 March Tesla is having an event in a few minutes. Most likely announcement of the smaller, cheaper car, but might also be a flop of far future things that might not happen. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 1 March Seems no vehicle will be shown today... bummer... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 2 March Worst tech event ever. But well, Phase Two was full of sci-fi that haven't happened yet. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 2 March I think it was basically an event to make up for Musk's Twitter clusterfuck. Still, there were 2 very interesting things: One, they showed how they are going to achieve a 50% reduction cost on cars Second, Mexico factory announcement. 3 hours ago, Krieg said: Worst tech event ever. But well, Phase Two was full of sci-fi that haven't happened yet. which? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 2 March 17 minutes ago, MikeMelga said: which? OK, sorry, I forgot to use Elon's lingo, I meant: Tesla Master Plan, Part Deux. I found interesting that he is embracing hydrogen. I think he didn't make clear how boats and planes will be integrated in the clean energy transformation, maybe I am missing something. Personally I think that's where maybe synthetic gasoline (from hydrogen) will have a future, specially for planes. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 2 March 1 hour ago, Krieg said: OK, sorry, I forgot to use Elon's lingo, I meant: Tesla Master Plan, Part Deux. Which part was not fulfilled? 1 hour ago, Krieg said: I found interesting that he is embracing hydrogen. He didnt dive in there but don't get too excited. He meant hydrogen production from electrolysis, to generate hydrogen as a raw material for industrial processes. 1 hour ago, Krieg said: I think he didn't make clear how boats and planes will be integrated in the clean energy transformation, maybe I am missing something. Personally I think that's where maybe synthetic gasoline (from hydrogen) will have a future, specially for planes. Simple. Energy density and battery cost are almost good enough for ships. Especially if you cover the deck with solar. Planes need double energy density to make sense. Nothing to do with hydrogen. Hydrogen is terrible for airplanes, because of very low density. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 2 March 22 minutes ago, MikeMelga said: Which part was not fulfilled? Robotaxis? FSD? People buying a Tesla and making $30k a year from robo-Uber? Solar roofs? Well, solar roofs there are some, but far from what he planned. 22 minutes ago, MikeMelga said: He didnt dive in there but don't get too excited. He meant hydrogen production from electrolysis, to generate hydrogen as a raw material for industrial processes. Yes, that's exactly what I believe it will happen. Filling up Chile and some other flat lands with solar panels, some giant turbines in the middle or the sea, then locally making hydrogen and bringing them via normal pipes. Then convert some into synthetic gasoline/diesel combining it with carbon absorbed from the air. 22 minutes ago, MikeMelga said: Simple. Energy density and battery cost are almost good enough for ships. Especially if you cover the deck with solar. Planes need double energy density to make sense. Nothing to do with hydrogen. Hydrogen is terrible for airplanes, because of very low density. Not hydrogen itself, but synthetic gasoline. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 2 March 5 hours ago, Krieg said: Robotaxis? FSD? People buying a Tesla and making $30k a year from robo-Uber? Solar roofs? Well, solar roofs there are some, but far from what he planned. Plan 2 is not finished yet. Plan 3 won't start within 2 years. Doubt robotaxi will be allowed by then, but FSD is progressing good. You also failed to mention the parts of the plan which were very successful, namely much more affordable cars. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 2 March You literally asked what was not fulfilled. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March Intresting web page about EV vs Hydrogen vs e fuels https://www.dw.com/en/batteries-versus-e-fuels-which-is-better/a-61921402 from DW Seems like if you fill a 15kwh battery an EV will take you 100km, while Hydrogen car will only go 35 km, and an e-fual car will only go 20km. So you are going to need 5 times the solar power to get the e - fuel car to go as far as as a normal EV. That all means much more solar installations and 5 times the cost. e - fuels lose so much, because you first have to convert solar power into Hydrogen, you also need to collect Co2 using more power, and than use more power to combine the Hydrogen and Co2 to make the e fuel. So unless they can make things more efficient, then longer distance flights are going to cost a lot more, if powered by e fuels, which will of course reduce demand. I think the e fuel plant in South America, will mainly make enough e- fuel so richer people can still drive their 911's around, so e-fuels are going to coast a lot more than Petrol is today. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March Interesting reading. From your link: Quote The study, commissioned by the Traton Group — the world's leading commercial vehicle manufacturer whose brands include MAN, Scania and Volkswagen — confirmed that e-trucks with batteries will save on cost compared to hydrogen. "In truck traffic, especially on long-distance routes, pure e-trucks will in most cases be the cheaper and more environmentally friendly solution," said Catharina Modahl-Nilsson, Chief Technical Officer of Traton Group, in a statement. "This is because hydrogen trucks have a decisive disadvantage. Only about a quarter of the output energy powers the vehicle, three quarters is lost through conversion processes. With the e-truck, the ratio is reversed," she added. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March 9 minutes ago, yesterday said: Seems like if you fill a 15kwh battery an EV will take you 100km, while Hydrogen car will only go 35 km, and an e-fual car will only go 20km. So you are going to need 5 times the solar power to get the e - fuel car to go as far as as a normal EV. That all means much more solar installations and 5 times the cost. e - fuels use lose so much, because you first have to convert solar power into Hydrogen, you also need to collect Co2 using more poer, and than use more power to combine the Hydrogen and Co2 to make the e fuel. So unless they can make things more efficient, then longer distance flights are going to cost a lot more, if powered by e fuels, which will of course reduce demand. Those comparisons are ridiculous, the ironic thing is that pro EVs are now the biggest FUD spreaders, they replaced the petrolheads when EVs where not a thing. Electric motors are extremely efficient, an electric car puts around 80% of the energy in the wheels, while benzine/diesel car are pretty inefficient, they put something around 17% on the wheels, pretty modern high efficiency engines have reached around 40%, still far from electric ones. Then when you convert solar into hydrogen you lose energy in the conversion, and when you convert hydrogen into synthetic fuels you lose again. So, it is pretty dumb to start with electricity, lose a lot in the conversion into synthetic fuel and then use it in a pretty inefficient engine. You will be much better just using the original electricity. That's why I believe EVs are the solution for personal transportation. The problem is when weight is crucial and the amounts of energy required are high. Read: Airplanes. The energy density of batteries is pretty bad compared to benzine. So even if there is a big waste in the conversion, synthetic fuels might be the solution for airplanes and maybe boats. EV lovers will tell you giant batteries are better though. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March 9 minutes ago, Krieg said: That's why I believe EVs are the solution for personal transportation. Of course EV are the future of personal transportation and we just have to accept the current limitations for a cleaner world, but I do not think Porsche are investing in this technology for environmental reasons, they are doing so that richer 911 drivers can take their Petrol car out at the weekend, even if the e-fuel cost more than 10 Euro;s a litre. 9 minutes ago, Krieg said: The problem is when weight is crucial and the amounts of energy required are high. Read: Airplanes. The energy density of batteries is pretty bad compared to benzine. So even if there is a big waste in the conversion, synthetic fuels might be the solution for airplanes and maybe boats. EV lovers will tell you giant batteries are better though. agreed, current batteries are just not good enough for some applications, but my point was that sure we can make e-fuels to power these things, but it will cost more to power these transport methods, eg Aeroplanes, Big ships etc. So we are all going to be paying more for flights and imported goods that come a long way by big ships. Of course everything changes, if batteries become better, or e-fuels cost less to produce., which is why the US and the EU, are putting billions in to the production processes of Green Hydrogen to see if overall efficiency can become better. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March Quote European Union countries have delayed a planned vote next week on the bloc's landmark law to end sales of new CO2-emitting cars in 2035, after Germany called into question its support for the rules. here 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March I was originally (say about a decade ago) sceptical of pure EVs and thought hydrogen would be the way we go in personal transportation but the way things have developed, and so rapidly, I think batteries will be the default and hydrogen etc. will only be reserved for very particular applications. Hydrogen has all the disadvantages of petrol when it comes to moving it around, and then some. Electricity is in comparison easy to transport to where it's needed and improving the electricity network serves a dual purpose...it allows us to move towards electric heating all of our homes in the future as well. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March 1 hour ago, yesterday said: Of course everything changes, if batteries become better, or e-fuels cost less to produce., which is why the US and the EU, are putting billions in to the production processes of Green Hydrogen to see if overall efficiency can become better. Battery development jumped a massive leap but it has been kind of stagnated for a few years, there are advances but not anymore like before. The 4860 battery from Tesla was pumped as the best upcoming thing, but now that it is out it has been kind of disappointment for the user, the battery itself is cheaper but the range of the Tesla Y with 4860 is actually lower than the Tesla Y with the old 2170 battery. In the USA which AFAIK is the only place you can/could choose which battery you get, the Tesla Y with 4860 costs $2000 or $3000 less, but you lose around 80 kilometers or range. I think at the moment Tesla has suspended the sales of the Tesla Y with 4860. If all these is true, it confirms that Tesla has been mostly concentrated in manufacturing instead of pure R&D in the past years. 54 minutes ago, murphaph said: Hydrogen has all the disadvantages of petrol when it comes to moving it around, and then some. Electricity is in comparison easy to transport to where it's needed and improving the electricity network serves a dual purpose...it allows us to move towards electric heating all of our homes in the future as well. I would think the opposite. The big advantage of petrol and hydrogen transportation is that it can be transported around without massive losses. Just the electricity traveling from the city central station to your house loses around 10%-15%. Transporting electricity very long distances can be expensive and you have to convert it to very high voltages, i.e. 100.000v - 750.000v, this normally allows transportation up to around 500km. Converting electricity into hydrogen facilitates the transportation from remote places, i.e. wind power generated in the middle of the sea, solar farms in very remote places. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March 5 minutes ago, Krieg said: Battery development jumped a massive leap but it has been kind of stagnated for a few years, there are advances but not anymore like before. The 4860 battery from Tesla was pumped as the best upcoming thing, but now that it is out it has been kind of disappointment for the user, the battery itself is cheaper but the range of the Tesla Y with 4860 is actually lower than the Tesla Y with the old 2170 battery. I thought you should have added the 4860 battery to the list of things Tesla has not done so well at above, but to be fair, Tesla has done good things as well. 5 minutes ago, Krieg said: I would think the opposite. The big advantage of petrol and hydrogen transportation is that it can be transported around without massive losses. Just the electricity traveling from the city central station to your house loses around 10%-15%. Transporting electricity very long distances can be expensive and you have to convert it to very high voltages, i.e. 100.000v - 750.000v, this normally allows transportation up to around 500km. Converting electricity into hydrogen facilitates the transportation from remote places, i.e. wind power generated in the middle of the sea, solar farms in very remote places. Big ships are never going to be powered with current batteries, they just cannot store enough energy for their size. Good luck with anybody trying to attach a long cable to a ship so it can go across the Atlantic. No, the only way currently is e-fuels and maybe with Hydrogen with a stop to re fuel on route. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March 20 minutes ago, Krieg said: Battery development jumped a massive leap but it has been kind of stagnated for a few years, there are advances but not anymore like before. I think that batteries are starting to reach singularity. You simply can´t squeeze more and more chemical energy into smaller and smaller places forever, you are investing more and more with less and less returns and at some point in the not too far future battery tech can´t physically get any better. And I doubt that the level of battery tech required by todays society can be done in an economical way. It simply can´t be done. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March Formula 1 is supposed to use 100% E-Fuels from 2026, which as a fan I´m pleased that it doesn´t have to die or go electric. That´s entertainment and not transport, but they´re of course pushing the "road relevance" of a drop-in replacement fuel for existing engines. Saying E-fuels makes no sense because batteries are more efficient is true for the long term, but in the short to medium term there´ll be millions of petrol and diesel vehicles still being driven around for decades even if the manufacture of ICE cars was banned tomorrow. It´d be a big win to have them all or part running on E-Fuels. If it´s a drop in replacement it can be blended in ever increasing quantities whilst ever increasing numbers switch to the cheaper option of BEVs. So perhaps not so bad. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 March 45 minutes ago, Krieg said: I would think the opposite. The big advantage of petrol and hydrogen transportation is that it can be transported around without massive losses. Just the electricity traveling from the city central station to your house loses around 10%-15%. Transporting electricity very long distances can be expensive and you have to convert it to very high voltages, i.e. 100.000v - 750.000v, this normally allows transportation up to around 500km. Converting electricity into hydrogen facilitates the transportation from remote places, i.e. wind power generated in the middle of the sea, solar farms in very remote places. Yeah but it comes to my house. The hydrogen gets as far as a hydrogen station where I have to go to to fill up. That's a major disadvantage and we are only "ok" with this idea because we are used to it with ICE vehicles...but EVs offer the advantage of the fuel being brought to your vehicle while you sleep, or while you take a whizz at a motorway service rest stop or while stopped at a red light etc. That advantage is not open to vehicles running on some liquid fuel, be it hydrogen or petrol or diesel. There will never ever be passive refuelling of vehicles that don't use electricity as the primary power source. In addition to that, there already exists an electricity grid. It needs improvement but we are moving to heat pumps for domestic heat and hot water anyway. There is no way we will be laying hydrogen pipes in the ground to replace the natural gas network, so if we are committed to mostly electric heat and hot water in our homes, as I believe we are, it makes sense to prioritise the infrastructural investment in the electricity network but not just the long distance network, also the local network, allowing electricity to be generated close to where it is consumed, most of the time at least. We should not actually be transporting electricity over great distances, but even so, surely the lost energy and (minimal) manpower is far less than the energy and (significant) manpower required to move hydrogen around in tanker trucks to hydrogen filling stations. I do feel green hydrogen has a really important role to play but probably not in the area of personal transportation. I did once think that, but not anymore, not when you can charge a car from 20% to 80% in 30 minutes and these charging times seem to be getting faster and faster. I could be all wrong though. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
