This is Henrik's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Henrik's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I am sceptical. VW practically controls the relevant German authorities (and EUs). Moreover, if it was that simple why did VW do it in the first place? The extra pollution from VW emission scams has caused 10s of thousands of Europeans do die prematurely from all kinds of air pollution related deceases like cancer. And we still keep dying because VW has not fixed a single of the 11 million vehicles they have rigged to pollute similarly as up to 500 million vehicles that are in compliance. I for one am angry at VW for this appalling crime. WHO on 7 million premature air pollution deaths.
@E.c.i. when Model III and the Bolt is shown in Q1, 2016 it may have the effect that the sale of BEVs with 24kwh batteries will collapse as more people will know that much better and nearly similar priced BEVs will be on the market for 2018. Alternatively, we will see significant price drops on 24kwh and 30 kwh BEVs. If you can buy a 50kwh Bolt for 37k USD Nissan will not be able to sell a 30kwh Leaf for the same price. I expect global sales of short-range BEVs not to increase or even drop in 2016 and 2017.
@Rik I know that. I think Tesla is working on using that cooled cable design in combination with that robotic "snake" they also develop for autonomous charging. I think in order for that robotic "snake" to handle the charging cable they need it to be thinner and more flexible so they use cooling. I think Tesla's priority is to develop a supercharging station that can automatically charge Tesla's that use the autopilot to get the vehicle in and out of the parking space that has this robotic "snake" charger. I guess Tesla is so far in that development program that we will see it rolled out to cars by an OTA upgrade of the autopilot software and some supercharger stations sometime in 2016. It will be another world first for Tesla. A car that can park and charge itself without human interaction. You just drive to the entrance of where you need to go and the car can be ordered to park and charge itself. That self-charging technology is also absolutely necessary if you want to transform the auto industry into a autonomous taxi service selling miles instead of cars. I think this is key in Tesla's long-term business plan (5 to 10 years). There is another way to increase the charging capacity in a cable without overheating it. Increase voltage. I think Tesla is using 400 volts currently. Tesla may shift to 800 or 1200 volts in 5 to 7 years from now. That could also do the trick to get to 350k watt charging. I think autonomous capability is a more important selling point than ultra fast charging capability. It makes more business sense to make a fully autonomous BEV than a BEV that charges at 350k watt. Autonomous taxi's will only drive say 8 hours per day. That leaves 16 hours per day for charging so 120k watt is quite enough.
Tesla's superchargers are 120k watt. They use thick unhandy cables to get that much power through the cable without overheating so they can keep it low tech and inexpensive. I think 120kw or perhaps 150k watt is the absolute limit with that technology. Next step is to add cooling for the cable to increase the power. Much more expensive to build and maintain the charging station. But that may enable 350k watt charging. For almost limitless charging you could use superconductors with liquid nitrogen cooling. Then a million watt would definitely be possible in a cable that can be handle relative easily. But it will be even more expensive. However, for that to work we also need batteries that can take more charge without overheating and that have high energy density. The interesting is that Huawai seem to have developed a substance to be added to high energy density batteries so that they are also able to take a high charge something that so fart has been impossible. See We also need better power electronics that is more compact and more efficient or it will overheat quickly at 350k watt. I do not know when we will see 350k watt charging of BEVs but it is at least 5 years away. It will come I am certain. The more important issue though is to make autonomous cars and use them to transform the auto industry from an industry that sell cars into one that sell miles from a fleet of autonomous taxis that they build, maintain, clean and charge.
EP you are creating a problem that does not exist. It is entirely possible to deal with the intermittency of renewable wind, solar and hydro and not spend more than running on either nuclear or fossils that have huge external expenses because of their not paid for pollution. No nuclear power plant could be build if it had to be fully self-insured also being liable for worst case accidents that could make large parts of an entire nation inhabitable for hundreds of years. And then you have the problem of nuclear companies producing loads of nuclear waste that need to be safely stored for 1000s of years. This will be an annual expense for thousands of years after they have stopped generating any power and revenue to pay for that. No thanks putting that burden on future generations. It is simply immoral. The externalities of fossils are even more obvious with 7 million people that dies prematurely every year because of air pollution from fossil fuel burning. So fission nuclear and fossils are not an option for the future energy supply. Fusion nuclear and renewable are the only way forward. You overlook the fact that solar and wind power is a constant energy resource for all of the planet as 50% of the planet is always energised by the fusion reactor at the centre of our solar system. Global power lines (using superconductors) could do the trick. The batteries that are used for vehicles are already paid for so there is no extra expense here. You could have been a little clever and said that 300 million vehicles with 100kwh battery packs on average are not needed in the future because all these vehicles will be fully autonomous and therefore only about 75 million are needed to do the same transportation as 300 million non-autonomous vehicles. 75 million with 100kwh each will still give use 25kwh per person in America or about one full day of electric use or 4 days when power lines and variable electricity prices are considered. Stationary grid storage could add another 25kwh per person so we get 2 days of full load and 8 days of managed storage from batteries, grid transport and variable prices. That is still 50kwh per person or 6500 USD per person (=50*130) or 325 USD per year for 20 years for part of an infrastructure that can make fossils or nuclear fission redundant. It is certainly not impossible in a wealthy society. So we need 300 years of 50Gwh plant years to make 50kwh per person in the USA. That is the steady state production of 15 of those 50GWh plants assuming 20 years average life before recycling of those batteries. So what? What is the problem? Just build it. Sweden is already closing their nuclear power plants because they are uneconomical not because they have been ordered to do so. The Swedish nuclear power plants are all written off so what makes them uneconomical is maintenance, fuel and waste handling. The Scandinavian grid is getting more renewable capacity every year and the average inflation adjusted prices in the grid is going down. That is killing nuclear in Sweden. When the USA also get a lot of renewable capacity it will also make the US nuclear uneconomical.
At second though I think this is potentially big news and a big breakthrough. I tend to dismiss all these battery announcements because they come from start-ups and they usually only tell us the good news not the other negative side of the story. Huawei is not a start-up but one of the largest companies on the planet. Also they say they have found a way to make super fast charging batteries without compromising life or energy density. This is key because so far all available super fast charging batteries have low energy density. So this is a breakthrough. Now Huawei needs to make a charging controller that can take 100 watt and fit inside a Smartphone without adding much weight either and not overheating. Them hopefully in two more years we will see some actual Smartphones and other gadgets with this technology. It will be a huge step forward especially for smart watches that you should wear day and night for best heath tracking and therefore can't charge in any easy way today.
Harvey can speak for himself I know but I can remember him saying min 500 km or 300 miles. I think most people think like that and that they are right as you don't want a car that can't handle all situations you may face. I hope that Tesla does not make a Model III that cannot be upgraded to min 300 miles range. Their intro model may start at over 200 miles EPA rated but their top of the line should do over 300 miles. In my opinion the Model X and S still lacks a bigger battery pack option in order to be perfect.
Google say they believe they will be able to commercialize their fully autonomous car by 2020. If Kia think they can wait until 2020 to have driver assisted systems in their cars and until 2030 to have fully autonomous cars they will go bankrupt for sure. And their strategy is to be good at everything. That is impossible. Trying to do so will make you good at exactly nothing. Tesla has an advantage because they just want to do one thing well which is driverless long-range BEVs. That is serious focusing and the reason they have no serious competition currently despite being much less resourceful than their pears.
EP for two days or 48 hours of battery backup we only need 12 hours max at full average load. There will never be a day in the US where solar, wind and hydro produces 0%. You will also have variable prices that automatically go up when the batteries are needed and more so the more they are needed. You can shot down a lot of energy intensive production like iron and aluminium, cement when electricity prices are expected to rise above a certain threshold. In periods of excesssive electric production you make heat and hydrogen for traditional power plants for seasonal variability and extreme weather. Moreover, 200 USD per kwh at the pack level is what Tesla can do profitable with their 50Gwh factory. It will be 130 USD when 20 of those factories are up and better chemistry is used. Also when all cars and trucks are long range BEVs you have a lot of intermittency leverage right there. There are approximately 300 million vehicles and people in the US. If the average vehicle has 100kwh. (busses and heavy duty will have 300 to 600 kwh batteries small cars probably only 70kwh). That is about 100kwh per person in the US in vehicles. Average electric consumption per person also for industrial and commercial applications in the US is 10,000kwh per year or 27 kwh per day. So your numbers must be wrong. There will be plenty of electric backup in that fleet alone for 4 days full average load or 16 days if conservatively used and also accounting for minimal production in solar, hydro and wind.
This link shows the monthly wind power production for USA. You can click the other sources, coal, gas etc to remove them and get only wind power for best view. The graph shows there is very little non-seasonal intermittency in US wind power. Can be managed by power lines and battery backup. However, there is a large 40% drop in wind power during the summer months for wind power. The solution is to add solar power that produces a lot more power during summer than during all other months. We will not need a lot of long-term power back up (over 2 days). At most 10% for total electricity consumption. In order to go 100% hydro, wind and solar we will need a more powerful grid and a lot of backup batteries from Tesla like 50Gwh factories. Conventional power plants should all be powered by renewable hydrogen or renewable heat sinks in large reservoirs of sand or rock.
EP forget about off-shore wind power. It is niche and is about 2 to 3 times as expensive as onshore wind power and is primarily promoted by the oil and gas industry that wants to tap into green funds by building expensive offshore platforms with wind turbines on top of it. Offshore wind power is BS and a pipedream IMO. Less than 2GW of offshore wind power is build per year compared to about 50Gw of onshore wind power. Wind power cost onshore in the USA for new turbines is about 5 cent per kwh without subsidies. By 2030 it will be about 3 cents per kwh for new turbines onshore. Utility scale solar PV is about 10 cents today in southern California. I think 3 cents per kwh is possible for solar there by 2030 or maybe 2040. Tesla's 50Gwh battery factory will sell backup batteries for renewable for about 200 USD per kwh and build 20 more 50Gwh factories and the price for battery backup will drop to 130 USD at the pack level. Same price for electric cars. I think that by 2030 there will be about 20 50GWh factories in operation worldwide.
EP I would hardly imaging that 10 cents for long-term storage (over 2 days) of a kwh is an issue when you only need to use such stored energy from thermal heat sinks for probably 10% of your total annual consumption of electricity. Probably 55% of solar and wind power need not be stored at all but can be used directly. And the remaining 35% of the annual electricity consumption can use short-term storage (less than 2 days) using lower cost high cycle life batteries costing about 130 USD per kwh at the pack level in 2030. With 5000 cycles that is 2.6 cents for battery storage per kwh (=130/5000). The average cost of solar and wind power is going below 3 cents per kwh by 2030. That is lower that any fossil fuel or nuclear. Add 3 more cents for grid services and storage services and 6 cents per kwh will be what the average electricity consumer will pay for 100% pollution free electricity by 2030. We can't use nuclear and fossils for electricity production as they both pollute and we are going towards a zero pollution society. Pollution will be an issue only for primitive and poor civilizations. It will not be accepted in future western societies.
Clett it is still an early estimate. I think the future of massive seasonal renewable energy storage is either hydrogen in old gas fields or liquid hydrogen in buried and insulated cryogenic tanks or thermal storage in sand. It may be a combination of all three.
Ford and Google are doing a lot of good work on autonomous driving technology. However, they are making a bad choice IMO when applying sensors that are visually ugly and also lowers the air drag coefficient. Volvo and Tesla are only using sensors that are out of sight and that does not negatively affect the aerodynamics of the car. I am sure that at some point LIDAR (the mechanically rotating stuff on the roof of this Ford or Google's car) will be dropped for autonomous cars because while it work fine in an unrealistic test environment in the real world it is too costly, bulky and difficult to integrate seamlessly in a car. Stick with 3D stereo cameras, radars and ultrasonic sensors. They cost little and are easy to integrate seamlessly in the car. The software will have to be rewritten once you realise that LIDAR is not the best choice for autonomous cars and that will set Ford and Google back by a year or two versus the competition. Time is of essence. The world critically needs fully autonomous cars in order to go mainstream with taxi BEV services. Batteries will never fall significantly below 100 USD per kwh at the cell level and about 130 USD at the pack level so they will never be economically viable for ownership among the cheapest cars. You really need 100kwh or minimum 13000 USD of battery pack (even in 2030) to make a no compromise BEV. However, BEV taxis can lower the capital cost per miles driven by 80% because you can drive them at least five times as much as a privately owned car and BEVs can be build to last a million miles witch is also five times longer than gassers and fuel cells. So problem with expensive batteries is solved with autonomous cars.
Tesla has to grow fast and get to 200 k units per years or they will not be able to compete on price they day the older and much larger auto makers are also making 200k BEVs per year. In other words, the sure way for Tesla to fail as a company will be not to grow its sales but to focus on profit making for shareholders on say 50 k Model S per year. Tesla's ambition is 5 to 10 million cars per year like Toyota, GM and VW. Until Tesla reach that capacity with production in every part of the world they will be loosing money and growing fast. Tesla will not have a problem attracting new capital from issuing new stocks as long as they can deliver a gross margin of 20% or more and also grow much faster than the global market. So far Tesla has zero problem selling new stock to cover their losses which will continue for many years to come possibly 10 more years. A vey loose guees is that Tesla need to invest 2 billion in prop, plant and equip for every 100k production capacity per year they get. So to make 5 million cars per year Tesla need to invest 100 billion USD of which they can self finance about 75 billion USD over healthy gross margins. The rest will be financial losses that will be financed by issuing new stock and debt.
VW's diesel cars pollute up to 11*40 =440 million diesel cars that is not tiny. Cars are polluting exactly where people live work and breathe that is why it matters so much and much more than other sources of air pollution. If you want to be taken seriously I would get another alias. What VW has done is mass murder on an insane scale and they should pay for it accordingly. Billions of USD in fines to VW and life in prison to those who did it or knew about it and did not report it.
OK, goggled it and found an informative piece on Faraday Future in LATimes. It is founded by a 7B USD net worth Chinese businessman that are also owning an UBER like service in China. That makes sense. They will launch one halo luxury BEV vehicle in 2017 in the US that will build the brand. After that they will move down in price. So same as Tesla's business plan in that regard. Otherwise still very secretive. They are poaching employees from BMW, Tesla, Space X and GM. Whether they are those that got fired from these companies or are actually the bright ones or something in between if difficult to tell. They are obviously into autonomous drive and selling transportation services instead of selling cars in a traditional way. Musk was asked in the latest shareholder conference whether Tesla will also launch a transportation serves business but he declined to answer but said he will not comment of future products and that the strategy has not fully baked. IMO that means of cause Tesla will go into transportation services but exactly how is still a question. Until we have a fully autonomous car that functions and that is documented to function by million of miles of autonomous driving in various environments it is to early to make an exact strategy. Better focus on more important issues like increasing production and lower production costs and expanding sales and service channels.
T2 that is the most emotional, unsubstantiated nonsense I have read in a while. Instead of weeping out laud I suggest you sell your stock (if you indeed have any it would be totally self-contradictory) and get over it.
Super interesting. They say they will launch their BEVs in 2017 and also emphasises autonomous driving. Their home page shows the silhouette of a large and a smaller model. Sounds a little too good to be true. They are only 400 people currently and they have nothing to show yet or any factory. This is difficult and it will take time to organize. I would like to know who is funding them? Is it Sergey Brin or Alphabet or someone else? They must by rich because funding a new factory and developing two new BEVs simultaneously will cost at least 2 billion USD. Not that many have that kind of money to spend on a very risky project. Anyway super interesting. The old auto industry is going to wake up to a totally different competitive landscape when Apple, Tesla and now perhaps this upstart start selling their cars in volume by 2020. The industry barrier to entry is almost gone when you skip the complexities of combustion engines, multispeed transmissions and exhaust systems. But you need to crack autonomous driving or it will not become mass market. The capital cost of long-range BEVs is simply too high to make as a mass market car. Only an autonomous taxi BEV makes sense for mass market as you have low maintenance and fuel costs and only in a taxi setting can put enough miles on the car to lowers its capital cost as well. The race to bring the world its first autonomous taxi BEV is in full motion for sure.
Thomas there is no legal precedent for prosecuting anyone for mass murder because they committed mass murder by grossly cheating with air pollution legislation. However, there is a first time for everything and this is a god case IMO to do just that. We need to call it for what it is and this is deliberate mass murder.
It sounds so much better for VW to say they found irregularities with CO2 emission levels (that very few give a dam about) rather than saying that VW have also cheated with the proclaimed fuel economy or MPG ratings for numerous of VW car models. It is exactly the same thing. Just like VW tries to frame mass murder by air pollution as a breach of trust issue. The extra pollution that those 11 million and counting VW cars have caused are leading to 10s of thousands of people additionally and prematurely dying each year from that air pollution. This is mass murder by those VW employees who did this and they should be prosecuted as mass murderous. If all companies did like VW and increased their air pollution by 40 times above the legal levels this planet would become completely inhabitable. We would all die from air pollution within very little time. Because most companies do not cheat with air-pollution laws "only" 7 million people dies prematurely every year from air pollution. WHO on 7 million premature air pollution death per year globally.
So far less than 10 VW employees have admitted to participating in this fraud. But we know that hundreds must have participated for such a huge and complex fraud to be possible for so many years. As I see it people at VW are destroying evidence and cover over each other. We need a new CEO for VW that is not a VW man. We also need investigators to bug the phones and emails of VW employees to find more of the implicated people. The current VW management cannot be trusted to cooperate with authorities for this matter to be fully exposed.
I wrote Boston based supplier above. That is wrong I ment Michigan.
Davemart there is noting traditional about Tesla. GM, Toyota and VW does not need to invest what it takes to grow production capacity by over 50% per year. As long as Tesla can maintain a healthy 20% or better gross margin on their production there is noting material to worry about. Your envy and disgust for Tesla and Tesla's customers is pathetic and small minded.