This is Henrik's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Henrik's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Henrik
Recent Activity
Lad you are right. It is battery tech that will solve air pollution for land based vehicles. EP mocked me a bit for my belief that HEPA filters could do much for limiting air pollution in combustion cars. I looked a bit more into it and he was right. HEPA does not stop a range of polluting gasses in the exhaust and only stops PM3.0 and above. We need to stop PM2.5 and below as well especially in turbocharged engines that produces a lot more of that kind of air pollution. The more I look into it the more I realize that the combustion engine as a technology is at its limit. It still pollute way too much to be acceptable long-term and the remedies to make it pollute less is not working well enough and are also prohibitively expensive. There is really only one solution left that will solve all problems. Go BEV and make them fully self-driving to avoid the range anxiety issue and slow charging times. And sell miles instead of cars in order to take advantage of the high durability and low operating cost of BEVs versus gassers. It will take some time. However, Tesla’s success in this field will eventually force everyone else to go in this direction as well or simply die out in the competition that follows.
Now I looked it up and a HEPA filter only stops PM3.0 and above. We need something better to catch PM2.5. It may turn out to be impossible to get rid of serious air pollution without getting rid of all combustible fuels.
EP I do not imagine a HEPA filter as a standalone devise. It will work in combination with other exhaust treatment systems. And you are right the HEPA filter cannot stop many toxic gasses other systems need to do that. But it will stop all particle pollution including PM2.5 which is an increasing problem with turbocharged engines.
EPA and other environmental agencies should push for requiring all new vehicles with combustion engines to become zero emission cars apart from CO2. You can eliminate all other pollution elements from a combustion engine by using a HEPA filter (like the one that cleans Tesla’s cabin air) on the exhaust gasses. That will remove everything apart from nitrogen, CO2 and any residual oxygen. It will be expensive and heavy and it will consume energy as the exhaust gasses needs to be pumped through the HEPA filter under pressure and the filter will require maintenance. However, by requiring all fossil and bio fuel burning cars and power plants to clean their exhaust gasses by HEPA filters all air pollution could be eliminated. Only remaining problem is CO2 which is not an air pollutant but only a greenhouse gas. This is just an idea that I have not seen any economic calculations on. However, technically it can be done. The remaining question is could it be prohibitively expensive? With HEPA filters on all fuel exhaust sources it will also be easy to verify whether companies are in compliance with the law as any detectable pollutants from the exhaust will implicate non-compliance. We need a legal system that has zero tolerance for air pollutants so that we can save approximately 7 million people from dying prematurely each year from air pollution as estimated by WHO. Eliminating air-pollution should be the top priority for global politics above everything else because the scale of the problem is bigger than any other problem on this planet including terrorism, AIDS, global warming, malaria, etc.
I expect Tesla will need more capital than that to reach 500,000 units produced in 2018. They need most investments to be made this year and next year in particular to be ready for true mass production in 2018. Maybe Tesla will also issue corporate bonds or something else in addition to this equity issue. If Tesla can pull off increasing production from 50k for 2015 to 500k in 2018 it will be unprecedented and historical. If anyone can do it, it is Tesla. They are the A team of the global auto industry. The Model 3 has probably become the largest manufacturing project on the planet at the time being. It is that huge. Tesla is probably building capacity for making 350k model 3 in 2018. At an average selling price of 43k USD that production will generate 15 billion USD in revenue per year. If Tesla can make the Model 3 fully autonomous its production could increase IMO to a million units per year or more. I hope the model 3 will launch with all the hardware needed for full autonomy and that the software will be perfected and upgraded subsequently by OTA so that full autonomy is a reality in a model 3 or any other Tesla model by 2020.
EPA and other environmental agencies should push for requiring all new vehicles with combustion engines to become zero emission cars apart from CO2. You can eliminate all other pollution elements from a combustion engine by using a HEPA filter (like the one that cleans Tesla’s cabin air) on the exhaust gasses. That will remove everything apart from nitrogen, CO2 and any residual oxygen. It will be expensive and heavy and it will consume energy as the exhaust gasses needs to be pumped through the HEPA filter under pressure and the filter will require maintenance. However, by requiring all fossil and bio fuel burning cars and power plants to clean their exhaust gasses by HEPA filters all air pollution could be eliminated. Only remaining problem is CO2 which is not an air pollutant but only a greenhouse gas. This is just an idea that I have not seen any economic calculations on. However, technically it can be done. The remaining question is could it be prohibitively expensive? With HEPA filters on all fuel exhaust sources it will also be easy to verify whether companies are in compliance with the law as any detectable pollutants from the exhaust will implicate non-compliance. We need a legal system that has zero tolerance for air pollutants so that we can save approximately 7 million people from dying prematurely each year from air pollution as estimated by WHO. Eliminating air-pollution should be the top priority for global politics above everything else because the scale of the problem is bigger than any other problem on this planet including terrorism, AIDS, global warming, malaria, etc.
A major global oil company buying a well known lithium battery maker! Change is coming and some of the oil companies seem to know the writing on the wall that they will all be gone 40 years from now replaced by clean technologies like batteries.
Range is an issue today but it is not the same problem for all people. I would say that 60% of all drivers would be able to drive effortlessly for all of their driving habits with a 200 miles range BEV that can be fully recharged in 40 min. Both the Bolt and the Model 3 is expected to do that. Add an option for a larger battery pack that gives you 300 miles range and 90% of all potential drivers will be satisfied for all of their needs. These cars will be produced in high volume at affordable prices before 2020. Hydrogen cars will not be mass produced or affordable by 2020. For the final 10% of the potential market that cannot be served satisfactory by a 300 miles BEV the answer is self-driving cars. When cars become fully self-driving and they will at about 2020 or shortly thereafter BEV range and charging time becomes irrelevant as you can just jump into another fully charged BEV if the one you are transported by is running low on electrons. Problem solved. I do not think 70,000 FC cars will ever be produced per year. It is much more than needed for testing and developing the technology and it will never be able to be developed to a point where it can compete with BEVs or gassers on price and usability. Therefore, fuel cell cars will never be able to be sold in any market unless they are absurdly subsidized. Fuel cell vehicles are a dead end and by 2020 I expect everybody to see it clearly even Toyota.
My thought also. If Ghosn want to sell more Leafs make it with min 200 miles range and sell it for 30k USD. 35k USD would not make it competitive with Model 3.
Musk said in Tesla’s earnings call conference that about 6500 unique parts go into making the Model 3 and that external supplies has been told to be ready for production start by July 1, 2017 or there will be consequences. He also said that it is impossible to start production on July 1, 2017 because a few suppliers will for one reason or another simply not be ready and even one missing part means production cannot start. So production will be delayed by some months and it is unavoidable in our imperfect world where people die unexpectedly, fires happen, human laziness and incompetence, etc. It is more risky to push that hard for production ramp up but the benefits are also enormous. Risk can be managed by ensuring that Tesla has enough capital to endure a delay of production ramp up that will happen to some extent. The benefit is that Tesla will get to mass production faster for what now appears to be become one of the world’s best selling cars. Also Tesla will be first to hire all the high-voltage engineers that are going to be in short supply globally in a few years. Tesla will pretty much buy all available and planned production capacity for battery machine and materials fabrication on a global scale. It will be harder for others to follow Tesla because Tesla has already hired the best people and the available global production capacity in key areas. Also Tesla can make better deals faster with suppliers because their orders are so large. The price always drops the more you order although I admit that the price will go up if you need super fast delivery as Tesla want. Musk also said that he believed the Model S and Model X was proof that Tesla knows how to make great cars. They designed them to be just that. However, Model 3 is designed first and foremost to be easy to mass produce at low cost. It is a great car but most of the engineering effort will be about designing its 6500 parts in a way that is suited for mass production and low cost. Musk also revealed that they had enough buildings and land at Fremont and Nevada to build 1 million cars at these locations and he even speculated that Tesla could reach that production level in 2020. For logistic reasons, however, Musk expect Tesla to make factories in both Europe and Asia as it cost too much to transport 4000 pound cars selling at 35k USD around the planet.
Tesla will most definitely need to make multiple equity sales within 2018 to finance such a rapid expansion. The accelerated expansion is the right thing to do with all these orders for Model 3. You can’t have people wait forever for that car. Had Tesla not made a strategic decision to internalize battery pack and cell production as well as cell component production such a rapid expansion would have been impossible. I expect Tesla to make a 2 billion USD equity offer this year and another 2 billion USD for 2017 and another 2 billion USD for 2018. They need that money now that they have two years less to make money from gross earnings selling Model S and Model X. A rough guess from me is that Tesla needs about 10 billion USD to invest in that Giga factory and for new production lines at the Fremont factory. Also interesting to see that Tesla has delivered powerpacks to customers produced at the Giga fab “Tesla Energy posted strong growth in the quarter as well. During Q1, we delivered over 25 MWh of energy storage to customers in four continents. We delivered over 2,500 Powerwalls and nearly 100 Powerpacks in the quarter throughout North America, Asia, Europe and Africa.” Quoted from shareholder letter. I expect that amount to increase exponentially in the coming quarters. 25Mwh is 25,000 kwh or assuming a pack price of 500 USD per kwh 12.5 million USD. Going to be interesting to follow that segment growth as well. I hope that Tesla will add a towing option for Model S soon. They need that for making it a perfect car apart from a fully self-driving autopilot. I believe almost 25% of all cars have a towing hook so it is really something that is important for a lot of people. I also applaud Tesla for adding the HEPA air pollution defense system for Model S. Everybody needs that. I my opinion the legislation should require all new cars sold to have HEPA grade air filters because of all the cancer and asthma that road air pollution are causing among car drivers.
Here is a link to Tesla’s announcement about their HEPA filter tests that is far more informative about this very important problem (air-pollution) that kill 3 million people per year globally or three times more than the vehicles kill in traffic accidents. https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/putting-tesla-hepa-filter-and-bioweapon-defense-mode-to-the-test
Diesel for non-commercial applications should be prohibited on a global scale. It is simply causing too much harm to society to be justified for other use.
The HEPA filter is a 3000 USD option for Model S and a 4500 USD option for Model X. However, it is bundled with a range of other stuff as well so actual expense for the HEPA filter is much less. I bet the very recent addition of the HEPA filter option for Model S will do wonders to Tesla’s sales in China. It is a matter of life and death in that Country quite literally because of insane levels of life-shortening air pollution. No other car in the world but Tesla has HEPA filters. That is a testimony of Tesla’s excellence at innovation that extends far beyond power train revolutions. For example, Tesla also made the world first falcon doors, the world’s first panoramic front windshield (in Model X) and soon with the Model 3 the world’s first panoramic rear windshield. I wish Tesla would sell these HEPA filters for private homes as well with associated air pumps so that it would be easy to order and install a clean air solution for your home.
Barsebæk has been shot down permanently. And Wallenberg has said another plant is being shot down because they loose money operating it not because they where forced to do so. I bet I know Swedish politics better than you do and also the price dynamics of renewable energy in Sweden that makes nuclear unprofitable at an accelerating rate. The capacity factors keep dropping and the costs goes up. They will all be closed within 15 years. Norway knows oil is wrong but they need other industries to replace it. Expanding hydro and promoting energy efficiency in Norway that consumes a record 25,000 kwh per capita (Denmark is only 6000 kwh) could make Norway a large supplier of electricity in Northern Europe.
Davemart you forget about thermal storage in sand or stone. It can also be used to store “endless” amounts of energy for seasonal renewable energy. Siemens is working on it. I bet it will be a more affordable way of storing energy for electricity production than renewable hydrogen. I think both methods will be used depending on geography, climate etc. Hydrogen needs a suited geologic underground storage like an old gas field or it will cost too much relative to thermal storage that can be done everywhere. I think we will get to the point in a few years where storage of renewable energy will cost more per kwh than making the renewable energy. 3 cents per kwh is clearly possible for renewable energy. However, in a system with 100% renewable energy we may need to add 4 cents per kwh to cope with seasonal intermittency in an area where there is no hydro and no geothermal and that is near the poles of the earth.
Ok found the 0 to 60 mph to be less than 8 sec for 3i better than the Prius but worse than Model 3 slowest version is less than 6 sec and slower than Bolt less than 7 sec. Less than 8 sec is not worthy of a BMW. I simply do not get it. Do they want it to fail?
BMW does apparently not want us to know its 0 to 60 mph because that sucks as well when compared to the Bolt or the Model 3.
It is a step in the right direction but it is too small a step to matter when the competition will be BEVs from GM and Tesla with over 200 miles range. Efficiency BMW i3: 114 miles/ 33kwh = 3.45 miles per kwh. Efficiency Tesla model 3: 215 miles /55kwh =3.9 miles per kwh. Efficiency GM Bolt: 210 miles /60kwh = 3.5 miles per kwh. So despite the admirable effort BMW has made to make a low weight car with an unprecedented level of carbon fiber plastics for a mass market car they suck at everything else and the end result is a car that is not as efficient as the competition also despite only having a small battery. Had BMW used a larger 60kwh battery their efficiency will probably drop to 3.1 miles per kwh.
@EP Sweden has decided to shot down all of their nuclear power plants and replace them with wind power. Sweden already shot down some of its nuclear power plants and they have installed 6 Gw of wind power by dec 2015. That is more than the 5Gw of wind power that Denmark has as of dec 2015 and that produces nearly 50% of all electricity needed. Denmark will get to 100% wind power in 15 years or so and we will solve the intermittency simply by making more transmission lines to Norway that has some 50Gw of potential hydropower and I believe about 20Gw of installed hydropower more than enough to power Denmark 3 times. The unique geography of Scandinavia means we can make all of our electricity with wind and hydropower and therefore not worry about expensive intermittency infrastructure. This is so even if cars with combustion engines are banned for environmental reasons as I fully expect they will be when Model 3 is launched and in mass production and the other automakers make similar and equally attractive offerings. A total ban on selling gassers will take some time but I think it will happen in Scandinavia before 2030. Eliminating polluting and dangerous cars will be done with autonomous BEVs that people do not buy but simple hire using a Smartphone or a smart watch. That is where all the growth will happen in the auto industry at the expense of polluting and unsafe gassers. Self-driving anything is coming. See video in link below to convince yourself that the autonomous future is very close. http://www.fastcompany.com/3059281/introducing-hover-an-ai-powered-indoor-safe-camera-drone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country
The benefits from the car users and the taxi corporation’s point of view from having a fully self-driving car for transport are so huge that even Tesla will be in trouble if they can’t get this technology out before most others are able to do it. Once these fully autonomous cars arrive in 2020 there will be exponentially decreasing demand for cars that are not fully autonomous even if they are made by Tesla. From a production point of view for an auto-producer to make all their cars fully autonomous once the technology is developed will take very little time even for a huge car maker like VW that makes 10 million cars per year. All the components needed for autonomous driving (sensors, cables and CPUs) can be scaled for mass production in the 10s of millions in less than 2 years. Fitting censors, CPUs and cabling to existing car models may take 4 years for a mass producer like VW or GM. So when this autonomous tech hit the real world market in about 2020 it is not going to take forever to scale it to all cars made by any car maker that has the technology. Those automakers not getting this technology shortly after 2020 will therefore bankrupt as there will be no demand for their cars. This short lead-time to implement fully self-driving tech for cars is much shorter than the lead-time to go from making 10 million gassers to making 10 million long-range BEVs as the latter will require the construction of about 15 to 20 50Giga watt hour battery factories and that will take at least 10 years to build even if capital and demand is not an issue. So my conclusion is that we will see a world of driverless cars many years (at least 10 years) before we will see a world of clean, inexpensive and battery electric long-range cars. However, it is also driverless tech that will make long-range BEVs triumph over gassers in terms of usability and costs so driverless tech is clearly accelerating the time it takes for the global auto industry to go all battery electric.
Good luck with that. The law is designed to promote plug-ins that suck because that is all that will be available in that price range until Tesla launches Model 3. Fossils cars are subsidized ridiculously much because they do not pay for all the harm they do to society with air-pollution and because they are unnecessarily unsafe to drive as they lack the most fundamental accident prevention systems like auto-pilot.
@ Roger it is as if you don’t know that Tesla has already build a dense global network of supercharger stations that will be nearly everywhere by the end of 2016 and certainly everywhere by 2020 when the first autonomous vehicles will be ready for driverless transport of anything. So there are none important rural transit routes left that Tesla has not already covered or will very soon cover. Each supercharger station is typically connected to a 1.4Mwatt power line enabling up to 12 simultaneous Tesla’s to charge 120kW each or say 3 autonomous heavy duty trucks to charge at 480kw each. BYD has already sold thousands of large busses with 350kwh batteries and the 500kwh battery we need for a heavy duty truck is really no big deal either in volume or weight. We will probably use the super durable lithium titanate chemistry so expect 5000 kg for the battery pack. That is a lot but you can save a 1000 kg by not using a driver cabin and another 700 kg or so because the electric moter is less heavy than the comparable diesel and complex transmission and exhaust system. Then you also save a 200 gallons or 800kg diesel tank. So this truck that is meant to transport up to 12000 kg will weight some 2500 kg above a diesel truck. So what? Use aluminum instead of steel and we save 2500 kg. That will be more expensive but we have saved the drives salary and the high cost of diesel and the cost of making a cabin with life support. Aluminum also last longer than steel that rust. The latter is important because this driverless truck will be doing about 16*50 = 800 miles per day 350 days per year or 280,000 miles per year! Not possible with a human operated truck but it is with a driverless BEV truck. https://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
GM I agree that long-term we need to focus exclusively on zero emission solutions. Renewable hydrogen could be used for heavy duty vehicles on a large scale if we forgo fuel cells that we do not have enough platinum on the planet to deploy on a large scale and non-platinum fuel cells are inefficient and even heavier. It could be done using standard combustion engines instead that are optimized for hydrogen combustion. However, it is still going to be electric autonomous trucks that will prevail because hydrogen is a very expensive fuel to make from renewable energy because of all the efficiency loses in the process and the expensive non-durable equipment that makes it possible. There are batteries that can be charged 10s of thousands of times before they wear out like Toshiba’s lithium titanate cells. They will be perfect for heavy duty trucks that drive 24/7 for many years before they are used up. http://www.scib.jp/en/product/cell.htm Another cost saving factor about using an autonomous heavy duty truck is that you can skip the cost of making a driver cabin with life support altogether. Just make a large skateboard shaped truck that can carry a standard container on its top and equip it with some robotic arms at the four corners to handle plugged autonomous charging and driving sensors. If you start developing this truck today it and its driverless technology could be ready in about 5 years time. Plan B for not being ready with a fully driverless truck in 5 years is that the truck is launched as a semi-driverless truck that is capable of following a human operated truck. Of cause you keep working on the driverless tech until it is fully autonomous and then relaunch the truck as such or if possible apply an OTA upgrade to the existing fleet of semi-driverless trucks in order to make them fully autonomous.
E.c.i. you are spot on with volumetric energy density also being a show stopper for FCV. I knew that already but was surprised to discover today that gravimetric energy density is also a show stopper at least for “small” FCV below about 11000 pounds. There is one hardly auto-relevant way to increase volumetric energy density of hydrogen and that is to use super cooled liquid hydrogen in cryogenic tanks. It is not relevant for vehicles because the fuel tank boils off after a few days regardless of whether the vehicle is used or not (not very practical or efficient for non-commercial vehicles not operated 24/7). It is used for space rockets today and it might become a renewable kind of fuel for large future airplanes and large commercial ships that are operated nearly 24/7. For large airplanes to work with hydrogen they would use low weight conventional jet engines instead of heavy fuel cells and electric motors. For shipping I imagine using liquid hydrogen to operate a combined cycle power plant and then use electric engines for propulsion. GM the solution is to use a 500kwh battery or so in a fully autonomous heavy duty truck that can drive perhaps 100 miles for two hours in cold weather with up to 12 tons of cargo to the next supercharger station where it charges for an hour to drive another 2 hours and 100 mile and so forth non-stop all year round. Labor cost is not an issue as the truck is unmanned. Harvey I suspect you must be an AI bot optimized for stupidity and hilarious speculation? A real human can’t be that good at it.