This is Herman's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Herman's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
While the events of 1980 were creating the circumstances of global petroleum exploration and production, Kennedy Miller Productions, then a small Australian film company, was finalizing script details on a sequel to their franchise movie and its associated star. The Road Warrior depicted a destitute post-apocalyptic world in which near-empty roads and starved remaining populations, bereft of fuels, battled scattered, ruthless criminal warlords for the remaining drops of petrol. At that time, the world consumed 64Mbbl/day of 642Bbbl of proven reserves. Only 27 years left: long before 2007 we’d be wearing tattered clothing in the middle of the desert, battling guys with spiked leather collars for a hubcap full of fuel scavenged from a horrendous wreck. Sharing scraps of dog food with our faithful Cattle Dog, we’d hope not to be the guy who tries to catch the razor-edged boomerang. Yeah. Anyhow it’s 2017, we’ve used up 1980s proven reserves more than twice over, we’re consuming 94Mbbl day, proved reserves stand at about 1.6Bbbl, and technologies to reduce fuel per psgr-mi(km) gets better every day. And US production has gone from ~10 to around 15Mbbl/day. I had a really cool studded leather bracelet that I wore to a Clash concert and to Metallica’s early shows in the Battery in ’82, but long since relegated it to a box for silly discarded things as I have done with endless Oilpocalypse tales. We never got a Cattle Dog but I adopted a Pound Hound brindle pit bull mix that looks pretty scary in her scruffy, scarred and muscular fashion, and sometimes she rides with me in the Volt while we seek out gangs of pillaging fuel thieves. Mostly we end up at the dog park, where she shows fine manners romping amongst the defenseless retrievers who would have died guarding the last liters of precious fuel.
The ruse of comparing nameplate capacity for solar and wind continues unabated, Davemart. Having read the articles by advocates stating, as this one from FT does: "Renewables overtake coal as world's largest source of power capacity", the casual observer of energy (i.e., most people) think that all coal plants could simply be shut down now with no ill economic or public health effect (yes, gross shortfalls in power generation negatively affect the wellness of the population). Sad, but folks have other things to worry about. And Henry, the US nuclear as a whole has been over 90% for three years running, and that includes unplanned maintenance. This is the definition of capacity factor: "The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously over the same period of time." It's about OUTPUT, not whether the output is used or not as a result of grid design and operation. If you want to apply a derating factor, the solar and wind will look even worse. NPPs do not need storage. Spend storage money to improve the usefulness of renewables? Of course, but at the same time the cost of storage should be factored in to the fake news versions of solar cost at x cents/kW. (Also for the time being, the fairly awful present capacity factors of NG facilities are largely attributable to the intermittency of wind, not the reliability of NG.) As for the AES battery source: did anyone stop to note these are LG Chem (which for some reason - not a nefarious one - was left out of the article)? AES has certified several manufacturers to supply cells, but currently only LG has the lock on the Advancion installations.
A hideous converence call and even uglier 8K. Looking forward to the details of the 10K and the further valuation decay resulting. Religious adherents of the Church of Tesla actually think "pre-production cars" were crash tested for record, so there is plenty of hilarity for observers like yours truly. Musk readily admitted in the conference call that dies for body production are not even complete and installed yet, much less having validated configurations and stamping processes. "Crash testing" consists of ramming hand-built Body-in-White models to validate designs and modelling tools. Not sure Musk knows the difference, but in any case he certainly doesn't want innocent moneylenders to know. There will be no actual M3 production deliveries to Tesla showroom floors before 2018 and every sentient being in the wold knows that. Solar City acquisition was a disaster of disasters, contributing $85M of cash and $Bs in debt for the price of printing $2.6B in TSLA shares. Total sales between heritage SCTY business and Tesla Energy Storage was $132M in Q4, $78M less than SCTY alone last qtr. Most comical was Musk telling all the sad tale of ZEV credits (again), and his assertion that Tesla gets "50 cents on the dollar". Awesome. Sadly the markets will raise money for another spectacular losing year for Tesla, adding to the $3B+ of retained losses on the balance sheet; there is no risk of BK anytime soon.
Despite all the bravado associated with Google and its various spinoffs and partnerships, Uber ascends to the top of endemic arrogance. The recent public tribulations about poor treatment of women is the first scratch of the surface. It would be great to see them take a lead pipe to the knees from a tough legal action for IP theft.
Nope. Won't ever happen. Tesla is not using LiDAR, so the whole idea of using it isn't aligned with The Vision.
Stupid, worthless Toyota. And REALLY stupid loser Camry. Only sold about 7,000,000 in the US since the badge was introduced here in 1982. And 2016 Global sales of Camry were a mere 740,000 or so. I don't know why they keep building it.
Horrible, terrible, awful, really really bad idea to use Mobileye. Just dumb and not disruptive and won't work and planet-destroying. Because TeslaTeslaTeslaTeslaTeslaTeslaTeslaTesla. Yours, HenrikChange
Hello, Henrik/Change. You note this: "This is also why Tesla needs to make their factories so big." And yet Tesla says they will achieve unheard of factory "volumetric efficiency". Which is it?
Trees, you have no idea how refreshing it was to find your post here before Henrik comes to paste his (1) planet destroying ICE (2) 1000000000 mi electric drivetrain and (3) TeslaTeslaTeslaTeslaTeslaTesla comments once again. Personally I drive a PHEV ('13 Volt). Now that the mid-continental US winter has arrived I'm reminded of how much an ICE makes sense when properly used -- even one that isn't nearly as advanced as the engines that are finding their way to the street in the next couple of years. When I drove a Leaf for two winters, I was dismayed to calculate the energy use to run the car in the cold (below 32F/0C). Preheat was mandatory to preserve range, and when in stop-and-go traffic the 3-4kW constant load, as well as low battery temperature, consumed range like crazy. When I stopped to realize that I was using Coal/NG-produced electricity transmitted/transported 10s of km to charge a battery that was then discharged through a resistance heater, in fact an ICE was a less wasteful solution. Without question, below 15F/-10C, allowing the engine to cycle about 20% of the time is a net emission savings (this is my setting on the Volt). Overall, with the consideration of vehicle mass (which directly affects the production of particulates from tire wear as well as the embedded energy in materials) and of course the price of the product which needs to be affordable enough to get the more efficient answer into the hands of drivers, the advanced ICE with low-voltage (48v) electrification is the answer for the great majority fraction of drivers for the next decade or so. Yes, some of us will definitely want the EV driving experience for much of our daily transport (I certainly do) and will opt for a Plug-In variant. Zero-tailpipe emission operation may be required in some urban areas. And some will live in the right climate with the infrastructure for truly convenient charging and choose the BEV. Electrification will permeate the fleets of N America, Europe, Japan and probably China. But ICE technology will still have a significant place, with probably 2/3 of cars sold in OECD nations having an engine performing some function in LDVs through 2030.
Our little Euro/NAmerican peephole on the world sadly has a very narrow field of view. Example: China has just announced that if everything works out they way they hope, growth in Coal-powered electrical capacity is nonetheless "projected to be stronger than previously expected.” How much? Well, since you asked: a little under 200GW more coal-fired generation capacity over the next four years. That's if China can manage to structure the grid expansion and power increases without the ADDITIONAL 150GW coal capacity currently in the pipeline. Yeah: it could be over 300GW more. In four years. Just in China. ( ) You could add 25-30odd GW permitted and in various phases of construction in India (assuming the usual gigantic delays and cancellations that take 70% of the projects out of the running -- plans actually say about 75GW) 20GW in Turkey 40GW or more between Vietnam, SKorea and Indonesia etc. (and all these are conservative numbers, hoping that the rate of Natural Gas adoption renewable project growth can be sustained) The US's remaining Coal-fired capacity of 275GW or so could be completely eliminated by 2020 and not replaced by ANY fossil fuels and the world's coal emissions will continue to rise. The concept of a $25-50B hyperloop project in CA making any difference to this momentum is hilarious.
"Has anyone noticed the loss of the ABILITY to comment at some once popular websites like BusinessInsider since Election Day?" No. BI has been on again/off again about comments for quite some time, and many authors apparently don't activate comments to their posts. Danielle Mouoio was posting about TSLA and SCTY before 8 Nov and none of hers allowed comments. For sites that use Discus for their comments, some older browser versions are unkind to the Discus product. Seriously, are you really, really bereft of opportunities to share your wisdom with the world? Twitter will allow you the same instantaneous global visibility enjoyed by leading intellects like Katy Perry. You can post links to the BIs or other outlets along with whatever perspective you want to add, positive or negative, on your blog or FB or Twitter or whatever. The viewership of these posts is miniscule anyway, with total views in the low thousands at best. As for the US EV future: how many times have I read here from commenters like the ever-present Henrik that sub-$150/kWh batteries are basically already here? How often do the Teslacolytes pronounce the worlds automakers dead and Tesla ascendant to sell all cars to all people everywhere imminently? Or, barring that, that the nation's roads will be crawling with self-driving EVs at a miniiscule cost to happy occupants by 2019? Look: if one-third of the projections made here for cost and technology availability, there needn't be a single subsidy or tax provision or incentive action by any government to "help" EVs. The juggernaut is unstoppable and Clintontrumpsanderswhomever is a non-issue. Of course, these prognosticators aren't right, but the reality remains that the occupant of the White House won't make much difference -- global markets and technology will drive the real solutions and America's significance in this outcome continues to diminish. If EV tech makes sense they'll be here in droves for you to buy, with a commoditized charging network full of businesses clamoring to sell you cheap kWHr. In the meantime I will continue to skeptically observe and drive an EV that can get me to a far destination on gasoline.
"Looks a lot like Germany in pre-WW2 when Hitler took over." Looks like ill-informed, shrill histrionics of the politically obsessed are still in full swing. Take your squealing partisan anguish somewhere else.
Please excuse my sloppy editing above.
If plug-ins are genuinely competitive (cost and "driveability"), the influence of these factors will quickly fade. So far (and in the foreseeable future), plug-ins need some "money on the hood" to move off the lot, whether it's Federal, State or Local, to generate significant interest. In March I landed a 2013 Volt in bascially unused condition (6000mi, yes SIX thousand) for $19k. What a deal! I spend virtually nothing on gasoline. But I also has in my sights two other cars: a Civic and an Elantra of the same year with under 10k miles on them. They were going for under $12k. For the same utility and the same comfort (notwithstanding the smooth electric drive experience), I could have saved $7500 (and had cheaper insurance). That savings would have bought 2500 gallons of gas at $3/gal, or over 65kmi miles of driving. At a cost of capital of 5%, my payback is, practically speaking, non-existant. Plug-ins will remain an affectation of the environmentally "concerned", the tech nerd, and those few who are just in love with the e-drive experience for now.
You just don't get it, RFH. Clearly you are wrong because Teslateslateslateslatesla Elonelonelonelonelonelon 1,000,000,000,000mi drivetrains selfdrivingelectricjetpacksonMars
But the best part is this: "We can surmise that this is partially attributed to the auto industry targeting wealthier areas with marketing campaigns, and also because information and guidance about electric vehicles and subsidy programs is not distributed evenly across all populations." Of course. White people are holding back EV info from non-whites.
Roger, your point is well-taken on mechanical vs electrical conversion efficiency, but this really only matters if the car experiences a lot of steady state operation, which the typical Note doesn't. The high charge/discharge rate lithium chemistries showing up in hybrids today are capable of 40-50C sprints (see the Malibu and the Acura NSX) and for stop/go situations in urban Japan traffic this may be the best overall solution. An engine and generator matched and mapped for this application will do better than the peak thermal efficiency numbers imply, and such a thing hasn't really hit the street yet. I'm looking forward to the outcome.
I’m with Davemart on the 3-cyl configuration, but I would also add that NVH is far less of an issue in the series hybrid. The reason is that the engine doesn’t transmit torque through a geartrain connected to the structure of the car. Yes, there are compliant mounts and other measures that attempt to decouple the structureborne vibration from the engine/trans to the body, but you can only do so much. An engine /generator can be situated any way the designer wants, with more options for structural and acoustic isolation from the body. And to reiterate the series hybrid is an affordable way to minimize the biggest challenge to ICE: the inefficiency and related emissions from part-throttle/idling operation. BTW: I was at a trade show recently and saw a mockup for a series hybrid Zero Turn Mower. The architecture of the machine was remarkably similar: small battery to “absorb” peak demand, with traction motors and all accessories (in this case mower motors) decoupled from engine speed. The designer claimed a 30% smaller engine with equal performance to hydromechanical. Here is the video of their display (sorta long and no sound but you'll get the picture):
"Herman you start to through completely undocumented data up that refer to death per million miles not safety ratings. Unless you provide sources for these data and circumstances they were collected etc it is worthless." Source of data is, which I have used with a heavy dose of conservatism to Tesla's benefit, including (1) a correction to the raw fatality data for the six US fatalities (reduced to five) to correct for demographics in a manner that's probably more lenient than IIHS. (2) no adjustment for the very large number of fleet Impalas and the high mileage logged Again: as Brian stated the big problem with Tesla data is that the car has only about 150,000 US registered vehicle years of exposure (which again is a conservative estimate IN FAVOR of Tesla that makes its fatality data better) which means that any death swings the data hard. The real numbers without adjustment aren't as good as 330 Mmi/f; they're worse. But in the context of newly introduced cars with little exposure there is precedent. Here is some information on the following models from 2009-2012: Audi A4 AWD, Honda Odyssey, Kia Sorrento 2WD, Lexus RX350 4WD, MB GL-Class AWD, Subaru Legacy AWD, Toyota Highlander 4WD, Toyota Sequoia 4WD, and Volvo XC90 4WD. Adjusted for inflation, all but the top-of-the-line MBs are less expensive cars than the Model S. Except for the Lexus, none had drivers assist features. Between all of them they have clocked over 900,000 registered vehicle years as of Jan 29 2015. Assuming 12,000 miles per registered year, the total miles driven is 10.8 Billion. Now: based on data gathered by IIHS members and thorough review of all the death statistics submitted by manufacturers, here are the death statistics (within the confidence levels that any large data set can provide) for all of these models, according to the IIHS --- Multi-vehicle crash death rate: zero Single-vehicle crash death rate: zero Rollover death rate: zero Tesla numbers thus far are not good -- not terrible, but not good. It's NOT unsafe. I would fall asleep in the quiet cabin as a passenger without concern (as long as the driver isn't doing a hands-off Autopilot stunt). But there are safer cars, based on many, many statistics available to you and anyone who wants to find them.
"Tesla does indeed best all its competition on this one also see link below fx." Nonsense again. Good grief. The NHTSA clearly stated, after Tesla published this assertion, that the use of crash data in the fashion claimed by Tesla is misleading. There is no such thing as "5.4 stars", and in fact the interpretation of the data as Tesla did assumes that the data can be statistically parsed to indicate a "better" star rating. It can't. Tesla was specifically told to halt these assertions and in fact NHTSA set in place a policy to tighten the public use of their data by manufacturers because of Tesla's incorrect assertions. Tesla got five stars across the board. That's great. It's not an easy rating to get. But it's not unique. The 2016 Nissan Maxima. The 2017 Acura TLX. The 2017 Honda Accord. Two versions of the 2017 Honda Civic... and others. BTW, the crash standards to achieve 5 stars were made tougher at the end of 2015 with the addition of the frontal oblique test. Tesla hasn't taken this test yet. Tesla is NOT recognized by ANY regulatory or industry consortia as the safest car. No such legitimate rating exists, regardless of how Tesla likes to invent such a rating (clearly denied by the agency) and how much Tesla advovcates want to desperately believe it. In fact European testing and IIHS fatality data would strongly suggest otherwise. If you want to argue the data, use the data. If you want to argue regulatory agency opinions, use the official statements of regulatory agencies. Tesla cars are not "unsafe". But to call them "safest" is nonsense.
No dispute with your overall points, Brian. But two important points here: (1) the demographics of the high-end Lexus SUVs, M/B large sedans, and BMW 5-ser and up are likely very similar to Tesla S and yet their fatality statistics are far better across the board. I recognize that their stats have more statistical stability owing to many more registered vehicle miles, but nonetheless this is not without note. (2) I'm not "concerned" with Tesla safety, either; I would not be uncomfortable driving or riding in one. Look again at Henrik's remark: "Tesla’s cars best every other car on the market in terms of safety. They got top ratings at all the authorities that are testing for that." My point was to establish both a lack of regulatory or industry consortia endorsement of such a thing, and to exhibit statistics as they exist today that reflect Tesla is in fact far from "besting every other car."
Correction to above: not "fatalities per million miles" but rather the inverse: million miles per fatality. These are from Insurance Institute for Highway Safety data for all but Tesla; Tesla numbers are based on actual fatalities data records and a projection of miles driven. 330 Mmi/f is higher than Tesla's own assertion, BTW.
“Tesla’s cars best every other car on the market in terms of safety. They got top ratings at all the authorities that are testing for that.” Nonsense. Post one (just one) affirmation by ANY Government or Industry rating consortium that states in ANY form that Tesla cars “best every other car on the market”. No such assertion exists. Taking just Euro NCAP Crash Testing results for “Large and Executive Sedans” 2012-2016 as examples, the 2014 Tesla Model S finished behind the 2012 BMW 3 series, among about a dozen others, in both Adult and Child rating. The most telling metric of safety (or lack of it) is fatalities in US highway data, where Tesla is shaping up very poorly. Using the fatalities per million mile metric (Model S: 330) that Musk loves to quote, the Model S lags the following examples: Chevy Impala: 343 Honda Accord: 632 M/B C Class: 1200 Lexus ES 350: 1333 BMW 328: 1714 Tesla’s “superior” safety is not true.
As long as it's OK to haul around an air conditioner capable of cooling a ~200m^2 house in Houston, I agree.