|
On June 01 2013 21:38 Dekoth wrote:
Don't care. I'm not stopping for 30 minutes every 3 hours at best to charge. I spend most of my time on the road and I don't have time for that bs.
Talk to me when Electrics charge in the same time it takes me to fill up a tank of gas, get at least 400miles of range using AC/heat/Radio (you know normal things) and oh yea, Actually produce less pollution to create then they ever actually save. Until then, EV's are just for people who want to believe they are doing something good for the environment but actually aren't.
Well, for me, the 30 minutes every 3 hours is pretty fine if it means free travel.
|
United States7483 Posts
This would be really cool if instead of doing a half hour car charge, they instead did a battery exchange station. You pull up, pay a small fee (and I mean small, they could even start out doing this for free until it becomes common) for a battery change, they replace your battery with a fully charged one, and you're off in a minute or two. They then take the battery you just dropped off and charge it with their solar powered station (it doesn't matter anymore if it takes them a full half hour to charge it).
|
Can someone explain to me how this would work when it's cloudy or at night? None of the stuff people have been saying makes any sense. There are no batteries that good (obviously, otherwise why even have the stations), there is no solar grid (huh?) and excess energy can't be stored in the main grid since solar energy companies are in direct competition with utilities companies.
|
On June 01 2013 22:11 Whitewing wrote:
This would be really cool if instead of doing a half hour car charge, they instead did a battery exchange station. You pull up, pay a small fee for a battery change, they replace your battery with a fully charged one, and you're off in a minute or two. They then take the battery you just dropped off and charge it with their solar powered station (it doesn't matter anymore if it takes them a full half hour to charge it).
That's what i always tought should be a valid solution.
Imagine they built the car in that in mind, it could take just a few minutes to change.
Better yet is if you never really own any battery, you would just pay for the refill and be on your way.
|
On June 01 2013 22:14 Feartheguru wrote:
Can someone explain to me how this would work when it's cloudy or at night? None of the stuff people have been saying makes any sense. There are no batteries that good (obviously, otherwise why even have the stations), there is no solar grid (huh?) and excess energy can't be stored in the main grid since solar energy companies are in direct competition with utilities companies.
Solar energy is ALWAYS stored on the main grid. If you go out right now and buy solar panels for your home, you can sell your excess energy to the power company and get a check each month in the mail. Now the technology is nowhere near cheap enough for this to be worth it for normal people, but i see no reason why this company can't run solar farms that produce energy in excess to what they pull off the grid if it maintains their green image.
|
On June 01 2013 22:14 Feartheguru wrote:
Can someone explain to me how this would work when it's cloudy or at night? None of the stuff people have been saying makes any sense. There are no batteries that good (obviously, otherwise why even have the stations), there is no solar grid (huh?) and excess energy can't be stored in the main grid since solar energy companies are in direct competition with utilities companies.
Liquid metal batteries have an efficiency of 70-90%, but can't be used in cars due to their liquid nature, size, and operating temperature.
|
By looking at the long term plan for these types of stations in the video, it seems very impractical.
I live in Toronto Canada, the closest charging station looks like it's 150km away to the east and west. And you have to charge every 3 hours? How is that even useable in daily life? I have to drive for about 1.5 hours to power up and drive back 1.5 hours. That's 3 hours of driving to get a charge....the stations are way way too sparse.
They should plan to put all stations in urban areas first before going to a national level.
|
On June 01 2013 22:40 viletomato wrote:
By looking at the long term plan for these types of stations in the video, it seems very impractical.
I live in Toronto Canada, the closest charging station looks like it's 150km away to the east and west. And you have to charge every 3 hours? How is that even useable in daily life? I have to drive for about 1.5 hours to power up and drive back 1.5 hours. That's 3 hours of driving to get a charge....the stations are way way too sparse.
They should plan to put all stations in urban areas first before going to a national level.
You charge up at home normally. You use these stations if you're going out of town.
|
|
|
30 minutes isn't too bad-- but if the car starts to get too popular there won't be enough solar power per station to power cars. The stations themselves would need some sort of storage device, which would get quickly depleted if they're constantly used. Curious to see how this pans out.
On June 01 2013 22:48 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 22:40 viletomato wrote:
By looking at the long term plan for these types of stations in the video, it seems very impractical.
I live in Toronto Canada, the closest charging station looks like it's 150km away to the east and west. And you have to charge every 3 hours? How is that even useable in daily life? I have to drive for about 1.5 hours to power up and drive back 1.5 hours. That's 3 hours of driving to get a charge....the stations are way way too sparse.
They should plan to put all stations in urban areas first before going to a national level.
You dont need a station to give the vehicle battery. You can simply plug it into a standard socket and it will charge around 60 miles an hour. Its not that impractical at all. Hotels having outlets for customers is very common these days too.
I see-- obviously having an outlet makes sense. 
but charge around 60 miles an hour? what does that mean?
|
Means you can drive 60 miles per hour of charge.
|
Every hour of charging, gives you 60 miles of driving range.
My dad just got one of the new Model S, and it's damn sexy and fun to drive. Charging it overnight is ridiculously simple, and with a driving range of ~260 miles any of the nearby charging stations work out quite well if you want to travel longer distances.
|
On June 01 2013 21:38 Dekoth wrote:
Don't care. I'm not stopping for 30 minutes every 3 hours at best to charge. I spend most of my time on the road and I don't have time for that bs.
Talk to me when Electrics charge in the same time it takes me to fill up a tank of gas, get at least 400miles of range using AC/heat/Radio (you know normal things) and oh yea, Actually produce less pollution to create then they ever actually save. Until then, EV's are just for people who want to believe they are doing something good for the environment but actually aren't.
yeah..they're putting money into a technology that is still developing and helping to advance it so that eventually it WILL achieve all of the things you stated, meanwhile you bitch and moan about how said technology is crap.
Yeah man, people who buy electric cars are HUGE assholes.
|
On June 01 2013 22:11 Whitewing wrote:
This would be really cool if instead of doing a half hour car charge, they instead did a battery exchange station. You pull up, pay a small fee (and I mean small, they could even start out doing this for free until it becomes common) for a battery change, they replace your battery with a fully charged one, and you're off in a minute or two. They then take the battery you just dropped off and charge it with their solar powered station (it doesn't matter anymore if it takes them a full half hour to charge it).
that sounds like a ton of extra wear and tear on the battery connections
|
Being skeptical is good of course, but I had two thoughts:
1) this seems like a wise investment given that once the station pays for itself, it will simply be generating free energy which can be sold if it is not used by cars
2) it doesn't necessarily have to be snake oil: the only direct payment for the consumer is the car. If this bothers you, you simply do not have to buy an all electric car. It's not like they're asking 50-60$ for each charge and that you're being subjected to an expense that you will have to cover if they prove to be incompetent.
As people have pointed out, the existence of this technology and infrastructure is a positive thing and especially so since it will cost the taxpayer nothing: it's all private investments. Musk also owns other companies which can help subsidize the cost of this one until it becomes profitable. I say good luck to him
|
On June 01 2013 22:11 Whitewing wrote:
This would be really cool if instead of doing a half hour car charge, they instead did a battery exchange station. You pull up, pay a small fee (and I mean small, they could even start out doing this for free until it becomes common) for a battery change, they replace your battery with a fully charged one, and you're off in a minute or two. They then take the battery you just dropped off and charge it with their solar powered station (it doesn't matter anymore if it takes them a full half hour to charge it).
Ehhh, have you SEEN how big these batteries are? That's simply not practical without waitstaff.
And to all the people talking about how this will be inconvenient if electric cars become a big thing: well, in that case there will be the funding to build more of these, no? Unfortunately, because it's a free service, supply and demand can't do it on its own, so we have to wait for Tesla/government to build them, but if they are needed, someone will end up making them.
|
That electricity is free at the moment because electric cars represent such a small portions of cars in the USA. Just you wait once more people start using them. ^^
I actually predict that electricity prices will skyrocket once electric cars become more common and fossil fuels are used less and less.
|
On June 01 2013 23:52 Incognoto wrote:
That electricity is free at the moment because electric cars represent such a small portions of cars in the USA. Just you wait once more people start using them. ^^
I actually predict that electricity prices will skyrocket once electric cars become more common and fossil fuels are used less and less.
Even if they decide to ask money for recharging, it's still going to be much less than your regular gasoline fee even when electricity prices go up as you say.
|
On June 01 2013 22:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 16:46 MrTortoise wrote:On June 01 2013 14:49 micronesia wrote:I'm going to do a bit of math here. In the following video (from earlier in the thread) you get a good look at a charging station, and I'll estimate the dimensions of the panel is 5m x 10m = 50m^2. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=371735#15According to this map, my location in NY receives about 4 kWh per m^2 per day. In other words, a charging station is getting about 50*4 = 200 kWh per day. According to Tesla's website, their batteries are typically a 60 kWh or 85 kWh. In order to almost fully recharge such batteries, you only get ~3 cars charged per day. What am I missing? The fact that solar panels are nowhere near 100% efficient They also use very rare materials atm and only really exist due to a false economy that is heavily subsidised.they are clearly pulling power from the grid. wiki claims current efficiency about 43% http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/solar-power-tech-could-double-efficiency-130509.htmhuge potential breakthrough ... could possibly double existing efficiencies to 50% .... so really the 43% was an ideal experimental figure ... probably more like 30% currently if you average out the differences from opposing hype. Solar cells are made (for the most part) with silicon and silicon compounds. Unless you also think computer parts "exist due to a false economy that is heavily subsidized," I'm going to say that you don't know anything about the technology.
http://www.solarblogger.net/2013/01/down-to-earth-will-scarce-rare-earths.html
http://pv.energytrend.com/research/PV_20120307.html
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Peak-Minerals-Shortage-of-Rare-Earth-Metals-Threatens-Renewable-Energy.html
with just 10 seconds worth of effort. You can say whatever you like, that's kinda the problem doesn't make you right. I read about shit and change my opinions based on what i read. When i disagree with someone i go and check that they arnt talking shit before i go and tell them they are wrong.
The problem you face is that even if they rely 99% on something lik ewater that is readily available if you cant get the 1% part that makes them efficient you are fucked.
IE solar panels are replacing dependency of one finite resource on another - arguably far more scarce.
And please don't post back going on about one of them disagreeing with me ... i am well aware ... its called a balanced view.
Just look at neobydium ... also a rare earth metal .. eerything uses it. Thats the problem. There is plenty whilst there isnt giant demand.
|
United States24813 Posts
On June 01 2013 18:06 niteReloaded wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 17:32 micronesia wrote:On June 01 2013 17:18 skyR wrote:On June 01 2013 16:56 micronesia wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2013 16:46 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 15:52 micronesia wrote:On June 01 2013 15:47 Salazarz wrote:
I don't get the haters really. Of course with current figures it's inefficient and not sustainable I can't speak for others, but what is being presented (unless I made a mistake somewhere in my rudimentary analysis) does not make any sense. If someone is advertising a network of sun-powered charging stations, then it's not being a hater to ask for clarification on how they get enough solar power to actually charge the cars that plug in to them. You aren't trying to figure out how Tesla's system works, you're making things up based on your personal idea of how you think a solar charging network should work. Then you wave your finger at a company with thousands of smart employees and go "I bet you never thought of more cars going to a supercharger in a day than that particular supercharger's solar power capacity can handle!" Because you saw a picture of a solar panel and thought you could eyeball its dimensions? That is similar to Lord Kelvin seeing a picture of the Wright Brothers' plane and going "It looks like the wings are maybe 5 meters by 10 meters, now assuming they're made of solid oak I don't think they can produce enough lift to also carry the weight of the engine and a grown pilot." How do you know the dimensions of one charging station because you saw a picture of it? The cars are 5 meters long, but maybe the canopy extends 7 meters for shade or comfort in the rain? How do you know the canopy only 2 car lengths wide? Is the charging station you saw a picture of representative of an average charging station? What's the average demand for charging on a given day? How many cars? What's the average amount of power per car? How much power do drivers want on an average day? Remember a 50% charge is 20 minutes. And people do their own charging at home. Obviously not every watt is going directly from the sun to the battery given that there are superchargers that have no solar panels whatsoever. The claim is that the stations generate more power than the cars use in a year. The fact that you don't have insider access to Tesla's margins doesn't mean the math doesn't add up. In the meantime we can all enjoy the free supercharging for life that, regardless of your New York Times level criticisms, the company is providing. You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. I'm not sure why, but this seems to be becoming an extremely polarizing and controversial issue like discussing religion or guns on TL. I did an estimation based on the information available. The video clearly states that they are able to produce more power than the cars use, but don't provide any evidence. I'm saying it seems like this can't be the case, and perhaps the guy in the video is misrepresenting the system entirely (not that I'm a scientific genius and the company is a bunch of morons). I'm completely open to an explanation of how they do it, or how my estimations/figures/calculations were wrong. What I'm not open to is being verbally assaulted by you because I'm questioning what we are being fed. If you don't have the ability to explain to me how one of these stations can produce sufficient energy to power the cars that come to it, on average, then perhaps you should defer to someone who can (and who I invite to weigh in on this). You're entirely basing your calculations on a single supercharger in a single day even though its been mentioned numerous times by Elon Musk and by people in this thread that these are connected to the Solar City grid. Can you explain what this means? Where are the actual panels located that provide the power to charge the car? From what I can tell, it's mostly not going to be from the physical station. If it's coming from other sources that could just as easily have been connected to the town's main power grid, then I don't see the advantage of routing power from solar panels to car chargers over just routing power from solar panels to anything else. And I think Elon also mentioned in a year, not in a day. If we average things out, whether we do our calculations to the day or to the year doesn't matter. Let's not mention that not many people own Tesla's at this point... let alone go on daily road trips with them. I don't see the relevance, so it's a good thing you didn't mention it. What if they have fields of solar panels? Why are you so suspicious about this not adding up? I really doubt a company as big as this would lie to people about free charging just to get car sales. I assume that's your main worry?
I'm more confused than worried. If all of these stations (except for the one in the video) are set up next to huge fields of solar panels, then the numbers add up better, although there still are issues with that. However, I don't think this is the case.
I am 'so suspicious about this not adding up' because it doesn't make sense. As someone else said, it's as though they are advertising a perpetual motion machine... there is nothing wrong with questioning it. There might be a perfectly valid explanation, and we are entitled to it... but it wasn't in the video in the OP. I admit I have not been following Tesla closely so I could be missing info they have released at some point, and am open to anyone who can point it out. In the meantime, I'm going to go with my first post in this thread over people saying things like "don't worry about it."
On June 01 2013 18:18 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 17:32 micronesia wrote:On June 01 2013 17:18 skyR wrote:On June 01 2013 16:56 micronesia wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2013 16:46 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 15:52 micronesia wrote:On June 01 2013 15:47 Salazarz wrote:
I don't get the haters really. Of course with current figures it's inefficient and not sustainable I can't speak for others, but what is being presented (unless I made a mistake somewhere in my rudimentary analysis) does not make any sense. If someone is advertising a network of sun-powered charging stations, then it's not being a hater to ask for clarification on how they get enough solar power to actually charge the cars that plug in to them. You aren't trying to figure out how Tesla's system works, you're making things up based on your personal idea of how you think a solar charging network should work. Then you wave your finger at a company with thousands of smart employees and go "I bet you never thought of more cars going to a supercharger in a day than that particular supercharger's solar power capacity can handle!" Because you saw a picture of a solar panel and thought you could eyeball its dimensions? That is similar to Lord Kelvin seeing a picture of the Wright Brothers' plane and going "It looks like the wings are maybe 5 meters by 10 meters, now assuming they're made of solid oak I don't think they can produce enough lift to also carry the weight of the engine and a grown pilot." How do you know the dimensions of one charging station because you saw a picture of it? The cars are 5 meters long, but maybe the canopy extends 7 meters for shade or comfort in the rain? How do you know the canopy only 2 car lengths wide? Is the charging station you saw a picture of representative of an average charging station? What's the average demand for charging on a given day? How many cars? What's the average amount of power per car? How much power do drivers want on an average day? Remember a 50% charge is 20 minutes. And people do their own charging at home. Obviously not every watt is going directly from the sun to the battery given that there are superchargers that have no solar panels whatsoever. The claim is that the stations generate more power than the cars use in a year. The fact that you don't have insider access to Tesla's margins doesn't mean the math doesn't add up. In the meantime we can all enjoy the free supercharging for life that, regardless of your New York Times level criticisms, the company is providing. You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. I'm not sure why, but this seems to be becoming an extremely polarizing and controversial issue like discussing religion or guns on TL. I did an estimation based on the information available. The video clearly states that they are able to produce more power than the cars use, but don't provide any evidence. I'm saying it seems like this can't be the case, and perhaps the guy in the video is misrepresenting the system entirely (not that I'm a scientific genius and the company is a bunch of morons). I'm completely open to an explanation of how they do it, or how my estimations/figures/calculations were wrong. What I'm not open to is being verbally assaulted by you because I'm questioning what we are being fed. If you don't have the ability to explain to me how one of these stations can produce sufficient energy to power the cars that come to it, on average, then perhaps you should defer to someone who can (and who I invite to weigh in on this). You're entirely basing your calculations on a single supercharger in a single day even though its been mentioned numerous times by Elon Musk and by people in this thread that these are connected to the Solar City grid. Can you explain what this means? Where are the actual panels located that provide the power to charge the car? From what I can tell, it's mostly not going to be from the physical station. If it's coming from other sources that could just as easily have been connected to the town's main power grid, then I don't see the advantage of routing power from solar panels to car chargers over just routing power from solar panels to anything else. And I think Elon also mentioned in a year, not in a day. If we average things out, whether we do our calculations to the day or to the year doesn't matter. Let's not mention that not many people own Tesla's at this point... let alone go on daily road trips with them. I don't see the relevance, so it's a good thing you didn't mention it. Uh, the supercharger stations themselves and the panels ontop of homes, businesses, and other buildings. Aren't those panels used to provide power to those homes, businesses and other buildings? Usually, those panels are producing less power than the building uses, anyway. At peak sunlight if everything in the building is turned off, usually there is a small surplus that is re-inserted to the power grid and the owner gets reimbursed a little by the power company... but I'm not aware of a major surplus that requires specialized storing methods which are benefited by setting up nearby car-charging stations.
I don't see how the number of Tesla owners and those owners that go on roadtrips is not relevant to this. Isn't it obvious that Elon is able to make such a statement is because these stations are hardly going to be used or do you honestly think that there's a significant amount of Tesla owners that goes on daily roadtrips to use more power than the Supercharger and Solar City grid can generate?
So if I understand you correctly, these stations are all being built (at pretty great expense despite what the speaker in the video said) so that they can be used 3 times a day, and provide ~$15 dollars of charge? Unless the usage is that low, it doesn't really matter how low the number of Tesla owners are, as all of my concerns hold (until someone addresses them besides attacking me for it). By the way I don't think ownership is even that low since I've seen them driving around near me. I don't have numbers on that, however.
On June 01 2013 18:22 Salazarz wrote:
Are you seriously asking people on an internet forum to give you "scientific proof" of how this thing can work? Like, what the heck. No, I'm asking for an explanation of how this is even remotely workable.
Solar power CAN be a viable alternative energy source, it has plenty of drawbacks but there's a reason why despite stiff competition from fossil-based energy it still has place in modern world. The more money is invested into alternative energy sources NOW, the smoother global economy can transition out of fossil-based energy production when the wells do run dry - which they will, it's a question of when, not if.
There's really no reason for people like you and me who have virtually no understanding about the actual technology behind this to question whether it is possible or not - it's not like the guy is trying to sell a scam to you or something. Of course it's something you might concern yourself with if you plan on buying a Tesla car in nearby future, but something tells me you aren't so...
It's really in the same vein as investing money into space programs, pretty much. It isn't commercially viable as of this moment - but it has potential, and it's very silly to discount it as "impossible" simply because it isn't sustainable with the tools available right now. The more people work on things like this, the faster the tech can be refined, streamlined, and made financially sound. Personally, I didn't come into this thread to discuss how viable solar power is in and of itself.
Regarding: "There's really no reason for people like you and me who have virtually no understanding about the actual technology behind this to question whether it is possible or not - it's not like the guy is trying to sell a scam to you or something."
I consider this an absolute terrible attitude to have in a discussion.
On June 01 2013 18:35 frogrubdown wrote:
You guys might want to consider the possibility that Micronesia isn't a Bond villain attempting to increase the value of his arctic real estate by hastening the onset of global warming. Maybe he was just asking a question?
Yeah I'm kind of embarrassed by my community right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
