£1200 per day AVERAGE?
Damn, I'd love to know the spread of these salaries, someone must be VERY happy about this pandemic right now.... :/
350 posts • joined 5 Jun 2007
I'm just astounded that nobody at Apple actually thought this was A Bad Idea.
I'm even more astounded that Tim Cook actually decided to go for something so utterly, mind-bogglingly stupid.
Maybe I'm just naive.
Also, I'm about 95% sure they're just waiting for the media attention to die down and then quietly implement it anyway,
Had my Tesla Model 3 serviced a few days ago: I drove into the Service Centre and went into the waiting area. No human interaction required.
They remotely unlocked and started my car and did everything they wanted and then returned it to me.
10/10 for convenience but bugger me, it made me feel incredibly uncomfortable. It definitely gave me the feeling that I don’t actually own my car anymore, and whilst I sort of already knew they can do this I am surprised by how uncomfortable it has actually made me to see it in action.
Yeah, I’m not sure I’m liking the direction of travel very much…. AaaS is not something I’d like to embrace.
Ah, and here we get into which figures are right. Why would "The Government" know more than the NG?
And, obviously, your answer would be "And why would the NG know more than the government".
I don't know which one is the authoritative source, but I would (naturally, because it substantiates my point) tend to believe the people who run the thing more than "The Government", whoever they are... :D
Also, you assume the generating capacity will remain static (which it doesn't have to). Even if all cars sold in 2030 are EVs, there will remain ICEs in circulation for a long time after, so the transition will be slow enough that generating capacity can be brought online to more than supply the increased demand.
Ideally nuclear generating capacity, IMHO, but sadly I suspect I'm more likely to win the lottery two weeks running than THAT happening...
"Charging your car entirely through solar panels would require more than an average suburb roof surface"
Depends on the time of year. In the spring/summer my average suburb roof surface produces far in excess of what would be required on a daily average commute.
But you're right, only in exceptional cases would solar cover all the transportation needs of the average person.
It does help significantly, mind you...
You're absolutely right that not everyone has a place to charge at home or work, but I suspect a significant proportion already do. Workplace charging is not common at the moment, but can become so in due course.
The "couple of hours top-up for standard commute" was assuming a "normal" charger at home. 2 hours at home can be done in 10 minutes at a rapid charger, which hardly seems unreasonable.
I'm not sure that Tesla being a "premium" car actually is significant in the battery pack. My comment applies to most of the industry (with the infamous exception of the original Nissan Leafs due to their lack of thermal management).
With regards to your last statement, I wasn't mentioning the displayed energy capacity, I was referring to the actual battery capacity. Also, your phone's battery is a completely different beast to an EV's so I don't think you can make a very meaningful comparison.
Again, the National Grid seem to suggest we already have enough supply for the EV transition. Distribution is probably the bigger challenge.
The battery recycling is an interesting one. They're certainly reusable and Tesla seem to indeed suggest they're 100% recyclable but there aren't enough of them out there to recycle because they're lasting a lot longer than expected, especially when you take reusing into account.
Recycling needs to be made commercially viable for manufacturers otherwise we'll be walking into a complete disaster indeed.
You seem to be ignoring the just-as-equally incredibly destructive, unsustainable and energy-intensive process of drilling for oil. And not just the oil you burn, but all the lubricants over the course of the ICE's lifetime (EVs do use some, obviously, but only a fraction).
EVs are just as much of a lump pf metal, with a smaller, less heavy drive train. The battery pack is the "big lump of metal" that really needs improvement, but that's happening gradually.
ICE vehicles use just as many electronics as EVs, how do you think you can get the insane levels of precision and fuel-air ratios in current ICEs?
I don't know about the recycling of charging points, especially compared to the recycling of petrol pumps? Do they fail often? A petrol pump is a mechanical device, so I would expect it to fail relatively often as well (but, as I said, I have no data to make up my mind on that one).
Well, yes. But I still produce about 9MWh on my solar array at home every year. That is far more than the house "burns" and does provide some commutes on solar power.
Adding £8k worth of solar to a new build doesn't seem to be a very high cost intervention and the impact may well be quite significantly when averaged out over the year.
Absolutely the intermittency and unreliability problems of solar still apply, but those are imminently solvable as storage tech improves.
The 8 hours charging are a non-issue if done when you're at home or at work. This is the most common gripe from ICE drivers but, in reality, is a non-issue. Also, 8 hours is nearly 50kWh, so you'll need to have a pretty huge commute to burn that much juice every day. In reality, most people can top-up their commute at home in a couple of hours. Topping up on long journeys does take longer but it's not an issue because you can factor it in to your journey calculations and most people rarely do journeys that are longer than their EV range anyway. For those who do, then I agree, EV tech may not be quite there yet, but will be "soon" enough.
Battery life decline is turning out to be a far lesser problem than originally expected. There are fleets of 10 year old Tesla Model S with 85% to 90% of their original rated capacity still available, and that's with 10 year old tech. It seems many EVs may well "die of old age" around the battery pack rather than needing it replaced.
Agree on the underbuild of nuclear, I really don't know how the transition to low-carbon sources can be made without nuclear and with the current energy storage technology available (although that should hopefully improve over the next decade).
That last statement is just silly :)
I disagree, provided that we don't bin current ones to replace them with EVs.
If current ICE offerings get replaced with EVs as they come to the end of their natural life then I cannot fathom how they can be environmentally worse over their lifecycle, even with current battery tech (which will hopefully improve significantly over the next decade).
Couple that with a better grid management system (which, admittedly, is not without its challenges) and we have the makings of a very powerful tool for emissions reduction.
As usual, you can find a study to quote whatever your opinion is but as the grid goes greener (admittedly with increasing difficulty if we don't invest in decent nuclear) then transport-related emissions should go down even more.
DOI: I drive an EV and cannot ever see myself willingly go back to ICE.
1. Already exists. CHAdeMO is a dying standard. Type 2/CCS is the standard connector in Europe
2. Very much agree, I suspect this will be coming sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.
3. There is some suggestion that V2V (vehicle to vehicle) DC charging may become possible so at least you can give your mate a jumpstart. I believe most of the breakdown service already have emergency battery chargers for just such a situation :)
I'm sure I am not the only one, but if a nobody like me is actually feeling nerves about this launch and deployment, I can't even begin to imagine the stress that all the engineering and launch teams must be under right now.
I can only doff my hat in respect for the sheer boffinry and cleverness going on right now. My mind boggles.
"They are out there evangelising their beloved vehicles (and slagging off every other EV at the same time)."
From what I've experienced in forums, that is mostly a USA thing.
Most of the UK forums are quite balanced and I am more than happy to chat to anyone about my Tesla and, whilst I still think it's the best car I've ever had, I am quick to point out stupid design decisions (poor soundproofing from the foot wheel being my main gripe), poor implementation of technology or downright cheap-and-nasty cost cutting exercises (like the cardboard underbody protection that someone else mentioned, that one takes the biscuit).
I once criticised Autopilot on the Teslarati comments box and I was quite surprised by the amount of vitriol I got for it. Obviously I was just a troll pretending to own a Tesla.... it shocked me a bit, actually, and further reinforced how much difference the Atlantic Ocean actually makes.
But I would still buy my Model 3 again :)
I allow the apps to ask me because I'm curious as to which ones actually want to do so.
It has been rather enlightening, and I get a kick out of clicking "No" every time...
As for YT adverts, I have developed such a hatred of Gramarly that I will go out of my way to avoid giving any money to those intrusive cockwombles.
Oh, not at all.
Guilty as charged of having one of his cars but I don’t like the company and I DETEST “Autopilot”. I’m fairly agnostic to the man himself, I’ve never met him.
Anyway, “Autopilot” (let alone “Full Self Driving”) is a dangerous PoS at the moment, as far as I’m concerned.
I just don’t see any bloody value whatsoever in this article.
Failsafes can always be defeated by determined idiots, big whoop.
But it seems from the number of downvotes I have missed something very obvious and very valuable in that masterpiece of investigative journalism.
Egads, looks like the 60s all over again.... The Cold War rhetoric is back.
Mind you, I do wonder whether two superpowers (let's just call them that and leave it there) competing for progress will make more advancements than two superpowers collaborating.
Not being intentionally inflammatory here, by the way, I do genuinely wonder if much of the ungodly technological advancement of the 60s was done so that the Russians wouldn't get there first...
I don't believe that questioning is insulting to anyone, and I'm sorry that you feel that way. I have nothing but the deepest appreciation for what that team is doing, it truly is the thing of Sci-Fi, and only a complete moron would think they had done no testing. That is not what I was implying.
I was genuinely wondering what it was that they couldn't do here. In that respect your answer was very thorough and helpful, despite your sanctimonious attitude.
So thank you, and please allow me to add another upvote to your post.
Quite the contrary.
If someone else can provide good quality internet to hard-to-reach locations then that immediately takes Openreach off the political hook to get it done.
They won’t miss a few thousand premisses that would cost millions to connect with a decent service and never see an RoI (even with subsidies)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021