Another green (and Obama) fantasy, goes up in smoke. I do think there will be a huge move toward natural-gas vehicles, though, with the new cheap supplies from fracking.
[Update on Sunday]
Funny thing. Electric cars depreciate much faster than conventional ones. Huh.
I worry that Elon could lose his shirt with Tesla.
He has other shirts at this point.
Don’t worry, the state of California has insured that gasoline auto purchasers will transfer BILLIONS to Tesla.
His toll booth is already picking up hundreds of millions per year.
ensured, not insured
I’d assumed that natural gas prices had plummeted due to fracking, but the other day I looked it up, and it isn’t so.
EIA link with clickable history graphs
As it turns out, natural gas prices are still higher than they were prior to 2003 (not inflation adjusted).
Then there’s the recent cautionary tale of Pakistan’s 3 million natural gas powered cars, which is pretty interesting.
My main concern about over-reliance on natural gas is that natural gas prices are historically quite volatile, since there’s not a cheap way to store stockpiles of natural gas to buffer swings between supply and demand.
neighboring Iran’s gas production is rapidly growing, so expect a deal for export to Pakistan.
The US Gives Pakistan $13 Billion in aid, and wants to maintain an embargo on Iran.
It would be ironic if US Aid money went to Iran so they can sell CNG.
Yeah, on reflection you are indeed right. It just goes to show how badly our foreign policy is being managed these days.
Natural gas, like most other commodities, can be stored for an indefinite period of time. The exploration, production, and transportation of natural gas takes time, and the natural gas that reaches its destination is not always needed right away, so it is injected into underground storage facilities.
link
From your link, it looks like we can store almost two months worth of natural gas in underground reservoirs, which is realistically probably about a four week supply at any given time (filling half the time, and empty half the time so that the storage is half full on average), and you have to have the special sites, none of which seem to be east of the Appalachians.
>, since there’s not a cheap way to store stockpiles of natural gas to buffer swings between supply and demand.<
answered his ? your be doing logistics dude.
That’s not surprising at all, because natural gas is largely fungible with other hydrocarbons for many uses (such as power generation).
It’s the same sort of thing as happens in Canada with regards to gas prices. Canada exports oil, but when the price of oil goes up the price of gas in Canada goes up too. Why? Because it’s a market. Canada has to compete with the rest of the world for consumption of Canada’s gas, if it’s more lucrative to sell Canadian gas to Japan then that’s where it’s going to go.
Similarly, natural gas prices aren’t dictated by natural gas supply they are dictated by the hydrocarbon market as a whole.
it’s hard to move Methane gas without expensive pipelines and expensive liquification terminals.
it’s why so many oil wells flare NatGas off, because it’s too expensive to transport.
It must not be too expensive as the amount of flaring has been decreasing steadily in the last few years. I keep wondering if you think information from 2011 is current enough when it is 2013.
28% flare percentage is still a lot.
Just another propaganda report from Big Oil™.
Right. From big oil’s best pal, Barrack Obama.
I sense dissonance.
Come, on. You know better than to take seriously predictions set 26 years in the future. Particularly technological/economic predictions.
What would the government know?
I read the EIA report, it seems to be behind the actual numbers.
As I recall, the issue is trying to get the cost of battery below $250/KWH,
once that happens, EVs become a really easy decision.
Don’t worry greens, thanks to the US Supreme Court, the Federal government can FORCE the ALL of its subjects to buy electric cars from profit making companies or face ruinous fines… errr… taxes.
And when we plug them all in the grid will go *pop*, and Obama will say “Gee. I didn’t realize electricity distribution is so complicated. But rest assured, I’m more outraged than anyone that our grid is down, and that people can’t hear me by using their car radios because their electric cars are dead because, as I mentioned, the US electric grid is down. But be patient. Earlier today I tasked the DOE with taking steps, in coordination with other cabinet agencies, to figure out what went wrong and to work 24/7 to fix it. To have the entire US power grid down is completely unacceptable, and as you know, I’m frustrated with obstructionist Republicans who kept insisting that we could generate 21st century power with 20th century methods. This country has been lit up since the days of Edison and Tesla, but thanks to Republican intransigence, my programs for purely renewable power based on sunny breezes have been held back. Look where that has left us: In the dark, using our dying Blackberries to tell the Secret Service to get Michelle six cheesy-crust meat-lover’s pizzas, and to be told that pizza delivery is down because the delivery cars are all electric, which, by the way, is a superior form of transportation that would work if not for Republican sabotage of our vital infrastructure. I ask you in the press to pass this message on, through whatever means are still operational, and I understand your own frustrations that your broadcast networks are down because unlike the White House, which is a critical part of the US national security apparatus, your networks weren’t granted an exemption to the diesel backup generator ban of 2014, which is doing so much to protect us all from the ravages of global warming that might threaten the US power grid, and thus the security of American working families, retirees, and gay couples – who are families – that just happen to be gay. Goddamnit, why is my teleprompter not on the emergency power system? Excuse me.”
Nice rant, but, a 2500 watt array at your home is more then enough to charge an EV for
a typical daily commute. A 2500 watt array at work is more then enough to charge
vehicles parked at office locations.
No, the rapid growth of Solar PV will provide more then enough power for EVs.
Rand likes to criticize Electric vehicles, but he’s howling against inevitable change.
Hybrid cars are sliding into ever greater market share and inevitably electrification
is expanding into the fleet. The only question is how fast and at what end of the market.
There’s nothing “inevitable” about anything, especially cars that don’t work as well as regular gas engines. Hybrids are a solution to no existing problem. And they don’t even solve it anyways. They still contain a gas engine, just like regular cars do. And besides that, the mileage of a hybrid can be matched by many regular 4 cylinder engines, and also diesel cars. That leaves a hybrid to be an overcomplicated and overpriced mess with the maintenance of two different systems you have to deal with.
As to pure electrics, the joke is that those are coal-fired cars instead of gas-fired cars. Wind and solar will not be any significant contributor to the grid any time soon. The power provided is too unreliable. You still need a coal plant to back up the wind farm when the wind isn’t blowing or when the wind is blowing too hard. What ends up happening is that the coal plant is on all of the time anyways to provide base load.
What you are running into is that coal and such fuels work too well as fuels and renewables don’t really work at all in any size that matters. Maybe you will dink at the margins, at unpredictable times, at high cost no less, but you aren’t going to be at a place where 90% is coming from renewables.
Wow, you’ve got so many errors, it’s hard to know where to start. I’ll try to stick to the big ones.
“the mileage of a hybrid can be matched by many regular 4 cylinder engines, and also diesel cars”
In regular commuting, say a 30 Mile each way trip, a Chevy Volt will be burning no gas,
if you can plug it in at work. There are lots of Volt owners who are hitting 250 MPG easy.
Try that in a 4 Cyl car of any type.
“As to pure electrics, the joke is that those are coal-fired cars instead of gas-fired cars. Wind and solar will not be any significant contributor to the grid any time soon.”
Germany is hitting 25% of their electrical production now from Solar, and
california is routinely at 10%.
“but you aren’t going to be at a place where 90% is coming from renewables.”
People make all sorts of funny predictions about the future.
Solar PV is down 100X in 30 years, it will most likely be cheaper soon enough.
The only metric is $/watt and $/KWH.
If you think you are right, well, you can make a fortune betting against
Warren Buffet who is investing $2 billion into Iowa wind power and abandoning
nuclear investments.
Sure, dnguy. One problem with that; at night, the contribution of solar power to Germany’s grid is 0%. For an hour or two either side of that, it’s pretty damned low.
Similarly, wind power’s contribution is also 0% when the wind isn’t blowing – or when it’s blowing too strongly for the machinery to handle. This did, in fact, happen for several days last year in the UK. The whole of the UK.
I continue to think that the people who rabbit on about “sustainable” or “green” power have some other agenda in mind. Else, why wouldn’t other technologies (wave power, OTEC, waste biomass are examples) be given any resources for R&D never mind deployment?
Note that I said “waste biomass”. This includes such things as straw, wood chippings and sawdust from wood processing, that sort of thing, and also waste cooking oil – the last of these being available in fairly large quantities and also being a disposal problem, as the recent story about the 10-ton fatberg removed from a London sewer attests. Sure, this source of energy isn’t ever going to be of major importance but why not use it?
Oil-bearing algae growing is another technology that could use otherwise useless land, but R&D on that has barely started.
Else, why wouldn’t other technologies (wave power, OTEC, waste biomass are examples) be given any resources for R&D never mind deployment?
I’m not that interested in this “sustainable” or “green” power debate but the level of ignorance in you comment is breathtaking.
Burning of waste wood at saw mills and paper mills is common.
Wave and tidal power has been studied to death over the last 30 years, where practical it’s used.
Reprocessing of cooking oil is common.
The problem with the practicalities of many of these green technologies is that the return of energy is just too low for widespread, rather than targeted, utilization.
OTEC and wave power are very difficult to make work. I’ve sat and
listened to Clarence Zener talk about OTEC, but the Delta T is small
and you need expensive gear sitting in the water.
wave power is the same problem, lots of gear and lots of peak loads.
Waves are an amazing power source but hard to capture.
algae biomass is a nice idea it may take off, but it’s got a lot to drive the yields.
Biodiesel is a nice niche right now.
you can dismiss solar and wind, but why is Warren Buffet investing?
you can dismiss solar and wind, but why is Warren Buffet investing?
Because he thinks he can make money on it, you idiot. Which has nothing to do with how widespread it will become.
you can dismiss solar and wind, but why is Warren Buffet investing?
Because he thinks he can make money on it, you idiot. Which has nothing to do with how widespread it will become.
Instead of Howling, why not ask the useful question?
Why does Warren Buffet think there is more profit in wind turbines then Natural Gas Combined Cycle power plants in Iowa?
It’s easy to howl, but, it’s work to ask the harder question.
No one is “howling,” here, you moron.
Just another symptom of you autism and ADHD. You are obsessed with “howling,” when no one is doing it. Except, possibly, you.
The Chevy Volt will be burning no gas locally, but where did it get the power in the first place? By running the gas engine to charge the battery. Or else if you plug it in it got it from the grid, powered mostly by coal.
Buffet is investing in government-mandated markets. Nuclear plants are too hard to build regulation wise, so there is no money there. In a sane world, these mandates wouldn’t be there. Solar would come online when it was ready, which includes being cheap enough and reliable enough for base power load.
Here’s how it works in the real world. A power plant operator will make a plan for the next day and come up with a power demand curve. This will determine how the generators are going to run during the next day. It has to be done ahead of time because big generators can’t just be turned on, They take time to start spinning. You have to shovel in coal, wait for it to heat up the water, then pump in the steam to get the generator spinning up. Finally once you have it spinning at the right RPM and synchronized with the existing power you can connect it to the grid. If you don’t do this right, the frequency of the generator will be off from the existing power grid and when you connect it to the existing grid it will tear the generator apart.
But, now I’m getting a bit off topic.
Anyways, the point is, solar and wind don’t provide reliable power. Meaning, as a plant operator first of all I need to be able to provide a constant base load power according to my preplanned power demand curve. Solar and wind are too “spiky” and are completely at the mercy of how the wind blows or the sun shines. Even in the sunniest areas like deserts, half the day there is no sunlight, and takes up massive land areas which conflicts with the other green groups. Wind is just completely dependent on the current wind at the current minute. It may or may not match my current demand. In a normal world, I have big coal generators providing a base load and when the demand spikes, more people than I expected turned on their air conditioners or whatever, I spin up smaller generators that can come online much quicker to provide temporary relief while I get a bigger more efficient generator spun up if needed.
Don’t be fooled by “wind farm of X MW capacity”. That is only saying if every turbine is spinning with optimum wind conditions, then we theoretically could have that coming in. In the real world, the wind never blows that consistently. So, just because Germany may have 25% generating capacity as stated on the brochure doesn’t mean the wind is actually providing that much usable power.
Until you solve the base load power problem, you are only dinking at margins at high cost. Meaning you make it harder and harder for people to afford power. So, you raise cost of food, health care, and everything else that we use power for, for no real gain on a significant scale.
You just make everybody poorer without solving anything of any scale that actually matters.
“Until you solve the base load power problem, you are only dinking at margins at high cost.”
Economists like to say that everything interesting occurs at the margins.
What you are missing is something most Low Information conservatives
miss. Solar is principally a Peak load power source.
As you point out there is a demand curve planned for the day.
At some point, during the morning, Utilities turn on Peak generation. Mostly Natural Gas turbines. The utilities start paying top dollar for that marginal Megawatt. Solar comes in at a marginal cost of ZERO during that peak time.
Here’s a fairly typical curve.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SA_2008_TD_time_of_day_average_1.png
In the 2008 case, demand was fairly predictable, The thinking was fairly primitive.
But look what’s happening today, Peak demand is getting some high frequency on it and the peak is shifting to later in the day and to a smaller amount.
Now maybe in 2018, crusty, backwards conservatives will be Howling
at the sun, but, the ones with 2 brain cells will be looking forward, people
like Barry Goldwater, who view Solar PV as a competitor to utilities
and how they have the right to make their own power.
You and the other trapped in the past types, may be howling about
how unfair and evil Solar and Wind is, but the people with some brain
power will be adopting this fast.
As for the problems in supply dispatch, well, I suspect the market can fix that.
“So, just because Germany may have 25% generating capacity as stated on the brochure doesn’t mean the wind is actually providing that much usable power.”
Take it up with Reuters.
“(Reuters) – Germany produced 67.9 billion kilowatt hours of renewable energy in the first half of 2012, a record high and an increase of 19.5 percent from the same period last year, industry figures showed on Thursday.
Renewables now account for 25 percent of energy production, up from 21 percent last year, the country’s energy industry association (BDEW) said in a statement that reinforced Germany’s position as a leader in green technology.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/germany-renewables-idUSL6E8IQIA720120726
So, I’m the low information type, but you say there is a zero cost power source? There is no such thing. Solar requires maintenance at the very least.
Oh, “economists” say? Some amorphous, unnamed, and therefore unaccountable subset of a profession? Nice interesting rhetorical device you got there.
Even if it is true that “interesting” things happen at the margins, that doesn’t contradict what I said. Because most of the work is not done in an ‘interesting” way. Most of the base load power is provided by plain old boring fossil fuel, because for base load power I need a reliable, predictable, in other words “boring”, source of power. You’re right, nothing “interesting” about it. Just going about its day doing the same job over and over again.
what you learn in critical industries that people’s lives depend upon is that “boring” is a positive trait, not a negative trait. “Interesting” tends to mean “most fragile”.
I said nothing about letting people produce their own power. If they want to do that, go for it. However, there is some coordination you have to do with the main grid, perhaps simply not feeding your solar power into the main grid, because what otherwise can happen is that if you don’t use enough of the solar power, because you are away at work or whatever, you can create a condition where, from the power plant’s perspective, there is essentially negative power generation. Meaning, more power is being generated than is being used, and so it creates a backwards power flow. Since the grid isn’t just “yours”, you can’t just blindly demand the main grid accept your excess solar power generation.
You keep saying I’m “howling” about things, and yet you seem to be informed only based on news articles, and not what it actually takes to provide reliable power that people’s lives depend on day in and day out without interruption. I can’t rely on solar and wind to power a hospital. I need to know that power is going to be there when I ask for it, not maybe hope that the wind will blow hard enough.
If you don’t have a critical need, where if the power goes out, it is not a big deal because you can just wait it out, then solar or wind may work, it will just be annoying. However, if you have customers who are hospitals and grocery stores and restaurants and water treatment plants and factories, and so on, it is not naive or “howling” to say that solar and wind aren’t going to cut it. It is recognition of hard reality.
So, I’m the low information type, but you say there is a zero cost power source? There is no such thing. Solar requires maintenance at the very least
The Problem with Low Information types is they don’t understand the difference between “Marginal cost of Zero” and “Zero Cost”. Marginal zero cost means
that the price to operate is not changing at the margins. The decision to produce
at any hour when the sun is up isn’t determined by input costs.
It’s the theory that Nuclear power plants had when they were proposed, that they
would be too cheap to meter, all fixed costs no marginal costs.
It doesn’t really matter what the people howling at the past want, though.
See, people in the real world are buying LED lights, while Grandpa howls about
Incandescent bulbs, and people are putting in Gigawatts of Solar, and chewing
away at electricity demand.
The markets for electricity are changing fast. Funny how the people
who worship the market are actually afraid of the market working.
The Problem with Low Information types
The problem with low-information types is that there are none so low-info and logic challenged than you, at least around here.
I can’t rely on solar and wind to power a hospital.
Do you think a hospital should pay more to guarantee up time?
Do you think a hospital should be willing to invest into Backup generators,
or surge batteries to keep power utterly smooth?
Maybe people should pay for a certain QoS?
Lots of customers may be choosing to accept lower power quality.
As for the trouble it causes, i’m so sorry technology change is causing you to have to work hard. I’m sure things were so easy in the 1950’s before all this new fangled technology, but, well, if you find change hard to adapt to, perhaps you should consider joining an amish colony.
You are certainly one of the most arrogant leftists I have had the misfortune of talking with.
Whether it is “marginal cost of zero” or whatever, it is not free. They have to price the cost of the plant into the price for generation. And solar is a higher cost source that is not reliable.
I don’t even know what point you are trying to make about hospital backup systems. A hospital’s backup system is for absolute emergencies on a short-term basis, like the New York blackout. You don’t use it for regular operation, because the wind stops blowing and so there is nothing from the grid anymore.
Systems for smoothing power only smooth the power, they don’t provide power themselves. They still rely on power from the grid.
Oh, and those backup generators for the hospital burn diesel anyways. So, what exactly are you accomplishing telling the hospital to burn diesel instead of using electricity from a coal generator when the wind stops blowing?
I don’t think you are understanding that it is the power plant’s job to keep power flowing to everyone, including critical industries, on a large scale. Just like the retards stuck in the Antarctic, they are relying on fossil fuels to get them there, and now they are relying on fossil fuels to rescue them. And lots of it. But they’ll turn around and bitch and moan about the evils of fossil fuel. I’d really like to tell them that they should get back home without the use of fossil fuels if they are so adamant against them.
(I wouldn’t be surprised if they were also part of the group that wants to somehow kill off half of the planet’s population. To them I say, “you first”. Otherwise you are elevating yourself above others, because you won’t be willing to be put into the 50% you want to die off.)
This has nothing to do with light bulbs. This has to do with reliable bulk electric delivery to millions of people who depend on it for their lives. If the power only works as well as solar and wind do, then people will die. We will have the electric reliability of Iraq. Backup generators don’t run forever. Eventually the diesel runs out.
People live in areas where the winter gets very cold. If the electricity and the gas stop flowing, people will die. For a random example, I just looked up the temperature in Minnesota. It is currently 2 degrees Fahrenheit in Minneapolis. What is solar and wind going to do for someone who lives there at this time of year? Nothing at night in solar’s case, and if the wind doesn’t blow, then nothing for everybody else.
You really sound like someone who doesn’t have to deal with delivering absolutely reliable services. What I mean by that is a specific meaning of reliable. I mean it has to work and it has to work always. There’s no margin for a return policy or a warranty, where you can ship something back and get a replacement. People die if things don’t work and work right now and keep working.
So, keep telling me that I’m behind the times or whatever. I’m in my 30’s and develop software for a living, and play Assassin’s Creed 4 on the PS4 in my downtime, so I’ll laugh that you think I was around in the 1950’s and am not familiar with new technologies.
“Whether it is “marginal cost of zero” or whatever, it is not free. ”
I’m sorry you aren’t educated enough to understand the difference between
marginal costs, variable costs and average costs. Yes, Solar power has an
average cost, but it doesn’t have a variable cost and that’s what makes it so
interesting economically.
And yes the wind doesn’t always blow, occasionally, Rand closes his mouth.
However, the wind always blows somewhere. Consider 2 wind farms located
100 miles apart. what is the Probability both are going to be becalmed for an hour?
Add a third another 100 miles away. Now what’s that probability?
Now is there some work in making sure that you can manage the power balance
between these, and will there be periods of time when you are over-subscribed
for power? Yep.
Welcome to the 21st century. And you can play PS4 all day long, and still
have a mindset trapped in the 1950’s.
If you would look at anything Bloomberg New Energy is talking about, Utilities
are dinosaurs with dinosaur thinking, and the environment is changing really fast.
It’s going to be quite interesting watching what happens, when you have a hospital
getting power from a 10 MW solar Array placed on it’s buildings and parking lots,
and getting another 10 MW of wind from a wind farm it owns down the road
and you have 1,000 cars in the parking lot plugged into 2 way chargers with
lots of smart software to use all that rolling battery to manage drop outs
It’s going to be a lot of work making the 21st century V2B, V2G, V2X technology
work, but a whole bunch of really clever hippies in Berkeley are working on this.
Now old timers may be howling about the Gasoline powered cars, much like
the Old timer engineers I worked with who were howling about working with
computers when a slide rule and adding machine were good enough to do the manhattan project and well Grandpa probably was whining about his whale oil lamps and that commie FDR and his new fangled electrification.
Well don’t worry, the Hippies are going to build a better future.
A hospital is not a power plant. There is no reason for a hospital to take on such a project to own land here and there for wind farms when a grid full of power working right now is available. It’s not their area of competence, nor should it be. OK, they will take on having a backup generator outside the building for temporary blackouts, but that’s a minor cost and minor management headache compared to what you are asking every hospital to do.
How high cost are you asking health care to be?
It’s not a “mindset trapped in the 1950’s” to realize there is no way from here to there that makes any sense. You are asking every hospital to rely on several wind farms (hope the wind blows) + solar arrays (hope the sun shines) + hope for enough electric cars parked in the basement and all being plugged in. Did everyone remember to plug in? Hope so. Did enough people even buy electric cars to begin with? Hope so. What happens if everyone still buys gas engines instead? The whole project falls apart. Multiply this same problem by every building in the city.
All based on hope and probabilities, which is the downfall. A critical industry means I can’t hope that the environment works out based on a bunch of random independent variables (sun shines, wind blows, people remembering to plug their cars in, etc). If those things were each 90% reliable, you put all three together, and now the system as a whole is 73% reliable. Well, I guess I can let 25% of my patients die.
It’s not “just some work” to manage the balance. There are some fundamental problems that are just being hoped away. Even when you read the things about V2B and V2G, there’s always the asterisk at the end essentially saying “we hope enough electric cars are bought” or some similar disclaimer like that.
Bloomberg New Energy is a company like any other, with a company agenda and a lot of marketing hype to put out, especially if they are getting on the government green money wagon.
And you should listen more to those old timers, because you probably were completely not understanding what they were saying. And now we have people who have no grasp of logarithms and miss order of magnitude wrong answers in Excel tables, and don’t really understand the concept of significant figures.
Hooowwooooo! Hooowwooooo!
Wired Magazine: Feds say no more than one car out of 100 electric by 2040
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/12/electric-cars-2040/
but he’s howling against inevitable change.
I’m not “howling” about anything, you moron. Are you autistic, and unable to accurately discern the emotions of others?
And I’m not “criticizing Electric vehicles.” I’m criticizing fools who imagine they’re going to supercede IC any time soon.
The Simberg Howl: MMMMOOORRRRROONNN!!! Ooohhhoooo…
Well, lets just see what happens a few years down the line.
Elon Musk has taken a very big bet on EVs, and well, so far he’s got a NHTSA 5 star
rating in all categories, He got Consumer Reports 99/100 and Motor Trends Car of the Year.
So Elon thinks Electrics will displace IC engines. Oh Elon is also a billionaire, a job creator
and an innovator. So are you criticizing him?
Mike Leiblich, head of Bloomberg New Energy also thinks that by 2020 the median electric car will outperform the median IC car on all metrics.
Now, who knows more about Money, Bloomberg and Musk or Simberg?
A word is not a “howl,” you moron. And I only use that word when someone posts something moronic. Unfortunately, for you, that’s almost every single comment you post here.
So Elon thinks Electrics will displace IC engines. Oh Elon is also a billionaire, a job creator
and an innovator. So are you criticizing him?
No one is beyond criticism. You moron.
Do you think you know more about making money then Musk or Bloomberg?
No, I don’t, you moron.
Yet another idiotic non sequitur from our village idiot.
Well Warren Buffet thinks there is a lot of money to be made investing
in Wind Energy, and Bloomberg thinks there is a lot of money to be
made investing in New Energy.
So you can keep howling about Electric Cars and Renewable energy,
while the smart guys go off and make some real money.
Well Warren Buffet thinks there is a lot of money to be made investing in Wind Energy, and Bloomberg thinks there is a lot of money to be made investing in New Energy.
You keep stupidly repeating that, as though it has some relevance to the discussion.
So you can keep howling
And you keep stupidly using that word, even though no one is doing it, with the possible exception of loons like you.
We will still be using hydrocarbons for a long, long time. Even if we could get the energy density up and the charge time down (perhaps using flywheels as an energy storage medium?) for passenger vehicles we’d still need diesel to run semis and trains and we’d still be using the lowest-grade oil to run cargo ships. This is the backbone of the freight transportation infrastructure. This is particularly true in areas that experience winter weather – a diesel engine will keep running and produce torque at much colder temperatures and much harsher conditions than will an electric vehicle.
No, the only way we’ll see electric vehicles truly overtake hydrocarbons for transportation is if we can develop a car engine-sized nuclear power plant. Paging Kirk Sorenson…
“we’d still need diesel to run semis and trains”
It’s possible to electrify trains, it’s pretty low tech to hang 750 Volts over train corridors.
While an electric truck is a bit of a stretch, today, it’s not a big deal in the near future.
Shipping may be looking at wind augmentation or can switch to bio-diesel.
The oil used for shipping is almost a tar, so thick it needs to be heated to 40C before it will flow. Shipping companies pay about 25 cents a liter for this lowest-grade oil. Do you think biodiesel can compete in price? Do you seriously think adding sails to a container ship is a good idea?
No, we’ll be using oil for shipping for a long time, until nuclear-powered container ships or large-scale power beaming become widespread.
Indeed. And one way that might work is for the power beam to be coming from orbit. SPS is one of the technologies with enormous investment required but astronomically huge payoff if it works – and there is no real reason that I’ve ever heard why it shouldn’t. (“Astronomically huge” is quite literal here.)
Admittedly, the SPS units mooted for power injection to the grid wouldn’t work for this – a satellite with several beams available (possibly at higher frequency than the grid injector ones) would be needed and they would have to be steerable.
I seem to remember reading that the US military is reasonably seriously looking at SPS for supply of electric power to deployed units – as an alternative to generator sets, which are not only heavy and maintenance-intensive in themselves but require large amounts of fuel.
Can Bio-Diesel compete with #2 Bunker oil? depends, do you think burning asphalt
is a good idea? At least in places like Long Beach, ship emissions are a major contributor
to air pollution.
As for Sails on a Container ship, the issue is a trade between costs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2008/0403/a-secret-to-improving-cargo-ship-efficiency-go-fly-a-kite
It’s a question of investing into innovation or howling about the past.
howling about the past
Who is “howling” about anything?
The autism apparently continues.
You will have to use google translate, or Chrome will translate the best right in the same window, but this SkySails company had to lay off half of its workforce last year.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/skysails-entlaesst-halbe-belegschaft-der-zugdrachen-zieht-nicht-11645727.html
Sounds like yet another Solyndra.
Liquid fuels are simply the most convenient way to power vehicles. I’ve worked with a wide variety of fuels including kerosene, alcohol (& other oxygenates), propane, ethane, methane, and hydrogen. Kerosene (about C12H26 on average) is the cheapest, densest, and safest to handle. Even if fusion power drops to pennies/kWh, synthetic fuels will still provide greater range and speed of refueling than batteries can ever hope for.
Liquid fuels are the ONLY practical power for aircraft.
liquid fuel has a nice energy density, but, battery only has to be good enough.
All of you are forgetting the best solution for electric cars, going nuclear…
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/nuclear-cars-theyre-not-science-fiction-anymore
Nuclear cars: They’re not science fiction anymore
[[[The invention of Charles Stevens of the Massachusetts-based R&D company Laser Power Systems, the system is far short of the Nucleon’s full-fledged nuclear reactor. The key is thorium, which is radioactive but not on the same scale as uranium (though it can sub for it in reactors). In the proposed car, “an accelerator-driven thorium-based laser” is used not to send a beam of energy but to generate concentrated heat.
Stevens says his thorium car would be “emissions free” and never need recharging. A gram of thorium has the same energy content as 7,500 gallons of gas, and eight grams could power a car for 300,000 miles. I’m still wondering what happens when two of these cars come together.]]]
Now if they could only make it fly…
Funny, Tesla and Nissan Leaf are doing rather well in their respective segments and in light of being new models to the market.
In fact, Tesla is outselling its luxury segment competition in areas where its actually available, i.e. Audis and Lexuses of the same price bracket.
PHEVs shifted about a 100K units in US this year. For second year on the market, thats not bad at all.
Prius is now Toyota’s number one selling platform.
Plug Ins are now selling quite nicely.
I guess some people don’t like the market operating.
What people do you fantasize don’t like the market operating, other than leftists, you moron?
What percentage of the overall automobile market are Tesla and Leaf?
Considering that there are really only 2 models available and even then still in limited regions, the overall percentage number hardly matters, but you can look at the numbers if you want. Also consider that fast charging infrastructure is only being rolled out, and the entire L1 charging at work etc dynamic with lack of micropayment methods is obviously new to everyone.
If you take a look at a) regions where these models are rolled out b) in the respective segments the numbers don’t look bad at all.
Also, only an idiot would claim that EVs will replace ICEs, they will never power 18-wheelers going cross country.
However, people are clearly buying and finding them perfect for a large part of their daily driving needs – while keeping a second car or a rental close at hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_production_battery_electric_vehicles#Full-sized_cars
the fleet is expanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Sales
No, while a bunch of old men are howling about Gasoline cars, if you look at what Musk is
doing, the strategy is pretty obvious. 1) He’s doing Tesla and pushing EV Technology hard
as a luxury product. 2) He’s doing Solar City and pushing Solar PV onto every rooftop
and now he’s selling a Tesla branded Battery backup for homes to have a Solar Generator
capable of running the home for 24 hours.
what happens here? Every person who buys an EV is much more likely to put Solar Power
on their home or office building.
Every person who has solar on the roof is more likely to buy an EV.
Every person who has an EV car, has somewhere between 20- 85 KWH or rolling battery.
Every Person who has 20-85 KWH of rolling battery, is likely to buy 10-30 KWH of
battery for a solar generator for their home.
Every person who buys a solar battery pack for their home increases volume.
Tesla-Solar City are synergistic in both brand, customer and market segment.
This is extremely disruptive to conventional utilities, conventional auto, and
conventional thinking.
So while a bunch of grandpa’s are howling about how stupid this all is, a very clever
strategy is evolving.
and don’t be too fast to dismiss Electric trucks. Right now there are some pretty credible
Hybrid bus and hybrid 6 wheel trucks in the market. Freightliner, Toyota-Hino
and Mitsubishi Cantor are all rolling them out. I’ve done some envelope scratching,
a Solar electric array can power a long haul truck if you use high efficiency cells,
and if you have battery changing stations every 90 miles, you can go cross country
but you would either have to swap batteries or recharge regularly.
Cross country long hauling trucking is the Everest of EVs but it’s possible,
I think the analysis of costs and investment may require some technoogy changes,
but I could see short haul trucking changing to electrics. All those little bobcats that move
containers in yards, or short haul freight.
Another note, while there may be a smug/greenie segment buying Teslas , quite a few people are buying a Model S because its just a damn good car, electric or not.
Rand also leaves out that quite a few people like EVs because they don’t like
buying oil from Terrorists and think that it’s their patriotic obligation to
switch to EVs and stop funding arab oil states and people like the Chavezistas.
Because it has no relevance to my point.
What an idiot.
The better question may be “What percentage of their market segment are Tesla and Leaf”.
Which BTW leaves out a number of other 100% electric vehicles and Plug in Hybrids.
Too bad this comment will likely never be read, but I must write it. Batteries cannot ever be “good enough.” That’s not an opinion, it’s Engineering 101. An automobile powered by an internal combustion engine carries only the fuel portion of the fuel/oxygen reactants whose combination releases chemical potential energy as heat, which is transformed into work. A battery carries both the fuel and oxidizer. It can never achieve a mass efficiency equivalent to an IC engine for that reason alone. If a chemical reaction using stored fuel/oxidizer could be found that exceeded the fuel/air energy density of an IC engine, it would already have been put to use in a rocket — because it would be the most energetic chemical reaction ever found. (Consider why we use air breathing jet engines instead of rockets to power aircraft…) Batteries based on such a reaction would be formidable bombs in waiting.
ARPA-E long ago acknowledged that only an air breathing fuel-cell could ever make an electric car approach the range of a car with an IC engine. Today, only the direct methanol cell even approaches that goal, but falls far short.
Waiting for a “battery breakthrough” is like waiting for a breakthrough in squaring the circle. The latter is impossible by dint of the fact that PI is irrational. The former is impossible by the nature of chemical reactions. There are still people who hold out hope that the circle can be squared, though, so I guess we’ll always have those who keep their fingers crossed for a battery breakthrough.
Well, there is always the possibility of a technology other than that of chemical reactions inside the battery. Two possibilities (both a long way off realisation) are some sort of ultracapacitor (graphene has some promise in this area) and a battery using some metastable excited nuclear species, probably not yet discovered, as a storage medium. There is a hafnium isotope that showed some promise but apparently won’t work; but there are a heck of a lot of stable isotopes that might have a suitable excited state.
A solution using a flywheel suspended in vacuum, made of some advanced material, might also be usable. One problem is that many of the potential solutions are fail-deadly; it’s a truism that the higher the energy density, the more of a problem the unit is when it gets damaged. This can be the case with lithium-ion batteries, for example. It’s also the case with some sorts of IC engine; gasoline pipes getting ruptured in a crash and the fumes being set off by the exhaust manifold or a catalytic converter, or even an electrical short, can and do cause fires. Diesel engines are nowhere near as bad in this respect.
One more thing; to be practical, the reactions inside a battery have either to be reversible or to use reactants that are reasonably cheap and don’t require rare elements.
And finally, there is a reasonable chance that one or both of a pair of fusion technologies might be practical in units small enough for use in a car, or at least a big truck or small ship. Focus fusion and Polywell both have this potential.
FC
You leave out Flow Batteries and Fuel Cells, but, I think the continuing rise of Battery tech
will be good enough.
I’m going to make two predictions, one is that in 2020, EV batteries will be much better then
what we see today and second that Rand will still be howling about electric vehicles.
” only an air breathing fuel-cell could ever make an electric car approach the range of a car with an IC engine”
which would of course explain why a Tesla Model S has a range of 300 miles.
The Trick to avoid getting laughed at is to connect with reality.
300 miles ? More like 16 on this blog.
well laughing at silly conservatives is a bit of a sport,
commentary like this
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/12/congrssional-motors.jpg
when we went out and produced
http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/2011-chevrolet-volt-and-2013-tesla-model-s-photo-david-noland_100427529_m.jpg
but it’s amusing to listen to the howling.
Laughing at morons like you is so trivial as to not even be a sport.
Who is this “we” that produced anything? That’s a very royal “we” you got there. I tend to notice that leftists do that. Fits right in with the “you didn’t build that” bullshit.
Unless you are actually working at Tesla,”you” didn’t do a damn thing.
“Unless you are actually working at Tesla,”you” didn’t do a damn thing.”
Unless, we were working at GM which produced the Chevy Volt, or
at Nissan which produced the Leaf, or Toyota which has the Plug in Prius
or Ford which has the C-Max Energi, or were working at the Dept of Energy
which provided the capital loans for the Volt and Tesla and Battery plants
or for the companies that have worked on building the capital equipment
for these or the companies that designed subsystems, components, or
facilities. How about the people who helped get chargers, installed in
public buildings and apartment buildings, and trained electricians for these
or worked on the Standards committee at NEC and UL and SAE for
chargers, plugs, safety…
Oh how about the people who lobbied for incentives, or pushed to
get EVs HOV passes?
How about the people who helped organize EV drives, and promoted and
evangelized and set up Electrics at car shows and car meetups?
How about the people who slapped down deposits in 2007 and 2008 for Cars that
were 2 years away from production and were willing to buy first model
year vehicles?
So, maybe you have a very narrow view of who did what, but, you are ignoring
or insulting the tens of thousands of others who were working to make this a reality.
I didn’t leave out fuel cells. They’re the best hope for electric cars. I didn’t mention ultracapacitors, because they can never approach the best batteries for energy density (power density is another matter). For a comparison, see this very interesting paper by MITRE, a company trusted as an honest broker by everyone.
As for the Tesla S, it is an absolute marvel of engineering, and styling. It is a beautiful, hot, amazing machine and I hope that Tesla succeeds. But as for the batteries delivering 300 miles range, one really needs to take a look at that. The real-world range is 238 miles, which is still very respectable. That’s if you don’t run the air conditioner, however, which drops the range to around 200 miles. That’s still very respectable, and if you have the money, it may be worth it. However, it comes at a price.
The Tesla S curb weight is 4,647 pounds, but it’s a 5 (maximum) passenger car (with superior cargo volume). My 2005 Toyota Tundra extended cab pickup has a curb weight of 3,935 pounds. My truck has a range (demonstrated, with A/C on) of 330 miles when loaded with 1,500 pounds of cargo and towing an 1,800 pound trailer. If I installed a fuel tank in my truck to make the curb weight equal to that of the Tesla S, it would have a range of 2,150 miles. And it would be able to do that towing the 1,800 pound trailer. That’s because the truck doesn’t carry both fuel and oxidizer.
You can’t do much better than the Tesla S in terms of efficiency (which is awesome). But your hopes for better battery technology are childish. The Tesla S could be made with the same range with lead-acid batteries by tripling the battery weight, and the cost of the batteries would be almost 1/3 that of the $40,000 85 kW-hr Tesla S pack. But that factor of 3 is about the entire dynamic range of secondary cell technology, and the reason for it is basic physical chemistry. Lithium batteries now represent the top of the line in energy and power density, for reasons which suggest that no significant improvements are possible. Lithium batteries are also commodities right now. Their price elasticity is flat. That $40,000 price tag represents about the best one will ever be able to do in terms of energy storage ($470/kW-hr) for high energy and power density storage. Improvements will be in the margins.
Now, you may reasonably ask what all this means. Well, $40,000 dollars today will buy 11,940 gallons of gasoline. That’s enough for me to drive 200,000 miles in my truck. It isn’t enough to drive anywhere in the S, because the battery has to be recharged. At $0.10/kW-hr, that is (without air conditioning) $56,000. Those figures aren’t soft, or manipulable. They are what they are.
Finally, I looked in wonder at the list of things you claim to have done to advance electric automobiles. All of them involved political activism, political pressure, subsidies, special legislative treatment, etc. Winners in the marketplace never need (and in fact, never have) those things going for them.
“Model S has two battery options.The largest battery supplies 300 MILES OF RANGE
at 55 MPH.”
MFK
Given Tesla says the tange is 300 miles, at 55 MPH, i’d suggest you
re-examine all your other assumptions
http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric
Given Tesla says the tange is 300 miles, at 55 MPH, i’d suggest you re-examine all your other assumptions
Good lord, you’re a moron. It would probably go even further at 30 MPH. But no one wants to drive a sports car at 55 MPH. So it’s a useless number. MfK’s numbers are based on actual physics, rather than marketing hype.
Given Tesla says the tange is 300 miles, at 55 MPH, i’d suggest you re-examine all your other assumptions
Good lord, you’re a moron. It would probably go even further at 30 MPH. But no one wants to drive a sports car at 55 MPH. So it’s a useless number. MfK’s numbers are based on actual physics, rather than marketing hype.
The Tesla Model S is not a sports car, it’s a luxury sedan. Given the speed limits
in many urban areas, are 55MPH it’s a reasonable claim. It’s okay to keep howling though. It’s amusing to listen to conservatives howling about Solar Power, EVs, Incandescent light bulbs, etc.
Given the speed limits in many urban areas, are 55MPH it’s a reasonable claim.
It makes no sense to talk about range in an urban area, you moron, when you can recharge every night. But keep on “howling.”
I’m surprised that you would take the word of the greedy capitalist manufacturer of the Tesla over that of the EPA, which rates the Tesla S 85 kw range as 265 miles . Or that of Tesla over Motor Trend, the Consumer Reports of the automotive world, which rates the Tesla S at 238 miles.
Since the EPA rates the S range at 265 miles, you need to reexamine all of your assumptions about the infallibility of government.
As an aside, here is the real world story of the viability of which has been disproved in the current economic environment , rather a surprise to me. It sounded like a good idea.
Also, why not choose your own assumptions, and do an analysis? Even granting the Tesla S its 300 mile range (which Tesla itself says is without A/C), it doesn’t change the numbers significantly.
And I’m not sure to whom you refer when you talk about those who “howl'” about the electric car. I have nothing against them, nor anything against people who try to bring them to market. In fact, I know many of the people involved in the EV movement, including Elon. I wish them well. I don’t agree that the EV is a solution to any problems until nuclear power becomes much more prevalent. When it does, EVs can be a practical game changer. The only objection i have to the EV industry is its total reliance on taxpayer subsidies and special treatment under the law to distort market forces. Until market forces alone prove the EV to be a winner, all we have is coercion to establish a market (i.e. economic) loser in a winning position.
Finally, I’m not a conservative, and I would appreciate your ceasing to insult me with that label.
“Lithium batteries now represent the top of the line in energy and power density, for reasons which suggest that no significant improvements are possible. Lithium batteries are also commodities right now. Their price elasticity is flat. That $40,000 price tag represents about the best one will ever be able to do in terms of energy storage ($470/kW-hr) for high energy and power density storage. Improvements will be in the margins.”
I’m looking at Li-Sulfur batteries available now that are 3X the energy density of
Li-Ion Batteries. Conventional costs models for battery require an increase in volume and the price will drop. That’s about 7 years at current growth rates
to get prices down to $250/KWH, once that happens, well, a Tesla Model S will
be a heck of a lot cheaper.
“l, $40,000 dollars today will buy 11,940 gallons of gasoline. That’s enough for me to drive 200,000 miles in my truck. It isn’t enough to drive anywhere in the S, because the battery has to be recharged. At $0.10/kW-hr, that is (without air conditioning) $56,000. Those figures aren’t soft, or manipulable. They are what they are.”
40,000/11,940 = $3.40/Gallon, reasonable number, depends where you live, but ok.
200,000/11,940 – 16 MPG, decent mileage for a truck many get a lot less, but ok.
To drive 200,000 miles electrically requires 67,000 KWH. Most EVs get 3.5 Miles/KWH but the Tesla S averages about 3. Take the Range of 265 EPA/85 KWH
you can use 238 miles, if it makes you happier, or you can use Teslas 300 mile claim.
But you use 67,000 KWH to travel 200,000 miles, that will cost you your Electricity price $6700 in Electricity. By your claim to do that same amount of driving, you would burn $40,000 in Gasoline. This would save you over the time you own
the Tesla $33,300 in transportation costs. If you live close to a supercharger
you may save even more because those are provided as a service, but,
say you don’t.
A Tesla Model S is some $70 Grand. but if you save $33K in fuel costs, now it’s $37K before incentives.
Now is that a pricy car? $37K isn’t cheap, but for someone who makes
decent coin it’s not crazy high.
I think you made a math error and mistook KWH requirement for cost, but
it’s a simple error.
That is a good catch, on one number I didn’t check…but I see the error that the source made. It was in saying that the S uses 2.8 kW-hr/mile, which doesn’t compute. The $56,000 for electricity seemed out of line for the other claims. Nice job, dn-guy.
Still, $5,600 in electricity (to which it works out) on top of a $40,000 battery pack is still more than I pay for the same range, at current gas prices (I pay $3.34 a gallon in Maryland, and have for some time).
I’m aware of the lithium-sulfur battery, and from past experience I have reservations about sulfur-based cells. They have always seemed like the technology of the future — and always will be. There have been a number of sulfur batteries (going back to the 70s) that looked like a breakthrough. None ever panned out. Primary cells using lithium and sulfur have proven dangerous enough to discontinue their use in pressing military applications. Still, one can’t rule out advances made with today’s standards for material purity.
Assuming a 3-fold saving in weight, the battery-powered electric car does become more attractive. But just more than it is now. It still can’t compete with on-board fuels burning with air, particularly if a means of using oxygen from the air along with hydrogen is made affordable. And the cost is still not quite right.
You seem to think that I have a political axe to grind against electric cars. The only axe I have to grind is imposing technology by political means. I would be glad to see Tesla be a market-beater. But I’m not convinced, and don’t see it happening for some very basic reasons.
MFK
“Still, $5,600 in electricity (to which it works out) on top of a $40,000 battery pack is still more than I pay for the same range, at current gas prices (I pay $3.34 a gallon in Maryland, and have for some time).”
You are still making an assumption here, that the Battery, dies after 200,000 miles.
While Tesla warrants the battery for 5 years, the odds are high the battery will hold up well. Some of these vehicles will need entirely new batteries, some will need battery rebuild, and some will still be good.
Even if a new battery is needed after 200,000 miles, we are talking the difference
between $40K in gas and $47K in battery and electricity. At most the differences
are 20%, for what is a fairly exciting technology.
Now if you aren’t howling about “gubbmint money” and you aren’t howling
about “Hippies and their commie EVs”, why don’t you take a Chevy Volt or
Tesla out for a test drive.
Most analysts think a Full EV is a early adopter thing. The price point for battery is falling and the performance is still growing, it reminds me of the early 8088 processors, no longer sucky like 8 bit, but still performance limited but showing the
vision to come. Getting any of those machines was taking advantage to learn what the future was all about.
With any sort of battery technology, there is always the issue of charging time and/or infrastructure. Transferring fuels is fairly simple and cheap; transferring large amounts of electrical energy, quickly, is neither. One possible solution to this is something that I can’t think of a name for; some sort of “rechargeable fuel” that can be changed out relatively quickly and easily and recharged at leisure. Taking the example I gave of metastable nuclear isomers, removing the discharged material and replacing with the same stuff but charged up ought to be possible. This is somewhat like the idea of replacing empty gas canisters with full ones, as often done with LPG canisters.
“Transferring fuels is fairly simple and cheap; transferring large amounts of electrical energy, quickly, is neither”
http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/tesla-timeline
I hate to sound like a Fanboy, but, Tesla is planning a 200 KW supercharger upgrade for 2016.
Right now they are concentrating on building out the 100 KW superchargers, also, if you missed the
Demo, and I’m sure they didn’t cover it on Fox news, Tesla has demoed a rapid change battery
swap station.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY
I believe this meets the requirement for simple and cheap.
However, if you want to keep living in the 1970’s, that’s okay, but those of us who are
working on tomorrow, will keep on working on.
Sure. And how long would it take before the first lawsuit regarding a brand-new battery pack being swopped for one that’s on its last legs?
Tanks of liquid fuel don’t wear out. As I, and others before me, have said – if you have cheap electrical power then creating liquid fuel is cheap. IMHO one of the approaches that needs attention is to improve the efficiency of the various technologies that can be used to create liquid fuel. Probably one of the alcohols (ethanol or methanol) as the hydrocarbons that are easy to make are difficult to handle.
“Sure. And how long would it take before the first lawsuit regarding a brand-new battery pack being swopped for one that’s on its last legs?”
Well, i understand that the Tesla plan pro-rates battery value against charge cycles, that there is a guaranteed minimum power capacity in the battery pack at X cycles. That when you hit a swap station, they try to swap you a pack with same or more cycles remaining
under warranty, but, if the packs are different, you get a pro-rated charge or credit with the company. It’s all clever little software, lots of user data, that 21st century stuff.
and if you really like liquid fuels, there are options ranging from Bio-diesels to alcohols
rising up fast. The Chevy Volt, Ford C-Max Energi, Plug in Prius and BMW i3 are all Plug in Hybrids. The ability to run electric but still load a tank of fuel for a long run is working out well there too.
The Volt has great consumer satisfaction numbers, it’s really causing conservatives to howl.
really causing conservatives to howl.
Only in your demented fantasy world.
dn-guy: There are two hidden assumptions in your last post. What is it? Simply that Tesla will continue to have total control of charging/battery-swap stations that handle Tesla battery packs. Monopolies are never good for the customer, and this one will limit the growth of the electric car market – at least the one for Tesla cars. The second assumption is that Tesla is honest. Given the track record regarding honesty of just about any large corporation you care to name…
Thinking about it, there are two more assumptions; that Tesla will stay in business and that their data about the battery packs is secure and backed up. And finally, this sort of database means yet more of your personal data being given to a corporation. I am not in favour of giving personal data to corporations, unless I must. Because such data ALWAYS gets sold on, whether they admit it or not. Don’t know about you, but I get too many junk phone calls and too much spam and junk mail already. Quite apart from the identity theft risk.
FC
well, if companies are dishonest, it hurts their brand and it becomes the subject of litigation.
and I’m willing to guess that Tesla has some pretty heinous patent barriers and software
tricks to prevent 3rd parties from changing batteries without approval. Given a Tesla
battery communicates a lot of status info to the car, i’m sure there are some encrypted pathways
that won’t let a “foreign” battery in.
Tesla is like apple, they control a lot of the eco-system.