Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#251

Post by loceng » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 5:41 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #157

kamaal wrote: post #136

The arguments in this thread are amusing to say at the least. 30 minute charging times, high prices of Tesla cars. Yes all that is true. But this was never about 'Electric cars are awesome now'. I'm pretty sure cars during and before pre Henry Ford times were not very great in terms of their overall affordability, total cost of ownership and availability of fuel all around the country. You could trust your horse to d…

This is obviously a very "disruptive" technology and/or business model, from every point of view, both positive and negative. Just think about how all disruptive innovations come to be. They are awesome and game-changing from a certain point of view (free charging/"gas"!) but can also have some big downsides (30 minute charging, only half a charge - at first). But the part you should be focusing on is the first one,…

The positives are enough of an incentive to have people change their behaviours in order to compensate for the 'negatives' of using such technology. If you know you'll have 30 minutes minimum to kill then you'll plan for it. Lunch time, work time, walk around a park time, meetup and chat with other people who are waiting time, walk your dog time, mini-yoga class time, etc.. Throw in self-driving cars into the mix and the break activities will likely be more social and physical things, and less high mental activity time - unless you're a workaholic.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#252

Post by stcredzero » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 5:44 PM UTC

sien wrote: post #185

s_henry_paulson wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars have improved immensely. - Better battery performance and lifespan. - Improved charging time and technology. - Distance cars can travel in a single charge. - Increased torque and horsepower. - Affordability and increases is mass production. And most importantly, increases in the necessary infrastructure to support long-distance travel (exactly the topic at hand) Your comment is very uninformed.

Did you read his link? The point the guy makes is completely correct. Let's say tomorrow some grad student gets fusion going at a very low price. The best way to use this to power cars would be to use it to create a fuel with a high energy density. If you had 'free energy' you'd extract C02 from the atmosphere and turn it into a hydrocarbon. For more info look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density and this…

> Well, how are you going to make the airplanes fly? Battery. Batteries are pretty heavy.

You could get a huge win by offloading the power to ground stations and beaming it aboard. You'd still need some onboard power reserve for reliability and backup reasons, but you could offload most of it. This would let you lighten your airframe, which has a snowball effect, allowing even more lightening and more efficiency. Get the craft light enough, and VTOL becomes a possibility, meaning you could land these things on heliports downtown and not have a 1 hour trip to the airport.

Just think of it as "high speed rail" with lower infrastructure costs and fewer right-of-way problems.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#253

Post by bulltale » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 6:00 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #223

base698 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually not how airplanes fly at all... http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=22977

Bernoulli's principle is indeed how airplanes fly. Your link shoots down the silly equal-time theory, not Bernoulli's principle. Basically, airplanes fly for three reasons: 1. The wing deflects air downwards. 2. Air moves faster over the top of the wing than over the bottom. Much faster than the equal-transit theory indicates. 3. Air pressure is higher on the bottom of the wing than on the top. The important thing th…

This interesting. You say there is one reason airplanes fly. But "deflecting air downwards" is causing an lifting force by action=reaction (the way a rocket works) and "air pressure is higher on bottom of the wing than on the top" is causing a lifting force by pressure differences.

Those are different reasons, or am I mistaken here?

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#254

Post by mikeash » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 6:11 PM UTC

bulltale wrote: post #253

mikeash wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernoulli's principle is indeed how airplanes fly. Your link shoots down the silly equal-time theory, not Bernoulli's principle. Basically, airplanes fly for three reasons: 1. The wing deflects air downwards. 2. Air moves faster over the top of the wing than over the bottom. Much faster than the equal-transit theory indicates. 3. Air pressure is higher on the bottom of the wing than on the top. The important thing th…

This interesting. You say there is one reason airplanes fly. But "deflecting air downwards" is causing an lifting force by action=reaction (the way a rocket works) and "air pressure is higher on bottom of the wing than on the top" is causing a lifting force by pressure differences. Those are different reasons, or am I mistaken here?

Nope, they're completely inseparable. If you deflect air downwards, no matter how you do it, you must end up creating a pressure differential where air pressure is higher on the bottom than on the top. If you create such a pressure differential, then no matter how you do it, you'll end up deflecting air downwards.

Pressure is just a fancy way of saying force per area. The air pressure on the bottom of the wing is just the downward force exerted by the wing on the air, divided by the wing's area. The only way to deflect air is by applying a force to it, and the only thing applying a force to it is the wing.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#255

Post by samstave » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 6:38 PM UTC

jerrya wrote: post #20

Is it outrageous to think that eventually this "gas" will be free because outlets will compete to have Tesla and other electric customers stuck at their restaurant, bar, store for a half hour?

Well, honestly, offsetting the expense from "gas" to whatever products/entertainment/services/food that will be available is farking FANTASTIC.

Its not like they will be forced to buy whatever is in these stops - but the fact that the consumer can now actually CHOOSE what to spend those funds on is wonderful.

I HATE BUYING GAS

I currently don't drive at all (I bike to bart and bart to work) - and my car had its starter go out, so I haven't even been inside a car in more than a month.

I have always hated buying gas - I feel like I am being extorted every single time (and yes, I still harbor a grudge against bush/cheney whom I feel is largely responsible for this situation - whether this is unfounded blame or not, I still feel good about it :) )

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#256

Post by marshray » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 7:02 PM UTC

patrickk wrote: post #177

marshray wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is anything this continent (or world, for that matter) is lacking, it is space. Have you ever looked at satellite views of the US? There are massive deserts just begging for the shade of some solar panels or mirrors. No use in heating up all that sand. It's not so hard to move the energy out of the desert either. Just run wires, or better, relocate an aluminum smelter from the grid to out near the solar arra…

> It's not so hard to move the energy out of the desert either. It's tougher than you realise. Energy is lost when transmitting power over long distances - like from a desert to an urban area. I'm not an expert but as I understand it there are major challenges. A lot of solar installations tend to be located where the power is used (next to data centres, on people's roofs).

A lot of data centers and aluminum smelters tend to be located next to where the power is. If you build it they will come.

Considering all the infrastructure that goes into keeping a fossil or nuke plant fed and cleaned and its power output distributed, I think if a solar installation has a net payback time of similar period we ought to be willing to invest a little in the distribution as well.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#257

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 7:02 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #127

jlgreco wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is anything this continent (or world, for that matter) is lacking, it is space. That said, I think we should be plastering the land we already use with solar panels. Might as well put all those rooftops to use. I also think there is likely a lot to see in the future of non-panel-type solar. That generally involves a much larger or smaller scope than panels though, "medium" sized doesn't work well.

If there is anything this continent (or world, for that matter) is lacking, it is space. Have you ever looked at satellite views of the US? There are massive deserts just begging for the shade of some solar panels or mirrors. No use in heating up all that sand. It's not so hard to move the energy out of the desert either. Just run wires, or better, relocate an aluminum smelter from the grid to out near the solar arra…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#258

Post by sliverstorm » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 7:04 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #247

maxerickson wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current U.S. energy use is ~ 10 billion kw-h per day. 1 billion kw-h / day more is a nice big tick on that, but I'm not sure it would drive prices a whole lot.

Yah, but those people won't be using refined gasoline. It uses alot of electricity just to refine a gallon of gas.

According to this web page:

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/03/21/what-makes-up...

It takes about $0.20 to refine a gallon of gas, so ~2kWh/gal. Except, It obviously actually takes less electricity than that, because there are other costs to refining. Not a bad investment in energy terms, when a gallon of gasoline contains ~36.6kWh worth of energy.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#259

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 7:22 PM UTC

confluence wrote: post #202

krenoten wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring local failure, the much much much more common occurrence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

Local failure is obviously much more common than catastrophic failure (although the latter does have a much greater impact). I like to think of it in terms of car crashes and catastrophes. Companies are represented by cars - I pick good cars, with good people driving them, surrounded by a safe environment and hope they don't crash - it's how risk works. Hurricanes destroy everyone - no matter how good the driver is -…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#260

Post by krenoten » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 7:24 PM UTC

confluence wrote: post #202

krenoten wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring local failure, the much much much more common occurrence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

Local failure is obviously much more common than catastrophic failure (although the latter does have a much greater impact). I like to think of it in terms of car crashes and catastrophes. Companies are represented by cars - I pick good cars, with good people driving them, surrounded by a safe environment and hope they don't crash - it's how risk works. Hurricanes destroy everyone - no matter how good the driver is -…

2008 alone cost of car accidents in the USA - $166.7 billion

2000 through 2008 cost of ALL storm damage in the USA - $131 billion

(admittedly flawed sources of statistics, but the difference is staggering nonetheless) http://www.rmiia.org/auto/traffic_safety/Cost_of_crashes.asp http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/air-traffic-costs/