Major issues with Tesla Model 3

[oivavoi]

Inquisitive and imaginative scientists set the stage before the European War erupted.

Earlier discoveries concerning radioactive elements set the stage. Then...
While crossing a London street in 1933, Leo Szilard imagined the nuclear neutron chain reaction, the key to the atomic bomb/fission reactors. However he had no known material that would support a chain reaction.
In 1934, Leo Szilard was granted his patent on the chain reaction and the atomic bomb.
In 1936, Leo Szilard signed his patent over to the British Admiralty to keep it out of the hands of the Nazis in Germany.
In 1938, Otto Hahn in Berlin discovered that Uranium-235 fissioned when hit by a neutron and produced excess neutrons. This made Szilard's patent practical.

War/threat of war, accelerated the practical development, though.

If interested in the topic, the book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", by Richard Rhodes, is a fascinating (to me) account of all the discoveries, theoretical, and practical work leading up to the bomb.

Thanks Ray! Interesting. Yes, it seems you're right that the discovery of the technology itself happened before the war. So it's the same history as with aviation then: The technology existed prior to WWI, but was greatly accelerated by the war.

Thanks for the tip about the book. I'll definitely have a look at it.

 

[RayDunzl]

Thanks for the tip about the book. I'll definitely have a look at it

It's a definitive work. About 800 pages. Not too deeply technical, though well explained. More history, well researched, well written.

 

[Thomas savage]

Moderator , responding to a reported post I’m giving @NorthSky a official warning for being rude and insulting towards both @Rod and @TBone , some of these posts have been removed.

To prevent further escalation I’m issuing a reply ban for this thread to @NorthSky , having ignored amirs polite request for a less personal tone I have no confidence he will respect those wishes going forward here.

@Rod and @TBone plesse accept my apologies .

 

[Jorj]

All grousing about corporate culture aside (not that it's not vitally important), let's not lose sight of the fact that a precocious whippersnapper is shooting rockets into space with boosters that land on tiny barges in the ocean, and building full EV cars in a market dominated by a planet full of makers that could not get the job done, despite holding all the cards.

The Model 3 has warts, and I feel very badly for the people that suffer for it. I'm more angry at the big Auto's who sat on their hands and let the ICE run the show when they could have led the way to EV adoption. Tesla can be expected to (but perhaps not forgiven for) make a lot more mistakes, but I'm rooting for them and Elon. That said, I won't buy one....but then again, I don't own a car and have no plans to in the near future.

 

[Cosmik]

I remain highly sceptical. Something doesn't quite ring true.

The average UK household consumes electricity at an average rate of about 350-500W, yet from 2040 or sooner it will be consuming several kW on average - depending on how many miles a day are driven. And our National Grid complains that it struggles even at current levels.

If I look at a document such as this from the UK's National Grid, it says:

The increase in small, battery-powered devices, such as smartphones, tablets and laptops... means we’re spending less time using higher-powered equipment that constantly pulls from the grid, such as TVs and hi-fis.

What this can lead to, however, is a change in the shape of electricity demand... For example, overnight when many people choose to charge those battery-powered appliances. Such changes in demand present a challenge to forecasters at in National Grid’s control room, who predict ahead when, where and how much power will be needed from the country’s electricity grid.

It is saying that people unexpectedly demanding a few measly watts to charge their iPad overnight "presents a challenge" to the National Grid, but by 2040 supposedly most households may be needing to charge one or two cars at several kilowatts each. And if the demand is too much of a "challenge" the average eco-professional's car won't be ready in the morning to take them to the airport so they can fly to the climate conference in Barbados as they can reliably do today.

It seems obvious to me that going electric implies much more than a subtle change in vehicle design, and I find it hard to believe that a capitalist 'Ponzi' economy that needs growth at all costs will voluntarily roll over and allow everyone to live the peaceful low-energy lives of leisure that electric transportation implies. I think it is the opposite: TPTB have identified that there is no prospect of economic growth in the pipeline and that an artificial stimulus is needed. 'Green' business is that stimulus. The massive quantities of resources and activity required to make the supposed transition will be labelled "investment", but the "investment" will never ramp down; the aim is to carry on consuming just as much energy and resources (a.k.a. economic growth) as possible, just like today.

 

[Wombat]

If you don't have off-street parking you may have to compete for on-street charging in spaces that were once more available.

Some wider issues need to be addressed. If fuel cells or other reactors become viable then a lot of the EV supporting apparatus will become somewhat redundant. Futurising is fraught with expensive choices with rapidly changing technologies.

Infrastructure(UK): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-petrol-vehicles-end-diesel-ban-a7923496.html

 

[Cosmik]

If you don't have off-street parking you may have to compete for on-street charging in spaces that were once more available.

Some wider issues need to be addressed. If fuel cells or other reactors become viable then a lot of the EV supporting apparatus will become somewhat redundant. Futurising is fraught with expensive choices with rapidly changing technologies.

Infrastructure(UK): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-petrol-vehicles-end-diesel-ban-a7923496.html

And if going electric means that fewer miles are driven, the huge road-widening schemes going on near me will be white elephants in a few years' time.

 

[garbulky]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/30/technology/consumer-reports-model-3-recommended/index.html

"
The Tesla Model 3 recently failed to earn a recommendation from Consumer Reports due to poor braking performance but, in a quick turnaround, the car is now recommended after its software was improved in an overnight, over-the-air update.
"

 

[Dismayed]

nd Musk, FWIW: It's incredible how he

Also, a brief comment to the previous discussion between @Cosmik and @soundArgument on the merits of market-based solutions vs direction by the state: I think that many people nowadays tend to undervalue what state intervention can bring to the table. Let's look at history: What has been the major historical happenings which has led to technological innovation? It's one thing, basically: War. What led to the discovery of nuclear energy? WW II. What led to the large-scale implementation of airliners? WWI. Etc. The reason is simple: In wartime, the state has tended to take command, and allocate a lot of resources to solving pressing technological challenges. In peacetime, with less resources allocated to such development, innovation tends to slow down.

But even in peacetime, the state has often been important for innovation. The internet grew out of state-led military things for example. Lots of other examples. I read this book some time ago, which was enlightening: https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/

That said, economies which have been run completely by that state have typically not fared that well (USSR, Cuba, etc). Some mixture of state initiative and private companies seem to be optimal. Apologies if this is venturing off-topic.

The human genome project wasn't driven by war, unless you want to count the war against disease and suffering. But it never would have happened without government funding. It was too expensive, the benefits too uncertain, and the potential pay-off was too far in the future for the private sector to take it on. And, yes, sometimes war drives innovation, but not always. Rural electrification resulted in vast improvements in farm production and efficiency, but, again, it would not have happened without the government. What, run wires for miles to provide lights to farmers? No way!

 

[Frank Dernie]

The human genome project wasn't driven by war, unless you want to count the war against disease and suffering. But it never would have happened without government funding. It was too expensive, the benefits too uncertain, and the potential pay-off was too far in the future for the private sector to take it on. And, yes, sometimes war drives innovation, but not always. Rural electrification resulted in vast improvements in farm production and efficiency, but, again, it would not have happened without the government. What, run wires for miles to provide lights to farmers? No way!

Politicians and businessmen (particularly of listed public companies) are far too interested in the next election/share price to invest in anything long term.
That is why we need a government lead by statesmen who take a long term view. None about at the moment though as far as I can see, in the English speaking world anyway.

 

[sergeauckland]

In so many respects, democracy is flawed in that politicians only look as far as the next election. Whether 4 or 5 years, or in the USA, every two years with the mid-term elections, such short timescales don't lend themselves to anything long-term. In that respects, a dictatorship such as in China or the old Soviet Union can plan long-term, but is equally flawed when the population don't do as they're told, they do as what's best for them short-term.

At least with our flawed system, we can get rid of our politicians and let somebody else have a go and there's a limit to how much damage anyone can do in 4-5 years. The other system can be far more damaging.

Churchill was right about this as with so much else.
S.

 

[Frank Dernie]

In so many respects, democracy is flawed in that politicians only look as far as the next election. Whether 4 or 5 years, or in the USA, every two years with the mid-term elections, such short timescales don't lend themselves to anything long-term. In that respects, a dictatorship such as in China or the old Soviet Union can plan long-term, but is equally flawed when the population don't do as they're told, they do as what's best for them short-term.

At least with our flawed system, we can get rid of our politicians and let somebody else have a go and there's a limit to how much damage anyone can do in 4-5 years. The other system can be far more damaging.

Churchill was right about this as with so much else.
S.

Indeed the biggest strength of democracy isn't that it guarantees a good government, because it does not, but that it guarantees that a bad one can be removed.
It is statesmen not politicians who take a long term non-selfish view, and there aren't many about at the moment.

 

[Thomas savage]

We are designed to prioritise short term advantage over longer term gain, literally placing higher value on those things within immediate grasp.

It’s a bummer but then it’s why we are all still here, human nature can’t live with it definitely can’t live without it.

 

[RayDunzl]

Indeed the biggest strength of democracy isn't that it guarantees a good government, because it does not, but that it guarantees that a bad one can be removed.

Only if the majority (or however the "majority" is decided, e.g. electoral college) agrees there is a problem.

This ignores the difficulty of getting something useful up for vote by the voters, e.g. Constitutional Amendment, which is a different issue.

If you think something is bad, and "they" don't, you're still SOL.

 

[sergeauckland]

There is another aspect to short/long term that if a society or company doesn't survive the short term, it won't have a long-term to worry about. As banks take a short-term view of loan repayments, that accounts for a lot of shorttermism amongst companies and even Governments who have to repay Sovereign Debt on time or face their bonds being given Junk status.

Until the World's financial system takes a longer term view of debt, I don't see much changing at the personal, company or country level.

S

 

[svart-hvitt]

The sum of the short-term is long-term.

Therein lies much of the confusion in modern social thought, aka economics.

 

[jhaider]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/30/technology/consumer-reports-model-3-recommended/index.html

"
The Tesla Model 3 recently failed to earn a recommendation from Consumer Reports due to poor braking performance but, in a quick turnaround, the car is now recommended after its software was improved in an overnight, over-the-air update.
"

That's really incredible, and a little scary. If they can add stuff, they can take it away.

We still have our deposit on a Model 3 for my wife, though. I have seen two driving or parked in our neighborhood so far, but haven't met an owner. It looks really good in "bumblebee" yellow.

 

[RayDunzl]

My car is 24 years old.

I can wait.

 

[svart-hvitt]

My car is 24 years old.

I can wait.

Scientifically (it’s math and assumptions), when does it make sense to replace an old car with a new car if «environment» is the objective, aim?

I guess the question is this: How much energy goes into producing a new car, maintaining and driving it versus how much energy goes into maintenance and driving of the old car?

Note: Tesla’s models S and X are heavier than most cars.

Is Ray the biggest environmentalist on ASR?

 

[Wombat]

Scientifically (it’s math and assumptions), when does it make sense to replace an old car with a new car if «environment» is the objective, aim?

I guess the question is this: How much energy goes into producing a new car, maintaining and driving it versus how much energy goes into maintenance and driving of the old car?

Note: Tesla’s models S and X are heavier than most cars.

Is Ray the biggest environmentalist on ASR?

Scientifically (it’s math and assumptions), when does it make sense to replace an old car with a new car if «environment» is the objective, aim?

I guess the question is this: How much energy goes into producing a new car, maintaining and driving it versus how much energy goes into maintenance and driving of the old car?

Note: Tesla’s models S and X are heavier than most cars.

Is Ray the biggest environmentalist on ASR?

Well certainly not the smallest.