For those with cars you might find this site handy: http://www.edmontongasprices.com/
Might not be 100% accurate all the time but handy none the less.. You should see the lineup at the tempo out side my house.. There current price is 101.9c /L
Prices on there can be wildly out-of-date, as it shows the the last two-and-a-half days.
Public transit sure seems like a cost-effective alternative these days.
That being said, fuel costs are still a much smaller percentage of a vehicle's cost than the actual purchase price. A friend of mine suggested that people should buy different-sized cars for different jobs, such as a small cheap-on-gas two-seater Smart Car to get to work and back and a big five-seater sedan to haul the family around on vacations. Once you do the math, though, it's obvious that it takes years and years and years to pay off the extra car via the fuel savings of not driving the bigger car to work...
I forsee a sudden surge in Hybrid Car (http://forums.righteouswrath.com/viewtopic.php?t=2218) sales, even if they don't really save you that much.
I also expect to see a lot more of those stupid little smart cars.
$1.299 in Regina according to my father. i expect $1.199 when i wake up tomorrow. good thing we filled today (both cars)
Okay, first of all it was shown in the link you pointed out that even after ten years of operation the hybrid Civic cost more overall than the regular Civic, even an upscale one.
Second, the Smart (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125059938426_31/?hub=SciTech) has a distinctive problem: space! Why would I pay as much or more for a two-seater car with barely any cargo space as for a five-seater such as a Civic or a Cobalt with a decent-sized trunk?
The average annual distance driven in Canada in personal vehicles is 25,000km, give or take. This includes driving to deliver pizza or same-day couriering, which drives up that average. Still, that works out to about 2,000km per month. Driving a Civic you use 7 litres per 100km, or 140 litres. Driving a Smart you use 4.5 litres per 100km, or 90 litres. So you save about 50 litres, or about $50 to $60 a month depending on gas prices. But wait! That's average driving! I only drive half that, so I only save $25 to $30 a month. And hey, I can take my entire family with me, or give friends rides home (right, Mr. A.?). That's worth the slight increase in fuel cost, to me.
Now consider that a Smart costs the same as a Civic, and that a Civic actually has room in the vehicle for *gasp* crumple zones! God help the first driver of a Smart who gets smashed by an out-of-control pickup or SUV this winter. So they made the Smart more solid so the passenger wouldn't get hurt. Of course, that means the Smart absorbs less of the impact and the passenger absorbs more... You can't really have a tiny car and really good impact-absorbing crumple zones. Guess who gets to pay the bills when the people driving the Smarts are hurt? That's right, mr. Taxpayer.
Okay, so I hate the Smart. I hate the looks. And I hate that they call them "Smart", because they're really not in the Albertan vehicular landscape.
Hah, from the makers of the Smart, the Trio (http://www.zapworld.com/cars/trio.asp).
Okay, these guys claim the Smart is "the safest small car", and then offer a three-wheeled vehicle with a single wheel in the front? WTF?! Did they not pay attention to all the tests that show a three-wheeler needs to have two wheels in the front for stability, otherwise they can simply keel over to one side in moderate driving?!
I just walked by about 50 cars lined up for the gas station (twice as many from when I called you Lazy), I can't wait to ride the bus tomorrow...
(http://vger.homeip.net/images/ETS_bus.JPG)
I'll bet getting rides is more fun than the bus, though. And less hazardous to your health...
SPARE CHANGE?
Quote from: "Mr. Analog"I just walked by about 50 cars lined up for the gas station (twice as many from when I called you Lazy), I can't wait to ride the bus tomorrow...
...enjoy. While on September 19 i will be taking mass transit, i enjoy the freedom of my own vehicle, and at $2/L i can still afford to drive.
Quote from: "Shayne"Quote from: "Mr. Analog"I just walked by about 50 cars lined up for the gas station (twice as many from when I called you Lazy), I can't wait to ride the bus tomorrow...
...enjoy. While on September 19 i will be taking mass transit, i enjoy the freedom of my own vehicle, and at $2/L i can still afford to drive.
At $2/L that would be a $100 fillup for my 88 Accord and I might have have to start charging $0.16 / km for rides. :wink:
Oh man, school starts tomorrow too doesn't it?
Been going a while at NAIT, a whole week so far.
Retard school, aka, "high" school.
Quote from: "Shayne"on September 19 i will be taking mass transit
Hmm, you're taking mass transit on
International Talk-Like-A-Pirate Day? Is there also something else at hand?
Quote(http://vger.homeip.net/images/ETS_bus.JPG)
Ahh..., the looser-cruiser.
I'll be sticking with my gas-guzzling car thanks. (yes, its a little import 4-banger, and when you drive like me yes, it guzzles gas).
Though a year ago I probably would have had to inflict pain upon myself for wanting one of these - ever since I saw Vince catwalk one down the street on american-chopper, and knowing they are damn good on gas, I've been thinking it may be the cheap solution to get to work and back during the summer when the weather is nice.
(http://www.honda.ca/Motorcycle/images/config/2005_NPS50_Black.jpg)
$3000 and probably uses about as much gas in a month as my car does in a couple days. Or their high-end scooter retails for about $10k, but actually looks decent and has a real engine.
Well that's all fine and dandy for those of you who live in the city but what of us country folks. I have a car that's decent on gas 550km per tank highway driving, but I have to fill it every two weeks at least and at $2/L that's gonna be too expensive for me. I don't earn enough to be forking out $200 on gas + $320 car payments each month. I can't buy a scooter 'cause I highway drive, and I'm already paying for one car so no point in buying a smart car. And guess what, no access to public transit either, closest access point for public transit is 20min away and that's how long it takes me to drive to work.
I don't mind the gas prices being around $1/L but their's been reports today that in some areas the gas is up to $1.20 already, just like you guys are hearing. We're still not as bad as europe; when I was there last summer they were at 2 pound which is almost $5 CAD/L. But hell, we have a lot more land to cover! *grumbles*
Just came across this article on MSN...everyone is blaming somebody else for the gas price hike it seems.
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125576643773_51?hub=TopStories
Quote from: "Thorin"Hmm, you're taking mass transit on International Talk-Like-A-Pirate Day? Is there also something else at hand?
Can i plead the fifth?
...oh, and its $1.130 in edmonton, so $1.095 if you get the 3.5 off.
I can't remember if it it was this thread*, or another one, that talked about fuel-efficient cars, hybrids, etc.
This thing looks pretty different: APTERA -- not a "flying car", but dayum that thing LOOKS like an airplane!
http://www.aptera.com/look.php
Quote
How about the Aptera.
www.aptera.com
Light, cheap, efficient and inspired by aeroplane design. and funded by these folks (http://www.idealab.com/).
(found via a comment here (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20081126_005507_comments.html).)
more info on the Aptera here:
http://www.aptera.com/details.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_Motors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_X_Prize#Competing_teams
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25239861@N03/
Quote
The Founders Mind: Thoughts from the pen of Steve Fambro (http://www.aptera.com/newsletter111908/)
"Open up any book on automotive design and styling. Look at how they begin drawing a new concept vehicle. They almost always start with a rectangle!!!! From there, they [the designers] begin shaving off here, trimming a little there, smoothing and nudging until they have something that they like. It's like baking a cake and throwing in random ingredients because they "look" nice to the stylist, but with no idea or care for how the cake will taste. That's crazy!
Here's the really crazy part--almost everybody does it! The art and process of automotive styling has not evolved to our modern world and is still as it was in the 1930's when it was first defined by Harley Earl. Why is it crazy? Because about 65% of the gasoline we use as a country is used by our cars just to push the air out of the way due to their *styling*, or more correctly, the high aerodynamic drag due to their styling. Now, knowing that, why wouldn't we design cars to push the least amount of air out of the way as possible? (........silence........crickets)
This understanding of designing for low drag is fundamental to Aptera's core. It enables Aptera to chase its goal of designing the most efficient vehicles in the world. Now, it is no secret that the 2e is streamlined just as many birds and fish are. There is a very close connection here: nature abhors inefficiency, as does Aptera. Birds and fish have evolved for millennia to expend the least amount of energy while moving through the air or water as swiftly as possible. So in many ways, Aptera looked to Mother Nature and simply re-discovered what has evolved for millennia.
Now, how does all of this equal 100+ miles per gallon? Well, it's quite simple. By radically lowering the drag of our vehicle, we more than triple the efficiency compared to any other vehicle on the road. But we go further. By designing for a streamlined three wheel vehicle instead of a boxy four, we lower the rolling resistance and the weight of the vehicle, and therefore their associated losses significantly.
Finally, by using composites instead of heavy steel (last century's material), we cut the weight of the vehicle by 50%. All of this means that the Aptera has less drag and is more efficient than any car, motorcycle, scooter or even a bicycle at high speeds and therefore is capable of extraordinary miles per gallon.
So, the next time you look at a shark, hawk, fighter plane or the Aptera, take note--it is their smooth shape that lets them slip through the air using the least amount of energy possible.
and similar to the Aptera: http://www.myxpcar.com/
**upon reflection, IIRC the thread I'm thinking of was all about Google and hybrid testing, this one (http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,6621.msg42991.html#msg42991).
DD, that is one way-out car design.
I approve! haha
Aptera and XPcar are cool looking, but the specs on the Tesla Roadster are unbelievable.
If I could afford the 99k USD I would so totally get one today (er, I mean order one, since they're not actually on the market yet). Maybe once the "sedan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors#Planned_models)" series are in production (2011 or 2012 or so) it'll be in the cards for me...
ALso check out CNN belting out the Obama-alternatives-to-fossil-fuels-are-needed song...
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/04/autos/bailout_hybrids/index.htm?postversion=2008120516
Quote from: Darren Dirt on December 05, 2008, 03:58:08 PM
Aptera and XPcar are cool looking, but the specs on the Tesla Roadster are unbelievable.
4 years later it is finally Launching (The Future Is Now...)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/9681425/Tesla-Model-S-the-car-of-the-future.html
"In the future, this new Tesla Model S electric car might just be remembered alongside the Mini or the Ford Model T as an automotive game-changer. ...few new cars have ever combined so many radical innovations in one new design. In doing so the Model S -- US-built, but in Silicon Valley, not Detroit -- tells you a lot about the car of the future, in a car you can buy now."
moar specs @ http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,6454.msg41507.html#msg41507
Hmm, I don't think it's gonna be like a Model T. Maybe like an early Bugatti or Pierce-Arrow or an early Cadillac - big, powerful, luxurious.
There are lots of upsides to Tesla's design, but one significant downside is 1,000 pounds of battery that give you under perfect lab conditions 424 kilometers of driving and that takes 5 hours to charge. We all know batteries wear out and claims of how long a charge lasts are exaggerated, so assume that you're only going to get 300kms out of that 5 hour drive. Have fun going to Canmore, it'll take an extra 5 hours as you recharge in Airdrie.
They should've added solar panels on the roof and a small gas-powered generator to recharge the batteries on long drives. Oh, and gearing would certainly help keep the electric engine near its peak torque. Yes, there's only one gear: http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs "Single speed fixed gear with 9.73:1 reduction ratio". Why do you want your engine near its peak torque? Because torque determines ability to accelerate.
Model T's success was being a car for the average working shmoe, which is the opposite of the Tesla or at least a long way away from the current Tesla.
Model T started as an affordable vehicle and got cheaper over it's 20 year production span starting at $850 (or $20,954.37 in 2011 dollars) and ending at $260 (or $3,298.77 in 2011 dollars)
Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T#Price
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Tesla may become memorable IF it can sustain itself and become a true success story, but until that happens it is an oddity like the DeLorean.
Quote from: Thorin on November 20, 2012, 10:52:59 AM
Hmm, I don't think it's gonna be like a Model T. Maybe like an early Bugatti or Pierce-Arrow or an early Cadillac - big, powerful, luxurious.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 20, 2012, 11:03:44 AM
Model T's success was being a car for the average working shmoe, which is the opposite of the Tesla or at least a long way away from the current Tesla.
I see both of your points, however I think what that article is saying is that it will be T-like in the sense of being a trailblazer, a trend-starter, pointing the way the future will go.
Obviously it's out of the price range of most folks, however considering the bells and whistles included in the model described in the linked article it's a pretty damn reasonable price... and gives one reason to hope for the future of these kind of vehicular options.
Quote from: Thorin on November 20, 2012, 10:52:59 AM
there's only one gear... Why do you want your engine near its peak torque? Because torque determines ability to accelerate.
early in this thread there's a video re. its insane acceleration -- made possible by there being only one gear.
Anyone who played Simpsons Hit+Run on Gamecube would experience a flashback imo (Prof. Frink's electric car (http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Elec-Taurus); holy glayvin does that baby accelerate quickly!)
Well that's why I added the bit at the bottom, it will only be a trailblazer if it actually blazes trails which at this point I assume is to become a successful electric car, which so far remains to be seen.
true.
oh ps: oops the "0-60 in FOUR SECONDS" video was linkedin this thread:
Google wants to make driving cheaper for you (http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,6454.msg41507.html#msg41507)
and that video was from 2006.
this one is way better, it's from 2011 plus it doesn't have the strange 80s-esque NewWave music in the background too...
Tesla Roadster Sport >>> Porsche 911 Turbo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxveY1R2pws)
Model T wasn't a trailblazer or innovator at all, Ford kept it really simple even as other companies around him innovated (electric vs handcranked starter, electric vs kerosene lighting, hand-operated vs foot-operated gear selection, hell, colour-choice vs any-choice-as-long-as-its-black). Doing this allowed him to make the car cheaper and cheaper all the time while still making a profit. A good comparison for the Model T is the Tata Nano.
Pierce-Arrow, Rolls Royce, Cadillac, Bugatti, Benz, those were the trailblazers and innovators in the early 1900s. Many of the things we consider normal now came out of their engineering practices. Because of their huge investment in innovation they've always stayed expensive (well, there aren't any new Pierce-Arrows). Tesla is shaping up to fit into this same mold - high-priced with the newest technologies available.
So is this a high-priced vehicle?
At the current price for the Tesla Model S with the 85kwh battery (which is what all the discussion about driving range has been based on) is $80k US. Lets assume it goes dollar-for-dollar in Canada, that's $1,600 per month for a 5 year loan at 7%. Or I could buy a Chevy half-ton pickup truck, crew cab, for $38k, for $760 per month. So the difference is the cost of gas vs electricity. Tesla says (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/facts) assume 188Wh/km, which is 18.8kWh/100km. Chevrolet says (http://www.gm.ca/gm/english/vehicles/chevrolet/silverado/compare-options-and-specifications#specifications) 12.1L/100km.
So for 2,000km/month:
Tesla Model S: $1,600/month + (18.8kWh/100km x 2,000km/month x $0.10/kWh) = ($1,600 + $37.60) / month = $1,637.60
Chevy Silverado LT 5.3L: $760/month + (12.1L/100km x 2,000km/month x $1.25/L) = ($760 + $302.50) / month = $1,062.50
About $575 less per month to have a 4WD with much bigger storage, a much longer driving range, a much shorter refuel time, and a much more established parts supply. Buying and operating (very important, just owning it but not using it is ridiculous) a Tesla is definitely not a value proposition but rather a grand lifestyle statement at this point, just like the Prius was when it first came out and just like the first Bugattis were when they came out.
Quote from: Thorin on November 20, 2012, 11:49:27 AM
Model T wasn't a trailblazer or innovator at all, Ford kept it really simple even as other companies around him innovated ... Pierce-Arrow, Rolls Royce, Cadillac, Bugatti, Benz, those were the trailblazers and innovators in the early 1900s. Many of the things we consider normal now came out of their engineering practices. Because of their huge investment in innovation they've always stayed expensive (well, there aren't any new Pierce-Arrows). Tesla is shaping up to fit into this same mold - high-priced with the newest technologies available.
WOW, I had no idea about all that! Interesting.
btw re. Prius, earlier today I did a quick Kjiji search and discovered someone in the Edmonon area is selling a 2002 for about $5300 ... and there's also a bunch for sale that are only 2 or 3 years old, for like 10k-15k ... the last few cab rides I took were in electric/hybrid vehicles and I gotta say it was pretty cool to accelerate so quickly and smoothly and quietly. The ride felt very Jetsons-like.
The Model-T's innovation was putting cheap cars in the hands of the public.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 20, 2012, 01:12:30 PM
The Model-T's innovation was putting cheap cars in the hands of the public.
It also had a hand in the whole assembly line thing.
Quote from: Tom on November 20, 2012, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 20, 2012, 01:12:30 PM
The Model-T's innovation was putting cheap cars in the hands of the public.
It also had a hand in the whole assembly line thing.
Not really, assembly line and division of labour had been around for a long time before Ford, even conveyor systems are 200+ years old.
Tesla innovations:
- Electric car that has a range long enough to be more than just a short range commuter vehicle
- It has speed and acceleration to match or exceed other cars in its price range
- Has a body shape that is not completely driven by aerodynamics like most hybrids or electrics
- First all electric Motor Trend Car of the year http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/12/2013-motor-trend-car-of-the-year-tesla-model-s/
This does not have a long enough range to be useful for me, mostly due to recharge times at the end of the range. For instance, I drove 290km through hilly terrain at a near-constant 120km/h. Given the graphs shown on http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range, on flat terrain at 120km/h I would be able to go about 220 miles, or 352km; sounds good. But I was not on flat ground, I had a head wind, I had more than 300 pounds in the vehicle, and I had to have the heater and defrost running. All of which could easily add up to a 25% decrease in range, leaving me stranded at 268km, or 32km short of my destination. With a 5 HOUR wait to refuel, since there's no Supercharger stations anywhere near here. And this is a pretty typical trip for anyone with a kid in sports, especially the less-popular ones where you have to travel farther for competition.
Its acceleration is phenomenal, although it still doesn't beat the Chrono 3.5 from 1990 or so. But electric cars have always had super acceleration so long as you have traction. Imagine, though, trying to get going in the crap snow that we had last week - this thing has low-rolling-resistance tires, which means they have less grip (since grip is what causes rolling resistance), plus it has its peak torque right at the start of acceleration, which means you'll have to feather that accelerator pedal like a maniac just to keep wheelspin to a minimum.
Its body shape is very much driven by aerodynamics. That's one of the things they tout - the slipperiness of this vehicle is a Cd of 0.15 if I've read correctly. A big part of that is the completely flat and smooth undercarriage, where normally exhaust parts screw up the airflow. And that's super-important because if the Cd was a still respectable 0.20, they'd lose 40% of their range.
Winning Car Of The Year isn't an innovation, it's a prize. Good for them for winning it, but that's not an innovation.
But damn this'd be a fun car to test drive, or even to own and operate somewhere where the weather's always nice and there are charging stations nearby and where one owns a second vehicle for long-distance trips.
To be fair we live in Alberta where driving from Edmonton to Calgary is no big deal, in Europe it would be like driving from London to Paris...
London to Paris is like Edmonton to Banff, distance-wise. And Europeans expect to be able to do that without stopping these days, thanks to no border checks between Euro-zone countries. The BMWs and Audis and Benzes and Rovers can all do the return trip without gassing up anywhere, London to Paris. The Tesla has to make a 5 hour stop each way, since there's no Superchargers, or at least a 30 minute stop each way once they put in Superchargers (assuming there's no wait at the Superchargers, which you know there will be if it takes 30 minutes for just one car to receive it's energy).
For an electric vehicle, this Tesla has remarkable range. For a useful car, it does not, and is hampered by a lack of refuelling infrastructure. Had they added a small gas-powered generator a la the Volt, my opinion on its usefulness would be different.
Here's a way to extend one's range: http://www.autonet.ca/auto-news/eco-friendly-news/2012/10/04/tow-along-electricity/
You know what electric cars need? Really tiny fusion reactors.
Ooooh, an ARC reactor!
Exactly, just remember to have it serviced every 200 years or so
Unless you're fighting Loki, then it'll probably need replacement after every battle.
Seriously, though, the only thing stopping true electric-only vehicles from making great inroads now is the refuelling problems. Between low range, long charge times, and no locations to actually charge up, the EVs are currently still a bust. Compare that to the series hybrid vehicles coming out now like the Volt, where there's a gas motor that really just generates electricity to keep the batteries topped up; these series hybrid vehicles are not constrained by the refuelling problems and can thus go on long trips yet still save a bundle if you mostly just drive less than 30 or 40 km per day.
There are some promising new battery techs being worked on. Some of them are only slight modifications on the current lithium batteries and have a very good chance of not being "3 to 5 years out" (aka: never).
I hear the use of carbon nanotubes can increase storage capacity by a third, and can provide ten times the instantaneous power due to faster discharge of the cathode. Although so far it's only been done in micro-batteries in labs, so who knows if it holds up for larger construction of batteries.
They've played with all kinds of things. CNTs, and new alloys for the cathode and anode. Many of them do similar things. Or slightly different battery chemistry.
Quote from: Thorin on November 23, 2012, 11:53:40 AM
the only thing stopping true electric-only vehicles from making great inroads now is the refuelling problems. Between low range, long charge times
Elon Musk demonstrates the Tesla Model S -- and instead of charging the battery, how about just SWAPPING IT OUT FOR A FRESH ONE?
How about doing this for TWO DIFFERENT VEHICLES in less time than it takes to fill a normal gas tank?
http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/20/tesla-shows-off-a-90-second-battery-swap-system-wants-it-at-supercharging-stations-by-years-end/
direct link to video: http://player.vimeo.com/video/68832891
And if you prefer "free*" instead of "fast", here's the current and future map of "supercharger stations*" across North America: http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger (I hope the Calgary location is not too close to the banks of the Bow or Elbow Rivers...)
* "free of charge and powered by solar" http://www.cnbc.com/id/100775107
(PS: wow the Tesla Roadster has come a far way quickly, looking back at these other 2 threads: July 2008 "Google wants to make driving cheaper for you (http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,6454.msg41507.html#msg41507)" and way back in November 2007 "Honda Zero Emission Motor hits the road (http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,5892.msg37556.html#msg37556)" )
Swap systems present a risk of damaged, tampered, old devices being swapped into vehicles and causing problems or poor performance.
A better solution is to focus on electric drive trains NOW and offer a variety of power storage options in the future from super CAPS, new batteries, to fuel cells.
Hmm I think another way to look at it is BBQ propane swapping. How do you automate inspection of containers? Number of cycles? brand? Length of time idle...
At the moment the brand is all the same - it'll be Tesla-brand battery packs for Model S generation II (not the Roadster). There are indeed questions about swapping your brand-new battery for one that has been in use for five years. Although so far they're talking about swapping out for a different pack, then on the return trip getting your pack back. If that's how they plan to do it, there will be a fair bit of administrative overhead in keeping track of what pack belongs to what customer.
What I see as a problem is the limited storage space at the battery-swapping station. If it's the only station for miles around, and there's a lot of Teslas around, you might be in a line of ten Teslas all waiting for a battery pack when there's only one in the swap station. Of course they're planning to have these swap stations integrated with their charging stations, but charging takes time. And at the charging stations, essentially the same problem exists - charging takes 20 to 30 minutes, and if there's a line of ten Teslas waiting for four chargers, you might be waiting for an hour before even getting served.
I'm willing to bet that a couple of years after these swap stations go in, a lot of this will have been worked out. Also, I hope they use the same battery in their cheaper generation III car, otherwise the battery swap stations will need to either be very smart or will only be able to serve one model of car.
Quote from: Thorin on June 21, 2013, 02:11:04 PM
At the moment the brand is all the same - it'll be Tesla-brand battery packs for Model S generation II (not the Roadster). There are indeed questions about swapping your brand-new battery for one that has been in use for five years. Although so far they're talking about swapping out for a different pack, then on the return trip getting your pack back. If that's how they plan to do it, there will be a fair bit of administrative overhead in keeping track of what pack belongs to what customer.
Perhaps the future for VEHICLES is to just have a compact version of the Tesla Powerwall (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k) (18 minute presentation -- btw some speeches Elon Musk sure stutters a lot!)
...because solar is readily available but "current batteries SUCK" (to quote the man)
2 minute summary from Bloomberg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEhON2UIxCU)
(01 May 2015; even a guy who is not a fan of Musk thinks it's very forward-thinking)
This review from WIRED (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHswxauDGVg) says it's about one-third the price of comparable tech already out there. But he also points out that if you wanted to go completely off-grid it would take more than 8 years (based on consumption of average US families etc... Or more like 3 if you live in the more expensive places like Hawaii. And I would expect smaller/simpler families and single would manage to get by without buying 4 of these puppies!)
This video from some dude in Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvlolmFX-rc) reminds us this is just the first generation and when we think back to the first generation of
cell phones (including their cost, bulkiness, short life, etc.) it's a helluva start in a direction we all really need to get going... (existing energy delivery systems are as old-school thinking as a rotary dial phone imo!)
Thanks to having a trailer now, I started researching solar electricity including storing it for night-time use. This would allow me to camp in places that don't have electricity and still watch a movie or use the microwave. It would also use a lot less propane, as the fridge runs on either propane or electricity (when available).
There are some big costs to consider. Solar panels still aren't cheap, and you have to remember that they're quite inefficient as soon as there's dust or snow on the panel, or the sun is at the wrong angle. That said, you can outfit a house for $40k or $50k so that it's entirely off the electric grid and you're still able to use your computers and tvs and fridges and stoves. Which seems like a good deal, until you realize you're spending that $40k to $50k again in ten to fifteen years when all the components have worn out.
Still, cool that someone's trying to Apple-fy the home solar power market. I mean, really, that thing just screams ex-Apple engineers...
Quote from: Thorin on May 15, 2015, 04:07:11 PM
Still, cool that someone's trying to Apple-fy the home solar power market. I mean, really, that thing just screams ex-Apple engineers...
"First Generation" that's the key.
Remember what the original iPod was like? How much it weighed? How much it cost? ;D
Quote from: Darren Dirt on May 15, 2015, 01:59:41 PM
Perhaps the future for VEHICLES is to just have a compact version of the Tesla Powerwall (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k) (18 minute presentation -- btw some speeches Elon Musk sure stutters a lot!)
uh-oh.
had a thought.
These batteries (as the next few generations get more efficient, lighter, last longer, etc.)
PLUS
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/05/15/google-autos-selfdriving-idINKBN0O01TR20150515
PLUS
IBM Watson technology
EQUALS
Skynet On Wheels --
EVERYWHERE, ALL DAY EVERY DAY ... *FOREVER*#HeadAsplodeMomentOfAwarenessOfUnavoidablePath