|
TECHNO
THRILLS
Tesla v Honda
|
Monday, June 25, 2012
Batteries v. Honda
9 comments:
-
Tom Smith said...
-
And we loaned Tesla about $500 million. Nice investment Obama. Asshole
-
6/25/12, 8:51 AM
-
TheAxe said...
-
Saw a tesla on 695 near Towson Friday. It was a nice looking car.
-
6/25/12, 1:30 PM
-
TimO said...
-
It's not so much charging those batteries (natural gas power plants put out cheap electricity), but wait until the battery pack in the Tesla has to be replaced... they run about $40,000!!!!
Don't believe them when they say they'll replace the batteries cell by cell, the technology for lithium batteries is changing so fast year by year that any packs made now will be totally obsolete in less than 5 years. (I've been flying r/c electric planes for 10 years and we have what they'll be using several years from now...) Lithium and A123 cells are still in their infancy and the dealers will look at the older models, throw up their hands and say, "Oh so sorry but we can't do anything for you.") -
6/25/12, 1:49 PM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
James May was right, Hydrogen is the ticket. No recharging and just one moveable part.
-
6/25/12, 2:11 PM
-
I-RIGHT-I said...
-
Nothing like sitting on a hydrogen bomb to get your juices flowing in the morning.
-
6/25/12, 5:12 PM
-
TheOldMan said...
-
Henry Ford and others did not require taxpayer funds to get their cars built.
-
6/25/12, 5:46 PM
-
Csanad said...
-
"hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe" Technically true, but most of it that we have access to is in a happy, high entropy state, attached to other molecules. It's esentially spent hydrogen. Even saying that we now burn oil is techincally wrong. We burn carbon, creating energy and carbon dioxide/monoxide. Implying that all the hydrogen around us is useful would be the same as implying we could just yank those oxygen molecules off those CO2 and CO molecules and reburn that. Truth is there are no lakes of hydrogen laying around. The most dominant source is from steam reforming of hydrocarbons. Yes sir, that same stuff we drill for from the ground that's gonna run out. Even if we resort to (innefficient)electrolosys, the electricity has to come from a power plant most likely running on coal, oil or natural gas.
-
6/25/12, 8:08 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
but wait until the battery pack in the Tesla has to be replaced... they run about $40,000!!!!
Just wait until you discharge the set just a smidge too much, and it won't take a charge any more. And it will discharge while sitting as you enjoy your two week vacation in the South of France {hail King} so that it is ruint.
They commiserate, and point you to the owners manual where it says don't let the charge get too low. That's it. You are on your own with a vehicle that won't move, is dangerous to service, and needs an expensive part, one each, to repair. Only source of course, being Tesla. Elon Musk' mommy raised no fool. Give 'em the razor, make a killing on the blades, eh?
tomw -
6/26/12, 9:37 AM
-
Kristophr said...
-
The problem with H2 as fuel is storage.
The molecules are small and seep out of containers, and you need a large volume of hydrogen to get any work done.
Gasoline has a large amount of Hydrogen and Carbon locked up into one molecule, so you get a lot more work from one cubic meter of gasoline fumes than you do from one cubic meter of H2 gas.
If you do use a nuclear plant to crack water into H2, you will still need to use the Sabatier process to convert H2 and CO2 into Methane ( CH4 ) and water, since Methane is easy to handle, and provides twice as much energy per cubic meter.
But if you are just cracking H2 to make CH4 ... then why in the fucking hell don't you just do more fracking, and get CH4 for free out of the ground, and burn that? -
6/26/12, 12:02 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)