Tesla's New Tabless Electrode Battery Cell Patent Is 'Way More Important Than It Sounds' says crazy-person Elon Musk

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
But deferral has worked so well for the nuclear industry, everyone should totally adopt it for all hazardous compounds because it is a 100% effective strategy!
Nuclear waste is hugely overestimated by civilians who know absolutely nothing about it.
Reality is the worlds entire nuclear waste stockpile sits at 250k tons including all levels(if its not high level its basically harmless btw). Reality is also that the entire high level nuclear waste stockpile can be reprocessed safely using currently existing technology.
To put it bluntly there is only stored waste because it is currently not cost effective to process it.

Most waste is graphene. Radioactive in a technical sense but you could burry this stuff in your back yard and never notice it because it wont break down naturally. Radioactivity isn't organic.. it has very simple control methods for 99% of it. The last 1% is problematic sure but I bet you also didn't know that many industrial processes spontaneously generate nuclear material waste sometimes either(wastewater usually). Pound for pound nuclear still produces the least amount of waste per year and nearly all of the high level waste is recyclable. No other industry beyond the asphalt concrete industry can really get near that level of efficiency in waste. Oh... and unlike other forms of energy generation the nuclear powerplants are required to deal with their own waste. Solar they just dump in a landfill and the power company laughs because its someone elses problem.


@DWolvin
Silicon tetrachloride can be neutralized yes though it typically is burned(chlorine offgas) or neutralized chemically(extremely exothermic). The sad fact is most of the solar cell waste is not currently recyclable in the amounts required. By the time the waste buildup of panels reaches a critical point for the economics to catch up it will have wrecked whatever ecosystem it was currently dumped into for the next hundred+ years. Solar cells are a time bomb. Id rather deal with nuclear waste that 2 feet of water can contain indefinitely or the carbon/steel of wind turbines.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,311
Nuclear waste is hugely overestimated by civilians who know absolutely nothing about it.
Reality is the worlds entire nuclear waste stockpile sits at 250k tons including all levels(if its not high level its basically harmless btw). Reality is also that the entire high level nuclear waste stockpile can be reprocessed safely using currently existing technology.
To put it bluntly there is only stored waste because it is currently not cost effective to process it.

Most waste is graphene. Radioactive in a technical sense but you could burry this stuff in your back yard and never notice it because it wont break down naturally. Radioactivity isn't organic.. it has very simple control methods for 99% of it. The last 1% is problematic sure but I bet you also didn't know that many industrial processes spontaneously generate nuclear material waste sometimes either(wastewater usually). Pound for pound nuclear still produces the least amount of waste per year and nearly all of the high level waste is recyclable. No other industry beyond the asphalt concrete industry can really get near that level of efficiency in waste. Oh... and unlike other forms of energy generation the nuclear powerplants are required to deal with their own waste. Solar they just dump in a landfill and the power company laughs because its someone elses problem.

Anything that touches, or is in the vicinity of the reactor core, as well as anything in the coolant loop is considered high level waste. Radioactivity is the gift that keeps on giving, place anything near a highly radioactive element and it becomes radioactive itself. You can handle uranium pellets before they go into the reactor, but definitely not once they come out.

And standard non-answer answer. There's always some unicorn or fairy dust technology, material or method to reduce, reuse or recycle waste, but it's always just out of reach. All answers can basically be funneled down to "it costs too much damn money and nobody wants to pay for it". In the entire ~70 year history of nuclear energy, there has not been one nuclear power facility that has been anywhere near solvent. If the nuclear industry wasn't receiving billions of dollars annually in taxpayer funded subsidies to run power plants, they'd all be shut down.

Anyway, this thread is about batteries, not insolvent nuclear energy.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
Anything that touches, or is in the vicinity of the reactor core, as well as anything in the coolant loop is considered high level waste. Radioactivity is the gift that keeps on giving, place anything near a highly radioactive element and it becomes radioactive itself. You can handle uranium pellets before they go into the reactor, but definitely not once they come out.

And standard non-answer answer. There's always some unicorn or fairy dust technology, material or method to reduce, reuse or recycle waste, but it's always just out of reach. All answers can basically be funneled down to "it costs too much damn money and nobody wants to pay for it". In the entire ~70 year history of nuclear energy, there has not been one nuclear power facility that has been anywhere near solvent. If the nuclear industry wasn't receiving billions of dollars annually in taxpayer funded subsidies to run power plants, they'd all be shut down.

Anyway, this thread is about batteries, not insolvent nuclear energy.
Really? Funny. I have a wrench that was accidentally left in a reactor for a day in my garage. Yes its radioactive but you will get more exposure from a 5 hr flight.
Additionally no all things in a reactor are not HLW. Spent fuel is HLW. That's pretty much it. It's 3%ish of all waste generated by a reactor. It is processable right now. There is no magic technology we have the reactors right now now. Its cost effective to use those reactors too. Why then don't we reprocess waste? Politics. It requires a new nuclear reactor. Nuclear is a pariah right now. So into the pool it goes. It's ok because we stopped the ebil nuclear right?

If you also think nuclear doesn't make money... oh boy you drank the koolaid. I used to work in nuclear. Trust me they make absurd money. As in hundreds of thousands to millions per day money in profit dollars. All the cost is up front. The fuel is pennies and the maintenance of newer reactors is a joke compared to say.. something that burns sulphur loaded natural gas. Only reason natural gas wins at the moment is you can slap one of those suckers up in a year from blank paper and NG is dirt cheap.

As to how it relates to batteries? Well batteries are storage. You have to produce the power somewhere... and if you are trying to champion EV technology as green then you have to look at where that power is generated. Solar is an oddly dirty duck. The world just hasn't caught up to what engineers have known for years.
 

MikeTrike

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
8,740
@MikeTrike
Just because you can charge on 120v doesn't mean it will become standard. The reality is once enough EVs hit a market you will see builders start to include chargers into the house itself at sale. Then you'll see code changes to regulate the obvious cheap bastards this will bring out. A 15amp charge cycle on 120v doesn't automatically make it less stress either. When grids are designed they tend to assume a downcycle at night where they can do things like drop a plant off the grid for maintenance etc. While YOU might not notice it at home when you see a large adoption of EV in an area trust me the power companies notice it and it can cause problems. Also how many people are in your situation where a 25mile night charge is sufficient?

CORRECT.png

I sure hope they will begin including ample dedicated circuits for EV charging with new builds, and perhaps my faith in grid operators is misplaced in assuming that they see a freight train coming and are making preparations (investments) for said freight train for the next 10-20-30~ years. However if they're anything like what's going on in California we might be fucked all around and can keep sucking on that sweet sweet oil after everything catches fire...

For some, L1 (36-60) miles of range a night is adequate. e.g. Myself and others like myself.
For others, L2 (120-240 miles of range a night is adequate. e.g. Not myself and people who have more serious commutes.
For regular long range folks they'll need to rely on publicly available infrastructure akin to what they do with gasoline refueling stations currently for those distance runs.

Also EV chargers are onboard, it's basically an appropriately rated circuit and receptacle with a fancy dancy extension cord to the EV of varying feature sets. I otherwise figured you simply meant a dedicated charge port or ports would be included with new homes.

If I were to bet on the long term it would be a distributed grid hybrid kinda deal to keep things in balance. Where homes have renewables plus batteries to soften the load as well as EV transport. In transition I suspect that mild to wild hybrid vehicles will be a thing for a while, especially in distance and out of civilization type scenarios.

I also really really like the idea of true energy independence. Generation, storage, and transport refueling all on my own property. I'm sure some folks hate that idea, partly because their money is tied up in the current energy non-independence things.
Enerix_SmartEnergyHome-System_web3.jpg
 

UltraTaco

Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Messages
999
Reality is also that the entire high level nuclear waste stockpile can be reprocessed safely using currently existing technology.
To put it bluntly there is only stored waste because it is currently not cost effective to process it.
The key. 😥💔🖤
 

Verge

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
6,637
Unless they come up with a revolutionary new way to store energy, they'll hit a limit on battery range. The highest capacity current battery is something like 1700 lbs. Their 2020 car lineup has some models that weigh as much as a fully decked out F-250. Hope they got good brakes lol.
That was my whole point, we are hitting some pretty tight limits on how much energy you can pack in a li-ion battery. Yet every battery day people think Elon is magically going to come out with a battery with 2x the range.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,562
Funny. I have a wrench that was accidentally left in a reactor for a day in my garage. Yes its radioactive but you will get more exposure from a 5 hr flight.
Um if you work at a nuclear plant and you don't know that radiation isn't a constant amongst elements we have a pretty big problem.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
Um if you work at a nuclear plant and you don't know that radiation isn't a constant amongst elements we have a pretty big problem.
Radiation isn't generally constant day to day for anything. That's pretty much why its called radioactive decay.
If you are talking about the wrench being chrome steel you should know that it most certainly blew hot for a week and had to be decontaminated. It's just a point of fact that everything that goes near a reactor is by no means high level waste or dangerous long term.

The panels you use for shielding can be buried in your back yard for christ sake. Unless you grind them up there is no way for the radiation to get into you and radiation in general doesn't really need all that much to block it. It's not a magical force that extends miles and pollutes entire rivers due to contamination like say benzine. It contaminates its current location exclusively and for a very short range.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,311
Really? Funny. I have a wrench that was accidentally left in a reactor for a day in my garage.

Can't tell what is more terrifying, you having something that was in a reactor core, the reactor core needing a wrench to be fixed, or your lax attitude about "lol stuff fell inside the reactor is no big deal". Really hope people like you are the exception and not the norm in the nuclear industry.

If you also think nuclear doesn't make money... oh boy you drank the koolaid. I used to work in nuclear. Trust me they make absurd money. As in hundreds of thousands to millions per day money in profit dollars. All the cost is up front. The fuel is pennies and the maintenance of newer reactors is a joke compared to say.. something that burns sulphur loaded natural gas. Only reason natural gas wins at the moment is you can slap one of those suckers up in a year from blank paper and NG is dirt cheap.

"Trust me, I'm in the industry and totally don't have conflicts of interest MONEY IS EVERYWHERE ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A LOONEY!" - Uh, no.

According to the EIA (https://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/), it cost an estimated 1.7 trillion dollars in 2018 to procure the ~48 million pounds of uranium required by all reactors operating in the US, and an additional 1.5 billion dollars for the ~13 million pounds of processed uranium to be used in reactors. So it costs over $3 trillion dollars to fuel all of the plants in the US alone, what was that about fuel being pennies?

And according to everyone else, nuclear plants have either never been profitable, or have recently become unprofitable and require taxpayer funded bailouts to keep them afloat. The nuclear oligarchies that run these unprofitable plants also don't want to share their financials with the public, they just want bailout money. They also have a predictable pattern of threatening plant closures unless the local government gives them money, in which they will keep operating at the designated fixed terms of the bailout agreement, then threaten another plant closure shortly after it expires ad nauseum.

https://web.archive.org/web/2020040...tudy-slams-nuclear-power-business-case-49596/
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-dilemma
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nuclear-power-wont-survive-without-a-government-handout/
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019...y-solutions-says-it-cant-tell-the-public.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottc...money-states-find-they-cant-afford-to-say-no/

Sorry, but you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.


The panels you use for shielding can be buried in your back yard for christ sake. Unless you grind them up there is no way for the radiation to get into you and radiation in general doesn't really need all that much to block it. It's not a magical force that extends miles and pollutes entire rivers due to contamination like say benzine. It contaminates its current location exclusively and for a very short range.

The Navajo nation, two countries and a few US states called and said you have no idea what you're talking about.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,562
Radiation isn't generally constant day to day for anything. That's pretty much why its called radioactive decay.
If you are talking about the wrench being chrome steel you should know that it most certainly blew hot for a week and had to be decontaminated. It's just a point of fact that everything that goes near a reactor is by no means high level waste or dangerous long term.

The panels you use for shielding can be buried in your back yard for christ sake. Unless you grind them up there is no way for the radiation to get into you and radiation in general doesn't really need all that much to block it. It's not a magical force that extends miles and pollutes entire rivers due to contamination like say benzine. It contaminates its current location exclusively and for a very short range.
There are different types of radiation. You cannot compare radiation from say a radio telescope to that of plutonium.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
Can't tell what is more terrifying, you having something that was in a reactor core, the reactor core needing a wrench to be fixed, or your lax attitude about "lol stuff fell inside the reactor is no big deal". Really hope people like you are the exception and not the norm in the nuclear industry.



/snip
Bahahahahahaha No.

GDP are gone for the most part.. enrichment is waaaay cheaper than it used to be. There are also disturbingly wrong assumptions in that article. Nuclear fuel is cheap. About 3 bucks a pellet. You also replace it after 18-24mo typically. If you use a really narrow time scale for producing said fuel you can make it look really expensive... but average over the actual amount of time the fuel is in the reactor is quite literally pennies.

Bruce power in Ontario makes more than 4 billion dollars in profit per year to the provincial coffers. France makes even more and their power plants can handle rapid grid load shifts(IE they don't really need natural gas backup.. they can serve as baseload AND surge).
That video wasn't purely nuclear waste in the traditional sense. You are talking about American nuclear which is the dark child of the nuclear industry. Your reactors are a joke. Your safety early on in development was nonexistent. You are still cleaning up that mess. That mess doesn't get created anymore however since the technology is here and we now know the risks and have innumerable ways to avoid them. There is also a TON of "bomb" production that was hidden as reactor waste. That crap isn't safe. Nuclear bomb waste is an entirely different bag of hell. Modern storage for waste is basically 10 foot tall white boxes or pools. No one does the old metal barrel filled with purreed nuclear waste and liquid glass anymore(except maybe russia)

Let me also point out you have a serious misunderstanding of reactors. A PWR vs say.. a candu6 is like an aboriginal with a stick vs a US Marine.
If you have an issue with PWR America uses being inefficient pieces of crap... I suggest you talk to your senators and governors and get an actual safe, proven, clean reactor and not one built in the 70s with lipstick, ducttape, and a prayer.

As to profit... Bruce dumps close to 50gwh/y into the Canadian grid. Electricity in that province costs about 12.5c/kwh. Funny story too... They have a capped sell cost and STILL ARE PROFITABLE. If they could sell at retail price they would be MORE profitable. I know Frances reactors are also very profitable since they SELL power at a profit nationally(in the 1970s they had to buy power btw). American companies generally run at a loss because of the political and business agreements made during their construction. They have been restricted from actually reacting to power alternatives that a]give away power to intentionally cut into markets or b] can operate close enough in cost to be directly competitive. In Americas nuclear landscape no your power plants are not profitable.. but not because of the plants themselves(even though your reactors are terrible). This is when you see your reactor owners begging states for bailouts. Really stop focusing on a tiny part of a very big world.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
There are different types of radiation. You cannot compare radiation from say a radio telescope to that of plutonium.
Microwave is a radiation. So is light! Photons are... radiative!
Actually you can compare them. One is measured in μeV... the other is measured in MeV.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,311
Bahahahahahaha No.

You're really not convincing me or anyone else by dismissing authoritative articles as nonsense. You're also dismissing your own arguments by contradicting yourself with exceptions to most of what you say. Moving the goalpost does not an argument make.

The first source is actually for nuclear reactors in Europe, so I don't see how this is a US only issue.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
You're really not convincing me or anyone else by dismissing authoritative articles as nonsense. You're also dismissing your own arguments by contradicting yourself with exceptions to most of what you say. Moving the goalpost does not an argument make.

The first source is actually for nuclear reactors in Europe, so I don't see how this is a US only issue.
By trying to use US reactors as a benchmark you basically create a situation where both answers are correct.
The US plants were mostly constructed with government assistance with provisions to sell their product at a greatly reduced rate. This means when someone comes along and sells excess solar at cost or below the nuclear power plant "loses" money. Solar and wind are both HEAVILY subsidized in the USA at the moment and due to those incentives they can undercut the government market price on nuclear and operate at a technical loss while still making money due to said subsidies. In short in America nuclear loses money because you spend tax payer dollars on making nuclear lose money and artificially prop up solar without reason.
Frankly America was stupid when they set these contracts up. They did not allow for the possibility of anyone undercutting them. Over half of the USA reactors could make (significant) money if allowed to sell at market rate. In this case its not nuclear thats the problem its your politics.

For the rest of the world nuclear is far from "losing money". Canada and France both make money. This is especially true for candu types due to America being dicks back in the early days and refusing to share enriched uranium. They dont use enriched uranium. Kinda throws a wrench into your earlier statement about how enrichment is somehow making everything not viable...
This isn't really up for debate no matter what Forbes says unless you want to go down conspiracy theory land where governments cover everything up and no one ever blows the whistle on that crap. These things make profit.

The next stage of nuclear is actually something called Small modular reactor or SMR. These are actually systems that are built assembly line style and setup on site. Going this route has obvious advantages of cost, safety, part compatibility, and a huge reduction in operation complexity. A general rollout of aSMR would obsolete every power plant currently deployed on earth in overall efficiency. It's also exactly what is happening with many countries.

I dismiss your articles because they are very narrowly focused on US plants under the aforementioned contract limitations. It's a unique case and does not represent nuclear as a whole. The one article that touches a non USA plant is talking about 1000Mwh plants... which are obsolete technology by decades and yes in todays reality building a single monolithic reactor is really really dumb. Current ones have less margin to play with but new ones would never reach ROI. We dont build giant units anymore. The downtime is murderous.
We now build smaller units so we can roll them or even shut them down to save costs. Every article you presented just doesn't reflect actual reality beyond a very narrow piece of the pie. Hell one of them shows france shutting down all its reactors when this is point blank completely and utterly false. They are talking about building NEW reactors for christ sake.


---------
@kac77
We are talking about a wrench.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,811
Back on topic, some recent extra nerdy technical exploration/analysis of Tesla's battery day advancements:

Looks like they're hiding some of their secret sauce, this episode of the ongoing series explores part of the cell level gains and the options it opens up to their engineers.

Apparently they've accelerated the previously projected progress in market-ready battery technology - so barring ongoing lab research initiatives - by around five years.

Good stuff.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,811
Why people - and particularly experts - consistently miss market disruption, a look at human history of disruptions by Tony Seba, and the common objections and complaints during the S curve period:


Highlights:
 
Last edited:

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,659
Why people - and experts - consistently miss market disruption, a look at human history of disruptions and the common objections and complaints, some things never change:

Hahahaha. Did you buy bitcoin when it was less the 100? How could you not have seen it coming? Some markets/stocks/cryptos are set up closer to ponzi schemes where they only work out well if enough people support it for long enough for it to materialize. That is the case for tesla and as far as making money on "investments" like this it really depends on what stage of the scheme you got in on. With that said tesla has now materialized into a company and eventually there stock will be based more on the preformance of the company rather then continued fud/hype drawing in stupid money. When that happens the stock will suffer a nice reevaluation and we shall see if they have materialized enough to justify it.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,811
Hahahaha. Did you buy bitcoin when it was less the 100? How could you not have seen it coming? Some markets/stocks/cryptos are set up closer to ponzi schemes where they only work out well if enough people support it for long enough for it to materialize. That is the case for tesla and as far as making money on "investments" like this it really depends on what stage of the scheme you got in on. With that said tesla has now materialized into a company and eventually there stock will be based more on the preformance of the company rather then continued fud/hype drawing in stupid money. When that happens the stock will suffer a nice reevaluation and we shall see if they have materialized enough to justify it.
Hahaha indeed, see you in three years. Three years ago I was here when clowns were talking about Tesla failing, and now the company's bigger than Exxon. People were not shocked when the company consistently doubled in growth for ten years without the stock adjusting, and now they're bewildered about why it suddenly corrected for the realization of their market leadership.

Today some of those old folks complain that the adoption curve can't possibly be anything but linear, despite past history showing this to never be the case, they'll be proven wrong as usual, but by then they'll pretend they knew it all along.

The fact that you responded to a half hour presentation within a few minutes shows how much brain power you used to think about the subject. But I put that video for those who can use theirs.

Technology convergence, the consistent historical S curves, the disruption always coming from the outside, these are the facts of life, adapt or die.

Look I'm fine with people missing the boat, my retirement is already covered by long-term investment decisions, big time. It's not my concern if others stumble over their inflated egos on the path to success.

But it's just fun to geek out over the specifics.
 
Last edited:

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,659
Hahaha indeed, see you in three years. Three years ago I was here when clowns were talking about Tesla failing, and now the company's bigger than Exxon. People were not shocked when the company consistently doubled in growth for ten years without the stock adjusting, and now they're bewildered about why it suddenly corrected for the realization of their market leadership.

Today some of those old folks complain that the adoption curve can't possibly be anything but linear, despite past history showing this to never be the case, they'll be proven wrong as usual, but by then they'll pretend they knew it all along.

The fact that you responded to a twenty minute presentation within a minute shows how much brain power you used to think about the subject. But I put that video for those who can use theirs.

Technology convergence, the consistent historical S curves, the disruption always coming from the outside, these are the facts of life, adapt or die.

Look I'm fine with people missing the boat, my retirement is already covered by long-term investment decisions, big time. It's not my concern if others stumble over their inflated egos on the path to success.

But it's just fun to geek out over the specifics.

I couldnt stand the last useless links you posted so I didnt even bother looking at the video. I still do find it entertaining when people praise a company without understanding why that company is it the position it is.

You are literally only viewing the information that aligns with your investments and I hope that works out for you but its a poor investment strategy. And yet you feel the need to climb to the top of the highest hill you can find and yell to everyone how your investment strategy is so fantastic.

Stocks do not represent the value of a company they represent a whole lot of other bs. And I guess I'll see ya in three years with some crypto in my pocket as I support well set up schemes as well. Just a fyi there will still be ice vehicles and ice car companies doing just fine in three years and I would absalutley take that bet (I would also say tesla should be doing just fine as a car company in three years)
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,811
I couldnt stand the last useless links you posted so I didnt even bother looking at the video. I still do find it entertaining when people praise a company without understanding why that company is it the position it is.

Hence why I said you are not the target of this discussion, the people riding the trend are, the Ron Baron style of long-term investors. This kind of information assumes prior knowledge about what's going on in that market, as well as no old (culture/industry/career) baggage getting in the way of having a fresh look at things.

Aging industry veterans of the combustion century, and those out of this recent technology convergence loop, will naturally behave as those before them did during times of disruption, deny and protest simply out of desperate self preservation.

That denial didn't help Nokia, didn't help Blockbuster, didn't help coal, sure as hell wont be different for transport.

Allot of advancements are converging and pushing for this change, it's not just EV technology, it's a big wave of technological and industrial advances coming together.

Just a fyi there will still be ice vehicles and ice car companies doing just fine in three years and I would absalutley take that bet (I would also say tesla should be doing just fine as a car company in three years)

You really wanna bet we wont see some bailouts, consolidations or bankruptcies in the ICE market before 2025? Ok I'll shake your hand on that bet. Already seeing some early signs today with companies like Ford abandoning almost everything but their last stronghold in the truck market more or less, we better save up to pay for their upcoming bailout check, too big to fail you know.

2025-2030 should be the most interesting, probably the eye of the storm. Would hate to be Mazda's CEO by then unless they shape up quick.
 
Last edited:

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,331
Hence why I said you are not the target of this discussion, the people riding the trend are, the Ron Baron style of long-term investors. This kind of information assumes prior knowledge about what's going on in that market, as well as no old (culture/industry/career) baggage getting in the way of having a fresh look at things.

Aging industry veterans of the combustion century, and those out of this recent technology convergence loop, will naturally behave as those before them did during times of disruption, deny and protest simply out of desperate self preservation.

That denial didn't help Nokia, didn't help Blockbuster, didn't help coal, sure as hell wont be different for transport.

Allot of advancements are converging and pushing for this change, it's not just EV technology, it's a big wave of technological and industrial advances coming together.



You really wanna bet we wont see some bailouts, consolidations or bankruptcies in the ICE market before 2025? Ok I'll shake your hand on that bet. Already seeing some early signs today with companies like Ford abandoning almost everything but their last stronghold in the truck market more or less, we better save up to pay for their upcoming bailout check, too big to fail you know.

2025-2030 should be the most interesting, probably the eye of the storm. Would hate to be Mazda's CEO by then unless they shape up quick.
lol, now that's funny... of course you're going to see that, that's been going on for the last 100+ years and it's not going to magically stop ;). I think he was saying in general, the ICE market is still going to be healthy, not that a company or two won't struggle, as they have been struggling BEFORE tesla became a thing so there is no reason to think they won't continue to struggle. You add all those stipulations into the bet and of course your bound to win, not on the merits of your argument, just because that's the norm and has been for a long time (not just in automobiles, but in all fields).

Anyways, that said, of course EV will disrupt the market, but it's not an overnight disruption like people seem to think about. It's a long term plan that will work until/unless someone finds a better source (hydrogen?). ICE vehicle sales will be healthy for some time to come, it's not as if they're going to just die off overnight.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
You know, I used to think this man was competent. And maybe he was, but ever since he started consorting with celebrities and musicians he has just kind of gone off the deep end.

I can't take anything he says seriously anymore.
Not even the part where he explained that he's really just a posterchild/salesman and isn't really involved with the operation of the business direction or development on a macro level and doesn't attend most meetings? They give him some play money, but mostly just let him bring in government subsidies and sell to the people, but there's regular business management and engineers handling all of the business strategy and day to day.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
Both California and NY are banning ICE by 2030 in their markets
This is the only glimpse of objective reality that you seem to be willing to recognize in your EV evangelism.

You liken ICE inferiority/EV superiority to the fall of coal energy, when the only reason that coal is no longer a viable technology is because the government for all intents and purposes banned it. We have virtually infinite stockpiles of coal and the plants were very cheap to produce and operate, without much major pollution in their later designs save for harmless carbon dioxide. The government created various laws specifically targeting coal energy to destroy the market while simultaneously massively subsidizing inferior technology that otherwise couldn't sustain itself on the market like ethanol, solar, and wind, and then pretend like that demonstrates its a superior technology. Its simply a matter of big government artificially creating winners and losers, and on some level you seem to recognize that now with the banning of ICE.

You don't need to ban a technology if it isn't otherwise the superior choice that consumers would pick if given the organic option. You have to ban a technology when you want to FORCE consumers to adopt an inferior technology that they otherwise would not consume. And just like with coal, you don't have to even outright ban a technology, you can just keep creating laws specifically intended to target the technology to reduce its efficiency and increase its costs.

There's big money in energy, and by using the government to destroy existing markets and create new ones that depend on them through circular subsidies (government gives money to industries that give money to their campaigns that give money to industries ad infinitum), a few people can become massively wealthy pushing an otherwise inferior technology that the market would not have adopted, at least not in its immature state, without all the interference hurting existing tech and elevating alternative tech.

tl;dr: If ICE were inherently inferior and EV superior, then allow the market to decide and end any and all EV subsidies immediately and there would be no need to ban or regulate ICE into forced extinction.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
I also really really like the idea of true energy independence. Generation, storage, and transport refueling all on my own property. I'm sure some folks hate that idea, partly because their money is tied up in the current energy non-independence things.
Cool man, let us know how your lithium and other heavy metal mining and battery and solar panel production operation is doing in your back yard, or are you going to be tying your money up in prepaying for electricity by being dependent on the megacorporations that will produce and lease you all that expensive equipment to store on your property, anchoring you down and making personal mobility when moving for jobs and what not every five years difficult? And I assume you want to also depend on them to produce a nationwide network of proprietary charging stations for you as well so you aren't limited to a certain radius from your anchor home? I think its pretty obvious that you're just investing on making yourself even more dependent on a new ecosystem that has less market competition and in effect greatly reduces your choices and freedom.

And, not sure if this comes as a surprise to you, but the US can already achieve true energy independence due to the vast quantities of fossil fuels and nuclear power available domestically. We have massive stores of coal, natural gas, oil, uranium (if we just built enrichment and recycling plants), to not rely on any other countries. The whole lie about peak oil, peak uranium, etc. should be pretty transparent by now, especially when we just recently reached a point where the world had so much oil we ran out of places to store it, causing the price to dip negative. It is only artificial government interference that is causing the already low prices to not be even lower, and there's no risk even without technological advancement (which is always occurring) of running out of any of these energy sources in your or your children's lifetime.

There's nothing wrong with alternative techs, but when you have to create regulations specifically intended to destroy a viable good existing technology while subsidizing the alternative, clearly it is NOT ready. Allow the free-market and consumer freedom to decide what we do and don't want, rather than saying "look, people prefer soy over beef" after putting huge subsidies on soy and creating a bunch of laws intended to make beef expensive and/or lower quality. *facepalm*
 

MikeTrike

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
8,740
Cool man, let us know how your lithium and other heavy metal mining and battery and solar panel production operation is doing in your back yard, or are you going to be tying your money up in prepaying for electricity by being dependent on the megacorporations that will produce and lease you all that expensive equipment to store on your property, anchoring you down and making personal mobility when moving for jobs and what not every five years difficult? And I assume you want to also depend on them to produce a nationwide network of proprietary charging stations for you as well so you aren't limited to a certain radius from your anchor home? I think its pretty obvious that you're just investing on making yourself even more dependent on a new ecosystem that has less market competition and in effect greatly reduces your choices and freedom.

And, not sure if this comes as a surprise to you, but the US can already achieve true energy independence due to the vast quantities of fossil fuels and nuclear power available domestically. We have massive stores of coal, natural gas, oil, uranium (if we just built enrichment and recycling plants), to not rely on any other countries. The whole lie about peak oil, peak uranium, etc. should be pretty transparent by now, especially when we just recently reached a point where the world had so much oil we ran out of places to store it, causing the price to dip negative. It is only artificial government interference that is causing the already low prices to not be even lower, and there's no risk even without technological advancement (which is always occurring) of running out of any of these energy sources in your or your children's lifetime.

There's nothing wrong with alternative techs, but when you have to create regulations specifically intended to destroy a viable good existing technology while subsidizing the alternative, clearly it is NOT ready. Allow the free-market and consumer freedom to decide what we do and don't want, rather than saying "look, people prefer soy over beef" after putting huge subsidies on soy and creating a bunch of laws intended to make beef expensive and/or lower quality. *facepalm*

TL;DR?
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
You aren't energy independent, you are just paying for electricity in advance, and in fact drastically reducing your overall freedom. If you can't understand why, learn to read better, that shouldn't take more than 10 seconds to skim.
 

MikeTrike

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
8,740
You aren't energy independent, you are just paying for electricity in advance, and in fact drastically reducing your overall freedom. If you can't understand why, learn to read better, that shouldn't take more than 10 seconds to skim.

You smooth talker, you!

tenor.gif
 

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,659
This is the only glimpse of objective reality that you seem to be willing to recognize in your EV evangelism.

You liken ICE inferiority/EV superiority to the fall of coal energy, when the only reason that coal is no longer a viable technology is because the government for all intents and purposes banned it. We have virtually infinite stockpiles of coal and the plants were very cheap to produce and operate, without much major pollution in their later designs save for harmless carbon dioxide. The government created various laws specifically targeting coal energy to destroy the market while simultaneously massively subsidizing inferior technology that otherwise couldn't sustain itself on the market like ethanol, solar, and wind, and then pretend like that demonstrates its a superior technology. Its simply a matter of big government artificially creating winners and losers, and on some level you seem to recognize that now with the banning of ICE.

You don't need to ban a technology if it isn't otherwise the superior choice that consumers would pick if given the organic option. You have to ban a technology when you want to FORCE consumers to adopt an inferior technology that they otherwise would not consume. And just like with coal, you don't have to even outright ban a technology, you can just keep creating laws specifically intended to target the technology to reduce its efficiency and increase its costs.

There's big money in energy, and by using the government to destroy existing markets and create new ones that depend on them through circular subsidies (government gives money to industries that give money to their campaigns that give money to industries ad infinitum), a few people can become massively wealthy pushing an otherwise inferior technology that the market would not have adopted, at least not in its immature state, without all the interference hurting existing tech and elevating alternative tech.

tl;dr: If ICE were inherently inferior and EV superior, then allow the market to decide and end any and all EV subsidies immediately and there would be no need to ban or regulate ICE into forced extinction.

I would agree that they only way true widespread adoption will occur is if the government stepped in and forced it as like I mentioned ice vehicles do a very good job at filling the gap they are used for. I personally would object highly to the government stepping in like this and I believe alot of other people would as well. Thats why countries and states like to push the date long into the future because its not something they could currently force. If this was forced upon me I'm grabbing the cheapest used electric pickup and dropping a Detroit diesel generator in the bed to power the thing.

Automakers tend to struggle in periods of economic hardship. Tesla may not be immune to that however they are still operating as less of a company and more of a investment so that may help them if people have enough capital to throw money at stocks.

The main issue I have with solar included or forced upon homeowners is its a absalute rip off compared to the price of the panels and I'm opposed being forced to burn 10k or more just because the government says so. If you want it now it's obtainable anf thats the way it should be. If they really want to force people to adopt bring back the subsidies and let the government burn some money to support the solor industry
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
I would agree that they only way true widespread adoption will occur is if the government stepped in and forced it as like I mentioned ice vehicles do a very good job at filling the gap they are used for.
At present, absolutely, however, I think it would have and should have happened organically. Lithium battery technology was going to see massive investment one way or another because of all the non-automotive applications from lawn mowers, laptops, cellphones, etc. and when/if fossil fuels saw an increase, then the market could naturally adapt to alternatives as the price/benefit ratio changed over time. That's natural progression of technology and less harmful to the economy, but because there is so much money to be made from alarmism they push this sky is falling nonsense on all fronts relentlessly... you have to switch NOW or you'll DIE and you're KILLING Greta (who for some reason isn't visiting places like China, South America, India, or sub-Saharan Africa that really do need to get their act together)!
You smooth talker, you!
When people resort to sarcastic dismissal that were previously talkative, its a pretty clear sign they just don't see any holes in the points made, but they are too entrenched to care about flaws in their logic.
 

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,659
At present, absolutely, however, I think it would have and should have happened organically. Lithium battery technology was going to see massive investment one way or another because of all the non-automotive applications from lawn mowers, laptops, cellphones, etc. and when/if fossil fuels saw an increase, then the market could naturally adapt to alternatives as the price/benefit ratio changed over time. That's natural progression of technology and less harmful to the economy, but because there is so much money to be made from alarmism they push this sky is falling nonsense on all fronts relentlessly... you have to switch NOW or you'll DIE and you're KILLING Greta (who for some reason isn't visiting places like China, South America, India, or sub-Saharan Africa that really do need to get their act together)!

When people resort to sarcastic dismissal that were previously talkative, its a pretty clear sign they just don't see any holes in the points made, but they are too entrenched to care about flaws in their logic.

I love seeing advancements in battery technologies as like you said they are vital to so many fields. However, that tech is advancing slowly (lithium batteries) and never will hit the energy densities possible with gas. It will be interesting to see if we ever see a oil price boom again although I would bet against it as such could easily lead to the demise of the oil industries and there are many countries out they who do not want that to happen. I forsee cheap gas till the market naturally shifts away from it as long as the government doesnt step in to artificially inflated it too substantially.

Its also worth noting that there currently is no alternative to many diesel rigs (largely due to the energy density of diesel compared to batteries) so that whole industry is resistant to shifts to exclusively electric
 
Last edited:

MikeTrike

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
8,740
When people resort to sarcastic dismissal that were previously talkative, its a pretty clear sign they just don't see any holes in the points made, but they are too entrenched to care about flaws in their logic.
In my defense, your attitude gives off "pompous shitbag" vibe. Now I'm not saying that I'm not a shitbag, but FFS...
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
In my defense, your attitude gives off "pompous shitbag" vibe. Now I'm not saying that I'm not a shitbag, but FFS...
Your defense is that the substance of a post is less important than the tingles it provided you emotionally to read it? C'mon, certainly the factual accuracy is more important than the finesse of the delivery.
However, that tech is advancing slowly (lithium batteries) and never will hit the energy densities possible with gas.
You're absolutely right, although devil's advocate is that it shouldn't really need to, since electric motors are operating at 90%+ efficiency compared to ICE at about 20%. That said, that also means that a huge improvement in electric efficiency isn't possible, whereas technological innovations are likely to still see huge improvements in ICE, as long as governments aren't creating regulations intended to price plebs out of the personal mobility market entirely and into mass transit (what I'm convinced the end goal is, so that eating steaks and having your own personal transport will be the luxury of the upper classes as they price-out via regulation the plebs to live in apartments, take mass transit, and eat soy and bugs).
 

DWolvin

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
2,365
Eh, ICE has had over a hundred years of development. I don't think there are any huge advancements left (same can be said for electric motors, mind). Batteries, on the other hand may have huge leaps available, and even now are better than the naysayers want to admit. I bought my first new vehicle (6 cars, 5 motorcycles) almost 3 years ago- Tesla 3. I never hit a gas station any more (made staying quit easier :ROFLMAO: ), up until this week have only needed a supercharger once (SD to Orange + driving around all day and charge on the return). It's not perfect, but it's loads better than those with an axe to grind make it out to be. Half a battery seems to be 15 - 20 minutes, and I start with 300 miles every morning. Hell, for a while a stock 3 had the coast to coast record set by a family renting one and never going more than 10 over (I think it was 46 hrs).

TLDR: there are few gains left on the movement side, but batteries may have a decent amount of room to grow.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
Eh, ICE has had over a hundred years of development.
Electric batteries predate the internal combustion engine, as do electric cars.
It's not perfect, but it's loads better than those with an axe to grind make it out to be.
There are some people that will argue about anything, but for the most part people don't really care if you're a boxers or briefs guy. The problem with electric is that its not a personal choice, but one that is being forced on people. People that don't want a Tesla had to pay some of your car payments, statistically, quite a few that make less money than you, and if they objected then people with guns would come to their house to take their stuff or throw them in jail. Furthermore, even ignoring subsidies, like myself many are pissed that there are constantly new regulations put in place that if not outright banning non-electric vehicles are intended to make their cars more expensive and lower performance all else equal like Euro 7 or prohibitive fuel taxes as seen in Germany or banning non-electric vehicles from city centers like in the UK.

So you have to understand the context of some people bitching about electrics. All of my power and landscaping tools are now exclusively electric, and that's not controversial because the government wasn't interfering with anyone's choice to use a gas over electric lawnmower (at least not yet) nor forcing them to pay for part of my purchase.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
You really wanna bet we wont see some bailouts, consolidations or bankruptcies in the ICE market before 2025? Ok I'll shake your hand on that bet. Already seeing some early signs today with companies like Ford abandoning almost everything but their last stronghold in the truck market more or less, we better save up to pay for their upcoming bailout check, too big to fail you know.

2025-2030 should be the most interesting, probably the eye of the storm. Would hate to be Mazda's CEO by then unless they shape up quick.
A bailout is not an indicator of market failure but rather creative company accounting. Do you really think the airline bailouts actually helped the airline industry? Do you think it saved them from bankruptcy?
Reality showed us all it did was line a few peoples pockets and buy a bunch of really swank golden parachutes. Retrospective accounting showed the airlines were never in "dire straights" and would have survived just fine if they actually had to compete with one another.

In the same line if you see a vehicle company claim bankruptcy be highly doubtful. Often its a tried and true scam to sell the company while getting the government to pay for it and writing off the whole thing as a loss on the new company.

If you want to talk actual market economics you need to look at resource market trends. End tier like tesla dont really function with supply and demand anymore since retail investors started to listen to snakeoil salesmen in the market. Now if you want to actually see fundamentals in action you have to look at the resources themselves. What we see at the moment is oil growing till 2040-2050 then platueing for several decades. We see lithium falling, Nickle rising, etc... What we do not see is a huge shift in resource trends from ICE materials.

Why? Well consumer cars are chump change. Even if tesla took 100% of the market that's still not going to kill gasoline, diesel, ship diesel, or jet fuel markets. It wont even be a blip in those industries and if anything the loss of car competition will spur the freight industry to double down on ICE because it will be the defacto cheapest option. No matter how much tesla thinks it can make a purely electric truck its going to take time. The hype behind tesla stock is basically as bad as the bitcoin hype... its driving absolutely nothing because there are only so many scientists who remotely understand battery tech enough on the planet to make meaningful novel advancements. Hell there are what.. 3 actual labs that have made marketable breakthroughs in the last century? Throwing billions at something doesn't magically make it happen faster.

If you wanted to be truly environmentally conscious then get off the tesla wagon and start actually looking at ships. Ever single car on the planet could disappear tomorrow and nothing would happen climate wise. Absolutely zero.
Trucks and most especially ships are the biggest polluters world wide next to steel. The only reason people target cars is a badly worded EPA article saying 30%ish of GHG emissions came from the transport industry. What the report doesn't tell you is cars are less than 15% of that pie slice and have been for a while especially in north America/EU(where people can actually afford to drive something other than a 1977 Toyota truck). Convert the trucking and shipping industry to methanol fuel and you would have an automatic 19% CO2 reduction world wide(also a near eradication of NOx, CO, and Sulphur pollution). Funny though no one talks about that in NA/EU though because its technically a carbon consuming NATURAL GAS industry and thus evil somehow.

---------------------------------------
@DWolvin
ICE gasoline has a few percentage points that could be squeezed out of the process. Most gains would come in frame design and lightening the engines as newer lighter materials develop and 3d printing evolve.
ICE with other fuels though.... that's still very much an improvable industry. I know for an absolute fact that methanol for ships, which was once thought to be inferior to diesel, might actually be able to generate MORE usable power per gallon of fuel with improvements to the engine and generation systems that can only come from using methanol due to its combustion mechanics and storage quirks. ICE has a long way to go especially if used to power an electrical motor. We are >< this close to being able to efficiently power trucks with electric drivetrains and ICE power plants. That innovation alone makes teslas all electric trucks look stupid. Why wait to charge when you can do it more efficiently yourself anywhere any time and have effectively unlimited shipping ranges on land?
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
If you wanted to be truly environmentally conscious then get off the tesla wagon and start actually looking at ships. Ever single car on the planet could disappear tomorrow and nothing would happen climate wise. Absolutely zero.
I wouldn't buy into the climate alarmism at all.
1) The climate alarmists have a horrific track history at predicting the calamities they swore would happen when crying wolf.

2) They claim that any weird climactic event, which have always happened in history, are proof of global warming while ignoring the fact that we are coming out of an ice age and that for example when the Mongolian empire twice attacked Japan in each case there were historically massive typhoons that killed tens of thousands long before the industrial age, but you and I know that if the same event happened today that CNN would tell you it happened because you're driving a Jeep Cherokee and aren't paying them carbon taxes.

3) They claim it will "destroy the planet" or "destroy all life", and if you look at the archives some examples are that polar bears were going to go extinct and acid rain was going to destroy all the trees, but there are more polar bears recorded alive today than at any time before, and a recent world satellite survey showed that there are more trees now than since the start of the industrial revolution. You can also ask any scientists "at what point in Earth's history was the planet able to support peak biomass" and they will unanimously say it was the Carboniferous period (hence the name), and then you can ask for confirmation that CO2 levels at this time were five to six times as high as today, something we couldn't achieve without the help of massive volcanic activity even if we tried, demonstrating for a fact that CO2 is not some toxic emission.
ICE gasoline has a few percentage points that could be squeezed out of the process.
Because the energy density of gasoline is so massive, and the most recent report shows that even at previous levels of global economic and population growth (which are not likely to happen) we have at minimum 250 years of oil left just with existing known supplies, with no technological innovation or exploration required, the percentage points of thermal efficiency actually aren't that important. What is important is the power to weight ratio of the powertrain.

And were it not for constant regulations trying to hurt the efficiency of ICE, we could all have pint-sized engines making 1000hp today. The 1980s, with very primitive technology particularly on the electronics and sensors side, were able to produce small light engines more powerful than anything we have today in F1. Back in 85, BMW was already pushing 1,300hp out of a tiny 1.5 liter four banger.

The engines were so efficient in a power-to-liter ratio that they ultimately had to ban them, but imagine what we'd have today if they were allowed to make 5.0 liter versions with the same lack of regulations 35 years later, we'd be seeing 5,000+hp. The only reason we think a 800hp Hellcat is impressive is because its making that power in spite of all the regulations put in place by primarily EU governments to reduce its power output.
 
Top