About truck vs rail transportation. Rail is 5x as efficient as truck. 5 freaking times. For the same propulsion energy used to transport 20 tons on the same route by truck, rail can transport 100 tons. If there's a rail route from Sparks to Freemont, there's no way in hell an electric truck will make any remote sense. The reason is: Aerodynamics: A long train composition has only one true front section. The drag between each wagon is much smaller than the front section drag. Friction: Railroad total friction per ton is much smaller than road friction. Emissions from burning Diesel on railroads are low enough. Not worth the trouble eliminating that. Worry about cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles first. Tesla has its work cut out for itself. An initial Semi will come after 2020 after Lithium density doubles again vs 2170 packs. Tesla isn't going to design a semi just for its own needs. Its just not worth it. When a Model S/X has a 200+kWh pack at the high end, then Tesla can offer a 500kWh pack for an initial semi configuration with shorter range. Then over a decade increase that to a full MWh, and beyond if needed. Electric vehicles make a lot more sense in applications where there's a lot of stop and go, like city buses and delivery trucks. Electric semis and long range buses are the very last application for land. I'm assuming locomotives will use overhead electricity and skip the batteries altogether. PS: Sea shipping is another 5x more efficient than rail ! Due to slower speeds and humongous sizes. Cargo rail normally goes 50mph. Sea shipping goes around 10 mph. The cost to build a railroad is huge for significant distances. My dad is a retired VALE executive, the big Brazilian mining company. As a kid I had the opportunity to talk to vale Railroad maintenance managers, the guys who knows those numbers in and out. World class Railroads able to take compositions moving at 50mph safety are not cheap to build and maintain.
Wait... Hunh? WHAT?!? No. Zero emissions for ground transportation and zero dependence upon fossil fuels for transportation or bust.
Not if your Excuse me. Zero emissions worldwide is a pipe dream. Pipe dream. Unless you're 100% on board with large nuclear ships, we might NEVER migrate away from fossil fuels on long distance shipping. EVs+PHEVs just broke the 1% barrier in the USA is just about there worldwide too. Electrified transportation is still many decades from any hope of plularity of transportation. And how do you suggest you'll force radical Republican religious fundamentalists to go electric ? You ignore basic rules of economics. Once EVs get massive adoption and oil consumption goes down by even 1/3, expensive oil sources will shutdown, only cheap oil will stay in the market that will force oil prices substantially down. We could have one dollar a gallon gasoline forever. Some morons will insist on using gasoline. Work on that realistic problem instead of your pipe dream. The real world is a bitch. Real world economics is a bitch. If you guys don't want to hear how the real world works, then please ban me from this group.
One day everything that uses energy has to switch to some form of renewable energy. But yes, it may take a long time, and if we don't act now that may be after the age of humans on this planet... But I agree with you that a diesel-electric train could be a better solution then a lot of other alternatives, maybe even BEV semi-trucks (no, I have not done the calculation on that). But since we here do not discuss electric train vs. diesel-electric train in general, but this special case of transporting produced batteries from GF-I to Fremont, did you calculate in the value of Tesla been able to tell their customers that even the battery transport is done pollution free? They have put a lot of prestige in that the GF-I will be none-pollution, so that would have some value for Tesla to take the same approach on the transport.
Not a real world solution. As a yachtsman, having sailed over a half a dozen types (from the little optimist up to fast hobbie cats), I know far more about sailing than you think. Real world long distance shipping is ships that displace 200-500 thousand tons. Ships are money making resources. You just can't slow down because the winds aren't blowing... I've been aboard what was the largest grain ship in the late 80s. The MS Berge Stahl carried over 350 thousand tons of iron ore per trip. Please tell me how you're going to replace that... Another pipe dream solution. Like I said, the only real solution to large ships is nuclear power. Again you're not telling me the economics of this. We're just crossing the 1% worldwide EV+PHEV mark. Lets dream about 10% of news cars being EV+PHEVs. Then we can actually dream for 25%. The reason it makes no sense to dream much further is the reality will shape itself in the years in between and we just don't know how that will look like. PS: I'm 100% in favor of a worldwide carbon dividend. That would actually do the trick in the long run. Instead of dreaming about an ideal future, lets find ways to convince politicians to adopt that. Much more fruitful ! Also think about how to heavily incentive very high mileage drivers to go electric ASAP, while giving zero incentives for soccer moms that drive <20 miles a day.
Sorry, I thought that was obvious. One day (no, I did not say "one day soon") there is noe more fossil fuel left to use if we continue to use it, so it will be no alternative. That is no pipe-dream, that is reality. So one way or another, sooner or later, we have to convert all of our society over from using finite resources to renewables. The sooner and faster we can do it, the softer the transition can be, and the risk associated with continued use off fossil fuels gets reduced. Here in Norway last month 17,3% of new cars was zero-emission (BEV/Hydrogen), and 33,8% was hybrid - about half with plug-in. So here BEV+PHEVs was at about 35% of the new car sales. So it is possible today, no dream. Why? I see no reason that soccer moms should continue to use big heavy fossil fuel SUVs - even if they have a short drive. Yes, you need to convert the few that have very high mileage - AND all the millions of cars with low mileage. And everybody in between.
I made no assumptions about your sailing knowledge, and as a life long sailor myself it seems I've sailed more and larger vessels than you, though that's irrelevant to the discussion. Sailing vessels are just one possible solution, fuel cell ships could be another, since they are floating in a source of hydrogen. The point is that eventually shipping will have to find another method of propulsion besides fossil fuels, as Model3 points out above. From my previous link: That's simply not sustainable.
[BOLSHEVIK]. There is no reason whatsoever to continue BURNING petroleum for the sake of transportation. None. Petroleum products can go back to being used for their original purpose, as lubricants, that at least allowed me to see some whales during my lifetime, instead of them all being extinct by the time my Grandparents were born. It would be really nice if the Los Angeles basin skyline does not look like something from 'BLADE RUNNER' by the time my Nieces and Nephews become Grandparents, thank you very much.
What I did was to avoid entering into long discussions why it absolutely doesn't make sense to have merchant sail boats of significant size. Like how to engineer a sail mast one Km long that will be subject to a force equivalent to one million tons of weight ! If you use 10 masts, and try to sail with a tail wind +- 30 degrees, only the trailing mast works. Just to mention one of a dozen massive challenges why it's just unfeasable to have huge merchant sail transports. The mechanical engineering challenges to produce a merchant ship able to carry 100000 tons of cargo at 7 knots (half the speed of a normal merchant boat) is insanely hard. More like impossible. Again... Pipe dream. Lets focus on EV cars. Somebody alluded to the success of EV penetration on Norway. Yes, sure, absolutely. One of the single most educated and richest countries in the world. With heavy subsidies paid by oil exports no less. The US should start by taxing all fossil fuels like Europe, which will NEVER happen with a republican presidency, house and senate ! Create a fuel tax of US$ 1 / gallon. That would help. Work on that, instead of pipe dreaming... You guys don't get it. You just want pleasant thoughts. You don't want to face the hard challenges of how to make those dreams happen. You avoid everything unpleasant, cause its... UNPLEASANT. If you're talking about the USA, start figuring out how to have a progressive president, house and senate. Remember boys, Hillary isn't a progressive. She's a corporatist. She does what big democratic money tells her to do. Warren Buffet doesn't want a carbon tax/dividend. He owns railways. He owns natural gas plants. Just to give one single example. Real world... A bitch.
I promise that you have no idea what we do or do not "get". If you want to delude yourself into thinking you possess some greater or unique insight be my guest.
Reality is a highly overrated concept. The entire United States of America was founded upon pipe dreams and the drug trade. Tobacco, whiskey, rum, and sugar -- while the rest of the Americas contributed cocaine and marijuana among other products for consumption and trade. Economically speaking a couple of States might as well fall into the Atlantic Ocean if tobacco were outlawed while marijuana were universally legalized here. There are indeed 'winners and losers' and those that choose them typically have some personal interest in seeing things develop along a particular path instead of another. One reality stands: ICE vehicles have been exposed for their fundamental limitations compared to EVs, even at the very height of their market dominance and technological might. The very best of ICE vehicles still need electrical assistance to even have a hope of teaching 40% energy efficiency. And that reality is important despite your poo-pooing on economic basis. Because the economic gap is decreasing year after year. As ICE vehicles become more expensive, while better performing EVs go down in price. But the old reality of better products being marginalized in the name of the Almighty Dollar is dead and gone thanks to this wonderful thing called the Internet. Despite efforts by pundits, talking heads, and ANALysts, the actual TRUTH about what can be done, what is available, and how to acquire them remains publicly accessible. No longer can anyone count on their competitors being shut down by falsehoods spread through traditional print, radio, and television media. Tesla will not fall victim to the tactics used to kill off Tucker and DeLorean.
$1 per gallon seems like a pretty regressive tax for a progressive government to propose. The well-off would not be much harmed, relatively speaking, while the poor would be hit very hard both by the direct cost of their commuting and home heating as well as indirect freight costs added to essential goods they buy.
Yeah. Well that is precisely the argument for the continual falsehood that we have 'cheap gas' in the U.S. Oh, we pay for it -- in blood, body parts, the associated mental trauma, and corpses of our armed servicemen who protect the so-called 'free trade' of petroleum worldwide. But for some reason no one wants to count that as a 'cost' at all. They are instead content to fill up their gas guzzling SUVs at the local Costco. I'd rather we stopped wasting lives and energy for a change.
As I understood it, the Industrial Revolution affected the textile industry first, and the transportation industry later. Grease of any sort was fine for water wheels or wagons. It was steam engines that upped the ante, so that petroleum overtook other lubricants. And it was the internal combustion engine that raised the stakes exponentially beyond that. Because petroleum was used as fuel, coolant, and lubricant in some designs. The fact that heat would oxidize oil and that the expansion and cooling of mechanicals would make it leak just meant that even more was needed. It seems that markets really like the idea of consumable products. Some people really like the idea of their customers buying things to burn.
Not really. You would be floating on a source of water. It takes energy to transform water into Hydrogen (gas) and Oxygen (gas). You don't get even that amount of energy back when you run it through a fuel cell. So where is the energy coming from? Thank you kindly.
That "somebody" was me. Yes, you are right that we are one of the "most educated and richest countries in the world", and that a lot of our money comes from exporting oil and gas. But EV's not subsidized in that no money is payed out from our oil-fortune to pay for this, and the buyers is not given a "tax credit" like you get in the US. Whats really happening is that the government has decided to not collect taxes on EV sales, and I could easily see an "republican presidency, house and senate" dropping a tax But on the other hand, the reason this work so well is because the taxes that all other cars have is so high, and the same goes for the taxes on fossil fuel (and we also have some extra taxes on electricity - that is not dropped). And you may have a point that an "republican presidency, house and senate" will not raise this other taxes enough to make that difference. But that was not my point, my point was that it was doable if you have the political will to make a change. It your "presidency, house and senate" will not do it, then you need to elect those who will - if anybody will. And no, I do not care about what party or whatever that would be, as I have no interest to interfere in your domestic politics, but what we are discussing here is of global consequences, therefor I make an exception.
That's why JD Rockefeller gave lanterns free to the people of China. He made a fortune selling them oil (kerosene) to burn in them.
You would think so, but in the wacky world of American politics, if you don't collect a tax they call it government spending. And the only thing Republicans hate more than a tax is government spending (unless it's for a military boondoggle). It seems unlikely that we'll get rational policy around properly allocating the externalized costs of petroleum anytime soon. In the absence of any leadership on the issue, it seems best to push hard on making petroleum irrelevant as fast as possible.