NYTimes blunders again... columnist says 200-300 mile EV battery nonexistant

[anticitizen13.7]

Unbelievable that this would be published in 2015: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/o...-powering-electric-cars.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Steve LeVine became interested in batteries in the wake of the financial crisis. LeVine is the Washington correspondent for Quartz, a news site covering the global economy, and he sensed, he told me recently, “a loss of confidence in the U.S. in our ability to create a real economy” — one based not on financial instruments or a real estate boom, but real products that would help create entire new industries.

The battery could be such a product. Not just any battery, of course, but a battery designed for electric cars and capable of powering them for 200 miles or even 300 miles per charge. A battery that could compete with — and eventually replace — the internal combustion engine and transform the electric car from a niche product to a mass-market automobile.

Such a battery does not yet exist.

I can't believe that almost 3 years after the Model S launch, and after the Broder debacle, that the New York Times would publish something like this. Doesn't the Times have editors and fact checkers that would flag this stuff before publication? What is this garbage?

At any rate, the reader response was quick and devastating in the comments section, with many people calling out Mr. Nocera for failing to mention Tesla at all.

Is the Times really this incompetent?

Or is this deliberate?

 

[flankspeed8]

Is the Times really this incompetent?

yes! Although this seems to be an opinion piece I am sure some will use that as a reason to deflect any blame on the NYT. However, if this has been a piece on foxnews.com they would be screaming bloody murder. Bottom line, there is just a lot of incompetence and a basic inability or desire to invest the time to write a truly balanced piece.

 

[JST]

That piece is terrible, of course, but giving the author the benefit of the doubt it's clear that he means a battery that is "affordable" as well as technically viable. I still think it's bizarre to write an article like this without even mentioning lithium ion or Tesla, though.

 

[MikeC]

The omission of Tesla is glaring.

Writing an article about the pursuit of a 200-300 mile battery without mentioning Tesla (who had one in 2008) is like writing an article on poorly-researched, biased reporting without mentioning the New York Times.

 

[markb1]

yes! Although this seems to be an opinion piece I am sure some will use that as a reason to deflect any blame on the NYT. However, if this has been a piece on foxnews.com they would be screaming bloody murder. Bottom line, there is just a lot of incompetence and a basic inability or desire to invest the time to write a truly balanced piece.

Journalists are not supposed to play fast and loose with the facts. That it is an editorial is not an excuse. The NY Times is still responsible for fact-checking their editorials.

 

[techmaven]

Unbelievable that this would be published in 2015: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/o...-powering-electric-cars.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I can't believe that almost 3 years after the Model S launch, and after the Broder debacle, that the New York Times would publish something like this. Doesn't the Times have editors and fact checkers that would flag this stuff before publication? What is this garbage?

At any rate, the reader response was quick and devastating in the comments section, with many people calling out Mr. Nocera for failing to mention Tesla at all.

Is the Times really this incompetent?

Or is this deliberate?

It's an unfortunate summary. Mr. LeVine's article on the failure of high voltage NMC is actually pretty good:

Can the world Quartz

Which basically means that the pathway to a 3rd generation NMC battery chemistry that really competes well against Tesla/Panasonic's NCA chemistry is defunct. The riddle of the battery necessary to build an affordable, price competitive 200 mile BEV is what Mr. LeVine is really talking about. As in the batteries that will power the Tesla Model 3 and its competitors, not the batteries that shipped with the Roadster or the Model S.

This is the reason why I don't believe the Bolt is a 200 mile EPA range BEV. With the failure of high voltage NMC, they are likely restricted to a NMC chemistry that is not going to be any better than Tesla's current NCA chemistry. They may be able to make up for it with less pack structure (ie. no liquid thermal management). Of course, Tesla is both increasing their specific energy and lowering their cost, so LG and others will likely have a hard time competing head to head against Tesla's 2016/2017 batteries. Beyond 2019/2020 is likely some sort of solid state battery.

 

[mibaro2]

This article caught me by surprise. I didn't know weather to laugh or cry!
Unbelievable!

 

[dsm363]

I emailed the public editor. I think that is the correct person for this article.

 

[brianman]

See signature. V

 

[ecarfan]

I read that columnist, Joe Nocera, pretty regularly and think he's a reasonable guy. He sure screwed up in his latest column. I made three posts in the reader comments section correcting his error and also correcting errors made by uninformed readers, which are numerous.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

yes! Although this seems to be an opinion piece I am sure some will use that as a reason to deflect any blame on the NYT. However, if this has been a piece on foxnews.com they would be screaming bloody murder. Bottom line, there is just a lot of incompetence and a basic inability or desire to invest the time to write a truly balanced piece.

Journalists are not supposed to play fast and loose with the facts. That it is an editorial is not an excuse. The NY Times is still responsible for fact-checking their editorials.

I believe that Times columnists have access to research staff (David Brooks mentioned this during one of his weekly political segments on NPR), and I would be flabbergasted if every column didn't go through at least one level of editorial review.

Maybe they all just messed up, but given what happened with Mr. Broder, I'm not exactly feeling generous towards the NYTimes where it comes to reporting on Tesla.

 

[NigelM]

I can't believe that almost 3 years after the Model S launch, and after the Broder debacle, that the New York Times would publish something like this. Doesn't the Times have editors and fact checkers that would flag this stuff before publication? What is this garbage?

It's even longer than 3 years, you forgot about the Roadster.

 

[artsci]

Is the Times really this incompetent?

Or is this deliberate?

It's deliberate I'm sure. Tesla called them on the Broder debacle and made them liars, which I'm now actually convinced they consistently are. I've been a lifelong subscriber and I've regrettably concluded that they lie through their teeth to fabricate a story the way they want it to be seen. It's become yellow journalism at it's best.

 

[mknox]

It's deliberate I'm sure. Tesla called them on the Broder debacle and made them liars, which I'm now actually convinced they consistently are. I've been a lifelong subscriber and I've regrettably concluded that they lie through their teeth to fabricate a story the way they want it to be seen. It's become yellow journalism at it's best.

One of the things I've observed about the media in general is that whenever a story is covered about something I know well (i.e. the industry I work in) I am so amazed by how inaccurate the coverage is that it makes me wonder about the validity of anything else I read or hear. I wonder if a bit of that is going on here. We are all very well informed on the particular subject matter and perhaps the journalist is simply not.

 

[brianman]

One of the things I've observed about the media in general is that whenever a story is covered about something I know well (i.e. the industry I work in) I am so amazed by how inaccurate the coverage is that it makes me wonder about the validity of anything else I read or hear. I wonder if a bit of that is going on here. We are all very well informed on the particular subject matter and perhaps the journalist is simply not.

Let's take your hypothesis as fact.

The purpose of journalism (at least to me) is to inform me of reality not fantasy. If they are failing on that front, for whatever reason, then they should be filed in the fiction section with a bunch of other crap that I don't ever read.

Pre-clarification: I have no problem with fiction (as a whole), but a lot of it doesn't interest me.

 

[ecarfan]

I do not condemn the entire NYT staff on the basis of Broder and one Nocera piece. That's not rational.

Much of what Nocera wrote makes sense to me, but he missed on Tesla. Perhaps he considers the Model S too far from mainstream use based on the price, which is true, but he should have acknowledged the company and what it has accomplished.

 

[mknox]

The purpose of journalism (at least to me) is to inform me of reality not fantasy. If they are failing on that front, for whatever reason, then they should be filed in the fiction section with a bunch of other crap that I don't ever read.

I'm not quite sure I'm ready to call all reporting "fantasy", it just seems to be getting increasingly inaccurate and, to some extent, sloppy. I think that sometimes as facts are collected, the journalist will use the ones that support his/her preconceived notions and discard those that don't. Electric vehicles are often reported on by people still stuck in the gasoline car paradigm, concerned with "how far it will go on a charge" (which is important when you think of fueling a gas car, but irrelevant with an EV that you "fuel" every night in your garage). To sum up, I'm not sure this editorial was biased but rather just ill informed.

 

[Dutchie]

Well, technically the MS does not use one​ battery but several thousands of batteries....

 

[mknox]

Well, technically the MS does not use one​ battery but several thousands of batteries....

Actually... a number of battery modules comprised of thousands of cells. :wink:

 

[brianman]

To sum up, I'm not sure this editorial was biased but rather just ill informed.

To put a finer point on it, both versions of journalism are failure in my book.