I think it was the autonomy video I linked above where Elon admits that Tesla has used third-party batteries for the Tesla Powerwall, but not for its cars.
Edit â Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucp0TTmvqOE&t=3h38m32s
You are right. I guess driving in a smaller are inside of a city wouldnât use as much juice. I guess I donât think about those things out where I live. Our entire county has maybe 8 officers patrolling a entire county. There are only 4 small cities in our county. The largest is less than 5,000 people and the smallest is less than 150. Only one has a 24hr police department. The other ones shut it down about 11pm or midnight.
So maybe not too good in a large county with a large area to patrol but perfectly acceptable in cities with smaller zones to patrol.
Must admit that Iâm not particulary fond looking forward to drive a golf cart with a fixed roof.
But I came a long way in the technical evolution since both my grand dadâs were engine driver on steam locâs.
Energy consumption (gas or E) is much higher at a steady 120mph than at a steady 30mph.
Even more if you are persuing a fast driving car while trying not to hit too much innocent bystanders.
I donât really see what happened as a problem.
Sure the Tesla ran out of juice. But there were other police vehicles present to continue the chase.
And suppose the Tesla had been a gasoline vehicle that ran out of gas. Taking 4 minutes to refuel during a 120 mph car chase means youâre out of the chase anyways. Youâre never going to catch back up after refueling so the end result is the same.
primetime is when the earth is finished?
Please. Remember. No. Politics. :innocent: :innocent: :innocent:
OMG. Thatâs great! :laughing:
Unless those problems are addressed and fixed, maybe.
Everyone seems to think that âalternative energyâ is pristine and harmless, but itâs not. Wind turbines are bird-blenders that kill by the tens of thousands per year (addendum: each), and change wind patterns (and thus weather downstream). Geothermal sucks heat out from underneath and leads to contraction, causing (for now, small) earthquakes. Water power disrupts marine life, sometimes catastrophically. Solar uses noxious chemicals (and lots of energy) to produce the cells, and changes local weather and habitat (shading, heating, etc.). I wonât even get into solar-towers that instantly fry birds in midair if they happen to fly into any of the beams.
So wherever it comes from, electricity has its environmental costs, but itâs just trading one set of problems for another.
Hereâs a bonus, though. All those âclean airâ laws? Theyâre working! No more pea-soup fog in London, smog is dramatically clearing worldwide (except China and anywhere downstream), and the air is lots cleaner overall. The drawback, though, is what happens when you clean dirty windows that are covered with caked-on pollen, dirt, etc. It lets in lots more sunlight. You can see that beforeânâafter in your living-room, or just cleaning dirty headlights on your car. So sure, all that extra sunlight reaches the ground and⌠omgwtf⌠heats up the ground and oceans, raising temperatures! I can personally feel the difference on even cool days, being in shade and then in sunlight. I feel like an ant under a magnifying glass.
Frankly, the best solution would be nuclear, but not the old traditional way that leaves tons of radioactive ash, but IFRs (integral fast reactors) that can wring out most of the stored energy leaving almost low-level waste that doesnât need excruciatingly hazardous handling and storage afterwards. In fact, IFRs can burn as fuel whatâs now being dumped as waste. Ah, but thatâs not âgreenâ⌠:confounded:
Obviously itâs not pristine and harmless.
However, 6/10 is still better than 2/10, yes?
Wind turbines kill less birds than cats, and buildings, and planes. They kill 8.2 birds per turbine, not ten thousands:
https://naturecanada.ca/news/blog/wind-turbines-vs-turtles/
Solar is still way better than any other fossil fuel energy source.
Coal is radioactive and produces lots of dirty stuff from combustion, and probably kills a lot more things than solar, wind, and nuclear ever did.
A petroleum leak is way more damaging than a single concentrated source of solar panels from a manufacturer.
Thereâs saying truth, and serving some uninformed lies sprinkled with truth.
For a forum populated with people who dive into the details on cells on a regular basis, pretty amazed at the astonishing amount of incorrect information in this thread 
Itâs not even worth de-bunking whatâs been said in the first few posts as for people to be here in 2019 and still believing some of this tired old crap shows either:
- A total unwillingness to accept something new even in the face of overwhelming evidence
- Stupidity to the level that cannot be argued with.
Electric cars are our future, like it or not!
Yeah, my bad, I misremembered an article about birds in some migratory path going through those bird-blenders. People in the area were scooping up small piles of dead birds each day (>10k/yr), but that was one wind-farm. Overall, numbers vary (Audobon, USAToday, etc.), but itâs still a fractional-million per year.
Solar is great if itâs used on roofs, carports, other dead-space, but not so great on âsolar farmsâ, where acres of greenery (which sucks in that bad olâ CO2) is plow- or paved over to install them.
+1
In relation to electric cars, Iâd love to see a Tesla Model 3 with a 100kWh battery pack.
Due to being slightly more energy dense than the 18650 Tesla S 100kWh battery pack, and being quite a bit more efficient, Iâd be willing to bet we could get even closer to 450 miles.
I just looked up the conversion efficiency of chlorophyll (you can tell this is BLF) and got:
from Wikipedia:
Commercial solar cells routinely achieve 20% these days, so the solar panels could actually be better for the environment than the plants they displace, as long as the power they produce is displacing power from sources that emit carbon dioxide.
I do agree that itâs better to put solar panels on dead spaces like rooftops, though - thatâs a win-win for power and plant life.
Much of the money, time and effort going into solar, wind, etc. power recently should have been put into nuclear fission 30 years ago. Unfortunately there was a concerted misinformation campaign and extensive lobbying to kill it. Current nuclear tech is leagues beyond what was available for most of the 20th century but now its been made too expensive to really switch in that direction in the US.
There is a reason most of Europe and China have already made a significant switch toward it, its the only power source remotely close to be able replacing our dependence on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
Other renewable sources are a great supplement but they will NEVER achieve what the world needs on their own, even if tech advances in rapid leaps and bounds.
There have been too many highly publicized nuclear incidents for people to feel comfortable with fizzy power in their local neighborhood.
Maybe iffn it were Way Far Away they might get more comfortableâŚ.after awhile.
Same thing here, but for renewables.
Why did we throw money into fossil fuels when we couldâve developed better batteries, better storage methods, much more efficient vehicles, a better VHV infrastructure(750-1000kV), distributed country power generation, etc.
GREED and PROFIT, same as it always has been.
Less than 20 Families make money on everything on this Earth, they make money regardless of economy.
You may think you have a choice and a vote that matters, but in the end you donât.
Sad but true.
And the coverage of those events was completely propagandized, without any analysis of why or how they really happened. Any plant built now would be exponentially more safe than Fukushima, unless a bunch of people completely forgot about natural factors such as earthquakes and tsunamis again.
Fossil fuel power plants are statistically much more dangerous, and release more radiation. Seriously.
I doubt that there wasnât analysis as to what happened and why.