Short sellers - Cut your losses before the year end

Maxkling said:

It’s hard to realize how big and unorganized the US is.

Click to expand...

And, what is more important, how low the population density generally is, comparing to Europe, Japan or many areas of China. That is the main reason why public transportation in general and high-speed trains in particular do not make much economic sense here, except maybe a few densely-populated areas.

We I live the bus system is incompetent. The schedule is such that it is difficult to make connections because the next bus you want leaves just minutes before you get there so you end up waiting 40 minutes for the next bus.


The train tracks are owned by the rail road companies that use them mainly to move freight. Freight train have priority over passenger trains. One time Pandiani came to visit me in Vancouver Wa by train. I was waiting at the train station. I could see his train stopped about a quarter mile away waiting for a freight train to pass. I must of waited an extra 15 to 20 minutes at least. The trains do not run on time here. I have been to China, Japan, and Germany where one can tell the time by the trains if need be. To put it simply, trains are for freight, not people here in the US.


I don't think the population density is a big factor unless you consider going through the fly over states. The east and west coast are dense enough. It is a matter of priority and convenience. People like their cars in the US and gas is cheap compared to other countries. There are YouTube videos about taking AmTrak trains on YouTube. The trains make too many stops in the US.

I would argue that even on both coasts population density is nowhere close to Europe, outside of some downtown areas maybe. For better or for worse Americans tend to settle over larger areas, mostly in single-family homes or townhouses rather than in multi-storey apartment buildings. I think this is true for Canada and Australia as well.

And yes, there is a lot of empty land between the five and the ninety-five ))

Summary

1) Five minute "fill-ups" to 100% of battery capacity is trivial from a technological perspective

1.1) probably over half of the folks on this list could implement the most difficult part

2) The primary issue preventing it now is probably the capital cost to implement it.

Details

1) robotic physical replacement of a discharged battery with a freshly charged battery. The only technical issue is standardization of battery parameters such as voltage, connections etc., so each station can carry a profitable set of replacement types. That standardization is different in kind but identical in principle to octane, vapor pressure and other specifications on mogas (motor gasoline); those specifications are somehow settled between the oil companies and automobile manufacturers. Which manufacturer is going to make a engine that requires 98 octane fuel to run without knocking? And which oil company is going to spend money to put an extra hundredth of an octane into their mogas beyond what is necessary for the bulk of the cars on the road? The answer to both queries is none of them. There are other issues of course e.g. who owns the battery; can I replace a battery I got at a SunBattCo station when I am at a TexBattCo station?

1.1) Who here does not want to write the ladder logic for the robot ( |---|XIC:wandering_child|---(Unlatch:enable_servo)---| ;-))? Or for the charging infrastructure?

2) Seventy years ago my father worked for a company in New York City whose primary activity was evaluating commercial properties for use as service stations. That company was presumably contracting to the oil companies. Or maybe the company put up the capital (or borrowed it from the oil company?) and built the service station. Yes, we have Valero and 7-11 now, but it used to be only Sunoco and Shell, Mobil and Esso, etc., (does anyone else remember the half-a-$500-bill promotion at Texaco?). So the industry spent the capital to put the infrastructure in place to sell their product i.e. mogas, which product would pay back the capital investment many times over. And now you can't swing a dead cat (or go in one general direction before your tank is empty) without being in range of the next gas station, because of which battery-powered vehicles will remain the commuter/second vehicle in any household until the investment in robotic replacement is made. This is a solution, and it's feasible now, though I don't know if it can be profitable. It's also risky: what if your robot is designed for batteries that the market makes obsolete (hooray for re-PLCs that will save the day!)?

I understand and agree that for some people a longer break for a recharge is acceptable, but it is disrespectful of others' time to say that everyone should feel that way (I am not saying anyone here is saying that, but I have seen it said elsewhere, explicitly or implicitly).

There are many other issues of course e.g. who are the analogues to the oil companies of last century? power companies? solar cell manufacturers?

Anyway, a bit of a rant, thanks for listening.

Aabeck said:

Stopping at a gas station every 200 miles for 20 minutes would be unacceptable to any driver travelling anywhere. Inner city driving would be OK, as 200 miles in a day would be a lot of miles.

Most cars are designed for about a 300 mile range per tank, and can be filled in under 5 minutes. When the electrics get near this they will be more openly accepted by the public.

Click to expand...

Another thing that electrics have over traditional fuel vehicles when it comes to range is that, provided you remember to plug it in, you always leave home with a "full tank", something you can't do with a fuel vehicle. Sure, stopping 20-30 minutes for a supercharger as opposed to 10 minutes for fuel is technically a tick in the "traditional vehicle" column, but if you charge your vehicle at home every night, you're only ever going to have to make those stops when you're doing extremely long journeys. You might save 10-20 minutes - hell, even an hour - doing a long trip at Christmas with a traditional vehicle. But guaranteed by the end of January, the guy with a traditional vehicle will have spent 10 times as long pumping gas, than the guy with the electric vehicle has spent sitting and having a nice sandwich and a coffee while his tesla charges outside (which he hasn't had to do since he came back from his camping trip on January 3rd, since he never drives more than 300 miles in a single day during his day to day life, and charges at home every night).

Robot battery replacement has been tried before, but each have either folded or in Tesla's case, they saw superchargers as more feasible. See also the company "better place". I will mention that "we tried that before and it didn't work" is not the same as "it can't work." Maybe if it was to incorporate grid load balancing services as well, such as the South Australian "Big Battery". Physically moving a bunch of half tonne parts around with the public nearby isn't cheap though.

I agree that there is a market for faster 'charging' of electrical vehicles. Maybe just hook up a (metric) tonne of batteries to the trailer hitch to triple your range? How quickly can one swap a 1tonne trailer? Optionally it could recharge your battery too while you drive, kind of like mid-air refuelling of fighter jets.

Alternatively, the car buyer who wants to drive mostly long distances with a mate, and so wants to recharge quickly, could get a special "fast recharge" model, that was mostly supercaps instead of batteries.

Look at how much has been accomplished in such short time.

Given another few years, range will surpass most fuel powered vehicles, and charging will take minutes. It seems inevitable.

AustralIan said:

Robot battery replacement has been tried before, ...

Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't see another as-simple-as-that-now path to five-minute refills, though.

Yes, the person who uses it as a commuter actually saves more time in the long run, but the ICE commuter doesn't notice those five minutes lost once or twice a week, while the Tesla commuter wastes that time on social media and leaves later ;-). One possible best strategy is own a Tesla and rent an ICE vehicle for trips; why pay for the ICE vehicle if it's rarely used?

Whether (super-)charging or battery-replacement, or summat else, eventually hits the five-minute mark, it's all about the infrastructure. And if, as someone here suggested, Mr. Musk is actually using Tesla to fine-tune the tech for the storage business, then there won't be a big push for the infrastructure to support long trips.

Maxkling said:

Look at how much has been accomplished in such short time.

Given another few years, range will surpass most fuel powered vehicles, and charging will take minutes. It seems inevitable.

Click to expand...

I dunno, physics may have summat to say about that. I mean, where's my jet pack?

Maxkling said:

... Given another few years, range will surpass most fuel powered vehicles, ...

Click to expand...

Also, I truly doubt that: the energy density (by power or weight) of hydrocarbons is simply in another universe compared to any other chemical process.

drbitboy said:

Also, I truly doubt that: the energy density (by power or weight) of hydrocarbons is simply in another universe compared to any other chemical process.

Click to expand...

We’re not comparing chemistry of the two, just the application. Electric vehicle now have almost 400 mile per charge ranges. That’s more than most commuter cars. 30 minutes of charging and your back at 85%. That’s very impressive as the technology has no where near matured.

I’m in no way a fan or like electric vehicles, but if you don’t think they are the new future of transportation, then your blind. People use to laugh at the thought using highly flammable and toxic fuels that the public would handle and dispense, well that became the norm.

I'm not blind: yes they are the future as they improve efficiency and lower emissions somewhat (factor of around 2, depending on where the power comes from).

I'm only saying that they are not feasible generally yet and are still a niche item.

drbitboy said:

I'm only saying that they are not feasible generally yet and are still a niche item.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think there are 3 reasons why people buy EVs at the moment. The cost is justified to them, reducing pollution, and the cool factor. The cost offset isn’t there yet, but they are getting very close in my opinion. The direct pollution is obviously zero, but life cycle emissions still need more research. Some reports say there is equal or more lifecycle pollution generated than typical commuter cars, depending on the carbon pollution of electricity in that region. Also the pollution generated by the mining and manufacturing of batteries isn’t very transparent. So that leaves to cool factor.

But they say once you go there’s no coming back. I find myself doing more and more research looking for feasibility.

5 years ago there were 0 EVs in the parking lot, now there are quite a few.

A family member of mine just purchased a Prius plugin for about 25k after energy credit. The range for all-electric mode is well outside of their commute to work and all regular errands.

So for day-to-day activities, it is 100% electric, just without the range anxiety and for a very reasonable cost. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more plug-in hybrids in the near future.

Issue for the masses:

Where do you charge your car in a city???
You have a building with 50 units, one or more cars per unit.
You park your car for the night, do you go somewhere first for that 30 min(or more) full charge?
or are there parking spaces with chargers ???
Then you have to move your car out of that space for someone else after the that 30 min(or more) charge and find another parking space ???
YIKES