Tesla factory video

[89raider]

there is no good way to make hydrogen economically and thermodynamically effective.

at this particular junction in time cockerpunk i agree with you, HOWEVER the technology is there and is being developed further, i will say it isn't far off from becoming more mainstream... hybrids and full electrics i don't believe will be long for this world. The thing to remember is that all fuels have difficulty being effective in poor weather especially including gasoline and diesel, with the exception of these "reactors" i for one will NEVER abandon my gasoline (or propane) engine systems. Especially with the recreation that has more or less taken up all of my paintball time lol

I do not forsee any of these hypothesised fuels coming to light in my life time, but i've been wrong before.

[Simon]

I started to design a 3 wheel electric vehicle just for my entertainment about 6 years ago. Two wheels at the front, and one at the rear, but just didn't have time to go further with it. I think I remember talking to Alex about it when he came out with his AWESOME 3 wheel vehicle concept.

A good friend of mine Bill Mills (from Warpig fame) built an electric motorcycle and if I ever get spare time in my life again (lol) I would like to do that.

For me an electric vehicle makes sense because 99% of my journey's are 10 miles or less. I don't want a leaf or prius though. I want something FUN!

[Lurker27]

I actually agree with the sentiment that an around-town EV motorcycle makes a lot of sense. Fun project too.

[PBSteve]

Plus those things can generate torque like no combustion engine ever will. That's why we're seeing the 2.8s electric vehicles, even the "older" Tesla roadster hit 0-60 in 3.7.

I'm telling you guys, supercapacitors is where they're going. I give them less than 20 years to catch on, I wouldn't be surprised to see them cheaper than most combustion engines by then.

Here's the real future of cars, IMO: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal...comms2446.html

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...-car-batteries
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...v-gamechanger/

Once you can charge an electric car faster than you can fill a gas tank, it'll be game over.

[Simon]

I saw an article on how some of those were made by accident. It definitely looks like it has huge potential.

[PBSteve]

Yeah, that's the group that's behind the Nature Communication and the video in the bottom link. DVD Label makers, go figure :P

[pbjosh]

That's a really narrow-sighted position you've got there.

Really? (Lets rant!)

Break that down a bit -

It looks like NZ has one refinery? And here is their margin report:

http://www.refiningnz.com/media/8997...r-apr_2013.pdf

The big bad evil corp that refines oil products makes about a 6-10% profit on the oil. That means out of the 10% to refine it, after a half or quarter billion dollar investment for the facility and then buying the same each year in product, they make 1% of the total cost. That is the correct numbers also, I have worked in the industry for 15+ years, and my buddy Tim was the main asset auditor for 3 of the local plants when I was in WA.

In NZ they pay an additional 2% (twice the company profit) in carbon tax. Which is just in addition to the 41% tax on their product.

The profit of the government of 43 times what the company gets. For doing very little, really. There is not special infrastructure put in place for the oil industry that they didn't pay for. They didn't put in special roads, or train lines. Most of that was in place before they built the plant. If there was no oil there would be almost no industry to speak of, let alone the simple ability to go to work. It is a crucial infrastructure. And there is no risk to the government, the refinery is holding all the risk. The make all the purchasing, fight the market for pricing, keep the plant up and running, and in the end, the government makes 43 times what they do. Then the government tell them they are bad for making a profit.

They just tax it, and in the end, demonify the oil industry.

$8 a gallon is only really a factor of tax (and well, the currency exchange and the value of the New Zealand currency vs the world market. The rise of the price of gas in the US is in direct step with the decline in the US dollar.) In the US the ratio is closer to 1-2% to the refinery, and 10% tax on the product to the government, a 10 time multiplier.

Do that to any other industry, say paintball, and you would see guns that cost $10,000. The reason the fuel is so much in NZ is a factor of taxes. It would be $5.50(?) or so if taxes were like the US, and even less so if the value of the NZ Dollar was comparable to the US. That is before getting into the royalties that nations make on oil that drive the price up even further. When Exxon Mobile made $440B, $44B was profit, of which they paid $20B of taxes on. And $240B of royalties. A total of $260B to governments and $22B for in hand profits. All the government did was give them permission to drill, and give them permission to refine and sell.

Governments make most of the money off of oil. With little or no investment themselves. The oil companies make just a tiny sliver. The main reason for such a high cost is taxes, royalties and then more taxes. Oil is expensive due to government. Simple as that.

Cheap energy is a benefit to all, you can replace manual labor with it. But in the end governments seems to work against that goal for short term tax revenue. Providing cheap energy will pull more out of poverty, will increase the general welfare of the entire world. Especially those who are in developing countries, the real poor.

Energy development is the one big factor that takes man from poverty to wealth. Yet governments hinder that to use for their own ends in most cases.

Sorry, but energy development and the long term benefits to all mankind go hand in hand. Governments have proven they are bad handmaidens for our finances, especially in the developing world. The money that is suppose to go into infrastructure isn't. The justification for these taxes is not be used in the area they were promised to.

For a government to make 43 times what the company that is putting up all the risk, to the tune of billions of dollars, is grossly unfair for any industry. And to the consumer, who in the end is the one paying for it. And it doesn't go into infrastructure, it goes to cover other things in the budget.

The high price of fuel is just a factor of tax diversion from property or other types of taxes. Unfortunately it is also one that affects the energy policy of the nation, penalizing those who are generally providing services, which drives up the cost of services and also hinders the money to pay the workers, producing a circular system that keeps services high and the cost of living high.

Raise the cost of energy and everything else gets expensive. That is simple macro economics.

If the taxes on fuel were lower the cost of living would be lower, more companies could provide fuel services, and in the end the cost of living in NZ would be lower.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living...ry=New+Zealand

CPI is considered in the red. That could be changed dramatically by reducing the governments profit vs the refinery's profit ratio to a factor of 20:1 instead of 43:1. Transportation is normally about 10% of a families budget, and changing the ratio could give everybody in NZ a reduction in cost in their budget by 3-4%, and also would reduce the cost of both food, services, and other products. It would be about the same as a 5-6% increase in every bodies income. Some companies could hire more, reducing unemployment.

It is very simple economics, 101.


Is that a bit more broad for you? :P

[cockerpunk]

the solution of charge time is a silly one, with a simple engineering fix: standardized, replaceable battery packs.

pull up to the station over a pit, machine pops out your old battery, pops in a new one, and you drive off. battery is then charged, and you are charged a nominal fee for the service.

the real infrastructure solution is continuous charging: make the interstates and major metro highways charge as you drive. once you are off the main highways, 100-200 mile range is really really reasonable and will get you most places you'd ever want to go to.

[PBSteve]

Is that a bit more broad for you? :P

First, I was referring to the US (as your comment was). Taxes in NZ are high with the explicit purpose of curbing use; they don't try to hide that fact. But no, that thought process isn't any broader. You're still relegating your thought to the direct costs of manufacture and consumption. And I couldn't follow your numbers after a paragraph in, I assure you it is not because I am bad at math.

You're still not considering:
1.) fossil fuels are non-renewable; what we burn today will not be available tomorrow (even if there's currently a lot of it, we're burning the easily accessible stuff out from under the feet of our children).
2.) The costs associated with consuming fossil fuels - roads for people to burn fuel on, infrastructure to distribute energy, etc. These things cost money, it seems reasonable to me for oil companies to contribute significantly.
3.) Environmental impact of retrieving and consuming fossil fuels, which is not reflected by market prices

Cheap energy is a benefit to all, you can replace manual labor with it. But in the end governments seems to work against that goal for short term tax revenue. Providing cheap energy will pull more out of poverty, will increase the general welfare of the entire world. Especially those who are in developing countries, the real poor.

Again, very short-sighted.

[pbjosh]

Of course I considered that. (shakes head at the insult)

1) As I linked before - we have standard resources for 9000 years in the US alone at a cost that is cheaper then alternative power. Even if we mitigate for environmental impacts. Same with nuclear.

2) We could dial in 10000000 items if we want, besides roads, that benefit directly from cheap power and oil refining (since roads are normally made from waste in the refining stream); it doesn't justify adding cost to energy, because cheap energy is extremely important for development. Governments should be developing energy, not inhibiting it. There is no room for it.

3) See above. Note, the IPCC predictions have not turned out - the computer models have been proven wrong. Government tried justifying huge taxes with it. In the end - they tried to regulate energy usage that would end up hurting those in developing counties. New technology for refining is incredibly good at doing that cleaner then they were even 10 years ago. I know, that was my job.

Short sighted-ness from your comments seems to be mostly related to unproven worries. We have more resources then ever which we using with less impact then ever, to benefit more people then ever. History has a long trail of people predicting peak oil, the decline of the environment, and massive starvation. Yet the opposite has happened in the past 50 years, consistently.

History, the long sighted mistress, has proven those people (and your comments) wrong.

There is a direct correlation between the quality of life (longevity, food quality, quality of the environment) and the amount of energy a nation produced per capita.

My views are far from short sighted. Curbing energy is bad for everybody. New technology is down right amazing at producing clean power from almost any source, cheaply and for far longer then any of our names will be remembered. That is a simple fact. Government should be doing what it can (due to long lead times) to develop more power. Starting now will not show a significant change for 10-30 years. It takes a long time to change something so large.

Short sighted my ass.