Electrics are not a panacea. There are downsides with every alternative.
The biggest downside with IC is fossil fuels consumption and the resultant emissions. As India and China -- 2.5B people, not counting the ones that that will arrive in the next few decades -- grow their per-capita automobile ownership towards Western levels, all bets are off.
However with hydrogen, it can be sourced from the ocean using geothermal power for the electrolysis as is currently being done in Iceland.
What if they can make an electric car that only need to charge once a week? That will be so brilliant.
When they make an iPhone or other device that only needs to be charged once a week, they might gain some credibility that they can build a car that doesn't need to be charged after every short trip. And rumor has it that the Apple Watch might not even last a day without needing to be recharged.
I'm with Benjamin Frost on this one. Electric cars as a mass market device don't work with the tech we have available today. And I'm not sure how, as great a company as Apple is, they can accomplish in the next four years what Tesla hasn't yet been able to accomplish. If Apple wants to sell an elite car, as Tesla does, to the 1% who can not only afford the car, but afford the charging infrastructure and the cost of electricity in their home, they can do that, but then very few people will own the car. I've been to a Tesla showroom, but even in NYC, even in areas where apartments sell for many $millions or rent for $5000 a month, I have never seen a Tesla on the road and I have seen a Rolls parked on the street near my apartment in Queens (of all places).
In Tesla showrooms, they have an interactive display to supposedly show you how much you can save by not buying gasoline compared to the cost of electricity, but they don't fully load the electricity cost, so it's totally phony. In NYC, the fully loaded cost of electricity is about 34 cents per KW/hour.
The other issue is I'm not sure electric cars are the answer to environmental issues. It just changes where the fossil fuels are used. In NYC, Con Ed burns fossil fuels to produce electricity. So if everyone had electric cars, Con Ed would have to burn a lot more fossil fuel. In addition, if electric cars were ever to become immensely popular, battery disposal is going to become a huge problem. My personal opinion is that the car of the future is going to be a hybrid using multiple technologies.
And for those who keep stating, "Tesla is doing great", by what standard are you evaluating them? They have a car that only the super-rich can afford and they lose money on every car they sell. I think their cars are quite beautiful and I appreciate their objectives, but if Wall Street ever gets impatient for profits, it's all over for them. My understanding is that Tesla is on track to sell about 30,000 cars a year worldwide. That's actually not very many, although perhaps impressive for a car that sells for $70,000 and up.
What if they can make an electric car that only need to charge once a week? That will be so brilliant.
I'm with Benjamin Frost on this one. Electric cars as a mass market device don't work with the tech we have available today. And I'm not sure how, as great a company as Apple is, they can accomplish in the next four years what Tesla hasn't yet been able to accomplish.
What complete hogwash. Benjamin's 100 mile range straw man is absolute BS. Tesla Model S has a range of 300 miles per charge. How often do you drive more than 300 miles in a day? If you are taking a longer trip, make other arrangements. Speaking strictly for myself, the last time I can remember driving more than 300 miles in a day was about 25 years ago.
However with hydrogen, it can be sourced from the ocean using geothermal power for the electrolysis as is currently being done in Iceland.
Geothermal power is economically viable in very few places around the globe, such as Iceland, Japan, and Hawaii, and is closely associated with volcanic activity-intensive regions. And even in those regions, it is expensive.
And for those who keep stating, "Tesla is doing great", by what standard are you evaluating them? They have a car that only the super-rich can afford and they lose money on every car they sell.
You haven't been keeping up with the news: just search for 'Tesla Model 3'.
Geothermal power is economically viable in very few places around the globe, such as Iceland, Japan, and Hawaii, and is closely associated with volcanic activity-intensive regions. And even in those regions, it is expensive.
Can you post a citation?
I was under the impression that the pilot program in Iceland was very promising.
BTW There are about 1,500 active volcanoes, many in the region of the Pacific
They will build a Shuffle car. Cheap. No interface but one button to pause and start. You will control the car with your iPhone. Self driving. There. Affordable.
They are going to have tough time marketing with their usual boasts: "Thinnest yet!" just isn't going to work with cars.
Some of the ridiculousness of the post you quoted are…
[*] Few road vehicles get 400-500 miles on a tank of gas now, yet an electric car needs to go 400-500 miles.
A lot of newer sedans can get 400 miles per tank. And we're talking 5 yrs from now so that number will keep increasing. Plus it's easier to fill up gas because gas stations are everywhere. Find a recharging station when you're near "empty" or if none, your round trip is cut in half.
And we're talking 5 yrs from now so that number will keep increasing.
So I guess that holds true for electric charging stations too.
In five years there will be a lot more..... every road side rest area/oasis (they are already on the electric grid) can have chargers too, not just gas stations.
Some of the ridiculousness of the post you quoted are…
[*] Few road vehicles get 400-500 miles on a tank of gas now, yet an electric car needs to go 400-500 miles.
A lot of newer sedans can get 400 miles per tank. And we're talking 5 yrs from now so that number will keep increasing. Plus it's easier to fill up gas because gas stations are everywhere. Find a recharging station when you're near "empty" or if none, your round trip is cut in half.
If you buy the Tesla mobile charging adapter, you can charge at any 110 or 220 VAC outlet.
I really don't understand Apple getting into the vehicles business: it would be like them becoming a manufacturer of pancake mixes. It may be that all the speculation is a complete misinterpretation of what Apple is actually pursuing as a project.
If Apple did embark upon electric car making, it would make the most sense for them to partner with Tesla: Apple and Elon Musk have a lot of mutual admiration, and the ability to use Tesla's growing network of Superchargers would be both appealing and in line with Apple's adoption of progressive technologies. One can envision Apple having gotten interested in such a project at the time that Musk released all those patents for free adoption, as he welcomes others joining in on his mission to save the planet, in what he rightly sees as a planetary emergency (and which Michigan SUV-makers obviously still don't want to acknowledge). Also, recall the "secret meeting" between Musk and Apple a year ago, which may have been the seed for this.
Again, however, I don't see why Apple would engage in this as a corporate venture. But it might not be a corporate venture: it might be an environmentalist initiative to get the relatively stalled electric car market moving. (Makers of conventional cars which have started making electric cars have done so largely because of California requirements, and have openly lamented how much money they lose every time one of their electric cars is sold.) Apple is renowned for taking a product area which prevailing companies have bungled and showing the industry how it cam be done right, and profitably. As such, this initiative would be an extrapolation of their expansive solar energy program - something they did not at all have to do, but wanted to do the right thing.
A lot of newer sedans can get 400 miles per tank. And we're talking 5 yrs from now so that number will keep increasing. Plus it's easier to fill up gas because gas stations are everywhere. Find a recharging station when you're near "empty" or if none, your round trip is cut in half.
I've seen no evidence of that, but I also have no reason to doubt your comment. The point is that if one is claiming that less than 400-500 miles means it's a non-starter then it's a non-starter for the majority of automobiles both on the road today and being sold today.
As coincidence would have it, I just managed to barely top 400 miles in my 2013 sedan for the first time ever, but that was because it was 1) nearly all highway with no city or stops, and 2) nearly all downhill as I was coming back from the ski resort. Now, they could allow me to get 600 miles per tank in the city but they would need a larger gas tank. With an 11 gallon tank I typically get over 300 miles but, never even close to 400 miles. (I also was able to fill up for well under $3 per gallon for the first time, thus increasing my value per mile, but that's neither here nor there.) So does that mean my 2013 sedan won't make it in the marketplace because 400 was deemed the minimum distance an automobile must be able to travel between "fill ups"? Obviously not.
I was under the impression that the pilot program in Iceland was very promising.
BTW There are about 1,500 active volcanoes, many in the region of the Pacific
This was based on the economics of an actual project that I had seen implemented in Big Island in Hawaii: ~20¢/kWh. That included the cost of generation and distribution.
However, following up your question I checked a number of sources. Even the credible ones (USDoE, NRDC) say that the generation cost in good geothermal locations is 3.5¢ - 6.5¢ range (not sure if that includes amortization for capital expenses; but it certainly does not include distribution).
In any event, that is much lower than I thought, and I stand corrected.
Comments
Defend your position.
AAPL/MBLY you heard it here first.
Not cheap. (But Tim is going to Israel).
Electrics are not a panacea. There are downsides with every alternative.
The biggest downside with IC is fossil fuels consumption and the resultant emissions. As India and China -- 2.5B people, not counting the ones that that will arrive in the next few decades -- grow their per-capita automobile ownership towards Western levels, all bets are off.
However with hydrogen, it can be sourced from the ocean using geothermal power for the electrolysis as is currently being done in Iceland.
What if they can make an electric car that only need to charge once a week? That will be so brilliant.
When they make an iPhone or other device that only needs to be charged once a week, they might gain some credibility that they can build a car that doesn't need to be charged after every short trip. And rumor has it that the Apple Watch might not even last a day without needing to be recharged.
I'm with Benjamin Frost on this one. Electric cars as a mass market device don't work with the tech we have available today. And I'm not sure how, as great a company as Apple is, they can accomplish in the next four years what Tesla hasn't yet been able to accomplish. If Apple wants to sell an elite car, as Tesla does, to the 1% who can not only afford the car, but afford the charging infrastructure and the cost of electricity in their home, they can do that, but then very few people will own the car. I've been to a Tesla showroom, but even in NYC, even in areas where apartments sell for many $millions or rent for $5000 a month, I have never seen a Tesla on the road and I have seen a Rolls parked on the street near my apartment in Queens (of all places).
In Tesla showrooms, they have an interactive display to supposedly show you how much you can save by not buying gasoline compared to the cost of electricity, but they don't fully load the electricity cost, so it's totally phony. In NYC, the fully loaded cost of electricity is about 34 cents per KW/hour.
The other issue is I'm not sure electric cars are the answer to environmental issues. It just changes where the fossil fuels are used. In NYC, Con Ed burns fossil fuels to produce electricity. So if everyone had electric cars, Con Ed would have to burn a lot more fossil fuel. In addition, if electric cars were ever to become immensely popular, battery disposal is going to become a huge problem. My personal opinion is that the car of the future is going to be a hybrid using multiple technologies.
And for those who keep stating, "Tesla is doing great", by what standard are you evaluating them? They have a car that only the super-rich can afford and they lose money on every car they sell. I think their cars are quite beautiful and I appreciate their objectives, but if Wall Street ever gets impatient for profits, it's all over for them. My understanding is that Tesla is on track to sell about 30,000 cars a year worldwide. That's actually not very many, although perhaps impressive for a car that sells for $70,000 and up.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
What if they can make an electric car that only need to charge once a week? That will be so brilliant.
I'm with Benjamin Frost on this one. Electric cars as a mass market device don't work with the tech we have available today. And I'm not sure how, as great a company as Apple is, they can accomplish in the next four years what Tesla hasn't yet been able to accomplish.
What complete hogwash. Benjamin's 100 mile range straw man is absolute BS. Tesla Model S has a range of 300 miles per charge. How often do you drive more than 300 miles in a day? If you are taking a longer trip, make other arrangements. Speaking strictly for myself, the last time I can remember driving more than 300 miles in a day was about 25 years ago.
However with hydrogen, it can be sourced from the ocean using geothermal power for the electrolysis as is currently being done in Iceland.
Geothermal power is economically viable in very few places around the globe, such as Iceland, Japan, and Hawaii, and is closely associated with volcanic activity-intensive regions. And even in those regions, it is expensive.
However with hydrogen, it can be sourced from the ocean using geothermal power for the electrolysis as is currently being done in Iceland.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Your point? The word "hydrogen" does not appear on that page as far as I can tell.
And for those who keep stating, "Tesla is doing great", by what standard are you evaluating them? They have a car that only the super-rich can afford and they lose money on every car they sell.
You haven't been keeping up with the news: just search for 'Tesla Model 3'.
Photographs of Apple mapping vehicles is not proof Apple is not researching building a car.
We know they’ve been researching it in some capacity for at least a decade. Has anything sufficiently changed?
Not cheap. (But Tim is going to Israel).
Defend your position.
Similar to PA Semi play, MBLY's AI algorithm is the industry standard... Check this out.
Can you post a citation?
I was under the impression that the pilot program in Iceland was very promising.
BTW There are about 1,500 active volcanoes, many in the region of the Pacific
They will build a Shuffle car. Cheap. No interface but one button to pause and start. You will control the car with your iPhone. Self driving. There. Affordable.
They are going to have tough time marketing with their usual boasts: "Thinnest yet!" just isn't going to work with cars.
A lot of newer sedans can get 400 miles per tank. And we're talking 5 yrs from now so that number will keep increasing. Plus it's easier to fill up gas because gas stations are everywhere. Find a recharging station when you're near "empty" or if none, your round trip is cut in half.
And we're talking 5 yrs from now so that number will keep increasing.
So I guess that holds true for electric charging stations too.
In five years there will be a lot more..... every road side rest area/oasis (they are already on the electric grid) can have chargers too, not just gas stations.
Some of the ridiculousness of the post you quoted are…
[*] Few road vehicles get 400-500 miles on a tank of gas now, yet an electric car needs to go 400-500 miles.
A lot of newer sedans can get 400 miles per tank. And we're talking 5 yrs from now so that number will keep increasing. Plus it's easier to fill up gas because gas stations are everywhere. Find a recharging station when you're near "empty" or if none, your round trip is cut in half.
If you buy the Tesla mobile charging adapter, you can charge at any 110 or 220 VAC outlet.
If Apple did embark upon electric car making, it would make the most sense for them to partner with Tesla: Apple and Elon Musk have a lot of mutual admiration, and the ability to use Tesla's growing network of Superchargers would be both appealing and in line with Apple's adoption of progressive technologies. One can envision Apple having gotten interested in such a project at the time that Musk released all those patents for free adoption, as he welcomes others joining in on his mission to save the planet, in what he rightly sees as a planetary emergency (and which Michigan SUV-makers obviously still don't want to acknowledge). Also, recall the "secret meeting" between Musk and Apple a year ago, which may have been the seed for this.
Again, however, I don't see why Apple would engage in this as a corporate venture. But it might not be a corporate venture: it might be an environmentalist initiative to get the relatively stalled electric car market moving. (Makers of conventional cars which have started making electric cars have done so largely because of California requirements, and have openly lamented how much money they lose every time one of their electric cars is sold.) Apple is renowned for taking a product area which prevailing companies have bungled and showing the industry how it cam be done right, and profitably. As such, this initiative would be an extrapolation of their expansive solar energy program - something they did not at all have to do, but wanted to do the right thing.
I've seen no evidence of that, but I also have no reason to doubt your comment. The point is that if one is claiming that less than 400-500 miles means it's a non-starter then it's a non-starter for the majority of automobiles both on the road today and being sold today.
As coincidence would have it, I just managed to barely top 400 miles in my 2013 sedan for the first time ever, but that was because it was 1) nearly all highway with no city or stops, and 2) nearly all downhill as I was coming back from the ski resort. Now, they could allow me to get 600 miles per tank in the city but they would need a larger gas tank. With an 11 gallon tank I typically get over 300 miles but, never even close to 400 miles. (I also was able to fill up for well under $3 per gallon for the first time, thus increasing my value per mile, but that's neither here nor there.) So does that mean my 2013 sedan won't make it in the marketplace because 400 was deemed the minimum distance an automobile must be able to travel between "fill ups"? Obviously not.
A very interesting and vivid review of the Tesla experience, thanks.
Going on to read about saving Tesla's laboratory is a great surprise. Elon Musk's contribution changed my view of him. He's all right, eh?
Question: how much does the Model S weigh, without batteries? Or if with batteries, how much does the battery package weigh?
Edit: I see the curb weight is 4600 lbs, that is, with the batteries.. It's a heavy car, something that Apple might want to improve upon.
Can you post a citation?
I was under the impression that the pilot program in Iceland was very promising.
BTW There are about 1,500 active volcanoes, many in the region of the Pacific
This was based on the economics of an actual project that I had seen implemented in Big Island in Hawaii: ~20¢/kWh. That included the cost of generation and distribution.
However, following up your question I checked a number of sources. Even the credible ones (USDoE, NRDC) say that the generation cost in good geothermal locations is 3.5¢ - 6.5¢ range (not sure if that includes amortization for capital expenses; but it certainly does not include distribution).
In any event, that is much lower than I thought, and I stand corrected.