Yeah I know that, it's just that the charging time is long, especially when using a 110v supply. When I say there needs to be some sort of charging infrastructure, I mean there needs to be some sort of provision to have higher voltage charging points to allow quicker charging.
The goal is to transfer power, and since P = V*I (actually P = V * I * Cos Φ, but we'll not get into that), the higher the voltage, the lower the current and the smaller diameter cable you can use.
Unfortunately, since most US sockets are only 110V, and are limited by the standard cable diameter used in house building, charging time is restricted by the ability to transfer the required power. Europe will be able to charge a bit quicker, since they have 220v as standard, but the cable size is still restrictive.
If we had a standard to get three phases into the house, we could have a 415v socket, with appropriate sized cabling, and we could charge the batteries way quicker.
Two hot legs gets you 240v. If you have an electric oven or clothes drier in your house, you have at least one 240 circuit already. Electrical codes require 240v lines to "home run" directly back to the breaker box, so this might require some modifications, but it's not really a big deal.
Is it really copying when Microsoft hires the same person who originally worked on the Apple store? Can you accuse someone of copying his own work?
And instead of praising Blankenship, why aren't AI readers flaming this guy for taking a job at Microsoft? Didn't he betray Apple users everywhere by going to work for Microsoft?
Why should we care and feel betrayed? Everyone, his Grand Ma, and his dog knew that the MS stores were going to fail. We gave George kudos for picking up the easy check and taking it to the bank.
Since you are being picky.... You probably meant "They're the kind of company..." instead of "Their the kind of company..." And maybe a fire under the "heels" instead of "heals." Only since you are being picky.
Not to mention that he's mixing metaphors. The usual idioms have you lighting a fire under someone, or cooling your heels.
While I'm a believer and supporter in alternative energy and totally support what Tesla and other companies are doing in this regard, the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans live in urban environments and unless their local governments are going to put outlets on lampposts and require charging stations in apartment and public garages, electric cars, and especially only-electric cars, are totally impractical in regions where apartment buildings rule. And that's aside from the fact that electricity in urban environments is expensive, coal is frequently burned to produce it and if these cars are successful from a sales standpoint, battery disposal is going to become an environmental issue as well.
As far as Blankenship is concerned, let's remember that (as far as I understand it), he was not involved in the design or concept of the Apple stores, but rather was responsible for location acquisition and as others have alluded to, it's not a big trick to acquire high-traffic, expensive locations. The trick is to find locations which have the potential to be great, but aren't great yet, keeping the price low. In places like New York, where $200 a square foot is typical and where prices can go as high as $500 a square foot for upscale locations, a 20,000 square foot store costs a minimum of $4,000,000 a year. That means the first $11,000 a day goes to pay the rent. Then, assuming a store is open 24/7, as some Apple key locations are and assuming 30 employees on staff during any given hour and an average pay of just $15 an hour including benefits, that's another $11,000 a day. And that doesn't include insurance, utilities, amortization of the build cost, licenses, sign permits, external contractors or cost of product. (I'm actually surprised that Apple hasn't attempted to wholly purchase some of their stand alone buildings.)
Since the MS stores have copied so many aspects of the Apple store design, my question is whether MS did this on their own or whether Blankenship did this because he wasn't capable of creating anything substantially different, so he copied what he already knew was successful (It's also possible MS execs pushed him to copy Apple). But I do think that Tesla is probably a better place for him than Microsoft was, although my bet is that the Tesla showrooms wind up being tiny places with only one or two cars on display.
While I'm a believer and supporter in alternative energy and totally support what Tesla and other companies are doing in this regard, the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans live in urban environments and unless their local governments are going to put outlets on lampposts and require charging stations in apartment and public garages, electric cars, and especially only-electric cars, are totally impractical in regions where apartment buildings rule. And that's aside from the fact that electricity in urban environments is expensive, coal is frequently burned to produce it and if these cars are successful from a sales standpoint, battery disposal is going to become an environmental issue as well.
In cold climates, the plugs are already on posts for every parking spot, to power block heaters in the winter. It's no big deal.
As for cost, the highest cost of electricity about matches the cost of gasoline per unit energy. However, charging batteries, and using them to power electric motors are efficient processes with no fundamental limit, whereas internal combustion engines are limited by thermodynamics (Carnot), and are typically about 20% efficient. Moreover, electric cars are much better suited to storing kinetic energy from braking (as in hybrid cars). The upshot is that electric cars in fact get about 5 times the mileage (per unit energy) as conventional cars. (This is consistent with the published ratings for the Tesla.)
Now, it's true that if the electricity is produced by burning coal, then there are Carnot losses involved there but: (1) it doesn't change the factor of 5 improvement in (user) economy described above (fundamentally because coal is cheaper per unit energy than oil) (2) large plants are more efficient than portable engines, because they run hotter, so there is still an improvement in energy economy, (3) centralized burning of fossil fuels is easier to manage and keep clean, and to convert to renewable or cleaner sources (wind, solar, nuclear) if and when they come on line, and (4) coal is much more abundant than oil.
It's easy to throw up descriptive objections to a new technology, but unless you quantify them, they are meaningless.
Perhaps you could try to quantify the effects of battery disposal vs environmental costs of off-shore drilling for oil.
The newer all-battery cars are promising ranges of 200 miles or better. That's plenty, even for most commuting. An expanded charging infrastructure isn't going to help very much for longer trips, since it takes hours to recharge the batteries.
Exactly. While the appeal of an all electric car for local trips is high, I don't want to have to own a second car so I can go fishing or camping on the weekend. That's a terrible waste of both money and natural resources.
Electric cars aren't going to solve America's problems with pollution or climate change because most states get a large portion of their electricity from burning coal, one of the most polluting activities ever invented.
Exactly. While the appeal of an all electric car for local trips is high, I don't want to have to own a second car so I can go fishing or camping on the weekend. That's a terrible waste of both money and natural resources.
For many people an electric car WILL be their second car, used primarily for commuting. Currently a lot of families have an older car sitting in the driveway on weekends while the new shiny model gets driven on the big trips. This is the market that electric cars will used to get started.
Quote:
Electric cars aren't going to solve America's problems with pollution or climate change because most states get a large portion of their electricity from burning coal, one of the most polluting activities ever invented.
Go read up on centralized versus distributed fossil fuel combustion, and realize that it's easier to clean up a single large smoke stack than thousands of smaller tailpipes. Also, electric cars give people an option for seeking alternate energy sources: solar, wind, even nookular. In sun-belt territory an electric commuter combined with a PV array is true zero emissions.
I'm not picking on you, specifically, but I wish that electric car nay-sayers would keep their mouths shut. Let the early adopters pay a premium for their Teslas and Volts (I'm not planning to myself), and pay for the R&D work that will eventually lead to better and cheaper. We can't get from here to there without doing the hard work, and so far a lot of resources have been squandered on Hummers and Chrysler 300s and that little war in Iraq. I've got nothing against preserving classic muscle cars and other collectables, but seeing the vast majority of vehicles on the road carrying a single person to and from work while burning gas makes me cry inside. THOSE are the cars that should be running on electricity, and the sooner the better.
Exactly. While the appeal of an all electric car for local trips is high, I don't want to have to own a second car so I can go fishing or camping on the weekend. That's a terrible waste of both money and natural resources.
It's clear electric cars will get their start in families that already have more than one car. It will replace the one mostly used for commuting. In that way there's no additional waste. When the technology improves, it may become more feasible for single-car families (or people) to use electric. Even if we never reach stage 2, stage 1 will have an impact. Anyway, what's the point of resisting it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Electric cars aren't going to solve America's problems with pollution or climate change because most states get a large portion of their electricity from burning coal, one of the most polluting activities ever invented.
If it lessens the problems, it's worth doing. Every journey starts with a single step. And there will be improvements:
1. Something like 10% of electricity is from hydro and other renewables, and another 20% from nuclear, so that's at least a 30% improvement, on energy alone. When more clean sources come on line, it will help if there are cars on the road to benefit from them.
2. 23% is from natural gas, which is much cleaner than oil, and produces less CO2.
3. About 44% comes from coal, which is dirty, but as already mentioned, centralized combustion is easier to manage and clean up. Technology for much cleaner coal exists; it's a matter of paying for it.
4. Electric cars are much more efficient than internal combustion cars, even taking account of losses at fossil fuel burning power plants.
5. Oil is the least abundant fossil fuel, and pressure to find more results in oil-sands projects and deep-water drilling, both of which are giving coal pretty stiff competition as the dirtiest fuel on the planet.
For many people an electric car WILL be their second car, used primarily for commuting. Currently a lot of families have an older car sitting in the driveway on weekends while the new shiny model gets driven on the big trips. This is the market that electric cars will used to get started.
Right. I think we need to get over the idea if something isn't for everyone then it's not for anybody.
Environmentally Responsible Not Socially. The jury is still out on how environmentally responsible electric vehicles are given the carbon footprint of manufacturing batteries.
Comments
Everyone please note that the Tesla can be charged from any electrical outlet.
See http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric at the bottom of the page.
Yeah I know that, it's just that the charging time is long, especially when using a 110v supply. When I say there needs to be some sort of charging infrastructure, I mean there needs to be some sort of provision to have higher voltage charging points to allow quicker charging.
The goal is to transfer power, and since P = V*I (actually P = V * I * Cos Φ, but we'll not get into that), the higher the voltage, the lower the current and the smaller diameter cable you can use.
Unfortunately, since most US sockets are only 110V, and are limited by the standard cable diameter used in house building, charging time is restricted by the ability to transfer the required power. Europe will be able to charge a bit quicker, since they have 220v as standard, but the cable size is still restrictive.
If we had a standard to get three phases into the house, we could have a 415v socket, with appropriate sized cabling, and we could charge the batteries way quicker.
Is it really copying when Microsoft hires the same person who originally worked on the Apple store? Can you accuse someone of copying his own work?
And instead of praising Blankenship, why aren't AI readers flaming this guy for taking a job at Microsoft? Didn't he betray Apple users everywhere by going to work for Microsoft?
Why should we care and feel betrayed? Everyone, his Grand Ma, and his dog knew that the MS stores were going to fail. We gave George kudos for picking up the easy check and taking it to the bank.
Tell me you wouldn't have done the same.
Since you are being picky.... You probably meant "They're the kind of company..." instead of "Their the kind of company..." And maybe a fire under the "heels" instead of "heals." Only since you are being picky.
Not to mention that he's mixing metaphors. The usual idioms have you lighting a fire under someone, or cooling your heels.
Unless you're a clueless gurl* messing with your electrical system, in which case it's "*FTTT!!* WAAAK! SPARKY!!"
*playing on stereotypes, although in this case it's warranted in the (humorously) self-deprecating story thus linked.
Still laughing at this. Thanks for posting!!
Everyone please note that the Tesla can be charged from any electrical outlet.
See http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric at the bottom of the page.
In the video, note the two Macs on the coffee table.
Everyone please note that the Tesla can be charged from any electrical outlet.
See http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric at the bottom of the page.
While I'm a believer and supporter in alternative energy and totally support what Tesla and other companies are doing in this regard, the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans live in urban environments and unless their local governments are going to put outlets on lampposts and require charging stations in apartment and public garages, electric cars, and especially only-electric cars, are totally impractical in regions where apartment buildings rule. And that's aside from the fact that electricity in urban environments is expensive, coal is frequently burned to produce it and if these cars are successful from a sales standpoint, battery disposal is going to become an environmental issue as well.
As far as Blankenship is concerned, let's remember that (as far as I understand it), he was not involved in the design or concept of the Apple stores, but rather was responsible for location acquisition and as others have alluded to, it's not a big trick to acquire high-traffic, expensive locations. The trick is to find locations which have the potential to be great, but aren't great yet, keeping the price low. In places like New York, where $200 a square foot is typical and where prices can go as high as $500 a square foot for upscale locations, a 20,000 square foot store costs a minimum of $4,000,000 a year. That means the first $11,000 a day goes to pay the rent. Then, assuming a store is open 24/7, as some Apple key locations are and assuming 30 employees on staff during any given hour and an average pay of just $15 an hour including benefits, that's another $11,000 a day. And that doesn't include insurance, utilities, amortization of the build cost, licenses, sign permits, external contractors or cost of product. (I'm actually surprised that Apple hasn't attempted to wholly purchase some of their stand alone buildings.)
Since the MS stores have copied so many aspects of the Apple store design, my question is whether MS did this on their own or whether Blankenship did this because he wasn't capable of creating anything substantially different, so he copied what he already knew was successful (It's also possible MS execs pushed him to copy Apple). But I do think that Tesla is probably a better place for him than Microsoft was, although my bet is that the Tesla showrooms wind up being tiny places with only one or two cars on display.
While I'm a believer and supporter in alternative energy and totally support what Tesla and other companies are doing in this regard, the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans live in urban environments and unless their local governments are going to put outlets on lampposts and require charging stations in apartment and public garages, electric cars, and especially only-electric cars, are totally impractical in regions where apartment buildings rule. And that's aside from the fact that electricity in urban environments is expensive, coal is frequently burned to produce it and if these cars are successful from a sales standpoint, battery disposal is going to become an environmental issue as well.
In cold climates, the plugs are already on posts for every parking spot, to power block heaters in the winter. It's no big deal.
As for cost, the highest cost of electricity about matches the cost of gasoline per unit energy. However, charging batteries, and using them to power electric motors are efficient processes with no fundamental limit, whereas internal combustion engines are limited by thermodynamics (Carnot), and are typically about 20% efficient. Moreover, electric cars are much better suited to storing kinetic energy from braking (as in hybrid cars). The upshot is that electric cars in fact get about 5 times the mileage (per unit energy) as conventional cars. (This is consistent with the published ratings for the Tesla.)
Now, it's true that if the electricity is produced by burning coal, then there are Carnot losses involved there but: (1) it doesn't change the factor of 5 improvement in (user) economy described above (fundamentally because coal is cheaper per unit energy than oil) (2) large plants are more efficient than portable engines, because they run hotter, so there is still an improvement in energy economy, (3) centralized burning of fossil fuels is easier to manage and keep clean, and to convert to renewable or cleaner sources (wind, solar, nuclear) if and when they come on line, and (4) coal is much more abundant than oil.
It's easy to throw up descriptive objections to a new technology, but unless you quantify them, they are meaningless.
Perhaps you could try to quantify the effects of battery disposal vs environmental costs of off-shore drilling for oil.
Two hot legs gets you 240v.
Two hots legs usually gave me much more trouble than 240v.
But maybe that's just me.
two hots legs usually gave me much more trouble than 240v.
But maybe that's just me.
Shocking!
The newer all-battery cars are promising ranges of 200 miles or better. That's plenty, even for most commuting. An expanded charging infrastructure isn't going to help very much for longer trips, since it takes hours to recharge the batteries.
Exactly. While the appeal of an all electric car for local trips is high, I don't want to have to own a second car so I can go fishing or camping on the weekend. That's a terrible waste of both money and natural resources.
Electric cars aren't going to solve America's problems with pollution or climate change because most states get a large portion of their electricity from burning coal, one of the most polluting activities ever invented.
Exactly. While the appeal of an all electric car for local trips is high, I don't want to have to own a second car so I can go fishing or camping on the weekend. That's a terrible waste of both money and natural resources.
For many people an electric car WILL be their second car, used primarily for commuting. Currently a lot of families have an older car sitting in the driveway on weekends while the new shiny model gets driven on the big trips. This is the market that electric cars will used to get started.
Electric cars aren't going to solve America's problems with pollution or climate change because most states get a large portion of their electricity from burning coal, one of the most polluting activities ever invented.
Go read up on centralized versus distributed fossil fuel combustion, and realize that it's easier to clean up a single large smoke stack than thousands of smaller tailpipes. Also, electric cars give people an option for seeking alternate energy sources: solar, wind, even nookular. In sun-belt territory an electric commuter combined with a PV array is true zero emissions.
I'm not picking on you, specifically, but I wish that electric car nay-sayers would keep their mouths shut. Let the early adopters pay a premium for their Teslas and Volts (I'm not planning to myself), and pay for the R&D work that will eventually lead to better and cheaper. We can't get from here to there without doing the hard work, and so far a lot of resources have been squandered on Hummers and Chrysler 300s and that little war in Iraq. I've got nothing against preserving classic muscle cars and other collectables, but seeing the vast majority of vehicles on the road carrying a single person to and from work while burning gas makes me cry inside. THOSE are the cars that should be running on electricity, and the sooner the better.
Shocking!
Electrifying!
And later usually quite expensive with the lawyers and all.....
Exactly. While the appeal of an all electric car for local trips is high, I don't want to have to own a second car so I can go fishing or camping on the weekend. That's a terrible waste of both money and natural resources.
It's clear electric cars will get their start in families that already have more than one car. It will replace the one mostly used for commuting. In that way there's no additional waste. When the technology improves, it may become more feasible for single-car families (or people) to use electric. Even if we never reach stage 2, stage 1 will have an impact. Anyway, what's the point of resisting it?
Electric cars aren't going to solve America's problems with pollution or climate change because most states get a large portion of their electricity from burning coal, one of the most polluting activities ever invented.
If it lessens the problems, it's worth doing. Every journey starts with a single step. And there will be improvements:
1. Something like 10% of electricity is from hydro and other renewables, and another 20% from nuclear, so that's at least a 30% improvement, on energy alone. When more clean sources come on line, it will help if there are cars on the road to benefit from them.
2. 23% is from natural gas, which is much cleaner than oil, and produces less CO2.
3. About 44% comes from coal, which is dirty, but as already mentioned, centralized combustion is easier to manage and clean up. Technology for much cleaner coal exists; it's a matter of paying for it.
4. Electric cars are much more efficient than internal combustion cars, even taking account of losses at fossil fuel burning power plants.
5. Oil is the least abundant fossil fuel, and pressure to find more results in oil-sands projects and deep-water drilling, both of which are giving coal pretty stiff competition as the dirtiest fuel on the planet.
For many people an electric car WILL be their second car, used primarily for commuting. Currently a lot of families have an older car sitting in the driveway on weekends while the new shiny model gets driven on the big trips. This is the market that electric cars will used to get started.
Right. I think we need to get over the idea if something isn't for everyone then it's not for anybody.