Althouse: The future in micro-grids.

May 11, 2015

The future in micro-grids.

Tesla... batteries... "The goal is complete transformation of the entire energy infrastructure of the world."

76 comments:

Rusty said...: These are essentially just huge battery backups. As it stands the average home would nae about two hours of battery time given nomal electricity usage.
I'm convinced fuel cells are a more efficient way to go.; 5/11/15, 6:15 AM
Original Mike said...: "The goal is complete transformation of the entire energy infrastructure of the world."

When pigs fly.; 5/11/15, 6:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Bulk storage of power right now is the non-existing, but critical element in effective use of renewables. Right now, the only mass storage method is to pump water up hill behind a dam.

These micro-grids make sense for isolated locations, but in the long run, the decentralization of power generation would seem to destabilize the system as a whole if the grid owners can at will demand central line service. I thought the nut graf was at the end:

”The bottom line is regulatory restructuring of the utility business model is needed to make micro-grids not be an anathema, and some of that restructuring is underway," Pratt said. To get to a place where utilities might voluntarily choose to set up micro-grids, regulatory agencies would have to allow utilities to set higher rates during peak demand times or find some other means to entice them to build the necessary infrastructure.

In other words, just like today's wind and solar operations only make sense as tax/subsidy farms, these microgriids are dependent on politicians writing tax rules, not on balance sheet bottom lines.; 5/11/15, 6:48 AM
Roughcoat said...: Off topic, but ...

Thanks to Bob Ellison and pm317 for your comments in response to my Mother's Day post. I hope you see this note. I'm very much obliged.; 5/11/15, 6:55 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Most people-- almost all people-- don't understand the implications of the law of conservation of energy.

Tesla's concept of buying electricity in low-price hours makes sense for grid-maintenance and personal finance, but how long are those batteries going to last? How many dreadful chemicals do they use, which we must later find a way to dispose?; 5/11/15, 6:57 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Roughcoat, got it.; 5/11/15, 6:58 AM
rhhardin said...: I have a 12v battery in the basement that's there to give my 15w solar panel something to do.

It shows 12.87v at the moment.

The daily MPPT ritual is just beginning.; 5/11/15, 7:05 AM
Hagar said...: Tucker Cars, Ltd.; 5/11/15, 7:14 AM
Etienne said...: I like Bill Gates idea of mini-nuclear plants that work on nuclear waste.

Put one in every neighborhood, and save trillions on transmission lines.

Have to seal them in concrete though so ISIS doesn't fling nuclear material all over the neighborhood when they steal all the M-1 tanks...; 5/11/15, 7:18 AM
sykes.1 said...: Yet another Musk scam. This guy is a rent seeker who's income derives from subsidies, political favoritism and artificial, regualtion-created businesses.

It is substantially cheaper to buy a pile of old-fashioned lead-acid batteries. And you can recycle the lead and acid when the battery dies.; 5/11/15, 7:18 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "This guy is a rent seeker who's income derives from subsidies, political favoritism and artificial, regualtion-created businesses."

The linked article has material at the end about the company's plan interacting with government.; 5/11/15, 7:22 AM
Fabi said...: Micro-grid. Sounds very sciencey. I predict that this will be the Segway of energy management.; 5/11/15, 7:50 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: The Drill SGT said...

In other words, just like today's wind and solar operations only make sense as tax/subsidy farms, these microgriids are dependent on politicians writing tax rules, not on balance sheet bottom lines.

That may well be the business model. However, changing the regulations to allow demand pricing sounds like a move to a more market oriented approach; 5/11/15, 7:56 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I am not a Tesla believer yet. Nor am I a believer in electric cars either- the physics of lugging an extra 1,000 lbs or so for the battery just does not make sense to me.; 5/11/15, 7:57 AM
tim maguire said...: That was the goal of the original Tesla as well.

I wish them well, despite some of the naysayers here. The inability to economically store large amounts of electrical energy is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to effectively limitless too-cheap-to-meter clean power.; 5/11/15, 8:12 AM
Hagar said...: Yes, Solyndra Motors Corp., might be better sum up.; 5/11/15, 8:13 AM
MikeR said...: Well, I am an Elon Musk believer. He takes the big picture, and tries new things, and gets things done. Space-X has totally changed space. Tesla has totally changed electric cars. _Really good batteries_ would totally change the energy industry; the entire industry is built around irregular power generation and irregular demand. It remains to be seen if these are really good enough. In the meantime, I'm glad Musk is there.; 5/11/15, 8:19 AM
Gahrie said...: The goal is complete transformation of the entire energy infrastructure of the world."

I wouldn't bet against him. He radically changed the internet, twice, and then radically changed electric cars, rockets, and the solar panel industry.

His idea actually makes sense, and would help solve one of the major drawbacks to renewable energy.; 5/11/15, 8:26 AM
Fabi said...: How is he going to prevent all that electricity from leaking out of the outlets?; 5/11/15, 8:26 AM
Gahrie said...: Yet another Musk scam. This guy is a rent seeker who's income derives from subsidies, political favoritism and artificial, regualtion-created businesses.

Utter bullshit. This guy has fundamentally changed four separate industries.

Every loan he has taken from the government he has repaid, some giving the government a profit.

This guy is not Solyndra. He is the Wright brothers, or Howard Hughes.; 5/11/15, 8:28 AM
Peter said...: Here's a link with some more quantitative information on the batteries:

http://gizmodo.com/tesla-battery-economics-on-the-path-to-disruption-1701854536?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Although even this link seems highly promotional.; 5/11/15, 8:41 AM
Rusty said...: Gahrie said...
Yet another Musk scam. This guy is a rent seeker who's income derives from subsidies, political favoritism and artificial, regualtion-created businesses.

Utter bullshit. This guy has fundamentally changed four separate industries.

Every loan he has taken from the government he has repaid, some giving the government a profit.

This guy is not Solyndra. He is the Wright brothers, or Howard Hughes.

And yet the taxpayers are still footing a lot of his costs.
He hasn't offered an fundamentally new way to store electricity. He offers what is essentially a big box of Tesla batteries. A giant battery backup system.
Right now work is being done to use methane or natural gas as fuel for fuel cells. Converting the methane to electricity using a catalyst. Such systems are in use in Europe and there's a company in the US experimenting using methane fuel cells to power trucks.
Right now it looks like fuel cell technology is cheaper than current battery storage technology.; 5/11/15, 8:44 AM
JAORE said...: The Drill Sarge is right. And, Tim, "The inability to economically store large amounts of electrical energy is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to effectively limitless too-cheap-to-meter clean power." I also right.
The problem is that so many folk seem to think that "economically" can include massive governmental subsidies without changing the concept of "economically".; 5/11/15, 8:45 AM
glenn said...: What happens if one micro grid has more juice than another microgrid. Do we create a DEPARTMENT OF MICROGRID MANAGMENT to make sure everyone has access to the right amount of electricity. And what about electricity smugglers? ..... Slap ... Slap. Thanks, I needed that.; 5/11/15, 8:46 AM
khesanh0802 said...: Elon Musk seeking another way to obtain money from the government, any government!; 5/11/15, 8:59 AM
Gahrie said...: Right now it looks like fuel cell technology is cheaper than current battery storage technology

Will that still be true after his battery factory is operating?

His factory will have the capacity to more than double current worldwide production of batteries.; 5/11/15, 9:10 AM
Gahrie said...: He hasn't offered an fundamentally new way to store electricity. He offers what is essentially a big box of Tesla batteries. A giant battery backup system.

True. What he has done is make renewable energy more effective by providing a means to store it.

Right now work is being done to use methane or natural gas as fuel for fuel cells. Converting the methane to electricity using a catalyst. Such systems are in use in Europe and there's a company in the US experimenting using methane fuel cells to power trucks

I'm sure Musk knows the state of the art in such fuels, considering that is what he plans to use them in his Mars spacecraft.; 5/11/15, 9:13 AM
mishu said...: "Yet another Musk scam. This guy is a rent seeker who's income derives from subsidies, political favoritism and artificial, regualtion-created businesses."

You mean like other public utilities? How he any different than the ones we have now? His plan aims to make electricity distribution more robust and efficient.; 5/11/15, 9:17 AM
Fabi said...: He's going to use methane for in-space propulsion?; 5/11/15, 9:17 AM
Scott said...: The more I see of what Elon Musk is doing, the more I like the guy. He's not a scammer -- his Tesla cars are really nice.

I think the key to making a gridless or micro-grid energy infrastructure is to find ways to use less electricity to do the things you need to do. In my home, there are eight hi-hat recessed lights on two dimmers. Each one used to have a 60 watt incandescent bulb, burning a maximum of 480 watts + the energy cost of the dimmers. Each has been replaced by an 11 watt LED fixture. Maximum burn is 88 watts + dimmers. That's a phenomenal savings. (LEDs are weird in that when you dim them, the color temperature doesn't red-shift like incandescents do, but you get used to it.)

If I could get similar savings from heating and refrigeration in the house, then I could definitely go off grid without too much exotic technology. That's a challenge, though.; 5/11/15, 9:26 AM
lgv said...: I wish him well, but I don't wish him my tax money via a subsidy.; 5/11/15, 9:35 AM
Gahrie said...: He's going to use methane for in-space propulsion?

Yes. And he's going to build a methane fuel production plant on Mars to refuel his spacecraft for the return trip.; 5/11/15, 9:41 AM
Michael K said...: "these microgriids are dependent on politicians writing tax rules, not on balance sheet bottom lines."

Yes and California is all about rules and lefty theory. I just wonder what the effect of all this will be when somebody sets off an EMP.; 5/11/15, 9:47 AM
Scott said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/11/15, 9:52 AM
Scott said...: Perhaps Mr Musk has to promote the idea of micro grids to appease the fascista who own the grids and collect taxes. If he speaks in terms of going off grid, then all of a sudden government starts making trouble.; 5/11/15, 9:53 AM
Scott said...: "Yes. And he's going to build a methane fuel production plant on Mars to refuel his spacecraft for the return trip."

The methane will be generated from New York City garbage that will be sent into space.; 5/11/15, 9:56 AM
Fabi said...: Thanks, Gahrie. I was being a bit pedantic regarding a methane engine, but am aware of methalox engines, in-space propulsion and various notions of Mars exploration.

And while there is recoverable methane on Mars, capturing it and refueling the necessary tanks given the needed quantities for return are extraordinary. And we haven't even discussed soft landing any of the vast components on the surface, nor the return oxidizer requirements.; 5/11/15, 10:16 AM
Edmund said...: The economics of this don't work unless you already have a solar system in place. I would need several of these systems at $3500 each to power my house at peak. I would also need to get and electrician to install a DC/AC inverter system and wire it into my electrical system. (This is not cheap either, btw, but if you have a solar system, you have this already.)

If the batteries had long enough life, and if one of the local electricity providers still offers the "free electricity from 9 PM to 6 AM", I might be able to have a zero electricity bill. I would still have to pay for being hooked up to the grid, though. (In Texas, the grid is operated separately from the electricity provider and billed separately.)

Battery tech is one of the major challenges in a number of fields such as the military, spaceflight, cars, etc. Right now, Lithium Ion batteries are the best solution for power per pound. However, they have some really nasty failure modes including fires and explosive case rupturing. There are no near term technologies that would offer greater power density in batteries. There are a few longer term solutions in the lab involving nanomaterials, but it can be a long trip from a lab bench to something that can be manufactured easily.; 5/11/15, 10:16 AM
Original Mike said...: "What he has done is make renewable energy more effective by providing a means to store it."

No he hasn't. That's the point. There is no battery breakthrough behind this.; 5/11/15, 10:18 AM
Michael said...: Our poor Senator McCain, when running for president, vowed to create an award of one hundred million dollars for the developer of a battery that could carry a car 400 miles. Or something like that in terms of miles.

McCain did not understand that the El Dorado of battery storage life, once reached, would result in many magnitudes of a hundred million dollars. One hundred million is chump change in the race to make the little hold the big.; 5/11/15, 10:19 AM
Jaq said...: If the math and physics work out, great? But it's all about what we want to be true nowadays, isn't it?; 5/11/15, 10:28 AM
Bobby said...: If you read the article, it explicitly states that Tesla's business model is targeting the utilities- much of the explanation on how it fits into the system is told by a utility guy- and that implementing it at the residential level isn't something Tesla even necessarily wants to do given that their profit margins would be much smaller.

I'd also point out that electrical grids are very complex systems of systems, and determining that "this doesn't make sense for anyone because it doesn't make sense for my home" is downright comical.

In terms of battery technology, Stanford University (Go Cardinals!) actually had a major breakthrough with their aluminum-ion battery last month. It's not going to have any impacts this decade, but the discovery is bound to lead to next generation technology.; 5/11/15, 10:37 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Despite all the whining about energy efficiency these technologies have led to steady decreases in the cost of living. Right now, thanks to both improvements in gas efficiency and low gas prices, it is the cheaper in real dollars to drive than it has ever been. Even boats are getting more efficient, albeit very slowly.; 5/11/15, 11:02 AM
Rusty said...: Gahrie said...
Right now it looks like fuel cell technology is cheaper than current battery storage technology

Will that still be true after his battery factory is operating?

His factory will have the capacity to more than double current worldwide production of batteries.

Yes. Because the efficiency of the individual battery hasn't changed. He's just piling batteries that he already had the technology for on top of each other.
Fuel cells are interesting because the by products, besides electricity, are usually benign. The catalysts required to make the reaction can be recycled to make more catalyst.; 5/11/15, 11:26 AM
JHapp said...: As Bobby has pointed out, battery technology that may actually be cost effective is potentially in the pipeline and it has nothing to do with Musk. But Musk has convinced, with the help of our tax dollars, the entire liberal half of the country that it is all about him.; 5/11/15, 11:27 AM
Rusty said...: Fabi said...
He's going to use methane for in-space propulsion?

The methane fuel cells will be used to create electricity for a ion plasma drive. Theoretically an ion drive is only limited to the amount of electricity you can pump into it.; 5/11/15, 11:31 AM
Rusty said...: AReasonableMan said...
Despite all the whining about energy efficiency these technologies have led to steady decreases in the cost of living. Right now, thanks to both improvements in gas efficiency and low gas prices, it is the cheaper in real dollars to drive than it has ever been. Even boats are getting more efficient, albeit very slowly.

Well. Right now batteries aren't a very efficient way to store electricity. They are also not very cheap.
I don't know what this has to with cars, but OK.; 5/11/15, 11:37 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Rusty said...
Right now batteries aren't a very efficient way to store electricity. I don't know what this has to with cars,

I drive a hybrid SUV. I get 30 mpg in city driving. Fuel costs are not a significant factor in my personal budget.; 5/11/15, 12:19 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: NPR did a neat story on this concept last week, interviewing a German inventor who has built a battery specially designed to harvest his solar power and make it usable at night and during low-light days. This may indeed be the future. I'm much more sanguine about local solar and storage than I am about utilities trying a version of this -- with or without the Musk battery. One problem in California is the "local" power utility often has the right to draw off your inputs to the system and pay you what they pay the ISO, which is a LOT less than the expensive rate you pay THEM when the meter is spinning the normal way.

Like everything green, every step of the process is rigged with rent-seekers and corporatist "partners" with our corrupt government.; 5/11/15, 1:21 PM
Rusty said...: . One problem in California is the "local" power utility often has the right to draw off your inputs to the system and pay you what they pay the ISO, which is a LOT less than the expensive rate you pay THEM when the meter is spinning the normal way.

The problem for local utilities is manifold. The grid is designed to accommodate input from large sources. Input from a lot of little sources plays havoc with the distribution system. Solutions to mitigate the problem are extremely expensive.
The utilities are required to pay retail for out of source electricity. It's a net lose/lose for the utility.; 5/11/15, 1:45 PM
Etienne said...: A few years ago (it was so long ago I had trouble remembering the name), the Bloom Energy Server (it's on wikipedia) was invented. This thing converts natural gas or any gas I guess, to electricity.

Google, and eBay bought a bunch. By now they were supposed to be so cheap they would be everywhere.

Alas, I think everyone will have to wait 17 years for the patents to expire, before the technology can be used.

It does seem simpler to me to use natural gas infrastructure, which is already in place in most cities, rather than millions of telephone poles that fall over in every wind storm.

Bloom Energy Server; 5/11/15, 1:53 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: There's nothing in the article about how the batteries are going to work or that they are trying to invent better batteries. This requires a technological advance.

And he's talking about lithium ion batteries.

There's a problem with them: Explosions.

These explosions of lithium batteries always come as a surprise.

That's because they don't have the proper science.

It's actually the same thing that Fleischmann and Pons discovered in
the 1980s -- in fact they actually first encountered this in the 1960s:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/science/martin-fleischmann-cold-fusion-seeker-dies-at-85.html

Cold fusion.

In the form of sudden unexpected small explosions.

Fleischmann and Pons didn't have the right explanation -- they thought hydrogen atoms were fusing together when brought into close proximity inside palladium, and this was discredited.

It actually worked completely differentlt and had to do with a combination of the lithium and a strong electrical field.

It turns out that when protons are put into a strong electrical field, some of the electrons merge with the proton (hydrogen nuclei) to create neutrons.

I think you also need an anti-neutrino or something, which sometimes just happens to be around.

Neutrons have now been discovered in the aftermath of lightning.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/nuclear-lightening/

http://phys.org/news/2005-09-neutrons-born-lightning.html

Now, loose neutrons have a half life of about 20 minutes, or 18 minutes, or 15 minutes, or maybe or maybe only 10.4 minutes or 10.2 minutes - nobody seems to know exactly - a surprising piece of ignorance for for the Twenty First century physics - after which they decay back into a proton and an electron.

So they don't too much in the wild.

Not so where they have an opportunity to bump into something interesting.

Before decaying back into a protton and an electron, they can enter atoms and create isotopes.

One of the atoms neutrons easily enter into is lithium.

The lithium, with an extra neutron quickly decays, emitting a beta particle (an electron) to become beryllium.

H + e = neutron + Li -> Be + e

Beryllium is very unusual it that it does not accept neutrons. In fact it repels them.

The beryllium isotope then quickly decays.

Nuclear power.

What I don't know is if this is true for all lithium or only lithium-6 or lithium 7 (92% of lithium is lithium 7)

It would become either Beryllium-7 or beryllium-8. If it is beryllium-8 then what you get at the end are two alpha particles. (aka helium nuclei)

If it is Beryllium-7 then you get
one helium atom and one atom of tritium. Hydrogen-3. But since yu;re starting off with mostly Lithium-7 maybe then it's Beryllium-8 and then 2 alpha particles.

In any case, the hotter the battery gets, the more neutrons are absorbed by the lithium. Or maybe it's the other way around --- the more neutrons are absorbed by the lithium, the hotter the battery gets.

At some point so much heat is generated that the battery explodes.

There ought to be way to get control of this reaction.; 5/11/15, 1:56 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Fleischmann and Pons added Lithium deuteroxide (LiOD) to the water to increase its ability to conduct electricity.

It was the lithium that was the key to their reaction working - unpredictably, in a quantum mechanical sort of way.

The palladium was completely irrelevant, and so was the heavy hydrogen.

This Discover magazine article outlines the 2004 theory of Lewis Larsen and Allan Widom:

And also, I think, although they don't say it, explains why lithium ion batteries have a.... tendency to explode.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/27-big-idea-bring-back-the-cold-fusion-dream

Their theory showed how a film of negatively charged electrons covering the palladium could combine with positively charged protons [that's H-1 not H02 or deuterium] from the water’s hydrogen atoms to form neutrons.

Those neutrons could then be gobbled up by nearby lithium nuclei, disturbing the delicate balance of protons and neutrons that keep the nuclei stable.

The lithium nuclei would rapidly decay, first into beryllium and then into helium, and emit radiation.

Finally, the film of electrons would absorb the radiation and reemit it as heat.; 5/11/15, 2:13 PM
Fabi said...: First I've read of a methane power supply to an ion drive, Rusty. However, a significant quantity of Xenon or Argon would still be needed for the actual thrust, regardless of the power supply.; 5/11/15, 2:45 PM
Alex said...: Tesla is "cool", so you're not allowed to criticize how they do business or whether the batteries are toxic and/or safe.

Nothing is about to replace the grid based on burning fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro.

But keep buying the snake oil, you fools.; 5/11/15, 3:00 PM
Alex said...: Sammy - how dare you question the limitless genius of Elon Musk?

Off to the Bastille with you.; 5/11/15, 3:01 PM
Larry J said...: Blogger Fabi said...
He's going to use methane for in-space propulsion?

SpaceX is working on their next generation family of rockets called Raptor. Those engines, like the BE-4 being developed by Blue Origins, burn methane and liquid oxygen. It is more efficient than the kerosene (RP-1) and LOX used in their current Merlin engines and burns cleaner, meaning it'll be easier to service an engine between flights.

And while there is recoverable methane on Mars, capturing it and refueling the necessary tanks given the needed quantities for return are extraordinary. And we haven't even discussed soft landing any of the vast components on the surface, nor the return oxidizer requirements.

They aren't planning on capturing methane from the Martian atmosphere. They're planning on producing it from the CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere and/or using the water below the surface using the Sabatier cycle.; 5/11/15, 3:02 PM
Alex said...: MikeR - I have no problem with Tesla trying things on his own dime. I have a BIG problem with him getting government subsidies to try out his stuff.

Of course you sound like a big government socialist type that thinks the free market can't innovate.; 5/11/15, 3:02 PM
Rusty said...: Blogger Fabi said...
First I've read of a methane power supply to an ion drive, Rusty. However, a significant quantity of Xenon or Argon would still be needed for the actual thrust, regardless of the power supply.

Methane (or natural gas) as an alternative to hydrogen for fuel cells. Methane is more stable but reaction creates about three times the heat than hydrogen.(About 1200C) There is a company in Maryland that is developing a catalytic coating that provides the same reaction but at less heat. (About 400C). They are experimenting using these in trucks and as stand alone power supplies for remote, cold areas. They are trying to improve coating life.; 5/11/15, 3:07 PM
Fabi said...: Thanks, Larry J. I'm familiar with their methalox engine efforts. My comment was a little snarky.

Regardless of capture or create, it will take a bit of in situ infrastructure to obtain that methane. I wish them the best.; 5/11/15, 3:35 PM
Fabi said...: Interesting, Rusty. Thermal is already an issue with those drives, so having a similar issue with the batteries would be unfortunate. Glad they're working the coatings.; 5/11/15, 3:39 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I am not a Tesla believer yet. Nor am I a believer in electric cars either- the physics of lugging an extra 1,000 lbs or so for the battery just does not make sense to me.

Well then get your fuckin fat ass in the car and feel the power of its torque propelling your corpulence at acceleration levels combustion engines can't do. WTF is wrong with you armchair theoreticians and what you "believe"? There is science and empiric observation to back up how powerfully these things go. But I get it… who cares about that when some primitive technology hater has an "opinion"? Right.

This is why things always languish under right-wing rule. A hatred of possibility that's now become a hatred of actual reality. Piss off!; 5/11/15, 6:13 PM
Fabi said...: Plenty of production combustion engine vehicles beat the claimed 3.1 second 0 - 60 time of the Tesla Model S.; 5/11/15, 6:48 PM
RJ said...: I foresee legal problems ahead for Musk - the laws of physics.; 5/11/15, 7:40 PM
Bobby said...: I tend toward libertarianesque views, so I get the hostility toward the solar subsidies... But I also believe in keeping things in context and there's no major energy source in this country that is NOT subsidized by the American taxpayer: coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, bio, geothermal, solar and petroleum, they ALL receive US government subsidies. Singling out the solar crowd, without acknowledging (or in most cases probably even knowing) that the other sectors have received and are also receiving their billions in government support is unfair at best and downright deceptive at worst.

That said, if you're going to subsidize solar energy at all, I would subsidize the research and development (which would accelerate the development of truly cost-effective generation and storage) and not subsidize the existing (highly inferior) photovoltaic and concentrated solar power, as that ironically and perversely disincentivizes industry efforts to develop improved systems in favor of just making money on what they already have. Unfortunately, neither the Bush nor the Obama Administrations agree with me.; 5/11/15, 8:18 PM
Gahrie said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/11/15, 9:19 PM
Gahrie said...: Plenty of production combustion engine vehicles beat the claimed 3.1 second 0 - 60 time of the Tesla Model S

List them. Now keep only the full size four door sedans.

Now keep only the ones costing less than $150,000.

Now how many do you have?; 5/11/15, 9:20 PM
Gahrie said...: MikeR - I have no problem with Tesla trying things on his own dime. I have a BIG problem with him getting government subsidies to try out his stuff.

Musk took all the money he made from his first internet company, Zip2, and invested it in what became PayPal. Then he took all of his money from PayPal, and invested it in what became Tesla, SpaceX and SolarCity. $200 million dollars.

He was on his own dime. Literally his last dime. He has repaid all of his government loans on time, some earning the government a profit. SpaceX earns government money by doing something literally no one else can do right now, which is not only deliver cargo to the space station (which others can do, but SpaceX does cheaper than anyone else...but the last two besides SpaceX who tried {Russia and orbital Science} failed) but safely return cargo to Earth. SpaceX's Dragon is currently the only spacecraft that can return significant amounts of cargo to Earth.

Just this week SpaceX tested it's Dragon2 crew capsule and its emergency escape system. They'll probably be sending astronauts into space by the end of next year.

Any loans or government payments Musk has received have been deserved, and used productively.

You want to see real rent seeking? look at his competitors in the car industry and rocketry industry.; 5/11/15, 9:30 PM
Gahrie said...: Sammy - how dare you question the limitless genius of Elon Musk?

He has been right every time so far. he has fundamentally changed four separate industries. He has been Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or the Wright brothers or Howard Hughes...but he's done it four times!

He is definitely our generations Fulton/Edison/Henry Ford.; 5/11/15, 9:36 PM
Fabi said...: @Gahrie: He made a blanket statement about 'acceleration levels combustion engines can't do'. No disclaimers about number of doors, cost, or what's in my garage.; 5/11/15, 10:18 PM
Michael K said...: "low gas prices, it is the cheaper in real dollars to drive than it has ever been. "

I bought regular gas in California today and it is $4.00/ gallon. Arizona is about $.50 cheaper because it is run by Republicans. Drive from Maryland to Virginia and see what happens to gas prices.

The left is still convinced that it can force people out of their cars.; 5/11/15, 11:15 PM
Michael K said...: "MikeR - I have no problem with Tesla trying things on his own dime. I have a BIG problem with him getting government subsidies to try out his stuff."

I just finished McCullough's biography of the Wright brothers. It is interesting to read about how Langley spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on flying machines that didn't fly.

Then after the Wrights had demonstrated the technology, the Smithsonian lied and said Langley had done it first. They redesigned his machine and demonstrated that it flew using Wright technology.

It was 1948 before the Wright Flyer was brought back from London and put in the Smithsonian.

Nothing new under the sun when government lying is concerned.

The Smithsonian Institution, and primarily its then-secretary Charles Walcott, refused to give credit to the Wright Brothers for the first powered, controlled flight of an aircraft. Instead, they honored the former Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Pierpont Langley, whose 1903 tests of his own Aerodrome on the Potomac were not successful. Walcott was a friend of Langley and wanted to see Langley's place in aviation history restored. In 1914, Glenn Curtiss flew a heavily modified Aerodrome from Keuka Lake, N.Y., providing the Smithsonian a basis for its claim that the aircraft was the first powered, heavier than air flying machine "capable" of manned flight. Due to the legal patent battles then taking place, recognition of the 'first' aircraft became a political as well as an academic issue.[12]

In 1925, Orville attempted to persuade the Smithsonian to recognize his and Wilbur's accomplishment by offering to send the Flyer to the Science Museum in London. This action did not have its intended effect, and the Flyer went on display in the London museum in 1928. It remained there in "the place of honour",[13] except during World War II when it was moved to an underground vault 100 miles (160 km) from London where Britain's other treasures were kept safe from the conflict.

In 1942 the Smithsonian Institution, under a new secretary, Charles Abbot (Walcott had died in 1927), published a list of the Curtiss modifications to the Aerodrome and a retraction of its long-held claims for the craft. The next year, Orville, after exchanging several letters with Abbott, agreed to return the Flyer to the United States. The Flyer stayed at the Science Museum until a replica could be built, based on the original. This change of heart by the Smithsonian is also mired in controversy – the Flyer was sold to the Smithsonian under several contractual conditions, one of which reads:

The rest at Wiki.; 5/11/15, 11:24 PM
n.n said...: Their primary function is as UPS systems to validate the general use of so-called "green" energy technology, where the renewable, green driver has variable, circumstantial performance. It should be a self-reproducing green cash cow for the government, companies, and advocates/marketeers.

That said, I wonder how much longer second and third-world nations will remain the repositories of "green" waste at the beginning and end of the technology cycles. That's not to say it is limited to non-renewable "green" technologies, but that their character has been intentionally misrepresented leading to misaligned development and applications.; 5/12/15, 8:31 AM
Jaq said...: Tesla triples the mileage on a charge of the nearest competitor.

The reason I am a Republican and not a libertarian is that I think that the government has some role in regulating our use of resources as a nation, since having them cut off can lead to war.

I may buy a Tesla. My BMW 5 series goes 500 miles or so on a tank of gas, so 280 miles on a charge does not seem that bad, but the charge time kind of makes long road trips, which I enjoy, kind of out of the question, I guess, so much for that idea. I really can't afford a Tesla as a "runabout" and a Nissan Leaf would not get me to town and back.; 5/12/15, 9:14 AM
Rusty said...: I may buy a Tesla. My BMW 5 series goes 500 miles or so on a tank of gas, so 280 miles on a charge does not seem that bad, but the charge time kind of makes long road trips, which I enjoy, kind of out of the question, I guess, so much for that idea. I really can't afford a Tesla as a "runabout" and a Nissan Leaf would not get me to town and back.

And here is where battery technology falls apart for anything other than local driving. The time to charge.
Tesla figured out it was more time effective to just change out the entire battery bank.
Again. Not a solution.; 5/12/15, 10:23 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Fabi, without getting into the weeds or supporting the green agenda, electric motors in automotive applications can have very impressive performance curves. Extreme low end torque.

In a performance hybrid using fuel cells or an ICE driving a capacitor bank to turn electric motors in the wheels, minus a thousand pound slab of batteries, you might see even more speed/acceleration.; 5/14/15, 9:12 AM