4 ms·

Elon Musk won. This was his ultimate plan, to move automakers from fossil fuels. They all made fun of them, execs from traditional automakers, but here they are

Elon Musk won. This was his ultimate plan, to move automakers from fossil fuels. They all made fun of them, execs from traditional automakers, but here they are. We have a lot to thank him for.

millzlane 8y ago
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
ams6110 8y ago
Mostly agree. That was his stated purpose, and he's made tremendous progress. He showed the industry and the market that a pure EV could be practical and something you're not embarrassed to be seen in. Not sure I'd say he's won. EVs are still unsuitable for many purposes (I still would not buy one, though I feel less strongly about it now than I did a couple of years ago).
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > EVs are still unsuitable for many purposes One purpose where EVs are unsuitable - at least for now, and perhaps for a very long time - if off-road driving. First off, the battery technology isn't quite there yet; everything else technology-wise works and exists, and frankly would be damn awesome in a 4wd vehicle (the torque and the ease of controlling it, for one example). But the battery is the biggest stumbling block. For a 4wd off-road vehicle to be electric, the range would have to be able to be north of 300 miles (with all the weight and such a fully-stocked off-road vehicle needs - the frame, the tires, lift equipment, recovery gear, armor, etc - all of that before the weight of the batteries adds up to quite an amount). For an ordinary automobile, we're pretty much there (or close enough). But the battery weighs quite a lot, and isn't nearly as energy dense as fossil fuels. For instance, on the Model 3, the battery is roughly 1/4 of the total weight of the vehicle, and gets you about 300 miles. But for something like a Jeep Wrangler JK (which weighs approximately the same) the weight of fuel is only 1/27 of the total weight of the vehicle, though it gets you about the same range of 300 miles. Now you might say they seem pretty similar, but that's for roughly a stock configuration. With the JK, I have about 6-7 times the "breathing room" of adding extra stuff to it (bigger tires, skid plates, recovery gear, etc) before I hit the same 1/4 of the weight level of the Model 3. While my mileage will suffer, it probably won't suffer as much as if I did the same to an electric version of the vehicle. An electric JK has been built - conversion kits are available: https://www.emvcon.com/ https://www.emvcon.com/ ...and the vehicle performs admirably. While it has proven capable for this, there were a couple of caveats: 1. IIRC - the vehicle was trailered in and out of the area; it didn't drive there, run the trail, then drive home. 2. It had to be charged at a base camp; I am not sure what that entailed. Those are big things - not everyone trailers their off-road vehicle; I would imagine that many drive to a trail, do the trail, then drive home. Most carry extra fuel (at least they do if they know what's good for 'em). They don't carry that fuel in a tank on a trailer, nor do they generally set up a "fueling staging area" in order to get home or finish the trail. They carry the fuel with them. You can't do that with an electric 4wd vehicle - at least not easily. You'd have to either (somehow) carry an extra battery pack (on a trailer or something), or you'd have to carry it with another vehicle, or stage it somehow, or something of that nature. Or you'd have to have a generator setup (and brought in the same way). Forget solar panels; you couldn't set up an array large enough to charge the vehicle in any reasonable time span. These and other reasons (such as the cost - electric conversions are not cheap, and that's on top of an already expensive vehicle) will likely keep me out of the offering for a long while. For a certain segment of the population (those with a lot of money to play with, mainly) - they are available, although they are more a curiosity than a practical system - but that's just my opinion. For other uses, though - in fact, most typical uses - I think electric vehicles are ready for the mass market and practical for most use cases. I'd personally love to be able to get something like a small electric pickup for a daily driver to go to work, and the occasional need I sometimes have to haul things from a home improvement store or the like. Basically, I'd love to see a return of the Ford Ranger EV they once sold, but with today's LiPo tech and not the old and heavy lead-acid they used in the past...
mcguire 8y ago
I thought Musk's plan was for Tesla to be the last automaker standing?
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
1. I find it interesting that for some people on this board, they've defined away the possibility of Musk 'losing'. 2. Who says that it's Musk who has moved them away from fossil fuels? It's a process that was in the works before Musk ever tried to take credit for it.
gamblor956 8y ago
Oh please, Toyota and the Japanese carmakers started the transition away from fossil fuel decades ago when they made hybrids mainstream, and California's decades-old fuel standards system dragged the remaining automakers into investing in hybrid, natural gas, fuel cell, and EV technologies. California politicians had the dream of moving automakers from fossil fuel even before Elon moved to the US. At least for this staed goal, they deserve far more credit than Elon, a latecomer to the game.
- spaceflunky 8y ago
  No. Toyota has a death grip on fossil fuels. While they did pioneer a lot of hybrid technology, they are going kicking and screaming into full electrics. But agree with you that this is a rare instance where California legislation has had a meaningful and measurable positive impact on the environment and technology innovation.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Toyota does not have a death grip on fossil fuels, they simply prefer vehicles which use a fuel source that is easily and quickly resupplied. Hence, their decades-long research into hybrids, natural gas, and fuel cell cars. Toyota has made the bet that a car that takes 30 seconds to fill up (i.e., a fuel cell or NG car) will ultimately win out over a car that needs to be "filled up" (i.e., charged) almost daily over the course of minutes or hours. Moreover, such vehicles can be filled up even in times of natural disasters, grid failures, or scheduled/rolling blackouts.
    - spaceflunky 8y ago
      Your last statement is false for a variety of reasons: 1.) with sufficient research and decrease in cost, we can make it so that electric vehicles can be "refilled" as quickly as fossil fuel vehicles. 2.) for 99% of trips, having 200 miles or more of range is sufficient. across the aggregate of all trips made, it's very rare that people drive more than 200 miles without out a stop of a few hours in between. For those edge cases where people go on long haul trips, you can either elect to have a bigger battery or invest in dc fast charging. 3.) if you are optimizing for times of natural disasters, grid failures, or scheduled/rolling blackouts I would actually pick an electric vehicle. How can you fill up your fossil fuel vehicle when the infrastructure to harvest crude oil, refine it, distribute it, hold it, and sell it has been knocked out? it's easy to forget the massive massive logistics chain that goes into getting you a single gallon of gas. Whereas, I can throw up some solar panels on my home with a battery and have an renewable fuel source completely independent of everything else that is good for hundreds of thousands of miles. Fossil fuel just seems more viable because there is more infrastructure that has been built over time, but that can easily be disrupted. Whereas you could set up a windmill in the middle of nowhere connected to a battery pack that is collecting energy for electric cars that barely needs any maintenance. You're falling into the trap of assuming fossil fuel is "easier" because we have put so much effort behind it over the last 100 years. When in fact fossil fuels is an extremely difficult and disruptable energy distribution system.

Elon Musk won. This was his ultimate plan, to move automakers from fossil fuels. They all made fun of them, execs from traditional automakers, but here they are. We have a lot to thank him for.

millzlane 8y ago

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

ams6110 8y ago

Mostly agree. That was his stated purpose, and he's made tremendous progress. He showed the industry and the market that a pure EV could be practical and something you're not embarrassed to be seen in. Not sure I'd say he's won. EVs are still unsuitable for many purposes (I still would not buy one, though I feel less strongly about it now than I did a couple of years ago).

cr0sh 8y ago
> EVs are still unsuitable for many purposes One purpose where EVs are unsuitable - at least for now, and perhaps for a very long time - if off-road driving. First off, the battery technology isn't quite there yet; everything else technology-wise works and exists, and frankly would be damn awesome in a 4wd vehicle (the torque and the ease of controlling it, for one example). But the battery is the biggest stumbling block. For a 4wd off-road vehicle to be electric, the range would have to be able to be north of 300 miles (with all the weight and such a fully-stocked off-road vehicle needs - the frame, the tires, lift equipment, recovery gear, armor, etc - all of that before the weight of the batteries adds up to quite an amount). For an ordinary automobile, we're pretty much there (or close enough). But the battery weighs quite a lot, and isn't nearly as energy dense as fossil fuels. For instance, on the Model 3, the battery is roughly 1/4 of the total weight of the vehicle, and gets you about 300 miles. But for something like a Jeep Wrangler JK (which weighs approximately the same) the weight of fuel is only 1/27 of the total weight of the vehicle, though it gets you about the same range of 300 miles. Now you might say they seem pretty similar, but that's for roughly a stock configuration. With the JK, I have about 6-7 times the "breathing room" of adding extra stuff to it (bigger tires, skid plates, recovery gear, etc) before I hit the same 1/4 of the weight level of the Model 3. While my mileage will suffer, it probably won't suffer as much as if I did the same to an electric version of the vehicle. An electric JK has been built - conversion kits are available: https://www.emvcon.com/ https://www.emvcon.com/ ...and the vehicle performs admirably. While it has proven capable for this, there were a couple of caveats: 1. IIRC - the vehicle was trailered in and out of the area; it didn't drive there, run the trail, then drive home. 2. It had to be charged at a base camp; I am not sure what that entailed. Those are big things - not everyone trailers their off-road vehicle; I would imagine that many drive to a trail, do the trail, then drive home. Most carry extra fuel (at least they do if they know what's good for 'em). They don't carry that fuel in a tank on a trailer, nor do they generally set up a "fueling staging area" in order to get home or finish the trail. They carry the fuel with them. You can't do that with an electric 4wd vehicle - at least not easily. You'd have to either (somehow) carry an extra battery pack (on a trailer or something), or you'd have to carry it with another vehicle, or stage it somehow, or something of that nature. Or you'd have to have a generator setup (and brought in the same way). Forget solar panels; you couldn't set up an array large enough to charge the vehicle in any reasonable time span. These and other reasons (such as the cost - electric conversions are not cheap, and that's on top of an already expensive vehicle) will likely keep me out of the offering for a long while. For a certain segment of the population (those with a lot of money to play with, mainly) - they are available, although they are more a curiosity than a practical system - but that's just my opinion. For other uses, though - in fact, most typical uses - I think electric vehicles are ready for the mass market and practical for most use cases. I'd personally love to be able to get something like a small electric pickup for a daily driver to go to work, and the occasional need I sometimes have to haul things from a home improvement store or the like. Basically, I'd love to see a return of the Ford Ranger EV they once sold, but with today's LiPo tech and not the old and heavy lead-acid they used in the past...

mcguire 8y ago

I thought Musk's plan was for Tesla to be the last automaker standing?

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

1. I find it interesting that for some people on this board, they've defined away the possibility of Musk 'losing'. 2. Who says that it's Musk who has moved them away from fossil fuels? It's a process that was in the works before Musk ever tried to take credit for it.

gamblor956 8y ago

Oh please, Toyota and the Japanese carmakers started the transition away from fossil fuel decades ago when they made hybrids mainstream, and California's decades-old fuel standards system dragged the remaining automakers into investing in hybrid, natural gas, fuel cell, and EV technologies. California politicians had the dream of moving automakers from fossil fuel even before Elon moved to the US. At least for this staed goal, they deserve far more credit than Elon, a latecomer to the game.

spaceflunky 8y ago
No. Toyota has a death grip on fossil fuels. While they did pioneer a lot of hybrid technology, they are going kicking and screaming into full electrics. But agree with you that this is a rare instance where California legislation has had a meaningful and measurable positive impact on the environment and technology innovation.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Toyota does not have a death grip on fossil fuels, they simply prefer vehicles which use a fuel source that is easily and quickly resupplied. Hence, their decades-long research into hybrids, natural gas, and fuel cell cars. Toyota has made the bet that a car that takes 30 seconds to fill up (i.e., a fuel cell or NG car) will ultimately win out over a car that needs to be "filled up" (i.e., charged) almost daily over the course of minutes or hours. Moreover, such vehicles can be filled up even in times of natural disasters, grid failures, or scheduled/rolling blackouts.
  - spaceflunky 8y ago
    Your last statement is false for a variety of reasons: 1.) with sufficient research and decrease in cost, we can make it so that electric vehicles can be "refilled" as quickly as fossil fuel vehicles. 2.) for 99% of trips, having 200 miles or more of range is sufficient. across the aggregate of all trips made, it's very rare that people drive more than 200 miles without out a stop of a few hours in between. For those edge cases where people go on long haul trips, you can either elect to have a bigger battery or invest in dc fast charging. 3.) if you are optimizing for times of natural disasters, grid failures, or scheduled/rolling blackouts I would actually pick an electric vehicle. How can you fill up your fossil fuel vehicle when the infrastructure to harvest crude oil, refine it, distribute it, hold it, and sell it has been knocked out? it's easy to forget the massive massive logistics chain that goes into getting you a single gallon of gas. Whereas, I can throw up some solar panels on my home with a battery and have an renewable fuel source completely independent of everything else that is good for hundreds of thousands of miles. Fossil fuel just seems more viable because there is more infrastructure that has been built over time, but that can easily be disrupted. Whereas you could set up a windmill in the middle of nowhere connected to a battery pack that is collecting energy for electric cars that barely needs any maintenance. You're falling into the trap of assuming fossil fuel is "easier" because we have put so much effort behind it over the last 100 years. When in fact fossil fuels is an extremely difficult and disruptable energy distribution system.