backtop


Print 120 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Jun 16 at 7:47 PM

"All Our Patent Are Belong To You" -- Elon Musk

Tesla Motors [and SpaceX] CEO Elon Musk is a man looking to change the world. The man is practically a real life Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Tony Stark in the Iron Man and Avengers movies is based partially on Musk) and has big plans for the future of automobiles and space travel.
 
Tesla’s Model S electric sedan has garnered praise from around the world, is handily outselling flagship models from German luxury marques, and is Consumer Reports’ highest rated vehicle of all-time. Likewise, his SpaceX venture has ventured to the International Space Station (ISS) on numerous supply runs with its unmanned Dragon capsule, and is vying for the chance to send American astronauts (seven at a time) into Earth’s orbit (and beyond) with its Dragon V2 capsule.


Tesla Motors, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk [Image source: BriteBits]
 
For all of his successes, it looks as though Musk is looking to give a little bit back. Yesterday, he gave us a teaser with this Twitter post:


Earlier today, he posted the following tweet confirming that Tesla would open up its patent portfolio:
 

Sure enough, the reports were true, with Musk making the official announcement in a blog entitled “All Our Patent Are Belong To You.” Musk writes that his war chest of patents was originally built up as a defense mechanism to larger automotive companies that would likely just come in and rip off Tesla’s technology. However, Musk says that his initial defensiveness was misguided, as traditional automakers are still far behind in the electric vehicle movement.
 
He goes on to state:
 
Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.

Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.
 
According to Musk, “Electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.”


Tesla's "Patent Wall" has been torn down. [Image source: Steve Jurvetson/flickr]
 
He goes on to state that larger auto manufacturers are building primarily compliance EVs that sell in small numbers and have a limited driving range (think Ford Focus Electric, Fiat 500e, BMW/Mini Cooper E). Only the Nissan Leaf has sold in significant numbers in recent years, but still has a driving range of only 84 miles. The base Model S can travel 208 miles per charge, while the higher end models can travel 265 miles.
 
Musk hopes that by freely making its technology patents available to all, the whole EV movement can progress at a faster rate to combat the “enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.” And it also wouldn't hurt Tesla to have more charging stations littered across the U.S. (and the world) that are compatible with Tesla vehicles. 


Tesla Model S
 
By lowering the barrier of entry, and providing easy access to technologies brought forth by arguably the most advanced EV maker on the planet, this can only mean good things for the EV market. 

And just to show that it isn't all business over at Tesla Motors, the company's offiical Twitter account explained Musk's blog headline with the following:


Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Unexpected crazy move
By Shark Tek on 6/12/2014 3:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
But he has a point...




RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 3:33:47 PM , Rating: 1
Not understanding why he's doing this. Patents aren't the reason the larger automakers are not diving into this. SALES are. There aren't enough (non-rich) people interested in EV's to make money of these yet.

PS - Make sure you read my ENTIRE post before comment on it.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Argon18 on 6/12/2014 3:53:57 PM , Rating: 4
In order to drive interest amongst "non-rich" consumers, you need a product that is comparable in price to what they're already buying. Something in the $25k price range. No such EV exists today, and the few low-end EV's on the market like the Volt, Leaf, etc. have piss poor performance and range, such that they're an unattractive alternative to a traditional ICE car.

Everyone wants a Ferrari at a Fiat price, that's nothing new.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 4:19:57 PM , Rating: 1
I hear what you guys are saying but you're missing my point. The INTEREST isn't there and patents won't solve that. If the interest was there, Leaf sales, for example, would be FAR higher with Nissan increasing production, making other models, etc happening. But none of that is happening. The Leaf and other have settled into a sport cars like niche of the market. Niche sales do not entice people to replace their Camry's and Accord's with these (which is what is needed).


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By tng on 6/12/2014 4:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the interest was there, Leaf sales, for example, would be FAR higher
IMO I think Leaf sales would skyrocket if they had a 200 mile range and they looked less fugly.

But you are correct, these patents will not overnight allow Nissan to extend the range of a Leaf to 200 miles at the same price point they are at now.

Even with an increased range at a cheaper price, there is still recharge times to deal with, that will limit sales as well.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By chimto on 6/12/2014 6:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, a fugly looking car has nothing to do with patents, but maybe other car companies can improve the range of their cars with some of Tesla's patented technologies. I don't really know since I have no idea what these patents are.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By hpglow on 6/13/2014 12:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
You are an absolute moron. Yes sales are the problem. What is the cause? Poor range, lack of charging stations, speed at which they charge, cost compared to an ICE car. Are you related to Reclaimer?


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Samus on 6/13/2014 12:44:34 AM , Rating: 1
You don't seem to realize the demand for a 'good' EV is there. Tesla hasn't been able to build cars fast enough to meet demand for years... and they will have a car in the 50k price range very soon, with a car in the 40k price range in the next few years.

Keeping in mind cars are just getting more expensive (my 2014 Mazda CX-5 cost $33,000 after tax and its just a small crossover) and taking into consideration the low maintenance of an EV and the predicted cost of battery packs ($5000) by the time you need to replace one (8 years) and you're still making out damn well if you can work around the simple limitation of charging time.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By maugrimtr on 6/13/2014 7:14:04 AM , Rating: 1
There's obviously demand for a good EV. Tesla are selling them as fast as they can catapult them from the assembly line.

Mass market appeal is another story, and it will always come down to...price. EVs are currently too expensive. That's actually perfectly normal, which is what a lot of people don't understand. If companies sold their current EVs on the cheap, they'd be bankrupt within months. You can only sell at a price that covers ALL of your costs unless you are desperate for market share, i.e. loss leading.

Cheap EVs are inevitable, but it's going to take time.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By MozeeToby on 6/13/2014 11:30:26 AM , Rating: 2
Even a Model S isn't that expensive over the course of a 10 year life. With tax subsidies, it's comparable to a mid end luxury vehicle in terms of total cost of ownership. But then, people don't realize that they put $18,000 worth of gas in their cars over a typical 100,000 mile lifetime (and really, most cars will be on the road much longer than 100,000 miles these days).


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 8:04:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tesla hasn't been able to build cars fast enough to meet demand for years...


Which isn't indicative of anything because they produce such low volumes.

Do you guys even know what "niche" means? Spuke isn't saying there's zero demand for EV's.

Tesla is a boutique brand selling a niche product. Those, traditionally, do not conquer markets.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By inighthawki on 6/12/2014 7:20:00 PM , Rating: 4
Sharing patents means you can lower the R&D costs for other companies allowing them to derive and improve technologies that exist today with less effort and less overhead of worrying about getting sued. This translates to lower operational costs across the board allowing for lower priced, higher quality products.

The reason EVs have not taken off is not because of a lack of interest, it's mostly because of price and a lack of feasibility to replace most peoples' cars. The infrastructure does not yet exist to adequately replace gasoline powered vehicles yet.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Jeffk464 on 6/13/2014 12:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not exclusively. BMW thinks one of the secrets to range is carbon fiber.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Manch on 6/13/2014 6:12:42 AM , Rating: 2
Which significantly increase the cost of the vehicle. Carbon fiber aint cheap. While that will get you range it wont help drive down the costs.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 12:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
Tell me, genius: Where are these automakers going to put these more batteries in their existing EVs?

Ford needed 5 cubic feet to add a piddly 6kWh of batteries to its hybrids in order to make Energi models. The Focus Electric loses half of its trunk, the Volt loses a rear seat, and the i3 does the same while its battery box puts you 8" off the car's floor. All these limitations come even with less than half the battery capacity needed for 200 miles.

Only Toyota's RAV4 EV cracked 100 miles EPA range (barely), let alone 200, and guess who made the battery packs for them?

NONE of the other automakers have shown a shred of evidence that they know how to make a long range EV.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 8:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
NONE of the other automakers have shown a shred of evidence that they know how to make a long range EV.


I'm pretty sure they "know" how. The question you refuse to ask yourself is why DON'T they build them.

Musk said it right, "compliance EV's". When you force automakers by law to produce a product that's not in demand, that's what you'll get. An EV just good enough to meet those requirements.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By karimtemple on 6/13/2014 9:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to oversimplify things, sure: Tesla Motors is operating at a gross margin of 28%.

So for your question, "Why don't they build them," you can scratch "making money" off the list of valid answers. Try Googling some oil industry conspiracy theories or something for more likely answers.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 11:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
What makes you pretty sure?

GM's 200-mile EV plan was predicated on a scam battery startup (Envia Systems).

I gave you 4 other examples of major car companies that couldn't even fit half the required batteries into a car without big usability compromises.

For you to say they know how to make a 200 mile EV without heavily sacrificing seating or trunk space is like saying Apple knows how to make a processor competitive with an i7.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 1:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
WTF? You can't just snap your fingers and duplicate a vehicle. And Apple can't just duplicate an i7.

News flash: There's a lot of technology from Earth that is secret which nobody else knows how to duplicate without years of R&D.

There's all sorts of software in the Model S that is indeed secret IP you can't buy from anyone else or extract from an existing car. There's battery monitoring, charging current distribution, induction motor control (everyone else is using low power, easily controlled permanent magnet motors using expensive rare earths), and more. When you have a high density battery pack with high density cells, you can't just simply transfer knowledge from hybrid batteries. Other manufacturers can figure it out over time, but they don't have that knowledge right now , and that is the point under contention.

Apple does NOT know how to make an i7. They don't know how to lay out the transistors to get that kind of clock rate or IPC, how to reliably make 22nm FinFETs, how to do production 22nm lithography, etc. This is all secret IP of Intel's, so at this time Apple does NOT know how to make an i7.

--------------------------

SIMPLE QUESTION: If it was so easy for them to put over 50kWh of batteries in a roomy car, then why are almost all automakers reducing room with less than 24kWh of batteries?

Why does Ford need to take away 5 cubic feet of trunk space to add just 6kWh? Or half of the trunk for 23kWh?


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 2:02:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
SIMPLE QUESTION: If it was so easy for them to put over 50kWh of batteries in a roomy car, then why are almost all automakers reducing room with less than 24kWh of batteries?


Why should they? They're only making an EV to comply with the Government, NOT MARKET FORCES.

If they were pressured by CONSUMERS to put over 50kWh of batteries in a roomy car, and there was a PROFIT in doing so, they WOULD.

I know you're a Liberal, but your are showing a shockingly poor awareness of how Capitalism and businesses work.

quote:
Why does Ford need to take away 5 cubic feet of trunk space to add just 6kWh? Or half of the trunk for 23kWh?


Because that's the cheapest most easiest way to do it, probably.

Again, when your goal is just compliance, the result isn't going to be a great product. And you just refuse to understand this!

If there was a truly viable market for EV's, these guys would be clawing all over themselves to cater to it.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By karimtemple on 6/13/2014 2:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
I love how you wield your clearly grade-school-level understanding of "market forces" as if it was a samurai sword.

Auto manufacturers just make whatever the people want. And people don't want EVs. Case closed. WOW thanks for clearing that up! You should teach economics in college. You're so insightful.

lol.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By h82bl82d8 on 6/16/2014 2:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
SIMPLE QUESTION: If it was so easy for them to put over 50kWh of batteries in a roomy car, then why are almost all automakers reducing room with less than 24kWh of batteries?
Why does Ford need to take away 5 cubic feet of trunk space to add just 6kWh? Or half of the trunk for 23kWh?


I think that is the difference between a platform that is converted to electric and one that is built as an EV from the ground up. Even the Nissan Leaf is supposedly built on the Nissan B0 platform which is a long wheelbase version of the B platform so it to is a conversion of sorts.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By tng on 6/16/2014 9:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple does NOT know how to make an i7.
Just a quick note, comparing Apple to Intel is not really a good comparison. At least Tesla and Ford both make the same thing, Apple and Intel are in two different areas of manufacturing (for the most part).


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By inighthawki on 6/13/2014 1:09:06 AM , Rating: 2
Or you know, higher efficiency electric motors and higher capacity batteries. Ya know, the kind of things people patent?

With more open standards, connections, etc, it may encourage auto makers to invest money if a lot of the heavy lifting on initial investment has already been provided through Tesla's patent library.

If you truly cannot see how impactful this move is and the potential it brings to the entire market, then you are incredibly dumb and simple minded, and clearly cannot see beyond what is in front of your face. Thank god you are not the ones working in this industry.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By tayb on 6/12/2014 4:55:04 PM , Rating: 4
The Leaf only goes 90 miles on a charge and is extraordinarily ugly. Shocker that there is little interest.

If Model S was priced at $30k they would not be able to produce enough of them. They would be all over the road. Consumers are extremely interested in a useful and affordable electric vehicle. I don't know what makes you think otherwise.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By wordsworm on 6/13/2014 12:32:34 AM , Rating: 4
I don't care what a car looks like. I care that it works, is quiet, reduces its carbon footprint, and is comfortable.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Samus on 6/13/2014 12:52:48 AM , Rating: 4
The Tesla is substantially more than 30k and they still cant produce enough of them.

as unfortunate as it is for consumers like us that cant justify buying one for 60-70k, the fact that they are building at capacity and selling every single one shows the price is correct for the market.

why should they sell it any cheaper than people are willing to pay. it'd be like apple selling the iPhone for $100 when people don't seem to have an issue paying $500+


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Manch on 6/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By sorry dog on 6/13/2014 2:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think the conversation on the success of the Model S is being focused way too much on the car being electric. Part of this is because of Musk concentrating on that issue, however I see the Model S being a good car whether it's electric or not. If you've seen one in person, it's beautiful car and looks more comparable to an over 100k Mercedes or Maserati if not better looking. In fact, I think if it had a small combustion extender unit integrated that it would be even better, but I'm sure a modification such as that would be considered blasphemous by fanatical Teslites.
Also, Consumer Reports should not be taken particularly seriously in their car ratings, but their glowing report does seems suggest that Tesla is talented as a designer of high-end cars. Electric cars aside, that is good for car consumers, since a small car company has been able to field a very competitive design without advantages of large R&D and manufacturing infrastructures. Makes you wonder what the the Tesla design team could do given carte blanche and the engineering and manufacturing resources of a company like GM. They could maybe at least something better looking than the fugliness coming from Nissan, Toyota, and GM.

....Then again GM does tend to be a black hole for innovative or creative ideas...


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By gixser on 6/13/2014 4:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
I 'll leave the analysis to the various camps on this forum but this looks like a relevant survey:

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/L...

The Executive Summary and the section on Consumer Interest are worthwhile reading I think.

Survey was conducted in Nov 2010 and May 2011 so things may have changed.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/12/2014 4:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's growing, as the Leaf just set the all time monthly record for plugin sales last month, and plugins as a whole did as well.

In the next 5 years, I expect the major automakers to go for PHEVs (VW Group in particular has a bunch of models coming out in the next 1-2 years), while Tesla dominates EV sales with Nissan doing okay with EVs also.

Tesla is just going to have too many advantages for pure EVs between image, 135kW charging network, gigafactory, etc, and they'll be very happy with domination of the EV segment of the market (maybe 10-15% of the market by 2025).

It won't be worth it for others to match all that, so they'll mostly just stick with regular cars and PHEVs.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 8:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These people are delusional!
Oh yes they most certainly are! LOL! They actually believe it's technical. What's funny is that the proof is right there in that link and they STILL don't wanna see it. What a bunch of whack jobs!


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Labotomizer on 6/12/2014 9:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... If I could get an EV with a 200+ mile range with easy access to charging stations it's likely I would. I don't know that I'd replace my existing vehicle. It would supplement it. I'd keep my truck for when I need longer range or when I need to haul something.

Technology will help get other manufacturers to a point where they will consider expanding their offering. That will lead to additional charging stations. Of course, everyone is missing the point of this which is for Tesla to sell more batteries from the facility they're looking at building, but that's beside the point.

I think EVs are a nice stop gap. Ultimately we're still relying on very low end energy production and transmittal. I also think natural gas is a superior short term solution. In 30-40 years we will hopefully advance to a point where we waste far less energy which would make a car without an ICE much more effective. I also don't think it will look anything like the current EV configuration.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 10:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmmm... If I could get an EV with a 200+ mile range with easy access to charging stations it's likely I would.
That's what you'd do. The other 500,000+ people that bought a Chevy pickup or the other 500,000+ people that bought a Camry last year say otherwise. And their d^&ks are bigger than ours. Niche markets dictate nothing. Be happy that those cars are even offered.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 12:24:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
Hmmm... If I could get an EV with a 200+ mile range with easy access to charging stations it's likely I would.
That's what you'd do. The other 500,000+ people that bought a Chevy pickup or the other 500,000+ people that bought a Camry last year say otherwise.
May I ask how you know they say otherwise? There's no 200 mile EV pickup, nor is there any 200 mile EV even close to the Camry's price.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By wordsworm on 6/13/2014 12:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
Are you some kind of sick cop that stops cars and does the reach around?


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 9:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
Notice how people are couching this? As soon as you can get Model S range and performance and luxury amenities AND styling for around $30k, EV's will take off!

That's...not how economics work.

I'm still waiting for my $30k Enzo Ferrari FXX. One day, maybe soon, we'll start seeing them!!!


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/12/2014 11:22:36 PM , Rating: 3
Where did I say that I think it's going to "topple an industry"? Huh? Where? Quote the sentence I said this, or stop being so melodramatic.

I clearly said that that my guess is all pure EVs will be 10-15% of the auto market by 2025. That's a LONG time from now, and a MINORITY of the market.

quote:
The Leaf and Volt COMBINED for the entire year of 2013 are LESS than ONE month of Chevy Silverado sales
And do you know what Nissan's sales are with its Silverado competitor? Less than 16k in 2013, and it has been on a downwards trajectory for a decade. EVs have a far brighter future for Nissan than pickups.

quote:
EV's are NOT going to make so much as a dent in regular car sales until they meet the regular persons wants.
You want a cookie for that stunning revelation? That's precisely what Tesla has set out to do.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Argon18 on 6/13/2014 10:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
"I hear what you guys are saying but you're missing my point. The INTEREST isn't there and patents won't solve that. If the interest was there, Leaf sales, for example, would be FAR higher with Nissan increasing production, making other models, etc happening."

Lets try this another way. What interest was there in a Tesla before there was such thing as a Tesla? Zero. You can't have interest in something that doesn't exist.

People don't want the Leaf because the product sucks. It's ugly and the performance and driving range are so terrible, it's a bad value proposition for consumers. Buying a Leaf means paying more to get less. $30k for an ugly hatchback with poor performance? No thanks.

Buying a $70k Tesla instead of a $70k BMW or Lexus on the other hand, means no change in price. And Tesla's 265 mile range is in the same ballpark as the ~300 miles you get from a regular car. It's a good value proposition for those in the market for a new $70k car.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 12:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
There's a much better example:

What was the interest in tablets before the iPad?

Leaf, iMiev, 500e, etc = Microsoft Tablet PC

You can't judge interest in a new market from a flawed product.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By acejj26 on 6/12/2014 3:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
If you can remove most, if not all, of the R&D associated with engineering an electric car, economies of scale can accelerate price drops, making electric cars more affordable (and perhaps more profitable).

Don't think Tesla is completely altruistic here. They stand to benefit as well.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By freeagle on 6/13/2014 6:02:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
PS - Make sure you read my ENTIRE post before comment on it.


Lol, this make no sense at all. The one that makes it to the end of your post to read your PS has, well, read your entire post


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Manch on 6/13/2014 6:31:13 AM , Rating: 1
Or they skipped over it....


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By kleinma on 6/12/2014 3:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
I love pretty much everything about Tesla, except that if they want to start an EV movement, then why release your own EVs that only the rich can afford? We need Tesla vehicles in the 20-30K price range for the mass adoption. Yes, allowing others to use the technology without fear of patent litigation will help others produce economy EVs, but Tesla should lead the pack in that effort as well.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By futrtrubl on 6/12/2014 4:22:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
except that if they want to start an EV movement, then why release your own EVs that only the rich can afford?

Because you can't start a movement with a car you can't make. Or rather, it would be a very short lived movement if you sold the car you can make at a price well bellow cost.
The intent was never to just keep making high cost EVs, but that's where he or anyone else had to start.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By flyingpants1 on 6/13/2014 1:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
They are doing that in 2017. That is actually the whole point of Tesla.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 3:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Billionaires don't give ANYTHING away of value. If he's giving these away, that means nobody wants to buy them and they're basically worthless.
Yeah I agree but WHY is he giving those patents away.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 4:00:14 PM , Rating: 1
Musk probably has realized he can make FAR more money selling batteries to other manufacturers, than he can selling vehicles.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/12/2014 4:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and what's that behind door #2? Gigafactory!


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 4:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
So basically Tesla is just a stepping stone to other industries, not a real car company. IOW, Tesla as a car company might not be around too long which is what I "feared" was the case here.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 4:26:40 PM , Rating: 1
Tesla is a publicly traded company.

And while he might be satisfied with his plan taking 15+ years to get into high gear, his investors and board sure as hell aint.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Boze on 6/13/2014 10:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
Amazon's investors were happy to wait a decade...


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 12:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon's investors have NOT been happy actually.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2178773-amazon-imp...


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Manch on 6/13/2014 6:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
Wasnt a lot of his research for this subsidized by the taxpayers? My concern with him giving it all away is that now China will be all over this flooding the market with cheap cheap crap. I think a limited release of the patents to just US automakers (not Chrysler) as a cross licensing deal would have been better. China with way way less regulatory control will gladly build their own gigafactory and start churning out battery packs to undercut tesla in no time. They do have a lock on the rare earths req for these packs already. They can easily put a damper on the suppy side and boost prices while selling it cheap to themselves.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 11:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, and what's that behind door #2? Gigafactory!


Exactly Brandon.

Are me and you seriously the only two who get what's happening here??


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/12/2014 5:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
If he wanted to make money that way, he could just sell the patent license and battery pack for the same price as he'd sell the packs alone in your scenario, and then he'd get the same sales while retaining long term control and ownership of the patents as a company asset.

No, the real reason he's doing this is for Tesla's image. He's trading future patent revenue for a marketing point that he can mention repeatedly at a time when people are sick of patent wars.

He said at the shareholder meeting that he was going to do something controversial that his investors won't like. Voila.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 6:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He said at the shareholder meeting that he was going to do something controversial that his investors won't like. Voila.
IMO, it's not all that controversial. If I'm an investor in a fledgling car company, I would expect some craziness honestly. But as long as you're making me money, who cares.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/12/2014 11:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. But it's still unconventional.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 6:13:53 PM , Rating: 1
Oh bullsh*t Mint. Tesla's "image" couldn't possibly BE any better than it is now. Why in the hell would he hand over patents to boost an "image" that's maxed out!?

quote:
He's trading future patent revenue for a marketing point that he can mention repeatedly at a time when people are sick of patent wars.


There are no automobile "patent wars". Even the general population at large has NO idea about the smartphone patent wars! Are you being serious?


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 12:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
There is no other purpose for an automaker having a blanket open patent policy than image. Period.

Outside of that, you will ALWAYS be better off licensing your patents, even for low fees, or coming up with some cross-licensing agreement. You already failed miserably trying to claim some laughable battery profit motive, but you're welcome to fail again. Just think about how something can be implemented without giving away patents before coming up with some dumb reason again.

You are hardly an expert in Tesla's global image. They had delays in China that angered those who placed orders, and who knows what else is brewing there. Maybe this policy is going to be part of their free market speeches directed at dealer laws. Maybe they've been monitoring some message boards and see some negative sentiment brewing. Maybe it's a pre-emptive strike against future negative press from competitors.

A better image is always a good thing, and this isn't a one time thing.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 8:37:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You already failed miserably trying to claim some laughable battery profit motive


How exactly?

Okay you know what, I'm bookmarking this. And when that day comes where other OEM's sigh contracts for Tesla battery packs, I'm going to come here and ride your ass over this and make you eat your words.

Mint, you don't have a goddamn crystal ball. But I think it's MORE than logical to assume this move is to help cement Tesla's position as a battery supplier.

Or you can believe instead that Musk, a BILLIONAIRE, is just interested in buying good will and saving the planet. Yeah, that's not idealistic at all.

quote:
They had delays in China that angered those who placed orders, and who knows what else is brewing there.


Oh well then I take it all back. Because NOTHING will help sooth those angry about vehicle delays more than announcing free patents!!

Wtf??? Just...what the fu*k happened to your brain?


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 11:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
Oh FFS. Where did I say Tesla won't sell battery packs to others? One more time:

TESLA DOES NOT HAVE TO OPEN UP ITS PATENTS TO SELL BATTERY PACKS TO OTHERS.

How stupid do you have to be to even come up with something like that? In what way does Tesla's future battery business benefit by letting other manufacturers freely copy its battery or motor designs?

If Tesla wants to sell Daimler a battery pack for $10000 with open patents, why can't they sell a patent license for $1000 and battery for $9000? The buyer pays the same, and Tesla protects its business. If Samsung wants to sell Daimler a clone, they have to license Tesla's patent.

With open patents, Tesla doesn't get a dime off of Samsung ripping off their design or technology.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
LOL all of a sudden you think Tesla's patents are so critical that they're a barrier to EV innovation? You just said yourself that "they're basically worthless".

You're just making up BS arguments on the fly, oblivious to your own self-contradictions.

And what do battery sales have to do with giving up patents on induction motor cooling, inverters, automotive user interface, air suspension, cable connectors, communication noise reduction, hood seals, door seals, door hinges, sunroofs, energy absorbing crash structures, radiators, rocker joints, adhesives, proximity sensors, and more?
http://www.faqs.org/patents/assignee/tesla-motors-...

Good luck explaining that.

LOL I suppose you think Proctor & Gamble are idiots for not giving away all their patents to grow Duracell's battery market. While we're at it, Google should give away all its patents to grow the search market...


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 1:02:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And what do battery sales have to do with giving up patents on induction motor cooling, inverters, automotive user interface, air suspension, cable connectors, communication noise reduction, hood seals, door seals, door hinges, sunroofs, energy absorbing crash structures, radiators, rocker joints, adhesives, proximity sensors, and more?


What the...did you not just read what I said? Those will help people build better EV's with LESS R&D costs. Are you still not getting this?

And yes I said they were worthless before. That was a kneejerk reaction. THEN it came to me the true purpose behind all this: capturing the EV battery-pack market. Who could possibly be in a better position for this than Tesla?

quote:
While we're at it, Google should give away all its patents to grow the search market...


Uhh Google doesn't benefit from the search market growing, idiot. They benefit from people using Google.

Those "analogies" are not analogous to my point at all. They're worthless.

Anyway why are you so offended at the idea that Musk is giving these patents away for the purposes of financial gain? There's NOTHING wrong with that!! I am NOT criticizing him, in fact, it's BRILLIANT!


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 1:07:26 PM , Rating: 1
Okay the Google analogy came *close* to hitting the mark. Google, in essence, grew their search market by giving away Android and their Google Apps to anyone who wanted them for free.

Guess what? Tesla is going to grow, or attempt to grow, the EV market by giving away these patents for free.

You know what, I'm tired of defending my position. You tell me why Musk did this, what is your theory? Do you actually believe a billionaire is this altruistic all of a sudden? Because this move doesn't put him up there with Bill Gates, not even close.

I'm looking for solid business reasons for this move. And you're pitching...what? Peace on Earth good will to men?

You're either incredibly stupid or just naive. At this point I don't care which.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 1:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those will help people build better EV's with LESS R&D costs. Are you still not getting this?

Explain how giving away patents for air suspension, hood seals, door seals, door hinges, sunroofs, energy absorbing crash structures, radiators, rocker joints, adhesives, proximity sensors, and more helps EVs any more than it helps ICEs.

Tesla can charge licensing fees for these patents that are equally applicable to all cars, whether EV or not. How are you not getting this?

Answer this: If this was solely about EV growth, then why wouldn't he let manufacturers get free patent licenses when using these inventions for EVs, but not for gas cars?

Look at all the touchscreen interface patents, for example. Why not let EVs use them for free, and charge hundreds for gas cars to use them?

quote:
Uhh Google doesn't benefit from the search market growing, idiot. They benefit from people using Google.
Uhh, Tesla doesn't benefit from the battery market growing, idiot. They benefit from people buying Tesla battery packs.

(You leave me no choice but to converse in your own brand of idiocy)


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 1:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh Musk HIMSELF was the one who said he's doing this for EV growth. NOT ICE cars, but specifically EV's.

How in the hell are you making this about me and my statements? Way to twist everything I've said (as you always do) and completely lose context!!

"Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.

If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles "


So what now smartass?


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 2:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? Since when do you believe every company's PR at face value? I can't even remember the last time.

Giving away patents on door seals and hinges and sunroofs is "for the advancement of electric vehicle technology"? Really?

If Ford makes a Model X ripoff with falcon wing doors, pop-out door handles, giant sunroof, 17" touchscreen very similar to Tesla's, and sells it for $20k less with a V8 in it, how does that help Tesla and the EV movement? That loses sales, and makes people on the fence forget about buying their first EV.

I'm going to repeat the question above: If this was solely about EV growth, why didn't Elon say the patents are only open for EVs to use?


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 2:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you said I always thought in black and white?

Why does this have to be "solely" about one or the other? I can accept that this was a PR move, but I absolutely believe there's also a profit-motive involved and this is part of a strategy.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/13/2014 4:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
If I was climbing Everest, it would be silly to say the reason was for the exercise. Am I getting exercise? Of course! But there are a million smarter ways to do that. Obviously there's a more important reason for doing so.

This is my point from the very beginning: The profit motive does not mandate making all patents open. It does not justify opening up any patents, in fact, as Tesla could just give out free licenses to use the EV related patents for a decade while retaining the ability to charge thereafter.

That's how a business approaches the strategy you speak of without sacrificing IP assets. Google made Android open source, but didn't let people use all other technologies for free, and Google Mobile Services are not open source either; rather, they are licensed for free. They can start charging fees/terms in the future if they feel the time is right. As an example, back in the days of WM5 I had a freeware mapping program, but Google told the authors to stop using their API if it was going allow offline maps.

Elon's over-the-top move of declaring an open patent policy is a completely different move. He dug himself into a hole, as any backtracking on this policy will tarnish Tesla's image significantly.

I maintain that the only way it makes sense to go this far is if the primary purpose is marketing.

Tesla has done things like this before, such as declaring that the Model S will be priced equally everywhere, with only taxes/duties and shipping added on top. Every other car company charges different prices in different areas, according to what they feel maximizes profit in each market. That policy, too, is all about marketing and image.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By ritualm on 6/14/2014 1:41:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is the point of making a gigantic factory to sell millions and millions of batteries, if there is NO viable EV market to sell them to?

You could have figured this out if you start using that lump of organic matter three feet above your shrinking manhood for a change.
quote:
Seriously can you just stop freaking out and think for a goddamn second?

You never walk your own talk, and you're telling the other guy to do what YOU are mentally incapable of ever doing? You make every mental asylum resident in the world look well-reasoned and intelligent.

The only way to increase consumer EV adoption at this point is to massively reduce R&D costs and address the pain points that make current EVs less desirable than ICE's. The most surefire way of making this happen is to have someone with the balls to tell every stakeholder, shareholder and financial analyst to go eff themselves.

And the number of people blessed with this ability, other than Steve Jobs and Elon Musk... well, you can count with one hand.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2014 6:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only way to increase consumer EV adoption at this point is to massively reduce R&D costs and address the pain points that make current EVs less desirable than ICE's. The most surefire way of making this happen is to have someone with the balls to tell every stakeholder, shareholder and financial analyst to go eff themselves.


Why would Musk want to increase EV adoption by helping his COMPETITION make better EV's? UNLESS he stands to profit from it! Hello???


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By ritualm on 6/14/2014 7:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would Musk want to increase EV adoption by helping his COMPETITION make better EV's? UNLESS he stands to profit from it! Hello???

How are you going to grow the EV market if the competition can't use Tesla's newly-public patents to improve their offerings?

Also, it's not like Musk needs to do anything more as far as batteries go. The average consumer treats the batteries in their phones and tablets too harshly, such that they don't last more than 2 years, when these stuff can last up to year 4. Tesla will have no shortage of EV battery replacement services, even in the absence of competition.

You're not using your head, retard.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2014 10:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Again, idiot, why would Musk want to grow the EV market when his company - Tesla - is in a position to DOMINATE it!!!???

That would be like Microsoft giving away it's OS patents in the early 90's so they could help "grow" the PC market...uhhh wtf, why would they do that? That's STUPID!!!

And you say I'm not using my head? You're a goddamn moron if you don't understand something as simple as this. Why would Musk want to improve the offerings of his own competition!!??

Please just go jump off a mountain now if that actually makes any logical sense whatsoever. Having you produce offspring is a risk the human race just can't take.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By ritualm on 6/16/2014 2:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, idiot, why would Musk want to grow the EV market when his company - Tesla - is in a position to DOMINATE it!!!???

That would be like Microsoft giving away it's OS patents in the early 90's so they could help "grow" the PC market...uhhh wtf, why would they do that? That's STUPID!!!

And you say I'm not using my head? You're a goddamn moron if you don't understand something as simple as this. Why would Musk want to improve the offerings of his own competition!!??

Please just go jump off a mountain now if that actually makes any logical sense whatsoever. Having you produce offspring is a risk the human race just can't take.

How about your inability to foster and maintain a well-informed discussion, instead relying on putdowns and frequently changing goalposts and topics so you can win internet arguments?

Idiot calling others out for being idiots, how novel.

You are not using your head, and that attitude is SO prevalent in your posts on ANY topic, including the Samsung Galaxy F article where you claimed the SoC improves network connection speeds (when it really doesn't - LTE-Advanced is currently only available in South Korea, and it's just a baseband chip anyone can add to their stuff = it improves NOTHING!).

When Argon18 posts better than you re: Tesla - and your position = "I hate Elon Musk and everything he does! If you argue otherwise, you're a retard!" - you're in trouble.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/12/2014 4:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
If this gets Ford, GM, etc working towards building compelling EVs, it legitimizes the market, a market his company has solidified itself as the pinnacle of.

A rising tide, lifts all boats.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 6:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
It won't because patents aren't the reason they're "slow" to get into the EV market.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By xdrol on 6/12/2014 5:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
Volvo gave away the patents for seat belt and airbag. Their cars are still considered _the_ most safe on the roads, while it might not be true any more (although probably still in the top 5).

I think it's obvious what would Tesla gain if they are considered as the "best" EV on the market.

Also, check the requirements: If other manufacturers start building charging stations, it's good for their customers as well.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By TBlain on 6/13/2014 5:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
This answer to this was right in the article:

quote:
And it also wouldn't hurt Tesla to have more charging stations littered across the U.S. (and the world) that are compatible with Tesla vehicles.


I think this was downplayed in the statement.

America in particular is a nation of convenience, so not being able to pull into the nearest corner charging station as easily as they fill up a gas tank balks the average consumer. Having to do something as mind bogglingly complicated as actually planning how they are going to use their vehicle and the range it has available with the current technolgy is going to stymy widespread adoption of EV.

At the end of the day, the real problem is the "nobodies" that don't want to purchase licensing of the patents are perfectly content to stay with the status quo because THAT R&D was essentially done several decades ago and all that has transpired since then is refinement of a core technology. What's more, the infrastructure to support that core technology is already in place, which makes it easily accessible and appealing to, well, everyone.

By opening up the IP that his company has spent countless millions on already to other manufacturers, he is perhaps not eliminating, but certainly mitigating overhead cost to be able to produce a similar product, thus allowing for the possiblity of additional options to consumers. More options increases the likelihood of the products being purchased and used, thus bolstering what is now a "niche" market into a viable and lucrative segment.

In other words, by making his IP openly available, he is hoping to entice the other auto makers to help grow the market for it.

Remember when Viagra first came out? It was niche, too, limited to old farts with valid medical conditions and playboys with money to burn. Now you go to a party and there is practically a punchbowl full of the things because a dozen different companies make the things.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By YearOfTheDingo on 6/12/2014 4:03:50 PM , Rating: 5
As crazy as Microsoft giving away copies of Internet Explorer back in the late 90s.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 6:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
They did it to gain marketshare and it worked.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By YearOfTheDingo on 6/15/2014 3:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's also illegal.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By EricMartello on 6/12/2014 8:52:37 PM , Rating: 1
Already thoroughly debunked the whole EVs as the "savior" of our human transportation needs. While electric cars may be more efficient at converting energy stored in batteries into mechanical work, the process of generating electricity is substantially less efficient than refining petroleum into gasoline. Add to this the fact that no battery comes close to matching the energy density of gasoline or diesel and EVs are basically dead on arrival.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By BabelHuber on 6/13/2014 5:36:10 AM , Rating: 1
You are right of course, but this does not bother the die-hard EV fans here.

We once had a discussion here were I provided a simple example:

Meet with a customer who is 270km away from you (real-world example!)

So you need to drive the 270km, attend a meeting for 2 or 3 hours and then drive back home the 270km on the same day.

Impossible with any EV period.

But no, our die-hard EV fans here argue that:

- This is no use case for the majority of the population, so it is invalid
- You can drive with 80km/h behind a truck, thereby enhancing the range
- You can head to a 'quick charging station' (or so) and simply wait a few hours until you can continue your journey.
- In the future, Ohm's law will be invalid, hence you will be able to charge your batteries much faster (my favourite!)


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By aliasfox on 6/13/2014 1:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anybody's ever argued that the modern-day EV can meet 100% of needs, 100% of the time. But as one vehicle in a two car garage (as is very common in suburbia), it can cut down significantly on one person's usage.

For example: mom drives the CUV, dad drives the Tesla. During the week, neither one goes over 50-100 miles in a day. On the weekend, the family takes the CUV for road trips/Home Depot/antiquing etc. All that fuel that dad would otherwise have used during the week was saved, with very little (if any) downside.

Honestly, there's very little reason to argue against EV adoption for those whom it makes sense:
- Economics: electricity is generated domestically. A significant amount of fuel is imported
- Environmentally: fuel is turned into electricity by efficient (and relatively distant) power plants rather than inefficient ICEs with the tailpipes 10 ft away.
- Car lovers: The more EVs are used for commuting tasks, the more fuel there is for people who want to run sports cars on weekends
- Noise pollution: they're quieter
- Technology: They're new and different

I understand there are specific cases where EVs don't work, but the wholehearted "it's us or them!" mentality has me baffled.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By EricMartello on 6/13/2014 11:48:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Honestly, there's very little reason to argue against EV adoption for those whom it makes sense


Who is making this argument? If EVs made sense, they would be adopted by consumers. My point of contention is the fact that they are often cheer-leaded and falsely misrepresented as a 'panacea' of sorts to a problem that doesn't exist.

quote:
- Economics: electricity is generated domestically. A significant amount of fuel is imported


Irrelevant; and petroleum refineries sell oil on a global commodities market. It is heavily taxed and thus regardless of whether fuel is produced domestically or imported, the Fed is taking a heaping cut of the revenue so they can squander it on subsidies for EVs and other "climate change prevention" measures...or whatever the anals of junk science are excreting this week.

quote:
Environmentally: fuel is turned into electricity by efficient (and relatively distant) power plants rather than inefficient ICEs with the tailpipes 10 ft away.


False. Most electricity is generated by burning fuels and the process averages 40% efficiency, up to 50% on the high side. This does not include losses that are incurred during electricity transmission. Suffice it to say that every 1 kilowatt you use, about 2.3 need to be generated, and so charging the 85 kW/h battery in the Tesla requires nearly 200 kW of power to be generated and transmitted from the power plant.

When considering end-to-end efficiency, even including the energy used to refine and transport gasoline, gasoline vehicles are equal or better than the current crop of EVs.

quote:
Car lovers: The more EVs are used for commuting tasks, the more fuel there is for people who want to run sports cars on weekends


Irrelevant; we do not have a fuel shortage and so the notion that "more fuel becomes available" for people driving occasionally on the weekends isn't even worth mentioning.

quote:
Noise pollution: they're quieter


If only liberals could emulate THAT aspect of EVs then we'd be onto something...but in practical driving situations being able to hear other vehicles is not a bad thing so the quietness of EVs is actually a drawback.

quote:
Technology: They're new and different


Different rarely equates to better. If the change is not an improvement then it's not worth anything.

quote:
I understand there are specific cases where EVs don't work, but the wholehearted "it's us or them!" mentality has me baffled.


Baffled? Pointing out the obvious isn't something I do often...but for you, here it is: If EVs were not being forced into existence by liberal politicians, requiring all American taxpayers subsidize products that people do not need and most do not want then maybe there wouldn't be the kind of pushback that you are referring to. The fact is that the "green economy" cannot exist without massive government subsidies because nothing they offer works as a practical replacement, if it works at all.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By ritualm on 6/14/2014 1:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point of contention is the fact that they are often cheer-leaded and falsely misrepresented as a 'panacea' of sorts to a problem that doesn't exist.

So your solution is to completely ban EV research, development and production, while maintaining the status quo?
quote:
petroleum refineries sell oil on a global commodities market

Explain why, if petroleum is so plentiful and there is never a fuel shortage, why are more refineries not being built?

Fossil fuels are derived from the compression of decomposing plant and animal matter over long periods of time. They are not renewable in the sense that you'll be dead long before the stuff available around you on the Earth's surface will decompose sufficiently to create coal, gas, and oil.

You don't build refineries because they increase supply, decrease the unit price of refined energy = you lose money.

You don't want EVs because then the number of vehicles that consume fossil fuels start going down = you lose money.

You don't want more "green" energy because that makes people less dependent on fossil fuels = you lose money.

You don't want fuel efficiency to go up because it reduces the amount of fossil fuel consumed to do some amount of work = you lose money.
quote:
the Fed is taking a heaping cut of the revenue so they can squander it on subsidies for EVs and other "climate change prevention" measures

Wrong, because that doesn't even start to explain why governments are corrupt. You can eliminate all EV-related subsidies and you still have the chronic issue of public money being used for the exclusive benefit of corporations and other private parties.

You don't get points for sound management of other peoples' money. You get points for squelching the most money off those you represent in the most efficient and effective ways; spending all that money as quickly as possible; and to produce the greatest amount of benefit to certain parties whom you have personal/political connections to. Why bother fixing the broken system? Exploit it while you still can - and don't hold the bag after all is said and done.

That is why people like you are unfit to rule entire nations.
quote:
When considering end-to-end efficiency, even including the energy used to refine and transport gasoline, gasoline vehicles are equal or better than the current crop of EVs.

And yet ICE-powered vehicles are notoriously inefficient. Your claims are false and without merit.
quote:
we do not have a fuel shortage

The world currently operates on fossil fuels. That stuff is non-renewable. In fact, Saudi Arabia has to pump treated seawater into its oil fields to maintain current production quotas - that's using a renewable resource to prop up a non-renewable one.

"we do not have a fuel shortage"... bollocks.
quote:
If only liberals could emulate THAT aspect of EVs then we'd be onto something

Nah. The world is much better off when such armchair generals as you stop talking.
quote:
If EVs were not being forced into existence by liberal politicians, requiring all American taxpayers subsidize products that people do not need and most do not want then maybe there wouldn't be the kind of pushback that you are referring to.

Or you can wait until the Earth is, for all intents and purposes, uninhabitable because there is too much pollution everywhere, and all ecological systems are irreversibly changed for the worse. You can wait until EVs are viable - when mere exposure of unprotected human skin equals instant death. You can stop doing any R&D on EVs until you run out of coal, gas and oil.

And of course, you can most certainly do nothing, including stopping all space exploration work until Apophis is 12 months from impact.
quote:
The fact is that the "green economy" cannot exist without massive government subsidies because nothing they offer works as a practical replacement, if it works at all.

If you refuse to have any green, then you're better off digging your grave right now.

We don't have to go all EV because conditions that force us to do so don't exist yet. However - when they all do, it is already too late to do anything productive and beneficial.

Start digging your graves, son.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/14/2014 10:57:22 AM , Rating: 3
Don't waste your time with EricMartello. He thinks the Tesla Model S only gets 30 miles range in the real world on a full charge. Seriously:
www.dailytech.com/BMW+Concept+X5+eDrive+Uses+Plug In+Hybrid+Tech/article34708.htm
quote:
A tesla with an 85 kW/h battery can get you about 30 miles in "real world conditions", and that's likely on the high side...but let's say it is.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By EricMartello on 6/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: Unexpected crazy move
By Mint on 6/15/2014 12:34:39 PM , Rating: 4
Not surprised that you're lying through your teeth in every single statement of this post.

-I have a public stance of not taking any action against man-made global warming, both on DailyTech and elsewhere

-I never said the Model S will get 250 miles under any situation. I always said 200+ miles

-LOL at claiming of intentional exaggeration. You said it multiple times, and even used it in your pathetic calculations. Here's a sample of your work:
quote:
-A tesla with an 85 kW/h battery can get you about 30 miles in "real world conditions", and that's likely on the high side
-Last I checked, 16 gallons to go 30 miles is a paltry 1 MPG
-None of this even matters, because you're already paying over ~$13 to drive 30 miles in an EV at TODAY'S electric rates
http://www.dailytech.com/BMW+Concept+X5+eDrive+Use...

You're a fucking moron, completely inept at math, and a lying piece of shit. I'm not discussing anything more with you.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By EricMartello on 6/16/2014 7:47:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not surprised that you're lying through your teeth in every single statement of this post.


Since when does lying mean saying something you dislike or disagree with? The thread you are referring to resulted in you pathetic claims being demolished, along with the other guy who tried to make a case for EVs.

quote:
-I have a public stance of not taking any action against man-made global warming, both on DailyTech and elsewhere


You cannot take action against something that does not exist. If you recall (and I know you do because you probably bookmarked every thread where your trollogic gets decimated), you have never managed to make a case for the man-made global warming / climate change lie...and yes, that is an actual lie that relies on ignorant morons who believe junk science...it's not a surprise that liberals are really the only group that have bought the climate change horsesh1t hook, line and sinker.

quote:
-I never said the Model S will get 250 miles under any situation. I always said 200+ miles


It actually will not get "at least 200 miles" in every situation; there are plenty of documented instances where it fails to reach its "claimed" range.

Furthermore, and also from that thread, I've illustrated why the tesla is less efficient than any of its gasoline counterparts. You are free to ignore those facts as they conflict with your chosen belief.

quote:
-LOL at claiming of intentional exaggeration. You said it multiple times, and even used it in your pathetic calculations. Here's a sample of your work:


Oh! You got me! I cannot use an exaggeration more than once! LOL I'm flattered that you believe that I take what you or some other liberal says so seriously.

For future reference, me talking to you is like an adult talking to a 3 year old...so don't get mad if you find out the easter bunny is actually the smelly homeless guy that fathered you, accidentally.

quote:
You're a fucking moron, completely inept at math, and a lying piece of shit. I'm not discussing anything more with you.


Aww, is the silly wittle liberal mad?


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By EricMartello on 6/14/2014 4:46:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So your solution is to completely ban EV research, development and production, while maintaining the status quo?


Only a total idiot would reach this conclusion based on my comments. The research that needs to be happening is not with EVs, it's with batteries. Feel free to note that I said this in my original comment. Without batteries that match liquid fuels in energy density (as well as practicality in terms of refueling) EVs are dead on arrival.

I'm perfectly fine with the "status quo" if the proposed changes are not improvements...and nothing coming from liberals or the left are actual improvements.

quote:
Explain why, if petroleum is so plentiful and there is never a fuel shortage, why are more refineries not being built?


Why don't you go ahead and try to start a new refinery in the US and see just how much governmental red tape must be cut through just to get a proposal considered for approval.

You must be one of those idiots who gets his info from the daily show if you really believe that we're so close to exhausting our petroleum supply that it no longer pays to open new refineries.

The Keystone XL pipeline should already be under construction. There is ZERO validity to any of the opposing claims made to halt or stall its construction...and this is just a pipeline. Do you think building a new refinery is simply going to get a green light for construction because someone asks?

quote:
Fossil fuels are derived from the compression of decomposing plant and animal matter over long periods of time. They are not renewable in the sense that you'll be dead long before the stuff available around you on the Earth's surface will decompose sufficiently to create coal, gas, and oil.


Lucky for us, the earth has been in existence for billions of years, and for much of that time covered in various biological organisms that have since decomposed. So I'm comfortable in betting that there are plenty of yet-untapped petroleum reserves.

You also assume that we'll NEVER discover a way to synthesize the fuels we currently rely in...and that we'll always have to rely on natural processes to grant us additional fuel.

quote:
You don't build refineries because they increase supply, decrease the unit price of refined energy = you lose money.


The majority of the cost of fuel like diesel and gasoline is comprised of taxes that are assessed both at the point of sale to the consumer as well as various points along the supply chain.

Now there is some validity in the notion that fuel prices are being controlled and manipulated - this done to advance political agendas as well as to serve cronies. In other words, the energy industry is socialized and runs on a pay-to-play scheme, where big government politicians accept money from oil companies and their affiliates and then return the favor in the form of protectionism when they get elected.

The real problem here, that you are missing, is big bloated government and their cronies. Cronyism is not capitalism.

quote:
You don't want EVs because then the number of vehicles that consume fossil fuels start going down = you lose money.


Really? I lose money? If I were invested in auto manufacturers and they experienced a sales boom - whether they are EVs or not - I would win. Nobody is experiencing a sales boom in obama's america - they're getting excited about being 1/4 as good as they were prior to the obamacession of 2008.

quote:
You don't want more "green" energy because that makes people less dependent on fossil fuels = you lose money.


I like how your comments get incrementally stupidder as we go down the line. There is no "green energy" because none of the alternatives to fossil fuels are as reliable, portable or capable.

Who's really losing money? The moron who spent $25K to put solar panels on his roof that require 20 years to break even on electric savings, when the solar panels themselves only last 10 years, 15 years at most. LOL

Who else is losing money? The states that thought erecting wind turbines is the way to go. In addition to slaughtering thousands of birds each year, these turbines are an eyesore that require high maintenance and produce so little power that breaking even isn't even possible, let alone profitability.

Oh, and another loser of the green economy? The American taxpayer, who has lost countless billions as the government backed loans for companies like Solyndra and A123. Let's not forget that the billions spent on the entirely fake "green economy" was supposed to jump start America's economy...clearly it worked as our GDP slides down 1% in just 3 months.

quote:
You don't want fuel efficiency to go up because it reduces the amount of fossil fuel consumed to do some amount of work = you lose money.


According to basic tenets of economics, if fuel efficiency increases and the rate of consumption decreases we have a "low demand" situation, while the supply remains unchanged...so the prices should drop.

They won't, of course, because the government decides what Americans pay for fuel through taxes. In the middle eastern countries you can still buy gasoline for under $1.00 per gallon.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By EricMartello on 6/14/2014 4:48:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wrong, because that doesn't even start to explain why governments are corrupt. You can eliminate all EV-related subsidies and you still have the chronic issue of public money being used for the exclusive benefit of corporations and other private parties.


If you claim that I am wrong, the following statement should be the correct statement. You claimed I am wrong about the government using the revenue it gets from over-taxing fuels to subsidizes non-viable "alternatives" like EVs and solar panel companies. That is a well-documented fact. The issue of cronyism is another topic.

quote:
Why bother fixing the broken system? Exploit it while you still can - and don't hold the bag after all is said and done.

That is why people like you are unfit to rule entire nations.


Our broken system is broken because of liberalism - the expansion of government under the banner of "fixing broken things", and the ever-constant obliviousness to the fact that the government's incompetence scales exponentially with each new department that it spawns. So to "fix" our system it needs to be dismantled, because a large centralized government DOES NOT WORK.

People like me are not fit to rule because people like me do not want to rule. I do not want to be a king and I do not want an aristocracy like what we have now.

I want to REVERT the US Government to be inline with the vision that the founding fathers had - and that is to give STATES the majority of governing power and keeping the federal government around to deal with NATIONAL issues...to be clear, that would be issues that affect ALL Americans like interstate commerce, travel and security.

quote:
And yet ICE-powered vehicles are notoriously inefficient. Your claims are false and without merit.


Great rebuttal there, chief. You really shut me down with that zinger...the only issue is that I did not make any "claims" - I stated facts. Even you had the wherewithal not to argue with those facts despite voicing baseless disagreement.

quote:
The world currently operates on fossil fuels. That stuff is non-renewable. In fact, Saudi Arabia has to pump treated seawater into its oil fields to maintain current production quotas - that's using a renewable resource to prop up a non-renewable one.


"I can't make a legitimate argument so I will make a broad statement out of context and cite it as a specific fact".

Or, to put it another way, you're either clueless or believe everyone else is. The saudis have discovered that they can squeeze ADDITIONAL oil out of OLD wells by pumping in seawater to raise the pressure. It's basically like licking your plate clean rather than tossing bits that you can't get with a fork and spoon into the garbage.

Your typical liberal will point at this and say it's "proof" that we're "almost out of petroleum". Naturally there are no facts to support this, uh, theory.

quote:
Nah. The world is much better off when such armchair generals as you stop talking.


Armchair general? That sounds like something an idiot who watches the colbert report would say.

Clearly a liberal 'satirist' is more qualified to talk about issues like the fall of Iraq and the dissolution of Ukraine than retired generals who were actually there and had to deal with similar situations on a daily basis.

We've had 6 plus years of amplified liberalism in America and it has done NOTHING to improve America, but it has made America worse in many ways. America would never have come into existence if the settlers were like today's liberals.

Face it, bro, if you're a liberal or in support of left-wing politics you are unamerican at best. There is no need for liberals in any society beyond providing a model of how NOT to be.

quote:
Or you can wait until the Earth is, for all intents and purposes, uninhabitable because there is too much pollution everywhere, and all ecological systems are irreversibly changed for the worse. You can wait until EVs are viable - when mere exposure of unprotected human skin equals instant death. You can stop doing any R&D on EVs until you run out of coal, gas and oil.


LOL! Baseless alarmism with absolutely nothing to support it - glad to see you saved the stupidest comments for last.

Too much pollution everywhere? If by pollution you mean liberals.

quote:
If you refuse to have any green, then you're better off digging your grave right now.

We don't have to go all EV because conditions that force us to do so don't exist yet. However - when they all do, it is already too late to do anything productive and beneficial.

Start digging your graves, son.


Look, dipsh1t, you can believe what you want but don't try to impose your beliefs on others. If you think doom is near, then YOU ALONE take whatever precautions you deem necessary...but do not try to drag the rest of humanity down your butt-hole of delusion.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By ritualm on 6/14/2014 8:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only a total idiot would reach this conclusion based on my comments.

In other words, you admit that your comments are worthless.
quote:
Without batteries that match liquid fuels in energy density (as well as practicality in terms of refueling) EVs are dead on arrival.

Nah, you just want to see EVs fail entirely, because battery research just has not kept pace with the rest of the industry.
quote:
Why don't you go ahead and try to start a new refinery in the US and see just how much governmental red tape must be cut through just to get a proposal considered for approval.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Corporations, not citizens, run the US government. Red tape is just that - it's not something that can't be removed with lots of cash in the pockets of certain politicians.

No, the real reason why no new refineries are being built has nothing to do with bureaucratic red tape; it has more to do with the plain fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable. Why increase supplies of products whose source is not unlimited? Granted, you can make gasoline from refining algae and other plant-based sources, but their energy content per unit volume is a mere fraction of the same stuff derived from dead dinosaurs.

Now add to the fact that most ICE vehicles - taking into account all fuel efficiency improvements in the past 100+ years of automobile R&D - waste greater than half the potential energy in conventional gasoline as heat, instead of doing useful work with it...
quote:
Do you think building a new refinery is simply going to get a green light for construction because someone asks?

Sure they can - the oil industry just needs to pay off politicians. What red tape? What NIMBY? Those things don't matter. Political "donations" have a 220:1 ROI.

... and yet those new refineries are not being built.
quote:
I'm comfortable in betting that there are plenty of yet-untapped petroleum reserves.

Yeah, let's make our only home in the entire galaxy uninhabitable! Excellent idea!
quote:
The real problem here, that you are missing, is big bloated government and their cronies.

Way to miss my point completely.
quote:
Oh, and another loser of the green economy? The American taxpayer

Funny you said that. American taxpayers lose huge amounts of money to corruption, even without Solyndra and A123.
quote:
According to basic tenets of economics, if fuel efficiency increases and the rate of consumption decreases we have a "low demand" situation, while the supply remains unchanged...so the prices should drop.

Prices keep going up, despite demand dropping relative to supply via fuel efficiency improvements.
quote:
So to "fix" our system it needs to be dismantled, because a large centralized government DOES NOT WORK.

Impossible to fix now, what with the populace overwhelmingly voting in favor of losing all their personal freedoms so they can be safe from bogeymen created and funded BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.

Large central government is here to stay. Fix liberalism? They'll make you shut up instead. Cheaper and more effective.
quote:
the only issue is that I did not make any "claims" - I stated facts.

You argued that the efficiency of ICE is better than that of EV - a false claim devoid of fact.
quote:
I like how your comments get incrementally stupidder as we go down the line...

Or, to put it another way, you're either clueless or believe everyone else is...

LOL! Baseless alarmism with absolutely nothing to support it - glad to see you saved the stupidest comments for last...

Look, dipsh1t, you can believe what you want but don't try to impose your beliefs on others...

Troll calling others out for trolling.

So you can't form a proper rebuttal without calling others "liberals", "dipsh1ts", and some other fancy right-wing mumbo-jumbo-du-jour. And you say you're more knowledgeable than I? Laughable.


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By EricMartello on 6/15/2014 2:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, you admit that your comments are worthless.


What does you drawing false and illogical conclusions from my comments have to do with their value? LOL I like that you're doubling down on teh stooped.

quote:
Nah, you just want to see EVs fail entirely, because battery research just has not kept pace with the rest of the industry.


Is there some reason you cannot operate without making up these ridiculous things for yourself to believe in? If EVs are at least as good as their gasoline counterparts I would have no problem with them...and there are plenty of other applications that would benefit from batteries with energy densities that match (or come close to) gasoline.

quote:
Corporations, not citizens, run the US government. Red tape is just that - it's not something that can't be removed with lots of cash in the pockets of certain politicians.


Our government was never run by the citizens, it was always an independent entity. It was supposed REPRESENT the citizens, and the left-wing push to centralize our government and consolidate its power at the federal level is what allows money to have as much influence as it does.

You really don't see how lobbying would be much less effective if each company had to convince several politicians in each state to go along with them, rather than simply convincing one or two in DC?

Liberalism, a driving force behind government expansion and the erosion of liberty, is at the core of America's demise...but you go ahead and keep believing it's those evil corporations.

quote:
No, the real reason why no new refineries are being built has nothing to do with bureaucratic red tape; it has more to do with the plain fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable.


Yes it is, and fossil fuels are renewable once we perfect methods of synthesizing them.

quote:
Now add to the fact that most ICE vehicles - taking into account all fuel efficiency improvements in the past 100+ years of automobile R&D - waste greater than half the potential energy in conventional gasoline as heat, instead of doing useful work with it.


Fuel efficiency was not a key focus of the historical R&D of vehicles. Today's cars are far more efficient than their predecessors, especially when you consider the fact that the average sedan is both larger and heavier than something from 20-30 years ago.

The engines' thermal efficiency is not the only factor that determines their overall viability. The power-to-weight ratio matters, their ability to operate in a broad range of conditions matters, reliability matters... you home in on one thing because that's what you decided is all that matters and think that as long as an engine has high thermal efficiency it's great, even if it fails on all other fronts?

EVs suck in the winter - even the tesla loses range when the temperature drops. EVs suck if they have to deal with heavy loads, like towing, as it will drain the batteries exponentially faster. EVs suck in terms of reliability because they require complicated computer controllers and software to make them work. EVs have a terrible power-to-weight ratio...and finally, ALL electricity we consume MUST be generated. Usable forms of electricity do not occur naturally. We can use natural processes to create fuels simply by getting the right chemistry.

quote:
Sure they can - the oil industry just needs to pay off politicians. What red tape? What NIMBY? Those things don't matter. Political "donations" have a 220:1 ROI.

... and yet those new refineries are not being built.


Right, because paying off a politician will stop those eco-twats from coming and protesting, causing local and regional authorities to halt development.

If, by your "logic", it was so easy for the evil 'big oil' to get things done, the Keystone XL pipeline would be under construction...but it's not.

I don't know where you're getting your misinformation, but the fact is that the USA has steadily INCREASED oil production over the last decade, largely in Texas and Oklahoma, with the most recent new refinery being built last year. The older refineries built in the 70s are still able to produce enough fuel to meet current demand - a fact you seem to ignore.

quote:
Yeah, let's make our only home in the entire galaxy uninhabitable! Excellent idea!


The fact that you believe this to be happening shows just how out of touch you are.

quote:
Funny you said that. American taxpayers lose huge amounts of money to corruption, even without Solyndra and A123.


Brilliant response! Liberals are already responsible for mass corruption in the US government - what's a bit more going to hurt? LOL

quote:
Prices keep going up, despite demand dropping relative to supply via fuel efficiency improvements.


False. Population growth, developing countries using more fuel now than ever before (China), more drivers per family which means that what used to be one relatively inefficient car per family may now be 2-3 efficient cars per family, all of which are driven daily.

You are really incapable of logic, aren't you? I mean you're so quick to jump to ridiculous conclusions - the less facts or evidence to support your beliefs the better!

quote:
Impossible to fix now, what with the populace overwhelmingly voting in favor of losing all their personal freedoms so they can be safe from bogeymen created and funded BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.

Large central government is here to stay. Fix liberalism? They'll make you shut up instead. Cheaper and more effective.


You do realize that you are a contributor to America's problems by being as ignorant as you are. People voting on beliefs rather than taking the time to learn the facts about any given issue by doing their own research results in a voting populace that can easily be manipulated with the kind of fear-based rhetoric you're attempting to use in your responses.

Thanks to the VA scandal, I'm feeling more confident that when the revolution comes, many more of our military will side with the American people rather than the government.

quote:
You argued that the efficiency of ICE is better than that of EV - a false claim devoid of fact.


The end-to-end efficiency of gas and diesel vehicles is equal or better than EVs, and I've already explained why.

Remember that 1 kW drawn from a plug in your home means more than 2 kW had to be generated and transmitted, due to line loss (voltage drops over power lines) as well as the fuel consumed to power the generators.

Your lack of technical acumen, combined with your propensity to believe nonsense and reject logic, assures that you will always be in the dark.

quote:
So you can't form a proper rebuttal without calling others "liberals", "dipsh1ts", and some other fancy right-wing mumbo-jumbo-du-jour. And you say you're more knowledgeable than I? Laughable.


You are a liberal and a dipsh1t - how is that not a proper rebuttal?


RE: Unexpected crazy move
By karimtemple on 6/13/2014 9:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
This is kind of missing the point, isn't it? I don't think EVs were made to deal with any concerns over fossil fuel efficiency. Fossil fuels are wildly efficient.


What carbon crisis?
By Cluebat on 6/12/2014 4:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
As long as a plurality do not see a looming emergency and with the prospect of spiraling prices for (dirty) grid power, I do not expect that his will move the market in the least.




RE: What carbon crisis?
By althaz on 6/12/2014 9:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
The dirtiest grid power is still MUCH cleaner than petrol-fueled cars. Plus, ff grid prices go up, renewable energy sources get comparitively cheaper.


RE: What carbon crisis?
By Spuke on 6/12/2014 10:57:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Plus, ff grid prices go up, renewable energy sources get comparitively cheaper.
No they don't see Germany.


RE: What carbon crisis?
By Mint on 6/13/2014 1:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
And Spain. And Denmark.

(Wind in the US is much cheaper than there, though. Projects are still being started and competing with natural gas, despite the expiry of the Production Tax Credit.)


RE: What carbon crisis?
By BZDTemp on 6/13/2014 4:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
That's right keep thinking there is no problem and there isn't one - except that is not how things work!

Just because some individuals let greed rule over fact does not mean you can't try and make the right decisions in life. If not for yourself then for those that come after you, anything else is short sighted.


Keyword
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/12/2014 3:35:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.


However, you sue them for patent infringement and any of those "open source" patents you used are fair game in a countersuit.

That said, I think its a good move. They're opening a plant in China, the patents won't be worth the stamp they were filed with after that anyway.




RE: Keyword
By tng on 6/12/2014 4:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're opening a plant in China, the patents won't be worth the stamp they were filed with after that anyway.

Yep.


Sustainable Transport
By Shadowmaster625 on 6/13/2014 8:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
"Sustainable Transport" hahaHA. What a joke. Tesla consumes more barrels of oil during the process of building each model S than it will ever save. Not to mention you're just trading oil consumption for coal burning and a little fukushima radiation on the side. Sorry but there is nothing sustainable about a $70000+ car. Put down the crack pipe before you hurt yourself, Elon.




RE: Sustainable Transport
By flyingpants1 on 6/13/2014 1:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tesla consumes more barrels of oil during the process of building each model S than it will ever save.


quote:
Responding to questions about the carbon footprint of the electric-car manufacturing process--in particular, its lithium-ion battery cells--Tesla has done an internal study of that process for the Model S. According to Straubel, the results were surprisingly good: The Model S will essentially offset all the carbon emissions from its manufacture in less than 10,000 miles of driving--a far lower figure than some critics have claimed.


quote:
Not to mention you're just trading oil consumption for coal burning and a little fukushima radiation on the side.


This is so silly. Not all electricity production is from coal. Depending on where you live, a decent part of it is solar. You can also charge the car from home, with a solar panel. Can't do that with any other car. Not even sure what you mean about radiation..


standards?
By Murloc on 6/12/2014 6:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
apart for the fact that he's just saying they will not initiate suits, so this statement has no long-term value, maybe by making other companies go on the track they have already set, they will build compatible charging stations and stuff. And also buy their batteries, or their power train, or whatever, without worries.
This would expand their opportunities to sell stuff.




He is securing battery sales
By mlmiller1 on 6/12/2014 8:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
When the new battery plant goes online, he will have plenty of buyers. He is smart and wise.




By someguy743 on 6/15/2014 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully, there is going to be a massive breakthrough in battery technology and they'll get much more affordable so electric cars will become the dominant type of vehicle on the road in 10 years.

"Dual Carbon batteries: Is this finally the breakthrough we’ve been promised for so long?"

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182500-dual-car...

"Balancing the Battery Equation"

http://powerjapanplus.com/battery/equation.html




"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki