Cont: Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla II

for all you guys saying oh, you're just picking on musk, i hope jeff bezos buys a social media site and gets a pill addiction, overshares, and also fails
 
The Great Zaganza said:
And his ability to milk the government for protection and money?
Click to expand...
Oh I am sure he will be able to do that better (until his inevitable split from Trump),but we know that being a top 20 Diablo 4 player is more important than running SpaceX (we shall not mention him being caught cheating on another game and being banned, oh I did mention it), and now he is going to overhaul the entire USA civil service so where will SpaceX now be on his to-do list?
 
So will hydrogen power never improve it's efficiency?

If the resources pumped in to developing EVs and battery power had gone in to hydrogen instead, would we be saying battery power was inefficient?
 
Andy_Ross said:
So will hydrogen power never improve it's efficiency?

If the resources pumped in to developing EVs and battery power had gone in to hydrogen instead, would we be saying battery power was inefficient?
Click to expand...
Hydrogen necessarily involves an extra step, converting electricity into hydrogen which means it'll be less efficient than using the electricity directly.

IMO it's a useful way of storing excess electricity and of addressing situations where battery power is impractical - planes and heavy lorries for example.
 
We are in the Cambrian explosion of energy innovation - the fact that Musk wants to nail down his technology (and only in his version) is impeding progress.
 
The Don said:
Hydrogen necessarily involves an extra step, converting electricity into hydrogen which means it'll be less efficient than using the electricity directly.

IMO it's a useful way of storing excess electricity and of addressing situations where battery power is impractical - planes and heavy lorries for example.
Click to expand...


Less efficient at the moment.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
We are in the Cambrian explosion of energy innovation - the fact that Musk wants to nail down his technology (and only in his version) is impeding progress.
Click to expand...

How exactly is he doing that?

He’s made both the charging standard and the 48v architecture protocols freely available to other manufacturers. Maybe not out of the goodness of his heart, but some credit where credit is due.
 
I'm curious: What's proprietary about 48V systems? Car manufacturers have had that change in the works for many years. Mercedes were pushing for it before EVs were a significant market.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Less efficient at the moment.
Click to expand...
There's no getting around the second law of thermodynamics. Hydrogen power may become less inefficient but converting electricity to hydrogen and then using it will be less efficient than using the electricity directly.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'm curious: What's proprietary about 48V systems? Car manufacturers have had that change in the works for many years. Mercedes were pushing for it before EVs were a significant market.
Click to expand...

Not sure of the details, but Copilot says this:

“Tesla is sharing its **48V architecture** with other automakers to help advance the industry. This move is part of Tesla's effort to simplify and improve vehicle wiring, efficiency, and accessory integration

By sharing this documentation, Tesla aims to encourage other automakers to adopt this more efficient system, which could lead to significant improvements in vehicle design and functionality.”
 
I read that Tesla is having yet another recall. If this keeps up the cybertruck might be the most recalled vehicle ever created.

Per AP:

Tesla is recalling almost 700,000 vehicles because of an issue with the warning light on the tire pressure monitoring system.

According to a letter Thursday from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the recall includes certain 2024 Cybertruck, 2017-2025 Model 3, and 2020-2025 Model Y vehicles.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's right. I forgot, according to the Musk apologists\fanbois if it can be fixed through a software update then it's not a "recall", do I still have that right? Because it's Musk and it can be fixed over the waves it's somehow not as serious.

I can't remember all the special rules the Musk nut huggers have specifically set up for him anymore.
 
The Don said:
Hydrogen necessarily involves an extra step, converting electricity into hydrogen which means it'll be less efficient than using the electricity directly.

IMO it's a useful way of storing excess electricity and of addressing situations where battery power is impractical - planes and heavy lorries for example.
Click to expand...
Well batteries involve converting electrical energy into chemical energy too. Hydrogen fuel cells have better energy density (I think, maybe wrong) Batteries are more convenient though. Either way, both involve converting electrical energy to something else and then back again.
 
Last edited:
I can understand wanting to fix a situation where a low tire pressure light might not come on.

But it’s really hard to get worked up over something that trivial - we somehow managed to drive safely for about a century before tire pressure monitoring systems even existed. The 2005 Honda Element we still own doesn’t have TPMS, for example, and we somehow manage.

I’m NOT a Musk fanboy. But our 2022 Tesla Model 3 has been very reliable over almost 3 years and 68,000 miles. It has never had a physical recall. It’s hard to express what a nothingburger these OTA update “recalls” are to owners.

As cars become more and more dependent on computers, it’s not surprising that like most other computers - and phones - they’ll periodically need system updates. To be able to do those updates over-the-air pretty much started with Tesla, with other manufacturers catching up. Calling these system updates “recalls” is still misleading, especially over something as simple as a TPMS glitch.
 
Elon has claimed on Twitter that his company could build a transatlantic tunnel between New York and London for one thousand times less money than current estimates. $15.7 billion.

Such a figure would be cheaper than the cost of the world's current longest underwater tunnel, the 31-mile Channel Tunnel linking London and Paris, which cost £9 billion in 1984, approximately £18 billion in today’s money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom