Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Bursting of Car Bubble
- This topic has 130 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 4, 2009 at 7:40 AM #376680April 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM #376254
patb
Participant6800 batteries, if the chance of a 16850 battery having a critical
failure is 1:10,000 chance of a critical failure, you have a pretty
high chance of losing one in a year. if it’s i:100,000,
and you have a a group of 10 being operated by a rental company,
they have a good chance of losing one.10 cells would be far better
[quote=MicroGravity]Hogwash.
The Tesla does not use AA batteries. Someone I know thinks your expert is pretty clueless. Just because an individual cell is a SIMILAR size to a AA battery does not mean the car runs on AA batteries.
From Tesla:
We started our design by purposely picking a small form factor battery cell. This cell is called
the 18650 because of its measurements of 18mm diameter by 65mm length (i.e., just a bit larger
than a AA battery). Due to its small size, the cell contains a limited amount of energy. If a failure
event occurs with this cell, the effect will be much less than that expected from a cell many times
larger. Billions of 18650 cells are made each year. Though the chance of a safety event in a
laptop is small, the number of safety incidents involving Li-ion batteries is rising each year
because there are so many more devices using small and powerful power sources.The Tesla Roadster battery pack is comprised of about 6800 of these 18650 cells, and the entire
pack has a mass of about 450kg.[/quote]
April 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM #376533Participant6800 batteries, if the chance of a 16850 battery having a critical
failure is 1:10,000 chance of a critical failure, you have a pretty
high chance of losing one in a year. if it’s i:100,000,
and you have a a group of 10 being operated by a rental company,
they have a good chance of losing one.10 cells would be far better
[quote=MicroGravity]Hogwash.
The Tesla does not use AA batteries. Someone I know thinks your expert is pretty clueless. Just because an individual cell is a SIMILAR size to a AA battery does not mean the car runs on AA batteries.
From Tesla:
We started our design by purposely picking a small form factor battery cell. This cell is called
the 18650 because of its measurements of 18mm diameter by 65mm length (i.e., just a bit larger
than a AA battery). Due to its small size, the cell contains a limited amount of energy. If a failure
event occurs with this cell, the effect will be much less than that expected from a cell many times
larger. Billions of 18650 cells are made each year. Though the chance of a safety event in a
laptop is small, the number of safety incidents involving Li-ion batteries is rising each year
because there are so many more devices using small and powerful power sources.The Tesla Roadster battery pack is comprised of about 6800 of these 18650 cells, and the entire
pack has a mass of about 450kg.[/quote]
April 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM #376713Participant6800 batteries, if the chance of a 16850 battery having a critical
failure is 1:10,000 chance of a critical failure, you have a pretty
high chance of losing one in a year. if it’s i:100,000,
and you have a a group of 10 being operated by a rental company,
they have a good chance of losing one.10 cells would be far better
[quote=MicroGravity]Hogwash.
The Tesla does not use AA batteries. Someone I know thinks your expert is pretty clueless. Just because an individual cell is a SIMILAR size to a AA battery does not mean the car runs on AA batteries.
From Tesla:
We started our design by purposely picking a small form factor battery cell. This cell is called
the 18650 because of its measurements of 18mm diameter by 65mm length (i.e., just a bit larger
than a AA battery). Due to its small size, the cell contains a limited amount of energy. If a failure
event occurs with this cell, the effect will be much less than that expected from a cell many times
larger. Billions of 18650 cells are made each year. Though the chance of a safety event in a
laptop is small, the number of safety incidents involving Li-ion batteries is rising each year
because there are so many more devices using small and powerful power sources.The Tesla Roadster battery pack is comprised of about 6800 of these 18650 cells, and the entire
pack has a mass of about 450kg.[/quote]
April 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM #376754Participant6800 batteries, if the chance of a 16850 battery having a critical
failure is 1:10,000 chance of a critical failure, you have a pretty
high chance of losing one in a year. if it’s i:100,000,
and you have a a group of 10 being operated by a rental company,
they have a good chance of losing one.10 cells would be far better
[quote=MicroGravity]Hogwash.
The Tesla does not use AA batteries. Someone I know thinks your expert is pretty clueless. Just because an individual cell is a SIMILAR size to a AA battery does not mean the car runs on AA batteries.
From Tesla:
We started our design by purposely picking a small form factor battery cell. This cell is called
the 18650 because of its measurements of 18mm diameter by 65mm length (i.e., just a bit larger
than a AA battery). Due to its small size, the cell contains a limited amount of energy. If a failure
event occurs with this cell, the effect will be much less than that expected from a cell many times
larger. Billions of 18650 cells are made each year. Though the chance of a safety event in a
laptop is small, the number of safety incidents involving Li-ion batteries is rising each year
because there are so many more devices using small and powerful power sources.The Tesla Roadster battery pack is comprised of about 6800 of these 18650 cells, and the entire
pack has a mass of about 450kg.[/quote]
April 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM #376877Participant6800 batteries, if the chance of a 16850 battery having a critical
failure is 1:10,000 chance of a critical failure, you have a pretty
high chance of losing one in a year. if it’s i:100,000,
and you have a a group of 10 being operated by a rental company,
they have a good chance of losing one.10 cells would be far better
[quote=MicroGravity]Hogwash.
The Tesla does not use AA batteries. Someone I know thinks your expert is pretty clueless. Just because an individual cell is a SIMILAR size to a AA battery does not mean the car runs on AA batteries.
From Tesla:
We started our design by purposely picking a small form factor battery cell. This cell is called
the 18650 because of its measurements of 18mm diameter by 65mm length (i.e., just a bit larger
than a AA battery). Due to its small size, the cell contains a limited amount of energy. If a failure
event occurs with this cell, the effect will be much less than that expected from a cell many times
larger. Billions of 18650 cells are made each year. Though the chance of a safety event in a
laptop is small, the number of safety incidents involving Li-ion batteries is rising each year
because there are so many more devices using small and powerful power sources.The Tesla Roadster battery pack is comprised of about 6800 of these 18650 cells, and the entire
pack has a mass of about 450kg.[/quote]
April 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM #376389patientrenter
ParticipantIt’s fun to enthuse about a specific new vehicle, and discuss its merits and demerits, but the notion that the right way to direct the part of our economy devoted to transportation is for a govt agency or govt program, or a few individuals, to pick a winner based on the appeal to them of one option is nuts.
By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.
Doing things in a more centralized command-and-control way would be analogous to having Washington DC choose which kinds of bread will be offered in grocery stores. Of course we could, but why would we choose not to harness the ingenuity and industry and consumer preferences of hundreds of millions of people?
April 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM #376667ParticipantIt’s fun to enthuse about a specific new vehicle, and discuss its merits and demerits, but the notion that the right way to direct the part of our economy devoted to transportation is for a govt agency or govt program, or a few individuals, to pick a winner based on the appeal to them of one option is nuts.
By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.
Doing things in a more centralized command-and-control way would be analogous to having Washington DC choose which kinds of bread will be offered in grocery stores. Of course we could, but why would we choose not to harness the ingenuity and industry and consumer preferences of hundreds of millions of people?
April 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM #376847ParticipantIt’s fun to enthuse about a specific new vehicle, and discuss its merits and demerits, but the notion that the right way to direct the part of our economy devoted to transportation is for a govt agency or govt program, or a few individuals, to pick a winner based on the appeal to them of one option is nuts.
By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.
Doing things in a more centralized command-and-control way would be analogous to having Washington DC choose which kinds of bread will be offered in grocery stores. Of course we could, but why would we choose not to harness the ingenuity and industry and consumer preferences of hundreds of millions of people?
April 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM #376889ParticipantIt’s fun to enthuse about a specific new vehicle, and discuss its merits and demerits, but the notion that the right way to direct the part of our economy devoted to transportation is for a govt agency or govt program, or a few individuals, to pick a winner based on the appeal to them of one option is nuts.
By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.
Doing things in a more centralized command-and-control way would be analogous to having Washington DC choose which kinds of bread will be offered in grocery stores. Of course we could, but why would we choose not to harness the ingenuity and industry and consumer preferences of hundreds of millions of people?
April 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM #377010ParticipantIt’s fun to enthuse about a specific new vehicle, and discuss its merits and demerits, but the notion that the right way to direct the part of our economy devoted to transportation is for a govt agency or govt program, or a few individuals, to pick a winner based on the appeal to them of one option is nuts.
By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.
Doing things in a more centralized command-and-control way would be analogous to having Washington DC choose which kinds of bread will be offered in grocery stores. Of course we could, but why would we choose not to harness the ingenuity and industry and consumer preferences of hundreds of millions of people?
April 5, 2009 at 7:33 PM #376566Participant[quote=patientrenter]
By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.
?[/quote]I’m with you.
The Bush Disaster missed a real opportunity to push through a
fuels taxes on imported oil so that we could be off this stuff in
5 years.April 5, 2009 at 7:33 PM #376846Participant[quote=patientrenter]
By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.
?[/quote]I’m with you.
The Bush Disaster missed a real opportunity to push through a
fuels taxes on imported oil so that we could be off this stuff in
5 years.April 5, 2009 at 7:33 PM #377025Participant[quote=patientrenter]
By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.
?[/quote]I’m with you.
The Bush Disaster missed a real opportunity to push through a
fuels taxes on imported oil so that we could be off this stuff in
5 years.April 5, 2009 at 7:33 PM #377067Participant[quote=patientrenter]
By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.
?[/quote]I’m with you.
The Bush Disaster missed a real opportunity to push through a
fuels taxes on imported oil so that we could be off this stuff in
5 years. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.