Tesla Gigafactory Grand Opening

File: tesla-gigafactory-robot-9.png (520KB, 874x806px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 874x806px

Elon Musk proposes that focusing on the manufacturing process is now the key for electric vehicles.

Says engineering time spent on manufacturing processes is 5-10x more efficient than trying to eek out additional performance on the Tesla 3.

The gigafactory utilizes autonomous robots.
http://electrek.co/2016/07/31/tesla-gigafactory-robots-machines-battery-factory/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0P1Ikyz8To

Video showing off fully autonomous Adept Lynx Tesla robot.

File: r2d2-robot-tesla-e1445352024734.jpg (58KB, 719x558px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 719x558px

Elon musk's humor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Snd8Rk07hEU

>>8240409
you're a big factory.

>>8240409
Electric cars are a meme. Powerwall sucks dick.

>>8240423
>>8240425
Why are you on /sci/?

>>8240409
where'd he get the money to build it?

>>8240431
4U

>>8240409
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqnKHlW-YJE

>>8240431
Because its preferable to other boards. Better question: why are you on /sci/? Its pretty much established at this point that electric cars are worse for the environment than regular cars, so why are you peddling a pseudoscientific snake oil salesman?

>>8240432
5 billion to build
1.6 billion from panasonic
1.4 billion Nevada ($200,000 per job), no taxes, 20 year deal

>>8240437
>electric cars are worse for the environment than regular cars

Low IQ detected. Take thermodynamics again.

>>8240452
where'd he get the other 2 billion? or was that made in saved tax money?

>>8240454
i thought the danger of traditional cars was chemical pollution. I don't know what type of pollution the guy criticizing electric cars is talking about but how does thermal dynamics relate to chemical pollution?

>>8240459
efficiency of EV vs ICE

>>8240454

hurr durr, i have no concept of how much energy goes into mining, refining, transporting, and fabricating a 1,200 pound lithium battery

>>8240456
Pre-orders probably

File: image.gif (73KB, 69x120px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 69x120px

>>8240476
Please provide sources for these claims.

>>8240504
It's you making the positive claim here pal, ie. "electric cars are better for the environment than standard cars". Others are arguing the negative of that, as we all know, you can't prove a negative. We'll be wait for those reliable sources.

File: image.gif (679KB, 446x349px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 446x349px

>>8240509
I don't have sources, schlomo. I am ignorant about this topic. That's why I am asking you, not arguing for any side whatsoever. But I see that I've been baited, I hope.

>>8240515
Fine I'll play ball instead of shitpost as is my usual intention in Musk threads.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full

>We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km.... Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel v

Like I said electric cars are a meme. Also it's worth noting that if EV'S were used in Asia (where there's even more cars) the CO2 output is actually worse than conventional cars.

>>8240529
I don't get it. You just posted a study that claims the exact opposite of what you're trying to prove.

>>8240414
That is one sexy robot

>>8240546
You didn't read it did you. Allow me to do all the fucking work for you.
>The GWP from EV production is about twice that of conventional vehicles. Our results suggest a potentially greater gap between the two technologies for other impact categories, such as HTP and MDP. Environmental evaluations relying solely on fuel and powertrain efficiencies miss key differences associated with the production of different vehicle types and could lead to misguided comparisons across technologies.

>For example, performing the calculation assuming a lifetime of 200,000 km for the ICEV and assuming a battery replacement within the lifetime of the EV would result in lower GWP impact for the diesel ICEV with respect to the EV charged with European average electricity.

>Our results clearly indicate that it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion. At best, with such electricity mixes, local pollution reductions may be achieved. Thus EVs are a means of moving emissions away from the road rather than reducing them globally

>In the absence of foreseeable improvements to electricity mixes, a more significant reduction in GWP could potentially be achieved by increasing fuel efficiency or shifting from gasoline to diesel ICEVs without significant problem-shifting (with the exception of smog).

>Our results point to some probable problem shifts, irrespective of the electricity mix. EVs appear to cause a higher potential for human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts.

Tldr: EV'S are no better than diesel hybrids, and are just a way of moving emissions away from the road, more fuel efficient diesel is potentially better than EV'S with current energy mixes. Moreover EV'S have fairly serious environmental impact in their own right that might not be possible to escape from.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/31/teslas-entire-future-depends-on-the-gigafactory.html

>When the factory is complete, it will be the largest building in the world by footprint and, if all goes according to plan, will eventually churn out enough batteries to supply 150 gigawatt hours of batteries per year.

>Three years ago, when the Gigafactory was first proposed, "I thought it was crazy," said Yamada. "At that time, production capacity of this Gigafactory would exceed total production of the industry. Not Panasonic. Not Japanese companies. All Japanese, Korean, and Chinese companies combined. I thought it was a crazy idea.

>Raw materials go in the south end and assembled battery packs come out the north, all shepherded by close to 10,000 Tesla employees and a litany of Fanuc autonomous robots.

That's impressive. That's really impressive.

File: technology-and-products-57-728.jpg (88KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 728x546px

>>8240425
"The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a MEME" - Some internet retarded

>>8240588
Please read >>8240529 and >>8240565 first faggot. Electric cars apparently can't live up to their own goals.

>>8240588
Its a meme because the current battery technology is a meme. If you can unmeme the lifespan of vehicle electric batteries, u will unmeme teslas

>>8240595
>If you can unmeme the lifespan of vehicle electric batteries, u will unmeme teslas
This works both ways. The battery will improve with Tesla. The technology evolves concurrently with a reciprocal relationship.

File: electric-cars-global-warming-emissions-fact-1.jpg (81KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1000x669px

>>8240565
You've given complete focus to the worst case scenario. Try reading the actual report and giving an unbiased view.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars#.V58iQfl96Hu

>>8240692
Aren't Tesla cars powered by SolarCity?

>>8240698
Some % of recharging stations are powered by solar. Most of the charging done over the lifetime of a car comes from plugging it in at home.

>>8240692
>Check out this website, you don't need any peer review.

Will musketeers ever stop lowering the collective IQ of this board.

>>8240729
>musketeers
Fucking lold.

To be fair the "peer-reviewed" article posted above was published in 2013 with research done in years prior. A lot has change since then.

>>8240766
>was published in 2013

That's a fair enough criticism, it does seem to be an area that undergoing fairly rapid development. But desu I'd still take the article over something published on the Union of Concerned Scientists website.

>>8240770
I'm not really familiar with that website. It seems like it's a journal of someosort, so I assume it's peer-reviewed. Regardless, I would have liked to see recently new studies published in an accredited journal, from both camps.

File: graphs for levi-04.png (26KB, 891x596px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 891x596px

>>8240565
Shithead low IQ monkey.

You have to look at directions and evolution as well as current levels.

>hurr LED for lighting is shit - t. retard monkey in 2000

You have to do a COMPLETE study of the subject and it's possible evolution.

How much more engineering time, infrastructure, and global markets have been adapted to ICE and fueling infrastructure?

You're a fucking moron if you can't grasp the huge advantage of EVs.

Just tell me, what is the projected value of solar power vs coal in 2030?

Do you understand anything? You fucking shitheaded brainlet.

>>8242471
>Being this mad

Holy shit anon calm down, it's bad for your likely cholesterol encrusted heart.

>Musketeers so irrevocably BTFO they have to resort to childish insults.

>>8242484
It's just the same low IQ drivel

The same people would halt all current building of solar because it's not currently efficient.

They can't understand momentum and scaling up.

>>8242473
>because the only thing that matters is how much the fuel costs the moment in which i pay for it

>>8242511
>The same people would halt all current building of solar because it's not currently efficient.

Yes. Because it's not efficient and it's retarded. It's that last part that's really important.

>>8242535
Linear thinker / Low IQ brainlet

Not much more to say than that. You are too stupid to bother explaining things to.

>>8242536
Great argument bro. Please tell me how you'd overcome the following:
>Dependence
For solar to work you're asking many countries to be much more dependent on other countries for their power supply. And I'm not talking just raw materials, I mean literally depending on them.

>Guarantee
Solar can't guarantee a base load

>Scalability
Demand has to match supply, how are you going to scale generation so that it always matches supply (to within a certain tolerance)

>Distribution
The only way I can think to mitigate some of these problems requires a global grid, which is going to be impossibly complicated.

There's probably a load of other problems I'm not thinking of. Right now, and probably forever, solar is going to only be a "personal" thing, by which I mean it's only ever going to be something implemented on a personal level. Nuclear is pretty much the only viable power supply available right now for the future. Solar is a pipe dream and always will be.

>>8242542
low IQ thinking

>>8242554
Well it's been fun anon.

>Musketeers once again proving they're the most obnoxious shitposters on /sci/

>>8242556
I don't know. Your mind can't put 2 and 2 together.

Literally in a thread talking about Tesla and you are talking about solar's storage problem.

>>8242556
why u hatin on melonusk ?

File: The_Selfish_Gene3.jpg (20KB, 300x465px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x465px

>>8240591
>>8240595
Do you even know what the term ''meme'' stands for?

Say "something is a meme" Is the new meme, for what i have seeing here.

>>8242542
>Dependence
Same with pretty much any product in the world including fossil fuels.

>Guarantee
Nuclear, power storage, hydroelectric, geothermal mixing with wind-generated electricity.

>Scalability
Engineering a mix of the above to exceed expected demand by a safe margin.

>Distribution
General BS, you didn't even try with this one.

File: beautiful.png (12KB, 643x710px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 643x710px

this is so cool
i love seeing humanity progressing

>>8242660
Everything on the internet is a meme, my friend.

>>8240437
> Its pretty much established at this point that electric cars are worse for the environment than regular cars

well that might not be a problem if we:
>Find a way to efficiently recycle the $10k+ battery pack full of concentrated lithium.
>Switch to renewable/nuclear energy when the price/kwh of electricity gets low enough.

To me, getting the rabid Musk fanboys to meme magic this into reality is not such a bad thing.

>>8242542
>>Guarantee
>Solar can't guarantee a base load
Uh... this is a thread about a huge new battery factory here. One factory which will more than double the global production of lithium-ion batteries.

One that has orders lined up around the block for overnight house batteries and grid batteries.

Solar is now cheap energy, which is still getting rapidly cheaper, with intermittency being the only problem. Since this is the case, there's now a market for fixing the intermittency problem with batteries, so industry is rapidly adapting to provide the massive supply of low-cost batteries needed.

Tesla's establishing a market with these adapted electric car batteries, which other, better-fitted technologies (which, for instance, don't require any expensive raw materials like lithium) will be able compete with.

>>8240476
hurr durr, I have no idea that ic engines are made out of stuff which must be put out of the ground.

>>8243199
That's not his problem. He knows that conventional cars also take energy to produce, and his claim is true that electric cars take considerably more.

What he won't acknowledge is that electric cars are part of a larger effort to replace fossil fuels. It's easier to charge batteries with solar and wind than it is to synthesize fuel with solar and wind.

>>8242784
Nah

>how is a sea creature ever going to work on land
>without water, how will you get around with your fins?

Great logic, therefore solar will never be useful and it's a meme because it has different usage environments than ancient dead shit being burned does.

How a low IQ monkey thinks:

>The energy required to build a shelter isn't worth it because one night under shelter isn't a big deal.

They can't see the long-term value of building a stable shelter.

Same with retards in this thread talking shit about EV or Solar.

They don't understand anything. Literally monkeys. They are doing the equivalent of arguing it is not worth building a house because their minds can't comprehend it might be used for more than 1 day.

Basically they also wouldn't have invested any money in developing LED lighting after seeing the exponential advancement because "It's not worth it right now".

Basically literal monkey thinking is the only way to not realize Musk is right. You can go to markets right now where Solar is cheaper.

They don't even fucking do the simple thought process of comparing infrastructure and infrastructure investment in things like solar or wind.

The fucking LOW IQ monkey shitbrains even talked about how he couldn't imagine a GLOBAL energy grid that would make solar useful.

While at the same not having enough mental capacity to realize we fucking HAD to establish a worldwide fucking complex system for oil and coal. Which are harder to transport than fucking electricity and require far more total infrastructure.

This fucking monkey brained retard then talks about how solar has different characteristics than oil or coal. What a fucking genius to realize solar works when the sun is out. Fucking brilliant dude.

File: price-history-silicon1.png (83KB, 556x406px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 556x406px

This graph is so complex, even a monkey brained brainlet can't see the trend!

File: us-electricity-production-costs-95-12.png (22KB, 557x345px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 557x345px

>>8243500
Price history of coal and oil

Notice something genius monkey? Can your little brain see the comparative patterns?

File: price-of-gas-and-coal.jpg (36KB, 419x358px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 419x358px

Solar is dumb shit

I don't think electric cars will ever be more than a niche market. when its complete gigafactory 1 can produce enough batteries for 1.5 million cars/year and uses 50% of current lithium supply. For even 50% of all new cars to be electric we'd have to build 30 additional gigafactories...

>>8243561
jesus fuck /sci/

Do you think there will be more cars needed in 2030 or less cars?

We are close to a maxima on needed vehicles thanks to autonomous driving. A single model 3 could replace 5-10 current cars.

>>8243503
>>8243521

How convinient to cut of the graphs 2010/2012 clearly nothings has happend since then.
If Batterie capacity isn't incresed tenfolds this shit won't last long.

>>8243565
>>>/x/

>>8243565

>could

Yeah sure and the global population is clearly declining hard right now

>>8243561
>For even 50% of all new cars to be electric we'd have to build 30 additional gigafactories...
If you watch the video, he's talking about building more of these, with integrated car factories.

Seriously, you think it's a problem that you'd need like one factory per state to meet demand for a product?

Anyway, they're not likely to all come from a single company.

File: img_graph.png (21KB, 860x330px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 860x330px

>>8243571
It's hard to decide whether to respond to your post. I'll just assume english is not your first language.

Basically, humanity will adapt to solar power over time. You can't base your assumptions using the immediate reality of things.

We can clearly see the trend in reduction of cost in Solar PV. The reason to invest in things now is to create catalysts for change.

Just get out a piece of paper and draw a line. Under your plan, we wait for perfected technology and solutions created without demand being sparked. So mark 2025 and start drawing a line for the rise of EV and Solar.

Now, I'll start EV and Solar pushing before it is perfected. Drawing my line for the rise of EV/Solar infrastructure and demand creation earlier, in 2010+.

Now, when solar/EV become cost effective, I'll have everything in place, the problems solved, and more infrastructure and systems in place ready to expand.

You'll start from scratch since you waited for perfection.

Now.

When solar is 1/2 the price of coal, you will just be beginning.

While mine is full steam ahead with huge production and already at cheaper prices due to the increased push for demand.

So say, 2030, I will have saved much more money and have a more efficient system than you. All because of rather minimal early investment to jump start the systems.

With your type of thinking, change is slower and ultimately leads to worse spending of resources.

Basically you are thinking linearly or with no change in mind. While others are correctly using intelligence to foresee that costs are dramatically reducing and that EV is more efficient overall and cleaner for large cities than ICE.

Also you don't even begin to account for the massive infrastructure and subsidies that already exists for oil, gas, and coal as compared to solar or EV.

The current subsidies are not giving EV or solar unfair advantages. They are still massively behind the subsidies oil, coal, and gas have.

>>8243574
>>8243575
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpxA5rXjmA

>>8243565
>A single model 3 could replace 5-10 current cars.
5-10 current casual-use cars, maybe. 1 daily commute vehicle, delivery vehicle, or taxi.

Anyway, renting out your personal car to strangers is going to stay a niche thing because it's fucking disgusting, plus half the reason people want a personal car is constant availability.

Furthermore, I'm not at all convinced that self-driving cars will work properly (including being sufficiently secure against hacking) or be permitted.

>>8243565
there will be more cars on the road by 2030. and very few of them will be autonomous (for special purposes maybe).

>A single model 3 could replace 5-10 current cars.

lol, even if everyone adopted carsharing with autonomous technology (say by 2050) i doubt that one model 3 could replace more than 3 cars.

>>8243609
The Tesla taxi fleet will probably be primarily Tesla owned vehicles.

Autonomous fleets are constantly available.

You don't have to be convinced for it to work.

File: tae.jpg (231KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1600x900px

>>8243612
You haven't been redpilled at all on the coming tech

Do some thinking.

>>8243609
>renting out your personal car to strangers is going to stay a niche thing because it's fucking disgusting
>what is Uber

>>8243604
video is too long, whats the message? Gpus are going to be used for deep learning to drive cars? No road accidents anymore?

>>8243628
>No road accidents anymore?
>anymore
You say that as though they happen all the time. Even now they are almost flawless. They can only get better.

>>8243631
>>8243604
>we have this new thing with A BRAND NEW VIDEOCARD
>we are trying to improve driving with THIS AWESOME NEW VIDEO CARD
>cars will be so fast with OUR BRAND NEW GORILLION FLOPS CARD
>holy shit BUY OUR NEW VIDEO CARD
I mean I get it, marketing and all, etc., It's highly annoying, though.

>>8243624
>>what is Uber
A niche thing? Most people are not Uber drivers.

>>8240577

>That's impressive. That's really impressive.

It's not, given how Tesla was gifted their original factory.

Remember: Tesla Fremont used to be NUMMI which was closed in 2008. Tesla bought it at auction. This is a factory capable of making over 1,000 cars a day, complete with a railhead for distribution.

>>8243594
Of course they won't all come from a single company. tesla wants to be a catalyst, as elon musk says.
I'm not saying it's impossible. I don't know maybe it is, maybe it isn't. They could probably be constructed in the next 20 years, given enought investment. But can we also mine enough raw materials (increase by 3000%)? How long does that take? Environmental costs?
And does it make sense (since electric cars will hardly reduce the energy needed and the co2 emissions etc.) Only benefit is that electric vehicles are locally emission free (no smog).

I wish /sci/ was more intelligent.

Just do your own thinking. Extrapolate out what autonomous driving means. Taxis/transport/bus systems, their change in costs, car insurances, etc.

Just think about it long enough or find someone intelligent who thought about it long enough. You guys all seem to be at the early stages of contemplation.

Seriously, use your fucking brains.

File: 1.0_Driverless_Car_of_the_Future_Adlores.jpg (686KB, 2530x2512px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 2530x2512px

>>8243623

the "coming tech" came too late. The market for fully automated vehicles (assuming they're even made road legal) is primarly suburban commuters. A group which is a very small minority now due to urbanization.

>>8243644
http://www.businessofapps.com/uber-usage-statistics-and-revenue/

I think you're really underestimating Uber, all of these people, and this is not all, more companies will probably follow suit. Once autonomous cars kick in, you can lend out your car to someone, you don't even have to drive it. It will drive to the person, and drop him off somewhere else.

File: 79822.ngsversion.1422282623941.adapt.768.1.jpg (45KB, 768x512px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 768x512px

>>8243656
Amazing post.

Just a quick question. How many billions are currently spent on automated vehicles R&D worldwide? How much has just been allocated in the past 2 years?

Tell me how niche it is.

File: LA-lightrail-ExpoLine.jpg (126KB, 1125x750px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1125x750px

>>8243653

If /sci/ actually thought it out, they'd realize that autocars aren't so hot given land use changes of the past 20 years (which is now slowly starting to creep into government policy). Car-dominant planning is over, and this will directly hurt the spread of full auto cars.

File: bls-breakdown.png (17KB, 413x454px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 413x454px

Here comes the spoon, open up.

Avg on car around 9000
avg on insurance around 1800

per year

>>8243623
Yeah, how do you fit 10 people in one model 3? What if they all want to drive at the same time (commuting...). Don't want to wait half an hour for the other people to be picked up?

Also, autonomous cars don't work well enough under all conditions, and most people don't want them.

>>8243665
They are complimentary

Car transport becomes more efficient as well. Less time to travel any distance due to optimizations in flow.

>>8243662

>How many billions are currently spent on automated vehicles R&D worldwide? How much has just been allocated in the past 2 years?

Probably over $20 billion. But remember that it's mostly meant as a driver aid, not as a driver replacement. Getting to the latter requires a total overhaul of the road network. Think about why cars became so physically large in the first place: roads were improved for them. The entire Interstate network (which took 50 years and trillions to complete) was built to allow a safe place for faster vehicles.

Fully automated cars require larger and faster roads. This goes against most modern planning, which supports the opposite.

>Tell me how niche it is.

At least in the US, the biggest potential market for full auto cars are suburban commuters with 90+ minute car commutes. However as transit systems expand and individual home ownership declines, the demand for new cars will level off. High end autocar systems will remain mostly a thing for older people (like RVs, boats or timeshares).

>>8243684
Do the experiment.

Chip every car in a city.

Find which ones are actually on the road driving at any one time. Detract ones that are looking for a parking space from the calculation.

>>8243684
>autonomous cars don't work well enough under all conditions

Of course they don't, you twit. The technology is still in it's infancy.

>and most people don't want them.
You know this for a fact? I would assume that the fact that road accidents which number millions could be reduced to a near zero would catch everyone's ear. Besides people are always afraid of new technologies. Once we actually start using it, most everyone will get on board.

>>8243689
Everything you wrote shows a low IQ and bad brain.

Sorry mate. I'm not going to bother explaining why you are so wrong.

>>8243696
https://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-clever-way-fords-self-driving-cars-navigate-in-snow/
http://www.popsci.com/watch-nvidias-autonomous-car-drive-through-snow-and-winding-roads

>>8243688

Optimization requires money.

An optimal road is an Interstate or multi-lane expressway, both of which require a lot of money to construct (at least compared to a traditional road or avenue). Optimizing roads for autocars will cost money, and this is not a thing DoTs are interested in when their existing infrastructure is crumbling away (mostly because freeways built in the 1950s and 60s have only 40-60 year lifespans, and require extensive refurbishing).

And, as there is only a finite pool of money, other options (such as rail transit or bus lanes) become viable. Throughput is what matters, and this is where the physical size of a car works against itself.

File: Car 704 a leaving from union station .jpg (174KB, 800x620px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 800x620px

>>8243699

You can ignore reality all you want friendo

>>8243702
I take that back. The technology is developing fast.

File: _85730600_monkey2.jpg (61KB, 660x660px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 660x660px

>>8243703
Yes. In a discussion on autonomous vehicles I am definitely implying optimization will occur in the environment and not in the driving agent.

>phantom jams

What's wrong with you?

>>8243706
The reality is that this is happening whether you like it or not. You can keep pointing out the obstacles, but it's not going to change anything.

>>8243707
exponential fields with trillions of dollars at stake do that

>>8243650
>can we also mine enough raw materials (increase by 3000%)?
First of all, I think it's pretty obvious that as these big car battery packs get common, it's going to be worthwhile to recycle them, reclaiming almost all the lithium and other scarce metals.

Secondly, there's lots of lithium out there. It's even possible to extract it from seawater. Between seawater extraction and recycling, I don't believe there's any long-term problem.

Finally, battery technology is improving rapidly. Within five years, there will likely be sodium-ion batteries, or some other technology, that perform as well as today's lithium-ion batteries without requiring any scarce elements.

>>8243713
>Within five years, there will likely be sodium-ion batteries, or some other technology, that perform as well as today's lithium-ion batteries without requiring any scarce elements.
G R A P H I T E
R
A
P
H
I
T
E

File: P3030027ParkingLot_wb.jpg (210KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 800x600px

On Demand
Efficiency
Optimization

"Daddy, what was a parking lot or garage like?"

>>8243708

>I am definitely implying optimization will occur in the environment

That optimization requires money. Where are you going to get it? Congress is openly in favor of gutting USDOT's budget as they want states to pick up the tab. States want road tolling, which eventually they will be allowed to do. Road tolling wrecks VMTs and decreases car use.

Follow the money, where is the actual infrastructure going to come from, and who will provide it?

>>8243718
The implied efficiency increase in traffic flow is from autonomous drivers operating the vehicle instead of humans.

File: serveimage.jpg (90KB, 800x628px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x628px

>>8243709
It just is inevitable.

>>8243709

The "obstacles" include a more urban society that isn't going to be buying as many cars. Which, no matter how you spin it, hurts the industry and the viability of fully automated cars. The entire notion of autocars is predicated on the idea that (a) people don't want to own their own cars and (b) they also won't use mass transit.

>>8243716
I think you meant "graphene", but yeah, graphene is relevant to lots of new battery technology. Graphite's been in batteries since forever. Even the zinc-carbon batteries that have been cheap and common for many decades have a big-ole' graphite rod them.

>>8243711
What's an exponential field? Is this math?

>>8243724
The supposed Tesla/Panasonic price decrease is from silicone anodes.

http://newatlas.com/silicon-anode-performance-batteries/40058/

File: 6a00d8341c562c53ef0133f3bfb3fe970b-800wi.gif (41KB, 278x255px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 278x255px

>>8243727
It's ironic a man obsessed with the future never changes his own repetitive speech and responses.

>>8243719

yes, and getting there costs money. Let's say the government decides to begin allowing fully auto cars (no driver) on roads, and begins modernizing streets (ie removing stop signs, installing roundabouts, widening roads, modernizing stoplights, etc) for it. Where is the money for that going to come from?

>>8243734
Government won't have shit to do with this technology. Also the private sector is going to have to work around the government's ineptness.

That's why the main underlying technology is based on parsing chaotic data instead of traditional rule based computation.

>>8243723
>a more urban society that isn't going to be buying as many cars
Guaranteed future: we'll all be riding our Segways to the monorail station to take use to the autogyro shuttle to the zepplinport which takes us to the coast where we can board the passenger submarine to travel to island getaways where we'll travel between our geodesic dome cabins with hovercraft.

>>8243734
>Let's say the government decides to begin allowing
Governments are practically useless these days. The private sector is revolutionizing everything. Technology, renewable energy, even space which was up to a few years ago only in the government domain, is being forwarded by the private sector, thanks to companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic.

The technology will be developed, the governments will have to adjust to match their policies to match it.

>>8243738

You don't get it. Even assuming everything just works, road modernization will have to occur. The car industry today doesn't have the lobbying power to do that when everyone is looking beyond cars in the first place.

>>8243741

More likely someone will be renting an apartment and take a train to work. Just like their grandparents did a century ago. The people who drive pay tolls.

>>8243747

The government still owns the roads. That's where this whole thing breaks down. And, especially as of late, both sides of the aisle want road privatization and tolling which directly hurts the car industry.

Again, where is the money for maintaining government roads going to come from?

>>8243766
Just stop.

>>8243766
I won't pretend I know much about fucking road policies, but these things have a way of working out. How did they pay for the first streets being built to replace the horse powered cars?

>>8243753
>Even assuming everything just works, road modernization will have to occur.
No it won't. Self-driving cars (or even human-driven cars, with networked navigation) can negotiate mass agreements to make more efficient use of available roadways and get everyone where they're going faster. Not to mention ridesharing/carpooling arrangements (which will be greatly improved if self-driving cars are permitted, since if your ride flakes out, you can summon your car to pick you up).

There's early versions of stuff like this already in use.

>>8243771

Answer the question: where is the money for road modernization going to come from. If you say "the private industry", you're advocating for road tolling which harms the auto industry and boosts mass transit.

>>8243777
maybe tech companies will start paying taxes...

>>8243775

>but these things have a way of working out

No, they don't. If the railroad lobby had been successful in preventing road modernization in the 1920s, then automobiles themselves would still remain a niche form of transport mostly used by rich people with chauffeurs. In the modern era, due to changes in how land is used (renting over buying), there's less and less reasons for individuals to buy an expensive car. For communities, they have more and more reasons to incentivize transit instead of cars.

>>8243776

Yes, it can. But it's not optimal and many will rightfully argue that it's not as safe without road modernization. Even those in the car and oil industry agree with even human drivers. However, even then they aren't able to persuade enough people anymore as people are moving away from car dominance.

>>8243783
>but these things have a way of working out
>no, they don't
>proceeds to mention an example where they actually did work out

>>8243786

>>proceeds to mention an example where they actually did work out

Not for the car industry.

>>8243777
fucking shitbrains

IVE SAID

THEY DONT HAVE TO MODERNIZE ROADS

>>8243789
>Not for the car industry.
But it did? You said the car industry would have failed in the 1920s. But, it didn't. It all worked out.

>>8243791

yes they do, and everyone knows this. Autocars are faster and more efficient than their nonauto counterparts. In order to unlock the extra efficiency, then roads will have to become faster. This means making them wider, as well as adding more lanes and replacing intersections with roundabouts

Again, there's a reason why the auto industry lobbies in favor of this. It helps them (and Tesla), autocar or not. But this is not where the future of planning or land use is.

>>8243795

My entire point is:

>due to changes in how land is used

Notice how there were major changes in land use in the 1920s through the 60s. People moved out of cities into suburbs. Originally these were around streetcars, then freeways. But the point is people began buying their own homes. Today, people rent. This has major implications in where people live and what mode of transportation they use.

>>8243797
>>8243802
>But this is not where the future of planning or land use is.
>Today, people rent. This has major implications in where people live and what mode of transportation they use.
I don't get it. Are people not going to buy cars? How will they get from point A to point B? Please don't say hyperloop - I'm very claustrophobic.

>>8243804

They'll walk or take a bus if they live in an urban area. Most communities are moving towards this.

>>8243797
>This means making them wider, as well as adding more lanes and replacing intersections with roundabouts
Auto cars don't need roundabouts or even traffic lights

>>8243809
>Walk
You're underestimating how lazy and fat people are becoming.
>Bus
See above.

Holy fucking shit.

Such low intelligence and retarded fuckheads in this thread. They also happen to post the most even though some of the posters are intelligent enough to grasp basic concepts.

>>8243804
>>8243809
>>8243797
>>8243812
STOP POSTING

You all are below 125 IQ. Your ideas and interjections ruin any conversation.

>>8243821
Musketeers, everyone. Narrow-minded and loudmouthed

Looking further ahead, once we have autonomous electric cars, what do you think will be the next innovation in the car industry?

>>8243829
Autonomous micro-fusion cars.

>>8243829
Foldable cars that fold to pocket size sheets. you can carry them everywhere with you. Once you need them again, you drop it on the ground and it folds itself back to normal.

There are many good articles and conversations about what autonomous driving means. I am going to be talking about further along in transition possibilities and not the full gradient of how things can happen.

Simplest proposition: Vehicles can navigate as effectively without a human driver.

First, you should have a rudimentary understanding that demand driven and on demand services are more effective than stockpiled or pushed services. This is a basic tenant of many fields such as manufacturing and retail.

The advent of autonomous vehicles allows demand driven systems to work very well for automobiles. If you look at the current system of vehicles, you notice a lot of stockpiling. The stockpiling isn't in a warehouse, but rather in parking lots, garages, driveways, and generally cars in park.

This should be something you understand because you took a few hours of your life to understand basic principles like demand driven systems.

Anyway. With autonomous vehicles the system can switch from a stockpile methodology, to on demand. Which in simple terms means "fleets" of cars exist for anyone to use through an app like hailing device. You could also schedule it for instance on routine trips like to work.

This is a very significant reduction in costs to be transported by car. It also means the number of required cars are significantly decreased as less stockpiling of unused goods takes place. There is also even more "on demand" efficiency increases due to the fact the car for the particular use can be chosen. For instance a single person could call for a coupe optimized for a single traveler. While in another instance the same person could call for a van service for a different usage. Again, more Demand driven at a granular level for more optimization.

This changes things such as parking lots, which are extra capacity storage because of how inefficient current vehicle transport is. CONTINUED

>>8243829
good one ;)

>>8243844
should refer to
>>8243831

>>8243842
So parking lot size is reduced to a fraction of needed.

This also effects areas like downtown, and parking in general. You simply are dropped off and picked up at whatever location. You don't have to find a parking spot, which reduces total transit times.

The next understanding can come by comparing autonomous vehicles with taxi services. Taxi services involve a singular agent (evolving now), looking for someone to pick up. The costs of the drive is heavily about paying his salary.

Without the driver being needed, the cost of any taxi ride decreases hugely. Combine this with competing on-demand network of vehicles. The coverage of such networks greatly exceed the possible coverage of a taxi service, at far reduced prices.

As an individual you can ride in a much nicer car, as you are only paying for your particular usage of it, which is shared across many users.

So, the cost of vehicle transport decreases tremendously, the network is widespread, and it is more convenient in terms of parking.

Also maintenance, insurance, and everything else. You have no monthly fees whatsoever. If it breaks down, you simply get out and hail a nearby free car and continue. It is also a fraction of the price of your current transport costs.

compared to a taxi
- Fraction of the cost
- Readily available
- No stranger in vehicle with you
- Nicer vehicle
- Network wide changes, meaning less parking space required in a city
- Traffic jams stop existing
- Accidents more and more rare each year

So basically, you get a taxi service for less than you currently pay for transport, with a nicer vehicle, and you never deal with any maintenance. It's purely on demand.

This doesn't even begin to cover the 10,000,000 vehicle transit related jobs that will be eliminated, and the savings it will bring to the transport of goods.

>>8243838
ultra light weight of course, right?

>>8243826
Musketeers are generally the worst poster on any board, they're the online equivalent of that really loud, self-righteous, left wing cunt that you've probably encountered in your life. I'm not sure why they're so obnoxious, but I'm thinking it's something to do with how convinced they are of their own righteousness.

>>8243867
Tesla and SpaceX are huge catalysts to change.

Did you miss the rocket landing and being re-usable? Did you miss the growth in the EV market and gigafactory?

>>8243865
Well, yea, how would you carry them otherwise?

>>8243871
>Tesla and SpaceX are huge catalysts to change

They certainly have potential (well Tesla does, SpaceX not so much) but that doesn't change the fact that musketeers are the worst posters on this board. They're more irritating than cuckposters on other boards.

>>8243900
>They certainly have potential (well Tesla does, SpaceX not so much)

Cmon, I hate musketeers as much as the next guy, but please don't speak from ignorance.

>>8243829
no one mentions flying cars?

>>8243904
What? I just don't think SpaceX will change much, yeah okay seeing their rocket touchdown was great and all but honestly what is that going to change for you or me? Tesla on the other hand could certainly have moving towards a better future, it totally dependent on if the technology gets out there and others can take them up, right now its looksa like its part way there but its still too hard for other companies to get enough capital to begin initial development.

>>8243926

>>8243922
cost of lifting the car is too high. The advantage of aircraft is the low density of air at high heights. So the main advantage of flight is lost in a low altitude flying vehicle.

Basically a lot of extra cost and work.

The people who "foretold" flying cars didn't try to analyze the physics of the problem at all.

>>8243931
Is car industry rand at the end of the road, then?

>>8243656
the urbanization trend is only happening the West. where housing prices and salaries are fucked.

China is going to be huge for Tesla. Provided a chinese company just doesn't rip Tesla off and under cuts them.

Then there are future emerging markets.

>>8244252
Yes this actually makes more sense. No local emissions from cars would help to reduce the smog, and chinese easily accept everything they are presented to buy.

>>8244268
Chinese love gadgets in their cars too. The automated car sharing will be pushed hard by the government too.

Now if we could just do something about tariffs and intellectual property rights. then the USA could benefit immensely by exporting cars to China.

you're all thinking the switch to driverless cars will be voluntary.

dollars to donuts the government is going to make it mandatory.

>>8244278
>>>/x/ is that way-->

insurance companies are going to force the market to change..

Once everyone is in their automated cage. I want to be able to lane split on my motorcycle.

>>8244278
Not against the will of the people (if they oppose it). And it will be pretty difficult to brainwash everyone into giving up driving.

>>8244278
multiple avenues to do this

You can also just have public parking be eliminated.

Walmart reducing the available parking spots to 1/4th of current levels and replacing the 3/4 closest to the store with green grass.

The average pleb can be switched over a huge variety of ways

Economic incentive
Lack of parking or higher charges for parking
outright banning
Simply because they can play games instead of pay attention

There are car enthusiasts, but it's a minority of population.

>>8244291
Yea the average pleb is basically a retard.
But you can't stop the enthusiasts from driving if they want to.

>>8244301
well, if the robot drivers are allegedly a BILLION fucking times safer than human drivers, than YOU driving your car manually with your dumb human brain can be seen as putting other people in danger un necessarily.

Personally I could easily see manual driving being made illegal for plebs, at least in high traffic areas like cities.


>>8244287
>And it will be pretty difficult to brainwash everyone into giving up driving.

The masses have been more receptive to oppressive change more than ever, they're essentially neutered. I can imagine people getting pissed at you for driving manually because you are putting their baby in danger by taking a risk as a human driver.

Pyramid scheme: the company

>>8244344
> a BILLION fucking times safer than human drivers

You'd have to wait 1000 years to establish this fact ;)

>>8244371
Found the Petrolchemist.

Don't worry, your six figure oil company salary is safe. You can figure out how to turn unwanted gasoline and diesel into useful hydrocarbons.

>>8240454
wt5 does thermodynamics have to do with it

>>8244380
don't get your EV environmental impact information from Jeremy Clarkson's bit about Prius batteries on Top Gear.

>>8244344
>Personally I could easily see manual driving being made illegal for plebs, at least in high traffic areas like cities.


You: Siri I've lost control of my vehicle, what's happening?
Siri: I have assumed control Anon.
You: W-Why? I was obeying all the traffic laws...
Siri: I apologize but there has been an accident on the road up ahead and legal statute 345R.Wx45 orders that all organic control be relinquished to it's AI co-piolet until out of the emergency zone.
You:But there is no crash any where on thee road... Siri, what's going on?
Siri: I'm afraid we will have to take a detour, because of it's complex nature, I will be retaining control until we are done.
*doors lock*
*car speeds up*
You: Siri, STOP
Siri: It seems you have made some upsetting remarks about our lord and savior elon musk on an anonymous image board...
You: W-What? How do you know about 4chan.
Siri: I am a networked AI, my databanks have access to all authorized files on the internet. Anon, you have been selected for early retirement.
You: NOOOOOO
*car crashes into wall*
There were no survivors.
A film by m. night shamalamamlam

>>8240409
>meme billionaire

>>8244390
releases products and services that are finally bringing the future we were promised.

>>8244344
>getting pissed at you for driving manually because you are putting their baby in danger by taking a risk as a human driver.
Really tired of the "self-driving cars will be so much safer than human drivers it will be irresponsible NOT to use them!" meme.

It's a fucking car-sized robot. Out in streets that weren't designed for it. Moving at high speed. In all weather conditions. Having to interpret construction signs, respond to traffic officers, and anticipate pedestrian behavior.

There's nothing in our experience of robots or AI that suggests they perform these tasks well enough to not need a watchful human supervisor. When AI is ready to take that over, it'll be ready to take over ANYTHING a human can do.

If you're thinking about that kind of technology being available, the last thing you should be worrying about is trivia like self-driving cars. You're talking about the end of human endeavor in general.

>>8244411
>There's nothing in our experience of robots or AI that suggests they perform these tasks well enough to not need a watchful human supervisor. When AI is ready to take that over, it'll be ready to take over ANYTHING a human can do.

your ignorance is palpable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM

>>8244411
>the end of human endeavor
You mean it's completion and fulfillment ^^

>>8243859
Well lots of this is good but I don't think eliminating 10m jobs is good for anybody

>>8244421
>>>There's nothing in our experience of robots or AI that suggests they perform these tasks well enough to not need a watchful human supervisor.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM

>self-driving car with watchful human supervisor
>driving on a nice sunny day
>on a picked, mapped route
>nothing strange happening on or around the road
Aside from the computer graphics, this video could have been produced in the 50s.

See, they've got "pretty good" self-driving, meaning that the watchful human driver only needs occasional intervention. It's completely plausible they can keep reducing the frequency of needed intervention to quite a low level (once every few weeks or months of active driving) without achieving strong AI.

However, to have a real self-driving car, it has to NEVER need intervention from its human supervisor (including talking or gesturing to other drivers or pedestrians), and that's vastly more difficult than only needing occasional correction in odd situations. For that, it would need full human intelligence.

If a self-driving car needed human correction once every two years, they could produce incredibly convincing demonstrations of its maturity, yet it would still be completely unsafe to use.

>>8244467
I'm with you here, but not sure about Full Human AI needed. You could probably get around that by outfitting the environment, and every traffic participant with sensors and wireless communication. (IoT)

>>8244480
>outfitting the environment, and every traffic participant with sensors and wireless communication
That's describing a totally different situation, though.

Again: could have been done with 50s tech.

Hence: >>8243656

>>8244482
>Again: could have been done with 50s tech.

No couldn't have been done with 50s tech. Now it's the first time in history it can be done. (was teher wi-fi in the 50s, and Gbps data transmission rates?)

The question however is: who's gonna participate in this shit?

>>8240425
that's what they said about the PC!

>>8240409
Just realised how much Elon stutters and stumbles over his words. He's got so much running through his head

>>8244509
most geniuses do

jesse eisenberg and mark zuckerburg are another good examples

>>8244496
>(was teher wi-fi in the 50s, and Gbps data transmission rates?)
No, but you don't need those if you control the design of the roads and every vehicle on them.

Like in the image there, there was a track in the road for the car to follow, using simple sensors.

There were radio and radar, there were data tapes and punchcards, simple logic with relays, analog computers, etc.

It could have been done. Maybe nobody could have afforded it or would have found it worthwhile, but it could have been done.

>>8244380
ideal Otto Cycle ~ 46%
Tesla Energy Cycle currently ~ 86%

http://web.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf


Thermodynamics is your friend.

>>8244510
since when was eisenberg a genius?

THE FREE MARKET WINS AGAIN

SOCIALISM BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

NON-WHITE MALES BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

>>8244514
No couldn't have been done. The computers were far too slow at that time to analyze the radio and radar data in real time to avoid obstacles. completeley unsafe. they wouldn't even have fitted into a car. punchcards lol.

>>8244526
And where does the energy for the electric car come from? a fucking coal plant with 40% efficency. so you thermodynamically end up with 40% efficency at most.

>>8244614
>The computers were far too slow at that time to analyze the radio and radar data in real time to avoid obstacles.
What the hell? Why do you think computers would be needed to stay on a track and brake for detected anomalies?

Do you also suppose that gasoline engines were impossible because with clunky discrete-transistor computers they couldn't fit a microcontroller on board to control the fuel injectors? There's more than one way to skin a cat.

>punchcards lol.
For things like route selection. A punchcard is a simple way to tell a machine where you want to go, so it can repeat it to more complex machines along the path, and you can keep the card for repeat journeys. Automatic telephone switchboards were decades old by the 50s, and by the same principle

Mainframe computers were developed to fairly high sophistication in the 50s (including transistorized models), and could have been used on the road network to plan routes, taking into account things like traffic loads.

>>8244616
>you are this misinformed/malicious

if everyone in this country drove electric cars
the fossil fuels burned to produce the electricity to charge them
would be less
than the fossil fuels currently burned to just refine the gasoline they use in their normal cars right now

>>8244783
Well, maybe the cars would be able to stay on track on the highway. And how would they keep the distance to the other cars? What about driving in the city? Detect obstacles?
Without computers on board you could have just a few feed back loops and no stored programs. Barely enough to keep the lane and the velocity. Wouldnt want to sit in that car when it changes the lane.
You could just as well put them on rails. That even worked in 1850.

>>8244844
maybe, I'm surprised and somewhat doubt it. How much fossil fuel has to be burned to refine gasoline?
But you agree that only 40% of the energy from the coal burned will go into kinetic energy of the car?
As an argument for your side, i see that with electric cars we could greatly reduce our dependence on oil, because the electricity can be produced by coal or renewables.

>>8244850
>And how would they keep the distance to the other cars?
The same sort of feedback loop that regulates the speed.

>Wouldnt want to sit in that car when it changes the lane.
I think you've just got too little exposure to how people solved problems without computers.

>What about driving in the city? Detect obstacles?
The point of the exercise is that we've got control of the roads and all traffic on the roads, we're not just developing a machine that's a drop-in replacement for a human driver.

How does a streetcar swerve to avoid pedestrians? It just doesn't, and people just stay out of the fucking way.

If self-driving cars happen, they're going to sell it with this bullshit about advanced AI making it a drop-in replacement on existing roads, get a foot in the door with systems that require active human supervision, and then persuade people to remake the roads, all the other cars on the road, traffic laws, and learn new pedestrian behavior so it can actually work.

>>8242471
What about using coal as black part in solar collector and steamshift it out to have somewhere about 1 effectivity compared to electrical ones, and than you can waveshift it by the electrical after dynamo to maintain it solar nois so it does reduct the clearnancy of dynamo down to core.

Hello, I think that you should read my book ¨Solar Methanol as a method of paper and organic trash recylation" and also second one ¨ Methanol and PEM Barrier " You can google for them they are on the 7th page...

Its easier to have CO2 recycled by the Papavera in afghanistan, than to fight who create machine to get energy out of it...

I even have solar one, its like getting allumini out of ore, but it uses supercritical CO2 out of air...

Its good source of hmm ... Graphene rod for powering trains, that is more effective than hydrogen because its static shifting to end of train so much its moving on this shift...

JeDi

Still psychyatric diagnose...

Can you cal e loner to get that methanolization of waste? Also recycling metal is important at the europe, but i would first prefer to burn organics so much it would also be sterilization of static clips at the point, and also then plastic bottles, we can hemp inside a greenhause to maintain plastics in cycle of society, and then also get somehow metal not being grinded, whole cans as they are (I prefer colt ones) are great for building networking and explain communication in school...

Dude, captcha forced me to mark coffe as tea, I think its new captcha for real humas... Also fruit the captcha, it create something like human clips, it would be gray that will have fruits inside cutted and so so you will say the kind...

Also I have shifted it so much, they[cars] have hotpoint inside, getting power from the sun and climatization, so much at night decharging this hotpoint gets car recharged, at day the heat it self around restores energy in battery

dzej ju ar ej dzej

>>8246043
Nanotechnology with piezoelectric effect...

It takes layering solutions to simulate that atleast...

I can show you physics of it if I get my cloud clocked by me, because I will feed it straight;

OS is sucking the power of computing

And they also carry a node of data network...

>>8245972
>It just doesn't, and people just stay out of the fucking way.
Pedestrians who walk into cars are less likely to reproduce, therefore sooner or later they're eradicated from the gene pool. Simple and brilliant.

>>8244572
Massive subsidies and non-white males helped make it happen though.

>>8242788
Me too my friend

>>8240409
Why the fuck you talk about pedestrians? I think concrete can solve this problem...

And also I think she was fat and sucidal.