Current batteries aren’t very good, but that battery degradation doesn’t look bad at all IMO. He lost 24 miles of range over 44,000 miles. From what I can tell he will have 194 miles of range when his car has 183k on the clock and 94 miles of range at 366k, which is still more then almost every 2016 and older EV.
I found that very interesting thanks for sharing.
I won’t address the entirety of your post other than to say that I work in the auto industry and the common knowledge is that EVs are, actually, not of larger carbon footprint DEPENDING ON ELECTRICITY SOURCE. The carbon footprint of manufacture is on par with normal vehicles, and the lifetime carbon footprint depends entirely on the source of electricity used to charge the vehicle. If the electricity comes from a clean, renewable source then the lifetime carbon footprint of an EV is substantially smaller than that of a gasoline vehicle. This is fact. The only source I can find suggesting otherwise is Jeremy Clarkson on old Top Gear making a claim that the Prius is way worse for the environment than a standard gas vehicle. That’s simply false.
KmanAuto the fullychargedshow and Bjørn Nyland are some of my favorite EV you tubers out there.
not to mention i think if it ever hits 80% life in the warranty it gets swapped
mine 2
sheeeeeet
The lack of sources in this thread is disturbing.
Why wouldn’t they use nuclear? It’s an obvious choice.
I’ve always wondered why bulk sea cargo is not nuke powered instead of air craft carriers and subs. I expect long haul trucks and trains could do the same. If we put time into it.
Electric is the next for sure, no one is stopping that. BUT power infrastructure needs to be able to cope with that massive demand that oil / petroleum will leave for them. Where are the governments ramping up supply to meet this and make it CO2 free.
I dont care if its a modern nuclear power plant or wind,solar, hydro or tide driven. Just CO2 free.
Once the mass is electric the R&D $$ will avalanche into battery or storage tech.
It doesn’t work for civilian use cases. Cargo ships don’t need to stay out at sea for long periods of time. While they would need to refuel less, a nuclear ship would require more crew with specialised training, special posts and equipment would be required to refuel the ships and deal with waste (there ain’t really any that do this), while the ships would produce less emmission they would be expensive to run. The same would apply to trains.
Subs, air craft carriers and ice breakers are long term sea going ships where refueling isn’t guaranteed and so for them it makes sense and works.
Nuclear power plants differ as well because we have the infrastructure to manage them, know how, have the personnel. There isn’t really a reason not to use them in conjunction with renewable power sources.
On a side note, some modern commercial cargos ships are using things like wind power to supplement power to their ships or sail through old cargos lanes though large sails.
Eden. Have you looked at the middle of Australia. You could build a thousand pyramids 1 mile high where no one is and there are no fault lines, its the middle of a tectonic plate. I dont think its an issue because this disposable waste which could be further used for even more power instead of tossed away with lot of energy left in it. We are just stuck with old tech.
Regardless of that we could go renewable focus and skip fission.
How many tech as on these carriers and subs just because its fission powered ?
Moving the mass we do via sea with sails and solar would be hell slow I think.
Eden, Im just a laymen and I dont have data etc to back me up. Im decent in science and of course this is my opinion 
I still think as a planet not countries we could beat this issue in a generation.
Its not where to put it, its more that there are no ports built to handle civilian nuclear cargo ships. There have been some nuclear cargo ships in the past and for numerous reasons they just didnt work out.
On the crew side, to give an example (info from wikipedia), Arktika and Taymyr class nuclear ice breakers have crews of 138/120 with ability to crew over 200 on ths Arktika class. Large cargo ships while it varies depending on the type of cargo the ship takes generally has a crew of less than 30. Obviously that doesnt mean that there are 100 nuclear engineers on the ice breakers, but as far as im aware there has never been a nuclear powered ship with a small enough crew for comerical use.
Maybe they will try again, but ive no heard anyone wanting to.
You would think that, but it might actually be suprising. Keep in mind, it supliments the primary propultion not replace.
http://www.skysails.info/english/skysails-marine/skysails-propulsion-for-cargo-ships/
There are also “rotor sails” essentially verticle wind turbines as far as i can tell that are attached to the ship.
Sails can be used in the right conditions, sit on a shipping lane with a current and wind and a sail can give you a tonne of power. Its how we did it for years before engines were invented.
Fair points. It that nuclear stigma but.
You no that every hospitals MRI is actually Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. They just dropped the nuke from it.
Ports can handle ship with oil or an MRI plant fine. It just a stigma.
When china makes nuke bulk carriers for products exported are you missing out. That the thing now. US said no to stem cells and china said sure. Gene mod, china sure. We are on one planet.
It’s keep up or fall.
And sailing cargo ships would be awesome to see
I’ve taken the topic of track a little but. If a some country makes a MRI car after batteries . What will you do to keep up ?
The planet is working on this problem.
Wouldnt wind on a ship be sorta counterproductive?
Wind turbine massive drag
Just to power main spindle drive forward propulsion?
Back in the day,
Diddnt they make "home sized"
Nuclear generators ? For basements.
They use modern-day versions of sails, not turbines: Giant rotating cylinders that drive the ship forward due to the magnus effect. Cylinders generate less drag than wind turbines would and also avoid the superfluous step of generating electricity first.
Those are the tings. Its not something i’ve looked into detail on so i dont actually know how they function, unlike the sails they have been using for a while.
This video covers how those rotor sails work.
Haven’t heard of this so I look up some videos and thought I’d share this one with you guys.
There’s a reason why nuclear accounts for less than 20% of the energy made.
I can only say that in The States the current administration has made it very clear they are heavily supporting coal. In addition, there is a big push for natural gas- i.e. the “American Engery Independance movement” lead by natural gas harvesting - see Oklahoma and Alaska. Finally, support for nuclear, here, is crickets.
That’s why, from my understanding, it’s going to come from coal or natural gas. Maybe else where it’s different, but IMO, unlikely here.
Levitating hoverboards when?
Same in Australia and we are also committed to petrol / diesel till 2030 last I read.
I feel like governments should start more heavily taxing fuel (gasoline and diesel) as well as electricity coming from non renewables.
And start using the money as incentive for wind and solar.
Thinking something along the lines of just rounding it up to $10/gallon and 40c/kwh from coal and gas, and capping cost of wind and solar to 20c/kwh.
If the extra levy/tax/… ($5/gallon and 30c/kwh) was guaranteed to go to wind and solar, I’m sure plenty of people would vote for this.
