[lutusp]

> Personally, I hope Tesla fail, and think they will.

Maybe, but you need to realize that the electric car is an obvious and timely technological development, and someone will produce a successful mass-market electric car. Why not Tesla? It's not as though they're making a lot of mistakes.

[gargoiler00]

I don't believe electric cars are technologically better. Lugging a half ton battery around, then waiting for hours for it to charge doesn't seem that clever to me.

Of all the things that are banes of our lives these days, surely it's everything that runs on a battery.

Remember when phones would last a week or so on a charge? Now you're lucky if a smart phone lasts a day on standby. And people call it progress...

So no, I think the idea of having a massive battery in my car is horrible.

[lutusp]

> I don't believe electric cars are technologically better. Lugging a half ton battery around, then waiting for hours for it to charge doesn't seem that clever to me.

Early internal combustion engines were also rather embarrassing, but this didn't hinder their adoption -- at the time they were a better choice overall.

Imagine the reverse situation -- imagine that electric cars took hold when they were first introduced in the early 1900s and saw a century of improvements. Then someone comes forward and says, "We have an idea! Instead of charging your battery all the time, you carry a tank of explosive liquid fuel with you wherever you go, and you burn the fuel as you drive."

Present battery technology is pretty terrible -- not very efficient, too heavy, low energy density, short life. But widespread adoption of electric cars will force technological improvements, just as happened with internal combustion engines.

If batteries improve -- greatly -- it will become self-evident that carrying a battery around is a better choice than carrying and burning liquid fuel, both for the environment and in a simple economic sense. At the moment, electric cars aren't an obvious improvement over an internal combustion car, but I think that will change.

In a hypothetical future with more wind and solar energy sources, and possibly fusion power in the long term, electric cars will make more environmental sense as well.

[gargoiler00]

Take an AA battery. Now go back in time 30 years and look at an AA battery.

Identical. Why has battery technology not improved one bit in the last 30 years? Well, obviously there's a massive disincentive - the better the battery, the less people buy, but I don't think that's the main limitation.

I don't think conventional batteries can improve all that much more.

[lutusp]

> Take an AA battery. Now go back in time 30 years and look at an AA battery. Identical. Why has battery technology not improved one bit in the last 30 years?

That's completely false. I might have said, "Look at a basic mousetrap 30 years ago. Now look at one today. Identical." What's missing is any examination of the alternatives. 30 years ago, there weren't any NiMH batteries, or commercial lithium-ion batteries (the latter were under active development), but they're now the primary power sources for portable devices, and lithium-ion batteries power the Tesla Model S.

> I don't think conventional batteries can improve all that much more.

And I don't think conventional thinking can improve all that much more. But I have high hopes for unconventional thinking.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -- Arthur C. Clarke

[gargoiler00]

> lithium-ion batteries (the latter were under active development), but they're now the primary power sources for portable devices, and lithium-ion batteries power the Tesla Model S.

What does that mean for the user. Do batteries today last twice what they lasted 30 years ago? Nope. Are rechargeable batteries any more viable today? Nope.

Even batteries in laptops only last a year or so before they are just dead and need replacing.

If you think battery technology has really massively improved in the last 30 years, please let me know what real world improvements there have been...

[lutusp]

> What does that mean for the user. Do batteries today last twice what they lasted 30 years ago? Nope. Are rechargeable batteries any more viable today? Nope.

You are flat wrong on both counts. Modern batteries provide much more energy per size, weight and cost than their rechargeable predecessors. As to "viable", how can you make any kind of claim about batteries that didn't exist 30 years ago?

> Even batteries in laptops only last a year or so before they are just dead and need replacing.

Yes -- compared to no batteries and no laptops, 30 years ago. What kind of comparison do you think you're making?

> If you think battery technology has really massively improved in the last 30 years, please let me know what real world improvements there have been...

Today, batteries exist, and applications exist, that did not exist 30 years ago. Modern battery applications could not be filled by the technology that existed 30 years ago. How difficult is that to decode? Thirty years ago, the Tesla Model S could not exist, period, full stop. The battery technology didn't exist.

Chart of battery energy density by year:

http://www.akbars.net/images/battery%20energy%20density.png

[matthewaustin]

"Waiting for hours for it to charge" is not accurate.

Actual On-Demand Refilling Stats:

- One hour at supercharging station

- Two minutes at battery swapping station

[SuperChihuahua]

Tesla are actually building cars because the world is running out of oil, so if you want to drive in the future, then the car has to be electric because the price of oil is too expensive.

gargoiler00: As long as the Sun shines...

[gargoiler00]

The supply of electricity however, is apparently limitless!!!

[lutusp]

> The supply of electricity however, is apparently limitless!!!

Using solar, wind, hydroelectric and future fusion reactors, yes, it is.

[ramidarigaz]

Basically, yeah.