# Now You Know



## Badback (Apr 7, 2016)

Since I haven't seen mention of this Youtube channel in this forum I want to show the link here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMFmrcGuFNu_59L0pHcR0OA

This channel has evolved considerably over the last few months into a very informative Tesla channel.
Give it a look, I think that you will find it very interesting.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

I've came across a couple of their videos lately and particularly like this one


----------



## teslamcteslaface (Mar 14, 2017)

looks like they have taken delivery , but are being coy about it. Not sure if its a loaner or theirs ...





Is this the first non-employee delivery?


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

teslamcteslaface said:


> looks like they have taken delivery , but are being coy about it. Not sure if its a loaner or theirs ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like a dropped in image of a Model 3.

Based on their YouTube style, if they took delivery, the first thing they would have posted would be a blow by blow video of them at the delivery center and the drive home.
this looks more like a 'series' of upcoming videos to highlight Model 3 features


----------



## NOGA$4ME (Sep 30, 2016)

MelindaV said:


> Looks like a dropped in image of a Model 3.
> 
> Based on their YouTube style, if they took delivery, the first thing they would have posted would be a blow by blow video of them at the delivery center and the drive home.
> this looks more like a 'series' of upcoming videos to highlight Model 3 features


No, I think it's real, but it's probably a loaner. They had a quick video earlier this week/last week where they were sitting inside a Model 3.


----------



## Trail Runner (May 15, 2016)

They were sitting in a midnight silver Tesla.


----------



## teslamcteslaface (Mar 14, 2017)

nice trickle of content anyway in either case : good look at the glass roof in the newest one -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us93D1KQQbQ


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Interesting analysis from Zac & Jesse (Now you Know), albeit with simplistic graphics. Good way to debunk a classic question from naysayers...

Only exception I might take is the assumption of only 10% of total anticipated cars needed by 2043 thanks to well-established car sharing by then... Of course, I plead totally guilty to being 'old school' on the topic of car sharing... 

Yet this does not change the key takeaway as far as long term supply & availability, not to even mention, to their point, unknowns on battery technology evolution!


----------



## NOGA$4ME (Sep 30, 2016)

Michael Russo said:


> Interesting analysis from Zac & Jesse (Now you Know), albeit with simplistic graphics. Good way to debunk a classic question from naysayers...
> 
> Only exception I might take is the assumption of only 10% of total anticipated cars needed by 2043 thanks to well-established car sharing by then... Of course, I plead totally guilty to being 'old school' on the topic of car sharing...
> 
> Yet this does not change the key takeaway as far as long term supply & availability, not to even mention, to their point, unknowns on battery technology evolution!


As usual these guys are a little TOO optimistic.

I take 3 exceptions, but then something that may make up for it...

They assumed the average battery size for EVs once we hit 100% penetration will be "halfway between a 40kWh LEAF and a 100kWh Model S", so 70kWh they say. This is hardly a scientific estimate. While a 70kWh battery might be an appropriate size for most local vehicles, when we are talking *100% market penetration*, we are talking about vehicles that will need to be long distance capable, without compromise, for all vehicle sizes. Even for a very efficient sedan like the Model 3 we're talking 75kWh, and even then there will be people that complain that's not enough. I do think there is a top end where it indeed doesn't make sense to just add more battery. Basically at 350 miles of range is where I would draw that line. Problem is, at *100% market penetration*, you have to support 100% of vehicle types including huge, inefficient SUVs. So I think we're probably talking in the 150-200kWh range, not 70kWh. Maybe not for all vehicles, but a certain, and higher than insignificant, portion.
Yeah, the 10% of today's vehicles due to autonomous cars doesn't make sense. While I do think there will be a generational move towards more car sharing, that will be more of an urban phenomenon (which admittedly does get you an increasing percentage of users). But you will still have people who aspire to own a private vehicle (much like owning your own house as opposed to renting). So I think most of the growth in car sharing will come from developing countries where car ownership is already pretty low. So even if you agree that there will be an enormous cutback in the number of vehicles due to self-driving cars, that will be mainly in the form of stunted growth in the number of cars, not an actual reduction from where we are today. Plus you still end up having to have enough cars to serve that peak morning and evening rush hour. There is no way that 10% is going to cut it. Yes, you will get some efficiency through ride (not just car) sharing, but unless you are going to cram 10 people in a car, you're not going to get down to 1/10th.
And then they forgot all about stationary grid storage. Granted, these batteries can likely use very different chemistries that are optimized for cost and conservation of raw materials. But let's not discount the need for a lot of raw materials for those batteries as well.
But what they didn't really mention is the fact that if we can get over the hump of the initial production of all these batteries, current battery tech is designed to be recyclable, unlike the competing internal combustion engine which physically destroys the raw materials it uses for fuel so that that limited amount of resource (crude oil) can never be used again.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

NOGA$4ME said:


> As usual these guys are a little TOO optimistic.
> 
> I take 3 exceptions, but then something that may make up for it...
> 
> ...


Yeah, I have to agree with your assessment. I am especially having a hard time buying the total number of vehicles estimate. I understand their thinking but I just don't see it happening the way they say. Like all things EV...time will tell.

Dan


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

NOGA$4ME said:


> As usual these guys are a little TOO optimistic.
> 
> I take 3 exceptions, but then something that may make up for it. (...)
> But what they didn't really mention is the fact that if we can get over the hump of the initial production of all these batteries, current battery tech is designed to be recyclable, unlike the competing internal combustion engine which physically destroys the raw materials it uses for fuel so that that limited amount of resource (crude oil) can never be used again.


I think it's intriguing you reacted to the premised 70 kWh as a base for their calculation. That did not get my attention?Irrespective of battery technology change, to stick to the other key underlying assumption, I would be hard-pressed to expect an average between 150 & 200 kWh, not because it's not done today, yet because I would not expect - at 100% penetration - so many people to need more than what a performing 70 kWh can deliver from a range & overall performance perspective...

Yet, like Jon Snow, I know nothing and @Dan Detweiler is right again, time will tell...

Isn't it a fun topic to exchange about though, as we all look at the calendar (or the clock!) in desperation...?!


----------



## NOGA$4ME (Sep 30, 2016)

Michael Russo said:


> I think it's intriguing you reacted to the premised 70 kWh as a base for their calculation. That did not get my attention?Irrespective of battery technology change, to stick to the other key underlying assumption, I would be hard-pressed to expect an average between 150 & 200 kWh, not because it's not done today, yet because I would not expect - at 100% penetration - so many people to need more than what a performing 70 kWh can deliver from a range & overall performance perspective...
> 
> Yet, like Jon Snow, I know nothing and @Dan Detweiler is right again, time will tell...
> 
> Isn't it a fun topic to exchange about though, as we all look at the calendar (or the clock!) in desperation...?!


This may be a European vs. US difference in expectations, so we each bring our own particular biases to the discussion.

In the US at least, I imagine the average car size is larger than in Europe, meaning the 70kWh battery they propose might only give a range of 150 miles in an inefficient van or SUV carrying a family of 4-5 with luggage. Throw in cold weather and some battery degradation and even though it's hard to believe with our currently experience of highly efficient cars, we may be talking just over 100 miles of range!

So let's talk about what kind of range people actually need. I quote the 40 mile per day average statistic as much as anyone. And provided you have access to a car that will do more when you need it (which I think is true for most people today), then yes, even a 24kWh battery will suffice, as long as you have that long distance crutch). But if you need to get to *100% market penetration*, you can't rely on the 2 car family having a second gas car they take for trips. At least one of the cars needs to be capable of long distance travel. And what is that? I would say in the US that means at least 600 miles. Maybe 80% of people never travel more than 400 miles in a single go? 90% never go farther than 600? 95% never go farther than 800? I don't know, these are only guesses, but since we are going for *100% market penetration* (and I keep highlighting that because remember, to get to 100% we have to convince even the staunchest petrolheads that there is no compromise needed), I think a reasonable bar to set is that an average car will be capable of a 600 mile journey with reasonable stopping time. And it almost doesn't matter if there are longer journeys you need to support, because due to human limitations, if you can support 600 miles I almost think you can support arbitrarily large journeys. Now I'm not saying 600 miles without a recharge, but the recharge time needs to be reasonable.

And the magic numbers I've come up with to mimic what I feel are typical stopping times and frequencies for long distance travel is 325-350 miles and 150kW charging rates.

I personally could make do with about 280 miles of range, but I tend to not drive much above 70mph (unlike a lot of people!) and I enjoy getting out of the car to sit down for lunch (even if it's fast food), as opposed to just going through the drive through. 80% (the practical limit of fast charging) of 350 miles is 280 miles which is 4 hours at 70mph, which I think is a very reasonable gap between stops for those that really push it. In reality, the stops would probably be shorter duration and more frequent, but effectively 30-45 minutes every 4 hours is reasonable I think. And that's where the 150kW charging rate comes in. Let's say you can average 3 mi/kWh in a somewhat inefficient vehicle (maybe not the worst case I mention above) and you need to replenish 280 miles, then that's 93kWh in that effective 30-45 minutes of stopping time. That puts your charging rate between 124kW and 186kW. So 150kWh seems to be a pretty good charge rate. Now the family of 5 may not be able to achieve 3 mi/kWh in their van in winter, but I bet they are also stopping more frequently for potty breaks, and those stops tend to take a little longer than a solo journey.

Sure, there are the steel bladder types that go 90mph for 8 hours without a stop. There will unfortunately be compromise for them. But I think a starting range of 350 miles with 150kW charging will leave very few excuses for people to not go electric. 350 miles in an inefficient vehicle / winter travel vehicle capable of getting 2.5 mi/kWh translates to 140kWh battery. Throw in some buffer for battery degradation and we're talking 150kWh battery (plus I like round numbers!)

And while yes, I don't like the idea of having everyone pay for large batteries when they are only needed 2% of the time, and carrying around all that extra weight, consider that larger batteries do have the following advantages:

Significantly reduced degradation (far fewer cycles)
Ability to contribute to the grid storage
Better use model for those who have no personal charging infrastructure and need to charge on the road.
I guess this turned into quite a long post, but it's a topic I've thought about quite extensively as to what we will need to achieve to get to *100% market penetration*. Granted, this is coming from an admittedly US bias. I'm sure other areas of the world will have much different requirements.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

NOGA$4ME said:


> This may be a European vs. US difference in expectations, so we each bring our own particular biases to the discussion.
> 
> In the US at least, I imagine the average car size is larger than in Europe, meaning the 70kWh battery they propose might only give a range of 150 miles in an inefficient van or SUV carrying a family of 4-5 with luggage. Throw in cold weather and some battery degradation and even though it's hard to believe with our currently experience of highly efficient cars, we may be talking just over 100 miles of range!
> 
> ...


Agree with almost everything you said, despite the regional biases... 
Only build I'd add is your magic numbers of 325 miles range & 150 kW charging rates are (almost) what the T≡SLA Model 3 LRB (thought to be 75 kWh) can accomplish now... If carmakers (that have survived by then) haven't achieved that on average by then, and for _much, much less cost_ than today, the whole EV penetration success by 2043 would be very problematic ! 

Love the exchange!


----------



## NOGA$4ME (Sep 30, 2016)

Michael Russo said:


> Agree with almost everything you said, despite the regional biases...
> Only build I'd add is your magic numbers of 325 miles range & 150 kW charging rates are (almost) what the T≡SLA Model 3 LRB (thought to be 75 kWh) can accomplish now... If carmakers (that have survived by then) haven't achieved that on average by then, and for _much, much less cost_ than today, the whole EV penetration success by 2043 would be very problematic !
> 
> Love the exchange!


Exactly! Which is why I think we are "perilously" close to the EV tipping point for small sedans, which should get us to that steep part of the S curve. The excuses are melting away. It will probably still be several years out before larger vehicles are capable of that 325 mile point, but given the good news of battery prices and capabilities progress, larger vehicles probably won't lag behind smaller ones by more than 5-7 years.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

I think the key to all of this is making the naysayers WANT to buy EVs. Getting the products better, prettier, faster and cheaper to the point that it would be stupid to buy (or manufacture) an ICE vehicle. This is why I take issue with those that propose mandating EV adoption. You aren't going to make fans by telling people they have to do something. Make them want to do it and you have an advocate for life.

Dan


----------



## MichelT3 (Nov 16, 2016)

My 2 cents:

If battery technology advances, batteries will get smarter, cheaper and smaller (= lighter) per Wh. Diminishing the amount of material needed.
If we talk about the desire for SUV's and car penetration, our problem is that we say things based on our current behavioural patterns. If cars become automated, we no longer need a private car, but we can order transport that fits our needs, in size and range. This trend is already apparent among younger people living in cities. Diminishing the need for seldom used big cars with long ranges = diminishing the need for big batteries / materials.
My guess is that stationary batteries will have different characteristics than those of cars. Saline water in plastic bags is supposed to be the way forward there. The charge/discharge rate will be slower, the capacity bigger, the need for materials different (cheaper and more commonly available).
However they forget other electrical forms of transport and machinery. There is already talk about electrical ships and planes. Trains, busses, heavy transport, tractors, harvesters, etc. are no discussion. But let's not forget small machinery like lawnmowers, chainsaws, leaf/snow blowers, etc. This doubles the need.
They also forgot that other uses for 'electrical' / battery materials will also increase. Because buffering electricity will be hugely important and the way to cut costs / earn money. My guess is that everywhere electricity is harvested it will also be buffered, to make sure it's only put onto the grid when there is need for it (the prices will be higher) and it isn't needed locally. When there is a surplus, everyone will buffer his own electricity = put it into some kind of battery. However those will be stationary = no effect.
Circular use of materials will be the basis of the economy. Loss of metals will be minimised.
So, I think the statement they are making is roughly right. Maybe what is needed is double or triple what they calculate, but that doesn't really matter. There is ample material to create a electrical society. Which was their main point.

Almost everything we know is going to change during the next few decades. What exciting times are we experiencing!


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

MichelT3 said:


> My 2 cents:
> (...)
> So, I think the statement they are making is roughly right. Maybe what is needed is double or triple what they calculate, but that doesn't really matter. There is ample material to create a electrical society. Which was their main point.
> 
> Almost everything we know is going to change during the next few decades. What exciting times are we experiencing!


That's worth a heck of a lot more than 2 cents, Michel!


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

But if we no longer have "Drill, baby Drill" as a rallying cry, what are we Americans going to do for political entertainment?

JOKE people...it's just a joke. LOL!

Dan


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> But if we no longer have "Drill, baby Drill" as a rallying cry, what are we Americans going to do for political entertainment?
> 
> JOKE people...it's just a joke. LOL!
> 
> Dan


How about 'Here comes the sun..!'


----------



## Melvin Mobley (Aug 30, 2018)

Well, that was a great video btw.


----------

