Large government fines that represent a significant portion of that company's revenue would be a good place to start. The fine would need to be big enough to hit the share price hard as that seems to be the only thing that CEOs/boards notice. This should also cause investors to be more careful about which companies they invest in and avoid companies with lax standards and push companies towards better outcomes.
That might sound good in theory, but no one is going to sign up for that. Who will want to pay $50 to not meet up with the creep some algorithm has set them up with? Honestly, it's kinda dangerous.
> Australia no problem. Most liberal welfare in the world
Jobseeker is a maximum of $26k per year, but for most people it's going to be around $21k [1]. What else are you using supplement that because that feels like it would be close to the poverty line.
There are a number of reasons. 1) You won't always have access to the 1.5MW charging. 2) Stopping to charge, even if it's just for a few minutes, is inconvenient. 3) A larger battery will allow for greater lifetime range before it degrades to <80%
You forgot the biggest reason: Winter. What works for benchmarking under nice Cali weather condition doesn't work for IRL. Current generation lithium ion estimates are ~30-50% halving of range in winter (it's especially bad if you don't have your own garage with charging and pre warming the battery can easily reduce the availability battery capacity by another few percent in exchange for better en route efficiency).
Which is why the new sodium-ion batteries are likely to be preferred in cold climates, because even if they cannot reach energy/mass ratios as good as the best lithium-ion batteries, they lose much less of their capacity and charging speed, down to -40 Celsius degrees (-40 Fahrenheit degrees).
While for now sodium-ion batteries have similar prices with lithium-ion batteries, due to being on the market for less than a year, their second advantage is that once their production becomes more mature they should be significantly cheaper than Li-ion batteries.
> TPG wanted to roll out faster AND cheaper fiber in the inner city. Government said no thanks, we'll keep NBN with abysmal upload speeds to protect our investment.
Allowing other networks to take away the easiest, highest margin customers would break the NBN. It would likely lead us back to an unfit for purpose, "Free Market" situation, that further disadvantages rural, regional, and remote communities.
> Most of the cost will be safety systems designed to prevent the battery from being exciting and even then a crash will likely set them off.
People say the same thing about Li-ion batteries yet they have proven to be significantly less likely to catch fire compared to ICE vehicles [1].
> people who don't want to admit that large scale electrification is a dumb idea. We electrified everything that made sense to electrify a half century ago.
I'm very curious to hear why you think this. If nothing else, the 'situation' with the Strait of Hormuz would seem to have shown the importance of energy independence achieved through large scale electrification. Individually, I couldn't go back to an ICE car or even garden tools, they're worse in every way.
Anything can happen, but you're predicting the future without any evidence. You just made up a scenario in your head, predicted it would come true, then you can't believe people would say it's ridiculous.
When was the last time this happened with a gas car? How often are fires happening with lithium iron phosphate?
You think a car is going to crashing into a building AND burst into flames AND be impossible to put out AND burn the building down?
When was the last time this happened? Let's think about odds and statistics super hard.
>When was the last time this happened with a gas car?
ICE car fires are easier to put out.
>You think a car is going to crashing into a building AND burst into flames AND be impossible to put out AND burn the building down?
EVs catching on fire and then being impossible to put out is something that has already happened, and in fact as I understand it the latter invariably follows from the former. The only new thing that needs to happen is the fire happening while the car is not out on a road, but inside a building where it can set other things on fire. The fact that the vehicle cannot be put out and can frustrate firefighting and rescue efforts makes an already dangerous situation even more dangerous.
Which part of any of this is straining your imagination?
>When did one crash into a building, catch on fire, and kill people? Surely this must have happened at some point for you to put all this together.
You can't think of a single example of an ICE vehicle crashing into a building, starting a fire, and a bunch of people dying? I can think of two such crashes happening the same day, involving jet engines.
I don't know why this is relevant, though. The topic of discussion is lithium batteries, not ICEs. A vehicle crashing into a building and starting a fire that kills people is not some science fiction scenario that should need to be defended. Your incredulity is straying into bad faith territory.
>you changed what you're saying
I changed it because I think it's it's pretty obvious that the concerning thing is the EV catching fire where it can easily spread to other things. Whether that's because the vehicle crashed or for some other reason is inconsequential. The reason I gave that example initially was because that's just what I happened to have in mind at the time; it makes sense that a crash could damage the batteries enough to cause a thermal runaway, rather than the car randomly bursting into flames for no reason.
>It's only a matter of time before someone gets hit by lightning after winning the lottery too.
Winning the lottery doesn't increase your chances of getting hit by lightning, nor vice versa, but crashing your EV does increase the chances that it can catch fire, and a building is one of the things it can crash into. Having a fire that cannot be put out likewise increases the chances that someone may die from it, compared to if the fire is easily to be put out.
I don't know, do you really find it that unreasonable to be a little bit concerned that cars now have these giant energy stores that if they fail they're impossible to control until they burn out completely?
You can't think of a single example of an ICE vehicle crashing into a building, starting a fire, and a bunch of people dying? I can think of two such crashes happening the same day, involving jet engines.
So your argument is that electric vehicles are dangerous because of 9/11 ?
That's what you said. Cars became planes and suddenly 9/11 is your example and somehow it means that someone will crash a car into a building, the car will light on fire and everyone in the building will dies. These are your words.
I'm not really sure what you think the difficulty is. A firefighter in fire protection gear hooks the burning car with a large metal chain, the other end goes to the fire truck, tow truck or winch, the car comes out of the building.
The building is made of ordinary building stuff like wood and plastic which can be extinguished using ordinary means, you just need to remove the car so it doesn't set it on fire again. The same means (dousing it with a fire hose) can temporarily lower the temperature of the car. Firefighters already have the equipment necessary to deal with toxic smoke.
I went in and played a few videos. I'm not sure if anything in there is "sobering" to me (as an EV owner), all the incidents that he shows make sense and the physics are easy to understand.
He seems to be pretty knowledgeable about battery and EV architecture and the stated facts and numbers seem solid, but it also sounds like he takes great care not to scare away his flock of EV-hating idiots.
Just because you state your opinion confidently, does not mean you are correct. For example, as of 2024, there are 30 billion kilograms of proven reserves of lithium, more than enough to replace every single one of the 1.5 billion ICE cars in the world with an electric car. Please focus more on getting the facts right, and less on speculating about the character of other commenters in an overemotional manner.
Elemental sodium is reactive. Ionic sodium is not, lest you blow up your dinner. Furthermore, the lithium part of a Li-ion battery isn't the flammable part, the electrolyte is.
> If you want to replace FF there is exactly one solution, that's nuclear.
> Stop acting like you care about this issue. You have never cared enough to learn about it, so until you do, stop spreading misinformation about how physics works.
It's wild for you, in particular, to take such a weirdly aggressive stance here. Zero basis in reality, just virtue signaling.
> Just like you (at the moment) are acting like you don't care if people die in fires.
There is nothing in my comment that could possibly be interpreted as meaning I don't care about people dying in fires.
> If you want to replace FF there is exactly one solution, that's nuclear.
We're talking about batteries, so I'm not sure how this is relevant unless you want reactors in cars?
> Stop acting like you care about this issue. You have never cared enough to learn about it, so until you do, stop spreading misinformation about how physics works.
I made a single, sourced, claim in my comment and didn't mention physics once?
> Too bad there isn't enough Li for everyone to have one.
Could this be why companies are looking at alternatives? Either way, this claim really should be provided with a source.
> there's only one state (South Australia) that doesn't agree on the major standard sizes: Pints are 470ml, schooners are 425ml, a half pint is 285ml, and a pony is 140ml.
> Source: I have pretty extensive drinking experience in pretty much all of the Australian capital cities, except Perth.
I don't drink as much as I used to so this might be a little outdated, but in Perth "Pints" are 570ml. It was rare, but becoming less so, for some places to serve you a 470ml schooner when you ordered a pint. We avoided those places.
...Embarrassingly, I have typo'd in my original post, and it's too late to edit. Pints are 570ml (not 470ml) everywhere on the East coast - hence why a half pint in Tassie is often called a ten - because it's 10oz, or half a 20oz/568ml pint.
> Advertised range should be the mean of the distribution, not the max.
Distribution of what? Assuming you mean the distribution of driving range achieved 'in the real world', how would that work before a car is sold? How often would it have to be updated in their advertising material? Over what sort of area would the distribution be calculated? How would anyone know if the advertised range of two different cars was even comparable?
Whilst the standardised tests could be improved, they are still the best way to compare products.
> should have to pay a KL divergence penalty on it that will be distributed to EV buyers as rebates
I get about 15% more range than advertised, should I have to pay a penalty for this?
This really sounds like 'but think about a poor car vendor!'. And a poor car vendor definitely can't build at least 10 pre-production cars, run them with both a lightest and heaviest loads and different patterns and calculate the mean and use it instead of the one with the maximum distance with a minimal load, right?
> This really sounds like 'but think about a poor car vendor!'.
It was absolutely not meant to come across that way. I just think it wasn't thought all the way through.
> And a poor car vendor definitely can't build at least 10 pre-production cars, run them with both a lightest and heaviest loads and different patterns and calculate the mean and use it instead of the one with the maximum distance with a minimal load, right?
This just sounds like vendor controlled slightly-less-standardised testing, not the real world based system they seemed to be arguing for.
> I get about 15% more range than advertised, should I have to pay a penalty for this?
No. You are just one datapoint within the distribution. If the distribution aligns with manufacturer's advertised distribution, nobody gets a rebate. If distribution is not aligned, manufacturer is penalized and everyone gets a rebate for being misled.
There are many variables and scenarios, yes.
This, however, is not an excuse not to provide some more data points that help people estimate what they are really getting...
Anyway Tesla has data from all their cars, they could use that.
