tidmutt

Well-known member
First Name
Daniel
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
234
Reaction score
323
Location
Somewhere hot and humid
Vehicles
Golf R, Tesla Model 3
Occupation
Software Architect
Country flag

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
434
Reaction score
436
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
No.

Your premise is flawed. And your description is overly complex.

Solar merely reduces the base rate take-up. But running generators twenty-four-seven isn't cheap. So losing them doesn't hurt us.

They're predicting a failure point and then making it come true before solar and renewables are a large enough part of the grid to be a problem.

They're lying, for profit.

-Crissa
The anology was as simple as I could make it, and it describes the engineering behind grid balancing. Ignoring how the engineering pysically works doesn't validate your point, and deflecting to the profiteering argument neither, because from the beginning of the conversation, where you said I was spreading lies, I strictly defined the problem as a technical one. (And definitely not FUD!)

What you need to add to my analogy is a sensitivity analysis, just as a very simplified explanation in numbers of how sensitive the balancing is. (Ignore the capacity sizes used, I just used easy numbers)

Say your network load was just 50% on a sunny moderate temperature day. Lets make it 50% of 100MW so we have a load of 50MW. Lets say we have 30% renewable penetration on the grid and online, so 100MW x 30% = 30MW. That leaves us with 20MW of load that needs to come from baseload. If all fossil generation can only throttle 50% (as described previously) and 20MW is the baseload, and baseload is at minimum throttle, that means at maximum throttle baseload can achieve 40MW. Now if a storm comes over with dense cloud and solar goes to vitually zero within a few minutes, baseload can ramp up using its spinning reserve, but it can only ramp up to 40MW at full throttle. But theres currently 50MW load, so where do we get the extra 10MW from?

Generator cold start up ramp times can be anywhere between 12minutes and 30minutes so that is too slow. You could maybe chuck some DSR at it, but theres not that much of that around, so now your grid "tank" is empty, and your baseload trips off and it takes hours to weeks to resync them all back to eachother.

And this is best case scenario, because although you can if you have to, you don't run your baseload at 50% because you don't know it the grid has 32% solar penetration, or if a bunch take load of the grid because they stop cooking lunch at the same time, meaning you can't throttle baseload down anymore. So now you need to run baseload at 65-70% and you have no capacity to replace just 30% solar. Now run the same calculation at 30% network load, and you already have to much solar and no baseload at all. Or otherwise do 50% solar. Now add wind etc. You get the point.

In reality its actually even more complicated, because you need to be able to supply that power on various feeders and keep them all within spec etc, which a headache in itself because solar generation is not the same for every feeder.

That is why embedded uncurtailable solar generation (most solar) is a huge pain on a grid. BTW adding network capacity on that grid does not solve the spinning reserve problem either. It's also why after dealing with networks for decades I'm using off grid solutions for my business endeavours.

And we haven't even started on line losses (+10%) or fire risk, in that powerlines are the number 1 bushfire starters.

I hope you can accept the technical implications at face value and change your assumptions accordingly. It most definitely can't be simplified to the point you can just deduct solar from the network load.

Have a good day! :)
 
Last edited:

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
5,973
Reaction score
7,847
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
I hope you can accept the technical implications at face value and change your assumptions accordingly.
No. You're over complicating the issue.

Wires don't care which way the current flows. Having more spread out generation reduces line losses, centralized power increases line losses.

There is a problem here, and the problem is that they want to blame additional grid demand (which exists independently from solar) on the latter.

-Crissa
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
434
Reaction score
436
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
No. You're over complicating the issue.

Wires don't care which way the current flows. Having more spread out generation reduces line losses, centralized power increases line losses.

There is a problem here, and the problem is that they want to blame additional grid demand (which exists independently from solar) on the latter.

-Crissa
Sorry Crissa I tried.
But you need to stop talking about "they". Because none of my arguments are from anyone but myself and my understanding of how I learnt it works, with personal examples from my own experience.

There is no agenda to what I say, just technical engineering facts. If you can't argue against any of the facts thats fine, but doing so because your faith in an agenda or political view requires it, and blinds you to the truth, is just not a healthy way to make assessments in the world, let alone base decisions on it, or call others liars because of it.

Time to move on. Lets talk about something with substance...like door handles! 🤣
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
671
Reaction score
1,136
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
This is no joke. People have burned alive in Tesla’s because someone couldn’t open the door fast enough. My brother was rescued while overdosing in a car because someone was able to break the window fast enough. Relying solely on electronics for life saving features is foolish. Yes, electronic advancements are amazing but this is definitely a case where people need more assurance they are safe.
A lot of cars have electric doors. Just because there is a physical handle on the exterior doesn't mean it will have a safety problem. Tesla is guided by statistics. Those worrying that it's not as safe will find out they were fretting over nothing.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
671
Reaction score
1,136
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
Suggestion:

1. Keep your reservation

2. Cancel order if you think the doors do will not work for you
3. If you cancel, ask Tesla to contact me to complete the order.
I'm in favor of keeping things simple. So I fixed that for you. :LOL:
 

jerhenderson

Well-known member
First Name
Jeremy
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
498
Reaction score
651
Location
Prince George BC
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
Correctional Officer
Country flag
A lot of cars have electric doors. Just because there is a physical handle on the exterior doesn't mean it will have a safety problem. Tesla is guided by statistics. Those worrying that it's not as safe will find out they were fretting over nothing.
if someone burned alive because they couldn't open a door fast enough I'd offer there were circumstances to that; a door handle not being one of them.
 

Martin Harford

Well-known member
First Name
Martin
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
42
Location
Arkansas
Vehicles
1993 Dodge Ram 150
Occupation
Retired physician
Country flag
I'd pay for normal door handles.

This is a neat feature, but if I get in an accident, I'd like people to be able to extract me from the car.

Four wheel steering is an awesome unexpected bonus, but the handles... not a fan.
I'll bet Jaws of Life would work even on SS. Anybody know for sure? I was extracted from a Toyota Avalon after a high speed head-on collision. Of course that was no CT for the JOL to work on either.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
671
Reaction score
1,136
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
Well I don't know how my MDX knows it I don't think it's the 1 of 4 cameras but the folded mirrors light up when I have my key fob within a few feet. Am I to assume that there will be only your phone to let you in? I don't know about you guys but my phone history and reliability suck.
My wife and I have been using our phones exclusively (both Galaxy S8) to unlock both our Model 3's for three years now and it works seamlessly. Everytime. So much better than key fobs. The only wrinkle is if we don't drive one of them for a couple of days, the car will go to sleep to save energy. Once that happens it is necessary to touch one of the door handles to wake it up. On a vehicle without mechanical handles like the Cybertruck they will replace touching a handle with something else (probably the cameras which will be on a very low frame rate until it detects an approaching person). Yes, they will work at night too.

I'm convinced that people who have trouble with 'phone as key' working reliably have their phone configured improperly so the Bluetooth is turning off to conserve energy or the Tesla app is being put to sleep. Properly configured it should work every time as long as the phone is line-of-sight to the antennas in the car as you approach.

Contrary to a lot of negative FUD out there, Tesla is actually very good at making sure their products work in real situations in the real world. They use first principles thinking to ensure it's going to be functional. If they overlook a small detail they are usually very good about fixing it. I have zero concerns that the Cybertruck will have usability issues.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
671
Reaction score
1,136
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
if someone burned alive because they couldn't open a door fast enough I'd offer there were circumstances to that; a door handle not being one of them.
Tesla has a long history of demonstrating they put safety first. That's why you are far less likely to die or be seriously injured in a Tesla than any other make of car out there. The statistics don't lie.

If you think the lack of a physical handle will decrease safety, then you are not thinking hard enough about how Tesla might address that. There is a lot of FUD out there that attempts to portray Tesla as reckless and their products as unsafe but the actual facts and numbers tell a different story.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
671
Reaction score
1,136
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
I'll bet Jaws of Life would work even on SS. Anybody know for sure? I was extracted from a Toyota Avalon after a high speed head-on collision. Of course that was no CT for the JOL to work on either.
I think the jaws of life would have a lot of difficulty on 3 mm cold rolled stainless steel. The tool is not designed for a material that strong. If the frame is crumpled severely enough that the doors won't open, the preferred method of access for first responders will be through the windows or the roof. That said, I think Tesla will use the materials natural stiffness to great advantage in a crash. Instead of crumpling like an aluminum can, I think the door hinges and latches will take on key roles in absorbing crash energy before they shear and open on a frontal impact. In a side impact, the door frames opposite the impact will be more likely to widen, not collapse.

In other words, I'm not losing any sleep over getting trapped in my Cybertruck unless there is evidence this is a greater problem in a Cybertruck than traditional trucks.

Tesla is working to reduce the rate of serious accidents which reduces, but does not eliminate, the need to save trapped people in life-threatening situations. The best accident is the one that doesn't happen.
 
Last edited:

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
671
Reaction score
1,136
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
I'm not sure Musk cares if the Cybertruck is a success or not. He's building the car he wants to build and anyone who wants to come along for the ride can join him. Even if demand tapers off after the initial rush, Tesla will almost certainly make a profit on it. Then any production lines which are idled can be repurposed for other projects. You can be certain that the 8,000 pound press will be useful for the Semi and any passenger van in Tesla's future.

The Cybertruck reminds me a lot of the Honda Element and the Subaru Baja. People who bought one, absolutely love them, but they were both commercially a "Flop". Now they sell for a mint on the used market because they are still well loved... flops.
The idea that demand might taper off after initial rush could only be taken seriously if the vehicle does not meet the promised specs or has unforeseen issues that cannot be quickly addressed.

In other words, it's highly unlikely that demand will not grow instead of shrink. It's been said that Tesla's sell themselves. The more that are produced, the more people are exposed to them and the more they sell. Also, Tesla doesn't have any ads or salespeople. The owners are the only salespeople and the number of those is constantly growing. The Cybertruck will be no different.

Build a better product and the world will be knocking at your door.
 
Last edited:

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
671
Reaction score
1,136
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
So many power companies prioritize rewarding shareholders over actually doing the thing they are paid to do. PG&E got hundreds of millions of dollars for upgrading their power lines and instead of actually upgrading their power lines, increase dividends.

It's the fundamental problem with government sanctioned monopolies and regulatory capture.
I would put it a little bit differently and say "It's a fundamental problem with the regulators not doing their job".

There are really only two acceptable options when it comes to utilities (gas, electric, water, etc):

1) Full on government ownership of the infrastructure to deliver the service.
2) A regulated monopoly.

Because the two other options, an unregulated monopoly and multiple redundant wires and pipes of competing companies are unacceptable.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
671
Reaction score
1,136
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
I predict that the Cybertruck will be the safest passenger vehicle ever crash tested by IIHS or NHTSA.
I think it will be the safest truck ever crash tested but it's going to be pretty difficult to beat the results of cars that currently lead the crash safety tests (like the Model 3 and Model Y).

I'll be happy even if it can't beat the phenomenal safety of the two safest cars ever made!
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top