partial_accumen

A company made a very strong bet on electrifying vehicles, and as part of that bet they invested very heavily in a charger network, which was very costly but also placed them in a position to control key parts of the infrastructure. It was a bold move, and it worked, kinda.

I think that’s a mischaracterization. I don’t believe Tesla set out to build the best charging network in the USA. It just ended up being that because of the ignorance and/or apathy of every other automaker and charging network provider.

You keep trying to make this into part of an ongoing argument you’re clearly having with someone else as part of some online side-taking.

Believe me, I’m not.

I’m not sure which side you’re on, or the other guys are on or what the dividng lines are supposed to be. As a casual observer with an interest only in the big picture ramifications, I legitimately could not are any less about that.

I was surprised at your usage of language which had a pretty clear negative connotation to my reading. I hadn’t seen that before from anyone and was interested in your view on it because it was unique.

I didn’t say it’s a bad thing at all.

You said:

particularly outside the US where Tesla hasn’t made a bid for controlling the charging network by overinvesting in proprietary charging spots.

I’m having difficulty seeing your usage of “a bid for controlling the charging network” and “overinvesting in proprietary charging spots” as positive statements and only see negative connotations from your choice of words. Can you clarify how your statement is positive?

But… yeah, no, they made a bid for controlling the charging network and standard by losing money on a charging network the market didn’t support yet so they could kickstart a segment they were trying to lead. I don’t think even Tesla people would deny that.

Thats partially correct but you’ve got some revisionist history there. Tesla came out with NACS/J3400 charging connector because the alternative established industry standard was CHAdeMO. The better than CHAdeMO connector, CCS only came out on paper in 2012. This was after Tesla Model S had actual shipped cars on the road earlier that year.

The ‘make a bid to control the charging network’ is a bit strange. There was no one else building charging networks in 2012, when the first 6 superchargers were built in the USA). I’m pretty sure Tesla would have been delighted if someone else would have done the work to take care of charging, but no one else stepped up. Tesla needed a charging network to sell cars so they built it.

I think plug-in hybrids are probably the way, particularly outside the US where Tesla hasn’t made a bid for controlling the charging network by overinvesting in proprietary charging spots.

This is the very first time I’ve heard anyone spin the number and ubiquity of Tesla Supercharging network as a bad thing. The charging connector is no longer proprietary. Its an SAE approved charging connector just like SAE J1772 used in nearly all EVs, the SAE Tesla connector is J3400.

It’s going to replace gas ICE vehicles, not EVs. EVs have their place in cities and short transport but they’re not efficient enough to work for large machinery or long hauls.

If your argument against EV for long haul and large machinery is “inefficiency” then I’m not sure how you’re arriving that Hydrogen is efficient. Gaseous hydrogen is very low density, way WAY lower than petroleum. I’ll agree that battery technology today isn’t the best fit for long haul either. However battery technology keeps getting better. Today’s prices are for battery are getting cheaper, lifetime of battery is increasing, and charging times are decreasing.

Hydrogen storage/density has essentially been stagnant for decades. Where is the massive increase needed to support Hydrogen in long haul? Where is the nationwide refueling infrastructure needed for long haul? Hydrogen refueling stations are fewer today in the USA then even just a year ago.

This is a great video with lots of in depth and well researched reporting. Its defiantly worth the watch on the topic.

However, there were two topics that didn’t get any air time that I think are important to this conversation. Again, with a 40 minute video already, I understand why these didn’t make the cut, but for those interested in the topic they are important.

Number 1: The huge pivot to exporting methane from the USA is to counter Russia and support our allies in Europe.

Russia is a massive methane (and oil for that matter) producing country. Europe is also a giant user of lots of methane. In the last 20 years that has meant more and more Russian methane was used in European homes and industry. Russia decided to use this dependence Europe has to try and invade and conquer Ukraine. To starve the Russian war machine required Europe turning off the taps to Russian methane and oil. Otherwise every cubic meter of methane Europe consumed meant more dead Ukrainians. The only way Europe could turn off the Russian taps in the short term was to have a replacement for methane from somewhere else. THIS IS WHY THE USA EXPORTS OF METHANE INCREASED SO SHARPLY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS! Most of the world has a vested interest in Russia losing in Ukraine. The implications of Russian winning and conquering Ukraine have long, deadly and far reaching consequences over the next 100 years. Further, if Russia starts providing methane again to Europe, what oversight for fugitive methane leaks do we think Russia would put in place? My guess would be none. At least in the USA we have the ability to put pressure on the government to increase regulation on methane extraction/transporting companies to improve the situation with regard to leaks.

Number 2: The problem with Coal isn’t just its CO2, its with all kinds of other particulate matter put into the air from burning coal. Over the last 20 years 460,000 Americans died earlier than they needed to because we burn coal for electricity. source If you live near railroad tracks transporting coal you have between 3% and 16% greater chance of getting cancer. source. While methane also carries health risks because of extraction or transportation of the product (well water contamination from fracking fluid is one way), I don’t currently think these outcomes are worse than coal.

I’m a big believer in Solar and Wind for the future. I hold my nose and half heartedly advocate for methane as it looks like the least worst solution while we increase our green energy solutions.