Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "OBF" channel.

  1. 5
  2. 4
  3. 4
  4. 3
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 1
  11.  @fjm9898  A supercharger point that includes 8-10 charging point would cost around $100-175k. A semi would probably use the equivalent of around 6 charging points, so per charging point for a truck you'd get around 75-125k (probably lower if you install multiple in the same location). It is also is very much possible Tesla would offer somekind of pay-off program like is done so often for cars, ie. they pay off the charger over time, just like they'd use fuel overtime. Furthermore these chargers will be fine for probably 2 decades, with maybe only minor changes needed. So yearly this would maybe come down to $4-10k, which would certainly be low enough to be more than compensated for by reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Then there is also the possibility that Tesla itself will start rolling out charging infrastructure quickly once the semi's are actually being delivered. People are now mostly talking about charging while loading/unloading, but there also is a case to be made for charging during transit on Tesla charging locations, sure the truck and driver will be stationary for 30 minutes or so, but if you can corporate this into the drivers necessary rest time, this is no problem. And even if you can't do that, the lower fuel and maintenance cost might be enough to recuperate this lost time charging. And ofcourse for companies that don't drive their trucks 24/7, but have daily scheduled downtimes of several hours (for example during the night or so), slower and less expensive chargers could be used. Yes, you might be trying to sell EV trucks now, but are you working for Tesla? Do you know what their roll-out strategy is? Just out of curiosity, which EV trucks are you selling/trying to sell?
    1
  12.  @ps8432  Be real. Just how are we going to charge 1000s of trucks at night? For places that use nuclear powerplants this would actually help the powerplants, because they don't need to decrease their output. There also still can be wind and hydro during the night and eventually there should be more than enough storage capacity too. Even regular EV's can help here, they could overtime be plugged in constantly while they don't drive, during the day and night. During overproduction they charge up and during high demand they can discharge, this way they can help balance the grid (including those 1000's of trucks getting charged overnight). Because of the low power input/output the batteries won't deteriorate more and in the long time this can even help your batteries according to some studies, because you'd keep your battery charged up enough at almost anytime without putting stress on it (like fastcharging would do), so more cycles, but very small and gently cycles. Take the EU for example. It has around 4,5 million trucks on the road, lets pretend they on average would have a battery pack of 1000kWh (which is probably way too high, seeing you can cross 3/4th of France north-to-south on one charge then), this would make 4,5TWh in needed energy. The EU has 280 million cars driving on its roads, taking an average of 50kWh per car, that would make around 14TWh, so even if half of these can be used (which would possibly be much more) you'd have more than enough to charge all these trucks. And this is very conservative estimate, the average pack size of trucks is likely to be much lower, while the average for EV's now already is 45kWh, so 50 is definitely not too high. And during the night most cars would be plugged in if possible, it would be a matter of rolling out the level 2 charging grid to accomodate as many EV's as possible. This kind of system is likely to be implemented, since like I said it can also be used to help balance out the grid, especially one focused on renewables. Ofcourse there is work to be done to make everything happen, I am not going to say it will be easy, but also far from impossible. And it is not like governments won't do anything (might ofcourse depend on the kind of government), it is very likely they'll to invest in charging and grid infrastructure be it directly, in the forms of cheap loans or maybe subsidies. Pointing to Texas is a sign of ignorance on the facts. In Texas the problem was that the grid and generation not winterized, thus when cold temperatures happened, a lot of generation fell out (a fourth of its installed capacity). This compared to the unforseen spike in demand (which trucks wouldn't be, they'd be very much forseen, you don't get 1000's of trucks delivered overnight) caused the problems. What exactly are you refering to in regards to Germany?
    1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. ​ @petitkruger2175  that promo video isn't about the loop idea. The loop idea is about replacing/instead of subways. The tunnels from the promo video show tunnels as underground streets to be used by private cars, not public transportation, it is meant to fight congestion on the road by giving drivers that will drive anyway more space/options. This is a completely different topic. Car sleds shouldn't be necessary in the future, FSD will do it without that. cars would work just like trains while moving (directly behind eachother), with the difference that they can go directly to the end destination. And not even the subway with the highest capacity in london comes close to 1500, highest is 1176, which makes 28224 per hour, the same amount of cars would be able to transport around 8000 per hour. A lot lower yes. However this is the stations throughput, not the line. The disadvantage of the rail is that the car stops every station, even when there is barely any space left or people coming on/off. This while the cars would just skip all the stations except the destination, this means the real capacity of the car system is how many cars can travel through the tunnel or the stations capacity. A station with huge capacity needs can just be made larger than those with lower capacity demands, allowing more cars to pass through it every hour. Moreover the cost should be looked at, if the boring company can make 2-3 times the tunnels (and everything else in terms of capacity) for the same price, it is a better option. Just to be clear, the boring loops aren't the best option everytime everywhere, it like everything depends on location and circumstances. Moreover the boring tunnels will still need to prove themselves, the idea can still bust. But especially in smaller cities with lower capacity needs it can work out much better.
    1
  17. I don't think the idea is to keep the routing unit longterm, rather have the cars autonomously drive in the tunnels, meaning they just drive in, go on, drive out without any extra steps. I don't think they'd ever let petrol cars in, even with a routing unit, this goes against Musks goal to electrify transport. Moreover by 2030 most new cars sold are likely to be electric, and by 2040 there probably won't be petrol cars sold anymore except for niche models. By 2050 finding a petrol car on the road is likely going to be very difficult. Therefor it is rather wastefull to try and include petrol cars in the boring tunnel concept. semi evacuated maglev (or essentially hyperloop), would most likely get their own boring tunnels if hyperloopcompanies decide to work together with the Boring company. For now it doesn't seem like boring company is going to go into the hyperloop concept in any other way than as a tunneling partner, but we'll see I guess. The idea also is that automated driving with (possibly) communicating cars can act as a train, just without the interlinking and therefor is much more flexible (adding, detracting "wagons"). Putting cars in a container or something similar seems like a lot more hassle for not really much gain comparatively. The advantage of the train is more the rails than anything else once automated driving is on point (which will be easier to get done in a closed off environment like the boring tunnels). As for the panic, people will get used to it and they won't be allowed to take control of the car while in the tunnel, most likely they'll either just be checking something/waiting or on longer trips distracting themselves with videos, games, talking, music, ... People that are afraid of the close distance can even just keep their eyes closed or something similar. People can get used to a lot of things, if you put people from 100+ years ago in a car on the driveway they'd freak out (even if they know everything). Humans are rather good in adapting.
    1
  18.  @Herr_U  If they have the cars themselves go there they they are in effect limited to about 180-200kph 180-200kph is way more then on the highway, limited to doesn't fit this sentenced. Most trains are slower then that, only highspeed rail is better, and you don't want to use a high speed train that is bigger than these cars in a small tunnel, that wouldn't be doable. Honestly 180-200kph is actually very optimistic, for cars I expect more like 150-160kph and for freight more like 100-120 kpm at most. Any higher you essentially need to start looking at the hyperloop concept with a semi-vacuum. and with horrible efficencies And how would this be different with a routing container exactly? This will be less aerodynamic, thus have much more drag. having dedicated routing containers would allow for having proper rolling (or maglev) stock With other words you are talking about a hyperloop, not the boring tunnel concept anymore, these are two distinct concepts. I'd still be in the workforce by 2050 and I know petrol cars still will be common for me How do you know that? Why would it still be common for you? (electrical cars suck when the grid is down for more than a few hours). For this you most likely would have EV with much greater range, or indeed a petrol car, like I said petrol can possibly still be used in niche circumstances. But then you might have to take some extra petrol with you in jerry cans, since petrol station will likely have become very uncommon by then. But also, having a setup for petrol cars would also allow for hydrogen cars Hydrogen cars don't stand a chance: expensive, not much more range than many EV's, expensive hydrogen stations that are rather few in numbers, high hydrogen prices, terrible efficiency, ... Hydrogen in personel vehicles will only be a niche product, if it isn't scrapper completely. Ofcourse this is unless hydrogen cars suddenly make extreme jumps forward, which is rather unlikely. so no need to have separate solutions for if you want to do boring or hyperloop. They have completely different goals. Yes, hyperloop might work together with hyperloop companies, but boring company tunnels and the tesla system won't suddenly be changed to a hyperloop concept, just not going to happen. *Rails, being able to stack in height(!), controlled airflow (resistance), booms/shockwaves whenever a joining tunnel merges (or tunnel openings), strict service schedules (breakdown will be a fun issue otherwise). Cars are quite frankly horrible in terms of effeciency (even when alone). (For the shockwaves alone - take a look at the generations of shinkansen, the "nose" are all about shockwave mitigation)* Again, this is more hyperloop, not the boring tunnel concept. Basically doing a hyperloop with automobile carriages ("normal cars") will impose some rather drastic limits This isn't even a discussion, the boring company doesn't do hyperloop, the using cars in boring company tunnels has nothing to do with hyperloop, that is a completely different issue/concept. It seems you are mixing 2 different concepts that have nothing to do with eachother, other then that the boring company could make tunnels for both and do both: tunnels with cars for shorter trips, tunnels for hyperloop for long trips. Hyperloop needs tracks of at least 10-20 km just to get up to speed (depending on the acceleration and topspeed) and another similar distance to slow down. That means you need at least a track of 20-40km, probably a lot more, since you don't want to be constantly accelerating and decelerating. Hyperloop is great to connect cities, however it isn't usefull to connects smaller area's, like part of a city, city with suburbs, a track with stops/offramps 'quite often', .... In other words the boring company Tesla/EV tunnel is meant as something more like regular streets and highways, only with faster speeds and no real traffic, the hyperloop is meant as a replacement of high speed rail systems, to connect cities/area's of large distances.
    1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24.  @dousiastailfeather9454  If it was workable then somebody else would be doing it already. This is such a weak argument, if flying was workable someone would have done it before the wright brothers, if smartphones were workable someone would have done it before apple, if reusing rockets was possible someone would have done it before SpaceX, ... There are plenty of things that can work, but are not done untill some company/person causes a spark on its development/idea. As for thunderfoot, I once wrote a comment about his problems with hyperloop, most of it is just stupid and either is a problem that can/is fixed, that is not really a problem or is situational. He might have brought up some good points too, but these didn't discredit the entire idea, rather forces more thinking on it. And him going after some bad companies as to show that it is a stupid idea overall is just pathetic, you always can have bad companies, or companies that put too much emphasize on show/publicity. There are several hyperloop companies that are actually keeping their development close to their chest too. Overall Thunderfoot to me comes across as the kind of guy that decides first whether something is possible, stupid, ... and then start finding reasons for it. Often these kind of people are right, because they mostly focus on controversial ideas, technologies, ... and most technologies etc never get past development due to unforseen problems, so betting against new ideas/technologies is much safer and easier than betting for them. However there are times these kind of people are shown to have been completely wrong. He is like someone that would have said plane travel could never be a thing during the 1910-20's, except maybe for the few very rich. I can perfectly make a video about this that would perfectly fit on his channel, ofcourse it would be seen as ridiculous today, with all the problems they talked about back then having been solved, proven to not be a problem.
    1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28.  @maxblinkhorn  Musk has had nothing to do with hyperloop since proposing the idea (which since is changed a bit by companies), the past few years critique was not meant for Musk's idea, but the idea of the hyperloop in general. If people only criticizes musk original idea, I'd have no problem with it. We should be seeing systems being built Like I said, development of these kind of things usually takes a decade or multiple decades, to expect results within around half a decade is rather stupid. There are at this moment something like 5 to 10 hyperloop companies around the world, we only hear about/from maybe 2 of them, because the others keep their development more secretive and put less emphasize on promotion/publicity. and yet there is no full speed test track in operation. it took maglev decades to get to full speed test tracks to be put in place, yet hyperloop is expected to do it in around 5 years, do you realize how foolish that sounds? And there are already plans by several companies to built a full speed test track. For example the hyperloop company hardt in the Netherlands plans to have built a 3 km track by 2022, just like another company plans to do in France. Most of the problems with hyperloop is with these tunnels, so it is rather normal that the first real test tunnel prototype take some time to get built, if these are successfull, they can speed up the building process in the future. He handed the job to students, ffs! This already shows your ignorance. Musk wants to promote the idea of the hyperloop system and because of this started a yearly contest, however a requirement of participating in this tournament is that the technology and designs used become public knowledge, usuable by anyone. Therefor we only see university teams playing part, who don't mind this requirement, but like the challenge, the knowledge the students can gain from it. The professional companies obviously are not going to let their proprietary knowledge become public property/open sourced and thus don't participate. The technology that will carry passengers has not been created! Again you seem to be focused too much on the competition, where passenger aren't central, rather the technology and speed is. And because of this teams focus now more on acceleration than usefullness due to the short competition track. This competition isn't any good indication of where the companies really stand. The pod that will carry the passengers isn't the difficulty, the propulsion and tunnel is. If anything runs before 2025 I'll be amazed I do expect longer test tracks (3-5km+) by 2025, however true passenger travel should not be expected before 2030 even if hyperloop is successful. Meantime, trains are making progress around the world You mean the thing that exists for longer than the car, tram, subway, airplane and even bicycle, which is essentailly almost only outlived by ships in largescale transportation methods? Who would have expected this. You are comparing a mature system with a completely new one. Also hyperloop isn't meant to replace trains, or rather not most trains, at best it would be long haul high speed trains that travel between major cities and don't stop between these. Its main focus though would be to replace (short to medium) continental flights between large cities. Hyperloop will die - it's several steps too far - the technology is not ready. Again, easy to claim, one I could have made about planes 100 years ago, which people actually did and which is why they focused on airships for a time instead. I don't really see any lack of necessary technology, the main question is, will they be able to deploy the technology in a way that is economical enough. Personally I'd expect a combination of somthing like boring tunnels with hyperloop to stand the best chance long term, since - it will be easier to maintain a vacuum, - tunnels normally are better protected in case of natural disasters like a flood or earthquake (I know, doesn sound logical, but it is apparently), - it doesn't need to care about aqcuiring land right/getting through urban area's, - no need to follow the geograpghy too much (shallower curves and gradients), - apparently the boring company has been able to reduce tunneling costs significantly (similar to the cost of highways) and usually the stations are part of the largest cost of a tunnel, less of a problem for the hyperloop. There might be some other advantages too, just like there obviously will also be disadvantages, but hey, this is the case for everything, including cars, ships, planes and trains. Again to be clear, I am not saying the hyperloop is a certain success, but there is nothing really that at this moment shows it will be a definite failure either, other than people's pre-conceived notions which they then try to find (stupid) reasons for.
    1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. The point would be that 'regular' cars can drive in it, ie. people get there car into the tunnel to avoid above ground traffic, they still need to have the rear view mirrors for regular driving. Also dedicated transport vehicles for these tunnels are unlikely to have rear view mirrors. As for a disabled cars with injured passengers, that only seems possible in case of an accident, we'll still have to see how often this happens and if necessary they'll create specially designed emergency vehicles and trained personnel, though again, the question is how likely of an occurance this would be. If you get injured passengers due to something not caused by the car, the car could just drive them to the nearest exit point (an emergency button might be nice) and maybe even raise an alarm beforehand. As for a disabled car in the tunnel without injured passengers, it probably would depend on how it is disabled, in most cases it would just be towed to the nearest exit most likely, though I don't really see many reasons as to why a car would have this happened. In all cases I guess there likely will be an emergency protocol clearing the tunnel and if on that location you have multiple tunnels (different routes or for extra capacity), cars would likely get redirected untill the tunnel is clear. Ofcourse there isn't just a great solution for these kind of problems, but that isn't really different from accidents above ground, which can cause massive traffic jams etc. and with the accident site not always easily reachable due to this traffic. I do think any car entering the tunnel most likely would need to be certified (ie definitey yearly check up etc), it helps that EV's have less things than can break and cause a car to crash/come to a standstill on its own. And automated systems tend to be safer, especially when they all are automated and thus no real unexpected behaviours happens.
    1