- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
An AI tool was used to add an extra layer to the editing process for this story.
For crying out loud, stop that!
Translation: this story was written by AI but we sorta skimmed it to make sure it wasn’t too insane.
And the readers can do the proof reading for us.
*to make sure it was insane enough.
It’s The Mirror we’re taking about.
And it’s the fucking Daily Mirror – a tabloid.
Here’s an alternative link for people that don’t want to give traffic to that trash site. Or want a story that’s not click-bait garbage and has actual context.
Okay so for starters this article is clearly just a dig at Elon. If it wasn’t they would never have mentioned him but Elon makes headlines.
Second, I don’t buy it. We’re getting one side of the story here. They’ve been selling these cars by the millions for years at this point. If the cars were failing “while driving in the rain”, it would be a much bigger deal.
The " Elon Musk could buy everyone in the world a Tesla if he wanted to." line makes it clear that this is just more Elon/Tesla clickbait.
We’re getting one side of the story here.
Yeah, what most readers don’t know is that the Cannonmills / Edinburgh area has been flooding a lot for the past 2-3 weeks. It’s not only happening right now with Storm Babet but it was also happening with a different storm the 7th into the 10th…which is when the car came up damaged.
It’s a pretty safe bet that the car was submerged at some point. It wouldn’t be the first time the guy has suffered flood loss in the area either.
And is that really how Tesla and/or repair shops in Scotland work? “We fixed it! Surprise, you owe us a kidney!”
I’ve always gotten a call from any shop to get my acceptance of a quoted price for a specific repair, service, diagnostic process, etc.
Exactly, because they have to approve the repair before anyone will start work. I don’t buy it either.
deleted by creator
Man if only he has a boat! https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a21421/elon-musk-model-s-boat/
Wasn’t like… a huge deal made about how the Teslas are so waterproof they could double as a boat? I mean they can in fact ford much deeper than ICE cars because they don’t need air, but also there’s definitely tweets about this.
Edit: he said it about both the cybertruck - loads of stories about this - and the model S: https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a21421/elon-musk-model-s-boat/
This is entirely separate of course from the much more basic issue that a car that breaks because of some fucking precipitation is not fit for purpose and this damage report would be indefensible just about anywhere in the world. Precedent for manufacturers taking responsibility for bad products was first established in Britain centuries ago.
And not to mention it was water ingress into the bloody batteries, they’re lucky (or maybe unlucky in this case) that the car didn’t burn down from the Lithium…
Yeah… that’s the one part you need to waterproof, more even than the passenger cabin. Everything else except the ECU is water-agnostic. Those battery cells will discharge and die if you leave them submerged. The pack itself is fine for short spells under water if it is properly made.
All BEVs will have similar problems. The battery pack is huge and cannot come into contact with water.
The battery pack is supposed to be watertight because that is an expected hazard for an outdoor vehicle. It absolutely can come in contact with water, which apart from some minor corrosion and discharge over time due to electrolysis, should not in the short term damage it. The ability to ford shallow rivers is absolutely normal in most BEVs.
The problem is that it just slung underneath the car, exposed to whatever is beneath the car. You can try making it watertight, but water will eventually get it in wetter climates. That will be the problem of all BEVs with giant batteries.
It’s not “just slung”… The battery fulfills multiple functions as it is part of the chassis. And nobody is “trying” to make it watertight, it is literally engineered that way. We have made things weatersealed since forever, hell even cars just standing outside in wet cold climates won’t get wet inside even after decades. Yet we can’t make a rigid part of a chassis watertight? You’re grasping at straws brother. You have to crash before water gets in.
Please me all the articles about BEVs dying in wet weather
John said he pressed representatives of Tesla on whether he or Rob were at fault for the damage, to which he claims he was told that it was a weather issue. He added: "They said that the battery is effectively submerged in water. How can that be our fault?
The car got flooded, then? That’s an insurance problem not a repair problem.
Due respect and support for Elon hatred, but this story is stupid. No one gets water ingress on a tesla battery from driving through puddles. The family didn’t want to pay for it, the horrible “newd” organization (I refuse to even name them) knows mentioning Elon makes better news, and this whole thing is an insurance issue and somehow Elon is mentioned.
Quick, without looking, who is the CEO of Toyota, Honda, Chevrolet, or Ford?
Even if you know, who cares? Exactly.
A stupid story by The Daily Mirror? That must be a first!
Fair point. Why do they get posted though is the real question.
Because it fits the narrative of the slightly radicalised userbase.
Usually because the Daily Mail and The Sun are worse, and because leaning towards the left/Labour let’s The Mirror off a bit in some people’s eyes.
This whole thread is a perfect example of “feeding the troll” :D
Doesn’t surprise me with those panel gaps.
idc about this post but i clicked on the article anyway to see gay people
that’s so cool…
Guinea pigs.
deleted by creator
Reminder to everyone in this thread: BEVs are a doomed technology. The fundamental high cost and resource requirements of the battery dooms it to inevitable failure. Luckily, superior technology like FCEVs are coming along now. They won’t have this problem. So if you actually cared about solving climate change, you’ll endorse FCEVs, just like any other kind of zero emission car. Even if you don’t agree with me, you should still support anything that can get us off of fossil fuels. There is no coherent reason to oppose green technology after all.
But of course, this is not the case. Many people here have either been brainwashed by Elon Musk, or have some financial motive like investments in BEV companies. As a result, they do not care for any kind of alternative to the BEV. They only want the BEV. And they will lie and BS endlessly to prop up their favored technology.
Unfortunately, reality does not care for your opinions. The BEV is a dead-end, and always will be. You can’t save it by lying to yourself or others. You have no choice to admit the truth. By not doing so, you are just becoming another group of conspiracy theorists or science deniers. We make fun of anti-vaxxers or climate deniers, and eventually we will make fun of hydrogen deniers. That is the eventual outcome if you cannot change your mind.
Removed by mod
Last I checked, a lot of countries are planning to ban all competing technologies, or subsidizing BEVs to an insane amount. If you realize that this is basically a doomed strategy, then your next act is pretty obvious.
In the end, our motivation is about solving climate change. And we see a lot of brainwashed fools wasting their time and money on a dead-end idea that won’t work. It’s pretty much impossible not to bring up the alternative. Not doing so would be a major moral failure on our own part. So it has to be brought up. Guys like you are just annoyed that someone is telling you something you don’t want to hear.
Reminder to everyone in this thread:
Anyone who starts off their post with stuff like this is probably an idiot that shouldn’t be taken seriously.
These are the folks who never touch grass.
If you actually cared about the environment, you’d walk, bike or take transit. Cars are bad for cities, people and ecology
Actually yes. Cars are for special purposes. They should not be driven that much.
aS A meCHAnIC, all vehicles are doomed. You want green, advocate for trollies.
Heavier vehicles also eat up tires quicker and put more micro plastics into the environment.
I heard one of the byproducts of desalinization is hydrogen. If that’s what’s powering the cars, and we’re going to run out of drinking water that seems like a win win in my book.
BEVs are a dead-end technology. It just replaces an unsustainable dependency on fossil fuels with an unsustainable dependency on batteries and battery-related mining.
In reality, the future will be hydrogen cars, with an outside chance of synfuel/e-fuel cars.
EDIT: Sorry, but no amount of lying to yourself will make BEVs a viable technology. It is a dead-end and always will be.
In reality, the future will be hydrogen cars,
In what reality? They’ve been developing these for years and haven’t made much headway. Fossil fuels are finite while lithium batteries can be recycled over and over. What exactly is unsustainable about them?
Sorry, but no amount of lying to yourself will make BEVs a viable technology
If they aren’t a viable technology, then how are there millions of them on the road currently?
BEVs predate internal combustion engines. People have waited a long time for it to happen. Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.
BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.
Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.
Hydrogen is currently produced from natural gas which is mined from the earth.
BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.
Obviously written by someone with very little knowledge of the topic. Every form of fuel is subsidized whether that be fossil fuels, electric, or hydrogen. How about, at the very least, you take two seconds to Google things before you speak of them.
I’d bet 0% of the people you’re ‘debating’ with have any issue with hydrogen vehicle development. Everyone is taking issue with you and your ridiculous, uninformed comments.
And so is most electricity. The point is that it can be made from water. You’re just repeating an argument used against all EVs.
Not only do I know more than pretty much anyone here, I can immediately recognize all of the dumb myths and PR talking points everyone brings up. This is old news for me.
Everyone who oppose hydrogen pretty much has an agenda. If not an owner of a BEV, they are an investor of some kind.
Ultimately, why would anyone oppose green energy or green technology? Nevermind anyone who calls himself an environmentalist. It’s the most absurd fact in all of this. So many people here are lying to themselves about what they really believe and what their real motivations are.
Maybe the future is not relying on any one technology as our only option.
Nah, that doesn’t make sense at all.
Agreed. BEVs make sense as short-ranged urban commuter cars. You don’t want a car with a giant, expensive battery. But this is a niche, so you quickly realize that something else must be the answer.
For a lot of cases, it is either mass transit or e-bikes. But if you must have a car, it must be something that matches the functionality of ICE cars while being zero emissions.
Isn’t Hydrogen only like 50% efficient?
On a good day… Electrolysis alone is often <60% efficient, but as someone else pointed out, you do have the advantage of ToU flexibility for minimizing costs.
Not really, because fuel cells are electrochemical systems just like batteries. In the long-run, it will be the same level of efficiency as batteries.
What you mean to say is that at a certain level of technology, it is 50% efficient. But even that is meaningless, because hydrogen’s ability to capture excess wind and solar energy let’s it be extremely cheap energy. It is the same story as photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaic cells are very inefficient, but it is irrelevant because it captures such a cheap energy source. So solar power is very cheap. Likewise, green hydrogen, made from water and extremely cheap renewable energy, will also be extremely cheap. Efficiency isn’t that big of a deal here either.
Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.
Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.
Can’t speak for everyone but my criticism of hydrogen is not on its theoretical potential to displace fossil fuels as an energy carrier, but on its practical constraints today.
I don’t see many people criticizing hydrogen like those who “attacked solar” but people more treating it like fusion - it’s very likely the way of the future, but we shouldn’t stand around waiting for that future to materialize when we can be making changes now that will help preserve our collective future.
Additionally, your theoretical ultra-efficient-platinum-free-corrosion-resistant-fuel-cell-and-electrolyzer future is competing against the theoretical super-energy-dense-durable-low-cost-solid-state-battery future, and I shook my Magic 8 ball asking which is more likely and all I got was “Ask again later” so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The “practical constraints” are mostly just lies from competing industries. Case in point, a hydrogen tank is both volumetrically and gravimetrically denser than batteries. Loosely speaking, it is about 2000 Wh/kg and 1333 Wh/L. That’s better than any li-ion battery.
It is plenty good enough to replace both BEVs and ICE cars. As long as it is zero emissions, it works.
Finally, FCEVs exist right now. Hypothetical magical batteries of the future don’t. So this is a meaningless comparison.
mostly just lies from competing industries
My Master’s Thesis and PhD Dissertation were focused on fuel cells as an energy storage system of the future - I’ve got more first hand experience than most with no influence “from competing industries”. I want this technology to work - badly.
That said, you’re right that fuel cell cars exist today, but so do batteries, and with today’s technology any “meaningful comparison” will quickly point out that today’s batteries are:
More efficient, cheaper to manufacturer, much cheaper to operate (have you checked the price per kg for (mostly fossil-produced) hydrogen recently? YIKES!), more user friendly for most (not all) drivers, and (a little more subjective) way more fun to drive.
Yes, batteries do have their problems (long haul & heavy duty applications, refueling time, cobalt sourcing, flammability, …) But so do PEMFCs (fuel cost, platinum sourcing, reliability & safety of ultra high pressure fueling infrastructure, fuel cost, complete lack of availability for green hydrogen, fuel cost, relatively rapid chemical degradation of electolyzers through catalyst poisoning, forever chemicals involved in the production use and disposal of Teflon/Nafion, …)
Again, I WANT fuel cells to win this contest, but today? They’ve got a lot of catching up to do before they overtake the leader, and unlike batteries, in their current state I could not in good conscience recommend purchasing an FCEV to anyone I care about.
I have two things to point out: I don’t have to believe you on your claims of expertise. And the second is that I can easily accuse you of being decades out of date on your knowledge.
None of what you said is true anymore. FCEVs are a mature technology, and will cost very little to build. Green hydrogen is plunging in cost, and will be one of the cheapest energy sources out there. None of you claims about “catalyst poisoning” is true anymore.
So what you are doing is basically being one of those “experts” who attack a revolutionary new technology just as it is taking off. It mirrors solar skeptic just before solar power took off. All your doing is setting yourself up for total embarrassment.
I have zero sympathy for anyone that bought anything connected to Phony Stark. Zilch.
You knew what you were buying into - you live with it.
I get everyone here loves to hate have hate boner for musk but any electric car will break down if submerged in water. If tesla’s were breaking from simply driving in the rain, you would have heard about it.
Hell son, any car will break down when submerged. ICE cars don’t like inhaling water either.
Do you think a journalist might write a news article about a guy having a $17,000 repair bill after driving one in the rain to let us hear about it?
if it involves hating on elon musk, yes.
