The RP2040 has a single QSPI controller channel, but with clever hacks you can multiplex that to boot from SPI and switch over to some other (Q)SPI peripheral, but iirc you can't write directly (can be emulated via MPU+DMA). What's also quite neat is that you can use the external flash cache as 16kiB SRAM tiled repeatedly over a 16MiB memory window. By abusing the MPU you can allow/trap accesses down to 256 byte granularity and implement virtual memory (allow only one alias address at a time, treat the 16kiB SRAM as a direct mapped cache, and demand page from QSPI, other SRAM banks, or whatever you can come up with).
Impressive work! Of course you can access external RAM, but it comes with some compromises re: speed and usability. Other ARM microcontrollers have a full SDRAM controller on board in its normal address space with very little overhead compared to the internal memory. I'd imagine the SPI RAM here is an order of magnitude slower than the internal RAM, if not two?
edit - that is one WILD codebase... it has both pi pico support but also (remnants of)... Mac OS 9 support!? `#ifdef __MWERKS__`??
Oh, yes, it's a crazy project overall. I would love to see it continue -- I think the Transputer and its OS HeliOS, which is FOSS now -- still has much to teach. But he got it working, so I can also see why not stop digging if you hit the bottom.
Well the RP2040 has a QSPI controller but it has only a single channel that is normally the "boot device". If you bootstrap via SWD (or USB) this device could be at least a QSPI RAM, but writes would have to trapped and implemented in the HardFault handler which is of course very slow compared to internal SRAM. The RP2350 adds a second QSPI channel with QSPI bus (just an additional chip select pin).
TBH I don't know the details of how it works. I am not at all an electronics person. But did you read the article? All I'm saying is that it is possible to add more RAM to a Pi Pico. That, to me, seems to falsify the statement that it can't.
Economic systems of the 1800s doesn't really make sense in a space based, post scarcity society - economics is after all, the allocation of scarce resources. But I would argue that the ultimate aim of the socialism as envisioned by Marx wasn't government control over the means of production (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") but rather "full communism" where the eventual aim was to make resource allocation unnecessary, which in a way, does hint at a post scarcity society. So I can see the connection to the original Marx. Less so with the so-far practical implementations of socialism.
Unnecessary though productivity outpacing demand as far as I've understood it.
In Marxism what they call "full communism" is envisioned to be the "final state of humanity" where productivity is described to be higher than the sum of needs and wants - everybody can help themselves to anything from the warehouses. Obviously very utopian, and I'm not sure there ever was any detailed analysis on how a society a would actually function in "full communism" - but I don't think the economics of The Culture would be that far off if you would describe it to someone of those views. Early Marxists were much a bit more practical, more focused on critiquing the practices of their contemporary societies than envisioning the details of their utopia.
I think there is a fundamental psychological and social engineering element to Marxism that many socialists gloss over. The end state is one of voluntary labor, contribution and exchange.
human desire can outstrip any gains of productive capacity, and includes factors which can not simply be produced. Marx didn't envision everyone owning palaces and yachts post scarcity. He imagined people having enough to get by with moderate comfort for an 1800's standard of living.
Similarly, in the 1930s, Keynes imagined that humans would live lives of leisure as productivity doubled every 20 years. However, the human hunger for material comforts is bottomless.
I think the truly radical part of Marxist end state communism is the idea that people will outgrow desire for "more" if more is an option.
Without this, there will always be squabbling over who gets what. It is this human drive that draws socialism down into totalitarianism.
Because fundamentally, to want more is to want change and an improvement for yourself. Sometimes this is something society thinks is good and appropriate, sometimes not.
In any large group, the way to condition people to not pursue ‘more’ is to punish those who attain ‘more’. Or attempt to
do so.
Also known as ‘the nail that sticks out gets hammered down’.
Sometimes this is done via ‘hard’ power, like the police, asset seizures, re-education camps, etc. Other times it is done via ‘soft’ power, like shaming, exile, bullying, false accusations, etc.
And that includes ‘being’ more, or ‘getting’ more.
And to make this work, there of course has to be a group of people who have power over the group to enforce this.
Those people always end up having tools at their disposal which makes them ‘more equal than others’ and hence defacto exempt from ‘not allowed to be more’. So folks who are the type that want more always end up gravitating there.
And since it’s impossible to pull everyone in the population up to the level of the highest member (economically), the easier option inevitably gets chosen - which is mashing everyone (except those with exemptions) down to the lowest level attainable across the entire population. Which is usually quite low.
How else do you think it would
work?
This really clearly played out in the USSR, and actively plays out in the Chinese Communist party today, albeit with a lot
of leeway given to greed.
There is itself no way to interact with and be present in the world that provides any guarantee of relief of suffering. Existence guarantees a risk of it.
And if someone is hungry, or bored, or in a disadvantaged position, of course they naturally will want more.
And due to the nature of how humans work, hierarchies form and in every venue someone always has ‘more’ and someone always has ‘less’. It could be freedom. It could be beauty.
It could be health. It could be money. It could be physical strength. It could be fame.
Also sometimes because they just see the potential for things to be better.
Improving oneself and one’s situation involves desiring to be and have more (fundamentally).
Your assumption that somehow ‘removing the drive to have more’ will somehow remove suffering, is reminiscent of thinking World Peace would make everyone actually happy.
Because the only way to plausibly have world peace would require a massive authoritarian dictatorship covering every square inch of the planet, unaccountable to anyone, with a monopoly on force, that also regularly projects power so everyone ‘gets along’. Which would, of course, eventually also have to use violence to enforce its goals.
But what would ‘getting along’ even mean, when there are major conflicting differences on where a border is, or who gets access to what resources, etc? Or even people with fundamentally conflicted ideas of what ‘true’ is or not?
If there isn’t enough water, or food to go around, who decides who starves or dies of thirst if no one is allowed to fight about it? And if you were one of those picked to starve or die of thirst, what would it take for you to not try to fight it using any means you could find?
For instance, what would it take for Trump and Biden to be ‘at peace’? Or Zelensky and Putin?
So any such force, to ensure peace, would have to either micromanage the world’s population so much it would be a dystopia, or pick and choose ‘the truth’ and murder enough people that no one would have anyone to disagree with anymore, or decide that ‘peace’ just meant something like ‘no one actively nuking anyone’ - in which case the war moves to using a different set of tools.
> plays out in the Chinese Communist party today, albeit with a lot of leeway given to greed.
This is what first came to mind.-
PS. I am inclined to believe - unfortunately - that even if "peace" were to be achieved, men would fight over ... increasingly ideological and vague things, finding any excuse (ie. "Which side of the egg is the "bottom" side ...)
Tesla is free to not sign a CBA, and union members are free to not serve Tesla. Swedish labor market is very free (as in unencumbered by laws and government intervention).
That’s fine, assuming we pass laws mandating that signing keys can be controlled by end users. Otherwise we end up where no-one really owns their devices any more, every device would be merely temporarily rented.
NVIDIA GPU Linux kernel modules must be self-signed to work with SecureBoot enabled; they must be self-signed every time they're updated by an akmod package upgrade.
So, it is necessary to remove the MS SecureBoot ~CApubkey and add the OS and local ~CApubkeys to the SecureBoot cert list with BIOS, and re-sign every module install|&build in order to work with NVIDIA (and probably also AMD?) in containers.
It's necessary and a fair expectation that users will continue to be able to remove and add x86-64 SecureBoot bootloader signing keys.
As someone who's two new arrivals recently turned two; it's by far the hardest thing I've done. I envy those who have one at a time. Having a startup fail around me was a piece of cake. Singlehandedly building a house (not commissioning a house) was peanuts. Building and shipping products now used by the billions was far less stressful than keeping two little rascals alive.
But I'm managing and I'm sure you will too. Clichés exist for a reason: as it turns out; I wouldn't trade it for anything.
> Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices?
Yes.
> An app store? A payment provider? A cloud provider? A health data store? An update mechanism?
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.
To do otherwise, is to invite platform owners to be (potentially abusive) monopolists with a license to favor their own services instead of promoting and maintaining fair competition in markets on top of that platform. In western societies, since the last century, that has been behavior which has been regulated by law and courts.
For comparison, Android keeps a very clear line between the 'Platform', and the 'Apps'.
Every API on the platform is available to all apps which have the necessary permissions.
Sure, it might look like Google has taken over key low level features of the device like updates and wifi location, but in fact from the platform perspective, all those components have an open API and can be replaced.
The only fly in the ointment here is some of the API's require powerful permissions which aren't allowed in store apps, but you can still sideload them, or use an alternate store.
This may have changed recently, haven't used an Android in a bit, but this wasn't true (and still probably isn't).
Specifically my company wanted to break our app into multiple apps and give a way for people to easily install the companions. If you send the user to the Play Store page, about 75% of users would dropoff, in user studies much of it was confusion about what to do once they saw the play store page.
Google has an api that is a much simpler flow than the full store experience which has much lower user dropoff. If you're curious where it's used, one example is the Google Drive app to install the Docs, Sheets, etc.
The API validates that the calling app is an app signed by the Google dev cert.
This isn't a security issue, you could just ship one app with all the functionality. It's clear they just wanted to reduce user drop off in a flow, but now provide that option to others.
I understand the potential for abuse even though the api still checked with the user. It wouldn't bother me if no one had access to the API, we'd just have to deal with it. But it felt anti-competitive that Google had it and we did not.
IIRC there are a few other similar non-security private APIs and they also felt anti-competitive to us. That said, it was no where near on the order of Apple, where it's commonplace on iOS.
I believe that API is in the play store itself. If your user used a third party store, you could ask them to give you an API to install other apps with no user interaction too.
As far as the platform is concerned, any app with the right permissions can install any other app. It just so happens that only the play store and other stores have that permission.
That's true; you're right that there is a open platform between the AOSP layer and the APK apps that run on top of it.
As you point out there is a fly in the ointment (which is enhanced by Google making it very difficult to ship with anything but the Play Store).
As an app developer like Spotify, the platform is the base of devices out there in the wild and how I build on top of them which, for me, is inclusive of the play services and play store.
Android definitely is a lot more open than iOS. But when the Play Store enforces a mechanism that favors Google, it's not of a practical difference to my livelihood than when the App Store has policies that favor Apple. If you have a really loyal following, like Epic/Fortnite, it's better than nothing. But even then the barrier to your users is huge and even the most establish companies with technical user bases will have a hard time crossing it. Nevermind the fledgling startups or developers with non-technical user bases.
Having spent quite a bit of time in the US, I've noticed that getting somewhere there takes about the same amount time as home (which happens to be Sweden, hence me clicking the link). As an anecdotal example, some common times for me were about as follows: Going to work, 15 minutes. Grocery store, 5 minutes. Larger shopping mall, 30 minutes. The difference is that in the US that time is spent driving, while home it's walking/biking. So my control of my local 4-vector is essentially equivalent, just with a different space scaling factor applied.
I can get anywhere in my local city in the time it takes me to jump in my car and drive there. Comparing that with walking to a bus stop and waiting for it to get near my destination is not even remotely close, _and I wouldn't want to even if it was faster_. Talking about speed (while important) ignores the ability to instantly change your plan.
Your experience might work in a closely spaced situation (hence your odd comparison of moving at a magnitude difference velocity), where most people pick the same mall and live close to eachother, but that's not how large countries work.
Walking/Biking also allows me to instantly change my plans, even more so than driving does (try turning around instantly in a car). What do you mean "low large countries work"? The absolute size of a country is irrelevant (what New Yorker cares what malls there are in Kentucky?), what matters is population/service density. The US has a 50% larger population density than Sweden, so it should be able to support at least as dense cities and services. The difference not economic or technical, but cultural.
It's cultural and technical. We value our time and large KE control. It's also nice being wrapped in steel with airbags. You could ride for an hour, and I could drive for 15min and we have gone the same distance. If we both then change our minds, I need to backtrack 15 min.
Not to mention, try carrying the things I put in my 5700lb car (without any planning) on your bike.
I made the math easy, but it's the same arg if it's 45. The only legit arg I can come up for your point is sometimes I want to run or ride a bike, but in that case, I'm going to avoid roads even if it's 100% 3 cylinders Geo's, or just follow my routine and exercise at the gym since it's more fun than running alone to xyz when I really just need to get something done.
Country size has nothing to do with it. Tearing down downtowns to put in parking lots, forcing buildings to be surrounded by seas of asphalt, and density restrictions could be related.
Also it should be mentioned that your driving makes the city less pleasant and more dangerous to walk or cycle in, encouraging others to drive, in an unfortunate feedback loop.
You are making too many assumptions. It's easy to design city centers so it's not worth the trouble for most people to drive through them. Downtown my city is like that. We drive around it. I have seen the opposite, your worst case, but that's their fault. And ya, distance matters. I live only ~6 miles from where I work, and I rode a bike for a year, but I can drive it in a fraction of the time and then not worry about changing plans or going somewhere much further away without first pedaling myself home.
There's gazillions of embedded processor cores in every device you own. Your SSD, network card, phone, motherboard, router, TV, modem, car, fridge, you name it all have multiple processor cores running some piece of firmware you never see. RISC-V has a pretty good value proposition for those: an open standard with no licensing costs with a rapidly maturing software ecosystem. To say that RISC-V will only succeed if you can attach a monitor to it only betrays a very narrow view of where processors are actually used.
Intel - Intel - tried to compete in the embedded market and has recently quietly withdrawn several of its products. It's a tougher market than it sounds, and it's also more conservative than you'd expect.
True, many are indeed using ARM (in house designs are also more popular than you might think in deeply embedded SoCs), but a lot of companies would love to be able to throw out ARM due to licensing cost & hassle, or at least have a viable option in RISC-V to throw at ARM at the bargaining table.
Intel didn't really try. You know who did really try ? espressif, with their famous ESP32.
Or the startups: indie-semi, who sell mcu's built as lego's from multiple dies, affordably! which allows them to do custom-design and semi-custom design of mcu's per customer , while offering a large library of standard mcu's.
Or terechip, who built a chip packaging process who can handle dies orders of magnitude smaller than current systems - opening possibilities for far cheaper mcu's and other simple chips.
Or even ambiq-micro, which created a way to design mcu's that take ~10x(?) less power by enabling transistors to work on an extremely low supply voltage.
This is how you compete with entrenched competitors. By doing something they cannot do.
And Intel ? their fab doesn't even fit mcu's(no flash on logic processes, not good fit for analog). They had no advantage, no differentiation( maybe besides their neural network, a feature that didn't seem to attract customers). How did they expect to win ?
Its almost as if they expect that just putting chips into a market makes that market have to buy it, almost as if they have gotten to used to not needing to compete. How could a chip vendor that has thoroughly cornered a few major market segments and might be considered to have some amount of monopoly status ever get into such situation?
Intel is expensive, and not very power efficient in tiny chips.
ARM is much cheaper and more efficient. RISC-V is similar to ARM, but even more cheaper.
I think a combination of things, really. They never scaled down properly to really low end devices. The Intel systems had poor peripherals for some reason with high latency. They didn't really grasp the detail of what was needed for either the "maker" or industrial markets. And of course it wasn't a licensable IP.
That metric of success will never be achieved if you don't win the heart and minds of "regular folks" and remember, to "make" a phone, router, TV or fridge you first need to plug your keyboard somewhere.
Don't try to conquer ARM doing what ARM has done, time doesn't go back and the small world of embed big wigs will ignore you.
For reference, gas contains about 33kWh of energy per gallon, and if we assume you pump 20 gallons in 5 minutes when you fill up your car you have an effective energy transfer rate of about 8 MW at your gas pump. Even if we give an electric vehicle a 3x efficiency ratio, we still need about 2.5 MW to be equivalent to the old petroleum infrastructure.
More like 36 kWh. Average mpg of new cars is 25.5 mpg (.71 mi/kWh) while Teslas get 3.2-3.8 mi/kWh so the efficiency ratio is closer to 5x. With 4 gallons/minute, that's 7.2 kWh per gallon/1.73 MW. In the US pumps reach up to 10 gallons/minute so 4.3 MW and 17.3 MW for truck-filling pumps. Not all pumps hit 10 gallons/minute though.
2 or 3 MW would charging power would require a really specialized battery and will probably never be worth it. The real advantage of an electric car is letting it charge overnight and adding some extra time over long journeys isn't a big inconvenience- its less time than unexpected traffic would take up. Plus the time is overall made up for by never having to fill up if you come home to charge overnight once a week. Same thing applies to trucks. An hour-long fill up once a week gets replaced by nightly charging.
> Average mpg of new cars is 25.5 mpg (.71 mi/kWh)...
This is not a reasonable way of doing this math because it loads the numbers with "people who want a large and heavy car can't or wouldn't buy an electric, pulling down the average miles per gallon for gasoline powered vehicles"; to do this comparison fairly requires looking at the energy conversion efficiency of the engine, tank/battery, and transmission in isolation of the rest of the car body. Another way to put this: if you manage to buy an electric Hummer, you are going to be spending an insane amount of time charging it, because it would use as much more electricity as it uses more gas ;P. If you really need to estimate this using miles per gallon, you need to look at a gasoline-powered car which looks like a Tesla (being about the same size and contour), not the average new car purchased by a consumer. (FWIW, a quick eyeball of this is looking like 40 mpg.)
The biggest factor towards overall mpg is actually engine size, not aerodynamics. Gasoline engines have to run at their ideal power to stay efficient, induction motors do not (for the most part). You're eyeballing the wrong places if you're getting 40 mpg. Compare a BMW 5, 6 or 7 series- 19/27, 21/30, and 21/29 mpg. 25 is, if anything, optimistic. The only cars that get 40 mpg are subcompacts and some compact cars. 25.5 is a good balance between all of the small cars and the SUVs/pickups, because the Model S is between them in size and weight. In fact it tends towards the upper end- although it is very aerodynamic, it is a quite large and quite heavy car.
When the model 3 comes out, we'll be able to make better comparisons to high mpg ICEs like the fit, fiesta and civic.
The comparison is not quite that easy. The old petroleum infrastructure is more centralized.
You can get electricity almost anywhere, adding a charging station to parking places or garages is far easier and safer than hypothetically laying gasoline pipelines everywhere. So there are more opportunities for partial charging when the car is idle.
What do you mean "laying gasoline pipelines everywhere"? Gas stations do not connect to any utilities apart from the regular electricity, water, and natural gas, all of which require a physical connection to centralized infrastructure.
A hypothetical scenario where we have the gasoline equivalent of charging columns at parking places or garages and distribute gasoline to them like we do with electricity.
And in addition: the efficiency of a petrol-engine is much lower than an electric engine. So you perhaps only take in half of the fuel, if it gets you just as far you have what you need, isn't it?
If we're talking 'next-gen' tech vs 'next-gen' tech, let's be a little fairer, newer cars are using the Atkinson not the Otto[1]. Throw in the fact that we're no longer tied to a camshaft for timing[2], cylinders can be shutdown at will (e.g. you're in bumper-to-bumper on the 405 or 101, your Benz-AMG or Stage 3 Mustang doesn't really need all 8 cylinders firing) and the fact that most manufacturers have at least one car with the option to reclaim that heat (i.e. even Ford Mustangs, notorious for being gas guzzling pony cars, have a turbo-hybrid configuration option) and things for the ICE look a little less bleak.
I'm all for pure-electric cars but we're still a long way from Joe the miner in Kentucky from being able to drop $1800 on a 2000 Toyota Tundra and having it be able to get him reliably from the jobsite and back. That's not even factoring in the whole capacity-decrease-with-use (and even non-use-- deterioration occurs simply by just storing cells at full capacity for long duration -- of lithium.
Even with the best, most conservative profiles on a battery-module controller for anything lithium based, good luck getting > %50 of cell capacity 5 years down the road of a daily driver [edit: 7]. Anode deterioration (at least, last I seriously researched it for projects requiring portable units for driving larger loads than an average car was ~1.5 years ago) was still a problem even in the lab.[3]
My sister abuses her 2004 Civic coupe to the point where I think she's still running a stock air filter and runs 30-35k between oil changes[4]. This was a run of the mill car she's had since god-knows-how-long and she's still getting 22mpg city [5] ~26 highway on an automatic transmission.
tl;dr -- In terms of total costs :
- capital (purchase) / delivery fee
- operational ($ of petrol for ICE per unit travelled/$ of energy from your power supplier per kw/h), insurance
- maintenance (tire wear, brakes, battery module(s) replacement(s)) over, eh, 5 years from out-of-the-showroom-into-your-garage, I'd be surprised if you saw the electric dollar-for-mile-traveled outperform it's ICE counterpart.[6] I'm far from the forefront of Li, but I do have a few friends in that field (both in academia and
in industry) -- even the most optimistic don't see pure-electrics reaching a TCO parity point of an ICE for the consumer in less than 10 years.
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJXgKY2O4po FreeValve as explained by that really enthusiastic "Engineering Explained" 24 year old automotive engineer, dumbed down to the point where even I can grok it.
[3] Rumor had it, DARPA was using some crazy proprietary stuff that managed to completely nullify dentrification, but if they've managed to accomplish that anodic behavior, there's no way it's going to be released for public usage -- rather, it'll remain hush-hush minus 50 PhD's in metallurgy, and Lockheed drones all of a sudden posting performance numbers +30% from the last revision.
[4] She's not using those long-lasting synthetics that have additives to SeaFoam (yeah, I'm using it as a verb) out carbon build-up on the cylinders and what not, in case you're wondering. Just cheapo 5w/30.
[5] That, albeit was with me driving in 'conservative' mode rather than "hmm let's see the 0-160 on this McLaren".
[6] And I'm 100% sure if you bought a 3 year old variant of an ICE vs a pure-electric, it's no contest -- https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/drive-a-nearly-new-car-fo... -- ignore the link bait title, it's just about the FMV of cars as a function of time.
[7] In addition to the response I made directly to child-poster, I'd like to concede that it is very possible he's ran 43k miles (i.e., literally at least a thousand cycles, likely closer to mid thousands) with a retained 98%. He makes a very valid point in bringing up the variance of cell capacity deterioration. I'd genuinely love to see some cal'd equipment with your standard dummy load and power analyzer log setup to see the data. (I ain't no fancy electron whiz but I can read me a chart or two.)
The take away is that overall capacity is a function of usage. I could probably get in the lab and simulate 43k miles of load in LabView discharging/recharging every 10 miles while keeping the thermal properties controlled as all heck and see 99.5 capacity retention, but these, again, aren't Joe's driving patterns.
edit 2: @maratd: See my edit 1/[7] (which I presume I was writing while you were drafting your response). I think we're largely in agreement re: usage properties being highly influential. My response to the OC (original child poster) addresses the deep-cycling cooling. As this has turned into a post with 8 endnotes, I think I've crossed the threshold of reasonable discourse.
Allow me to close with a quick remark re: BMC's on your power drill. Anything half decent will have active thermal monitoring specifically because of the reason you stated (much to the chagrin of blue-collar workers everywhere). "Ok, last weld before quittin' time..." paddle trigger actuates, worker expects wire-wheel to start spinning a to clean the slag of iron oxide off the root weld. nothing happens because the thermocouple on the motor armature triggered a lock-out "PC LOAD LETTER WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?"
(old-ish study, apologies, but was cutting edge circa 2010, but still stands re: LiFePO2 which I'm betting your '14 production car is using) -> http://ecec.mne.psu.edu/pubs/2010-zhang-jps.pdf Page 2, Column 2, Figure 1, Top chart. 300 deep-cycles @ ~92%, 600 @ 74%.
If you're the average SV guy who 'daily drives' his Tesla 20 miles from Oakland to his lofted startup where there's 220 to full-charge before you go home, you'll get 2%. Johnny in Kentucky working the coal miles doesn't have that luxury and will certainly enter into 'deep charge' consumption. (600 cycles -> ~75%, with 2nd deriv of batt life w/r/t cycle being negative, i.e., progressively decreasing losses).
Again, not in the field professionally, but these opinions are consistent with my friends who are working at the forefront (albeit, a statistically small sample space, I openly concede !)
Tesloop, the transport company that'll shuttle you between LA and Las Vegas via Model S, has only seen 6% degradation over 180k miles on their vehicle; this is with ignoring Tesla's advice not to charge to 100% every time at Superchargers.
If by daily driver you mean weekly 300mi weekly roundtrip that usually ends around 5-10% and ~30 miles a day otherwise then sure.
My numbers line up with what most Tesla owner experiences. If your friends are at the forefront of the profession then I'd be a bit worried about whoever they're working for.
> good luck getting > %50 of cell capacity 5 years down the road of a daily driver
The data doesn't bear this out. Users have been seeing 5%-10% degradation over the first few years, after which point it levels out.
After 10 years, I expect to have >80% of capacity still usable.
The enemy of lithium ion is high state of charge, as you said, and high temperature. Tesla gives you control over how much you charge the battery, so you can easily avoid a high state of charge.
The big deal is temperature. Your laptop, cell, power drill, etc. do not have temperature control. The battery overheats frequently and capacity suffers, until the battery is dead. Tesla has an active liquid temperature control system in the battery pack. It cools the battery when it heats up and heats it up when the pack is cold, keeping the temperature under control. This preserves capacity long-term.
> After 10 years, I expect to have >80% of capacity still usable.
It's pointless to talk about capacity at year X without accounting for range, your driving habits and miles/year.
Capacity loss is not a dependent variable of just time, but most importantly of the number of recharge cycles. This is why Nissan Leaves (especially 1st gen ones) have experienced huge capacity losses when used as daily drivers (think 30% loss @ 50,000 miles). Depending on how long it takes you to drive 50,000 miles, the time frame can be as short as 3 years.
Of course a Tesla needs fewer charges to go 50,000 miles, but that obviously comes with a huge price premium over the 'economy EV' like a Leaf or a Kia Soul or what have you.
> but most importantly of the number of recharge cycles.
That was the point I was alluding to. You're mistaken in thinking that this is the most important factor. It isn't. The most important factors are extreme states of charge and temperature. If you account for those and control those, you can easily go a million miles on the battery pack without any kind of major issues. The rest of the car will fall apart before the battery pack gives out or suffers major degradation.
On the flip-side I don't have a gas station in my garage or my work's parking garage, but either can be trivially outfitted with a 220v plug. Ideally, one's recharge strategy shouldn't be like filling up a gas car. You should be plugging your car in for overnight charging and only using these types of stations in a pinch. With gas cars, I have to use these stations. They're literally my only choice. I couldn't build a gas station in my garage even with vasts amount of money due to regulatory, safety, and environmental concerns.
Its also more reasonable to tap into overnight power as to not stress the daytime powergrid.
>gas contains about 33kWh of energy per gallon
ICE are about 20-30% efficient. So 70% of that 33kwh is lost to heat and other inefficiences. Electric cars are about 70-80% efficient, so you actually need only 1/3rd the energy capacity in this kind of calculation to match ICE/gas.
The thing to keep in mind when thinking about EVs is that while they may be slower to fill up at stations where you have to stand there like the Tesla super charger stations, this is a small minority of the charging most EV owners do.
Most of the time my LEAF gets charged at home in my garage. We only use public chargers a handful of times per year. When we do, it's stations in parking garages or public parking lots. Which means we plug it in and walk away. We don't have to stand there with it while it charges. If it takes a couple hours that's fine.
People focus on how fast they can recharge their EVs while they are standing there waiting for them because they are used to having to go somewhere to refuel their gasoline powered car. One of the great things about owning an EV is you recharge at home.
While all of this is true, charging time is an issue because it limits range. A gasoline powered car is just a 5-minute detour away from doubling its range, which compares terribly with the sort of vehicle you're going to want to walk away from to do something else while the charging does its thing.
Apparently people leaving Teslas longer than necessary in the supercharger spots is already an issue [1] that they are trying to rectify by charging for overstays.
It's true, if you are the type of person who often drives >200 miles a day EVs today are not as convenient as gas cars for those trips.
But that is a very small percentage of people. If only those people bought gasoline cars in 2017 they would sell fewer than the number of EV cars sold in 2016.
Except that Tesla is now charging $0.40/minute of leaving the car plugged in after a full charge is reached. They do this precisely to prevent people from "abandoning" their car while others wait in line.
That's because Tesla's supercharger system is designed to work more like the refueling system people are familiar with and comfortable with; pull up, plug in, wait for it to finish and then drive away.
One of the beauties of EVs is not having to use that style of system. The superchargers are nice but most of the time you won't use one unless you're regularly driving over 200 miles a day.
I totally agree that almost all Tesla charging doesn't happen at superchargers. But where did you get the idea that anyone intended that owners should stay with their cars while charging? I've only seen that when nearby services are closed. Tesla has always advertised services nearby superchargers, and now that's visible on the in-car display.
If I'm eating dinner nearby, it's easy to run out and move my car, or, there's a valet to do it at overly-popular superchargers. The Tesla phone app gives plenty of warning.
That's only doing the math on the instantaneous flow rate down the nozzle/plug. Pulling into the station, waiting in line, hitting the rest room and paying the bill need to be included too to get a relative penalty.
Also: if that 33kWh/gallon number is a heat of combustion (I'm too lazy to convert to real units or look it up myself) the efficiency gains of an electric motor vs. an internal combustion engine is significantly higher than 3x, I believe.
> Pulling into the station, waiting in line, hitting the rest room and paying the bill need to be included too to get a relative penalty.
This is not the average experience for a US driver. Very few gas stations ever have all their pumps utilized, even during rush hour. I haven't gone into a gas station in years, or waited on paying the bill - everything is automated at the pump.
I would put the "convenience store" aspects at par - you either want some snacks or need to use to rest room or do not - the fuel type doesn't change that.
Payment again I'd put at par - swipe a credit card at the "pump".
Maybe add a minute for "average wait for a free pump" to the gas station model, but I'd argue that problem would be even worse (or at least par) with electric charging.
The only real win I can see is that you could do other things away from the vehicle while it charges (attended vs. unattended fueling) which lets you parallelize some activities above. But that only becomes useful once the refueling times become within the average potty/snack break at a gas station - and we're no where near there yet.
You're overcomplicating. Take a stopwatch. Start it at the point where you exit your normal driving routine to "get gas". Stop it when you resume. Take that time, subtract the time spent actually pumping fuel (which even in your convenient utopia is still going to be less than 1/3 of the total), and add the time spent to equivalently charge the vehicle.
Then divide the two totals to get a relative penalty to an electric car. If you're doing the analysis any other way, you're almost certainly doing it wrong.
Yes, on average this would slightly affect the result, but I'd be shocked if a non-negligible number of trips to the gas station for most car drivers involved entering the convenience store, particularly to "hit the restroom". Most people spend their lives driving back and forth between two places that have clean and (certainly relatively to a gas station) pleasant restrooms: the only people stopping at a gas station are on long road trips; and while I do a ton of these, I'm still usually not doing it a gas station: most people are probably stopping at whatever their favorite fast food restaurant is and going to the bathroom there, which satisfies their food craving at better cost efficiency than the overpriced even lower quality junk at the gas station and, at least today, doesn't parallelize that well with either filling their gas tank or charging their battery. (And except during small windows of time when only desperate people are getting gas, there generally are not lines at gas stations.)
> I'd be shocked if a non-negligible number of trips to the gas station for most car drivers involved entering the convenience store, particularly to "hit the restroom".
A while ago, I spent a fair amount of time evaluating JIT frameworks including DynASM. The one I ended up using is something called Xbyak (https://github.com/herumi/xbyak) which I think is a bit of a hidden gem. Unlike DynASM, it doesn't require a preprocessing pass, is better documented and IMHO easier to use.
So if you're in the market for a lightweight JIT engine and target C++/X86, I'd give Xbyak a whirl too and see which one you like better.
