You're right, RogueMoon, the average driver will make the ultimate decision, largely on the basis of his or her pocketbook. When a consumer sits down at a dealership desk and makes the decision to lay out $25,000, it tends to focus the mind.
it's in the battery. Moore's law is irrelevant. a step change in electrical energy storage performance is necessary to make EV's more useful. why must people politicize this?
On that fine day, when battery tech makes that leap, great, more EV's will likely be sold. in the meantime, the market for EV's will remain open to the niche buyer and the incremental improvements made by Tesla will help satisfy them with their luxury item purchase.
if Tesla and others can drive the cost down of an EV model with operating features (like range and reasonable recharge time) that make sense, they'll have more buyers and more EV's to justify the infrastructure changes necessary. let's wait and see.
like it or not, the average buyer will ultimately decide if an EV is worth having and there are plenty of fossil-fueled options to contend with.
a.saji, it will use lane keeping assistance system (If the vehicle going out of the lane without driving, steering will vibrate and come back to the lane) and the two radar system to maintain the distance between other vehicles.
Once again, Mr. Murray has not missed an opportunity to bash and spread skepticism on a new, sustainable technology that may represent the biggest cultural and economic revolution since the cheap gasoline boom arrived 100 years ago (which has ended but succeeded in locking in the infrastructure we now have). You seem to pretend that Tesla car introductions are standing still or going backwards from, say, the GM EV-1. Maybe the progress of EVs is slow, but it is happening.
So OK, we got it: Battery technology is improving at a slower pace than ICs. That is so not profound. You will look silly and oddly pessimistic--especially for a technology writer(!)--when EV prices inch down toward more mainstream transportation and their range creeps up to be practical even for people who inexplicably think they need hundreds of miles of range instantly on tap. (How many people really need to drive more than 200 miles/day, anyway?) This is happening at a pace that is accelerating, even if slowly.
If EVs were to stop progressing entirely, we would still have an American made sedan that will outperform virtually any European sedan at comparable purchase cost and a fraction of operational costs, and with very little infrastructure tweaks can do so without using hardly any non-renewable or hydrocarbon fuels. And it's outselling those cars! But of course all the right-wing nuts on this board will jump in with various non sequiturs, such as stating that no such car is "practical" and that there's no transportation problem that can't be solved simply by more drilling everywhere, if Obama would just let them.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.